|
|
Post by Allyn on Sept 29, 2010 20:33:55 GMT -5
Well, I have been expecting it and it happened one day after the event but I have been suspended from the Ning social website, Death is Defeated, for bringing too much Scripture and logic into the discussion.
I had been arguing with John, Ted and Tami that the Promise God made concerning the coming Seed (Christ Jesus) was given to one man only, Abraham. They contend that the promise was made to Adam and they use Genesis 3:15 as their proof.
I had been refusing to accept their view based on the fact that it was not Adam who was given the promise of the Seed but instead was the serpent who was told this. I contend that God had declared war on Satan and if there was a promise given at that time it was a promise of condemnation.
Yes, I do acknowledge that the Seed was first mentioned at that time in Genesis 3:15 but it was first, not to Adam but to the serpent. I presented several passages from the Bible to support my view that only Abraham was the man who was given this promise based on faith. They came back with only one passage to support their view (Heb. chapter 11) and many scholars who support their view.
What did this get me for all my hard work? A life time suspension.
A member of ours, who is no longer with us (Mellontes) even went so far as to delete my posts with all my evidence and accused me of being likened to a Jew, saying I had a fixation on Abraham. I was acused of inventing my facts even after quoting only Scripture - never once a scholar.
I went so far to do the unpardonable sin of testing them with 3 questions. They are as follows:
Concerning Adam, which came through Adam?
1. Condemnation
2. Faith
3. None of the above
Concerning Abraham, which came through Abraham?
1. Condemnation
2. Faith
3. None of the above
Concerning the the fact that there is therefore no condemnation for those in Christ, did this promise come through a covenant of faith made with:
1. Adam
2. Noah
3. Enoch
4. Abel (spelling edit)
5. Abraham (name correction edit)
6. Eve
7. None of the above
8. A combination of the above (explain)
Up to the time of the suspension not one person bothered to answer my questions. In fairness Ted did think he had answered the questions by saying this:
Ted couldn't for the life of him understand how I seem to be stating that Abraham was the first to receive the promise by faith.
Evidently Ted has never read the promise account concerning Abrham starting in Genesis 12. Evidently Ted never accepted my pointing out to him that the Apostle Paul gave Abraham a very significant tile by calling him the father of all believers. Evidently Ted was not aware that God called Abraham a friend of God and evidently Ted was not aware that it was because of the demonstration of faith to God that God was able to trust Abraham in giving him the promise that the Seed would come from him and that all faith in Christ Jesus had its start with Abraham.
John, in only John Sargy fashion, demanded that I admit that I had invented my position that Abraham was the only recepient of the promise of the Seed based on faith. I replied:
John, is it my invention to say that it was to Abraham only that the promise through faith the Seed would come and to a people as numerous as the sands of the seashore? Is it my invention that it was Abraham who was tested by God to see if truly Abraham's faith could be trusted before God when He made His promise to the only worthy man of faith on earth? Is it my invention that only Abrham in all Scripture is named as the Father of all believers in Romans 4:11? John, is it my invention that it is said in James that it is the works of Abraham that all men can see His righteousness which was counted as great faith and that he was called a friend of God?
If these were my inventions, John, then you have a point. But then you know that what I say is the truth and Abraham alone is the only man who ever lived who was given the promise that the Seed would come through him - Not Eve, Not Adam, Not the serpent, Not any person before Abraham - ONLY ABRAHAM.
But all this has proved to these three individuals is that too much Scripture logic only leads to suspension.
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Sept 29, 2010 22:29:05 GMT -5
I went so far to do the unpardonable sin of testing them with 3 questions. They are as follows:
Concerning Adam, which came through Adam?
1. Condemnation
2. Faith
3. None of the above
Concerning Abraham, which came through Abraham?
1. Condemnation
2. Faith
3. None of the above
Concerning the the fact that there is therefore no [eternal] condemnation for those in Christ, did this promise come through a covenant of faith made with:
1. Abraham (sic)
2. Noah
3. Enoch
4. Abel (sic)
5. Adam
6. Eve
7. None of the above
I think its pretty clear that thru Adam came all that ails man in this life as well as adding to the fact that death would no longer be a mere passage to another life, until another Adam was sent to vanquish what the serpent had caused. Death originally was probably meant to be just a 'sleep', else it wouldn't be spoken of that way at all. But just like the curse added sorrow to both Adam & Eve's intended purpose for this world, so did it add to what death would now be - a total cessation of life because of sin. Since now they would know both good and evil for themselves, we can see that a blessing also came with the curse. Except for the devil that is, no reprieve was provided for his curse at all. Adam's response of joy at hearing about childbirth was to declare Eve the mother of all living. But like I said, these promises were for this life only with no hint at anything further beyond death.
And while there were promises given to Adam, they too only concerned his temporal life. And so was the covenant with Noah concerning only the order of temporal life in the earth. But it was to Abraham that faith was birthed in the revelation to him that the power of God to raise the dead would be given since that was what would be needed if He was to keep His promise to Abraham should Isaac die.
Adam was only given procreation as the promise of continued life in the earth. Which is similar to the scope of the promise given to Noah that the world would continue in a predictable and orderly manner without fear of God destroying all life again.
I am not exactly sure what CC is trying to prove by making the covenant based on Abraham's faith, originate first in Adam - because Adam never demonstrated any faith thru his disobedience. Noah however did by his obedience, and that is why we see him in the hall of faith. And apparently Abel is there too because he offered a right sacrifice. So if there is a hint of the gospel in Gen 3:15, though it is not fully developed there, obedience would seem to be the key ingredient to the faith that saves.
So perhaps the bruising of the heel of the Seed who when raised from the dead crushes the head of Satan, is what we ought to see all who trust God must put their faith in? It may not be explained in detail there, but the sacrificial system and tithing was well in place at the time of Abraham's visit to Melchiseldek (post flood). Which shows a priesthood existed even before Moses.
Certainly Abel knew that a sacrifice was required for continued life in the earth, since by it Adam & Eve lived to give him birth. So that sacrifice brought them temporal forgiveness and a covering for their sin, even if it was for this life only. But Abraham's understanding was that something more was required for the promised Seed. Which although that immediately meant Isaac to him, we also see Eve's delight when a son was born to her according to the promise she understood when the serpent was cursed. Notice her response after losing both Abel and Cain when Seth was born Gen 4:25, because it shows something of her understanding of what God's plan was.
But as for which covenant did the Lord fulfill with the renewing of the new covenant, I would have to say it was Abraham. And that is because He is the one to whom the promise of the Seed was confirmed. Whereas the flood may have shown Noah that his seed was to continue, but we don't see God making him a promise of Abraham to come. The revelation of Christ would seem to be the key here - and that Abraham was given. Messiah was the hope of Israel, not to Adam or Noah who didn't know anything about Him or even what He would do - which was that He would raise the dead. The new post flood world required the establishing of the covenant more fully as the Lord created a new people to bring it to pass. And that is because the post flood world continues, whereas Adam's world did not. The first covenant is thus the one for the new world which began with the new creation of Israel thru Abraham, not Adam; since the promise did not come in his time. The hope of resurrection was established with the promise given to Abraham. It was hidden in a mystery to Adam's generation because that world was going to be destroyed. Much like the fulness of the new covenant understanding came in when the old covenant world was destroyed.
CC hasn't thought too much about that because they have localized the flood to remove its significance. And it seems to be why they don't want Adam to actually be the first man God formed either, but only the first covenantal man. All they need now is to find what that covenant made with him was about - because it was about securing all men under death, not eternal life. The hope of resurrection belongs to Abraham's seed and the elect peoples who came from him. Where are we to find a similar trial of faith that ended well for Adam? We aren't, because he failed the test given to him.
From Adam came the curse, and the new way of life in the earth, but from Abraham came the promised blessing and the way to eternal life. That is the first covenant fulfilled and renewed in Christ.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Sept 30, 2010 10:42:01 GMT -5
In my eyes, the suspension was their only rebuttal in the face of scripture.
Now to add to the discussion, I don't think that faith was non-existent before Abraham, but the promise of salvation through Christ was declared to Abraham, that He should come through Abraham.
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Sept 30, 2010 13:30:09 GMT -5
Robin, How much of your post is quoted from Allyn, and how much is you? I agree with Morris, there was faith before Abraham. I believe the building of the ark was an exercise of Noah's faith. There was no logical reason to build the ark, no science to suggest that it was going to rain. as it has never rained before. All Noah had was his faith that what God said was true. But, Allyn is correct. No one was given the promise of the "Seed" before Abraham. Forgive me, but, being banned for using too much Bible - I love it. It's their loss, Allyn.  |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Sept 30, 2010 16:38:32 GMT -5
In my eyes, the suspension was their only rebuttal in the face of scripture. Now to add to the discussion, I don't think that faith was non-existent before Abraham, but the promise of salvation through Christ was declared to Abraham, that He should come through Abraham. This was exactly my argument, Morris. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Sept 30, 2010 16:43:09 GMT -5
Robin, How much of your post is quoted from Allyn, and how much is you? I agree with Morris, there was faith before Abraham. I believe the building of the ark was an exercise of Noah's faith. There was no logical reason to build the ark, no science to suggest that it was going to rain. as it has never rained before. All Noah had was his faith that what God said was true. But, Allyn is correct. No one was given the promise of the "Seed" before Abraham. Forgive me, but, being banned for using too much Bible - I love it. It's their loss, Allyn. I appreciate that, friend. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Sept 30, 2010 23:02:36 GMT -5
Just in case someone get's the wrong idea when I said, "I love it," I suppose I should explain. When anyone is persecuted because they stand on Biblical principles, I see that as a badge of honour. That is whay I said, "I Love it!"  |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Oct 1, 2010 7:08:04 GMT -5
Just in case someone get's the wrong idea when I said, "I love it," I suppose I should explain. When anyone is persecuted because they stand on Biblical principles, I see that as a badge of honour. That is whay I said, "I Love it!" I understood  |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Oct 1, 2010 12:25:34 GMT -5
Just in case someone get's the wrong idea when I said, "I love it," I suppose I should explain. When anyone is persecuted because they stand on Biblical principles, I see that as a badge of honour. That is whay I said, "I Love it!" I understood ![]() www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/smilies/signthankspin.gif[/img] [/quote] Allyn, I figured you understood. That explanation was for those who might not. Just covering all the bases. - this is a good mood day |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Oct 1, 2010 15:33:01 GMT -5
Robin said: Beautifully said!  Roo |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Oct 1, 2010 15:44:29 GMT -5
Allyn said:
Hey Allyn,
I am surprised that Preterists delete Preterists. I have never seen this before. By the way, on my first day here I got a strange and unsolicited pm from Mellontes warning me of those to watch out for. I was put off by it.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Oct 1, 2010 17:15:21 GMT -5
Allyn said: Hey Allyn, I am surprised that Preterists delete Preterists. I have never seen this before. By the way, on my first day here I got a strange and unsolicited pm from Mellontes warning me of those to watch out for. I was put off by it. Roo That saddens me that Ted would do that. He is only human but it seems he has become someone different from how I first knew him. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Oct 1, 2010 20:37:26 GMT -5
Hey Allyn, I am surprised that Preterists delete Preterists. I have never seen this before. By the way, on my first day here I got a strange and unsolicited pm from Mellontes warning me of those to watch out for. I was put off by it. Roo But you tried us out anyway! We be small, but I think everyone here respects one another. It is nice to be able to speak your mind among friends without always having to dodge the bullet first! |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Oct 1, 2010 21:05:38 GMT -5
Hey Allyn, I am surprised that Preterists delete Preterists. I have never seen this before. By the way, on my first day here I got a strange and unsolicited pm from Mellontes warning me of those to watch out for. I was put off by it. Roo But you tried us out anyway! We be small, but I think everyone here respects one another. It is nice to be able to speak your mind among friends without always having to dodge the bullet first! Robin, I am very happy here. You all have treated me with love. I need a nice, quaint little Preterist family because I am alone in my beliefs at my Reformed church. I consider you all that family. Yet I need my church also for the Reformed soteriology. I am what I am which is a Reformed Preterist and I will give up neither. Btw, I am taking a break from PT at CARM for now because he brings out the worst in me. So I am going to have to come and go there. I had clearly defined at least four times that the expression "not made with hands" in reference to the resurrection body means that it is "eternal in the heavens" and "not of this creation." Yet PT kept twisting my words and making me out to be saying that God has literal hands. He would not answer the Bible's own definition of the expression. This kind of misrepresentation and evasive tactic makes me feel violent especially when it is repeated. So I will have to stop for a while when PT does that kind of thing and come back later. Anyway, back to Allyn's topic. I am surprised he was deleted and suspended at a Preterist site. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Oct 2, 2010 1:17:35 GMT -5
Brethren, What this site does not have in numbers, it has in spirit. And, I am not surprised that anyone get's deleted and banned from a preterist site. I have encountered some preterists that are very arrogant. I have yet to find that here. And Roo, there is another Reformed Preterist here. Our dear Wanda is. And, may I say, I love Wanda as a sister. She is a warm and compassionate person. I hope you all have a great weekend. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Oct 2, 2010 2:41:41 GMT -5
Brethren, What this site does not have in numbers, it has in spirit. And, I am not surprised that anyone get's deleted and banned from a preterist site. I have encountered some preterists that are very arrogant. I have yet to find that here. And Roo, there is another Reformed Preterist here. Our dear Wanda is. And, may I say, I love Wanda as a sister. She is a warm and compassionate person. I hope you all have a great weekend. Wanda is a Reformed Preterist too? Coooool! She sent me a notification at CARM to be friends and I ignored it because I am not in to that kind of stuff. Now I feel I should acknowledge her. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Oct 2, 2010 2:45:55 GMT -5
Brethren, What this site does not have in numbers, it has in spirit. And, I am not surprised that anyone get's deleted and banned from a preterist site. I have encountered some preterists that are very arrogant. I have yet to find that here. And Roo, there is another Reformed Preterist here. Our dear Wanda is. And, may I say, I love Wanda as a sister. She is a warm and compassionate person. I hope you all have a great weekend. didy, I never saw a post get deleted at planetpreterist or preteristarchive. I thought that all Preterists were progressive and tolerant. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Oct 2, 2010 12:16:17 GMT -5
Robin, I am very happy here. You all have treated me with love. I need a nice, quaint little Preterist family because I am alone in my beliefs at my Reformed church. I consider you all that family. Yet I need my church also for the Reformed soteriology. I am what I am which is a Reformed Preterist and I will give up neither. Btw, I am taking a break from PT at CARM for now because he brings out the worst in me. So I am going to have to come and go there. I had clearly defined at least four times that the expression "not made with hands" in reference to the resurrection body means that it is "eternal in the heavens" and "not of this creation." Yet PT kept twisting my words and making me out to be saying that God has literal hands. He would not answer the Bible's own definition of the expression. This kind of misrepresentation and evasive tactic makes me feel violent especially when it is repeated. So I will have to stop for a while when PT does that kind of thing and come back later. Anyway, back to Allyn's topic. I am surprised he was deleted and suspended at a Preterist site. Roo I tried to tell you about PT's lack of character! He seems determined to show us in the worst light possible even if it means he has to spin the things we say. I suspect if you were to quote him verbatim without a comment that he would spin that too, since he can't seem to stop himself. I try to aim my posts more for edifying others who read them, else he would provoke me more than he already does. It is after all, the carnal nature of the beast which he knows we all share in common and that is what he hopes he can get others to see in us instead. Focus on the glory of Christ and you won't be provoked by his tactics near as much. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Oct 2, 2010 14:01:57 GMT -5
Robin, I am very happy here. You all have treated me with love. I need a nice, quaint little Preterist family because I am alone in my beliefs at my Reformed church. I consider you all that family. Yet I need my church also for the Reformed soteriology. I am what I am which is a Reformed Preterist and I will give up neither. Btw, I am taking a break from PT at CARM for now because he brings out the worst in me. So I am going to have to come and go there. I had clearly defined at least four times that the expression "not made with hands" in reference to the resurrection body means that it is "eternal in the heavens" and "not of this creation." Yet PT kept twisting my words and making me out to be saying that God has literal hands. He would not answer the Bible's own definition of the expression. This kind of misrepresentation and evasive tactic makes me feel violent especially when it is repeated. So I will have to stop for a while when PT does that kind of thing and come back later. Anyway, back to Allyn's topic. I am surprised he was deleted and suspended at a Preterist site. Roo I tried to tell you about PT's lack of character! He seems determined to show us in the worst light possible even if it means he has to spin the things we say. I suspect if you were to quote him verbatim without a comment that he would spin that too, since he can't seem to stop himself. I try to aim my posts more for edifying others who read them, else he would provoke me more than he already does. It is after all, the carnal nature of the beast which he knows we all share in common and that is what he hopes he can get others to see in us instead. Focus on the glory of Christ and you won't be provoked by his tactics near as much. Robin, Thanks! But sometimes I have to leave for a few days so I can focus on Christ. I did start a new thread giving two Reformed views of the word 'soma' over there today. I gave Lloyd-Jones' and Calvin's views and explained why I accept Calvin's. I will see what PT does with it and reply later. Roo ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Allyn, Forgive me for hijacking your topic.  Roo |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Oct 2, 2010 14:24:49 GMT -5
Allyn, Forgive me for hijacking your topic. Roo The way I titled the thread, so far all is on topic. |
|
|
|
Post by stormcrow on Feb 8, 2011 9:32:15 GMT -5
Concerning Adam, which came through Adam?
1. Condemnation
2. Faith
3. None of the above
Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=preterism&action=display&thread=617#ixzz1DNTTkTGy
How could a promise of faith be given to a man who did not need it to know and walk with God? Adam walked and talked with God in the garden. He saw God and spoke to Him directly. He had no excuse for disobedience. That's why Adam's sin was so far-reaching. I had never thought of it this way before, but you are correct. The promise of faith was given to Abraham. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 8, 2011 11:53:46 GMT -5
I never realized this thread was still here. And for the record, I have NEVER deleted anyone's post on any chat group without their express permission. Would someone please explain to me how " these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise" (Hebrews 11:39) When Abel, Enoch, and Noah (all before Abraham) are included in "these all"? If the GOSPEL promise was only given to Abraham, then all those before him had no hope. I offer no apology for the passions that arose out of these conversations. I wish people could treat each other respectfully no matter what the disagreement is. Here are the threads in question: deathisdefeated.ning.com/forum/topics/what-was-the-curse-removeddeathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blogs/protoevangelium-of-genesis-315It is always best to go to the source to determine the part that everyone played... There was one other thread which I started (after the fact) but I cannot find it. If anyone knows the exact link, please post it here and I will modify this post to reflect that third link. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Feb 8, 2011 12:30:57 GMT -5
I never realized this thread was still here. And for the record, I have NEVER deleted anyone's post on any chat group without their express permission. Would someone please explain to me how " these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise" (Hebrews 11:39) When Abel, Enoch, and Noah (all before Abraham) are included in "these all"? If the GOSPEL promise was only given to Abraham, then all those before him had no hope. I offer no apology for the passions that arose out of these conversations. I wish people could treat each other respectfully no matter what the disagreement is. Here are the threads in question: deathisdefeated.ning.com/forum/topics/what-was-the-curse-removeddeathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blogs/protoevangelium-of-genesis-315It is always best to go to the source to determine the part that everyone played... There was one other thread which I started (after the fact) but I cannot find it. If anyone knows the exact link, please post it here and I will modify this post to reflect that third link. Thanks. Hi Ted, I forgot all about this thread but yes its still here and is a good reminder of the situation that developed. I do regret that it was submitted because of the developments at DID on the subject, however. I wish it had been under better circumstances. My stance is unchanged with regard to the Gopel promise given to Abraham first. That promise was based upon his righteous faith deemed acceptable by God. Abraham is also noted by the apostle Paul as the father of all faith which is so significant that I find it unbelieveable that it is missed. I started my interaction on the DID conversation on Sept 1 of 2010 but answered specifics here: deathisdefeated.ning.com/xn/detail/2362512:Comment:24167I made it even more clear in a response after Tami tries to put words in my mouth and made what I considered false claims concerning what I had said. Nevertheless, I stick to all my statements concerning the topic. I think Scripture bears me out that Abraham alone received the promise of the SEED because of his faith God declared as righteousness. All the men of faith mentioned in the Hebrews chapter was in the context of something unseen by them then but, to our advantage, is seen now by all people of faith. Eve did not receive this promise and most certainly did not receive the promise of the Seed based upon her faith. Rather the promise of the coming Christ found in Genesis 3 was conveyed based upon unbelief and disobedience by the first couple and a declaration of war against the serpent (Genesis 3:15) |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 8, 2011 12:48:58 GMT -5
By the way, Allyn, after you banned me, you posted this thread. I managed to respond as a guest (for a very short time) in this thread. What happened to that post of mine? I never deleted it (nor would I want to) because I couldn't even get back in...
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Feb 8, 2011 12:57:05 GMT -5
Maybe in my carnal thinking deleted it, Ted. I don't remember it specifically but it may be that is what happened.
Are you now wanting to revert back to the feelings we had both expressed to one another? I hope not because I don't want to go there again. I take responsibility for any ill feelings we had for one another at that time and have hopes we are back in each others good graces. My apologies are given now if I never gave them before. If I gave them before I express them again here.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 8, 2011 13:09:31 GMT -5
Actually, Allyn, I would have thought you would have deleted this thread a long time ago because of your renewed interaction over at DeathIsDefeated. I only saw that this thread was still open due to the recent post by StromCrow.
I was misrepresented and never really had my say, did I? I don't like it when people say false things about me (like deletion of posts, for instance). I am sure you don't like it either.
You should have included the source link for these discussions for people to determine for themselves.
But you sure succeeded in gathering your own people against me.
I am done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Feb 8, 2011 13:15:47 GMT -5
Well then, Ted, I suppose that is your choice. Some people forgive another when they have been offered an apology. Others don't. I don't hold that against you. Just as I said, this thread had been forgotten. Robin gave a very good response and it may very well have been the reason for my leaving it up. I don't know for sure. But you alone are responsible for how you take things. If you choose to leave here then I offer all the best ot you but it brings sadness for me. If you decide to continue here then I will be glad beyond measure.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 8, 2011 14:35:21 GMT -5
If you choose to leave here then I offer all the best ot you but it brings sadness for me. If you decide to continue here then I will be glad beyond measure. What on earth made you say that? Who said anything about leaving this forum? Could it be that you misunderstood me in much the same manner that you misunderstood me before like when you said I had accused you of having a brain problem? If you are not sure about something, then ask and clarify. I was done with posting on this thread but had to post again to remove this unfounded "theory" of yours. Now, I am done (again). |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Feb 8, 2011 15:38:29 GMT -5
If you choose to leave here then I offer all the best ot you but it brings sadness for me. If you decide to continue here then I will be glad beyond measure. What on earth made you say that? Who said anything about leaving this forum? Could it be that you misunderstood me in much the same manner that you misunderstood me before like when you said I had accused you of having a brain problem? If you are not sure about something, then ask and clarify. I was done with posting on this thread but had to post again to remove this unfounded "theory" of yours. Now, I am done (again). Ted, you are the one who should make things clearer. Words mean something. If you don't want misunderstanding from your words then make sure you clarify exactly what you mean. Yes, I thought you meant you were leaving. And yes when you said I had a brain cramp that does mean a brain problem since you accused me of not remembering things correctly, although I did provide the evidence that you were wrong in that accusation towards me. That evidence is in one of those 2 links you gave today. Ted, you have chosen to take issue with a recording (this threads first post). That recording was from months ago and does not reflect where, at least, I am today in that I have put that issue aside (at least I am trying despite what seems to be efforts by you to revisit the issue). You have now said twice that you are done. Let that be so. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 8, 2011 16:22:46 GMT -5
[And yes when you said I had a brain cramp that does mean a brain problem since you accused me of not remembering things correctly, although I did provide the evidence that you were wrong in that accusation towards me. That evidence is in one of those 2 links you gave today. Allyn, I would love to let it go, but as long as you continue to accuse I will defend. Here is my exact quote about that alleged brain problem that you say I accused you of. Notice that it started off with me doing you a favor by looking for those quotes of Tami's and John's: " Okay, I finished searching this thread and could not find a reference where the promise was made to Eve or anyone else other than what you said about it being promised to the devil. I won't spend all day searching all the threads. I will wait upon you to find the source. And if it was said, is there any possibility that it might have been a brain cramp or typo? Often we type things that don't match our brain. I have seen many times that a person forgets to put the "n't" after the word "do" and it changes everything. That is why I like to clarify every little detail so that I don't springboard from a wrong assumption of the other person's point of view. Again, I await for the source...and conversely, is there any possibility that you might have read the post quickly and just thought it said that? At any rate, the source will verify it." I associated the brain problem with Tami and/or John, not you. And if it was not the statement that irked you, then me politely asking, " Is there any possibility that you might have read the post [John's or Tami's] quickly and just thought it said that?" is what you call an accusation, then I guess I am guilty. The whole tone and demeanor of my post was kind and an effort to help. You did not take it that way at all. You didn't even bother to acknowledge my effort in helping you find that source quote. It was from there that we went around and around. By the way, you never did post the source (it could have been deleted), but that is not saying that it did not exist. Let the readers decide. I am done (again) unless I am further accused. I am tired of being jumped on and having my motives questioned. Preterists, for the most part, are way too defensive and too eager to attack. Today, both Tami and Phil over-reacted to something THEY THOUGHT I was saying: deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2362512%3ABlogPost%3A33785&commentId=2362512%3AComment%3A35796&xg_source=activity(see my explanation in the very next response) No apology was ever issued by Tami. Allyn is not like that. (that's a compliment bro!) We have just got to get over the idea that what is being said is a personal attack. If we don't take it as one, then we won't respond as if it was one. Pretty soon, all those who thrive on personal attacks will stop or go somewhere else. |
|
