Not true. I tried to lax up on you after seeing you were a pretty good sport.
Well you can see my previous post in response to you about tone and this medium.
But this is something which I am afraid you are just going to get offended about, and take personal. If that's the case, then I will let you get back to your normal routine. Which is what I am going to do anyway.
I'm not offended, amused. I never take things said online personally. But I will call people on how their tone is perceived from time to time but again I will also admit that tone is hard judge in this medium.
No.
I am not a pre-trib pre-mil, lol, I am a Christian Bible Student who happens to be premillennial, futurist, and Pre-Trib.
I'm sorry your not happy
Ok seriously, are you saying that only pre-mill, futurist, pretrib are Christian Bible Students?
Although maybe since that is your self given title I can just shorten it to CBS, Pre-mill, Pre-trib. I feel like futurist is implied in the pre-mill, pre-trib view, (with the exception of the 7 churches listed in Revelation. Every camp sees to take a more historicist view of them to some degree or another.)
I'm not sure you see the distinction.
You may be surprised.
How about what position you took in regards to the Rapture? You said, if I remember correctly, you were premillennial, then offered nothing else.
Yes but I did acknowledge your question and I have admitted on multiple times that I have chosen to keep that to myself. Since you seem so curious about it and its a moot point now I will say I was a very unique blend based on what I saw in the Bible while trying to stick with the dispensational viewpoint as the only hermeneutic I knew. Best way to describe it would be pre-wrath, but not in the Rosenthal sense. I have never met anyone that I agreed with on this point, which meant that if I ever talked about it I was surrounded on all sides by antagonist and that is just not a fun spot to be in.
How about "Who populates the Kingdom?" How long was it before you finally answered that? And if I remember correctly, I limited my interaction with you to a response to that question and perhaps a few snide remarks, as you put it, lol.
I answered that as soon as I had an opportunity on my computer to answer it. You are not a fan of my phone responses, which does limit what I can do quickly, so I have tried to wait until I have the computer to responded to you. And I never said snide, I said Snarky. And I think you know how quickly questions can get buried when a thread is hot and people are piling on.
How about your potshot in Iconoclast's second thread, will you answer that?
I answered within 10 hours of your posting. This response to me was 11 hours. You posted that response at 11 pm my time, so I think giving people a chance to sleep and then go to church is only fair, unless you are going to insist on a time limit but then again I responded to that faster then you did to my response in this tread so I don't think you really want to go there.
Was I making fun of someone's spelling, as you assumed?
I think she was collateral damage in your argument with Icon. While I will admit I'm not the best speller in the world, so this probably means nothing, I didn't notice her mistake until you pointed it out.
Or pointing out the inconsistency of his claim to be quoting word for word? The spelling was the indicator, and I made that clear. Or did you bother to check. Or does it even matter?
I did check and I thought it was ridiculous. I have fixed people's spelling in their post, although I have refrained on your, because I figure if I catch it with my bad spelling, then I should just fix it. This is not a college paper where it is expected to leave things as they are, but an informal setting where that is ok. I also do edit people's post since I often only want to respond to one part of what they are saying. The post would get insanely long if every response required the quoting of the previous poster in its entirety.
I also noticed that you have gotten on people for not quoting properly with the link to their OP, but you had no problem with revmac not linking where he was quoting from. That does not seem very consistent for you. Now I'm sure you will point out that I'm not quoting properly but I don't know how you get every quote when you break it up like this to go back to the OP and I figure as long as my first quote can go back to the OP people can look at it if they so choose.
What I have noticed is that you seem to be more apt to engage and answer questions now. Guess snide remarks have their place after all, eh?
Or I'm just in a different state of mind and have a little bit more access to the computer.
Pity it has to be this kind of thing.
Pity you feel the need to make self admitted 'snide' comments.
You did jump in, or at least...butt in. That was all I noticed about you in the Rapture threads. You were one of the ones who were making snide comments and disrupting discussion. And that is what OR does in every thread. That was the purpose of "How many Resurrections in Revelation," in which the OP stipulated only the Book of Revelation was to be examined, because it was the three resurrections listed in that Book I wanted to see what he did with.
I guess I missed where you have to have a engraved invite to join threads.
Also considering how you hijacked Judith's thread I feel like this is the pot calling the kettle black.
The result? Same as every thread. First it's Darby Darby Darby, and then here come the other cheerleaders making statements like yours, the doctrine is the stuff of ridicule. That's how he perpetuates his own error, because he refuses to answer simple questions like "how many resurrections" which he feels he answered yet he would not acknowledge the other two. You play a part in that error, whether you admit it or not. You are not helping him, you are not helping yourself. If you are going to be part of a Christian Doctrine Discussion Forum, it might be a good idea to work some discussion and doctrine into the mix once in a while
.
Welcome to the Internet. I will be honest I'm here for entertainment, not expecting to have any wonderful Doctrinal Discussions. There are other forums I am on that are much more serious that I use for learning and sharpening. As I told you this is the forum outside my comfort zone. Considering how overwhelmingly non-cal this forum is, I feel this is more seeing what the other side is thinking and then having some fun on the side.
And "The Rapture is pretty much the stuff of ridicule anymore" (loose quote) just doesn't cut it.
And you are complaining that Icon miss quotes you? You are referencing the thread where it listed 2015 100 influential Christian leaders. You brought up the rapture, I just mentioned and author and a book series that has been milked dry.
Isn't that precisely what you have been doing?
Glad you are out of the closet now.
No, and I'm happy your glad now.
Originally Posted by blessedwife318 View Post
And why would I want to be associated with the heretical WoF teachings?
Who said you were?
Not me.
And I explained your confusion on that point in the response.
I actually don't understand this response at all, even with the context that I carried over.
But I am glad to see that you don't want to be associated with WoF although I find it odd that you spent so much energy then defending a doctrine of WoF.
Well I'm glad we agree that WoF is heretical
Yet you take offense that someone else might have a problem with other doctrines they see as equally heretical.
So if it was not against TOS you would question people's salvation based on their eschatology? Seems you and OR have something in common after all.
Christ returning in the First Century is the stuff of cults. Now tell me that makes you want to be Historicist more than ever, lol
I don't believe that Christ returned in the First Century. Again that is Post-mill.
Eradicating Scripture from Scripture is the stuff of cults.
Agreed.
You tell me why a thousand years is not a thousand years.
Why does forever only mean a thousand years?
why does 490 years actually equal 200+ years.
No system can answer every question, any more then anyone can full explain the trinity, or the hypostatic union.
That is where faith comes in.
Which is why ultimately I will still say I'm more pan-mill then anything, as it will all pan out in the end, but your questions moved me toward leaning toward a different camp, idea, view whatever word you want to use then you.
Always speaking and never being able to answer questions that call those doctrine into question, and sometimes make it absolutely impossible to maintain a semblance of reason...the stuff of cults.
Agreed
People who embrace a faith, doctrine, or group, without even knowing what they teach...the stuff of cults. "Boy, those Mormons sure are mice folk, what does it matter what they teach. I never felt that welcome in a Baptist/Methodist/Presbyterian(_____________fill in with former association) church!"
Agreed. Why do you think I started looking at Covenant Theology?
When people spam threads and disrupt then so that no-one even attempts to have a conversation on the subject any more...that's not right.
Well I hope that you will then apologize to Judith for hijacking her thread since you admit that its not right.
