[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

.

The following posts reply to post 131, 132, 133.

Page 1/5

Thanks for replying, votivesoul. Much appreciated. It should be much fun replying to you.

Yes. Receive me as I describe myself to be. But do not necessarily receive my thoughts.

Not all that glitters is gold, Don. You saying something about yourself and that thing being factually true to reality are not the same. Surely you know this? Surely you know people claim all kinds of things about themselves, without making those claims true in any sense. Absolutely true. But one of the first rules of civil dialogue is to trust that others are upfront and honest in what they say. Your comment denies this trust of me exists with you. Since I cannot believe you do not know this, I can only surmise you are playing games. As said elsewhere, blanket statements like you've just made, foggy references to something I've said in the past, do not satisfy the sincere reader who would desire proof of these allegations which would be used to make decisions about the views I present. Again, as I've said elsewhere, your presenting broad, blanket, detailless accusations of me provide me no means of ways to defend against them. My conclusion then is, this failing to provide specifics is an intentional effort to demonize me to readers, in hopes to prevent the view I put forward being accepted. If that is not the way you would like to be characterized, then put forward specifics. Quote my relevant words showing your accusations. If you do not do so, then you show yourself as one who doesn't want to fight fair. Your not doing so shows you as wanting to win arguments using unfair means to do so.

If I present truths from God's Word, which you use unfair means to fight against, then you fight against truth. Good luck with that. You'll need it. 2 Corinthians 13:8 For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.


Toe the party line whether or not it disagrees with the Bible? Your point is clearly made.

Don, you’re a piece of work, you know that? The way of your responses encourages similar responses from me. Deal with what you've started. If not wanting such a type of response, then choose another method of approach. I will respond in kind. I am the last person to toe the party line, and if you had spent any length of time here and gotten to know me, you’d know that. Nevertheless, there are actual Apostolic hermeneutics available to you, and you don’t make use of them. I don’t mean UPCI hermeneutics, or ALJC hermeneutics, but Biblical hermeneutics as used by the Apostles, and therefore, Apostolic in origin, and yet you do not avail yourself of them. votivesoul would have you believe I avoid the use of these. But, reader, plz note that votivesoul provides no specifics to bolster facts. Rather, you approach the Scriptures from what can be described as a Gnostic hermeneutic. You seek subtextual knowledge. You read “between the lines” to gather information and formulate doctrine. This is the work of a Gnostic, not an Apostolic. Well, votive soul, aren't you ever the bright one! You read my words, which have never referenced Gnostics, but discern I use Gnostic hermeneutic to formulate Bible conclusions. The 'wrong' method you accuse me of using for Bible interpretation, you used to accuse me. But then, you wish to smear a Man's character doing so, making it OK. And it's not OK by you for someone to use it when reading the Bible. I got it. You wish to portray yourself as OK in using a double standard.

This reading between the lines is also used by you of the example I give in post 1. You attribute, along with Dom, that B Smith is doing many things not mentioned there, doing so by reading between the lines. You do what you say I shouldn't do.

I've not used deception nor hidden the fact that I use 'reading between the lines' methodologies. Yet votivesoul would have you believe I have. But plz, votivesoul, now quote, showing where I've been deceptive? If not, then plz withdraw the accusations. Be a man.

Let's ask readers to chime in, to tell if or not they also read between the lines. Only the intellectually dishonest will say they do not read the Bible using this method. It is almost impossible to do so without. How many examples must I provide, I've already provided some, before you will retract an idea that denies the use of it to correctly understand scripture? How many?



Pray tell, how does providing an example for clarity portray something as ridiculous? It doesn't. Does your use of such a word then demonstrate a bias against the one saying it?

In all the realms of the world, some things in life are ridiculous, and those with a lick of common sense know it. Immediately after I locked your 1 Corinthians 11 IV thread, you create this thread and make use of your novel doctrine as the prime example of how Romans 14 has been routinely ignored or misrepresented, thereby indicating that men have been unfairly denied teaching and preaching positions in local Apostolic congregations because they dare to have a unique view of a particular topic. Sure, I can agree that men have been unfairly denied teaching and preaching roles in local Apostolic churches at time Thank you for this openness, but that doesn’t make your example and the hypothetical that follows, not ridiculous in nature. Did you notice that votivesoul does not give an explanation how my example is ridiculous in nature, just saying it is. These are not the marks of someone who is an actual teacher, a disseminator of truth. These provide specifics.


This is indeed true, with my having stated so other times. I have not denied this.

But we’re just all supposed to believe your hypothetical isn’t about you, simply on your word that it isn’t? Well, guess what? You haven’t given your word that your hypothetical isn’t about you, because you refuse to say, even when directly asked, hence playing coy. Stop wasting time. Whether what is said about me is true or not, does not add or subtract from the Biblical views I present. Nor would it show that what is said to counter my views is true or not. It has no bearing in a Bible discussion. What motivates your saying this when you must know this is true?


You've asked me to be honest, votivesoul. Plz be honest with me. Was the closing of the 1Co11 thread motivated by the personal revulsion your Apostolic hermeneutics felt?

I told you why I closed your thread in a PM. Believe me or not, I gave you my reasons. My apologies. I have no memory of this, that you'd done so. I'm not denying you had. I've just no memory today of it. As far as your hermeneutic goes, you interpret the Scriptures however you want, man. I don’t care. You and Jesus are going to work it out in the end, same as me and everyone else. If I’ve expressed revulsion (kind of a strong word, but I’ll go with it for your sake), it’s because I think you’re manner of interpreting the Scriptures is bunk. You regularly employ eisogesis, you ignore context, and read the text, not as it presents itself on the page, but rather, by looking instead through some subjective cypher you’ve concocted in your own mind. You allege things against God, and the Apostles Christ personally chose, etc. Anyone in their right mind would be revolted. That's not the way a Bible discussion forum is supposed to work. Not mentioning anything at the time it was first said; or not quoting the passage containing the words, shows wrong methodology for a proper discussion. You again reveal yourself as being deficient doing so. But, let's put the past behind. Going forward, starting with what you've just mentioned, plz quote what you are referring to when saying I've said something wrong. If not, you show yourself as not wanting to change a deficient practice. You even contradict the clear teachings of the Scriptures, claiming Moses wasn’t faithful when he was called, even though we are told Moses was faithful in all his house (Hebrews 3:5). You would have us believe you, and not the Word. Remember that thing you said above about 'context'. You've taken my words out of context. Anyone who remembers that post, or looks it up, knows you did.


I'd deny any temper tantrum. Surely there are other phrases which would have been more apt to use. But what's the big deal about whether or not it is so? Why is it worth highlighting here? My arguments/views wouldn't be affected by this one way or another. It is moot for you to mention it.

Not moot. It is germane to who you are as a man, as someone professing himself to be a teacher of the Holy Scriptures on this forum. And as far as tantrum is concerned, it is entirely appropriate. You were asked some direct questions. Easily answered, had you the courage and forthrightness of heart to answer them. But you decided to take your ball and go home. That is to say, you acted like a child, like a brat who can’t play well with others, hence “tantrum”. Sorry, you don't get to demand personal info in a Bible discussion forum. Go blow bubbles. And you have not described a tantrum. I had not run home. I have only refused to answer questions having no bearing to Bible discussion. I have not refused Bible discussion.

1/5