[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618642]

There really is no need to go further.

This sounds like goodbye. If so, then thx for your previous inputs.

Don is launching out in to the deep thinking he is headed west for a tropical paradise but he's headed north right into an iceberg flotilla. The journey of a 1000 miles begin with a single step. But if that first step is in the wrong direction, it doesn't matter how far one goes, or what spectacular sights one sees. One will simply not arrive at the proposed destination.

Plz, I had hoped you would at least critique what I call holes, some of which are shown in post 47. You again state opinions without providing evidence to prove your points. What you say here in that paragraph is again just opinion.

It is as easy for me to say I am apostolic as for you to say you are apostolic. It is as easy for me to say you take the wrong first step as for you to say I take the wrong first step. Doing so proves nothing by evidence and is unprofitable for a meaningful discussion.

What is in play here, by my allegations of the holes seen in uncut long, hasn't been addressed by close examination.

Instead, it is said I'm clearly not apostolic. Therefore anything I might say can be disregarded without explanation or examination. This not the spirit of a debate. This may be described as rejection based on bigotry.

big·ot. Noun. A person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. (I'd add to this defn "someone who is not seen as a member of a particular group".)

I've shown I agree that the apostles had a remarkable uniformity of belief on the essentials of He6; and that co/unco isn't on that list. I've shown that the NT preachers didn't agree on every minor point Eph4.13. Co/unco could be one point of disagreement. Any not agreeing on minor points should still be considered apostolic when agreeing on the major points - which I do agree on.

My views aren't even examined but cast out anyway. I don't blame anyone not wanting to take the time to critique my points because it would be time consumming. But to reject and smear them without examination because they are wrongly thought not to be apostolic smacks of bigotry.

Esaias sets himself up as the authority of thought which all should be compared to. If you don't agree on Esaias' defn of apostolic then you aren't apostolic. If you aren't apostolic then you aren't worth consideration, fit to be ignored.

Oh, well. We only have control of one, the one under our hat.