"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Eld. Epley, why won't you answer this?? I have bumped it at least five times....
Perhaps for the same reason you never responded to these points of mine.
Things not responded to yet:
1) Why the personal plural pronouns in Phil 3:20 are limited to the church, showing that the same must be held for that used in verse 21.
Regarding No. 1, I asked how you could insist OUR VILE BODY refers to those of the church AND other people to whom Paul formerly belonged, namely unsaved Israel when verse 20 limits the personal plural pronouns in context of verses 20 and 21 to the saved people? The reason I referred to the limitation of verse 20 pronouns to saved people is that this shows who is referred to as "OUR" in verse 21 -- ONLY saved people. This disproves your thought, I believe. And since they are saved people whom Paul speaks of in verse 21, and nothing referred to as a body concerning saved people was "vile" except their mortal physical bodies, OUR VILE BODY cannot refer to anything but the physical body.
Yes, you responded generally about phil 3:21 but not to the particular argument about the personal plural pronouns used in verse 20 and 21 in response to your arguments. The argument stopped with me making this particular point. We discussed Phil 3:21 until I asled you about the personal plural pronouns continuity in verse 20 to 21 and it stopped there with no more respones from you.
2) How the BODY is a container in 2 Cor 5, and that saying the spiritual body is not physical and thereby lose its containing function.
3) Why can we be absent from the body with the Lord if when we physically die we HAVE A SPIRITUAL BODY
3) What Romans 8 means about the creation groans waiting for the redemption of our bodies when sons of God are manifested.
4) Why Jesus "dieth no more, death has no more dominion over Him," in Romans 6 if He has no physical body that can die.
5) Why Romans 6 answers the issue of death in Romans 5 that Adam brought into the world by His sin by having Jesus physically die.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
should I bump those questions one by one in Font size 7 bold red letters?
__________________
"Resolved: That all men should live to the glory of God. Resolved, secondly: That whether or not anyone else does, I will." ~Jonathan Edwards
"The only man who has the right to say he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ." ~Dietrich Bonheoffer, The Cost of Discipleship
"Preachers who should be fishing for men are now too often fishing for compliments from men." ~Leonard Ravenhill
Do you mean you do not know the difference between a question NOT answered, and one in which a person says they did answer but DID NOT?? The former is just a non-response and the latter is a lie. I am surprised you did not know that....
With that said, I think it is sweet that you feel compelled to come to Eld. Epley's rescue. He always needs a guy like you to bail him out. And since you feel the need to police all that has been asked and answered, let me ask you if you've seen Eld. Epley answer what I keep asking him? From your posts I know that you saw that he did make the statements I am questioning. All I am asking is for him to prove them, and since he used them in effort to disprove AFP, that is only right.
I know you tried earlier to help him save face. However, he ignored your gesture and again said exactly the same thing that I was questioning him about. Eld. Benincasa, AFP1996, and others saw what I did as well. Now with this post it seems that you are trying to get the attention off him again. Of course if (and I did say “IF”) he is being dishonest then such a post from you actually helps him perpetrate this dishonesty, and I know you'd never do anything like that, would you? Therefore, since you feel compelled to sway the attention from Eld. Epley’s unsubstantiated claims, maybe you can show where he answered how "GENERATION" means "RACE in Matthew 24:34, or what evidence he has that shows baptisms/immersions is NOT found in the OT? That is what was being asked. Surely you wouldn’t change this subject unless you agreed with him, would you?
Besides, since you claim to agree with me on both of these, I would think you’d support me asking him to tell the truth about them. It’s a shame that you instead decided to use my calling him to come clean about these points for an opportunity to promote your futurist theories…. That sure says a lot Bro. Blume.
Regardless of your above purpose, I will happily deal with your supposed "unanswered questions" sometime after Eld. Epley answers these issues. Bro. Blume, you’ve used this same accusation about your questions not being answered many times before. We have shown you before how this is mostly not the case at all. I am not sure if you claim this so often because you are not reading our answers, or if you do not see them as an answer because they are not what you’re looking for, or if you just like saying we do not answer you in the hopes that such a claim will somehow make your case appear stronger. Regardless, we have shown you before where questions you’ve claimed were unanswered were instead already answered in detail.
But since you brought this up, let me remind both you and everyone else reading this that some of what you asked here was talked about during a time you said you placed me and Eld. Benincasa on “ignore.” I thought it pretty spineless that during the time you said to have us on ignore, you posted that we were not answering you. That drew a few disgusting comments from others who realized what you were doing. They compared such an action to placing another man in handcuffs, and then bragging how the guy didn’t fight back while being walloped. During that time you said you could not, and was not, reading our posts. However, we still answered much of what you said. Because of this fact I would like to ask, did you go back and read what we wrote there BEFORE accusing me of NOT answering? Also, during that time it sure looked as if you were still reading our posts, even though you said you were not. We mentioned this during that time because you were answering what we posted, even though nobody else had answered or commented first. And to make this even more incredible, some of your answers were almost exactly worded as our posts. This would be hard to do unless you were in fact reading these posts. So how about it, Bro. Blume, were you telling the truth about having us on ‘ignore’ and about NOT being reading our posts during all that time, or were you still reading them? I really would not care if it weren’t for the fact that you were so insistent that you could not, and were not, reading our posts. If you maintain that you did tell the truth about this, I would like to ask if you went back and read what was posted during that time BEFORE accusing me of NOT answering you. What is the truth about this Bro. Blume?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
Perhaps for the same reason you never responded to these points of mine.
Things not responded to yet:
1) Why the personal plural pronouns in Phil 3:20 are limited to the church, showing that the same must be held for that used in verse 21.
Regarding No. 1, I asked how you could insist OUR VILE BODY refers to those of the church AND other people to whom Paul formerly belonged, namely unsaved Israel when verse 20 limits the personal plural pronouns in context of verses 20 and 21 to the saved people? The reason I referred to the limitation of verse 20 pronouns to saved people is that this shows who is referred to as "OUR" in verse 21 -- ONLY saved people. This disproves your thought, I believe. And since they are saved people whom Paul speaks of in verse 21, and nothing referred to as a body concerning saved people was "vile" except their mortal physical bodies, OUR VILE BODY cannot refer to anything but the physical body.
Yes, you responded generally about phil 3:21 but not to the particular argument about the personal plural pronouns used in verse 20 and 21 in response to your arguments. The argument stopped with me making this particular point. We discussed Phil 3:21 until I asled you about the personal plural pronouns continuity in verse 20 to 21 and it stopped there with no more respones from you.
2) How the BODY is a container in 2 Cor 5, and that saying the spiritual body is not physical and thereby lose its containing function.
3) Why can we be absent from the body with the Lord if when we physically die we HAVE A SPIRITUAL BODY
3) What Romans 8 means about the creation groans waiting for the redemption of our bodies when sons of God are manifested.
4) Why Jesus "dieth no more, death has no more dominion over Him," in Romans 6 if He has no physical body that can die.
5) Why Romans 6 answers the issue of death in Romans 5 that Adam brought into the world by His sin by having Jesus physically die.
__________________
The Bible is open to those that want Truth, and if they want Truth, they find Truth. They watch individuals squabble over Bible symbolism on the Internet, and leave the Message boards to enter into the real world where live people dwell, and they find Truth. The World Wide Web is full of Internet Ayatollahs who speak their mind. There is only one Truth, and it is not hidden. No matter what anyone says, Truth still converts the sincere. -DD Benincasa, 12/06/03
Do you mean you do not know the difference between a question NOT answered, and one in which a person says they did answer but DID NOT?? The former is just a non-response and the latter is a lie. I am surprised you did not know that....
I was not watching the particulars of whether he said he answered and did not. I have not followed your correspondence with Bro Epley. I was simply reminded of times you asked MANY people why they never answered, and you have done the same thing yourself. I Just read "WHY DON'T YOU ANSWER THIS?".
You asked him why he did not answer you. That was my point. I asked you the same thing before and never got replies.
Quote:
With that said, I think it is sweet that you feel compelled to come to Eld. Epley's rescue. He always needs a guy like you to bail him out. And since you feel the need to police all that has been asked and answered, let me ask you if you've seen Eld. Epley answer what I keep asking him? From your posts I know that you saw that he did make the statements I am questioning. All I am asking is for him to prove them, and since he used them in effort to disprove AFP, that is only right.
I was only responding to you claim Bro Epley did not answer you. That's all. generally speaking you did the same thing.
Quote:
I know you tried earlier to help him save face. However, he ignored your gesture and again said exactly the same thing that I was questioning him about. Eld. Benincasa, AFP1996, and others saw what I did as well. Now with this post it seems that you are trying to get the attention off him again. Of course if (and I did say “IF”) he is being dishonest then such a post from you actually helps him perpetrate this dishonesty, and I know you'd never do anything like that, would you? Therefore, since you feel compelled to sway the attention from Eld. Epley’s unsubstantiated claims, maybe you can show where he answered how "GENERATION" means "RACE in Matthew 24:34, or what evidence he has that shows baptisms/immersions is NOT found in the OT? That is what was being asked. Surely you wouldn’t change this subject unless you agreed with him, would you?
Besides, since you claim to agree with me on both of these, I would think you’d support me asking him to tell the truth about them. It’s a shame that you instead decided to use my calling him to come clean about these points for an opportunity to promote your futurist theories…. That sure says a lot Bro. Blume.
Think what you will, but I just saw you ask many people to answer you and when they did not, you repeated your question, and noticed you did not answer me on many issues as well. Fair is fair. But if Bro Epley SAID he answered you and did not, then I can see your point.
Quote:
Bro. Blume, you’ve used this same accusation about your questions not being answered many times before. We have shown you before how this is mostly not the case at all. I am not sure if you claim this so often because you are not reading our answers, or if you do not see them as an answer because they are not what you’re looking for, or if you just like saying we do not answer you in the hopes that such a claim will somehow make your case appear stronger.
Whenever I claim someone did not answer me, I am not lying. Those who disagree with my claims usually answered SOME aspects of what I was asking, and not the most recent ones I posed to them , as for example our chats on Phil 3:21. You last told me I did get a response from you, when in actuality you never responded to particular details about the issue that I last asked of you. There may have been a time I overlooked an answer, but it is not true for you to say the usual case is that you did answer me when I said you did not. You simply did not read my reference carefully enough to get the details.
Quote:
But since you brought this up, let me remind both you and everyone else reading this that some of what you asked here was talked about during a time you said you placed me and Eld. Benincasa on “ignore.” I thought it pretty spineless that during the time you said to have us on ignore, you posted that we were not answering you.
I asked you to respond to points long before this occurred, and never got any responses. Weeks went by before anyone was set to ignore, and I never got answers from you and Bro B. Let's not change the scenario.
When you were set on ignore due to personal attacks, and let's not get into that again, you continued writing to me about all sorts of things. None of which answered any of my questi0ons, which did not stop you from writing as though I read it all. Some I did, and some I did not. But in all the time you took to keep writing to me, you still never answered these questions. Since you continued writing, what is the claim you make about me putting you on ignore since I would not read your posts, anyway? That did not stop you from writing to me about other issues while you were on the setting.
Fact is you never answered those questions in the many weeks you were not on ignore. I waited and waited and repeated and repeated. No answer - -BEFORE you were set on ignore. Before, bro. Read my lips.
Anyway, calm down a bit. I know how much Bro Epley avoids certain issues. You have made many good points. However, I saw enough of your posts that demanded responses, outside of any body claiming they did when they did not. This reminded me of that again. You have done the same, is all.
So if all is well, then answer my questions while you discuss things with Bro Epley. No biggie.
So when you get the chance:
1) Why the personal plural pronouns in Phil 3:20 are limited to the church, showing that the same must be held for that used in verse 21.
Regarding No. 1, I asked how you could insist OUR VILE BODY refers to those of the church AND other people to whom Paul formerly belonged, namely unsaved Israel when verse 20 limits the personal plural pronouns in context of verses 20 and 21 to the saved people? The reason I referred to the limitation of verse 20 pronouns to saved people is that this shows who is referred to as "OUR" in verse 21 -- ONLY saved people. This disproves your thought, I believe. And since they are saved people whom Paul speaks of in verse 21, and nothing referred to as a body concerning saved people was "vile" except their mortal physical bodies, OUR VILE BODY cannot refer to anything but the physical body.
Yes, you responded generally about Phil 3:21 but not to the particular argument about the personal plural pronouns used in verse 20 and 21 in response to your arguments. The argument stopped with me making this particular point. We discussed Phil 3:21 until I asked you about the personal plural pronouns continuity in verse 20 to 21 and it stopped there with no more responses from you.
2) How the BODY is a container in 2 Cor 5, and that saying the spiritual body is not physical and thereby lose its containing function.
3) Why can we be absent from the body with the Lord if when we physically die we HAVE A SPIRITUAL BODY
3) What Romans 8 means about the creation groans waiting for the redemption of our bodies when sons of God are manifested.
4) Why Jesus "dieth no more, death has no more dominion over Him," in Romans 6 if He has no physical body that can die.
5) Why Romans 6 answers the issue of death in Romans 5 that Adam brought into the world by His sin by having Jesus physically die.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Perhaps for the same reason you never responded to these points of mine.
Things not responded to yet:
1) Why the personal plural pronouns in Phil 3:20 are limited to the church, showing that the same must be held for that used in verse 21.
Regarding No. 1, I asked how you could insist OUR VILE BODY refers to those of the church AND other people to whom Paul formerly belonged, namely unsaved Israel when verse 20 limits the personal plural pronouns in context of verses 20 and 21 to the saved people? The reason I referred to the limitation of verse 20 pronouns to saved people is that this shows who is referred to as "OUR" in verse 21 -- ONLY saved people. This disproves your thought, I believe. And since they are saved people whom Paul speaks of in verse 21, and nothing referred to as a body concerning saved people was "vile" except their mortal physical bodies, OUR VILE BODY cannot refer to anything but the physical body.
Yes, you responded generally about phil 3:21 but not to the particular argument about the personal plural pronouns used in verse 20 and 21 in response to your arguments. The argument stopped with me making this particular point. We discussed Phil 3:21 until I asled you about the personal plural pronouns continuity in verse 20 to 21 and it stopped there with no more respones from you.
2) How the BODY is a container in 2 Cor 5, and that saying the spiritual body is not physical and thereby lose its containing function.
3) Why can we be absent from the body with the Lord if when we physically die we HAVE A SPIRITUAL BODY
3) What Romans 8 means about the creation groans waiting for the redemption of our bodies when sons of God are manifested.
4) Why Jesus "dieth no more, death has no more dominion over Him," in Romans 6 if He has no physical body that can die.
5) Why Romans 6 answers the issue of death in Romans 5 that Adam brought into the world by His sin by having Jesus physically die.
I did respond and he ane I argued my answer. This old debators trick was used when Mody Dick was a minnow.
However I did notice he observed 'the passover' on your questions and arguments.
However I did notice he observed 'the passover' on your questions and arguments.
That is funny. I have to remember that one.
I agree with you on some issues and agree with them on others. However, I asked these guys all these questions and never got answers. Bro Benincasa said once that he was thinking of answers, but evidently never got any. In one case, regarding Romans 8 and the redemption of the body, he said I would flip out if he told me about it, so he refused. Whatever.
These are good men, and I stand up for them and say they should not be disfellowshiped. But I disagree strongly with their teaching.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
I was not watching the particulars of whether he said he answered and did not. I have not followed your correspondence with Bro Epley. I was simply reminded of times you asked MANY people why they never answered, and you have done the same thing yourself. I Just read "WHY DON'T YOU ANSWER THIS?".
That is fair enough. Sorry for the misunderstanding in this particular case.
Think what you will, but I just saw you ask many people to answer you and when they did not, you repeated your question, and noticed you did not answer me on many issues as well. Fair is fair. But if Bro Epley SAID he answered you and did not, then I can see your point. Sorry
Whenever I claim someone did not answer me, it was usually about how they answered SOME aspects of what I was asking, and not the most recent ones I posed to them , as for example our chats on Phil 3:21. You last told me I did get a response from you, when in actuality you never responded to particular details about the issue that I last asked of you. There may have been a time I overlooked an answer, but it is not true for you to say the usual case is that you did answer me when I said you did not. You simply did not read my reference carefully enough to get the details.
I asked you to respond to points long before this occurred, and never got any responses. Weeks went by before anyone was set to ignore, and I never got answers from you and Bro B. Let's not change the scenario.
When you were set on ignore due to personal attacks, and let's not get into that again, you continued writing to me about all sorts of things. None of which answered any of my questi0ons, which did not stop you from writing as though I read it all. Some I did, and some I did not. But in all the time you took to keep writing to me, you still never answered these questions. Since you continued writing, what is the claim you make about me putting you on ignore since I would not read your posts, anyway? That did not stop you from writing to me about other issues while you were on the setting.
Fact is you never answered those questions in the many weeks you were not on ignore. I waited and waited and repeated and repeated. No answer - -BEFORE you were set on ignore. Before, bro. Read my lips.
Anyway, calm down a bit. I know how much Bro Epley avoids certain issues. You have made many good points. However, I saw enough of your posts that demanded responses, outside of any body claiming they did when they did not. This reminded me of that again. You have done the same, is all.
So if all is well, then answer my questions while you discuss things with Bro Epley. No biggie.
So when you get the chance:
1) Why the personal plural pronouns in Phil 3:20 are limited to the church, showing that the same must be held for that used in verse 21.
Regarding No. 1, I asked how you could insist OUR VILE BODY refers to those of the church AND other people to whom Paul formerly belonged, namely unsaved Israel when verse 20 limits the personal plural pronouns in context of verses 20 and 21 to the saved people? The reason I referred to the limitation of verse 20 pronouns to saved people is that this shows who is referred to as "OUR" in verse 21 -- ONLY saved people. This disproves your thought, I believe. And since they are saved people whom Paul speaks of in verse 21, and nothing referred to as a body concerning saved people was "vile" except their mortal physical bodies, OUR VILE BODY cannot refer to anything but the physical body.
Yes, you responded generally about Phil 3:21 but not to the particular argument about the personal plural pronouns used in verse 20 and 21 in response to your arguments. The argument stopped with me making this particular point. We discussed Phil 3:21 until I asked you about the personal plural pronouns continuity in verse 20 to 21 and it stopped there with no more responses from you.
2) How the BODY is a container in 2 Cor 5, and that saying the spiritual body is not physical and thereby lose its containing function.
3) Why can we be absent from the body with the Lord if when we physically die we HAVE A SPIRITUAL BODY
3) What Romans 8 means about the creation groans waiting for the redemption of our bodies when sons of God are manifested.
4) Why Jesus "dieth no more, death has no more dominion over Him," in Romans 6 if He has no physical body that can die.
5) Why Romans 6 answers the issue of death in Romans 5 that Adam brought into the world by His sin by having Jesus physically die.
AGAIN!!!
I was simply reminded of times you asked MANY people why they never answered, and you have done the same thing yourself. I Just read "WHY DON'T YOU ANSWER THIS?". 
No biggie.
Linear Mode
