Pastor Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 04:58:34 -0700, vince garcia
> ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>You're opinions aren't infallible.
> Never said they were. I am not perfect and never
> said I was. But why do you then insist that you
> aren't wrong, when you lay this statement on me?
Where did I say _I_ can't be wrong on the issue of eschatology? I said I
may have an opinion, but mine is no more conclusively provable than
yours. That's wholly different from your attitude which holds that
you've got the truth, and anyone who disagrees with you is saying "My
doctrine is all important to me, because I like it and the word of God
be damned! I don't care what it says!"
> Hello??? :)
> Btw, did you even bother to do the study? Or did
> you just comment this way, Vince?
You mean your study? Have you some new information I haven't heard over
the past 40 years?
Unless you claim new revelation, no point you can make can be something
I haven't heard before from someone in the past, and I am highly
skeptical that you could have something that hasn't been argued before.
And even if you did, I suspect you'd be another James Hajicek, who
spammed whole books of highly technical greek arguments to "prove" his
Mormon beliefs were what the new testament taught, but when his "study"
was shown to a greek scholar, it turned out he was so ignorant that he
was making up greek words that don't even exist.
It was at that point that I gave up once and for all arguing with
'experts on the Bible' who post whole books "proving" their theology.
Bottom line: I've read every view of eschatology there is, and I simply
have a different view from the preterist, being only a partial preterist
myself, and neither your arguments, nor those of some other preterist,
will convince me otherwise, though if you can show here a list of
verifiable credentials proving yourself to be a greek scholar and
historian, I might take some of my precious time to look over your
comments, and see how they might differ from those of credentialed
preterists I've read over the years.
So what doctorates do you have?
If the answer is none, that doesn't make you wrong, but it means that
I've studied arguments on your side from people who DO hold doctorates,
and if their writings haven't convinced me of their views, someone with
a lower level of authority on the subject is not going to either unless
he has new information that other, more traditional sources do not. and
if he DOES have new information that credentialed sources I've seen in
the past do not, then I must hold his 'evidence' to be suspect, and
wonder why I haven't seen that argument before, just as James Hajicek
came up with plenty of fallacious arguments that looked good and seemed
to make his point, but when shown to a true scholar were shown to be
Now just for kicks, I started to glance over your article, and saw this
"There is overwhelming evidence that Revelation was written prior to 70
Not really. Some good scholars have speculated that it might have been,
and they make some fair arguments for it that I wouldn't totally
dismiss, but the typical view is that it was written in the 90s AD, and
not in Nero's reign as you hold to. So your position, while not an
impossiblity, is a minority view among scholars, yet you write like it
should be taken as Gospel. This seems to be your pattern: "My view is
the one that's right, and it should be taken for granted because I
believe it!" That tells me right there any other points you make are
just as one-sided, and thus supect.
Note: No, I won't debate the subject of revelation's date of writing
with you. If you want to argue with someone, start writing the
chancellors of the various universities and Bible colleges, and insist
they instruct their professors to adopt your view as conclusive, because
any other view is wrong. We'll see how far you get
> I think we both know which it was, don't we. :)
>>So your labeling someone who disagrees with you
>>as saying "My doctrine is all important to me,
>>because I like it and the word of God be damned!
>>I don't care what it says!" makes you a Romans 2:1
>>person in a sense
> You can try to turn the tables all you want to, but it
> won't change the fact that you're ignoring what caused
> that statement by me. Or is that just not convenient
> for your goal? (:
> I don't mean to be rude, but what I said does happen
> and you know it as well as I do.
sure it does. My issue is with your apparent denial that honest
Christians can approach the subject of eschatology and come up with a
different conclusion without being some sort of scripture perverts
In fact, although
> your tone is admittedly much milder (thank you),
> you have the same attitude otherwise. (:
> Did you actually DO the study, Vince? No? Why not?
> Be careful how you answer now. You wouldn't want to
> appear to be saying that you know it all and that your
> doctrine can't be wrong, after telling me that I'm not
> infallible, would you? :)
I already responded, and noted I don't claim anyone who disagrees with
me is perverting scripture. That's the difference between us. I think
there are a variety of orthodox, yet different, viewpoints on
eschatology, none of which can be conclusively proven, so I just use the
brains I have and take my best shot, acknowledging that I can't
absolutely "prove" my own position, but that it just works for me.
> And did you bother to respond this way, based on what
> I actually said caused me to say what I said? No.
You're looking for an argument, and I won't give you one. We have
people, including cultists, who come here all the time challening us to
prove their views wrong.
All that happens is, as I said, a denial of what I or somone else would
post, a re-statement of the person's view and an apology for them, and a
declaration that they have thus "proven" the respondent's views to be
I don't waste time with that game.
> Instead, although you did leave it quoted, you didn't even
> reference that in your response and tried to pretend that
> I was just attacking Futurists (which honestly, wasn't too
> smart, considering that you did leave it quoted) out of
> the blue and that I did not have a good reason for what
> I said, which was not an attack, but a fact. All your eyes
> saw, was that "translation" comment and it sounds to me
> like guilt firing you up right now. That's not an attack.
> It seriously does.
> And just to be clear here, I'm not the one running away
> from on point responses to my posts. Of course, that
> would be difficult anyway, since I don't ever seem to
> get on point responses to my posts. Wonder why? :)
Maybe the people are smart enough not to waste time arguing since
neither side will convince the other to change their view?
> But anyway, when people do what I said, then they are
> the cowards who do abandon God's Holy Scriptures,
> using dishonest tactics to avoid the word of God.
So do you regularly argue with Mormons, JWs, Armstrongites, and so on
regarding THEIR doctrines? And once you do, how many converts from
Mormonoism, the Watchtower Society, and H W Armstrong do you come away
Don't they simply state THEIR arguments and declare those arguments to
be the truth?
Thus, you just cast pearls before swine, something Jesus and Paul say
not to do.
> And you can call me anything you want to, because I said
> that. But nowhere does the word of God tell me to call
> someone who won't be honest about something, as has
> repeatedly been the case, "honest". If they act like
> cowards, then calling them that is not evil.
> And again, I am not trying to attack you, Vince and I am
> not angry at you. But you are the one who tried to respond
> to my comment without even mentioning the context of it.
> I said and I quote...
> PASTOR DAVE: "I guess I simply do not understand
> the mentality that refuses to question doctrine, regardless
> of what the Bible says and attempts to rearrange the Bible,
> to suit a doctrine and this is done by Futurists whenever
> I show them something. Some new piece of doctrine
> is made up on the fly to cover for it. Show them that
> Isaiah 65:17-20 and Revelation 21:1-4 both speak of
> the new heaven and earth and yet, one says that there
> will be death and the says that there won't and immediately,
> a new invention pops up that says that one is speaking
> about the millennium and one is about after the judgment.
> Did they ever believe that before? No. And then, when
> I respond by showing them that both say "new heaven
> and earth", the personal attacks begin."
> And THEN Vince, THEN came the following comment:
> PASTOR DAVE: "There is only one translation for that
> and it is: 'My doctrine is all important to me, because
> I like it and the word of God be damned! I don't care
> what it says!'"
> And I also noticed Vince, that not only did you skip the
> study, but you didn't even address any of my comments
> that came before it!
I stick to the macro issues. As I noted, I don't argue over eschatology
because I don't worry about it. You seem hung up on getting the world to
adopt your particular view, and you lambast anyone who doesn't.
Now WHY is that? Wait, let me
> guess... I didn't say anything of value, right?
> that'll make all my points go away and will certainly
> make you look like you honestly responded to them
> and showed them to be worthless, right Vince?!
> Please! (:
> Now you are certainly free to skip any study that you
> want to and to avoid any of my comments that you
> want to. But what is not honest, is when you do
> respond and in doing so, try to judge what I've said,
> snipping almost everything I posted and commenting
> on only one of my comments and doing so by taking
> it out of its context and then try to judge me to be no
> different than those I commented about, when you
> have no clue as to what I was putting forth, because
> you couldn't be bothered to read it! So you judged
> what you did not even read almost any of!
And what I said still holds. Your study and evidence for your view is
irrelevant to your attitude. Perhaps you missed the point where I said
whether you are right or wrong is not the issue--your attitude toward
those disagreeing with you is
> And furthermore, you prove my point! You, as a Futurist,
> make claims about how you study the Bible and look at
> the views, etc. and then, when it comes time to actually
> do it, all you have is a response that is out of context
> and you have you, skipping right over the study to do it.
> But hey, don't let Dave skip anything that Vince posted
> for a study, when dave responds to it, right? After all,
> you'll quickly tell me how I was scared of the truth,
> because you're not infallible, right Vince?
You're really getting desperate, aren't you? Where do I say, or even
hint, that my views are infallible? I have repeatedly said all the views
are debatable and unprovable. Your going from that to suggesting I'm
attacking you because I think my views are infallible shows why it would
be pointless to discuss anything with you.