DaveW

I gotta say that I am distressed at the broad accusations made by SAB and directed at ANYONE who disagrees with his view.....

I find it offensive.

And juvenile.

We have a FB page that events are posted on, but that's it.

But you don't do that - you defend the man.

You like the guy..... 

You like at least some of his teaching....

You defend the man......

On any level the guy is clearly not qualified to be a pastor, clearly teaches false doctrine, clearly is a bad testimony for the Lord, clearly goes beyond Scripture, clearly does not follow the duties of a Pastor...... etc.

You need to stop defending a man who is clearly a heretic.

But you can't help yourself - you are a fan..... and no matter how much you deny it, your posts tell a different story.

Follow no man - follow only the Lord and His Word.

Why even bother?

This guy is clearly a false teacher, and no Bible lover should have anything to do with him.

I don't know why you insist on defending a man who is so clearly a bad testimony for the Lord, and who is so clearly a false teacher, and so clearly a hateful man.

Anything that he gets right you can find with teachers who don't have his false teaching.

In my opinion, anyone who is so prominent as a teacher online and promotes themselves as such is unbiblical - IF he is a pastor (regardless of what he calls himself), he should concern himself with the flock to which the Lord has given him.

NO MAN is Pastor to the world. God gives pastors to individual churches, not to the "whole world".......

We are currently going through Isaiah. Just finished chapter 6, lesson 20.....

We could be here a while....

1. I never said definitions were unimportant. I implied that definitions need to be correct.

2. The Greek supports the definition of the word. Just like any dictionary gives definitions.

3. Your proposed definition of wife, given with no reference as to its origin, does not align with the official definitions.

To be honest, I am not interested in becoming further involved in this discussion, but as you say, definitions are important, but it is also important that they are correct definitions.

Thanks, and welcome.

It seems to me that much is being made of certain definitions, but those definitions for not appear to be true.

For instance, the greek word from which is translated the word "wife" has a primary meaning of "woman", and a secondary of "specifically a wife", which makes the word a descriptive rather than a "title".

Secondly, a bishop is absolutely required to rule his house well, the reference to children being an addendum to that, but a wife is absolutely a part of that household.

Finally, the rules on divorce must be considered, as Biblically not all divorce is the same.

One thing is certain about divorce though:

Matt 19:8

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Hey friend, why don't you pop across to the intro section and introduce yourself properly.

I actually think it is a bit of a pity this ended up like this.

I genuinely want such people to properly answer the points put to them. It helps me to understand the arguments.

Of course this guy was not properly responding in any case, but it is still a pity he decided to force the mods to act.

Thanks to the mods for acting appropriately and quickly by the way.

This kind of behaviour is simply disgusting and should not be heard from anyone calling themselves a Christian.

2 hours ago, Shoostie said:

You xxxxxxxxxx, he has said it far more than twice.  Maybe just twice in this thread.

I repeated it because you refused to do so. I stopped as soon as I was asked.

I would have stopped the moment you gave this board the proper respect of an intro.

Your foul descriptions however should not pass the keyboard of a Christian.

1 hour ago, Shoostie said:

DaveW, you senile old fool, no one at any ride sharing company has been prosecuted for claiming their drivers are contractors.  And, they're not going to be.  

This is a disgusting personal attack.

I am neither old, nor senile, and you know nothing about me - that is obvious.

And you are wrong. If you paid any real attention you would know you are wrong.

And the language you use to refer to the forum is also a disrespectful disgrace.

I thought this would be an interesting subject, but I guess not.

I know I have had discussions with people about pastoral duties and it is surprising what people think are biblical duties for a pastor which are not. They are traditional.

Some are good things to be done, but some are unnecessary burdens upon Pastors.

25 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

I've heard of employers calling their employees "Independent contractors" in order to avoid having to pay stuff like matching FICA and workman's comp insurance.  Never researched it myself because I don't have employees. This should shed some light on what's legal and what ain't. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/independent-contractor-defined

I don't know about over there, but here the ride sharing companies (those that use people with private cars as taxis) and several other companies have been prosecuted for trying to claim that their drivers are contractor to whom they don't have to pay benefits and for whom they don't have to pay taxes.

They were wrong too, and they are not religious, therefore not being religiously persecuted.

6 hours ago, Shoostie said:

It doesn't say you can follow them back.  It says some Jewish families have traditions (like Senator Warren's native American ancestry), which  is far short of your claim.  The article can't even provide one example of any genealogy that can be followed back to Israel. The best genealogy it has, it says was broken in the 1500s, and there's no verification of its credibility, even if it wasn't broken.   The facts don't support your doctrines. 

God made an everlasting covenant, but a covenant is a two-way agreement, which the Jews broke when they rejected Christ, and earlier when they worshiped pagan gods.  If the Jews could not break the covenant, why did God say Israel is not his people and he is not their God?   You won't see my squirm, but I'll see you squirm.

 

 

 

 

Once again you fail to read the Bible. In the first place, not all covenants are two way agreements. See Genesis 15.

Secondly the passage I quoted gives the entirety of this particular covenant and the condition for the Israelites is given in verse 14, and it applies to INDIVIDUALS, not the nation.

Read it. Read it carefully.

You are wrong.

Can you possibly insert a "moderator's statement" at the head of the thread about it not being the view of the board, but a poster who was banned for his unbiblical views?

I think I agree that it should stay - it is part of the history.......

This current guy was one of them I bet. Sounds like Shoostie right down the line.......

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

You should delete it - we don't really want people associating us with that kind of false teaching......

And I noted from the article that "at least one" could follow it back - thank you for confirming that and adding that the number according to that article is actually two.

 Not bad for a nation that you claim doesn't exist at all - you have confirmed that at least 2/12's of that nation still exist, which is enough to prove you are wrong.

If they still exist, the the others also do, and the God I believe in is certainly able to keep track of who is who, and call out 12000 from each tribe, even if He has to identify each and every individual.

The god that you follow is a liar, and is not powerful enough to know who is who.....

I will continue to follow the God of the Bible rather than your weak, counterfeit, lying god.

And you still refuse to do this board the basic courtesy of a proper introduction in the intro section.

And yet it DOES SAY that they can follow back to them - This disproved your assertion. And it was only the first that was listed on my search.

You are the one making the false claim, so you need to prove it, not me.

I have shown verse after verse after verse after verse that proves you are wrong.

THAT is reliable testimony.

I have seen the lists on the walls and seen the monuments standing, and spoken with people who follow their lineage to Benjamin specifically, and I don't remember the others.

But even that is nothing compared to the verse after verse that shows you are wrong.

In response to the verses I listed you simply said they "all agree with me" and refused to respond to EVEN ONE OF THEM. You sidestepped one single verse and answered something irrelevant instead.

Your ENTIRE argument process appears to consist of "I'm right and you're wrong" and you present no evidence but accuse everyone else of having no proof.

You are a troublemaker, and are only here to cause division - but as you will have noticed, as indicated by the number of likes my posts have, you are not causing division among us.

You sir are a wolf, with the single intent of deceiving, and overthrowing the faith of some.

You will fail on this forum.

And this is precisely why you refuse to give this board the basic courtesy of properly introducing yourself - this is what every false teacher has done when they come to this board, and this one action designates you as a false teacher.

How about then you answer the point about Genesis 17?

I know you can't but I want to see you squirm as you try.

And of course you still refuse to introduce yourself, which is just plain basic good manners and well known forum etiquette- but you care nothing for any of that because good manners is not a part of causing dissention, which is you intent.

32 minutes ago, Shoostie said:

You also have no clue what "purely statutory" means.  Not one iota of understanding.

Oh so the dictionary quote is wrong?

So now, the Bible is wrong, my experience is wrong, God is wrong, and the dictionary is wrong, but you are right because you say so.

And you still have not done this board the basic courtesy of introducing yourself properly in the intro section, just the way that every false teacher who has come to this site has refused to do for the past couple of years.

23 minutes ago, Shoostie said:

You still appear completely unaware of the nature of the charges against Hovind, as you can never talk about any of them specifically.  You just throw around vague and unsupported accusations against him, as if you blindly believe the beast that has persecuted him.   What lies did he tell?

I don't agree with you that he deliberately broke the law.  I don't think he knew much about the law before the fact. And, what little he thought he knew, he thought the Constitution was on his side.  

 

 

Unsupported accusations......

You really are unbelievable. He supported everything with official documents.

You have supported nothing (in any discussion on this board by the way), and you whole argument appears to based on "I'm right and you're wrong" and nothing else.

And you still refuse to give this board the basic courtesy of a proper introduction in the intro section, just like every other event false teacher...

1 hour ago, Shoostie said:

All churches are 501c3, filing is irrelevant.   Sell the church, pay off the mortgages.  Those three board members are in control. There is no law about where the money goes, after paying off debts.  The Pastor's wife and son need to move, and they've had nine months to move, so it seems they need a shove, else they need to start paying rent.

 

 

 

Lovely attitude there. What about the church looking after a widow?

What about this grieving woman who has lost her husband who was a faithful servant for who knows how long being looked after.

Your lack of compassion betrays you.

Next matter then.......

(And note that I am not changing because I cannot answer you, I am changing because YOU WILL NOT answer the previous points.)

Genesis 17

 7  And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

 8  And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. note

 9  And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

 10  This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

 11  And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

 12  And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. note

 13  He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

 14  And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

God made an EVERLASTING COVENANT that the lan would be an EVERLASTING POSESSION.

I hope the everlasting life that God promises is not like your idea of an everlasting covenant - one that can be broken and is therefore not actually everlasting.

I hope everlasting life is JUST LIKE God's everlasting promises - IT LASTS FOREVER.....

So then - if it was given as an everlasting covenant then the people MUST still exist or it has failed and WAS NEVER everlasting in the first place.

Explain how it is that your position makes God  liar, but you still think you are right and....... God is wrong?!?!?!?!

And OF COURSE you still have not done this board the basic courtesy of properly introducing yourself in the intro section, which is a glaring commonality with the false teachers who come to this forum to cause trouble.

16 minutes ago, Shoostie said:

He doesn't understand that the charges were purely statutory.  And, he probably doesn't understand what "purely statutory" means.  He condemns Hovind for fighting for religious freedom.  He's only delighted to see a Christian persecuted.  

 

 

Purely statutory......

Oh you mean purely about a law made by government?

Yep it is a pure legal matter. He broke the law, and he paid for it.

In this matter Hovind was not fighting for religious freedom - he was fighting to not pay taxes - it was a money issue plain and simple.

And Alan would not be happy to see any Christian persecuted.

This is the verse that applies to his case:

1Pe 4:15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.

And you still have not done this board the basic courtesy of properly introducing yourself in the intro section, which is the standard practice of false teachers who come here to cause trouble.

Not that I care much because I have seen the monuments and walls with such info, but the very first link I came across was this:

To this day there are Jews who trace their descent from the ancient tribe of priests (kohanim) and levites (leviim) of the Jewish Bible and who still receive special recognition in areas such as the Jewish synagogue service.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › J...
Jewish genealogy - Wikipedia

So at least one tribe still knows, but I was led around Israel by a guy who has traced his lineage to Benjamin, and many - not all, but many Israelies can and do know their tribal heritage.

So then, personal experience, web site support, and that little matter of 46 verses showing that God doesn't agree with you.

This again is pointless, because you refuse to address the EVIDENCE placed before, but somehow think that to counter with "I'm right and you're wrong" is good enough.....

Time to move on to YET ANOTHER section that goes against your false teaching.

And OF COURSE you still have not done this board the basic courtesy of properly introducing yourself in the intro section, which is a glaring commonality with the false teachers who come to this forum to cause trouble.