Samuel Frost pulling the bait and switch again
Filed Under (hyperpreterism) by dee dee on 04-02-2009
Tagged Under : Samuel Frost
I am posting this so that the circumstances are memoralized. Samuel wrote me regarding a comment at the Theology Today blog in which I said he outright lied in a recent email. He jumped to the conclusion that I was speaking of his role at seminary. I wasn’t. And I never called him a liar in that context. In his emails he accused me of lying about nearly anything and everything, of course, without substantiation, which is quite hypocritical considering his demands.
So if Samuel goes around saying that I said he lied about his role at seminary, he is wrong. I never did any such thing. I did say he lied in a recent email in my post at Theology Today. In fact I offered him an apology over that misunderstanding, which he never even acknowledged, and continued attacks upon my character. It is quite rude to ignore a requested apology when it is given.
Samuel did lie in a recent email. Once he knew what I was talking about as I did tell him the details, he decided to terminate the discussion after giving a “perhaps I meant [such and such]” baloney explanation. I told him precisely what the lie was. If he honestly thought perhaps he meant such and such, which is easily falsifiable, he would have wanted the exact words. His explanation is pure spin.
I expect that Samuel will attempt to spin the facts. If he does, I could care less about his legal disclaimer. If he misrepresents the facts, I will use whatever means I have to prove myself. He can sue me if he likes. If he doesn’t spin the facts, he has nothing to worry about.
In summary: He knows full well I said that he gave the impression that his role was greater at seminary then it actually was. I did not say he lied. I said that was the impression I had, and I gave specific examples why and apologized if I read more into his statements than he intended and urged him to be more careful with his words (which he refused to acknowledge).
The “lie” appeared in a different context, specifically said to be in a recent email. I told him the contents. I told him I had the actual email. He then decided to terminate the conversation.
Keep this in mind if you hear him speak on this subject. If he misrepresents events, I will post whatever emails are necessary. “Legal disclaimers” cannot be used to perpetrate misrepresentations, and I feel confident if he chose to sue me, I would be justified. Since he refuses to acknowledge that one email, I have no idea if he will continue to say I said he lied about his role at seminary. He did in fact lie in a recent email.
Why do you all keep jumping on Sam’s back? It seems you all are obsessed with this guy! I mean, come on now… Is he really that bad?
No he isn’t that bad which is why I call him out. There is hope. Once I showed to him where the lie was he abruptly ended the conversations after making all sorts of attacks upon me. He also refuses to handle another situation that he is aware of.
I remind you, Samuel wrote me. This post is a result of a very accusatory and abrasive email to me.
It concerns me that all you have to say is what you said without any concern whatsoever about an unrepentant lie and the rudeness described. Apparently that’s a-okay with you. It’s not with me.
Samuel is one of the most prominent of a heretical movement. It is quite odd to think he wouldn’t be discussed often on a site dedicated to eradicating that heretical movement.
Now unless you have something of substance to contribute please refrain.
If I’m not privy to the lie or the rudeness… I’m left having concern for an unknown if that makes any sense. As for Sam being one of the most prominent of a herectical movement as you say… could you clarify why it’s herectical? I mean… are we determining this due to a difference of opinion of the written word or is there outright fabrication being put out there by some?
I have a whole website http://www.preteristsite.com dedicated to answering that question. It is
a. Not what this blog post is about
b. Not anything that I am going to argue on a blog
I have written an article on the subject and interacted with Samuel specifically:
http://www.preteristsite.com/warrengrave.html
Now as far as your privity, then you shouldn’t have commented. If you refuse to have an opinion on the allegations, then say nothing. You could easily have qualified your statements as “Taking the above as true for the sake of argument…..”
You did not. You are here to argue about hyperpreterism. That is why I write articles and do podcasts. I do not have the time to go through the same thing over and over.
Now if you have something to speak about on topic, feel free.
Actually, I did stay on topic asper the blog!
I asked about the one you mention. I don’t know him!
I asked you to clarify your comment about this herectical movement.
I said I would have concern for an unknown lie being not privy to it.
You said that I should just take it as truth for the sake of argument. Well, wouldn’t I be assuming something then without any facts and taking sides? I would think I would be out of line there and not very bright to do so!
I simply asked a question… was not commenting on the truth of the matter.
I really don’t know all that much about hyper-preterism, so I can’t argue the matter at this time nor was I!
I believe I have responded to the blog in question, and have not strayed off topic!
Maybe I’m just being misunderstood or missing your point?
Feel free to drop me an email to clear anything up!
Tyler, we appreciate you wanting to educate yourself on the situation. Please take full advantage of all the materials Dee Dee referred you to concerning hyperpreterism, & THEN if you still want to know more about the individual players & their history, we can go from there. Trying to jump in the middle is not helpful to you or any of the parties.
Thanks
Tyler, are you the same Tyler who appears to be posting nearly the same things over at Theology Today? If so, those questions have been answered over there, and Samuel Frost’s name has been mentioned. I would suggest you pay attention to what was said there.
Actually no you didn’t. You went off on a judgment call on a person you admit you know nothing of on a subject you admit you know little of. This is not a beginner’s blog. I would suggest you visit the materials I recommended and learn a bit about a subject matter before jumping in. I would give you that advice anywhere.
Yet you knew enough to make an accusation that we all are jumping on Samuel. How can you possibly know that or be that interested in that to actually make a comment if you don’t know Samuel. Sorry Tyler but that doesn’t pass the sniff test.
The exact same question you asked over at Theology Today in which there was extensive hyperpreterist discussion. Even Wikipedia explains this. You can’t everyone to drop everything for you when you haven’t even done the basic research. I am not here to spoon-feed you. I have written on this extensively.
Since you claim to be not privy to anything at all that this post discusses I wonder why you felt the need to post and have this background information about our posting on a person you claim not to know.
That is full of logical fallacies. It isn’t taking sides if you say what your position would be IF the above were true. Why are you so timid about this when you had no problem posting about us alleging jumping all over Samuel (a person you claim not to know) so much. Seems you are not so impartial or uninvolved as you trying to appear.
A off-topic question that could have been answered if you took the effort instead of expecting me to do it for you. It isn’t as if I haven’t written on the subject. Google would have informed you of that quite readily.
If you are the same Tyler as the one at Theology Today, you would have already been told a great deal. How did you end up at this blog anyway?
As the author of the article, I think I am the best judge of that.
No I think you just jumped into something with an accusation about a person and belief that claim to have little to no little knowledge of.
Go read some of the source material and get a moderate level of understanding. This blog is not written for beginners nor those who expect anyone to regurgitate ten thousand times things that have been in print for years. So how did you find this blog anyways?
Tyler, I have been doing this for over a decade, and my instincts are right 99% of the time, and my instincts tell me you are not being entirely upfront. You may be one of those 1% of cases that I am wrong, but I doubt it. I have seen and played every game.
[...] deal with Samuel as he decided that he was going to misrepresent our private conversation publicly. I had gone back and forth previously as to whether I was going to publicly expose something that I h…. His recent unbecoming boastful behaviour solidified my [...]
[...] Samuel lied about a previous email conversation we had in which he went off completely half-baked an… [...]