Samuel, without admitting (or ever apologizing for defending that email), that I did not misrepresent David Green uncritically accepts David’s latest attempt to soften the blow for his fellow hyperpreterists and uncritically re-posts the following:
Yes, Keith Mathison teaches that “the resurrection” discussed by Hymenaeus and Philetus was possibly fulfilled a few years later in AD 70. That’s quite an admission.
David gave page numbers on which he believed Keith made that statement. David was mistaken. Samuel is trying to do everything he can to get out of the morass of lies he has sunk into.
Yes that would be “quite an admission.” Unfortunately for Samuel, Keith Mathison never said that. Whoops. It is David’s admission, which he openly conceded he made and Samuel has yet ANOTHER thing to come clean about, that was “quite an admission.” What about that Samuel? Why not even a little peep? You are the expert right?
Samuel never even bothered to go back and interact with my prior statements either. Neither did David, but David isn’t the one who is going around lying about me.
Samuel why didn’t you bother to even go read the book you should know like the back of your hand by now and check to see if Keith ever said that?
Who is misrepresenting who now? Ready to admit that I didn’t misrepresent David Green?
Now the rest of David’s article is full of weak points, and David didn’t exactly represent what Keith’s meaning was entirely accurately. But that is likely a misunderstanding.
Here is from Mr. Mathison himself:
There’s nowhere in these pages where I say or imply that “the resurrection discussed by Hymenaeus and Philetus was possibly fulfilled a few years later in AD 70.” I don’t even identify what THE resurrection discussed by Hymenaeus and Philetus is, because I’m not 100% sure. All I mentioned was a few possibilities for what those two men might have been talking about. I don’t believe ANY of them could possibly have been fulfilled a few years later in A.D. 70, and I didn’t suggest or imply anything otherwise in those pages of WSTTB.
I know what Samuel/David is going to come back with. I suggest they think twice and read the pages again. Don’t say I didn’t warn you if you do come back with it, and I grab the coyote’s Acme anvil and take it to your statements.
I could name-drop like Samuel and say “my good buddy, old pal, Keith Mathison,” but that would not be true. Keith and I have corresponded for a few years over email, and I would like one day to call him my close friend. I call anyone my friend that I have had extended very friendly communications with. Keith is the kind of guy who will correspond very easily with people who are genuine, not looking for a fight, and don’t waste his time. It isn’t that I am so special.
Keith had given me additional information to explain how David misinterpreted the conclusion of his words. I had written back to Keith that he and I probably disagree on this issue. He wrote back and said that we probably did not and explained further. I do not think Keith and I disagree much, if at all, and I am going to run by him my rebuttal of David before publishing it. I haven’t even written it yet. I keep waiting for “Pastor” Frost to apologize for defending a completely inappropriate email without qualification.
The audience should now that Samuel and many of the hyperpreterists who use the name “Pastor” and the like were “ordained” by another hyperpreterist, not any recognized Church body. I believe that is another disingenuous way that they try to give their words credibility. When a naive Christian sees propaganda signed off upon by all these “ministers” and “pastors,” they are led to believe that this is a legitimate view within historic Christianity, or at least possibly so.
PS: Samuel didn’t link back to David’s original piece either. Guess he doesn’t want to lose that flock of his. David, true to his honesty, posted this at SGP:
Comment by David Green 12 hours ago
For the futurist, it’s not a hypothetical argument. To be faithful to the Scriptures within their erroneous framework, futurists must condemn preterists as damnable heretics, in accordance with 2 Tim. 2:17-18.
And that is ALL I have ever said. Samuel’s pride won’t let him admit in front of his crew that he bumbled this one.
Oh Samuel, and about that email…… how about it “Pastor”?
