The Preterist Blog ~ 100% Hyperpreterist Free|we can haz rezurekshun?

In order to have the appropriate full background for this post, it is necessary to read Roderick’s prior post on this matter. Since Roderick’s posting, the lies have only spread and the web grown more tangled.

Brief Background History

For a very thorough background of the history, it is vitally necessary that you listen to Episode 20 of The Preterist Podcast. The short summary is that for years, certain hyperpreterists had been harassing me in a completely inappropriately personal fashion. I don’t claim innocence of not being more antagonistic at times than I should be, but never have I crossed a line into someone’s life that is borderline criminal or simply creepily personal. Over the years I have matured to the point where most of the time I am precisely as antagonistic as I intend to be. However, in the past, and at some times in the present, my tongue is sharper than it should be. That is fully admitted.

Even hyperpreterists not involved with the harassment are for the most part very aware of it. The three men in question definitely are. The actions that follow MUST be taken in the context of this knowledge. The current incident simply isn’t a one-off indiscretion which makes the subsequent follow-up even more egregious.

So who are the three blind men? Michael Bennett, Jason Bradfield (KingNeb as I usually know him by), and Samuel Frost. I include Samuel last and will discuss him last because out of the three, I don’t believe he acts with genuine malice but is hindered with an inability at this point in time to confront sin in his companions and a habit of careless boasts.

After years of living in the shadow of past harassment and threats to get my picture and post it without my consent, I made a decision that things in my life are going to be under my control (when it comes to human affairs, obviously God may have His own plans), and I will not be pushed around by misogynistic bullies. So I had a game plan of overcoming that mind-manipulation of people like that as well as finally fulfilling other goals I had including shedding the bondage of some fears, such as a fear of flying. One thing I decided is that it was inevitable that a hyperpreterist goon would get my picture some day, and I simply would not give them that satisfaction. So at time of victory (I actually got on a plane and flew to California to attend Macworld), I posted my one picture. Within mere hours of my posting the picture, Michael Bennett sends around an email to some of his SGP friends and Roderick Edwards who most definitely is NOT his friend (that point is important) with a side by side layout of my picture and a depiction of the Whore of Babylon. Nice eh? When called on the utter inappropriateness of this action, damage control went into high gear at SGP.

A man named Phil posted an open letter at SGP for Michael to repent or be rebuked by his peers. That post was deleted, and Phil was mocked and maligned. Soon thereafter, a damage control email was sent to SGP members by Jason Bradfield. Roderick dealt with that email in the post linked above, but since that time, Jason has attempted to engage in further damage control by deciding to post an alleged answer to Roderick’s concerns publicly for SGP mockery comments. Not one SGP member dealt thoughtfully with the issues but engaged in a sickening mockfest. How can one blame them when the leaders are corrupt? Reality check people: sometimes people you agree with are wrong, and people you don’t like are right.

Since Jason decided that he was going to continue to lie like a rug, I am also going to deal with his bold-faced dishonesty. After that, I will deal with Michael’s that followed afterwards. Last of all, I will 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 had already confronted Samuel with in private, after which he broke off contact. His recent unbecoming boastful behaviour solidified my decision.

Jason Bradfield

I will now deal with pertinent sections of Jason’s lie-mail. For the full text please see Roderick’s post.

A message to all members of Sovereign Grace Preterism

In keeping with policy, i did not want to post this on the site, but i do feel a need to clarify something, especially considering the fact that many of you have contacted me asking what is going on about “the email.”

Dee posted a pic of herself on her site. She’s sitting on a sign with hair weaves and a leopard skin outfit (shoes and coat).

Notice the complete lack of context omitted by Jason and mischaracterization. First, I am not simply sitting on a sign. I am sitting on a landmark that is famous to Apple fans; the 1 Infinite Loop sign at the Apple campus in Cupertino California. Why is that important? It is a fun vacation tourist picture. Second, what kind of image does “leopard skin outfit” bring to your mind?

When Mike Bennett saw it, it reminded him of a drawing he had seen elsewhere of a woman sitting on a beast, crazy outfit, etc.

Yeah signs look like beasts to me. Not. And yeah, there are drawings everywhere of a woman on sitting on a beast that contain no specific context. Not. How stupid does Jason think SGP members are?

You might be thinking, well okay, so he spun it, but where’s the lie? Oh it’s coming. In spades.

Mike took the two pics, posted them side by side with no comments, and emailed it. (emphasis mine)

LIAR. Here is Michael’s email as best as it can be reproduced here.

On Sun, 1/11/09, Michael Bennett wrote:
From: Michael Bennett
Subject: Preterist Idealism - found to be right !!!
To: “Michael Bennett”
Date: Sunday, January 11, 2009, 9:34 AM

Sorry - couldn’t resist =)

Seems to me and any other honest person that “Preterist Idealism - found to be right!!!” and “Sorry - couldn’t resist =)” are in fact commentary. In fact, I ask SGP members to read the subject line and see if they can honestly say that Michael really had no clue what the picture was and didn’t mean it to be inferred that he was comparing me to the Whore of Babylon. What, pray tell, does the subject line comment mean? What does “preterist idealism” (which finds ongoing fulfillment throughout history) have to do with simply comparing pictures of “two crazy ladies?”

Also SGP members that wish to have to deal with the truth, please note the writing on the bottom of the image:

Revelation Illustrated, and Michael didn’t have any idea of what the image was and had no intention of making a comparison between me and the Whore of Babylon. I mean really, “preterist idealism - found to be right!!” goes perfectly with these images of women on multi-headed beasts that are everywhere that have nothing to do with the Bible, right? Be honest with yourselves people.

Now, when i first saw the email, i chuckled a little and deleted it. That was that. I did not know exactly what Mike intended for me to get out of it, other than a comparison of two crazy ladies. That’s where my “clarkianism” kicks in. What all can i infer from two pics? I would argue not much of anything.

Well Jason then you are a blockhead. Michael told you precisely what he intended for it to mean in the subject line: preterist idealism - found to be right!!!! And you suck at being a clarksian. I mean really, you can infer nothing from the following:

• Preterist Idealism - Found to be Right!!!
• A image which bears credit to Revelation Illustrated
• A multi-headed beast

Do you really expect anyone to believe you are that stupid? You are either stupid or a liar. I can’t wait to hear your spin on what you have ignored so far. Precisely why did Michael send it to Roderick? Tick, tock.

Michael Bennett

Now Michael in an email to Phil was at least a tiny bit more honest than Jason.

B) The pic was a joke because of the way Dee Dee was posed and dressed. It read in the title and had NO OTHER COMMENT. “Todd Dennis was right Preterist Idealism is true - re-fulfillment” then it said sorry couldn’t resist. The WHOLE point was she was seated in a similar way and she had on a leopard skin outfit and a hair weave and was seated in a similar way.

He admits that he DID know that in some way the pic was a “refulfillment” of which the image portrayed but tries to claim that it was because:

1. I was seated in a similar way

LIAR. Go look at the two pictures. Was the Whore riding sidesaddle (it is difficult to tell, she may be)? Am I holding my arm up high and showing off my bare leg? Basically anyone sitting on anything could resemble that “pose.”

2. I had on a leopard skin outfit and a hair weave

LIAR. Again, I did not have on a leopard skin outfit. The Whore is not wearing any animal print but flowing robes of purple. But then again whores wear leopard print outfits, so it doesn’t matter, right? Does the Whore have a hair weave? I sure hope Michael doesn’t try that crap with a black chick implying that there is something whorish or crazy about having woven braids.

And the title of the email to Phil was along the lines of “Rebuke - LOL!” Is that anyway to respond to a rebuke even if you think you are right? Can any Christian imagine writing that to their pastor who had a concern?

Now Michael is in the Pacific Time Zone, and Roderick is in the Eastern DST time zone. I don’t know if the time stamp on Michael’s email is his time or Roderick’s time. If it is Roderick’s time, that means Michael sent it out at 6:34 am. I made my post at about 3 am. That means at most eight hours passed between my post, and Michael’s “couldn’t resist.” I doubt he pulls all-nighters like I do on the weekends, so this seems like the first thing he did that morning. Nice. But it gets better folks because you can’t see this in isolation. Back when all of my personal information was being posted, Michael specifically threatened to post my picture being well aware that I absolutely did not want any picture to be posted.

In response to that Michael emailed Roderick the following:

I have no idea what she is talking about. She must have me mixed up with someone (as usual - she seems to do this alot). Or she is flat out lying. Either way - You have been duped Roderick.

LIAR. First, where as usual do I have people mixed up? Oh, you made that up. Gotcha. Recently I had TheProphetWhiteBoy mixed up with Brad_Religion. That hardly qualifies as “as usual” and “alot.” And what did I do when I discovered the error? Something Michael would NEVER do. I publicly apologized to TheProphetWhiteBoy.

Now Michael is banking on the fact that I no longer had the email. In fact I thought I did not. Back around that time I suffered a catastrophic hard drive failure and lost a great deal of data. But as it turns out, I DO have at least a fragment of that conversation which was saved in my gmail account. It didn’t occur to me until a few days ago that I had a different email address back then which I haven’t used in years. It was preteristlist@gmail.com as that was previously the name of my site which I had to change due to the harassment. So I went to that account and lookee at what I found.

Let me give the history of this exchange. Michael consistently spams people with garishly coloured proof-texting emails. He did that with me. I told him in no uncertain terms to stop writing me. Now look below, I am leaving in the parts that are pertinent to this post. I have deleted his rambling proof-texting. As you can see, this copy is a forward to my theologyweb account because that is what I did with my old emails when I abandoned that account. However all those theologyweb emails were lost with my hard drive. But this is enough to prove Michael a liar. I had previously thought a fragment was missing; in re-reading the exchange there is nothing missing; his threat is right there. You have to read from bottom to top for it to make sense. Gmail is like that. (emphasis mine)

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Michael Bennett
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:14:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Dee Dee Come Out And Play
To: Dee Dee Warren

“Read my lips again, don’t write me”

Is that literal or spiritual?

By the way - in James 5 you know wth all the time texts…doesn’t it say that the harvest would occur…with all the time texts - LOL

If you write me back I am gonna write back Dee Dee.

Dee Dee Warren wrote:

Dude, they have meds for uncontrollable compulsions. You really should try them. They might work wonders for your inability to stop emailing someone who told you multiple times not to, and said so right in the beginning.

Read my lips again, don’t write me. You were told by my instrucctions
not to write me in the first place.

Dee Dee Warren wrote:

That’s nice - have fun - maybe in the meantime you can figure out how not to write someone who asked not to - I pity the girl who turns you down for a date

Make sure you show my good side, it is the one that does not have the warts and the goiter

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:53:01 -0800 (PST), Michael Bennett wrote:

Don’t worry - your ugly picture and non answers will be onmy website too. LOL

Who’s lying now Michael? Let me take a guess. YOU. You have been a harassing thug from the beginning, and you haven’t stopped. Turns out that I didn’t “as usual” mix you up with someone else which I allegedly do “alot.” That is what is called a mouth-shutter Michael.

It is irrelevant if Michael didn’t intend to directly call me an actual whore. You don’t take a picture of a man’s wife and compare her to a picture of the Whore of Babylon, as if saying I looked like her (a Whore) is any better. Okay, so Michael is not saying I AM a whore, I just look like one. Yeah, that’s much better. And Jason lied about there being no overt inference to be drawn from the email. Michael admitted he knew it was the Whore of Babylon. Didn’t Michael tell Jason this in that little phone chat that Jason says they had?

Samuel Frost

Samuel is a world-class dancer. He directly contradicted Jason by stating:

The coward who shared a private e-mail to SGP members is also a fraud..

Samuel, please do pay attention. Jason said:

Do they really think i’m that stupid to think that a message to all members would remain “private”? There’s nothing “private” about it.

Exaggerating once again Samuel? That is a habit with you. Samuel also said (I deleted the name of a person who does not wish to be involved in this nonsense):

I contacted Dee Dee the other day through the wishes of *****. That even got blown out of proportion (as usual). After that, I doubt I will ever do that again…it was a good faith effort to no avail (as I told ***** it would be).

LIAR. You wrote me half-baked assuming that I said something I didn’t. The details are outlined here.

Even though you were completely wrong in your assumptions, here is my email to you which you refused to acknowledge. So any honest SGP members, read this email and see if it rings true to Samuel’s claim.

Samuel, upon further consideration, I wrote directly to **** since you stated in your email that he was waiting for a response [DDW addition for this post: that wasn't true, no one else was waiting for a response]. I gave him a response, and if you had read my words carefully, you would see it had absolutely nothing to do with what you asked. If you wish to communicate with me, then you will remove the threat “these emails are being saved” and the ridiculous disclaimer at the bottom of your emails. I don’t communicate with people who do that for no good reason, and their yes isn’t yes, and their no isn’t no. If you cannot do that, please do not write me again. I don’t deal with people on those terms. You have your terms for email, I have mine. And since this is my email, and I place no such disclaimer on it, I am cc’ing **** on it. I do wish to let you know you jumped to conclusions. My reference had nothing to do with my previous mistaken belief that you taught a course on Hebrew. I have explicitly stated that belief multiple times publicly, yet you never once corrected me personally. Now, it is possible that you missed those statements. I miss statements made by others all the time. If you did see them, and did not correct me, there is an example of where you let me continue in that mistaken belief. However, as I told *****, I don’t save links or conversation trails. If you say you never made such a claim, and since I don’t have any links other than my word (which ****** can accept or reject), I recognize that misunderstandings easily happen, and I could have misunderstood you. If you claim you never made any such explicit statements, I am willing to take you at your word. I already publicly posted last week that my prior impression was wrong. However, that isn’t what I was referring to at Phil’s blog. You assumed I was. If you had read my words carefully (again, see how misunderstandings happen?), it would have been obvious that is not what I was referring to.

Now if you wish an apology for a misunderstanding on my part, I can easily give you one. However, if there was a misunderstanding (and I am going to take as true that there was since I am willing to take you at your word), then I absolutely apologize for any part I had in the misunderstanding, be it failure to read carefully, or reading more into something more than was intended. My misunderstanding however was also in completely good faith. I had absolutely believed you had made such statements, so I cannot apologize for my prior belief as I held it in good faith. But since you have said you have never done so, obviously I can apologize for any misunderstanding, and I must have misread or misinterpreted something inadvertently. I have sent to ***** some statements you made in which you give mixed signals. I am not responsible for your behaviour, but I do, and I do this with all due respect, ask you to consider if the way you word things easily leads others to that belief along with the fact that you name-drop ******* regularly, in a way I believe is intended to cloak your heretical beliefs with an indicia of credibility. That has been well-documented and sourced. In fact, I would encourage you to make a public explicit post about that so that any misunderstandings that other people may have are completely clear. I would reproduce such a statement on my blog so that my readers, who may not have seen my prior comment that my understanding was wrong, will also be clear on this point.

Now, I consider all emails to be private to the parties they are written to unless it is necessary to disclose them to prove a lie or some other grievous sin. I don’t need a disclaimer for that. I hold everyone to that standard. If you want to have a discussion on a particular point, I suggest you write me with less aggression. Another hyperpreterist recently wanted to clarify something, and we had many genial emails as there was misunderstanding on both parts. The Internet is a breeding ground for good-faith misunderstandings. No one threatened each other with “I am saving these emails” or legal mumbo jumbo. It is unnecessary.

Also, please do not write me back if you are not willing to have ***** see your responses. Whenever there is a conflict with a male, and issues of propriety come up, I nearly always ask another male to observe the conversation. I believe this email to you was polite, apologized where appropriate, and explained that situation. But then again, that is not what I was referring to on Phil’s blog whatsoever. I rather think you should apologize yourself for jumping to the conclusion that it was and the abrasive tone of your email which was supposedly to seek an apology. That is not the way to go about it and most often will just antagonize the person that you wish an apology from.

Now as far as what I am referring to in Phil’s blog, if you can write me in accordance with the above, I will tell you. I really don’t think you want to go there however.

Does that sound like it was to no avail? I told Samuel his conclusions were wrong, told him that I would take him at his word, and apologized for any wrong conclusions I might have drawn on statements he made. Samuel is lying.

So Samuel and I finally go to where he asked me what I was then referring to. I wrote Samuel and said:

I don’t have the email with me here, but I can give you the gist of it. Did you not represent to Jason Bradfield that ***** was basically “having none of it” when it came to his discussions with me? I think I may even have given an exact quote. That is an absolutely false depiction of the state of communications between myself and *****, of which you have no knowledge as there were done in the strictest of privacy, and as evidenced by our recent call.

Here is the pertinent portion of Samuel’s damage control response:

As per Jason, not really sure what you mean. **** does not want to get into the middle of our spouts, true. That may have been what I meant.

Well dear reader, the person who didn’t want to be in the middle only said that THAT DAY. That was not the case at the time of the email to Jason in which Samuel lied. After he knew I had him caught dead, he said to not write back. Unlike Michael, I don’t write people who ask me not to.

So here is the pertinent portion of Samuel’s lying email to Jason:

“By the way, DDW is e-mailing ******* …he ain’t budging….”.

Now does that mesh with the excuse that Samuel gave above? That statement is a complete misrepresentation of my discussions with that other party. That kind of careless boasting is what gets Samuel in trouble.

Now spineless Samuel won’t rebuke the blatant lies of Michael and Jason yet has the nerve to call a person who shared an email that was not intended (per Jason) to be private in order to expose a lie - soul-less.

Wow. Samuel sure talks tough when it isn’t his own. Sorry Samuel, learn basic ethics. One cannot hide behind “privacy” to perpetrate a lie. One cannot hide behind a legal email disclaimer to perpetrate a lie. A person aware of such things is under an ethical obligation to share it. You all got caught, and you don’t like it.

Cultish Mentality

From the comments on Jason’s self-serving post:

I stand by Jason’s decision as site admin. I also agree with David, complete ignorance is the only solution.

Only if you don’t care to examine the evidence.

Preterism is an inseparable part of the Gospel and its truth is marching on!

So much for it being a non-essential.