I am not appealing to emotion, I speak my mind, meaning that I have not listed all my friends to try and prove a point.
Irrelevant, as you just gave an appeal to emotion the moment you claimed you speak your mind or try a false claim that only others list all their friends. It's a bad argument, seeing that noting others who've addressed an issue is a matter of saying "Get over it and stop wasting people's times with questions people covered" - I wouldn't need others to deal with the questions you did since I already did that alone....and the fact that others did so as well is more testament that it is a matter of addressing bad teaching you were promoting.
Period.
You are the one who does not respond, just dealing with you is you looking up threads, quoting other people, trying to show that other people agree with you and you must be right as if I have no right to even challenge you, because of course, we have been over everything and you found yourself proven.,
Quaint - but again, it's distracting from the issue rather than dealing with scripture as it is (SEEING that the references are to where scripture was already covered when you did the same antics and I addressed them in-depth - and I don't care to do so twice since that's foolish).
When you deal with scripture accurately, then you can offer a real challenge worth my attention. Till then, it's the same thing you see over in the Eschatology forums with anything being brought up and people expected to jump on that - no one says another can't have an opinion....but people don't have to entertain that (or any other accusations) when it's plain one cannot back their own challenge up or be in line with it if checked.
As said before, there has already been enough avoiding going on (a
s well as admitting one doesn't read fully anyhow - showing one doesn't get all the facts before speaking anyhow) - and it's no problem responding directly since the questions are not accurate nor anything except loaded seeing how they were already dealt with - again, you already noted you don't read fully (Proverbs 19:2), so I don't expect you to deal with scripture on the matter for what it is.
Asking questions without first showing their questions valid is bad argumentation. The same goes for asking questions but only addressing what one likes....or asking for scripture, having it given...then avoiding it but demanding for scripture to be dealt with, only to attempt to resorting to the argument of "Well, you're just referencing as if it's proven!!!" when the bottom line is you never squared with scripture.
I'm smiling cause I like you, I call you Cotton picker with a smile,
Hannibal -
"Cotton Picker" is a term they called black people working in the fields...a racist slur to represent a black person, or person of African heritage. Cottonpicker has served as a derogatory term for a black person since at least 1930. While cottonpicker has distinct racist overtones, the adjective cotton-picking does not carry them, instead being a reference to the unpleasant nature of the work.
Growing in the South (with both black and white friends) - many who had sharecroppers in their background - it is NOT a term ever to smile about with others, especially when there's sharp disagreement in issues and one already doesn't have real connection with others. It is not a term we use to show endearment, respect or consideration for others - and we don't use to smile at one another or say "Hey, I like you" ...as it is, we're NOT friends due to the lack of graciousness when it comes to addressing questions others give you, accusing others of things they don't hold to, refusing to leave others alone after they've already noted they disagreed with you/moved on and not being willing to deal factually with what people say with the caricatures. But to use the term "Cotton Picker" ....no, Bruh.
Seriously, one would hope someone wouldn't be ignorant on that very significant fact when it comes to interaction but many times that isn't the case. And if one uses the term knowing what it means, then that's a reflection on how they really feel on the matter (as there have been PLENTY within camps such as
British Israelism/
here/
here and certain Two-House camps that tend to look down on others who are either Black, Native American or others) - but using "Cotton Picker" is not appropriate ....bad enough as that is since it's on the same level as the "N" word...and it doesn't really matter who you like when those basics in respect are not present. Black people will never take the term lightly - and with good reason when seeing what people went through.
Since you brought it up (twice now) and
I have been more than plain on my background from the West Indies/Black Culture (
here,
here,
here and
here ), it's hard not to say that it is more than evident where one already stands on certain issues ..
That said, I'd suggest you please cease using the term - it is demeaning. And if you keep using it, it is more indication on why NOT to interact with you.
but there isn't a chance that I am somehow going to cave into all that you believe.
Hannibal,
Respectfully...as said before, I really couldn't care less what you believe - or whatever your goal is trying to get me to buy into things you cannot prove to me from scripture nor get others to agree with you on when it's not what's really validated throughout most of the Messianic Jewish movement. You're more than free to have whatever views you wish - but it does come off a bit overly-fixated on people when you feel you have to zero in on it in order to make them agree with you. And having others insistent on the matter is not a new dynamic since the same has occurred before Biblically (II Timothy 2).
You don't have a monopoly, just because it is you and your friends doesn't mean your right.
None assume they have a monopoly. Moreover, no one cares for arguments said that said "Well, you think you're right because of your many friends!!! - as no one even said that. That's
Argumentum ad Populum. It doesn't take several to address an issue where you may be off scripture wise - I've already done that multiple times. However, when others have done the same thing as well, it is wise for the lurker to have reference in the event the same questions/antics come up claiming that an issue was never dealt with before so that they can see for themselves where others addressed people individually - and then more joined in on multiple occassions to see more of the same. It's about seeing patterns/ taking note of what not to get involved in.
What is of note is where others don't deal with scripture - and you've already shown that to be the case rather directly....so it really doesn't matter whatever rabbit trail or ad-hominem you wish to bring up on the issue.
As said before, If one wishes to view otherwise, by all means - I really don't care whatever views you had. For you chose to come after me in something I said in agreement with Marc on an issue.....and have been focusing on it even after I said it doesn't deal with the OP issue nor is it a matter of being respectful if accusing me of things I don't hold to and claiming I never mentioned whatever it is you wish to claim. If you want to do that, it's your choice ...but it's and nothing based fully in scripture or Christ....and this was already covered and one choosing to speak past that already goes into speak with lack of facts or concern for what others already said. This was already covered earlier in
#141 and
#138 or
#123..Gentiles were never shown to be Levites - that role was specifically given to the Levites (as there are other roles similar to it and that go above it - but being a Levite isn't what God ever said of Gentiles) - Brother James Pyles did an excellent presentation on the matter before that the common lurker may find beneficial - as seen in
Who is a Priest? Kohein Levi - Congregation Shema Yisrael
I repeat:
for the sake of the common lurker wanting to see where each and every question has been asked (in addition to follow up paragraphs/pages by the poster when the answer wasn't what they wanted to hear ON EACH and EVERY scripture brought up), one can go to the following references ...for as said before
here in
#48, Others - as before - already spoke in-depth on the issue which the common lurker can go back/see for reference rather than bringing up the entirety of postings others made on the matter before (as discussed IN
here,
here,
here,
here,
here ...#
122 as a basic ..and others such as
#180 and #
146 /#
154). It is nothing new - and others have consistently/repeatedly dealt with each and every prophecy brought up by yourself whenever you wanted to make it an issue. I already noted how Israel was always multifaceted and that Gentiles were included a part of Israel in various ways ...for
I already noted that plainly as did others - pat34lee, in example, received a lot of hassle over it due and I and others defended him on the issue...f
rom the thread entitled
Identity Chrisis: Slander..and
other places being
Who is a Jew? From our older son or
here/elsewhere....)....
Others (myself included) already addressed the way the Messiah reached out to Gentiles and NEVER expected them at any point to become one of the tribes of Israel - nor said that was a standard. This has been shared directly in
#163 with you before - and the same thing goes for the ways the Levitical Priesthood evolved (which was already discussed with you before in
#72 /
#73 or
here in
#60 when
speaking on priests - what Christ did by going outside of the Levitical priesthood to establish His own priesthood of which all Hebrews and Gentiles could be a part of....more shared in
#258 )
You threaten to ignore me, you post everything like a computer talking to somebody.
I am right here.
Another pointless ad-hominem, as if how you emotionally feel on how others talk has anything remotely to do with either addressing scripture or the point. If I talk apparently like a computer, okay - that really is irrelevant, as we're online and others responding point-for-point or comprehensively isn't the same as a computer anyhow. No one was clueless, moreover, as to how you're right here since you're on the OTHER SIDE OF THE SCREEN since we're online ..
To even bring up the points you did is why you're generally on ignore to begin with - for when not able to deal with scripture, having to resort to name-calling is all one can bring up..and one can do better than that.
Maybe I have bad recall, but I don't remember these things ever being settled.
I only remember that you have an opinion and I have mine.
So I will keep replying and hope you do the same.
Of course, as said before, one can do whatever they wish. I am done with responding to questions that were already answered and you refused to address them when you asked the same questions before - and as said before, it's a derailment of the thread to continue on the matter anyhow if wishing to keep bringing it up. Issues were addressed - and to avoid that shows (IMHO) one only remembers what they wish - with opinion not based on Yeshua or the Apostles and yet still demanding others to take them seriously.
As said before, for the sake of the lurker, it's not a problem responding to where the issues have been addressed you attempted - and if you want to keep replying, no one said you couldn't. What was noted was that it is a DERAIL of the thread and avoiding of the OP issue or what Brother Marc said ....as well as an inability to focus in on what others have actually said.
If one wants validation, one simply needs to say so rather than responding in indication that one is unable to not be fixated with where another disagrees. It is what it is...
, I will say, as a Sioux(Lakota)-Jew, the 'Cotton Picker' name calling is to my perception clearly racist and notable.
