I would like to discuss 'The Plot' with Bob

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Oh please. It's not like we aren't all very busy. We make time for things that matter. The doctrine to the Church, the BoC, matters to some. I've responded in the past in his BEL forum and didn't get replies.
:doh:

Stop making excuses for a grown man. Bob's not a little kid that needs you to speak for him. He can and should speak for himself.
The only acting as though an adult were a child is you throwing this tantrum.

He should make time to discuss The Plot with those who have questions or concerns about some of the doctrine or terms he uses therein. It seems reasonable.
If you want to talk to Bob about such things then call him. It's not that hard.

I don't understand why you have a hard time grasping the concept that Bob doesn't visit TOL very often, and that if you want to reach him it is best to reach out to where you can actually find him on a regular basis, instead of a website that he barely visits.
 

heir

TOL Subscriber
:doh:


The only acting as though an adult were a child is you throwing this tantrum.
I'm not throwing a tantrum. I posted in a brother's thread stating what a bummer it is that the thread didn't go anywhere, my disappointment in the reply from Bob and that he never returned to discuss what was brought up. I also showed appreciation for STP as the good teacher that he is.

I don't understand why you have a hard time grasping the concept that Bob doesn't visit TOL very often, and that if you want to reach him it is best to reach out to where you can actually find him on a regular basis, instead of a website that he barely visits.
This is a website that promotes The Plot whether officially or by members of TOL. It is brought up and discussed by others in threads; some pro, some con. It's unfortunate that Bob doesn't take the opportunities for fruitful discussions on TOL concerning The Plot that we might all speak the same thing. That is what the apostle Paul beseeches us to do (1 Corinthians 1:10 KJV).


Sorry, STP.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
I'm not throwing a tantrum. I posted in a brother's thread stating what a bummer it is that the thread didn't go anywhere, my disappointment in the reply from Bob and that he never returned to discuss what was brought up. I also showed appreciation for STP as the good teacher that he is.
You posted in a five year old thread that was dead, just to complain about something that happened, or didn't happen, in January 2009.

This is a website that promotes The Plot whether officially or by members of TOL. It is brought up and discussed by others in threads; some pro, some con. It's unfortunate that Bob doesn't take the opportunities for fruitful discussions on TOL concerning The Plot that we might all speak the same thing. That is what the apostle Paul beseeches us to do (1 Corinthians 1:10 KJV).
This is not Bob's website, it is a website run by someone who happens to be a member of the fellowship of believers over which Bob presides as pastor. Bob will take every opportunity to discuss these things with people who reach out to him somewhere he can actually be reached on a regular basis. He doesn't take the time to come to TOL all that often, and he doesn't search through the threads to see if someone just happened to ask him a question on here, as this is not an official channel to reach him.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Oh please. It's not like we aren't all very busy. We make time for things that matter. The doctrine to the Church, the BoC, matters to some. I've responded in the past in his BEL forum and didn't get replies for posts directed to him. I recall they were pretty important topics too: the gospel, the alleged "grafting in"...no reply.
Uh.... with all due respect I think that is a bit unfair.

Unlike the rest of us Bob has 100's of folks asking for his time on a daily basis. I think it was really nice of him to put forth such a interesting and extensive response to STPs question.

Had Bob answered my question... I would have at least thanked him for his time and effort. :idunno:

Furthermore... Bob has his own platform in a daily radio show. Seems to me if one wanted a question answered from Bob they would consider calling his show and having a discussion.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Sorry STP... I wasn't referring to your response at all. I was referring to the tone of heir's comments. I should have made that more clear.
 
Last edited:

intojoy

BANNED
Banned
First, Israel was never cut off. Next the olive tree does not represent Israel, it represents the place of spiritual blessing.

Most importantly the missing link in Bob's understanding (I think) is the importance of the unpardonable sin. Exactly what happens in Mathew 12 is imperative in understanding the whole counsel if God's word because it is a turning point in the bible. I realize this could be taken as a harsh criticism but we aught to determine the truth of scripture even if it goes against what some good bible teachers think and teach from how they might understand it.


Posted from the TOL App!
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
First, Israel was never cut off. Next the olive tree does not represent Israel,

Jer 11
16 The Lord called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.

17 For the Lord of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger in offering incense unto Baal.
 

heir

TOL Subscriber
Jer 11
16 The Lord called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.

17 For the Lord of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger in offering incense unto Baal.
I had a "pastor" tell me a while back on fb that the olive tree was God and we had a discussion about it. He ended up unfriending me and didn't even say hi to me in Chatty because of it.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
I had a "pastor" tell me a while back on fb that the olive tree was God and we had a discussion about it. He ended up unfriending me and didn't even say hi to me in Chatty because of it.

:jawdrop:

Lots of ideas about the olive tree, but God tells us who it is!
 

heir

TOL Subscriber
This is not Bob's website, it is a website run by someone who happens to be a member of the fellowship of believers over which Bob presides as pastor. Bob will take every opportunity to discuss these things with people who reach out to him somewhere he can actually be reached on a regular basis. He doesn't take the time to come to TOL all that often, and he doesn't search through the threads to see if someone just happened to ask him a question on here, as this is not an official channel to reach him.
Yes, but he had already replied to this particular thread and knew that STP would like to discuss some things (listed) with him when he had time. It would have been nice if it would have materialized into something more. We could have all gained from it.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Bob's been in the house recently!

Last Activity: February 3rd, 2014 04:09 PM
And was this thread on the front page when he was here?

Uh.... with all due respect I think that is a bit unfair.

Unlike the rest of us Bob has 100's of folks asking for his time on a daily basis. I think it was really nice of him to put forth such a interesting and extensive response to STPs question.

Had Bob answered my question... I would have at least thanked him for his time and effort. :idunno:

Furthermore... Bob has his own platform in a daily radio show. Seems to me if one wanted a question answered from Bob they would consider calling his show and having a discussion.
This is what I've been trying to tell her.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Yes, but he had already replied to this particular thread and knew that STP would like to discuss some things (listed) with him when he had time. It would have been nice if it would have materialized into something more. We could have all gained from it.
And the next time he visited this thread was already dead, as the last post made was the same day, or the day after, Bob posted. If Bob did not recall the thread, which is almost certain, then he would not think to look for it and as it was not on the front page he would not see it, and therefore would not post again, as it was not on his mind, by reason of its absence.
 

heir

TOL Subscriber
Uh.... with all due respect I think that is a bit unfair.

Unlike the rest of us Bob has 100's of folks asking for his time on a daily basis. I think it was really nice of him to put forth such a interesting and extensive response to STPs question.
...

Had Bob answered my question... I would have at least thanked him for his time and effort. :idunno:
STP thanked Bob for his time. Bob never answered the question. His own words... "I realize I haven't answered your question."

Furthermore... Bob has his own platform in a daily radio show. Seems to me if one wanted a question answered from Bob they would consider calling his show and having a discussion.
Bob used to come to this website. I'm sure when STP started this thread in the BEL forum, he assumed on some level or had some hope that Bob would see the thread and reply. Bob did, didn't answer the question of what he did reply to and decided for whatever reason never to return to the thread. That's how I read it. It's too bad. I know we would have learned much from the discussion. That's why it's a bummer it never took off.
 

heir

TOL Subscriber
And the next time he visited this thread was already dead, as the last post made was the same day, or the day after, Bob posted. If Bob did not recall the thread, which is almost certain, then he would not think to look for it and as it was not on the front page he would not see it, and therefore would not post again, as it was not on his mind, by reason of its absence.
bookmark/favorite doesn't require much effort


I've said what I'm going to say to you, LH. I'm much more interested in the doctrine that can be discussed here.

later
 

intojoy

BANNED
Banned
Jer 11

16 The Lord called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.



17 For the Lord of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger in offering incense unto Baal.


Ok
I see your connection.

The most important issue tho?

Unpardonable sin. Is that missing from your studies brother? It was missing from Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel where I attend (a Hawaii branch), it's missing from billy Grahm. Many are using guess work that does not fully explain why Yeshua dramatically changed direction in three major areas of His ministry.

1. Proclamation

2. Miracles

3. From plain teaching to parabolic form with the specific intent being to keep the nation from understanding.



Posted from the TOL App!
 

heir

TOL Subscriber
The Great Commission

Bob states on page 23 that a plot twist forced the Twelve to change their plans to evangelize all nations, and that they "loosed" themselves from the Great Commission when they understood the plot change.
Bob wrote that the 12 should have expected to begin going to Gentiles at some point. Didn't they already know the order as to when they would? Bob has God redirecting ("redirected") them to go only to the Jews citing Galatians 2:9. And that because of Israel's unbelief God "repealed the Great Commission of the Circumcision to go to all nations". Why would he say God redirected them? Was not their direction clear from the getgo? I don't see where God "repealed" the so called GC. Why would Bob think the GC was supposed to be happening already that it could be repealed in the first place?

Bob also wrote that Matthew 10-5-6 KJV (he uses NKJV)~"This restriction-to not preach to the Gentiles-was officially rescinded after the resurrection" (citing Matthew 28:19 KJV; Mark 16:15 KJV; Luke 24:47 KJV; Acts 1:8 KJV again, not KJV in the text)

Matthew 10:5-6 KJV rescinded?
 
Last edited:
Top