LOL! The discussion is not about me.Lol! OK, but I'd beg to differ, you knew the phrase wasn't in Scripture. That is the definition of being disingenuous.
Ahhh... what a dilemma. Shall I resist the tu quoque? Who is being disingenuous now (since you and I have previously had occasion where I have acknowledged error and/or fault)?Are you unable to own up to anything Josheb?
That is incorrect. My question wasn't about me, my knowledge, or lack thereof. It wasn't specifically about any poster, and thinking that might have been the motive was an erroneous assumption. It's an understandable one given the rancor and disingenuousness common in this particular board (along with a few of the other ones, like Eschatology 😦).That has nothing to do with your disingenuous post. 😂
Not everyone may know the answer to the question asked AND it is very common for those asserting scripturally unstated things in the Arm v Cal board to post their views as scripture AND refuse to answer questions like the one I asked. A similar example in the Eschatology board would be asking a Dispensationalist where scripture explicitly states a third temple will be built. We ALL know the answer but two things are revealed when that question is answered or not answered. Same held true here. Not only was the truth made known collaboratively and without offense, but our brother demonstrated and modeled integrity for all of us. I, for one, value that.
Try it sometime.
And I don't see him complaining.