You Be The Judge: Anderson Vs Burk

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Like I said, I am ready and willing to debate the subject that we agreed on.

I agree Brother Burk.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

What exactly am I to respond to? You said, "I agree with these statements mostly," "I realize this as well," "I am fully aware of these authors beliefs," and then you talked about "Coach Burk." What part of that should I answer? The parts where you said you agreed with me, or the odd story you created about "Coach Burk"?

You then made these statements: "The prophesied Messiah and the prophecy of His Second Coming are both key topics. Is there a difference in a Christ that has already come and one that has not? Is there a difference between a Christ who came spiritually and one who came physically? Is there even a difference between a God who pours His wrath only on Jerusalem and one who pours it out upon the world? Please answer those questions directly and concisely as possible." What differences exactly about these should I address? You never defined what the apostles taught about any of them, or whether they taught them as you believe, and WHAT THEY TAUGHT is what you said we'd debate.

Then you said, "Here is another difference. To most Futurists the apocalyptic events of Armageddon, preceding the glorious Day of The Lord, the Millennium, during which the returned Christ will rule. In AFP however we find fulfillment of all these things in the judgment of Jerusalem in 70 AD. These CHRISTO-CENTRIC events have DIFFERENT meanings and outcomes. Is the Christ who came in 70 AD the same that Futurists look for in the future?" Difference for WHOM?? What YOU believe, or what the Apostles' taught??

Then you jumped all the way over to this: "Another reason that AFP teaches a different Christ is our partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ. Believer partake of communion (the bread and the wine) today or at least until He comes (1 Corinthians 11:26). In your view this is totally unnecessary since Christ has already come. Believers do this to show His death." Again, what did the apostles teach about this? Where did you show that against what you claim AFPs teach?

How can anyone answer all of your above questions with only 600 words?? It’s as if you asked whatever question you could without first deciding what exactly should be discussed. But if you had remembered what you asked me to debate, this would not have happened. So, where in any of your posts did you ever define what the Apostles taught about ANY of your questions?? THAT is what YOU SAID we were to debate.

Bro. Anderson, now that you KNOW the problem, please go back into the debate forum, define what you see the apostles teaching on any ONE of your questions about Jesus, and then I will gladly answer.

Brother Anderson, please go to the debate forum.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

See that is the problem though. All debates have a defined beginning and ending and follow a format. They don't just run around all over the place.

I remember listening to the Davenport debates with Sabin vs Matthers (not sure of spelling).

Half way into it there is this other guy on the Trinitarian team who starts off "Now I would like to talk about salvation"...and the place just screeched to a dead stop. Sorry Bud, but that was not part of the plan. He protested., He whined that he had spent weeks studying for salvation and to discuss it, inbetween delivering pizzas....somehow he did not get the memo. It was a Godhead debate and the format was to go from opening remarks where each side offered a polemic argument for their theology, an attack on each other's theology and then a round of historical discussion. Then they had some quick questions and some back and forth dialog.

If two people want a debate here they have to realize it won't be the running back and forth bickering we are used to. It will follow a structure and have a definite ending where both sides can end with their concluding remarks and you the people will judge

It is like challenging someone to debate the Jesus of Apostolic Fulfilled Eschatology and how He lines up with scripture, and then the other guy brings up questions on communion?

Hey when are we going to get a raised eyebrow smiley?

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

It is like challenging someone to debate the Jesus of Apostolic Fulfilled Eschatology and how He lines up with scripture, and then the other guy brings up questions on communion?

Hey when are we going to get a raised eyebrow smiley?

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

My friend the question comes in view because they were to take the Lord's supper TIL He comes! IF He has already came then the Lord's supper is NOT binding on the church today. So the question along with other are valid questions. We can't help where your doctrine takes you.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

My friend the question comes in view because they were to take the Lord's supper TIL He comes!

Elder, thousands of questions can come in view, but if you read what Prax posted you will see how my post is relevant here. Brother James N Anderson challenged Elder Burk on the Jesus of Apostolic Fulfilled Eschatology, and how He relates to the Bible's Jesus. While communion as do other points play into any eschatological view, the debate must first have a starting point. That was supposed to be about the Apostolic Fulfilled Eschatology's Jesus. Prax also offered both ministers if they wanted to, they can start another debate, on any subject, but first they must finish this one.

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

IF He has already came then the Lord's supper is NOT binding on the church today. So the question along with other are valid questions. We can't help where your doctrine takes you.

Elder Epley, this is a debate about Jesus Christ of the Bible being the same Jesus Christ of Fulfilled Eschatology. Once they get that show on the road and finish that debate, others can follow. You see Elder they have one topic and that has to be hashed out.

With much respect

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[TJJJ]

Benincasa,

Didn't you and Epley have a debate scheduled a few years back and he backed out?

Just wondering.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by TJJJ

Benincasa,

Didn't you and Epley have a debate scheduled a few years back and he backed out?

Just wondering.

NOPE! It was his buddy and there was several mitigating factors caused me to call it off and it had nothing to do with Elder Benincasa.

[Esther]

I'm waiting to see where Burk thinks Jesus has already come back. ???

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

No. It is called waiting on an answer. There hasn't been one yet as far as I am concerned. Read all my prior statements and you would have known what I was doing.

Waiting on an answer? Brother A, if you'll follow the format that Prax laid out, I'm sure you will have the opportunity to point out that Brother Burk failed to adequately answer your questions. Prax will be fair. So far, it seems that you have done a fine job articulating your points.
I'm hoping someone like me can learn from the two opposing views in this matter.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Some Campbellites that debate do exactly the same they never answer the questions just produce more material in their next speech and ask their opponents to answer the new material when they never answered one question.

Elder, with all due respect, isn't that human nature? When taught something all your life based upon those questions, it seems irresponsible to dismiss the unanswered questions; doesn't it?