Jason DEBATE MATTHEW 24 Luke21 Mark 13

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Hey Benincasa!!! Yo!

What if a person believes it's BOTH? Can we have it out?

I'm just saying, it's NOT a "Yes" or "No" question. If Jason thinks it is then he's as wrong as you!

Well, then a discussion on the subject would help out, now wouldn't it?

If you went to those threads you will see where I'm continually asking Brother Jason to discuss this topic with me. He would not.

Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 if still future refutes any notion of Partial Preterism, Full Preterism or Apostolic Fulfilled Eschatology.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by ChTatum

Playground bullies are often insecure in their manhood, and must bluster to cover their inadequacies.

Jason is correct, three entire chapters is much too broad for a debate on a forum such as this.

Since he is willing to address a portion, notably Matthew 24:27-31, and that is within the confines you wish to debate, have at it.

It is much easier to call people "slicker than snot on a dorrknob" however.

[Steve Epley]

Why not debate the entire 3 books of Mt.-Mk. Luke that would give plenty of ground to run and hide?
Anything but the crux of the matter.
Jason I don't think you are going to get a debate? No more than Elder Andersen is going to get his questions answered?

[afp1996]

This is a joke. It is obvious that JN Anderson will not debate because he cannot defend the position he holds. Epley is defending him to try and take the heat off of their mutal futurist positions. All the while trying to load the blame on DB. This is typical.

DB is a tough man, and a Godly man. He can take the heat. But, it still doesn't make it right. Brother Tatum, those three chapters are not too broad in which to debate on one forum. The problem is that JN Anderson cannot stay on topic. Look at his track record.

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by afp1996

This is a joke. It is obvious that JN Anderson will not debate because he cannot defend the position he holds. Epley is defending him to try and take the heat off of their mutal futurist positions. All the while trying to load the blame on DB. This is typical.

DB is a tough man, and a Godly man. He can take the heat. But, it still doesn't make it right. Brother Tatum, those three chapters are not too broad in which to debate on one forum. The problem is that JN Anderson cannot stay on topic. Look at his track record.

Surely that "a" in your handle doesn't mean Apostolic? Surely not since they taught a second coming. Do you still teach that Christ will return a second time? Those are questions I have BEEN asking since the beginning and no one is answering although they are right on topic.

[afp1996]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

Surely that "a" in your handle doesn't mean Apostolic? Surely not since they taught a second coming. Do you still teach that Christ will return a second time? Those are questions I have BEEN asking since the beginning and no one is answering although they are right on topic.

Yes the A does mean Apostolic.

It is you brother that does not teach what the Apostles taught. They taught that Jesus would return before some of them had even physically died. That is what the AFP does teach. But it is not what you teach.

[Jason B]

BUMP

Originally Posted by Jason

Brother, I cannot be more specific than this:

MATT 24:27-31

Is he coming back again or not? It's not complicated.

EB, why is it that you will not deal with this one issue? It is a hundred times more important than those 3 chapters. You want to debate so bad on those 3 chapters because there are a FEW verses you can make a strong case for being in the past, probably even a stronger case than I. You probably have loads of pre-written material ready to unload. Yet even if you make a stronger case for the Jews being persecuted in synagouges being past (which certainly did happen in the past), how does that relate to the entire chapter being fulfilled? The climax and main point is the second coming of Christ in Matt 24:27-31. That is the main issue, I want to debate it, and you are dodging like your running for politcial office. Then send prax a pm that I agreed to debate the entire 3 chapters, which agreement I never made. Please quote the post where I said I would debate that specifically.

Now you say that eschatology is fulfilled, I say the biggest event in eschatology is yet to come (the Second Coming of Christ). Do you want to defend your central doctrine-or do you know that when that is proved to be a blantant error, the entire foundation of Full preterism crumbles like a house of cards.

so I conclude with this:

Originally Posted by Jason

Brother, I cannot be more specific than this:

MATT 24:27-31

Is he coming back again or not? It's not complicated.

[ChTatum]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Chuck it is not to broad an issue, no bullying here Chuck, just trying to get Brother Jason to fill my request. How about you Chuck would you like to come to the eschatology forum and go to the Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 thread and show us how it is future?

You always have had a problem with me, and never failed to take your punch.
You have issues and I assure you I had nothing to do with them. You have a personal problem then I suggest you deal with it other ways. If you have a doctrinal problem then go to the thread and post.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=23087

In JESUS NAME

Brother Benincasa


www.OnTimeJournal.com

LOL! I didn't say you could call me Chuck, but I understand why you are doing it. I have no problems or issues other than the way you often treat and talk down to people. It is unbecoming sir, and especially so of a minister.

This is where you begin to talk about it is a rough and tumble world on the internet debate forums, and those who cannot stomach it should leave it alone.

I have issues with you? Personally? Untrue, since I don't know you personally, only the persona and attitudes you display here.

Take care, Elder, may the Lord bless and keep you.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Jason

BUMP



EB, why is it that you will not deal with this one issue? It is a hundred times more important than those 3 chapters. You want to debate so bad on those 3 chapters because there are a FEW verses you can make a strong case for being in the past, probably even a stronger case than I. You probably have loads of pre-written material ready to unload. Yet even if you make a stronger case for the Jews being persecuted in synagouges being past (which certainly did happen in the past), how does that relate to the entire chapter being fulfilled? The climax and main point is the second coming of Christ in Matt 24:27-31. That is the main issue, I want to debate it, and you are dodging like your running for politcial office. Then send prax a pm that I agreed to debate the entire 3 chapters, which agreement I never made. Please quote the post where I said I would debate that specifically.

Now you say that eschatology is fulfilled, I say the biggest event in eschatology is yet to come (the Second Coming of Christ). Do you want to defend your central doctrine-or do you know that when that is proved to be a blantant error, the entire foundation of Full preterism crumbles like a house of cards.

so I conclude with this:

Jason, you really do not mean this, do you?

Jason, you cannot talk about the meaning of the Mount Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 without talking about the Mount Olivet Discourse also found in Mark 13 and Luke 21. Please, can you explain where anybody anywhere has ever debated Matthew 24 without also including Mark 13 and Luke 21?

Jason, anyone that knows anything about Prophecy knows what you're asking is impractical. However, if you feel that Matthew 24:27-31 is actually more important than those three chapters in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, then maybe you cannot see this is the case.

A debate on Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 would be beneficial is explaining these eschatological differences. Since these three chapters contain similar prophetic language about the same event, it should not be difficult to cover their verses in this debate. You are the one who first claimed there was “no gap” in any of those three chapters. You argued that all of Matthew 24 was yet for the future. You used this argument as an accusation against the AFP position. For that reason, you should support what you said and prove your position.

[Jason B]

Yes, I mean it, the second coming of Jesus is the center of the debate. Where someone puts it defines whether they are a preterist or a futurist. I cannot debate bro., blume on the topic because partial preterism still keeps the most important event where it belongs-in the future. Youg guys are going around teaching that Jesus already came back, but don't want to debate it.