Jason DEBATE MATTHEW 24 Luke21 Mark 13

[afp1996]

Originally Posted by Jason

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.

Jason. DB has already asked you for a debate.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Jason

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.

Bro. Jason, don't you believe that Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 are speaking about Jesus' coming?

[Jason B]

bump-EB are you ever going to answer this?

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...4&postcount=67

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Bro. Jason, don't you believe that Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 are speaking about Jesus' coming?

Yes, i do. (afp1996, EB, and all others-that is how you answer a question a yes or a no, please take notes).

Yes, specifically verse 27-31 in matthew 24, over which I have plainly challenged EB to a debate, which I assume he has declined, since he never even acknowledges that I have challenged him on the subject.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Jason

Yes, i do. (afp1996, EB, and all others-that is how you answer a question a yes or a no, please take notes).

Yes, specifically verse 27-31 in matthew 24, over which I have plainly challenged EB to a debate, which I assume he has declined, since he never even acknowledges that I have challenged him on the subject.

Keep them in the corner.

You have them sweating.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Keep them in the corner.

You have them sweating .

sweating? Bro. Epley, their in plain denial. EB posts like I've never even made the challenge.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason

Yes, i do. (afp1996, EB, and all others-that is how you answer a question a yes or a no, please take notes).

Yes, specifically verse 27-31 in matthew 24, over which I have plainly challenged EB to a debate, which I assume he has declined, since he never even acknowledges that I have challenged him on the subject.

Brother Jason, no one has ever doubted that you wanted to debate verses 27-31 of Matthew 24, but what came first, me continually hounding you to prove Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 to be future? Or you wanting to debate five verses? Brother Jason, my whole problem with you is that you bailed out and said that it WASN'T WORTH YOUR TIME to discuss Matthew 24 being future, and then you parade around saying how you want to debate?

You are one mixed up Brother, but allow me to set you in a right direction.

Accept my challenge and please affirm that Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 is yet future and I will affirm that they are past.

Yes or No?

Thank you for your time.

Because you sure have a lot of it.

In JESUS NAME

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Keep them in the corner.

You have them sweating.

Yeah, in waiting for your hero to accept the challenge.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Brother Jason, no one has ever doubted that you wanted to debate verses 27-31 of Matthew 24,

Finally, I couldn't even get you to acknowledge that for the past 3 days!

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Accept my challenge and please affirm that Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 is yet future and I will affirm that they are past. Yes or No?

Brother, I have already directly responded to and explained why I do not feel this is worth the time of a debate. Again, I will answer the question directly-NO, I do not want to debate these 3 chapters. I have made plain what I challenge you to debate, which pel, Epley, ChTatum, a quit place, and others have all said was resonable and specific enough for a debate. You want to debate this, because you feel like the earlier verses in the chapter make your case stronger, because you don't want to focus on verses 27-31.

see below:

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.


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.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Brother Jason, my whole problem with you is that you bailed out and said that it WASN'T WORTH YOUR TIME to discuss Matthew 24 being future, and then you parade around saying how you want to debate?

You are one mixed up Brother, but allow me to set you in a right direction.

1)please refer me to the post where I said it wasn't worth my time. I don't remember that, unless you are referring to the post I wrote saying I was to tired to deal with the question that evening before I was going to bed. If so, you are taking it out of context to build a strawman.
2)I never "paraded" around about a debate until this week, when I challenged you, thinking for sure you would jump all over it, and then you immediately began distancing. Much to my surpise.
3)I'm not mixed up. I contemplated whether I wanted to put the time into an internet debate it would take. I decided, yes, that FP is not that hard to deal with when you go straight to the main pillars of FP. No wavering here.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Thank you for your time.

Because you sure have a lot of it.

you're welcome, and your right. I do try to limit my time on AFF, and this week I've been here alot more than ususal-in anticipation of a debate with you.

So if something doesn't pan out soon, I need to get to more important stuff. Either way, I'll still be checking the board regularly, and posting and refuting erronous doctrines, as well as getting in on some other general and doctrinal discussions.

So what is EB, is He coming back again or not? That is the question!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason

Finally, I couldn't even get you to acknowledge that for the past 3 days!

Acknowldge that you have been pleading to change the subject that we have been discussing and now refusing to debate it in the debate thread?

Originally Posted by Jason

Brother, I have already directly responded to and explained why I do not feel this is worth the time of a debate. Again, I will answer the question directly-NO, I do not want to debate these 3 chapters. I have made plain what I challenge you to debate, which pel, Epley, ChTatum, a quit place, and others have all said was resonable and specific enough for a debate. You want to debate this, because you feel like the earlier verses in the chapter make your case stronger, because you don't want to focus on verses 27-31.

I want to debate these three chapters because "I" feel the earlier verses make my case stronger? I can't believe you just wrote that? Sweet Love Of God!!!! Brother Jason, you really don't know what you are talking about.
Brother Jason if that is the case then why can't you easily refute me and show everyone how false our teaching is?

Originally Posted by Jason

see below:


1)please refer me to the post where I said it wasn't worth my time. I don't remember that, unless you are referring to the post I wrote saying I was to tired to deal with the question that evening before I was going to bed. If so, you are taking it out of context to build a strawman.

Originally Posted by Jason

It's not worth the time.

Brother Jason you are just an excuse maker, you refuse to deal with these subjects chapter and verse because you have no intention in dealing with them scripturally. Why should we go back and forth with all this stupidity, why not just debate the matter in open forum. It's not worth your time to go verse by verse? How about if you were told to prove what you believe by new converts? Would you just tell them to shut up and take your philosophical futurist mayhem as gospel? Not worth your time to go through the scriptures, but worth your time to post long post defending your own ego. Go figure.

Originally Posted by Jason

2)I never "paraded" around about a debate until this week, when I challenged you, thinking for sure you would jump all over it, and then you immediately began distancing. Much to my surpise.

Brother Jason, let me say this I have been chasing you to discuss Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13, and you give me a post where you didn't discuss with me but another post, and yet Elder Burk picked up on that and explain to you were you made statements but never defined anything. Talk about nailing jello to a wall. Brother Jason let's go back to the eschatology forum and you and I can finish what I started with you. But at least do something.

Originally Posted by Jason

3)I'm not mixed up. I contemplated whether I wanted to put the time into an internet debate it would take. I decided, yes, that FP is not that hard to deal with when you go straight to the main pillars of FP. No wavering here.

You know the above is a laugh. It is not hard to deal with? Then DO SOMETHING! Brother Jason you have refused over and over to disccuss what I have asked you. Your Post Trib? Are you a Jerusalem Mystery Babylon post trib?

Originally Posted by Jason

you're welcome, and your right. I do try to limit my time on AFF, and this week I've been here alot more than ususal-in anticipation of a debate with you.

If you are so sure that what I believe is garbage and that you are so knowledgeable of what you believe then why not accept my challenge and blow me away with your proofs of Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 being future. Come on Brother Jason you know you can do it, because what I believe is so easy to refute. You will finish me off early on be able to get back to your schedule.

Originally Posted by Jason

So if something doesn't pan out soon, I need to get to more important stuff. Either way, I'll still be checking the board regularly, and posting and refuting erronous doctrines, as well as getting in on some other general and doctrinal discussions.

Your just so wonderful and pompous.

Originally Posted by Jason

So what is EB, is He coming back again or not? That is the question!

That is the question and as soon as you stop stalling and dragging your feet you might be able to show the world how Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 are all future.

See you then.

Please send Praxeas your acceptance.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJouurnal.com