You Be The Judge: Anderson Vs Burk

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Again the record will show he did NOT mention that point!!!!!! YOU had NO right to bring it up. You CANNOT disconnect the 6 points with the rest of the prophecy.

Bro. Epley, what did I say about it? That is what you are arguing. Please, tell the truth.

Maybe THESE will help?

"I understand your reluctance to discuss Daniel 9:24. If those points are fulfilled, “the gap” is nullified. If Jesus didn’t complete them, He "failed” His task. Anti-missionary Rabbis’ claim this last point to "unconvert" Christians. Jews for Judaism1 (JFJ) asks: "How can we be sure that Jesus' promises to return are false prophecy?" The writer responds: "Jesus, it is claimed, prophesied that certain unspecified individuals would not die until they would see either 'the Son of Man coming in his kingdom' (Mat 16:28), or 'see the kingdom of God after it has come with power' (Mark 9:1), or see the 'kingdom of God' (Luke 9:27)." He accounted for this by saying since Jesus didn’t come as "rapidly as promised," and since Matthew 10:23 was not fulfilled "by the time of the last of the original band of the apostles died," then Jesus' promise remains "unfulfilled," thus Jesus is not the Messiah.

Bro. Anderson, your position aligns with the critics of Christianity who argue Jesus failed to accomplish the six points in Daniel 9:24. AFP does not, for its position biblically proves Jesus perfectly fulfilled Daniel 9:24, thus verifying He is the Christ of the Apostles. I hope your next response contains the scriptures you use when explaining how Jesus did not fulfill these prophecies."

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Bro. Epley, what did I say about it? That is what you are arguing. Please, tell the truth.

You brought it up in the discussion he did not that is the point. It was your obligation to follow NOT lead. Then when you was in the affirmative it would be his obligation to follow and not lead. Very simple.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Bro. Epley, what did I say about it? That is what you are arguing. Please, tell the truth.

Maybe THESE will help?

"I understand your reluctance to discuss Daniel 9:24. If those points are fulfilled, “the gap” is nullified. If Jesus didn’t complete them, He "failed” His task. Anti-missionary Rabbis’ claim this last point to "unconvert" Christians. Jews for Judaism1 (JFJ) asks: "How can we be sure that Jesus' promises to return are false prophecy?" The writer responds: "Jesus, it is claimed, prophesied that certain unspecified individuals would not die until they would see either 'the Son of Man coming in his kingdom' (Mat 16:28), or 'see the kingdom of God after it has come with power' (Mark 9:1), or see the 'kingdom of God' (Luke 9:27)." He accounted for this by saying since Jesus didn’t come as "rapidly as promised," and since Matthew 10:23 was not fulfilled "by the time of the last of the original band of the apostles died," then Jesus' promise remains "unfulfilled," thus Jesus is not the Messiah.

Bro. Anderson, your position aligns with the critics of Christianity who argue Jesus failed to accomplish the six points in Daniel 9:24. AFP does not, for its position biblically proves Jesus perfectly fulfilled Daniel 9:24, thus verifying He is the Christ of the Apostles. I hope your next response contains the scriptures you use when explaining how Jesus did not fulfill these prophecies."

Again it was YOU who introduced this argument NOT him. Do you understand what it means to affirm or rebuttal?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Again it was YOU who introduced this argument NOT him. Do you understand what it means to affirm or rebuttal?

Yes I do, which is why I brought up Daniel 9:24, because unlike Bro. Anderson, I was staying with the agreed subject.

Bro. Epley, why is it when I prove you wrong in one thing you claim, you then jump to another issue you can accuse me of?

[Timmy]

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Yes I do, which is why I brought up Daniel 9:24, because unlike Bro. Anderson, I was staying with the agreed subject.

Bro. Epley, why is it when I prove you wrong in one thing you claim, you then jump to another issue you can accuse me of?

I am staying with the topic it is just to HOT for you. It was YOU that introduced the new topic. You cannot introduce a whole new field of discussion when you are in the rebuttal evidently you cannot understand this. You want to lead in the rebuttal and lead in the affirmative. Humble yourself and follow.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I am staying with the topic it is just to HOT for you. It was YOU that introduced the new topic. You cannot introduce a whole new field of discussion when you are in the rebuttal evidently you cannot understand this. You want to lead in the rebuttal and lead in the affirmative. Humble yourself and follow.

Yep, and NO FUTURIST would ever claim Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 are all for the future. Yes sir, Brother, you know all about it!!

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Yep, and NO FUTURIST would ever claim Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 are all for the future. Yes sir, Brother, you know all about it!!

Elder I have NEVER met a Futurist or read one that believe this? Can you cite one?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I am staying with the topic it is just to HOT for you. It was YOU that introduced the new topic. You cannot introduce a whole new field of discussion when you are in the rebuttal evidently you cannot understand this. You want to lead in the rebuttal and lead in the affirmative. Humble yourself and follow.

Too hot for me?? Hey, it's your men who keep failing at proving AFP is wrong. Now they quit, won't debate, and pick arguments that YOU SAY they'd have to be out of their mind to believe.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Yep, and NO FUTURIST would ever claim Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 are all for the future. Yes sir, Brother, you know all about it!!

Again you jump from Andersen to Jason I guess but since you must lead.