You Be The Judge: Anderson Vs Burk - Page 22

rrford · #**211** 03-26-2009, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Really?? Didn't you post this?

Ya know, your style is somewhat irrititating. Just sayin' is all. I mean, why do I have a feeling you are going to go off and claim some great victory and say that JA couldn't answer your questions when you never actually engaged in the debate correctly?

TK Burk · #**212** 03-26-2009, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrford

Ya know, your style is somewhat irrititating. Just sayin' is all. I mean, why do I have a feeling you are going to go off and claim some great victory and say that JA couldn't answer your questions when you never actually engaged in the debate correctly?

My style? He says things that never happened. He says he never quit when he did. And you're concerned with my style? And you claim I’m irritating? Why, for telling the truth?

How can I claim a victory over something that never actually began? I have repeatedly asked to continue with this debate as was first agreed. He has refused.

I think you might want to reread who it is that is saying he got the victory here because it's not me. All I’ve said was he never started doing what he said he would…and I am not the only one saying that.

rrford · #**213** 03-26-2009, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TK Burk

My style? He says things that never happened. He says he never quit when he did. And you're concerned with my style? And you claim I’m irritating? Why, for telling the truth?

How can I claim a victory over something that never actually began? I have repeatedly asked to continue with this debate as was first agreed. He has refused.

I think you might want to reread who it is that is saying he got the victory here because it's not me. All I’ve said was he never started doing what he said he would…and I am not the only one saying that.

Nor is Elder Epley the only one saying you broke debate protocal first. From there it went downhill. Why not go back and see where that occured and RESPOND as is appropriate and it just may get back on track. JMO.

edjen01 · #**214** 03-26-2009, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

Reread what you posted here. Another Christ and not believing Acts 2:38. I am not saying they do NOT believe in Acts 2:38. Many folks do and embrace it, while many run from what they truly know it means. FP effects the most fundamental aspect of salvation, i.e. faith in the Son of God. FP is saying that we need not be Apostolic in some sense. The Apostles and Disciples of Christ all died with an expectation that the Son of God would return. The youngest Disciple, John the beloved, wrote with a sudden expectancy of Christ's return in AD 96. No doubt He died expecting the return of Jesus Christ. FP says there is now no hope or expectancy. That is a different Christ that John believed in and I would agree. Futurism is completely Biblical. STILL.

just interested in where you get these facts?

TK Burk · #**215** 03-26-2009, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrford

Nor is Elder Epley the only one saying you broke debate protocal first. From there it went downhill. Why not go back and see where that occured and RESPOND as is appropriate and it just may get back on track. JMO.

Again, since we agreed to debate whether AFP has a different Jesus than did the apostles, could you please show where Bro. Anderson ever showed what the apostles believed, and where AFP disagrees, in any of his statements?

As I explained in an earlier post, I answered him where I could within the 600 word limit. Bowas agreed that this was not to be an interview, and that is what Bro. Anderson tried to make it.

I appreciate your opinion, but in this case, it just is incorrect....

rrford · #**216** 03-26-2009, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Again, since we agreed to debate whether AFP has a different Jesus than did the apostles, could you please show where Bro. Anderson ever showed what the apostles believed, and where AFP disagrees, in any of his statements?

As I explained in an earlier post, I answered him where I could within the 600 word limit. Bowas agreed that this was not to be an interview, and that is what Bro. Anderson tried to make it.

I appreciate your opinion, but in this case, it just is incorrect....

And I feel your opinion is incorrect. You should have pointed out to Bro. Anderson in YOUR RESPONSE that he did not state what you thought he should have. IMO, you neglected to do so until Bro. Epley pointed out you had violated normative debate protocol.

Jason B · #**217** 03-26-2009, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Let it further be resolved that I have continuly challenged YOU to prove that Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13 to be future. In doing that you would of been able to clearly prove your position and disprove mine. You have run faster than a rabbit trying to evade the hounds. Now I am asking you to debate me on these chapters. No fake debate. I will send my request to Praxeas.

Bro. let's just get to the meat of it. Some believe that those 3 chapters were fulfilled, but STILL believe in the second coming of Christ and rapture of the church. That is the main issue, and the main problem I have with Full Preterism ,and why I have come out strongly against it. It is also the same reason why I am much more tolerant of partial preterism, because the issue that really matter, partial preterism puts in the correct place. Which are the issues I challnged you on. Are we going to go round the merry go round, or are we going to debate the most important points?

Jason B · #**218** 03-26-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I do NOT know of ONE futurist that would sign that proposition BECAUSE it is NOT correct. ALL Futurists that I know believe those chapters include the destruction of the temple in 70AD but are not LIMITED to that lone event.
A red herring my good friend.

my point exactly, it is a secondary issue. The main issues are 1)rapture 2)visible return of Christ 3)final judgement

edjen01 · #**219** 03-26-2009, 09:47 PM

I understand that the real important point here is who is right and who is not....but can a Futurist...step up and answer question? What did the Apostles believe regarding these topics?

rrford · #**220** 03-26-2009, 09:48 PM

Further, in reading the opening posts again I see where your response stated that you were asking Bro. Anderson to define the scriptural Messiah but you never attempted to answer the three rather pointed questions he asked.

IMO, at this point the moderator should have disallowed any further part of your response as valid until you responded, whoch you should have done under normal debate protocol. Sorry. I still agree with Epley and Anderson on this one. And it has nothing to do with the doctrinal view whatsoever. It has everything to do with maintaining the right protocol.