You Be The Judge: Anderson Vs Burk - Page 23

rrford · #**221** 03-26-2009, 09:53 PM

I would also conclude that JA's premise is indeed defined by the statements of what FP's believe. In thise statements he is pointing to the 3 critical questions of difference. 3 questions, I might add, that were avoided in order for Bro. Burke to point back to the Gap theory.

Again, that is not a correct response in true debate.

rrford · #**222** 03-26-2009, 09:54 PM

I must be really bored to keep going at this.

pelathais · #**223** 03-26-2009, 09:55 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....

TK Burk, could you help me out? 25 years ago I didn't think anyone could be saved with out being a Dispensationalist. It's not that I was judgmental on the point, it's just "Dispensationalism" was synonymous with "Bible Prophecy" in my teen-aged mind and "you did believe the Bible, didn't you? ..." I had that kind of young and naive thinking.

As the years went by and I applied myself to study I felt rather foolish about many ideas that I held, Dispensationalism being one. But, can you simply and succinctly tell me where Matthew 24:27-31 was fulfilled?

Jason B · #**224** 03-26-2009, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Ahhh, but you first denied it was true.

Here you go.

Bro. Epley, it all began here…

Because of this Bro. Benincasa asked…

Jason then responded…

So there you go, Bro. Epley, another AFP telling the truth about what’s found among Futurism.

Bro Burk, I have an open challenge out for evang. benicasa, if he accepts the challenge, then the board can discuss what posistion has more biblical merit. Instead of you trying to reinterpret my words and put FP spin on them.

He seems not to want to debate me on what I have challenged perhaps because he knows it is the weakness of FP.

If he should decide not to debate on the topic I pitched on page 11 or 12 of this board. I would extend the challenge to yourself. However, my first preference is Benicasa, since he has himself a nickname, "the bulldog". Not to mention, I get a kick out of him.

pelathais · #**225** 03-26-2009, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edjen01

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?

Well, technically the apostles were all "futurists" with regard to their place on the timeline. I think even full preterists agree to that.

Jason B · #**226** 03-26-2009, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

Okay, I know how silly and dumb I'm going to look after asking a few questions on this here thread (and perhaps it is because I don't get out often, LOL!); however, I feel as if though I must (even at the prospect of looking stupid). Can someone please tell me how Christ came in 70 AD? And, is it possible to be Apostolic and not believe in a rapture? Please tell me it aint so.

these are the things I am asking bro. benicasa to debate on. I have a feeling he would rather debate something else.

edjen01 · #**227** 03-26-2009, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

Well, technically the apostles were all "futurists" with regard to their place on the timeline. I think even full preterists agree to that.

i'm not trying to create a sticking point...I know the Apostles viewed themselves as "futurest"...so does this mean that if these events happened in the 1st century then the Apostles agree with the AFP view?

Steve Epley · #**228** 03-26-2009, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Bro. Eastmen, your confusion is partially due to Bro. Epley. He has had this explained to him dozens of times in the past. He knows that AFPs teaches, as does the Bible, that our hope is Jesus Christ. He has his hope as being a secret rapture. The Bible NOWHERE mentions such an event being a Christian’s hope.

Titus 2:13 clearly states His return is the Blessed Hope. Again you are in error. I understand perfectly whay you are saying. Titus and his band of thugs were not the Blessed Hope.

pelathais · #**229** 03-26-2009, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edjen01

i'm not trying to create a sticking point...I know the Apostles viewed themselves as "futurest"...so does this mean that if these events happened in the 1st century then the Apostles agree with the AFP view?

Sure, I suppose. Maybe then you can help me...

edjen01 could you help me out? 25 years ago I didn't think anyone could be saved with out being a Dispensationalist. It's not that I was judgmental on the point, it's just "Dispensationalism" was synonymous with "Bible Prophecy" in my teen-aged mind and "you did believe the Bible, didn't you? ..." I had that kind of young and naive thinking.

As the years went by and I applied myself to study I felt rather foolish about many ideas that I held, Dispensationalism being one. But, can you simply and succinctly tell me where Matthew 24:27-31 was fulfilled?

Steve Epley · #**230** 03-26-2009, 10:23 PM

A SUGGESTION

Elder Burk go back and answer Elder Andersen's questions then y'all can start over.