Jason DEBATE MATTHEW 24 Luke21 Mark 13

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Jason

I sent him a pm, and Prax pm'd me back and said me EB and I have to first agree what we are going to debate, and THEN we can get to it.

If we can come to an agreement, I probably wouldn't want to start until after the weekend, normally I am geting things together for sunday on friday and/or saturday.

But at this point I'm waiting on EB.

Thanks for the reply. I am sure he will see this tonight.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Jason I sent Praxeas my PM.

You will prove that Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13 is future

I will show where those three chapters are past fulfilled.

You want to continue on other topics after YOU complete those, then fine with me.

I have constantly challenged you over and over again, even to the point of making an entire thread dedicated to you on the subject.

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

the above shows where I first challenged Jason to answer my questions.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

brother did you miss this post?

Originally Posted by Jason

Enough of these fake debates, where there is more arguing and accusations on a secondary thread than any actual debate. So let it be resolved:

Brother Benicasa,
I would like to challenge you on the 3 main tenets of futurism 1)rapture 2)second coming/millenial kingdom and 3)future white throne judgment/binding of Satan with the emphaisis on:

Whether the coming of Christ referred to in scripture was fulfilled in 70AD (invisible), with no future coming whatsoever or if the Bible teaches a future visible coming of Christ?

I affirm a future visible coming. You deny.

or this one?

Originally Posted by Jason

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?

or this one?

Originally Posted by Jason

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.

or this one?

Originally Posted by Jason

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

or this one?

Originally Posted by Jason

Brother Benicasa,

I have challenged you to a plain debate with a straight forward topic DO YOU ACCEPT OR DECLINE?

Brother, you told me FP will stand up to any criticism, I am levying heavy criticism, and challenging the major pillars of FP, and you don't want to debate it?

I know this is not FP's specialty, but try to answer with a YES or NO:
Do you accept a debate that the second coming of Christ is not past but is future?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by pelathais

EB, I for one would love to beat you over the head with something, anything.

But, I agree with Steve Epley here. The conclusiveness simply isn't there, IMHO. I have to just learn to find some way to get along with you on these points even if I don't agree with you.

Futurists and Preterists in the past have debated Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13. These are the candy stick chapters for all those who teach any form of eschatology. With all this chest pumping, and pulpit thumping and saber rattling you would of thought Jason would of obliged me. Yet, I have repeatedly asked Jason over and over again to affirm that Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 are leading to future events, or show where these chapters have their thousand year gaps. For anyone to believe in a certain eschatology they would have to at least have these three chapters reconciled. That is all I'm asking. For anyone to say these three chapters are too broad are just coping out, and making excuses for their lack of understanding of these three chapters.

What I find interesting is, that I don't want to beat you over the head.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason

brother did you miss this post?

or this one?

or this one?

or this one?

or this one?


Brother, you told me FP will stand up to any criticism, I am levying heavy criticism, and challenging the major pillars of FP, and you don't want to debate it?

I know this is not FP's specialty, but try to answer with a YES or NO:
Do you accept a debate that the second coming of Christ is not past but is future?

Fabulous, you will affirm that Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 is future, and I will affirm that they are past.

Signed Evangelist Dominic Benincasa

[Evang.Benincasa]

I PMed Prax, and you PMed Prax, we will debate Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 arre they past or future.

See you then Jason.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Fabulous, you will affirm that Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 is future, and I will affirm that they are past.

Signed Evangelist Dominic Benincasa

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I PMed Prax, and you PMed Prax, we will debate Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 arre they past or future.

See you then Jason.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

TKB, is that you?

I mean, ignoring questions and speaking past the very one you are replying to is very convincing. Just not convincing that FP is a serious doctrine, but rather a doctrine of...nevermind.

[Jason B]

Brother, you are a riot. I asked for a YES or a NO. Oh well, at least you make things interesting.

Okay, let me make this plain, as others already have posted on this thread.
A debate on 3 chapters is to broad.

I want to debate the main point of preterism. Is the coming of Christ past or future. If you are so hung up on Matthew 24. We can let Matthew 24:27-31 be our foundational scripture and go from there. Why can you not commit to this?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason

Brother, you are a riot. I asked for a YES or a NO. Oh well, at least you make things interesting.

No the riot is YOU, you make your statements and say what I believe is false? Then you fail to be able to explain these three chapters in a forum that allows you freedom to present any amount of discussion on any topic concerning eschatology? You say that I'm a riot? Have you ever seen an Atheist debate a Theist? An Evolutionist debate a Creationist? You are making me chuckle (a parson term) if those topics aren't broad I don't know what is. Take my challenge, I promise, for anyone that can condemn me and my family to a devil's hell over what I believe, should be able to PROVE that Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 is future.

Originally Posted by Jason

Okay, let me make this plain, as others already have posted on this thread.
A debate on 3 chapters is to broad.

Others who? Other Preterists? Other Apostolics who believe in Fulfilled Eschatology? Are those the ones?

Originally Posted by Jason

I want to debate the main point of preterism. Is the coming of Christ past or future. If you are so hung up on Matthew 24. We can let Matthew 24:27-31 be our foundational scripture and go from there. Why can you not commit to this?

I'm hung up? I'm not hung up on anything but the key chapters that prove the eschatology of Christ. Everyone who teaches eschatology MUST deal with these chapters.

I suggest you fit them into your debate schedule.

You will affirm that Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13 is future and I will confirm that they are past.

Thank you and I will see you in the debate thread.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Steve Epley]

Tying these guys down to an affrimative proposition is like trying to drive a nail in jello. Ain't going to happen. They ain't going to answer direct questions and they are not going to follow a debate format forget. They are not dumb the questions hem them up. They want to post all their prewritten stuffand ignore any affirmative argument.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

No the riot is YOU, you make your statements and say what I believe is false? Then you fail to be able to explain these three chapters in a forum that allows you freedom to present any amount of discussion on any topic concerning eschatology? You say that I'm a riot? Have you ever seen an Atheist debate a Theist? An Evolutionist debate a Creationist? You are making me chuckle (a parson term) if those topics aren't broad I don't know what is. Take my challenge, I promise, for anyone that can condemn me and my family to a devil's hell over what I believe, should be able to PROVE that Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 is future.


I'm hung up? I'm not hung up on anything but the key chapters that prove the eschatology of Christ. Everyone who teaches eschatology MUST deal with these chapters.

I suggest you fit them into your debate schedule.

You will affirm that Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13 is future and I will confirm that they are past.

Thank you and I will see you in the debate thread.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

bro. I have not condemned you nor your family. However, I think your doctrine is to weak to deal with the crux of the issue. Elder Epley nailed it when he said trying to pin you guys down is like drying to drive a nail in jell-o.