Quote:
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!
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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!
Threaded Mode
