Jason DEBATE MATTHEW 24 Luke21 Mark 13

[afp1996]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Have you been reading this at all? Jason is willing to sign what he believes NOT what they assign to him. Is it that hard to understand?

We'll see....

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Do you having reading comphrehension problems. He clearly stated some of it had happened.
However he is willing to sign what has not happened.

What??

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Do you having reading comphrehension problems.

Obviously you do… Nice sentence structure, spelling, and punctuation!



Bro. Epley, Jason only said that AFTER he realized he could NOT support what he first claimed to Bro. Benincasa.

Bro. Epley, I think you are just sweating the fact that Dispensationalism will once again be shown to be based on faulty exegeses. Defend what he said all you want, but Jason did say…

Because of something Jason said, Bro. Benincasa asked him this…

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I have a question for you. Can you show me where is the gaps in Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13. Show me how those chapters fit in the future.

Thank you, I await your post.

Jason responded with this…

Originally Posted by Jason

Bro. Benincasa,

I am too tired to deal with that right now,I did post several things in another thread, i believe it was the "start afresh" thread. I am still studying these things, so I am not 100% certain there is a gap in those chapters. But lean towards a gap in Daniel 9:27. Read into that statement what you will.

To that Bro. Benincasa asked...

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I asked you to please show me where there is a gap in Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13. I would gather that you would believe in a gap in Daniel, and therefore you should have no problem with finding the gaps in Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13. For your belief system to be consistent you should show me how those three chapters are future and apply to us today

Therefore you can help me by trying your best to explain Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13, and their gaps.

Jason answered him with this...

Originally Posted by Jason

bro.,

I take all of matthew 24 to be future, while some things did happen in those days, I believe the specific fulfillment will take place in the "end times". I do not see a gap in any of the chapters you mention. I believe there is a gap in Daniel 9:27, which puts the AOD in the future, not 66AD, not 70AD.

Bro. Epley, you and Jason and whoever else with a stake in this can deny all day long, but the fact remains that Jason did say that he does not see a gap in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, and that he sees all of Matthew 24 for a future fulfillment.

It was only after Bro. Benincasa asked him to give his scriptures for his position that he added: “while some things did happen in those days.” But then to save face for what he had said he added: “I believe the specific fulfillment will take place in the ‘end times’.” But he qualified that by returning to what he first contested which is “I do not see a gap in any of the chapters you mention.”

I know, Bro. Epley, that you realize the impossible situation Jason placed himself in. You even said that…

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Friend NO one in their right mind would affirm this because some of this was fulfilled in 70AD AND it is too broad.

You may believe Jason is not in his “right mind,” but nonetheless, the above is what he said. As a result, Bro. Benincasa started a thread asking Jason to produce his evidence, and from that was the debate idea formed.

This is what did happen. Therefore, there is no reason to bury it now by claiming otherwise.

Besides, a debate on Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 should be a piece of cake for anyone who knows why they believe what they do on eschatology.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Have you been reading this at all? Jason is willing to sign what he believes NOT what they assign to him. Is it that hard to understand?

It is what JASON first claimed.

Originally Posted by Jason

I take all of matthew 24 to be future, while some things did happen in those days, I believe the specific fulfillment will take place in the "end times". I do not see a gap in any of the chapters you mention. I believe there is a gap in Daniel 9:27, which puts the AOD in the future, not 66AD, not 70AD.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

It is what JASON first claimed.

In the SAME quote he says some things have happened. Making the other quotes LARGE will not remove what he said. By the way I do NOT know Jason so this is NOT personal you are not being honest or can't read.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

In the SAME quote he says some things have happened. Making the other quotes LARGE will not remove what he said. By the way I do NOT know Jason so this is NOT personal you are not being honest or can't read.

Bro. Epley, did he or did he not say...

Originally Posted by Jason

I do not see a gap in any of the chapters you mention.

You can deny it until the cows come home, but this is what Jason DID SAY. If he did not see a gap, then those chapters are all for the future. That is absurd! No wonder you are so passionate about keeping this debate from happening!!!

[Jason B]

HOW ABOUT LETTING ME EXPLAIN WHAT I BELIEVE-TK?

I stand behind everything I said, I do believe the three chapters to be speaking of a future fulfillment. I believe that some things happened in those days to the apostles. That does not mean that they will not be a part of the "end times" for example-persecution. They faced it, and Christians will again face it, and already are in many countries. I don't think you can insert a gap into those chapters, but like I posted earlier, I am still studying these chapters. Unlike some others, I am not on here claiming infallibility. I'm not on here condemning partial preterists like bro. blume, because they still are expecting a second coming of Christ. Full preterisms denial of this is the main issue.

What I am making a 100% plain, concrete, for certain argument for is
A FUTURE COMING OF CHRIST TO THIS EARTH
Full Preterism specifically denies this point, Futurism and Partial PReterism specifically Affim. It's not hard. You guys say Christ isn't coming back, I am challenging EB or AFP1996 to debate it. People may call you guys alot of things, but stupid should not be one of them. This is simple-Is Christ coming again or not? That is the question. One single question on which hangs all of FP or all of futurism, why not debate it?

[Jason B]

MAKE YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS-WHO IS DODGING?

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Friend NO one in their right mind would affirm this because some of this was fulfilled in 70AD AND it is too broad.
Narrow it down:
Be it resolved the scriptures teach a FUTURE LITERAL return of Christ to catch his church away, resurrect the dead, and judge the wicked.

Originally Posted by TJJJ

I think what Epley is trying to say, (forgive me if I am wrong) is that if you have too broad of a topic then the debate quickly gets off track and tends to wander. He is right on the fact of having specific points to talk about. That is how it is done. If you want to have multiple points then you have multiple debates. Narrow down the points, articulate them, challenge your opposer, and DEBATE!

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.

Originally Posted by ChTatum

Playground bullies are often insecure in their manhood, and must bluster to cover their inadequacies.

Jason is correct, three entire chapters is much too broad for a debate on a forum such as this.

Since he is willing to address a portion, notably Matthew 24:27-31, and that is within the confines you wish to debate, have at it.

It is much easier to call people "slicker than snot on a dorrknob" however.

Originally Posted by Jason

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

Originally Posted by Jason

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?

Originally Posted by Jason

Yes, I mean it, the second coming of Jesus is the center of the debate. Where someone puts it defines whether they are a preterist or a futurist. You guys are going around teaching that Jesus already came back, but don't want to debate it.

Originally Posted by Jason

Brother, I cannot be more specific than this:

MATT 24:27-31

Is he coming back again or not? It's not complicated.

Appearently it is much more complicated than I ever imagined.

Originally Posted by Jason

Elder Epley, I'm at the give up point. I can't spell it out letter by letter and make it any plainer. These folks believe Jesus isn't coming back in the future, but don't want to talk about it.

That's the long and short of it.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Bro. Epley, did he or did he not say...



You can deny it until the cows come home, but this is what Jason DID SAY. If he did not see a gap, then those chapters are all for the future. That is absurd! No wonder you are so passionate about keeping this debate from happening!!!

YOU CHOPPED THE QUOTE OFF that is NOT honest.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

YOU CHOPPED THE QUOTE OFF that is NOT honest.

No I did not. I said EXACTLY what Jason said. THAT is why Bro. Benincasa and others began questioning him over that EXACT point.

Anyone who cares to read how that occured can in the eschatology debate forum.

Please, quit accusing me of being dishonest everytime another flaw is exposed in your dispensational theories.

[Jason B]

TK, are you going to ignore post #97 & #98?