You Be The Judge: Anderson Vs Burk - Page 4

Steve Epley · #31 03-22-2009, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crakjak

I think Bro. Anderson decided he wasn't up to the task.....or so it appears.

Questions in a debate MUST be addressed not posting some preplanned material that has nothing to do with the affrimative speech. The negative FOLLOWS the affrimative not the opposite. There is no use in calling it a debate if either debator just ignores what each other has said and posts a bunch a NEW material. NEW material is used in affirmative arguments NOT rebuttals.
Debates are talking TO each other NOT around each other.
I hope this helps your confusion.

Nina · #32 03-22-2009, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

A proper understanding of Christ is crucial to the believers life. Any doctrine obfuscating, rejecting or twisting authentic Christology should be confronted.

How about a debate between tbpew and Praxeas:

Jesus is or is not God.

Sept5SavedTeen · #33 03-22-2009, 06:29 PM

I like how Burk came right out with the 70 weeks question, and it is something I have never really understood. If Anderson can answer whether and how JESUS fufilled the six requirements of the 70 weeks, then I'll be convinced of Anderson's futurist view. However, I do wonder if questioning one's "Christ" due to one's escatology is really fair... But then again do the preterists not practice communion? and if not communion, why baptism? Since most "non-communion" groups also don't do baptisms (ie. Quakers).

-Bro. Alex

Steve Epley · #34 03-22-2009, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sept5SavedTeen

I like how Burk came right out with the 70 weeks question, and it is something I have never really understood. If Anderson can answer whether and how JESUS fufilled the six requirements of the 70 weeks, then I'll be convinced of Anderson's futurist view. However, I do wonder if questioning one's "Christ" due to one's escatology is really fair... But then again do the preterists not practice communion? and if not communion, why baptism? Since most "non-communion" groups also don't do baptisms (ie. Quakers).

-Bro. Alex

In my opinion whatever Elder Andersen's veiw is on the 70 weeks of Daniel proves nothing I know many post -trib guys that believe the 70 weeks have been fulfilled but yet believe in a LITERAL return of Christ for His church and to resurrect the dead and judge the wicked.

Praxeas · #35 03-23-2009, 12:06 AM

I think we need to understand how debates go or are supposed to go.

There is a topic. Each side is supposed to be ready to discuss it.

One side make their assertion. The other side refutes their assertions. The first side responds and the second side closes

Then the other side makes their assertion and so on....

Then often there is a cross examination, ask the other side a question. The other side answers...whether or not they give a satisfactory answer is irrelevant since you the people are judging. The weak answer will work against that person. The debater need only point out the other person did not answer,

Replies that are off topic are classfied as Red Herrings....though it might have looked like a good response, the fact that it avoids refuting the original assertion would work against the person that introduced the red herring. It's up to the other debater though to point that out.

Praxeas · #36 03-23-2009, 12:07 AM

Also debate topics are a little more specific but the assertion (not an accusation) needs to be very specific...ie "I assert that the Christ of Full Preterism is not the Christ of the bible" and everything from there is evidence. Side two's job is to refute the evidence

mfblume · #37 03-23-2009, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

In my opinion whatever Elder Andersen's veiw is on the 70 weeks of Daniel proves nothing I know many post -trib guys that believe the 70 weeks have been fulfilled but yet believe in a LITERAL return of Christ for His church and to resurrect the dead and judge the wicked.

...and partial pret guys!

Esther · #38 03-23-2009, 07:41 AM

I am not a formal debater so I don't know the rules for debating, therefore, Prax thanks for pointing out what the format should be.

I do know if the content follows the topic. Seems to me the topic as broaden somewhat. I would love to see the whole topic debated as Burk keeps bringing in other issues that would be interesting to hear. I am not a Pretist and before the forum had never heard of such.

As to the gap theory, cluesless here???

Steve Epley · #39 03-23-2009, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

...and partial pret guys!

And historists. Elder C. E. George was a strong post-trib guy we fussed for years he believed the 70 weeks were fulfilled yet believed strongly in the future return of Christ.
The Gospel Assembly folks who borrow much from the 7th Day Adventists on prophecy also believe the 70 weeks are fulfilled but preach the future return of Christ.

Sept5SavedTeen · #40 03-23-2009, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

In my opinion whatever Elder Andersen's veiw is on the 70 weeks of Daniel proves nothing I know many post -trib guys that believe the 70 weeks have been fulfilled but yet believe in a LITERAL return of Christ for His church and to resurrect the dead and judge the wicked.

Are you post-trib?

-Bro. Alex