You Be The Judge: Afp1996 vs Jason

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

"See debate"? Why? You admitted there that you cannot give scriptural evidence to support your argument for a gap in Matthew 24 and in Daniel's 69th and 70th Weeks. Jason, there really isn't much else to read after that since you yourself admitted you have no biblical support for your position.

After all that, it is no wonder why you declined your original offer to debate Bro. Benincasa on Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21.

Jason, you cannot disprove AFP with no scripture. Like I've said to you already many times, you need to go back and study your own position so that you can know why you believe as you do. Jason, if you cannot find it in the Bible, you cannot claim it is "biblical Truth."

This is so good of a reply that I had to quote it twice.

You see Brother Burk, Jason gets mad when he is backed into a corner.

If he understood what he believed then he wouldn't get mad, he would calmly argue his position and proceed forward. Yet, he knows as well as we, that he has run out of road. He cannot explain certain items in his doctrine because they are unexplainable in the context of his teaching. Brother Reckart, in his failure to put together a good argument against AFP, he resorted to attacking us with hate, and slander. Again, proving to the world that these men don't have any answers. They just have attacks to cloak their lack of information. I do want to thank these men for keeping this discussion in the public eye, and not left behind.

In their great zeal to defend their Baptist/Assembly Of God teachings they have done more to publish the Bible Truth of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, and Daniel 70 weeks as being fulfilled to the Christian world.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Jason B]

I've answered this question a hundred times.

Prove the abomination of desolation, great tribulation, and all prophecies within that time period happened, and I WOULD GLADLY convert to FP. The problem is, that while you can explain SOME aspects of the proophecy very well, your posistion fails to PROVE anything. PROVE Jesus came back, PROVE Satan is not active, because he is imprisoned. PROVE that 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 has happened.

If these things already happened, it should be exceeding simple for you to PROVE.
Or how about answering several of the questions that AFP1996 ignorned in our debate?
Quote them and answet them here please. Show me my error.


Back to square one.

[afp1996]

Originally Posted by Jason

I've answered this question a hundred times.

Prove the abomination of desolation, great tribulation, and all prophecies within that time period happened, and I WOULD GLADLY convert to FP. The problem is, that while you can explain SOME aspects of the proophecy very well, your posistion fails to PROVE anything. PROVE Jesus came back, PROVE Satan is not active, because he is imprisoned. PROVE that 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 has happened.

If these things already happened, it should be exceeding simple for you to PROVE.
Or how about answering several of the questions that AFP1996 ignorned in our debate?
Quote them and answet them here please. Show me my error.


Back to square one.

You should have been presenting your position in our debate instead of asking me questions.... But then again, when you have no biblical foundation to defend, asking questions is the safest way to debate.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Jason

I've answered this question a hundred times.

You mean you've given a "hundred times" the verse(s) where there is a gap in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21? Are you also saying that you've given a "hundred times" the verse(s) where Daniel said there is a gap between his 69th and 70th weeks? Really??

Okay, tell you what; if you post those verses 'again' so that everybody can see where these gaps are specifically mentioned in the Bible like you claim, if you can produce this evidence, then I will publically repent of my AFP doctrine.

But if you cannot post these verses, then surely you'd be just as willing to repent from your error, wouldn't you?

Reposting these should be very simple for you since you claim you've already given them a "hundred times." So let's see those verses....



Jason, on more than one occasion you've accused AFPs of being closed minded to anything except their view of eschatology. What I am doing is giving you an opportunity to either convert me, or to prove that I am as you say. But if you cannot give these verses (which you and I know you can't), then everybody reading this on the World Wide Web will get to see who is really "close minded" in this regard....

I am looking forward to seeing your answer....

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

This is so good of a reply that I had to quote it twice.

You see Brother Burk, Jason gets mad when he is backed into a corner.

If he understood what he believed then he wouldn't get mad, he would calmly argue his position and proceed forward. Yet, he knows as well as we, that he has run out of road. He cannot explain certain items in his doctrine because they are unexplainable in the context of his teaching. Brother Reckart, in his failure to put together a good argument against AFP, he resorted to attacking us with hate, and slander. Again, proving to the world that these men don't have any answers. They just have attacks to cloak their lack of information. I do want to thank these men for keeping this discussion in the public eye, and not left behind.

In their great zeal to defend their Baptist/Assembly Of God teachings they have done more to publish the Bible Truth of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, and Daniel 70 weeks as being fulfilled to the Christian world.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

Bro. Benincasa, you are correct!

I don't think our little brother Jason is hearing what's being said to him. It will be interesting to see what he contrives in effort to answer the location of these gaps in Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, and between Daniel’s 69th and 70th Weeks.

Jason claims to already have given these verses a "hundred times." However, I cannot remember him saying anything about them except that he cannot find any scripture that literally mentions them.

Isn’t it scary that even though some men and women know they have no Bible for their beliefs, they still argue that what they believe is "biblical"? How can any doctrine be considered “biblical” if it has no Bible for evidence??

Jesus’ best to you and yours,
TKB

[TK Burk]

Eld. Epley??

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

There are ceremonial washings in the OT there are NO baptisms in the OT.

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Let me make sure you're saying what it appears. Are you saying that there is no immersions in the OT?

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I think that's what the Elder is saying. Is that what you are saying Elder Epley?

[TK Burk]

Eld. Epley? You never did prove your assertion that the word "GENERATION" in Matthew 24:34 is “RACE.” Any reason why you did not do this??

To help your memory, the following is where you first claimed this and where I first asked you to explain.…

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

The word itself means race. He is making them a promise or rather comfirming it. They are NOT going to be wiped out. And in case you haven't noticed they haven't been. Titus didn't do it-Hitler did do it-and the Arabs can't do it. God keeps his promises.

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Eld. Epley, you are forever making claims that you cannot substanciate. Let me make this easy for you. Here is the verse Shag asked you about and the Strong's definitions for both "THIS" and "GENERATION":

Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

This: G3778
οὗτος, οὗτοι, αὕτη, αὕται
houtos houtoi hautē hautai
hoo'-tos, hoo'-toy, how'-tay, how'-tahee
Including the nominative masculine plural (second form), nominative feminine signular (third form), and the nominate feminine plural, (fourth form). From the article G3588 and G846; the he (she or it), that is, this or that (often with the article repeated): - he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.

Generation: G1074
γενεά
genea
ghen-eh-ah'
From (a presumed derivative of) G1085; a generation; by implication an age (the period or the persons): - age, generation, nation, time.

Eld. Epley, please explain where the Bible says these words mean "RACE" as you claim.

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Eld. Epley, are you not reading or just making excuse for your error???

The issue was and still is Matthew 24:34. You said the word NATION there means race. I asked you to show where NATION is found in THAT verse. Of course it is NOT there. This is not a surprise since YOU usually give answers that are just as erroneous. But if you still claim NATION is found in Matthew 24:34, would you please show us where?? If you cannot, man up and admit your error.

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Of course I am reading my response. If it weren't for me you'd have no response. I am the one who gave you the response you are now using. Of course you ALWAYS need someone else for your answers, don't you?

And since you're now using my answer, you really should listen to what else I am saying. Eld. Epley, the word RACE is not there. You said that NATION was there and that NATION meant RACE. You have not--and cannot--prove that. So again I keep asking you this same question, which is, please show where this NATION is found to be referring to a RACE.

Elder, Bro. Blume is correct with what he keeps telling you about the Jews rejecting the claim that they are a RACE. If you'll listen to Rabbi Ken Sapiro you'll find that he agrees with this in his taped message against Christianity. Sapiro is the Rabbi that your buddy, Bro. Wiltcher, is using as his "credible source" in the eschatology debate forum.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Eld. Epley??

I never said there were no immersions I said there were NO baptisms. I can dunk myself in a tub but it is not a baptism. Divers dive under but NO baptisms. This is silly.

[TJJJ]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Eld. Epley??

Did Elderest Epley really say there were no baptisms in the Old Testament? I have been working alot so I have not kept track of the posts!

That is FUNNY!!!!!


What about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Aren't all those OLD TESTAMENT?

[afp1996]

Elder baptism and immersion are the same things. You are not correct.