You Be The Judge: Afp1996 vs Jason

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by afp1996

Jason, you did not read why he posted it. Brother Epley stated that there were NO baptisms in the Old Testament. This is catigorically incorrect. That is the point Brother Burk is making.

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

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

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

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

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Jason

Come on, this rhetoric gets old and tired. Because I don't but into heretical eschatology dosn't mean I am unlearned and ignorant.

So you are the new standard of truth and orthodoxy?


see debate.


see debate


Really, I don't find it that difficult.

"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."

[Jason B]

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."

In spite of all that your eschatology fails to give an answer for, and yet you continue to tote the company line...."go back and study ". How many times do I have to go back? Until I come up with an extrabiblical heretical doctrine?

I have never said there is no scriptural evidence for what I believe. As though I found it in a cracker jack box.

Why did Bro. Benicasa, or yourself not debate me on the second coming of Christ? I put it out there for Bro. B several times, He wasn't touching it with a ten foot pole.

Bro. Burk, I know that your mind, and those of like persuasion have their mind made up. Even if someone rose from the dead (or in this case from mortal to immortal) you guys would deny. Look around, plenty of people are decieved, we have entire denominations of homosexuals, lesbian priests, Jehovah's witnesses, mormons, etc. All kinds of people believe strongly in certain doctrines, it doesn't mean they're correct.

If you good bretheren choose to believe Jesus isn't coming back, twist and allegorize scripture, don't shoot arrows at those who do belive the scriptures that teach that He is coming back, to put an end to unrighteousness, and the kingdom of Satan in this present world.

Bro. Burk, your entire doctrine is tied up in preterist interpretaion of Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21. And as long as you guys stay right there, you can make a decent argument, however, when scripture is examined further, your posistions arguments completely fall apart.

You have put so much time into FP, in your ministry, your website, and your materials, you don't have any wiggle room for any other interpretaion. You most likely will never even be able to be shown truth due to your stubborness. There will always be "that scripture doesn't mean that, your interpreting it wrong, it was for their day not ours, even though it says it-it doesn't mean it" explanations from you.

Now as I said, I think you guys are good bretheren, and hope to meet EB, and anyone of you passing through North Texas, but this nonesense of being ignorant, unlearned, unstudied, etc. ought to stop. For the past 5 months I have almost exclusively studied partial and full preterism.

Because you have more years of study than mean doesn't make your position correct. Plenty of guys study their whole lives, have enough letter after their name to make alphabet soup, and don't belive in the virgin birth, the ressurection, speaking in tongues, or do believe in the trinity, in universalism, in all sorts of crazy doctrines, and dare I say full preterism?

[afp1996]

In other words, you still don't have scripture to back up your position.

Glad we agree!

[shag]

Originally Posted by afp1996

Jason, Word count limitations would not let me expand on my thought process. Long story short, The animals are symbolic of Gentiles. The lion and lamb, wolf, etc. The baby playing at the snake hole and the young child show the different levels of maturity within the Kingdom of God. The weapons being turned in to sowing tools is explained by Jesus breaking down the eminty between Jew and Gentile making them one. This also has to do with the two sticks in the hand of the prophet, and this began at the day of Pentecost, fulfilling Eze. 37-38. You do not understand because you are not letting the Bible interpret itself, you would rather let newspapers do that for you.

Bro. Jason & Bro. Epley, What is your interpretation of the animals, baby, young child, snake....... in these passages?

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by shag

Bro. Jason & Bro. Epley, What is your interpretation of the animals, baby, young child, snake....... in these passages?

I believe Isa. 11 will happen literally along with Isa. 65 & 66. in the 1000 years.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

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

Bro Epley, when a ceremonial washing involves IMMERSION in that water, technically that is a "baptism". This is not for remission of sins, as NT baptism is, but baptism merely means immersing in water. So Bro Burk is correct here.

No, there is no baptism in the OT as we experience it now, but you are missing the point. IMMERSING in water is technically a baptism, whether it remits sins or not.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I believe Isa. 11 will happen literally along with Isa. 65 & 66. in the 1000 years.

You once told me you believe all the prophecies are literal, which is likely why you claim the animal issue is literal. But when I showed you this verse, you never responded:

Isaiah 11:1 KJV And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

[mfblume]

ATTENTION, all fulfilled and partially fulfilled prophecy proponents: Check out THE GENEVA BIBLE thread I started:

Click Here

Ya'll gotta get a copy!