You Be The Judge: Afp1996 vs Jason

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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:

I do not think every prophecy is literal I have read the Book of Revelations however unless it does not make sense being literal I accept them as literal. Christ was the rod and branch of Jesse and David that is literal and He will sit on a literal throne ruling literal people in a literal kingdom.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I do not think every prophecy is literal I have read the Book of Revelations however unless it does not make sense being literal I accept them as literal. Christ was the rod and branch of Jesse and David that is literal and He will sit on a literal throne ruling literal people in a literal kingdom.

You told me all OT prophecies of Jesus' coming were literal.

By the way, Christ being a rod and branch from Jesse is not literal. Jesse was not a tree with roots and Christ was not a stick of wood.

Christ is on a literal throne ruling in a literal kingdom over literal people.

We must realize, as well, that LITERAL does not mean physical. It means faithful to the intent of the literature.

[Praxeas]

Literal, for you folks too illiterate to check the dictionary


in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.

2. following the words of the original very closely and exactly: a literal translation of Goethe.

3. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal description of conditions.

4. being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy: the literal extermination of a city.

5. (of persons) tending to construe words in the strict sense or in an unimaginative way; matter-of-fact; prosaic.

6. of or pertaining to the letters of the alphabet.

7. of the nature of letters. 8. expressed by letters.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

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

NO Baptism?

1Pe 3:20-22

"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. THE LIKE FIGURE whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."


1Co 10:1-6

"Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. NOW THESE THINGS WERE OUR EXAMPLES, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted."

Elder Epley, are you sure?

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

Elder Epley, do you teach that water baptism started with John the Baptist?
Isn't that like reading a book and starting at the last 10 pages?
If what John, Jesus and the apostles taught were new, then please explain why the RELIGIOUS JEWS wanted to get baptized also?

Mat 3:7

"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"

Mat 17:11

"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and RESTORE ALL THINGS. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples UNDERSTOOD that he spake unto them of John the Baptist."

John the Baptist is also described by Jesus as being John the Baptist (not William Branham), and that John was to RESTORE ALL THINGS.

Those religious Jews where part of two Jewish sects which were opposed to each other. Yet, we see them crowding to take part of John the Baptist's Mikveh to the coming Messiah. If John was introducing something new and revelatory why didn’t those Jewish sects bring that up to John?

Joh 1:24-25

"And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him, WHY BAPTIZEST THOU THEN, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?"

Instead those religious Jews understood full well, that water baptism was to be performed by the Prophet who would be like unto Moses, that would be Messiah. They understood full well, that their Messiah would come and He would baptize. These religious Jews didn't have a New Testament set of books or a King James (best Bible around), yet they had the Jewish Bible. The Jewish Bible that taught them all about water baptism of the Messiah.

With respect and love Elder Epley

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[mfblume]

Awesome points, Bro Benincasa.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason

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?

Jason, why didn't I debate you? Did you forget your PM to me?
Did you forget what you told me in the PM? Has that information changed? Are you ready to explain the gaps in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21?

In your debate you told AFP1996 that there is a gap in Matthew 24, well, well where is it located?

You have some deep problems and I'm going to go out of my way to help you.

You will prove where the gaps are located in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. I want you to do this in a reasonable amount of time. If you cannot, I want you to apologize and admit that you are in no way in any position to tell anyone who is right or wrong concerning eschatology.

You are in the process of learning, meaning that you cannot effectively explain what you believe. you proved it with flying colors that your Achilles' heel is explaining the gaps in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21.

False Heretical doctrine? Funny, you don't even know what you believe.

Show us the gaps in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. Come on Mr. Bible Truth, show us where the gaps are?

You should be ashamed.

And that,

Is the real issue.

Inn Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Awesome points, Bro Benincasa.

Thank you Brother Blume.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[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."

Isn't that the TRUTH!

[Evang.Benincasa]

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?

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