You Be The Judge: Afp1996 vs Jason

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I did respond and he ane I argued my answer. This old debators trick was used when Mody Dick was a minnow.
However I did notice he observed 'the passover' on your questions and arguments.

Eld. Epley, that just is not true. You have NEVER answered these questions. Side-stepped them, yes. Answered them, no!

I'll tell you what, you show where you proved from the Bible that "GENERATION" in Matthew 24:34 means "RACE," and I’ll never mention AFP again. I promise you that I am telling the truth. You show where you did that and you'll never hear me mention AFP again.

Also, you never proved your claim that the OT contains no baptisms/immersions. I gave several scriptures that say just the opposite, yet you claimed they were wrong. Where in any of your posts did you prove your claim?

Elder, your arguments and your slanders are ridiculous. You attack AFP brethren with ludicrous claims, and then when asked to prove them, you blameshift your inability to prove yourself correct onto something or someone else. Elder, how is asking you to substantiate your arguments "an old debators (sic) trick"? Why is it so wrong to ask you to verify what you claim is in the Bible? Why would you argue against proving that you are telling the truth if you are?

Eld. Epley, anyone reading these many posts knows who is being honest here and who is not. All they have to do is see whether you gave the posts where you claimed to have answered my questions. Your ongoing refusal to give these locations proves it all….

[TK Burk]

Now, Bro. Blume, you did not answer my questions. This again is what I asked:

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Bro. Blume,

But since you brought this up, let me remind both you and everyone else reading this that some of what you asked here was talked about during a time you said you placed me and Eld. Benincasa on “ignore.” I thought it pretty spineless that during the time you said to have us on ignore, you posted that we were not answering you. That drew a few disgusting comments from others who realized what you were doing. They compared such an action to placing another man in handcuffs, and then bragging how the guy didn’t fight back while being walloped. During that time you said you could not, and was not, reading our posts. However, we still answered much of what you said. Because of this fact I would like to ask, did you go back and read what we wrote there BEFORE accusing me of NOT answering? Also, during that time it sure looked as if you were still reading our posts, even though you said you were not. We mentioned this during that time because you were answering what we posted, even though nobody else had answered or commented first. And to make this even more incredible, some of your answers were almost exactly worded as our posts. This would be hard to do unless you were in fact reading these posts. So how about it, Bro. Blume, were you telling the truth about having us on ‘ignore’ and about NOT being reading our posts during all that time, or were you still reading them? I really would not care if it weren’t for the fact that you were so insistent that you could not, and were not, reading our posts. If you maintain that you did tell the truth about this, I would like to ask if you went back and read what was posted during that time BEFORE accusing me of NOT answering you. What is the truth about this Bro. Blume?

This is what you answered:

Originally Posted by mfblume

I asked you to respond to points long before this occurred, and never got any responses. Weeks went by before anyone was set to ignore, and I never got answers from you and Bro B. Let's not change the scenario.

When you were set on ignore due to personal attacks, and let's not get into that again, you continued writing to me about all sorts of things. None of which answered any of my questi0ons, which did not stop you from writing as though I read it all. Some I did, and some I did not. But in all the time you took to keep writing to me, you still never answered these questions. Since you continued writing, what is the claim you make about me putting you on ignore since I would not read your posts, anyway? That did not stop you from writing to me about other issues while you were on the setting.

Fact is you never answered those questions in the many weeks you were not on ignore. I waited and waited and repeated and repeated. No answer - -BEFORE you were set on ignore. Before, bro. Read my lips.

Anyway, calm down a bit. I know how much Bro Epley avoids certain issues. You have made many good points. However, I saw enough of your posts that demanded responses, outside of any body claiming they did when they did not. This reminded me of that again. You have done the same, is all.[/B]

If you'll notice you did not answer what I actually asked which includes...

(1) Were Bro. Benincasa and I really on ignore like you claimed?

(2) Were you really not reading our posts like you claimed?

(3) If we were on ignore, and if you were not reading our posts, how did you answer things that we mentioned without knowing we posted them?

(4) If you maintain that we were on ignore and that you did not read our posts, then did you later read all Bro. Benincasa and I wrote in our many posts during that time BEFORE claiming we did not answer you?

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Eld. Epley, that just is not true. You have NEVER answered these questions. Side-stepped them, yes. Answered them, no!

I'll tell you what, you show where you proved from the Bible that "GENERATION" in Matthew 24:34 means "RACE," and I’ll never mention AFP again. I promise you that I am telling the truth. You show where you did that and you'll never hear me mention AFP again.

Also, you never proved your claim that the OT contains no baptisms/immersions. I gave several scriptures that say just the opposite, yet you claimed they were wrong. Where in any of your posts did you prove your claim?

Elder, your arguments and your slanders are ridiculous. You attack AFP brethren with ludicrous claims, and then when asked to prove them, you blameshift your inability to prove yourself correct onto something or someone else. Elder, how is asking you to substantiate your arguments "an old debators (sic) trick"? Why is it so wrong to ask you to verify what you claim is in the Bible? Why would you argue against proving that you are telling the truth if you are?

Eld. Epley, anyone reading these many posts knows who is being honest here and who is not. All they have to do is see whether you gave the posts where you claimed to have answered my questions. Your ongoing refusal to give these locations proves it all….

I will allow the readers to judge. My answer were not paragraphs.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I will allow the readers to judge. My answer were not paragraphs.

Eld. Epley, you have no right to ever say anything against what I believe again. You have been completely dishonest about this, and if you feared God you'd admit it.

Believe me, Eld. Epley, the readers will judge this...and I have saved a copy to my hard drive to make sure I can show others later.

Interestingly, Eld. Epley, I know a preacher who is talking to a saint who went to your old church in Indiana. He is answering questions they have about AFP. This talk we've had should go a long way in showing that saint how truthful you are about what you taught them. For their sake I thank you!

For the record, Eld. Epley said what AFP teaches about Matthew 24 is incorrect because the word “generations” in verse 34 is actually “race.” If he is correct, and if Judaism is a race, then his position that Matthew 24 is to be fulfilled in a future time may have merit. However, if he is incorrect, and if Judaism is not a race, then all that Jesus said in Matthew 24 was to happen to the generation of Jews to whom He was speaking. Since Eld. Epley has not given any proof for his claim that “generation” means “race,” and since he has not offered any evidence that Judaism is a race, we can conclude that the AFP teaching that Matthew 24 was fulfilled during the generation to whom Jesus spoke is the correct interpretation.

Also, Eld. Epley tried to demean AFP brethren by claiming it is just as silly as saying there was baptisms in the Old Testament (OT). I showed Eld Epley several passages from the OT that mention OT mikvahs. A mikvah is a ceremonial cleansing immersion. I pointed out to him that “baptism” means “immersion.” I also told him that John the Baptist did not invent baptism, and that those who went to him did not question what he was doing because they were already familiar with immersions/baptisms. Even after all that he still maintained that there were no such immersions in the OT. He was asked to prove how the verses I gave were incorrect. He never did this though he claims he has “over and over.” I maintain that the verses I gave from the OT are more correct then are Eld. Epley’s unsubstantiated opinion.

Thanks again Eld. Epley. You help us prove AFP is correct with almost your every post!!

[Jason B]

I know the feeling. I answer FP's over and over, then they say-"Jason won't answer the questions". I have a full fledged debate, and they say, "We don't know what Jason believes."

I say-

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Eld. Epley, you have no right to ever say anything against what I believe again. You have been completely dishonest about this, and if you feared God you'd admit it.

Believe me, Eld. Epley, the readers will judge this...and I have saved a copy to my hard drive to make sure I can show others later.

Interestingly, Eld. Epley, I know a preacher who is talking to a saint who went to your old church in Indiana. He is answering questions they have about AFP. This talk we've had should go a long way in showing that saint how truthful you are about what you taught them. For their sake I thank you!

For the record, Eld. Epley said what AFP teaches about Matthew 24 is incorrect because the word “generations” in verse 34 is actually “race.” If he is correct, and if Judaism is a race, then his position that Matthew 24 is to be fulfilled in a future time may have merit. However, if he is incorrect, and if Judaism is not a race, then all that Jesus said in Matthew 24 was to happen to the generation of Jews to whom He was speaking. Since Eld. Epley has not given any proof for his claim that “generation” means “race,” and since he has not offered any evidence that Judaism is a race, we can conclude that the AFP teaching that Matthew 24 was fulfilled during the generation to whom Jesus spoke is the correct interpretation.

Also, Eld. Epley tried to demean AFP brethren by claiming it is just as silly as saying there was baptisms in the Old Testament (OT). I showed Eld Epley several passages from the OT that mention OT mikvahs. A mikvah is a ceremonial cleansing immersion. I pointed out to him that “baptism” means “immersion.” I also told him that John the Baptist did not invent baptism, and that those who went to him did not question what he was doing because they were already familiar with immersions/baptisms. Even after all that he still maintained that there were no such immersions in the OT. He was asked to prove how the verses I gave were incorrect. He never did this though he claims he has “over and over.” I maintain that the verses I gave from the OT are more correct then are Eld. Epley’s unsubstantiated opinion.

Thanks again Eld. Epley. You help us prove AFP is correct with almost your every post!!

Are you just trying to personally insult me? I NEVER said there were no immersions in the OT all baptisms are immersions but all immersions are NOT baptisms. However I did answer you and my answer stands. If someone I taught goes into this heresy I am no better than Paul some of his converts also believed the resurrection was past.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

If a saint I taught goes into this foolishness they deserve to be decieved.

If a saint YOU taught? TAUGHT? Taught WHAT? Elder, you can't even explain your own claims.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

If a saint YOU taught? TAUGHT? Taught WHAT? Elder, you can't even explain your own claims.

I deleted that post.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason

Brother, do you know the definition of answer?

You apparently don't.

Originally Posted by Jason

Yes, I do.
However, I do NOT believe that the temple that will be built has to do with God's redemptive plan.

Again, you show that you have a problem with the English language.
Here you go running down the rabbit hole with an issue that I didn't bring up.
I pointed out that in two places in the N.T. that you presented the temple is called the HOLY PLACE, and the TEMPLE OF GOD. Wether or not it is part of any redemptive plan is moot. Jesus in Matthew 24, (at the place you claim where the gap is placed) is calling the location of the AOD the HOLY PLACE.

SO EXPLAIN HOW THIS FUTURE REBUILT TEMPLE IS THE HOLY PLACE THE TEMPLE OF GOD.

Originally Posted by Jason

I believe that the Jews will build a temple (they have plans to) and will begin animal sacrifice again.

Who cares what you and I believe, what does the Bible say? How wil this future temple be what Jesus said in Matthew 24:15? How will it be the physical HOLY PLACE? The only time that happened was prior to its last and final destruction. Prove your teaching with some Bible.

Originally Posted by Jason

It will be short lived, because the antichrist will stand in the temple, claim to be God, and cause the sacrifice to cease.

Where did you get the above? From the Left Behind series?

How is the above Matthew 24:15? Jesus said when you see the abomination stand in the HOLY PLACE. How will your future rebuilt temple become a future HOLY PLACE. Do you know what the word HOLY means? Jesus did. Jesus is the one who used the word in conjunction with the area that the abomination would stand.

Originally Posted by Jason

It is my understanding that the Jews will do this because they rejected the Messiah, and they are under the impression that they need a temple to practice their religion and bring on the Messiah. (of course this is unneccessary, since Messiah has already come-which is why the door is wide open for the anti-Christ to claim he is the Messiah). I also believe that when they offer the first animal sacrifice, the false prophet will (or at least appear to)bring fire down from heaven-that consumes the sacrifice as it did in the Old Testament, and He will use His influence to further empower the anti-christ (or beast). Revelation 13

As for the wording "Temple of God", I believe this is in reference to a Jewish Temple on the temple mount. There are many temples in this world, but a temple on that spot, dedicated to the God of the Jews, would certainly be unique from all other "temples" on this earth.

In review:
1)I do believe a temple will be built again
2)I do not believe it has anything to do with the plan of salvation
3)I believe that animal sacrifices will start up again, but likely for only a VERY brief time frame
4)Early on (perhaps even as early as the dedication of the temple) the ani-christ will stand in the temple and claim to be God.
5)I believe that the most likely scenario for a false prophet pulling fire down from heaven would be at the dedication of the temple, though the bble doesn't say specifically when this event will happen, only that it will.

BTW-what is preterisms explanation of Revelation 13:13?

I know you won't agree with me, but hopefully I have spelled it out clearly enough that you guys won't twist it around. Then again, I won't hold my breath.

I've never claimed there is a gap there between those two verses.


Yet another case of the full preterists pot calling the kettle black.
You just perfectly described your very own posistion.

I say Jesus has yet to return, I offer as proof 1)scripture 2)reality-the world we live in, and the activity of Satan (who in FP eschatology is bound). If Satan is bound, i don't want to see what this world would be like if he gets loosed. I am arguing from a future fulfillment point of view, thus there are certain things that have yet to happen. You guys are arguing from a past fulfillment view, so if these things happened, it should be easy to prove. Like being a Monday morning quarterback, but you guys have a eschatology where Jesus came back, and no one even knew-even Clement and his contemporaries, in the late first century AD were talking about the Lord coming back in the future. So if He came in the first century, every one missed it, and has been missing it for 2000 years.

Thank you very much for not letting me down. Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls, friends and foes. Now, Brother Jason, how about dealing with what I originally asked you?

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The Bible calls this rebuilt temple the HOLY PLACE? This rebuilt temple is going to be rebuilt by people who can't prove they are Biblical Jews like those in Ezra and Nehemiah HAD TOO in order to rebuild the second temple? Please look at your POST and tell me what you wrote. The TEMPLE OF GOD, and Jesus in Matthew 24:15, calls it the HOLY PLACE. Your doctrine becomes even more insane when you propose that this is all future. Yet, you can't explain why?

Brother Jason if the gap is between Matthew 24:14 and 15, would you care to explain with chapter and verse how that works in your world?


The HOLY PLACE which is THE TEMPLE, you posted that. Brother Jason, you have a future rebuilt temple which will be built somewhere off in the future that will be a HOLY PLACE according to God Almighty? Now in what I believe, that makes sense, since the temple was commanded by God through King Cyrus to be rebuilt. Yet, in your mythological eschatology it becomes totally illogical. You have Jesus talking about the temple in the first century and wallah by verse 15 Jesus is speaking of a rebuilt temple thousands of years later? PROVE IT, and try using the Bible.




You don't believe, and Trinitarians don't believe in the water baptism in Jesus name. Yet, why won't you explain how it is impossible? Since Mark 13, and Luke 21 is speaking of the same exact topic why don't you show us how those two chapters back up your claims? Brother Jason, you most likely have lots of things which you dogmatically claim are untrue, yet never can prove them to be untrue with a Bible. Where in this post did you prove beyond the shadow of doubt that the AOD couldn't possibly have happened in the first century AD? Yet, that IS what is being asked of you over and over again. That is what we hound you to do and it's like trying to nail jello to a wall.

You never prove anything, you just make statements and hope that we will accept your statements, which are not based on Biblical facts.

Brother Jason, you were asked to prove it, and do it with a Bible, chapter and verse. You place a gap between 14 and 15? How, and why, and where are these gaps in the two other chapters that speak of the same issue, Mark 13, and Luke 21.



You would do best to prove what you yourself bvelieve instead of attributing anything to us. How about proving your gaps. Remember you are right we are wrong. Since that is the case, it would matter if we thought Hare Krishna was Pontius Pilate. All you need to do is prove what you believe. Prove your gap.


Your reasoning is because you said it's so? Do you have a problem with English? Where did you prove anything? Because you say it DID NOT?
We are asking you to prove it, and not to just say it, but PROVE IT.

This is mind blowing, and what is blowing my mind, is that you are not embarrassed by making the above statement. You were asked to produce why you believe there is gaps in Daniel 70 weeks, Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. You were to produce the reasons why with chapter and verse. I don't care what you think is truth, I want you to prove with a Bible what is truth.

Hey, I'm wrong remember, I'm the heretic, remember? You are the one who is supposed to PROVE that Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 have gaps in them of thousands of years. Now we have gotten you to admit a future rebuilt temple, and that you believe that temple will be HOLY and GOD'S TEMPLE. It should be very interesting to see you prove that with a Bible.

You were asked to produce where the gaps are and explain why your position is TRUE. The above is proving anything, you are just blowing and going. How about proving with a Bible your gaps in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21.

Brother Jason, instead of giving me Tim Lahaye's Left Behind saga, how about explaining with a Bible what I originally asked you.

Where are those gaps in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21? You have already given me the AOD and Matthew 24:15, and now please show me where those gaps are in Mark 13 and Luke 21. How will the rebuilt temple in our near future be THE HOLY PLACE.

THE HOLY PLACE.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason

I know the feeling. I answer FP's over and over, then they say-"Jason won't answer the questions". I have a full fledged debate, and they say, "We don't know what Jason believes."

I say-

Brother Jason, you didn't explain how the new rebuilt temple built by European Russian Jews, will be a holy place? How it will be THE HOLY PLACE, spoken of by Jesus Christ in Matthew 24:15?

I know what you believe, you just need to produce chapter and verse from the Bible and not Tim Lahaye. When Ezra and Nehemiah rebuilt the temple they just didn't use who ever came along. Those who worked on the temple had to prove who they were. You are preaching and teaching something that is not Biblical. Also you never explained where the gaps were in Mark 13, and Luke 21? How do they fit with Matthew 24:15, since that is where your thousands and thousands of years is to be placed?

The only reason you are yawning is because you are tired out from trying to make up your false doctrine as you go along.



In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com