BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale III ~ Dee Dee vs. Jerry

[Sola Scriptora]

Hitch, whqat you accuse me of, you all have been doing here ad nauseum.

Rev, If you want to take me on, don't take about private messages, put up right here.

I refuted Jack and smacks on their points. Period. All anyone has to do is R-E-A-D.

As far as the Kingdom offer, I answered that in Scriptural detail, and all you can do is make fun of the subject, you sure have NOTHING TO SAY about similar examples from Scripture I gave.

You can't.

 

[rapt]

Here's another paradox for disps to figure out. I'm quite sure it will puzzle them as much as Psalm 110 puzzled those ANTICHRISTS who didn't believe that Jesus was fulfilling Dan 9:27!

 

[rapt]

ooops! I forgot to give the paradoxial scripture!

John 3:13
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

So Jesus was down from heaven and IN heaven simultaneously?

That's what it appears!

 

[rapt]

Hey Rev 7:17, I think we have a chameleon on our hands! The pms (pun intended) and the posts appear as TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE!

 

[Revelation717]

Rev, If you want to take me on, don't take about private messages, put up right here.

Sola, ?

Smoking pot causes premature senility. Have you forgotten so soon how your UNSCRIPTUIRAL SOLA posts were cut asunder many many times here? :doh:

Anyways I sent you a PM because I did not want to distract from the purpose of this thread (dicussing the Battle, not how unscriptural you are) and thought if you had anything to say well then, "SAY IT" but you could not.

Do you really want to go through the same embarrassment?

Will you quit relying on Jack Van Impe's weekly broadcast to interprete the Scriptures for you?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by rapt
Knight or Goose,

I wish there was a direct link to the Battle on these pages.

OK

 

[rapt]

THANKS, KNIGHT!

THANKS, KNIGHT!

Hey, that's great! I hope there will be a link to the battle on the following battle discussion pages too!

 

[Sola Scriptora]

Hot air Rev, hot air. You talk a good debate, but that is all. Since you cannot answer the points I made in previous posts, esp to Jack and smacks, I suggest you stop imitating a boxer in an interview BEFORE the fight, and instead GET IN THE RING. Let the strength of your position talk for you.

But two things concern me here:

1- I do not believe any of you could do it in a Christlike, respectful way where the issue is all that is discussed, not personalizing.

2- You all sit here and challenge Dispensationalists to come on here and say something, and when one answers your challenge, you taunt him and tell him to stay away.

Not what kind of nonsense is that? It is like someone challenging another at school, when they know the teachers and others will get in the way before anything happens, but at least YOU LOOK LIKE you were ready to fight, but you knew it would never go that far, so you just bluffed.

I am calling the bluffs on here. If you desire to debate these issues, then lets go. Enough of all your pompous talk, let us go to the Scriptures and see what they reveal about these things. Fair enough?

 

[Hitch]

Originally posted by Sola Scriptora
Hitch, whqat you accuse me of, you all have been doing here ad nauseum.

Rev, If you want to take me on, don't take about private messages, put up right here.

I refuted Jack and smacks on their points. Period. All anyone has to do is R-E-A-D.

As far as the Kingdom offer, I answered that in Scriptural detail, and all you can do is make fun of the subject, you sure have NOTHING TO SAY about similar examples from Scripture I gave.

You can't.

Christ came to destroy the works of the devil. The notion that he came to set up a geo-political kingdom is out of the question and derives from vain imaginations. And it puts you and the other DFs in the poor position of developing not only an eschatology but an entire theological system based on the supposed failure of Christ.

Christ accomplished all he was sent to do. Nothing was left undone or incomplete. But then the DF view of Christ is barely above the mormon version.

WRT your comment to me... I dont recall addressing you in the past, and I have not seen the posts you refer to, although Im sure it would have been a forgetable experience.


take care

Hitch

 

[Hitch]

SS speaks;

I am calling the bluffs on here. If you desire to debate these issues, then lets go. Enough of all your pompous talk, let us go to the Scriptures and see what they reveal about these things. Fair enough

You're on.

Please define and deliniate from Scripture the divisions of the sweven dispensations especially citing NT authors refering to the verious distinctives.

It will be granted that the modern names given to the dispensations will not be used in the Scriptures ,however the distinctives must be shown to be recognized and used by the Apostles in transferring the their revelation to us in the NT

Fair enough?

HITCH

 

[Sola Scriptora]

Fine, but you need to do the same. You need to show what you believe about these things. Are there ANY Dispensations? And if so, HOW MANY? And why.

Also, you must recognize that many things we draw out of scripoture and designate, like the Trinity, or the Incarnation, or the Hypostatic Union is done for ease sake, or to Systemize what the Bible teaches.

The Bible may give us the equation 1=1= but sometimes we have to fill in with "2".

I can SHOW the dispensations in scripture, and that there is nothing else we can conclude based on what is revealed, but to require that the Apostles naming them all or giving us the Systematic Theology on all these points is not possible. They did not do that for many things.

Don't you wish Paul would have came right out and said what was restraining the appearance of the man of sin, rather than reminding the Thessalonians of something he verbally taught them? wouldn't it be nice nbot to have to try to decifer what he may have meant?

Also, I am not as dogmatic as some may think. I will use terms like "it seems to say" or the "logical conclusion based on these statements is", etc.

There are areas that are plain, others are inferences and some are gray. So it depends on what kinds of proofs you require, for there are different levels.

And on these areas I will just say that this is what I belive is IMPLIED and will not be dogmatic about it all.

None of us can on certain things, though some argue on here like they have it ALL FIGURED OUT. No one does. We see through a glass darkly. Let us remember that, for the great Apostle Paul said that, and if he was seeing things darkly, then how shall we fare???

So the first point is Humility 101. If we don't agree on this, forget it. i will not debate proud, puffed up know-it-alls, but those who are honest enough to see threir own shortcomings, and speak as Christians, not like political foes on Crossfire!

Fair enough?

 

[Hitch]

LOL

I believe you wre taunting some one about being all talk and nothing else?

You have claimed to be a dispensationaliost,,the onus is upon you to defend the seven pillars of your position. OR THERE IS NO PLACE TO BEGIN.


The 'proofs' I require are already listed,as is your less than artful dodge.You have the entire NT to find a paaage or two defining the distinctives of the dispensations ,by any name. Thats and extremely wide berth. So it time to put up or shut up. Pardon me if I dont hold my breath waiting.

Well thanx for admitting you cant define your own dispensations from Scripture and that you have no Apostolic support for them iether.

It sure didnt take much did it?


Hitch

 

[Sola Scriptora]

No Hitch, I approach this in a honest way, and you can't appreciate this, apparently. The dogmatism of some of you on here is astounding.

Fine, if we shall play games then, let us begin. I require a few things, namely, an express teaching from the Apostles explaining the Trinity to us. Once you do that, I can give you the same type of Apostolic explanations for the dispensations.

 

[Sola Scriptora]

Also, you say the onus is on me to "defend" the seven dispensations. Defend? Defend them from what? Your systematic refutation of them? I don't see any. I can state them based on what Scruipture reveals, and then if you have problems with our view, the onus is on YOU to answer that. Then it will be my turn to defend. No football team punts on first down, so don't expect me to. It is first and ten, and I am going to run fight through you, after you answer my question.

Now play fair and be a man.

 

[Hitch]

You're on.

Please define and deliniate from Scripture the divisions of the seven dispensations especially citing NT authors refering to the various distinctives.

It will be granted that the modern names given to the dispensations will not be used in the Scriptures ,however the distinctives must be shown to be recognized and used by the Apostles in transferring the their revelation to us in the NT

Fair enough?

HITCH

You were saying something about hot air??

 

[Sola Scriptora]

Where in the New Testament did the Apostles ever say "God is one God eternally existing in Three persons"? No hot air here, I am just showing you that you may not understand how to debate Biblically. Now then, give the verses in the NT that explain the Trinity.

 

[Revelation717]

What's that in the clouds?

What's that in the clouds?

A bird, a plane, no it's just Sola full of hot air!

Sola you asked for a debate and Hitch has started you off with the question why do you keep ignoring it?

You come back with a question that has not been brought up and AFTER the FACT Hitch already put his question in your face, DING DING Round 1 <:shocked: Oh SOLA takes a knockout punch> and you just come back with saying more or less, "Well I wont answer you til you answer me, na na na na na na"

You asked for it and didn't post any questions for us just kept rambling about someting you asked MrSnacks and for the life of me I CAN'T FIND ANYTHING YOU'VE EVER ASKED THAT HASN'T BEEN THRICE DEFEATED WITH THE SWORD OF THE SPIRIT, so here let's get ready to rrrrrrrrrruuuummmmblllle.

Just answer the question pointed to you and quit being a Jerry.

Where in the New Testament did the Apostles ever say "God is one God eternally existing in Three persons"? No hot air here, I am just showing you that you may not understand how to debate Biblically. Now then, give the verses in the NT that explain the Trinity.

What 1 John 5:7 ain't good enough for you?

1Jo:5:7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Now, I will post my question, just answer it using Sola Sciptura. (by the way your name is mispelled, it's ScriptUra NOT ScriptOra, like I said~CHANGE YOUR NAME~)

Who is the "he" of Daniel 9:27?

Please use Scriptura in stating why you come to your conclusion. Keep in mind this "he" confirms THEcovenant, causes sacrifice and oblation to cease and FOR the overspreading of abominations causes it to be desolate.

This much info about this man MUST be found elsewhere in Scripture or Gabriel lied to Daniel when he said "Know therefore and understand" if there was nothing about him Daniel could understand. Likewise Jesus wouldn't be able to say "He who readeth let him understand" if we cannot understand this mystery man without reading the Scriptures concerning him, now could we?

So Sola AIRE CALIENTE, have at it.

 

[rapt]

Rev 7:17,

By telling Sola to "stop being a Jerry", you were refering to his taking up Jerry's diversionary tactic of asking a question instead of answering one weren't you?

The question of the Trininty isn't even RELEVANT to the discussion! Nevertheless, the scripture you gave in 1Jn as well as Jn 1:1-3,14 settle it without any deep interpreting, don't they? And the fact that the Holy Spirit is called "he" many places, and that "he" can be "lied to", and that the judgment for doing so was death to Ananias and Saphirra out to show anyone that "He" IS GOD, just like we see from scripture that the Father and the Son both are! (hey, I used to be "oneness", and that means ANTI-Trinitarian, so I've searched this thing out thoroughly)

If Sola Hot Aire is trying to confirm the covenants (lol) , er, I mean dispensations by making the claim that they are kinda like the trinity (that is, that they are "1=1= " [ ] and that we need to "fill in the blank" and see 2 :doh: ), then Hitch will easilly turn on the scriptural air conditioner and blow such hot air into oblivion.

Yep, after just the first round, we see Sola unable to answer the very first question with anything but air. Shot right down.

Ding , ding!


:crackup:

 

[Chivato1969]

Hi everyone. I am sure that this debate with Sola will be exciting but could you take it somewhere else?? I thought this place was for comments on the debate that is going on between Dee Dee and Jerry and it seems most of the comments have been on other things.

Sola, you answered my challenge to Jerry's supporters by saying that you have defeated numerous people here on various issues. Even if true, so what?? That was not my challenge. I asked how anyone could think that Jerry was winning this debate. He is vastly outmatched in debating skills, which is obvious, even if someone agrees with his position. I can't imagine that he is going to recover from nine rounds in his last post.

Maybe you and Hitch should try and get nominated to do the next debate??

 

[rapt]

Good idea, Chivato!

You are correct that Sola hasn't answered your challenge. What is it about Jerry's posts that makes Sola think that Jerry won the debate? He NEVER answered that.

My apology for sweeping or being swept away from the topic of this string.

I started a string in the Disp forum for such discussion already. I will only respond directly to CIVIL participants. If others want to carry on such a discussion they can do it there.

I too think Hitch and Sola should be nominated for another Battle Royale. Hitch will demolish Sola just as Dee Dee has Jerry. It may be the equivalent of an instant replay!