User Tag List

View Poll Results: Who is winng Battle Royale III?

Voters
49. You may not vote on this poll
  • Dee Dee Warren

    24 48.98%
  • Jerry Shugart

    25 51.02%
Page 4 of 28 FirstFirst 123456714 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 413

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

  1. #46
    Yxboom
    Guest
    Start the burners and roll me up some tortilla shells cause tuna is making a comeback!

  2. #47
    Dee Dee Warren
    Guest
    Dear Knight:

    It is "smack down" and I personally would have attacked your opening post like a pack o' hungry wolves jumpin' on a little white bunny rabbit!
    I will be happy to thrash you once I get done with Jerry

  3. #48
    cirisme
    Guest

    I sorry to hear that...

    Dee Dee,

    got some bad health news about a family member. I would appreciate the prayers of all.
    I will definately be praying for you and yours.

  4. #49
    Yxboom
    Guest
    Oh you go girl...........YOU GO!!!

  5. #50
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    as far from OSAS and disp'ism as possible
    Posts
    226
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    221

    Bad math

    I was rolling on the floor laughing at Knight's saying "as my brother always says... "you just can't sell a turd.", and then Dee Dee splits my gut saying "Hey!!! And I was looking to buy a turd." You guys don't give me time to BREATH! I'm dying!

    Simple math is too "technical" for those who embrace disp doctrine. They can't even add 7 + 62 + 1 correctly. Rather than a true seventy, they arrive at OVER 2000 and STILL COUNTING, and CALL THAT SEVENTY!

    That's not just a mere technicality, either! That wild math is the very basis upon which Jerry's doctrine is BUILT!

    I just DON'T BUY IT, do you, Dee Dee?
    Last edited by rapt; August 27th, 2002 at 05:11 PM.



    Revelation 22
    14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

    15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

  6. #51
    Dee Dee Warren
    Guest
    Hi Rapt!!! It is great to see you, but you will just make too much sense, you know that don't you??

  7. #52
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    as far from OSAS and disp'ism as possible
    Posts
    226
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    221
    I can't make BEANS of sense out of disp folly. Is it just too high for me, or what? Am I just uneducated? Did they teach me wrong in grade school? I'm sorry, but they didn't have "outcome based education" back when I learned to add, and everyone's opinion of what two plus two is wasn't accepted back then. They weren't worried about damaging anyone's self esteem then, ya know.

    We either got it RIGHT or else we got a big fat "F"
    Last edited by rapt; August 27th, 2002 at 05:20 PM.



    Revelation 22
    14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

    15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

  8. #53
    Trainee
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Fresno
    Posts
    5
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Dee Dee wins hands down - so far!

    It seems to me that Dee Dee’s first round argument prevailed - and substantially so. . Although, two additional matters warranted her review.

    First, if Dee Dee’s argument is correct, then Mark, which was written after the destruction of the temple (i.e., 70 - 80 C.E.), dealt with a prophecy which had just been fulfilled (this would also be true for Luke and Matthew which likely to be even older still). Therefore, there would be a clear understanding on the author’s part of this fact, and from an exegesis standpoint it would be reasonable to compare Jesus’ prophesy with non-biblical accounts of the temple destruction (i.e., Josephus). If they compare favorably, this would provide further proof that Jesus was speaking of a future 35 years away and not 2000 + years.

    Second, some discussion regarding the first century church’s belief that Jesus was returning in their lifetimes. Paul makes references to this belief in several of his epistles, and assuming the human authors of scripture where not simply scribners (that is, they actually put something of themselves into the writings), a limited analysis should have been made on how this view may have effected the Biblical writings.

    With regard to Shugart’s position, I have to say it is really a muddled mess. He appears to have no concept of exegesis, and believes that every word, letter and punctuation mark in the Bible can be used to a proof for a theological position. For that reason alone, his argument should be viewed with great doubt.

    Further, his opening statement was laughable. First, he suggests some conspiracy with the Church of Rome, what he apparently believes is their official position and Satan. Second, this position is followed by one in which he places himself - and those who are apparently like minded - into a position of undisputable authority (a nice place to be). He writes:

    “But those of us who are guided by the Scriptures know that all this is not true.We know that the "great tribulation" has not yet come to pass.”

    Only after Shurgart’s appeal to his all encompassing authority does he then attempt to make a contrary argument to Dee Dee’s. But the argument fails to be persuasive. Specifically, his claim that both Daniel and Jesus are referring to two different attacks on Israel is circular. That is, he is uses Daniel to support his claim that Jesus was talking about two separate events, and then uses Jesus to support his claim that Daniel was talking about two separate events.

    The correct way to read the Bible, is to read each book as an individual document. From this position you rely on both context of the writing, any historical context which can be derived from the text, and any information on historical context outside of scripture. Only then can an attempt be made to argue outward from the text to a larger position. This is a classic exegesis analysis, and if it is not followed you wind up with the ridiculous proof text position that Shurgart takes.

  9. #54
    Dee Dee Warren
    Guest
    Dear RCS:

    You can get thrown off of TOL for thinking too clearly like that!!!

    I appreciate the other points that you would have liked to have seen addressed. Space limitations are dictating where my attention is placed, though I would love to have a discussion with you about those issues in the future some time.

  10. #55
    Trainee
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Fresno
    Posts
    5
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Dee Dee I will keep that in mind!

  11. #56
    Over 500 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    633
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    225

    Violation Of The First Rule of Debate.

    Neither party defined their proposition, in their opening post, so no one really knows what is being debated. "Is the Great Tribulation Past or Present" is a relative statement. It can mean several things. Therefore until the public knows the definition of the proposition we are completely in the dark as to what is being debated.

    JustAChristian

  12. #57
    Rookie King David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    20
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    213

    The Question & Answer are NOT an Either/Or

    Commenting on the battle, its too early to see who will prevail with the viewers. It matters little, though I am sure the combatants feel differently.

    As I see it, Matthew 24 covers BOTH events that HAVE happened AND events YET to occur. So, in this sense, if I understand correctly now the terms "preterists" and "futurists" in this context, both are right AND both are wrong. Mostly, if they take one view or the other exclusively, they are wrong. For the prophecies Christ made are plural--NOT just regarding the different things that would happen, but actually and also WHEN they would happen. The first part of Matthew 24 deals with the first "abomination of desolations".

    First, each different prophecy starts out with "false Christs" (verse 5)-- (meaning NOT only PERSONS unauthoritatively representing or feigning to represent Christ, but ALSO organizationally or, if you will, 'organizational false Christs'). Hence, the many factions and splits in the early church, which was ALREADY occurring BEFORE the death of the apostles AND continued to occur afterwards was fulfillment of this portion of the prophecy made by Jesus.

    However, you will note that verse 23 starts the whole thing over again--

    23 THEN if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. (Emphasis added)
    Again, this is speaking, I believe, more of "false christs" organizationally than as individuals, though there are certainly individuals who have, are, and will proclaim themselves as "saviors" of one sort or another (without divine direction or authority--hence, this is why they are 'false').

    I would assert that for there to be "false christs" AGAIN, there had to have been a "true Christ" (again, speaking organizationally). Verse 23 and on is largely speaking of OUR day (some correction of the order of verses in that chapter can be found here http://scriptures.lds.org/js_m/1 . And the final return of Christ is yet to occur, and this IN PERSON, as he comes to save the Jews, as they expected He would the first time he came. But great devastation will have befallen the majority of them, as there will be but a remnant left to be saved, for most, or at least many, will have already perished (the bombings occuring in Israel now, are only part of the means of the destruction of this embattled people)--

    Isaiah 4: 3

    3 And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem:...
    And then He will reveal himself. Zechariah gives the account. The Lord speaking through Joseph Smith expounded upon (or restored all of? or the rest of?) Zechariah's prophecy--

    Zechariah 13: 6

    6 And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

    (COMPARE WITH)--

    Doctrine & Covenants 45: 52

    52 Then shall they know that I am the Lord; for I will say unto them: These wounds are the wounds with which I was wounded in the house of my friends. I am he who was lifted up. I am Jesus that was crucified. I am the Son of God.

    53 And then shall they (the Jews) weep because of their iniquities; then shall they lament because they persecuted their king.

    54 And then shall the heathen nations be redeemed, and they that knew no law shall have part in the first resurrection; and it shall be tolerable for them.

    55 And Satan shall be bound, that he shall have no place in the hearts of the children of men.
    Things tend to repeat themselves. On the very same day of the year that Nebechednezzar laid siege to Jerusalem in 587 B.C. was the very same day of the year that Titus laid siege to that same city in 67 A.D., I believe it was).

    The temple there (in Jerusalem) will yet be rebuilt. And the Jews will rebuild it.

    What is coming is what has already happened, though there are differences.

    --KING DAVID

  13. #58
    Dee Dee Warren
    Guest
    Dear JAC:

    I respectfully disagree. Space was limited so I did not do as long of an introduction as I normally would, but I within the space of my post clearly limited the subject matter to each of the "versions" of the Olivet Discourse up to Jesus' time statement of "This generation will not pass away...." That is where the referent for "The Great Tribulation" is being made. That grouping of verses is past.

  14. #59
    Over 750 post club Goose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Paradise, IN, US
    Posts
    769
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    221
    I've only seen proof texts from Dee Dee regarding partial preterism. Not full preterism. I take it she has more to go however.

    Good first round you two!

  15. #60
    Dee Dee Warren
    Guest
    Dear Goose:

    Ewww!!! I am NOT a Hymenaean. I am fully within the doctrines of the historic Christian faith. I believe in a future Coming of Christ, I believe in the future resurrection of the dead, I believe in the future Final Judgment.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us