|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 5, 2011 13:56:28 GMT -5
If you would rather I choose the topic then just say so. No need to play games here. The topic will be "The First H & E." Roo, Works for me. In my published discussion of the nature of the First H&E, I started with a 60-page demonstration of preterism. So, we will first need to establish preterism. Are you a preterist? What type? Do you believe that all of the Olivet discourse is fulfilled? Vaughn, I am a FULL Preterist. I believe that ALL of the Olivet discourse has been fulfilled. I even go further in that I believe that all of Ezekiel has been fulfilled. Moreover, I like Wanda am a Reformed Preterist. I want to make two suggestions about the debate: 1. That you take the affirmative position meaning that you defend your view that the creation of Genesis 1 is the first H&E. I will take the negative position attacking your view. This is how we started so it is natural to continue it this way. 2. Allyn has informed me that Bev will be the moderator. But I would like to ask a person who is a debate judge in real life academia and also on another discussion board. He judged a debate between me and another person before. His name is Dennison. If he is available I would like to ask him. I don't have a problem with Bev moderating. I just like having a professional debate judge. If he is not available Bev is fine with me. I trust that she will do research on being a debate judge. Dennison even has different formats we can look at. In the formats he uses nobody wins or loses though I will hang you up like wallpaper regardless.  Dennison is not a Preterist but I have found him friendly toward Preterism. Inviting him here to judge may just cause him to become a part of our family. Then we can work out format and timing and starting date. I will copy and paste this on a new thread "Defining and Setting the Terms." Please reply there from now on relating to the details of the debate. We should not clutter this thread working out the details. Okay so we agree on the topic which is "The First H&E."
This is all I have time for today. We will hammer out a lot of the details tomorrow.blessings, Roo |
|
|
|
Post by wandashort on Jan 5, 2011 14:13:33 GMT -5
Allyn, how does this work? Will we (non debators) be able to view the posts but not add any posts? I would like to see how it works out.
|
|
|
|
Post by simplyforgiven on Jan 5, 2011 14:48:50 GMT -5
Hello Kj,
As you can see i agreed on your request from HN
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 5, 2011 14:55:16 GMT -5
Hello Kj, As you can see i agreed on your request from HN Thanks Dennison. Good to see you. KJ |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 5, 2011 15:02:42 GMT -5
Dennison,
Vaughn has to first agree to you being the judge.
KJ
|
|
|
|
Post by simplyforgiven on Jan 5, 2011 15:07:34 GMT -5
KJ, Im happy to hear from you, I have missed you very much. Its been a struggle lately at the forum, but it seems things have finally turned "our way" with the new contentions we have brought up lately. Anyways, I will gladly help you out as a Judge. As you know I am not biased, and I only consider what is shown as Contention (your point), with Warrents (Evidence) and Impacts(why its revelant). and i Determine whats held valid, and whats been drop. as you also know, any contention that is not attacked is held valid, and any attack thats not refuted also disvalidates the cliam. in other words, everything must have a response. Thats the way I personally See things, but you can debate in any format you like. For suggestions in formats click this link. www.heavennet.net/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?s=b2b4f1a0b4e317e9e798c3faffbbe0b1;act=ST;f=2;t=3267 |
|
|
|
Post by simplyforgiven on Jan 5, 2011 15:09:28 GMT -5
KJ,
No Problem, I hope "Vaughn" can understand that a structered debate can bring solutions to many issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 15:22:55 GMT -5
Vaughn, ... 1. That you take the affirmative position meaning that you defend your view that the creation of Genesis 1 is the first H&E. I will take the negative position attacking your view. This is how we started so it is natural to continue it this way. You promised to prove something. That requires you to take an affirmative position on your view. I suggest we both post the affirmatives we wish to prove. At some agreed upon time in the future, we both post our opening arguments for our respective affirmatives. Then at the next agreed upon time, we both post our first negatives, etc. I suggest my first affirmative support the statement: The old covenant, the covenant that ended in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem, began in Genesis 1, before Adam's Fall. Yours could be something like: The old covenant, the covenant that ended in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem, began at Sinai. We then present our respective first affirmative arguments sometime around Jan. 20th, 2 weeks from now. Then at two week intervals, we respond with our respective denials of the other person's position, followed by our second affirmatives, our second denials, and our final affirmatives. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 15:33:23 GMT -5
Dennison,
Welcome. I'm happy to have you help. Thanks for the link.
I think I am fine with the basic rules you've stated, but having never seen a formal debate, I am not completely clear on how they work. It will take some time to go through them all and make sure I understand.
Thanks,
Jeff
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 5, 2011 15:41:56 GMT -5
Allyn, how does this work? Will we (non debators) be able to view the posts but not add any posts? I would like to see how it works out. Hi Wanda, I have set up a place for the debate and JL and Roo are working out the debate rules. They will start a thread in the Sub-board I have in the prearanged section of our discussion board here. All registered members will be able to read the debate as it goes on but no one but the two debators and their judge willo be permitted to participate. Once4all is the supreme moderator of the debate in case it gets way out of hand and what she says goes. Once the debate is over Bev or I will move the debate into a "Past Debates" section for archiving and for anyone to add their two cents. It will become an open forum at that time. I have designated JL and Roo as CCDebators (they have that temporary title under their name while the debate is going). |
|
|
|
Post by simplyforgiven on Jan 5, 2011 15:49:47 GMT -5
Vaughn, ... 1. That you take the affirmative position meaning that you defend your view that the creation of Genesis 1 is the first H&E. I will take the negative position attacking your view. This is how we started so it is natural to continue it this way. You promised to prove something. That requires you to take an affirmative position on your view. I suggest we both post the affirmatives we wish to prove. At some agreed upon time in the future, we both post our opening arguments for our respective affirmatives. Then at the next agreed upon time, we both post our first negatives, etc. I suggest my first affirmative support the statement: The old covenant, the covenant that ended in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem, began in Genesis 1, before Adam's Fall. Yours could be something like: The old covenant, the covenant that ended in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem, began at Sinai. We then present our respective first affirmative arguments sometime around Jan. 20th, 2 weeks from now. Then at two week intervals, we respond with our respective denials of the other person's position, followed by our second affirmatives, our second denials, and our final affirmatives. Thoughts? Hi Jeff, Kj and I have had a debate like this as you suggested on a different forum. What you can do is have both of you right your first Affirmitive Cases, and than submit it to me. and when you are both Done, i will post them up in the very same time. after that he make your neg cases, and go as you will like afterwards. but there must be a "Resolve" for both parties. As you what are you trying to prove. and have you proven it? Therefore what is the theme, or the subject that ya are debating? |
|
|
|
Post by simplyforgiven on Jan 5, 2011 15:54:07 GMT -5
Dennison, Welcome. I'm happy to have you help. Thanks for the link. I think I am fine with the basic rules you've stated, but having never seen a formal debate, I am not completely clear on how they work. It will take some time to go through them all and make sure I understand. Thanks, Jeff Not a problem, Im flex. and here to serve. Anyway ya want. Im here to moderate yours and Kj's Terms and make sure that both of you follow your agreements. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 17:09:52 GMT -5
I accept Dennison as judge. Thank-you Dennison for handling this chore.
I propose two affirmatives.
Resolved: The old covenant, the covenant that ended in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem, began in Genesis 1, before Adam's Fall.
Affirm: Jeff Vaughn
Deny: Kangaroo Jack
Resolved: The old covenant, the covenant that ended in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem, began at Sinai.
Affirm: Kangaroo Jack
Deny: Jeff Vaughn
|
|
|
|
Post by simplyforgiven on Jan 5, 2011 17:32:13 GMT -5
If i understand this Correctly. the Resolve for Jeff is to prove that the Old Covenant started in Genesis 1, and for KJ on the mount of Sinai.
May i suggest some other terms to settle.
How many rebuttals will you have for each debater? (10 each is too much, trust me)
And may i suggest for the sake of the Judge to DEFINE TERMS. for example
Old Covenant- Definition
AD 70- Defintion or what happened.
God- Definiton
and etc.
These defintions makes it clear what your talking about before you state your contentions.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 17:49:08 GMT -5
If i understand this Correctly. the Resolve for Jeff is to prove that the Old Covenant started in Genesis 1, and for KJ on the mount of Sinai. May i suggest some other terms to settle. How many rebuttals will you have for each debater? (10 each is too much, trust me) And may i suggest for the sake of the Judge to DEFINE TERMS. for example Old Covenant- Definition AD 70- Defintion or what happened. God- Definiton and etc. These defintions makes it clear what your talking about before you state your contentions. Dennison, Two rebuttals, followed by a final affirmative seems reasonable to me. One rebuttal is not enough. If we can ask an unlimited number of clarifying questions, then one might be enough. In less formal debates, I've found that if the 2nd rebuttal was not adequate, a judge was needed for the 1st rebuttal. AD 70, standard preterist shorthand for the end of the age, the destruction of the temple, not one stone left upon another, etc. With it, there was no more sacrifice, the law passed away, sin and death passed away, heaven and earth passed away, etc. This is the old covenant. God's covenant with his people, the covenant that most of modern evangelical Christendom believe was ratified at Sinai, but that the Reformers once believed started with Adam. What passed away is not 100% unanimously agreed upon by full preterists. Therefore the edges of the definition must necessarily be left open. After all, it is not my definition or Roo's definition that we ultimately wish to determine, but God's definition. Define God? Do we need to? |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 5, 2011 17:51:02 GMT -5
I have set up a place for the debate and JL and Roo are working out the debate rules. They will start a thread in the Sub-board I have in the prearanged section of our discussion board here. All registered members will be able to read the debate as it goes on but no one but the two debators and their judge willo be permitted to participate. Once4all is the supreme moderator of the debate in case it gets way out of hand and what she says goes. Once the debate is over Bev or I will move the debate into a "Past Debates" section for archiving and for anyone to add their two cents. It will become an open forum at that time. I have designated JL and Roo as CCDebators (they have that temporary title under their name while the debate is going). I've been quiet about this ever since the PMs from Allyn started regarding the technicalities of the debate. When you named me as moderator of the debate, Allyn, my first thought was "I've never moderated a debate before! What were you thinking?" (My second thought was, "You didn't even ask me first...") But I decided to keep quiet and see how the preparations panned out. Needless to say, I don't feel the least bit slighted that the debaters have chosen a more experienced judge for the debate. In fact, I'm relieved! Allyn, is it possible to copy a thread? If the thread of the completed debate could be copied instead of moved, then we could keep a "clean" version archived, plus have a copy for members to comment on. Or maybe that isn't necessary, since any new comments would all be at the end of the debate, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by simplyforgiven on Jan 5, 2011 17:51:20 GMT -5
If i understand this Correctly. the Resolve for Jeff is to prove that the Old Covenant started in Genesis 1, and for KJ on the mount of Sinai. May i suggest some other terms to settle. How many rebuttals will you have for each debater? (10 each is too much, trust me) And may i suggest for the sake of the Judge to DEFINE TERMS. for example Old Covenant- Definition AD 70- Defintion or what happened. God- Definiton and etc. These defintions makes it clear what your talking about before you state your contentions. Dennison, AD 70, standard preterist shorthand for the end of the age, the destruction of the temple, not one stone left upon another, etc. With it, there was no more sacrifice, the law passed away, sin and death passed away, heaven and earth passed away, etc. This is the old covenant. God's covenant with his people, the covenant that most of modern evangelical Christendom believe was ratified at Sinai, but that the Reformers once believed started with Adam. What passed away is not 100% unanimously agreed upon by full preterists. Therefore the edges of the definition must necessarily be left open. After all, it is not my definition or Roo's definition that we ultimately wish to determine, but God's definition. Define God? Do we need to? Nonono, It was an Example JEff. Not that you HAVE to define those things. Define what you think is nesssary or important to the debate. i understand the peterist view about 70ad. but definitions are beneficial for the debate. but again thats up to ya. |
|
|
|
Post by simplyforgiven on Jan 5, 2011 17:53:01 GMT -5
I have set up a place for the debate and JL and Roo are working out the debate rules. They will start a thread in the Sub-board I have in the prearanged section of our discussion board here. All registered members will be able to read the debate as it goes on but no one but the two debators and their judge willo be permitted to participate. Once4all is the supreme moderator of the debate in case it gets way out of hand and what she says goes. Once the debate is over Bev or I will move the debate into a "Past Debates" section for archiving and for anyone to add their two cents. It will become an open forum at that time. I have designated JL and Roo as CCDebators (they have that temporary title under their name while the debate is going). I've been quiet about this ever since the PMs from Allyn started regarding the technicalities of the debate. When you named me as moderator of the debate, Allyn, my first thought was "I've never moderated a debate before! What were you thinking?" (My second thought was, "You didn't even ask me first...") But I decided to keep quiet and see how the preparations panned out. Needless to say, I don't feel the least bit slighted that the debaters have chosen a more experienced judge for the debate. In fact, I'm relieved! Allyn, is it possible to copy a thread? If the thread of the completed debate could be copied instead of moved, then we could keep a "clean" version archived, plus have a copy for members to comment on. Or maybe that isn't necessary, since any new comments would all be at the end of the debate, anyway. might as well just open a new thread that called "Feedback on the debate between Jeff and KJ" |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 18:03:31 GMT -5
Bev,
Like you, I kinda' know what a moderator does in a typical debate, but a judged debate like Roo and Dennison have promised is different. Dennison will be taking an active part in the process.
It is probably best to open one thread for the purpose Dennison gave, plus others to discuss specific topics.
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 5, 2011 18:10:07 GMT -5
Vaughn, ... 1. That you take the affirmative position meaning that you defend your view that the creation of Genesis 1 is the first H&E. I will take the negative position attacking your view. This is how we started so it is natural to continue it this way. You promised to prove something. That requires you to take an affirmative position on your view. I suggest we both post the affirmatives we wish to prove. At some agreed upon time in the future, we both post our opening arguments for our respective affirmatives. Then at the next agreed upon time, we both post our first negatives, etc. I suggest my first affirmative support the statement: The old covenant, the covenant that ended in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem, began in Genesis 1, before Adam's Fall. Yours could be something like: The old covenant, the covenant that ended in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem, began at Sinai. We then present our respective first affirmative arguments sometime around Jan. 20th, 2 weeks from now. Then at two week intervals, we respond with our respective denials of the other person's position, followed by our second affirmatives, our second denials, and our final affirmatives. Thoughts? I agree to our both posting affirmatives and then negatives. Let's take a look at Dennison's format options and see if we want to use one. If we use one then we can discuss the timing schedule. Thanks, Roo |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 5, 2011 18:17:22 GMT -5
Dennison, Welcome. I'm happy to have you help. Thanks for the link. I think I am fine with the basic rules you've stated, but having never seen a formal debate, I am not completely clear on how they work. It will take some time to go through them all and make sure I understand. Thanks, Jeff Yes we should take our time. In the last debate I was in that Dennison judged the other guy in the middle of the debate started whining about the terms of the debate. He said that he came into it "green." We can't take too long though. It might start a protest. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 5, 2011 18:21:56 GMT -5
Bev wrote:
Bev,
I am relieved that you're relieved! I was worried about you feeling slighted.
Love Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 5, 2011 18:27:10 GMT -5
I have set up a place for the debate and JL and Roo are working out the debate rules. They will start a thread in the Sub-board I have in the prearanged section of our discussion board here. All registered members will be able to read the debate as it goes on but no one but the two debators and their judge willo be permitted to participate. Once4all is the supreme moderator of the debate in case it gets way out of hand and what she says goes. Once the debate is over Bev or I will move the debate into a "Past Debates" section for archiving and for anyone to add their two cents. It will become an open forum at that time. I have designated JL and Roo as CCDebators (they have that temporary title under their name while the debate is going). I've been quiet about this ever since the PMs from Allyn started regarding the technicalities of the debate. When you named me as moderator of the debate, Allyn, my first thought was "I've never moderated a debate before! What were you thinking?" (My second thought was, "You didn't even ask me first...") But I decided to keep quiet and see how the preparations panned out. Needless to say, I don't feel the least bit slighted that the debaters have chosen a more experienced judge for the debate. In fact, I'm relieved! Allyn, is it possible to copy a thread? If the thread of the completed debate could be copied instead of moved, then we could keep a "clean" version archived, plus have a copy for members to comment on. Or maybe that isn't necessary, since any new comments would all be at the end of the debate, anyway. Bev, I hope this message I sent to Roo will help in better describing my intentions. You are my board moderator and with that you have access to most everything I do and have my trust in enforcing our few rules. But here is how I clarified it to Roo: Don't confuse moderator with judge. Your judge is for the rules and application of them properly. Bev, is simply my representative concerning the interests of the discussion board which includes the rules for all threads and posts.
She nor I will interfere with the process of the debate except unless you guys resort to name calling for example. At that point forum moderating will take place.
Does this help or mess with you more? P.S. We will decide later what to do with any and all debates. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 5, 2011 19:00:52 GMT -5
I accept Dennison as judge. Thank-you Dennison for handling this chore. I propose two affirmatives. Resolved: The old covenant, the covenant that ended in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem, began in Genesis 1, before Adam's Fall. Affirm: Jeff Vaughn Deny: Kangaroo Jack Resolved: The old covenant, the covenant that ended in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem, began at Sinai. Affirm: Kangaroo Jack Deny: Jeff Vaughn The agreed upon topic is about the First heaven and earth. The question is when did the first heaven and earth begin? In Genesis 1? Or later when Israel began not necessarily at Sinai. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 5, 2011 19:07:39 GMT -5
If i understand this Correctly. the Resolve for Jeff is to prove that the Old Covenant started in Genesis 1, and for KJ on the mount of Sinai. May i suggest some other terms to settle. How many rebuttals will you have for each debater? (10 each is too much, trust me) And may i suggest for the sake of the Judge to DEFINE TERMS. for example Old Covenant- Definition AD 70- Defintion or what happened. God- Definiton and etc. These defintions makes it clear what your talking about before you state your contentions. No! The resolve for Jeff is that the First H & E began in Genesis 1 and that the H & E of Genesis 1 is not the physical universe. The Resolve for Roo is that the First H & E began when Israel began and that the H & E of the Genesis narrative is the physical universe.. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 19:59:02 GMT -5
No! The resolve for Jeff is that the First H & E began in Genesis 1 and that the H & E of Genesis 1 is not the physical universe. The Resolve for Roo is that the First H & E began when Israel began and that the H & E of the Genesis narrative is the physical universe.. You said you are a full preterist. We both believe that the "first heaven and first earth" of Rev. 21:1 is the old covenant and is not the physical universe. What have you said that is substantively different from what I have said? Do you believe the old covenant started in Genesis 1? |
|
|
|
Post by simplyforgiven on Jan 5, 2011 20:27:15 GMT -5
you see definition of terms is important.what exactly do u guys disagree about?
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 22:31:17 GMT -5
Dennison,
Roo is a total stranger. I don't know him. I don't even know his name. He has not read my book but believes he knows what I believe and has challenged me to a debate.
He might disagree with what I believe, but he doesn't know. He disagrees with what he thinks I believe and he's confident he can tear up a straw man in a formal debate.
He believes that the old covenant started in Genesis 1 and that "the first heaven and the first earth" of Rev. 21:1 is the old covenant. After that start, who's going to care whether the heavens and earth in Genesis 1:1 was physical and that the old covenant later became the heavens and earth? He's conceded everything except a name.
What matters is when did the old covenant begin? And when did/will it end?
My view on Genesis is called Covenant Creation. It fits quite nicely and was derived from Roo's and my common belief in Covenant Eschatology.
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 5, 2011 22:55:19 GMT -5
No! The resolve for Jeff is that the First H & E began in Genesis 1 and that the H & E of Genesis 1 is not the physical universe. The Resolve for Roo is that the First H & E began when Israel began and that the H & E of the Genesis narrative is the physical universe.. You said you are a full preterist. We both believe that the "first heaven and first earth" of Rev. 21:1 is the old covenant and is not the physical universe. What have you said that is substantively different from what I have said? Do you believe the old covenant started in Genesis 1? The old covenant did NOT start with Genesis 1. The Heaven and Earth of the Genesis account does not figure into the equation of "First" or "New" Heaven and Earth. The "First H & E" and the "New H & E" are covenantal H & Es. The H & E of Genesis 1 is not a covenantal H & E. It is the physical universe and is without any covenantal reference whatsoever. The First H & E (old covenant Israel) passed away in ad70. We are in the New H & E of Revelation 21-22. This is Full Preterism.You define the H & E of Genesis 1 in covenantal terms and start the old covenant there. Consequently, you deny that the H & E of Genesis 1 has reference to the physical universe. I disallow that the H & E of Genesis 1 has any covenantal reference. It has reference to the physical universe. I start the old covenant with Israel which was the First H & E that passed away. This is why it was necessary to call Dennison into this debate. He forces us to define our terms. He is doing a great job and we haven't even started the formal debate yet. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 5, 2011 23:02:18 GMT -5
Vaughn said:
Vaughn believes in Covenantal Eschatology. I believe in Fulfilled Eschatology. All Covenantal Eschatologists are Fulfilled Eschatologists. But not all Fulfilled Eschatologists are Covenantal Eschatologists. Therefore, they are not equal terms.
Roo
|
|
