Defining and setting the terms

[mellontes]

Not sure if this post is even allowed but I think it is necessary for both individuals to give their basic first affirmative (2 or three sentences max) to see if each party agrees.

I am trying to determine what is the most important part of the debate. Is the debate about either of these or some combination of these?

1. When was the heaven and earth that passed away in 70 AD first established?

Or

2. When was the old covenant system that passed away in 70 AD first established?

If this is the essence of the debate (I personally would like both 1 and 2 addressed), then it should be a simple matter for Jeff to say something like this:

"I believe the heaven and earth that passed away in 70 AD was first established in Genesis 1. I also believe that the old covenant (system) that passed away in 70 AD was first established in Genesis 1 as well."

Roo could counter with something like:

"I believe the heaven and earth that passed away in 70 AD was first established ____________________. I also believe that the old covenant (system) that passed away in 70 AD was FIRST established ______________________.

I know Roo mentioned something about Israel, as did Jeff, but if the above two points could be agreed upon, then we could get to it...

Hope I wasn't butting in...sorry if I did.

[Once4all]

Jan 5, 2011 18:27:10 GMT -5 Allyn said:

Jan 5, 2011 17:51:02 GMT -5 Once4all said:

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.

Allyn, I think I got that PM, too. I just thought it was a redefining based on current developments. It's not a problem!

[JLVaughn]

Jan 5, 2011 22:55:19 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Jan 5, 2011 19:59:02 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

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

I ask again Roo,

What is the substantive difference between the resolutions I suggested and the ones you have insisted on?

[kangaroojack]

Vaughn wrote:

I ask again Roo,

What is the substantive difference between the resolutions I suggested and the ones you have insisted on?

Go back to where it started between you and me:

JLVaughn wrote:

Rev. 21:1 says we live in the new H&E because the first H&E has passed away and there is no more sea. Do you believe it? If you do, then the first H&E is not "the physical universe we all live in." The first H&E, the H&E of Genesis 1 has passed away. "The physical universe we all live in" has not passed away. The two are different.

I replied:

So Mellontes is calling out the "heavies" now eh?

Of course the first heaven and earth in Revelation 21 is not the physical universe. The first H&E is Israel. The H&E of the Genesis account predated Israel and is the physical universe and does not figure into the equation of things.

Would you like for me to set up with Allyn a one on one debate between us?

Roo

The substantive difference between us is that you say that the H & E of Genesis 1 is NOT the physical universe and I say it is. It was on this point that I challenged you to this debate and you accepted.

We agree that the first H & E is not the physical universe. But we disagree that the H & E of Genesis 1 is not the physical universe.

Please read my first encounter with you CAREFULLY. It's time to move forward.

Roo

[JLVaughn]

Roo,

Jan 6, 2011 6:26:24 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

The substantive difference between us is that you say that the H & E of Genesis 1 is NOT the physical universe and I say it is. It was on this point that I challenged you to this debate and you accepted.

I did not ask what is the substantive difference between your view and mine. I asked, what is the substantive difference between the resolves I proposed and the resolves you are insisting on. Those are two very different questions.

It is impossible to move on until you demonstrate that you can read a question and answer it. Otherwise, our dear judge will find your every comment irrelevant and be forced to severely edit your rebuttals.

I ask a third time Roo,

What is the substantive difference between the resolutions I suggested and the ones you have insisted on?

[kangaroojack]

Vaughn wrote:

I did not ask what is the substantive difference between your view and mine. I asked, what is the substantive difference between the resolves I proposed and the resolves you are insisting on. Those are two very different questions.

It is impossible to move on until you demonstrate that you can read a question and answer it. Otherwise, our dear judge will find your every comment irrelevant and be forced to severely edit your rebuttals.

I ask a third time Roo,

What is the substantive difference between the resolutions I suggested and the ones you have insisted on?

Vaughn,

Here are the two resolves you suggested:

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.



Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=prearranged&action=display&thread=728&page=1#ixzz1AGznbmtM

Here was my reply:

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.



Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=prearranged&action=display&thread=728&page=1#ixzz1AH0ZwopK

I NEVER said a word about the old covenant or Sinai Sir! It is YOU who equates the First H & E with the old covenant and not me. It was YOU who said that it should be my resolve that the old covenant begin at Sinai. I said, "No" to that being my resolve. So stop with the "for the third time" stuff. The issue for me is in the box quote above. On the CC thread I challenged your view that the H & E of Genesis 1 is the FIRST H & E and not the physical universe. I challenged you to debate me AT THAT POINT AND ON THAT POINT. All other related issues are to be part of the development of our resolves which should occur in the actual debate.

The resolve itself for you is this: The H & E of Genesis 1 is the First H & E and is not the physical universe.

For me it is this: The H & E of Genesis 1 is not the First H & E. It is the physical universe. The First H & E is Israel. Therefore, the H & E of Genesis 1 cannot be the First H & E for it predated Israel which is the First H & E.

All related issues such as the beginning of the old covenant or the identity of Israel should be a part of the development of our resolves.


Again, I said nothing about when the old covenant began. I said not a word about Sinai. I simply said that the H & E of Genesis 1 is not the First H & E. It is the physical universe.

You suggested that my resolve must be that the old covenant began at Sinai and I explicitly answered you saying "No"! And I will disclose my views on the time the old covenant began in the development of my resolve.


Roo

[simplyforgiven]

Jeff Resolve: The H & E of Genesis 1 is the First H & E and is not the physical universe.

Correct? Yes or No?

KJ Resolve: The H & E of Genesis 1 is not the First H & E. It is the physical universe.

This is part of your contentions. "The First H & E is Israel. Therefore, the H & E of Genesis 1 cannot be the First H & E for it predated Israel which is the First H & E."

[simplyforgiven]

And Roo,
This is where its important to Define Terms.
For example you have stated: that H & E is Israel. this is an important definition to include within your debate to make all your points clear and understandable.

defining such terms within debates help with clarifications and its why i urge you guys to be organized.

[JLVaughn]

Roo,

Before this last post, you had not suggested any specific resolves. You had suggested a topic and suggested some hazy direction for the resolves.

I stated two specific resolves that I thought addressed the topic. You claimed that they do not. I have asked three times now, why do you believe my resolves are substantively different from what you have suggested. You haven't provided an answer to the question I asked.

Now you say.

I NEVER said a word about the old covenant or Sinai Sir! It is YOU who equates the First H & E with the old covenant and not me.

This appears to contradict your previous comment.

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 can't answer a direct question. You can't remember what you previously said. And you can't allow terms that we have both agreed are equivalent to be used.

Let's take your resolves then.

Resolved: The H & E of Genesis 1 is the First H & E and is not the physical universe.
Affirm: Jeff Vaughn
Deny: Anonymous Jack

Resolved: The H & E of Genesis 1 is not the First H & E. It is the physical universe. The First H & E is Israel. Therefore, the H & E of Genesis 1 cannot be the First H & E for it predated Israel which is the First H & E.
Affirm: Anonymous Jack
Deny: Jeff Vaughn

As you have worded them, I win the first clause by default. There is no H & E mentioned before Genesis 1:1. By the standard rules of English, it is the first. Care to try again?

[JLVaughn]

Dennison,

Jan 6, 2011 12:39:36 GMT -5 simplyforgiven said:

Jeff Resolve: The H & E of Genesis 1 is the First H & E and is not the physical universe.

Correct? Yes or No?

KJ Resolve: The H & E of Genesis 1 is not the First H & E. It is the physical universe.

This is part of your contentions. "The First H & E is Israel. Therefore, the H & E of Genesis 1 cannot be the First H & E for it predated Israel which is the First H & E."

No. That won't work.

Resolve: The heavens and earth of Genesis 1:1 is the first heaven and first earth of Revelation 21:1.

I need some help with understanding contentions and warrants. Should the part about it not being the physical universe be part of the resolve or the contentions?

[mellontes]

Gentlemen please!

For the purposes of this debate (should it ever get started), I think it is imporatant to associate the beginnings of the heaven and earth or the old covenant (system) with what passed away in 70 AD.

I am assuming, of course, that both of you agree on these things:

1. Some kind of heaven and earth passed away in 70 AD
2. The old covenant (system) passed away in 70 AD.

I believe the Scriptures are quite clear that heaven and earth would pass away. As preterists we determine this time to be at 70AD.

I am somewhat concerned by Roo's quote of "It is YOU who equates the First H & E with the old covenant and not me."

This is why it seems mandatory to me that each of you specify WHEN the heaven and earth which you believe passed away BEGAN. And I think a general declaration should be made as to whether you believe the old covenant applies to the heaven and earth which was specified as passing away is to be attached to your particular heaven and earth.

I think from there you will be able to come up with your specific first affirmatives...but I could be wrong...

[simplyforgiven]

Jan 6, 2011 13:38:58 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

Dennison,

Jan 6, 2011 12:39:36 GMT -5 simplyforgiven said:

Jeff Resolve: The H & E of Genesis 1 is the First H & E and is not the physical universe.

Correct? Yes or No?

KJ Resolve: The H & E of Genesis 1 is not the First H & E. It is the physical universe.

This is part of your contentions. "The First H & E is Israel. Therefore, the H & E of Genesis 1 cannot be the First H & E for it predated Israel which is the First H & E."

No. That won't work.

Resolve: The heavens and earth of Genesis 1:1 is the first heaven and first earth of Revelation 21:1.

I need some help with understanding contentions and warrants. Should the part about it not being the physical universe be part of the resolve or the contentions?

So you believe that Heaven and Earth of Genesis is the same mentioned at Revelations right?
and do you believe that they actually are heavens and earths, or do you believe that the H and E is israel?

A Contention is a POINT your trying to prove.

Your Resolve could be followed by 3 contentions.

Resolve:
1 contention. a point that proves the Resolve.
followed by a WARRANT (evidence) to prove your contention.
and IMPACT: why is this important? or how does this prove your resolve.

Contention is made up of POINT/CONTENTION>WARRANT/EVIDENCE>IMPACT

[JLVaughn]

Jan 6, 2011 13:46:17 GMT -5 simplyforgiven said:

So you believe that Heaven and Earth of Genesis is the same mentioned at Revelations right?

Yes,

and do you believe that they actually are heavens and earths, or do you believe that the H and E is israel?

The heaven(s) and earth never referred to the physical universe. At the risk of over simplifying, it (they) became Israel.

A Contention is a POINT your trying to prove.

Your Resolve could be followed by 3 contentions.

Resolve:
1 contention. a point that proves the Resolve.
followed by a WARRANT (evidence) to prove your contention.
and IMPACT: why is this important? or how does this prove your resolve.

Contention is made up of POINT/CONTENTION>WARRANT/EVIDENCE>IMPACT

Do you have an example? Are the contentions "posted" before the debate starts?

Thanks.

[kangaroojack]

Vaughn noted that I had said:

I NEVER said a word about the old covenant or Sinai Sir! It is YOU who equates the First H & E with the old covenant and not me.

Then Vaughn notes an apparent contradiction:

This appears to contradict your previous comment.


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.

Well Vaughn you got me on the part about my never saying "a word" about the old covenant. I clearly did. But I never said anything about it beginning at Sinai.

I simply said that (old covenant) Israel was the First H & E. But Israel was not an H & E throughout its whole existence. All will be developed in the body of the debate.

You agreed to debate me on my original statement which was this (in bold):

Of course the first heaven and earth in Revelation 21 is not the physical universe. The first H&E is Israel. The H&E of the Genesis account predated Israel and is the physical universe and does not figure into the equation of things.

Would you like for me to set up with Allyn a one on one debate between us?



Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=prearranged&action=post&thread=728&page=2#ixzz1AHjJwJoz

I have stated what my resolve will be. You may state yours how you wish. We have taken Dennison's time so you must now state your resolve. The ball is in your court. This is my FINAL word about my resolve.

Roo

[kangaroojack]

Roo said to Vaughn:

BTW, I am waiting for you to say that you have your resolve so we can move to the next stage of choosing a format.

Vaughn replied:

I posted a possible resolve along with a question. You missed it.

Dennison,

We have our resolves. What do you suggest be the next step? Should we choose format now?

Roo

[kangaroojack]

Vaughn and I have our resolves. We will continue to the next step tomorrow.

Goodnight

Roo

[simplyforgiven]

I Pmed you about this already.

[kangaroojack]

Kangaroojack wrote:

Dennison,

We have our resolves. What do you suggest be the next step? Should we choose format now?

Roo

Debate judge replied:

Yes Kj,
Format and regulations of how the debate will happen.

Vaughn,

The format SF suggested in the pm is the easiest and the most enjoyable for the readers.


1. Opening statement containing the resolve

2. Body of the debate: Rebuttals

3. Closing statement: Summary of one's own view and/or analysis of opponent's view.

Indicate whether or not you agree to this. I suggest the body of the debate contain seven (7) rebuttals each.


thanks,

Roo

[JLVaughn]

Jan 7, 2011 4:28:15 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Kangaroojack wrote:

Dennison,

We have our resolves. What do you suggest be the next step? Should we choose format now?

Roo

Debate judge replied:

Yes Kj,
Format and regulations of how the debate will happen.

Vaughn,

The format SF suggested in the pm is the easiest and the most enjoyable for the readers.


1. Opening statement containing the resolve

2. Body of the debate: Rebuttals

3. Closing statement: Summary of one's own view and/or analysis of opponent's view.

Indicate whether or not you agree to this. I suggest the body of the debate contain seven (7) rebuttals each.


thanks,

Roo

Roo,

I agree with the structure.

One question about the number of rebuttals: How are they numbered? A) Is that 7 separate Denys, interspersed with 6 separate Affirms, or B) 4 separate Denys, interspersed with 3 separate affirms?

A) seems extremely excessive. B) seems mildly excessive

[kangaroojack]

Vaughn asked:

Roo,

I agree with the structure.

One question about the number of rebuttals: How are they numbered? A) Is that 7 separate Denys, interspersed with 6 separate Affirms, or B) 4 separate Denys, interspersed with 3 separate affirms?

A) seems extremely excessive. B) seems mildly excessive

Hi Vaughn,

This is minimal in structure. The rebuttals will be like posting on a regular thread except no one else can bother us and we must agree on word limits if any. I personally don't think we need to impose word limits. I always go over the word limit in a debate anyway.

Each man will indicate at the top of his post for example "Rebuttal# 1." The only requirement is that each man address his opponent's questions. We need to agree upon the limit of questions per rebuttal. If I should think that a question of yours is not valid then I will appeal to the judge. He may require me to answer it or he may throw out your question. If there is a dispute about a question the judge will decide whether it is valid or not. The judge has already given us principles on validity. Please see that post again. The man who fails to answer any question that the judge has not thrown out loses the debate by forfeiture. This is the only way a man can lose.

It is yet to be determined who will be first in this debate. The second man's resolve cannot contain any rebuttal to the first man's resolve. To secure that this does not happen we will both PM our resolves to Dennison and he will then post them at the same time with first man's on the top. This means that the first man will always post his 7 rebuttals first.

The same is true of the closing statements. The second man's cs cannot contain any rebuttal to the first man's cs. All rebuttal in the closing statements must be taken from content in the resolve and/or body of the debate (the 7 rebuttals).

Again, to secure that the second man's cs does not contain rebuttal from the first man's cs we will PM our cs's to Dennison. He will then post them at the same time with the first man's on top. Only the resolve and the cs's are sent to Dennison for him to post. The rebuttals are posted by each man himself. After Dennison posts the two cs's the debate and no man loses. all others may feel free to post their comments providing that the mods allow for it.

I suggest that we leave it to the two mods and the judge to decide who will be the first man. If you agree to this then we will ask them to post their personal preference and the man who receives at least 2 votes will be the first man and will have his resolve and cs posted on top. That man will always post his rebuttals first. The second man has the advantage of having the final word.

This structure allows the both of us to be ourselves and debate in our own way. Yet there is still some structure.

We should get all our questions answered by the judge before we begin so we are not surprised in the middle of the debate. Dennison judged one other debate I was in and in the middle of the debate the other guy started whining about the terms. Dennison held him accountable because he agreed to the terms. The guy said, "I entered into this green." Yet we had spent several cyber pages discussing terms. So make sure all things are clear in your mind before you start.

Roo

[simplyforgiven]

Each person will have 7 rebuttals.
Very easy, on the top left hand corner each rebuttal will be numbered.

On other words. R1 JEFF, R1 ROO
total of 14 REBUTTAL responses, but 7 each.
there fore Jeff posts his first rebuttal response, and the Roo will have the last word in rebuttals.

AFTER THE REBUTTALS ARE OVER, NO NEW EVIDENCE NOR POINT CAN BE INTRODUCE INTO THE CLOSING ARGUEMENTS.

after each rebuttals the debators will ask/answer 2 questions as a CX(cross examinations.)

[JLVaughn]

Jan 7, 2011 12:23:38 GMT -5 simplyforgiven said:

Each person will have 7 rebuttals.
Very easy, on the top left hand corner each rebuttal will be numbered.

On other words. R1 JEFF, R1 ROO
total of 14 REBUTTAL responses, but 7 each.
there fore Jeff posts his first rebuttal response, and the Roo will have the last word in rebuttals.

AFTER THE REBUTTALS ARE OVER, NO NEW EVIDENCE NOR POINT CAN BE INTRODUCE INTO THE CLOSING ARGUEMENTS.

after each rebuttals the debators will ask/answer 2 questions as a CX(cross examinations.)

As to who goes first, I thought Roo and I could both submit our resolves to Dennison at nominally the same time. Then Dennison would post both.

Then Roo and I submit our rebuttals to Dennison. Then Dennison would post both. Etc.

Then there would be no way for Roo to rebut my CS in his CS and vice versa.

Because, Roo and I are both preterists, we share a great amount of common ground. May I suggest that common full preterist claims be allowed to be stated w/o warrant/evidence in the resolve. This will save space. If such a claim is challenged, then we provide warrant/evidence when we answer the 1st rebuttal.

For example, both Roo and I believe that the first heaven and first earth of Rev. 21:1 was 1) not the physical universe, and 2) has passed away. We should not be required to prove that. However, my specific understanding of that event might differ from Roo's, and if it matters to the debate, some clarification should be available.

Or should Roo and I work out this specific topic first in a BIF style debate?

Any document that requires seeing text on 2 pages starts to become unwieldy on a computer screen. There needs to be reasonable limits on the amount of discussion to support a single claim and the number of claims to support a contention.

Thoughts?

[kangaroojack]

Vaughn wrote:

As to who goes first, I thought Roo and I could both submit our resolves to Dennison at nominally the same time. Then Dennison would post both.

Both resolves will be posted at the same time with yours on top. Then you go first in the rebuttals. This was the judge's decision to post yours on top and make you first in the rebuttals.

After the rebuttals we will each prepare our cs and send them to Dennison. He will post them at the SAME time with yours on top. Debate is over.

Now we must decide the number of questions allowed in each rebuttal.

Roo

[kangaroojack]

Vaughn asked:

hen Roo and I submit our rebuttals to Dennison. Then Dennison would post both. Etc.

We submit ONLY our resolve and our closing statements to Dennison. Then he will post them with your resolve and your cs on top. This makes you first in all the rebuttals.

But we post the rebuttals ourselves. it was said:

Only the resolve and the cs's are sent to Dennison for him to post. The rebuttals are posted by each man himself. After Dennison posts the two cs's the debate and no man loses.

1. Resolve: Submitted to judge and he posts them at the same time with Vaughn's on top.

2. Seven rebuttals: Posted by each man himself. All Vaughn's rebuttals are first because Judge posted his resolve on top.

3. Closing statements: Submitted to judge and he posts them at the same time with Vaughn's on top.

Debate over.


Roo

[kangaroojack]

Vaughn said:

May I suggest that common full preterist claims be allowed to be stated w/o warrant/evidence in the resolve.

No problem though I personally will not include common claims in my resolve.

Roo

[JLVaughn]

Jan 7, 2011 13:58:34 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Only the resolve and the cs's are sent to Dennison for him to post. The rebuttals are posted by each man himself. After Dennison posts the two cs's the debate and no man loses.

1. Resolve: Submitted to judge and he posts them at the same time with Vaughn's on top.

2. Seven rebuttals: Posted by each man himself. All Vaughn's rebuttals are first because Judge posted his resolve on top.

3. Closing statements: Submitted to judge and he posts them at the same time with Vaughn's on top.

Debate over.

Thanks, I had forgotten that.

[simplyforgiven]

Remeber the closing statments cannot contain any new evidence or ponits nor attacks.
Its used as a road map as a summary of the debate and rebuttals.

Basically telling the Judge, how you view the debate. by summarizing your points and attacks and why the other did not prove his resolve, and why you did.

[kangaroojack]

So how many questions per rebuttal should be go for?

Roo

[kangaroojack]

Judge, Vaughn

I suggest up to three questions per rebuttal be asked.

Your thoughts...

Roo

[JLVaughn]

Jan 9, 2011 20:50:48 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Judge, Vaughn

I suggest up to three questions per rebuttal be asked.

Your thoughts...

Roo

I'd prefer a limit to the total number of questions. We might need more questions early on.