Christianity and the End Times

cont. with Paulk -

quote:

---

Me:
In Acts 1:11 the disciples are assured that AS He ascended, similarly He will descend again someday.

​

You:
And another non-sequitur.

---

Nonsense. This is explicit heads up that as He ascended, similarly He will come again.

quote:

---

And, I repeat there is no reason to think that text refers to ...

---

No reason that you like is what you mean.
Your preferences lie elsewhere.

quote:

---

I didn’t ask for that. Instead I pointed out that your arguments were incredibly weak and that is hardly my fault.

---

So far - no alternative.You're going to have to stop chiding weakness sooner or latter and offer a better explanation.Or are you just here to show off that you can disagree with me perpetually?
I've already got that.So why is the Manchild NOT a collective remnant that comprise a THEY ?Bible Study ?You could say it is Jesus. But I would respond that it IS, but JESUS as He is dispensed into some of His people. IT is no longer they that live but Christ that lives within them. That's part of the big picture.Jesus Christ wants to dispense what He is INTO those whom He redeems. His forgiveness of them is more automatic. His taking them over from within in sanctification requires cooperation with His work.Several places in assure us that not all of His saints will be weak in His plan. As the principle is throughout the whole Bible, God secures a remnant of those who overcome to correspond to His normal operation.They are not above the standard. They are simply right AT the intended standard.

quote:

---

It is not that I am failing to see evidence or that you see a bigger picture.

---

Oh, I think it is that indeed.

quote:

---

It is just that your entire case rests on dubious interpretations which should not persuade anyone at all.

---

Wishful thinking is comforting.I have not yet given ALL the reasons for interpreting a collective in both the Woman of universal brightness and her Man-child.You haven't given an alternative interpretation yet. So rather than attack a strawman, or strawmanchild as the case may be, I'll wait for your proposed better explanation.Your next post should elaborate on this. Don't forget.

quote:

---

Then why try to pretend that they are about some secret pre-tribulation Rapture when Matthew 24:36 tells us that it will follow the signs listed in Matthew 24:6-31 (including the Tribulation) and

---

No need for me to "pretend". More wishful thinking on your part.The word "SECRET" certainly is not in the passage.
But it is virtually a SECRET is He comes for the servant at a time in which the servant does not expect. Verse 36 He doesn't know ... because it is a SECRET.It is the style of God that His people's ignorance of some details of time be supplemented with moral readiness and obedient vigilance.

quote:

---

Matthew 24:37 tells us that the immediately following verses take place with the Second Coming ? And that is confirmed by verse 42, verse 43 and verse 44.

---

Verse 38 says " ... in those days BEFORE the flood" So a rapture BEFORE the great tribulation is not at all an outlandish understanding of His discussion there.Pay closer attention to verses 38 and 39 along with 37.

quote:

---

Indeed, but there is no announcement, only signs - and signs that may only be recognised as such by those familiar with the warning. And it is explicitly stated that these events will follow the signs. Moreover the signs are precisely what the disciples are told to watch for. What good are they as signs if they arrive too late to be of any use ?

---

The disciples ask for more things then just the signs. Signs are one matter among other things that they ask Christ about.But concerning verses 40 and 41 " at that time " is compared to that time - BEFORE the flood. So then it is reasonable to understand the call to watch and be ready pertains to that time BEFORE the events of the great tribulation.But I would not argue that there would then be absolutely NO indications that the completion of the age was near.Clearly in Revelation the great tribulation begins with the fifth trumpet.
The previous FOUR trumpets could be happening shortly before or while the first rapture of secrecy occurs. This corresponds to relative normality (though the world was not without some turmoil) in the days of Noah BEFORE the flood. While post tribulation times is conceivable, what is really weak is your insistence that pre-tribulation rapture simply cannot be interpreted here. That criticism is what is WEAK.It would not be my "preferred interpretation" for contextual reasons. Before the flood means to me to correspond to before the calamities of the great tribulation. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Revelation 12 shows a Woman clothed with the sun, the moon underneath her feet and with a crown of twelve stars.I am going to state some things and probably have argue latter. This Woman symbolizes NOT MARY and NOT ISRAEL and not ONLY the new testament church. Rather she is a combination of three dispensations -1.) The crown of twelve stars upon her head signify the age of the patriarchs BEFORE the giving of the Law of Moses.2.) The moon underneath her feet signify the age of the Law of Moses. The Law is a reflection of the New Testament Grace. And the saints in grace have the Law of Moses subdued underneath their feet.This matter of the Moon under her feet does not mean disrespect. It means GRACE of the new covenant supersedes LAW.3.) The major part of her body is clothed with the Sun. This should signify the New Testament dispensation of Christ and grace.Therefore this Woman of universal light in Revelation 12 stands for the TOTALITY of God's elect on the earth in the past ages -Before the giving of the Law when the partriarchs are like a crown of dignity.
The time if the Law of Moses in the Old Covenant in the Old Testament.
The time of the New Testament grace which covers the majority of her body.The vision should remind us of Joseph's vision of he, his mother and father, and eleven brothers being God's elect body of saints on earth. The vision of Joseph saw also the Sun, Moon, and Stars providing universal light.So I like to call this Woman the Universal Bright Woman standing for the totality of God's elect people on earth throughout the ages.Now WITHIN her is another component. But this part is stronger. A MAN-CHILD. Throughout the ages in the Bible remnant, a minority of saints rose from the typical mediocrity to stand faitfhully for God's purpose. This is like the little Gideon's army in Judges. This is like the Levites chosen specifically for the priesthood. This is like the remnant of Jews which returned from Babylon to rebuild the city, the house and the temple of God.The Manchild also is like the those who overcome mentioned in the seven letters in Revelation two and three. That is from the typical surrounding weakness of God's people a remnant who overcome rise to the level of normality.They are not super spiritual as to be above the standard.
Rather they simply rise up TO the expected standard.
Paul said that through Christ we are more than conquerors.
This means that God's grace contains all that is necessary that His people might overcome and be victorious.It is abnormal that His saints would be defeated.
It is normal that they should be overcoming.This then is the meaning of the Woman with a Manchild she brings forth.
Both entities are the same Body. They are distinct though. Within the larger body is organically connected the smaller body.Within the Woman is the Manchild she travails to bring forth in birth.This is a short preliminary note as ground to interpret BOTH the Woman of Universal Brightness and her Manchild as CORPORATE and COLLECTIVE in nature.Interpretations that the Manchild is the individual Jesus Christ are good. But this is better. For it is God's intention that the OVERCOMERS would be living by Christ so as to be an enlargement of Christ and an extension of Christ.That is not in His unique work of redemption but in the co-work of their overcoming by living in the realm of Him and He living in them.

quote:

---

Nonsense. This is explicit heads up that as He ascended, similarly He will come again.

---

If it was nonsense you could and should show how the point connects to the argument. You haven’t done that.

quote:

---

No reason that you like is what you mean.
Your preferences lie elsewhere.

---

No, no reason is what I meant. And you have offered none so it seems that you have no valid reason either.

quote:

---

So far - no alternative.

​

You're going to have to stop chiding weakness sooner or latter and offer a better explanation.

---

Well that isn’t true either. I’ve offered alternatives for every passage you’ve cited or near enough.

quote:

---

So why is the Manchild NOT a collective remnant that comprise a THEY ?

---

Because he seems to represent the figure in Revelation 19:11-16 who even you agree is Jesus.I’m still waiting for you to produce a valid reason to think that the manchild does represent a collective they.

quote:

---

Oh, I think it is that indeed.

---

If you could actually point out this evidence I am supposedly missing you might have a point. But since you don’t It is doubtful that even you believe that.

quote:

---

Wishful thinking is comforting.

​

I have not yet given ALL the reasons for interpreting a collective in both the Woman of universal brightness and her Man-child.

---

Repeating obviously invalid reasons and refusing to support them is hardly a sign that the rest of your case is any better. The wishful thinking is yours.

quote:

---

No need for me to "pretend". More wishful thinking on your part.

---

If you are pretending for no reason at all, you are still pretending. The text is quite clear that it refers to events following the Tribulation.

quote:

---

Verse 38 says " ... in those days BEFORE the flood"

​

So a rapture BEFORE the great tribulation is not at all an outlandish understanding of His discussion there.

---

And verse 37 says: So clearly it refers to the Second Coming not the tribulation.

quote:

---

The disciples ask for more things then just the signs. Signs are one matter among other things that they ask Christ about

---

But I am not talking about the questions, I am talking about the answer. As you certainly ought to know.

quote:

---

But concerning verses 40 and 41 " at that time " is compared to that time - BEFORE the flood. So then it is reasonable to understand the call to watch and be ready pertains to that time BEFORE the events of the great tribulation.

---

Why is it reasonable or ignore verse 37 which explicitly says it is about the coming of the Son of Man ?

quote:

---

But I would not argue that there would then be absolutely NO indications that the completion of the age was near.

---

Just not the signs that Jesus told them to watch for, eh? You might wish to paint Jesus as engaging in a rather unpleasant deception but I hardly think that was the author’s intent.

quote:

---

While post tribulation times is conceivable, what is really weak is your insistence that pre-tribulation rapture simply cannot be interpreted here. That criticism is what is WEAK.

---

Ah, so the Biblical text is WEAK compared to your assertions. That certainly clarifies where you stand.

quote:

---

It would not be my "preferred interpretation" for contextual reasons. Before the flood means to me to correspond to before the calamities of the great tribulation.

---

And the fact that Matthew 24:37 tells us the passage is about the Second Coming, as do verses 42 and, 44 means nothing to you.

I know we've been down this road before but you continue to make a false idol out of the Bible, Even the Bible tells us that it is Jesus that embodies the Word of God.

I note that this is primarily about interpretations of the woman, with very little said about the manchild as such. Which is certainly not a way to make a good case.The more so when you have a,ready argued that the birth and taking up to Heaven cannot refer to Jesus - at the least a valid alternative explanation should have been provided then.Indeed the entire argument rests on what you think the symbolism means, which is hedged with uncertainty, and seems to be no more than opinion.This is certainly not a good case.

Skeptics often try to establish a Coach / Student relationship with Christians, as if the latter should seek guidance from the skeptic how to argue a case.Since some of your comments act as if I need to come to you for coaching how to present my case, I'll give priority to the more interesting comments of substance.You say the Manchild better represents the Man Christ in Revelation 19:11-16

quote:

---

Because he seems to represent the figure in Revelation 19:11-16 who even you agree is Jesus.

---

All things considered the Manchild better represents the ARMY that comes down with Christ as their Head, Leader, General. Indeed it is through Him that they overcome.Since the entire Body of Christ does not yet match Christ until the arrival of the full New Jerusalem, something like a Gideon's army of 300 (Judges chapters 6 through 8) fulfills this need as representatives of the whole.As quoted from handy website on Gideon's Army https://www.jw.org/...ons/books/bible-stories/3/gideons-armyThis principle of spiritual warfare is often seen in Scripture. The WHOLE Body of God's people do not rise to the challenge. But a remnant DO.So it is OK to say the Manchild is Jesus Christ. It is better to say it is Jesus Christ as He has become the life of a stronger component of the larger body of the people of Jesus Christ. Revelation 12:10,11 does not praise Christ for what He has accomplished. Rather it praises a GROUP of people belonging TO Christ for what they have accomplished THROUGH His salvation. The praise fits the attainment of those who belong to Christ and have overcome THROUGH Christ's finished work.To argue that the Manchild should only be Jesus is good but shortsighted.
The one insisting that this has to be the case ignores that what Jesus is said to DO in Revelation 19:15 is perfectly reflected in the overcomers who will accompany Him.This is now repetition. Wonderful.And so also the armies which come with Him shepherd the nations with an iron rod as His co-kings. A lot of "he"s and "she"s have throughout the world history have overcome through Christ. And they will be rewarded to do as He does. Perhaps those who lack experience of association with Christ find this far fetched. To them the only see Christ in history as accomplishing anything for God.It is hard to argue with someone who is being only partially right.Paulk looks forward to the iron rod reigning of Christ the Head in Rev. 19:15. But the co-reigning of a rewarded corporate constiuent of Christ's in 2:26 is overlooked or deemed not important.Co-reigners with Christ, however, is important to the Bible's revelation. Yes, I left out the part here about them not receiving the mark of the beast. I left it out because it is the PRINCIPLE of the CO-REIGNING overcomers that is being highllghted, not the specifics of the beheaded during the reign of Antichrist.The PRINCIPLE of some of the mystical Body of Christ REIGNING WITH Christ is the principle that both Rev. 19, and Rev. 12 and Rev 2 alludes to.The armies which come WITH Christ have just MATCHED Christ in a WEDDING celebration FOR Christ and those who have made themselves ready. We can't help it if some yawn. But it is great reason for the church to rejoice.
And the marriage garment that these saints have also is the fighting garment for spiritual warfare they wear to accompany Christ and reign with Christ. A remnant selected from the ages will form a Gideon like smaller army and accompany Christ to conquer and reign over the nations.In the parable of Jesus about rewarding His servants, He says some will be given to rule over cities in their entering into the joy of the Lord during the millennium. Accompanying Christ and co-reigning with Christ are rewards to the Gideon like smaller army of overcoming believers. The Manchild is composed of such rewarded saints from both the Old Testament and New Testament ages.I would also point out that the rejoicing voice in Revelation 12 says that the kingdom has come NOW. That is at the taking up of the Manchild to God and to His throne. Yet still on earth great tribulation is raging.This situation matches that the victory obtained in this resurrection and rapture of deceased overcomers to Heaven is virtually the commencement of the kingdom. On earth, Christ is STILL waiting to come down and ARRIVE to start the millennial kingdom on earth. You requested "Bible STUDY" not "Tradition study". Get use to a better interpretation. The Manchild is a corporate entity of overcoming saints. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I am a veteran of discussion forums of this type. And PaulK will now adopt an effective strategy which consists of him saying LITTLE and provoking me to respond by laboring to say MUCH.This lopsided exchange is advantageous to the guy who only writes a little and disadvantagous to the guy who takes a lot of time to work through objections. All he has to do is write a few words to stir up things.Its a good debating technique. And the one who writes more is liable to burn out sooner.Just thought I'd mention that I KNOW what is now going on between PaulK and myself.Anyway, I hope some useful things are gleaned by some readers.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Simply focus the discussion on your best point.One single phrase such as "we can talk about all the rest after we finish this one point" disarms the entire problem you're worried about.
You don't have to answer every single question in one post - and no one expects anyone to - and there's nothing to worry about "looking bad." As long as you focus on your best points, and move along one point at a time successfully defending each one.. it's impossible for you to "look bad" regardless of how many additional points there may or may not be to still go through.And the more you go through defending correctly, the more it will look like you have an answer for "all of them" anyway.Just pick your best point and focus the discussion there.
Don't move on until you have successfully defended it. Only then move on to the next.

quote:

---

I note that this is primarily about interpretations of the woman,

---

Correct, as I am verbose and decided to limit the length of what I started.To understand the Manchild though it is good to understand the Woman.
I'll come back to this. 1.) She fled into the wilderness AFTER she gave birth. (v.6)
Neither Israel nor Mary fled to the wilderness AFTER the birth of Jesus.You may say Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt. But she took the baby Jesus with her. He was not taken FROM her up to heaven. 2.) The woman has other children which are called "the rest of her seed" (v.17) Jesus was the firstborn of Mary. The Devil did not immediately go make war with the other brothers and sisters of Jesus after His birth. 3.) The rest of her seed are identified as those Christians and keepers of the law. The better interpretation is that after the rapture of the resurrected Manchild collective, Satan will make war with Christians and Jews as the main culprits of the promises of God. At present I understand this combination to mean preserved Jews who are destined to turn to become Christ's and Christians who recognize Him. During the thousand two-hundred and sixty days of before the closing of the age.After Jesus was born, the brothers and sisters of Jesus could not really be said to have the testimony of Jesus YET. In fact some of His own siblings born latter didn't believe in Him during His earthly ministry. (John 7:5) we could say Jews who keep the commandments of God were persecuted by the Romans during the lifetime of Jesus. But Christians received persecution after the resurrection more so than immediately after His birth.If Paulk argues that the Manchild is Jesus we have to adopt this view:When Jesus was born in Bethlehem He was immediately caught up to Heaven.
Mary fled to a wilderness (without Jesus).
The rest of her children who were born after she RETURN to Israel were
objects of Satan's war on them.A better interpretation is that what could be considered WILDERNESS at the time of John then will in end times be a place where Jews and Christians are fleeing refugees from the armies of Satan's antichrist.The last verse of chapter 12 has Satan summoning UP the Antichrist to do his persecution of preserved Jews and Christians on earth after the resurrection and rapture of the corporate Manchild of overcomers.Remember that the divisions of chapters in the Bible are not promised to be inspired. But they are useful to divide up the Scriptures. And we should connect the LAST verse of chapter 12 to the FIRST verse of chapter 13 to get the effect. The beast out of the sea is the Antichrist.
The dragon that summoned him up out of the sea is Satan.The dragon has diadems upon its HEADS (12:3) - "on his heads seven diadems" .But the beast out of the sea has the diadems upon its HORNS \[B\](13:11) - "on his horns ten diadems" The first signifies authority to govern.
The latter signifies authority to EXECUTE and to KILL.Through Antichrist Satan makes war with the woman's seed on the earth during the three and one half years of the great tribulation. I think that would be forty two of the months as the Jews at that time calculated months. This I would have to review. But it is the same three and one half years of the 1260 days.He makes war with the saints and is permitted to overcome them. In chapter 12 it is a group who has OVERCOME the Devil. This cannot be the saints left on earth who are being overcome by the Antichrist. He will be wearing them out and wearing them down and killing some of them. All these descriptions of Antichrist's persecution in chapter thirteen matches quite well with what we are told Satan will do against the rest of the woman's seed in chapter twelve.This is the short time that Satan has come down to earth by angelic force to unleash his greatest anger at his loss.Those who dwell in heaven include Jesus. For He has not descended by this time. And Antichrist blasphemes those who dwell in heaven. This may mean that Antichrist openly chides Jesus for being in Heaven and insults those who have been raptured to Heaven. This is possibly the significance of 13:6. Enough of this!My real focus is on the VICTORY of the raptured collective who dwell in Heaven until they descend with Christ as His bridal army in chapter 19. If salvation has come NOW and Jesus is STILL in heaven then the KINGDOM coming and the AUTHORITY of God's Christ must more relate not to what is happening on earth but to the JOINING of Christ of His overcoming raptured people.Don't let anyone suggest that this makes no sense. It is consistent with too much of the Bible and makes sense in the realm of spiritual warfare.And THAT is all the time I have to write about this this morning.One final thing. Usually about now some grumble at me pretending to have made up these things by myself. So to avoid the accusation of plaguerizing such terms as, say, Universal Bright Woman, I learn much of this from the Recovery New Testament with its study notes.And you also may learn these things from some of the following books. The Life Study of Revelation by Witness Lee.
The Glorious Church by Watchman Nee.
The King and the Kingdom of the Heavens an exposition of the book of Matthew by Watchman Nee.
The Overcomers by Witness Lee.
Rapture by D.M. Panton
The Judgment Seat of Christ by D.M. PantonBrowse the titles at Read and Search the Ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee | LSM Online Publications to see examples of writings which have been a help to me to discuss these matters.

quote:

---

with very little said about the manchild as such. Which is certainly not a way to make a good case.
The more so when you have a,ready argued that the birth and taking up to Heaven cannot refer to Jesus - at the least a valid alternative explanation should have been provided then.

​

Indeed the entire argument rests on what you think the symbolism means, which is hedged with uncertainty, and seems to be no more than opinion.

​

This is certainly not a good case.

---

Don't expect me to adopt you as my coach to instruct me HOW I should debate with you. Your advise may be too vested with self interest leaning towards YOUR opinion. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed broken quoteEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That was very constructive advice Stile. Thanks.

quote:

---

Skeptics often try to establish a Coach / Student relationship with Christians, as if the latter should seek guidance from the skeptic how to argue a case.

---

I am certainly not trying to do that. But you certainly need help.

quote:

---

All things considered the Manchild better represents the ARMY that comes down with Christ as their Head, Leader, General. Indeed it is through Him that they overcome.

---

The manchild isn’t spoken of as overcoming in Revelation 12. Indeed he does nothing in that chapter, he is simply born and taken up to Heaven.

quote:

---

I would also point out that the rejoicing voice in Revelation 12 says that the kingdom has come NOW. That is at the taking up of the Manchild to God and to His throne. Yet still on earth great tribulation is raging.

---

The reason for the rejoicing is not in the manchild being taken up to Heaven but in the fall of Satan.

quote:

---

10 Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down

---

The end of the accusations hardly seems sufficient in itself for the Kingdom to begin (unless, perhaps you wish to imagine Heaven as corrupt before then, with the Devil and his Angels wielding power there? Power which goes beyond merely making accusations). However verse 12 tells us that the Devil has but a short time on Earth. It seems likely to me, that the voice means that the Kingdom will arrive soon, and inevitably, on Earth and the fall of the Devil is the sign.

quote:

---

I am a veteran of discussion forums of this type. And PaulK will now adopt an effective strategy which consists of him saying LITTLE and provoking me to respond by laboring to say MUCH

---

Not at all. It seems instead that you choose to say much of insignificance because you lack any worthwhile case.

quote:

---

This lopsided exchange is advantageous to the guy who only writes a little and disadvantagous to the guy who takes a lot of time to work through objections.

---

if you thought the attempt to bury me in insignifcant points was not a useful tactic you wouldn’t use it. But it is your choice to do so and your tactic, and I accept no responsibility for your actions.

I told you he was wiley! ...but to be fair, PaulK originated this topic, and his aim is different from your aim, jaywill. I spent an entire hour yesterday listening to You Tube episodes of The Atheist Experience where frequent host Matt Dillahunty effectively counterargues with many uneducated and ill informed Christians as well as notable apologists such as Ray Comfort. Like PaulK, they effectively provoke doubt and reinterpretation of popular Christian belief (and dogma, as jar would assert) and often have wry and profanity laden comments towards some of their equally irreverant and arrogant Christian guests. As Dillahunty comments, . Thus as I warned you earlier, PaulK likely has a similar motive. To the peanut gallery, I am in no way suggesting that these counter-apologetically minded atheists are spawn of satan or in any way bad people...certainly no worse than you or I. Engaging in Bible Studies with them, however, only serves to reinforce their basic agenda which drives their belief---that the Bible is a product of humans and that there is no evidence it was inspired by God. I have found that I have no effective counter-argument which would convince them otherwise, and at any debate site, we can always expect our beliefs to be questioned and challenged. One thing I will say for you, jaywill is that you do invest a lot of time and effort into your posts, and I respect the thoroughness of your presentations.Some of us are interested in furthering our preferred understanding of scripture...in order to reinforce our beliefs. Others are interested in educating people on the real truth being pushed. The entire controversy between believers and unbelievers can be said to be between Faith and Evidence.Different people, of course, determine and define for themselves what is and is not evident and on who and what they choose to place their faith in. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

First I shall have to remind Jaywill that I do not believe that the sign in the sky is meant to be interpreted literally. Thus the assertion that:

quote:

---

If Paulk argues that the Manchild is Jesus we have to adopt this view:

​

When Jesus was born in Bethlehem He was immediately caught up to Heaven.
Mary fled to a wilderness (without Jesus).
The rest of her children who were born after she RETURN to Israel were
objects of Satan's war on them.

---

is a ridiculous falsehood. Made the more ridiculous by the fact that you yourself do not interpret the verses literally.There really isn’t a coherent argument here although I will point out that the dead who are said to have overcome the accuser did not do so though literal war to by defeating in battle. In Revelation 13:7 it is war. Overcome is used in a different sense, so there is no contradiction there.And finally

quote:

---

Don't expect me to adopt you as my coach to instruct me HOW I should debate with you

---

Pointing out that your case is hopelessly weak is hardly instructing you HOW to debate.

Just out of curiosity, have you watched Matt Dillahunty before? Do you agree that it is satisfying to educate people on what scripture really says? Personally, I believe that though scripture can only be arguably said to say one thing and one thing only, there is room for debate on the actual meaning behind the words.Comments?