Eric Jon Phelps Exposed

eric-jon-phelps

The following publication of Eric Jon Phelps’ emails to me in the last few days is reproduced here pursuant to Copyright Law of the United States (Title 17)  Chapter 1, Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use, for non-profit use, “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research”.

Eric Jon Phelps has avoided the issues of debate I gave to him almost two months ago:

https://southernisraelite.wordpress.com/2016/12/15/the-debate-outline-for-ejp-debate/

Notice this was given to him almost two months ago. I was willing to give him two months time to prepare and I even told him in the pdf everything I was going to say to him. I was bending over backwards for the man to make this as easy as I could. And yet, this weekend EJP emailed me this debate outline which completely avoided everything the debate was about:

debate-outline-for-10-february-2017

I now have 4-5 days to prepare for a completely different debate I had no knowledge of when I gave him 2 months to prepare for a debate I actually served up to him on a silver platter giving him every argument I was going to use. Absolutely disgusting!

Notice this statement:

ejpexposed1Now you may be thinking to yourself, oh he just said that in the context of the Old Testament only, surely the very next section is going to deal with the New Testament! Nope. Read the whole outline reader in the document linked above. He doesn’t want the New Testament to even be considered when discussing eschatology. You want to know why? Because he knows the NT completely refutes the Jewish and Ebionite Theology. He does not want this passage to be used against him:

Matt. 21: 43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. 45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. 46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.

 He does not want this verse among many others to be able to impact anything in the Old Testament. As if the Jews could be held accountable by Yah? Please! The Jews are untouchable in Eric’s mind. This is absolutely disgusting.

1 Thess. 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: 16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

Not only did he completely avoid the arguments held before him, the new debate he proposed exposes his dishonesty and hubris even more.

But I’m just getting warmed up. I received this email earlier today. (Right click on the images > open image in new tab > and zoom in to read)

ejpemail1 ejpemail2

To which I replied line by line:

“I told you that I intend to debate every topic you listed in your syllabus.  It will take time.
As I said, I will not address any of those issues until we lay the foundation as to what you believe and what I believe, for I really do not know all of what you believe.”

>>What you really mean is you want to buy yourself time to study issues you don’t know anything about.

“That foundation is the Tenach as per the Scriptures presented in my previous email.”

>>>Wrong. I already addressed these issues in my book 166 theses. 1 Peter 1:10-12 tells us that we are to understand the prophets by the way the apostles interpreted them. [And that is exactly why he wanted to exclude the NT in his outline. DS]

  “To be fair to you, I said that no mention of Jesus of Nazareth is necessary at this time.”

>>>No you didn’t and you know it.

“Only the qualifications as to who is Messiah and what he will do according to the prophets will be first addressed.”

>>This question was never at issue in my debate outline ever. I do not deny that Jesus was the Messiah!

“I have been researching certain topics that you presented for debate so that I can properly address them when the time arises.”

>>>Absolutely disgusting!

“I have thoroughly reviewed the Seven Ecumenical Councils”

>>>No you haven’t. You’re lying again.

“the gospel of Matthew first written in Hebrew, Frederick Faber”

>>>Fredrick Faber? Who is that?

“I have been studying quite hard for this debate.”

>>>I’m sure you have and that is how I know you don’t understand the issues I put to you and you’re trying to stall so it looks like you’re not avoiding the debate.

“But you have interpreted my previous email as avoiding your issues?”

>>>Yes because that is exactly what you are doing and you know it.

“That is a bold-faced lie, and thus, you are a liar.  And why?  Because you are the one avoiding my preliminary  matters before we address your topics.  And why?  Because you cannot tolerate the OT description of the REAL  Hebrew/King of the Jews/Israelitish Messiah.”

>>>I already refuted your dispensational Ebionite eschatology in my 166 Theses book.

“You are the one who promotes “historicism” that is a mere three hundred years old, and a post-millennialism  that is grounded in heretic Origen’s allegorical reading of the Scriptures as well as false history.”

>>>That is complete ignorant bullshit. Origen’s allegorical position is what the preterists and the idealists teach that the prophecies do not have a literal historical fulfillment like I believe, but only an idealistic and allegorical one.

“You are the one who denies that the Jews are Hebrews are Israelites”

>>>What are you talking about? I have never denied this.

“I intended to attack you on these and many other matters, but you have killed the debate, not me.”

>>>If it makes you feel better to tell yourself that Eric go ahead.

“So I will attack your retreat and expose you for the coward and infidel that you are.  What a disappointment.”

>>>Lol….precious. I bet as you were typing the word retreat your butt hurt was on full blast!

Notice how EJP maintains that he has been studying for this so hard. Why reader if he isn’t prepared for this debate? If EJP is the scholar he claims to be why does he need to study so hard about the fundamental doctrine of his religion? You would think he would have mastered these issues decades ago. You want to know why he’s studying so hard? Because he doesn’t know anything about this subject. He admitted to me on the phone just last week and these were his exact words “I know absolutely nothing about the Seven Ecumenical Councils.” Really? So in one week he went from, “I know absolutely nothing about the Seven Ecumenical Councils.” to “I have thoroughly reviewed the Seven Ecumenical Councils”? Really? It took me thousands of hours of research to grasp the Theology of these councils. I had to read thousands upon thousands of pages to master this period. And yet EJP does it in one week? I call bullshit. And speaking of bullshit, I still have not seen one single document or courtroom video to verify that EJP’s solution to the Income Tax is valid. I lost my career to a back injury. I have lived in poverty for years because of this and I gave him 1200 dollars and drove up to Pennsylvania where he lives to take his course and I have not yet seen any proof that his solution works in a court of law.

I am now morally and intellectually compelled to expose this man for the liar and fraud he is.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Eric Jon Phelps Exposed”

  1. I really don’t understand this response. Eric has said that he will address all the topics but first wants to review the Old Testament, not even necessarily in the context of a debate, more like a review in which debate is permitted on the various points (being fair as you have laid forth many things that you want to cover, and this is the only thing Eric has asked to cover) bearing in mind that this is all for the benefit of the listener.

    So I ask that you accept this, and engage in the debate, asking for more time if you need it. Both of you should be as prepared as possible. If you or Eric need to put it off in order to prepare, then do it. I want to hear the debate with both men as prepared as possible, as I’m sure many others want to as well.

    Like

    1. You should still debate him, attacking each other back and forth over email, blogs, whatever won’t accomplish anything. All it does is confuse your listeners and his listeners (myself included).

      I was very excited for this debate, the two of you are extremely knowledgeable. Eric did address his lack of preparedness in his radio broadcast today, you should listen to it.

      Honestly, as someone who is only recently exposed (about 3 years) to this massive conspiracy of the Jesuits/Roman Catholic Institution it is extremely discouraging to me to see so much division between brethren who basically have identical beliefs but differ in minor/secondary doctrine.

      Confusion and division is one of satan’s greatest tools against us, let’s not let it tear us apart, there are so few of us remaining. We should be eager to learn from each other and do our best unto the Lord to all remove heretical doctrine from our lives and resist satan at every turn.

      I am a nobody in these things, but would agree with Veritas and encourage you to seek the Lord about this, and hopefully keep the debate alive.

      Like

      1. “You should still debate him, attacking each other back and forth over email, blogs, whatever won’t accomplish anything.”

        >>>I am documenting my accusations sir. At what point have I in any degree misrepresented a single thing this man said or did?

        “it is extremely discouraging to me to see so much division between brethren who basically have identical beliefs but differ in minor/secondary doctrine.”

        >>>No no no: who God is, who the Messiah is, what man is, what sin is, are not secondary issues.

        Like

    2. “I really don’t understand this response. Eric has said that he will address all the topics but first wants to review the Old Testament, not even necessarily in the context of a debate, more like a review in which debate is permitted on the various points (being fair as you have laid forth many things that you want to cover, and this is the only thing Eric has asked to cover) bearing in mind that this is all for the benefit of the listener. ”

      “review the Old Testament, not even necessarily in the context of a debate”

      >>>See it is times like this I am compelled to use the word liar. You know very well he was excluding the NT from a debate about Eschatology in the context of a debate. You’re lying sir and you know you’re lying.

      Like

      1. >>>I am documenting my accusations sir. At what point have I in any degree misrepresented a single thing this man said or did?

        I don’t believe you did, just pointing out that going back and forth between blog/email/etc. tends to cloud actual intentions/feelings.

        >>>No no no: who God is, who the Messiah is, what man is, what sin is, are not secondary issues.

        Perhaps I am just not seeing the difference between your positions in these areas? It would seem the theology of the “trinity” is where you have a difference, not necessarily what man is and sin is?? I will have to spend several days (or months) reviewing your work and his, difficult for a simpleton like me to get through all of it and process it as fast as you guys do.

        Whatever happens with the debate, I have been reviewing your site for the past few days and it is extremely impressive! It will take me some time to get through all of your work!

        May the Lord bless you for this!

        Like

      2. “You know very well he was excluding the NT from a debate about Eschatology in the context of a debate. You’re lying sir and you know you’re lying.”

        Excuse me, Eric clearly said he would debate you on every-which topic you want. You keep saying “I know he can’t refute me,” okay, so why don’t you PROVE it in a man-to-man debate which YOU insisted upon in the first place?

        Like

      3. “Excuse me, Eric clearly said he would debate you on every-which topic you want.”

        >>>You totally avoided what I just said about the NT in the debate. If what you just said is true why did he need a new outline?

        ” okay, so why don’t you PROVE it in a man-to-man debate which YOU insisted upon in the first place?”

        >>>I’m still waiting for eric to accept the debate challenge. He walked away from the debate with his new outline and both you and he knows it.

        Like

    1. Beggars? Lol…wow what a total butt hurt cunt you are.

      You didn’t answer the question. If what you just said is true, “he would debate you on every-which topic you want.” why did he need a new outline?

      “You could mention the New Testament; I’m sure the debate would still go on.”

      >>>From the document sent to me by Eric Phelps:

      “No references shall be made to the New Testament or to Jesus of Nazareth.”

      You know I’m right, you’re butt hurt, now go away.

      Like

  2. Still debate him Drake. If you think hes avoiding your issues, let it come out during the debate. Don’t back out of the whole entire debate.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s