Home > Uncategorized > Preston’s Third Affirmative

Preston’s Third Affirmative

McDonald- V – Preston Debate

Legend:

(Caps for emphasis)

I-B-J = Ignored By Jerry

You will seldom find a more confused, confusing, desperate and self contradictory presentation than Jerry’s last. I was stunned at the illogic of many of his claims.

ATTENTION, DEBATE CONVERSION!

Don K. Preston’s Third Affirmative

 

I proved that Deuteronomy 32 foretold the events of the first century including the vindication of the martyrs in the fall of “Babylon.” See the chart I-B-J!

Jerry originally said that the Song had nothing to do with Israel’ last days, but was about MOSES’ DAY. Now, IN A RADICAL DEBATE CONVERSION, he sustains my position! He says, “The word “latter end” in Deut. 32:29 comes from a word: “meaning the end, last time, latter time.” He says, “What Moses is saying is that he wishes that Israel would look at their latter end, or the destruction that they would be headed for and avoid their destruction. The “latter end” does not have reference to A.D. 70.” Jerry, are you saying that Israel did not experience “latter end destruction” in AD 70? REALLY?

JERRY FINALLY ADMITTED THAT THE SONG FORETOLD ISRAEL’S LAST END!

He says the Song was sung in John’s day by spiritual Israel. It was sung by the righteous remnant (The 144K- Revelation14 :1f)– that was in the process of being restored / saved, but they were awaiting the consummation of their salvation at the harvest– THE FULFILLMENT OF ISRAEL’S FESTAL SABBATHS!

So, Jerry abandoned his initial claim that the Song was strictly about Moses’ day. If it was being fulfilled in Revelation, THEN IT FORETOLD THE DAYS OF REVELATION– and that means that the Song was fulfilled in the vindication of the martyrs in the fall of “Babylon.” It means it is about Israel’s last days– not Rome’s last days. Jerry has surrendered his theology. He is hopelessly entangled in self-contradiction.

Israel’s latter end was not at the cross. HER LATTER END WOULD BE WHEN THE POWER OF THE HOLY PEOPLE WAS COMPLETELY SHATTERED– AT THE RESURRECTION!

I argued that the Song foretold the conversion of the Gentiles in Israel’s last days. Since the Song is an integral part of the Mosaic Covenant, this means that Torah would remain valid until the conversion of the Gentiles. Paul quotes Deuteronomy 32:19-21 as justification for his Gentile ministry. What was Jerry’s response? In TOTAL DESPERATION, Jerry says: “I don’t know if Moses ever stated this or not.”

REALLY, JERRY?

You don’t know if the Song foretold the conversion of the Gentiles, WHEN PAUL QUOTES FROM IT TWICE TO JUSTIFY HIS GENTILE MINISTRY?

Let me help you out. BARNES– upon whom you rely– ON ROMANS 10:19– “These words are taken from Deuteronomy 32:21″ (in loc).

The Song of Moses was fundamentally part of God’s covenant with Israel.

The Song predicted the calling of the Gentiles in Israel’s last days.

Paul’s ministry was fulfilling the Song– AFTER THE CROSS.

Thus, Torah did not pass at the cross.

Paul said he had one hope, and that was “nothing but the hope of Israel” found in “the law, Moses and the prophets” (Acts 24:14f; 26:21, etc.). Jerry’s fomentations cannot falsify this, and it is fatal to his eschatology.

I noted that Jerry claimed that had Jesus and Paul truly preached the hope of Israel that they would have been accepted. Jerry denied saying this, and challenged me to produce it. Well, Jerry said: “If Jesus’ intent was to come and marry Israel and Judah, why did the Israelites want him dead?”

ROMANS 11 AND ISRAEL’S SALVATION

Unbelievably, Jerry says resurrection was not Israel’s salvation.

REALLY, JERRY?

Jerry, have you never read Isaiah 25:6-9 (the source of Paul’s resurrection hope in 1 Corinthians 15:54f)?

“And in this mountain The LORD of hosts will make for all people A feast of choice pieces, A feast of wines on the lees, …And He will destroy on this mountain The surface of the covering cast over all people, …He will swallow up death forever, And the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces… And it will be said IN THAT DAY: “Behold, this is our God; We have waited for Him, and He will save us. This is the LORD; We have waited for Him; We will be glad and rejoice in His salvation.” (Chart - Messianic Banquet.).

Notice, “in that day” God would destroy death (v. 8). And, “in that day” Israel would rejoice in her salvation (v. 9)! Clearly, resurrection was Israel’s salvation.

Here is the fulfillment of the covenantal promise of the resurrection contained in the Festal Sabbaths. Thus, God’s covenant with Israel remains valid until the resurrection. If the resurrection has not occurred, God’s covenant with Israel– expressed in the Festal Sabbaths– remains valid. This is Romans 11.

The salvation of “all Israel” in 11:25-26 would BE THE CONSUMMATION OF THE SALVATION OF THE REMNANT THAT WAS ON-GOING WHEN PAUL WROTE. Jerry admits this initially, but then, being entrapped by Paul’s declaration that the work of the salvation of the remnant would be completed shortly, he makes another brash claim. He claims that the word (sun-temnon) rendered “short”: “Does not mean shortly under any circumstance.”

REALLY, JERRY?

Let’s see:

Thayers on suntemnon (p. 606)– “To cut short, briefly, execute or finish quickly…to bring aprophecy or decree speedily to accomplishment, Romans 9:28).”

A check of 36 translations reveals that it is translated “with speed”, “without hesitation or delay”, “swiftly” “with speed,” “short” (twelve times), quickly (nine times), “soon.”

So, suntemnon, means without delay, quickly, soon, short, without hesitation, “to bring to accomplishment speedily.”

Lamentably, these translators did not have Jerry to supply their linguistic shortcomings. They patently did see suntemnon as meaning without delay and soon!

Isaiah predicted that when the salvation of the remnant began it would be consummated without delay. See Isaiah 60:22– When the appointed time for fulfillment of God’s promises came, He would hasten fulfillment.

The time for the salvation of the remnant had arrived and was on-going in Paul’s day. It would not be delayed 2000 + years. The salvation of the remnant had not been consummated when Paul wrote, but was to be completed at the judgment coming of the Lord in fulfillment of Isaiah 27, 59. Thus, the coming of the Lord in Romans 11:26f was coming soon, without delay. That is what Hebrews 10:37 says: “And now, in a very, very little while (hosan, hosan, micron), the one who is coming will come, and will not delay.” Jerry has him delayed 2000 years!

Paul says the salvation of the remnant would be a short work: Jerry has it a long work. Jerry is wrong.

Jerry says: “Don wants to apply this marriage to all of Israel because of the word “all” in Romans 11:26.”

JERRY, I HAVE NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING, AND YOU KNOW IT. (CHART: Jerry’s misrepresentation)

Here is my consistent argument:

The salvation of “all Israel” (the consummation of the salvation of the righteous remnant that was to be completed “without delay” – Romans 9:28) would fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 59:20 (Romans 11:26-27).

THE COMING OF THE LORD OF ISAIAH 59:21 WAS TO BE THE COMING OF THE LORD IN JUDGMENT OF ISRAEL FOR SHEDDING INNOCENT BLOOD (ISAIAH 59:3-11).

But, the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood was to be in the AD 70 judgment of Jerusalem (Matthew 23).

Therefore, the coming of the Lord of Romans was to be in the AD 70 judgment of Jerusalem.

Jerry ignored the contextual facts from Isaiah 59,simply saying my argument raises a question– he offered not one word of exegetical refutation. HOW ABOUT DEALING WITH THE TEXT, JERRY?

Again: CATCH THIS!: This coming of the lord, TO CONSUMMATE the salvation of the REMNANT WOULD BE IN FULFILLMENT OF GOD’S COVENANT WITH ISRAEL– “THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM.” Thus…

The coming of the Lord for the consummation of the salvation of the remnant WOULD BE IN FULFILLMENT OF GOD’S COVENANT WITH ISRAEL (Romans 11:26-27).

The coming of the Lord of Romans 11 would be the fulfillment of Isaiah 59– the prediction of the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.

The coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood was in AD 70.

THEREFORE, THE AD 70 COMING OF THE LORD IN JUDGMENT OF ISRAEL WAS IN FULFILLMENT OF GOD’S COVENANT PROMISES TO ISRAEL.

(Jerry did not touch this, top, side or bottom! But this argument alone falsifies Jerry’s theology)

Jerry denies that the parousia of Romans 11 is the second coming. Paul was supposedly looking back at the cross.

REALLY, JERRY?

Paul was anticipating fulfillment of Isaiah 59. Isaiah 59 foretold the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding blood, not the cross. What did Jerry offer us? Nothing!

Here is more:

In Romans 11:25-26 Paul anticipated the coming of the Lord foretold by Isaiah 27:10-13. Notice the constituent elements of those verses:

IT WOULD BE “IN THE DAY” WHEN GOD TURNED THE ALTAR TO CHALKSTONES (V. 9 ).

WHEN THE CITY WOULD BE FORSAKEN (V. 10 ).

When God would have no mercy on the people He had created (v. 11).

When the remnant would be saved (v. 13), when God would blow “the great trumpet” to gather the “dead” and re-gather His people.

This would be “in that day” when “Leviathan” (CHART– Satan– see Romans 16:20) would be destroyed (27:1), and would also be “in that day” when the Lord would come to avenge the blood of the martyrs (26:21)!

IT WOULD BE THE TIME OF THE RESURRECTION from “the dust of the earth.” (26:19– This is Daniel 12).

So:

The coming of the Lord in Romans 11:26-27 would be in fulfillment of Isaiah 27:10-13.

Isaiah foretold the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood– at the resurrection (26:19-21- 27:1-13).

Therefore, the coming of the Lord in Romans 11, in fulfillment of Isaiah 27, would be the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood at the resurrection.

Jesus said all of the blood of all the martyrs would be avenged at his coming in AD 70 (Matthew 23:33f; 24:29-34).

Therefore, Isaiah 27– thus, Romans 11:26-27– would be fulfilled in AD 70.

So, both Isaiah 27 and Isaiah 59 predicted the Lord’s coming in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.

Paul was anticipating the fulfillment of Isaiah 27 and 59.

If Paul was looking back at Jesus’ Incarnation / Passion, then the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood was in the past.

Now CATCH THIS:

Romans 11:26-27 anticipated the fulfillment of Isaiah 27:9-13– the coming of the Lord for the salvation of Israel- (at the sounding of the Great Trumpet)- at the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood (26:21).

But, Jesus said Isaiah 27:13– (Israel’s judgment / salvation at the sounding of the Great Trumpet)- would be fulfilled at his coming in AD 70 (Matthew 24:31). (SEE THIS CHART)

JERRY APPLIES MATTHEW 24:31 TO AD 70!

Therefore, Romans 11:26-27 would be fulfilled at Jesus’ coming in the AD 70 judgment of Israel.

Jesus and Paul had one eschatological hope: The fulfillment of God’s OT promises made to Israel. Jerry wants to deny this prophetic background, but he has not given us one reason why we should ignore it. His denial is not proof.

Jerry makes another stunning claim: “Israel was not going to be punished in A.D. 70 for the sins committed in Isaiah’s day.”

REALLY, JERRY?

HAVE YOU NEVER READ MATTHEW 23:31-35?

“Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt… How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah….”

Jerry, give us your authority for denying Jesus’ words!

HOW FAR BACK WAS THE AD 70 JUDGMENT TO GO, JERRY?

Matthew 23 also includes Paul’s day: “Behold, I send to you, apostles and prophets.” Jerry, what is your textual authority for excluding the martyrs of Isaiah’s time from that judgment? Give us your textual proof.

RESURRECTION AND TORAH

Jerry made the ill-informed claim that although the OT predicted the resurrection, thatthose things had nothing to do with the law of Moses. He said: “Was it (the promise of the resurrection, DKP) made as part of the Law? No, it wasn’t! It was a prophecy that was made during the time that the law was in effect. Don doesn’t seem to realize that a prophecy uttered during the Law of Moses doesn’t necessitate it being the Law of Moses.”

REALLY, JERRY?

WHAT SCRIPTURE DID JERRY GIVE TO PROVE HIS CLAIM? NOT ONE.

I asked Jerry:

<1.) Scripture said that the New Moons, Feast Days and Sabbaths of Israel’s festal calendar

were “shadows of good things to come” (Colossians 2:14-17; Hebrews 9:6f; 10:1-3). What did

the following feast days foreshadow and typify:

Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Ha Shanah)– Jerry’s Answer: The Final Judgment.

Day of Atonement– Answer: The Day of Salvation.

Feast of Harvest / Booths – Answer: The Resurrection.

2.) What did the seventh day Sabbath and the other festal Sabbaths foreshadow, and has that which the Sabbath (Sabbaths) foreshadowed been completely fulfilled? Answer: Heaven (Heb. 4:9-11).>

READERS: CATCH THE POWER OF THIS!

Jerry said the resurrection had “nothing to do with the law of Moses,” but then admits that resurrection is an inherent element of the Festal Sabbaths.

The Festal Sabbaths were undeniably

THE LAW OF MOSES– right, Jerry?

The Sabbaths were fundamentally part of GOD’S COVENANT WITH ISRAEL, right, Jerry?

The resurrection was inextricably part of those Festal Sabbaths.

Thus, the resurrection was a fundamental element of “The Law” and God’s covenant with Israel.

IF THE RESURRECTION WAS NOT A PART OF THE LAW OF MOSES, THEN NEITHER WERE THE FEAST DAYS. The resurrection and the Sabbaths are inseparable. Jerry’s brash, desperate claim is patently false.

So, if God’s covenant with Israel was terminated at the cross, then the resurrection covenant itself failed. (Note: Jerry continues to ignore the indisputable fact that Paul said the saints entering Christ and his death had died to Torah. Jerry just repeats his mantra– “the law of Moses died at the cross.” He refuses to acknowledge the difference between dying to Torah and Torah dying. But, every reader of this debate knows the difference!)

Let’s look again at Matthew 5:17-18.

Jesus said he came to fulfill (pleroma) the Law (v. 17). He then said, “not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law until it is all fulfilled.” This second “fulfilled” is better translated as “till all things be accomplished.” (ASV, NASV, etc.). The word in v. 18 is fromgenetai, which means “come to pass”, “be accomplished,” etc.

So, Jesus said that until all that was in the law was ACCOMPLISHED, came to pass, not one iota of Torah would pass.

Look at Colossians 2:16-17. Paul wrote that the Festal Sabbaths remained as “shadows of good things about to come” THEY HAD NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. Jerry admits this! He says the resurrection foreshadowed in those Sabbaths has not been accomplished.

Jerry says Israel and Torah died covenantally at the cross. Yet, we are still awaiting fulfillment of the resurrection, AN INTRINSIC ELEMENT OF GOD’S COVENANT PROMISES MADE TO ISRAEL. Jerry needs to explain how DEAD PROMISES, in a DEAD COVENANT, made to a COVENANTALLY DEAD PEOPLE, have any remaining validity. Paul said his resurrection hope was nothing but that found in the law and the prophets– that D-E-A-D covenant, per Jerry. But, a dead covenant is D-E-A-D. All of its provisions are D-E-A-D! (Chart–Why was it necessary for Paul to preach to the Jews first?)

God’s covenant with Israel– inclusive of the Festal Sabbaths which foretold final salvation– would remain valid until the resurrection. We are still waiting for some verses from Jerry to support his wild claim that Torah could pass, but the promises of Torah remain valid.

So, Jesus said not one iota would pass from Torah until it was all ACCOMPLISHED.

Torah foreshadowed the resurrection.

The resurrection has not been accomplished (JM).

Therefore, not one iota has passed from Torah.

This is incontrovertible. And let me remind you that Jerry agreed with this! Yes, he did!

Remember: I asked Jerry: Please define “the law” that Paul called “the strength of sin” and give scriptural support for your answer. Jerry responded: “The Law of Moses (1 Corinthians 15:56).”

Oh, Jerry said he answered all of my arguments, right? Well, try to find what he said in response to this. Well, never mind, he said NOTHING!

Notice:

The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be when the law that was the strength of sin was removed (1 Corinthians 15:55-56).

THE LAW THAT WAS THE STRENGTH OF SIN WAS THE LAW OF MOSES (JM).

Therefore, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 was (or will be!!) when the law of Moses was removed.

Here is more.

Remember, Jesus said not one iota would pass from Torah until it was all accomplished(genetai).

Read 1 Corinthians 15:54– “When this corruptible has put on incorruption… THEN SHALL BE BROUGHT TO PASS (genesetai– future of genetai ) the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

Paul is quoting from Isaiah 25:8 and said the resurrection would be when Isaiah 25 was “brought to pass” i.e. accomplished (genesetai).

But, Isaiah was “the law” and the resurrection was fundamentally part of the Mosaic Law (via the Festal Sabbaths)– the strength of sin. So…

Not one iota of “the Mosaic Law” would pass until it was all accomplished (genetai).

The resurrection was an intrinsic part of “the Mosaic law.”

The resurrection is when all that was foreshadowed and contained in the law of Moses would be accomplished (genetai, 1 Corinthians 15:54f).

Therefore, not one iota of “the Mosaic Law” would pass until the resurrection was accomplished.

Note further:

Jesus said “not one jot or one tittle shall pass until it is all accomplished.”

Indisputably, “not one jot or one tittle” is comprehensive, it refers to the minutia of Torah. NOT ONE IOTA OF THE LAW OF MOSES WOULD PASS UNTIL THE MINUTIA OF TORAH WAS ALL ACCOMPLISHED.

Well, Jerry tells us that the Law of Moses passed WITHOUT A LOT OF THE JOTS AND TITTLES OF THE LAW OF MOSES BEING ACCOMPLISHED!

He says the New Moons, feast days and Sabbaths – a lot of jots and tittles– foretold the resurrection which is not ACCOMPLISHED. We are still waiting on the fulfillment of all those now D-E-A-D jots and tittles foretold in that D-E-A-D covenant. Jerry tells us that the OT has passed except the promises of the end. This is patently illogical and in direct violation of our Lord’s words. If the promises of the eschaton are still valid, THEN THE SACRIFICES AND FEAST DAYS ARE ALL STILL SHADOWS OF THE GOOD THINGS TO COME, AND STILL VALID.

NONE WOULD PASS until ALL was accomplished. Jerry has ALL PASSING when SOME was fulfilled – Jerry is wrong. He can chant his mantra all he wants, but it will not refute this.

NOW NOTE HEBREWS 9:6- 10:1-4:

The High Priest’s actions on the Day of Atonement were typological of Christ’s High Priestly actions. (Chart)

The OT cultus could not bring man into the Most Holy Place, God’s presence, because it could not provide forgiveness (v. 8-9).

As long as that cultus stood valid there could be no access to the MHP, i.e. heaven.

The OC cultus would remain valid until the time of reformation– when man could enter the MHP.

Christ, in fulfillment of the typology, had appeared to put away sin (the barrier to the MHP)- v. 26).

He had entered the MHP to prepare it (v. 24).

He would come again to bring salvation– to bring man into the MHP– this is the time of reformation!

Christ was to come again, “FOR, the law, having (present active indicative) a shadow of good things about to come (10:1– mello with the infinitive).

Jerry claims:”The day of Atonement was taken out of the way at the cross (Heb. 10:1-4).” False!

Christ had to come again to fulfill the shadows of the law, the Day of Atonement functions of the High Priest. He had to come “FOR” (Hebrews 10:1– Greek, gar, giving the reason why Christ had to come again) the Law was still a shadow of good things about to come. Jerry destroys the typology of Hebrews 9.

He also destroys the order of fulfillment of the Feast days. Atonement falls after Trumpets, SYMBOLIC OF THE JUDGMENT, and BEFORE THE RESURRECTION. Jerry says the judgment and resurrection have not occurred– yet the Atonement has! This is patently anachronistic and violates the typology of the feast days.

I asked Jerry what happens to the child of God when they die. His answer: “Abraham’s bosom...the hadean realm Luke 16:22.” Let’s see:

The covenantal setting of Abraham’s bosom was patently “they have Moses and the prophets.” Under Torah there was no forgiveness, thus, no entrance into the MHP, per Hebrews 9.

Jerry claims that we have today, everything that the Mosaic Law could not give.

Well, if Torah, which barred man from the MHP, was removed at the cross: WHY DOES THE CHILD OF GOD GO TO HADES LIKE THEY DID UNDER TORAH?

Jerry Versus Hebrews

Hebrews– Man could not enter the MHP AS LONG AS TORAH WAS VALID.

Jerry– Man cannot enter the MHP until THE END OF THE GOSPEL AGE– NOT THE END OF TORAH.

Jerry has the gospel as the barrier between man and the MHP!

If Torah ended at the cross– MAN SHOULD NOW HAVE DIRECT ENTRANCE INTO THE MHP. But, Jerry says there is still no entrance into the MHP UNTIL THE END OF THE CHRISTIAN AGE!

This violates Hebrews:

Hebrews–> Entrance into the MHP AT THE END OF TORAH. This agrees with 1 Corinthians 15 that resurrection / salvation would be when, “the law that is the strength of sin” (THE LAW OF MOSES PER JERRY!) was removed. Perfect harmony.

Jerry –> Entrance into the MHP AT THE END OF THE CHRISTIAN AGE!

Jerry’s eschatology turns Hebrews (and scripture) on its head. Jerry is wrong.

Notice the harmony between Hebrews 9 and Revelation.

Hebrews 9– No entrance into the MHP while Torah remained valid– entrance into MHP at Christ’s second coming.

Revelation 11:15: 15:8– No entrance into the MHP until the wrath of God would be finished in the destruction of Babylon.

So:

Hebrews– no entrance into the MHP as long as Torah remained valid.

Revelation– no entrance into the MHP until the wrath of God was consummated in the judgment of Babylon (Revelation 15:8 – 16:17).

Therefore, Torah would remain valid until the judgment of Babylon.

But, Babylon– per Jerry– was Rome!

Thus, the destruction of Rome brought man into the MHP!

According to Paul, Torah– not Rome– prevented man from entering the MHP. Jerry denies Paul and says that Rome, a pagan city having nothing to do with God’s covenant or forgiveness stood as the barrier between man and the MHP. For more, see the<current document>http://www.eschatology.org/all-articles-articles-211/96-salvation/939-entrance-into-the-mhp-and-the-end-of-to Charthttp://www.eschatology.org/all-articles-articles-211/96-salvation/939-entrance-into-the-mhp-and-the-end-of-torah http://www.eschatology.orgon the MHP.

Now, notice:

There would be no entrance into the MHP as long as Torah was valid.

The Festal Sabbaths foreshadowed the time when man could enter the MHP (Jerry). This is “the time of reformation.”

Thus, until what the Festal Sabbaths anticipated is ACCOMPLISHED man cannot enter the MHP– the time of reformation will not have arrived. Jerry says we still cannot enter the MHP. Thus, the time of reformation has not arrived.

This nullifies Jerry’s almost unbelievable (desperation) “argument” that Jesus did not have to historically fulfill the types of Torah; he just somehow mystically embodies fulfillment, therefore they passed. This is sophistry. Oh, and did Jerry give a single verse to support his wild claim? Not one.

Jerry’s claim denies what Paul said: That cultus- with its Festal Sabbaths, would remain “IMPOSED UNTIL THE TIME OF REFORMATION” – when man could enter the MHP.

If Jesus did not have to historically accomplish the Festal Sabbaths then he did not have to historically accomplish the typology of Passover-Pentecost for Torah to pass! Since he embodies fulfillment– he did not even have to historically die on the cross! But of course, Jesus said that until they were all ACCOMPLISHED, none of them would pass.

Israel’s salvation– and our’s– would come when all that Israel’s Festal Sabbaths foreshadowed was accomplished AT THE TIME OF REFORMATION.

But, TORAH WOULD REMAIN IMPOSED UNTIL THE TIME OF THE REFORMATION.

Therefore, if, per Jerry, all that the Festal Sabbaths typified has not beenACCOMPLISHED, then without any controversy– Torah remains valid.

2 THESSALONIANS 1

Jerry’s incredible desperation grows: JERRY MCDONALD HAS CALLED PAUL THE APOSTLE A FALSE PROPHET! Now, Jerry will say “Not True!”; but it is true. (CHART– TEST OF PROPHET)

Paul wrote to living Thessalonian Christians, being persecuted. Paul promised those Thessalonian Christians that Christ would give them relief from that on-going persecution: “When the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven.”

Christ could not give the Thessalonians relief from that persecution, if the Thessalonians are not alive, under persecution, at the time of Christ’s coming! This is undeniable. Jerry ignored it because it falsifies his eschatology.

The language could not be clearer. I asked Jerry if Christ came in the lifetime of the Thessalonians and gave them the promised relief. And Jerry said “No.” Thus, Paul’s inspired promise failed.

He admitted that only the Jews ever dwelt in the presence of God and were to be cast out for persecuting the church! CATCH THAT! The Jews did not, and could not, persecute the church prior to the cross– where Jerry says they were cast out! Jerry just abdicated! (I-B-J)

Paul said “those who are troubling you” would be cast out of the presence of the Lord, “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven.” Jerry admits that only the Jews dwelt in the presence of the Lord, and would be cast out for persecuting the church. Yet, he denies that this has anything to do with Thessalonians.

Jerry says that “those who are troubling you” in Thessalonica, could not be the Jews, because Paul was speaking of those “who do not obey the gospel.” Well, Jerry, had the Jewish persecutors in Acts 17 and 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 obeyed the gospel?

Acts 17 and 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16 proves how desperate and false Jerry’s claim is. Now watch this:

IN ONE SENSE, it matters not who the persecutors of the Thessalonians were. The fact remains that Paul said Christ was coming in judgment of “those who are troubling you,” and HE WAS COMING IN THE LIFETIME OF THE THESSALONIANS: “to you who are troubled, rest, WHEN THE LORD JESUS IS REVEALED.”

Jerry says Paul’s promise was not fulfilled. Thus, Jerry says Paul was a false prophet.

I documented that Isaiah 2-4 is a prophecy of the last days coming of the Lord in judgment of Jerusalem for shedding innocent blood (I-B-J). (CHART)

JERRY, WHEN, IN THE LAST DAYS, DID THE LORD COME, AND PURGE THE BLOOD GUILT OF JERUSALEM BY THE SPIRIT OF JUDGMENT?

Jesus applied Isaiah 2 to AD 70– (I-B-J).

I demonstrated that Paul quoted from the same verses that Jesus applied to AD 70, to speak of the judgment of the Jews who were persecuting the Thessalonians. Jerry exhibited his desperation again by denying that Paul was quoting Isaiah. (CHART).

Paul was undeniably citing Isaiah. Jerry is wrong, and that means that Paul’s eschatology was the anticipation of God’s Old Covenant promises made to Israel, in her last days.

Now let me reiterate one of my arguments (I-B-J!):

The coming of the Lord of 2 Thessalonians 1 is the same coming of the Lord as 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18- (And, Acts 1 and all other NT predictions of the Second coming–Jerry agrees).

But, the coming of the Lord of 2 Thessalonians 1 would be at Christ’s coming in judgment of Israel for persecuting the saints– to cast them out of his presence (Isaiah 2-4; Matthew 23; Galatians 4; 2 Thessalonians 1:5-9)– in AD 70.

Therefore, the coming of the Lord of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 (And Acts 1 and all other NT predictions of the Second coming) was at Christ’s coming in judgment of Israel to cast them out of His presence. for persecuting the saints.

Jerry has not touched this, top, side, or bottom.

SOME GREEK ISSUES

I noted that Hebrews 7:12 is in the present tense, indicating the then on-going change of the priesthood. Jerry gave a BASIC FORM of the word there, that is not in the present, and boldly claimed that Hebrews 7 is not in the present tense. The problem is HE DID NOT GIVE THE CONJUGATION THAT IS IN HEBREWS 7! The conjugation in question ismetatithentes: PRESENT PASSIVE INDICATIVE. Jerry, is metatithentes present passive indicative, Yes, or No? Jerry, did you purposefully misrepresent the Greek?

I stated that en taxei is used seven times in the NT. Jerry says this is wrong. No, it is not. Jerry even felt compelled to write an entire additional article in an attempt to refute the meaning of en tachei, but all he did was embarrass himself. He insists that taxu must mean rapidity and not soon. He gave us a chart with numerous verses, intimating that en tachei was in these verses. Totally false.

Jerry can’t produce a committee translation to support him that tachu means rapidly and not soon.

En tachei is not the simple form “tachu.” For Jerry to intimate that it is exhibits a poor grasp of Greek It is a distinctive form – he even admits as much below!

Jerry contradicts his own desperate claims by admitting: “Now if you notice the primary meaning is ‘prompt, swift, quickness, swiftness, speed,’ and ONLY WITH THE PREPOSITION “EN” DOES IT DEMAND SOON OR SHORTLY.” (My emphasis, DKP) Hang onto this.

How many times does tachu appear with the preposition “en”? Seven times! CHART. AND IT NEVER INDICATES RAPIDITY OVER IMMINENCE. Remember, simple tachu is not en tachei!

Now, let’s apply Jerry’s own statement:

Tachu with the preposition “en” (en tachei) DEMANDS soon or shortly.” (JM).

(CHART- Rm 16:20)

But, en tachei – which DEMANDS the meaning of soon or shortly, appears in Revelation 1:1; 22:6.

Therefore, it is DEMANDED that the events foretold in Revelation 1:1– 22:6–the destruction of Satan, the resurrection at Christ’s second coming– were to occur soon and shortly.

Jerry has falsified his own theology.

Jerry says I have not answered him on Acts 1. I have not specifically mentioned the verse, but the argument on Thessalonians answers it. But, here is more:

All NT predictions of the second coming and resurrection are the anticipation of the fulfillment of the resurrection of Daniel 12:2f, e.g. (John 5, 11; 12, Acts 1;17; 24; 1 Cor. 15; 2 Cor. 5; 1 Thess. 4:13f; Rev. 20– ALL OF THEM).

The resurrection of Daniel 12:2 would be fulfilled: “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered.”

Therefore, all NT predictions of the second coming and resurrection would be fulfilled, “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered.” Now watch:

JERRY REFUSED TO DEFINE THE POWER OF THE HOLY PEOPLE.

He initially said: “Don talks about Israel’s power being the Torah! No! Israel’s power is the same power that any of us have: The Gospel of Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:16).” Entrapped by his admission he now denies that Israel’s power (in Daniel 12) is the gospel.

So, Israel’s power (Daniel 12:7) is not the gospel / church. The church / gospel will never be shattered (Jerry). Catch this! This proves that the resurrection CANNOT BE AT THE END OF THE CHRISTIAN AGE. Jerry has inadvertently admitted this!

But, THE RESURRECTION WOULD BE WHEN ISRAEL’S POWER WAS COMPLETELY SHATTERED.

QUESTION FOR JERRY: TELL US, WITH SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT: WHAT IS THE POWER OF OLD COVENANT ISRAEL, THAT SHE WILL CONTINUE TO POSSESS UNTIL THE TIME OF THE RESURRECTION, WHEN THAT POWER WILL BE SHATTERED?

If the resurrection has not occurred– no matter your concept of the nature of the resurrection– then Israel’s “power” remains valid. (This “shatters” his argument on John 12; 1 Corinthians 15).

Don’t miss this: I noted that the resurrection of Daniel 12 is directly linked with the Great Tribulation (12:1- I-B-J), and the Abomination of Desolation (v. 9f). Jerry believes those things occurred in the War of the Jews 66-70!

THE TRIBULATION, ABOMINATION, AND THE RESURRECTION ARE TEMPORALLY INSEPARABLE. JERRY POSITS FULFILLMENT OF THE TRIBULATION AND ABOMINATION IN THE JEWISH WAR OF 66-70! Jerry has surrendered his theology.

Note again Daniel 12:

v. 1– Tribulation.

v. 2– Resurrection.

v. 3- The Kingdom

v. 4– Time of the end.

v. 9– Abomination

v. 7– “When the power of the holy people has been completely shattered ALL OF THESE THINGS shall be fulfilled.” (My emphasis). Note– ALL – not part or even most– ALL would be fulfilled, “When the power of the holy people has been completely shattered.”

AND, CATCH THIS:

IT MATTERS NOT WHAT ELSE JERRY MIGHT ARGUE, ON ANY TEXT: he admitted that “the law that is the strength of sin” in 1 Corinthians 15:54-56 is “the Law of Moses.” Do you catch that? Here is the argument again (I-B-J):

The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 is the time of Christ’s coming predicted in Acts 1, and all other NT prophecies of the resurrection and Second Coming.

The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be when the law that was the strength of sin was removed (1 Corinthians 15:55-56).

THE LAW THAT WAS THE STRENGTH OF SIN WAS THE LAW OF MOSES (JERRY MCDONALD).

Therefore, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15– and all other NT prophecies of the resurrection and Second Coming– WOULD BE WHEN THE LAW OF MOSES WAS REMOVED.

This is unanswerable: If the resurrection has not occurred, then the law that is the strength of sin– the Law of Moses– remains valid.

Notice again the correlation between Daniel and 1 Corinthians 15.

The resurrection to eternal life (v. 2). —> Paul: resurrection to eternal life (v. 54f).

The end of the age (v. 4)—> Paul: “then comes the end” (v. 24).

Daniel was told it was far off. He would die before fulfillment (v. 4)– Paul said: “We shall not all sleep” (v. 51).

Daniel was told fulfillment would be when the power of the holy people (Torah) was shattered—> Paul said the resurrection would be when “the law” (the Law of Moses, Jerry agrees) was removed (v. 55-56)!

Jerry’s response? Silence.

Jerry, it matters not what else you may say, you have surrendered your eschatology. I challenge you to deal with this.

BACK TO THE MARRIAGE– ATTENTION! DEBATE CONVERSION!!

In Jerry’s First neg. he said– “Old Covenant Israel was not promised to be invited to the wedding.”

Now in his Second Neg. he says, “Remember, the Jews (those who were bidden to the wedding) rejected Christ and God had the apostles turn to the Gentiles (those who were in the highways).”

Jerry has no exegetical basis for divorcing Matthew 22 from chapter 25 or Revelation 19. His “arguments” are specious. (Oh, B. W. Johnson, in. loc., says Matthew 22 is, “the day named in Revelation 19″).

Matthew 22 is a parable just like Matthew 25– Jerry admits Matthew 25 is the wedding at the parousia.

Matthew 22 has the declaration– “All things are ready, come to the feast”– Matthew 25 has “Behold, the bridegroom comes!”

Matthew 22– “All things are ready”– Revelation 22:17- “The Spirit and the Bride say Come!”

The promise of the wedding– Jerry’s protestations notwithstanding– was an OT promise made to Old Covenant Israel, that in the last days God would remarry her.

Matthew 22 is about the judgment of the persecutors of God’s martyrs. Jesus said all of the blood, of all the martyrs would be vindicated in AD 70. Yet, Jerry says Matthew 22 has nothing to do with AD 70!

Folks, the wedding is mentioned eight times in Matthew 22! THE WEDDING IS THE DOMINANT SUBJECT. (CHART)

Jerry knows that if the wedding of Matthew 22 is the wedding of chapter 25 then his entire theology is falsified. Matthew firmly posits the wedding at the destruction of the city in 22:7. Thus, the second coming / resurrection was in AD 70. This is why Jerry is so desperate to divorce the wedding in Matthew 22 from Israel and from chapter 25. But he is wrong.

Jerry claimed: “It is Don’s assumption that the wedding takes place during the judgment of Babylon.”

REALLY, JERRY?

Look at Revelation 19:

“For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; and He has avenged on her the blood of His servants shed by her.”… 6 And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, …saying, “Alleluia!… Let us be glad and rejoice…, FOR THE MARRIAGE OF THE LAMB HAS COME.”

I did not ASSUME anything. I accept the inspired text instead of citing Barnes, or whoever. You should give it a try, Jerry, it would improve your theology.

THE WEDDING IS INEXTRICABLY TIED TO THE JUDGMENT OF BABYLON, who killed the prophets sent to her– just as the wedding is tied to the destruction of the city that killed the servants sent to her (Matthew 22). (See the CHART)

Barnes, Johnson, et. al. were as wrong as Jerry. And to restate the case: Jerry’s position demands two weddings. Revelation 19 says it would be at the judgment of Babylon (I.e. Rome, per JM). And Jerry says Revelation 21 is the wedding at the end of the Christian age. And, he does this, all the while ripping the promise of the wedding away from Israel, to whom the promise was made.

Jerry and Revelation

Jerry’s desperation reached new heights (lows): DID YOU NOTICE THAT JERRY SAYS SCRIPTURE DOES NOT MATTER IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE DATE OF REVELATION? After all, it does not matter what scripture either one of us introduces, the date has be settled BEFORE WE DISCUSS THE SCRIPTURES! THAT IS AN ABANDONMENT OF THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE. Jerry appealed solely to external sources as the final authority on the date of Revelation. This is desperation magnified.

Jerry has given us NO BIBLICAL EVIDENCE to support the late date of Revelation. All he has given us is Barnes, Vincent, Johnson, etc..

Jerry claims that I have given only external evidence. That is patently false. (CHART) I have given repeated syllogisms BASED ON THE TEXT OF REVELATION– which Jerry admits he has ignored.

PETER AND THE DATING OF REVELATION

John and Peter both wrote to the churches of Asia.

They both wrote of the impending fulfillment of OT prophecy (1 Peter 1:10-12; Revelation 10:6-7).

They both wrote about and to suffering saints (1 Peter 1:5f; Rev. 1:9f; 6:9f).

John said the martyrs had to wait only a little while for vindication at the day of the Lord (6:9-11– Remember, this is the Day of the Lord promised in Isaiah 2, that Jesus applied to AD 70, Luke 23- I-B-J). Peter told the living saints they only had to suffer for a short time (1 Peter 1:5-7). The Day of the Lord (the end) had drawn near (eggeken, perfect tense, 4:7– I-B-J!).

John said that an hour of trial (peirasmos) was “about to come” (mello in the infinitive– 3:10).

Peter said: “Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial (peirasmos) THAT IS AMONG YOU (en humin).

SO, JOHN SAID THE FIERY TRIAL WAS ABOUT TO COME; Peter, writing to the same believers, said THE FIERY TRIAL WAS PRESENT, and they were not to be surprised by it. They had been told it was coming! Who had warned them? John, in Revelation.

This is prima facie demonstration of the early date of Revelation.

More:

Revelation 11:18 predicted the judgment of the dead– and it was “the time (ho kairosthe divinely appointed time) of the dead that they should be judged.”

Peter said Christ was, “ready to judge the living and the dead” (1 Peter 4:5), “the end of all things has drawn near,” (4:7) and, “the appointed (kairos- the divinely appointed time) has come for THE judgment” (to krino, 1 Peter 4:17).

Note Peter’s statement that THE TIME HAD COME for “THE judgment” (to krino). Peter uses the anaphoric article. The anaphoric article is the preponderant use of the definite article: “The anaphoric article has, by nature, a pointing back force to it, reminding the reader of who or what was mentioned previously.” (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the NT; pg. 218-19). See the article for more. What does this mean in 1 Peter 4:17?

In 1 Peter 4:5 Peter said Jesus was ready to “judge the living and the dead.” THIS IS THE PREVIOUS MENTION OF THE JUDGMENT THAT V. 17 POINTS BACK TO. The anaphoric article in v. 17 points directly back to v. 5. Thus, Peter was saying “the (divinely appointed) time has come for the judgment- THE JUDGMENT OF THE LIVING AND THE DEAD.” The imminence of the resurrection is undeniable. Oh, Jerry cannot manipulate this into a discussion of rapidity over imminence: “the time has come” or “has drawn near” cannot be distorted into rapidity.

Jerry is utterly desperate to divorce Revelation from Jesus’ discussion of martyr vindication in Matthew 23. So what did he do? He offered a chart on Revelation 6 claiming that the recipients of the Apocalypse were Gentiles being persecuted and they, “had little interest in OT history” or in what took place in Jerusalem. Therefore, he concluded, the martyrs under the altar were Gentiles. THIS IS INCREDIBLY BAD LOGIC.

Fact: Revelation 6 quotes from Isaiah 2– the very verses that Jesus applied to AD 70. (I-B-J!)

Fact: Jews were persecutors in Revelation (Revelation 2:9; 3:9f). This is indisputable.

Fact: Revelation is about the fulfillment of OT prophecies made to OT Israel (10:6-7).

Fact: The eschatology of Revelation is the reiteration of OT promises-just like in Paul!

Note: In Luke 18 the martyrs cry out, and the promise is given that the Lord would avenge them speedily ( en tachei). In Revelation 6 the martyrs cry out for vengeance and are told to rest for a little while.

Remember that Jerry himself says that when tachu is coupled with the preposition “en” it DEMANDS the meaning of shortly.

Luke 18 and Matthew 23 are patently speaking of the same vindication of the martyrs– in Jesus’ generation. Jerry knows that if Revelation 6 is the same vindication as in Matthew 23 and Luke 18 that his eschatology is falsified. (CHART)

I challenge Jerry to give us textual proof that these texts are not parallel. The constituent elements are identical. Will he do it?

Per Jerry, if it was an OT promise to Israel, being fulfilled in Jerusalem, Gentiles would not care about it.

REALLY, JERRY?

JESUS’ MINISTRY, DEATH AND RESURRECTION, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH, ETC. WERE IN JERUSALEM IN FULFILLMENT OF OT PROMISES TO ISRAEL. Did Gentiles in Asia– OR AMERICA– have any interest in that “Jewish history,” Jerry?

The Resurrection was a fundamental part of Torah itself– in the Sabbaths, remember? So, per Jerry’s “logic” we “Gentiles” today have no concern with the resurrection, right, Jerry? See where Jerry’s desperation has led him?

Folks, Jerry’s desperation– and illogic– is palpable and manifest.

Jerry betrays a lamentable ignorance– or denial– of the Biblical story of eschatology.

CHART - Gentiles, Jerusalem and OT promises.

CHART– Gentiles and Torah– Jerry’s blatant misrepresentation of Preston.

Jerry says I am obligated to answer each of his arguments. Yet HE ADMITS HE IGNORED MY SYLLOGISMS. And why? Well, they were “interpretive.” Jerry, your responsibility is to respond, and refute if possible, my “interpretations” You can’t do that by ignoring them and then claiming that I am bound to respond to all of your “interpretive” arguments.

Jerry says I should go back to school and take logic 101 again. No, DOING JUST FINE, THANK YOU! If my logic is so bad, he should have no problem demonstrating the fallacy of any of my major or minor premises. Has he even tried? NO.

CHART– Israel married in Abraham’s day?

CHART– PAUL- ABOUT TO BE THE RESURRECTION

CHART– Jerry’s questions about Domitian.

CHART– Jerry’s “evidence” for Domitianic Persecution

CHART– on Sodom

CHART– When was Joel 2 Fulfilled.

CHARTS– Johnson on “the Great City.”

#1

#2

#3

#4

CHART– What About Hymenaeaus?

CHART – Let the wicked remain wicked.

I have buttressed my affirmative with additional irrefutable material.

I have responded to Jerry’s major arguments and nullified them.

My affirmative stands.

 McDonald’s Third Rebuttal

Back

Home

Categories: Uncategorized

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: