Preston’s Third Negative

McDonald-Preston Debate
Preston’s Third Negative

After all of these months since Jerry’s last, you would think he could come up with better arguments, but, he clearly cannot. If it were not so serious, it would be funny. For instance, Jerry challenges me: “Deal with my syllogisms.” This coming from the man that openly stated that he would not address my syllogisms!

This is all I will say about Jerry’s use of Transmillennialism.

Jerry makes arguments that are historically unprecedented, illogical, blatantly unscriptural– and totally false. Let me illustrate.

Jerry claimed that I teach that every occurrence of the term “Day of the Lord” refers to AD 70.
TOTAL MISREPRESENTATION! I have NEVER made this claim! I challenged Jerry to document where I have ever made this claim. He initially refused to respond, Now, however, he offers this:
“Where did Don say that the words “Day of the Lord” must always refer to the destruction of Jerusalem? He says it by implication when he insists that the words found in 2 Thess. 1:9 which are also found in Isa. 2:19 are a direct quote when Paul does not even hint to the idea that he is quoting anyone.”

Jerry would be booted out of a first year logic class for such an argument! Per Jerry, because I note that Paul quotes from Isaiah 2, this means that I teach that every use of the term Day of the Lord = AD 70?!? This is embarrassingly bad “logic”!

I demonstrated that Isaiah 2-4 foretold the Last Days (2:2f), the Day of the Lord (2:10; 19f), when men could flee to the mountains; a time of famine and warfare (3:1f, 18f) when Israel’s men would fall by the edge of the sword in “the war.” I noted that this would be when the Branch of the Lord would appear and the Lord would avenge the blood guilt of Jerusalem through judgment (4:1-4). (Insert Three charts on Isaiah 2-4)

I challenged Jerry repeatedly to identify when this happened “in the last days.” Jerry has been stone silent on this. He knows that Jesus said that all of the blood, of all the righteous would be avenged in his generation in the judgment of Jerusalem (Matthew 23).

Jerry keeps saying that I am the only one who says Paul is quoting from Isaiah in 2 Thessalonians 1. No, I have cited the world’s greatest linguists who say Paul was quoting from Isaiah, and JERRY HAS NO QUALIFICATIONS TO DENY IT. His claim betrays a lamentable ignorance of ancient Jewish and Christian hermeneutic. All he has is his pre-suppositional theology that cannot allow Paul to be anticipating the fulfillment of the Old Testament, for that would mean that the Law did not pass at the cross.

JERRY ON DANIEL 12
Jerry knows that if Daniel 12 foretold AD 70 then his entire eschatology is falsified.
I could hardly believe my eyes when I read Jerry’s comments on Daniel 12. He now says– the first time in this debate- that Daniel 12 predicted the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Folks, this is the FIFTH, yes, THE FIFTH POSITION Jerry has taken on Daniel 12 to avoid the power of that prophecy and its NT application. Makes you wonder if he even reads what he writes.

Jerry says: “His (My, DKP) applications (of Daniel 12 to AD 70, DKP) do away with the prophecies to the people of the day in which they were issued, and make them applicable to an event several centuries down the road, something that none of these people would ever suffer or benefit from.”

REALLY, JERRY? Let’s see, if we apply Daniel 12 to AD 70 then the prophecy had no benefit for the people to whom the prophecy was given!

Well, Jerry, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians 4; 2 Thessalonians 1, etc. are prophecies given specifically to the first century saints, yet they speak of events that are, so far, 2000 years removed from them! So, per your “logic” none of them have application or benefit to them since you apply them to events “two millennia so far” from them! Your own words have entrapped you and manifests your lack of logic.

Jerry claims he never said that the gospel or the church is the power of the holy people in Daniel 12. He claimed that he said some people say that.” This is a flagrant falsehood. Here is what he said: “I said Israel’s power is the gospel, I was saying that the power of salvation was the gospel… what I was talking about was the gospel of Christ.” (2nd Neg) This is embarrassing.

Jerry betrays his ignorance of the ancient sources by claiming that there was no Jewish army in the war of 66-70.Well, Josephus was a general in that army! Jerry’s response? He ignored this indisputable fact.
Here is what Josephus said of his command: “However, (Josephus, DKP) although he expected that the Romans would forgive him, yet did he choose to die many times over, rather than to …dishonor that supreme command of the army which had been intrusted with him…” (Wars, Bk. 3:7). JOSEPHUS SAID HE WAS GENERAL OVER THE JEWISH ARMY.
Note also: “Being unable to restrain the rebellion, he reluctantly assumed a command in Galilee, where he fortified a number of cities, stored up provisions and trained his army in anticipation of the arrival of Vespasian and his forces.” (from Logos: Josephus, Expanded Version, Introduction) Jerry has embarrassed himself. (Chart)
I guess Josephus (and his editors) were deceived. Josephus just did not have Jerry to set him (them) straight! Wonder what Jerry’s credentials are for rejecting their claims?

Just for fun.
Jerry applies Daniel to the Maccabean period, while denying AD 70, claiming there was no Jewish army in 66-70..
BUT, THE JEWS DID NOT HAVE ANY MORE OF AN “ARMY” IN THE TIME OF ANTIOCHUS THAN THEY DID IN 66-70. They were in fact, probably better organized in the first century, per some sources.
Jerry, if there was an army in the time of Antiochus, there was most assuredly one in 66-70!

Daniel 12 negates every argument Jerry has made about the resurrection. Notice again the constituent elements of Daniel 12:
1.) The Great Tribulation.
2.) The resurrection of both just and unjust to eternal life / condemnation.
3.) The end of the age.
4.) The Abomination of Desolation (v. 9f).
5.) The rewarding of the dead prophets (v. 13).

Watch carefully:
All (not just some) constituent elements of Daniel 12- i.e. the resurrection, end of the age, rewarding of the dead, etc. were to be fulfilled “when the power of the holy people” was completely shattered (Daniel 12:6-7).

Daniel 12 foretold the time and events of Antiochus Epiphanes– McDonald.

Therefore, all (not just some) constituent elements of Daniel 12 i.e. the resurrection, end of the age, rewarding of the dead, etc. were to be fulfilled in the time and events of Epiphanes.

SO, JERRY, I CHALLENGE YOU TO ANSWER THIS: Were ALL (not just some) of the constituent elements of Daniel 12 fulfilled in the time of Epiphanes? Yes Or No? Don’t give us an excuse that you can’t introduce new arguments in the final negative. All you have to do is say “Yes or No.”

Daniel predicted the rewarding of the prophets at the time of the end (v. 4. 12f). This is the resurrection of v. 2. So, Jerry, did Daniel receive everlasting life, by being raised from the dead, in the time of Antiochus? Again, just “Yes of No”?
According to Revelation 11:15f the prophets would be rewarded at the time of the fall of the city “where the Lord was slain.”

Watch: Daniel 9:24-27 also foretold the Abomination, and IT WOULD OCCUR WITHIN THE SEVENTY WEEKS, that ended no later than AD 70.
Now, unless Jerry can prove, with exegesis– not his personal wild claims– that Daniel 9 foretold a different Abomination from that in chapter 12, then of necessity, Jerry is arguing that the Atonement, the putting away of sin, the bringing in of everlasting righteousness, the anointing of the Most Holy Place, were all fulfilled IN THE TIME OF ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES!

Daniel 9 clearly predicted the resurrection– just like chapter 12. The consummation of the Atonement is the Second Coming (Hebrews 9:24-28), just as the putting away of sin is inextricably tied to the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:55-56) and the bringing in of everlasting righteousness is the coming of the New Creation (2 Peter 3:13). But, Daniel 9– all constituent elements– were fulfilled no later than AD 70. Therefore, the resurrection occurred no later than AD 70.

See my Seventy Weeks Are Determined… For the Resurrection for definitive proof.

SO AGAIN, JERRY, WAS THE ATONEMENT MADE IN THE TIME OF ANTIOCHUS? YES OR NO?

Jerry, did Daniel 9 predict a different Abomination from that in chapter 12? Yes or No? And if Yes, PROVE IT! Don’t give us more of your wild claims. Give us proof!

NOT ONE OF THESE ELEMENTS WAS FULFILLED IN THE TIME OF ANTIOCHUS. Jerry’s claims are pure desperation. Daniel 12 foretold the resurrection, “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered.”

Jerry claims– with no proof– that Jesus simply referred to Daniel analogously. That is not what Jesus said: “when you see the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet.” There is no, “As it was then, so shall it be when.” Jesus was predicting what Daniel foretold.

Jerry makes a big deal on the words “abolish” in Matthew 5 and “shatter” Daniel 12, noting that Jesus said he did not come to abolish, but, that Daniel foretold the “shattering” of the power of the holy people, i.e. Torah. He claims that my position posits a contradiction. No, the problem is Jerry’s.

Don’t miss this: Jerry himself believes that Jesus came to “abolish” Torah. Jerry believes that the Law “passed’ (parelthe). He believes Torah “vanished away” (Hebrews 8:13). He believes Christ abolished the law (Ephesians 2:13f), blotting it out (Colossians 2). DON’T YOU, JERRY? So, Jerry’s word game backfires on him. Chart

Jesus did not come to “destroy” the law, IN THE SENSE THAT THE JEWS INCORRECTLY THOUGHT. He did come to take it away, make it vanish, to “remove, it” by giving the New Covenant in fulfillment of the OT promises, thus shattering Israel’s covenant relationship with YHVH.

As I have shown repeatedly, but Jerry has ignored, Daniel 12 undeniably foretold the resurrection of Corinthians 15. Note again this comparison between Daniel and 1 Corinthians 15.
Daniel 12- 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 did not even mention this.

The resurrection of Daniel 12 is the resurrection/parousia) of Acts 1, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians, etc.
The resurrection of Daniel 12 would be “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered” (12:7).
The power of the holy people (Israel) was her covenant relationship with God.
Therefore, the resurrection of Acts 1, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians, etc. would be when Israel’s covenant relationship with God was broken– this is 1 Corinthians 15:55-56– the overcoming of “the law” that was the strength of sin. And, Jerry says that was TORAH!

Watch this: Zechariah 11:9-14 said God would break that covenant bond in the day WHEN THE INHABITANTS OF JERUSALEM WOULD EAT ONE ANOTHER’S FLESH IN THE COMING SIEGE. This is the application of Mosaic Covenant Wrath (Deuteronomy 28). charts on John as Elijah. Jerry ignored these fatal facts.

All of this proves, beyond any doubt, that the end of the age resurrection to eternal life occurred in AD 70. Jerry has not, and cannot refute this.

BUT OF THAT DAY AND HOUR
Jerry claims: “Jesus, while he was on earth, did not even know the year in which he would return to the earth. He did know when Jerusalem would be destroyed, but of the day and hour of his return in judgment upon the earth he knew not the year, nor the day, nor the hour. The Father had not given him this knowledge, and Jesus said that only the Father had that knowledge.”

Some quick facts:
Zechariah 14 said that Day, the Lord’s coming against Jerusalem (v. 1-5) was to be a Day “known to the Lord” (v. 7)! In other words, it was the Day known only to the Lord.

So, Zechariah, predicting the AD 70 parousia said that Day was known only to the Lord! Now, if Zechariah could say the Lord’s coming in AD 70 was a Day known only to the Lord, then surely, Jesus, who draws from Zechariah in Matthew 24, could likewise refer to his coming in AD 70 as the day and hour known only to the Lord!

Jerry desperately tried to negate the force of my argument on the woman in travail. I asked if a woman in labor knows the “day and the hour” of delivery. Of course she doesn’t, but, she knows it is near, even at the door! Jerry’s comments did not touch this.

Jerry distorted my argument on whether there were signs of the flood in Noah’s day. He focused on Noah’s preaching as a sign. Sorry, that does not touch the argument! BTW, Jesus did give the completion of the World Mission AS A SIGN OF THE END: “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world as a witness…then comes the end” (Matthew 24:14). So, THE COMPLETION OF THE MISSION WAS A SIGN OF THE END– and, Paul said the Mission had been fulfilled (Colossians 1:5-7; v. 23). He likewise said the Day of the Lord was near (Romans 13:11f– AND THAT THEY KNEW IT!!)

Noah was not preaching of something far off, was he, Jerry? The flood was to be in his generation- although he did not know the “day or the hour.”
Second, Jerry, was that ark under construction and the animals streaming to Noah’s back yard a SIGN of ANYTHING?

Read Revelation 3:1-3: “And to the angel of the church in Sardis, “Be watchful, …If you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.”

Jesus was speaking to the Sardisian church. He told them to watch. If they did not watch, he would come on them as a thief, and they would not know the hour of that coming! (Chart–Thief / Chart: gregoreuo.”

Jesus was speaking of a first century coming that would be as a thief. (See my book on this) They could undeniably know the generation– but not the hour. If the Sardisians could know Christ was coming as a thief on those who refused to watch, in their generation-but not know the hour– then it could be- was – true of Matthew 24.

The Father knew the day and hour. In John 16:7ff, Jesus said he was going away so that the Father could send the Spirit. The Spirit would reveal “things to come” to the disciples. So, when the disciples wrote that the parousia was near, IT WAS THE FATHER- THROUGH THE SPIRIT– SAYING IT WAS NEAR.

Note Romans 13:11f– “And now knowing the time (Kairos, appointed time), that it is already the hour (hora- hour) for you to awaken from sleep, now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand.” (Knowing the time)

The Romans, informed by the Spirit sent by the Father, KNEW WHAT TIME IT WAS. They knew THE APPOINTED DAY WAS NEAR. They knew the HOUR! John did too: “It is the last hour” (1 John 2:18). They knew because the Father- through the Spirit– said so!

Now, note Revelation 1:1-3, where, the Father, who knew the Day and Hour, revealed to Jesus who revealed to John, who revealed to the churches that, “the (divinely appointed) time is at hand”, “these things must shortly come to pass.” (Chart)

JERRY, DID THE FATHER LIE WHEN HE SENT THE SPIRIT TO SAY THOSE THINGS WERE AT HAND? Every time you deny the imminent time statements, you impugn the work of the revelatory Spirit WHO WAS REVEALING WHAT THE FATHER TOLD HIM! The NT writers were only writing what the Father told them to write, such as: “in a very, very little while, (chart) the one who is coming will come, and will not delay!” chart /

1 CORINTHIAN 15 – CONTEXT
Jerry conveniently– but of necessity– ignores the fact that the resurrection would be in fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises made to Old Covenant after the flesh.
Notice Jerry’s amazing contradictions in this regard
Chart –Paul’s Hope
Chart– genetai
Chart– Isaiah 25–Jerry’s flip flop
Chart - Hosea 13 / Hosea-2 / Hosea -3 – Hosea foretold the resurrection at the time of the New Covenant!

Paul said he preached nothing but the hope of Israel, found in Moses and the prophets. Jerry denies this and divorces NT eschatology from the OT and Israel, creating an eschatology unknown in scripture. It is in fact, another Gospel! If Jerry cannot find his doctrine of the resurrection in the OT, then his interpretation of NT eschatology is fundamentally false. All NT eschatology was nothing but the expectation of the fulfillment of God’s OT promises made to Old Covenant Israel. Jerry has not touched this, but it falsifies his eschatology.

WHAT THE CORINTHIANS BELIEVED
Jerry simply repeats his mantra that the scoffers in Corinthian denied the resurrection. False.
If they denied the resurrection they would have denied Jesus’ resurrection– but they didn’t.
If they denied the resurrection they would have denied the resurrection of dead Christians– but they didn’t.
If they denied the resurrection they would have denied their own salvation– but they didn’t.
If the Corinthians did not deny the resurrection of Jesus, of Christians, of themselves, then they did not deny the resurrection! Jerry did not touch these indisputable facts.

Paul set forth Jesus as the firstfruit (chart) of those “who had fallen asleep” before him (note the Greek tenses of v. 20), as proof that those who had fallen asleep before him would be “harvested” (raised). So, Jerry’s challenge for me to prove where the Corinthians were not denying the resurrection of all the dead is satisfied, and he is wrong.

THE DEATH OF ADAM
Jerry’s discourse on the death of Adam is some of the most confused, confusing–and unprecedented!!- stuff you will ever read. Did you notice that he offered not one scripture to prove his wild claims?
Let’s examine his claims in light of scripture.
1.) Jerry claims there were two deaths in Genesis 2:15f. Really? Where does it say that? “In the day you eat, you will surely die.” Jerry has two different kinds of death and two days- separated by almost a millennia. This violates the text. Chart
2.) Jerry has YHVH keeping His word about death occurring that very day, but then, not keeping His word in regard to the “other death.” According to YHVH the only death in view was to occur “in the day you eat” not almost a millennia later!
3.) Jerry’s claim that physical death was the “consequence”, but not the “wages” of sin, is, without a doubt, one of the most disingenuous claims Jerry has made. Jerry, give us scriptural proof for your view! You won’t, because you can’t, and you know it! Chart
You admit that as a DIRECT RESULT of sin, Adam died physically. This logically demands that “the wages of sin is (physical) death.” That is undeniable.
Jerry says all men die biologically BECAUSE OF ADAM, but, all men do not die spiritually because of Adam. Proof? Not a word.
Paul was emphatic: “As by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, so then death passed on all men, for all sinned.” Paul makes no distinction in the “death” in view. That is Jerry’s theological invention. Jerry admits that spiritual and physical death entered AS THE CURSE FOR ADAM’S SIN. Thus, there is no way to dichotomize between them in Romans 5 / 1 Corinthians 15!

Jerry claims that physical death is the direct consequence of Adam’s sin. But, we don’t have to sin like Adam to die physically, we inherit that penalty! Jerry, have you ever read Ezekiel 18:20? “The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father.”
Jerry has us all dying physically because of Adam. Jerry says Romans 5 = physical death. Per Paul, Adam introduced death, but, MEN DO NOT INHERIT THAT DEATH, they die because, LIKE ADAM, THEY SIN! Thus, SIN GUILT BRINGS (PHYSICAL) DEATH, per Jerry’s own logic!
Jerry says, we don’t inherit the spiritual penalty for Adam’s sin– we die because of our own sin. Well, Paul says in Romans 5: “all men die, because all men sin”? So, again, logically, sin guilt brings (physical) death! Paul knew nothing of Jerry’s dichotomization of “death.”

Follow:
Romans 5 = physical death (Jerry).
All men die (physically, per Jerry) AS A DIRECT RESULT OF SIN-GUILT (Ro. 5:12).
But, in Christ, there is no condemnation (no sin-guilt- Romans 8:1).
Therefore, those in Christ should not have to suffer physical death.

Jerry claims that in 1 Corinthians 15, “Paul is not discussing the death that is the wages of sin, he is talking about the death that is the consequence of Adam’s sin.” Unmitigated double talk.
Fact: Paul was discussing the death that came as a direct result of violation of “the law that is the strength of sin.” YOU MUST CATCH THE POWER OF THIS! (Charts – Wages)

THE LAST ENEMY
Jerry claims that the Adamic Death of 1 Corinthians 15- i.e. “THE LAST ENEMY”- must be physical.

I asked if physical death is the enemy of the child of God. He said “No.” Follow then:

PHYSICAL DEATH IS NOT THE ENEMY OF THE CHILD OF GOD– MCDONALD.

BUT, 1 CORINTHIANS 15 IS ABOUT THE DEFEAT OF THE “LAST ENEMY” I.E. DEATH!

THEREFORE, 1 CORINTHIANS 15 CANNOT BE SPEAKING OF THE DEFEAT OF PHYSICAL DEATH.

Jerry has falsified HIS ENTIRE ESCHATOLOGY!

See the following charts on the death of Adam and the “last enemy” in 1 Corinthians 15.
Chart-Two deaths? / Chart “mortality” / Chart /

Jerry says physical death is (part of) the Adamic Curse.
Jerry said Jesus’ substitutionary death was not to deliver us from physical death. Do you catch that? Jerry has divorced physical death from the realm of Christ’s redemptive work by his own admission!!
This means that when a man dies– EVEN NON-CHRISTIANS– his death serves as his redemption from that part of the Adamic Curse!
Per Jerry’s distorted “logic” no man– non-Christians– needs Christ’s physical death, since their own physical death pays the price for that aspect of the Adamic Curse! Is physical death the enemy? Chart / Chart

JESUS’ RESURRECTION A SIGN
Contra John 20:30-31 Jerry (unbelievably) claims that Jesus’ physical resurrection was “not a sign of anything!” This is an unscriptural and historically unprecedented claim. Jerry is just making things up as he goes along!
Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God…by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4).
See the chart / chart / Chart

SIT OR QUIT?
Jerry accused me of being “cute” by noting the words of Matthew 25:31, that at his coming, Jesus sits on his throne, but does not QUIT. No, I was simply honoring what the text says! Jerry insisted that since Christ was on the throne of David prior to the parousia, (not in dispute) that he cannot be on the throne afterward, based on his distorted definition of paradidomi in 1 Corinthians 15. Well, REVELATION 22:3 HAS JESUS ON THE THRONE, WITH THE FATHER, AFTER THE MILLENNIUM! Per Jerry’s distorted theology, that is not possible!

Jerry has created an inescapable dilemma for himself.
The parousia of Matthew 25:31f is the coming of Matthew 25:1-14– Christ’s coming for the Wedding.
But, as I have proven beyond dispute, the Wedding would occur at the fall of Jerusalem– Matthew 22:1-10. Jerry has not touched this, and he can’t.
Therefore, the coming of the Lord in Matthew 25:31 occurred at the fall of Jerusalem.
Remember that I have asked Jerry to specifically identify Babylon in Revelation. He has obfuscated and refused to answer. He knows that the Wedding takes place at the destruction of Babylon–which of course is “where the Lord was slain” (Rev. 11:8). So if, as we all suspect, Jerry identifies Babylon as Rome, then the Wedding– the parousia of Matthew 25:31f occurred at the fall of Rome. See this chart that illustrates Jerry’s insurmountable “marriage problems.” chart / Chart / Chart

It gets worse for Jerry.
He insists that paradidoi in 1 Corinthians 15 must mean surrender-it can’t mean share. Well, let’s see:
CHRIST’S COMING IN MATTHEW 25:31F; 1 CORINTHIANS 15; 1 THESSALONIANS 4, REV. 19, ETC. IS WHEN HE SURRENDERS, ABDICATES, HIS RULE OVER THE KINGDOM– GIVING IT TO THE FATHER– (JERRY).

BUT, THE COMING IN MATTHEW 25, CORINTHIANS, REV. 19, ETC. IS THE TIME OF CHRIST’S WEDDING.

THEREFORE, AT HIS COMING FOR HIS WEDDING, CHRIST DIVORCES HIS WIFE. HANDS HER OVER TO THE FATHER, IS NO LONGER MARRIED TO HER.

Paul said Christ would PRESENT THE CHURCH TO HIMSELF (Ephesians 5). I have consulted over 50 commentators, and everyone of them agrees that the presentation occurs at the parousia! (See chart, and chart)– Agreeing with Matthew 25:1f; Rev. 19.

SO, JERRY, DOES CHRIST DIVORCE HIS WIFE – SURRENDERING HER TO THE FATHER– AT THE MOMENT OF HIS WEDDING, OR, DOES HE IN FACT “PRESENT HER TO HIMSELF”? DON’T FAIL TO ANSWER THIS!

Note Revelation 11:15-18– At the resurrection, fulfilling Daniel 12, (time of the Wedding!): “the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ, and THEY SHALL RULE FOREVER AND FOREVER.” The Father and the Son share the throne, ruling together– just like Revelation 22:3! No abdication, no surrendering of the kingdom, no divorce. Just total falsification of Jerry McDonald’s eschatology. Chart

THE LAW, THE STRENGTH OF SIN
I asked Jerry: Please define, with scriptural support, “the law” that was / is the “strength of sin.” His answer: “The Law of Moses (1 Cor. 15:56).”

I have repeatedly offered the following, but of course, Jerry has ignored it.

THE RESURRECTION OF 1 CORINTHIANS 15 WOULD BE WHEN “THE LAW” THAT WAS THE STRENGTH OF SIN WAS REMOVED (1 CORINTHIANS 15:55-56).

BUT, “THE LAW” THAT WAS THE STRENGTH OF SIN WAS THE LAW OF MOSES– (JERRY)

THEREFORE, THE RESURRECTION OF 1 CORINTHIANS 15 WOULD BE (WAS) WHEN THE LAW OF MOSES WAS REMOVED.

This is irrefutable. Jerry has not touched it, and can’t. In fact, Jerry admitted it. Note what he said on 1 Corinthians 15:54-56– “We don’t have to worry about death any more BECAUSE THE LAW HAS BEEN DONE AWAY AND DEATH HAS NO MORE DOMINION OVER US.” (My emp).
Okay, “BECAUSE THE LAW HAS BEEN DONE AWAY DEATH HAS NO MORE DOMINION OVER US.”
This undeniably defines the death Paul is discussing as covenantal death– not biological death! Physical death most assuredly does still have dominion over us, because we are all going to experience physical death. Jerry admits the direct link between “the law of Moses” and the death and life that Paul discussed in 1 Corinthians 15.

JERRY’S SYLLOGISMS
Jerry offered this syllogism:
< If it is the case that some, in Corinth, would ask how the dead were raised up and what body they would be raised up in, then it is the case that those who would ask such a question at least would consider the possibility of Paul’s teaching on the resurrection to be a literal, bodily resurrection of a dead body.>

This syllogism (as with his syllogisms on Moses, Torah and 1 Corinthians 15) assumes without proof (petitio principii) many (false) things!
It assumes that “the dead” refers to ALL biologically dead humans. This is false– as I have proven
It assumes that “the body” refers to human corpses. However body is singular in the Greek – i.e. the dead ones (plural) would have a body (singular).

But watch:
Paul said those under Torah were DEAD- Torah brought death (Romans 7). The law was the “ministration of death” (2 Corinthians 3:5f). Deliverance from Torah brought life.
The law was the strength of sin (Jerry; Romans 7:8f).
Those under Torah possessed (were) “the body of death” (Romans 7:24).
Life under Torah was life “in the flesh” and constituted the “mortal body” (Romans 8; Galatians 3).
Jerry admits, “BECAUSE THE LAW HAS BEEN DONE AWAY DEATH HAS NO MORE DOMINION OVER US.” (His words!)
Jerry argues that the death in 1 Corinthians 15 is physical death (ALTHOUGH ADMITTING THAT CHRIST DID NOT DIE TO DELIVER US FROM PHYSICAL DEATH– AND THAT PHYSICAL DEATH IS NOT THE ENEMY).
Okay, BECAUSE THE LAW HAS BEEN DONE AWAY (PHYSICAL) DEATH HAS NO MORE DOMINION OVER US.”
Clearly, Paul describes life, death, resurrection all directly in the context of deliverance from sin and Torah– Jerry admits this! All of Jerry’s syllogism (s) on Moses and Torah are falsified by these indisputable facts.

DID JESUS DIE SPIRITUALLY?
Jerry says: “He claims that Jesus died spiritually. How can that be when Ezekiel says, “The soul that sinneth it shall die” (Ezk. 18:20). The only way one can die spiritually is to sin, and Heb. 4:15 tells us that Jesus was tempted as we are yet without sin.” This is very bad!

So, per Jerry, if there is no sin guilt, there is no death.

Well, Jesus must have been guilty of some sin that brought his physical death– per Romans 5– “all men die, because all men sin.” Jerry says the death in Romans 5 is physical death, and according to Paul, that death comes “because all men sin” v. 12). Jerry’s claim that the Adamic death is inherited by all men is false. Paul said “all men die BECAUSE ALL MEN SIN.” Thus, individual sin guilt brings the death Paul is discussing.

Jesus did die spiritually: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” So, Jerry’s “no sin guilt = no death” principle demands that Jesus must have died DUE TO HIS OWN SIN.

Jerry, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE SUBSTITUTIONARY DEATH OF JESUS? 2 Corinthians 5:20f– “He made him to be sin for us, he who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God through him.” He “bore our sins on the cross.” HE DIED IN OUR PLACE, JERRY, BY BEARING OUR SINS!

Jerry is so desperate to avoid the truth that HE DENIES THE SUBSTITUTIONARY DEATH OF JESUS! He says, “No guilt, no death.” Okay, JESUS DIED, so, OF WHAT WAS HE GUILTY?

Look again at my arguments on Jesus’ substitutionary death– all ignored by Jerry.

Jesus’ physical death on the cross was substitutionary– “God substituted him…rather than making us bear the punishment” (Jerry).
Now, that substitutionary death had to be spiritual because remember, Jerry says all men will die the physical death of Adam regardless! And, Jerry says Jesus’ physical death was not to save us from physical death!

Every man– even the most faithful Christian– dies physically.
Therefore, Jesus’ substitutionary physical death in which, “God substituted him as the sacrifice rather than making us bear the punishment”– FAILED, SINCE ALL MEN DIE PHYSICALLY!

Jerry’s emphasis on all things purely physical DEMANDS THE FAILURE OF JESUS’ SUBSTITUTIONARY DEATH. Substitutionary– Jerry admits– means in the place of. Jesus died, Jerry admits, so that we “should not bear the punishment.”
Well, the punishment for sin is supposedly physical death– right, Jerry? THAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF (AT LEAST PART OF) THE CURSE OF ADAM.

On the one hand, Jerry claims that 1 Corinthians 15 is about deliverance from physical death. On the other hand, he says Jesus’ physical death, “wasn’t so we wouldn’t die physically, but so we wouldn’t have to suffer eternal death (separation from God) in eternity. DO NOT MISS THIS!

Jesus did not die to deliver man from physical death (Jerry).
But, 1 Corinthians is about the deliverance from death– through the resurrection of Jesus.
Therefore, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 is not about deliverance from physical death, since Jesus’ death was not to deliver man from physical death.

Building on that:
Jesus did not die to deliver man from physical death (Jerry).
But, Jesus’ death was to deliver man from the death curse of Adam (15:21).
Therefore, physical death was not the death curse of Adam.

If biological death is NOT the curse of Adam, this means that: “As in Adam all men die, even so in Christ shall be made alive” cannot, in any way, be speaking of a literal resurrection out of physical death. And, it likewise must mean that all men inherit the spiritual death of Adam, contradicting Jerry’s claims!

Ask yourself: If Jesus did not die to deliver man from physical death, why in the world is Jerry arguing for a deliverance from physical death? After all, he says it is not the “last enemy”!

The choices here are few, but clear.
1.) Christ died as the consequence of his own sin. False, UNLESS one accepts Jerry’s “No sin guilt = No Death” view.
RE: Jesus’ physical death. Remember that Jerry says:
A.) Jesus did not die to deliver us from physical death. So, his physical death on the cross is patently not focused on physical death.
B.) Jerry says physical death is not the “wage” of sin– or the enemy. So, Jesus was not paying the (substitutionary) “wage” of Adamic sin! See how bad this is for Jerry?
RE: Spiritual death. Jerry said Jesus did not die spiritual death. Yet, Jerry admitted that the wage of Adam’s sin was separation from God, i.e. spiritual death. Well, Jesus was separated from the Father: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Thus, Jerry’s denial that Jesus died a spiritual death is falsified.

Jerry’s desperation is further manifested in his series of syllogisms climaxing in this:
Major Premise: If the resurrection was a symbolic, figurative resurrection showing the church being resurrected out of Judaism, then Judaism must have died and was raised as Christianity.
Minor: The resurrection was a symbolic, figurative resurrection showing the church being resurrected from Judaism (Don Preston’s position).
Conclusion: Therefore Judaism must have died and was raised as Christianity.

Jerry, tell us: Do you believe Torah / Judaism died? Yes, you do! You just have the timing wrong.
Do you believe the church arose out of that death? Of course you do!
What is indisputable is this (again!), which you have admitted:

THE RESURRECTION OF 1 CORINTHIANS 15 WOULD BE WHEN “THE LAW” THAT WAS “THE STRENGTH OF SIN” WAS REMOVED (1 CORINTHIANS 15:55-56).

BUT, “THE LAW” THAT WAS THE STRENGTH OF SIN WAS “THE LAW OF MOSES” – (JERRY)

THEREFORE, THE RESURRECTION OF 1 CORINTHIANS 15 WOULD BE (WAS) WHEN THE LAW OF MOSES WAS REMOVED.

Here is the death of the “mortal body” of Torah– giving way to the immortal body of Christ.
You have not touched this and you cannot. Your syllogisms are based on false assumptions– and they conveniently ignore not only what you claim to believe, but what you have openly admitted!

Jerry challenged me: “Deal with my syllogisms.” Well, I HAVE, VERY EFFECTIVELY, thank you very much Now, Jerry, how about dealing with MY syllogisms? You have not even tried.

JERRY ON GALATIANS 5
Jerry throws out some Greek words and claims victory, while never even making the logical connection! Some were returning to the Law. Now, if, as Jerry claims, the Law was already dead, why didn’t Paul say you can’t go back to that law; it is dead? No, he simply told them that to return to Torah was to fall from grace. HE DID NOT SAY THE LAW WAS DEAD.

1 THESSALONIANS 4
Note how Jerry flagrantly changes the pronouns in 1 Thessalonians 4! Paul said, “those of us who are alive and remain until the parousia.” Jerry changes it to “those who remain.” This is not what Paul said. The language is the present active. (Did you notice how Jerry ridiculed my careful attention to the Greek tenses? Makes you wonder why Paul bothered using them.)

Paul referred to his living, contemporary audience as: “those of us who are alive and remain until.”
His “we” and “us” are undeniably contemporary.” Chart
His “who are alive” is contemporary. He did not say “those who will be alive.” Furthermore, his “who are alive” is in direct contrast to the Thessalonians who had died.
His “remain until” (literally, “we who are remaining until”) demands a referent point from Paul’s then present “we who are alive,” thus demanding that some to whom he wrote would remain until the parousia.
This is precisely what Jesus taught in Matthew 16:27-28 / Mark 8:38-9:1. Some of that audience would live until the parousia and full arrival of the kingdom. They would live through it, and, they would look back on the parousia / kingdom as having come in the past. This was not a prediction of Pentecost! (Chart–Not Pentecost). See my book Can You Believe Jesus Said This?, for a full discussion of Matthew 16:27f).

Remember how Jerry said that if Daniel 12 predicted AD 70 THEN IT HAD NO MEANING FOR THOSE IN DANIEL’S DAY? Take a look at what this means:

To apply Daniel 12 to AD 70 destroys all application and meaning to the people of Daniel’s day– Jerry.
Well, what does Jerry do with 1 and 2 Thessalonians? HE SAYS PAUL’S PREDICTION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR TIME OR EVENTS OF THEIR DAY!
So, Jerry does with Thessalonians what he says is wrong to do in Daniel.

Note the following:
Linguistically, Jerry totally misses the point of “we shall meet him.” The word translated as “meet” is apantesis. In my book We Shall Meet Him In The Air, I show from Scripture, history, Josephus, and the Lexicons that when used with parousia, as in 1 Thessalonians 4, it is a technical term. It refers to a dignitary traveling to a city. The citizens go out to meet him, AND ESCORT HIM BACK TO THEIR CITY– HIS DESTINATION!
The visitor does not take the citizens away with him! He goes with them to their city. This agrees perfectly with John 14 / Revelation 21, of the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven, FOR GOD TO DWELL WITH MAN. It is not a removal of man from the earth.
Thus, Jerry’s application of Thessalonians to an earth burning, time ending event is falsified by the Greek text.

THE ANAPHORIC ARTICLE
Peter’s use of the anaphoric article in 1 Peter 4:17 demands that he was saying that the judgment of the living and the dead (v. 5) had come. CHART
Jerry reveals his ignorance of Greek by denying this. He says “hetoimos” (ready to judge) mitigates the anaphoric article! Nonsense! NO GREEK AUTHORITY AGREES WITH JERRY! (CHART)
Now, he says because “has come” is in italics in 1 Peter 4:17 that this means the time had not come!
I have consulted over 40 translations- All have “has come” or parallels– Every Greek commentator consulted agrees with the translations. (Cf. Word Biblical Commentary, In loc: “kairos is to be taken as a predicate (with estin ‘it is’ understood”).
What are Jerry’s credentials for rejecting the unanimous translational evidence? He gave us NOTHING! Jerry’s abuse of the Greek is inexcusable. Chart / Chart

Notice:
The time of the judgment of the living and the dead (at the end of all things) is the Second Coming of Christ of Acts 1; 1 Corinthians 15; 1 Thessalonians 4; Revelation 20.

But, the time for the judgment of the living and the dead (and the “end of all things”) had arrived (1 Peter 4:7, 17).

Therefore, the time had arrived for the Second Coming and Resurrection of all of these texts.

1 Peter 4:17 alludes directly to Malachi 3:1-3, 6f– the coming of the Lord, in judgment to “his temple” when no one could stand before Him.
Elijah was to herald that Great Day- (3:1-3; 4:5-6).
That Day would be in application of Mosaic Covenant Wrath– as proven (Chart)
John was Elijah and said the wrath was “about to come”, the axe was at the root (Matthew 3).
This proves beyond doubt that Peter’s statement that the time “has come” for the judgment to begin was objectively near. The judgment of the living and the dead had “drawn near.”

These arguments falsify Jerry’s entire eschatology– ALL OF HIS CHARTS– and he knows it, so, he has made some of the most desperate, embarrassingly unscholarly arguments imaginable.

JOHN ON PATMOS
Jerry has admitted that he holds external sources on Revelation in higher esteem than the inspired text. Note his admission: “I have offered Pliney, (sic) etc., and he offered scripture, but even he admits that if Revelation was written in the 90’s his application of Revelation is useless. I referred to Rev. 1:11 where John was on the Isle of Patmos and asked him to show where John was ever there other than in the 90’s. Did I get an answer? No, and I never will.”

MY, MY!
1.) All I have to do– which I have done– is to prove that Revelation was indeed speaking of the fall of Jerusalem. All Jerry has done is appeal to external, uninspired sources. See the following charts that Jerry has consistently ignored. (Prophets-Jesus-apostles / 1 Pet-Rev)
2.) Jerry once again reveals his ignorance of ancient sources and makes embarrassing claims. Is there evidence of John on Patmos earlier than the 90s? See this chart. So much for Jerry’s claim that I would never respond.

JERRY ON DISTANCE
Jerry made the argument that the destruction of Jerusalem was unimportant to those in Asia because it was so far away. I responded (chart) showing that Jesus’ passion was just as far away, thus, per Jerry’s “logic” unimportant to the Asians.

Jerry now says that the location of Jesus’ passion was unimportant. He is wrong. Prophecy placed Jesus’ ministry and passion in Jerusalem, so, location was critical to the fulfillment of prophecy! Likewise, the resurrection and New Creation was prophetically posited at the destruction of Jerusalem (Isaiah 24-27; Isaiah 65-66; Daniel 12) as I have shown irrefutably. Location was critical to both events. If the fall of Jerusalem was unimportant due to its distance from the Asians, then Jesus’ resurrection was unimportant to them– and to us! Jerry’s “answer” is just more illogical desperation.

THE HEALING OF THE NATIONS
Jerry claims that Revelation 21-22 is describing heaven. Wrong.
Revelation 21-22 describes the New Jerusalem– which is the church (Hebrews 12:20f). The City “came down from God out of heaven” (21:3f). It did not leave earth! The nations are outside, but, the gates of the city are always open for the nations to enter and find healing.
The tree of life bears fruit “twelve months a year” (Jerry claims there is no time in the New Creation) and that fruit is for the healing of the nations coming into the New Creation.
This is evangelism after the Judgment / resurrection of 20:10f). Jerry cannot escape this, no matter how hard he tries. The invitation of the Spirit and the Bride was/is for the nations to enter that City AFTER IT WAS TO COME DOWN OUT OF HEAVEN.

JERRY AND REVELATION
Take a look at my arguments on Revelation that Jerry has ignored.
Chart – Avenging– Jesus- Prophets – Apostles
Chart– Dan-Rev
Chart- Wicked remain / Chart
Chart – En tachei

HAVE I ANSWERED JERRY’S ARGUMENTS?
Jerry claims I have not answered his arguments. Nonsense. Go back through the debate and look closely at who followed who. Jerry openly stated, while in the negative, that he was not going to follow all of my arguments! Yet, I have addressed his most salient arguments. But, make no mistake. I did not have to address every specific point he attempted to make (for instance his syllogisms on the body of Moses and 1 Corinthians 15). All I had to do was to show that the text was speaking of the resurrection and posited it at the passing of the Law that was the strength of sin– which Jerry admits was the Law of Moses! All I had to do– and have done– is to show that the resurrection was truly imminent in the first century– see on 1 Peter 4.

These arguments alone falsify Jerry’s entire eschatology, and he knows it. This is why I do not have to produce a chart to match each of Jerry’s, for instance on Pliny. What Pliny said cannot refute Inspiration– Period. Chart Inspiration

Jerry has utterly failed to establish his affirmative– and he has, again, failed to address my rebuttals. He has failed.

Preston’s 2nd Prelim Questions

My Questions for Jerry McDonald

In preparation for Jerry McDonald’s Affirmative

1.) Please, without evasion, with scriptural proof, answer the following from Daniel 9:24:

A.) “To finish the Transgression” —What does this mean, and, when was  it (or when will it be)  fully accomplished / fulfilled?  Response:  It has reference to the end of the law of Moses and the beginning of the law of Christ.  Notice in verse 25 it says “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks” (Dan. 9:25).  This happened when the church came into its established state on the day of Pentecost.

B.) “Make an end of sin” —what does this mean, and when was it (or when will it be) fully accomplished / fulfilled?  Response:  Make an end of sin has reference to being able to put away the old man of sin (2 Cor. 5:17).  Under Mosaic law there was no end of sin (Gal. 3:19,24; Heb. 10:1-4).  This happened at the cross (Col. 2:14-17).

C.) “To make the Atonement” —What does this mean, and when was it (or when will it be) fully accomplished / fulfilled?  Response:  To make atonement meant that sins would finally be atoned, once and for all (Heb. 9:15).  The KJV says “make reconciliation for iniquity.”  What makes reconciliation for iniquity?  Obedience to the gospel (2 Cor. 5:18,19).  This happened when people obeyed the gospel of Christ on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:37-42).

D.) “To seal vision  and prophecy” – what does this mean, and when was it (or when will it be) fully accomplished / fulfilled?  Response:  It means that the time had not yet come for the messiah to appear and the gospel to be preached and the church to be established.  All this took place when Christ came to earth, lived, died and was resurrected and then established his church.  If you need scriptures for this check scriptures discussing the gospel, Christ promising to build his church and when it was established.

E.) “To bring in everlasting righteousness” – what does this mean, and when was it (or when will it be) fully accomplished / fulfilled? Response:  It means to make everlasting life a reality.  Before the cross all they had was a promise, but when Jesus died on the cross he took sin out of the way (Rom. 8:21), and thereby made eternal life a reality to those who serve him.

 

2.) When, in your view, did the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit cease to function in the church? Please give scriptural proof for your answer.  Response:  1 Cor. 13:10 says “when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.”  So once the written revelation was complete, there were no more miraculous gifts given.  Those who had miraculous gifts may have kept them until they died, but they were unimportant because they had fulfilled their purpose:  Confirmation (Mk. 16:17-20).

A.) No later than AD 70?

B.) No later than the death of the last person upon whom the apostles laid their hands, imparting those gifts to them?

C.) No later than the time of the writing of Revelation, which you posit as in the AD 90s.

D.) No later than the fall of Rome?

E.) If you believe that the gifts ended at some other juncture, please identify that time as specifically as possible.

 

3.) Is your hope of the second coming of Christ at the end of the current Christian age, the judgment and the resurrection (as you perceive these events) drawn from and based on God’s Old Covenant promises, made to Old Covenant Israel, after the flesh? Response: Yes or No?  However that does not dictate that these promises were part of the law of Moses.

 

4.) Is the resurrection at the end of the current Christian age the time when all the martyrs of God are avenged / vindicated / and their persecutors judged?  Response: Yes or No?
There are still martyrs, and there are still persecutors, but if the judgment has happened, then the promise fails.

If your answer is No – Please give us scriptural proof for your answer.

 

5.) Since Paul said that his doctrine of the resurrection of the dead was from Moses and the prophets (Acts 24:14-15)  and that he preached nothing but the hope of Israel found in those OT prophets (Acts 26:21f), please give at least two OT prophecies (more if possible) that clearly and unequivocally foretold the physical resurrection of human corpses out of the dirt, as you believe it is to occur at the end of the Christian age.

A.) Job 14:13,14

B.) Job 14:13,14 is sufficient because it shows that the resurrection of the dead was a promise that preceeded Mosaic law.  Also you overlooked Paul’s statement in Acts 24:15 where he said  “there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.”  Now if the resurrection was a spiritual resurrection, not a literal one, then the unjust would be spiritually raised and not literally as well.  If this is the case then it seems to indicate that the unjust would be raised spiritually which would mean that they would be forgiven; since your belief is that the resurrection was a restoration of the life lost in Adam, not biological life, but spiritual life.  So if the unjust are raised, then they have the restoration of the life lost in Adam; thus they are saved.

 

 

6.) Was Jesus the first to be raised from the death of Adam? Response:  Yes or No?  But first there means “preeminence” just like he is the “first born.”  When we talk of the President’s family we speak of them as the “first family.”  They are first in Preeminence, not the first in number.

7.) Was Jesus’ death on the Cross “substitutionary?” Response:   Yes or No?  He died as a substitute for our punishment because of our sins.  He bore the sins of the world in his death.  Therefore God substituted him as the sacrifice rather than making us bear the punishment.

 

 8.) Did Jesus complete and perfect the Atonement at the Cross  Response:   Yes Or No?

 

9.) I previously asked: Concerning Revelation 11:15-19: With scriptural support, tell me as specifically as possible, at what point of time, and in what event (or events) all of the constituent elements of these verses were, or will be, fulfilled.

Those elements include:

The sounding of the seventh Trumpet

The kingdoms of this world becoming the kingdom of God and His Christ.

The time of the outpouring of the Wrath of God.

The time of the judgment of the dead.

The time of the rewarding of the (dead) prophets

The opening of the Temple of God (in heaven).

You Responded: “Revelation 11:15-19 is a vision John had regarding the seven churches in Asia (Rev. 1:4,11) and the persecution that they were enduring. All of the things you listed above are to be kept in the context of the apocalyptic vision, not applied when and where you please.”

Jerry, You did not answer forthrightly, nor did you provide any scriptural or specific answers. Noting that Revelation was written to the seven churches of Asia does not define those elements, or tell when those things were or will be fulfilled.

You did not tell me what these things meant, or when they were, or will, be fulfilled, as I requested.

So, please, specifically, with scriptural proof, answer the question! Tell me at what point of time, and in what events ALL those elements were, or will be fulfilled.

Do not fail to answer this question –  WITHOUT EVASION.

There is no evasion.  I spent a lot of space in my negatives showing when these things would happen.  You are asking questions that have nothing to do with my proposition, since I have no intention of getting into these things in my proposition.  We have already discussed them and I have already forthrightly answered them.  Below is my response to your question and response to your clarification.  It satisfied you then, why doesn’t it satisfy you now?  Because you don’t have anything else to ask.

Response: Revelation 11:15-19 is a vision John had regarding the seven churches in Asia (Rev. 1:4,11) and the persecution that they were enduring. All of the things you listed above are to be kept in the context of the apocalyptic vision, not applied when and where you please.

Clarification Question: I fully agree that we should not apply the elements of these verses to “when and where you please.” So, are you saying that all six of the constituent elements listed  in Revelation 11:15-19 (and listed just above) were all fulfilled in the first century generation of the seven churches of Asia? Please clarify for me.  

 

Response:  I don’t know how to make this any clearer.  The only thing that was not fulfilled is final judgment of man, which will not happen until Christ returns to judge the world (Acts 17:30,31; 2 Tim. 4:1).

You cannot make things literal just because you choose to make them literal.  This was an apocalyptic vision and apocalyptic literature is employed in the vision.  It has to do with the persecution of the seven churches in Asia.  This is not discussing the literal city of Jerusalem under any circumstance.

 

 

10.) Peter said that his prediction of the Day of the Lord was simply a reminder of what the OT prophets (and the apostles) had said (2 Peter 3:1-2; 13).

Please give at least two OT prophecies of the end of the Christian age, at the end of time and the destruction of the material universe that Peter might have been drawing from and citing?

In other words, give me at least two OT prophecies of the end of Christian age at the end of time” and the end of the material universe as you perceive it.

A.) Isaiah 65:17-19

 

B.) Isa. 66:22

McDonald’s Second Prelim Questions

Preliminary Questions

1. What did the angel mean when he said “Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven”  (Act 1:11)?
2. Response: Christ was coming in the clouds.

 

1. Do you believe in the all-sufficiency of the Bible?  Yes or No.

Response: I have already answered this question.

 

1. Are we obligated to repent today?  Yes or No.

Response:   This question is not directly relevant to either proving or disproving your proposition or mine.  It is a: “If the doctrine is true, what now?” type of question, but does not prove or disprove the propositions.

Unless you can prove that this is directly relevant to proving or disproving the propositions, I will not allow you to use it to poison the well.

 

Hedges’ Rule #3—To which you signed your name says:

Rule 3d. All expressions, which are unmeaning, or without effect in regard to the subject in debate, should be strictly avoided. All expressions may be considered as unmeaning, which contribute nothing to the proof or the question; such as desultory remarks and declamatory expressions. (My emphasis)

 

 

1. Are we obligated to partake of the Lord’s Supper today?  Yes or No.

Response:   This question is not directly relevant to either proving or disproving your proposition or mine.  It is a “If the doctrine is true, what now?” type of question, but does not prove or disprove the propositions. Unless you can prove that this is directly relevant to proving or disproving the propositions, I will not allow you to use it to poison the well.  See Hedges’ Rules #3 above that you signed to follow.

 

1. What is meant by “every eye shall see him” (Rev. 1:7?

Response: Defined by the prophetic source, Zechariah 12:10—and the text—“they who pierced him.” Jesus specifically applied this to AD 70—Matthew 24:30-31).

 

1. What is meant by “every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess” (Rom. 14:11)?

Response: See #6. It is not a text espousing universalism.

 

1. What is meant by “Day of the Lord” in Obadiah v: 15?

Response: This was the destruction of Edom which occurred in BC 583 at the hands of the Chaldeans.

 

1. What happens to us when we die?

Response: Revelation 14:13—from / since the time of the fulfilled parousia, at the fall of “Babylon” the faithful child of God goes directly to heaven, because they are genuinely forgiven- which Torah could not do- and God’s wrath was completed in the judgment of Babylon, opening the way into the MHP (Rev. 15:8-16:21).

 

1. What parts of the scriptures directly apply to us today?

Response: This question is not directly relevant to either proving or disproving your proposition or mine.  It is a, “If the doctrine is true, what now?” type of question, but does not prove or disprove the propositions.

If you can prove the direct relevance to proving or disproving the propositions I will give answer. Otherwise, I will not allow you to use it to poison the well.

See Hedges’ Rules #3 above that you signed.

 

Broadly speaking, however, those texts that speak of what life after the resurrection / in the New Creation was / is to be like, are those that direct us.  For instance, Paul called on the Romans to live as if the Day had already come, by turning away from ungodliness (Romans 13:11f). Thus, those moral paranetics apply today, since the Day has come.

 

1. What is the purpose of baptism?

Response: This question is not directly relevant to either proving or disproving your proposition or
mine.  It is a, “If the doctrine is true, what now?” type of question, but does not prove or disprove the propositions.

If you can prove the direct relevance to proving or disproving the propositions I will give answer. Otherwise, I will not allow you to use it to poison the well.

See Hedges’ Rules #3 above that you signed.

 

McDonald’s Third Affirmative

McDonald’s Third Affirmative

Brother Preston, and reading audience, I am once again thankful for the opportunity to be back with you in the affirmative of this proposition; to make further affirmative arguments, and then to respond to what brother Preston has brought up thus far.  This will be the last article in which I will produce new argumentation.  I will reserve my final affirmative strictly for defense.

When we quit last time we were looking at 1 Corinthians chapter 15 and we dealt with Paul showing that baptism is a symbol of dying and being raised (1 Cor. 15:29-34).  In this we saw that since baptism was a symbol of being raised and if the resurrection has already happened, then there is no symbolism in baptism for us today.  To this Don was strangely silent.  So let us go on:

1. Paul speaks of a literal death and a literal resurrection by showing that some will question how the dead will rise and what body will be raised (1 Cor. 15:35-41).
2. Some would ask the question:  “How are the dead raised up?”  And also “with what body do they raise up in?”  This shows that they understood the teaching of the resurrection to be literal, but they could not understand how it could be done.
3. The following argument sets for the thinking of some of the Corinthian brethren regarding the resurrection.

ARGUMENT REGARDING WHAT SOME IN CORINTH THOUGHT

Major Premise:  If it is the case that some, in Corinth, would ask how the dead were raised up and what body they would be raised up in, then it is the case that those who would ask such a question at least would consider the possibility of Paul’s teaching on the resurrection to be a literal, bodily resurrection of a dead body.

Minor Premise:  It is the case that some, in Corinth, would ask how the dead were raised up and what body they would be raised up in (1 Cor. 15:35-36).

Conclusion:  Therefore it is the case that those who would ask such a question at least would consider the possibility of Paul’s teaching on the resurrection to be a literal, bodily resurrection of a dead body.

1. There is no way that Don can deny either the major premise or the minor premise.  Therefore there is no way that Don can deny the argument, which goes a long way in destroying his argument that Corinth understood the resurrection to be some figurative resurrection of the church from Judaism.

1)      If the resurrection was a symbolical resurrection of the church from Judaism then Judaism (the Law of Moses) died and was raised as Christianity (the law of Christ).

2)     Now, if this is the case then Moses’ death (because he was the law giver of the Law of Moses) was symbolical of the death of Christ (because he was the law giver of the Law of Christ).  So let’s look at that in syllogistic form:

ARGUMENT FOR THE RESURRECTION BEING A SYMBOLICAL RESURRECTION WITH THE LAW REPRESENTING THE TYPE AND THE LAW OF CHRIST REPRESENTING THE ANTE-TYPE.

Major Premise:  If the resurrection was a symbolic, figurative resurrection showing the church being resurrected out of Judaism, then Judaism must have died and was raised as Christianity.

Minor Premise:  The resurrection was a symbolic, figurative resurrection showing the church being resurrected from Judaism (Don Preston’s position).

Conclusion:  Therefore Judaism must have died and was raised as Christianity.

3)     Is Don arguing that the Law of Moses was raised up as Christianity that it was never done away with at all?  Is he arguing that it was never fulfilled, taken away and nailed to the cross never to be a law again in God’s eyes?

Paul’s answer to this question comes in the rest of the chapter.

a.In verses 37-41 he tells about how the seed dies, and the plant springs up from it.  It is the same seed, it just different because it produces a plant.  When the human body dies, and is resurrected it will be the same body, just different like the plant, it produces a spiritual body.

1. In verses 42-49 he tells about the different types of bodies.  There are celestial bodies, and terrestrial bodies.  There are physical bodies and spiritual bodies.  The physical bodies are corruptible, they age, break down, etc.   There are also in corruptible bodies; bodies that do not age, do not break down.  When we die, we leave our physical body.  In the resurrection that physical body will be raised as an incorruptible body; a body that will never age or break down.
2. c.  Now Don might want to know what about those who have been cremated or who have died in the wilderness whose bodies have never been found.  Rest assured that any God who could create the universe that we have in six literal 24 hour days out of nothing, or has every star numbered, or knows what happens to every sparrow, will surely be able to keep account of those bodies wherever they might be and bring them together to form an incorruptible body.  To God such would be child’s play.

 

Major Premise:  If the resurrection is a symbolical resurrection symbolizing Judaism dying and being raised as Christianity, then the death of Moses is symbolic of the death of Christ.

Minor Premise:  The resurrection is a symbolical resurrection symbolizing Judaism dying and being raised as Christianity (the implication of Don’s position).

 

Conclusion:  Therefore the death of Moses is symbolic of the death of Christ.

The problem with this is that Moses’ death pictured nothing while Christ died for man’s sins.  Moses was not a sacrificial lamb and Christ was, Moses never died for Israel’s sins while Christ did die for all of man (Jno. 3:16).  For Don to try to make the resurrection a symbol of Judaism dying and resurrecting as Christianity is absurd and is foreign to both the Old Testament and the New.

1. Question:  In heaven what kind of body will we have, or will we have any kind of body at all?  Please give scripture to support your answer.
   1. The problem he is going to have here is that if he says that we will have a spiritual body and he gives 1 Corinthians chapter 15 as evidence, then he is going to have to walk away from his entire position on the matter.
   2. However, if he says we won’t have any kind of body, he will be faced with dealing with John’s statement
2. He goes back to denying that some in Corinth were denying the resurrection of the dead.
3. Here is the mantra that I have been repeating ever since this debate started, and it is mantra that Don has yet to answer:  “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1Co 15:12)”  That is my mantra.
4. He said that “those in Corinth denied the resurrection of those who had died before Jesus’ death/resurrection.  Please point that verse out to me, I have never read the verse that discusses those who died before Jesus death and/or resurrection in 1 Corinthians chapter 15.  Look at the chart to see what  verses 10 through 15 say.
5. There is nothing there about those who died before Christ died and was raised.  This is nothing more than something that Don and those like him have made up to get around the obvious.  This clearly shows the lengths that they will go to in order to uphold their false doctrine.  What verse shows that Paul was dealing with those who had died before Christ died and was raised?  Please give scripture!

ELEMENT NUMBER SIX

Paul’s Teaching To The Church In Thessalonica Teaches A Literal Resurrection.

“But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words” (1Th 4:13-18).

Notice that Paul tells them not to sorrow for those who have died in Christ, as they would for those who have no hope (i.e., those who did not die in Christ).  Why?  Because as God raised up Jesus, God will also raise up those who died in Christ with him.

Notice that he says that those who are alive when Christ returns will not precede those who died.  He says that Christ will descend with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first, then those who remain shall be caught up to meet them in the clouds; to meet the Lord in the air and they shall ever be with the Lord.  Then he tells them to comfort one another with these words.

Now let us break this down:

1. Paul says not to sorrow for those who have died in Christ like you would for one who died outside of Christ.  Why?  Because those who die in Christ will be raised up in the last day to spend eternity in heaven, while those who die outside of Christ will be raised to spend eternity in hell.
2. Paul says that when Christ returns those who remain will not precede those who have died.  Now if the resurrection refers to the resurrection of the Mosaic Law to the Law of Christ what is meant by Paul’s statement about those who remain not preceding those who are asleep?
3. Paul says that when Christ returns those who are dead in Christ will rise to meet him in the air and those who remain will then rise to be with them and they shall ever be with the Lord.  Now if the resurrection is the Mosaic Law resurrecting into the Law of Christ what is meant by the dead in Christ shall rise first and the living then will rise?
4. Paul said to comfort one another with those words.  If the resurrection was the resurrection of the Old Law into the New why how was that to be of comfort to those who were sorrowing over the death of loved ones?

I believe that this shows that Don’s position on the resurrection of the dead being a resurrection of the Old Law to the New is absurd.  I also believe that it shows that Paul was teaching about a literal resurrection of the dead and that is what they were to use to comfort one another with.

The only thing that is MIA is Don’s response to my second affirmative.  He has run out of steam and his rebuttals have degraded into Ad hominem remarks and false accusations charging me with saying “Preston is wrong, because I say he is wrong.”  Tell me Don, where did I ever make such an absurd claim?  Now be sure you point out the specific statement.  You talk about a total misrepresentation!

Don says that I didn’t show where he said that all references to “Day of the Lord” equals AD 70, but notice what I stated:

“Paul preached nothing but the hope of Israel found in the OT. Paul– per Vincent– uses “the precise phrase” from the LXX of Isaiah 2. Yet, Jerry says Paul was not quoting Isaiah!  (McD-LXX-Ths) (http://maeft.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/prestons-final-affirmative-summary/).

Now Don never showed that Paul was quoting Isaiah, he just said he was.  So where does Paul even hint to the idea that he is quoting anyone much less Isaiah the Prophet?  Because he used the exact words that Isaiah used does not mean that he was quoting from Isaiah any more than the words “Day of the Lord” in Obadiah 15 are are direct quote from Isaiah 2:2-4 or that they refer to the same event.  No, when it comes to the words “Day of the Lord” Don seems to understand that you have to allow the words to be interpreted according to the context, but he won’t allow such to take place on 2 Thess. 1:9 and Isa. 2:19.

Now where did Don say that the words “Day of the Lord” must always refer to the destruction of Jerusalem?  He says it by implication when he insists that the words found in 2 Thess. 1:9 which are also found in Isa. 2:19 are a direct quote when Paul does not even hint to the idea that he is quoting anyone.

Don can’t have it both ways:  Either he is forced to take the position that “Day of the Lord” always refers to Jerusalem’s destruction in A.D. 70, or he is forced to allow the same rule of interpretation used on the words “Day of the Lord” (which allows each instance to be interpreted according to the context) to be used on the words found in 2 Thess. 2:19 that are also found in the LXX in Isa. 2:19.

It’s up to him, but he can only take one of the two positions.  If he takes the position that 2 Thess. 1:9 and Isa. 2:19 refer to the same thing, then he has charged me with falsely.  If he has not charged me falsely I will apologize, but he must surrender his position on 2 Thess. 1:9 and Isa. 2:19 in the LXX.  So what’s it going to be?

He says that I took the position that the Christian age would end, but the church age would never end.  Where did I ever take such a position?  There is NO church age; this is “millennial” thinking.  This is exactly what I wrote in my 2^nd affirmative:

“He talks about the “church age.”  I don’t read about a “church age” in the Bible, I read of only three ages here on earth:  (1) Patriarchal; (2) Mosaic; and (3) Christian.  The Patriarchal and Mosaic are in the past.  The Christian age is here now.  The Christian age will end when Christ returns to judge the world, but the church will be handed back to the Father, it will be in heaven, so it will never end.  There is NO church age even hinted to in the Bible.”

Where does he get the idea that I take the position that the Christian age would end but the church age will never end?

Isaiah wrote:   “Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this” (Isa 9:7).

Now for the words “no end.”  The Hebrew words used here are:  “ַאִין ’ayin   קץ qêts kates.”  Below are three passages in Ecclesiastes which use the words “no end,” so let’s look at them:

And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh (Ecc 12:12).

There is no end of all the people, even of all that have been before them: they also that come after shall not rejoice in him. Surely this also is vanity and vexation of spirit (Ecc 4:16).

There is one alone, and there is not a second; yea, he hath neither child nor brother: yet is there no end of all his labour; neither is his eye satisfied with riches; neither saith he, For whom do I labour, and bereave my soul of good? This is also vanity, yea, it is a sore travail (Ecc 4:8).

In each of these verses the same words are used for “no end” that  is used in Isa. 9:7 to translate “no end.”  ַאִין ’ayin   קץ qêts kates.  Please notice the chart on the words for NO END. So the question rises, “Does this mean that the things in these other verses also mean that they will go on for ever and ever and that they will never end?”  If not, by what rule of interpretation does Don declare Isaiah 9:7 as eternal?

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Mat 24:35).  What Jesus says is that heaven and earth are temporary, but his words are not temporary.  They will always be because even in heaven his word will always exist.

In my 2^nd affirmative I wrote:  “Eph. 3:21 talks about the glory of Christ in the church, and this glory will never end because as we have seen in the other passages he has brought up, the church will be in existence for ever as it will be handed back to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24).”  In actuality the phrase “World without end” are not in the text, but we find the two words “aion aion” which means “unto the ages of the ages, being an intens. form meaning forever and ever” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword).  It would be properly translated to translate it thusly:  “Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, for ever and ever. Amen.”  When you put it this way you show the true meaning that it is the glory of Christ in the church throughout all ages, forever and ever.  Meaning that Christ’s glory is eternal.  This, in no way proves Don’s Eternal Church Age or Eternal Christian Age Doctrine.

When the gates are opened, and people come inside for healing where God wipes away all tears, where there are no more tears, is in heaven.  John describes heaven, and what it will be like in heaven, but he also makes the appeal to all to live Godly so they can live in heaven.  The Bride and the Spirit invite is the appeal at the time, and still goes.  However, the time will come when that invitation will cease.  The only evangelism is the plea for people to come to Christ while there is still time.

So none of these passages are detrimental to my proposition.  Don hasn’t dealt with my proposition, he has just thrown up things that he says are detrimental to the proposition.           .

Don seems to operate on the assumption that because the words “we receiving a kingdom” are used in Heb. 12:28 and the word “receiving” is in the present active tense that this means that Paul was saying that this receiving was going on at the time he wrote this.  However, the word receiving comes from “paralambonontes” which is a present active participle.  Dana & Mantey wrote about the present active participle which is seen on the following chart.  What this means is that we must allow the time of the context to determine the time of the participle.  This is why real Greek scholars always translate this action as already having taken place when Paul wrote it.

Another thing he bases this on is the word “shaken” in verse 27.  “Shaken” comes from

sαλευομενων which is  a present passive participle.  So again the time with the participle is purely relative.  It must be determined by the context.

When you look at the context you see that the church has already been established.  The Old Testament has already been taken out of the way, and the New has been ushered in.  Paul often uses words in his writing to speak of things that have already happened as though they are at that time happening (example 1 Tim. 1:15 which uses the present indicative verb eimi), but his using the participle rather than present verbs shows that this was not something that was happening at that time.  If Don is going to argue using the Greek, he needs to learn Greek.  I would suggest he take Gil Yoder’s Introduction To New Testament Greek, through OABS, but I doubt he would take it.

The kingdom which cannot be shaken simply means that the kingdom will not be replaced.  The law of Christ will never be replaced.  The church will never be replaced as was the kingdom of Israel and the Law of Moses.  There will never be another age come behind the Christian age.  The only thing that will come behind the Christian age is the judgment which involves ETERNITY which is not an age, because it has neither beginning nor end.  Eternity is going on now and always has been because this is where God is, always has been and always will be.  Time was invented by God when he created the universe.  When he destroys it, that time will stop and all you will have is eternity.  Since it has neither beginning, nor an end it is not spoken of as an age.

His question:  “Jerry, did Paul abdicate his apostolic authority over the gospel when he ‘delivered’ the gospel to the Corinthians? Yes or No?”  No, he didn’t.  However, the word “delivered” which comes from “παραδίδωμι paradidōmi par-ad-id’-o-mee” and has two basic meanings.  One is to intrust, transmit, the other is to deliver up, to surrender.  Notice the following:  “From G3844 and G1325; to surrender, that is, yield up, intrust, transmit: – betray, bring forth, cast, commit, deliver (up), give (over, up), hazard, put in prison, recommend” (Strong’s Greek Dictionary,  e-Sword)   So Paul intrusted or transmitted the gospel to the church at Corinth, and it is translated “delivered.”  However, Christ won’t entrust or transmit the kingdom to God, he will surrender it, or yield it up to the Father.  When Christ delivers the kingdom “back to God” does this mean that he will simply speak of it to the Father as Paul spoke the gospel to the Corinthians?  Yes or No!  Now, you see how silly his analogy was?  Remember, look at the meanings of the word, and let the context determine which one makes the most sense.

Don says:  “At his parousia, Jesus would SIT ON THIS THRONE – NOT QUIT THE THRONE! Jerry says he quits – The Bible says he sits!”   Don might do a much better job if he would quit trying to be witty and simply answer my arguments.  He is sitting on the throne of David at this time.  He is sitting at the right hand of God on his throne.  Which is where Peter put Jesus at the time of his sermon on Pentecost:  “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne” (Act 2:30).  Has Christ been raised from the dead?  Yes!  So where is he sitting?  Paul answered this:  “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb 12:2).

So what does this do to Don’s interpretation of Mt. 25:31?  It destroys it because these passages have Christ sitting on his throne long before the destruction of Jerusalem.  So what is the meaning of Mt. 25:31?  Notice Barnes on the following chart.  So Mt. 25:31 simply means that on the last day Christ will appear as a king and judge to judge the world.  It does not mean that he is going to be sitting on a throne over a kingdom in the sense that he now sits on the throne.  Isn’t it amazing how close to Premillenialism the Transmillenialists get?  He now reigns over his kingdom, but on that day he will appear as a judge to judge the world.

If the power of the Holy people was the Law of Moses as Don contends, then Jesus was wrong because he said “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (Mat 5:17).  The word destroy comes from katakuo and it means:  “To dissolve, demolish, destroy, or throw down as a building or its materials (Mat_24:2; Mat_26:61; Mat_27:40; Mar_13:2; Mar_14:58; Mar_15:29; Luk_21:6; Act_6:14); as the law and the prophets (Mat_5:17)” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword).  Now the problem with this is that Daniel wrote:  “And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished” (Dan 12:7).  The word for “scatter” or “shatter” (which is the word Don uses) comes from ָנַפץ nāp̱aṣ: which means:   “I. A verb meaning to shatter, to break, to smash” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword).  This dictionary goes on to say “of breaking the political and military might of God’s holy people (Dan_12:7)”  (Ibid).  I bring this up because I brought up earlier that “the power of the Holy people” was Israel’s military might, and Don did nothing more than ridicule me.  Well, I didn’t just come up with this on my own.  Here is a standard dictionary that gives the same idea.  So I guess Don is going to refute what this dictionary says.  However, the real problem is in the meaning of “scattered” or “shattered.”  It means to break into pieces, to smash.  Yet Jesus said he was not going to destroy the Law.  Now if “the power of the Holy people” was their covenant with God, it was the Law.  And if Jesus said he did not come to destroy the law, then either he was wrong, or Daniel was wrong.  No, Don is the one who is wrong because Jesus and Daniel were talking about two totally different things.

Did Israel have an army in AD. 70?  Notice the following chart which shows that their only army was nothing more than regular people with zealots.

This shows that the fighting was done by insurgents and zealots, but Israel had no army during those years.  The only real problem the Jews caused for Rome in A.D. 70 was at Masada, but again it was no army.  It was just common people who had fled for their lives, and the only reason they were able to cause Rome any problem is because they were on a mountain which made it hard for Rome to take them down.

I never said that the church was the power of the Holy people.  I said some commentators gave that explanation.  However, the reason for my giving that information is because I wanted Don to know that with all of the explanations given, not one of them gave Don’s position.  As usual Don missed the point.  He says he has effectively falsified all of my positions on what the power of the Holy people was, but I have only given one position.  I have shown what others thought about it, but my position has been, all along, that it was Israel’s military might, and he hasn’t even come close to falsifying that.  The closest thing he has done to doing that is to ridicule me for saying that Israel had no army in A.D. 70.

He continues to bring up Daniel’s prophecy and try to make it applicable to A.D. 70.  In Daniel 12 we see Daniel speaking of a time when Jerusalem would be defeated in war and the temple would be desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes.   When Jesus speaks, in Mt. 24:15, of the desolation of Daniel, he is talking of an action that is analogous of the event spoken of by Daniel.  That event would be when the Romans came in and over-ran the city and destroyed the temple as Antiochus Epiphanies did.  He wasn’t saying it was the same desolation of abomination, but it was an event that analogous of that abomination.  This kind of language is used throughout scripture, one of which is found in the qualifications given for an elder where Paul told Timothy not to allow a novice “lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil” (1 Tim. 3:6).  He wasn’t saying that the novice would fall into the devil’s own condemnation, nor is he saying that the novice would fall into the condemnation set by the devil, but that he would be lifted up with pride (which is what the devil did) and fall into like condemnation.

He can continue to make Daniel’s prophecy about A.D. 70, but when he does he destroys any and all application to the destruction in the day of Antiochus Epiphanes.  Don has re-written the complete Bible to deal solely with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.  His applications do away with the prophecies to the people of the day in which they were issued, and make them applicable to an event several centuries down the road, something that none of these people would ever suffer or benefit from.

He ridicules my argument on Acts 1:11.  He has never dealt with that, and all he has done is to show that sometimes the words “coming in clouds” is symbolic, something I have never denied.  However, I have shown at least once that “coming in clouds” was literal.  I pointed out that God came to Mt. Zion in a cloud, and asked if that was a literal cloud or not, but got no answer.

I pointed out that the angels said that Jesus could come again in like manner, or in the same manner.  The words “in like manner” come from the words “hós trópos” which mean:  “Acc. as an adv. hón trópon (hón, acc. relative pron. of hós [G3739], in which, with trópon) in which manner, as, even as (Mat_23:37; Luk_13:34; Act_1:11; Act_7:28; 2Ti_3:8; Jud_1:7 tón hómoion trópon [hómoios {G3664}” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword).

He goes back to the Olivet Discourse rather than to honestly deal with my arguments, and we have answered these arguments time and again.

He says my argument on the thief in the night is wrong:

“Jerry says that Jesus’ coming as a thief means no one could know the time, there would be no signs

•Yet, that Day would also be as the days of Noah

•Jerry were there signs of the coming day of the Flood?”

What signs were there of the coming day of the flood?  Noah was preaching!  Is that a sign?  Get real!  If that is the best Don can do he might as well stay in bed and sleep late.  According to this theory, if we preach that Christ is going to return that is a sign of when he will return.

•That “thief coming” Day would also be “as a woman in travail” (1 Thes. 5)

•Jerry, does a pregnant woman know (aren’t there ‘signs?’) that the “end is near” although she does not know the “day or the hour”

But now look at what 1 Thess. 5:2,3 actually says:  “5:2  For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

1Th 5:3  For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”  Now I don’t know how Don’s wife’s pregnancies went, but when my wife went into labor it was rather sudden.  She was doing fine and I went to the store and when I returned her water had broken.  That was rather sudden, because the store was just down the road.  When a woman goes into labor it is usually rather sudden just like the thief hits suddenly without warning.  This is what Paul was saying to the Thessalonians.

Jesus’ statement to Sardis was not talking about the general judgment, but his coming upon them in judgment for their wickedness.  His judgment would come, as it always does, suddenly.

Don says:  “In v. 36f he gave no additional signs, but, he told them to ‘Watch’

•If there was nothing to watch for, why did Jesus tell them to watch? •They were to watch for the signs Jesus had given!”  You’ve got to be kidding me!  Did he really say that?  Look at the chart again, and you will see that this is exactly what he said.  Is that what Jesus said?  I don’t think so!  In verse 42 he said “Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come” (Mat 24:42).  What were they to watch for?  The word “watch” comes from:  “grēgoreuō gray-gor-yoo’-o” which means:  “From G1453; to keep awake, that is, watch (literally or figuratively): – be vigilant, wake, (be) watch (-ful)” (Strong’s Greek Dictionary, e-Sword).  Watch doesn’t mean look for some sign, but to be in a state of vigilance or watchfulness.  This is exactly what Jesus meant in Mt. 25:13:  “Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.”  They weren’t to look for some sign, they were to be vigilant like the wise virgins were, not like the foolish virgins.  Don has shown in his argument here that he will take any position to force the square peg of transmillenialism into the round hole of truth.  This ought to be a wake up call to all who follow Don Preston and those who teach the transmillenial doctrine.

The problem is that Jesus, while he was on earth, did not even know the year in which he would return to the earth.  He did know when Jerusalem would be destroyed, but of the day and hour of his return in judgment upon the earth he knew not the year, nor the day, nor the hour.  The Father had not given him this knowledge, and Jesus said that only the Father had that knowledge.

Don wrote:  “If physical death is simply a part of the human experience (and it is) and is not the “wages of sin” then this is prima facie demonstration that 1 Corinthians 15:21 is not about a physical resurrection!”  I don’t know how he made this leap of logic for it certainly is not sound.  In a syllogism it would look like this:

Major Premise:  If physical death is simply a part of the human experience, and is not the wages of sin, then 1 Corinthians 15:21 is not about a physical resurrection.

Minor Premise:  Physical death is simply a part of the human experience, and is not about the wages of sin.

Conclusion:  Therefore 1 Cor. 15:21 is not about a physical resurrection.

Now to look at the problems here:

1. Physical death is not simply a part of the human experience.  Physical death came into existence after Adam and Eve committed that first sin, “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”  (Gen 2:16,17).  There were two deaths involved here:  (A) physical and (B) spiritual.  Upon their disobedience, they died spiritually, and they began to die physically.  Don  is making the same assumption that the atheist makes when they say that because Adam and Eve didn’t drop dead at that point that God lied.  Don doesn’t say God lied, he just says that physical death had nothing to do with what God told Adam and Eve.

Also notice that physical death is not the wages of sin, but is rather the consequence of Adam’s sin.  Paul said “For as in Adam all die” (1 Cor. 15:22).  Now what kind of death do all men suffer because of Adam?  This is saying that all men die because of Adam, but if this is spiritual death, then we sin because Adam sinned and that teaches Original Sin or Calvinism.  No, we all die (physically) because Adam sinned and unleashed phyiscal death upon the world.

2.  How was physical death man’s enemy?  Before Christ died on the cross, physical death was a threat because man had no salvation.  Had Christ not died on the cross, then all would have been lost who were accountable to God because there would have been nothing to go back and cleanse the sins of the past.  God would have continued to remember their sins against them (Heb. 10:3).  Since Christ died on the cross, all who lived faithfully to God were covered by his blood (Heb. 9:15), and those who lived after and lived according to his will would be covered.  Now, because death has no more dominion over us, we can be like Paul and look forward to death (Phil. 1:21-23).

3. Now, Paul is not discussing the death that is the wages of sin in 1 Corinthians 15, he is talking about the death that is the consequence of Adam’s sin.  The death that all men face as a result of Adam’s sins.  We don’t sin because of Adam, we sin because we are tempted and fall to the temptation (Jas. 1:13-15).  Spiritual death is something we have control over, but physical death is not.  We will all die as a direct result of Adam’s actions.  However, thanks to the blood of Christ, we don’t have to look at death as an enemy.  Satan cannot use it to have dominion over us.  Now we can look forward to it and welcome it.

Now deal with my syllogisms.  They are relevant and you know it.

Eph. 5:25,26 does not show that Christ will be married to the church on the day of judgment.  Was the church not the bride of Christ when Paul wrote this?  If you look at verses 26-27 you see that they say that Christ died on the cross so that he might sanctify the church with the washing of water by the word so he could present it to himself a glorious church.  When did he sanctify it?  He sanctified it at the same time that he presented it to himself a glorious church.  For Don to say that his presenting it to himself had to wait until A.D. 70 means that the sanctification had to wait until A.D. 70, and if that is the case then baptism had no meaning until A.D. 70.  Is this what Don believes?  Does he believe that the church was NOT the bride of Christ when Paul wrote?

He wants me to show where the Patriarchal ended when the Mosaic came into existence.  It didn’t end for the Gentiles until the gospel was given to Cornelius in Acts chapter 10.  Notice the chart on two systems.

Don says that Paul uses the present active indicative to speak of that which is passing as though that means that the Old Law had not been done away at this time.  Notice the context of Paul’s statement.  He is not saying that the Old Law was still passing away, but that there were those who were reading the Law and obeying the Law, and when they did that same vail was upon their heart.  But in Christ that vail is taken away.  The word is not active, but passive.  It is the word καταργειται which is “3 person plural, singular, present, indicative, passive of katargew.  However, this is beside the point.  The point is that the context shows that Paul is showing that there were those who were reading the law, following the law, and as long as they followed the law that vail was in their hearts.  The only way that vail could be taken away was in Christ.

How does one get into Christ?  He is baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:26).  If the Old Law was actually still in effect, how could one get into Christ?  Gal. 5:4 shows that those who were trying to be justified by the law “ye are fallen from Grace.”  The words “ye are fallen” come from the greek word “εξεπεσατε” “2 person plural, 1 aorist, indicative” (The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised, p.145).  This word being aorist shows that it “deals with action in past time” (Essentials Of New Testament Greek, p. 66).  Thus we see that Paul was saying that those who were trying to be justified by the law they were fallen from grace.  Thus we see that men could not live under the law of Moses after Christ died on the cross.

I notice that Don said nothing about the two arguments that followed the argument on 2 Cor. 3:14:

Major Premise:  If the New Testament is Christ’s Covenant (will) with man, then it had to become enforceable after he died (Heb. 9:16,17).

Minor Premise:  The New Testament is Christ’s Covenant (will) with man.

Conclusion:  Therefore it had to become enforceable after he died (Heb. 9:16,17).

Major Premise:  If the New Testament became enforceable after the death of Christ, then the Old Testament had to be taken away when the New became enforceable.

Minor Premise:  The New Testament became enforceable after the death of Christ.

Conclusion:  Therefore, the Old Testament had to be taken away when the new became enforceable.

All of his quibbling on the present tense is useless because he cannot deal with these arguments together.  He has to separate them and try to deal with the first one alone, but he can’t even do that.

Notice the chart on the thief.  Now notice the chart on signs.  Now notice the chart on Jesus knowing the time of the coming in judgment in AD 70, but not the second coming.  Now notice the chart on the day and hour.  Notice the chart on blessings and cursings.  Notice the next chart on blessings and cursings.  Notice the list of charts on the transfiguration.

He claims that Jesus died spiritually.  How can that be when Ezekiel says “The soul that sinneth it shall die” (Ezk. 18:20).  The only way one can die spiritually is to sin, and Heb. 4:15 tells us that Jesus was tempted as we are yet without sin.  This new doctrine being taught in the brotherhood is a dangerous one because it means that Jesus sinned. His example of one dying a substitutionary death is not the same as dying spiritually.  Dying spiritually is being guilty of sin, being separated from God (Isa. 59:1,2).  Christ died on the cross, but he never died spiritually because he was never separated from God.

Notice the first chart then the second chart on John 20:30,31.  Notice the chart on my “flipflop.”  Notice the chart on the Sons of the Kingdom.  Notice my chart on the anaphoric article.  Now notice the chart on 2 Pet. 3:13.  Then notice the chart on Isa. 66.  Here is my chart on Rom. 9:28.  Here is the rest of Rom. 9:28.  Here is the chart on the New Name.   Look at the chart on the Same Manner of the Day of the Lord.  Now notice the chart on These Days.  Now notice the chart on Personal Pronouns.

I cannot open his chart on Domitian so if he will fix it I will answer it later.  As far as his chart on inspiration is concerned, I have offered Pliney, etc., and he offered scripture, but even he admits that if Revelation was written in the 90’s his application of Revelation is useless.  I referred to Rev. 1:11 where John was on the Isle of Patmos and asked him to show where John was ever there other than in the 90’s.  Did I get an answer?  No, and I never will.  Even Foy E. Wallace Jr. could not answer that and could only say that perhaps John had been there previously.  Well perhaps he hadn’t, please show where he was.  Now for the chart on distance.  The place of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus is not a matter of salvation, and it would not affect the 7 churches in Asia.  All that would affect them is the fact that he did die, he did rise, and he did ascend.  The place is unimportant.  However, Don cannot plead such because he must hold to the idea that the place of the destruction was important.  So again, I ask how is it important to those Gentile Christians?

Don has not answered all of my arguments, as a matter of fact he has hedged around my arguments and treated them like a smorgasbord where he can accept what he wants and reject what he wants.  But he can’t do that because he is in the negative and his responsibility is to answer each of my arguments.  He does not have follow me if I am repetitious, but he has to answer them when they are given the first time.  Hopefully Don will take the time to carry out his obligation rather than just rushing through.

In Christ Jesus, Jerry McDonald

WATCH

In my written debate with Don Preston on the Second Coming of Christ, Don (an A.D. 70 proponent) was arguing that all of Matthew chapter 24 had reference to the second coming of Christ and that this coming happened when Jerusalem fell in A.D. 70. In his second negative he wrote “In v. 36f he gave no additional signs, but, he told them to ‘Watch’ •If there was nothing to watch for, why did Jesus tell them to watch? •They were to watch for the signs Jesus had given!” (http://www.eschatology.org/images/stories/Articles/mcdnld-signs-nosigns.pdf).

Notice what he said: “In v. 36 he gave no additional signs, but, he told them to ‘Watch’ If there was nothing to watch for, why did Jesus tell them to watch? They were to watch for signs Jesus had given!” !  In verse 42 he said “Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come” (Mat 24:42). What were they to watch for? The word  “watch” comes from: “gregoreuo gray-gor-yoo’-o” which means:  “From G1453; to keep awake, that is, watch (literally or figuratively): – be vigilant, wake, (be) watch (-ful)” (Strong’s Greek Dictionary, e-Sword).   Watch doesn’t mean look for some sign, but to be in a state of vigilance or watchfulness. This is exactly what Jesus meant in Mt. 25:13: “Watch  therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.” They weren’t to look for some sign, they were to be vigilant like the wise virgins were, not like the foolish virgins.

When people start reinterpreting scripture to fit their pet doctrines,  such as brother Preston has done here, the Bible becomes just another religious book in their eyes. If it is truely the inspired word and it is, then we cannot change it in any way form or fashion.   John wrote: “If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18). He also wrote: “ And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away
his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:19). What this means is that we are not to change  anything that God’s word has to say. God through Moses said  “What thing soever I command  you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it” (Deut. 12:32). When we change what Jesus said to watch for. we change the word of God, something we are strictly forbidden to do.

When brother Preston changed Jesus’ statement from living in a state of  watchfulness to looking for certain signs he changed the focus of Christianity from living in a state of preparedness to looking for certain signs to know when the end is nigh.  This is exactly what the Premillenialists have done with their doctrine.  The only difference is that they believe that Christ’s return has yet to happen, while Don believes that it happened in A.D. 70. However, both nullify the principle of living in a state of watchfulness. They both uphold the
principle that man could look for signs for the return of the Lord. If the Premillenialist position is in error, then Don’s position is in error as well.

As Christians we are to always live in a state of preparation. This means that we are to watch, to be vigilant. This means that we are to live Godly because we know not when the Lord may reappear. As does the Premillenialist’s, Preston’s position nullifies this principle.

If we follow Preston’s position to its logical conclusion we won’t live in preparation for anything because our watching comprises of nothing more than looking for signs. Since the second coming has already happened, per Preston, we have nothing to look forward to. The only way that Paul’s statement “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (Heb. 9;27), has any relevance to us at all is if there is a second coming to look forward to. So what did Jesus mean when he said WATCH?

Preston’s Second Negative

McDonald – Preston Debate
Don K. Preston’s Second Negative

I keep thinking that Jerry cannot get any more desperate, but he keeps astounding me with his lack of logic and invention of new arguments. Jerry’s second affirmative amounts to nothing more than a “Preston is wrong, because I say he is wrong” discourse. Where is Jerry’s exegesis? M-I-A!

Remember my challenge to Jerry:
He claimed that I believe that all references to the Day of the Lord = AD 70.
As I noted, emphatically, JERRY, TOTALLY MISREPRESENTED ME!
I have NEVER made this claim!
I challenged Jerry to document where I have ever made this claim.  Jerry’s response? Not a word!
This is purposeful misrepresentation. Of course, then, to distract from this, he claims, falsely, that I have misrepresented him. No documentation, just false claims.

JERRY AND THE END OF THE CHRISTIAN AGE

Jerry tried to subtly change the focus of the discussion. His proposition is that the Christian AGE comes to an end. An age is a period of time, governed and identified by a given covenant. So, if the Christian age – governed by the gospel- can come to an end, then Jerry’s proposition is established.

Unfortunately for Jerry, the Bible affirms that the Christian age– a period of time governed by the gospel– has no end!
I established this beyond dispute, so, what does Jerry do? He shifts the focus away from the Christian AGE, to the church itself, attempting to argue that the Christian AGE will end, but, that the church will never end. This sleight of hand trick will not work.
Notice again the following: (Did you notice how Jerry totally failed to address what the verses say?)

Isaiah 9:6-7– It says that Christ’s Kingdom—and, Of the increase of his government there shall be NO END!” Note: The “Increase of his government” demands EVANGELISM. Jerry did not breathe on this and it is fatal to his proposition.
Matthew 24:35– “My Words Will NEVER PASS AWAY!” Jesus’ word is the gospel, preached to men for salvation. Jesus said that will never end.
Eph. 3:20f– AGE WITHOUT END. The church is the instrument of unending glory to God, by proclaiming to man His wisdom (Ephesians 2:7) “age without end.” Jerry’s eschatology demands that the age ends.
Revelation 21-22 – Notice that after the “end” of Revelation the nations are outside, but, the gates are always open, and the nations come inside for healing THIS IS EVANGELISM, AFTER THE END.

Now watch: Hebrews 12:25-28 discusses the passing of the Old Covenant world of Israel, delivered at Sinai. It was being shaken when Paul wrote. It was about to be removed, and cease to function as God’s covenant. To put it another way, the cessation of the divinely sanctioned FUNCTION of Torah was the end of that Old Covenant AGE.

In direct contrast, Paul says that they were, when he wrote, “receiving a kingdom that cannot be moved” (12:28). The kingdom had not yet been fully delivered. But, in stark contrast to the Old Covenant world that was being shaken– cease to function in the divinely mandated manner– the kingdom of Messiah will never be moved – cease to function (v. 27).

Jerry says that the New Covenant AGE will be “removed” i.e. THE CHURCH WILL CEASE TO FUNCTION. Hebrews denies this: the Christian AGE– unlike the Old Covenant AGE, will not cease to function.
The issue of this debate is not whether the church as an entity comes to an end. The question is, does the Christian AGE come to an end. The Bible refutes Jerry.

On a related note, Jerry sets up false dilemmas- straw men. Here is a prime example from 1 Corinthians 15. He claims if Christ has come, and delivered the kingdom to the Father, that it means only one of two things:
“(1) He can argue that the church has been delivered back to the Father, in which case Christ is no longer the head of the church, and the church no longer exists on earth.”

This is nothing but presupposition.
A.) It assumes that “deliver the kingdom” means to surrender. The word for deliver is paradidomi. Paul uses the identical word in v. 2 when he says he had “delivered” the gospel to the Corinthians. Jerry, did Paul abdicate his apostolic authority over the gospel when he “delivered” the gospel to the Corinthians? Yes or No?
B.) Every other passage that speaks of what Christ does at his parousia says that he takes full control– with the Father– over the unending kingdom. You must catch the power of this!
Matthew 25:31f– At his parousia, Jesus would SIT ON THIS THRONE – NOT QUIT THE THRONE! Jerry says he quits – The Bible says he sits!
Luke 19:12– A man went to a far country, there to receive a kingdom and return. When he returned, he did not abdicate the kingdom, he exercised his “kingly” authority over his subjects.
Ephesians 5:25-26– Christ would present the church to himself. This is the consummation of the Wedding at his parousia. This is Matthew 22; 25; Revelation 19; 21 But, in Jerry’s view of “deliver” in 1 Corinthians 15, CHRIST DIVORCES HIS BRIDE AT HIS COMING! Instead of the marriage, we have a divorce!
Jerry’s view of “deliver” is not linguistically or theologically sound.

2.) Jerry says that my second choice– of only two is: “Paul’s statement is some sort of figurative statement and the church will never, actually, be delivered back to the Father.”
Patently false. See just above.

The third, true choice is that at his parousia, Christ would sit with the Father, on the throne, and rule forever and forever– Note Revelation 22:3. Who is on the throne with the Father? “The throne of God and of the Lamb are in it” i.e. the New Jerusalem, after the end, when per Jerry, Jesus has no throne, no rule! As usual, Jerry is wrong. (Chart)

JERRY’S  SLEIGHT OF HAND!
The texts above speak of Christ’s rule over the kingdom– AND EVANGELISM– being “without end.” What does Jerry do? He plays games, implying that I had offered texts that used the word “forever.” He then demonstrated, as any Bible student knows, that the Hebrew word “olam” does not demand “unending.” He then claimed to have refuted my argument. Pure smoke.
The trouble is that the texts above do not use “olam.” They emphatically declare that “of the increase of his government, there shall be no end.” They say that Christ’s rule, his throne, has NO END. This is not “olam.”
Jerry, “NO END,” is not the same as Olam- “forever.”
Jerry’s straw man argument just went up in smoke.

THERE IS NO CHURCH AGE?
More embarrassment for Jerry. He claims,  “There is NO church age even hinted to in the Bible.” Yet, he says: “The Christian age is here now.”
What desperation. Jerry, FROM SCRIPTURE, demonstrate this supposed difference between the church age and the Christian age. We will eagerly await your scriptural proof. Isn’t the church, well, CHRISTIAN?

JERRY AND TWO SYSTEMS
Jerry repeatedly claims that “two covenants could not co-exist.” Nonsense.
In the same affirmative, Jerry affirms the reality of the Patriarchal, Mosaic and Christian ages. Jerry, show where the Patriarchal age ended when the Mosaic Covenant came into being. Proof, not assertions!
Paul said the Gentiles did not have the Law (Romans 2:14). Yet, they could be “justified” by keeping the law of their conscience. That is two systems in existence, at the same time.
Chart

Jerry refuses to see that in Romans 7 and Galatians, Paul is discussing Christians who had “become dead to the law through the body of Christ” (v. 4). This is why Jerry is wrong to say that if Torah were still in force, that Christians would have to obey it. No, Jerry, when they entered Christ, they died to the law.
However, some were seeking to obey Torah as well. Thus, those (Christians) who “seek to be justified by the law, you are fallen from grace” (Galatians 5). This is a case of a person seeking to be married to two laws at the same time.
It is not a denial of the co-existence of the two laws. It rather affirms it!
Jerry’s Initial Syllogisms– False Premises
Notice Jerry’s first syllogism:
“If the OT was taken away with the death of Jesus, then it could not have existed in AD 70.
The OT was taken away with the death of Jesus (2 Cor. 3:14).
Therefore, it could not have existed in AD 70.”

Jerry’s minor premise is false. 2 Corinthians 3:14 does not say that the OT was already passed. Jerry injected that into the text.
Paul says that the OT was in the process of passing away. He uses the present active indicative to speak of “that which is passing.”
In addition, note v. 16-18 where Paul says that it was through the Spirit that “we are being transformed, (present active) from glory to glory.” Covenant transformation, from Moses to Christ, was not finished.

Note that Paul speaks of the individual turning from Torah – not of Torah dying (v. 16). Jerry fails to comprehend the undeniable difference between the two concepts. Chart
When the Jew turned to Christ, the veil was removed– individual conversion. Note, “you have become dead to the law by the body of Christ” (Romans 7:4).
Note again that it does not say the law died. It says they died to the law, by entering the death of Christ.
Jerry can deny it all he wants, but it does not change the truth.
Like 2 Corinthians 3 says Hebrews 8:13 emphatically says Torah was ready to vanish away  (aphanismou– which nullifies Jerry’s specious arguments on the “destruction” of Torah)- it was “nigh unto passing.” That which is “ready to vanish,” has not already vanished.

In Hebrews 8:8 the Lord promised to “make a covenant.” This translation does not catch the full power of the word sunteleso, which means to consummate, to bring to perfection.

Christ undoubtedly “sealed” the New Covenant with his death. That New Covenant was to be made with both houses of Israel– not the church divorced from Israel, a fact Jerry refuses to grasp. But, that New Covenant had to be offered to the Jews in all the world “as a witness.” That New Covenant was not perfected until corporate Israel rejected it, and God judged them ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW OF BLESSINGS AND CURSINGS. This brings back the wedding motif– and Revelation.

The wedding– the consummation of the covenant– would be when Babylon was destroyed at the Day of the Lord (Revelation 19:6f).
Jerry says Babylon was Rome. Therefore, in Jerry’s paradigm, the New Covenant was not consummated until the Day of the Lord against Rome, in 476 AD! Of course, this is false.
The wedding was to be at the coming of the Lord when the wicked men who had killed the Master’s servants sent to invite them to the Wedding were destroyed (Matthew 22).
This was irrefutably in AD 70, in spite of Jerry’s claims.

THE POWER OF THE HOLY PEOPLE
Jerry knows full well that if Israel’s “power” was Torah, that he is hopelessly lost. He has been all over the map in his responses to Daniel 12, and now, it gets worse! Notice all of the “possibilities” that Jerry throws out, hoping, desperately, that something, anything, will stick.
1.) He told us initially that Israel’s power was the gospel- thus, demanding the future destruction of the gospel. So, he recanted.
2.) THEN, he claimed that Israel’s power was her armies. But, the “power” of Israel’s armies was tied to Israel’s Covenant obedience, or lack thereof:  “How could one chase a thousand, And two put ten thousand to flight, Unless their Rock had sold them, And the Lord had surrendered them?”  (Deuteronomy 32:30)– this would be in Israel’s last end, v.29! (See Psalms 41:11). Chart
The ONLY “power” of Israel’s armies was Israel’s covenant relationship with God. Jerry is wrong.

Incredibly, Jerry embarrassed himself, and insulted the intelligence of the readers of this debate,  by claiming that Israel had no army in AD 70! Well, Josephus and the Romans sure thought thought they did! I challenged him to prove his wild claim. He offered no proof whatsoever.
3.) NOW he says “some say” Israel’s power is the church. Well, watch what this means:

The resurrection is when Israel’s power is shattered (Daniel 12:7).

Israel’s power is the church– Jerry McDonald.

Thererfore, the resurrection will be when the church is shattered.

Jerry keeps impaling himself on his own arguments. On the one hand he tells us that the church will never be destroyed, then he takes a position that demands the destruction of the church!
4.) THEN, Jerry tells us that since the commentators are divided about the definition of the power of the holy people, that Preston is wrong. Nonsense.

FOUR DIFFERENT POSITIONS BY JERRY ON DANIEL 12! Makes you wonder what he will come up with next!

The confusion of the commentators does not constitute error on my part.  The reason they are divided is because like Jerry, they have a false eschatology and must reject the emphatic framework established by YHVH for the resurrection: “When the power of the holy people is completely shattered.” Since these words destroy Jerry’s futurism, he desperately seek ANY definition of Israel’s “power” that allows them to maintain their futurism.

I have effectively falsified all of Jerry’s proposed definitions of the power of the holy people.

Now watch:
Daniel 12 foretold the following:
The Great Tribulation (v. 1).
The Resurrection
The Righteous shining in the kingdom (v. 3)
The End of the age (v. 4).
The Abomination of Desolation (11).
Now, v. 7 says “all of these things” would be fulfilled, “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered.”

Notice:
The resurrection of Daniel 12 would be at the time of the Great Tribulation (v. 1) and the Abomination of Desolation (v. 11f) at the end of the age (v. 4).
Jesus said that the Great Tribulation and the Abomination of Desolation would be in his generation, in the events leading up to the fall of Jerusalem– his coming– in AD 70 (Matthew 24:15-34).
Therefore, the resurrection of Daniel 12– limited to the same generation as the AoD and the GT– was to occur in Jesus’ generation.
Where ever you posit the GT and the AoD, it is there that the resurrection must have occurred– and Jerry posits the GT and the AoD in the events of the first century. Don’t you, Jerry?

Jerry is indubitably wrong to divorce any of the elements of Daniel 12 from the first century judgment on Israel. They were ALL to be fulfilled at the same time, and Jerry admits that some of them were fulfilled in the War of the Jews. Thus, of necessity, they were all fulfilled at that time.

After offering up his self contradictory, unscriptural definitions of the power of the holy people,  Jerry then says that my point did not address Acts 1. Of course it did! Look again:

If it is true that the power of the holy people of Daniel 12:7 is the Law of Moses, then it must be true  that the parousia (and resurrection) of Acts 1:9f would be when the Mosaic was removed (Daniel 12:2, 7).
It is true that the power of the holy people in Daniel 12:7 was the Mosaic Covenant
Therefore, it must be true that the parousia (and resurrection) of Acts 1:9f was when the Mosaic Covenant was removed.

ACTS 1
All of a sudden Jerry turns his attention away from the nature of Christ’s body, to cumulus clouds? Virtually all anti-preterists insist that it has to be the same 5′ 5″ Jewish man that must return in the self same body that he ascended in. But not Jerry! Nope, the real focus of the “in like manner” is a real cumulus cloud.
Jerry, are those the same identical cumulus clouds of Matthew 24:29f– that you agree were in AD 70? What makes the clouds different?

Since I am on Matthew 24 let me make some comparisons with Acts 1.
In the Olivet Discourse (OD) there is a four-fold pattern.
Jesus said the gospel would be Preached into all the world, as a sign of the end (Matthew 24:14).
As his disciples preached, they would be Persecuted ((24:9f; Mark 13:9f).
However, Jesus promised them Power from the Spirit to overcome that persecution (Mark 13:11f).
Then, Jesus promised his Parousia, in vindication and judgment, in that generation, in the judgment of Jerusalem (Matthew 24:29-34).

So, we have Preaching, Persecution, Power, Parousia. Each of these tenets is in the section of the OD that Jerry agrees applied to the period leading up to and consummating in the Lord’s coming in AD 70. Now look at Acts 1.

Jesus said his disciples would Preach the gospel “to the ends of the earth” (v. 8).
The word for witness, as used by Jesus, is the word from whence “martyr” comes. Jesus warned those disciples that they would suffer martyrdom for him (v. 8, Matthew 16:23f).
Jesus promised them Power for their mission (v. 8).
Then, we find the promise of the Parousia (v. 9f).
(This identical pattern is found in virtually every NT book. See my book Into All the World, Then Comes the End, where I prove this).

Jerry admits that the elements of the OD refer to AD 70.
But, these are the identical elements of Acts 1.
So, what is the hermeneutic key that demands that Acts 1 is a different coming. We will eagerly await Jerry’s answer.

Since we are on the Olivet Discourse:
Jerry’s argument on the thief coming is- as usual- dead wrong. Chart

Jerry says there were signs of AD 70, but not Christ’s “second coming.” Chart

He says Jesus knew the time of his coming in AD 70, but not his Second Coming (Chart)

Of that Day and Hour– Chart

MALACHI 3-4– THE LAW OF BLESSINGS AND CURSINGS
Jerry’s “rebuttal” of my material on John the Baptizer, the Law of Blessings and Cursings and AD 70 is embarrassing. I could not believe what I was reading.  Chart; Chart

On the one hand, Jerry claims: “Going to Malachi 3 and 4 we find that those chapters are prophetic of Jesus and the church as well as the final judgment of man.” He says that I simply assume that Malachi foretold AD 70, and: “There is nothing in Malachi 3 or 4 that demands that this be fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem.”

So, per Jerry Malachi 3-4 has nothing to do with AD 70; IT IS THE FINAL JUDGMENT. HOWEVER, he then tells us:

“Malachi does not predict the final judgment. He predicts the judgment upon Jerusalem. He speaks of John the Baptist coming, then Christ following (Mal. 3:1,2).  He tells them that they will learn to discern between the evil and good (Mal. 3:18). In chapter 4 he tells them of the time when Jerusalem will be overthrown. But none of this has to do with the final judgment of man.”
“The day of the Lord foretold by Malachi was fulfilled when Jerusalem fell in A.D. 70.” (His emp).

It does not get any worse than this. Jerry, do you even read what you write? This is utterly embarrassing.

Jerry’s admission that Malachi is Exodus / Deuteronomy, and that Malachi predicted AD 70 based on those texts falsifies Jerry’s eschatology.

The Law of Blessings and Cursings (Deuteronomy 28-30) was “the law of Moses.” Jerry admits this.

Malachi 3-4 foretold the coming of the Lord in the application of Mosaic Covenant sanctions.

But, the coming of the Lord foretold by Malachi was the AD 70 coming– Jerry McDonald.

Therefore, the Law of Blessings and Cursings stood valid until AD 70- the fulfillment of Malachi.

To restate with some added information:
God’s covenant with Israel– Torah– could not pass until it was all FULLY ACCOMPLISHED (Jesus– GENETAI – Matthew 5:17-18).
God’s covenant with Israel threatened them with national judgment for violating Torah (Exodus 22 / Deuteronomy 27).
Malachi 3:5 predicted the coming of the Lord in application of the Mosaic Covenant sanctions of the L-B-C– for violation of Exodus 22 / Deuteronomy 27.
The coming of the Lord foretold by Malachi was the AD 70 coming of Christ (Jerry McDonald).
Therefore, God’s covenant with Israel remained valid until AD 70 when it was fully accomplished.
Jerry can deny this all he wants, but, the fact that Malachi foretold the coming of the Lord in application of Mosaic Covenant sanctions– and that coming was, per Jerry himself, AD 70– then this is prima facie proof, that the Mosaic Covenant sanctions were being applied in the Day of the Lord in AD 70.
Jerry is wrong, and his own words have proven it.

THE PROCESS OF FULFILLMENT– OR FULL ACCOMPLISHMENT?
Jerry’s wild claims that the entirety of the Law passed at the cross, because Jesus sat in motion the process of fulfillment is opposed to Jesus’ words.
THE PROCESS OF FULFILLMENT OF TORAH BEGAN WELL BEFORE THE CROSS. This is undeniable. So, if all that was necessary for the law to pass was the process of fulfillment to be initiated, then the law passed long before the cross.

Jerry claims: “When the law of Moses ended at the cross, all parts of the law was (sic) fulfilled. Some of it was fulfilled in the sense that it had literally been fulfilled, but some of it (such as the establishment of the church) had to wait for a while, and still more would have to wait (the second coming and final judgment) until the date that God has chosen for Christ’s return.”

Nothing could be more self-contradictory. Jesus did not say, “when some is literally fulfilled the Law will pass, but some will wait for a while.”

Jerry is saying that some of the Law of Moses remains valid until the end of time! So, it ended, but it didn’t end! It was abrogated, but it remains to be fulfilled!

That is not what Jesus said: “Not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law until it is all (that means ALL”, Jerry!) Fully accomplished.”  Jerry is undeniably WRONG.

The Greek word “fulfilled” is from GENETAI, and means, “fully accomplished.” It does not mean when fulfillment is initiated. Jerry has not breathed on this; it nullifies everything he has written.

Not one jot or one tittle would pass from Torah until it was all “fully accomplished” (genetai – Jesus).
The resurrection is when all things would be fully accomplished (genetai- 1 Corinthians 15:54f).
Therefore, the resurrection is the time of the passing of Torah.

Catch this: Jerry affirms this! Read his comments on 1 Corinthians 15:54-56– “We don’t have to worry about death any more BECAUSE THE LAW HAS BEEN DONE AWAY AND DEATH HAS NO MORE DOMINION OVER US.”  (My emp). Do you catch that?
Jerry says we are delivered from death, “BECAUSE THE LAW HAS BEEN DONE AWAY AND DEATH HAS NO MORE DOMINION OVER US.” This undeniably establishes that the death Paul is discussing is covenantal death– not biological death! Jerry admits the direct link between “the law of Moses” and the death and life that Paul discussed in 1 Corinthians 15! Thank you, Jerry, for establishing my point!

Jerry says that I make too much of 1 Corinthians 15:54-56. No, he is the one emphatically denying Paul’s words. Paul was not simply urging them not to observe Torah. He was anticipating the resurrection in fulfillment of God’s OT promises to Israel, when “the Law,” which was the strength of sin, would be removed. Jerry agrees that was Torah, and Jerry affirms has delivered us from death!
THE TRANSFIGURATION
More desperation. Jerry knows that if the Transfiguration was a vision of the Second Coming that since the Transfiguration was a vision of the change from Torah to Jesus, his eschatology is falsified.
So, Jerry denies that the Transfiguration was a vision of the parousia.
Well, Peter was refuting the scoffers who denied the parousia (2 Peter 3:3) and he appealed to the Transfiguration as the definitive refutation. He said they saw Jesus’ power and parousia on the mountain.
The word parousia, when used of Christ’s “coming” INVARIABLY REFERS TO HIS SECOND COMING.
The scoffers denied the parousia. To refute them, Peter appealed to the Transfiguration vision of the parousia.  Jerry claims that Peter used parousia  radically differently from the scoffers. And to refute them, Peter referred to an event that had nothing to do with what they were denying!

Did you notice that Jerry did not cite even one commentator for his denial that the Transfiguration was a vision of Christ’s second coming? You know why? It is because his favorite commentators all agree that the Transfiguration was a vision of the parousia! (Chart)

This raises the issue of the use of the commentators. Jerry says I appeal to them just like he does. False. Here is the difference.
I appeal to the linguists of the world and the historians, simply for definitions and historical documentation.
JERRY APPEALS TO THE THEOLOGY OF THE COMMENTATORS FOR HIS DOCTRINAL PROOF!
There is a huge difference in our appeal to the commentators.

IN LIKE MANNER
Jerry scoffs at my argument that Christ was to return “in the glory of the Father” and that YHVH had never come literally, visibly, physically or bodily before.
I challenged him to give us just one example of when YHVH had  come in judgment, literally, visibly, bodily and physically.
So, what did Jerry give us? He gave us Exodus 16:10– Problem: This is not a judgment coming, and God did not appear in any kind of physical, bodily form.
He gave us Exodus 34:5– when YHVH appeared to Moses. Same problem!
Another: Exodus 14:24– Jerry, what did YHVH’s literal, physical, body look like on this occasion?

Jesus said he was coming in judgment, in the glory of the Father, and some of his first century audience would live to see that event. Jerry pulls the dispensational “gap theory” however, inserting 2000 years into the period at the end of v. 27. This is untenable.

Matthew 16:28 begins with “Verily I say unto you”, from “amen lego humin.” This term is used some 95 times in the NT, and never breaks up a discussion and never introduces a new subject. It is stated to draw attention to what is about to be said, that is going to emphasize something that has just been said. In other words, v. 28 emphasizes v. 27!
This means that Jesus’ coming, with the angels, in judgment, in the glory of the Father, was to be in the lifetime of Jesus audience. Verse 28 was not Pentecost! For more proof see my Can You Believe Jesus Said This?

1 CORINTHIANS 15 – MORE EMBARRASSMENT FROM JERRY
Jerry simply repeats his mantra that the scoffers in Corinthian denied the resurrection. They did no such thing.
If they denied the resurrection they would have denied Jesus’ resurrection– but they didn’t.
If they denied the resurrection they would have denied the resurrection of dead Christians– but they didn’t.
If they denied the resurrection they would have denied their own salvation– but they didn’t.
Those in Corinth denied the resurrection of those who had died before Jesus’ death / resurrection.
Jerry’s syllogisms do not touch this argument. And note this: Jerry gave us syllogisms that demand a literal, physical resurrection, yet, he tells us that Christ did not die to deliver us from physical death! This alone nullifies his syllogisms.

CHRIST THE FIRST FRUIT
Jerry sets up  false dilemmas, and boldly proclaims that Preston only has a given number of choices, when in fact, there are other, TRUE CHOICES, that negate Jerry’s doctrine.
He says that if “first fruit” means first, and not pre-eminent, and refers to physical death, that, “Paul was a liar.” Or, his second of what he claims are my only two choices, is that Christ could not be the first to be raised from spiritual death, because Jerry claims that Christ never experienced spiritual death.
Paul undeniably said Christ was the first to be raised from the dead. The imagery of being the first fruit of the harvest demands that Christ was the first one raised from the dead– not simply the pre-eminent–  and Paul emphatically affirms this in Acts 26:21f.

Christ was the first fruit of the dead– the first to be raised from the dead (Acts 26:21f; 1 Corinthians 15:20)
But, Christ was not the first to be raised from physical death.
Therefore, the death from which Christ was the first to be raised i.e., the first fruit of the dead, was not physical death.

This proves that the death and resurrection in Corinthians was not biological death, or a bodily resurrection. And remember, Jerry now admits that Jesus did not die to deliver us from physical death! Thus, Jerry now agrees with Preston, and his own words prove it!

Now watch.

Jerry admits that Jesus’ death was substitutionary.
“He died as a substitute for our punishment …God substituted him as the sacrifice rather than making us bear the punishment.”

Jerry says that Jesus’ physical death, “wasn’t so we wouldn’t die physically, but so we wouldn’t have to suffer eternal death (separation from God) in eternity.” Okay then…

Jesus did not die to deliver man from physical death (Jerry).
But, 1 Corinthians is about the deliverance from death– through the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Therefore, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 is not about deliverance from physical death, since Jesus’ death and resurrection was not to deliver man from physical death.

Building on that:
Jesus did not die to deliver man from physical death (Jerry).
But, Jesus’ death / resurrection was to deliver man from the death curse of Adam (15:21).
Therefore, physical death was not the death curse of Adam

If biological death is NOT part of the curse of Adam, this means that: “As in Adam all men die, even so in Christ shall be made alive” cannot, in any way, be speaking of a literal resurrection out of physical death.

Ask yourself: If Jesus did not die to deliver man from physical death, why in the world is Jerry arguing so vehemently for a resurrection from physical death? Does a decomposed  body have to be restored before I can have spiritual life with God?

You cannot affirm that Jesus did not die to deliver from physical death, and then affirm that Corinthians is about deliverance from physical death through the power of Jesus’ death and resurrection.

So, Jerry tells us that physical death WAS part of the curse of Adam- physical death entered through his sin. However, Jesus did not die to deliver us from that physical death! So, JESUS DID NOT DIE TO DELIVER US FROM AT LEAST PART OF THE CURSE OF ADAM.
Bless Jerry’s heart, he can’t keep from entrapping himself.

Jerry MUST DENY that biological death is the result of sin guilt, or else per his own “logic” Jesus was guilty of sin to die physically. But remember, he told us that biological death entered the world at the point of Adam’s sin.
Folks, Jerry’s definition of  the curse of Adam definitely includes physical death, and yet, he tells us Jesus did not die to deliver man from physical death.

DID JESUS DIE SPIRITUALLY?
Jerry claims that Jesus never died spiritually! If he died spiritually, it would mean he was guilty of sin.

Would Jesus have to be a sinner to die a substitutionary death? Jerry says yes, but, Jerry, have you never read 2 Corinthians 5:21– “ He made him to be sin for us, the one who knew no sin, so that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”
1 Peter 3:18– Christ died, “the just for the unjust.”
1 Peter 2:24– “He bore our sins in his body, on the cross.”

Jerry, if my son were sentenced to death for crimes, but, I offered myself to die in his place– you know, a SUBSTITUTIONARY DEATH –  even though I had committed no crime, would my death mean that I was guilty of his crimes? ANSWER THE QUESTION!

IS PHYSICAL DEATH THE ENEMY OF THE CHILD OF GOD?
I asked Jerry if physical death is the enemy of the child of God. Get this: He said No.
So, Jesus did not die to deliver man from physical death.
Physical death is not the enemy of the child of God.
Christians should look forward to physical death (Jerry).
Yet, the death of Corinthians was “the last enemy.”
Therefore, the death that is the “last enemy” in Corinthians cannot be physical death.

Jerry affirms that 1 Corinthians 15– when the last ENEMY is overcome, is deliverance from physical death for the Christian.

Now, catch this: Jerry does not truly believe that death ushers a person into the presence of Christ. It takes a person to Hades, Abraham’s bosom. There, the Christian, per Jerry, must wait who knows how long to actually be in the presence of Christ.
It does not get any more self contradictory than this.

Jerry says: “Physical death is going to happen to us regardless (unless we are here when Christ returns), but the death that we were delivered from was spiritual death.”
So, once again, Jerry divorces physical death from the death curse of Adam, and by so doing, completely divorces it from Paul’s resurrection discussion in 1 Corinthians 15. If physical death is simply a part of the human experience (and it is) and is not the “wages of sin” then this is prima facie demonstration that 1 Corinthians 15:21 is not about a physical resurrection!

Note Romans 5:12– “Just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death passed on all men because all sinned.”
Paul is concerned with one death, the death curse of Adam, that came through sin, i.e., the wages of sin (Romans 6:23).
Yet, Jerry insists that Christ’s death was not to deliver man from physical death.
There is no escaping the logic: Physical death is not the death curse of Adam, for Christ did die to deliver man from the death curse of Adam.

JESUS’ RESURRECTION WAS NOT A SIGN?!?
Jesus’ physical resurrection was a sign of greater spiritual realities. In two unbelievably desperate “arguments” Jerry denies the sign nature of  Jesus’ resurrection. (Oh, the scholars disagree with Jerry, but he failed to mention that!)

I offered Matthew 16 as proof. But, Jerry tells us that Jesus’ resurrection was not the sign, but that Jonah in the belly of the fish was the sign to Jesus’ generation that Jesus is the Son of God!
I offered John 20:30-31:  John, after telling of Jesus’ resurrection, then said, “Many other signs did Jesus.” Chart
Jerry makes totally unprecedented claims! He says Jesus’ miracles in John “were not signs of anything. They were things done so that people might believe.” Really, Jerry? Chart: Chart- Semeion

Consider: Jerry says Jesus’ physical death was to deliver us from spiritual death. So, from Jerry’s own keyboard, he affirms that Jesus’ physical resurrection pointed to something spiritual!

JERRY’S FLIP-FLOP ON ISAIAH 25
Jerry told us that Isaiah 25 did not predict the resurrection– flatly contradicting Paul. (chart)
In another amazing “debate conversion,” he admits that Isaiah did predict the resurrection after all! Chart

Watch Jerry’s problem with Isaiah 25– Messianic Banquet
Jerry says the Messianic Banquet is simply life in the church.
But, Isaiah said the Banquet would be established at the resurrection! Jerry divorces the Banquet from the resurrection. Jerry is wrong.
Matthew 8:11 says the Banquet would be when “the sons of the kingdom are cast out.”
The sons of the kingdom were to be cast out for persecuting the New Covenant seed (Galatians 4:22-31).
The sons of the kingdom were cast out– from the presence of the Lord– at his coming in giving the Thessalonians relief from their then on-going persecution at the hands of the Jews. (Chart-Banquet)
Remember, it was the Jews invited to the Banquet. But, they persecuted the servants of God sent to them, and God sent out His armies, killed those wicked men, and burnt their city (Matthew 22:7).
This was indubitably AD 70– and Jerry has not refuted one word of my arguments.

PETER AND THE ANAPHORIC ARTICLE– AGAIN
I am stunned at Jerry’s abuse of the Greek. It is embarrassing and inexcusable.
The anaphoric article in 1 Peter 4:17 refers to the subject of judgment, not to Christ’s readiness for “the judgment.”  “The judgment” (subject) of v. 17 refers back to “judgment” (subject) in v. 5. This is undeniable, and Jerry’s “argument” is embarrassingly bad.
Jerry, I challenge you to produce a Greek grammarian that supports your wild claim that the anaphoric article of 1 Peter 4:17 refers, not to judgment but to hetoimos. Chart
Thus, Peter unequivocally said that “the appointed time” had come for “the judgment”, the judgment of “the living and the dead.”
Peter affirmed “the end of all things has drawn near.” Jerry, in full blown desperation, says this just means that Peter’s audience was about to die. He admits that it might refer to AD 70, but this could not be, since: “In 1 Pet. 3:10 (sic) he clearly stated that Christ would return as a thief in the night. No one knew when Christ would return and there were no signs given, but for the destruction of Jerusalem there were signs to look at!”
In 2 Peter 3, the scoffers were denying “the end of all things” that Peter had affirmed “the end of all things has drawn near” in 4:7. Remember, Peter emphatically says that 2 Peter 3 was a reminder of what he had discussed in 1 Peter (2 Peter 3:1). Thus, to radically redefine “all things” in 1 Peter is unwarranted and violates the text.

ACCORDING TO HIS PROMISE– 2 PETER 3
Unbelievably, Jerry denies that Peter is drawing from Isaiah 65 claiming that Isaiah 65 foretold the return from the Babylonian captivity. Really, Jerry? Let’s have some fun with the commentators, shall we? See the chart.

It is critical that Jerry prove that Peter was not anticipating the fulfillment of Isaiah 65 (or 66 –Chart). Of course, note that Jerry gave no exegetical proof for his claim. He just pontificated!

1.) Paul specifically applies Isaiah 65:1-2 to his generation and ministry (Romans 10:20-21).
2.) Isaiah 65:8 predicted the salvation of the remnant. That was being fulfilled in Paul’s day and ministry (Romans 9). I have proven that the last days salvation of the remnant was to be a “short work on the earth” (Romans 9:28)– not prolonged for 2000 years! Jerry even entrapped himself on this, as usual. Chart– Suntemnon #1 and Chart #2
3.) The New Creation of Isaiah 65 would be when, “The Lord God shall destroy you” (65:15). Jerry has Israel delivered, Isaiah has them destroyed. Jerry is wrong, again.
4.) God would create a New People, with a New Name (65:15). Jerry, tell us who that NEW PEOPLE, with a NEW NAME was, that God created when He delivered Judah from Babylon. Don’t fail to answer this! Chart
5.) The New Creation would be when the wolf and the lamb would lie down together, the time of Isaiah 11:8f– which Paul applied to his generation (Romans 15:12f)!
6.) When the New Creation came, the Old would no longer be “remembered.” This word means to call to COVENANT REMEMBRANCE. Thus, when the New Creation came, THE OLD COVENANT CREATION WOULD BE FORGOTTEN!
Jerry, was the Old Covenant creation of Israel forgotten (removed) when they returned from Babylon? More, will the New Covenant creation of Christ be “forgotten” at the so-called “end of the Christian age”?

Isaiah is clearly established as Messianic, and Peter does quote from Isaiah 65. Note again my arguments that Jerry ignored.

Peter anticipated the fulfillment of Isaiah 65- the coming of the Lord to bring in the New Creation (Jerry).
But, the coming of the Lord to bring in the New Creation of Isaiah 65 would be the coming of the Lord IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE LORD HAD COME IN THE PAST (Isaiah 64:1-3).
Note the prayer for the Lord to come down out of heaven, shake the earth and nations, and burn the creation, in v. 1-2. But, that it is a prayer for Him to come AS HE HAD COME IN THE PAST: “When you did awesome things for which we did not look, you came down, the mountains trembled…”
Now, even Jerry will agree that God had never literally, bodily, visibly come down out of heaven, and literally destroyed the creation, right Jerry? So, that leads to this:

Peter anticipated the fulfillment of Isaiah 65- the coming of the Lord to bring in the New Creation (Jerry).
But, the coming of the Lord to bring in the New Creation of Isaiah 65 would be the coming of the Lord in the same manner AS THE LORD HAD COME IN THE PAST (Isaiah 64:1-3).
The previous comings of the Lord  were historical events– not literal, visible comings of the Lord.
Therefore, the coming of the Lord of 2 Peter 3– in fulfillment of Isaiah 64-65 would not be a literal, visible, bodily coming of the Lord. chart

Notice also:
The parousia of 2 Peter 3 is the parousia of Christ in Acts 3:19f at the “restoration of all things” FORETOLD BY ALL OF THE OT PROPHETS. Like Paul, Peter’s eschatology was the eschatology of Israel– not divorced from it– as Jerry claims.
But, Peter, speaking of the restoration of all things at Christ’s parousia (being the same parousia as 2 Peter 3), said that all of those OT prophets “spoke of these days.”
Those were Peter’s first century days, not days 2000 years removed from Peter’s generation.
Thus, the fulfillment of the parousia– the full accomplishment of all things written– (including 2 Peter 3 and Acts 3)– was for Peter’s “these days.” Chart Acts 3

JERRY ON THE LORD’S SUPPER
More fomentation– He said not one thing that proves that the issue of the Supper proves or disproves whether the Lord came in AD 70. THAT IS THE ISSUE OF THIS DEBATE.
Is it legitimate to ask whether the Supper is still valid? Yes, as I have repeatedly affirmed. Does my participation of the Supper mean that Lord did not come? NO!
Jerry knows he cannot answer that issue, so he attempts to divert attention to an emotionally charged one. Sorry, Jerry, you have proven nothing, except a willingness to avoid the real issue.

Take a look at Jerry’s issues with the personal pronouns. Chart

JERRY ON “UNTIL THE END OF THE AGE”
Jerry offered this:  “Jesus said: “I will be with you as far as the end of the world. When the world ends that promise he made will end.  There will be no more need for him to be with us because we will be with him in heaven.”
Nothing but double talk!
Jerry argues that “with you until the end” demands the cessation of his presence, if he came in AD 70. But, somehow, someway, when it refers to the “end of the world” it means he will be with us in a greater sense! 
Jerry if, “I am with you till the end” demands no more presence after AD 70, THEN IT MEANS NO MORE PRESENCE AFTER THE END OF THE WORLD, and you have just destroyed your own argument.
Btw, Jesus did not say I am with you “as far as the end of the world.” The term is “end of the age.” Once again, Jerry abuses the Greek. Chart- suntelieas

Jesus’ promise to be “with” those disciples until the end of the age was the promise of the charismatic gifts (Mark 16:20; cf. Acts 14:3) which were to endure until the Day of the Lord (1 Corinthians 1:4-8)- the arrival of “that which is perfect” (1 Corinthians 13:8f). They were to be poured out “in the last days… before the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord” (Acts 2:15-22), and terminate at the end of the age.

NOTICE THE CHARTS ON REVELATION AGAIN
Chart - Jerry’s “evidence” – Domitian
Chart - Jerry’s rejection of inspiration
Chart - Jerry on Distance

I have effectively negated all of Jerry’s major arguments, either directly or indirectly. Jerry is affirming the end of what the Bible says has no end. Jerry posits eschatology at the end of the endless Christian age– and rejects the indisputable fact that all Biblical eschatology is based on God’s Old Covenant promises made to Israel “after the flesh” (Romans 9:3).

Jerry has made unprecedented, irresponsible and embarrassing claims that are specious and false to the core. Jerry needs to prove some proof for his claims.

That Israel had no army in AD 70.
Let’s see him explain how the church will not be destroyed, if, as he claims,  Israel’s power is the church. After all, the resurrection is when Israel’s power is destroyed.
Let’s see what “new” definition of the power of Israel he comes up with this time.
Let’s see him explain why, if Jesus’ miracles were not signs, John used the word semeion (sign) to describe every one of them!
Let’s see him produce even one grammarian that agrees with his wild claim on the anaphoric article.
Let’s see him prove that the Transfiguration was not a vision of the parousia.
Let’s see him explain why, if Jesus did not die to deliver us from physical death, there must be a resurrection of human corpses.
Let’s see him explain why we are still waiting for the final victory over “the last enemy” –  if physical death is not the enemy of the child of God.

Alas, we will wait in vain for Jerry to document any of this. He has no proof. All he has is his preconceived, presuppositional eschatology– and unprecedented claims.

 

 

McDonald’s Second Affirmative

Being in the affirmative obligates me to make affirmative arguments in favor of my proposition, and then to deal with what my opponent has said in the previous rebuttal.  At this point I will continue to advance my affirmative after which I will respond to Don’s first rebuttal.

Further argument on Element Number Four

5. The testament of Christ was brought into existence after his death shows that in order for the New Testament to be in force, the testator (Christ) had to die, and when this happened the Old was taken away.

A. Testaments are only of force after the death of the testator “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth” (Heb 9:16-17).

B. Now either Christ’s testament became of force after his death, or it did not, you can’t have it both ways.  If his testament came in force after his death, then the Old Testament was done away at that point because you cannot have two testaments in force at the same time (Rom. 7:1-4).  If the Old Testament was done away at the cross, then it didn’t wait until A.D. 70 to be done away with.

C. Notice the following argument:

Major Premise:  If the Old Testament was taken away with the death of Christ, then it could not have existed in A.D. 70.

Minor Premise:  The Old Testament was taken away with the death of Christ (1 Cor. 3:14).

Conclusion:  Therefore it could not have existed in A.D. 70.

D. Don might argue that Paul’s words “But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ” (2Co 3:14) do not mean that being done away in Christ does not mean that it was done away with at his death.  Notice the following argument:

Major Premise:  If the New Testament is Christ’s Covenant (will) with man, then it had to become enforceable after he died (Heb. 9:16,17).

Minor Premise:  The New Testament is Christ’s Covenant (will) with man.

Conclusion:  Therefore it had to become enforceable after he died (Heb. 9:16,17).

Major Premise:  If the New Testament became enforceable after the death of Christ, then the Old Testament had to be taken away when the New became enforceable.

Minor Premise:  The New Testament became enforceable after the death of Christ.

Conclusion:  Therefore, the Old Testament had to be taken away when the new became enforceable.

This shows that when the new came into effect the old had to be taken away.  Romans 7:1-4 shows that the  two covenants could not co-exist.  Paul told the churches of Galatia that those who tried to be justified by the Old had fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4).

ELEMENT NUMBER FIVE:

Chapter Fifteen Of Paul’s Letter To Corinth Discusses A Literal Resurrection.

When one reads chapter fifteen of 1 Corinthians there is no doubt that it speaks of a literal resurrection, and this is based on three observations in 1 Corinthians chapter fifteen.

1. Paul showed that baptism is a symbol of dying and being raised (1 Cor. 15:29-34).
   1. If the dead do not literally rise, why are people baptized for the dead “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” (1Co 15:29).
      1. Baptism for the dead is not, as the Mormons have it, people who are alive being baptized for those who are dead, but rather people being baptized in preparation of death.

Major Premise:  If everyone has to answer for his own life, then people now living cannot be baptized for someone who is dead.

Minor Premise:  Everyone has to answer for his own life (2 Corinthians 5:10).

Conclusion:  Therefore, people now living cannot be baptized for someone who is dead.

1. The only logical alternative here is that this baptism was done as a symbol of dying, being buried and raised again as Christ died, was buried and rose again (Rom. 6:3-5).
2. If the dead do not literally rise when why did the apostles stand in jeopardy of death by preaching the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, if the dead will not rise?
   1. Paul determined not to preach anything other than Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2).
   2. Part of preaching the crucifixion was also preaching the resurrection, just as part of preaching Jesus was preaching baptism (Acts 8:34-36).
   3. If the dead do not rise then all is lost so eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.
      1. If there is no resurrection from the dead, then there is no reason for one to live a spiritually good life because when one dies he will stay dead.
      2. If one is going to stay dead, then he won’t know what goes on after he dies, and all that he is will die with him.
      3. If this is all the hope one has then he might as well eat, drink and be merry because death can come to anyone at any time.

Now we will go through Don’s first rebuttal and answer it and then see how he has done in answering my first affirmative.  Don starts off by telling us that my proposition is in direct contradiction to scriptures because it says that when Christ returns the Christian age will end.  He then pulls Dan. 2:44 out of context to argue his point, but notice that Dan. 2:44 says that the kingdom will never be destroyed.  How is that possible?  Paul gave a simple answer:  “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power” (1Co 15:24).  Both Paul and Daniel were speaking of the church.  Daniel says it will never be destroyed, and Paul shows why it will never end, because it will be delivered up to God when Christ returns.

Now Don has only two alternatives, holding his view:  (1) He can argue that the church has been delivered back to the Father, in which case Christ is no longer the head of the church, and the church no longer exists on earth, or (2) Paul’s statement is some sort of figurative statement and the church will never, actually, be delivered back to the Father.  Either way, his position is false, and as we have seen anytime a position involves a false position that position, in and of itself, is false.

Daniel 7:13,14 is dealing with a vision of Christ and the coming church.  The reason that the church will never be destroyed is because the church will be in heaven as we have seen in 1 Cor. 15:24.  However, just because a covenant is said to be forever does not mean that will never end.  Notice Numbers 18:19 and how it uses the words “statue for ever” and “covenant of salt for ever.”

Now the question is demanded:  “Does God mean that this statue will never pass away, or does he mean “always as long as the age lasts”?

Mt. 24:35 has Jesus telling about the destruction of Jerusalem:  “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Mat 24:34-35) and he says that “this generation” shall not pass until all the things he previously mentioned would happen.  Then as a matter of fact, he said that heaven and earth would pass away, but his words would never pass away.  In other words, his word is greater than anything pertaining to this world.

Then Luke 1:31-33 simply shows that Christ would be born, his name would be Jesus and he shall rule over the church which would never pass away.  Why? Because as Paul mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:24, the church shall be delivered unto God in the judgment.  Really Don, are you so desperate to make your point that you overlook the context of this passage?

Eph. 3:21 talks about the glory of Christ in the church, and this glory will never end because as we have seen in the other passages he has brought up, the church will be in existence for ever as it will be handed back to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24).

Don says that I refused to answer his syllogisms because they were highly interpretative.  Don knows better than this.  He knows full well that the syllogisms that I was talking about were his syllogisms trying to prove that the book of Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70.  Notice what I said.

Why a man will make a false claim when it so easy to check and refute is beyond me, but when all you have is conjecture and desire to prove your position anything will do.  Notice what Don said in his second affirmative.

Now even Don admits that if Revelation was written after A.D. 70 his interpretation of each of the verses he used in Revelation is false.  I gave evidence that Revelation was written during the Domitian reign, but Don ridiculed me for presenting commentaries and the early church fathers, but then he presented commentaries and quotations from a few of the early church fathers.

Don accuses my syllogisms of begging the question (peitiio principii), but they do no such thing.  His syllogisms on Revelation begged the question because they asked the reader to assume that Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, and he didn’t give proof of such.

He admits that the major premise of my main argument is valid and sound, but he takes issue with the minor premise.  Well, I would expect him to take issue with that premise, but that premise does not beg the question.  That premise states the antecedent of the major premise and the conclusion states the consequent.

However, I didn’t just leave the argument hanging, I gave four constituent elements in favor of my argument.  Before he can say that the minor premise begs the question he must disprove all the elements that I produced, but as we will see, he did no such thing.

I want you to take notice of how Don’s position mimics the Premillenial position, how he uses the same language, but he just comes to a different conclusion.  He talks about the “church age.”  I don’t read about a “church age” in the Bible, I read of only three ages here on earth:  (1) Patriarical; (2) Mosaical; and (3) Christian.  The Patriarical and Mosaic are in the past.  The Christian age is here now.  The Christian age will end when Christ returns to judge the world, but the church will be handed back to the Father, it will be in heaven, so it will never end.  There is NO church age even hinted to in the Bible.

Going to Malachi 3 and 4 we find that those chapters are prophetic of Jesus and the church as well as the final judgment of man.  I pointed out in my negative articles that Jesus said “I have finished the work that thou gavest me to do” (Jn. 17:4), and showed that Jesus had not literally finished everything by this time, but everything was put into motion that would fulfill all of his work.  Don simply ridiculed that idea, but he never was able to refute it.  When the law of Moses ended at the cross, all parts of the law was fulfilled.  Some of it was fulfilled in the sense that it had literally been fulfilled, but some of it (such as the establishment of the church) had to wait for a while, and still more would have to wait (the second coming and final judgment) until the date that God has chosen for Christ’s return.  When you understand the principle set forth in John 17:4 you understand my position and see that it is the truth.  My argument has not falsified my position, Don is just dreaming again.

His assumption is that Malachi 3 and 4 was to be fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.  There is nothing in Malachi 3 or 4 that demands that this be fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem.  This assumption is without warrant.

He goes back to his argument on the power of the holy people as though that falsifies my position on Acts 1, but he is mistaken.  Daniel does not say that the Torah was going to be broken into pieces he said that the power of the holy people would be shattered.  Notice that Jesus said “think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets, I came not to destroy but to fulfill” (Mt. 5:17).  The word for destroy is defined on the following chart.

So Jesus was not going to destroy, disintergrate or dissolve the law or the prophets.  He came to fulfill it.  The word fulfill is defined on the following chart.

Daniel says that the power of the holy people would be scattered, or shattered.  The word scattered (shattered) is defined on the following chart.

So from the meaning of the words above, we can see that Jesus did not come to shatter, scatter, the law or to break  it into pieces, or even cause it to be discharged, dispersed.  He did not come to dissolve it,  or disintegrate or dissolve it.  He came to fill it up, to finish it, to bring it to an end by fulfilling it, not by discharging it.  The problem that Don has is that he teaches that Daniel is saying that the law of Moses would be shattered, or disintegrated, while Jesus teaches that he came to finish it, or fill it up and bring it to an end.

Commentators are not agreed over what the power of the Holy people was.  Some think it was Israel’s ability to function as a nation on its own and make war to defend its boarders, and certainly this was the case in the song Moses taught Israel to sing in Deuteronomy:  “For the LORD shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or left” (Deu 32:36).  The same word that is used in Daniel 12:7 is the word that is used in Deut. 32:36:

This is the reason Don labors so to make the song of Deuteronomy 32 the same song of Revelation 15.  However, it doesn’t work out that way as we saw while discussing his affirmative.

Some lean to the idea that the Holy people is talking about the church.  However, none of them even hint to the idea that it was the law of Moses (or the Torah as Don calls it).  This is A.D. 70 rhetoric to justify their false position, but it has no basis in truth.

So whatever the power of the Holy people was, it doesn’t have any reference to the law of Moses.  Therefore Don’s whole position is in error because it is based on an erroneous assumption.  Now he needs to go back and answer the argument on Acts 1.

Daniel does talk about the resurrection, but notice that he says “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan 12:2).  The word for “sleep” is defined on the following chart.

From this we can see that Daniel was talking about a literal rising from the grave, not some figurative resurrection such as Don has conjured up.

Don writes:  “No matter what Jerry may claim, Daniel posits the resurrection and Acts 1 at the end of Israel’s Covenant age- not the end of the Christian age.”  Where does Daniel do that?  In order to get to Don’s position he has to prove that the power of the Holy people was the law of Moses (torah), but he can’t do that without denying what Jesus said in Mt. 5:17.  Thus another assumption goes down the drain.

I presented four syllogisms in my rebuttals and Don refused to answer them, so I will present them again in the following chart.

He then goes to 1 Corinthians 15 as though this denies my argument on Acts 1, but as we have seen his argument on Acts 1 taking place and the end of the Mosaic Law is erroneous.  Thus anything he has to say about 1 Cor. 15 is also erroneous.  When Don builds his constituent elements upon a faulty base, the whole house of cards come tumbling down.

Then he writes:  “BUT, JESUS ASCENDED IN AN UNCHANGED MORTAL HUMAN BODY (JERRY)” in an effort to counter my argument on Jesus coming the same way he left.  I never said that Jesus’ mortal body entered heaven, I said that his mortal body was resurrected, and that is what ascended, but since flesh and blood cannot enter heaven, it was changed, just as we will be changed.

Don has a penchant for rewriting what people say, especially the Bible.  So if he can so easily rewrite the Bible it should come as no surprise when he rewrites what I wrote.  But you can see I never said that Jesus’ mortal human body entered heaven which is what Don is trying to make me say:  “Therefore, Jesus must return from heaven- where Jesus’ unchanged mortal body could not go – in a mortal human body- at the end of the (endless) Christian age!”  No, Jesus’ body changed when he got to heaven, but he ascended to heaven in a mortal body.  “In like manner” does not refer to the kind of body that Jesus had, it refers to the manner in which he ascended.  It was a literal ascension (whether his body was mortal or immortal) and it will be a literal return even though the body will be immortal.  For example before Jesus left he was standing on the earth, but Jesus will never set foot back on this earth again because we will meet him in the air (1 Thess. 4:17).  This difference does not negate his return to be literal.  Don is nit-picking so as to keep from answering my argument.

He makes too much of 1 Cor. 15:54-56:

“So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.”

His argumentation is as follows:

1. Because it is written that when we put on immortality then the saying that is written “death is swallowed up in victory” shall be brought to pass.
2. The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.
3. Therefore the law won’t pass until death is swallowed up in  victory which won’t happen until we put on immortality.

When we put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying “death is swallowed up in victory.”  This saying comes from Isaiah 25:8:  “He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.”  This is the saying that shall be brought to pass.  The questions {(1) O grave where is thy victory, and (2) O death where is thy sting} are not part of the saying that would be brought to pass.  These are questions that Paul asked Corinth.  Since this saying would be brought to pass when we put on immortality where is the grave’s victory, and where is death’s sting?  The sting of death is sin, so don’t follow it, and the strength of sin is the law, so don’t follow it either.

Notice that Mt. 16:27 says that Jesus would come with the angels.  Did Jesus ascend with the angels?  No the angels stayed on earth to direct the apostles to go to work.  Not everything is going to be identical, but if the ascension was literal then so must the return be.  Returning in the glory of God does not mean that he would come in a figurative manner, but rather that he would return with all of God’s glory.  Such a simple passage, and Don somehow finds a way to misunderstand it.

“So, Jerry, show us one single time when the Father had come in judgment, visibly, physically on literal cumulus clouds.”  Note the following verses:  “And it came to pass, as Aaron spake unto the whole congregation of the children of Israel, that they looked toward the wilderness, and, behold, the glory of the LORD appeared in the cloud” (Exo 16:10).  Was this a literal cloud or some figurative coming of God?  “And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD” (Exo 34:5).  Did Jehovah stand with Moses in a cloud, or was this some figurative reference?  “And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians” (Exo 14:24).  Did Jehovah come in a literal cloud upon the Egyptians or was this some sort of figure?

The Transfiguration was a vision of Christ’s second coming?  Peter doesn’t say that the transfiguration was a vision of Christ’s second coming, he said that the things that he taught about the second coming were not fables, for they had seen the majesty of Christ at the time of his transfiguration, and as that was real, so would be the second coming (2 Pet. 1:17-21).

If God can do all those things, then he will be able to deliver the wicked to judgment and punishment.  If the wicked have already been judged, then they won’t be judged again.

(2Pe 1:16)

He thinks that Jesus said his resurrection was a sign of something greater and even admitted this in Mt. 16:4:  “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed” (Mat 16:4).  Did Jesus say his resurrection was a sign?  No, he said that wicked people seek a sign, but he said that no sign would be given except the sign of Jonas the prophet.  What was that sign?  Jonah spent three days in the belly of the whale, and that was a sign that Jesus would spend three day in the earth.  His resurrection was not the sign, but Jonah spending three day in the whale was the sign.  Don can’t you even read correctly?

Did John say that Jesus’ resurrection was a sign?  No!  Notice exactly what John said:

“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name”(Joh 20:30-31).

This said that there were other signs that Jesus did IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS DISCIPLES!  (1) Did Jesus resurrect himself?  No!  The Father resurrected him:  “Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it” (Act 2:24).  (2) Was this done in the presence of his disciples?  No!  It was done before the disciples showed up at the tomb (Mt. 28:5,6).  The women did not see him rise, he was risen before they got there.  Even the soldiers didn’t see him, they saw the angels descend from heaven and they were frightened.  (3) These miracles were not signs of anything.  They were things that were done so that people might believe.

He continues to say that my questions poison the well, but he didn’t deal with what poisoning the well was.  Poisoning the well isn’t about showing the false implications of a doctrine, and it isn’t even dealing with things that are irrelevant, but as I pointed out in my first affirmative, poisoning the well is defined on the following chart.

My questions were designed to show the false implications of Don’s doctrine; they are not abusive ad hominem arguments.  They do not attack his good faith or intellectual honesty.  They do not undermine rational exchange.  They do put Don on the spot, however, and that is where he doesn’t want to be.

Preston on the Lord’s Supper.  He once again tells us that my question is designed to poison the well, and that it has nothing to do with my proposition.  Well it does have to do with my proposition.  Notice his answer to my preliminary questions for his affirmative:  “6.  Does 1 Corinthians 11:26 ‘For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come’ directly apply to Christians today?

Answer: No.” (http://maeft.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/mcdonalds-prelim-questions/).  He tells us that 1 Cor. 11:26 does not directly apply to us today, but 1 Cor. 11:26 is an intrinsic part of the Lord’s Supper.  Look at the following chart and see why the Lord’s Supper cannot be observed unless we observe 1 Cor. 11:26, and Don can’t do that since he believes that Christ has already returned.  Therefore Don cannot scripturally observe the Lord’s Supper, and his doing so negates his entire position.

Also note that Curtis Cates quoted Terry Varner who quoted Geiser (another A.D. 70 proponent) as saying , “Nothing thus prevents the view that 1 Corinthians 11:26 teaches that we today observe the Lord’s Supper, as we know that Christ’s Second Coming confirmed and established the same” (The A.D. 70 Theology, A Religion That Overthrows The Faith And Undermines The Hope Of Men, p. 45).  Now Don’s problem is that if he agrees with Geiser then 1 Corinthians 11:26 must have direct relevance to us today, but Don has already stated that it doesn’t.  And if it doesn’t then Geiser’s assertion concerning 1 Corinthians 11:26 is in error.  You see Geiser wants to make “till” a conjunction rather than a preposition of time.  After telling us that 1 Cor. 11:26 does not have direct application to us today Don seems to be backpeddling on that a bit by stating  “I have produced several articles and even an MP3 series on why the Supper has its fulfilled, consummated meaning today. But that discussion does not prove whether the Lord came or not and Jerry knows it. His concluding remark proves this: ‘Don’s position on 1 Corinthians 11:26 has done away with…the Lord’s Supper.’”

Then he tells us:  “Well, what is the hermeneutic for ignoring the personal pronouns in 1 Corinthians 11:26 where Paul said ‘As often as YOU – who is that ‘YOU’ – eat bread and drink the cup, you – who was that ‘YOU’ again?- do show the Lord’s death UNTIL HE COMES!’” which is preceded by “’We must honor the personal pronouns!’ Right, Jerry?”  Yes, we must honor the personal pronouns, just like we honor the personal pronouns in every other passage of scripture where they are used.  If the personal pronouns in 1 Cor. 11:26 only refer to Corinth, then only the personal pronoun “ye” (2 Cor. 6:17) “come ye out from among them and be ye separate” applied only to Corinth and has no direct application for us today.

Also this argument destroys his very position for Paul said “for as often as ye (you) eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye (you) do shew the Lord’s death till he come.”  Now if the personal pronouns can only refer to the people to which this was written, then only they could shew the Lord’s death until he returned.  No, we can honor the personal pronouns all the while understanding that they refer to us as well.  Jesus said “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel.”  Who was he speaking directly to?  The apostles!  If you take the same argument on the personal pronouns here that Don has taken on the personal pronouns in 1 Cor. 11:26 and follow the argument to its logical conclusion you end up with the doctrine that nothing in the New Testament directly applies to man today, therefore it is just sort of a guide.  This is what the New Hermeneutic advocate proclaims.  Does Don follow the principles of interpretation set forth by the New Hermeneutic advocates?

The same is the case with baptism.  Jesus said to go and teach all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to observe all things, and he would be with them until the end of the world (Mt. 28:19,20).  Now if the end of the world has already happened, then there is no need to preach and teach, there is no need to baptize, and there is no need to observe all things, and Christ is not with those who do.

Don said:  “My, my. Let’s turn that around, shall we?  The word “until” means “up to the point of, and not after” (Jerry). Jesus will be with the church, “until the end of the world” (Jerry).  Therefore, at the end of the world, (as defined by Jerry) JESUS IS NO LONGER WITH THE CHURCH.  This is where Jerry’s “logic” winds up.”  No, no, this is where logic, period, winds up.  If Jesus said “I will be with you even until the end of the world” and if the end of the world has come, then Jesus is not with us because he said he would be with them even unto the end of the world.  The word “unto” means “heōs heh’-oce Of uncertain affinity; a conjugation, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place): – even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-) til (-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while (-s)” (Strong’s Greek Dictionary, e-Sword).  So Jesus said “I will be with you as far as the end of the world.  When the world ends that promise he made will end.  There will be no more need for him to be with us because we will be with him in heaven.

When it comes to repentance, Paul said “but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent:  because he hath appointed a day in which he shall judge the world” (Acts 17:30,31).  Now if the judgment has already taken place, then God does not demand that all men everywhere repent.  Why?  Because of what Paul said “because he hath appointed a day….”  The word “because” here comes from “dioti” which means “on the very account that, or inasmuch as: – because (that), for, therefore” (Strong’s Greek Dictionary, e-Sword).  God commanded that all men repent inasmuch or on the very account that he had appointed a day in which he shall judge the world.  Now Don likes to deal with the word “intrinsic” so let him deal with it here.  Paul told the Athenians that God had commanded that all men repent.  Why did he command all men to repent?  Because he had appointed a day in which he would judge the world.  Thus the judgment and repentance are intrinsically tied together, and as such you cannot have one without the other.

Don likes to take the word “mello” (or mullein) and argue that it means “about to.”  He says he has given scholarly references to show that this is the case.  He didn’t give Robertson on Acts 17:31 who wrote:  “Will judge (mellei krinein). Rather, is going to judge, mellō and the present active infinitive of krinō. Paul here quotes Psa_9:8 where krinei occurs” (Word Pictures of the New Testament, e-Sword).  I would say that Robertson is about as respectable a Greek Scholar as any of them.  Notice what he said about Acts 24:15:  “That there shall be a resurrection (anastasin mellein esesthai). Indirect assertion with infinitive and accusative of general reference (anastasin) after the word elpida (hope). The future infinitive esesthai after mellein is also according to rule, mellō being followed by either present, aorist, or future infinitive (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 870, 877, 878)” (Ibid).  He doesn’t say, one time, that this has to mean “about to be.”  He says for both passages that it is translated as “will judge” or “will be.”

Don takes what I wrote concerning Revelation 11:15-19 and breaks it down into pieces so you don’t get the full context.  So here is what I said concerning it:  “Revelation 11:15-19 is a vision John had regarding the seven churches in Asia (Rev. 1:4,11) and the persecution that they were enduring. All of the things you listed above are to be kept in the context of the apocalyptic vision, not applied when and where you please” (http://maeft.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/prestons-prelim-questions/).  When he felt that he needed further clarification he wrote:

“Clarification Question: I fully agree that we should not apply the elements of these verses to “when and where you please.” So, are you saying that all six of the constituent elements listed  in Revelation 11:15-19 (and listed just above) were all fulfilled in the first century generation of the seven churches of Asia? Please clarify for me.

Response:  I don’t know how to make this any clearer.  The only thing that was not fulfilled is final judgment of man, which will not happen until Christ returns to judge the world (Acts 17:30,31; 2 Tim. 4:1)” (Ibid).

Now he can continue to pick my response to pieces all he wants, but I won’t give any different an answer now than I did then.  It was a vision, it was not meant to be taken literally.  It was a vision regarding the persecution of the seven churches of Asia.  It was not referring to the destruction of Jerusalem.  The only thing that has not been fulfilled is the second coming and final judgment of man.  That ought to satisfy the man, but it won’t.  It won’t because he deals in minute details like the Pharisees and the Scribes did (Matthew chapter 23), and does not allow for the overall picture.  Take Revelation in the context in which it was intended and you will have no problems with it.

He doesn’t want to look at who it was written to, or what kind of language it was written in because if he doesn’t have to look at those two things, he can make the application that he chooses to make.  However, if you consider that these things were written to the seven churches of Asia, and that it was written in apocalyptic language you can see that this was a vision and was not to be taken literally.  I have given some explanations of several things in Revelation chapter 11 in the following chart.  These probably aren’t going to satisfy Don, but I can’t help that.  Don has a problem with making things that are supposed to be taken literal, figuratively (such as the resurrection) and the things that are supposed to be taken figuratively,  literally so until he changes his hermeneutical principle back to where it is supposed to be there isn’t anything I can say that will satisfy him other than to admit that he is right and I am wrong, but with all the problems with his hermeneutical principles, that isn’t going to happen.

Then Don says “I continue to be stunned at how Jerry continually abandons the church of Christ doctrine.”  I haven’t abandoned anything, I teach the same thing today that I taught 30 years ago, and it is the same thing my daddy taught in his 70 years as a gospel preacher, which was the same thing my grand-daddy taught for 40 years as a gospel preacher.

Would Don please show us where the word “eggizo” is used in 2 Pet. 3:8-12?  If he can’t do this then his objection is without merit because it is like comparing apples to oranges.

In his chart he writes:  “I have asked Jerry– repeatedly– if those same Gentiles would care about the death-Burial and Resurrection of Jesus– that was just as far from them as the fall of Jerusalem! And what about us– thousands of miles away?”  He says that I have ignored this question, but the truth is that I haven’t seen this question until now.  That is probably my fault, but here is the answer to it.  Only in Don’s mind is the destruction of Jerusalem as important as the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Curtis Cates was quite correct when he wrote:  “In fact, virtually everything they see in the Bible, it seems, breathes A.D. 70.  To them A.D. 70 and destruction of Jerusalem—not Pentecost of Acts 2—are the center of the Scriptures, the hub of the Bible” (The A.D. 70 Theology, p. 18).  And Max King (Don’s mentor in all of this) clearly states “These inauguration events (i.e., the cross/Pentecost—CAC) can not be permitted to overshadow the inseperable ‘parousia of Christ’s consummation with respect to the coming of the kingdom of God in power and glory at the end of the Age” (Ibid, p. 17).

Why would the resurrection of Christ be important to the Gentiles?  Simply because no man could be saved had Christ stayed in the grave.  Without his resurrection there simply is no salvation regardless of when or where the man lives.  However, the destruction of Jerusalem was not important to man’s salvation unless you hold to the A.D. 70 doctrine, but Don cannot show that this event is essential to our salvation.

However, Don has twisted what I said about 1 Pet. 3:8 “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”  I pointed out that God is not on our clock, and he does not have to do things when we want them done.  The scoffers were criticizing Christians for teaching the second coming because it had not yet happened, and Peter simply showed that time is finite and God is infinite.  To God one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like one day.  Peter was telling his recipients to wait and be patient because Christ would come.  Now Peter did not know when, and neither did Jesus when he was on earth.  By the way, Jesus knew when Jerusalem would be destroyed and gave signs for people to look at so they too would know, but when it came to the end of time, he said “of that day and that hour knoweth no man, not even the angels in heaven, but my Father only” (Mt. 24:36).

Then he brings up 1 Pet. 4:7 which uses the word “eggizo” (at hand) and argues that Peter was saying that the second coming was at hand.  However, looking at the context Peter is instructing his recipients to not be like those in the world who will be judged by Christ, who stands in a state of readiness to judge the dead and the living, because the end of all things is at hand.  As Gill pointed out, as did Barnes, “With respect to particular persons, the end of life, and which is the end of all things in this world to a man, is near at hand; which is but as an hand’s breadth, passes away like a tale that is told, and is but as a vapour which appears for a while, and then vanishes away” (Exposition on the New Testament, e-Sword).  When you look at the context you see that Peter is telling these Christians to live faithfully because the end of all things in their lives is at hand.  You and I could die at any time, and then our fate would be sealed.

Johnson pointed out, as did Clarke, that this could refer to the destruction of the Temple, but he told them to stay ready because whatever this end is it was at hand.  However, in 1 Pet. 3:10 he clearly stated that Christ would return as a thief in the night.  No one knew when Christ would return and there were no signs given, but for the destruction of Jerusalem there were signs to look at.

He complained about me not dealing with his anaphoric article, but I did deal with it.  See the chart that shows where I dealt with it.  He needs to deal with what I said about it.  See the chart on Malachi 3:5 and Exodus 22:21-23.  Also look at the chart on Malachi 3:5 and Duet. 27:19

The law of blessings and cursings were given to Israel as part of the Law of Moses, but those laws passed out of existence with the passing of the Law.  There is nothing either in Malachi or Exodus or Deuteronomy that even hints to the idea that these laws were carried on until A.D. 70.  This is Don’s assumption and it is nothing more than an assumption.  Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all the law had been fulfilled.   The law was fulfilled by Christ when he died on the cross, therefore the law of blessings and cursings was fulfilled when Christ died on the cross.  All that he writes is useless material because he cannot make them effective after the cross.

Jesus coming in judgment is not his incarnation.  His incarnation was his coming in the flesh.  Don takes everything that is supposed to be understood literally and makes something figurative out of it, and everything that is supposed to taken figuratively and interprets it as literal.  He has it completely backwards.  Jesus’ incarnation was his coming in the flesh, not his coming in judgment upon the world.  Get it right Don.

Malachi does not predict the final judgment.  He predicts the judgment upon Jerusalem.  He speaks of John the Baptist coming, then Christ following (Mal. 3:1,2).  He tells them that they will learn to discern between the evil and good (Mal. 3:18).  In chapter 4 he tells them of the time when Jerusalem will be overthrown.  But none of this has to do with the final judgment of man.  Just because the prophecy is made in the time of the law of Moses does not mean that the law would have to wait to be fulfilled until every prophecy had been fulfilled.  If so then the law of Moses could not have passed away until the name Christian was given because Isaiah prophesied that a new name would be given to God’s people (Isa. 62:2) because this new name was given until the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch (Acts 11:26).  Now if the Old Law was still in effect then they would have to have been obedient to it, but Paul taught numerous times that they could not be obedient to the law of Moses (Rom. 7:1-4; Gal. 5:4).  The day of the Lord foretold by Malachi was fulfilled when Jerusalem fell in A.D. 70, but that was not the final judgment of man.  That was the final judgment of the city of Jerusalem.

Isa. 65:17-19 does not deal with the end of time or the end of the World.  Isaiah wrote during a time in which the remnant was going to be brought out of Babylonian captivity.  The new creation was the new life that they would be able to live after being held captive for so long.  Clarke wrote:  “I think it refers to the full conversion of the Jews ultimately; and primarily to the deliverance from the Babylonish captivity” (Clarke’s Commentary, e-Sword).  This was being written to people about them being able to come out of captivity, and this would be a new life.  Peter did not anticipate the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy.  Just as Don seems to think that “Day of the Lord” must refer to the final judgment of man, he also thinks that “new heaven and new earth” must refer to the 2^nd coming of Christ.  Again, he is wrong because he won’t allow the context to determine how the words are used.

Peter discusses, in 2 Peter 3:1-18, Christ’s promise to return,  and at that time take man to a new home that he has prepared (Jn. 14:1-3).  He is not quoting Isaiah, but is referring to Christ’s promise to his followers.  Heaven is called a “new heaven and new earth” in the same way that the return from Babylonian captivity was called a new heaven and new earth.  It would be a new life for them.  It does not have reference to a literal new heaven or a literal new earth.  It referenced a new life which the Jews had and it references a new life for us when this life is over.  Don reminds me of a man who was a member of a congregation  where I preached, a number of years ago, who had a reference Bible and thought that because a word was used in one place that it had to refer to the exact same thing that it did in another place.  I tried to explain to him that sometimes a word or phrase is used in one place referring to one thing and in another place to refer to something else.  He never could quite grasp the concept.

He thinks that because Christ’s death was substitutionary for our sins so we don’t have to spend eternity in hell this means that had Jesus not died physically that we would have to die physically.  No, we are all going to die physically (except those who remain when Christ returns), but his physical shedding of blood in his physical death is what paid the price for our sins.  His substitution argument does not show  that this was not literal.  Christ died a literal death so we could have salvation, but it wasn’t so we wouldn’t die physically, but so we wouldn’t have to suffer eternal death (separation from God) in eternity.  He can’t even understand the most simple concepts.

He says he had a question on the typology of the Lord’s Supper, but he obviously forgot to ask the question.  He seems to think that the bondage of death is physical death.  No Christ is our deliverance from the bondage of sin and spiritual death.  Physical death is going to happen to us regardless (unless we are here when Christ returns), but the death that we were delivered from was spiritual death.  Christ gave the means of deliverance from that when he died on the cross and was resurrected.

Notice the chart discussing the his defense of Daniel 9.

I think that I have dealt with everything in Don’s first rebuttal.  I didn’t follow him off into his endless repetitions, but I did deal with the arguments.  He still needs to answer my questions because he hasn’t done so.

I have come to the end of my word limit so I will close for now, and invite you to read Don’s 2^nd rebuttal.

In Christ Jesus

Jerry McDonald

Preston’s First Negative

McDonald -V- Preston Formal Written Debate
Don K. Preston’s First Negative

Let me begin by noting that Jerry’s proposition directly contradicts
Scripture. Jerry affirms that the current Christian age will cease to exist!
You simply must catch the power of this!

Jerry is affirming the end of what the Bible emphatically and irrefutably
says has NO END! And of course, Acts 1 is the foundation of his affirmative.
But take a look:

Jerry Says the Christian Age will “Cease to Exist” at the coming of Christ
in Acts 1.
However, Scripture Says Christ’s Kingdom-and, Of the increase of his
government there shall be NO END!” Note: The “Increase of his government”
demands EVANGELISM. Thus, once again, Jerry’s misguided presuppositions
about the nature of the end are wrong.
Dan. 2:44; 7:13f – Never Destroyed- NEVER PASS AWAY!
Matthew 24:35- “My Words Will NEVER PASS AWAY!”
Luke 1:32f- Of his Throne and kingdom There will be NO END!
Eph. 3:20f- AGE WITHOUT END!
JERRY, TELL US HOW THAT WHICH HAS NO END, CAN “CEASE TO EXIST?”

ACTS 1 CANNOT BE WHEN THE CHURCH AGE CEASES TO EXIST BECAUSE THE CHURCH AGE
WILL NEVER CEASE TO EXIST!

So, no matter what else one might think or claim about Acts 1, 1 Corinthians
15, Thessalonians or Revelation- Jerry’s affirmative contradicts Scripture.
Let’s look closer at Acts 1, but first, let me make an observation.

In my affirmatives, I presented numerous syllogisms. Jerry signed his name
to follow my arguments before introducing any of his own. Yet, Jerry
consistently ignored them, even admitting that he did so, because they were
“interpretative.”

But now, Jerry, who refused to address my syllogisms, introduces several
syllogisms. What if I ignored his syllogisms because they are
“interpretive?” Why, he would have a fit! He would say that the reason I
refused to answer them is because I am a false teacher unable to answer. And
yet, he adamantly refused to address my syllogisms because they were
“interpretive.” His self contradiction is glaring.

Jerry’s syllogisms are rife with presuppositions- petitio principii. He
assumes as true what he must PROVE to be true. Let me illustrate with a
refutation of his first syllogism:

Now, Jerry’s major premise is true. However, his minor is false to the core.
Why? BECAUSE A FOUNDATIONAL CONSTITUENT ELEMENT OF HIS “TOTAL SITUATION” IS
THAT THE CHRISTIAN AGE CEASES TO EXIST, WHICH IS IRREFUTABLY FALSE! Let me
turn his argument around at bit:

Jesus said none of the law would pass until all constituent elements were
fully accomplished (Matthew 5:17-18).

The Law of Blessings and Cursings (among other things) was a constituent
element of “the law of Moses.”(See below).

Therefore, until the Law of Blessings and Cursings, a constituent element of
the law of Moses- was fully accomplished, not one iota of the law of Moses
will pass away.

The Law of Blessings and Cursings- a constituent element of the law of
Moses- was not fully accomplished until the fulfillment of Malachi 3-4- in
the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Therefore, not one iota of the Law of Moses passed away until the
fulfillment of Malachi 3-4- in the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Jerry’s own argument has falsified his eschatology.

Now to Acts 1 with a look at some of the things we have already presented.

Acts 1 and Daniel 12
The parousia of Acts 1 is the end of the age resurrection of Daniel 12.
But, the resurrection of Daniel 12 would be when the power of the holy
people was completely shattered.
The power of the holy people was Torah- Israel’s covenant relationship with
YHVH. Chart

Therefore, the parousia of Acts 1 was to be when the power of the holy
people- Torah– was completely shattered.

No matter what Jerry may claim, Daniel posits the resurrection and Acts 1 at
the end of Israel’s Covenant age- not the end of the Christian age.

Acts 1 and 1 Corinthians 15
The parousia of Acts 1 is the time of the end of the age resurrection of 1
Corinthians 15. (The End- 1 Peter 4:7)
But, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be when the “the law” that
was the strength of sin was removed.
The law that was the strength of sin was “the law of Moses” (Jerry)
Therefore, the parousia of Acts 1 was to be at the end of the Law of Moses.

Jerry has obfuscated, denied and fomented about this material, but he has
not refuted even one word! His entire proposition is therefore falsified.

Acts 1- This Same Jesus- The Body Of Jesus
I asked Jerry if the post resurrection, pre-ascension body of Jesus was
unchanged. He said it was unchanged. Now, Jerry tells us that Jesus must
return in precisely the manner in which he left. Let’s see if Jerry will
actually accept his own “logic.”

Jerry’s Argument:
The identical Jesus that ascended must come again- “this same Jesus, in like
manner.”
BUT, JESUS ASCENDED IN AN UNCHANGED MORTAL HUMAN BODY (JERRY)
Therefore, Jesus must return from heaven- where Jesus’ unchanged mortal body
could not go – in a mortal human body- at the end of the (endless) Christian
age!
This falsifies Jerry’s presumptive syllogism on the literalness of “in like
manner.” You see, Jerry is assuming that the focus of the “in like manner”
has to do with physicality and not what it meant.
This likewise falsifies Jerry’s argument on Jesus appearance in the flesh
demanding a return in the flesh.

By the way, Paul said, “though we have known Christ after the flesh,
henceforth we know him thus no longer” (2 Corinthians 5:16). Jerry demands
to know Christ after the flesh at his parousia. Paul said Christ is no
longer known after the flesh.

WHAT DOES IN LIKE MANNER MEAN? DOES JERRY REALLY BELIEVE THIS?
Jerry says Christ must return precisely as he left. Really, Jerry? Take
note:
Jerry, Jesus’ ascent was SILENT! What about the shout, the trump, what about
the earth burning up with a violent noise?
His ascent was witnessed by only a FEW WITNESSES- What about Rev. 1:7,
Jerry?
PHYSICAL BODY? Really, Jerry- in a mortal, human body of a 5′ 5″ Jewish
man?

Folks, ask yourself, Was Jesus to return as King of kings and Lord of lords,
or was he to be revealed as a mortal human man again?
Jesus himself said he was coming “in the glory of the Father” (Matthew
16:27) which means he was going to come as the Father had come.
Jesus said he was going to judge as he had seen the Father judge
(John5:19-23).
So, Jerry, show us one single time when the Father had come in judgment,
visibly, physically on literal cumulus clouds.
Furthermore, the Transfiguration was a vision of Christ’s second coming (2
Peter 1:16f), yet, the Transfiguration bears absolutely no “in like manner”
comparison with Jesus’ ascension!

Jesus’ Resurrection Was Not A Sign?
Jerry says Preston is wrong to see Jesus’ physical resurrection as a sign of
a greater spiritual resurrection. Let’s see.
There are seven signs / miracles in John.
John called Jesus’ physical resurrection a sign (20:30-31).
All of the seven signs pointed to something greater- something spiritual.
Jerry, are you going to tell us that the feeding of the five thousand people
was a sign of a greater physical feeding of people at some point in the
future?
Jesus also said his physical resurrection was in fact a sign (Matthew 16:4).

Jerry, do you deny this?
Signs do not point to themselves, but to something else. Physical realities
pointed to spiritual realities.

The Lord’s Supper
I knew Jerry would want to bring up the Lord’s Supper and Baptism as an
effort to poison the mind of the church of Christ readers. That is why I
answered as I did. Jerry denied that he was attempting to “poison the well”
claiming that these topics are directly relevant to proving whether Lord
came or not. That is totally illogical.

As I noted, these are (valid), “If the Lord came, what now?” questions. But
they do not prove or disprove the propositions! Let me make a couple of
observations about the Supper that will apply equally well to baptism.

Jerry completely ignores the audience relevance of 1 Corinthians 11. Paul
uses the personal pronoun “you” 17 times from v. 17-34. Jerry, was Paul
addressing a specific historical circumstance in a specific historical
church? Yes or No?

Let me illustrate: In John14-16 Jesus promised to send the Spirit to his
disciples. He used the personal pronoun “you” when he made that promise.
Jerry would insist that the personal pronouns there do not apply to all
believers of all time! “We must honor the personal pronouns!” Right, Jerry?

Well, what is the hermeneutic for ignoring the personal pronouns in 1
Corinthians 11:26 where Paul said “As often as YOU – who is that “YOU” – eat
bread and drink the cup, you – who was that “YOU” again?- do show the Lord’s
death UNTIL HE COMES!”

Proper hermeneutic demands that we honor the personal pronouns. The text is
a promise that the Lord was coming in the lifetime of the Corinthians! “YOU
do shew forth, UNTIL he comes.” Now, were other churches in the empire
observing the Supper, like the Corinthians? Yes, but, they were still
undeniably part of the generation of the Corinthian “you”!

I have produced several articles and even an MP3 series on why the Supper
has its fulfilled, consummated meaning today. But that discussion does not
prove whether the Lord came or not and Jerry knows it. His concluding remark
proves this: “Don’s position on 1 Corinthians 11:26 has done away with…
the Lord’s Supper.”
YOU SEE, I WAS RIGHT! The question does not prove or disprove the
proposition. Jerry used the questions to talk about “WHAT NOW” as I claimed.
He simply intended to prejudice the reader’s mind, and nothing else.

Matthew 28:18 and Baptism
Remember all of Jerry’s fomentation on the meaning of “until”, that it must
have a terminal definition? Of course, he misrepresented what I said. Go
back and read that.
Now, he argues that if the end of the world came- baptism is invalidated.
Do you catch the power of that?
Jerry conveniently ignores what Jesus said, but, when coupled with Jerry’s
presuppositions about the end of the age (not world!) and his insistence on
the terminal meaning of “until” he has falsified his soteriology- and
eschatology.

Jesus said: “I am with you, until the end of the age (not world).” Let’s
apply Jerry’s “logic” such as it is.
The word “until” means up to the point of, and not after” (Jerry).
Preston says the end of the world came in AD 70.
But, Jesus told them to baptize, “until the end of the world.” (Which in
truth is not what Jesus said).
Therefore, since the end of the world has come, baptism is no longer valid.

My, my. Let’s turn that around, shall we?
The word “until” means “up to the point of, and not after” (Jerry).
Jesus will be with the church, “until the end of the world” (Jerry).
Therefore, at the end of the world, (as defined by Jerry) JESUS IS NO LONGER
WITH THE CHURCH.
This is where Jerry’s “logic” winds up.

Jerry’s questions on the Supper and Baptism are in fact irrelevant to the
question of whether Christ came. He has not demonstrated otherwise and his
own “arguments” are an admission to this.

Speaking of relevant questions and refusal to answer
In written questions, I asked Jerry to identify when Revelation 11:15-19 was
or will be fulfilled. His initial response was that Revelation was written
to the seven churches and cannot be applied to whatever I want. Well, that
patently does not answer the question of when the prophecy was fulfilled!
So, I asked him, again, to answer, without obfuscation, when Revelation
11:15-19 was, or will be, completely fulfilled.

Jerry told me that the question was not relevant to our discussion because
he is in the affirmative, and does not have to answer. Pure desperation. If
you will remember, he said he did not have to answer one of my questions
because he was in the negative. Now, he says he does not have to answer
because he is in the affirmative. Convenient, eh?
He also told me that it is apocalyptic language. Well, once again, Jerry’s
desperation is on parade.

Revelation 11:15-19 predicts the judgment of the dead, i.e. the
resurrection, and the rewarding of the prophets. Surely it is relevant to
our discussion of eschatology to know when that was, or will be fulfilled.
No, Jerry says it is not relevant.
Jerry, how in the world is it irrelevant to our discussion to know when
Revelation 11:15-19 was or will be fulfilled? Stop evading this question!

Jerry has patently not answered the question. I did not ask to whom
Revelation was written or what kind of language is used. I asked WHEN WAS
IT, OR WHEN WILL IT BE FULFILLED?
Jerry claims he answered my question.

Well, if so, Jerry, cut and paste that answer from your previous posts, in
which you identified WHEN REVELATION 11:15-19 WAS, OR WILL BE FULFILLED.
Not to whom it was written, or what kind of language is used, but, show us
where you clearly identified when Revelation 11:15-19 was, or will be
completely fulfilled.
Jerry knows he has not answered my question. This is all smoke.

Notice the problem that Revelation 11 presents Jerry.
Jerry says the great city of Rev. 11 is Rome.
But, the two witnesses had miraculous power until the fall of that city (v.
5-6). Yet, Jerry says the charismata ended with the completion of the canon
in the first century! (See this Chart)

Little wonder that Jerry has adamantly refused to say when Rev. 11 was- or
will be- fulfilled.
If the great city was Rome- the charismata continued until the fall of Rome.
If the great city was Rome- the resurrection occurred at the fall of Rome.
If the great city was Rome- the kingdom came in glory at the fall of Rome.
If the great city is Rome- the judgment of the dead and rewarding of the
prophets occurred at the fall of Rome.
If the great city was Rome- that is when the martyrs were vindicated- in
violation of Matthew 23.
Jerry’s eschatology is falsified.

2 Peter 3- And Time
I continue to be stunned at how Jerry continually abandons the church of
Christ doctrine. In arguing with dispensationalists, c of C ministers have
argued, convincingly, that Jesus said “the kingdom of heaven has drawn near”
and near cannot mean 2000 years! And, Jerry has admitted that eggeken
(perfect tense of eggus) in Matthew 3 demands literal nearness. But, when it
comes to the parousia, Jerry becomes a dispensationalist: “Why, God is not
on our calendar!” Like a good dispensationalist, Jerry cites 2 Peter 3:8-
“One day is with the Lord as a thousand years…” But, what a dilemma this
creates.

Note that in 1 Peter the apostle wrote of the salvation foretold by the OT
prophets (chart
).
That salvation was to be revealed at Christ’s parousia. (CHART
)
Now watch. Peter said the OT prophets were informed that those things were
not for their day, but for Peter’s day, Peter’s generation!

If God can
‘t tell time, and time words don’t
mean anything to Him, how did God communicate that the parousia and the end
was not for their day? Furthermore, when Peter wrote of the parousia, IN
FULFILLMENT OF ALL OT PROMISES, he said that all those prophets “foretold
these days” (Acts 3:23-24). Peter, through the Spirit, was shown that what
was not near in the OT was now near in his days. Those OT prophets spoke of
Peter’s generation (cf. Matthew 13:17). And that demands that the
“restoration of all things” was for Peter’s day.

This matches what Peter wrote in 1 Peter. He said Christ was “ready to judge
the living and the dead” (1:4:5). See my discussion and chart on hetoimos
and
Jerry’s abject desperation to avoid its meaning.

In 1 Peter 4:7 the apostle said: “The end of all things has drawn near.” He
used the perfect tense of engus, just like in Matthew 3:2; 4:17 where Jerry
says eggeken demands nearness! Jerry, if time statements about the parousia
are elastic and subjective, then time statements about the kingdom mean
nothing! (See my charts on the anaphoric article
-
I-B-J). He has not touched this!

2 Peter 3– Malachi- Elijah- John the Baptizer
I offered an affirmative on John the Baptizer. Jerry dismissed it because
it is fatal to his theology. I will expand and offer it again as a negative
argument, since it is directly related to 2 Peter 3.

Malachi 3:1-5:
1.) The coming of “the Messenger” (v. 1).
1.) The Messenger would proclaim the Great And Terrible Day of the Lord
(3:1-2; 4:5-6). This is the Day of the Lord of 2 Peter 3. I challenge Jerry
to refute this.
2.) The Lord would come “suddenly” to his temple- in judgment: “who shall
stand at the Day of his coming”; “I will come near to you in judgment” (v.
2, 5).
3.) The Lord would come in judgment of the sorcerer, adulterer, liars, those
who mistreated the widows, orphans, and turned away the foreigner (Gentiles-
V. 5).
4.) Verse 5 is a direct citation of Exodus 22:21-23; Leviticus 19-20 and
Deuteronomy 27:19.
5.) This coming would be in application of the Law of Blessings and Cursings
(Deuteronomy 28-30) at the Day of the Lord.
6.) This punishment would be national punishment: “I will punish you with
the edge of the sword” (Exodus 22)- and national destruction (Deuteronomy
28:43f).

It is indisputable therefore that the Law of Blessings and Cursings (the
law) would still be in effect at the Great Day of the Lord of Malachi
3:5-4:5-6. Now…

The Baptizer was undeniably Elijah foretold by Malachi (Matthew 11:10;
17:10-12).
John foretold the coming judgment: “Who warned you to flee from the wrath
about to come?”; “the axe is already at the root”; “his winnowing fork is
already in his hand” (Matthew 3:7-12).
John, as Elijah, was therefore preparing for the coming of the Lord in
application of the Law of Blessings and Cursings- and he said it was near.

I asked Jerry- when did the Great Day of the Lord- in fulfillment of Malachi
- in the application of Mosaic Covenant wrath, occur, after John, but,
before the cross?
He ignored the thrust of the question, knowing he could not properly answer.
He claimed that Malachi predicted the incarnation. False.
Jerry, Jesus said, “I did not come to judge the world” (that is his
incarnation). You are wrong.
Malachi predicted the Great Day when, “I will come near to you in judgment”
(3:5).

So, here is the argument:
Malachi predicted the Great Day of the Lord- in judgment of Israel in
application of Mosaic Covenant Wrath.
That Great Day of the Lord was the Day of the Lord of 2 Peter 3. (More on
this momentarily. But, Malachi had not been fulfilled when Peter wrote!)
Therefore, the Great Day of the Lord of 2 Peter 3 was to be the judgment of
Israel- in application of Mosaic Covenant Wrath.

John and The Law
John, as Elijah, proclaimed the imminent Day of the Lord in application of
Mosaic Covenant Wrath. This is irrefutable, and Jerry has not touched it.
Now watch this.

The Law of Blessings and Cursings (Deuteronomy 28-30) was “the law of
Moses”; and “the law.” (Will Jerry tell us now that although the curses in
Deuteronomy were “in the law”, that they were not “the law”)? How about it,
Jerry?

Not one iota, of “the law,” “the law of Moses” could pass until it was all
fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18).

Therefore, until the fulfillment of John’s prophecy of the Day of the Lord
against Israel for violation of Torah, (in fulfillment of Malachi 3-4) “the
law of Moses” (the Law of Blessings and Cursing) would remain valid.

The Law of Blessings and Cursing was likewise “the (Mosaic) COVENANT”
(Deuteronomy 29:21): “And the LORD would separate him from all the tribes
of Israel for adversity, according to all the curses of the covenant that
are written in this Book of the Law.” So… (You really must catch the power
of this!!)

The Law of Blessings and Cursings was “the (Mosaic) covenant.”
John, as Elijah, proclaimed the imminent Day of the Lord in the application
of the law of Blessings and Cursings- i.e. the curses of the Mosaic
Covenant.
Therefore, GOD’S COVENANT WITH ISRAEL would remain valid until the Day of
the Lord foretold by John. (This corresponds perfectly with my arguments on
Romans 11:25-27 being the fulfillment of Isaiah 27 / 59 predictions of the
coming of the Lord in application of Mosaic Covenant Sanctions).

JERRY, TELL US WHEN THE DAY OF THE LORD, FORETOLD BY MALACHI AND JOHN, WAS
FULFILLED, IN APPLICATION OF THE MOSAIC COVENANT.
STOP EVADING THIS QUESTION!

What the Scoffers Denied
Jerry claims that when Peter responded to the scoffers (2 Peter 3), “He
doesn’t say that these people are looking for the wrong kind of coming.”
WELL, JERRY, I NEVER SAID THEY WERE!

It is YOUR ASSUMPTIONS that are wrong!

2 Peter was written to respond to the scoffers denying the parousia.
Peter offers the Transfiguration as exhibit #1 in refutation of the
scoffers: “We have not followed cunningly devised fables when we made known
to you the power and parousia of the Lord….we were eyewitnesses of his
glory… we were with him in the Mount…” (2 Peter 1:16f).

Peter uses a hendiadys here. In simple terms, his referent to the “power and
coming” (parousia) is another way of saying, “his powerful coming” or “his
coming in power.” So, Peter, to refute the scoffers, appealed to the
Transfiguration as a visionary proof of Christ’s parousia in power.

But, what was the Transfiguration? Was it a vision of the end of the
Christian age? Patently not! Let me frame my argument, in refutation of
Jerry’s “argument” on 2 Peter 3.

The scoffers of 2 Peter 3 were denying the parousia of Christ.
Peter, in refutation, said that on the Mount of Transfiguration the apostles
were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ power and parousia.
But, the Transfiguration was a vision of the end of Moses and the prophets.
(The transfiguration was not a vision of the end of the New Covenant age,
but of the end of the Mosaic age).
Therefore, the scoffers were denying the parousia of Christ to accomplish
end of the age of Moses and the prophets – i.e. the end of the Old Covenant
age.

The indisputable fact is that the Transfiguration was a vison of what the
scoffers were denying.

It is equally irrefutable that the Transfiguration was not a vision of the
end of the Christian age.

Therefore, the scoffers were not denying the end of time or the Christian
age.

So, Peter and the scoffers were on the same page regarding the nature and
identity of the parousia. Peter did not correct the scoffers as to the
identity of the coming of Christ, because they were denying the coming of
what Peter saw on the Mount– the end of the Old Covenant world of Moses and
the prophets! It is Jerry whose concept is wrong!

Let me address one of Jerry’s fundamental syllogisms.

Someone once said, “Grant a man his presuppositions and he can prove
anything!” Well, Jerry’s presuppositions are manifested in his minor
premise. He assumes, (petitio principii) WITHOUT A WORD OF PROOF, that the
“world” and the “elements” that Peter mentions are the physical universe.
Let me falsify Jerry’s syllogism.

I asked Jerry to give at least two OT prophecies of the end of the Christian
age and the destruction of the material universe. Jerry gave me: Isaiah
65:17-19 and. 66:22. Jerry has surrendered his affirmative. I will focus for
brevity on Isaiah 65.

Peter anticipated the fulfillment of Isaiah 65- the coming of the Lord to
bring in the New Creation (Jerry). (Don’t forget that Paul called Isaiah
“the law” in 1 Cor. 14:20-22. Thus, Matthew 5 once again destroys Jerry).
But, the New Creation of Isaiah 65 would come when Old Israel was destroyed
and YHVH created a New People with a New Name (Isaiah 65:13-19); “The Lord
God will slay you, and call His servants by another name” (v. 15).
Therefore, the New Creation of 2 Peter 3 would be when Old Israel was
destroyed and YHVH created a New People with a New Name (Isaiah 65:13-19;
cf. Rev. 3:12).

Jerry turns Isaiah and 2 Peter up side down, applying them to something that
is not in the text! Jerry, where is the end of the Christian age in Isaiah?
But, there is more.

Peter anticipated the fulfillment of Isaiah 65- the coming of the Lord to
bring in the New Creation (Jerry).
But, the coming of the Lord to bring in the New Creation of Isaiah 65 would
be the coming of the Lord IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE LORD HAD COME IN THE
PAST (Isaiah 64:1-3).
Note the prayer for the Lord to come down out of heaven, shake the earth and
nations, and burn the creation in v. 1-2. Then, note that it is a prayer for
Him to come AS HE HAD COME IN THE PAST: “When you did awesome things for
which we did not look, you came down, the mountains trembled…”
Now, I am pretty sure even Jerry will agree that God had never literally,
bodily, visibly come down out of heaven, and literally destroyed the
creation, right Jerry? So, that leads to this:

Peter anticipated the fulfillment of Isaiah 65- the coming of the Lord to
bring in the New Creation (Jerry).
But, the coming of the Lord to bring in the New Creation of Isaiah 65 would
be the coming of the Lord in the same manner AS THE LORD HAD COME IN THE
PAST (Isaiah 64:1-3).
The previous comings of the Lord were historical events- not literal,
visible comings of the Lord.
Therefore, the coming of the Lord of 2 Peter 3- in fulfillment of Isaiah
64-65 would not be a literal, visible, bodily coming of the Lord. (Jesus
would come “in the glory of the Father).

Let me apply this to his syllogism on Acts 1.
The parousia of Acts 1 is the parousia of 2 Peter 3- Jerry.
But, the parousia of 2 Peter 3 would be a coming of the Lord in the same
manner as previous Days of the Lord (Isaiah 64-65).
The previous Days of the Lord were not literal, physical, bodily descents of
God out of heaven.
Therefore, the parousia of Acts 1 was not to be a literal, physical, bodily
descent of Christ out of heaven.

Jerry’s admission that 2 Peter 3 anticipated the fulfillment of Isaiah 65 is
fatal to his eschatology.

According to His Promise- Everlasting Righteousness
Peter anticipated the arrival of the world of everlasting righteousness in
fulfillment of the OT promises made to Israel. Jerry says the promise was
Isaiah 65-66. Correct. But, notice.

Daniel likewise foretold the arrival of everlasting righteousness (Daniel
9:24).

So, both Isaiah and Daniel foretold the arrival of the world of
righteousness.
Both foretold the arrival of the world of righteousness at the time of the
destruction of Old Covenant Israel (Isaiah 65:13-17; Daniel 9:24-27).
But, Daniel’s prophecy of the coming world of righteousness is confined to
the seventy weeks, that ended no later than AD 70.
Therefore, since Peter anticipated the fulfillment of Isaiah 65, which is
parallel with Daniel 9, and since Daniel 9 restricts the arrival of the
world of righteousness to the seventy weeks ending no later than AD 70, it
must be true that the world of righteousness of 2 Peter 3 was fulfilled no
later than AD 70.
Of course, this also proves that Daniel 9 was not completely fulfilled at
the cross, since Peter was still anticipating fulfillment in 2 Peter 3.

These arguments demonstrate the fallacy of Jerry’s syllogisms, and falsify
his proposition.

Jerry’s illogical (and False) claims about Obadiah
Jerry asked what the Day of the Lord in Obadiah was. I responded: The sixth
century destruction of Edom at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. Jerry agreed.
But then, JERRY FALSELY ACCUSED ME OF BELIEVING THAT ALL REFERENCES TO THE
DAY OF THE LORD = AD 70. Here is Jerry’s “argument”:
All references to the Day of the Lord = AD 70, per Don K. Preston.
But, Preston agrees that the Day of the Lord in Obadiah refers to the fall
of Edom in BC 583.
Therefore, Preston is wrong, for all references to the Day of the Lord do
not = AD 70.

Jerry has set up a “straw man” argument. He claims I believe something. i.e.
all references to the Day of the Lord = AD 70.
He can easily falsify that claim, thus claiming victory.
The problem is JERRY, HAS TOTALLY MISREPRESENTED ME! (Chart)

I HAVE NEVER ARGUED THAT ALL REFERENCES TO THE DAY OF THE LORD = AD 70!
NEVER!

JERRY, WHY DID YOU MISREPRESENT ME?
Jerry’s straw man argument goes up in smoke.

The Day of the Lord
There are many Days of the Lord in the OT. In my books I document this
extensively. Jerry should have known this. It would have prevented him from
embarrassing himself like this.
All of those Days of the Lord used similar “end of the world” language, but,
that language was never fulfilled literally. It is invariably metaphoric and
apocalyptic. Oh, Jerry admits Revelation 11:15-19f is apocalyptic language-
thus- non-literal!
In the NT, this same metaphoric language is used to describe the coming of
Christ “in the glory of the Father” on the clouds, with the trumpet, the
shout, etc.
The NT writers tell us that they are anticipating the fulfilment of the OT
prophecies of Christ coming- as the Father had come before, in those
non-literal Days of the Lord (Isaiah 64:1-3; 2 Peter 3:1-2; 13).
Jerry admits that the Day of the Lord language is not literal- i.e. Obadiah
= BC 583!
So: The NT writers use the Day of the Lord language of the OT, which is
demonstrably metaphoric.
They tell us they were anticipating the imminent fulfillment of the OT
prophecies of the last days Day of the Lord.
Upon what hermeneutic do we change that consistently metaphoric language
into a description of a physical descent of Jesus on literal clouds, at the
literal end of the Christian age?
Oh, don’t forget- THE CHRISTIAN AGE HAS NO END!

SO, AGAIN, JERRY’S SYLLOGISMS ARE BASED ON FALSE CHARGES AND
PRESUPPOSITIONS. His arguments fail.

What Jerry ignored:
I proved that Isaiah 2-4 is a united prophecy of “the last days.” Jerry
applies 2:2-4 to the first century.
The multiple use of “in that day” in chapters 2-4 tie the prophecy together
as a united discourse. Jerry has not touched this, top, side, or bottom.
Chart
I demonstrated Jerry’s blatant falsification of even the word count (Three
words
)
in Thessalonians where, per some of the world’s finest linguists- Paul
quotes Isaiah. (Chart-Jerry’s rejection of Paul’s Hope)
I challenged Jerry to give us his credentials for rejecting
these linguists. Response: Silence! He just continues to deny the
connection, without any proof.
Isaiah foretold the last days Day of the Lord for the vindication of the
martyrs (4:4) through judgment on Jerusalem. I asked Jerry when the Lord
came, in the last days, in judgment of Jerusalem, in vindication of the
martyrs. He said Isaiah 4 has nothing to do with Jesus’ day. (Chart)

Of course, Jesus refutes that in Matthew 23, but Jerry denies Jesus’ words!
(Chart)

Job and the Resurrection
I asked Jerry to give at least two OT prophecies of the resurrection of dead
corpses at the end of the Christian age. He gave one: Job 14:13-14. But,
note:
Job asks the question of whether man lives after death.
He does not mention coming out of the ground- he mentions his “change,” but
does not describe it.
It says not one word about the end of the Christian age- or time.
Jerry’s take on Job is completely dependent on his false pre-suppositions.
Job 14 is no help to Jerry. It mentions nothing that Jerry claims occurs at
the “end of time.”

Jerry repeats his misguided, desperate claim that because Job pre-dated
Torah, that this means resurrection was not part of Torah. Chart
.

The Sadducees and Marrying and Giving in Marriage
More of Jerry’s fallacious presuppositional “logic.”
Jerry says: “The people of Jesus’ day understood it to be a literal
resurrection.” Therefore, per Jerry, the resurrection must be a literal
resurrection.

Let’s try that, shall we:
The people of Jesus’ day understood the establishment of the kingdom to be a
literal kingdom.
Jerry, was the people’s understanding of the nature of the kingdom as a
nationalistic restoration accurate? Yes or No?
Something critical: The arrival of the kingdom and the resurrection are
synchronous (Matthew 25:31f; 2 Timothy 4:1; Revelation 11:15-19!)
Now, the kingdom does not come with observation (Luke 17:20-21).
The resurrection comes at the time of the kingdom.
Therefore, the resurrection does not come with observation.

Jerry conveniently overlooks the fact that at the core of the Sadducean
argument is the Levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25), which commanded the
situation they were arguing from. They assumed- just like Jerry does about
the nature of the resurrection- THAT TORAH WOULD STILL BE VALID IN THE
RESURRECTION WORLD.
THE ISSUE IS NOT MARRIAGE UNIVERSALLY CONSIDERED! To ignore the covenantal
context of the discussion is to take it out of context.

Jesus did rebuke them for their ignorance. How? By citing Exodus 3: “I am
the God… of the living, not of the dead.” So, their denial of life after
death was false. Note that Jesus did not affirm the raising of corpses. He
affirmed life after death- which alone refuted the Sadducees.

Jerry conveniently ignores something critical in his: “If people in the
church today do marry then the resurrection of the dead has not yet
occurred.”

Notice:
Jesus said “the sons of ‘this age’ marry.” Jesus is referring directly to
the argument based on Torah.
But notice his referent to the fact that “the sons of this age” practiced
that.
Jerry, in what age was Jesus living, and in what age was the Levirate
Marriage Law applicable?

Jesus uttered these words before he died on the cross. Jesus was living in
the Mosaic age, the age that mandated the Levirate Marriage. He anticipated
“the age to come” that would follow his “this age.” In the age that would
follow his “this age” the Mosaic age, they would neither marry or give in
marriage- as prescribed in Torah.

So, once again, Jerry’s presuppositions underlying his syllogisms are false.
Thus, his syllogism are false.

Also, I wonder why Jerry conveniently omitted Jesus’ promise that in the age
to come “neither do they die anymore”(Luke 20:36)?

Under Jesus’ then current “this age” they lived under a ministration of
death- Jerry agrees! They were “dead men walking” because Torah could not
give life or righteousness (Galatians 3:20f). But, in the age to come, Jesus
promised, “If a man keep my words he shall never die.” Jerry, do we today,
in Christ, die if we keep Jesus’ commandments? Let me offer this:

In the “age to come” which was to follow Jesus’ “this age”, men would not
die, and they would neither marry or give in marriage.
Today, in Christ- the age that followed Jesus’ “this age” those who keep
Christ’s words do not die.
Therefore, men today, in the age that followed Jesus’ “this age”, those who
keep Christ’s word do not marry or give in marriage. Jerry, if the “not
dying” is not a referent to physical life, and you know it isn’t, then why
is not the “no marrying” likewise not physical?

Things equal to each other are the same, right Jerry? We are living in the
age that followed Jesus’ then present “this age” and we are not under Torah-
where marrying and giving in marriage defined the kingdom. Thus, Paul could
say “in Christ, there is neither male or female.” On what level and in what
way are we NEITHER MALE OR FEMALE, Jerry?

Under Torah, “sons of God” were produced by marrying and giving in marriage.
Jesus said “in the age to come” sons of God would be “sons of God, being
sons of the resurrection.” Jerry, tell us, in the age that followed Jesus’
then present “this age” what does Paul say about “resurrection” and
“sonship”? Hint: Romans 6 / Galatians 3:26f.

The “age to come” had broken into “this age” and was awaiting full
manifestation at the Day of the Lord (Romans 13:11f). The age to come was
“about to come” (Hebrews 2:5; 1 John 2:5-8). Oh, this brings up Jerry’s
question about what verses are applicable to us today.

Once again, his question does not address whether Jesus came or not, and
Jerry’s own “arguments” prove it. Nonetheless, let me note something in
Romans 13.

Paul called on the Romans to “Let us walk properly as in the day” (13:12).
He was calling them to live as if the Day of the Lord -which calls for
righteousness and holiness- had already come! Thus, here is current
applicability. The Day has come, we are to be holy. This alone refutes
Jerry’s misguided arguments on Acts 17 as well. The call for holiness was
not to end at the parousia, Jerry! That is your false presupposition at
work- again.

I have effectively responded to and refuted all of Jerry’s major points. Let
me introduce some critical issues.

Jesus’ Substitutionary Death
I asked: Was Jesus’ death on the Cross “substitutionary?”
Response: “Yes or No? He died as a substitute for our punishment because of
our sins. He bore the sins of the world in his death. Therefore God
substituted him as the sacrifice rather than making us bear the punishment.”
(See my book
“We Shall Meet Him In The Air” for a
full discussion of this critical issue)
DO YOU CATCH THE POWER OF THAT?

Jesus’ physical death on the cross was substitutionary- “God substituted
him…rather than making us bear the punishment” (Jerry– See This Chart

).
But, every man- even the most faithful Christian- still dies physically!
Therefore, Jesus’ substitutionary physical death in which, “God substituted
him as the sacrifice rather than making us bear the punishment”- FAILED,
SINCE ALL MEN STILL DIE PHYSICALLY!

Folks, Jerry’s emphasis on all things purely physical DEMANDS THE FAILURE OF
JESUS’ SUBSTITUTIONARY DEATH. Substitutionary- Jerry admits- means in the
place of, instead of. Jesus died, Jerry admits, so that we “should not bear
the punishment.”
Well, the punishment for sin is supposedly physical death- right, Jerry?
That is your definition of the curse of Adam.

JERRY, IF JESUS DIED IN MAN’S PLACE (SUBSTITUTIONARY DEATH) SO THAT THOSE
IN CHRIST DO NOT HAVE TO DIE, THEN WHY DO CHRISTIANS HAVE TO STILL “BEAR
THE PUNISHMENT” EXACTLY LIKE THOSE OUTSIDE OF CHRIST? (See This Chart)

DO NOT FAIL TO ANSWER THIS!

Jesus and the Atonement
The entire issue of the resurrection and eschatology is related to the
Atonement. Lamentably, Jerry tries to divorce these inseparable issues.
Jerry says Christ perfected the Atonement at the cross. But, there is a huge
problem with Jerry’s soteriology!
The wages of sin is death- physical death, per Jerry (Romans 5:12; 6:23).
Christ took on himself the penalty of sin- he died to make the Atonement–
so that those in him would not have to pay the penalty of sin. Right, Jerry?
Those in Christ do not have to pay the penalty of sin- since they receive
the benefit of the Atonement.
Therefore, those in Christ do not have to die.
BUT WAIT! ALL CHRISTIANS DIE, DON’T THEY, JERRY?

If Christ took on himself the penalty of sin, i.e. physical death we are
told, so that those in him do not have to pay the penalty, then…

Either
Jesus’ atoning work-paying the penalty of sin– has been, so far, totally
ineffective. Every man has or will die, since Christ died. Thus, every man
since Christ has or will pay the penalty for his own sin if physical death
is the penalty for sin!
Or,
No man, since Jesus perfected the Atonement has truly entered into the power
of Christ’s Atonement.

Which is it, Jerry?

Now, it will not do to say that man will one day be raised from the dead. To
argue that man will be raised from the dead, admits that man still has to
pay the penalty of death for his sin.
To be raised from the dead is not the same as NOT DYING due to the
substitutionary, atoning work of Christ, who (ostensibly) paid the penalty
for our sin so that we would not have to die.

Jerry’s emphasis on physical death as the death of Adam, and the focus of
Jesus’ substitutionary, atoning death, demands that Jesus’ death failed, or,
no one has ever entered into the power of that death, since all men still
pay the penalty of sin, i.e. physical death.

Jerry, why do faithful Christians have to die physically if Jesus died a
substitutionary, atoning death so that we do not have to pay the penalty for
sin (physical death)?
IF HE DIED PHYSICALLY TO TAKE OUR PLACE, WHY DO FAITHFUL CHRISTIANS STILL
DIE?

Jerry says that physical death is not the enemy of the child of God. Well,
Jerry, if physical death is the penalty of sin, as you identify the Adamic
Curse, THEN PHYSICAL DEATH IS UNDENIABLY THE WORST ENEMY OF THE CHILD OF
GOD. And if it is not the enemy, why does it have to be destroyed at the end
of the (Endless) Christian age?

Make no mistake, in Jerry’s view of the death of Adam as biological death-
THE DEATH OF EVERY CHRISTIAN PROVES BEYOND DOUBT THAT WE ARE STILL UNDER THE
POWER OF SIN!

Jerry’s doctrine of biological resurrection, and a physical parousia, are
inextricably tied to his mistaken concept of the Death of Adam as biological
death. From the above, however, it is irrefutably true that his paradigm is
fatally flawed.

Notice now some charts addressing written questions that I asked Jerry.

Charts on Daniel 9:24-27
Make and End of Sin

Seal Vision and Prophecy

Chart
-
First Raised

Jerry’s closing Questions:

1. If Jesus’ ascension was literal, and if the angels said that they would
see him come in like manner as they had seen him go, doesn’t logic suggest
that the return will also be literal? Yes or No!
Answered above.

2. If the words “Day of the Lord” in Obediah 15 can refer to the judgment of
Edom by the Canaanites and the same words in 2 Pet. 3:10 refer to the final
judgment of man, then logically doesn’t this mean that the words “glory of
his power” in 2 Thess. 2:9 refer to the final judgment of man while the same
words in Isa. 2:19 refer to the judgment of Israel for their sins in their
day? Yes or No!

Answered above.
You are guilty of misrepresenting my position on the Day of the Lord. See
above.
Further, you overlook that Paul’s eschatology was the anticipation of the
fulfillment of the OT promises- including Isaiah, which was a prediction of
the last days, Day of the Lord.
You must show how Paul is RADICALLY CHANGING THE APPLICATION OF ISAIAH, even
though Isaiah foretold the events of Paul’s day- the last days.
You ignore the fact that Paul promised those living Christians relief from
the then present persecution “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven.”
Chart

You ignore the fact that only Israel had dwelt in the presence of God- you
admitted this- and would be cast out for persecuting the church.

3. Are we obligated to partake of the Lord’s Supper today? Yes or No!
Answered above.
Once again, the question is irrelevant to proving or disproving your
proposition or mine. You have tacitly admitted that in your “argument.”

Jerry, I have a question for you:
Passover was typological of the Supper.
Passover was to memorialize (look back on) deliverance from bondage and
death.
Thus, the Supper would be (is) to memorialize (look back on) DELIVERANCE
FROM BONDAGE AND DEATH.
So, Jerry, when were we (objectively, not prospectively) DELIVERED FROM
DEATH, so that we could (can) take the Supper as a MEMORIAL (a looking back
on) of DELIVERANCE FROM DEATH?
Don’t fail to answer this, Jerry.

4. If the judgment has already past, then what will happen to men today who
die? Will they not face the judgment? Yes or No!
Answered above: Those in Christ, i.e. forgiven, “do not come into judgment.”
Jerry, is being forgiven, judgment? Yes or No?
In my affirmatives I answered this repeatedly. The child of God enters the
MHP when they die. You, on the other hand, say that we have no forgiveness,
no eternal life, no entrance into the MHP- just the hope and promise of
this- until the end of the (ENDLESS) Christian age.
You say that the Christian does (MUST) come into judgment.

You say theh Christian must still pay the penaty for sin– physical death!

5. Is 1 Cor. 11:26 an integral part of the Lord’s Supper? Yes or No!
Answered already.
Jerry, the CORINTHIANS were to declare his death UNTIL HIS PAROUSIA.
THEY would live UNTIL the end, the Day of the Lord (1 Corinthians 1:4-8).

Jerry, what is your exegetical basis for claiming that the personal pronouns
in 1 Corinthians 11:26 do not refer to the Corinthians living until the
parousia. After all, Paul said, “YOU do shew forth his death, UNTIL he
comes. It is “YOU -Until.”

Paul told the Corinthians: “YOU come behind in no gift, waiting for the Day
of the Lord… who has confirmed YOU (by the charismata) and will confirm
YOU until the end.”
Jerry, can we take that “YOU” to refer to the church, timelessly, being
empowered by the gifts until the end, the parousia of 1 Corinthians 11:26?
If not, why not?

1 Corinthians 1- Gifts and confirmation of “YOU” UNTIL the end, the
parousia. – “YOU- UNTIL”
1 Corinthians 11- YOU shew forth the Lord’s death UNTIL the parousia -
“YOU-UNTIL”

Jerry, what is the difference in the personal pronouns?

For HIs Truth, and In His Grace,

Don K. Preston

McDonald’s First Affirmative

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Brother Preston, and reading audience:

Some time before Jesus left this earth, he had his apostles with him, and he said “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also” (Joh 14:1-3).  Shortly after he rose from the dead, he ascended into heaven to begin preparations for that abode.  Luke tells us “And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Act 1:10-11).  Notice what the angels said to them “why stand ye gazing up into heaven?  This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven shall come again in LIKE MANNER as ye have seen him go into heaven.”  Now the question comes to mind:  “How did the apostles see Jesus go up into heaven?”  If you look at Acts 1:9 you see “And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.” He was taken up from them in a cloud.  The second question that comes to mind is:  “Was this a literal ascension, or a spiritual one?”  Judging by what the angels told the apostles, as well as by what Luke wrote, it was a literal one.

Now the real issue is that if the ascension was literal, and if the angels said that Christ would return, in like manner as they had seen him go” then it stands to reason that the return would be just as literal.  My opponent in this debate will not deny the literal ascension any more than he would deny the literal resurrection of Christ, but the problem comes in when he tries to make the literal resurrection a symbol of some kind of spiritual resurrection for all Christians.  On the same note, he is going to have to say that the literal ascension typified a spiritual return.  However, a spiritual return doesn’t match what the angels said “this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven shall come AGAIN in LIKE MANNER as ye have seen him go into heaven.”

If words have any meaning at all then my opponent is going to have admit that the angels, at least, thought that Christ’s resurrection was going to be a literal resurrection.  There is no escaping that conclusion!  If words have any meaning at all!  If they don’t, then we are wasting our time on this.

Hebrews 9:27,28 states:  “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (Heb 9:27-28).  The writer, here, states that it is appointed unto men, to die one time after which he will face the judgment.  He used this example to show that Christ was offered one time to bear men’s sins, and that those who obey him would look for him to appear again so as to be able to be taken to their promised heavenly abode.  What this tells us is that the second coming of Christ is so important to us, that our very spiritual existence depends upon it.

The problem with my opponent’s doctrine is that it demands that the second coming has already happened, and if that is the case, then we cannot look for him to appear the second time without sin unto salvation.  Look at the chart to see the logic of it.  If we can’t look forward to that, to what can we look forward?  Everything we do in service to God is tied into the second coming, so if the second coming has already occurred then we really have nothing to look forward to.  The Hebrew writer also said “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries” (Heb 10:26-27).  Now, if Christ has already returned then the judgment has already taken place, and if the judgment has already taken place then those who do evil don’t have the judgment to look forward to.  This doctrine effectively makes the Bible of none effect for us today.  Therefore it is my task, in this part of the debate, to show the truth of the matter on the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

THE PROPOSITION:

Resolved: The Bible teaches that the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection and the Judgment will occur at the end of the current Christian age.

THE PROPOSITION DEFINED

• “Resolved” means “determined, or concluded.”
• “The Bible” refers to the 66 books (the established canon as in versions such as the KJV or ASV) of the Bible (Genesis through Revelation).
• “teaches” means “to impart knowledge.”
• “the Second Coming of Christ” refers to the return of the Lord Jesus Christ that was promised in Acts 1:11:  “This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven shall come again in LIKE MANNER as ye have seen him go into heaven.”
• “the resurrection” refers to the resurrected bodies from the graves.
• “the Judgment” refers to the final judgment of man by Jesus Christ at his appearing (2 Tim. 4:1).
• “will occur” means “to come to existence, happen.”
• “at the end” means “at the point where something ceases to exist.”
• “current” means “occurring or existing at the present time.”
• “Christian age” has reference to the Christian dispensation of time.

So the proposition states that it is determined that the 66 books of the Bible (as a whole) imparts the knowledge to us that the return of our Lord Jesus Christ as promised in Acts 1:11, the literal resurrection of the body from the grave and the final judgment of mankind will happen at the point that the existing Christian dispensation of time ceases to exist.

It is my obligation in this part of the debate to make at least one logically valid and sound argument and to give the elements which will prove this argument to be true.  I shall make one “main” argument called “the Constituent Element” argument:

Major Premise: All total situations, the constituent elements of which are factual are total situations which are true.

Minor Premise: The total situation described by my proposition is a total situation the constituent elements of which are factual.

Conclusion: Therefore, the total situation described by my proposition is a total situation which is true.

The argument is logically valid by both schools of logical thought:  It is valid according to Classical Logic because it is in the correct form, and it is valid according to Modern logic because the consequent follows from the antecedent and thus the conclusion is unquestionably forced.  It is axiomatic!  If all the constituent elements of my argument are factual, then the argument is true.

Let me say, briefly, that you can have different elements all factual and still not have the whole true if the elements don’t relate to each other.  Thus my reasoning for using the word “constituent” in front of “elements.”  By “constituent” I mean  “a structural unit of a definable syntactic, semantic, or phonological category that consists of one or more linguistic elements (as words, morphemes, or features) and that can occur as a component of a larger construction” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constituent).  Another definition would be “an essential part, component…” (Ibid).  So when I prove that all of my component or essential parts of my argument form a larger construction, then my argument will be proven.  When my argument is proven, my proposition is proven.  When my proposition is proven, then my opponent’s proposition is automatically disproven because it is exactly opposite of mine.

ELEMENT ONE

The second coming of christ will be a literal coming.

Both Biblically and logically, the second coming of Jesus Christ is understood to be a literal return.  From looking at the evidence below we can see that it was understood to be so by the early Christians.  The Bible clearly teaches that the second coming was to be literal.

1. It was promised to be a literal coming.

And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Act 1:10-11).

Notice that the angel said two things:

1. “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven.”  The apostles were literally standing and gazing up into heaven because they had seen Jesus literally taken from them into heaven.
2. Then they said “this same Jesus, which was taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner, as ye have seen him go into heaven.”

i.     One of the words in “like manner” comes from “ὅς, ἥ, ὅ hos  hē  ho hos, hay, ho  Probably a primary word (or perhaps a form of the article G3588); the relative (sometimes demonstrative) pronoun, who, which, what, that: – one, (an-, the) other, some, that, what, which, who (-m, -se), etc. See also G3757” (Strong’s Greek Dictionary, e-Sword).

ii.     The other word is “οὕτω houtō hoo’-to Or, before a vowel, οὕτως houtōs hoo’-toce.  From G3778; in this way (referring to what precedes or follows): – after that, after (in) this manner, as, even (so), for all that, like (-wise), no more, on this fashion (-wise), so (in like manner), thus, what” (Ibid).

1. A.T. Robertson wrote:  “So in like manner (houtōs hon tropon). Same idea twice. “So in which manner” (incorporation of antecedent and accusative of general reference). The fact of his second coming and the manner of it also described by this emphatic repetition” (Word Pictures in the New Testament, e-Sword).
2. Johnson wrote:  “Acts 1:11 Ye men of Galilee. The apostles were mostly, if not all, Galileans.  This same Jesus . . . shall so come. The cloud received him from their sight. He shall come in the clouds of heaven (Dan_7:13; Mat_24:30; Mat_26:24)” (People’s New Testament With Notes, e-Sword).
3. Logic demands that it be a literal coming.
   1. Logically stated Argument on Acts 1:11:

Major Premise:  If the angels, Acts 1:11, promised Jesus’ apostles that they would see him return as they had seen him go, and if they saw him go in a literal manner, then they will see him return in a literal manner.

Minor Premise:  The angels, Acts 1:11, promised Jesus’ apostles that they would see him return as they had seen him go, and they saw him go in a literal manner.

Conclusion:  Therefore, they will see him return in a literal manner.

1. The only logical way to deny that the second coming of Christ is going to be a literal one is to either (a) deny that “in like manner” means the “same kind of coming,” or (b) to deny that the angels knew what they were talking about.
2. Paul wrote:  “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (Heb 9:28).  Now notice, carefully, what he wrote:
   1. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.  This coming was a literal coming, not some kind of spiritual (figurative) one.

i.     John wrote:  “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (1Jn 4:2-3).

ii.     Notice that he says that to deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, is to take the spirit of antichrist.

iii.     Now if Christ literally came in the flesh, then why isn’t his second coming going to be as literal as the first.

iv.     We do not know what we shall look like, but John tells us that when we see him we shall be as he is (1 Jn. 3:2).

1. While flesh and blood cannot inherit heaven (1 Cor. 15:50), we will have incorruptible bodies (1 Cor. 15:52).
2. Don Preston’s answer to my preliminary question on Acts 1:11:  “What did the angel mean when he said “Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven”  (Act 1:11)?

Response: Christ was coming in the clouds.”

1. Don says that the angels told the apostles that the same Jesus that they had (literally) seen go up into heaven in the clouds, would come again in like manner as they had seen him go and says that this means that “Christ was coming in the clouds.”
2. He has no alternative than to say this because of the words “in like manner.”  However, whether he realizes it or not “in like manner” dictates that as the cloud was literal that Christ was taken up in, the coming in the clouds will be literal also.  This is an inescapable position from which he cannot escape.  If “in like manner” dictates that “Christ was coming in the clouds,” because it was in the clouds that he was taken up, “in like manner” also refers to the literal clouds that Christ would return in because the clouds he left in were literal.  He cannot have “in like manner” meaning “Christ was coming in the clouds” and the clouds not be literal unless he wants to deny that Christ was taken up in literal clouds.

ELEMENT TWO

The second coming is yet to happen.

In looking at the first element we see that the second coming was to be a literal coming.  With this being the case we can see that the second coming is yet to happen.

1. Peter wrote:  “And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (2Pe 3:4)
   1. Now notice that people doubted the 2^nd coming because “since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”
   2. If the second coming was not a literal coming, then the scoffers would have nothing to compare.  They were able to compare the present state with the way things had always been:  We are still here, and man has not been judged.
   3. Peter says that these people are willingly ignorant.

i.     He doesn’t say that these people are looking for the wrong kind of coming.

ii.     He gives the same answer that we give people today who scoff about Christ not having returned.

1. 1.      John Loftus, a former believer now turned atheist wrote concerning the second coming, and stated that it “become such an embarrassment for Christians that there is now a new movement to embrace Preterism which is the belief that Jesus returned to earth to reign from Jerusalem to reign in a spiritual sense around 70 C.E.” (Why I Became An Atheist, A Former Preacher Rejects Christianityp.22).
2. Loftus made the same mistake that the scoffers of Peter’s day made and that was that God is not on our schedule:  “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2Pe 3:8).  When God gets ready, Christ will return, but we cannot set a date for that return.
3. This is exactly what Peter wrote:  “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up” (2Pe 3:10).
4. Logic demands that the resurrection be future.
   1. A logically stated argument on 2 Pet. 3:10

Major Premise:  If the world is going to melt with fervent heat and be dissolved when Christ returns, and if the world has not done this, then the second coming has yet to happen.

Minor Premise:  The world is going to melt with fervent heat and be dissolved when Christ returns, and the world has not done this.

Conclusion:  Therefore the second coming has yet to happen.

1. A logically stated Argument on Acts 1:11:

Major Premise:  If Jesus’ second coming was to be in a literal manner, and if he has not come again in a literal manner, then the second coming of Christ is yet to happen.

Minor Premise:  Jesus’ second coming was to be in a literal manner (see Element1, No. 2, a), and he has not come again in a literal manner.

Conclusion:  Therefore, the second coming of Christ is yet to happen.

Element Number Three

The resurrection of the dead is a literal resurrection of the body from the dead

In looking at the resurrection it is clearly seen that the Bible teaches that the resurrection would be a literal resurrection where the body would rise from the dead.

1. People of Jesus’ day understood it to be a literal resurrection.
   1. “Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven” (Mar 12:19-25).
   2. Notice that the Sadducees argued that “there is no resurrection.

i.     Were they saying that there was not going to be a restoration of the spiritual life lost in Adam?

ii.     Were they saying that the promises to fleshly Israel would never be fulfilled?

1. Notice also, that in trying to trap Jesus on the subject of the resurrection they brought up a hypothetical case of a woman married to seven brothers (from the oldest to the youngest) without ever giving birth to a child by any of these men.  They asked the following question:

i.     In the resurrection (if there was going to be one) which one of the seven brothers wife would she be?

ii.     In the resurrection when they (the woman and the seven brothers) shall rise who will she be married to since she had all of them as husbands.

1. Jesus’ answer to them was simple:  In the resurrection there would be no marriages, but they would be as the angels which are in heaven.

i.     Angels do not marry, nor do they have the ability to have a sexual relationship.

ii.     In the resurrection all men will be as the angels in heaven, they will be sex-less and they will not have marriages.

1. From all of this we can see the both Jesus and the Sadducees understood the resurrection of a biological dead body.
2. Note the argument in logical form.

Major Premise:  If the Sadducees held that there was no resurrection of the dead, and used an example of the woman married to seven brothers in an attempt showing the absurdity of the resurrection, then they obviously believed that the resurrection of the dead was a literal resurrection of the body from the dead.

Minor Premise:  The Sadducees held that there was no resurrection of the dead, and used an example of the woman married to seven brothers in an attempt to show the absurdity of the resurrection (Mk. 12:18-23).

Conclusion:  Therefore they obviously believed that the resurrection of the dead was a literal resurrection of the body from the dead.

Major Premise: If Jesus’ response to the Sadducees was a rebuke for their lack of understanding about there not being any marriages in the resurrection, then we can see that Jesus also believed in a literal resurrection.

Minor Premise:  Jesus’ response to the Sadducees was a rebuke for their lack of understanding about there not being any marriages in the resurrection (Mk. 12:24,25).

Conclusion:  Therefore we can see that Jesus also believed in a literal resurrection.

Major Premise:  If Jesus’ statement “when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriages, but are as  the angels in heaven,” referred to the resurrection of the dead, and if people in the church today do marry and are given in marriage then the resurrection of the dead has not yet happened..

Minor Premise:  Jesus’ statement “when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven,” refers to the resurrection of the dead,  and people in the church today do marry and are given in marriage.

Conclusion:  Therefore the resurrection of the dead has not yet happened.

1. When Paul was taken before the Council (made up one half of Sadducees and one half of Pharisees) “there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both” (Act 23:7-8).
   1. Notice that the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection of the dead.
   2. Notice that the Pharisees accept the resurrection of the dead.
   3. So what were the Pharisees accepting what were the Sadducees refusing to accept?
   4. When Paul was preaching to the citizens of Athens he spoke of the resurrection of the dead, and some of the citizens of Athens scoffed at him:  “And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter” (Act 17:32).  Why did they mock Paul?  Did they mock him because it was absurd for them to think that there was going to be a resurrection of the spiritual life lost in Adam?  This would not be so absurd for the natural man to think of, but a literal resurrection of the biologically dead bodies would be hard for the natural man to swallow.

ELEMENT NUMBER FOUR

Aspects of Christianity that depend upon the second coming.

There are many aspects of Christianity that depend upon the second coming of Christ and if the second coming has already happened then those things don’t apply to us any longer.  I asked Don a series of questions in my preliminary questions for this proposition and Don has refused to answer them based upon his claim that they don’t have anything to do with either proving or disproving the proposition under discussion.

1. I asked him a question about repentance:

“Are we obligated to repent today?  Yes or No.  Response:   This question is not directly relevant to either proving or disproving your proposition or mine.  It is a: “If the doctrine is true, what now?” type of question, but does not prove or disprove the propositions.  Unless you can prove that this is directly relevant to proving or disproving the propositions, I will not allow you to use it to poison the well.

Hedges’ Rule #3—To which you signed your name says:

Rule 3d. All expressions, which are unmeaning, or without effect in regard to the subject in debate, should be strictly avoided. All expressions may be considered as unmeaning, which contribute nothing to the proof or the question; such as desultory remarks and declamatory expressions (My emphasis).”

1. If you look at Acts 17:30,31 Paul said “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead” (Act 17:30-31).

1. Don says that this questions is “a ‘If the doctrine is true, what now?”  And of course he is wrong.  This question is a “If the doctrine is true, then it will be consistent with all of Biblical teaching on the matter.”   Why?  Because truth is never inconsistent.  I am not poisoning the well by showing the false implications of Don’s position here.

1. Paul said that God, now, demands that all repent because “διότι dioti dee-ot’-ee From G1223 and G3754; on the very account that, or inasmuch as: – because (that), for, therefore” (Strong’s Greek Dictionary, e-Sword) God has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained.

i.     Now notice “they were to repent on the very account that God has chosen a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by Jesus Christ.

ii.     If Christ has already come back and judged the world, then we no longer have an obligation to repent.

iii.     This is a conclusion from which Don cannot escape.

1. Now notice the following argument:

 

Major Premise:  If Paul told those in Athens to repent because (or on the very account) that God had chosen a day in which he would judge the world, and if the judgment has already taken place, then we have no obligation to repent.

Minor Premise:  Paul told those in Athens to repent because (or on the very account) that God had chosen a day in which he would judge the world, and Don says that the judgment has already taken place.

Conclusion:  Therefore we have no obligation to repent.

1. This is why Don didn’t want to respond to the question, he knows the implications of his doctrine.

1. The Lord’s Supper is contingent upon the second coming.  I asked Don the following question:  “Are we obligated to partake of the Lord’s Supper today?  Yes or No.”  his answer was:  “Response:   This question is not directly relevant to either proving or disproving your proposition or mine.  It is a “If the doctrine is true, what now?” type of question, but does not prove or disprove the propositions. Unless you can prove that this is directly relevant to proving or disproving the propositions, I will not allow you to use it to poison the well.  See Hedges’ Rules #3 above that you signed to follow.”

1. In my first set of preliminary questions, I asked Don “Does 1 Corinthians 11:26 “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come” directly apply to Christians today?  Answer: No.”  Now obviously Don sees the connection between the Lord’s Supper and the second coming because he says that 1 Cor. 11:26 which states:  “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come” (1Co 11:26) does not directly apply to us today.  Why?  Simply because if we are to proclaim the Lord’s death until he returns, and if he has already returned, how can we proclaim his death until he comes.

1. If we cannot proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes, then we cannot partake of the Lord’s Supper because that is an integral part of partaking.

1. Notice the following arguments:

 

Major Premise:  If proclaiming the Lord’s death until he comes, is an integral part of the Lord’s supper,  then we cannot scripturally partake of the Lord’s Supper without proclaiming the Lord’s death.

Minor Premise:  Proclaiming the Lord’s death until he comes is an integral part of the Lord’s supper (1 Cor. 11:26).

Conclusion:  Therefore we cannot scripturally partake of the Lord’s supper without proclaiming the Lord’s Death.

 

Major Premise:  If Paul told Corinth to proclaim the Lord’s death until he returned while partaking of the Lord’s Supper, and if Christ has already returned, then there is no obligation to partake of the Lord’s supper.

Minor Premise:  Paul told Corinth to proclaim the Lord’s death until he returned while they partook of the Lord’s supper, and Don says that Christ has already returned.

Conclusion:  Therefore, there is no obligation to partake of the Lord’s supper.

 

Major Premise:  If there is no obligation to partake of the Lord’s supper, then we cannot scripturally partake of the Lord’s supper.

Minor Premise:  There is no obligation to partake of the Lord’s supper (see above argument).

Conclusion:  Therefore we cannot scripturally partake of the Lord’s supper.

Don’s position on 1 Cor. 11;26 has done away with the scriptural observance of the Lord’s supper.

1. I asked Don the following question:  “What is the purpose of baptism?” and Don’s answer is:  “Response: This question is not directly relevant to either proving or disproving your proposition or mine.  It is a, “If the doctrine is true, what now?” type of question, but does not prove or disprove the propositions.If you can prove the direct relevance to proving or disproving the propositions I will give answer. Otherwise, I will not allow you to use it to poison the well. See Hedges’ Rules #3 above that you signed.”

1. In giving the great commission Jesus said “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Mat 28:19-20).

1. Notice that Jesus said to teach all nations, baptizing them…teaching them to observe all things “and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.”  The idea here is that they were to baptize people and teach them to observe all things commanded.  He then said that he was with them until the end of the world.

1. If the end of the world has already taken place, and Don says it has, then no one can baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and no one can teach them all things commanded because all that has been fulfilled.

1. The purpose of baptism was to put man into contact with the blood of Christ, which would wash away their sins, and this would prepare them for the second coming.  God’s people were to teach those who they baptized and Christ promised to be with them even to the end of the world.  All this is an integral part of the purpose of baptism.

1. Notice the following argument:

 

Major Premise:  If baptism was to put man into contact with the blood of Christ, which would wash away their sins, and if this prepared man for the second coming of Christ, then the second coming of Christ was an integral part of the purpose of baptism.

Minor Premise:  Baptism was to put man into contact with the blood of Christ, which would wash away their sins, and this did prepare man for the second coming of Christ.

Conclusion:  Therefore, the second coming of Christ was an integral part of the purpose of baptism.

1. From this we can see that my question regarding the purpose of baptism was not off topic.  Don doesn’t want to respond to this (and other questions) because he knows, full well, the damage that they do to his position.
2.  I asked Don the following question:

“What parts of the scriptures directly apply to us today?”  His response was:  “Response: This question is not directly relevant to either proving or disproving your proposition or mine.  It is a, “If the doctrine is true, what now?” type of question, but does not prove or disprove the propositions.  If you can prove the direct relevance to proving or disproving the propositions I will give answer. Otherwise, I will not allow you to use it to poison the well. See Hedges’ Rules #3 above that you signed.

Broadly speaking, however, those texts that speak of what life after the resurrection / in the New Creation was / is to be like, are those that direct us.  For instance, Paul called on the Romans to live as if the Day had already come, by turning away from ungodliness (Romans 13:11f). Thus, those moral paranetics apply today, since the Day has come.”

1. The question is directly relevant to the proving or disproving of my proposition because Don is on record as stating that 1 Cor. 11:26 does not directly apply to us today.  If this is the case, then we cannot partake of the Lord’s supper because 1 Cor. 11:26 is an integral part of the Lord’s supper.
2.  Don needs to go back and take Logic 101 and see what is meant by “poisoning the well.”  He seems to think that my asking questions that are designed to point out the inconsistencies of his positions is some how “poisoning the well.”  This certainly is not the case.  Questions are supposed to point out the inconsistencies of a position; there is no other purpose for asking them.  In his book Introduction to Logic, Copi wrote:

“Poisoning the well:  In informal fallacy; a variety of abusive ad hominem argument.  So named because by attacking the good faith or intellectual honesty of the opponent, it underminds continued rational exchange” (pp. 639,640).

My questions are not abusive ad hominem arguments designed to attack Don’s good faith or intellectual honesty.  My questions are designed to show the inconsistency of Don’s position by showing that he cannot hold to all of his position with surrendering what he believes about the church and its obligations.

1. His answer:  “those texts that speak of what life after the resurrection / in the New Creation was / is to be like, are those that direct us” does not answer the question that I asked because scriptures can indirectly apply to us and still direct us.  This is the very position that Paul took when he wrote:  “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope” (Rom 15:4).  However, the Old Testament does not directly apply to us today.  However they can and do indirectly apply to us and so doing they direct us.
2.  I want to know what scriptures are directly applicable to us today.  Is Acts 17:11 directly applicable?  Is 1 Cor. 11:26 directly applicable?  Is Mt. 28:19,20 directly applicable?  If not then repentance is not mandatory, neither is the Lord’s supper, nor baptism.

I asked Don the following question:  “What is meant by “Day of the Lord” in Obadiah v: 15?”  His response was:  “Response: This was the destruction of Edom which occurred in BC 583 at the hands of the Chaldeans.”  Now while I agree with his interpretation of this it smacks him in the face on the following statement:

“Paul preached nothing but the hope of Israel found in the OT. Paul– per Vincent– uses “the precise phrase” from the LXX of Isaiah 2. Yet, Jerry says Paul was not quoting Isaiah!  (McD-LXX-Ths)

That is like saying if Jerry were preaching and said, “Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus” – per Jerry, that would not mean he was quoting Acts 2.38!” (http://maeft.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/prestons-final-affirmative-summary/).

What is my point here?  In our discussion he has argued that Paul quoted Isaiah 2:19 verbatim from the LXX in 2 Thess. 1:9.  I published a chart on the  Greek in 2 Thess. 1:9 and the LXX in Isaiah 2:19 and showed that they were nothing alike.  Don argued that three words in Isaiah 2:19 were the same as 2 Thess. 1:9.  I countered by showing that although Paul used the same three words, this did not mean he was quoting Isaiah 2:19.  Don then countered in his summary what you see above, and claimed “This is like saying if Jerry were preaching and said, “Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus” – per Jerry, that would not mean he was quoting Acts 2:38.

Okay, let’s see if he will stay with this.  He says that the words “Day of the Lord” must refer to the destruction of Jerusalem:

“Now watch: 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is a verbatim quotation of the LXX of Isaiah 2:19 which described the last days Day of the Lord, when men would flee to the mountains, (19-21). Christ’s coming in 2 Thessalonians 1 would fulfill Isaiah 2!Thus, Paul’s eschatology in Thessalonians was nothing but the hope of Israel found in the OT.

Isaiah 2-4 is a united prophecy of the last days ending in the day of the Lord. The repeated “in that Day” references tie the prophecy together. It is the time for the establishment of the kingdom (2:1-3). “In that day” would be a time of famine (3:1-3), God would arise to judge His people (3:13-24) the time of “the war” when the men of Israel would fall by the edge of the sword (cf. Luke 21:24). The “Branch of the Lord” would come and the remnant would be saved, “when the Lord shall purge the blood guilt from Jerusalem by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of fire” (4:4). YHVH would establish the Messianic Temple (v. 5-6).

So, in the last days the blood guilt of Jerusalem would be avenged at the Day of the Lord when men would run to the hills. (This hardly fits an “end of time, earth burning event)!

Revelation 6:12f, is the answer to the martyr’s prayer, the Day of the Lord. Catch the power of this: Revelation 6 – like 2 Thessalonians 1– anticipated the fulfillment of Isaiah 2:19-21- when men would flee from the presence of the Lord. So…

Isaiah predicted the last days Day of the Lord in vengeance on the persecutors of the saints- Jerusalem” ( http://maeft.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/prestons-second-affirmative/).

Now Don’s problem is that if “Day of the Lord” always has reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 it can’t possibly have reference to the destruction of Edom by the Canaanites.  No, you have to allow the words to be used in context to determine the meaning, just as you have to allow the words “glory of his power” to be used in context.  Isaiah used them this way:  “And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth” (Isa. 2:19).  Who are “they”?  The worshippers of idols!  Paul uses these words to show that those who do not know God and obey not the gospel will be separated from the glory of his power for eternity.

So if we must allow the context to determine the meaning of the words “Day of the Lord,” then we must allow the context to determine the meaning of “glory of his power.”  The two either stand together or they fall together.   Notice the chart on the Square of Opposition:

Now here is the problem with Don’s answer to my question:

1. He says that the words “Day of the Lord” must have reference to the final judgment of man; which he says happened during the destruction of Jerusalem.  However, he also says that the words “Day of the Lord” in Obediah 15 have reference to the judgment brought upon Edom by the Canaanites.   Now notice:  If we take A (which is every S is P) or in our case every time the words “day of the Lord” appear, they must refer to the final judgment of man.”  Then to find one place where “the day of the Lord” does not refer to the final judgment of man is to take O (which is some S is not P) or in our case sometimes when the words “day of the Lord” is used it does not refer to the final judgment of man.”  But as we see from the chart O contradicts A.  If O contradicts A, then Obediah 15 contradicts verses such as 2 Peter 3:10.
2. If Obediah 15 contradicts 2 Peter 3:10, then the Bible is not inspired of God, thus it is not all sufficient (which Don refuses to take a stand one way or the other).
3. If a position involves self-contradiction then the position itself is false.  Don’s position involves self-contradiction, therefore his position is false.

In conclusion let me say that I have presented a logical,  valid and sound argument and have presented four elements to support that argument.  I will present further elements and arguments in the articles to come, but my word allotment is running out so it is time to quit.  I do have some questions for Don:

Questions:

1. If Jesus’ ascension was literal, and if the angels said that they would see him come in like manner as they had seen him go, doesn’t logic suggest that the return will also be literal?  Yes or No!
2. If the words “Day of the Lord” in Obediah 15 can refer to the judgment of Edom by the Canaanites and the same words in 2 Pet. 3:10 refer to the final judgment of man, then logically doesn’t this mean that the words “glory of his power” in 2 thess. 2:9 refer to the final judgment of man while the same words in Isa. 2:19 refer to the judgment of Israel for their sins in their day?  Yes or No!
3. Are we obligated to partake of the Lord’s Supper today?  Yes or No!
4. If the judgment has already past, then what will happen to men today who die?  Will they not face the judgment?  Yes or No!
5. Is 1 Cor. 11:26 an integral part of the Lord’s Supper?  Yes or No!

Preston’s Final Affirmative: Summary

You will seldom read such desperation, bad logic and self contradiction as in Jerry’ last negative.

Let me re-state and summarize what I have established.

I have proven irrefutably that all NT eschatology is the reiteration of the OT promises made to Old Covenant Israel, Israel after the flesh (Acts 24:14f; Romans 8:23-9:3). (PAUL’S HOPE / HOPE OF ISRAEL)

Jerry has denied this. Jerry is wrong.

Jesus said not one iota of Torah could pass until it was all (NOT SOME) fully accomplished (CHART). Jerry told us that the law passed, but the promises remain. He told us that Jesus did fulfill, but then he says he didn’t, he just “set things in motion” for fulfillment. That is not what Jesus said. Jerry is wrong.

The Sabbath and the Feast Days were an integral part of God’s covenant with Israel (CHART). The Sabbaths foreshadowed the eschaton. Jerry says while resurrection was foreshadowed in the law, it was not part of the law. InNotOf / InNotOf-2

I challenged him, repeatedly, to offer even one verse in support of his wild claim. HE SAID HE DIDN’T HAVE TO!  

REALLY, JERRY?

So, Jerry makes a claim that is crucial to his negative, but, he says since he is in the negative he does not have to prove his argument! Based on that distorted “logic” since he is in the negative, he does not have to prove anything! And, when I am in the negative, I don’t have to prove anything I say!     

Folks, you know full well that if I said I did not have to give proof for my (even negative) arguments that Jerry would (rightly) call “foul!” This isUNBELIEVABLE DESPERATION.

Re: The Song of Moses, Deuteronomy 32

The Song foretold Israel’s last days, the conversion of the Gentiles, and the avenging of the martyrs in Israel’s last days. (CHART)

Jerry says it referred to Moses’ day, even though 32.7 demands that it applied to a time “many generations” after Moses’ day.

Jerry knows that if the Song was still unfulfilled, post cross, his theology is falsified.

The Song predicted the conversion of the Gentiles in Israel’s last days – that did not happen in Moses day! Paul said the Song foretold his ministry- AND JERRY KNOWS IT! Thus, the Song, i.e the law of Moses– was not nullified at the cross.

Paul said the Song was about to be fulfilled at the coming of the Lord in a “very, very little while” (Hebrews 10:30-37– CHART). Jerry claimed that Paul did not know when the Lord’s coming would be. Paul knew it was coming in a “very, very little while.”

Revelation 19:2f says the Song (32:43) would be fulfilled in the judgment of Babylon. Jerry denies this. Jerry is wrong.

The Song Ignored

DANIEL 12 FALSIFIES JERRY’S THEOLOGY- AND HE KNOWS IT!

Daniel said the resurrection would be when Israel’s power– her covenant relationship with YHVH– was shattered.

In full blown desperation, Jerry initially said Israel’s power was the gospel (1^st Neg). Entrapped, he admitted that the power of the holy people was not the gospel.

Soooo, he claimed that… ISRAEL’S POWER WAS HER ARMY. I asked if Israel’s army was destroyed in AD 70. He said, unbelievably, that Israel had no army in AD 70! He should read Josephus, who was a general in the Jewish army.

Sooo, entrapped again, he said… “Israel’s power ended when she ended up in Babylonian captivity just as Daniel said it would.” (My emp) Pure desperation!!

REALLY, JERRY?!?

ISRAEL’S “POWER” WOULD ENDURE UNTIL THE RESURRECTION, WHEN IT WOULD BE SHATTERED.

Daniel wrote chapter 10-12 AFTER THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY! He was PREDICTING the shattering of Israel’s power at the end of the age resurrection, NOR LOOKING BACK ON IT. (Chart)

TO DENY THAT ISRAEL’S POWER WAS HER COVENANT WITH GOD IS FALSE. Thus, the resurrection at the end of the age was when Torah, Israel’s power, was shattered– in AD 70. Jerry is wrong, again. Jerry’s Desperation #1 / #2  /  #3

It matters not what Jerry says about Acts 1, 1 Corinthians 15, Revelation, or whatever! Daniel 12 irrefutably posits the resurrection at the end of Israel’s age. Jerry has utterly failed to refute this.

Matthew 23– The Avenging of the Blood

Jesus said all of the blood of all the martyrs, all the way back to Abel would be avenged in his generation. JERRY FLATLY DENIES JESUS’ EMPHATIC WORDS.  CHART

His desperation is manifest.

Isaiah foretold that avenging, in the last days, at the day of the Lord, (2:9-21, 4:4f). CHART

CHART /  CHART

I challenged Jerry to identify when, in the last days, at the day of the Lord, the Lord came and cleansed Jerusalem from her blood guilt, as Isaiah promised. He said Isaiah applied to the Assyrian captivity. This denies what Isaiah and Jesus said.

Romans 9.28

McD-Rm9-sumtenon

McD-Suntemnon-2

 

Romans 11.25-27

 

Paul quoted Isa. 27 / 59 to predict the salvation of Israel, which would come at the time of her judgment for shedding innocent blood. (CHART /CHART)

Folks, Jerry has taken THREE DIFFERENT POSITIONS IN ONE DEBATE! (CHART)

No, both texts foretold the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood– remember Matthew 23!

Jerry’s utter desperation is on full display.   (CHART / CHART)

 

The Law– The Strength of Sin– Jerry’s Fatal Admissions

Paul said the resurrection would be when the law that was the strength of sin would be annulled.

Jerry admitted that the law that is the strength of sin (1 Corinthians 15:55-56) was “the law of Moses.” This is fatal and he knows it!

I asked if the law of Moses, the strength of sin, is still binding? His answer: “No!”

Jerry has abdicated.

The resurrection of 1 Corinthians would be when the law that was the strength of sin was overcome– Jerry agrees.

The law that was the strength of sin was “the law of Moses” (Jerry).

Therefore, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 has been fully accomplished!

I am staggered at Jerry’s desperation.

Paul said the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be when Isaiah 25.8 would be fulfilled (accomplished, GENETAI). Yet, Jerry brashly claims: “Nothing is said in Isaiah 25:8-10 about the resurrection.”

So, Jerry, swallowing up death has nothing to do with the resurrection? Is that what you believe, now, Jerry? (CHART / CHART / CHART )

WHY THEN DID PAUL SAY THE RESURRECTION WOULD ACCOMPLISH ISAIAH 25?

Galatians 4:22f

 Jerry’s desperation is sad.

Paul identified the bondwoman and her son as ISRAEL OF THE FLESH. Did you catch what Jerry did? HE CLAIMS THAT THE CHILDREN OF THE BONDWOMAN REFERRED TO GENTILES AFTER THE FLESH! This is a stunning denial of Paul’s words! CHART / CHART

Paul said: “As it was then, so it is now, the children of the bondwoman persecuted the children of the free. What says the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son.” Jerry denies Paul’s statement that Israel’s persecution of the church would lead to her being casting out.

Oh, wait! I asked Jerry who had dwelt in the presence of God, and was to be cast out for persecuting the church. HE SAID THAT WAS ISRAEL!

Jerry claims that he answered Galatian 4 by showing that 2:16; 5:1-4 teach that the law was nullified. False as usual. Paul said that THE CHRISTIANS HAD DIED TO THE LAW, and were not to subject themselves once again to Torah. Jerry perverts Paul’s words.

2 Thessalonians 1

Paul preached nothing but the hope of Israel found in the OT. Paul– per Vincent– uses “the precise phrase” from the LXX of Isaiah 2. Yet, Jerry says Paul was not quoting Isaiah!  (McD-LXX-Ths)

That is like saying if Jerry were preaching and said, “Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus” – per Jerry, that would not mean he was quoting Acts 2.38!

Jerry cites commentaries for his theology. I cited world class linguists, not as theological commentary, but for linguistic facts. Jerry does not grasp the difference. These linguists PROVE Paul quoted Isaiah. Even Vincent says Paul uses “the precise phrase.” I challenged Jerry for his Greek credentials for denying this. Answer? Total silence.  Be sure to see this CHART!

Jerry says he is waiting for proof that Paul quoted Isaiah. I GAVE IRREFUTABLE PROOF. But, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

The Thessalonians were being persecuted.

Paul promised those Thessalonians relief from that contemporary persecution. (CHART)

He promised that relief: “WHEN the Lord Jesus is revealed.”

Christ could not give the Thessalonians relief from persecution if they were not under persecution at the time of the parousia! (CHART)

Paul did not say that the church– millennia removed– would get relief. He told the Thessalonians that Christ would give THEM relief at the parousia.

Jerry boldly says Jesus did not fulfill Paul’s prophecy! Thus, Paul was a false prophet. CHART

The words of the text could not be clearer, more emphatic. Paul was not speaking of distant events, but first century events.  

Jerry can say he does not accuse Paul of a false prophecy, but he patently does.  CHART

Paul was simply promising what Jesus promised in Matthew 23– the avenging of all the blood of all the martyrs in his generation.

See my book, In Flaming Fire, for a fuller discussion of 2 Thessalonians 1.

The Most Holy Place

Paul said as long as Torah remained valid there could be no entrance into the Most Holy Place.

JERRY SAYS MAN DOES NOT ENTER HEAVEN UNTIL THE END OF TIME!

Thus, Torah remains valid today.  

 Jerry claims that if man did not enter the MHP until AD 70: “Christ’s death had nothing to do with it, it had to be when Jerusalem was destroyed. Thus Christ’s death was insufficient.”

REALLY, JERRY?

Revelation 11, 15 says no man could enter the MHP UNTIL THE FALL OF BABYLON – when God’s wrath would be completed.

UNBELIEVABLY, Jerry now denies this! (CHART)

Babylon was Rome– per Jerry.

THUS, NO MAN COULD ENTER THE MHP UNTIL THE FALL OF ROME.

So, per Jerry, “Christ’s death had nothing to do with it, it had to be when ROME was destroyed. Thus Christ’s death was insufficient.” Oh, but wait.

Remember, per Jerry, MAN CANNOT ENTER THE MHP UNTIL THE END OF THE CHRISTIAN AGE. So, “Christ’s death has nothing to do with it, IT HAS TO BE THE END Of THE CHRISTIAN AGE! Thus Christ’s death was insufficient.” Be sure to see these two charts: MHP-Desperation / More Desperation

See my debate book The End of Torah: At the Cross or AD 70, for a fuller discussion of the MHP.

The Appointed Time Has Come For the Judgment

Peter said that the appointed time for the judgment had arrived. He used the anaphoric article, (CHART) which points back to 4:5, meaning that the appointed time for the resurrection had arrived.

In utter desperation, Jerry says I ignored hetoimos (prepared, 4.5) which, he claims, nullifies the anaphoric article. 

THIS IS AN ASTOUNDINGLY BAD ARGUMENT ON THE GREEK! Hetoimos does not negate the anaphoric article– period!

JERRY, I CHALLENGE YOU TO GIVE A GREEK AUTHORITY THAT SAYS HETOIMOS NEGATES THE ANAPHORIC ARTICLE!   (Chart-hetoimos)

You can’t do it, and you know you can’t!

1 Peter 4.5 says “the end of all things has drawn near “(eggeken - perfect tense– cf. the same word and tense in Matthew 3.2, THAT JERRY INSISTS MEANS IMMINENCE!)

Only by perverting the meaning of language can the imminence of the end be denied.

Hetoimos, coupled with eggeken in v. 5, coupled with the anaphoric article in v. 17 destroys Jerry’s theology.

On Revelation

I have offered strictly internal evidence for the dating and interpretation of Revelation. CHART / CHART Jerry cites uninspired commentators. He even said that internal evidence means nothing until we allow that external evidence to settle the date! THIS IS AN OVERT REJECTION OF INSPIRATION. (CHART-INSPIRATION)

Revelation is about the fulfillment of God’s OT promises made to Israel.

Revelation anticipated the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy. Daniel was told the time of fulfillment was far off, thus, to seal up his vision. John was told fulfillment was so near that he was not to seal the book. Jerry says this temporal contrast means nothing. He is wrong.

Jerry says the Gentiles in Asia had no interest in the fall of Jerusalem because that was so far away.

WELL, DID THEY CARE ABOUT JESUS’ RESURRECTION, THAT WAS JUST AS FAR AWAY? Jerry ignored this, naturally.    Besure to see this CHART.

The Father, who knew that Day and the Hour of Jesus’ parousia, said the APPOINTED TIME (kairos) had drawn near, and “these things must shortly come to pass.”

The judgment of Revelation was so near that the Spirit said, “Let the wicked remain.” (Chart / Chart) How does Jerry deal with the TEXT? Why, he quotes more scholars who have the same misguided theology he does! That proves nothing.

Jerry desperately denied that en tachei meant imminent, but then admitted that en tachei does “demand imminence”! (Entachei / Mello)

He entrapped and contradicted himself– AGAIN.

See my book Who Is This Babylon, for more on these issues.

On John the Baptizer

Jerry says John the Baptizer foretold Jesus’ incarnation– not the Day of the Lord. Desperation exemplified!

John was Elijah.

Elijah was to proclaim the Day of the Lord.

Therefore, John as Elijah predicted the Day of the Lord, i.e. the wrath about to come. Chart

That Day of the Lord would be in application of Mosaic Covenant sanctions of wrath.

Jerry says Torah was shattered at the cross.

I challenged Jerry to tell us when the Lord came in application of Mosaic Covenant wrath, after John, but before the cross, where he claims Torah and covenant sanctions were abrogated. Silence.
Chart

Jerry knows this single argument falsifies his theology, so he just glossed over it.

Jerry and Implications

Jerry makes numerous claims about the implications of what I teach. (CHART / CHART)  Jerry clearly does not understand how implication works. An implication built on a false assumption– like Jerry’s– is a false implication, no matter how “good” it might sound. For his implication charges to be true, he must prove the validity of his position, and he has failed, utterly, to do so.

I have thoroughly, scripturally, and logically demonstrated the validity of my affirmative proposition. All Jerry has done is make unsubstantiated claims, flip-flopped positions, made massively self-contradictory arguments, offered uninspired commentators, sought to poison the mind of the readers, ignored my repeated logical arguments, (Chart) and manifested total desperation.

Here is to hoping Jerry can offer something substantive in his affirmative.

McDonald’s Preliminary Questions.

Preston’s Preliminary Questions.

McDonald’s Fist Affirmative

Back

Home