Archive for August, 2013

McDonald’s Affirmative Rejoinder

August 4, 2013 Leave a comment

jerryMcDonald’s Affirmative Rejoinder

Brother Preston and interested readers:

The proposition we have been discussing for my affirmative states:  “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.”  While I have been in the affirmative I have given structured evidence affirming this proposition, and Don has not even come close to responding to it.

I gave one main argument; the constituent element argument which simply states that if all of the constituent elements of my argument are factual, then my argument is sound, and if my argument is logically valid, and it is sound then my proposition is true.  If my proposition is true, then Don’s denial of my proposition is false.

The 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 valid because it meets the qualifications of this type of syllogism.  The major premise is axiomatic, if all the parts are factual, then the whole is true.  The only premise that can be questioned is the minor premise “The total situation described by my proposition is a total situation, the constituent elements of which are factual.”  Has Don taken each of these elements and shown that they were not factual?  No, he has not!  Has he even taken one of these elements and shown that it is not factual?  No, he has not!  So what has Don done during this portion of the debate?  All he has done is to avoid the issue and bring in things that were part of his affirmative.  Notice the constituent elements of my argument:

  • ELEMENT NUMBER ONE:  The second coming of Christ will be a literal coming.  Now he did actually try and deal with this one, but he did not show that it was false.  He tried to argue that because Christ was taken away on clouds and the angels said he would come again in “like manner” as they had seen him go, that this does not mean that he will come on literal clouds.  So what else does “like manner” mean?  Notice the following verses:

“And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death” (Mar 14:62-64).

Now notice that he said that he would be coming in the clouds, and when they heard that they accused him of blasphemy.  Why?  Because in so doing he said he was God because God is the one who comes in the clouds.  Just as God came in the clouds on Mt. Sinai (a passage that I brought up previously and Don conveniently overlooked).  So what does this tell us?  Jesus was taken away on a literal cloud.  The angels said he would return in like manner.  He said he would come in the clouds.  Therefore we can look for him to come in the literal clouds.  Don has not yet proven this element false.

  • ELEMENT NUMBER TWO:  The Second Coming Is Yet To Happen.  Has Don disproven this element?  O he has argued that Christ returned again when he came in judgment upon Jerusalem, but he has not dealt with the evidence that I have given.
  • ELEMENT NUMBER THREE:  THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD IS A LITERAL RESURRECTION OF THE BODY FROM THE DEAD.  He has not been able to show that this was false.  He has even gone on record as stating that Jesus’ resurrection was a spiritual resurrection.  When I pointed this out, refused to even deal with it.
  • ELEMENT NUMBER FOUR:  ASPECTS OF CHRISTIANITY THAT DEPEND UPON THE SECOND COMING:  Repentance; the Lord’s Supper; the death of the testator before the testament could be of effect, and once the testator died the testament was in effect.
  • ELEMENT NUMBER FIVE:  Chapter Fifteen Of Paul’s Letter To Corinth Discusses A Literal Resurrection.  He claims that there were none in Corinth who denied the resurrection and claimed that I was chanting mantra:  “here is my mantra ‘If it be preached that Christ rose from the dead, how say some of you that THERE IS NO RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD?” (1 Cor. 15:12).  I have tried to get him to deal with that verse throughout this debate, but he has ignored it completely.
  • ELEMENT NUMBER SIX: Paul’s Teaching To The Church In Thessalonica Teaches A Literal Resurrection.

To date, Don hasn’t even touched these arguments, yet he says that he has answered them.  Then he said in his closing statements:  “But, remember that Jerry told us, both in his affirmatives and negatives that he had no obligation to follow me, and in fact, openly stated that he would not do so” (Preston’s Final Negative).  There is nothing further from the truth.  I never said any such thing!  What I said was that I was under no obligation to follow him off into his repetitions.  You see Don would make an argument more than once and consider it two or more arguments.  No one argument made twice is still one argument, and if answered once, it is answered for every time it is given.  If he repeated it in another article I would either answer it again or show where I had answered it already.  But he knows better than to make such a statement, but that is like his statement that he gets to make a negative summary after my rejoinder when the rules state: “There will be a 2000 word rejoinder for each affirmant at the end of the exchange” (

Don defines the resurrection of the dead as the restoration of the life lost in Adam, and I asked him about the resurrection of the unjust in Dan. 12:2.  Does he answer?  No, he says that my position is in as bad a shape as his.  He says that I made a spiritual application, but I didn’t.  I made a figurative application as opposed to a literal one.  What do the unjust rise to?  Don has refuse to answer an now he never will be able to.

Don says that I have changed positions many times, but again he knows this isn’t true, but he has to have something to say so that he can fill up space.  He claims that I don’t have scholarly articles.  Well, he is probably right, as I have never claimed to be a scholar of anything; just a preacher.  I certainly don’t call myself “Dr.” when I only have an honorary doctorate.  If I was going to call myself “Dr.” I would make sure that I had an actual Ph.D after having spent the amount of time and effort in a University to earn that Ph.D.

Don has avoided my arguments like the Plague in this debate.  He has resorted to ad hominem remarks about my character and person.  He has accused me of doing things that I have not done.  He has then had the audacity to come before this reading audience and say that he has answered all of my arguments, and that I have not answered his.

I join Don in encouraging readers to read and reread this debate.  I have done my best, and if you will read and examine your Bibles I think you will see the truth on this matter.  This is the last article in this debate; with it’s publication the debate is now brought to a close.

Looking forward to the Second Coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ

Jerry McDonald

Categories: Uncategorized

Preston’s Final Negative

August 4, 2013 Leave a comment

images (42)I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this exchange, although I must
say that Jerry’s approach is more than troublesome. He has changed
positions repeatedly on key verses, all the while denying it. He has
argued for the authority of uninspired men over the inspiration of
scripture. Then, ironically, he has openly rejected the historical
testimony that refutes him. He has openly stated his refusal to engage
my arguments, (McD-Ignored
all the while claiming to have responded to them! This is nonsense.

*ISAIAH 2-4* McD-Is2-4
1.) Jerry denies that Paul quoted from Isaiah 2 in 2 Thessalonians 1. I
documented this from world class Greek authorities. Jerry claims I only
cited Vincent. I did cite Vincent– but not him alone as Jerry falsely
claims. Why do you do this, Jerry? Look at the chart. I challenged Jerry
to share his academic credentials to justify his rejection of the claims
of these linguists. He gave us nothing. All he does now is copy and
paste the Greek text and claims to have proven his case. But, what he
gives us shows that, just as the Greek authorities say, with the
exception of two or three words, the wording is precisely the same!
Thanks, Jerry!
2.) He says that if Paul quoted from Isaiah 2:10 then he must have been
quoting from v. 19-21. *Well, so what?* They are the same! Jerry, did you even read those verses?? How embarrassing! Folks, just read the verses!
3.) Jerry says these verses speak of the righteous remnant who would
enter the Rock (Christ) and hide in the dust for the fear of the Lord.
False! Jerry ignores the context, and seems ignorant of Hebraic thought.
To be in the dust is to be in dishonor, in shame, alienated from God–
see e.g. Isaiah 52:1. In Isaiah 2, those hiding in the rocks / Rocks
plural, cf. v. 19) are the wicked fleeing from the Day of the Lord!
4.) Jerry has totally ignored that the “in that day” references tie
chapters 2-4 together. And, in chapter 3 “that day”, the Day of the Lord
of chapter 2, would be the time of the judgment of Israel, when her men
would fall by the edge of the sword (v. 24–Cf. Luke 21:24). In chapter
4:4 it would be when the blood guilt of Jerusalem would be avenged “by
the spirit of judgment and fire.”
So, in the last days, Jerusalem’s blood guilt would be avenged by
judgment and fire. I asked Jerry repeatedly to tell us, when, in the
last days, was the blood guilt of Jerusalem avenged by judgment at the
Day of the Lord? He refused to answer. Of course, Jesus gave the answer
in Matthew 23:29f. This is fatal to Jerry, because this ties Isaiah
2-4, Matthew 23 and 2 Thessalonians 1 together, to be fulfilled in that
5.) Jerry has totally ignored the fact that Jesus cites Isaiah 2:19f in
Luke 23:28-31 and applies it to AD 70. This totally falsifies Jerry’s
desperate claims.

6.) In Thessalonians, where Paul quotes from Isaiah, he was addressing
the Thessalonians, who were, at that time, being persecuted, by the
Jews. (Jerry never touched this) Paul promised the living Thessalonians
relief from that persecution, “when the Lord Jesus is revealed.” The
Thessalonians would have to be alive, under persecution, for Christ to
give them relief from persecution at his parousia. So, if Christ did not
come, in the lifetime of the Thessalonians, and give them relief, then
Paul was a false prophet. Jerry did not, and cannot touch this argument,
and he knows it. McD-LXX-FalseClm
<>/ mcd-relief-ths
6.) Jerry said he would not introduce new arguments, but, he does so,
again and again! Noting that I maintain that the church was initially
set up on Pentecost, but not matured until AD 70, Jerry cites Ephesians
4:12-16, and claims: “According to Paul these Christians were supposed
to be mature already (before AD 70).” Jerry, clearly did not think this
argument out very well!
Note the following:
Christ gave the miraculous gifts to bring the church to “the perfect
man.” To which they had patently not yet come.
The gifts were to cease at the arrival of the perfect man (v. 13 / 1
Corinthians 13).
But, the church was already perfect when Paul wrote– Jerry.
Therefore, the charismatic gifts had already ceased when Paul wrote

But wait! Jerry believes several of the NT books were written after
Ephesians! But, if the church was already matured, then the gifts had
ceased, thus, those later books were not inspired!
Jerry says by positing the maturity of the church in AD 70 that I wipe
out Ephesians. Well, wherever Jerry posits the end of the gifts, that is
where he posits the arrival of the “perfect man”, “that which is
perfect.” And of course, Jerry says the gifts– given to bring the
church to maturity- did not end until at least 95-98 AD! Jerry defeats
his own argument, again.

Remember, Jerry claimed that I teach that every time the term Day of
the Lord is used it refers to AD 70. I responded that this is a blatant
falsehood. I challenged him to document where I have ever said this.
*He did not try;* he knows can’t prove that. So, what does he do? He
simply reiterates his false claim!. He says I ignored his chart, which
is false, because his claim is false.
Jerry claims that if I take Isaiah 2 as AD 70 then, to be consistent,
other than Obadiah: “he will claim that every other place where the
phrase occurs it refers to the 2nd coming which he contends is AD 70.”
Again, blatantly false– and Jerry knows this! Jerry, PRODUCE YOUR PROOF
OF THIS! He has clearly not read my material, for if he had, he would
know he is making a false charge.

Jerry flip-flopped on Isaiah, 25-27, and worse, he denied Paul. Look at
these charts on Isaiah 25-27 that Jerry did not even mention-
Paul said his hope of the resurrection was NOTHING but the hope of
Israel. Jerry initially denied this, but the scriptures are irrefutable
(Acts 24:14f; 26:6f; 21f).
Jerry initially agreed that Isaiah 25 predicted the resurrection. Then
he denied it. But Paul said when mortal put on immortality, “then shall
be brought to pass the saying, “Death is swallowed up in victory.” Jerry
admitted Paul quotes from Isaiah, but says Isaiah did not predict what
Paul was hoping for, even though Paul’s hope was from the OT, but then
said Isaiah will be fulfilled at the resurrection! McD-Paulshope
Talk about desperation! McD-Is27-Flip

Daniel 12 posits the resurrection “when the power of the holy people is
completely shattered.”Jerry thinks he has an argument on “shattered” but
look at my totally ignored chart, that refutes this claim.

Jerry knows that if he cannot identify Israel’s “power” as something
other than Torah, his view is falsified. So, he twists, turns,
obfuscates and distorts Daniel to escape. But he can’t escape.

He initially said Israel’s power was the gospel. But that entrapped him,
so HE INITIALLY DENIED SAYING THAT. I exposed that as false, so,
entrapped again, HE NOW ADMITS SAYING THAT! However, he changed again,
claiming that Israel’s “power” was her army and that Israel had no army
in AD 70. Incidentally, his extended discussion of Antiochus is new
material, and I have the right to respond to it.

Well, note:
1.) Israel had as much of an army in AD 70 as they did under the
Maccabees. Further, if the power of the holy people was her army, her
army was not as shattered under Antiochus as in AD 70! Jerry has not
offered one syllable of proof to show that Israel’s “army” under the
Maccabees was more of an army than in 66-70. Not one word!
None of the Maccabean “generals” or soldiers were any more trained than
Josephus and his army.
Further, the Maccabees, fled from the Syrian forces! So, per Jerry’s
perverted “logic,” /they were not an army/. His own embarrassing
argument goes up in smoke.
2.) The only “power” Israel’s army ever had was YHVH and her covenant
with him. Jerry has not touched this. To deny that Israel’s “power” was
her covenant with YHVH is simply wrong. And Jerry knows it very well.
3.) Josephus said he was a general over the Jewish army. So, what does
Jerry do? He calls Josephus and all historians liars. Jerry gives us a
quote from Josephus saying he “acted like a general.” Jerry perverts
this to mean Josephus was acting out a charade! This is almost not
worthy of comment by any serious student. That context clearly shows
that Josephus was affirming that he had ACTED /PROPERLY AS A GENERAL IN
4.) He gives more of the quote from Josephus, where Josephus requested
that the Jerusalem leaders “send him an army sufficient to fight the
Romans.” Jerry perverts this to mean Josephus admitted to not having an
army. No, Jerry, he did not have a sufficiently large enough army to
meet the Romans! Total perversion on Jerry’s part.
5.) Jerry produces a (new) argument on Daniel 12, but carefully tells
us: “I don’t believe this.” See what I mean by /desperation/? Jerry
writes hundreds of words to refute my argument, but says, “I don’t
believe what I am writing!”
6.) Jerry says Daniel 12 refers to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. I
had asked Jerry if the resurrection of Daniel 12, the time of the
rewarding of the prophets, and the end of the age occurred under
Antiochus. His answer? “I don’t know, you tell me…” Such stunning

The argument here is irrefutable, and Jerry has not touched it:
The resurrection to eternal life, the rewarding of the prophets (and the
dead) would be when the power of the holy people was completely shattered.
The power of the holy people was completely shattered under Antiochus
Epiphanes– Says Jerry.
Therefore, the resurrection to eternal life, the rewarding of the
prophets (and the dead) occurred under Antiochus Epiphanes!

Jerry says that since Daniel 12 mentions the resurrection of the unjust
it must refer to physical bodies. Upon what rule of logic? This destroys

Daniel 12 foretold the resurrection of just and unjust.
Mention of the resurrection of the unjust in Daniel 12 demands the
raising of dead bodies (Jerry).
But, Daniel 12 was fulfilled in the time of Antiochus (Jerry).
Therefore, the resurrection of dead bodies out of the dust was fulfilled
in the time of Antiochus.

See how easy it is to entrap Jerry in his own claims? Yet, he assured us
he knows logic all too well.

7.) Jerry says I make too much of AD 70 and not enough about the
desecration of the temple by Antiochus.
*Really, Jerry? *

Let’s see:
The City was not destroyed by Antiochus; it was in AD 70.
The Temple was not totally destroyed by Antiochus; it was in AD 70.
The priesthood did not cease to exist under Antiochus; it did in AD 70.
The genealogies were not destroyed by Antiochus; they were in AD 70.
The nation was not destroyed by Antiochus; it was in AD 70.
A million Jews (+ or -) were not killed or taken captive by Antiochus;
it happened in AD 70.
Jesus said AD 70 would be the greatest tribulation “such as has not been
SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN, to this time, OR EVER SHALL BE” (Matthew 24:21,
my emphasis). So, even if one granted Jerry’s specious claims, Jesus’
description of AD 70 “trumps” it, hands down!

To say the */desecration/ *of the Temple under Antiochus was worse than
the AD 70 /*total destruction*/ displays either a woeful ignorance of
history, or a willingness to distort it.

8.) Jerry says I must either admit that Daniel 12 refers to the
resurrection of human corpses, thus abandoning my position, or– CATCH
THE POWER OF THIS!!– “prove that it does not refer to the remnant of
Israel coming back after having been in captivity.”

RESURRECTION*– all the while condemning Preston for holding to a
spiritual resurrection! He defined resurrection, /out of the dust,/ as
the return of the remnant from captivity! This destroys his entire basis
for rejecting preterism. And watch this: The faithful remnant did not
return from captivity under Antiochus! Period! So, that falsifies
Jerry’s fanciful claim.

9.) Daniel said that resurrection would be to eternal life, the end of
the age, and when the prophets– the dead prophets (v. 13)!– would be
rewarded. Jerry, entrapped himself, again, inescapably. He doesn’t
believe the end of the age came under Antiochus. He doesn’t believe
eternal life arrived under Antiochus.. He doesn’t believe the dead
prophets were rewarded at that time…. or do you, Jerry? Who knows what
you believe, since you have changed your position so many times in this
exchange!! Oh, and remember his “argument” about Daniel’s reference to
the resurrection of the unjust demanding the raising of dead corpses! He
doesn’t believe that happened then, either. So, everything actually
demanded by the text of Daniel 12 is denied by Jerry, who nonetheless
tries to apply Daniel to that time!

10.) The End of the Age– CATCH THE POWER OF THIS!!
Jerry tells us Daniel 12 was fulfilled under Antiochus Epiphanes.
*But then.*… he tells us the end of the age ended *at the Cross,*
citing Colossians 2! I have already refuted this claim. Paul says no
such thing.

Hey, Jerry, how could the end of the age be fulfilled in the time of
Antiochus, as you claim, but then, you rip it away from Antiochus after
all and say it happened at the Cross!
Jerry, did the end of the age come under Antiochus– as your position
demands– or in Paul’s generation? You have contradicted yourself,
again. It can’t be both!

10.) Daniel 12, 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 11 are directly
parallel. Jerry’s response? He just says does not have to answer them.
Of course, I am duty bound to respond to his charts of quotations from
uninspired men! He says he does not have to answer my questions because
he is in the affirmative. Of course, when he was in the negative, he
said he didn’t have to answer my questions then either!

Revelation 11:15f posits the rewarding of the dead prophets at the
judgment of the city “where the Lord was slain.” This means Daniel was
not fulfilled under Antiochus. It means Jerry is dead wrong. Jerry
tried desperately to evade the force of this, claiming that there are
many texts that simply speak of the rewarding of the dead. That is not
the point, and he knows it.

Daniel posited that rewarding at the resurrection, at the end of the
age, when the power of the holy people would be shattered.
Revelation posits that rewarding of the prophets at the destruction of
the city “where the Lord was slain.”
These are not generic, “the dead will be rewarded” comments. They tell
us when the resurrection was to be: at the destruction of Jerusalem.

You cannot claim that Daniel 12 was fulfilled under Antiochus without
affirming that the end of the age, the resurrection and the rewarding of
the prophets occurred at that time.

Jerry cannot escape the truth that Matthew 22:1f posits Christ’s wedding
at AD 70. So, he says I divorce it from Matthew 21, and the story of the
two sons. Response: SO WHAT, JERRY?

To say that Matthew 22:1f is about the judgment of Jerusalem, which is
undeniable, does not demand that the parable of the two sons addresses
it! Your logic is bankrupt. But, the parable of the Wedding makes the
same point as the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen– and you even admit
that the parables speak of the Jewish rejection of the gospel! Well,
guess what, they speak of the persecution of the messengers sent to
them, their killing of those messengers and the judgment that came on
them as a result– and this was in AD 70! See Matthew 23:29f.

*Jerry, whose city is burned in Matthew 22? When did that happen, and why?

You have failed, totally to deal with these truths, but, they are fatal
to your paradigm.

Jerry’s desperate claims continue in regard to the issue of Israel
filling the measure of their sin in Jesus’ generation. His claims are
simply false. He claims that Paul did not say Israel was filling the
measure of her sin by killing the apostles and prophets. Reader, just
stop reading this exchange and read 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, right now,
please! Jerry’s claim is stunningly desperate. He is wrong, and knows it.

Jerry repeats his false claim that those in Corinth denied the
resurrection, comprehensively stated. This is completely false, as I
have shown.
If they denied the fact of resurrection, then they denied Jesus’
resurrection. But they didn’t.
If they denied the resurrection they denied their own salvation. But
they didn’t
If they denied the resurrection they denied life to dead Christians, but
they didn’t.
If they denied resurrection they denied their own salvation, but they
If Jerry is right (but of course, he isn’t) then Paul’s arguments were
totally illogical, and would have gone something like this:

Scoffers: “We deny the resurrection.” Paul: “If you deny the
resurrection, then Jesus was not raised and you are still in your
sins!.” Scoffers: “That is precisely what we are saying, Paul!” See this
Anyone that actually understands logic realizes that this is clearly not
what was being claimed. The scoffers were not denying all of these
things! They were denying resurrection for a given group of the dead,
and that group was those who had fallen asleep before Jesus (1
Corinthians 15:19f).

Jerry refuses to allow the CONTEXT to determine what was being denied.

I am going to offer again the series of arguments on the death /
resurrection of Jesus. Jerry ignored them, as he must. These completely
destroy every single argument he has made.

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.

Here again is the argument– ignored by Jerry.




This is irrefutable. Jerry has not touched it, and can’t, but, he seeks
to deflect the power of this by offering another brand new argument and

He claims I believe that the Law of Moses and the law of sin and death
are the same thing. False. I never said that, and do not believe it.
Torah exacerbated the law of sin and death (Romans 5:20-21).
Torah was, by Jerry’s own admission, “the law” that was the strength of
sin Note what he said on 1 Corinthians 15:54-56– “We don’t have to
Jerry admits the direct link between “the law of Moses” and the death
and life that Paul discussed in 1 Corinthians 15.

Folks, if, as Jerry says (and I affirm) “the law of sin and death” has
been removed, then how and why in the name of reason and logic can the
Christian die?

The law of sin and death threatened physical death– Jerry.
The Christian is no longer subject to the law of sin and death– Jerry.
Therefore, the Christian is no longer subject to physical death- per
Jerry’s “logic.”

If the law of sin and death brings (brought) physical death, per Jerry,
and the Christian is no longer subject to that law, then the Christian
should never die physically.

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
When Jerry focuses on physical death as the death of Adam, the result
and wages of sin, and then claims, as he does, that we are now free from
the law of sin and death in Christ, he thereby falsifies his entire

If the law of sin and death brings (brought) spiritual death, per
Jerry, and the Christian is no longer subject to that law of sin and
death, then the Christian should not die spiritually. Yet, Jerry says
Christians are always in danger of losing their salvation! We are still
subject– very much so– to the law of sin and death! Jerry needs to
read John 8:51.

Jerry is so desperate! He says spiritual death is the wage of sin, but
not physical death. I challenged him for proof, so he gives us an
illustration that has no bearing on the issue! The fact is, God said “in
the day you eat, you will surely die.” The wage of sin was death–
however you want to define it.

Death was not, some “unintended consequence” as in Jerry’s misguided
illustration. Death was the wage of sin. And remember, Jerry, although
he has contradicted himself coming and going, has said repeatedly the
physical death was the penalty of sin.

If physical death was EVER the wage of sin, then it is the death that
man suffers today as well, UNLESS THE RESURRECTION HAS OCCURRED! That
being true, but physical death is no longer the wage of sin- per Jerry–
he needs to tell us at what point of time physical death ceased being
the wages of sin, and became simply an unintended consequence. Jerry
cannot escape this, no matter how much he vacillates. He is wrong.

Jerry asks: where is the proof that there was death before sin? Adam was
created out of dust, outside the garden (Genesis 2). There was eating–
which involves a death process. Animals ate, did they not? Adam named
the animals– before sin– and the names of the animals denotes violence
/ death! There is a great deal of evidence that there was death before sin.

Jerry manifests more confusion– and overt denial of scripture– by
denying Christ died spiritually. He says, “you can only become
spiritually dead by sin.” Of course, as I noted, Jesus died in our
place. He bore our sins on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). Jerry reiterates
this: “You can only become spiritually dead by sin.” He then simply
ridicules my appeal to Jesus’ words on the cross: “My God, my God, why
have you forsaken me?” But of course, ridicule is not exegesis.

So, Jerry just cites another commentary that agrees with him (but no
exegesis either). Interestingly, even the commentator agrees that
Christ’s words mean that Christ was, “now without the presence of God”!
Jerry say, “Christ did not feel the presence of the Father.” So, like
Adam was cast out of the presence of God, and thus died that very day
(Jerry admitting!!) he denies that this is what happened to Jesus!

Well, let’s see. You can only die due to sin. Physical death was / is
the curse of Adam, says Jerry. Jesus died physically, i.e. the death of
Adam. Therefore, Jesus was guilty of sin! Jerry has man dying
physically, but not due to sin (even though physical death is the death
of Adam!), but then claiming you can’t die spiritually without being
guilty of sin. Unbelievably illogical.

*Is Preston and Anti-Christ?*
Jerry’s total failure of logic is manifested in a chart where he
suggests that I am guilty of being an “anti-Christ.” Once again he sets
up his false “either/or” choice, but, the foundation of his claims is
false. He says I must claim that Jesus did not die physically, because I
affirm that Jesus was separated from the Father. Pure nonsense! Jesus
died physically and rose physically, as a sign of the spiritual realities.

*Knowing the Time – Romans 13:11f*
You can only shake your head at Jerry’s desperation. He said the Romans
knew the time for the War, but did not know the time of Christ’s coming.
So, Paul called the Roman invasion of Jerusalem, “The Day” when “the
night” would pass away! And, he urged the Romans to “awake out of your
sleep” which was a well known euphemism for resurrection!
Paul said the Romans knew the time: “The night is far spent, the Day is
at hand”; “now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed.”
They knew the time- the Day of their salvation– *because the Father
sent the Spirit to tell them the Day was near!*

*MATTHEW 16:27-28*
Another new argument from Jerry, who said he would not introduce new
arguments! (He mentioned the text in his 2nd neg, but not the argument
in Medley 5).
Jerry claims that v. 27 is the “end of time” but v. 28 is Pentecost.
Wrong. I noted in my chart that v. 28 begins with “amen lego humin”
“verily I say to you.” This term is never, ever, used to break up a
discussion, or to introduce a new subject. It is said to draw attention
to what is about to be said, that will emphasize what has just been
said. In other words, VERSE 28 EMPHASIZES VERSE 27! Jerry did not touch
the grammar. He did not touch the fact that Jesus’ coming in v. 27 is a
direct allusion to Isaiah 62 and the prophecy of his coming in judgment
at the time of the Wedding.


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

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
Well, the punishment for sin is supposedly physical death– right,

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.

Jesus did not die to deliver man from physical death (Jerry).
But, Jesus’ death was to deliver man from the death curse of Adam (15:22f).
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.
Christ died as the consequence of his own sin. False, UNLESS one accepts
Jerry’s “No sin guilt = No Death” view.

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 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

Seeking desperately to avoid all of this– although he never addressed a
single one of these arguments directly, Jerry sets up a false
“either-or” by asking: “Did Jesus die on the cross, or did he die
spiritually? Answer: Yes! This is not an “either-or” issue! Jesus’
physical death pointed to the greater spiritual realities taking place!

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:




And of course, he totally ignored this.

Do you catch Jerry’s desperation on full display? He says there is no
millennium, that Revelation 20 “is an indeterminate amount of time.” So,
he thinks by denying that the word “millennium” is there, it counters my
argument. No, my point is that every single text that speaks of Christ
and the church at his coming has him taking her as the Bride– not
divorcing her as demanded by Jerry’s confused theology! Revelation 22:3
has Christ on the throne with the Father, after that “indeterminate
period of time” to use Jerry’s terminology. Christ should not be on that
throne per Jerry!

You will notice that Jerry ignored my linguistic examination of “deliver.”

Jerry repeats his false mantra, that Christ surrenders the church at
his parousia: “If Don is right then Christ turned the church over to the
Father in AD 70. Hmmm, he got married and divorced all in the same act.”
No, Jerry that is your problem, not mine!
Jerry, this is my argument and it defeats you, hands down. Biblically,
Christ marries the church at his parousia– remember Matthew 25? He does
not, as you claim, divorce her!
so-called, non-existent, end of time.

Jerry says, “We are already married to him.” *DO YOU CATCH THAT FATAL
ADMISSION?* Jerry just abdicated– AGAIN!
MATTHEW 25:1F!!)*

We are already married to Christ– Jerry.
But, the Wedding of Christ is posited at the coming of the Lord in the
destruction of “Babylon”– Revelation 19. McD-Rome-Wed
Therefore, the coming of the Lord in the destruction of Babylon has
already taken place!

Jerry says Revelation 18 and 19 are two different scenes thus demanding
a different time of fulfillment!
*Really, Jerry?* What is your proof? They may be different scenes but,
chapter 19 CONTINUES THE VISION from chapter 18. The wedding is the
direct result of the judgment on Babylon. Your desperation is embarrassing.

I have proven that the Wedding takes place as a direct result of the
fall of Babylon, which Jerry identifies as Rome. This is indisputable.
So, Jerry now, ever so desperately, says the Wedding had nothing to do
with Rome!
*Really, Jerry,* what is your proof? You gave us nothing, period. Just
your word, which is not based on the text. And where are your citations
from the commentators trying to support your wild claim that the Wedding
is unrelated to the fall of Babylon? You can’t find them!
I am unaware of any scholar that divorces (pun) the Wedding from the
fall of Babylon. None.

Contra John 20:30-31 Jerry (unbelievably) claims that Jesus’ physical
resurrection was “not a sign of anything!” (No commentary support!) This
is totally unscriptural as I have proven McDnld-Jhn20-31
Jesus was, “declared to be the Son of God…by the resurrection from the
dead” (Romans 1:4) This is sooo embarrassing! See my unanswered
challenge to Jerry. McDnld-SignsChallenge

Jerry insists, based on his distorted view of Matthew 24-25 that there
would be no signs of Christ’s second coming, because after all , he
would come as a thief in the night.
In response, I noted Noah’s ark building. The presence of the ark was a
sure sign of the impending flood. Jerry denies this!
Really, Jerry? The gathering of the animals was a sign. Jerry ignored
this. The fact is that there were signs in Noah’s day, thus falsifying
Jerry’s illogical claim.
In Revelation 3 Jesus said he was coming on the Sardisian church, as a
thief, if they did not watch. JERRY ADMITS THIS COMING OF CHRIST WAS IN
THE FIRST CENTURY! But, entrapped by the implications, he just offers
more wild, desperate claims.
Jesus was coming against the Sardisian church, in the first century.
If they did not “watch”, Jesus was coming as a thief., but they could
not know the hour.
This proves positively that Jesus could (did!) come as a thief, with the
hour unknown! Yet, it could be known, positively, that his coming was
for the first century! Jerry’s admissions are fatal. If this was true in
Revelation 3, it could be, and was true of Matthew 24-25.

I made the following argument: Jesus gave 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
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

What did Jerry do? He never addressed the actual argument, as usual, and
simply decided to once again provide a diversionary argument: If the
World Mission is completed, baptism is voided, the Lord’s Supper is
voided…” All legitimate questions, BUT, not one of these address my
arguments about the nearness of the end!

Did you notice that Jerry could only ridicule my appeal to the personal
pronouns in 1 Corinthians 11? He said if we honor the pronouns there, we
must honor them in Acts 2, and other places. That is right, Jerry, /we
should always honor audience relevance first and foremost!/ Or do you
disagree with that? And if we don’t have to honor them in 1 Corinthians
11, then we don’t have to honor them in 1 Corinthians 1 where Paul says
“/you/” had the gifts of the Spirit! We can apply Jesus’ “he shall guide
/YOU/ into all truth” to ourselves, right, Jerry? Jerry, who told you
that it is okay to ignore audience relevance?

By the way, Jerry admits that Jesus came in AD 70. Jerry needs to tell
us how he knows that the Supper was not to cease at THAT coming? After
all, the personal pronouns demand that the Corinthians would take the
supper “until he comes.” So, Jerry how do you know, from the context,
that the Supper was to continue past AD 70, UNTIL ANOTHER COMING?
Furthermore, Jerry believes Matthew 24:14 was fulfilled in the first
century. Right, Jerry? Or will you deny Colossians 1:5f; v. 23?
So, if Matthew 24:14 was fulfilled, then what is YOUR justification for
the continuance of the World Mission? After all, there aren’t two Great

This is your problem, not mine! I have already justified my reasons on
these things, but you have ignored the fact that YOUR ARGUMENTS POSE THE


I could hardly believe my eyes! John predicted the fiery trial on the
churches of Asia, and Peter, /writing to the same churches/, said the
fiery trial was “among them. This proves Revelation was written prior to
AD 70. How did Jerry “answer” this undeniable fact? He made the
historically unprecedented claim that Peter and John did not write to
the same people! *Really, Jerry?* McDnld-NotSame
I have noted the Greek text demands that fulfillment of Revelation was
near, at hand, and imminent to John.
I have noted the use of /en tachei./ McD-entachei
Jerry gives us some NEW CHARTS desperately trying to avoid the force of
this. Yet, he once again admits that when “en” is added to taxu, “the
meaning is shortly”!
Amazingly, Jerry claims that none of the verses with/en tachei/ speak of
the second coming. Well, Revelation 20-22 speaks of the Judgment,
resurrection, parousia, etc., and says “these things must shortly come
to pass.” Jerry is wrong.

Then, Jerry claims: “The Father knew, (the time of the parousia, DKP)
but he did not tell the apostles through inspiration.”
Jesus said he had to return to the Father, so that the Spirit could be
sent to the apostles. McDnld-RevelatorySp
The Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth, and “and show you
things to come” (John 16:7-13).
The Spirit, given to the apostles, inspired them to write: “the end of
all things has drawn near”; “the coming of the Lord has drawn near”; “in
a very, very little while, the one who is coming will come and will not
Take note of Revelation 1:1-3: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which
God gave to him, to shew to his servants things which must shortly (en
tachei) come to pass… for the time is at hand.”
So, it was the Father (who knew the time) who told Jesus to tell the
churches that the time was at hand, to be fulfilled shortly! And don’t
forget that Jerry has (fatally) admitted that when “en” is added to
“taxu” it means shortly, i.e. imminent! (Not immanent as spelled by Jerry).

In another amazingly desperate claim, Jerry claims, (medley charts),
that, “Jesus said some things must shortly come to pass,” but he did not
say all of it.


There is not one word in Revelation to support Jerry’s wild claim! Where
does the text say “some of these things must shortly come to pass”, or,
“the time is at hand for the fulfillment of some of these things”? There
are no “at hand,” versus “not at hand” statements, or Jerry would have
gladly produced them. He didn’t, because he can’t, and he knows it!
John was told that fulfillment of Revelation was so near that “let the
wicked remain wicked!” Jerry has absolutely refused to deal with this,
choosing instead to divert attention away from it. He has not touched
the argument itself, period! McD-WickedRem

Speaking of imminence. I have argued repeatedly about the anaphoric
article in 1 Peter 4:17 (McD-Anaphoric
/ McD-AnaphoricResponse
/ McD-Anaphoric-Scholrs
In a /stunning/ abuse of the Greek, Jerry claimed that the anaphoric
article in 1 Peter 4:17 modifies “/hetoimos/” in v. 5, and not the word
“judgment.” Unmitigated /nonsense/, and Jerry, who loves to cite the
commentaries, cannot give one Greek authority to support his claim. He
keeps saying I ignored /hetoimos/. No, I have exposed Jerry’s utter
abuse of the Greek, that his claim about /hetoimos/ is irrelevant to
Peter’s use of the anaphoric article. McDnld-Greek

See this on Hebrews 10:37– totally ignored by Jerry– McDnld-Hb10-37

Did you catch Jerry’s admission that he has relied solely on uninspired
secular history, over the emphatic internal declarations of Revelation?
(“Don says that all I have done is to use external sources to prove my
point, and I don’t deny this.” ).

Jerry, our propositions are “The Bible teaches…” not what Pliny said,
or modern commentators. But Jerry complains that I did not follow his
appeal to these external quotations. I did meet his challenge (that he
said I could not do) to produce evidence that John was on Patmos earlier
than the time of Domitian. So, what did Jerry do? He said Preston
resorts to external sources! Look again at my McDnld-Patmos

I offered this:
Revelation 10:7 says the mystery of God foretold in the prophets would
be fulfilled under the 7th Trumpet.
The sounding of the seventh (i.e. the last) trumpet is the time of the
resurrection (1 Corinthians 15; Revelation 11:15f).
But, the seventh trump sounded at the time of the destruction of the
city where the Lord was slain (Rev. 11:8).
Therefore, the resurrection would be at the destruction of the city
where the Lord was slain. All of this agrees with Daniel 12 of course.
Jerry “responded”: “Where do these verses set the time line for the
resurrection. There is nothing about the resurrection here. This is a
vision of the judgment that will come upon those who persecute the seven
churches of Asia.”

Revelation 11 undeniably speaks of the resurrection, but Jerry is so
desperate to avoid this truth he says it is not there!
He says there is no time line in the texts. Of course there is– Under
the 7th Trump- when the city where the Lord was slain would be
destroyed. His denial betrays his desperation.


He admitted that Revelation 11:15f had to occur at the time of, “the
judgment of those who persecute the seven churches of Asia”!
Revelation 11:15f, is the judgment of the dead, the rewarding of the
prophets- the resurrection (Daniel 12)!!!
But, Revelation 11:15f is about “the judgment of those who persecute the
seven churches of Asia”!
Therefore, the judgment of the dead, the rewarding of the prophets- the
resurrection (Daniel 12)– of Revelation 11 occurred in the judgment
of those who persecute the seven churches of Asia”! .

Jerry’s tries to blame the Romans for Jesus’ death. Acts does mention
Pilate, (motivated by the Jews), but, Rome is NOT “where the Lord was
slain.” This is an interpretive phrase. And along with the references to
Sodom and Egypt definitively refutes everything Jerry has said on
Revelation. See my charts on Sodom again. McD-Sodom-1

Jerry says Revelation 21-22 is about heaven. Well, he is arguing with
the text:
This falsifies Jerry’s claim.
2.) The gates of the city are always open, and the nations come into the
city. This is evangelism.
3.) The nations come in for healing– Jerry rejects this, with no
4.) This prophecy is in fulfillment of Ezekiel 37– the promise that
YHVH would set His tabernacle among men, that the nations would glorify
Him– and this is in fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises to Israel!
5.) I have shown that Revelation is about the fulfillment of Daniel.
That prophet was told to seal his vision because fulfillment was far
off, not for his day (Daniel 12:4-13). John, on the other hand was told,
“Do not seal the vision for the time has drawn near.” Jerry has ignored
this, naturally.
6.) Jerry says the language of no more death, tears, etc. must be taken
literally. Okay, then, even though you deny it, that city, its street of
gold, its walls, the River of Life and the Tree of Life must be literal
as well! Your denial was not proof. Your literalism is self defeating.

Jerry poses a closing question: “Would we have hope of eternal life if
Jesus had not been raised up physically from the dead? Answer please!”
Answer: As I have proven, irrefutably and repeatedly, Jesus’ physical
resurrection is proof positive of the spiritual realities. He was
“declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection out from the dead.”
Paul said if he was not raised, faith is in vain.

What Jerry refuses to see is that Jesus was alienated from the Father
(Well, he admitted it, but still wants to escape the force of it. He has
now even admitted that 1 Corinthians 15 speaks of Christ suffering two
deaths! This is totally fatal to his position)!
As I have proven, Paul affirms that Christ was the first to be raised
from the dead. He was not the first to be raised from the dead
physically, and Jerry’s futile attempt to escape this is untenable.

We would have no evidence, no proof of spiritual salvation without the
physical work of Christ, i.e. his incarnation, his suffering, his
resurrection. But as he himself taught repeatedly, to focus on the
physical is to miss the higher, more important spiritual truths. We see
this especially in John, where the Jews– just like Jerry does– focused
on the physical, refusing to see the physical as signs of the spiritual.

This concludes my final negative. I have in fact responded to all of
Jerry’s major arguments, either specifically and directly, or by
implication in demonstrating the fallacy of his presuppositions and
claims. I want to challenge the readers again to go back and read
carefully how I have responded to Jerry’s arguments. He falsely says I
have not followed him. Patently false. But, remember that Jerry told us,
both in his affirmatives and negatives that he had no obligation to
follow me, and in fact, openly stated that he would not do so.

Jerry said I should take a long time to develop my final presentation.
No need to, Jerry! When arguments as unscholarly, so uninformed, so
illogical and so desperate, as your’s, refutation is quick and easy.

Categories: Uncategorized