Archive

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Exposing The church of Christ—Answered

July 13, 2014 1 comment

jerryIn his YouTube video “Exposing the church of Christ” Toby Johnson attempted to show why the churches of Christ are not in accordance with scripture.  This has been attempted by many over the centuries, but none have ever been able to show one legitimate reason for rejecting the churches of Christ as anything other than scriptural.  Men such as Peter Ruckman and Bob Ross (who can’t even agree with one another on major tenets of their faith and have shown such by constantly writing each other up over the years) have tried to show that the church of Christ is not scriptural, but all they did was to make themselves look foolish.  Men such as D.N. Jackson tried in the early 20th century, were  met by men like N.B. Hardeman who effectively shut Jackson down.  At least these men did use some halfway credible arguments in their work, but the person in the video under consideration didn’t even do that much.  Let us notice what he did have to say.

  1. The church of Christ is false because it is like the Pharisees in that they say and do not.  Well Jesus did say “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not” (Mat 23:2-3).  So if the church of Christ is like the Pharisees then men ought to follow what the church of Christ says, just don’t follow their hypocrisy when they say and do not.  What cause does he give for saying we say and do not?  He says we teach that there are about 3,800 different religions, with different names, in the world, but we fail to teach people that we are one of them.  No, our point in telling people that there are about 3,800 different named religions in the world is that with all of this confusion they can’t all be right.  It is common sense.  He seems to have it in for the church of Christ because it is growing.  Does he have it in for the Baptist church because it is growing?  Does he have it in for the Catholic Church because it is growing?  No, only the church of Christ and Seventh Day Adventists.  He says our doctrines are destructive.
  1. He says that we teach that other religions are false because they do not have the name church of Christ.  Actually that is only one point, but there are denominations with the name Church of Christ that we condemn.  The Church of Christ Temple Lot, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  We condemn these because of their false doctrines.  However, there is no reference to a Baptist church, or a Methodist church, or a Pentecostal church in the New Testament.  You do find “church of God” (1 Cor. 1:2), and “churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16).  His second problem is that he doesn’t understand that “churches of Christ” is not a name like “Baptist Church” or “Pentecostal Church.”  “churches of Christ” is merely a descriptive term showing that the church belongs to Christ.
  2. His next mistake is that he claims that we believe that we are the one true church because Jesus said “upon this rock I will build my church” (Mt. 16:18).  Now he claims to have done his homework on what the church of Christ teaches, but I would like for him to show one, just one in the church who says that our church is that rock that Christ said he would build upon.  No, the truth is the rock that Christ would build his church, not Peter, not the church of Christ; but Peter’s confession “thou art the Christ, the son of the Living God” (Mt. 16:16).  Peter’s confession was not taught to him by man, but came by revelation of God (v:17).  So upon the bedrock testimony of the word of God Christ would build his church.  I was raised in the church of Christ; my father was a preacher for the church of Christ; my grandfather was a preacher for the church of Christ and my great grandfather was an elder in the church of Christ, so I think I know a little more about what is taught in the church than this guy who has never done anything more than read what someone has said about the church.
  3. He says that we think we are the one true church because of our name; church of Christ.  Nothing is further from the truth because (1) we don’t have a proper name—church of Christ is a descriptive term; and (2) we are the one true church because we strictly follow what the NT says about how to become Christians.
  4. He says that he doesn’t want to look at instruments in worship because “that’s irrelevant.”  So our worship to God is irrelevant?  Didn’t Jesus say “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (Joh 4:24)?  If that is true how is instrumental music irrelevant?  It isn’t and this person knows, if he knows anything about the church at all, knows that one of the reason we give for being the true church is that our worship is done in spirit and in truth, but he doesn’t want to get into this.
  5. He admits that Rom. 16:16 teaches that the church belongs to Christ and it is not a name, but he does not realize that this is exactly what we teach.  We do not teach that “church of Christ” is the one name, but it is a descriptive term found in the Bible, and you won’t find Baptist, Methodist or Catholic so I guess we are on safe ground calling ourselves “churches of Christ.”
  6. Another error in his thinking is that there has to be a direct operation of the Holy Spirit.  He quoted Paul’s letter to Corinth about being united “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1Co 1:10).  He admits that we are to be of the same mind, but he thinks that the only way we can do this is to have a direct operation of the Holy Spirit.  So in other words a person cannot pick up God’s word and understand it without having a direct operation of the Holy Spirit.  Does the Holy Spirit come upon alien sinners to help them understand?  If so why didn’t he do that for the Eunuch (Acts 8)?  No, he told Philip to go and join himself to the chariot.  When Philip asked him if he understood what he read did he say “How can I except the Holy Spirit should guide me?”  No…he said “how can I except some MAN should guide  me.” If it was up to the Spirit why didn’t Philip tell the Spirit to go to the Eunuch?  No…we don’t have a direct operation of the Spirit.

Mr. Johnson devotes the rest of his speech to trying to convince people of a direct operation of the Holy Spirit.  He said that the only way we can all think the same thing is if we all accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  Listen, the Holy Spirit never once guided people that way.  Not one time did he ever, in conversion, conviction or sanctification directly guide anywhere.  The only thing he used to guide people was the spoken and written word in the early days of the church.  Now that the Bible is complete the only way he guides is through the written word.

The problem is not that the word is not sufficient to guide us, but rather that we are unable to allow the word of guide us.  We think we have to have a special leading of the Spirit, but no one has ever had that.  The Eunuch didn’t have it.  Saul of Tarsus didn’t have it.  Those on Pentecost didn’t have it.  As a matter of fact every example of conversion in the book of Acts has one thing in common; the preaching and teaching of the word.  The Holy Spirit never worked on anyone’s heart to make them believe or give them understanding.  The word is simple enough to understand, and all men can agree on what it says.  And all we need is a will to be united and study and follow God’s word.

Mr. Johnson failed in exposing the church of Christ, but what he did expose was his own lack of knowledge about the church of Christ.  He’s not the only one; he is just in a long line of many. Those churches of Christ that are true to the Bible; worship God in spirit and truth and do what God’s word says are the true church of Christ.  If they are the true church of Christ they won’t wear some name like Baptist or Methodist; they will just be Christians.  The Bible makes Christians only and the only Christians.  If you follow the Bible you won’t be part of any other religious organization; you will be members of the church of Christ.

Oh…and Mr. Johnson please get it right; we don’t join anything—the Lord adds to his church such as should be saved.

 

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized

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” (https://maeft.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/agreement/)

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
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McD-Ignored.pptx>)
all the while claiming to have responded to them! This is nonsense.

*ISAIAH 2-4* McD-Is2-4
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McD-Is2-4.pdf>/
McD-Is2-Desp-1
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McD-Is2-Desp-1.pptx>/
McD-Is2-Desp-2
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McD-Is2-Desp-2.pptx>
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
judgment.
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
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McD-LXX-FalseClm.pptx>/
McD-2Ths-1
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McD-2Ths-1.ppt>/ mcd-relief-ths
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/mcd-relief-ths.pdf>
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
Ephesians.

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.

*JERRY’S BLATANT FALSEHOOD*
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.

*ISAIAH 25*
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-
McD-Is27-Levithan
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McD-Is27-Levithan.pdf>/
McD-Is27-Summary
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McD-Is27-Summary.pdf>
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
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McD-Paulshope.pptx>
Talk about desperation! McD-Is27-Flip
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McD-Is27-Flip.pdf>

*DANIEL 12*
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.
McDn-DestroyorFulfill
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McDn-DestroyorFulfill1.pptx>

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
THE ARMY./
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
desperation!

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
him.

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.”

DO YOU SEE WHAT JERRY DID? *JERRY AFFIRMED A SPIRITUAL DEFINITION OF
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 ON THE PARABLES– THE WEDDING McD-Mt22-Wed
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McD-Mt22-Wed1.ppt>/
McD-mt22-Rv-wed*
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.

*FILLING THE MEASURE OF SIN*
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.

*1 CORINTHIANS 15*
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
didn’t!
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
chart.
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.

*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).”

Here again is the argument– ignored by Jerry.

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, but, he seeks
to deflect the power of this by offering another brand new argument and
chart!

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
worry about death any more BECAUSE THE LAW HAS BEEN DONE AWAY AND DEATH
HAS NO MORE DOMINION OVER US.” (My emp).
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.”

WHAT DOES IT MEAN, AFTER ALL, TO BE FREE FROM THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH?
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
death.
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
eschatology!

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.

*DID JESUS DIE SPIRITUALLY*
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’ SUBSTITUTIONARY DEATH AGAIN– IGNORED BY JERRY.*

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
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.

Further:
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
falsified.

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!

*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.

And of course, he totally ignored this.

*SIT OR QUIT*
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!
*UNBELIEVABLY JERRY HAS CHRIST ALREADY MARRIED*– but divorced at the
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!
*WE ARE ALREADY MARRIED TO CHRIST- JERRY*
*BUT, THE WEDDING OF CHRIST OCCURS AT HIS PAROUSIA (ISAIAH 62:3-12;
MATTHEW 25:1F!!)*
*THEREFORE, CHRIST’S SECOND COMING, FOR HIS WEDDING HAS ALREADY TAKEN
PLACE.*

Furthermore,
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
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McD-Rome-Wed.pptx>
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.

*JESUS’ RESURRECTION A SIGN*
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
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McDnld-Jhn20-311.pptx>
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
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McDnld-SignsChallenge.pptx>

*MORE ON SIGNS*
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.

*THE WORLD MISSION*
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
24:14). So, THE COMPLETION OF THE MISSION WAS A SIGN OF THE END. 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!!).

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
Commissions!

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
SAME PROBLEMS FOR YOU!

*REVELATION*

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
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McDnld-NotSame.pptx>
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
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McD-entachei.ppt>
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.”
*REALLY, JERRY?*
Jesus said he had to return to the Father, so that the Spirit could be
sent to the apostles. McDnld-RevelatorySp
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McDnld-RevelatorySp.pptx>
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
tarry.”
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.

*REALLY, JERRY?*

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
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McD-WickedRem.ppt>/
McD-wickd-2
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McD-wickd-2.pptx>

Speaking of imminence. I have argued repeatedly about the anaphoric
article in 1 Peter 4:17 (McD-Anaphoric
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McD-Anaphoric.pptx>
/ McD-AnaphoricResponse
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McD-AnaphoricResponse.pptx>
/ McD-Anaphoric-Scholrs
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McD-Anaphoric-Scholrs.pptx>).
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
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McDnld-Greek.pptx>

See this on Hebrews 10:37– totally ignored by Jerry– McDnld-Hb10-37
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McDnld-Hb10-37.pptx>

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
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McDnld-Patmos.pptx>.

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.

*DO YOU CATCH WHAT JERRY ADMITTED?*

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
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McD-Sodom-1.ppt>/
McD-Jer=Sodom
<http://www.bibleprophecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/McD-JerSodom.ppt>

Jerry says Revelation 21-22 is about heaven. Well, he is arguing with
the text:
1.) The New Jerusalem COMES DOWN FROM HEAVEN– IT DOES NOT LEAVE EARTH!
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
justification.
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

McDonald’s Final Affirmative

July 26, 2013 2 comments

jerryMcDonald’s Fourth Affirmative

Brother Preston and interested readers:

The proposition is:  “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.”

I appreciate the opportunity to, once again, be back in the affirmative of this part of the debate.  As I said, in an earlier article, this final affirmative will be used solely for defense of the arguments I have made.  I have finished with making new affirmative arguments.

I contend that I have answered everything Don has brought up as a rebuttal, and I have established my affirmative, but I will hold off on my summation until after Don’s final rebuttal.  He states “Jerry challenges me: ‘Deal with my syllogisms.’ This coming from the man that openly stated that he would not address my syllogisms!”  I have explained to him that his syllogisms deal with his interpretation on the book of Revelation which is based on an early date; something for which he has absolutely NO historical evidence.  I have told him time and again that he needs to deal with the arguments I made on the late date of Revelation and not just dismiss them, but this is something he has refused to do.  The syllogisms I made concerning the “resurrection of the dead” in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 are clear, precisely stated arguments, and are not dependent upon the date of the book without having any credible evidence for that date.  They are valid and they are sound, therefore their conclusions are true.  This is what Don continues to evade.  He has claimed that some in Corinth did not say that there is no resurrection of the dead, but Paul said “how say some of you, that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Cor. 15:12).

However, so that Don won’t have anything else to cry about and so he will deal with my syllogisms, I will answer his arguments concerning Revelation on the following chart.  Now that should suffice.  I looked and found no syllogisms, at least none that were clearly defined as such.  But any how his arguments fall flat because of his mis-use of the passages that he brought up from 1 Peter and Revelation.

As far as my use of the word Trans millennialism he said “This is all I have to say about Jerry’s use of Transmillennialism,”  Look at the following chart on this.

Don claims that I have made “arguments that are historically unprecedented, illogical, blatantly unscriptural– and totally false” (Preston’s Third Rebuttal).   Then he begins his list with his complaint that I misrepresented him by saying that he teaches every occurrence of the phrase “day of the Lord” refers to A.D. 70.  Notice the chart that contains the statement I presented last time, a statement he chooses to ignore.  The truth will not be put off just because Don ignores it.  If Don is going to continue to contend that  2 Thess. 1:9 and Isa. 2:19 refer to the same thing because of the words “glory of his power” appearing in both, 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?

Don:   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).

2Th 1:9  οιτινες δικην τισουσιν ολεθρον αιωνιον απο προσωπου του κυριου και απο της δοξης της ισχυος αυτου

Isa 2:19  εἰσενέγκαντες εἰς τὰ σπήλαια καὶ εἰς τὰς σχισμὰς τῶν πετρῶν καὶ εἰς τὰς τρώγλας τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ φόβου κυρίου καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τς σχύος αὐτοῦ, ὅταν ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν.

Now if those words mean that Paul was quoting Isa. 2:19 then the same words mean he was quoting Isa. 2:10 “Isa 2:10  Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty” which in the LXX is “Isa 2:10  καὶ νῦν εἰσέλθετε εἰς τὰς πέτρας καὶ κρύπτεσθε εἰς τὴν γῆν ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ φόβου κυρίου καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τς σχύος αὐτοῦ, ὅταν ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν.” As well as “Isa 2:21  To go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.” Which in the LXX is “Isa 2:21  τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὰς τρώγλας τῆς στερεᾶς πέτρας καὶ εἰς τὰς σχισμὰς τῶν πετρῶν ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ φόβου κυρίου καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τς σχύος αὐτοῦ, ὅταν ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν.”  Now if Paul was quoting Isa. 2:19 verbatim because δοξης της ισχυος “glory of his power (majesty)” is used in both 2 Thess. 1:9 and Isa. 2:19, then Paul must also have been quoting Isa. 2:10 and 2:21 verbatim because those same words “δοξης τη?ς ισχυος (glory of his power-majesty)” are used in both of those verses as well.  So just which verses was Paul quoting verbatim, since none of them say anything close to what Paul said in 2 Thess. 1:7-9?

I am sure that Don will contend that all four verses refer to the same thing.  Now here is the problem:  (1) The context of Isaiah 2:2-4 has reference to the church coming into its established state on the day of Pentecost.  Verses 5-10 Isaiah instructs the house of Jacob to walk in the light of the Lord.  The reason that God will refuse his people is because of their evil works.  Their land is full of silver, and idols, and the mean man bows down and the great man humbles himself.  He will not be forgiven.  The faithful of Jacob’s house (the remnant) is the enter into the rock (Jesus Christ) and hide in the dust for the fear of the Lord and the glory of his majesty.  This cannot have reference to the second coming, but according to Don’s position it must because the same phrase is used in both places.  Verses 19 through 21 is just more of the same.  It is talking about the coming of the church which came on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.  However, 2 Thess. 2:7-9 is talking about a different time all together; the second coming of Christ.

Don says that because the same phrase is used in 2 Thess. 1:7-9 that is used in Isa. 2:19 they must be referring to the same thing.  He gives no evidence that Paul was quoting Isaiah, only that the same words are there.  Paul does not claim to be quoting anyone; that is Don’s claim.

Therefore, for Don to remain consistent on this, he must also say that every time the words “day of the Lord” are used they refer to the same thing; the second coming which he says is A.D. 70.  He will deny it because of the usage of the term in Obadiah verse 15 to talk about God destroying the enemies of his children.  This he denies is the 2nd coming, as do I.  However, he will claim that every other place where the phrase occurs it refers to the 2nd coming which he contends happened in AD 70.  The only reason he won’t contend this for Obadiah v. 15 is because the context is so clear that even he cannot ignore it.

He may not explicitly teach it,  but by implication it is part of his doctrine whether he likes it or not.  He cannot get away from it unless he is willing to abandon his position on 2 Thess. 1:7-9 and Isa. 2:19.  So his little quip about my not understanding logic is nullified.  I understand logic all too well.  It is not the fact that he says that if 2 Thess. 1:7-9 and Isa. 2:19 refer to the same thing then the day of the Lord must always refer to the same thing, but why he says it.  He gives no reason for Paul’s usage of “glory of his power” referring to the same event as Isaiah’s “glory of his majesty.”  He says that because they are the same words, they have to refer to the same thing.  Therefore, if such is the case then because the words “Day of the Lord” are the same words in all the verses in the Bible (Obadiah v. 15 included) they must all refer to the same event.  That’s his logic, not mine.

He says that he demonstrated that Isaiah foretold the “last days” in Isaiah 2-4, but what he calls the last days and what Isaiah was referring to are two totally different things.  He calls the last days were the last days of Jerusalem before it fell, and Isaiah was talking about an event, in chapter 2, that would happen years before that event.  Isaiah was talking about the church coming into existence (Isa. 2:2-4).  Don’s position is that it came in on Pentecost but it wasn’t matured until AD 70.  Hmmm, funny thing about that because Paul wrote to Ephesus:

“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;  (12)  For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:  (13)  Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:  (14)  That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;  (15)  But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:  (16)  From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love” (Eph 4:11-16).

According to Paul these Christians were supposed to be matured already (before AD 70).  Paul told Timothy that the scriptures would make the man of God “perfect or complete-teleos-mature” unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:17).  This was also before AD 70.  Now Don comes along and completely wipes all that out by saying that the church was not matured until AD 70.  Way to go Don, you have just wiped out 2000 years of Biblical Doctrine in just a few short years.  No, I think I’ll stick with Paul, he was inspired and Don isn’t.

Don says he has quoted the world’s greatest linguists, but he hasn’t.  He quoted one, Vincent, I believe, who said that Paul used the exact phrase that Isaiah used, but that does not mean that Paul was quoting Isaiah 2:19.  In my first oral debate I used an exact phrase against my opponent that my father had used against an opponent during an oral debate he had, but that did not mean that I was quoting Thomas Harvey McDonald.  Wake up Don!

The Jewish Army

He then says that the Jews did have an army in AD 70.

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 entrusted with him…” (Wars, Bk. 3:7). JOSEPHUS SAID HE WAS GENERAL OVER THE JEWISH ARMY.

When you look at the ellipsis’ in Don’s statement one wonders what Don has left our.  Elipsis’ are usually added when irrelevant information needs to be cut out, but the material that Don cut was not irrelevant.  Notice the following chart.

So Josephus’ army left and fled and Josephus was not able to stand against a real army, so he fled and sent word asking if they had come to terms or if they were going to send him an army SUFFICIENT TO FIGHT THE ROMANS.  In other words, his so called army was not much of an army.

Don seems to leave relevant information like this out because the context shows his utter failure.  Josephus’ so-called army wasn’t an army of trained soldiers.  It was a group of regular men regular men who Josephus tried to train, but they surrendered by 67 AD 3 years before A.D. 70.  So again, I ask, where was Israel’s army in AD 70?

Josephus wrote his own Bibliopoly and wrote:

Those of Gamala also wrote to me, desiring me to send them an armed force, and workmen to raise up the walls of their city; nor did I reject either of their requests. The region of Gaulanitis did also revolt from the king, as far as the village Solyma. I also built a wall about Seleucia and Soganni, which are villages naturally of ver great strength. Moreover, I, in like manner, walled several villages of Upper Galilee, though they were very rocky of themselves. Their names are Jamnia, and Meroth, and Achabare. I also fortified, in the Lower Galilee, the cities Tarichee, Tiberias, Sepphoris, and the villages, the cave of Arbela, Bersobe, Selamin, Jotapata, Capharecho, and Sigo, and Japha, and Mount Tabor.15 I also laid up a great quantity of corn in these places, and arms withal, that might be for their security afterward” (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.i.html).

Josephus says nothing about training an army.  This is someone elses idea of what Josephus did.

So Josephus’ Jewish army was not much of an army.  These weren’t trained soldiers, they were regular men as is noted below:

The word “army” is defined in the following ways:

Definition of ARMY

1 a : a large organized body of armed personnel trained for war especially on land b : a unit capable of independent action and consisting usually of a headquarters, two or more corps, and auxiliary troops c often capitalized : the complete military organization of a nation for land warfare

2: a great multitude <an army of birds>

3: a body of persons organized to advance some cause.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/army

Now the main definition of an army is a large organized body of armed personnel TRAINED FOR WAR.  Those Jews were not trained.  They were regular people who had armed themselves and had submitted themselves under the leadership of certain leaders.  These people were not serving a specified amount of time.  These were not paid soldiers.  This was nothing more than people who had armed themselves and had organized to advance their cause.  This is why when they would see the strength of the Roman army they would flee.  Notice the chart on the Wars of the Jews.

Don says that my statement about the chaos in Jerusalem was not wrong after all.  Yes there were excursions and times when the Jews became troublesome, but they had no real army and Josephus was NOT a General; it was said by the High Priest and the rulers of the people that he had conducted himself like a general:

“but Artanus the high priest demonstrated to them that this was not an easy thing to be done, because many of the high priests and of the rulers of the people bore witness that I had acted like an excellent general, and that it was the work of ill men to accuse one against whom they had nothing to say” (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.i.html).

“JERRY ON DANIEL 12”

He says that I have now taken five positions on Dan. 12.  Nope, just two.  I first took the position that Israel’s power was the gospel because I was unaware that Don was quoting from Daniel chapter 2, but when I realized where he was getting this I went there, studied it and then took the position (which I presently hold) that the “power of the holy people” was their military power; the power to make war to have an army.  I pointed out that some commentators thought that it might be the church, but I don’t agree with them.  Now, I have found one more that takes another position.  Now I really hesitate to bring this one up for fear that Don is going to cry that I am holding a NEW position, so let me say from the outset “This Is Not My Position, But One That I Discovered In My Research, And I Wanted To Show How Others Think.”  However, not one standard commentator anywhere  takes Don’s position that it is the Old Testament Law.  So here is the new position I have found:

“When the power of the shatterer of the holy people shall come to an end.” Behrmann sees grammatical difficulties, but these are not cogent; but the argument for this change is weak. Yet we prefer, though with difficulty, Professor Bevan’s reading. It makes the connection much simpler to take this solution, as the end of all things is not the scattering of the holy people, but their building up. If we had any authority from the versions we should be inclined to read twOlK”mi instead of twOLk”k]W, and insert d[” before hn;yl,k]Ti, and thus would wish to render, “From the breaking of the power of the scatterer of the holy people till all these thingsare ended.” This gives beth termini, but none of the versions gives any hint of such a reading. All these things shall be finished. As the resurrection is mentioned in the second verse, we might at once assume that this refers to the end of time; but <402434>Matthew 24:34, compared with 30, renders this conclusion doubtful  (The Pulpit Commentary, Daniel, p. 12).

Don knows that I have only taken two positions on the “power of the holy people,” and I have explained why I took the first one and no longer hold it.

Did Daniel prophecy of Antiochus Epiphanes?  Notice the commentators who seem to think so:

“’We find in this chapter,’ says Mr. Bevan, ‘a complete survey of the history from the beginning of the Persian period down to the time of the author. Here, even more than in the earlier vision, we are scale to perceive how the account gradually becomes more definite as it approaches the latter part of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, and how it then passes suddenly from the domain of historical facts to that of ideal expectations’” (The Expositor’s Bible, Farrar, p. 173).

Notice also that the Pulpit Commentary also states:

A great number of interpreters — not merely those of the critical school — maintain that “time” here is a literal year, and the days of the succeeding verses literal days, and that the period in question is that between the desecration of the temple by Antiochus’s orders, and the setting up “the abomination of desolation” (1 Macc. 1:54), till the Jews were able to sacrifice once more in the re-consecrated temple (1 Macc. 4:52) (Ibid,p. 11).

Now while he disagrees with them, he does acknowledge the fact that many interpreters maintain that this was meant for the time when Antiochus would desecrate the temple.  Some consider the destruction of the temple as the desolation, but killing a sow in the temple and offering it on the altar was more of a desolation because it completely desecrated the temple.  Don makes too much out of A.D. 70 and not enough out of the desecration of the temple by Antiochos.  As far as he is concerned the Bible says nothing to the Jews about that time.

Albert Barnes wrote:

“And at that time – At the period referred to in the preceding chapter. The fair construction of the passage demands this interpretation, and if that refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, then what is here said must also; and we are to look for the direct and immediate fulfillment of this prediction in something that occurred under him, however, it may be supposed to have an ultimate reference to other and more remote events” (Barnes Notes, e-Sword).

Matthew Poole wrote:

“Ver. 1. Many interpret this of the heat of Antiochus’s persecution, but their arguments are not cogent; but the meaning is this, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance and respite, so there will be yet a more famous deliverance to the people of God when Michael your prince, i.e. Messiah the Prince, shall signally appear for your salvation. He is called” (Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Sword Searcher).

Don seems to think that he is in the affirmative and that I am in the negative.  Notice what he says:  “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.’”  No, I am sorry Don, I don’t have to do that because I am not in the negative, I am in the affirmative, you are in the negative, and it is your obligation  to meet my arguments (something you have not even endeavored to do) rather than the other way around.

You cannot take chapter 12 out of context.  It follows chapter 11 and refers to the events following chapter 11.  Notice

“And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him” (Dan 11:25)

Keil & Delitzsch wrote concerning this verse:

“These verses describe the victorious war of the king who had come to power against the king of the south, the war of Antiochus Epiphanes against king Ptolemy Philometor, which is described in 1 Macc. 1:16-19, with manifest reference to this prophecy. וְיָעֵר (he shall stir up) is potentialis in the sense of divine decree: “he shall stir up his power and his heart.” כֹּחַ is not warlike power, which is mentioned in בְּחַיִל־גָּדֹול (Dan_11:25), but the power which consists in the bringing of a great army under his command; לֵבָב, the mental energy for the carrying out of his plans. For יַעֲמֹד לֹא, cf. Dan_8:4.” (E-Sword).

 

Don’s Constituent Elements of Daniel 12

1.)Constituent Element Number One:  The Great Tribulation.

Don talks about “The great tribulation” which goes to show that he is making the same arguments as the Premillenialists make, just drawing a different conclusion.  Don makes this refer to AD 70 based on the statement “and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time.”  He would like for it to read “and never shall there ever be,” but that isn’t what it said.  It said “such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time.”  I would say that what the Jews went through with their captivities under the Babylonian rulers, the Medeo/Persian rulers, the Grecian Rulers, then the Selucian rulers and Rome which followed could be considered “such as never had been.”  Antiochus Epiphanies sacked the temple, offered a sow on it, then went to war with the Maccabean.  Josephus wrote:

1. AT the same time that Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes, had a quarrel with the sixth Ptolemy about his right to the whole country of Syria, a great sedition fell among the men of power in Judea, and they had a contention about obtaining the government; while each of those that were of dignity could not endure to be subject to their equals. However, Onias, one of the high priests, got the better, and cast the sons of Tobias out of the city; who fled to Antiochus, and besought him to make use of them for his leaders, and to make an expedition into Judea. The king being thereto disposed beforehand, complied with them, and came upon the Jews with a great army, and took their city by force, and slew a great multitude of those that favored Ptolemy, and sent out his soldiers to plunder them without mercy. He also spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months. But Onias, the high priest, fled to Ptolemy, and received a place from him in the Nomus of Heliopolis, where he built a city resembling Jerusalem, and a temple that was like its temple (1) concerning which we shall speak more in its proper place hereafter.

2. Now Antiochus was not satisfied either with his unexpected taking the city, or with its pillage, or with the great slaughter he had made there; but being overcome with his violent passions, and remembering what he had suffered during the siege, he compelled the Jews to dissolve the laws of their country, and to keep their infants uncircumcised, and to sacrifice swine’s flesh upon the altar; against which they all opposed themselves, and the most approved among them were put to death. Bacchides also, who was sent to keep the fortresses, having these wicked commands, joined to his own natural barbarity, indulged all sorts of the extremest wickedness, and tormented the worthiest of the inhabitants, man by man, and threatened their city every day with open destruction, till at length he provoked the poor sufferers by the extremity of his wicked doings to avenge themselves” (Wars of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 1, verses 1,2).

 

2.) Constituent Element Number Two:  The resurrection of both just and unjust to eternal life / condemnation.

 

Let us look at his constituent element of the resurrection mention in Dan. 12:2 and we immediately notice a couple of things.  This 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).  Now what does this mean for Don?   Well friends, Don claims that the resurrection of the dead is not a literal resurrection of the body from the grave, but is the resurrection of the life lost in Adam and the resurrection of Christianity from Judaism.  This plainly says “many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake.”  Now Don can do one of two things here (1) he can repudiate his position on what the resurrection is and say that this is a literal bodily resurrection and that this is a prophecy of the end of the world, but when he does he will completely demolish his theory of AD 70 because no graves were opened then, or (2) he can continue to hold to his theory and say that this is not a literal resurrection; that it is a vision and has a figurative meaning in which case he will have to prove that it does not refer to the remnant of Israel coming back after having been in captivity because of their sins.  So either way, this constituent element is out of the discussion for Don.

2.) The end of the age.  When was this age going to end?  Paul said that the law ended at the cross “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Col 2:14).  But I guess Paul didn’t know what he was talking about because Don comes along and says “No, it didn’t end until A.D. 70.”

3.)           The Abomination of Desolation (v. 9f).

This includes the shattering of  the power of the Holy People.  (1) Jesus said the law would never be broken  “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).  Notice the chart on the word “destroy.”

Jesus said he was not going to do that, so how does Don come along and say that this is exactly what Jesus did in A.D. 70?

Also look at the chart the word shattered shows that Antiochus would complete what others had started

4.)           The rewarding of the dead prophets (v. 13).

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.

Don Preston:  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.”

McDonald:  I don’t know, you tell us since you are the one who doesn’t believe in the actual resurrection from the dead.  If you say that it is some sort of figurative resurrection, then I am just as justified in saying that it was a figurative resurrection/restoration of the old Jews of that time back to their place in God’s kingdom after their captivity.  So you tell us!

Don Preston:  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”?

McDonald:  I don’t know, you tell us since you don’t believe in a resurrection from the dead.  All you believe in is a resurrection of the life lost in Adam, but Dan. 12:2 speaks of a resurrection of both the evil and the good.  Dan. 4:12f is about Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Daniel’s interpretation of it which had to do with Nebuchadnezzar losing his kingdom.  Nothing about the rewarding of the prophets there.

Preston:  According to Revelation 11:15f the prophets would be rewarded at the time of the fall of the city “where the Lord was slain.”

McDonald:  Rev. 11:18 shows that God’s faithful will be rewarded, just like Dan. 12:13.  Both show that God’s faithful will be rewarded in the end.  Rev. 2:10 says “be thou faithful unto death and I will give thee a crown of life.”  There is nothing mystical here, it is just another verse among many in the Bible that teaches children of God to be faithful.  None of them say when God will return to reward them, they are just promised that he will.

“This proves that the death and resurrection in Corinthians was not biological death, or a bodily resurrection Preston’s Second Negative

The resurrection of both just and unjust to eternal life / condemnation. Preston’s Third Negative”

In his second negative he says that the resurrection in 1 Corinthians (which he says was based on Daniel 12:1-3) was not a bodily resurrection, but in his third negative he says that the resurrection in Dan. 12:1-3 is a resurrection of both the just and the unjust to eternal life or condemnation.  If it is a resurrection of the just and unjust then it would necessarily be a bodily resurrection from the grave.  1 Cor. Chapter 15 tells us that when we die our bodies are physical bodies,  but when we are raised they will be spiritual bodies.  But it will be a bodily resurrection.

Question:  If the resurrection in Dan. 12:2 is the resurrection of the dead, and if the just are restored to the life lost in Adam, then what are the wicked restored to?

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:

Do I believe  that the church was the resurrection of Judaism?  Certainly not!  The Law of Moses was the shadow of the Law of Christ, it was the schoolmaster to bring those under it to Christ, but Christianity would not rise out of Judaism.  When the Law of Moses was taken out of the way (died – Rom. 7:1-4) it stayed dead, it was not resurrected.  Those people under it were to be married to another.  Another what?  Another law!  Paul didn’t say that the woman of Rom. 7:1-4 would marry her husband after he was resurrected, but that she would be married to another man, a different man, a totally different man.  Thus showing that when the law of Moses died those under it were to be married to another law, the law of Christ, a completely different law; not a resurrection of Judaism.

I have explained 1 Corinthians chapter 15 several times.  Don says that the Corinthians were not saying that there was no resurrection from the dead, but Paul said “How say some of you, THAT THERE IS NO RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD?”  The entire context of 1 Cor. 15 is talking about a literal bodily resurrection from the physical dead.  So this brings up a point:  If Christ died spiritually, then was his resurrection a physical resurrection or a spiritual one.  Don answers this.  Please look at the following chart.

The law of Moses was taken out of the way when Christ died on the cross, but the resurrection of the dead will not happen until Christ returns.  If Christ has returned then–

1. Baptism is no longer valid.

2. The Lord’s Supper is no longer valid.

3. The church is no longer necessary.

4. Christians no longer need to watch for the second coming.

5. Every knee has bowed and every tongue has confessed to Christ.

6. Every man has received judgment.

Don is confused on what he believes the resurrection is.

1 One of the constituent elements of Dan.  12 he says:  ” The resurrection of both just and unjust to eternal life / condemnation.

Does he honestly expect us to believe that he holds to this as the resurrection of the just and the unjust to life eternal and condemnation?  Let us notice how he defines the resurrection of the dead:

“By the resurrection of the dead, I mean the restoration of the life lost in Adam” (Preston’s First Affirmative).

Now if the resurrection of the dead is the restoration of the life lost in Adam, then what is it for the ungodly?  Are they going to have the life lost in Adam restored to them?  No, I don’t think so.  .

2.Then he says “Here is the death of the “mortal body” of Torah– giving way to the immortal body of Christ.”

He can’t have it both ways:  Either the resurrection is where the just and the unjust rise to eternal life and condemnation, or the resurrection is the death of the Torah  rising to the body of Christ.  So which is it Don?

Daniel says that ” 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).  So this is not some figurative resurrection where Christianity is to be resurrected out of Judaism or people are to be restored to the life lost in Adam.

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.”

McDonald:  Did Jesus die on the cross, or did he die spiritually.  Was he physically raised from physical death,  or was he raised from spiritual death?  Chart.

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!

Answer:  Your death would  not make you spiritually dead.  You can only become spiritually dead by sin:  “The soul that sinneth it shall die” (Ezk. 18:20).  Have I ever read 2 Cor. 5:21?  Yes I have, but it doesn’t mean that Christ died spiritually any more than it means what Billy Graham said it meant when he said it meant that Christ became guilty of sin.  “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2Co 5:21)  In the original the words “to be” are not present.  In the KJV they are in italics to show that they were supplied by the translators.  So it actually reads “For he hath made him sin for us….” which as Barnes says:  “The Greek here is, ‘for him who knew no sin, he hath made sin, or a sin-offering for us’” (Barnes Notes, e-Sword).  God didn’t make Christ a sinner, guilty of sin and Christ did not die spiritually.  Christ was simply offered up as a sin offering.  Remember Christ told the thief on the Christ “To day shalt thou be with me in Paradise” (Lk. 23:43), so when Christ died he went to Paradise; a strange place for someone to go to who had died spiritually.

Question:  If Christ went to Paradise when he died, why was he raised Spiritually?

Looking at the word death in Romans chapter five Robert Whiteside wrote:

“It is true that physical death came as a result of sin, but so also does spiritual death.  The context and the nature of Paul’s argument must determine which death is here meant.  In this Roman letter Paul frequently uses the word death, without saying which death he means, leaving the reader to determine from the context which death he means” (Commentary on Romans, p 120).

In verse 12 Paul is talking about spiritual death which comes about as a direct result of one’s sin.  This actually goes against Don’s argument that Jesus died spiritually.  He uses the tired old argument of Jesus saying “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mt. 27:46) to argue that Jesus died spiritually.  Gill wrote:

“When he is said to be “forsaken” of God; the meaning is not, that the hypostatical union was dissolved, which was not even by death itself; the fulness of the Godhead still dwelt bodily in him: nor was he separated from the love of God; he had the same interest in his Father’s heart and favor, both as his Son, and as mediator, as ever: nor was the principle and habit of joy and comfort lost in his soul, as man, but he was now without a sense of the gracious presence of God, and was filled, as the surety of his people, with a sense of divine wrath, which their iniquities he now bore, deserved, and which was necessary for him to endure, in order to make full satisfaction for them; for one part of the punishment of sin is loss of the divine presence” (Exposition of the New Testament, Matthew, E-Sword).

Just because God could not look at Christ, just because Christ did not feel the Father’s presence does not mean that Christ was spiritually dead.  It just means that God is of purer eyes than to behold sin (Hab. 3:13) and when Christ bore the sins of the world the Father could not behold him.  Jesus was at no time spiritually separated from the Father.  The Father just could not look at him.

Here is what Josephus said of his command and this will show exactly what Josephus said, not some dissected version of it.

He wants to talk about Zechariah chapter 14 as though it is a prophecy of the 2nd coming and fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.  But notice what is said in verse 2:  “For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.”  Was half of Jerusalem taken into captivity in AD 70 and the other have not cut off from the city?  When you look at it, contextually it is speaking of Jerusalem being taken into bondage.  They didn’t all go at once, they went in succession.

As far as God knowing the day this would happen, only he knew when this destruction would happen.  Only God knows when Christ will return.

Don says:  “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)”  So according to Don, the gospel mission has been completed, thus fulfilled.  Therefore, we don’t have the great commission.  Without the great commission we don’t have the great commission baptism.  Without the great commission we don’t have the gospel.  Without the gospel we cannot partake of the Lord’s supper because we are to proclaim the Lord’s death (the gospel) till he comes (1 Cor. 11:26).  Without the great commission the church does not exist.  So Don is left with River’s position that everything was fulfilled in A.D. 70 and that nothing applies to us today.

Don says:  “WHAT THE CORINTHIANS BELIEVED  Jerry simply repeats his mantra that the scoffers in Corinthian denied the resurrection.”  Well here is my mantra:  “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).  Now he has not dealt with that verse though I have brought to his attention in nearly every article I have written.  Like so many other things, he simply ignores it hoping it will go away.  Sorry, it won’t.  My mantra is Paul’s mantra.

Don says that the personal pronouns in 1 cor. 11:26 “you” don’t refer to us.  Well then I guess Acts 2:38 doesn’t apply to us “repent ye, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.”  I guess we don’t have to obey Rom. 12:1:  “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.”  And what about Rom. 12:18 “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.”  So I guess we don’t have to live peaceably with all men, huh?  Nough said?

THE LAST ENEMY

He says that 1 Cor. 15 was talking about bringing to a close the last enemy of Christians.  Wrong, 1 Cor. 15:54,55 was showing that until Christ died man’s worst enemy was death because there was no hope after death.  But when Christ died on the cross and was raised that curse was taken from us.  Therefore it is no longer our greatest threat.

JESUS’ RESURRECTION A SIGN

John 20:30,31 was not talking about Jesus’ resurrection.  Notice 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).  Now what signs is John talking about?

Chart on Noah and the Signs.

Here is a medley of charts dealing with several of his charts.

SIT OR QUIT? Well, REVELATION 22:3 HAS JESUS ON THE THRONE, WITH THE FATHER, AFTER THE MILLENNIUM!

There is no millennium.  The thousand years in Rev. chap 20 is an in determinate amount of time, not a literal thousand years.  This is another piece of evidence that Don has gone the way of millennialism.

Don says:  “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).

McDonald:  No, that is not Jerry, that is Paul:  “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).

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

McDonald:  We are the bride of Christ.  We are already married to him, which is why we cannot serve anyone else.  If we weren’t married to him we would be able to serve another.

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

In the judgment Christ will turn all authority over to the Father, he will turn the church over to the Father.  The only way Don can hold to his doctrine is to deny that Christ will turn the church over to God.  In his mind the wedding took place in AD 70, but Paul said that Christ would turn the church over to the Father.  So if Paul was right and if Don was right then Christ turned the church over to the Father in AD 70.  Hmmm, he got married and divorced all in the same act.

Chart on healing.  Chart on John on Patmos.  Chart on Abomination of desolation.    Chart on Destroy or Fulfill.  Now notice the chart on whether or not he has answered all of my arguments.  The following charts are lists of charts dealing with the rest of Don’s charts.

Charts.

Charts.

Charts.

Charts.

Charts.

I have a question for Don:  Would we have hope of eternal life if Jesus had not been raised up physically from the dead?  Answer please!

I have dealt with Don’s third rebuttal.  Now perhaps he will do me the honor of dealing with my arguments point by point?  He complained because it has taken me a long time to get these articles out, and it has, but it might do him some good to take a little time.  That way he might not make as many horrific mistakes as he has made, especially in his third rebuttal.  I now ask you to read Don’s article closely.

Categories: Uncategorized

BSA and Gay: Phase One

May 28, 2013 Leave a comment

News to Know

by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell

May 25, 2013

NBC: “Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth

Boy Scouts of America votes to admit openly gay members.

Just thirteen years ago, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed that fact that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), as a private membership organization, is free to admit or deny admittance to anyone they choose.1 And now, the BSA has chosen.

Scout holding up sign

Boy Scouts pledge to be “morally straight,” and historically biblical morality has been the standard on which Scout morality was based. Not anymore. Many traveled to Grapevine, Texas, to let Scout leadership voting on the proposal to admit openly gay youths to the Boy Scouts of America know their feelings. But the position represented by this mother and son lost. Image: Lm Otero/AP usnews.nbcnews.com

After years of controversy about whether or not the BSA should permit homosexual leaders and members, the organization’s leadership council this week voted to allow openly homosexual boys to join and participate. While no vote was taken on the question of allowing homosexual leaders—leaving the ban on openly gay leaders in place for the moment—gay activists are already gearing up for phase two: another push to get gay leaders accepted. Indeed, how can BSA endorse the acceptability of a homosexual lifestyle in its boys and continue to deny it as an acceptable lifestyle in its adult leaders?

Nearly 3 million youth and a million adults participate in the Boy Scouts of America, and since 1911 they have all pledged to be “morally straight.” Just last summer the BSA reaffirmed its 22-year policy of “not granting membership to open or avowed homosexuals.”2 The Boy Scouts has never been a Christian organization per se, but it has historically held to Christian moral standards as defined in the Bible. In 1991, the BSA established its ban on openly homosexual members and leaders because homosexual behavior is not “morally straight.”3 More than 70% of the BSA troops are sponsored by religious groups that tend to take a dim view of the homosexual lifestyle. The fact that openly homosexual leaders are still not permitted affirms the fact that biblical morality has been the acknowledged source of the Scouts’ moral code. God’s Word is the only standard for morality. Scripture is clear that homosexual behavior is sinful and immoral (Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9–11; 1 Timothy 1:8–11).

So how is it that this private organization has opted to redefine the standards of morality that its members promise to uphold? How is it that homosexual activists, excluded from both leadership and membership by longstanding policy, have succeeded in gaining BSA affirmation of their lifestyle?

The latest push for a policy change got a boost from the President of the United States, by tradition the honorary president of the BSA. President Obama put pressure on the Scouts to admit practicing homosexuals. Rancorous public controversy from February 2013 remained unresolved as BSA executives opted to delay a final decision until this National Council meeting of over 1,400 Boy Scout leaders in Grapevine, Texas. 61% of the delegates have now voted out biblical morality—757 voted to admit openly gay members, and 475 voted against.

The compromise to vote only on the issue of youth membership and not leadership has pleased virtually no one. BSA national commissioner Tico Perez said, “This resolution today dealt with youth. We have not changed our adult membership standards. They have served us well for the last 100 years. Those were not on the table.” However, LGBT activists are dissatisfied that the new policy doesn’t go far enough and are already clamoring for admission to leadership positions.

BSA president Wayne Perry said the Scout vision is “to serve every kid.” But given this vote and the foreshadowed coming attractions in the leadership arena, the number of kids BSA serves may diminish dramatically. An assistant Scoutmaster and parent from Mississippi summed up the sentiments of many, saying, “I’m not happy as a parent. The gay activist isn’t happy and will not be until homosexuals can be leaders, etc. So there will be more pressure, and more fighting, and more acquiescence. No thanks.” He says, “There are other activities for my kids to do. There are other organizations that I can support with my time and money.”

“Sex and politics just have no place in the Boy Scouts of America,” said BSA parent John Stemberger, whose group “On My Honor” opposed the change. Indeed, what good can be gained from openness about sexuality with children as young as 10 years of age? Is sexuality something that should be encouraged or even discussed outside the home with teenage boys—particularly on an organizational level? Sexuality should be a private—or at best a biological/medical—topic in any organization, not to mention one developed for children. Only time will tell how many children whose parents are unwilling to have them placed in harm’s way will still be scouts when the policy takes effect on January 1, 2014, particularly if gay adults (who could develop a sexual interest in their own troop members—and could perhaps even legally act upon it with an 18-year-old “consenting” scout!) are allowed to be leaders. Troops sponsored by churches with a biblical understanding of morality may also fall away. A meeting to consider formation of “a new character development organization for boys,”4 is set for next month in Louisville, Kentucky.

Scouting has never been about sexual matters, but the prominence of this issue has changed the organization’s focus and priorities. Though a BSA statement says “the Boy Scouts of America will not sacrifice its mission,”4 by walking away from biblical moral standards—ostensibly to serve more kids—it has done just that, and the organization may well find itself serving far fewer.

Our Creator alone has the authority to establish absolute moral standards. Despite the claim by many homosexuals that homosexuality is an innate facet of their personality, like any sin, the choice to live a homosexual lifestyle is rebellion against God. It is sad to see that the Boy Scouts of America follow the lead of Scouts Canada and The Scout Association UK in its choice of what sort of morality to endorse. If the Scout Association UK’s literature is any indication, this policy change will not merely accept openly gay members but actually endorse homosexual behavior as acceptable.

The BSA has, by a 61% vote, taken a giant step away from helping America’s future young men see the blessings of biblical morality. Instead, by affirming the choices of those who embrace a sinful homosexual lifestyle as an acceptable alternative, the BSA has cheapened biblical truth and flaunted biblical authority. BSA leadership, by moving its “tent toward Sodom” (Genesis 13:12) has turned its back on biblical morality and followed the lead of the secular world in making sex and sexual orientation a part of scouting.

But above the moral concerns lies a gospel concern. Those who are taught that morality can be redefined by an organization are being turned away from recognizing their sinfulness before a holy God. Jesus made it very plain that sexuality is not defined by the norms of a culture, but that the only norm for human sexuality is one man joined to one woman in marriage (Matthew 19:3–6, Mark 10:6). To redefine homosexuality as “morally straight” is to say that fornication, idolatry, adultery, theft and drunkenness are also “morally straight” (1 Corinthians 6:9–11; Romans 1:28–32). This undermines the definition of sin and removes the need for a Savior to wash the stains of sin from our hearts and justify us before God. By redefining sin, the BSA has told Jesus that He is not needed. Thus, the BSA’s endorsement of a homosexual lifestyle as normal has a broad-reaching effect that goes far beyond the “gay” agenda to touch the way every Boy Scout will view, not just sexual issues, but his own need for salvation.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/05/25/BSA-and-gay-phase1

Categories: Uncategorized

Preston’s Third Negative

January 22, 2013 Leave a comment

images (42)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.

Categories: Uncategorized

Preston’s 2nd Prelim Questions

January 1, 2013 Leave a comment

images (42)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

Categories: Uncategorized