McDonald – V- Preston: Preston's Second Negative

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerry refuses to see that in Romans 7 and Galatians, Paul is discussing Christians who had “become dead to the law through the body of Christ” (v. 4). This is w
hy Jerry is wrong to say that if Torah were still in force, that Christians would have to obey it. No, Jerry, when they entered Christ, they died to the law.
However, some were seeking to obey Torah as well. Thus, those (Christians) who “seek to be justified by the law, you are fallen from grace” (Galatians 5). This is a case of a person seeking to be married to two laws at the same time.
It is not a denial of the co-existence of the two laws. It rather affirms it!

Jerry’s Initial Syllogisms– False Premises
Notice Jerry’s first syllogism:
“If the OT was taken away with the death of Jesus, then it could not have existed in AD 70.
The OT was taken away with the death of Jesus (2 Cor. 3:14).
Therefore, it could not have existed in AD 70.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel’s power is the church– Jerry McDonald.

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

Jerry keeps impaling himself on his own arguments. On the one hand he tells us that the church will never be destroyed, then he takes a position that demands the destruction of the church!

4.) THEN, Jerry tells us that since the commentators are divided about the definition of the power of the holy people, that Preston is wrong. Nonsense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of that Day and Hour– Chart

Jerry’s “rebuttal” of my material on John the Baptizer, the Law of Blessings and Cursings and AD 70 is embarrassing. I could not believe what I was reading.  Chart; Chart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerry says that I make too much of 1 Corinthians 15:54-56. No, he is the one emphatically denying Paul’s words. Paul was not simply urging them not to observe Torah. He was anticipating the resurrection in fulfillment of God’s OT promises to Israel, when “the Law,” which was the strength of sin, would be removed. Jerry agrees that was Torah, and Jerry affirms has delivered us from death!

More desperation. Jerry knows that if the Transfiguration was a vision of the Second Coming that since the Transfiguration was a vision of the change from Torah to Jesus, his eschatology is falsified.
So, Jerry denies that the Transfiguration was a vision of the parousia.
Well, Peter was refuting the scoffers who denied the parousia (2 Peter 3:3) and he appealed to the Transfiguration as the definitive refutation. He said they saw Jesus’ power and parousia on the mountain.
The word parousia, when used of Christ’s “coming” INVARIABLY REFERS TO HIS SECOND COMING.
The scoffers denied the parousia. To refute them, Peter appealed to the Transfiguration vision of the parousia.  Jerry claims that Peter used parousia  radically differently from the scoffers. And to refute them, Peter referred to an event that had nothing to do with what they were denying!

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

This raises the issue of the use of the commentators. Jerry says I appeal to them just like he does. False. Here is the difference.
I appeal to the linguists of the world and the historians, simply for definitions and historical documentation.
There is a huge difference in our appeal to the commentators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now watch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerry claims that Jesus never died spiritually! If he died spiritually, it would mean he was guilty of sin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus’ physical resurrection was a sign of greater spiritual realities. In two unbelievably desperate “arguments” Jerry denies the sign nature of  Jesus’ resurrection. (Oh, the scholars disagree with Jerry, but he failed to mention that!)

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

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

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

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

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

Unbelievably, Jerry denies that Peter is drawing from Isaiah 65 claiming that Isaiah 65 foretold the return from the Babylonian captivity. Really, Jerry? Let’s have some fun with the comm
entators, shall we? See the chart.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chart – Jerry’s “evidence” – Domitian
Chart – Jerry’s rejection of inspiration
Chart – Jerry on Distance

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

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

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

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