McDonald -V- Preston Debate: Preston's Final Negative

 

ISAIAH 2-4  McD-Is2-4/ McD-Is2-Desp-1/ McD-Is2-Desp-2
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/ McD-2Ths-1/ mcd-relief-ths
6.) Jerry said he would not introduce new arguments, but, he does so, again and again! Noting that I maintain that the church was initially set up on Pentecost, but not matured until AD 70, Jerry cites Ephesians 4:12-16, and claims: “According to Paul these Christians were supposed to be mature already (before AD 70).” Jerry, clearly did not think this argument out very well!
Note the following:
Christ gave the miraculous gifts to bring the church to “the perfect man.” To which they had patently not yet come.
The gifts were to cease at the arrival of the perfect man (v. 13 / 1 Corinthians 13).
But, the church was already perfect when Paul wrote– Jerry.
Therefore, the charismatic gifts had already ceased when Paul wrote 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/  McD-Is27-Summary
Paul said his hope of the resurrection was NOTHING but the hope of Israel. Jerry initially denied this, but the scriptures are irrefutable (Acts 24:14f; 26:6f; 21f).
Jerry initially agreed that Isaiah 25 predicted the resurrection. Then he denied it. But Paul said when mortal put on immortality, “then shall be brought to pass the saying, “Death is swallowed up in victory.” Jerry admitted Paul quotes from Isaiah, but says Isaiah did not predict what Paul was hoping for, even though Paul’s hope was from the OT, but then said Isaiah will be fulfilled at the resurrection! McD-Paulshope Talk about desperation! McD-Is27-Flip

DANIEL 12
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

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 e
scape.

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

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

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

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
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

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
I have noted the Greek text demands that fulfillment of Revelation was near, at hand, and imminent to John.
I have noted the use of en tachei. McD-entachei Jerry gives us some NEW CHARTS desperately trying to avoid the force of this. Yet, he once again admits that when “en” is added to taxu, “the meaning is shortly”!
Amazingly, Jerry claims that none of the verses with en tachei speak of the second coming.  Well,  Revelation 20-22 speaks of the Judgment, resurrection, parousia, etc., and says “these things must shortly come to pass.” Jerry is wrong.

Then, Jerry claims: “The Father knew, (the time of the parousia, DKP) but he did not tell the apostles through inspiration.”
REALLY, JERRY?
Jesus said he had to return to the Father, so that the Spirit could be sent to the apostles.  McDnld-RevelatorySp
The Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth, and “and show you things to come” (John 16:7-13).
The Spirit, given to the apostles,  inspired them to write: “the end of all things has drawn near”; “the coming of the Lord has drawn near”; “in a very, very little while, the one who is coming will come and will not 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 a
t 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/ McD-wickd-2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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/ McD-Jer=Sodom

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 shallow, so uninformed, so illogical and so desperate, as your’s, refutation is quick and eas
y.