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. See this chart on the law of Sin and Death
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.