Brother Preston and interested readers:
The proposition is: “Resolved: The Bible teaches that the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection and the Judgment will occur at the end of the current Christian age.”
I appreciate the opportunity to, once again, be back in the affirmative of this part of the debate. As I said, in an earlier article, this final affirmative will be used solely for defense of the arguments I have made. I have finished with making new affirmative arguments.
I contend that I have answered everything Don has brought up as a rebuttal, and I have established my affirmative, but I will hold off on my summation until after Don’s final rebuttal. He states “Jerry challenges me: ‘Deal with my syllogisms.’ This coming from the man that openly stated that he would not address my syllogisms!” I have explained to him that his syllogisms deal with his interpretation on the book of Revelation which is based on an early date; something for which he has absolutely NO historical evidence. I have told him time and again that he needs to deal with the arguments I made on the late date of Revelation and not just dismiss them, but this is something he has refused to do. The syllogisms I made concerning the “resurrection of the dead” in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 are clear, precisely stated arguments, and are not dependent upon the date of the book without having any credible evidence for that date. They are valid and they are sound, therefore their conclusions are true. This is what Don continues to evade. He has claimed that some in Corinth did not say that there is no resurrection of the dead, but Paul said “how say some of you, that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Cor. 15:12).
However, so that Don won’t have anything else to cry about and so he will deal with my syllogisms, I will answer his arguments concerning Revelation on the following chart. Now that should suffice. I looked and found no syllogisms, at least none that were clearly defined as such. But any how his arguments fall flat because of his mis-use of the passages that he brought up from 1 Peter and Revelation.
As far as my use of the word Trans millennialism he said “This is all I have to say about Jerry’s use of Transmillennialism,” Look at the following chart on this.
Don claims that I have made “arguments that are historically unprecedented, illogical, blatantly unscriptural– and totally false” (Preston’s Third Rebuttal). Then he begins his list with his complaint that I misrepresented him by saying that he teaches every occurrence of the phrase “day of the Lord” refers to A.D. 70. Notice the chart that contains the statement I presented last time, a statement he chooses to ignore. The truth will not be put off just because Don ignores it. If Don is going to continue to contend that 2 Thess. 1:9 and Isa. 2:19 refer to the same thing because of the words “glory of his power” appearing in both, then he has charged me with falsely. If he has not charged me falsely I will apologize, but he must surrender his position on 2 Thess. 1:9 and Isa. 2:19 in the LXX. So what’s it going to be?
Don: Now watch: 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is a verbatim quotation of the LXX of Isaiah 2:19 which described the last days Day of the Lord, when men would flee to the mountains, (19-21).
2Th 1:9 οιτινες δικην τισουσιν ολεθρον αιωνιον απο προσωπου του κυριου και απο της δοξης της ισχυος αυτου
Isa 2:19 εἰσενέγκαντες εἰς τὰ σπήλαια καὶ εἰς τὰς σχισμὰς τῶν πετρῶν καὶ εἰς τὰς τρώγλας τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ φόβου κυρίου καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ, ὅταν ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν.
Now if those words mean that Paul was quoting Isa. 2:19 then the same words mean he was quoting Isa. 2:10 “Isa 2:10 Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty” which in the LXX is “Isa 2:10 καὶ νῦν εἰσέλθετε εἰς τὰς πέτρας καὶ κρύπτεσθε εἰς τὴν γῆν ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ φόβου κυρίου καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ, ὅταν ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν.” As well as “Isa 2:21 To go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.” Which in the LXX is “Isa 2:21 τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὰς τρώγλας τῆς στερεᾶς πέτρας καὶ εἰς τὰς σχισμὰς τῶν πετρῶν ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ φόβου κυρίου καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ, ὅταν ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν.” Now if Paul was quoting Isa. 2:19 verbatim because δοξης της ισχυος “glory of his power (majesty)” is used in both 2 Thess. 1:9 and Isa. 2:19, then Paul must also have been quoting Isa. 2:10 and 2:21 verbatim because those same words “δοξης τη?ς ισχυος (glory of his power-majesty)” are used in both of those verses as well. So just which verses was Paul quoting verbatim, since none of them say anything close to what Paul said in 2 Thess. 1:7-9?
I am sure that Don will contend that all four verses refer to the same thing. Now here is the problem: (1) The context of Isaiah 2:2-4 has reference to the church coming into its established state on the day of Pentecost. Verses 5-10 Isaiah instructs the house of Jacob to walk in the light of the Lord. The reason that God will refuse his people is because of their evil works. Their land is full of silver, and idols, and the mean man bows down and the great man humbles himself. He will not be forgiven. The faithful of Jacob’s house (the remnant) is the enter into the rock (Jesus Christ) and hide in the dust for the fear of the Lord and the glory of his majesty. This cannot have reference to the second coming, but according to Don’s position it must because the same phrase is used in both places. Verses 19 through 21 is just more of the same. It is talking about the coming of the church which came on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. However, 2 Thess. 2:7-9 is talking about a different time all together; the second coming of Christ.
Don says that because the same phrase is used in 2 Thess. 1:7-9 that is used in Isa. 2:19 they must be referring to the same thing. He gives no evidence that Paul was quoting Isaiah, only that the same words are there. Paul does not claim to be quoting anyone; that is Don’s claim.
Therefore, for Don to remain consistent on this, he must also say that every time the words “day of the Lord” are used they refer to the same thing; the second coming which he says is A.D. 70. He will deny it because of the usage of the term in Obadiah verse 15 to talk about God destroying the enemies of his children. This he denies is the 2nd coming, as do I. However, he will claim that every other place where the phrase occurs it refers to the 2nd coming which he contends happened in AD 70. The only reason he won’t contend this for Obadiah v. 15 is because the context is so clear that even he cannot ignore it.
He may not explicitly teach it, but by implication it is part of his doctrine whether he likes it or not. He cannot get away from it unless he is willing to abandon his position on 2 Thess. 1:7-9 and Isa. 2:19. So his little quip about my not understanding logic is nullified. I understand logic all too well. It is not the fact that he says that if 2 Thess. 1:7-9 and Isa. 2:19 refer to the same thing then the day of the Lord must always refer to the same thing, but why he says it. He gives no reason for Paul’s usage of “glory of his power” referring to the same event as Isaiah’s “glory of his majesty.” He says that because they are the same words, they have to refer to the same thing. Therefore, if such is the case then because the words “Day of the Lord” are the same words in all the verses in the Bible (Obadiah v. 15 included) they must all refer to the same event. That’s his logic, not mine.
He says that he demonstrated that Isaiah foretold the “last days” in Isaiah 2-4, but what he calls the last days and what Isaiah was referring to are two totally different things. He calls the last days were the last days of Jerusalem before it fell, and Isaiah was talking about an event, in chapter 2, that would happen years before that event. Isaiah was talking about the church coming into existence (Isa. 2:2-4). Don’s position is that it came in on Pentecost but it wasn’t matured until AD 70. Hmmm, funny thing about that because Paul wrote to Ephesus:
“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; (12) For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (13) Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: (14) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (15) But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: (16) From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love” (Eph 4:11-16).
According to Paul these Christians were supposed to be matured already (before AD 70). Paul told Timothy that the scriptures would make the man of God “perfect or complete-teleos-mature” unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:17). This was also before AD 70. Now Don comes along and completely wipes all that out by saying that the church was not matured until AD 70. Way to go Don, you have just wiped out 2000 years of Biblical Doctrine in just a few short years. No, I think I’ll stick with Paul, he was inspired and Don isn’t.
Don says he has quoted the world’s greatest linguists, but he hasn’t. He quoted one, Vincent, I believe, who said that Paul used the exact phrase that Isaiah used, but that does not mean that Paul was quoting Isaiah 2:19. In my first oral debate I used an exact phrase against my opponent that my father had used against an opponent during an oral debate he had, but that did not mean that I was quoting Thomas Harvey McDonald. Wake up Don!
The Jewish Army
He then says that the Jews did have an army in AD 70.
Here is what Josephus said of his command: “However, (Josephus, DKP) although he expected that the Romans would forgive him, yet did he choose to die many times over, rather than to …dishonor that supreme command of the army which had been entrusted with him…” (Wars, Bk. 3:7). JOSEPHUS SAID HE WAS GENERAL OVER THE JEWISH ARMY.
When you look at the ellipsis’ in Don’s statement one wonders what Don has left our. Elipsis’ are usually added when irrelevant information needs to be cut out, but the material that Don cut was not irrelevant. Notice the following chart.
So Josephus’ army left and fled and Josephus was not able to stand against a real army, so he fled and sent word asking if they had come to terms or if they were going to send him an army SUFFICIENT TO FIGHT THE ROMANS. In other words, his so called army was not much of an army.
Don seems to leave relevant information like this out because the context shows his utter failure. Josephus’ so-called army wasn’t an army of trained soldiers. It was a group of regular men regular men who Josephus tried to train, but they surrendered by 67 AD 3 years before A.D. 70. So again, I ask, where was Israel’s army in AD 70?
Josephus wrote his own Bibliopoly and wrote:
Those of Gamala also wrote to me, desiring me to send them an armed force, and workmen to raise up the walls of their city; nor did I reject either of their requests. The region of Gaulanitis did also revolt from the king, as far as the village Solyma. I also built a wall about Seleucia and Soganni, which are villages naturally of ver great strength. Moreover, I, in like manner, walled several villages of Upper Galilee, though they were very rocky of themselves. Their names are Jamnia, and Meroth, and Achabare. I also fortified, in the Lower Galilee, the cities Tarichee, Tiberias, Sepphoris, and the villages, the cave of Arbela, Bersobe, Selamin, Jotapata, Capharecho, and Sigo, and Japha, and Mount Tabor.15 I also laid up a great quantity of corn in these places, and arms withal, that might be for their security afterward” (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.i.html).
Josephus says nothing about training an army. This is someone elses idea of what Josephus did.
So Josephus’ Jewish army was not much of an army. These weren’t trained soldiers, they were regular men as is noted below:
The word “army” is defined in the following ways:
Definition of ARMY
1 a : a large organized body of armed personnel trained for war especially on land b : a unit capable of independent action and consisting usually of a headquarters, two or more corps, and auxiliary troops c often capitalized : the complete military organization of a nation for land warfare
2: a great multitude <an army of birds>
3: a body of persons organized to advance some cause.
Now the main definition of an army is a large organized body of armed personnel TRAINED FOR WAR. Those Jews were not trained. They were regular people who had armed themselves and had submitted themselves under the leadership of certain leaders. These people were not serving a specified amount of time. These were not paid soldiers. This was nothing more than people who had armed themselves and had organized to advance their cause. This is why when they would see the strength of the Roman army they would flee. Notice the chart on the Wars of the Jews.
Don says that my statement about the chaos in Jerusalem was not wrong after all. Yes there were excursions and times when the Jews became troublesome, but they had no real army and Josephus was NOT a General; it was said by the High Priest and the rulers of the people that he had conducted himself like a general:
“but Artanus the high priest demonstrated to them that this was not an easy thing to be done, because many of the high priests and of the rulers of the people bore witness that I had acted like an excellent general, and that it was the work of ill men to accuse one against whom they had nothing to say” (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.i.html).
“JERRY ON DANIEL 12”
He says that I have now taken five positions on Dan. 12. Nope, just two. I first took the position that Israel’s power was the gospel because I was unaware that Don was quoting from Daniel chapter 2, but when I realized where he was getting this I went there, studied it and then took the position (which I presently hold) that the “power of the holy people” was their military power; the power to make war to have an army. I pointed out that some commentators thought that it might be the church, but I don’t agree with them. Now, I have found one more that takes another position. Now I really hesitate to bring this one up for fear that Don is going to cry that I am holding a NEW position, so let me say from the outset “This Is Not My Position, But One That I Discovered In My Research, And I Wanted To Show How Others Think.” However, not one standard commentator anywhere takes Don’s position that it is the Old Testament Law. So here is the new position I have found:
“When the power of the shatterer of the holy people shall come to an end.” Behrmann sees grammatical difficulties, but these are not cogent; but the argument for this change is weak. Yet we prefer, though with difficulty, Professor Bevan’s reading. It makes the connection much simpler to take this solution, as the end of all things is not the scattering of the holy people, but their building up. If we had any authority from the versions we should be inclined to read twOlK”mi instead of twOLk”k]W, and insert d[” before hn;yl,k]Ti, and thus would wish to render, “From the breaking of the power of the scatterer of the holy people till all these thingsare ended.” This gives beth termini, but none of the versions gives any hint of such a reading. All these things shall be finished. As the resurrection is mentioned in the second verse, we might at once assume that this refers to the end of time; but <402434>Matthew 24:34, compared with 30, renders this conclusion doubtful (The Pulpit Commentary, Daniel, p. 12).
Don knows that I have only taken two positions on the “power of the holy people,” and I have explained why I took the first one and no longer hold it.
Did Daniel prophecy of Antiochus Epiphanes? Notice the commentators who seem to think so:
“’We find in this chapter,’ says Mr. Bevan, ‘a complete survey of the history from the beginning of the Persian period down to the time of the author. Here, even more than in the earlier vision, we are scale to perceive how the account gradually becomes more definite as it approaches the latter part of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, and how it then passes suddenly from the domain of historical facts to that of ideal expectations’” (The Expositor’s Bible, Farrar, p. 173).
Notice also that the Pulpit Commentary also states:
A great number of interpreters — not merely those of the critical school — maintain that “time” here is a literal year, and the days of the succeeding verses literal days, and that the period in question is that between the desecration of the temple by Antiochus’s orders, and the setting up “the abomination of desolation” (1 Macc. 1:54), till the Jews were able to sacrifice once more in the re-consecrated temple (1 Macc. 4:52) (Ibid,p. 11).
Now while he disagrees with them, he does acknowledge the fact that many interpreters maintain that this was meant for the time when Antiochus would desecrate the temple. Some consider the destruction of the temple as the desolation, but killing a sow in the temple and offering it on the altar was more of a desolation because it completely desecrated the temple. Don makes too much out of A.D. 70 and not enough out of the desecration of the temple by Antiochos. As far as he is concerned the Bible says nothing to the Jews about that time.
Albert Barnes wrote:
“And at that time – At the period referred to in the preceding chapter. The fair construction of the passage demands this interpretation, and if that refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, then what is here said must also; and we are to look for the direct and immediate fulfillment of this prediction in something that occurred under him, however, it may be supposed to have an ultimate reference to other and more remote events” (Barnes Notes, e-Sword).
Matthew Poole wrote:
“Ver. 1. Many interpret this of the heat of Antiochus’s persecution, but their arguments are not cogent; but the meaning is this, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance and respite, so there will be yet a more famous deliverance to the people of God when Michael your prince, i.e. Messiah the Prince, shall signally appear for your salvation. He is called” (Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Sword Searcher).
Don seems to think that he is in the affirmative and that I am in the negative. Notice what he says: “Don’t give us an excuse that you can’t introduce new arguments in the final negative. All you have to do is say ‘Yes or No.’” No, I am sorry Don, I don’t have to do that because I am not in the negative, I am in the affirmative, you are in the negative, and it is your obligation to meet my arguments (something you have not even endeavored to do) rather than the other way around.
You cannot take chapter 12 out of context. It follows chapter 11 and refers to the events following chapter 11. Notice
“And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him” (Dan 11:25)
Keil & Delitzsch wrote concerning this verse:
“These verses describe the victorious war of the king who had come to power against the king of the south, the war of Antiochus Epiphanes against king Ptolemy Philometor, which is described in 1 Macc. 1:16-19, with manifest reference to this prophecy. וְיָעֵר (he shall stir up) is potentialis in the sense of divine decree: “he shall stir up his power and his heart.” כֹּחַ is not warlike power, which is mentioned in בְּחַיִל־גָּדֹול (Dan_11:25), but the power which consists in the bringing of a great army under his command; לֵבָב, the mental energy for the carrying out of his plans. For יַעֲמֹד לֹא, cf. Dan_8:4.” (E-Sword).
Don’s Constituent Elements of Daniel 12
1.)Constituent Element Number One: The Great Tribulation.
Don talks about “The great tribulation” which goes to show that he is making the same arguments as the Premillenialists make, just drawing a different conclusion. Don makes this refer to AD 70 based on the statement “and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time.” He would like for it to read “and never shall there ever be,” but that isn’t what it said. It said “such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time.” I would say that what the Jews went through with their captivities under the Babylonian rulers, the Medeo/Persian rulers, the Grecian Rulers, then the Selucian rulers and Rome which followed could be considered “such as never had been.” Antiochus Epiphanies sacked the temple, offered a sow on it, then went to war with the Maccabean. Josephus wrote:
1. AT the same time that Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes, had a quarrel with the sixth Ptolemy about his right to the whole country of Syria, a great sedition fell among the men of power in Judea, and they had a contention about obtaining the government; while each of those that were of dignity could not endure to be subject to their equals. However, Onias, one of the high priests, got the better, and cast the sons of Tobias out of the city; who fled to Antiochus, and besought him to make use of them for his leaders, and to make an expedition into Judea. The king being thereto disposed beforehand, complied with them, and came upon the Jews with a great army, and took their city by force, and slew a great multitude of those that favored Ptolemy, and sent out his soldiers to plunder them without mercy. He also spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months. But Onias, the high priest, fled to Ptolemy, and received a place from him in the Nomus of Heliopolis, where he built a city resembling Jerusalem, and a temple that was like its temple (1) concerning which we shall speak more in its proper place hereafter.
2. Now Antiochus was not satisfied either with his unexpected taking the city, or with its pillage, or with the great slaughter he had made there; but being overcome with his violent passions, and remembering what he had suffered during the siege, he compelled the Jews to dissolve the laws of their country, and to keep their infants uncircumcised, and to sacrifice swine’s flesh upon the altar; against which they all opposed themselves, and the most approved among them were put to death. Bacchides also, who was sent to keep the fortresses, having these wicked commands, joined to his own natural barbarity, indulged all sorts of the extremest wickedness, and tormented the worthiest of the inhabitants, man by man, and threatened their city every day with open destruction, till at length he provoked the poor sufferers by the extremity of his wicked doings to avenge themselves” (Wars of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 1, verses 1,2).
2.) Constituent Element Number Two: The resurrection of both just and unjust to eternal life / condemnation.
Let us look at his constituent element of the resurrection mention in Dan. 12:2 and we immediately notice a couple of things. This says “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan 12:2). Now what does this mean for Don? Well friends, Don claims that the resurrection of the dead is not a literal resurrection of the body from the grave, but is the resurrection of the life lost in Adam and the resurrection of Christianity from Judaism. This plainly says “many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake.” Now Don can do one of two things here (1) he can repudiate his position on what the resurrection is and say that this is a literal bodily resurrection and that this is a prophecy of the end of the world, but when he does he will completely demolish his theory of AD 70 because no graves were opened then, or (2) he can continue to hold to his theory and say that this is not a literal resurrection; that it is a vision and has a figurative meaning in which case he will have to prove that it does not refer to the remnant of Israel coming back after having been in captivity because of their sins. So either way, this constituent element is out of the discussion for Don.
2.) The end of the age. When was this age going to end? Paul said that the law ended at the cross “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Col 2:14). But I guess Paul didn’t know what he was talking about because Don comes along and says “No, it didn’t end until A.D. 70.”
3.) The Abomination of Desolation (v. 9f).
This includes the shattering of the power of the Holy People. (1) Jesus said the law would never be broken “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill”
(Mat 5:17). Notice the chart on the word “destroy.”
Jesus said he was not going to do that, so how does Don come along and say that this is exactly what Jesus did in A.D. 70?
Also look at the chart the word shattered shows that Antiochus would complete what others had started
4.) The rewarding of the dead prophets (v. 13).
Daniel 12 foretold the time and events of Antiochus Epiphanes– McDonald.
Therefore, all (not just some) constituent elements of Daniel 12 i.e. the resurrection, end of the age, rewarding of the dead, etc. were to be fulfilled in the time and events of Epiphanes.
Don Preston: SO, JERRY, I CHALLENGE YOU TO ANSWER THIS: Were ALL (not just some) of the constituent elements of Daniel 12 fulfilled in the time of Epiphanes? Yes Or No? Don’t give us an excuse that you can’t introduce new arguments in the final negative. All you have to do is say “Yes or No.”
McDonald: I don’t know, you tell us since you are the one who doesn’t believe in the actual resurrection from the dead. If you say that it is some sort of figurative resurrection, then I am just as justified in saying that it was a figurative resurrection/restoration of the old Jews of that time back to their place in God’s kingdom after their captivity. So you tell us!
Don Preston: Daniel predicted the rewarding of the prophets at the time of the end (v. 4. 12f). This is the resurrection of v. 2. So, Jerry, did Daniel receive everlasting life, by being raised from the dead, in the time of Antiochus? Again, just “Yes of No”?
McDonald: I don’t know, you tell us since you don’t believe in a resurrection from the dead. All you believe in is a resurrection of the life lost in Adam, but Dan. 12:2 speaks of a resurrection of both the evil and the good. Dan. 4:12f is about Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Daniel’s interpretation of it which had to do with Nebuchadnezzar losing his kingdom. Nothing about the rewarding of the prophets there.
Preston: According to Revelation 11:15f the prophets would be rewarded at the time of the fall of the city “where the Lord was slain.”
McDonald: Rev. 11:18 shows that God’s faithful will be rewarded, just like Dan. 12:13. Both show that God’s faithful will be rewarded in the end. Rev. 2:10 says “be thou faithful unto death and I will give thee a crown of life.” There is nothing mystical here, it is just another verse among many in the Bible that teaches children of God to be faithful. None of them say when God will return to reward them, they are just promised that he will.
“This proves that the death and resurrection in Corinthians was not biological death, or a bodily resurrection Preston’s Second Negative
The resurrection of both just and unjust to eternal life / condemnation. Preston’s Third Negative”
In his second negative he says that the resurrection in 1 Corinthians (which he says was based on Daniel 12:1-3) was not a bodily resurrection, but in his third negative he says that the resurrection in Dan. 12:1-3 is a resurrection of both the just and the unjust to eternal life or condemnation. If it is a resurrection of the just and unjust then it would necessarily be a bodily resurrection from the grave. 1 Cor. Chapter 15 tells us that when we die our bodies are physical bodies, but when we are raised they will be spiritual bodies. But it will be a bodily resurrection.
Question: If the resurrection in Dan. 12:2 is the resurrection of the dead, and if the just are restored to the life lost in Adam, then what are the wicked restored to?
Jerry’s desperation is further manifested in his series of syllogisms climaxing in this:
Major Premise: If the resurrection was a symbolic, figurative resurrection showing the church being resurrected out of Judaism, then Judaism must have died and was raised as Christianity.
Minor: The resurrection was a symbolic, figurative resurrection showing the church being resurrected from Judaism (Don Preston’s position).
Conclusion: Therefore Judaism must have died and was raised as Christianity.
Jerry, tell us: Do you believe Torah / Judaism died? Yes, you do! You just have the timing wrong.
Do you believe the church arose out of that death? Of course you do!
What is indisputable is this (again!), which you have admitted:
Do I believe that the church was the resurrection of Judaism? Certainly not! The Law of Moses was the shadow of the Law of Christ, it was the schoolmaster to bring those under it to Christ, but Christianity would not rise out of Judaism. When the Law of Moses was taken out of the way (died – Rom. 7:1-4) it stayed dead, it was not resurrected. Those people under it were to be married to another. Another what? Another law! Paul didn’t say that the woman of Rom. 7:1-4 would marry her husband after he was resurrected, but that she would be married to another man, a different man, a totally different man. Thus showing that when the law of Moses died those under it were to be married to another law, the law of Christ, a completely different law; not a resurrection of Judaism.
I have explained 1 Corinthians chapter 15 several times. Don says that the Corinthians were not saying that there was no resurrection from the dead, but Paul said “How say some of you, THAT THERE IS NO RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD?” The entire context of 1 Cor. 15 is talking about a literal bodily resurrection from the physical dead. So this brings up a point: If Christ died spiritually, then was his resurrection a physical resurrection or a spiritual one. Don answers this. Please look at the following chart.
The law of Moses was taken out of the way when Christ died on the cross, but the resurrection of the dead will not happen until Christ returns. If Christ has returned then–
1. Baptism is no longer valid.
2. The Lord’s Supper is no longer valid.
3. The church is no longer necessary.
4. Christians no longer need to watch for the second coming.
5. Every knee has bowed and every tongue has confessed to Christ.
6. Every man has received judgment.
Don is confused on what he believes the resurrection is.
1 One of the constituent elements of Dan. 12 he says: ” The resurrection of both just and unjust to eternal life / condemnation.
Does he honestly expect us to believe that he holds to this as the resurrection of the just and the unjust to life eternal and condemnation? Let us notice how he defines the resurrection of the dead:
“By the resurrection of the dead, I mean the restoration of the life lost in Adam” (Preston’s First Affirmative).
Now if the resurrection of the dead is the restoration of the life lost in Adam, then what is it for the ungodly? Are they going to have the life lost in Adam restored to them? No, I don’t think so. .
2.Then he says “Here is the death of the “mortal body” of Torah– giving way to the immortal body of Christ.”
He can’t have it both ways: Either the resurrection is where the just and the unjust rise to eternal life and condemnation, or the resurrection is the death of the Torah rising to the body of Christ. So which is it Don?
Daniel says that ” many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan. 12:2). So this is not some figurative resurrection where Christianity is to be resurrected out of Judaism or people are to be restored to the life lost in Adam.
DID JESUS DIE SPIRITUALLY?
Jerry claims that Jesus never died spiritually! If he died spiritually, it would mean he was guilty of sin.
Would Jesus have to be a sinner to die a substitutionary death? Jerry says yes, but, Jerry, have you never read 2 Corinthians 5:21– “ He made him to be sin for us, the one who knew no sin, so that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”
1 Peter 3:18– Christ died, “the just for the unjust.”
1 Peter 2:24– “He bore our sins in his body, on the cross.”
McDonald: Did Jesus die on the cross, or did he die spiritually. Was he physically raised from physical death, or was he raised from spiritual death? Chart.
Jerry, if my son were sentenced to death for crimes, but, I offered myself to die in his place– you know, a SUBSTITUTIONARY DEATH – even though I had committed no crime, would my death mean that I was guilty of his crimes? ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Answer: Your death would not make you spiritually dead. You can only become spiritually dead by sin: “The soul that sinneth it shall die” (Ezk. 18:20). Have I ever read 2 Cor. 5:21? Yes I have, but it doesn’t mean that Christ died spiritually any more than it means what Billy Graham said it meant when he said it meant that Christ became guilty of sin. “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2Co 5:21) In the original the words “to be” are not present. In the KJV they are in italics to show that they were supplied by the translators. So it actually reads “For he hath made him sin for us….” which as Barnes says: “The Greek here is, ‘for him who knew no sin, he hath made sin, or a sin-offering for us’” (Barnes Notes, e-Sword). God didn’t make Christ a sinner, guilty of sin and Christ did not die spiritually. Christ was simply offered up as a sin offering. Remember Christ told the thief on the Christ “To day shalt thou be with me in Paradise” (Lk. 23:43), so when Christ died he went to Paradise; a strange place for someone to go to who had died spiritually.
Question: If Christ went to Paradise when he died, why was he raised Spiritually?
Looking at the word death in Romans chapter five Robert Whiteside wrote:
“It is true that physical death came as a result of sin, but so also does spiritual death. The context and the nature of Paul’s argument must determine which death is here meant. In this Roman letter Paul frequently uses the word death, without saying which death he means, leaving the reader to determine from the context which death he means” (Commentary on Romans, p 120).
In verse 12 Paul is talking about spiritual death which comes about as a direct result of one’s sin. This actually goes against Don’s argument that Jesus died spiritually. He uses the tired old argument of Jesus saying “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mt. 27:46) to argue that Jesus died spiritually. Gill wrote:
“When he is said to be “forsaken” of God; the meaning is not, that the hypostatical union was dissolved, which was not even by death itself; the fulness of the Godhead still dwelt bodily in him: nor was he separated from the love of God; he had the same interest in his Father’s heart and favor, both as his Son, and as mediator, as ever: nor was the principle and habit of joy and comfort lost in his soul, as man, but he was now without a sense of the gracious presence of God, and was filled, as the surety of his people, with a sense of divine wrath, which their iniquities he now bore, deserved, and which was necessary for him to endure, in order to make full satisfaction for them; for one part of the punishment of sin is loss of the divine presence” (Exposition of the New Testament, Matthew, E-Sword).
Just because God could not look at Christ, just because Christ did not feel the Father’s presence does not mean that Christ was spiritually dead. It just means that God is of purer eyes than to behold sin (Hab. 3:13) and when Christ bore the sins of the world the Father could not behold him. Jesus was at no time spiritually separated from the Father. The Father just could not look at him.
Here is what Josephus said of his command and this will show exactly what Josephus said, not some dissected version of it.
He wants to talk about Zechariah chapter 14 as though it is a prophecy of the 2nd coming and fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. But notice what is said in verse 2: “For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.” Was half of Jerusalem taken into captivity in AD 70 and the other have not cut off from the city? When you look at it, contextually it is speaking of Jerusalem being taken into bondage. They didn’t all go at once, they went in succession.
As far as God knowing the day this would happen, only he knew when this destruction would happen. Only God knows when Christ will return.
Don says: “So, THE COMPLETION OF THE MISSION WAS A SIGN OF THE END– and, Paul said the Mission had been fulfilled (Colossians 1:5-7; v. 23)” So according to Don, the gospel mission has been completed, thus fulfilled. Therefore, we don’t have the great commission. Without the great commission we don’t have the great commission baptism. Without the great commission we don’t have the gospel. Without the gospel we cannot partake of the Lord’s supper because we are to proclaim the Lord’s death (the gospel) till he comes (1 Cor. 11:26). Without the great commission the church does not exist. So Don is left with River’s position that everything was fulfilled in A.D. 70 and that nothing applies to us today.
Don says: “WHAT THE CORINTHIANS BELIEVED Jerry simply repeats his mantra that the scoffers in Corinthian denied the resurrection.” Well here is my mantra: “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?”
(1Co 15:12). Now he has not dealt with that verse though I have brought to his attention in nearly every article I have written. Like so many other things, he simply ignores it hoping it will go away. Sorry, it won’t. My mantra is Paul’s mantra.
Don says that the personal pronouns in 1 cor. 11:26 “you” don’t refer to us. Well then I guess Acts 2:38 doesn’t apply to us “repent ye, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” I guess we don’t have to obey Rom. 12:1: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” And what about Rom. 12:18 “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” So I guess we don’t have to live peaceably with all men, huh? Nough said?
THE LAST ENEMY
He says that 1 Cor. 15 was talking about bringing to a close the last enemy of Christians. Wrong, 1 Cor. 15:54,55 was showing that until Christ died man’s worst enemy was death because there was no hope after death. But when Christ died on the cross and was raised that curse was taken from us. Therefore it is no longer our greatest threat.
JESUS’ RESURRECTION A SIGN
John 20:30,31 was not talking about Jesus’ resurrection. Notice what John said “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (Joh 20:30-31). Now what signs is John talking about?
Chart on Noah and the Signs.
Here is a medley of charts dealing with several of his charts.
SIT OR QUIT? Well, REVELATION 22:3 HAS JESUS ON THE THRONE, WITH THE FATHER, AFTER THE MILLENNIUM!
There is no millennium. The thousand years in Rev. chap 20 is an in determinate amount of time, not a literal thousand years. This is another piece of evidence that Don has gone the way of millennialism.
Don says: “CHRIST’S COMING IN MATTHEW 25:31F; 1 CORINTHIANS 15; 1 THESSALONIANS 4, REV. 19, ETC. IS WHEN HE SURRENDERS, ABDICATES, HIS RULE OVER THE KINGDOM– GIVING IT TO THE FATHER– (JERRY).
McDonald: No, that is not Jerry, that is Paul: “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power” (1Co 15:24).
BUT, THE COMING IN MATTHEW 25, CORINTHIANS, REV. 19, ETC. IS THE TIME OF CHRIST’S WEDDING.
McDonald: We are the bride of Christ. We are already married to him, which is why we cannot serve anyone else. If we weren’t married to him we would be able to serve another.
THEREFORE, AT HIS COMING FOR HIS WEDDING, CHRIST DIVORCES HIS WIFE. HANDS HER OVER TO THE FATHER, IS NO LONGER MARRIED TO HER.
In the judgment Christ will turn all authority over to the Father, he will turn the church over to the Father. The only way Don can hold to his doctrine is to deny that Christ will turn the church over to God. In his mind the wedding took place in AD 70, but Paul said that Christ would turn the church over to the Father. So if Paul was right and if Don was right then Christ turned the church over to the Father in AD 70. Hmmm, he got married and divorced all in the same act.
Chart on healing. Chart on John on Patmos. Chart on Abomination of desolation. Chart on Destroy or Fulfill. Now notice the chart on whether or not he has answered all of my arguments. The following charts are lists of charts dealing with the rest of Don’s charts.
I have a question for Don: Would we have hope of eternal life if Jesus had not been raised up physically from the dead? Answer please!
I have dealt with Don’s third rebuttal. Now perhaps he will do me the honor of dealing with my arguments point by point? He complained because it has taken me a long time to get these articles out, and it has, but it might do him some good to take a little time. That way he might not make as many horrific mistakes as he has made, especially in his third rebuttal. I now ask you to read Don’s article closely.