Search This Blog

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Fact Checking Preston on the Russian Academy of Science Claim


I decided to go ahead and fact-check Preston’s claims about his credentials on his About page on his website, where it states:Preston’s book Who Is This Babylon, has been positively peer reviewed, and received a positive review in the official publication of the Russian Academy of Science[1] (we will abbreviate it as RAS for brevity’s sake).

Being I do love to give Preston hell for his pseudo-scholarship, I went to RAS’ website and found absolutely nothing about Don K Preston on there in their databases. I figured, it being Don, he likely made it all up because that is the kind of person he has been known to be.
When asked though and grilled on it, as to where William and I could find this positive peer review in the OFFICIAL PUBLICATION, my response was, as is usual and is common, mostly incendiary remarks from Don K Preston, so I assumed the bloke was lying his tail off about this and just trying to do a cover-up as usual when he’s been caught in a lie, but lo and behold, after a week of not budging and the help of my associate William Vincent, we managed to get one random mention from Preston about a person named Basil Lourie and Christian East. As we expected, we did not find any mention of a Basil Lourie nor Christian East on the website either, nor to be on the database. However, we did come to find this bishop on the internet and also did eventually find this man’s book where he references Preston and a review he did on Preston’s Who Is This Babylon.

No thanks to Preston, we managed to get information from Bishop Basil Lourie himself and he even was kind enough to send me the link to his book in English and later the references in the book regarding Preston’s “review”.

This book by Orthodox bishop Basil Lourie – aka Heiromonk Gregori, is called The Coming of the Comforter: When, Where, & to whom? Studies on the Rise of Islam & Various Other Topics in Memory of John Wansbrough”. In it Lourie footnotes Don K Preston at one point in his chapter titled, “Friday Veneration In 6th & 7th Ce. Christianity & Christian Legends about the Conversion of Nagran”. The footnote reads: “Cf., on this tradition in the Apocalypse of John in NT, Beagley, A. J. The “Sitz im Leben” of the Apocalypse with Particular Reference to the Role of the Church’s Enemies. Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, 50. Berlin/New York, 1987. The matter remains controversial but I am inclined to agree with this identification; cf. B. Lurie., [Rev. of:] Don K. Preston, Who is this Babylon? (Ardmore, 1999). Christian East. 2 (8) (2000): 497–99 (in Russian)”.

I was pretty convinced Preston had probably made it up, given all the hate-filled vitriol, asinine comments, and incendiary remarks he gave in return, but as it turns out, the reference to the review is in fact written in a publication in 2001 called “Christian East 2nd Series Dedicated To The Study of Christian Culture of the Asian Peoples and Africa. New Series Edition Volume 2 of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the State Hermitage Museum Aleteya Publishing House. San-Petersburg, Moscow. 2001.”

Not sure where or why it is not in the databases as communism fell in 1991 but upon studying it a bit, it may very well be that in 2013-2018, RAS by Putin’s orders, decided to undergo some large reforms to basically upgrade and update so they could be better for the pursuit of academia. This may have led to many publications simply being wiped out perhaps but regardless, I was wrong. This publication does exist (or did – I am unaware if it still produces anything or not).

Now, was this publication of RAS actually kind to Preston’s Who Is This Babylon? And did it really receive “a positive review”?

Well, I’ll let you the reader decide on this but the way that it reads to me after translating Russian, French, and German into English (which was quite a labor), is that Lourie agrees with his conclusions that Babylon is likely identified as Jerusalem… however, it doesn’t seem that this review is “positive” about the book as he claims there to be “almost no chance of attention from the scholarly community” and “we have not come close to any evidential identifications of his Sitz im Leben”.

Lourie does list some wordings about the strengths of Preston’s book but also says in his footnote that “more often than not, we encounter such an identification without any proof” (reference is to Preston) and that “it should be noted that although early dating seems more appropriate "to identify Babylon with Jerusalem (and so also follows Preston), however, such identification is theoretically possible at the end of the 1st century.]. It doesn’t read as an endorsement in my opinion. He clearly says that Preston often gives an identification without any proof, though it is theoretically possible for Revelation to be written before 70. This basically is just a review saying he doesn’t have proof but it is theoretical and plausible it was written pre-70 and because of that possibility, we should not completely dismiss minority views like Preston’s just because of a consensus, which I would wholeheartedly agree with. We should not dismiss minority position views  just for the heck of it. We should be willing to examine the viewpoint and challenge it to see if it found wanting or not. This was the review referenced: I have translated it from Russian to the best of my ability. I may be asking a friend soon to translate it who knows Russian much better than I and can make it read more fluidly than I. Footnote with this review is listed below [bold].

Review: The next book about the Apocalypse of John, which came out of the pen of an American pastor, has almost no chance of attention from the scholarly[2] community - and this is very unfortunate for the scholarly community itself in the first place. Of course, the book is concentrated around theological issues that the scholarly community does not care about, but at the same time, regardless of these issues, the author again poses the old and still unsolved problem of the science of the Apocalypse - the identification of Babylon. The scholarly community can only boast here of its own “consensus” (Babylon of the Apocalypse and other early Christian works = Rome), which is by no means equivalent to proof. The author of this book, like only a small number of previous scholars, insists on another identification: Babylon = Jerusalem. All new and new private issues of the history of the text of the Apocalypse are being resolved - but we have not come close to any evidential identifications of his Sitz im Leben. Even the two closest literary analogues of the Apocalypse of John - the Apocalypse of Ezra (4 Ez.) and the Syrian Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Bar.) - the scholarly consensus refers to a completely different environment: not Christian, but Judean. So far, the study of all three of these apocalypses are reduced to the accumulation of "trifles" - such as, for example, well identifiable elements of liturgical sequences or citations of more ancient apocalyptic literature - and all the "conclusions and generalizations" are no more than initial attempts to link these observations together. Of these attempts, the most competitive should be, apparently, those that as little as possible resort to a “spiritual” (that is, alas, subjective) interpretation of the source. That is the strength and concept of the book under review. We will name only a few examples: the Apoc. verse. 11, 8, identifying Babylon with the city where “the Lord was crucified” (p. 31), parallelism between Apoc. 17 (God's punishment for the Harlot - Babylon) and Ezek. 16 (the same, but concerning the harlot - Jerusalem) (p. 60 - 61), verse Apoc. 18, 4 (see above, note 1), also noted by R. H. Charles' of parallelism between Matt. 24 (disasters raging on Israel) and Apoc. 6 (p. 1 - 3). So, while we are in the zone of “cumulative” evidence, scholarship has no right to forget any “Minority Opinions”, and even less - those of those opinions that are much less “force” texts than scholarly “consensus”[3]. The author of these lines also has a special reason to pay attention to the possibility of identifying Babylon as Jerusalem: just such a conclusion would be very natural, if we consider that Christianity does not go back to the Jewish tradition that had power over the Jerusalem Temple, some other “Judaism,” whose relationship with the Temple was not particularly simple. In this case, the similarity of all three of the above apocalypses could be explained by their common background of the pre-Christian era.

In conclusion, it does exist but it really seems a stretch to call this a “positive” review when it is clearly filled with some very damning critiques like that anything is possible theoretically but ultimately Preston offers identification of Babylon without proof other than subjective spiritual interpretation.




[2] Note that I, Conley, have translated the word ученый as “scholarly” in this translation instead of "science" because the context in Russian doesn’t seem to make one iota of sense for anything scientific. One should note though ученый as far as I know usually does mean science or scientific vs scholarly as it has to deal with researching and academia in a general sense. Maybe it should be translated as science or scientific but if so, it leaves a huge question over what "science" is involved here, as there seems to be none.
[3] More often than not, we encounter such an identification without any proof. To illustrate the shaky ground we find ourselves here if we just want to move on to the evidence, I will quote one of the most authoritative modern commentaries (on Apoc. 18:4 - Get out of her (Babylon)...) : “It does not seem that the most literary sense is possible: an invitation from the city of Rome!” (here the author without proof accepts the “consensus”: Babylon - Rome) Imagining an allusion to the flight from the Pella in 70 (i.e. Babylon = Jerusalem) supposes the use of an old document which cannot be isolated without support (here another consensus comes into effect on another controversial issue: the date before 70 according to R. H. Charles is considered unacceptable for the Apocalypse itself; it should be noted that although early dating seems more appropriate "to identify Babylon with Jerusalem (and so also follows Preston), however, such identification is theoretically possible at the end of the 1st century.]. So there remains the spiritual meaning: it is indeed the pagan context and idolatry, of which the capital of the empire is the perfect example, that Christians are invited to leave (Pierre Prigent, L'Apocalypse de Saint Jean. Lausanne - Paris, 1981 - Commentary on the New Testament, XIV, 268). The whole scholarly consensus on the identification of “Babylon” is built on this kind of “spiritual” interpretation! For a more complete review of the history of theography that accepts the identification of Babylon - Jerusalem, see in the dissertation (the author of which adheres to the same point of view): A.J. Beagley, The “Sitz im Leben” of the Apocalypse with Particular Reference to the Role of the Church's Enemies (Berlin - New York, 1987. Supplement to the magazine for New Testament science and the news of the older church, 50). For pointing me to this work, I thank Dr. Ph. L. Mayo.

Saturday, January 25, 2020

Hebraic Mindset On The Resurrection of the Dead

Recently, I've been engaged in some heated debate with full preterists liike pseudo-scholar Don Preston on what the Hebraic mindset is on the Resurrection of the Dead as they like to proclaim it is not to be physical but solely spiritual. What did the Jews believe about the Resurrection? 

It's clear that Jesus and the Apostles do not agree with the Sadduccees whatsoever and that Paul, a former Pharisee turned Christian teaches in 1 Cor 15 what appears to be physical but I digress. This going to NT scripture would not suffice so I've looked into Judaism a bit more here.

The Talmud has two components; the Mishnah (c. 200) and the Gemara (c. 500). They speak of a real final day when there is judgment on the just and unjust and a real resurrection.

There is no real chance that a well-established, mainstream Judaism sect like the Pharisees would have changed their resurrection view this much over a 130 year period... especially when we have proof that the Sanhedrin resumed their council in 80AD after the Temple was destroyed.

The Pharisaical Hebrew mindset was simple on eschatology.

They believed that there will be a final day of judgment on the just and unjust and there will be a real resurrection of the dead. The main thing they began reforming doctrinally was with regards to the Temple, not their eschaton.

Christianity kept this same belief. We also kept prayer for the dead which is found in the Talmud as well. The big difference between our eschaton and Pharisaical Judaism is this.

Christ is the Messiah.
Christ is God Incarnate.
Christ is the Resurrection.
Through Him who is Zoe (eternal Life) & the Resurrection we too will rise from the dead.

Basic history shows us Pharisaical Judaism has remained relatively the same pre and post-2nd Temple Era on the matter of the Resurrection and it is clear that the Early Church Fathers like Clement among others taught a resurrection of the dead that was physical bodies rising from the grave.

It is unanimous that Paul in 1 Cor 15 teaches this as well that the dead will rise physically from their literal graves and uses Christ, a real person, as His example.

This is too easy.



Friday, January 24, 2020

Morning Babblings of Don - Refutation of Preston's videos against Hope Resurrected #7

Well I have after listening to Don K Preston's 7th video "refuting" my book. In what can only be described as a 24 minute rant from a madman, Preston tries yet again to "refute" my book with lies, dishonesty, and absurdist claims. 

Here it is for context though I wouldn't bother watching such a trashy, asinine waste of 24 minutes of your time video though but if you're into torturing yourself, go right ahead. 


He claims dishonestly and absurdly that I attempt to negate time statements which is absolutely false. Interpreting time statements in the bible differently from a full preterist does not, in any way, mean that someone is "negating" the time statements in the Bible, nor does it "negate" them of their meaning. That is a dishonest and absurd statement to make. 

Don essentially does the same dishonest, absurdist tactics he has pulled before in the videos I've previously responded to, time and time again. 

The fact is: If Don were honest, and he is not, he would have to admit that by interpreting the time statements of the Bible the way that he does, in his full preterist interpretation of them, that the New Testament is a story about a failed doomsday cult called Christianity that never saw its Savior, Jesus  of Nazareth, who claimed He was the Christ and God Incarnate, return and come to raise the dead from the grave as He and the Apostles promised He would do. It's either this or Don would have to join Ed Stevens and make up a bunch of conspiracy theories and employ historical revisionism claiming that somehow everyone missed a bunch of people being raptured up into heaven. 

Completely absurd. 

Literally no one in Chapter 7 of my book Hope Resurrected claimed that the Greek word mello can't be used to describe something as imminent or about to happen. The whole point of that chapter is to show that the word mello can be used to mean something that is certain to happen or will happen. It is an absolute fact that it does not always have to mean imminence. 

You may have heard that the star Beetleguise is about to go supernova and explode. Scientist are unsure if it is to be happening any day now or whether it is going to take place 100,000 years from now but it is certain that it will be exploding and going supernova at some point in time. The Koine Greeks in explaining this event that is to take place would certainly use mello and use it in one of these contexts in explaining it. This is a linguistic fact with Greek words like mello.

Preston stupidly asked where you find mello meaning certain or will.

Preston stupidly claims you will not find certainty being used for mello in a Greek lexicon. Does this moron ever fact-check anything to back his stupid claims? Nope. 

You can find it in the Thayer and Smith where it shows it to be used in the exact way that I claimed. 

You can literally go on the internet or find it in a lexicon or just google this and find a lexicon online that says it can mean this. Absolute dolt.

I also in this book quoted Kenneth Gentry and Sam Frost later in the book talking about the word usage of mello but I digress. Preston's dishonesty is on full display here and he should be ashamed of himself for it but what can one expect from a dishonest pseudo-scholar such as the likes of Don K Preston?

He berates me on his video along with Palmer about how we don't agree with him about his usage of mello when it is used in prophetic context and all I can respond with is to eat a donut Don. It is true that in prophetic context, words like mello do not have to mean imminent. They will however always mean certainty if the prophecy being given is to be found true. 

He makes more absurdist claims like that John the Baptist was prophesying about AD70. John the Baptist was prophesying moreso about the 1st Coming of Christ and talking about the fact that there would be consequences if these people denied the words of the Messiah. I would argue that this is a largely general statement that is true for people in all time periods. If you deny Christ you will certainly pay for it. Everyone knows that. If it has any inkling towards AD 70 it is merely the judgement of Jerusalem that everyone agrees happened and was a judgment on the Jews. It obviously to anyone with a brain still working isn't about the 2nd Coming and Don will find no agreement on that matter except with his own band of pseudo-scholars. 

The only real thing he got in this video correct was that I did make an error that I, for whatever reason, did not catch in Ken Palmer's article. Matthew 10:32 does not in fact use mello. It uses homologeso, the future term for homologeo. Since it is in future tense it uses the word will and perhaps I missed that when I was going through the article I used. I will most certainly be revising this in a later revision because it is a mistake I did not catch. 

He makes a weird rant about Matthew 10:23 though that needs to be addressed. I have in other articles responded to this before but I will do it again because Don is completely bonkers with his interpretation on it. 


Should you decide to not read that article, here is the response on Matthew 10:23:

Jesus told His Apostles in Matthew 10:23, “You will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.” How would you handle that passage of Scripture? From an honest perspective, Matthew 10:23 can be interpreted a few ways. For example, one could say it is referring in some way about the destruction of Jerusalem to some extent. If it was, this would not contradict the Patristics as they all say that the destruction of Jerusalem was a type and prefiguring event of what is to come in the future when the Christ in His 2nd Coming comes in a visible, physical bodily event.

Some thoughts though to consider...

If “before the Son of Man comes” meant the Parousia is expected before the disciples even begin the Gentile mission, one can only wonder at the fidelity with which the Church preserved all these sayings attributed to Jesus if they were in such manifest contradiction with the actual course of events. Obviously, the saying was not and has not been understood in that sense as a result; so I think while it could possibly be probable that it could be a reference to the Jewish Roman War of AD66-70 I highly doubt this to be the case.

When reading it, Christ is trying to share with them that the persecution that they’ll suffer must not cause them to quit but to move forward with their called mission. This passage is very likely much more simpler than we as ex Full Preterist try to make it out to be, thanks to the lens of being a former full preterist. It is highly likely all Jesus is saying is that before the disciples could visit all the cities of Palestine, He would rejoin them, thus ending the hostilities they’d encounter sooner.

“But when they persecute you in this city, flee into another: for verily I say unto you, You shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man comes” (Matthew 10:23).

We have the writings of Theophylact of Ochrid who says of it that: The fearful things spoken of above, such as "They will hand you over" and "You will be hated," concerned those things which would take place after the Ascension. What is spoken of now concerns that which would take place before the Cross. "You will not be persecuted through all the cities of Israel before I shall come to you." He commands them to flee from their persecutors. For it is of the devil for a man to throw himself into manifest danger and thus become the cause of condemnation to those who would slay him and the detriment of those whom he was about to benefit by his preaching. "Till the Son of Man be come" — do not understand by this the second coming, but rather, His drawing together with them and the comfort that He would give them yet before the Cross. For when they had been sent out and had preached, they again returned to Christ and were together with Him.

Another take on it is St. John Chrysostom who states: But that they should not say, What then if we fly from persecution, and again they cast us out thence whither we have fled? To remove this fear, He says, "Verily, I say unto you, ye shall not have completed” that is, yes hall not have made the circuit of Palestine and return to Me, before I shall take you to Me.

St. John Chrysostom also states: Having spoken of those fearful and horrible things, enough to melt very adamant, which after His cross, and resurrection, and assumption, were to befall them, He directs again His discourse to what was of more tranquil character, allowing those whom He is training to recover breath, and affording them full security. For He did not at all command them, when persecuted, to close with the enemy, but to fly. That is, it being so far but a beginning, and a prelude, He gave His discourse a very condescending turn. For not now of the ensuing persecutions is He speaking, but of those before the cross and the passion. And this He showed by saying, You shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come. That is, lest they should say, What then, if when persecuted we flee, and there again they overtake us, and drive us out?— to destroy this fear, He says, You shall not have gone round Palestine first, but I will straightway come upon you.

And see how here again He does not away with the terrors, but stands by them in their perils. For He said not, I will snatch you out, and will put an end to the persecutions; but what? You shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come. Yea, for it sufficed for their consolation, simply to see Him.

But do thou observe, I pray you, how He does not on every occasion leave all to grace, but requires something also to be contributed on their part. For if you fear, says He, flee, for this He signified by saying, flee ye, and fear not. Matthew 10:26 And He did not command them to flee at first, but when persecuted to withdraw; neither is it a great distance that He allows them, but so much as to go about the cities of Israel.

Then again, He trains them for another branch of self-command; first, casting out all care for their food: secondly, all fear of their perils; and now, that of calumny. Since from that first anxiety He freed them, by saying, The workman is worthy of his hire, Matthew 10:10 and by signifying that many would receive them; and from their distress about their dangers, by saying, Take no thought how or what you shall speak, and, He that endures unto the end, the same shall be saved.

But since withal it was likely that they should also bring upon themselves an evil report, which to many seems harder to bear than all; see whence He comforts them even in this case, deriving the encouragement from Himself, and from all that had been said touching Himself; to which nothing else was equal. For as He said in that other place, You shall be hated of all men, and added, for my name's sake, so also here. And in another way He mitigates it, joining a fresh topic to that former. What kind of one then is it?


This would be my answer to Matthew 10. These certainly are not always easy passages to interpret when you are dealing with some phrasologies that are becoming more and more lost to most people today but that is my take on it. I don't see anything about AD70 or the 2nd Coming in the latter verse but if there is anything there about AD70 in Matthew 10, it isn’t about the 2nd Coming, and is just the prefiguring event that took place when Jerusalem was destroyed. There would be too many difficulties and inconsistencies and problems if Christ came back then.

Another thing, Christian scholarship has always taught in some way, shape, or form the "already, not yet" principle. Full preterist and atheist bible critics teach "already" principle and they're wrong, unless, like many bible critics want to propose, that the bible is in fact a story about a failed doomsday cult that never saw Christ return. Does Don want to admit to this or not? Because that is the ultimate fate of full preterism if he were actually honest about it since he can't prove most of his absurdist claims he makes in his many books such as that Christ stripped off His humanity in the Ascension and that 1 Corinthians 15 is only about spiritual death which he has and continues to be  absolutely slaughtered on... or how about the fact that he can't show any sourcing that Hebrews believed in the Old Testament the way he claims they do (aka the Hebraic mindset)? Contrary to Preston, we find Josephus (37-101 AD), a Pharisee, speaking on the resurrection of the dead as a real event he believes to take place. We also find in the Mishnah (finalized in 200 AD) the same thing being taught and find in Paul's writings, especially that of 1 Cor 15 that he speaks of a resurrection of the dead with a physical aspect to it since he uses Christ as the example of resurrection from the dead. 

Another thing that needs to be addressed. I reject the terms Mosaic and Church Age. These are dispensationalist terms that I reject and refuse to use. There are only the Old and the New Covenants. The Old Covenant passed away and was fulfilled, ushering in the New Covenant, ON THE CROSS, not AD 70 as Preston erroneously teaches. 

I also want to respond to this ad hominem Preston made about Ken Palmer and myself. He claims that "these men seem to be incapable of writing even a couple paragraphs without impaling themselves on their own comments and that's what happens when you reject the truth of Scripture" (Preston).

First of all, Don has no business of trying to discredit us over writing or any writing issues that may have been made in the writing of this book. If we want to really deal with credibility let's bring this topic up. 

I have repeatedly asked Don K Preston to provide evidence that Russia Academy of Science has him in a publication as his website claims he does. So far, NOTHING. I don't believe this even exists and I think he lied his tail off about it, as you will find NOTHING and ZERO evidence for this on any search engine. I'd love to be shown this positive review in the official publication of the Russian Academy of Science because as of yet, I have found no such thing. 


This Doctor of Divinity Degree from Vision International University of Romana, CA he received in June 2010 is also a huge farce. What he got was a paper mill degree from a paper mill bible school that is unaccredited. When asked by Stan DeKovan, the president of this, he regretted giving Preston this "honorary" degree. That should speak volumes that even an unaccredited paper mill place regrets giving him their honorary degree.


One has to question what scholarship is going on with Don? We can't find this publication by Russian Academy of Science and there's clear evidence up the wazoo that this man is a pseudo-scholar. Is it coming from being "President of Preterist Research Institute" which consists of Don Preston in his shed in Arrdmore, Oklahoma making a bunch of goofy videos instead of any actual research? 

Think that's enough for a response to this asinine video of Pseudo-Scholar Preston. He can't tell the truth to save his life it seems and continues to lose what little amount of credibility he may have ever once had. 

Friday, January 17, 2020

Morning Babblings of Don - Refutation of Preston's Videos against Hope Resurrected #6


This will be a short blog post in response to Don Preston's latest video.

I truly believe this whole 19 minute, waste of time, video is Preston bullsnotting and advertising his books. 

For about 4 minutes or more, Preston tries to make it out that my book is littered with grammar issues and is just terrible to read. I have found some errors for sure in my grammar and some misspellings every so often as I've continued to proofread my book - there certainly are some. However, Preston's claims are just mostly an attempt to make people not read this book and attempt to make it out that I am some incompetent imbecile. My only response really for that is that I will be revising the book at some point and any errors that are found in the book I will be fixing obviously. The whole book is not littered in every single sentence and page with errors in spelling and grammar as Preston claims though. 

To Preston: Eat a donut kumquat... 

He has been for two videos straight stuck on page 70 and I was actually in shock he managed to move on to other pages of my seventh chapter. This probably shouldn't have been such a shocker considering Don's obsessive, idolatrous infatuation with 70 AD but I digress. 

He makes an absurd claim that I should have cited some academics in the paragraph of page 70 where I say that sometimes time statements in the bible do mean a longer period of time when apocalyptic language and prophecy are concerned. Truth of the matter is, I do not have to cite an academic for what was clearly a paragraph serving as the primer of Ken Palmer's article and the rest of the 7th chapter of my book. It's hilariously sad that Preston keeps doing these things... yet when he is asked by William Vincent, Sam Frost, or myself about his claims about having "ancient sources" that prove his claims for what constitutes his position on what is and is not the "Hebraic mindset". So far, he can't seem to give us anything of substance and can't even give us quotations. 

He wildly takes me out of context for a past conversation we had where I said that the way Full Preterists interpret time statements would not only falsify my book if true, but would also falsify the New Testament and make the NT writers nothing more than a failed doomsday cult that never saw fruition of what they desired: the 2nd Coming (this is because Christ promised to really physically come back and promises a biological resurrection - this clearly did not take place in 70 AD). 

I found it pretty hilarious that he has gone through 3 videos now and it took the 3rd try for him to finally get past page 70. In the process he makes a charge at Ken Palmer like Ken is some evil scumbag which I found absurdist on all levels, even for Preston, and overall dumb. It took him this long to do that and then Don claims that for brevity's sake, he won't go through every verse mentioned in the 7th chapter. 

So what does Don focus on? Well after he's done blowing smoke out of his ears most of this video, he starts to try and make the point of his primer in his video that "Lance Conley claims that prophetic time statements don't mean anything, but then, he turns around and cites Matthew 3 - a prophetic passage - and admits that it was fulfilled in AD 70! Thus, prophetic time statements did mean imminently, just as the passage indicates - and Conley has falsified his own claims!"

Well first off, this chapter is to provide the point that the Greek word mello means certainty and does not always mean something is imminent, especially with apocalyptic and prophetic language. I have to point this out as well that with eschatology, unless you're a full preterist, there is the "already, not yet" principle taking place in the Scriptures. Another thing, neither Palmer or myself would deny that the word mello can mean imminence. It most certainly can in some cases in the proper context. It does sometimes in the Scriptures mean imminence. It does not though in all cases, especially when it comes to apocalyptic language and when it comes to prophetic words being spoken. Preston can deny this all he bloody heck pleases but it is vain and meaningless ramblings of a mad pseudo-scholar at the end of the day who will take uninspired, often atheist, liberal-minded, bible-critic scholars over the Word of God. 

He clearly tries to make "at hand" spoken by John the Baptist about AD70 here with page 73 of my book where we clearly talk about the already, not yet principle being in view with this... 

In my book, I write that Matt 3:7; Luke 3:7 both appear thematically to be describing an outcome that is on the temporal horizon, as in the wrath of God, which would result in the extermination of the Aaronic priesthood, and national theocracy. John the Baptist indeed describes that the kingdom is at hand in Matt 3:2 and Matt 3:10 is a certain warning that is a result of their disobedience and countenance, according to John, the spirit crying out in the wilderness, in failure to heed, even the upcoming Messiah, of that resulting outcome for their sins Luke 11:5.

Preston makes it out that I don't think AD70 was anything important but in fact in the book, and as I have said repeatedly, the Scriptures and the Early Church did see some significance to the Destruction of Jerusalem. They did not see it as the 2nd Coming nor the Resurrection of the dead, but did see it to have been a day of judgment on the Jews for rejecting Christ. That is a fact.

As for his next one he quotes in my book, he goes to Matt 12:32 where I write that Matt 12:32 compares two different worlds, this and the world to come/μέλλω. It is often understood that this world to come, although already established in some sense, has not come to fruition in the fullest sense. This is sometimes attributed to the “already but not yet” paradigm charge that many within the preterism tend to lay on the heads of the historic church. They claim “If it isn’t here, then it isn’t here, but if it is, then it is, and the other one is gone”. This in fact is indeed an error on their part, based on the simple fact that when Christ came, the world to come had been established in his Ministry and Passion, resulting in His crucifixion, resurrection and ascension, and not in the year 70 A.D. He was exalted at the right hand of the father in all the glory of His angels and given the scepter to now judge humanity according to Matt 12:28; 26:64. cf. Dan 7:10, 14. The law, for believers, was thus nullified and fulfilled in Christ, and from that point forward, no longer was the law, or the Jewish theocracy the standard set for the world, or oikoumené, to be judged.

It is clear that we are discussing full preterism in context, why it is in error about mello, and we also discuss the already not yet principle as well to make sure the reader know this. Preston does a lot of smoke in this video. I did post his video for context but if you want to do yourself a favor and not waste 19 minutes of your life, do so. 

Nothing he says in this video of his actually refutes my book. Back to reading more books by actual scholars and making better use of my time.

Stay tuned for the next article where we will be tackling Preston's silly videos about Isaiah 24. 

Friday, January 10, 2020

Morning Babblings of Don - Refutation of Preston's videos against Hope Resurrected #5

For context here is the link for yet another of Don's ridiculous videos claiming to "refute" my book Hope Resurrected:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsdT6o3SeC0&t=645s

Preston makes many absurd claims in this video.

I've for one been sarcastic for sure but I have never claimed this book is to be the final, do-all, be-all, refutation of full preterism. I am sure that more will come about and write against this stupid heresy and I hope and pray that they write and refute better than I ever have. I only hope and pray that I have and can contribute in some small way to destroy this disgusting heresy and whatever way God wills it to be, I will do it in order to lead people to the Lord and away from this vile man and his heresies that are dragging them to the lake of fire.

Preston claims that this book "virtually answers nothing". Apparently almost 500 pages where I go through and dissect the majority of King, Preston, Bondar, and Stevens' books on full preterism and refute their arguments "virtually answers nothing". What a hilariously inaccurate statement. My whole book is supposedly "rife with bad logic, false hermaneutics, basic suppositions that are just flawed in the extreme" according to Preston.

Strange how all Don has are ad hominems and other fallacious things to say and claim about me instead of actually engaging with the writings but hey this is a pseudo-scholar we're talking about. It's not going to be honest nor factual to say the least.

I'm apparently up there with Gentry as in our last article, Preston claimed Gentry was illogical, dishonorable, and much more insulting words. What an adorable sweet angel Preston is!

Preston makes a bogus claim in this video that I say the Early Church Fathers don't address a "problem of time". They most certainly do not have a "problem" with it but they do address the fact that there will certainly be a 2nd Coming and a resurrection of the dead in the future. Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, all disciples of the Apostles - all affirm this to be a fact that was taught by their teachers the Apostles. It is clear they're going off Paul's statements in 1 Corinthians 15 among other references as well since Paul teaches a biological resurrection of the dead will take place just as Christ first raised biologically from the dead.

For a video going through 1 Corinthians 15 if you have an hour to kill, I have done a video on this topic over whether the resurrection of the dead is biological or not, linked below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WKN_7tmmDc&t=2s

Preston is clearly lying through his teeth here.

I have said that I do not buy this claim that there was a "crisis of faith" with the Early Church Fathers. I stand by that claim until proven otherwise. Preston's "scholars" who claim this to be the case all seem to be liberal bible critics that were often out to discredit Christianity. Furthermore, when pressed on who his "Jewish sources" are by William Vincent, Sam Frost, and myself, Don Preston has yet to share with us who these sources are and we have asked for literally a week or more to see these "sources" that Preston supposedly has. Funny right?

He makes a claim that the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas prove a crisis of faith. Do they though? I'll let you, the reader, read them for yourself instead of just spewing hogwash. Please share with me where you see a crisis of faith going on in these writings.

Epistle of Barnabas:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0124.htm

The Shepherd of Hermas:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0201.htm

I'm going to make the claim and say "Since when" in regards to a crisis of faith going on. I find nothing to conclude some "crisis of faith" in either of these works like Preston claims there is. I do find proof that Barnabas and Hermas' writers accepted a real 2nd Coming and a real biological resurrection of the dead would take place in the future one day as literally everyone ECF taught and Paul and apostles clearly teach in the bible.

Preston blasts me for speaking about the fact that he didn't discuss my 6th chapter about the history of full preterism saying it was "irrelevant" but the fact is he didn't discuss it because it is relevant to full preterism. History shows us that there are NO full preterists until Robert Townley and even then Townley recanted of full preterism and it wasn't until Max King that full preterism even became a thing and gained any momentum. Furthermore, it had to wait about 20 more years to gain any steam and traction and this was only due to the internet coming to be. One has to wonder why it took so long if Full Preterism is such a powerful truth from God and His Word and took until the 1800s and ultimately took until the 1970s.

Preston for all his blah and humbugs only ever quotes my book one time in his whole video and ultimately twists what I say in pages 70-71. He twists my words and then makes this fallacious claim that if one time statement in the bible has the Coming of the Lord being near in the 1st Century that this makes my entire book falsified. It's a strange argument but it is absolutely false. The fact of the matter is, if the 2nd Coming and Resurrection of the Dead were supposed to happen in the 1st Century, then the fact of the matter is, that my book is not the one falsified, it's in fact the entire New Testament that is falsified because the fact is, the New Testament writers did teach a Last Day where God will judge all men and all nations and truly would raise the biologically dead to biologically eternal life and they also taught that the Presence of God (His Parousia - Presence) would invade this fallen Creation and redeem, restore, and recreate it, filling all things with His Parousia - Presence.

This did not happen and you will find no record of it to have taken place.

Apparently, all non-full preterists ignore the Bible, lie, and distort it according to Preston. I guess we are all stupid, incompetent, evil villains by Preston's logic. Apparently every single person and scholar and etc. until 1970 were stupid until King and Preston entered into the world and opened up their New Testaments. Apparently everyone through history was also out to destroy full preterism. Fascinating! It makes Joseph Smith's stories look silly in comparison.

I also learned something about myself in this video. Apparently I believe Jesus is a 5' 5" Jewish man who is going to ride a Flying Nimbus when He comes back. Precious! I could be wrong but I believe Jesus could very well not be a Middle Eastern Midget Jew and maybe even be 6 foot tall. Maybe even 6' 1". I can certainly agree He is a Middle Eastern Jewish man. Preston can't though as he believes Christ stripped Himself (oh I meant to say "divested" LOL) of His humanity in the Ascension and tries to use Acts 1 to do it (something of which Preston can't prove to save his life). In the end all Preston does here is blow smoke. It's pretty clear from his tone in the video that he is clearly a Gnostic who hates Creation and it becomes more clear being Preston blasphemes Christ's humanity the way he does with his mockery of Jesus' height and ethnicity.


Preston then makes a completely absurd lie about me with my beliefs about Matthew 24 that I claim we have to take apocalyptic language "literally". That's not a true statement. We have to take apocalyptic language like Matthew 24 in context literature-wise. There are many elements going on with apocalyptic language that must be taken into consideration when interpreting it and I would not deny that. Preston here though tries to paint me as some incompetent buffoon and some kooky fundamentalist or something and it's completely false and downright bizarre. I do not take the texts metaphorically either. This is all just Preston blowing smoke and making absurd claims about me and how I view prophets and prophecy. Truth is, when a prophet finishes prophesy and prophesying, the prophecy begins right there and then and the prophecy goes on being completed until it is finalized and sees completion.

Preston makes another absurdist claim that I don't take full preterist positions with time statements because if I did it would falsify my book. I do not take full preterist positions with time statements for a much simpler reason. I do so because it is clear that the Scriptures teach that the 2nd Coming is a real event to take place. The Scriptures teach that Christ will really physically return. The Scriptures teach that when He returns the Resurrection of the dead will really take place and the biologically dead will rise from their graves and rise to eternal biological life while those alive to witness this will be changed as 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thess 4 teaches, just to name a few Scripture chapters off. I do not teach or do a full preterist position because it would mean that the Apostles were all wrong and liars and the Bible itself would be falsified. It would mean especially that Paul was wrong or lying and a false teacher which Peter himself endorsed in 2 Peter. It would mean that Luke, the writer of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles was also wrong since he too endorsed Paul and even travelled with him at times on their evangelical trips. To believe in full preterism would force me to become an atheist or be some kind of weird Israel Only person or have to find some other religion because clearly none of this happened in the 1st Century as those beloved liberal scholars Don loves so much like to tell us. Clearly if the FP position is correct about those time statements we have to give up the ghost and just admit we have a failed Christianity on our hands - a failed doomsday cult that never saw Christ come back, just like the liberal bible critic scholars Preston loves so much like to flout. Praise God though! Apocalyptic language is speaking about literal real events that will take place! It being a prophecy makes time God's, not our human definitions or Don K Preston's definitions of what he thinks time has to be or mean. We can trust God's Word over the uninspired, heretical works of pseudo-scholar full preterist Don K Preston.

The rest of this pathetic video can be summed up with this picture below of Don asking for $ for almost 3 minutes and a stupid insult against Sam Frost for no good reason except he can. Throughout this entire video, Preston never once actually dealt with anything in my book except page 70-71 where he ultimately twisted my words yet again into something I did not say nor did I claim.

If you feel led to do so, I ask that you pray for Don K Preston that he would wake up from his heretical stupor and repent of his wickedness and his lies. He will ultimately be judged for all his antichrist teachings and has led many astray with his teachings and though an enemy of Christ, I along with the ex-FP crew do not wish him to be condemned in the Lake of Fire when we are all judged. I wish salvation even for a false teacher like Don K Preston.

Don's Desperation Part 2

Welcome to Part 2 of Don's Desperation. Don claims "this particular article... a response to Kenneth Gentry who claimed that preterists abuse Luke 21:22... is completely destroyed in this and the other articles, so check them out!"

https://donkpreston.com/kenneth-gentry-on-luke-2122-his-desperation/

I assume this all means he's saying my article: https://www.hoperesurrected.com/2020/01/it-has-been-strange-state-of-affairs.html is refuted by this article he wrote against Gentry? Let's find out.


"I have written numerous articles interacting with Kenneth Gentry, an outspoken critic of Covenant Eschatology. He is also one of the most ardent advocates of postmillennialism. In my work on 1 Thessalonians 4:13f entitled We Shall Meet Him In the Air, The Wedding of the King of Kings, I do an in-depth analysis of Gentry’s hermeneutic. It appears to me personally that as time goes on, Gentry becomes more illogical and desperate in his attempts to respond to Covenant Eschatology. His argument addressed in this article is a prime example of that."
Hmm.. So far this appears to be nothing more than an advertisement for one of Don's books, one of which I addressed and refuted in my book Hope Resurrected. He claims that Gentry seems to be becoming more illogical and desperate in his attempts to respond to full preterism. It's quite odd to read this since Kenneth Gentry is an actual scholar by all accounts and Don has been repeatedly shown to be a pseudo-scholar. It is also quite odd to read this attempt to discredit Kenneth Gentry since in recent videos Don did against me and my book Hope Resurrected, he made so many statements where he advocated for early dating of Revelation and attempted to vindicate Gentry and villainize me for making a critique on Gentry's external data to support his early date hypothesis. It sure seems odd to be making claims like these for someone who is reliant on Gentry, a scholar, and his early date advocacy of Revelation but let's continue. 

"Dr. Gentry takes every opportunity to condemn preterists, but he refuses to actually engage in honorable discussions with preterists. Dr. Gentry has been challenged many times by numerous people, including myself, to meet me in formal public debate. It seems Dr. Gentry is always “too busy.” Anyone wishing to forward this article, with my invitation to formal debate, to Gentry, is more than welcome to do so. I have little hope that he will respond. Every time I have personally emailed him, even though he has opened the posts, he has not even given me the courtesy of a response, or, he has told me he is too busy. We can only hope that this will change."
One must wonder to themselves why Don wants to debate someone who he thinks is becoming "more illogical and desperate" and apparently, according to Don... "takes every opportunity to condemn [full] preterists, but he refuses to actually engage in honorable discussions with preterists". So far, Preston has called Mr. Gentry illogical, desperate, and dishonorable because he condemns full preterists. 

I find nothing so far in this article to defeat any of my arguments I have made against full preterism here. Moreso, all I have found so far to start off with is a hate-post of Don about Kenneth Gentry. 

Preston then goes on about a post he got from someone where Gentry says something against full preterists on his blog where he quotes Luke 21:20-22 I suppose? There is no citation to show us where Gentry said or claimed this stuff so that we can get better context... so I suppose we have to take Don's word for it that what he's saying about Gentry is true... being that he's lied and taken me out of context as I showed in Part 1... this doesn't bode well if I'm going to be frank. 

Preston's article gives no citations so I have literally no idea where Gentry's claims begin and where Don K Preston's begin. He would do well to learn how to cite and at the very least do quotation marks so we know who is speaking, especially from someone who claims to be such a "scholar" as Preston does. Fact is, when I went to look on the blog to get clearer context, I have found nothing written by Gentry. It's possible whatever Gentry wrote has been since deleted or lost perhaps since May 18, 2019 but who in the world really knows for sure that this is to be trusted or not since Preston doesn't give any source or citation to us except that his friend Ray West apparently gave to him. 

It's dangerous to assume I suppose but I'm assuming this part of the article is "Gentry's post" since there is something negative said about hyper-preterists but with Don saying end quote, DKP at the bottom instead of just using quotation marks like a normal person I am left to wonder where Gentry starts and Don begins. Scholars should know simple things like this. This is basics I learned in college as well about citation and quotation... Just throwing that out there. Maybe Don can give us an actual citation or the article this is from? That would be fantastic but I would tell the reader not to hold their breath. 
Gentry apparently said: Inarguably, the context here [Luke 21:20-22 is the reference] is focusing on AD 70, as even Dispensationalists agree. The hyper-preterists naively assume that Jesus is speaking globally of absolutely all prophecies when he declares that “all things which are written” will be fulfilled in AD 70. They hold, therefore, that no prophecy remains, which means that prophecies regarding the resurrection of all men, the second coming, and more came to pass in AD 70. They base their argument on deficient hermeneutics. Note just one deadly observation against their approach: The grammar of the passage limits the declaration. Jesus speaks of “all things which are written” by employing a perfect passive participle: /gegrammena /(”having been written”). This refers to prophecies already written — when he speaks in AD 30. Yet we know that more prophecies arise later in the New Testament revelation. Once again we see a limitation on Jesus’ statement. Furthermore, technically it does not even refer to any prophecy which Christ speaks. For these are not prophecies that have already been written. That being the case, the final resurrection (for instance) is outside of this declaration (Jn 5:28-29). Thus, Jesus is referring to all things written in the Old Testament. At this stage of redemptive history those are the only prophecies that had already been written.
I would be curious what the rest of the argument was to be honest. The quote appears to be a snippet of some argument Gentry made and we don't have sourcing to get the entire context of this quotation Don apparently mined from somewhere. I'm also not sure as of yet how this argument Gentry, a partial preterist, makes against hyper-preterists like Don is relevant to me as I am preteristic in some aspects with eschatology but am not what one would call a partial preterist by any means.

Don writes that:
Quite frankly, I could hardly believe what I was reading from the erudite Dr. Gentry! He has engaged in numerous debates, and surely knows that one must be careful in making polemic arguments. The absolute desperation, the total failure of logic on the part of Dr. Gentry is glaring and egregious.
So apparently Don wants to debate Gentry, yet thinks he's illogical, desperate, dishonorable because he condemns full preterists and was shocked reading this quote he got from somewhere.

I'm assuming that Gentry is saying that at the time that Jesus' words were written down, the words of Paul and Peter and other apostles weren't written yet so this entails that some things have not taken place yet but I could very well be wrong as we don't have anything to gain more context from as Don doesn't give us a reference point to go off from, as is per usual for Don.

He doesn't give us reference points so we can read Gentry for ourselves but then takes it upon himself to "summarize" Gentry's argument "for ease of understanding" to his readers.

Don claims Gentry is saying this and that but in truth, without a reference point so we can read Gentry's full words for ourselves, we can't know for sure what Gentry is saying based solely on a quote that Don clipped. Don assumes Gentry is saying this and that but it could very well be he didn't claim what Preston claims at all.

I'm also still at a loss as to how Gentry's words and this article of Don's have defeated me and my articles and book I've written. All we've received so far is Don claiming Gentry is basically an ignorant buffoon because Don disagrees with him is what I've gathered so far.

Preston makes some arguments here against Gentry and claims that

The New Testament prophecies of the resurrection are simply the reiteration of the Old Testament prophecies (things already written in A.D. 30). Proof of this argument: I need only refer to the words of Paul. The apostle affirmed in the most unambiguous manner that his doctrine of the resurrection was nothing but that found in the Old Testament, i.e. in that which had already been written!

Acts 24:14-15: “But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets. I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.”
Paul said his doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, for which he was on trial, was found in Moses and the Law and the prophets. That certainly qualifies as that which was written before A.D. 30.

Acts 26:21-23– “Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.”
 This is absurdity at its finest. Paul does teach a resurrection of the dead certainly. Acts 24:14-15 makes it clear that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. When did this happen? Not AD30. Not AD70 for sure either. Acts 26:21-23 also doesn't help Preston's case here either as it says "he [Christ] should be the FIRST THAT SHOULD RISE FROM THE DEAD". 1 Corinthians 15 makes it clear that Christ truly and literally rose from the dead. There is no ambiguity here. Christ truly was resurrected and rose from His grave, no longer biologically dead but biologically eternally alive. It's clear that Paul teaches that if Christ rose biologically, so will we.
Paul said he preached nothing, nothing but the hope of Israel found in Moses and the prophets. Do you catch the power of that? Paul taught of the resurrection of the dead.
But, Paul did not preach anything but the hope of Israel found in Moses and the prophets.
Therefore, the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead was found in Moses and the prophets.

Romans 8:23– 9:1-4– “And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body… For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises.”

The adoption, according to Paul, was the resurrection. But, the promise of the adoption was given to, and belonged to, Israel after the flesh. This means that the adoption, the promise of the resurrection, was from the Old Testament prophecies.
1 Corinthians 15:54-55– “So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” Paul cites Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13:14 as the source of his resurrection doctrine in Corinthians. Paul said that the resurrection would be when Isaiah 25 and Hosea 13:14 would be fulfilled. Thus, the resurrection hope and doctrine of 1 Corinthians 15 was found in, and based on the Old Testament prophecies made to Israel.
I certainly would not claim that Paul doesn't teach a resurrection of the dead. He most certainly does. This claim that being adopted (Gentiles being adopted into Israel along with Jewish believers) means they are part of the resurrection of the dead is interesting. Acts as Preston clearly showed us, teaches that there will be a resurrection of the just and unjust. It's not just those who are part of Israel. It's also the just and unjust. Weird flex Don but okay...

From these texts, it is undeniable that the resurrection hope expressed by the New Testament writers was nothing other than a reiteration of what had already been written long ago in the Old Testament scriptures! This is fatal to Gentry’s argument and theology.
Still unsure how these Scriptures are fatal to Gentry's argument and theology. As far as I'm aware he teaches that the 2nd Coming and resurrection of the dead are future whereas Preston would have to prove that the 2nd Coming not only happened but that the resurrection of the dead took place as well, without spiritualizing it into something that Paul doesn't teach since Paul teaches a biological resurrection of the dead will take place when the 2nd Coming takes place.

You simply cannot say that the New Testament prophecies of the resurrection are not grounded in and based on the Old Covenant prophecies. This is to deny Paul who said he preached nothing but the hope of Israel found in Moses and the prophets. 1 Corinthians 15 is not different from Isaiah 25 or Hosea 13:14, for Paul says that when the resurrection occurred, it would be the fulfillment of those prophecies. To say that 1 Corinthians 15 is the explication of those prophecies is not the same as saying that they are different from those prophecies.
1 Corinthians 15 teaches a biological resurrection of the dead. Paul affirms this will take place by quoting Isaiah 25 and Hosea 13:14 as proof that it will certainly take place. In it, the hope of man longed for, will occur, as "death is swallowed up in victory". This is why Paul recalls Isaiah 25.8 and Hosea 13.14. Long the tyrant of man, Death has been vanquished entirely through Christ as He has ensured us the victory over it through the Cross, His death and His Resurrection. All these realities - death, sin, the Law - belonged to this age and will forever be abolished in the coming resurrection. Even now, in this age, God "gives us the victory" through Christ. This is simple stuff.

He keeps making absurd claims about Gentry which leave me wondering where the heck I am disproven by this article.

Gentry may very well make some of these claims in his books that all OT prophecy would be fulfilled by the time of, and in the events of the fall of Jerusalem in AD70. I'm not sure how this defeats my arguments however since the Old Covenant was completed at the Cross, not the Parousia as Preston erroneously teaches. The Old Covenant being completed and fulfilled so the New Covenant could be ushered in does not mean that all of the Old Testament has to be fulfilled either. There is always the possibility that there can be prophecies in the OT about the New Covenant that have not been fulfilled as of yet. Old Testament does not equate to the Old Covenant since some of the OT does speak about the New Covenant.

Preston's 2nd argument here is that the prophecies of the OT all had to be fulfilled in AD70.

It is incontrovertibly true that the Old Testament foretold the resurrection of the dead. Kenneth Gentry agrees. It is irrefutably true that all New Testament prophecies of the resurrection are drawn from and the reiteration of the Old Testament prophecies. It is undeniable that Jesus said that all things written would be fulfilled by the time of, and in the events of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Kenneth Gentry is correct in affirming that all Old Testament prophecies would be fulfilled at / in A.D. 70. And this proves, beyond refutation, that the resurrection of the dead came at the dissolution of the Old Covenant age of Israel in A.D. 70.
This all assumes that all the Old Testament prophecies are written about the Old Covenant. We already see through Hebrews 8 which I have covered in previous articles and in my book Hope Resurrected that the New Covenant came about on the Cross, not the Parousia. The Old was already fulfilled by Christ there and then.

Preston rambles on about Gentry being wrong and babbles about Isaiah 25. I find nowhere where he gives some kind of refutation of me here. He has to prove Paul didn't teach a biological resurrection and it is quite clear that Paul teaches a biological resurrection of the dead in 1 Corinthians 15.

He makes an absurd claim that Isaiah 24:10 "emphatically posits the resurrection at the time of Jerusalem’s demise". and this is just absurdity at its finest and bad eisegesis coming from Don.

In chapter 26:19-21, the Lord predicted the resurrection at the time when YHVH would come out of heaven and avenge the blood of the martyrs. Of course, Jesus was emphatically clear that all of the righteous blood of all the saints, shed on the earth, would be avenged in the judgment of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Matthew 23:34f).
For one thing, Preston would have to prove that Jesus actually showed up in AD70. Another thing is like I have said before, he has to prove the biologically dead were raised into biological eternal life like Christ did in AD70 since Paul teaches the resurrection of the dead is a supernatural biological event from God that will take place.

The rest of this article is more rambling about how we need to buy Preston's books and how Gentry is apparently a poophead, though I don't believe he is. I find Gentry for the most part likeable even when I disagree with him on Calvinism and eschatological matters. To conclude, I found nowhere where Preston defeats my arguments I've made and I'm not sure that Gentry has been disproven either as Preston doesn't give us a reference point to see Gentry's actual argument (he only gives a snippet of something Gentry said and it is clear from that snippet that there was more spoken about in that conversation).

On a personal note: This attack on Gentry seems like the same nonsense Preston says about Frost and myself as well so I think that means I'm on the right track if I'm in the same line of insults and derrogatory remarks by Preston as Mr. Kenneth Gentry, who Don wants to debate with, calls him an erudite man, but yet in the same article Gentry is described essentially as an illogical, desperate, dishonorable because he condemns full preterists, poophead. If I didn't know any better, I'd say this is what I learned in my many psychology classes called projection. 

Thursday, January 9, 2020

Don's Desperation Part 1

It has been a strange state of affairs going on with Don K Preston lately. To start off the first week of the New Year, Preston took it upon himself to accuse me of lying and deleting comments on my blog here.

1) I do not delete posts unless they are spam.
2) Don Preston did not post anything for me to allow on here nor delete.
3) It is very likely he forgot to hit publish but then again, this may all be a tactic for him to try and justify blocking me on Youtube and Facebook so he doesn't have to deal with the fact that he has consistently been unable to answer the objections that Sam Frost, Greg Kiser, William Vincent, and I have been asking him as of late with regards to his citations he gives for his "scholarship".

I made two videos in response to Preston for this that you can watch by clicking these links...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnSe2o7CsBg&t=5s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0U1x_FmOQM&t=2s

It's quite clear that Preston can't stop lying.

Either way, that's not all this post is going to be about but check it out because it is connected with the crazy comments that he gave when he finally figured out how to hit publish on my Hope Resurrected article, link is here so you can see it all.

https://www.hoperesurrected.com/2020/01/rabbi-donald-ben-lyinalotz-preston.html?showComment=1578628720886#c4240274659645480559

Preston gave this response in my comments section which I will dissect:

Nothing but nonsense and obfuscation. You ignore the fact that both ancient Jews as well as Christians had a "crisis of faith" after AD 70 because they realized that the predicted time of the end had passed and their literalistic expectations of the kingdom-- which were like your's were not fulfilled. This fact falsifies the paragraph that I was addressing. Paul did not teach a physical resurrection, just as he did not preach a physical kingdom-- kingdom and resurrection are of the same nature and the same time.
For one, if one reads the Early Church and their writings, I have yet to see any "crisis of faith" taking place. Preston also has yet to give us this "fact" he claims I ignore. He claims that "both ancient Jews as well as Christians had a 'crisis of faith' after AD70 because they realized that the predicted time of the end had passed and their literalistic expectations of the kingdom - which were like yours were not fulfilled".

William Vincent and I have yet to get any sourcing from Don of ancient Jews or Christians for that matter having some crisis of faith after AD70 but we would love to see these "ancient sources" Don apparently has. Maybe they're only decipherable by a magical stone that he received from God or something... oh wait... that's Joseph Smith. Sometimes I get the two mixed up.

Facts are that 1 Corinthians 15 as well as plenty of other verses prove unanimously that Paul and the rest of Christ and the Church taught there would be a resurrection of the dead when Christ returns in His 2nd Coming. It would and will be a real event as Paul taught and the literal dead would literally rise from their biological death into biological eternal life.

If you have an hour to kill here is a bible study that was done by yours truly and two friends of mine on 1 Cor. 15 that shows the obvious truth that Don denies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WKN_7tmmDc&t=1s

Don next goes on with this.

When you demand a given verse with the specific words "The second coming will be in AD 70- your are revealing your utterly false hermeneutic. Jesus did say of that coming judgment: These be the days of Vengeance in which all things that are written must be fulfilled. For those interested in an honest exegesis of this text, and a response to those who reject it, just go to my website and look up Luke 21:22. You will be amazed at how totally specious Mr. Conley's claim is. Mr. Conley says this: 7) I just want to say this too because it was mentioned. Preston tries to use a work by Frost called Misplaced Hope that Frost has constantly and consistently recanted and refuted already, over and over again. Response: Trouble is that Mr. Frost cannot refute the history that he presented in that book! Historical facts are historical facts and he presented them effectively. Has he recanted what he presented? Yes, but that simply shows that he recanted the truth. 8) Another thing to note that he won't tell you: PRESTON WANTS YOU TO BUY THAT BOOK of Frost's BECAUSE IT WILL MAKE HIM MONEY! Folks, you see right here the utter ignorance and dishonesty of Lance Conley. Mr. Conley, I do not personally sell Frost's book! The book is out of print. I do not own any copies- except my personal one- and I do not sell the book! I do not profit one red cent from the sale of that book by anyone! Got that? You told a blatant lie! WILL YOU APOLOGIZE AND REPENT OF YOUR SIN? OF LYING ABOUT THIS?

As I addressed in the videos above, I made a mistake and was wrong about Preston selling Misplaced Hope. That's not a lie as Preston accuses me of. I was just off. Fact is, it is not a lie since Preston does sell Frost's former works still "Essays On The Resurrection" and also sells "House Divided". It's literally ON HIS WEBSITE so he is obviously still peddling Sam's books on his site. Frost has recanted and refuted his former works as a full preterist yet Preston still continues to not just sell it, but make a profit off of it. There was no lie here made against Don. Deceptive as always.

As for his claim on Luke 21:22. Nowhere does this verse ever say the 2nd Coming would take place specifically on September 8th, AD70. I asked Preston in context to SHOW US A SPECIFIC VERSE that says I WILL COME IN AD70 from Jesus and of course he failed because you won't find a verse like that as no man knows the day nor the hour of His Final Parousia when His presence is to fill all things and the dead will be raised from their graves.

As for an apology from me, I've proven time and time again I am not the one lying here. I admitted to making a mistake in my one claim, even editted the article I wrote to show that I goofed, and as such, I will not be apologizing for anything as Preston demands since 1) I have done nothing but a mistake here on which books he sells of Frost's and 2) Preston has never once apologized for all the downright dirty, deceptful lies he has propogated to others about Frost, myself, and others.

Preston then makes more claims like this:

Now, for those interested, here is a link to one of several articles on Luke 21:22. This particular article is a response to Kenneth Gentry who claimed that preterists abuse Luke 21:22. That claim is completely destroyed in this and the other articles, so check them out!https://donkpreston.com/kenneth-gentry-on-luke-2122-his-desperation/
With that, we have the many lies of Don out of the way and can deal with his article now that he has been exposed for the downright dispicable, disgusting lies about me. That will conclude Part 1 of this article. Part 2 of this article will be responding to this article he claims refutes everything.

Saturday, January 4, 2020

Preston's Pootings - Refuting A Guest Article of Timothy James

For context, so you can read this malarkey yourself I've linked this absurd article below.

  • Quotes by James and Preston are in black bold. 
  • Quotes by ECFs are in italics and underlined. 

It seems Don is desperate these days to save his failing, falling, fantasy-world of full preterism. He put this absurd guest article out by someone from 1991 named Timothy James, who I assume is a full preterist like Preston. Preston endorses it as he says that "James does a fine job of responding to a common objection to true preterism. Give careful thought to this good article".

The article in question is titled "Why No Record of Christ's Coming?"

It starts off with an absurd claim that "The belief in the failure of Christ’s prophecies stem from the attempts of a Gentile-dominated church after A.D. 70 trying to understand Jewish concepts. This lack of understanding should not amaze us, for most of the Jewish world misunderstood the prophecies of His first coming, so why should we expect any difference in recognition of His second coming by Gentile interpreters?"

Apparently, this James fellow wants us to all accept that there was not a single soul capable of understanding Christ came back and that the 2nd Coming and Resurrection of the Dead occurred in 70AD because the Church was a "Gentile-dominated church after AD 70 trying to understand Jewish concepts".

Does this claim really stand up to scrutiny though? The answer is an absolute clear and resounding "No".

First off, there is resounding evidence that John, a Jew, who was definitively Hebrew-minded, lived to the reign of Trajan and taught Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp (the other apostles did too). We have their surviving writings which were written post 70 AD. There is also the Didache which was written post 70 AD. 

Irenaeus confirms this fact in Against Heresies 3.3.4 and 5.30.3 since he was in Smyrna as a youth where he heard the Revelation being preached. He was also under the discipleship of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna who was a direct disciple of Apostle John.

Irenaeus on Revelation writes: "But if it had been necessary to announce his name plainly at the present time, it would have been spoken by him who saw the apocalypse. For it was not seen long ago, but almost in our own time, at the end of the reign of Domitian".[1]

Polycarp clearly in his writings lays out that the 2nd Coming is future and the Resurrection of the Dead is future when he writes in his letter to the Philippians: “If we please Him in this present world, we shall receive also the future world, according as He has promised to us that He will raise us again from the dead, and that if we live worthily of Him, we shall also reign together with Him, 2 Timothy 2:12 provided only we believe. In like manner, let the young men also be blameless in all things, being especially careful to preserve purity, and keeping themselves in, as with a bridle, from every kind of evil.”[2]

Polycarp clearly learned this truth from John, a Hebraic-minded thinker. Let’s not finish there however. Polycarp mentions Ignatius, his brother in Christ, and a bishop of Antioch. Eusebius confirms that Ignatius was also of apostolic stock[3].

What does Ignatius say on the 2nd Coming and resurrection of the dead? He also claims them both as future events.

Chapter 11 of his Epistle to Ephesians: “The last times have come upon us. Let us therefore be of a reverent spirit, and fear the long-suffering of God, that it tend not to our condemnation. For let us either stand in awe of the wrath to come, or show regard for the grace which is at present displayed — one of two things. Only [in one way or another] let us be found in Christ Jesus unto the true life. Apart from Him, let nothing attract you, for whom I bear about these bonds, these spiritual jewels, by which may I arise through your prayers, of which I entreat I may always be a partaker, that I may be found in the lot of the Christians of Ephesus, who have always been of the same mind with the apostles through the power of Jesus Christ.”

Chapter 8 in his Epistle to the Trallians: [quotes Isa 52:5] “Give no occasion to the Gentiles, lest by means of a few foolish men the whole multitude [of those that believe] in God be evil spoken of. For, Woe to him by whose vanity my name is blasphemed among any. Isaiah 52:5”

One should question why Ignatius would quote this to His Church if he and his bishopric he ruled over were all post-70 Gentile-dominated controlled as James claims. Hilarious.

Then to make things worse for James. In Chapter 9 of this same epistle Ignatius states quite clearly: Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and ate and drank. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life”.

He literally teaches a 2nd Coming and resurrection of the dead as future here to the Trallians. One can only laugh at the utter failure of full preterism trying to claim the absurd things they do.

On the Resurrection of the Dead in Chapter 2 of his Epistle to the Tarsians – I have learned that certain of the ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting that Jesus was born [only ] in appearance, was crucified in appearance, and died in appearance; others that He is not the Son the Creator, and others that He is Himself God over all. Others, again, hold that He is a mere man, and others that this flesh is not to rise again, so that our proper course is to live and partake of a life of pleasure, for that this is the chief good to beings who are in a little while to perish. A swarm of such evils has burst in upon us. But you have not given place by subjection to them, no, not for one hour. Galatians 2:5 For you are the fellow citizens as well as the disciples of Paul, who fully preached the Gospel from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, Romans 15:19 and bore about the marks of Christ in his flesh. Galatians 6:17”.

Chapter 7: And that our bodies are to rise again, He shows when He says, Verily I say unto you, that the hour comes, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live. And [says] the apostle, For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 1 Corinthians 15:53 And that we must live soberly and righteously, he [shows when he] says again, Be not deceived: neither adulterers, nor effeminate persons, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor fornicators, nor revilers, nor drunkards, nor thieves, can inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 And again, If the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised; our preaching therefore is vain, and your faith is also vain: you are yet in your sins. Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. 1 Corinthians 15:13-32 But if such be our condition and feelings, wherein shall we differ from asses and dogs, who have no care about the future, but think only of eating, and of indulging such appetites as follow after eating? For they are unacquainted with any intelligence moving within them.”

Should we disregard the fact that Ignatius sent letters to St. John and Mary, Mother of God? Hilarious! The truth is right in full preterists’ faces!

In his letter to Mary of Neapolis in Chapter 4 he speaks on Clement, Bishop of Rome: “Now it occurs to me to mention, that the report is true which I heard of you while you were at Rome with the blessed father Linus, whom the deservedly-blessed Clement, a hearer of Peter and Paul, has now succeeded”.

What does Clement say about the 2nd Coming and Resurrection of the Dead?

1 Clement Chapter 24: "Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead. Let us contemplate, beloved, the resurrection which is at all times taking place. Day and night declare to us a resurrection. The night sinks to sleep, and the day arises; the day [again] departs, and the night comes on. Let us behold the fruits [of the earth], how the sowing of grain takes place. The sower Luke 8:5 goes forth, and casts it into the ground, and the seed being thus scattered, though dry and naked when it fell upon the earth, is gradually dissolved. Then out of its dissolution the mighty power of the providence of the Lord raises it up again, and from one seed many arise and bring forth fruit.”

Chapter 25-27 he literally continues to explain why the resurrection and 2nd Coming are to be future events. This is literally a hearer of Peter and Paul who says this.

Didache Chapter 16: “Watch for your life's sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord comes. Matthew 24:42 But often shall you come together, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you be not made perfect in the last time. For in the last days false prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall be turned into hate; Matthew 24:11-12 for when lawlessness increases, they shall hate and persecute and betray one another, Matthew 24:10 and then shall appear the world-deceiver as the Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands, and he shall do iniquitous things which have never yet come to pass since the beginning. Then shall the creation of men come into the fire of trial, and many shall be made to stumble and shall perish; but they that endure in their faith shall be saved from under the curse itself. And then shall appear the signs of the truth; first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven; then the sign of the sound of the trumpet; and the third, the resurrection of the dead; yet not of all, but as it is said: The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him. Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven”.

This makes this writer’s words completely asinine and absurd when we see all this writing that was given when James claims that there was some great “silence” going on. It’s absolutely absurd and is just a complete dismissal of all that the ECF who were taught by the apostles themselves give us for information.

“The silence of the period after the destruction was a direct result of the downfall and captivity of the Jewish Nation. Along with its end the Jewish Christians were scattered and became almost lost to history. If any literature was written by them after the fall of Jerusalem that taught the return of Christ in that event, there is good reason to believe that it was suppressed or beyond the understanding of the dominant Gentile church (see E. Hampden-Cook’s section in Appendix I).”

Don gives us no citations from James’ guest article… James doesn’t either, and only some person named E. Hampden-Cook’s Appendix I of some book is mentioned? I googled to see who this E. Hampden-Cook is and found a 1905 book “The Christ Has Come: the Second Advent an Event of the Past: an Appeal from Human Tradition to the Teaching of Jesus and His Apostles”. I would wager a guess that this is a person who hates traditions and hates the Early Church and discredits them just because they don’t agree with him historically nor agree with whatever ridiculous preterist interpretation he likely comes up with here in this book.

“Careful study of Rabbinic sources shows that the remnant of the Jewish nation actively destroyed all apocalyptic works speaking of an imminent end after A.D. 70 because of its embarrassment to them. Hence, suppression of Jewish/Christian material referring to fulfilled imminence was a most likely target of this group also.”

James makes no mention of who these “Rabbinical sources” are who were supposedly actively destroying “all apocalyptic works speaking of an imminent end after AD 70 because of its embarrassment to them”. He surmises that these people were suppressing Jewish/Christian material… I surmise that this has no actual sourcing so it is simply a conspiracy theory concocted from a full preterist.

“Another factor related to this is N. B. Stonehouse’s mention of a definite division in the church after A.D. 70. (Apocalypse, p.139f). Syrian Christianity was isolated from the Greek world because of its Aramaic language. This barrier caused a more pure line of understanding and tradition. Therefore, the Greek church considered the Syrian church ‘heretical’ because they rejected the Greek’s sensual chiliasm and held to a spiritual/figurative understanding of Jewish/Christian apocalyptic. This distaste for sensual chiliasm was a major factor in their total rejection of the Apocalypse in the early Syrian texts and canon. It wasn’t till later that Revelation was added, and then with a heading that placed its date in reign of Nero, before the A.D. 70 event. (Note: chiliasm was a form of millennialism and was very common in the early church- DKP).”

Again, no citation to back this up. This one was even worse because when I went to google whoever N.B. Stonehouse was, there was nothing to come up until I dug deeper into Google and found a Ned Bernard Stonehouse who gave a dissertation called The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church: A Study in the History of the New Testament Canon in 1929. This was not quoted like it should be – as is usual for Preston (for a “scholar” [LOL] he apparently doesn’t comprehend very well how to cite things).

James makes a claim that the “Interpretation of Scripture by the Gentile-dominated church was caught up in the idea of a physical return and a literal interpretation of the very figurative Jewish apocalyptic language found in the book of Revelation and other OT & NT prophecies. Yet, even in the early church, Christ’s return was seen by the Jewish Christians to be a spiritual change in the authority of the Kingdom.”

If one goes and studies Hellenism at all though one will find that the idea of the heavens and earth being changed and the foundations of cosmogony being changed and being movable is not a Greek theosophical nor philosophical take, it is a Hebraic one. One will also find that the Greeks did not accept the idea of the resurrection of the dead, the idea that the self-same body one is born with and grows and dies with will rise from the literal grave. We find however, the Pharisee camp did believe this and we also find that the Christian Church accepted this based on 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Peter and other various texts. And as we’ve shown, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp all three accept a real 2nd Coming to take place and a real resurrection of the dead to take place in the future. These men were ALL taught by the Apostles. There’s no conspiracy here. It’s just a matter of fact that these full preterist are trying to push pseudo-history and pseudo-philosophy on unsuspecting, ignorant people. In other words, pseudo-scholarship. One can read Plato, Celsus, and other Greco-Roman philosophers to see they found the Pharisee Jews and Early Christian’s worldviews bizarre and laughable.

“Such can be seen in the ‘jumping the gun’ of the early church in the teaching that the Lord had come before A.D. 70, (II Thess. 2:1-2). This premature teaching was dangerous to the early church since it implied an acceptance of the Temple cultus, thus putting Christianity in the category of just a new sect of Judaism, rather than the fulfillment of the whole thing. The fact that they believed the Lord had come before A.D. 70 shows that they interpreted His return as a spiritual coming in the early church. Even though they were premature, it only supports our early research that they expected His return just as He said, in that generation.”

James gives us no evidence that anyone believed that the 2nd Coming was going to be entirely “spiritual”. He just puts some scripture verse and expects us to accept what he says I suppose. This also is a crock of nonsense he is saying. We have just shared what the Early Church believed post 70. John was still clearly alive. He and the apostles clearly taught in some way, shape, or form, Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius. They all clearly taught the 2nd Coming would be a real event and the resurrection of the dead would take place and the bodies of the deceased would literally rise to eternal life one day.

I’m not sure what the heck then happens with this article because suddenly what was supposed to be Why No Record of Christ’s Coming becomes I suppose why Preston denies the physical body of Christ and makes Jesus strip off his flesh suit in the Ascension?

James claims “there are only two main verses that have loosely been used to assume a physical return of Christ by the Greek-dominated church. The first is Acts 1:9-11 (the Ascension), ‘he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight,’ after this the two angels reassured the disciples saying, ‘this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as you have seen him go into heaven.’ (emphasis mine, tj.) The emphasis here is not on the transfigured form, but on the manner in which he ascended and would return, ‘in a cloud’. This event was a reaffirmation of Jesus’ being the apocalyptic ‘Son of Man’ spoken of in Daniel and the Gospels. That he, ‘the Son of Man,’ came with the clouds of heaven (Daniel 7:13), is later emphatically stated to be fulfilled in His return, in numerous places (Matt.16:27f; 24:30; Mark 13:26; and Luke 21:27)”.

What a bizarre statement. First off, it’s not “assumed” that there is going to be a physical return of Christ. It’s a fact that Jewish and Gentile Christians all taught that Christ would physically return and that when he did the material creation would be changed and the dead would really rise. Nothing in the Ascension chapters of Acts proves this fool to be correct. As a matter of fact, the Koine Greek does not allow one to “loosely” interpret it any other way than that Christ left physically and did not strip himself of nor lose his physicality. I cover this in my refutation of Alan Bondar and also refute Don K Preston’s many books where he tries to con people into believing that Jesus became a stripper and got rid of His humanity.

“The second verse under consideration is Revelation 1:7, ‘Behold, he cometh in the clouds and every eye shall see him, every one which pierced him: and all the kindred of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen’. Here one finds the same apocalyptic ‘Son of Man’ imagery regarding His ‘coming in the clouds.’ The language of the text shows that literally, those that would see him were even who had ‘pierced him’, namely the Jews (Acts 2:23,36; 5:30). In His parousia in judgment on the Jewish theocracy, those that had rejected Him would now ‘see’ the truth of Jesus’ claims and their error, i.e. a nationalistic expectation of the Kingdom (Matthew 26:64). Truly, upon a close investigation of the subject, there are not any verses in the New Testament that point to any other manner of coming other than a spiritual parousia of Christ in a judgment of God’s enemies at the redemptive-historical end-time of the Old Covenant system. In fulfilling this event, the bondage of the non-occurrence theory is vanquished.”

This is entirely what can only be called nonsense. Especially so if one has read even a small bit of information from Josephus. There are no records of any Jew, Josephus included, to piece this together that they were wrong and there are no records that they now “saw” the truth of Jesus’ claims and their errors. There’s no record from the Early Church claiming this. Matter of fact, what we find instead are the Apostles’ disciples claiming otherwise. History is not silent like this fool claims. The ECFs are loud and clear that James is making absurd claims and if I’m going to be frank, this is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at a conspiracy theory.

If this is what’s the best proof for full preterism and what is in this book of Mr. James, I would hate to see what other nonsense he has in it that this pseudo-scholar Preston endorses.

Response to David Clarke

I will try and make this short. Below is a video made by David Clarke a full preterist.   In it, he makes clear he has published a book on A...