Search This Blog

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. 


  1. And so, to "answer" my video and especially Matthew 10:23, Mr. Conley stoops to saying that if one accepts it as it reads, then
    //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.//

    Do you see that? If Matthew 10:23 is talking about the coming of the Son of Man then one has to question the fidelity of the early church and its ability to preserve the correct text!

    Now, this is from the man who has consistently told us that to question the early church's faithful preservation of the proper text cannot be questioned! But now, when entrapped by the undeniable meaning of the text, he stoops to questioning that faithfulness! Amazing-- and revealing. He will literally say anything.

  2. Does everyone see how he vacillates? Well, Matthew 10:23 may be AD 70 but, that doe snot prove anything, cause the early church said that AD 70 was a type of the real end. Wait! Is that the same early church that he just said may not have preserved the correct text of Matthew 10:23?

    The reality is that those early writers had the same false eschatological expectation as Conley, so they literally perverted the text to avoid its meaning-- just like Conley does.

    Oh, and when he says that I deny that mello contains the idea of certainly, that is just more falsehood. No, I never said that. In fact, I would affirm that mello normally meant "certainly about to be." Just more distortions by Conley.

    Oh, then he tries to escape the fatal blow of John the Baptizer. Folks, he impaled himself and he knows it. John was the Voice, the Messenger, and Elijah to proclaim the coming of the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord. Not a type or shadow of the Day of the Lord, but the Day of the Lord. And don't let all his smoke and dust detract from the fact that he admitted that John and Matthew 3 was predicting the destruction of Jerusalem! Game, set, match.

  3. As to his claims about Vision International being a paper mill. Dr. Stan DeKoven refuted that himself very effectively. BTW, on the night I was given the honorary doctorate, Dr. DeKoven noted that they seldom bestow doctorate degrees. at the most two per year! Not only that, there were close to 12000 people present at the graduation ceremony! Yea, quite a paper mill, eh? Of course, the only reason Conley writes all of this is to do nothing but engage in a smear campaign. He can't answer the scriptures, so he smears me as an individual. That reveals what kind of person Mr. Conley is.

    1. That should be 1200 not 12000 people were present. Typo.

    2. It's a phony doctorate Don from a charismatic unaccredited seminary. You blocked me from Your goofy YouTube morning babblings because I pointed out that fact. You need to repent for lying about having a doctorate. You also need to repent for relying on and trusting in "Scholars". And everyone who watc hes your heretical morning babblings know what I'm talking about.

    3. Tim Russell you are correct. Don is a complete liar and his doctorate is from a paper mill. When asked by DeKoven he also said he regretted giving Don the fake degree so that's sad...

      I don't agree with you about not using scholars ever but I do agree that Don is a liar and a piece of trash who lies routinely about others and lies about his actual credentials. He also blocked me from Youtube and Facebook as well when he kept finding that i was kicking his butt and causing him to lose out on new followers to add to his money scheme cult. Don Preston is a heretic and bastardizes the Christian faith with his lunacy. Pray he repents or dies a quick death so he can't spread anymore of his disgusting trash to other people.

  4. As to the review of my Who Is This Babylon book, I have not posted anything, knowing that Conley, as usual, would come out, both guns blazing, accusing me of lying about that happening. Sure enough! Well, the book was reviewed in 2001, by Basil Lourie (aka-Heiromonk Gregory)In the Vol. 2 of the Xristianskij Vostok. It was either February or March of 2001.

    So, as usual, Conley has shown that HE is the liar. He is nothing but a totally dishonest, slanderous and hate filled child.

  5. Mr. Conley's comments on Matthew 10 are beyond the pale. He tries to make the text say anything except AD 70-- although he admits that it might apply to that.
    But again, he tries to say that if it did apply to AD 70 that AD 70 was a type of the real coming of the Son of Man.
    No Biblical text suggests that. That is a theological invention.
    To admit that Matthew 10:23 may be referent to AD 70 totally falsifies his claim that prophetic time statements cannot indicate imminence. Did you notice how he danced around that up above! AS usual, he contradicts himself over and over again! Can't keep his story straight.
    The undeniable fact is that the persecution Jesus was predicting did not take place until after Pentecost.
    The "flight" was flight from persecution-- which took place after Pentecost.
    That means that the Coming of the Son of Man was not the Ascension.
    Add to all of this the undeniable fact that every NT reference to the coming of the Son of Man is a judgment context.
    When you read the patristic citations above, notice how self contradictory they are. Those writers were patently struggling to understand the clear wording of the text.
    Mr Conley is lost on Matthew 10:23 and he knows it.
    Matthew 10:23 is a prophetic text.
    Matthew 10:23 predicting the coming of the Son of Man.
    Matthew 10:23 did not predict a typological coming of Christ.
    Matthew 10:23 undeniably posited the coming of the Son of Man for the lifetime of the first century saints.

  6. Do you notice how totally diversionary Conley is? (of course you do!)-- He says this about the Greek word mello:
    //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.//

    Do you see what he did here? He admits that mello can indicate imminence in non-prophetic, non-eschatological texts, but, he claims-- with not a syllable of lexical support-- that if mello is used in a prophetic or eschatological text, that it cannot mean imminent! You will never find a more arbitrary, illogical, un-scholarly-- or false, claim. He just makes it up, and expects us to accept it. The truth is that virtually every known lexicon gives "about to be, to be about to be" as the primary meaning of mello. Just more display of arrogance and ignorance.

    1. The only ignorance and arrogance is from You. Mello means "certain" and the translators of the Bible all agree. You and your sidekick come along and lie and claim Mello means "about to" and then proceed on your own to re-translate the KJV, NKJ, ASV, NIV, even the moronic NLT. They didn't translate mello to say "about to". YOU did that. YOU did it to fit your stupid and goofy A.D.70 false doctrine.

  7. To reiterate just a bit, and to demonstrate how easy it is to refute Conley, Frost and all his compatriots.
    Conley says time language of imminence in the NT does not truly mean imminent.
    But, John was the Voice, the Messenger and Elijah heralding the imminent Day of Judgment.
    Conley and Palmer, who he quotes with approval-- admits that prediction of judgment was fulfilled in AD 70.
    Thus, the prophetic, eschatological language of the imminence of the kingdom and the Day of the Lord was objectively true.
    But, Mr. Conley tries to avoid this by saying that "Well, ok, John did predict the AD 70 Day of the Lord but that was only a type and shadow of the real Day of the Lord" -- of course, he can't give any proof of this, he just says it and expects us to bow down. Sorry-- not happening.

    But, catch this: his admission says that the prophetic, eschatological language of imminence did have an objectively true meaning, i.e. truly imminent, but then, he wants us to believe that that language which DID indicate genuine imminence does not convey imminence after all, cause it foreshadowed an event that is, so far according to him, 2000 years and counting removed from the event that was actually imminent!

  8. Almost everything Don has typed here is a fallacy, an ad hominem, or a misrepresentation of me. No wonder no one like Gentry doesn't take him seriously.

    Quite hilarious. Type in Basil Lourie at Russia Academy of Science (RAS) & guess who won't pop up? Basil Lourie that's who! Nice try Don but bested again by reality.

    Your citation of it being RAS is the terrible citing you hack. I admitted to making a mistake with Chapter 7 & need to edit it. Can't read? Clearly not you condescending fart.

    Mello can mean imminent or certainty depending on context. No one ever claimed otherwise. All these nonsensical charges/accusations from Preston are fresh coming from the master of eisegesis & lame arguments himself. How about telling us about your Hebraic mindset or your lame eisegesis of 1 Cor 15. What a tragicomedy you live out every day.

  9. My full response to these asinine comments. Read slowly so you understand.

    If one reads Matthew 10:23 like a FP they'd have to conclude many weird conclusions which I listed in 2 articles & have already dealt with. Yes one would have to conclude that the Church Fathers were all a bunch of absolute retards which is STUPID but this is you we're talking about so...

    Don writes: "Now, this is from the man who's consistently told us that to question the early church's faithful preservation of the proper text cannot be questioned! But now, when entrapped by the undeniable meaning of the text, he stoops to questioning that faithfulness! Amazing & revealing. He'll literally say anything."

    I get so sick of your misrepresentations. It irritates me & it shocks me how no one has clocked you yet for it in all honesty. I've never said we should never question the Church Fathers' writings. That's an absolute lie you've concocted. They aren't always correct but all unanimously concur you're wrong about the 2nd Coming & you have literally EVERY ONE vs you. I know which side I'm taking - holy men vs an unholy pathological liar like yourself.

    I said I see how someone might take it with a FP interpretation, being I was a FP myself. However, when one studies/examines it, it becomes clear it's not about AD70 - even if it were, it's not about the 2nd Coming because the 2nd Coming didn't happen in 70. There isn't a single source to back up that claim that Christ came in 70 AD except for you & fellow FP's terrible eisegesis of Scripture. You have an argument of silence.

    I also never once said that the Church screwed up preserving the texts & their meanings. Once again, the manipulative rat you are, misrepresents & twists my words. Really consider being a politician since eschatology isn't working out. You'd be good at it since you already lie & misrepresent people so well now!

  10. Don Preston writes: "The reality is that those early writers had the same false eschatological expectation as Conley, so they literally perverted the text to avoid its meaning-- just like Conley does."

    This is the stupidest thing to write. EVERYONE was wrong except for Preston? Hilarious! That is your argument? Stupid. Everyone until Don K Preston got it wrong about the Bible til he graced us with his presence! What a joke!

    I've never said mello can't mean something imminent. It can be translated & often is as "about", "will", "certainty", & some other words. All depends on contexts used.

    Stan DeKovan said he regrets giving you that honorary degree from their UNACCREDITED paper mill.

    We have yet to get any actual citation/link to show this Basil Lourie character wrote anything for the RAS. So far all we have is a "Christian East" magazine? Found no association with RAS. But hey we'll give you the benefit of the doubt there if you actually show us something other than your words since Google searches & etc have provided almost nothing there in your favor so far.

    I'm not a dishonest slanderous hate filled child. That's projection all on your part. You're the dishonest person who slanders everyone you disagree with like Frost, Vincent, Bradfield, myself, etc. The only hate I really have for you's that I hate that you lie & misrepresent all of us. I think it's cowardly & you come across as a vile rat.

    You've already been wrecked on Mt 10 so I don't need to rehash that at all. You're the one with the problems. You're the one who's got to prove how it isn't all a failed doomsday cult with your lame take on time texts & guess what? You can't win the argument by making up stupid eisegesis like you do in all your trash books.

    You would & do lose every single time in an argument against bible scholars. Especially if they take you to task on your take on time texts because they'd unanimously prove you're off your rocker on the Ascension & that you're wrong on your "it's only a spiritual resurrection" about 1 Cor 15.

  11. By the way congrats on figuring out how to hit publish

  12. In response to some silly Youtube comments from Preston... Publications don't just disappear either you dolt. The internet has these on record and should have them if they exist. Especially publications lmao. This publication you said was written in 2001... it should be on the internet somewhere but clearly isn't.
    "Revolutionary changes"? Are you referring to the Cold War or communism because that ended in the 90s you moron. We've had internet long before that and well before 2001 are publications freely passed along on the interwebs lol. In other words, it should still be online, at the very least on some archive of some sort. It is not.
    If you had this "review" you'd share it. You as yet have NOT done so.
    You're an absolute moron. I found the book you reference yes. It comes from a whole different press and comes from a whole different publication unrelated to RAS. You're lying your tail off here and it's apparent for anyone with a brain to see.
    You're an absolute fool. I never once claimed that Lourie doesn't exist and I also never claimed he didn't write a book and reference you. This is just another time you can't read well and misrepresent or twist what I say and I'm sick of it. Referencing it and saying one agrees that Babylon is Jerusalem doesn't mean he agrees with everything you say. Are you really this mind numbingly stupid?
    You didn't give jack squat of a citation LOL what an absolute joke!

  13. You lied. You said I lied when I said the book was reviewed.
    The source that I gave was directly from the email to me by from Basil Lourie, the reviewer, so I guess he lied when he gave me the source-- according to your perverse way of thinking.
    I gave the author's name.
    I gave the source.
    I gave the name of the publication.

    I am not the one that lied. You have been caught red handed in a lie, and don't have the human decency to admit it. You don't have the humility before God to repent, and you don't have the human decency to apologize. Sad human being.

  14. To reiterate...

    You have been exposed -- as usual-- as the one that is lying. Even William Vincent produced the proof that Lourie referenced the review and the book-- agreeing with my book.
    I produced a picture of the review.
    I gave the name of the author-- which is confirmed.
    I gave the name of the publication-- directly from Lourie's email to me in 2001-- confirmed.
    I gave the date-- confirmed.
    And yet, when exposed as a liar and slanderer, you do not have the humility to admit to your lies and ask for forgiveness.


Gospel of Mark Notes - Inroduction - Chapters 1-4

 Introduction - The Gospel of Mark is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Who is Mark? He's not one of the 12 Apostles. He has a...