Response to Don Preston's 10th "Refutation" of Hope Resurrection

This will be the response to Don K Preston's 10th "Refutation" of Hope Resurrected. 

Morning Babblings of Don - Refutation of Preston's Videos Against Hope Resurrected #9

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hpm1piOt2Gc

I've linked this video above. He starts the video off by taking me out of context about the use of the Greek word mello. I have said that, yes, words like mello can and usually do mean imminence when they are non-eschatological. That is not always the case with that word, but it is mostly true that this is the case.

When it is used eschatologically, mello can be used for imminence as well and sometimes very well is, but it, if a true prophetic word, will always mean certainty. You can find this in Thayer's Lexicon and other places. Preston's claim that lexicons don't have this are false on every level and he should be ashamed of himself for lying to his audience.

Don Preston in this video is going to essentially claim that every Greek scholar and every bible commentator who has ever existed is and has been full of crap for the last 2000+ years because they don't agree with him. We have had Christian believers since the beginning of the NT church proclaim the 2nd Coming and resurrection of the dead are future but lo and behold, because Preston claims otherwise, therefore it must be true that everyone else has been stupid and full of it until he got here.

Essentially, by Preston logic everyone for the last 2000+ years, except for liberal and many-a-time atheist bible critics, have been trying to save a failed doomsday cult and make up ways to prove Christ didn't come back in 70 AD like Preston claims. How completely and utterly stupid.

After watching Preston's latest lame video trying to refute my book, there is no question all he has are condescending words about grammatical errors in this one chapter I wrote in my book. Then the rest of it is, as usual, him taking me out of context over and over again because I decided to be open ended about Matthew 16.

I have repeatedly said that I will be revising and editing this chapter and parts of the book because I too found errors that myself and the proofreaders seem to have missed. The fact that he keeps harping on this is ridiculous and the only reason he is doing so is because he has no arguments to present to refute me in the refutations without coming off as the lying ball of malarkey he is.

I've also repeatedly said that these chapters are intended as a primer for the refutations sections of the book.

As for Matthew 16, I left it open ended intentionally so the reader can come to their own conclusions. I chose intentionally not to be as dogmatic on it as I could have been and so I gave suggestions. There are various competing opinions on the matter and they are all orthodox beliefs of interpretation that can work except for the one that Christ's 2nd Coming happened in 70 AD because it 1) didn't happen in 70 AD and 2) didn't happen in 70 AD.

Me leaving things open ended is not a "fatal admission". That's just a false and stupid statement by someone who seems incapable of actually refuting anything presented against him.

I want to note there are MANY scholars who do say that Matthew 16 is about the Transfiguration.

I find it transitory so I would accept it to be moreso about the Resurrection and the Ascension when Christ took back the reigns that Satan, Sin, and Death had over mankind (aka Christus Victor). I also think it's a reference to Judas since Judas died before seeing Christ come in His Kingdom but as I said, I only suggested it in the book as I left it open-ended. I also put Matthew Henry to be open ended but of course Preston is taking that out of context as well because that's what lying manipulative people like him do. "Some" also does not always mean multiple people. It can very much be referring to someone in particular among a group of people. Preston's claim is stupid.

The Transfiguration is a foretaste of the 2nd Coming. 2 Peter confirms this. It is not AD70 because if it were, we have a failed doomsday cult on our hands and the NT writers would all be wrong. I don't hold to that position that they are a bunch of morons who were waiting on a Savior who never came but Preston is free to believe that if he wants.

Another thing I need to bring up. Preston straight up lies and misrepresents what I wrote when I put Matthew Henry's quote here in this chapter. Nowhere does Matthew Henry claim that the 2nd Coming happened in AD70.

"Matthew Henry goes on to say: 'It was so near, that there were some attending him who should live to see it. As Simeon was assured that he should not see death till he had seen the Lord’s Christ come in the flesh; so some here are assured that they shall not taste death (death is a sensible thing, its terrors are seen, its bitterness is tasted) till they had seen the Lord’s Christ coming in his kingdom. At the end of time, he shall come in his Father’s glory; but now, in the fullness of time, he was to come in his own kingdom, his mediatorial kingdom. Some little specimen was given of his glory a few days after this, in his transfiguration (Matt 17); then he tried his robes. But this points at Christ’s coming by the pouring out of his Spirit, the planting of the gospel church, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the taking away of the place and nation of the Jews, who were the bitterest enemies to Christianity. Here was the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Many then present lived to see it, particularly John, who lived till after the destruction of Jerusalem, and saw Christianity planted in the world.'" (Conley. 77).

Nowhere does this ever present anything about Matthew 16 being about the 2nd Coming in AD70. Don has been caught red handed lying and misrepresenting his opposition yet again. This is all extremely shameful behavior. 

Here's the bottom line of all this. If Preston were right about the time texts, and he isn't, then one can only conclude that Christianity is a failed doomsday cult as Preston has been shown to be wrong about the NT writers when he claims absurd things like that they taught Jesus not to have or retain His physical body after the Ascension and claims absurditiies like that Paul was not talking about a biological resurrection in 1 Cor 15. Correcting these absurd claims, and sticking to interpreting the time texts as Preston desires, this can only lead to the conclusion that if the time statements were as Preston claims the NT writers were wrong and Christianity is a failed doomsday cult since 1) Christ never came back as they claimed He would and 2) Christ never biologically raised the dead from the grave as Paul teaches and the apostles endorse.

I'll end on this note... Preston claims that 10 year olds can write better than I do. All his comments prove are that he is a sad, pathetic, angry, condescending ball of malarkey. His books are being continually exposed for the pseudo-scholar nonsense that they are and if we're going to be honest, there's not much originality going on in anything he writes since it is basically him copying and pasting from Max King's Cross and Parousia, a much better written book by the way than anything Preston has ever written (King is wrong too but at the very least one can say King was an original thinker I suppose). Preston's books and videos make pseudoscholars like Alexander Hyslop and cult leaders like Joseph Smith look like honest people and this video is an absolute joke.

Refuting Full Preterist Articles: Caleb Graham's "Eternal In Nature Upon Past Fulfillment"

We are going to refute this next article by Caleb Graham, a full preterist, linked below so you can read it for yourself: https://authenticrev.wordpress.com/2019/12/23/eternal-in-nature-upon-past-fulfillment/

This should be a short one since Caleb wrote a short article here.

Caleb writes: "Hermeneutics basically means your approach or method of interpretation. 'Sound hermeneutics,' to me, is just a way of saying it’s a reasonable, legitimate, healthy, and valid approach to use, as opposed to an 'unsound hermeneutic', or an approach that is more likely to lead to misinterpretation, confusion, etc…"

Hermeneutics are defined as a branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts. A hermeneutic is a method or a theory of interpretation. It's not actually something that is subjective either when we are talking about biblical hermeneutics. 

"Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible. It is part of the broader field of hermeneutics, which involves the study of principles of interpretation for all forms of communication, nonverbal and verbal".[1].

He writes that: "One of the foundational approaches I’ve developed in regards to the Full Preterist View is this idea of something being: "Eternal In Nature Upon Past Fulfillment”. So what does that even mean? ... It means that something can be “FULFILLED” in the sense that it was “Bible Prophecy” but that doesn’t always mean it “stopped” or came to complete termination, and sometimes the topic the prophecy was referring to involved something that had an ETERNAL NATURE. One example in the Bible of something that is “Eternal In Nature Upon Past Fulfillment” is the Kingdom of God. It came long ago, but it’s here presently and is everlasting… the fulfillment of the PROPHECIES about that eternal Kingdom coming, are fulfilled, but it’s nature is an ETERNAL nature, and thus is still here and available to believers today by faith in Christ."

If you didn't catch what the heck he is talking about, he is saying that he believes that just because bible prophecy might be fulfilled does not neccessarily mean that everything ends or is terminated. He doesn't really specify what he is talking about in this article except claim that somehow, although he believes prophecy is all fulfilled, that because the Kingdom of God is of an "eternal nature" that means that it is available still to all believers today by faith in Jesus Christ. 

To make this claim Caleb Graham has to reject sound hermeneutics. For example, with biblical hermeneutics we must use methods to explore the meaning of Scripture and explicate on that. This requires touching on things like grammar and exegesis, or looking at the interpretation of certain words and letters and looking at what they mean in that language and also looking at the audience relevance as well. 

There's multiple ways to do this but Caleb's whole method of interpretation falls flat at the end of the day when we are studying the NT by looking at words in the bible and explicating on them. We can use the Greek word eklektos as an example. God's Kingdom can be eternal as Caleb says but there is no reason that this means that the Kingdom of God is available to all believers today by faith in Jesus Christ. 

Especially so, is this true if the elect were all gathered in AD 70 as Caleb will claim has to have taken place in AD 70 in some way or another, in order to fulfill Matthew 24:31. The elect or eklektos are those chosen by God (a noun). It can also mean to vote as a verb or choose. The elect in the NT are those who inherit God's Kingdom. Eklektos is temporal, never eternal. Once someone or something is chosen, it has been chosen. That is it. 

Romans 11:25-27 says: Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion,

he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”

If we are to take audience relevance and apply time texts in the fashion that Graham wants us to do... well I will bolden key words for you so you can see the problem going on. 

Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”.

The word "fullness" here is pleroma and is used numerically in the same fashion as it is used in Mark 8 regarding a basket being filled to the brim with fish and loaves. In the same way once all the Gentiles have come in and been filled to the brim, then ALL Israel will be saved and the Deliverer will banish ungodliness from Jacob and this will be His covenant WITH THEM when He takes away THEIR sins. This is all referring to the chosen people of God, the eklektos. This is for THEM, not Caleb Graham. He cannot be part of the chosen people of God as the promise was fulfilled in AD 70 and cannot be eternal since election is not eternal. One does not continue voting forever and ever for all eternity. Once the election is over, the elect have been elected and that is it. This also being numeric because of the word pleroma being used in the same fashion as Mark 8 it is used shows us that Romans 11 is numeric. One must conclude, with sound hermeneutics of interpretation therefore that salvation came for Israel, the elect people of God then in AD 70 and will not come again for those who are the non-elect, the loipoi, as The Deliverer was to come for THEM and take away THEIR sins. In other words, Caleb Graham cannot be part of this eternal kingdom of God. None of us could be if he was correct about time texts (and thankfully Graham is wrong).

This is how we use biblical hermeneutics correctly instead of making stuff up and displaying shoddy works from a subjective, postmodernist, make it up as one goes method of interpretation. As one can see, full preterism falls flat on its face like it always has. 

---

[1] Ferguson, Sinclair B; David F Wright; J. I. Packer (1988). New Dictionary of Theology. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-1400-0.

Refuting Full Preterist Articles: Caleb Graham's "Knowing This First"

Today we will examine and refute Caleb Graham, a full preterist's article "Knowing This First" which is linked here: https://authenticrev.wordpress.com/2019/12/23/knowing-this-first-2-peter-33/ 

In this article, Caleb examines 2 Peter 3 and attempts to argue that 2 Peter 3 is fulfilled in the 1st Century events of AD 70 as all full preterist do.

First he begins by quoting 2 Peter 3:1-3 and focusing on why Peter says "knowing this first" in the NKJV. But let's get it all in for context and do 2 Peter 3 for entire context: 

Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen. (2 Peter 3 NKJV)

Caleb boldens in his article the words "knowing this first" saying this is of utmost importance in 2 Peter 3. He assumes that with these three words, "we can deduce from the context, that he’s zooming in on something that is a PRIORITY, for that originally intended 1st century audience (an audience almost 2000+ years removed from the time in which we live)".

This is a case of eisegesis where he interprets the biblical text by reading into it his own ideas. Eisegesis is not always wrong, we should note, but here it totally is because what Caleb is attempting to do here is make it out that Peter is only interested in his 1st Century audience. It is true that Peter is writing this epistle to the Church, obviously. However, writing to the Church in the 1st Century does not automatically mean that the things that he writes about are going to happen in the 1st Century. 

Caleb tries to use an illustration about a job at a fast food restaurant where people want and need their food immediately. What I gather from this whole illustration is that Caleb is trying to push imminence on his readers and trying to relate that this prophecy has to be imminent as he is a full preterist and wants the reader to believe that 2 Peter 3 was fulfilled in 70 AD. It's a silly illustration if you really think about it since he tries to make something absurd about a fast food order 2000 years into the future. Then he absurdly tries to claim that everyone who is a believer in the future coming of Christ is absurd to think that the 2nd Coming is still a future event. 

"This is the type of absurdity that we have going on in the body of Christ, in regards to approaching the scriptures. We have no regard for the intended audience, or the original, first recipient of these texts, whom it was written TO all those years ago."

It's nice to know he thinks everyone, including myriads of scholars are all absolute idiots who revel in absurdity. Fascinating.

He then tries to claim that because 2 Peter 3 says "knowing this first" that, because it says this, if you just "apply common sense, logic, and fully trust in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the scriptures found in the bible"  you're going to come to the same conclusions he does that this epistle is not written about a time in the future but somehow was fulfilled in AD 70 cause.... reasons. 

Apparently for the last 2000+ years no 2nd-Coming-is-future believer ever applied common sense, used logic, nor did they ever fully trust the bible or listen to the Holy Spirit and let God guide them. Good to know everyone is an absolute moron.

He makes statements without explaining what he is saying when he makes the claim that 

"the last days of the Biblical narrative are referring to 'Israel’s last days' and the passing away of that Old Covenant people, and the Old Covenant order".

For context, he is going to use King and Preston's eisegesis (CBV FP) to try and claim that the Old Covenant was fulfilled and rendered obsolete in AD70 by the 2nd Coming taking place. The problem? Christ fulfilled and rendered the Old Covenant fulfilled and obsolete on the Cross (Heb. 8). Many more scriptures affirm this to be the case that Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant and installed the New Covenant on the Cross through His death and His Resurrection, which I've spoken at length about and written at length about regarding the complete misinterpretation of Matthew 5 and Hebrews 8 that full preterist have done, especially CBV FP believers. 

Caleb I assume will be doing more articles in the future about audience relevance and focus on time texts. At the end of the day, I can only assume unless he takes scripture like Ed Stevens, an IBV FP, does, he is going to always butcher texts and get them wrong. 

I find it absolutely hilarious that he wants to try and "help you learn to shift and reframe how you look at the scriptures". Apparently no one but him can read the Scriptures and figure out it's all about full preterism because everyone is incapable of using logic and common sense like he is apparently able to do. LOL! 

He claims that "the Bible was written TO others, but FOR us. In other words, NO ONE who is physically alive today, in the 21st century, were the original, intended audience, or first recipients, of these inspired scriptures. Of course they carry wonderful truths that (because of Christ’s blood, the everlasting New Covenant, the Kingdom), ARE RELEVANT TO US, and I’m not seeking to take those beautiful truths away from anyone, to do so would be contrary to the truth conveyed and brought forth in scripture. I’m just saying we have to realize the absurdity that comes along with ignoring these types of details, and the more we let go of our attachment to the scriptures, and give them BACK to the original audience, the more we can proceed with clarity, and understanding, from a more BROAD perspective, understanding the totality of what God has revealed through his word."

Certainly the NT writers were writing to the Church and there are obviously specific statements the NT writers make to the Church which are for that audience in particular, but they also do as a matter of fact write to the Church in general as well too. He claims that he's not trying to take away the truths of Scripture but if he were honest this is what would be the case. 

If the time texts of the NT are really supposed to be taken as full preterist desire, then the onus is on these fools to prove that Christianity is not some failed doomsday cult waiting for a Savior that never came in that generation as they say Jesus promised. This is because if the full preterist (especially the CBV FPs) were honest about it, they would have a REAL, LITERAL, Christ having come in 70 AD who REALLY raised the dead since Paul does teach a real literal event will take place where the dead will really rise from the grave like Christ did (1 Cor 15). 

I've written about this at length in my book as well as done some blog posts about it but 2 Peter is a huge problem for full preterists in both the IBV and CBV camp of full preterism. They both basically accept the same ideas, as Preston spiritualizes the whole thing to be about the Temple falling and Ed Stevens basically copies and pastes that idea but holds to a young earth creationist idea somehow (which is weird since he copies and pastes Preston's ideas of 2 Peter as far as I know - weird huh?).

Facts are Peter references people he percieves to have been real. He references the Flood event which he percieves to be a real literal event. He references Noah. These are not non-literal, metaphoric, allegorical things being talked about by Peter.

Matter of fact, and I'll be brief, starting in 2 Peter 2, we have Peter denouncing, like Jude does in Jude 4-13, evildoers and false teachers who are unholy and communicate heresy and hold to private interpretations which are in turn misconstruing the doctrines that Peter and apostles teach about the 2nd Coming. He references God's past judgments (2:4-10) to show what awaits the heretics with the example being the "angels who sinned" (v.4), imprisoned in the lowest part of Hell/Tartarus while awaiting the final judgment. He references Noah in here (v. 5) as a preacher of righteousness (Heb. 11:7). He references Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 6), Lot (v. 7), Balaam (v. 15), and references the Flood as well to show that unrighteous that were judged all were judged. Problem here too. The Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah wiped out everyone who was evil and unrighteous. If AD 70 was to be a time when all the unrighteous Jews were to be wiped out who rejected Christ, then Christ failed to do so as by 80 AD the Pharisees were making a comeback and brought back the Great Sanhedrin at that time and continued to practice their religion, though it was changed obviously now that the Temple was gone. There was even more Jewish-Roman Wars to take place after 70 AD. Oops.

The Flood gets referenced in Chapter 3 and there is, in context, a lot of Peter taking on Grecian conceptions of the universe here. The Greek influenced folks argue the universe is stable so compulsive upheavels like the 2nd Coming won't happen so Peter responds with the Flood, showing them that this is not a stable universe, that it was once destroyed by water in the Flood and that a 2nd destruction awaits and is on the way by fire, by His Parousia invading this universe. God is hastening the day, Peter argues, to allow repentance and to call us to live holy as we should be, as we prepare to meet Him one way or another (3:4-7). The universe is not argued by Peter to be eternally stable at all. He argues otherwise. So does Jude. If we read Enoch 83:3-5 we see “I saw a vision how the earth was swallowed up in great abyss”. At the heart of this, whether you accept Enoch or not, is that Peter and Jude both clearly see that God will be changing the universe and the sinner will have to face the wrath of God. The destruction to come, it must be noted, will not be annihilation but rather ushers in the New Creation, the New Heavens and New Earth.

I could go on with this but if you want more detailed information search 2 Peter Notes on this site and you can find some notes to go with your biblical studies on 2 Peter that I hope assist you. Feel free to email me or message me as well for questions. As one can see there are many problems full preterist need to deal with. Let us pray that Caleb Graham leaves this nonsensical view behind one day and repents and recants of full preterism. Should he not recant or repent, I pray that all his attempts to teach others be nullified and void so he faces less of a judgment when he faces God, as we all will. 

Morning Babblings of Don - Refutation of Preston's videos against Hope Resurrected #8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dviMecZ0vl0&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR24zxUOxONlvk0U3Wh9Ig87YVFZu5ge5Caef8yFJ2xUET4Dq3NDfQ7cEeQ

In his video "Review and Refutation of Lance Conley's Book-Hope Resurrected #8 Time #5" (link above), Preston basically repeats the same things he did in the 7th video so this response will be shorter than others.

Essentially, this whole video is an 18+ minute rant about the Greek word "mello" and about how Preston thinks I am an incompetent loser because there are some grammar mistakes that I and others did not catch in the proofreads of my book. I have basically said that there are mistakes in this book that I have found even a month into the time I hit publish on Amazon and there will be an edit to take place when I am able. I'm hoping to hire a professional proofreader as well at some point with it in order to improve it.

Some points though that need to be addressed: I have never said Mello always means certainty. I have also said repeatedly that prophecy has many contexts that go with it which means that there are times that time texts do not mean imminence whatsoever when mello is used. That said, there are times when mello does not mean certainty and means something imminent. In other words, mello can sometimes mean something is imminent but there are also many times it is something far off but certain to take place. It will always mean certainty since it is a true event to occur that is prophesied but sometimes it is most definitely imminent, though not always is that the case.

Next point: I gave a lexicon before. Thayers has this information online and it is easy to find with a google search. If you're too lazy to do a google search, here is a link online that shows quite clearly that mello can mean imminence and can mean certainty. Thayer and Smith seem to agree here with what I've said are possible for the word mello (depends on the context). 

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/mello.html

"The reason translators of English do not say “about” with mello and use will or shall is because English is more exacting with the language and so someone reading it as “about to happen” could think that this is fixing to happen pretty quickly within a few days perhaps time. Frost writes on this topic: “As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near (enggus) to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was (mello) to appear immediately” (Luke 19.11). Here is another term, mello, [which is] often abused... This text in Luke states that the expectation of many was that when Jesus was “near” Jerusalem, the Kingdom would “immediately” (“about to” – mello) appear. It didn’t. They were wrong. It is certainly interesting that Luke uses enggus in this text, almost as if saying, “see, don’t confuse that with this.” Good job, Luke! It’s not that mello does not ever have this meaning, or that enggus or enngizo does not have this meaning, sometimes. It’s that in each and every instance we must interpret the passages in context. A proof text without a context is no text. Linguistics 101. There are literally dozens of examples that can be shown. If Jesus was saying the Kingdom was at hand, and he meant 70 AD, then he was 35 years off. If he meant “at hand” in terms of proximity (the verb used with the perfect tense), the problem is at once removed. It is not a time text. Jesus could not have been saying he is “about to” (mello) come in 70 AD (Matthew 16.27 – For the Son of Man is going to come (mello) with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done), only to have that contradicted in Luke for those who thought the Kingdom was about to come when he entered Jerusalem. Either Jesus in Matthew 16.27 is saying that he was about to come in his Father’s Kingdom in heaven – which would make sense if applied to his ascension – or he was 35 years off and mello means nothing at all). Or, it could mean, as translators have taken it, that mello here (“going to”) simply stresses the certainty of an action in the future – not its time – which is entirely legitimate, too). If there were things to happen before the 70 AD event happened so that they could “see” these things, and then think, “it is near”, then this again begs the question of why they used “it is near” all they way back in the thirties, forties and fifties of the NT writings.  They could not say, “it is near” until they saw these things first. In fact, Jesus expressly says this: “And he said, “See that you are not led astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is at hand (enggus)!’ Do not go after them” (Luke 21.8)! In using the Synoptics of the Gospel (Kurt Aland) and noting the parallel statements here of Luke with Matthew and Mark, Luke is the only one that mentions this statement, “the time is at hand, do not go after them.” Again, this is because Luke is explaining to his readers the difference between time and proximity. Don’t confuse them! If Jesus was saying “go, preach, the time is at hand” and saying here, “do not go after those who are saying, the time is at hand,” then we have a massive contradiction here (which many critics of the Bible have noted, falsely – for even their bias to prove the Bible wrong fails to consider the nuances of this term). If, however, in the same vein some false teachers were saying, “the Christ’s Appearance is over here. He is here! The Time of Messiah’s Coming is now! He is now coming to restore all things” – if that was being said in terms of time, don’t listen to this. Jesus is not coming in any form of any appearance, nor he is coming in any form of any shape where he could be pointed at and said, “there he is!” The judgement of Jerusalem was indeed a judgment of the son of man – who judges from heaven where he is at the right hand of God, the one who comes on the clouds of heaven before the Holy Father who is in heaven. Thus, the son of man is indeed near in terms of proximity (the Spirit reveals Him, and the Spirit is in union with the Son, who is in union with the man, the son of man in heaven), but Luke seems to be going out of way to say the fall of Jerusalem is not when the son of man will appear – don’t confuse them.[1]”

“Gentry writes that syntactically when mello appears in the future infinitive (as in Acts 24:15) it indicates certainty. We find samples of this in Josephus, classical Greek, and patristic usage. In the Arndt-Gingrich-Danker Lexicon (p. 500) we read that when mello is used with a future infinitive it ‘denotes certainty that an event will occur in the future.’ That, and nothing more. This is why all the standard translations of the Acts 24:15 do not translate mello as expressing nearness, but simply as a future fact (NIV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, etc.). The NASB (cited above) has an excellent rendering: ‘having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. Paul’s argument in Acts 24 supports this idiomatic usage: he is on trial for his life, having been brought to court by Jews. His clever maneuver is to divide his opponents against themselves: the Pharisees believe in a resurrection of the dead; the Sadducees do not (Acts 23:6-7). Thus, Paul argues for the certainty of the resurrection (by use of this idiomatic expression) and concludes: ‘For the resurrection of the dead I am on trial before you today” (Acts 24:21). He is not on trial for declaring the resurrection near, but for declaring it at all.’ Acts 24:25 is time indicative, in that the judgement Paul awaited from Felix’.[2]”

As I've said before, Don has to prove that Christianity is not a failed doomsday cult at the end of the day if he wants to take his full preterist take on the time texts in the way that he does. He has to prove that Paul's resurrection of the dead actually took place and the dead actually rose from the literal graves to eternal life by AD70 (and he doesn't since he spiritualizes 1 Cor 15 and eisegetes it in dishonest fashion as well as other texts to make what Paul talks about to be a non-literal, metaphorical, spiritual only resurrection - false on all accounts). He also has to prove that Jesus really physically returned in 70 AD (and he doesn't do this either when he makes up his unbiblical idea that Jesus stripped off His humanity at His ascension and became a spirit Jesus without a flesh suit - it is neo-Docetism and wrong. You will not find it anywhere in the bible as it is a fabrication Don concocted, plain and simple). 

Now... as for Matthew 16:27-28, Don is going to always try and pass this off as being about AD 70. If that were the case there are many problems that Don must honestly deal with and they can't be solved by making up bad interpretations based on eisegesis and his own fabrications he's created. There are countless scholars who say that Matthew 16:27-28 are transitory verses about the Transfiguration that is about to take place. They will almost always note as well that it, being transitory, involves Christ’s going to the Cross and His future Resurrection and His Ascension, when He would take back the dominion that Adam lost and handed over to Satan, sin, and death (Google Christus Victor for more information). I've also noted that the “some” could very well be Christ referring to Judas who would not live to see His Resurrection nor His Ascension when He would go back to the Kingdom as he would commit suicide for his betrayal against Christ. There is nothing wrong with what I put in my book regarding that. "Some" can be about someone or something in particular when around a group of people. This is not that difficult to comprehend and I believe this will suffice as a response. 

---

[1] Sam Frost. Vigalate Et Orate. 2018. https://vigil.blog/2018/08/19/what-about-the-time-texts-part-2/
[2] Conley. Hope Resurrected. 2018. 453-454.