Search This Blog

Friday, February 7, 2020

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.

9 comments:

  1. Conley says I take him out of context. But watch: He says mello can mean imminent in non eschatological texts, but it does mean imminent in non-eschatological texts. When I point that out, he says I am misrepresenting him. But, here are his own words taken directly from above:

    //When it (mello-DKP) 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.????

    Thank you Mr. Conley for totally abandoning your argument! You say in your book that mello cannot mean imminent when used in eschatological texts, but NOW you admit that mello can indeed mean imminent in eschatological texts, but that it includes certain. Well, guess what? That is MY argument! Amen and hallelujah, Mr. Conley has surrendered his argument!

    And BTW, I never said that that Thayer says differently. Just another of your false claims.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Edit: Conley says I take him out of context. But watch: He says mello can mean imminent in non eschatological texts, but it does NOT mean imminent in non-eschatological texts. That is straight from his book. When I point that out, he says I am misrepresenting him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. More of Conley's false hoods. He says //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.//

    No, Mr. Conley, I never said that Henry applied Matthew 16:27 to AD 70. Typical falsehood. So typical of you. He applied verse 27 (NOT VERSE 28) to the second coming, but, he applied verse 28 to the first century-- and on page 77 of your book you quote him to that yourself!
    Busted again.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mr. Conley says he left Matthew 16:27 open ended. Another blatant falsehood. Here is what you need to know.
    On FB he flat out denied that v. 27 predicted the second coming, even offering to debate it!
    Ooopps!
    He evidently forgot that he had written in his book that v. 27 is the second coming!

    That is called being self contradictory. It is not "open ended" it is a self contradiction.

    Oh, then he turned around and said v. 27 is probably the Transfiguration! Well, the Transfiguration was a vision of the Second Coming-- 2 Peter 1:17f
    But, Matthew 27 pointed to the Transfiguration-- says Conley-- but who knows if that is what he actually believes, cause, remember, he leaves it open ended.
    But, if v. 27 pointed to the Transfiguration and the Transfiguration was a vision of the Second Coming, then once again, Mr. Conley is utterly destroyed, caught in his own self contradictions.

    ReplyDelete
  5. More on Conley's claims about Matthew Henry: //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.//

    If you have Conley's book, let me urge you to go to pages 76 and 77. There you will find that Mr. Conley cites Matthew Henry who applied Matthew 16:27 to the end of time, and verse 28 to his generation. In my video, I proved beyond doubt that this an untenable claim. You cannot divorce v. 27 from v. 28-- the Greek grammar forbids it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What is shameful is that men like Conley claim to be Christians, and yet, when caught in blatant falsehoods and lies, when confronted over their crass and ungodly language, do not have the humility of heart to repent and apologize. That is what is shameful.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Conley says: //I want to note there are MANY scholars who do say that Matthew 16 is about the Transfiguration.//

    Indeed there are, and I have never said otherwise. But, that violates the context, no matter how many say so.
    The Transfiguration was only six days after Jesus said "there are some standing here that shall not taste of death until the see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.
    Conley would have us believe that out of the large multitude present and who heard that promise, only a small number-- only "some" lived for six more days! That is why the Transfiguration was not the fulfillment of Matthew 16:27. It was the vision of the fulfillment, but Jesus did not say "Some standing here will not taste death until they see a vision of the Son of Man coming."
    That violates, distorts and perverts the text and context, but Mr. Conley has no problem doing that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And did you notice his little tirade about my remarks about a ten year old could write better? LOL! So, here is a guy who cannot write a paragraph without using hateful, caustic, abusive language, but when I use hyperbole to drive home the point of how bad his book is I am the one that is hateful, angry, etc.! Mr. Conley-- "THOU ART THE MAN!"

    Such hypocrisy!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Preston acting a fool as always.

    ReplyDelete

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...