Search This Blog

Monday, December 27, 2021

Preston's "Short Shot: The Redemption of Creation" Refuted

Preston writes a lame article here: https://donkpreston.com/short-shot-the-redemption-of-creation/?fbclid=IwAR3KQIxgS60gxpANLUDp-odLxUY8SUeg65f-EBiW2hUgJx4F2EBC0FDyfW4


We are going to refute this heretical piece by Don Preston because it is important that people understand the truth and Preston teaches none of that in this disgusting piece that belongs in the furnace along with the rest of his stupid books. Preston’s writings are here in bold and quotation marks.

Dealing with Don’s Heretical Ramblings

“All three futurist eschatologies, Dispensational, Amillennial and Postmillennial, say that one day God, through Christ will redeem physical creation. The earth will be purged by fire (2 Peter 3) and all creation, including animals– or as I like to say, even ‘Bugs, slugs and mosquitoes’ will be manifested as ‘sons of God’. Interestingly of course, when you begin pressing the details of the ‘redemption of creation’ asking of the blood of Christ is going to benefit mosquitoes, and turn them into sons of God, you begin to get all sorts of equivocation and obfuscation. Interestingly, I have had debate opponents openly state that yes, Jesus did die to redeem the bugs, the slugs and the mosquitoes! When pressed to give supporting scriptural proof, however, that is never forthcoming.”

Any orthodox eschaton (Please note that this does not include dispensationalism as it is heresy and a novel creation created in the late 1800s by John Nelson Darby and Scofield just as full preterism is a heretical and novel creation of the 1900s) will have the physical creation being redeemed at the 2nd Coming. God called His creation good as Genesis says and creation is not inherently evil nor is the material world something to be discarded of or destroyed. Preston teaching otherwise is purely Gnosticism plain and simple. He claims all of these eschatologies teach that the earth will be purged by fire and that bugs, slugs, and mosquitos will be manifested as sons of God… There is not a single scholar worth their salt in any area of Christendom that would claim such a stupid statement. No one thinks that animals will become sons of God like the angels and human beings are called in Scripture. This is nothing more than Preston being a typical loser and misrepresenting the positions of his opponents which is usual for this pathetic clown posing as a scholar with a fake honorary degree from a paper mill. He claims he has had debate opponents openly state that Jesus died to redeem the bugs, slugs, and mosquitos and that when pressed to give support for this position, this mystery person, who he doesn’t name (cause he is referring to me), gave nothing to support their position at all…

As I already said, this is a reference to me. In my debate against Don over Romans 11, he tried to take me out of context when Romans 8 came up and claimed all these stupid things because I said God loves creation and will redeem and renew and restore what was lost by the Fall. This naturally includes all of creation so Don wants to mischaracterize and make hateful comments to try to make this position look stupid and inferior when in fact, I would argue Don Preston is just being hateful towards God who created all these creatures and CALLED THEM GOOD before the Fall happened. That is correct! Even the animals Don Preston hates and even the pests we all dislike are ALL called GOOD by God. The “sons of God” are not animals and animals will never become sons of God. The sons of God are a reference to angelic beings and is a term used in scripture for human beings, not animals. Humans will be redeemed one way and animals and the rest of creation to put it in simple terms will be experiencing this reversal of the curse in a different way. As the first man ruined creation through the Fall and brought all things into the Exile from Eden, the last man Jesus Christ has, is currently, and will restore all of Creation through Himself and the restoration from Exile will be complete at the 2nd Coming. Sin ruins and distorts all that God called good. When Christ removes sin from the picture, creation will be much different than it is today just as it was different pre-Fall. I will deal with what Preston says and then give a clear picture of Romans 8 and the redemption of Creation after that.

“Romans 8 is the key, foundational text of appeal that is offered as proof for a future ‘recreation’ of the material cosmos. I will not engage in an in-depth exegesis of that marvelous text, but let me offer a few key points to be considered as part of any proper exegesis- points often overlooked by the commentators: Paul posits the entire discussion in the context of the imminent vindication of the suffering of the first century martyrs– v. 18. This allows us- forces us- to place his discussion in the context of Matthew 23 and Jesus’ promise concerning the coming vindication of the martyrs. Paul places his discussion within the context of “the suffering of Christ” (Romans 8:17) a key eschatological concept. The early church had joined with Christ in his suffering and had to fill up the measure of that suffering before the parousia, i.e. the time of their vindication (Cf. Colossians 1:24f0.  Paul uses a number of words that demand an imminent fulfillment of the “redemption of creation.” See my book, Like Father Like Son, On Clouds of Glory, for a full discussion. There is simply no way to escape the fact that Paul believed and taught that the redemption of creation– no matter what we moderns may perceive it to be– was to take place imminently and soon. Paul places the fulfillment of the promised redemption within the framework of the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit, which contrary many believers, was confined to the first century. The miraculous work of the Spirit was the guarantee (Ephesians 1:12f) of that coming redemption and resurrection (2 Corinthians 5:5). It is ironic and self contradictory for many believers to say that the charismata have ended-and they have- and yet, deny that the resurrection and redemption of creation are yet future. Those two concepts / realities are inseparably tied together. With these few (undeveloped) facts let me get to the meat of what I want to present about “the redemption of Creation.”


Gee I wonder why Preston won’t engage in any of that text in-depth… could it be because he is unable to and doing so would just show what a pseudo-scholar and clown school rejected con artist Don is? Paul does not in fact only posit the entire chapter of Romans 8 about vindication of martyrs but I digress. Matthew 23 is not forced into anything like some magic puzzle piece only Preston can solve. Preston mentions the Early Church but none of them ever once say that 70 AD was the 2nd Coming nor the resurrection of the dead so this is simply something Don has made up and pulled out of his rear end. Preston mentions his stupid book Like Father Like Son which I easily refute in my book Hope Resurrected that you can get for free if you ask me. Preston says there is no way to escape that Paul believed Christ would come back imminently and that creation would be redeemed but this is all a farce. The only one who believes this is inescapable are full preterists. No one else has this issue because no one else interprets the texts like a full preterist does. The only closest people you get who interpret the scriptures like this are atheist bible critics who have been refuted countless times much to Preston’s dismay since he loves atheist like Albert Schweitzer and Bart Erhman and others who have been refuted but people continue sharing their horse manure… like Don Preston does…

It also doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that while 70 AD did have a lot of people be killed in the Jewish-Roman War that took place then… that it didn’t vindicate or help the Christian Church one bit really and actually as far as history shows us, the persecution of Christians just got worse and Romans and Jews focused more hatred on this sect who worshipped Christ. Fact is, Preston’s declaration that the Early Church got their vindication from some Jews being slaughtered by Romans in 70 AD is nothing more than a perversion of scriptures and Preston’s sick and twisted fantasy about his disturbing and perverse god who promises to deal with the problem of evil in scripture and then doesn’t do so.

“It needs to be understood first of all that whatever that anticipated redemption was, it was part and parcel of the hope of Israel. Paul is very clear that his resurrection doctrine was from ‘the law and the prophets’ (Acts 24:14f). Thus, since, for Paul, the source of his eschatology as the Tanakh I want to focus briefly on one key OT prophecy of the ‘redemption of creation’ specifically, ‘the restoration of the earth’.”

It needs to be understood that Preston is a perverter of scripture. He wants to claim that this redemption promised in Romans 8 is nothing real and is simply just some “spiritual” and non-material thing. Nothing is really to change according to Preston. Preston doesn’t believe the resurrection of the dead is a real thing. As we’ve shown however in our article below Preston On Trial, you can see that Preston is dead wrong about the resurrection of the dead. You can see quite clearly that Paul and the Early Church ALL believed in a real and literal resurrection from the literal grave that would involve the Holy Spirit really rising real people from the real and literal grave. Dead bodies they believed would be revived and brought back to eternal life by the Holy Spirit. Preston can deny this all he wants but in the end he will simply have to answer to God for this perversion he has made of God’s Holy Scriptures and face the consequences. We pray this heretic repents of his wicked and perverse ways.

 https://www.hoperesurrected.com/2020/10/preston-on-trial-refutation-review-of.html

We can skip Preston talking about 1 Corinthians 5 and Isaiah 49 as he simply takes it all out of context and perverts scripture as usual. This is what I want to focus more on this sick and perverse statement of Don’s…

“Now, if we are going to accept Paul’s emphatic, inspired declaration, it seems to me that it is time to rethink the traditional concepts of the redemption of creation”.

How much more do we need to “rethink” and redefine to make it fit this stupid AD70 doctrine? All for AD 70 Don has made Jesus strip himself of his humanity at the ascension and become something akin to Yoda becoming a Force ghost in Star Wars… He’s already got no resurrection of the dead and thinks sin and physical decay and death go on forever and forever. He’s already even perverted Satan calling Satan the Old Covenant… What else does this moron need to redefine for the sake of his idol AD 70? What a perverted son of Satan!

“It is empirically, historically, experientially true that any kind of restoration of material creation did not take place in Paul’s day, and is not taking place now. Trees are not bigger and better today. Rocks are not softer. Rivers are not cleaner, bigger, deeper, and wider than in Paul’s day– if cleaner, bigger, deeper and wider rivers are entailed in the ‘redemption of creation’. Carnivorous animals still key and eat their prey- including humans if given the chance. The sun is not better, the moon is not prettier, and the stars are not ‘improved’. The bugs, slugs and mosquitoes are still nasty little creatures and when you throw in the virus ‘bugs’ that still rampage through humanity, it is undeniable that the so called ‘redemption of the earth’ and ‘all creation’ did not and has not taken place”.

Paul never said it would happen in his day and time. This is Preston’s interpretation of scripture and Preston is a pervert of scripture. He will do anything for money and say anything and redefine any word in the bible to fit it into his perverted AD 70 fantasy. All that Preston says here is that he hates God’s Creation. That must be why he stays in his home in Oklahoma making stupid videos in his basement all day like a lunatic trying to sell stupid books about why he’s a pervert of scripture. Don gives himself away actually however in this statement. He says that trees are not bigger and better today… wonder why that is? Is it because of the continued effects of the Fall? Is it because humanity’s sin ruins everything it touches – like creation? Could it be Creation actually is effected by OUR SINS? That’s a fact – it is. Rivers aren’t cleaner or bigger or deeper or wider? Wonder why? Could it be that our sin has effected the creation and made rivers worse? Carnivorous animals still kill, key, and eat their prey? Wow! It’s almost like the Fall is still happening and so the animals, aka part of creation effected by the Fall, still do things because of the effects of the Fall… wow… what a shocker Don! The sun and moon and stars aren’t improved, better or prettier? Wow… It’s almost like all of creation was under the effect of the Fall by Adam’s sin… Imagine that? And guess what? It all will be getting worse if Christ does not return and change it one day. Don says that day has already come… what a perverted and stupid son of Satan to suggest Christ would leave creation as is and let evil and sin and death and all the things humanity perverted due to the Fall and their continued sin to continue. Don then tells us he hates bugs, slugs, and mosquitos and virus bugs and tries to paint the people who say God will redeem creation as stupid people for suggesting that EVERYTHING, even the things we don’t like, are actually called GOOD by God. Only a pervert like Don of Scripture would say such stupid things to try to make God’s Creation out to be bad and something God doesn’t care about or something to be discarded. Don proves he is a carnal minded perverter of scripture who will stop at nothing to prop up his disgusting perverted 70 AD idol.

“It will not do to say, well, that physical redemption / transformation of the material world will take place at the end of time. Paul was talking about the spiritual redemption of mankind from sin. But wait! That concept is not to be found in Scripture! In fact, it violates God’s standard modus operandi”.

Wrong. God promises the resurrection of the dead will be literal and physical as Christ, Paul, and other apostles all contend. Don can deny it all he wants but he is wrong and a pervert of scripture. You can read Preston On Trial that I linked above to see why Preston is a bold faced liar and a perverter of scripture.

Preston next perverts 1 Corinthians 15 which I have refuted him about ad nauseam at this point and you can again read Preston On Trial to see this.

“Paul quoted Isaiah 49 verbatim declaring that the Acceptable Time and the Day of Salvation was present– 2000 years ago. It is undeniable that the restoration of material creation, a transformation of bugs, slugs and mosquitoes, has not taken place in 2000 years. It is not now taking place. This means that the promise of the ‘redemption of creation’ was not a prediction of a literal, physical restoration and transformation of physical creation. It was in fact, the very thing that Paul worked for and said it was, the reconciliation between men, and men and God. It is therefore, wrong to posit a yet future cosmological transformation to an Edenic Utopia. That is an unrealistic and un-Biblical doctrine”.

Preston lies to his audience and perverts what Paul has said. Paul does quote Isaiah 49 saying that the Day of Salvation is NOW and says it is happening at the moment Paul speaks. In other words, Paul says it is happening right now at that moment. Paul already has proven Preston is a bold faced liar since Preston says the Day of Salvation is supposed to happen in 70 AD. Paul according to Preston’s perverse logic is off by about 15-30 years after he wrote this in 2 Corinthians 6! In other words, Preston’s words are empty meaningless words of a perverted son of Satan. If Preston were correct, and he is not because he is nothing more than a perverted mouthpiece for his perverse father Satan, then Paul would be a liar as would Jesus. Jesus and Paul and the rest of the apostles ALL taught that creation would be redeemed and really be changed one day at the 2nd Coming. They really taught that the dead would actually physically be raised by the Holy Spirit from death and sin would be no more. They found it to be a REALISTIC and BIBLICAL DOCTRINE and so do I. I find Preston’s doctrine nothing more than a sick perverted fantasy that he copied from Max King and find it nothing but a detestable Gnostic materialist-hating pile of drivel that he mostly pulled out of his ass to try and sell books to gullible people because he has no truth in him and is a perverted son of Satan who lies and misrepresents and slanders his oppositions all to peddle his AD 70 doctrine and sell more books and actively engages and does ministries with active polygamists, active homosexuals, convicted pedophiles, active drug addicts, wife-beaters, and more. What more needs to be said? We hope Don will repent of his sins against God and stop perverting scriptures but should he not, may God swiftly deal with him so he can’t pervert any more people and take them to the lake of fire with him where he will sadly go if he doesn’t repent of his sick and perverse heresies against God.

Now that this is out of the way here is the TRUTH about Romans 8 and the Redemption of Creation and some actual ORTHODOX doctrine. If you want to know more, I would recommend here on my blog reading my written debate with Don Preston on Romans 11 where I cover a lot of this. You can find it with a simple typing in Romans 11 in the search bar at the top. Now let us begin here.

Romans 8: The Redemption of Creation (Scripture is in bold)

This will not be a full commentary on Romans 8. I will be bringing up a lot of scriptures though. We already have proven that Preston is wrong about 1 Cor. 15 and other resurrection verses so this will just be a refresher here to keep pouring on the refutation of this unrepentant heretical son of Satan and apostate named Don K Preston.

I stress this to full preterist reading this. Christ hasn't returned. There's no evidence for FP. Preston's tried desperately to make it work but so far has done nothing but seen the train come off the rails and caused a major wreck and failure.

Adam is the man of soil. He corrupted the universe by His sin against God. It did not just effect the man of soil Adam alone. When Adam and Eve were cursed with mortality, they also cursed and effected the entire cosmos. Adam is the man of soil. Made from dust/soil. Who is the serpent in Revelation revealed as Satan in Revelation 12 constantly trying to devour? The Church in context, but those who were born in Adam and reborn in Christ. One could reference Genesis 3 obviously here.


Genesis 3:14-15 - 
The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

To Eve, she's cursed with mortality as well as Adam but also is cursed with pain, which is suffering in order to bring forth life. A prefigurement of sorts of what we, all who are of the elect, must go through to inherit eternal life in Christ as the Church.

Genesis 3:16 says To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”

She's given this as her curse along with mortality as is clearly shown. Genesis 3:17-19 lastly, Adam’s curse. The curse on the man of the soil.


And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ CURSED IS THE GROUND because of you; in PAIN you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

It's quite evident that Adam is the man of soil and was made from dust. Just as his body is cursed and now in opposition to him, the man of soil Adam also now, because of his actions, has cursed the ground. It wasn't cursed before as a result. It was blessed and now it's a curse. The ground is the land and the land is a part of Creation. Creation therefore, logically, has been cursed as a whole because of Adam and his actions. To deny this is absolutely absurd! It is not something “spiritual”. It is a real curse being brought upon actual creation.

Now catch the power of this next two verses in Genesis 3:22-24!

22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and LIVE FOREVER—” 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

Question: Preston asserts all Adam’s death was is a spiritual death. Why then does God all of a sudden have a tree of life that if Adam takes and eats will make him live forever? It's because Adam's been corrupted by his sin. He's had a spiritual death and has begun to die the death (he’s become mortal). He's gone from incorruptible to corruptible. Immortality to mortality. And now he's cursed with sinfulness. If Adam takes of the tree of life he'll live forever and still be cursed eternally! What a tragedy it would've been! Therefore, God in a sense blesses Adam and Eve by kicking them out of the Garden of Eden in order to eventually redeem them through the Lord Jesus Christ and rid them of sin, their bondage to Satan, and their inheritance of death! Since Adam's tied to the Creation being made from it, he who's been cursed and has cursed what he's been created from, the ground, shall also be redeemed from the curse. This involves ALL of creation. For Preston to assert otherwise is absurd and betrays the power of Christ.

Preston fails to realize that there was a creation by God in the beginning of time, a special divine intervention in the Creation of Man. There was in this the existence of the 1st Man Adam in a condition of friendship and perfection and order with God. There was a Fall from that amazing beautiful condition and eventually an increase in that separation between man and God brought about by man’s sins, and succession after succession of natural catastrophes which man suffered and still suffers from the consequences of sins that only Christ alone can ever hope to change which He does and has promised to do!

God wasn't forced to create this universe. He chose to do so out of love. God created everything and man was made IN HIS IMAGE! Not animals. Mankind.

“God saw it was good” (Gen 1:31) underscores the goodness of matter and the whole created order, and God still does this even after the Fall! It's something God loves and wishes to redeem! Why would He redeem it? Because of love! Preston obviously doesn’t care about sacraments but this is a great basis for understanding a basic sacramental world-view – that Creation isn't only good, but is also a means for communing with God, by virtue of being created by the All-Good God! Yes! Even those things we don’t like in creation God called good and loves. They all serve a purpose before and after the Fall and will do so after the 2nd Coming.

Genesis 2:17’s mention of “you shall surely die” isn't just about spiritual death whatsoever. If you literally translate Genesis 2:17 it's Tree. Knowledge. Good. Evil. Day eat (dying) die. The literal Hebrew's dying-die. It's two different verb tenses (dying and die) which translates as “dying you will die”. It's an ingressive statement culminating with physical death. At that point, after they ate of the fruit, they died a spiritual death (this cannot be seen by Genesis alone but rather with other texts that show it to be true later beyond Genesis; in Genesis the only thing we see here is physical death beginning to happen in man after he eats the fruit), but also began to die and would return to dust. If they'd been meant to die right then instantaneously, the text would only say muth once, meaning dead, died, or die and not “beginning to die”, “surely die” or “dying you will die”. In other words, Adam will become a mortal being and begin dying.

Preston wants to hate on me for believing God loves His Creation and will redeem every animal He lovingly created and desired to create and DEEM GOOD?!? Then let the idiot and hater of God hate me!

The answer is obviously and emphatically YES HE WILL and I'll scream it from the mountain tops for all the universe to hear and praise God for it! YES!! LET IT BE DONE! Let God’s Creation which He loves be redeemed from the curse when Christ returns physically in the 2nd Coming! Let all of Creation rejoice! The Savior will come! Every human, bug, slug, mosquito, microorganism, cockroach, mastodon, saber-tooth tiger that's ever lived and will live and died and will die and has and will go to the ground will celebrate the Lord as He delivers the universe in decay and dying from death; and He'll recreate and restore and redeem it into eternity out of His Divine Agape for mankind and Creation! Hallelujah! Preston’s feeble god can’t save material creation but the One True God can! Catch the power of that! Preston can repent or take all that hatred to the lake of fire with him! YEEHAW!!

Is Preston going to tell us that God doesn’t care about Creation? Has he never looked into basic biology and not just been astounded by God’s Creation? God put so much detail as the ultimate Iconographer into His artwork! It’s a shame that Preston doesn’t think that God cares about Creation whatsoever one bit and just will let it all decay into nothingness. Preston seems to believe that ex nihilo means material creation has to go nihil ad or obliuionem decidet.

God commanded Adam to be a caretaker of the Garden of Eden! To name the animals! It becomes more real when you put a name to it! More care is put into it when you name it and in Adam’s case he has to take care of it! When we give something a name we give God’s Creation more Being, more of an existence! We make it more of a Reality! God cares about Creation even if Preston the Pervert doesn’t and hates it.

Matthew 6:26-34 NKJV comes to mind!

26 Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 Which of you by worrying can add one [a]cubit to his [b]stature? 28 “So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; 29 and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not [c]arrayed like one of these. 30 Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31 “Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.

It’s quite clear God cares about His Creation and loves it! If God didn’t, He wouldn’t have bothered to become one of us as a human being in the Incarnation, living, dying, and bleeding for us. He wouldn't've bothered to come at all if He didn’t love and care about His Creation.

If corruption is the futility of physical corruptibility and mortality, and “all creation” as Romans 8 says is to be released from that, then this demands the resurrection of “all creation” that was ever subjected to that futility of physical corruption. YES! All of Creation will be redeemed and restored! Not just man but the entire Cosmos! All Creation!

In Romans 8:21 it uses the Greek word phthora. In context, phthora has in general two definitions but one also has to take the sentence itself in the verses into consideration when it is in usage in the NT.

One definition of phthora is: corruption, perishing, destruction.
a) That which is subject to corruption physically; what is perishable.
b) In the Christian sense, it can mean eternal misery.

Another 2nd definition of the word is that it can be used in a more ethical sense for corruption or moral decay. Phthora is used in Romans 8:21, 1 Corinthians 15:42, 1 Corinthians 15:50, Galatians 6:8, Colossians 2:22, 2 Peter 1:4, 2 Peter 2:12, 2 Peter 2:19. For Romans 8:21 it means that which is corrupt and it's physical.

I fully acknowledge phthora could be used in an ethical sense or moral decay but to clarify, in Romans 8:21 phthora isn't being used that way. It's instead being used to mean physical corruption and physical decay. And this is obvious if you just read the chapter… more specifically, starting at v. 18: “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that’s to be revealed to us”… This verse introduces the 3-fold testimony given to the Christian destiny, which is sharply contrasted with the sufferings just mentioned… “the glory to be revealed to us”: Paul reminds his readers that although suffering is a sign of the authentic Christian experience, it's only a transition to the assured glory that awaits them in the eschaton’s completion.


V. 19: “For the created universe waits with eager longing for the God’s sons to be revealed”: Paul discloses his view of the created world, which in its chaotic state manifests its cosmic striving toward the very goal set for man himself. He affirms the solidarity of the human and subhuman world in its share in the redemption of Christ. It recalls God’s promise to Noah of the covenant to be made “between myself and you and every living creature” (Gen 9:12-13; Cf. Ps 135). The noun ktisis denotes “material creation” apart from man (see v.23 if you’re confused). Created for man, it was cursed as a result of Adam’s sin (Gen 3:17), and since then it has been in a state of abnormality or frustration, according to Paul, being subject to corruption itself. And yet, he sees it sharing in man’s destiny; for it too – through him – is somehow redeemed, freed from its natural proclivity. 

V.20-21: “For it was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the created universe itself will be set free from its bondage to decay/corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God”.
The frustration of material creation is its inability to realize its goal as it should. Before Adam’s sin, material creation is depicted in Genesis as subject to him, just as he was to God (Gen 1:28). But mans’ sin disrupted the subordination and introduced abnormality and futility.

“But BY HIM who subjected it in [the] hope, that creation itself would be freed from the bondage of decay””: Paul refers to God, who cursed the ground because of Adam’s sin (Gen 3:17). “By him” (dia with the acc., as in Rom 3:25; John 6:57; Sirach 15:11) means God in this view. The “hope” (eph’elpidi, “in, with hope”) expresses not God’s hope, but the hope given creation itself by him who subjected it (referring to hypotaxanta of v.20). It also reads hoti (that) instead of dioti at the beginning of v.21; this conjunction introduces the hope given to creation. 

This seems to be the most natural interpretation of this verse, despite the fact that the use of dia with an accusative is not common. Paul's saying here that God, though he cursed the ground because of Adam’s sin, still gives it hope of sharing in man’s redemption. Redeemed humanity will live in peace with God in a world transformed by His Spirit. Paul sees this condition as an aspiration of all creation. “decay”” not just moral corruption, but the law of physical decay found in nature, the reign of dissolution and death. 

For Paul, the created physical universe isn't to be a mere spectator of man’s triumphant glory and freedom, but is to share in it. When the children of God are revealed in glory, death will have no more dominion over them, and the material world will also be emancipated from this “last enemy” (1 Cor 15:23-38). What Paul teaches here will be developed in his letters in captivity in his notions of the recapitulation of all things in Christ.

v. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now…

Paul adopts the image of the rebirth of nature to a woman’s travail to express the tortous convulsions of a frustrated material creation, as he sees it. It groans in hope and expectation but also in pain/suffering. There really is a suffering bringing about glory going on here with Paul and it’s astounding! The compound verb (synodinei) expresses the concerted agony of the universe in all its parts.

V. 23 – And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we weait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies”.

“we ourselves”: Not only the material universe bears testimony to the Christian destiny but Christians themselves do too also by the hope that they have – a hope based on the gift of the Spirit already possessed! “Who have the firstfruits of the Spirit: The Spirit has already been given to the Christians as the principle of the new life. What a great promise of things to come thanks to Christ who is already working this change in us through God the Holy Spirit! Hallelujah!

Catch the power of that!

Paul uses phthora the same way in Romans 8:21 that he uses it in 1 Cor. 15:42… Preston would never talk about this one or 1 Cor. 15:49 or 1 Cor. 15:50 because if he did he would have to deal with Paul talking about actual dead people rising from the literal grave and becoming immortal beings through the Holy Spirit.

15:42 says “So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a corrupt body, it is raised an uncorrupted body”. This is physical resurrection. You can also find Clement in agreement later in 1 Clement… but Preston will just call Clement (who is mentioned in the bible) a liar because Preston thinks everyone post AD70 is an apostate until he, by magic, came into this world and brought us all himself as God’s theological gift to the world.

So what does 15:42’s use of phthora mean? Corruption… decaying body… Simple.

Our bodily physical existence is right now one of corruption, dishonor, and weakness, and these things characterize this present age. Now, in this vale of tears, all is illness, and loss, weakness, failure, and futility, the humiliation of aging and death. We’ll one day end our earthly existence, being “sown” like seeds in the earth in their state. But it'll be otherwise in the future age to come as Christ hasn’t returned yet. Our bodily existence then at that time will conform to the glory of that coming age and will be one of “incorruption, non-decay, glory, and power”, as all these earthly things are swallowed up in the endless triumph of Christ and His Resurrection and our Resurrection! Now our “body” and existence is “soulish” (psuchikos), that which is dominated by the soul (psuche) or the life of this age – hence, “worldly, unspiritual”. James 3:15 uses the word to characterize the wisdom of this world which is also “earthly and demonic”.

Our present bodily existence is characterized by the world of the senses, with all its weakness and limitations. In the age to come, our bodily existence will be “spiritual” (pneumatikos). That is, it'll be characterized by the boundless energies of the Divine Spirit, being freed from preent limitations of this sensual existence… recall what I’ve said about Romans 8:21 and it'll all be clear!

This humble and earthly (psuchikos) aspect of our existence is expressed in Scripture by Genesis 2:7 LXX that “the 1st man, Adam, became a living soul” (psuche). Our way of life inherited from Adam, the originator of our race, is characterized by his limits. He was “from the earth” and thus, “made of dust” (choikos), sharing all the humble lowliness of the earth beneath his feet. We're the same, “bearing the image of the one made of dust” sharing this age’s humiliations. But, not forever, for the “soulish” will give place to the spiritual in the age to come. We mustn’t expect the spiritual to come first! We must wait! It'll come! In Christ, the fullness and fulfillment of the human nature to its greatness will become for us in the last Adam the life-giving spirit! Paul contrasts our 1st state, from Adam, with our final state, from Christ. We shall all share the glory of Christ’s life of “heaven” bearing His celestial “eikon” at the resurrection which will be visible because HE IS CURRENTLY PHYSICAL.

Now to 1 Cor 15:50… What does 1 Cor 15:50’s use of phthora mean? We’ve found what 1 Cor 15:42 meant without Preston even mentioning it for some odd reason!

Pretty simple. 1 Cor 15:50 says “Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the decay inherit the non-decay”.

It means corruption obviously. Physical decay. Because physical decay doesn't inherit the Kingdom of God obviously. Romans 8 explains this as well. We and creation shall be made free from the decay and 1 Cor 15 says we'll physically be raised uncorrupt because Christ raised physically incorruptible.

Note also that when Paul says flesh and blood here he's specifically talking about the works of the flesh and blood being what doesn’t inherit the kingdom of God. We aren’t Gnostics. Your physical body and skin isn’t evil. It’s what you do with your physical body and skin that can be profane and evil. That's what will not inherit the Kingdom of God because it does nothing but corrupt if you constantly use your body for evil instead of using it to glorify Christ.

With that, I think this is more than enough to show that Don Preston is debunked and shown to be nothing more than a worthless pseudo-scholar and perverter of scripture. Preston is debunked and his works belong in a furnace or to be used when you run out of toilet paper. May this perverted son of the devil repent or be dealt with swiftly by God so he can no longer blaspheme and destroy other people’s faith in God and lead people astray with him.

Saturday, December 11, 2021

Debating Don Preston: My 3rd (Final) Affirmative & Don Preston's Final Negative / My Response to his final negative

My Final Affirmative:

For this 3rd Affirmative, I am just going to give a summary of the debate and discuss the 1st and 2nd Negative Preston gave in response since Preston has decided to engage in nothing more than ad hominem and other fallacies and downright slander against me in his second negative… I have no more reason to take this debate seriously since Preston cannot find it within himself to be honorable and engage in proper decorum with a formal written debate.

Summary of the Debate So Far

In summary, Mr. Preston and I began this debate with the propositions that Preston would definitively prove the Revelation was written in an early date (pre-70 CE) and I would argue that though not definitive (due to intellectual honesty in academia/scholarship) the Revelation was likely written after 70 CE.

We began this debate with a Q&A where I answered all questions that Preston asked me to give. When he was to answer the questions I raised, he did not answer questions 1 nor 5 which one can read when they read the Q&A section of the debate.

In Preston’s First, Second, and Third Affirmative, Preston did a lot of interpreting “the Bible” but nowhere unfortunately for him, did he manage at any point to definitively prove that the Revelation was written before 70 CE. To summarize this part of the debate, Mr. Preston essentially was claiming as his defense: “Revelation was written before 70 CE because this is my interpretation of Revelation”; in other words, this is true because I said and declared it is so. This, of course, is not helpful or useful by any standard of academia nor scholarship and would not pass by any standard. At no point did he confirm or give any definitive proof to defend his claim. In other words, Preston has to, without any doubt, establish as an established fact that definitively and conclusively the Revelation was written before 70 CE. Obviously, he does not and any reader of these debates can see for themselves that he has not done so.

In his first affirmative, he continuously attempted to change what the debate is about. It is not about how one interprets the religious text of Revelation nor the Bible but is instead about when this text, itself, was written. This is clear from the premise and the objectives we both agreed to in the debate propositions that the reader can easily read. Instead of sticking to the debate as planned, Preston continuously employed fallacy after fallacy with constant misrepresentations, and unfortunately his entire first affirmative was filled with ad hominem arguments as well.

In his second affirmative, after I gave my negative as prescribed for the debate, this unscholarly and unprofessional behavior just continued unfortunately where he gave a lot of “Scripture” and his interpretation of these scriptures but not a single time was he able to give anything that definitively proves Revelation was written before 70 CE, which is what his objective was to be for this debate. As anyone who reads it can see, he misrepresents my positions and decides to break the rules countless times bringing up comments on Facebook with other individuals. That would not hold water in any formal debate and would he have presented “Sergius Bale said this on Facebook” in the middle of a debate in a university setting he would not be asked back again due to the lack of professionalism and inability to stick to debate standards and rules. Quite frankly, as a professional and someone who claims he is a “master debater” one would think this man would figure it out at some point how to act like a professional or at least learn to be respectful but this does not happen at all and I again note countless times in this 2nd Affirmative where Preston gives fallacy after fallacy, misrepresentations and adds nothing of substance in this debate.

In his final and 3rd affirmative, it just continues to get more pathetic and futile to hope that Mr. Preston could ever hope or believe him to be professional since he starts to openly concoct disturbing lies about me going so far as to also claim that I ignore his second affirmative and then continues on the same path employing fallacy after fallacy with multiple ad hominem statements calling me unscholarly, arrogant,  and declaring I break the rules of the debate when, unfortunately, as the reader can easily tell, Preston is the one who has in fact broken the rules at almost every turn from the start, even at the Q&A section. Projection is a bit of an understatement with Preston. At one point, he even tries to pull a gish gallop fallacy and it was safe to say that Brandolini’s Law applied here. He continued to mention conversations on Facebook and give even more ad hominem arguments. I could go on with this but you get the gist. At the end of the day, Mr. Preston completely failed to establish any credibility for his position and lost his own personal credibility by engaging in meaningless rhetoric and constant ad hominem, and ungodly and unscholarly behavior that is beneath all people.

Next up, for my part of the debate where I give my affirmations, my objective was to affirm that while not definitive, the book of Revelation was likely written in the reign of Domitian (90s CE) after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE and explain why. Knowing that this was the agreed-upon objective, Preston decides in his first negative to berate me for giving no definitive statement or setting something as an established fact. Obvious to any reader who has read what my objective is to be in this debate and read my first affirmative, they will find that, yes, obviously none of what I offer here makes it 100%, without a doubt, definitive or conclusive that the Revelation was written in the reign of Domitian. One cannot make that claim definitively for either the early or the late date as we do not possess any manuscript or anything definitive from the archeology and history books. In other words, we cannot claim something is an established fact when we do not possess definitive evidence to prove the claim to be an established fact. Preston cannot prove an early date and has not done so in his three affirmatives and while I can give pieces of evidence that point to the potential for Revelation to be more likely written in a later date, I cannot and will not make some definitive statement when it cannot be established as a fact since that would be intellectually dishonest, be pseudo-scholarship, be pseudo-academia, and only one with a lack of integrity would claim such a thing in that matter. Nowhere in the first negative of Preston did he give any argument addressing the arguments I give.

Responding to Preston’s Second Negative

In the second affirmative, Preston attempts to claim I have not done any exegesis of a single bible text. Why would this matter? The debate as I have noted repeatedly is not over Preston’s interpretation or my interpretation of “the Bible” nor the Revelation itself being valid, Holy Spirit inspired, accurate or not. It is over WHEN THE REVELATION WAS WRITTEN. Nothing more and nothing less. He brings up Facebook posts again proving complete desperation on his part and an inability to stick with the debate at hand. It also shows an entire and complete lack of professionalism that has been evident throughout this entire debate. Preston denies it but at the end of the day, the reader can see it for themselves in the writing. Don Preston at the end of the day knows he has completely violated the very rules of the debate that HE DEMANDED be in this debate. It is irrelevant what is posted on Facebook to this debate but he continues to do so. I cite where he breaks many rules aplenty but Preston lies to the reader claiming I don’t. I suppose he presumes they are not going to read the propositions of the debate and will just take his word for everything.

Preston writes that he argued Revelation is a “Jewish book, about the imminent fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises made to Old Covenant Israel”. He then makes some statement that Revelation 6 is “no pagan altar”… The reader can easily note I made no such statement that this was a pagan altar. He claims I ignore his citation of scholarship but the reader can easily see I did no such thing. Lying about the other debater is intellectually dishonest. Preston should gain some integrity as this debate ends for his own sake. I did not ridicule Preston as he claims. I did note that he does not cite any scholarship. When he does cite scholarship I also note that Preston gives us nothing from these scholars to prove his claims about the dating of Revelation and since Preston is supposed to prove DEFINITIVELY that the Revelation was written before 70 CE, he has obviously failed to do so. I have nothing to say other than Preston is just genuinely dishonest claiming I ignore his claims and citations.

Preston commits an ad hominem and a no true Scotsman fallacy by claiming “His (I, Sergius Bale) rejection of this foundational Biblical truth reveals how totally out of touch with the Biblical narrative he truly is”… because I do claim that the Revelation is not Jewish writing. It is, in fact, the work of St. John who is a follower of Christ, and therefore John the writer of Revelation is a Christian. Does Don want to reject one of the few things about Revelation that is an established fact?

Preston then claims wildly that “All the first Christians were Jews”… completely dismissing the fact that these seven cities in Asia Minor would have Jew but be mostly Gentile cities. He also has a problem here declaring the Revelation is about the promises of the Old Covenant coming to fulfillment. Most biblical scholars apart from dispensationalists would claim otherwise and in fact state that the Old Covenant was fulfilled through the death and resurrection of Christ but I digress. None of this establishes anything about the date of Revelation.

Preston tries and fails to set up a false dichotomy about Isaiah 65-66 and 2 Peter 3… claiming I am “defeated” somehow by the Q&A? This is all illogical and fabrication but at the end of the day, even if Preston could find my interpretation of Scriptures and my personal beliefs and tear them all apart, he would still have given absolutely nothing to support his claim that Revelation was written before 70 CE as he can give nothing definitive as he claims. Isaiah 65-66 and 2 Peter 3 I would also note do not give us any indication of the dating of Revelation inside of them.

Preston gives some interpretation of Isaiah 63 and 65-66 and none of this gives us the date of Revelation. Preston makes some interpretations about Acts 24, 26; Isaiah 25-27, 65-66; Daniel 12; Ezekiel 37, the entire book of Zechariah… and nowhere, not a single place, does any of the texts he gives to us prove a definitive date of Revelation. Instead of being a grown-up and a professional and trying to act scholarly, Don instead continues on with ad hominem fallacies claiming that I accuse John of teaching a different gospel, then claims that I teach another Gospel… and then claims I make a mockery of language by not agreeing with Preston’s interpretations of scripture… This is again unprofessional and Preston just continues to dig himself a hole where he cannot seem to quit with unprofessional behavior. It is also laughable that someone who declares himself a master debater would stoop to this level of discourse in what was supposed to be a written formal debate. What should have been two professionals having intellectual discourse has instead become one side, Preston’s making absurd claims, lies about his opponent, misrepresentations about his opponent, and just overall a man who has lost the debate by engaging in nothing more than what can be described as absolute intellectual dishonesty and a lack of integrity with his character. Christians should not engage in the type of disgusting and despicable behavior that Don Preston has engaged in here and on a personal note: I encourage the reader to not follow in this man’s footsteps with the way he has given discourse and debate here.

Preston then continues in what apparently will just be an entire “negative” where he gives nothing but ad hominem claims such as that I am ignorant or arrogant for saying that Revelation 6 does not cite Isaiah 2-4. In fact, Revelation 6 does not cite Isaiah 2-4 at all. Don does in fact lie to the reader by claiming that it does cite Isaiah 2-4. Preston brings out some commentary by David Aune who says that Revelation 6 alludes to Isaiah 2… Aune in fact does not say Revelation 6 cites Isaiah 2-4. Aune says he sees an allusion there and makes an assertion that there is an allusion there. Nowhere does Aune claim Revelation quotes nor cites directly Isaiah 2… So despite Preston’s attempts to disprove his lie here, he has come up short as usual and the charge and accusation I made stands that Preston did in fact lie and try to intentionally mislead his audience.

Preston lies again to the reader claiming that 2 Thess. 1 quotes – verbatim – from Isaiah 2:19… The fact is that this does not happen in 2 Thessalonians 1 at all. Don is factually in error. Preston then decides to slander me yet again with an ad hominem claiming that “According to Bale, John was ignoring Jesus and Paul’s citation and application of Isaiah”… Nowhere did I make any claim like this first. Secondly, Paul does not cite Isaiah 2 in 2 Thess. 1… I can only conclude Preston is being intellectually dishonest here and trying to mislead his audience or that he is utterly confused or has resorted in complete and total desperation to just saying whatever he wants and hoping no one fact checks him. I believe it is the latter unfortunately as he has shown no ability whatsoever to conduct himself properly in this debate since the very start as I have noted so why would Preston bother at the end to conduct himself properly?  

Preston goes on a whole rant about Domitian and persecution. Fact is, I just have to provide sources that show there was potentially persecution, which I do. Nothing has to be definitive here. Preston knows this. Preston then tries to undermine Eusebius, Hegesippus, and Irenaeus who all agree that Domitian did persecute the Church at one point and exile John to Patmos. I don’t think much more needs to be said. It does not have to be widespread persecution. The fact is that there is not a single source that gives us an early date for the Revelation while it is unanimous from Church history that there is a later date seen in mind by virtually all writers and historians even until the 6th and 7th Centuries respectively where we find a few sources that point to considering Nero in mind like the “616” manuscript we have discussed in my first affirmative for example. Though we must, due to intellectual honesty and integrity to academia and scholarship, say none of this is definitive for the latter date being the date it was written, we still have plenty of evidence to support this to be the case as I have shown while Don has nothing definitive and only has what amounts to a “because I said so” argument and a flurry of ad hominem statements that wreck any credibility he might have had in this debate.

I will also note this. Preston claims Jesus was not crucified by or in Rome but in fact, Jerusalem and the Judean province were part of Rome so yes, Jesus was technically very much crucified in Rome and a Roman city and a Roman province, but I digress. Nothing here anyway determines the date of Revelation as Preston continues to blabber on and on with his pointless interpretation of Scripture that does not give us any definitive date at all. It is not definitive just because Don Preston wants it to be so and because he makes up some interpretation that he wants all people to believe to be without error.

Preston tries to berate me for giving a 10th Century source about St. Antipas he claims is highly questionable but yet, I have given an actual source for my affirmation while Preston, who claimed he would give something definitive throughout this entire debate could not do so. Preston claims that there is “Catholic tradition that says Antipas was slain by Nero” and then gives a video of himself which can only be described as a non-answer and an incoherent rambling for 16 minutes where he proves nothing and wastes everyone’s time here. He does not give a single mention of this supposed “Catholic tradition” in this video that is supposed to share the source. He then gives a claim about Cornelius A Lapide being the only commentary according to DeMar, Gumerlock, and Schaff to talk about the Forum of the Ox. Concerning these three, the Forum of the Ox was used as punishment for a long time. The statue we know was brought to Constantinople from Pergamum in Asia Minor and according to the Patrologia Latina, it was used to persecute Christians by Julian the Apostate (361-363 CE) and notably, Emperor Heraclius (610-641) had it melted and used it before that to have Emperor Phocas’ head and body burned down in 610 CE, which they note in Byzantine history books that this is believed to be the same bull that St. Antipas was martyred in. While we cannot definitively prove that this bull is or was the same bull (and it very well may not be so) there is something to be said there that this is talked about in historical data. We don’t have omniscience so DeMar, Gumerlock, and Schaff may not know of this source which is fine. Either way, this is not definitive but as far as I can tell these people are mistaken on some level about the origin of the martyrdom story evidence but even if this could be argued against or shown to be falsified, it still does not matter since there are proofs given whereas in this debate Preston has given absolutely nothing to make his claims 100% conclusive.

Preston claims that Robinson proves that there was a distinction made between the Jews and Christians and claims this was an established certainty. Whether that is the case or not, none of this makes it definitive about the date of Revelation. Robinson tries to make a case for the dating but he even admits that he has nothing that gives 100% definitive and conclusive evidence to make it an established fact. Preston tries and fails to make some “refutation” about Jude’s grandchildren and falls flat. Domitian could have been prone to exile people and not have them killed. A Roman Emperor could do whatever he wanted for any reason. He could have had Jude’s grandchildren killed but as the historians state, Domitian chose not to do so, and instead the biggest thing the historians' state is that he exiled John to Patmos, a clear statement made by Eusebius and Hegesippus and backed by Irenaeus. This could very well be accurate. When Domitian exiled John to Patmos, John wrote the Revelation and when Nerva became emperor, John would have been released, and then as the historians state, he could have very well died in the reign of Trajan as is stated. Polycrates certainly believes he died in the reign of Trajan and this is confirmed by other patristics. Preston just presumes in a typical asinine fashion that his interpretation of Revelation has to be the correct one and everyone else’s interpretation is damned and false and stupid. John nor any historian nor patristic ever once claim the Revelation was fulfilled in 70 CE. We can conclude as well easily that the Church does not believe the Revelation is fulfilled. What the historians show us is that the Revelation was seen to be written in Domitian’s reign according to the historians and their sources. We have our sourcing from St. Hegesippus writing from 110-180 CE that John died in the reign of Trajan and wrote the Revelation after 70 CE. Compare this to Mr. Preston who has nothing but his interpretation of scripture that is attested to be false (him being a full preterist) by literally everyone in scholarship and academia and in the realm of atheism, agnosticism, history, along with biblical scholarship in Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox circles all being in agreement when full preterism is brought up as a topic that it has no legitimacy at all.

Preston asks why I spend time talking about the martyrdom of Symeon, son of Clopas. Did Preston just not read the 2nd Affirmative? I make quite clear why I mention this. In Chapter 32-33, Eusebius continues confirming historical facts about the period that the descendants of Jude, John, and Symeon lived under during the reign of Domitian, which continued to happen even to the reign of Trajan and onward. Preston, therefore, lies when he claims this information is unimportant. This information collaborates the data I give in the second affirmative before that.

Preston tries to use some scholar named Moss and claims because she doesn’t mention Domitian that I must therefore be false. If we can trust Preston read Moss correctly, then apparently he believes as she apparently does that Eusebius fabricated everything he said for political purposes. This must also apparently mean that Hegesippus fabricated everything too as did Irenaeus and Polycrates who confirms John died in the reign of Trajan and knew Polycarp and Irenaeus, two people who knew John for some time. Apparently, the only one anyone can trust is Preston and his infallible interpretation of scripture (Note to the reader: this is sarcasm as Don is definitively not infallible, not even close).

Preston claims I ignore Apollonius of Tyana saying Nero was called a tyrant… I did not mention him but that does not mean I ignored him. Him not calling Domitian a tyrant doesn’t mean anything except that this one person didn’t call Domitian a tyrant. There are plenty of sources in history that call Domitian a tyrant as well just as there are claims that Nero is a tyrant. If this is supposed to be an attempt at a “got you” moment, Preston has absolutely failed to do so.

Preston berates me over my usage of Clement of Alexandria and tries to use the Stromata to claim that inspiration ended in the days of Nero. The patristics do not teach cessation. Preston is a cessationist but his belief is not adhered to by the patristics nor any in the Early Church. His belief system is innovation and nothing more than an ahistorical belief just like his full preterism, put up by Restoration types in the Church of Christ denomination that think everyone was wrong until he, Preston showed up to grace us with his presence. There is no reason to take his claims here seriously since Clement does not believe in the cessation of God inspiring people. This is nothing more than Preston misinterpreting the texts of the patristic writers to try to back his fallacious claims.

Preston lies and claims I believe Peter did not write 1 Peter. I will say there are good arguments to be made that it is a posthumous work done at the hand of someone like St. Stephanus perhaps who would have been an amanuensis for Peter but an amanuensis is still writing for the writer and will write as the writer would have wished. Preston’s lack of integrity is noted for lying about me here but this has been how this entire debate has pretty well gone. Preston then lies again and claims that I say Revelation may have been fabricated. I do not actually make this claim and it just shows his continuous lack of integrity and character on Preston’s part to be unprofessional in this manner and lie in the middle of a formal written debate. I have nothing more to give here. Preston claims I will give nothing but insults and silence but in fact, he has done nothing but make insults about me and not answer in the proper scholarly matter. His lies are quite disgusting and his lack of integrity is quite insulting. This is not Christian behavior.

Tacitus does not refute me as Preston claims. Nero does exile some people and I never claimed otherwise. I do claim that Nero preferred to execute more than he exiled but Preston maliciously lies here again by misrepresenting my position showing his disgusting behavior and disregard for honesty and integrity. This is again non-Christian behavior.

I give The Acts of John as evidence and Preston tries to disregard it by claiming it is a heretical work according to the Council of Nicaea (a Council he cares nothing about and doesn’t agree with, to begin with). It does not matter if this work is considered heresy. It is a 2nd Century work and I am not arguing over inspiration. I just note that it references John’s exile by Domitian and I list it because it is history. It doesn’t matter if Don thinks the text is goofy for having John pray for bedbugs to leave or thinks it is strange. His personal opinion is irrelevant. Most people think that Don Preston’s belief that Jesus came back in 70 CE is ridiculous and all of Christendom declares full preterism a heresy since we’ve decided to disregard historical documents just because someone like Preston thinks something it says is goofy. Preston’s argument here is entirely irrelevant.

Preston’s claims about Irenaeus are disputed in Orthodox circles. John Behr does not claim anything Preston claims in any definitive way. Behr makes arguments in a scholarly fashion, unlike Don Preston. Mr. Preston should not concoct lies about people. Dean Furlong well can claim whatever he likes but he does not have anyway - as no one does - to prove definitively that the Revelation was written in the reign of Nero or Domitian. No one does and anyone who claims they do is not being truthful. I would not trust Dean Furlong’s “scholarship” if he claims it is an established fact that Revelation was written before 70 CE as it is not. It is, as of now, an established fact that we do not have the exact date of Revelation when it was written.

He claims that we should find “direct, definitive testimony” to Domitian worship… I have given sources for the imperial worship already. Domitian had a neokorate dedicated to the worship of himself along with his brother Titus and father Vespasian. I have given more than enough proof for this. We have the historical evidence for this and Preston’s claim that there is no biblical record of such persecution is not factual. If Revelation was written after 70 CE then it is in fact a “biblical record”. We can’t be definitive about that but if it is, then it is in fact one. We have historians all in agreement about this as I have noted. To suggest there is no evidence at all like Preston does is simply intellectually dishonest.

Preston lies yet again claiming I want to convince the reader that he is a false teacher for taking the early dating of Revelation. I have claimed no such thing in this debate. This is not Christian behavior to make up lies about me and Preston quite simply needs to quit being a liar. If he wants to be a Christian since he is not being one by being a bold-faced liar and slandering me with false claims he can do so and be one by repenting of his slander and lies. Preston shows no integrity whatsoever here.

I will say this clearly to the reader: I do not believe early date advocates are liars or false teachers. Early date believers are not heretics. Early date believers can be and are Christians just as much as of late date believers are.

Since Preston has decided to be personal though, I do in fact believe he is a false teacher and a heretic but it is not for believing in the early date of Revelation. I think he is a false teacher and a heretic and not a Christian because of multiple reasons. He denies Christ is fully God and fully human. He believes Christ’s incarnation burned up in the Ascension. He endorses teachers like William Bell, who teaches young men to be open polygamist marriages. Preston denies and intentionally misinterprets the resurrection of the dead. Most importantly, Preston exhibits ungodly behavior which is evidenced all throughout this debate since he is clearly and openly willing to lie about others and misrepresent others. No Christian should have to lie and show the complete lack of character and the lack of integrity like Mr. Preston has shown here throughout this entire debate. With that, I have given more than enough evidence throughout my negatives and affirmatives while Don Preston has done nothing to prove his affirmative. Throughout this debate Preston was to prove definitively that Revelation was written before 70 CE and there was not a single point through this debate where he managed to do so, failing on every level to do so. My affirmative and objective were to show that while not definitive, there is plenty of evidence to support a late date for Revelation being the case. I have obviously done so. Preston has not. Thus, Preston loses the debate and only continues to fall even further with his sad and pathetic exhibition of ungodly and antichrist behavior throughout this debate showing he has no problem with lying and misrepresenting others, shows he has a complete lack of respect, decorum, and a complete lack of integrity and has unfortunately shown he cannot be a professional nor a scholar in any sense of the word for this debate at all.

Conclusion:

To conclude this, Don Preston is no expert debater. It is clear from this debate that he has obviously lost the ability to tell the truth and instead can only persist in lie after lie. It is clear he has not proven his affirmative as he was assigned to do in this debate. He has not proven definitively that Revelation was written in 70 CE and has thus lost the debate as, ultimately, whether you agree or disagree with the late date of Revelation, I did prove my point by sticking to my objective in the debate and proving my objective, whereas Preston failed to do so. Additionally, it is abundantly clear that since he could not do so and prove his position he resorted to fallacy upon fallacy throughout this entire debate and will likely do so in his final negative as well. He could do nothing more than constant ad hominem statements. It is clear he could not be professional, lacks intellectual honesty, lacks proper Christian decorum, and shows a complete and utter lack of integrity when it comes to debate. I cannot stress enough the lack of integrity he has shown here for it is utterly detestable behavior. This man is no scholar ladies and gentlemen. This man can not claim the title of Christian as Christians do not have to resort to constantly lying about their opposition which Preston does here. I would ask the reader to pray for his repentance and hope that Mr. Preston gets a grip on reality and truth and stops resorting to his most ungodly and antichristian behavior. 

---

Don Preston's Final Negative:

Before I present my final negative, here is what you need to know.

Sergius Bale is NOT the real name of my opponent. It was revealed on FB on 12-7-2021, that his true identity is Lance Conley.

What that means is that Bale / Conley, lied about his true identity.

He lied about being born in Greece and that Greek is his first language.

He lied, repeatedly, constantly claiming to have a Phd.

He lied, repeatedly, when he claimed to be a university professor in Australia.

In sum, he lied about everything concerning himself.

Some months ago, a private messenger suggested to me that Bale was actually Conley. So, I asked Bale pointedly if his true name was Sergius Bale, was true. He affirmed that it was. Now, the truth comes out that he lied from the very beginning.

Conley is known to be a mentally disturbed young man, with anger issues and clearly, whose poisonous tongue manifests itself in vicious attacks against anyone that differs with him. That is exhibited in his final Affirmative.

What is truly amazing and sad is that when he was exposed on the FB page, Full Preterism: A Thing of the Past, (where he admitted to lying about his true identity), he said his constant lying did not hurt anyone, therefore, he did nothing wrong. He exhibited no remorse, no repentance, and no apology for his long time lying. In fact, since exposed, he has actually bragged about the entire situation, even saying he has been doing this kind of thing for years.

To compound the tragedy, it was revealed that many of the anti-preterists on that forum knew, for a long while, of his lies, and NOT ONE OF THEM spoke out against his lying. Some actually said they knew of it for a while and thought it was “funny”, “harmless” and no big deal. How is lying ever funny or harmless? Shocking, shameful and disgraceful!!

Think about that! People who call themselves Christians refusing to condemn blatant, willful, habitual lying!

Proverbs says there are seven things that are an abomination to God; one of those is “a lying tongue”. But the anti-prets on that page think it is no big deal and even funny. In fact, I was told that I have no right to express moral outrage, because “we are all sinners” and “let the one without sin cast the first stone.” According to such ludicrous logic, no Christian can speak out against any sin, because, after all, “we are all sinners”. So, the main anti-prets on that page including William Vincent the owner of the page- refused to condemn what they knew to be purposeful lies. BUT THEY CONDEMNED ME FOR SPEAKING OUT AGAINST IT! That speaks volumes about the lack of moral character of the owner of that site who allowed it to carry on, and the anti-preterists that have refused to condemn the lies of Conley.

With these facts before us, let me summarize what we have seen in this debate.

In my affirmatives: I demonstrated the direct connection between Deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 2-4, Matthew 23, Luke 23:28-31, 2 Thessalonians 1, and Revelation. Each of these texts speak of the vindication of the martyrs- in Israel=s last days. Revelation 19 even echoes Deuteronomy 32:43.

I challenged Bale (Conley) to show that these texts are not related, since, if they are related, Revelation, being the anticipation of the fulfillment of the earlier texts, was the prediction of the imminent destruction of Jerusalem for her guilt of killing the OT prophets, of Jesus, and Jesus = apostles and prophets. Totally ignored except to say that my interpretation means nothing. That is not refutation.

For Bale to falsify any of this he must demonstrate definitively- that Israel and her blood guilt is NOT the focus in this unbroken chain of evidence. He admitted repeatedly that he cannot do this! All he has done is ridicule all scriptural arguments! Think about that. Rome is not in Deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 2-4, and Matthew 23:29f, Luke 23:28-31, Thessalonians, or Revelation. Deuteronomy 32 predicted the vindication of the martyrs in the judgment of Israel in her last days. Revelation is about the vindication of the martyrs in the last days, in the judgment of Babylon, the city where the Lord was crucified. Bale=s response was to say that since none of the texts specifically mention the dating of Revelation or Babylon that they cannot be speaking of Revelation or Babylon. This exposes his hermeneutical fallacy, since to demand that any given text use certain explicit language is specious. I challenged Conley to cite any accepted book on hermeneutic that says a text must explicitly say something for a given truth to be accepted. He did not even try. He knows he can=t and that his hermeneutic is false. I proved that Revelation says that Babylon, had killed the OT prophets. It is where the Lord was crucified. It is the city guilty of shedding the blood of Jesus= apostles and prophets. ONLY JERUSALEM had ever done or could ever done this.

Bale argued that if he could find that a prophet had been killed in any other city this negated the argument. Clearly false. I asked him repeatedly who Jesus accused of these crimes. He refused to answer. I proved that both Jesus and Paul identified Jerusalem as the city guilty of killing the OT prophets, Jesus and the apostles and prophets. Revelation likewise identifies Babylon as the city guilty of those crimes, proving that Babylon could be no other than Jerusalem. Babylon in Revelation was spiritually called Sodom. The only city in the Bible ever spiritually called Sodom was Old Covenant Jerusalem. Therefore, Babylon in Revelation was Old Covenant Jerusalem. Totally ignored.

I offered this: All the blood of all the righteous, including the prophets, of Jesus and Jesus' apostles and prophets, would be avenged in the destruction of Jerusalem-- Jesus. All the blood of all the righteous, including the prophets, Jesus and Jesus= apostles and prophets, would be avenged in the destruction of Babylon-- Revelation. Therefore, Babylon was Jerusalem. Since Revelation was written before the destruction of Babylon, that means Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. The arguments were ignored. REVELATION- A BOOK OF JEWISH CHRISTIAN HOPE? In my 1st negative I argued that the book of Revelation is a preeminently Jewish book, about the imminent fulfillment of God=s OC promises made to OC Israel. I cited scholarship in support;

Bale ignored that testimony. 

This is supported by the fact that in Revelation 6, the blood of the martyrs is at the base of the altar. This is Jewish Temple imagery, (not pagan) strongly suggesting Jewish culpability for shedding the blood of the martyrs. Bale tried to escape from this by saying “I never said this was a pagan altar!” Well, if Revelation is not about Israel, or the Jewish temple, but about Rome, then what altar is depicted here? It can=t- per Bale be the Jerusalem temple altar! By eliminating THAT altar, he has in fact logically insinuated that the altar of Revelation symbolized a pagan altar! He entrapped himself- as usual.

Bale ignored my citation of scholarship. Early on, Bale ridiculed me for not citing “Scholars”. But when I do, he ignored the citations or rejected them. I guess only the scholars that he cites are truly scholars.

Bale responded: “Don claims Revelation is a Jewish book” this is a Christian writing. In his final, he doubles down on this, insisting that since John was a Christian that he could not have been writing about the imminent fulfillment of the OT promises made to Israel! This is the very epitome of bad logic.

Conley is totally out of touch with the Biblical narrative! How does the fact that Revelation is a Christian writing negate the fact that it is focused on the fulfillment of God’s OC promises made to Old Covenant Israel? All the first Christians were Jews, convinced the Jesus was the fulfillment of their OC kingdom hope.

Peter’s eschatology, (Acts 3:19-24 / 2 Peter 3:1-2, 13), Paul's eschatology (Acts 24:14f; 26:6f, 21f), and John’s eschatology was nothing but their expectation of the imminent fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises made to OC Israel. Their statements cannot be construed otherwise, without perverting them.

Scholarship is virtually united in positing Isaiah 65-66 as the source of both 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21. Conley admitted THAT IT IS! He defeated his own claim that Revelation is not about the fulfillment of God=s OC promises made to OC Israel!

I documented that virtually all scholars agree that John was anticipating the resurrection and the New Creation foretold in Isaiah 25-27, 65-66, Daniel 12:2, Ezekiel 37, the book of Zechariah, etc.. These were THE OLD TESTAMENT PROMISES MADE TO OLD COVENANT ISRAEL! How did Bale respond? Ignored the entire argument.

Here is why this is so important and relevant: The New Creation- and the resurrection prophesied by Isaiah 65-66- Ezekiel 37, Daniel 12, etc.)- is the same New Creation / resurrection anticipated by Revelation 20-22 (Conley agrees). But the New Creation of Isaiah 65-66 / resurrection would arrive when God destroyed OC Israel (Isaiah 65:13-17 / Daniel 12:7). Therefore, the New Creation of Isaiah 65-66 would arrive when God destroyed OC Israel.

This is confirmed by the fact that the New Creation of Revelation would 6 come when the city “where the Lord was crucified” was destroyed.

Paul said that if ANYONE taught a different Gospel from that which he taught, he was anathema. Thus, if John’s eschatology was different from Paul’s, (undeniably from the Tanakh), then Bale is accusing John of teaching a different gospel. And he is himself teaching another Gospel. Conley engaged in a personal attack on me, but did not address the argument.

Of course, Conley does not believe that Revelation is about the imminent fulfillment of ANYTHING because he claims it is about the destruction of Rome FOUR CENTURIES REMOVED FROM JOHN’S “DO NOT SEAL THE VISION OF THIS BOOK, FOR THE TIME IS AT HAND”. Sorry, “Behold, I come quickly”; “do not seal the vision of the book, for the time is at hand,” does not equate to 400 years! Totally ignored.

I argued from Matthew 23:29f:

Fact: Jesus: Jerusalem killed the prophets.

Fact: She would also kill him (Matthew 21:33f).

Fact: She would kill Jesus= apostles and prophets.

Fact: She was guilty of all the blood shed on the earth.

Fact: She would fill the measure of her father=s blood guilt, and be destroyed in the first century generation.

These are not disputable facts, unless you want to pervert the text. BALE NEVER ANSWERED THIS. HE CAN’T.

ONLY JERUSALEM DID OR COULD DO WHAT REVELATION SAYS “BABYLON” HAD DONE! ROME DIDN’T AND COULDN’T. Bale never answered this.

Revelation says that Babylon is “where the Lord was crucified”. Bale tells us that in actuality, ROME IS WHERE THE LORD WAS CRUCIFIED! Amazing. No, Mr. Bale, Rome was not the city “Where the Lord was crucified”, or the city spiritually called Sodom. In the Bible, Jerusalem is the only city ever spiritually designated as Sodom. Bale was so desperate to avoid these historical and scriptural facts, that he spiritualized “where the Lord was crucified” WHICH IS THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SPIRITUAL DESIGNATION OF SODOM AND EGYPT. Being the interpretation, it is not a spiritual designation. Bale turns the interpretation of Sodom and Egypt into another symbol.

Fact: In Revelation 6:9f, the martyrs were told to rest for a little while for their vindication. Bale would have that to be hundreds of years! Totally ignored.

Fact: Revelation 6:12f - Their vindication would come at the Day of the Lord, when men would run to the mountains, hide in the caves and cry “fall on us” A DIRECT QUOTE OF ISAIAH 2:19F! Significantly, Bale “responded” to this by claiming (again) that I overtly lied when I said that Revelation 6 is quoting Isaiah 2:19.

Well, Isaiah 2:19 (parallel Hosea 10:8)- men would run to the hills, hide in the caves and say to the rocks “fall on us” Revelation 6:16: “every free man, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains, and said to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us!” Yet we supposed to believe that Revelation is not quoting from Isaiah! Bale’s ridicule proves nothing.

FACT- Isaiah 2-4 is irrefutably a prophecy of the last days Day of the Lord when the martyrs would be vindicated by the destruction of Jerusalem.

FACT: Jesus undeniably applied Isaiah 2:19f to the coming judgment on Jerusalem for killing him- Luke 23:28-31. Virtually all scholars agree that Jesus was citing Isaiah (parallel of Hosea 10:8) - applying it to AD 70.

FACT: Paul applied the same verses from Isaiah that Jesus applied to AD 70, to the coming judgment of the Jews for persecuting the saints. Again, Bale claimed that I lied when I said Paul was citing / quoting Isaiah. He is ignorant of scholarship. John A. T. Robinson, Jesus and His Coming, (Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1979), 107, n. 1 says that 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is “almost an exact quotation of Isaiah 2:19f.” Charles Wanamaker likewise says that v. 9 “reproduces the text of Isaiah 2:9f / 19f” (New International Greek Text Commentary, (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, Paternoster, 1990), 229). More citations could be given. Bale is denying the undeniable.

FACT- John- like Jesus and Paul- cited Isaiah to speak of the coming soon, (not centuries away) judgment on “Babylon” for killing the prophets, Jesus, and Jesus= apostles and prophets. Jesus had earlier explicitly laid the blame for killing the prophets, himself, and his apostles and prophets at the feet of Jerusalem (Matthew 23 / Luke 11:49). Not Rome - no other city - Jerusalem.

Conley says all of this is my own personal, subjective interpretation, and therefore, irrelevant. He says I lie when I say that John quoted from Isaiah. No, scholars agree that Jesus quoted from Isaiah, Paul quoted the same verses. John quoted the identical verse. Bale made no effort to prove the argument wrong. He simply ridiculed.

In my final affirmative I offered two arguments from Daniel 9: Seventy weeks were determined to seal vision and prophecy. Seventy weeks were determined to seal vision and prophecy.

I cited a host of scholars from across the theological spectrum in support. All he did was scoff at that scholarship.

I offered this: Seventy Weeks were determined on Jerusalem to fulfill ALL vision and prophecy. (Daniel 9 is not about a singular specific prophecy, but vision and prophecy comprehensively considered, as scholarship confirms). The Seventy Weeks would end no later than the destruction of Jerusalem. (In AD 70- per Jesus). All things written would be fulfilled at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:22) the city where the Lord was crucified i.e. Babylon (Revelation 10:7 / 11:8f). Therefore, Babylon of Revelation, the city where the Lord was crucified, was Jerusalem.

Conley deflected the power of this by telling us how controversial Daniel 9 is, therefore my argument cannot be accepted. So, per Bale, if something is highly controversial, it cannot be true! Well... The very existence of Jesus is “highly controversial”.

The Deity of Christ is “hotly debated”.

The inspiration of scripture is hotly debated.

The resurrection of Jesus is one of the most controversial claims in history!

The fact that something is hotly debated, highly controversial, does not mean that a person cannot know it is true. If so, we can just cast the Bible and Christianity aside.

Matthew 21:33f

The parable of the Vineyard and Wicked Husbandmen is an echo of Daniel 9 – “to finish the transgression”. Israel was the Vineyard of the Lord (Isaiah 5). This is not a subjective interpretation.

We have the time of the harvest of the vineyard.

We have the persecution of the saints and the Son- filling up the measure of sin.

We have the destruction of the persecutors AT THE COMING OF THE LORD.

Like Daniel all of it relates to Israel as the persecutor and the prediction (s) of the coming destruction of Jerusalem. Nothing about Domitian or Rome here!

I asked Conley, does Matthew 21:33f predict the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem for persecuting the saints? No answer.

Notice now Revelation 14:

V. 6-8 - The announcement of the Judgment of Babylon (the city where the Lord was crucified) had come; her judgment was at hand.

This is the Father, who knew the Day and the Hour of the end, declaring that the hour had come. The destruction of Rome 450 years later violates the language of “at hand” and, “has come”.

V. 18f- Another angel came out from the altar, who had power over fire, and he cried..., saying, “Thrust in your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth, for her grapes are fully ripe”. This is the same altar where the martyrs were- once again pointing us to a “Jewish” context.

Unless Bale can prove- definitively - that John is using the imagery of the Vine / vineyard in a way divorced from its OT source, this effectively proves that Revelation 14 is parallel with Matthew 21 in predicting the coming, imminent destruction of Jerusalem. That proves that Revelation was written before AD 70. Totally ignored.

The NT is clear that the time of the harvest had come. It was announced by John the Baptizer (Matthew 3:7-12), and by Jesus (John 4:35). It was to occur at the end of the age, in fulfillment of Daniel 12:3-7, which is explicitly posited for the time when the power of the holy people would be completely shattered (Daniel 12:3B>Matthew 13:43). Paul said that the end of the ages had come (1 Corinthians 10:11). Conley totally ignored this.

I asked Conley / Bale: Is the vineyard in Matthew 21 different from Revelation 14? Ignored. Is the time of the harvest in Matthew 21 different from the harvest in Revelation 14? Ignored.

Is the coming of the Lord to destroy the persecutors in Matthew 21 a different coming of the Lord to judge the persecutors from that in Revelation 14? Ignored.

Matthew 22 and the Wedding

Matthew 22 - A king made a Wedding Feast for his Son. I asked - to whom was the promise of the Wedding given? The Tanakh is definitive: It was Israel, Hosea 2:19f I will betroth you to me again... Isaiah 62: You shall no longer be forsaken.... you shall be called Beulah (married). IGNORED.

Note: The wedding of Isaiah 62 would be at the coming of the Lord in judgment (v. 10-12). This is quoted directly by Jesus in Matthew 16:27, and emphatically said to take place in the first century generation - v. 28. In Revelation 22:12, Jesus reiterated Matthew 16:27, (and Isaiah 62) saying, Behold I come quickly. Thus, the Wedding of Revelation was to occur in the lifetime of the first century generation. Matthew 22- and Revelation - is about God fulfilling His promise to Are-marry” Israel. It has nothing to do with Rome, WHO WAS NEVER MARRIED (AND NEVER DIVORCED) TO YHVH. IGNORED.

The servants sent to invite the guests were persecuted and slain. This is the message found in Matthew 23:34B “I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city”.

v. 7: “But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.”

In Revelation, the Harlot, persecuting city, is burned with fire (Revelation 17:10f). At the destruction of the persecuting city, the Wedding took place (19:6-8).

I asked: In Matthew 21 what city persecuted the saints, and as a result, the “King” sent out His armies and burned that city? If this was not Jerusalem, what city was it? IGNORED.

I asked: Is the persecuting city of Matthew 22 the persecuting city of Revelation? IGNORED.

In Revelation we find that- just as in Matthew 22 - the Wedding takes place at the destruction of a city, i.e. Babylon.

19:5f - I heard a loud voice ... in heaven, saying, “Alleluia! ....because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; and He has avenged on her the blood of His servants shed by her”. And I heard ... a great multitude... saying... Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.”

This Babylon was the city that killed the prophets (16:6). She is where the Lord was crucified (11:8). She killed the apostles and prophets of Jesus (18:20-24). Her destruction is the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 32:43 the prophecy of Israel=s last days. It is not about Rome. - as proven in my 2nd Affirmative. IGNORED BY BALE.

Babylon was THE GREAT HARLOT. In the Tanakh- the source of Revelation- the word “harlot” is used to speak of A WIFE THAT HAS VIOLATED THE MARRIAGE COVENANT:

“In the OT, almost all of the occurrences of the prostitution metaphor (86 / 91) apply to the people of the Covenant (Israel, Judah or Jerusalem).” (Sebastian R Smolarz, Covenant and the Metaphor of Divine Marriage in Biblical Thought, (Eugene, Ore., Wipf and Stock,2011), 8f). IGNORED.

Jesus called Jerusalem an “adulterous generation” three times (Matthew 12:39; 16:4; Mark 8:38). What other city than Jerusalem was an adulterous wife, Mr. Bale? IGNORED.

YHVH was NEVER MARRIED TO ROME. Rome could not be an adulterous, (harlot) wife. Only Old Covenant Jerusalem was EVER married to the Lord, divorced and given the promise of being re-married. IGNORED.

Mr. Bale, if Babylon is Rome, when was YHVH EVER married to her? Did the Lord marry a pagan city and call her “the new Jerusalem”? IGNORED.

Mr. Bale, is the Wedding of Matthew 22 different from the Wedding in Revelation? IGNORED.

Is the persecuting city in Matthew 22 different from the persecuting city the city that killed the prophets, Jesus and Jesus’ apostles and prophets- in Revelation? If so, PROVE IT! IGNORED.

The persecuting city of Matthew 22, (that was to be destroyed for persecuting the servants of the Lord), was first century, Old Covenant Jerusalem. The persecuting city of Revelation, Babylon, was about to be destroyed for persecuting the OT prophets, Jesus, and Jesus’ apostles and prophets. Therefore, Babylon of Revelation was first century, Old Covenant Jerusalem unless Bale can definitively prove otherwise. (He has admitted that he cannot prove this wrong!)

All we got from Bale is more vitriol, more claims that the arguments are irrelevant.

He offered us speculations from archaeology - none of which proved anything. In fact, I shared this:

Ken Laffer says: “Early attempts to use archeology to prove that certain Christian individuals were involved in the alleged persecution have, in recent times, found to be faulty and in need of correction. Improved assessments of dating techniques have effectively placed the key individuals outside the persecution time frame that could have involved Domitian. .... It is extremely likely that Domitian was not as bad as he has been portrayed and that he did not persecute Roman Christians at any time during his troubled rule.” (The Alleged Persecution of Roman Christians by Domitian, Ken Laffer, Doctoral Thesis, Edith Cowan University, 2005; Retrieved from https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/639). IGNORED.

He tried to argue that John was banished, and that Nero was not known for banishing people, but killing them, in contrast to Domitian who preferred banishment. I demonstrated that this is not true, as we have record of Nero banishing many people. Thus, his supposed argument failed.

He argued that Domitian may have been referred to as “the beast that rises from the sea” inferring a connection with Revelation 13. But of course, he did not PROVE such as connection, and as I noted, earlier testimony (Apollonius- 1st century) called Nero the worst of all beasts! But Bale prefers late testimony to that of John’s contemporaries!

He called attention to Domitian’s megalomania. In my response, I noted that he did not document with even one citation, ANY PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS FOR NOT WORSHIPING HIM! He noted that Domitian persecuted Jews but did not- COULD NOT - document that he persecuted the church!

Bale tried to counter this by claiming that in the time of Domitian, “Jew and Christians were mostly seen as two rivaling sects of Judaism versus each other rather than two distinct sects”. False. A. T. Robinson said that by the time of Domitian, the distinction between Jews and Christians was an established “certainty” and became so, “in the summer of 64. .... both Nero and Rome now clearly distinguished between the religio licita and the new sect”. (Redating, 294). Conley says even if this is true it does not prove anything. Wrong. It proves that since Domitilla and Clemens were killed for converting to Judaism, they were not persecuted as Christians. Conley is ignoring the evidence.

In regard to Domitian’s megalomania, Bale says: “We must note that the poet Statius in Silvae 1.6:83-84 does claim that Domitian rejected the titles. However, the majority consensus of historians at the time seems to suggest that Domitian did claim deity while living”. Bale ignores key facts. He just tells us that a poet claims that Domitian rejected the exalted titles. That is not the whole story.

Robert Briggs points out that it was DOMITIAN=S OWN PERSONAL HISTORIANS, Statius [the poet, DKP] and Quintillian, who record how he would not allow men to deify him (Robert Briggs, Jewish Temple Imagery in the Book of Revelation, Studies in Biblical Literature, (New York, Peter Lang, 1999), 33, n. 93). Thus, it was not just “a poet” in view. IT WAS DOMITIAN’S OWN 13 PERSONAL HISTORIANS WHO SAID HE REJECTED THE TITLES OF DEIFICATION. Bale purposefully ignored these inconvenient facts.

Conley admitted that the supposed Domitianic persecution of the church began in the last year of Domitian’s reign. This means, by his own admission, that Domitian’s persecution LASTED ONE YEAR- AT MOST!

That contradicts the long history of persecution found in Revelation. Babylon (Rome per Bale) had a long bloody history of killing the OT prophets (FACT: ROME NEVER DID THIS! Period). Rome is not where the Lord was crucified. Even granting for argument sake that Domitian may have persecuted some isolated individual Christians, he still only did so for ONE YEAR AT THE MOST! Totally ignored.

Robinson says of the proposed Domitianic persecution, that Conley admits was local and brief: “When this limited and selective purge, in which no Christian was for certain put to death, is compared with the massacre of Christians under Nero in what two early and independent witnesses speak of as ‘immense multitudes’ it is astonishing that commentators should have been led by Irenaeus, who himself does not even mention a persecution, to prefer a Domitian context for the book of Revelation” (Redating, 233).

Conley said none of this proves anything but of course, it does. It proves that the widespread, long term severe persecution of Revelation cannot be the short term, limited and localized A Domitian persecution that Bale posits. His own words refute him! We are to also ignore what Jesus and Paul said about Israel filling the measure of her sin, in the first century, for the killing of the OT prophets, of Jesus, and Jesus= apostles and prophets. And we are to believe that Domitian’s ONE YEAR AT MOST had filled the measure of Rome’s guilt. Bale ignored this completely. Revelation says the Beast “Domitian”, per Sergius, was to persecute for 3 2 years- Revelation 13.

So, according to Revelation, the Beast, ostensibly Domitian, was to persecute the church for 3 1/2 years. Yet, per Bale, Domitian did not begin persecuting the church until THE LAST YEAR OF HIS REIGN! TOTALLY IGNORED.

Bale offered us four count them FOUR- supposed cases of Domitianic persecution of the church. Not one of his cases can be proven to be: 1. Persecution by Domitian, 2. Persecution of Christians! And the fact that he gave us “The Acts of John” a fictive, phantasmagoric work in support of his claims proves that he knows he has no solid definitive proof for his proposition. Amazingly, he comes back defending his use of this fictive book even though scholars and even the creeds reject it.

ANTIPAS - There is no solid evidence that Antipas was killed by Domitian. The supposed “evidence” was written centuries after the fact and is “hotly debated” and rejected as spurious. He tried to escape from this by simply criticizing the scholars I cited. That is not an answer. His appeal to the case of Domitilla and Clemens are examples, not of Christian persecution but Jewish. When I shattered this argument he said that it does not matter because all he had to do was to show that there was potentially a persecution! Nonsense. Revelation is not about a potential persecution, but a major, widespread, on-going persecution. Yet, Conley admitted that if Domitian persecuted at all, it was localized, and short-lived. This contradicts Revelation. He gave not one keystroke of proof that Domitian did what Revelation describes.

Again, his own admissions refute him. His appeal to the descendants of Jude is specious: THEY WERE NOT EXILED OR KILLED. They were not punished in any way. They were interrogated, and released! That is NOT PERSECUTION! But, per Bale, they were Christian martyrs! Conley says this proves nothing because Domitian “could have” exiled them and not had them killed. No, that violates the record. They were not persecuted AT ALL- PERIOD!

Incredibly he gave us the example of Symeon of Clophas! Reader, that case took place NOT UNDER DOMITIAN, BUT UNDER TRAJAN! Why would Bale appeal to this case of persecution to prove a Domitian persecution of the church, when it took place well after the time of Domitian?? He tries to deflect from his error by claiming that Symeon’s persecution was just a continuation of Domitian=s persecution. That is his personal, subjective (UNPROVEN) interpretation, and does not negate my point that his death was not under Domitian.

Conley claims that he did not have to even prove that Domitian actually persecuted the church but rather that that “there was potentially persecution”. Total nonsense. REVELATION TALKS ABOUT ACTUAL PERSECUTION. We KNOW Nero did that; we do NOT know that Domitian did.

I cited Candida Moss, early church historian, WHO OMITS ANY MENTION OF PERSECUTION UNDER DOMITIAN. She also claims that the descriptions of persecution by Eusebius were in many cases fabrications for political purposes. All Bale could do is to impugn her scholarship of which he knows nothing. She is professor Of New Testament and Early Christianity at Notre Dame, and is a graduate of Oxford and Yale. Her specialty is early church history and Christian persecution. But I guess Conley knows more than she does. The Roman Emperors Revelation speaks of the emperors of Rome, and says: “There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time”.

According to the ancient sources closest to the first century Roman situation, (with the exception of Tacitus) they all say - definitively - that Julius was the first emperor. This included Josephus, Suetonius, Dio Cassius, The Sibylline Oracles (5:12) and 2 Esdras 12:15. They all list Julius as the first emperor. (See Robinson, Redating, 243f / also http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Lists%20of%20Roman%20Emperors.htm ).

Gentry adds the Epistle of Barnabas (late first century, maybe even pre-AD 70), and the testimony of the second century writer praised by Eusebius, Theophilus of Antioch, who said that the list of Roman emperors began with Julius. (Gentry, Beast, 107). The list of emperors therefore is: #1 - Julius, #2 - Augustus, #3 - Tiberius, #4 - Caligula, #5 –Claudius, #6 - NERO- THE ONE AWHO IS, WHEN JOHN WROTE.

This one argument DEFINITIVELY falsifies Bale’s entire debate attempt! There is no good reason whatsoever to reject this countdown, and Bale knows it. That is why he totally ignored it- not a word of response!

THE IRANAEAN CITATION

Conley confidently set forth the quote from Irenaeus claiming that only Calvinist preterists have fairly recently questioned the quote. (He now changes his claim that it is all church of Christ folks! Confusion reigns!) This is a pejorative and false claim. Of course the key is that one of the top Irenaeus scholars in the world said: “things are not necessarily as they seem at first sight” referring to the view espoused by Bale. Behr says, “It is almost certain that the subject of the passive verb ‘was seen’ is John himself rather than the apocalyptic vision”. (John Behr, The Theologian and His Paschal Gospel, Oxford University Press, 2019). 68). Bale tries to escape the force of this with more insults claiming that Behr, “does not claim anything Preston claims”. False. Behr denies the very thing that Conley affirms: that the Irenaeus quote supports Conley’s position. Conley then insults Dean Furlong which stems from his personal encounters with Furlong on FB - in which Furlong totally devastated Bale’s arguments.

THE DATE OF 1 PETER AND REVELATION

Conley tried to escape the evidence from Revelation and 1 Peter by claiming that 16 it is possible that both books are false productions, written by false authors years after the time of the apostles. (He admits the possibility of amenuensis / secretaries, doing the actual writing. BUT THAT DEMANDS THAT BOTH PETER AND JOHN DID THE DICTATINGB DEMANDING A PRE-AD70 AUTHORSHIP OF PETER FOR SURE!

I cited scholarship that dates 1 Peter to AD 64-65. Bale once again said that I am wrong because this is hotly debated. He just scoffed at it.

1 Peter SAYS it was written by Peter. PETER DIED BEFORE AD 70. Conley denies that Peter wrote the epistle, an overt denial of what the book says. This denial is essential for his position. I challenged Conley to tell us if he believed that THE APOSTLE PETER WROTE OR DICTATED 1 PETER? YES OR NO? In his final he said it is likely that Peter=s amenuensis penned it.

THAT STILL DEMANDS THAT PETER DICTATED THE EPISTLE BEFORE HIS DEATH! AND THAT DEFINITIVELY DATES 1 PETER BEFORE AD 70.

Ponder the fact that HIS ENTIRE POSITION HINGES ON PROVING THAT 1 PETER IS A FALSE PRODUCTION BY A PRETENDER! But at the very least, it was written by Stephanus, Peter=s secretary- which, again demands that Peter dictated the epistle before AD 70B falsifying Bale’s claims.

Bale wrote 250 words telling us that Revelation may have also been an ex eventu fabrication not written by John. Now, he tells us that Peter probably did not write 1 Peter! Conley seems to have no problem believing that Peter (and Revelation) are fabrications- FALSE books!

Conley MUST deny any relationship between 1 Peter and Revelation. Let me repeat my argumentB which he tried to dismiss by his appeal to the fictive nature of 1 Peter: 1 Peter was written to the saints in Asia (1 Peter 1:1f); as was Revelation. The saints were being persecuted (1 Peter 1:5f; 4:11-12), as in Revelation.

Their persecution, was Afilling up the measure of suffering / sin (1 Peter 5:10- epiteleo). This is directly parallel to Revelation 6:9-11 / 17:6f. It is likewise in perfect harmony with Jesus and Paul who said (Matthew 23 B>1 Thessalonians 2:15-16) that it was Israel that would fill up of the measure of sin through persecution in the first century. Bale says these connections can be dismissed because they don=t mention the dating of Revelation. That is total smoke- and false.

If the filling up of the measure of sin - by Israel- in Matthew 23 and 1 17 Thessalonians 2 is the same as in Revelation, (and it is since Babylon was the city guilty of killing the Lord) - then since both Matthew 23 and Thessalonians are dealing with first century, Old Covenant Israel prior to AD 70B not Rome- that proves that Revelation was written prior to AD 70.

Peter promised the saints they would only have to endure persecution for a short time (1 Peter 1:5f 4:5, 7, 17), just as the Spirit told the Revelation martyrs that their vindication would be Ain a little while@ (Revelation 6:9f).

In Revelation 3:10 Jesus promised the Philadelphia saints: AI also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.@ The persecution was literally Aabout to come@ (mellousesB from mello in the infinitive). The Blass-DeBrunner Greek Grammar says: Amellein with the infinitive expresses imminence@ (Blass-DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1961), 181).

So, we have an already present Asian persecution, but we have a Afiery trial@ of persecution that was AABOUT TO COME.@ Then, in an epistle written in AD 65B well before Domitian- we find Peter saying: Athink it not strange concerning the fiery trial THAT IS AMONG YOU.@ The Greek of the text is AThe fiery trial that is (present tense) among you (en humin).@ It is not a future tense.

John, writing to the Asian saints said a time of trial (persecution) was about to come. Peter, writing to the Asian saints, said the fiery trial WAS AMONG THEM. They were not to think that trial strange. WHY? The logical answer is that John in Revelation had told them it was about to come, AND NOW IT WAS AMONG THEM! Revelation was clearly written before Peter. Bale must prove that Revelation and 1 Peter are speaking of two totally different Asian persecutions, both of which were present but about to imminently get worse, and, both of which were to consummately fill the measure of sin and suffering! And relief from both persecutions would be at the coming soon parousia of ChristB Behold, I come quickly. He totally ignored this- naturally.

If Peter wrote 1 Peter, (he did) then since he was writing to the same people as John, about the same issue, persecution of the saints, and made the same promises as John (imminent relief at the parousia), then since John FORETOLD what Peter said was then present, this demands that Revelation- was written before AD 70.

Unbelievably, Conley says all of this is irrelevant to our discussion! Wrong. It is critical. No less than three times, Conley claims that my use of his comments on FB were irrelevant and a violation of the rules of the debate. He did not document that, because he can’t. The rules 18 say NOTHING ABOUT USE OF COMMENTS MADE OUTSIDE THE DEBATE. That is a blatant falsehood. Anyone that knows anything about debating which he clearly does not, knows that anything a disputant has said or written outside the debate can and will be used against them! He never documented a single violation of the rules by me. Just empty false claims.

Finally, look again at my argument (among many) that Bale totally ignored for good reason. Revelation is about the imminent- to John- judgment of Babylon. Babylon is where the Lord was crucified- (Revelation 11:8). Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem NOT ROME. Therefore, Babylon of Revelation was Jerusalem.

This debate is now over. I strongly believe that any honest, objective reader knows that Bale / Conley has utterly failed in his attempt to prove a late date for the writing of Revelation. Just think about it: Conley told us repeatedly that he did not have any definitive or conclusive evidence and yet, he claims that he has proven that the late date is probable. How in the name of reason and logic can you prove ANYTHING by not offering conclusive, definitive evidence?

The debate has exposed Bale / Conley as a willful liar and his supporters as those who willfully condoned his sin.

If you want to look deeper into the massive, powerful evidence for the early dating of Revelation, see my groundbreaking book: Who Is This Babylon?

---

Response to Don's Negative To Conclude (Note to Reader I Will Cuss Some In This Response So Forgive Me Here)

Before I present my final negative, here is what you need to know.

Sergius Bale is NOT the real name of my opponent. It was revealed on FB on 12-7-2021, that his true identity is Lance Conley. What that means is that Bale / Conley, lied about his true identity. He lied about being born in Greece and that Greek is his first language. He lied, repeatedly, constantly claiming to have a Phd. He lied, repeatedly, when he claimed to be a university professor in Australia. In sum, he lied about everything concerning himself. Some months ago, a private messenger suggested to me that Bale was actually Conley. So, I asked Bale pointedly if his true name was Sergius Bale, was true. He affirmed that it was. Now, the truth comes out that he lied from the very beginning.

So he starts off the final negative by trying to poison the well here. Me being who I say I am is irrelevant to the debate. Fact is Don got trounced in this debate and needs anything he can find and use to try to save face. I wasn’t born in Greece and Greek isn’t my first language but I am becoming quite fluent in basic Greek. I am not a PHD but Don doesn’t have a doctorate either since his honorary degree comes from a paper mill Vision. I am obviously not a professor at a university. Working on that one. I made a burner account and embellished who I was with this account. I was perfectly respectful the entire time with it and it was abundantly clear to almost everyone apparently except Don Preston and some other full preterists that this was a burner account but he never bothered to do any actual fact checking or to do a few simple google searches to verify who I really was so that’s not my fault he’s too stupid to figure out who he’s debating. Truth is, Don just saw someone claiming to be a PHD and BEGGED to debate me. I declined twice and he BEGGED William to suspend the rules of his group so he could debate me. He can never escape that he did this and made himself look like a complete and asinine fool. He can never escape that he debated Lance Conley and got his butt owned in a debate he agreed and wrote the rules to.. which I should add, there is no rule in this debate that the person he debated has to state his true credentials. There is nothing in this debate that says that I have to debate from my real account. There is nothing that states in this debate that I have to be truthful about who I really am in this debate. The debate should therefore just be about our arguments but that being the case, Don Preston chose to claim that he would provide DEFINITIVE evidence that Revelation was written in 70 AD and he did not manage to do it at all, despite many pages of his writing about his interpretation of what he thinks the bible means.

Conley is known to be a mentally disturbed young man, with anger issues and clearly, whose poisonous tongue manifests itself in vicious attacks against anyone that differs with him. That is exhibited in his final Affirmative.

Ad hominem. Don also lies as my final affirmative was not filled with any of this stuff he claims. The reader can read my final affirmative and clearly see I was not being angry and I was not cussing or using a poisonous tongue or giving out vicious attacks against Preston. In fact, one will find the opposite going on. The only one acting mentally disturbed is in fact, Don K Preston here for getting exposed as the charlatan he is (this is an intentional ad hominem since Don is so in love with doing them I figure I will do one too).

What is truly amazing and sad is that when he was exposed on the FB page, Full Preterism: A Thing of the Past, (where he admitted to lying about his true identity), he said his constant lying did not hurt anyone, therefore, he did nothing wrong. He exhibited no remorse, no repentance, and no apology for his long time lying. In fact, since exposed, he has actually bragged about the entire situation, even saying he has been doing this kind of thing for years.

This is irrelevant and a lie. I admitted who I was, apologized to many people via private and public message. My lie did not do damage to anyone except perhaps Don Preston’s underwear since I’m sure he pooped himself finding out who he was really debating. No one actually cares that I made a burner account on this group and those that claim they do are virtue signaling to try and help Don Preston save face since they recognize how much he got trampled on in this debate by me.

To compound the tragedy, it was revealed that many of the anti-preterists on that forum knew, for a long while, of his lies, and NOT ONE OF THEM spoke out against his lying. Some actually said they knew of it for a while and thought it was “funny”, “harmless” and no big deal. How is lying ever funny or harmless? Shocking, shameful and disgraceful!! Think about that! People who call themselves Christians refusing to condemn blatant, willful, habitual lying!

This is a farce. I hid my identity from many people and they had no responsibility and have none to tell Don Preston he was debating a burner account. As I said before, it was obvious to anyone who did even the smallest bit of investigation and research into who I was really. Don did not do any of this. I too think it is hilarious considering Don yaps every day about how much of a scholar and researcher he is. He says it is not funny and says lying is shocking, shameful and disgraceful and says Christians who refuse to condemn blatant, willful and habitual lying is bad.. well then I suppose we should all condemn Don K Preston, and we do, for being a bold faced, disgusting, lying sack of dung since he has been caught lying multiple times and setting up smear campaigns against so many people that it is not possible to list them all.

 

Proverbs says there are seven things that are an abomination to God; one of those is “a lying tongue”. But the anti-prets on that page think it is no big deal and even funny. In fact, I was told that I have no right to express moral outrage, because “we are all sinners” and “let the one without sin cast the first stone.” According to such ludicrous logic, no Christian can speak out against any sin, because, after all, “we are all sinners”. So, the main anti-prets on that page including William Vincent the owner of the page- refused to condemn what they knew to be purposeful lies. BUT THEY CONDEMNED ME FOR SPEAKING OUT AGAINST IT! That speaks volumes about the lack of moral character of the owner of that site who allowed it to carry on, and the anti-preterists that have refused to condemn the lies of Conley.

Don tries to virtue signal how lying is bad. He should take his own advice and learn to stop lying himself before he starts attacking me and others.

In my affirmatives: I demonstrated the direct connection between Deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 2-4, Matthew 23, Luke 23:28-31, 2 Thessalonians 1, and Revelation. Each of these texts speak of the vindication of the martyrs- in Israel=s last days. Revelation 19 even echoes Deuteronomy 32:43. I challenged Bale (Conley) to show that these texts are not related, since, if they are related, Revelation, being the anticipation of the fulfillment of the earlier texts, was the prediction of the imminent destruction of Jerusalem for her guilt of killing the OT prophets, of Jesus, and Jesus - apostles and prophets. Totally ignored except to say that my interpretation means nothing. That is not refutation.

Don does not in fact demonstrate anything. The debate is supposed to be on the dating of Revelation being before or after 70 AD. None of these texts Don gives us give us the dating of Revelation. Plain and simple. Don’s interpretation is worthless for this debate premise and he refutes nothing by giving his “because I said so” argument.

“For Bale to falsify any of this he must demonstrate definitively- that Israel and her blood guilt is NOT the focus in this unbroken chain of evidence. He admitted repeatedly that he cannot do this! All he has done is ridicule all scriptural arguments!” No. I in fact do not have to demonstrate any of this. The debate is over the date of Revelation and so I do not have to do any of this. He also lies and gives an ad hominem claiming I ridicule scriptural arguments. I don’t ridicule the bible at all just because I don’t agree with Don’s interpretation.

Think about that. Rome is not in Deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 2-4, and Matthew 23:29f, Luke 23:28-31, Thessalonians, or Revelation. Deuteronomy 32 predicted the vindication of the martyrs in the judgment of Israel in her last days. Revelation is about the vindication of the martyrs in the last days, in the judgment of Babylon, the city where the Lord was crucified. Bale=s response was to say that since none of the texts specifically mention the dating of Revelation or Babylon that they cannot be speaking of Revelation or Babylon. This exposes his hermeneutical fallacy, since to demand that any given text use certain explicit language is specious. I challenged Conley to cite any accepted book on hermeneutic that says a text must explicitly say something for a given truth to be accepted. He did not even try. He knows he can=t and that his hermeneutic is false. I proved that Revelation says that Babylon, had killed the OT prophets. It is where the Lord was crucified. It is the city guilty of shedding the blood of Jesus= apostles and prophets. ONLY JERUSALEM had ever done or could ever done this.

I never claimed Rome is in any of these texts. Israel did not exist as a nation in 70 AD. It had not been around for a long time. Judaea is not a nation in the days of Rome nor in 70 AD. It is nothing more than a province and an epicenter for Judaism and its adherents as far as that is concerned. The Jews also survived after 70 AD so though Judaism did change, it did not die and neither did its ethnic people. Josephus’ existence is proof that Jews did not die out. Bar Kochba Revolt and Simon Bar Kochba is proof that Jews did not die out or cease to exist. Christians I will also note continued to be persecuted after 70 AD. They were not vindicated by a temple falling down and Rome and some Jews having a civil war for a few years. Don yaps about a hermeneutic and his interpretation here and that’s it. He provides no definitive evidence for the Revelation being written before 70 AD. That is what he’s supposed to do and he doesn’t do it. Giving his interpretation does not give us definitive evidence.

Bale argued that if he could find that a prophet had been killed in any other city this negated the argument. Clearly false. I asked him repeatedly who Jesus accused of these crimes. He refused to answer. I proved that both Jesus and Paul identified Jerusalem as the city guilty of killing the OT prophets, Jesus and the apostles and prophets. Revelation likewise identifies Babylon as the city guilty of those crimes, proving that Babylon could be no other than Jerusalem. Babylon in Revelation was spiritually called Sodom. The only city in the Bible ever spiritually called Sodom was Old Covenant Jerusalem. Therefore, Babylon in Revelation was Old Covenant Jerusalem. Totally ignored.

There are prophets killed in other cities and I prove that in my negatives. Lot of them do die in Jerusalem or by Jewish people but this is not the case for all of them. Don has the New Testament writers living in the end of the Old Covenant. In other words, they are in Don’s theology, Old Covenant prophets… they do not all die before 70 AD and they don’t all die by Jews. Babylon also in Revelation does not need to be Rome though it could be. I don’t have to give anything definitive because that is not in my objective. Don should learn how to debate better.

I offered this: All the blood of all the righteous, including the prophets, of Jesus and Jesus' apostles and prophets, would be avenged in the destruction of Jerusalem-- Jesus. All the blood of all the righteous, including the prophets, Jesus and Jesus= apostles and prophets, would be avenged in the destruction of Babylon-- Revelation. Therefore, Babylon was Jerusalem. Since Revelation was written before the destruction of Babylon, that means Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. The arguments were ignored. REVELATION- A BOOK OF JEWISH CHRISTIAN HOPE? In my 1st negative I argued that the book of Revelation is a preeminently Jewish book, about the imminent fulfillment of God=s OC promises made to OC Israel. I cited scholarship in support; Bale ignored that testimony. 

I don’t ignore anything. Don is just wrong. The Final Judgment did not happen in 70 AD. Don also lies when he says that Revelation is a Jewish book. It is written by John who is a Christian. It is a Christian document, not a Jewish book. Don also did not actually cite any scholarship for support. None of the scholars he cites believe the final judgment happened in 70 AD. He is simply lying about this and should be ashamed of himself for putting up such bold face lies to his audience.

This is supported by the fact that in Revelation 6, the blood of the martyrs is at the base of the altar. This is Jewish Temple imagery, (not pagan) strongly suggesting Jewish culpability for shedding the blood of the martyrs. Bale tried to escape from this by saying “I never said this was a pagan altar!” Well, if Revelation is not about Israel, or the Jewish temple, but about Rome, then what altar is depicted here? It can=t- per Bale be the Jerusalem temple altar! By eliminating THAT altar, he has in fact logically insinuated that the altar of Revelation symbolized a pagan altar! He entrapped himself- as usual.

I never once claimed that Revelation 6 has Christ at a pagan altar. Don lies here like is usual for him to do.

Bale ignored my citation of scholarship. Early on, Bale ridiculed me for not citing “Scholars”. But when I do, he ignored the citations or rejected them. I guess only the scholars that he cites are truly scholars.

Don lies. I do not ignore his citations. I actually did deal with them and discuss them. Don lies claiming I ridiculed him for not citing scholars (he is referring to our questions and answers section where I asked him if he could give me the references he was referring to which he failed to do). I did not ridicule him when he gave scholars either. I did respond about those scholars and why Don’s quoting them doesn’t help his arguments but this is all simply a fabrication that Don pulled out of his butt claiming I ridiculed him.

Bale responded: “Don claims Revelation is a Jewish book” this is a Christian writing. In his final, he doubles down on this, insisting that since John was a Christian that he could not have been writing about the imminent fulfillment of the OT promises made to Israel! This is the very epitome of bad logic.

Don does claim Revelation is written for Judaism when it is a Christian writing. I don’t double down on anything. I just give a fact here that Don gives an ad hominem about claiming it’s the very epitome of bad logic.

Conley is totally out of touch with the Biblical narrative!

No true scotsman fallacy. Ad hominem.

How does the fact that Revelation is a Christian writing negate the fact that it is focused on the fulfillment of God’s OC promises made to Old Covenant Israel? All the first Christians were Jews, convinced the Jesus was the fulfillment of their OC kingdom hope.

Don claims this is a fact. It is not. He claims Revelation is focused on the fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises made to Old Covenant Israel. This is his interpretation. He claims all the first Christians were Jews. This is false. The majority of Christians first were Jews but we do have record of Gentiles as well joining the Christian faith in the New Testament. The earliest records and documents of church patristics all agree with Paul in Ephesians that Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant at the Cross through His death and resurrection and has ushered in the end of that covenant and ushered in a new and better one in his time before 70 AD. Don’s interpretation is not only irrelevant it is also false.

Peter’s eschatology, (Acts 3:19-24 / 2 Peter 3:1-2, 13), Paul's eschatology (Acts 24:14f; 26:6f, 21f), and John’s eschatology was nothing but their expectation of the imminent fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises made to OC Israel. Their statements cannot be construed otherwise, without perverting them.

Peter teaches that the universe will be changed. He’s not being metaphorical. He even references the flood multiple times to prove that point. Peter, Paul, and John’s eschatology does not even come close to agreeing with the likes of Don K Preston. They all agree that the Old Covenant was fulfilled by Christ at the Cross through His death when He said “it is finished” (his work was done) and now He had ushered in the New Covenant, along with through his burial, resurrection, and the Ascension.

Scholarship is virtually united in positing Isaiah 65-66 as the source of both 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21. Conley admitted THAT IT IS! He defeated his own claim that Revelation is not about the fulfillment of God=s OC promises made to OC Israel!

In modern terms we call this vague-posting. Don just claims something without any evidence whatsoever that his claim is true. I would agree Isaiah 65-66 and Revelation 21 could be connected but none of this makes full preterism nor Don Preston true. 2 Peter 3 has the universe being recreated and changed… Don has it being about a temple falling down. Big difference there. Only preterist scholars would claim this stuff. Many different scholars have a variety of opinions on these scriptures.

I documented that virtually all scholars agree that John was anticipating the resurrection and the New Creation foretold in Isaiah 25-27, 65-66, Daniel 12:2, Ezekiel 37, the book of Zechariah, etc.. These were THE OLD TESTAMENT PROMISES MADE TO OLD COVENANT ISRAEL! How did Bale respond? Ignored the entire argument.

None of these verses tell us when Revelation was written. I will also note that not every verse in the Old Testament is about the Old Covenant either. Some are about the New Covenant and what is promised when the Messiah ushers that covenant into existence.

Here is why this is so important and relevant: The New Creation- and the resurrection prophesied by Isaiah 65-66- Ezekiel 37, Daniel 12, etc.)- is the same New Creation / resurrection anticipated by Revelation 20-22 (Conley agrees). But the New Creation of Isaiah 65-66 / resurrection would arrive when God destroyed OC Israel (Isaiah 65:13-17 / Daniel 12:7). Therefore, the New Creation of Isaiah 65-66 would arrive when God destroyed OC Israel.

This is false. I do not believe that Isaiah 65-66 is about the destruction of Old Covenant Israel. Therefore, Don’s whole argument here is falsified by the fact that he misrepresents my actual position on Isaiah and the Old Covenant.

This is confirmed by the fact that the New Creation of Revelation would come when the city “where the Lord was crucified” was destroyed. Paul said that if ANYONE taught a different Gospel from that which he taught, he was anathema. Thus, if John’s eschatology was different from Paul’s, (undeniably from the Tanakh), then Bale is accusing John of teaching a different gospel. And he is himself teaching another Gospel. Conley engaged in a personal attack on me, but did not address the argument.

Don just lies again claiming I engage in a personal attack on him which I don’t. Every one of Don’s negatives are filled with vile and disgusting ad hominems and lies so I do confront those lies but none of them are some personal attack. I just note that Don lies and makes disgusting ad hominems. I will note that Paul and John’s eschatology involves actual bodies rising from the actual grave and being physically resurrected to an immortal state by the Holy Spirit which means by Don’s own logic he is and should be anathema. And Don is a heretic by all standards of the Christian faith.

Of course, Conley does not believe that Revelation is about the imminent fulfillment of ANYTHING because he claims it is about the destruction of Rome FOUR CENTURIES REMOVED FROM JOHN’S “DO NOT SEAL THE VISION OF THIS BOOK, FOR THE TIME IS AT HAND”. Sorry, “Behold, I come quickly”; “do not seal the vision of the book, for the time is at hand,” does not equate to 400 years! Totally ignored.

I do not claim Revelation to be about the destruction of Rome. Don misrepresents me yet again and lies. I do believe Revelation as a prophecy begins the moment the prophetic word ends for John but this does not mean it gets fulfilled right away or by 70 AD like Don believes.

I argued from Matthew 23:29f:

Fact: Jesus: Jerusalem killed the prophets.

Fact: She would also kill him (Matthew 21:33f).

Fact: She would kill Jesus= apostles and prophets.

Fact: She was guilty of all the blood shed on the earth.

Fact: She would fill the measure of her father=s blood guilt, and be destroyed in the first century generation.

These are not disputable facts, unless you want to pervert the text. BALE NEVER ANSWERED THIS. HE CAN’T.

Don claims these are not disputable facts. This was answered as well in the debate. Jesus does say that Jerusalem kills her prophets and says He would be killed and that His apostles and prophets would be killed by not just Jews but the entire world. Jesus doesn’t just say Jerusalem will bear the brunt of all sin that has ever existed either like Don tries to claim. He says the entire world will stand before God and stand as saint or the condemned. Don likes to claim things are facts when they in fact aren’t. It is not a fact just because Don says it is.

ONLY JERUSALEM DID OR COULD DO WHAT REVELATION SAYS “BABYLON” HAD DONE! ROME DIDN’T AND COULDN’T. Bale never answered this.

I do in fact answer Don’s questions. He should quit with the lying. I will note that IF the Revelation is still about the future which most believe it is despite Don’s lies where he claims all of scholarship believes it isn’t (nonsensical), Jerusalem COULD be Babylon if this is a future event (any honest scholar would leave this as a possibility). It is possible. Jerusalem still does exist. It is not a perpetual city filled with smoke and fire and brimstone to never be restored to what it used to be even today. As anyone knows, the true Babylonian Empire ceased to exist and is still in ruins to this very day. It was in ruins then in John’s time and this is what he has in mind here. Jerusalem of John’s time even before 70 AD and after does not match this at all because Jerusalem, while it lost its temple and did get sacked, was not completely destroyed and by 80 AD the Great Sanhedrin was rebuilt in Jerusalem and they were in fact rebuilding slowly but were rebuilding the city at that time.

Don wants to yap next about Babylon not being Rome but his babbling and attempts to try and make me look stupid falls flat. I never claim Rome was where Christ was crucified either though I do say that it is true that Jerusalem, a province of Judaea, is not the nation of Israel. It is of the nation of Rome in Jesus’ day when He was crucified. It is a Roman province occupied majority-wise by Jewish people. The Jews did not have their own separate nation. The closest they ever get to this is 132 AD with the Bar Kochba Revolt and even then they fell in a few years to Rome.

Don claims I say Rome was where the Lord was crucified and this is just a bold faced lie.

Don claims I ignore Revelation 6. Another lie.

Don claims that Revelation 6:12 quotes directly Isaiah 2:19. This is a lie. It does not. One can simply open their bible up and figure that out. Revelation does not quote Hosea 10:8 either. Don blatantly pulls this lie directly out of his butt. I did not ridicule Don either as he claims here. I just point out that he’s lying and is wrong.

Don claims that it is a fact that Jesus quotes Isaiah 2:19 with Luke 23:28-31… Fact is Luke does not quote Isaiah 2 anywhere in this chapter. It doesn’t quote Hosea 10:8 either. One can make an allusion perhaps but it nowhere does a direct quote. Likewise, what does any of this have to do with the DATE OF REVELATION?

Don claims that it is a fact that Paul applied the same verses from Isaiah that Jesus applied to AD 70, to the coming judgment of the Jews for persecuting the saints. Again, Bale claimed that I lied when I said Paul was citing / quoting Isaiah.

He then says AT Robinson says that 2 Thess. 1:9 is almost an exact quotation of Isaiah 2:19… Did you catch that? AT Robinson says ALMOST. AT Robinson admits this is not a direct quotation. Don on the other hand lies to his audience and misrepresents AT Robinson claiming that Paul DIRECTLY QUOTES Isaiah 2:19 in 2 Thess. 1:9.

Don wants to ad hominem me for being as he calls it “ignorant of scholarship” when in fact he is the ignorant one. I have also read John AT Robinson. He gives his scholarly opinion on the date of Revelation and gives his arguments on why he believes it should be dated early. He is not conclusive about this as all scholars know to be true. Robinson believes it but this does not mean it is definitive. Don probably knows this as well, one would hope, however perhaps he doesn’t since his knowledge on scholarship seems to be really put in question since he can’t be bothered to represent AT Robinson correctly here. He claims more citations could be given here but gives none. Why didn’t he bother doing it then? If he has a definitive fact to give us then he should give us instead of vague-posting things and not backing them up.

Don claims it is a fact that John, Jesus, and Paul cite Isaiah… then gives no quotation… He then gives something about Matthew 23 and Luke 11 which do not directly cite Isaiah. Another lie given to his audience from Don K Preston.

Conley says all of this is my own personal, subjective interpretation, and therefore, irrelevant. He says I lie when I say that John quoted from Isaiah. No, scholars agree that Jesus quoted from Isaiah, Paul quoted the same verses. John quoted the identical verse. Bale made no effort to prove the argument wrong. He simply ridiculed.

As I have shown above, and in the debate, this IS all nothing more than Preston’s subjective interpretation. He has given nothing definitive to give any conclusive evidence, which means he has to produce something that gives NO DOUBT and CANNOT BE DEBATED. HE MUST GIVE A FACT WITH EVIDENCE THAT LEAVES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO REFUTE WHAT SHOULD BE AN ESTABLISHED FACT like humans must breathe air and drink water to survive. He fails to do this.  

In my final affirmative I offered two arguments from Daniel 9: Seventy weeks were determined to seal vision and prophecy. Seventy weeks were determined to seal vision and prophecy. I cited a host of scholars from across the theological spectrum in support. All he did was scoff at that scholarship. I offered this: Seventy Weeks were determined on Jerusalem to fulfill ALL vision and prophecy. (Daniel 9 is not about a singular specific prophecy, but vision and prophecy comprehensively considered, as scholarship confirms). The Seventy Weeks would end no later than the destruction of Jerusalem. (In AD 70- per Jesus). All things written would be fulfilled at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:22) the city where the Lord was crucified i.e. Babylon (Revelation 10:7 / 11:8f). Therefore, Babylon of Revelation, the city where the Lord was crucified, was Jerusalem.

Don offers his interpretation of Daniel 9 and cited some scholars, none of which definitively declare that Revelation is written before 70 AD. None of the quotes Don gives from said scholars give us anything definitive either. Daniel 9 as a text itself does not give us the date of Revelation. Luke 21 and Revelation 10 and 11 do not do so either. Don is supposed to give us definitive evidence for the early date. He does not.

Conley deflected the power of this by telling us how controversial Daniel 9 is, therefore my argument cannot be accepted. So, per Bale, if something is highly controversial, it cannot be true! Well... The very existence of Jesus is “highly controversial”. The Deity of Christ is “hotly debated”.The inspiration of scripture is hotly debated. The resurrection of Jesus is one of the most controversial claims in history! The fact that something is hotly debated, highly controversial, does not mean that a person cannot know it is true. If so, we can just cast the Bible and Christianity aside.

He claims I deflected here… I deflect by Don trying to run from the fact here that Daniel 9 does not give us a definitive date for the Revelation? Is he serious? I don’t claim Daniel 9 is controversial. I say there are multiple opinions from scholars that are varied. Don lies here again and misrepresents my position. Then he tries to use irrelevant examples saying that the deity of Christ is debated as is inspiration of scripture and the resurrection of Jesus. This is irrelevant blabbering. No one is claiming we should cast the bible aside and Christianity though I will note Don does cast Christianity aside by trying to get us to accept his heresy that NO ONE in Christendom accepts except him and a SMALL and MINISCULE amount of people.

He yaps about Matthew 21. Nowhere does this text or the chapter give us any information to show the date of Revelation. He asked me if Matthew 21 is about 70 AD and this is irrelevant. If the Revelation is written in the late date then it is even more of an irrelevant question.

He yaps about Revelation 14 next and claims that the destruction of Rome 450 years later violates the language of “at hand” and “has come”. That is debatable with time texts and apocalyptic language but either way, none of it has any relevance to dating the Revelation as Revelation 14 gives us nothing definitive about the date of Revelation.

Unless Bale can prove- definitively - that John is using the imagery of the Vine / vineyard in a way divorced from its OT source, this effectively proves that Revelation 14 is parallel with Matthew 21 in predicting the coming, imminent destruction of Jerusalem. That proves that Revelation was written before AD 70. Totally ignored.

This is nothing but a false dichotomy. Unless B can prove D is fact, then R is true. This starts from a false premise. It also has zero relevance to the date of Revelation. It is irrelevant.  

The NT is clear that the time of the harvest had come. It was announced by John the Baptizer (Matthew 3:7-12), and by Jesus (John 4:35). It was to occur at the end of the age, in fulfillment of Daniel 12:3-7, which is explicitly posited for the time when the power of the holy people would be completely shattered (Daniel 12:3B>Matthew 13:43). Paul said that the end of the ages had come (1 Corinthians 10:11). Conley totally ignored this.

I don’t ignore any of this stuff Don says. It’s just irrelevant what he says since nothing he gives here gives us anything about the date of Revelation. All it is mostly is his interpretation. Matthew 3, John 4, Daniel 12, Matthew 13 and 1 Cor. 10 give us nothing about the date of Revelation. To claim I ignore this is just a lie. The Old Covenant ended at the Cross. Not AD 70.

I asked Conley / Bale: Is the vineyard in Matthew 21 different from Revelation 14? Ignored. Is the time of the harvest in Matthew 21 different from the harvest in Revelation 14? Ignored. Is the coming of the Lord to destroy the persecutors in Matthew 21 a different coming of the Lord to judge the persecutors from that in Revelation 14? Ignored.

Matthew 21 and Revelation 14 do not give us any information on the date of Revelation.

Matthew 22 has nothing about quoting Isaiah 62 or Hosea 2:19.

Don claims: The wedding of Isaiah 62 would be at the coming of the Lord in judgment (v. 10-12). This is quoted directly by Jesus in Matthew 16:27, and emphatically said to take place in the first century generation - v. 28. In Revelation 22:12, Jesus reiterated Matthew 16:27, (and Isaiah 62) saying, Behold I come quickly. Thus, the Wedding of Revelation was to occur in the lifetime of the first century generation. Matthew 22- and Revelation - is about God fulfilling His promise to Are-marry” Israel. It has nothing to do with Rome, WHO WAS NEVER MARRIED (AND NEVER DIVORCED) TO YHVH. IGNORED.

Matthew 16 does not quote Isaiah 62. Matthew 22 does not quote Revelation. None of this quotes Revelation and Don is just straight up lying to his audience claiming that this quotes that and that quotes this when it clearly does not.

He just keeps lying and saying I ignore his arguments. Truth is, he asks gish gallop questions and tries to ask 500 questions to divert from the FACT that he has not given a single time where he proves that Revelation is written before 70 AD. Don is supposed to give us definitive evidence for the early date. He does not.

He just continues for at least 1 or 2 pages to repeat himself.

Then he lies yet again and claims

All we got from Bale is more vitriol, more claims that the arguments are irrelevant. He offered us speculations from archaeology - none of which proved anything.

Does this idiot ever once remember that my objective in this debate is supposed to be that WHILE NOT DEFINITIVE, THE LATE DATE HAS SUPPORT FOR IT? He keeps stating I should give definitive facts when he knows damn well that is not my objective in this debate. This is typical dishonesty coming from Don Preston.

He claims I give nothing but vitriol which is false. Don always has to lie and that just proves what a terrible debater he truly is and morally bankrupt.

He tried to argue that John was banished, and that Nero was not known for banishing people, but killing them, in contrast to Domitian who preferred banishment. I demonstrated that this is not true, as we have record of Nero banishing many people. Thus, his supposed argument failed.

Don misrepresents me. I do argue that John was banished in the reign of Domitian and I do note that Nero was more known for murdering his opposition versus banishing them. I never once claimed that Nero never banished people.

He argued that Domitian may have been referred to as “the beast that rises from the sea” inferring a connection with Revelation 13. But of course, he did not PROVE such as connection, and as I noted, earlier testimony (Apollonius- 1st century) called Nero the worst of all beasts! But Bale prefers late testimony to that of John’s contemporaries!

Another lie. I do argue this and make a connection with Revelation 13 but I only make an argument. Nothing can be made conclusive here as an established fact. I did in fact give the reference to Domitian being a beast of the sea but Don of course wants to lie and concoct lies. He is pathetic.

He called attention to Domitian’s megalomania. In my response, I noted that he did not document with even one citation, ANY PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS FOR NOT WORSHIPING HIM! He noted that Domitian persecuted Jews but did not- COULD NOT - document that he persecuted the church!

Another lie from Don. All Roman citizens would have to pay tribute to the emperor and this would include Christians who would not be exempt from Domitian who did in fact claim he was a god and demanded to be called one and worshipped.

Don tries to quote AT Robinson again and it’s all nonsense as AT Robinson does not declare his writing as an established fact. Domitilla and Clemens could have been Jews. This does not definitively prove the date of Revelation is early or late date.

Don tries to blast me for noting the poet Statius in Silvae says that he rejected the titles of deity. He tries and fails to claim that I don’t give all information. There are some poets that show this like Statius but there are others that say otherwise. Take your pick as to whether or not you believe this or not I suppose but it seems that Domitian did declare himself to be god and demanded worship since it is verified by Roman historians as well. Statius is not a historian. He is a poet. Don lies and claims e is a historian… We also know after Domitian’s death they largely spoke out against his insanity and mention him declaring he is a god but Don wants to ignore that and make up lies.

Conley admitted that the supposed Domitianic persecution of the church began in the last year of Domitian’s reign. This means, by his own admission, that Domitian’s persecution LASTED ONE YEAR- AT MOST! That contradicts the long history of persecution found in Revelation. Babylon (Rome per Bale) had a long bloody history of killing the OT prophets (FACT: ROME NEVER DID THIS! Period). Rome is not where the Lord was crucified. Even granting for argument sake that Domitian may have persecuted some isolated individual Christians, he still only did so for ONE YEAR AT THE MOST! Totally ignored.

I never once claim that the persecution of Revelation is all about Domitian’s persecution. Don misrepresents my position YET AGAIN and lies about me “admitting” to this. I don’t admit to that and Don is a bold faced liar.

Don claims my own words refute me but so far Don has not seemed to be able to intelligently represent my position correctly. You would think a person who claims to be such a brilliant and profound scholar could correctly represent his opponent and not concoct lies out of his butt the way Don does but we all can see quite clearly Don is no scholar and pulls lies out of his butt.

I never claim Domitian persecuted the Church for 3 and ½ years. Don lies and misrepresents me again about my position of Revelation. Shocker.

Bale offered us four count them FOUR- supposed cases of Domitianic persecution of the church. Not one of his cases can be proven to be: 1. Persecution by Domitian, 2. Persecution of Christians! And the fact that he gave us “The Acts of John” a fictive, phantasmagoric work in support of his claims proves that he knows he has no solid definitive proof for his proposition. Amazingly, he comes back defending his use of this fictive book even though scholars and even the creeds reject it.

This is by far some of the stupidest comments Don has ever made. First off, my objective of the debate is that the proof is not definitive but there are good cases to be made for a late date so I give them as I’m supposed to do. Secondly, I do document that there was persecution by Domitian claimed by the Early Church. I also give Acts of John as proof because even if it is a fictive book it is a 2nd Century work that is written. The creeds and scholars do not reject it archaeologically. It is a piece of history. I’m not arguing whether it’s inspired or not. I’m just arguing that it exists and shares about John and the reign of Domitian.

Don rants that “There is no solid evidence that Antipas was killed by Domitian. The supposed “evidence” was written centuries after the fact and is “hotly debated” and rejected as spurious.

None of these scholars he cites have any definitive nor solid evidence of an early date nor do we have definitive evidence for a late date.

Don gives no credible argument against my historical arguments.  He ridicules me for giving us an example of Symeon of Clophas. I say quite clearly why I gave that information. It goes with the same chapters that Eusebius quotes Hegesippus and Irenaeus to share that the information he gives about Domitian and James’ death and John’s exile is reliable. The fact that he gives more information proves he is reliable and that Eusebius, Hegesippus and Irenaeus can be trusted as sources.  

Don gets mad at me for not taking Candida Moss seriously. He touts her credentials and I suppose Don agrees with her then that we should just read every single thing which includes the bible as a skeptic and dismiss it but then not doubt the imagination of present day secular and atheist bible critic scholars… But hey who’s actually reading these works am I right? Don clearly doesn’t and just quote mines these people to try and fool people into his perverse agenda.  

Conley confidently set forth the quote from Irenaeus claiming that only Calvinist preterists have fairly recently questioned the quote. (He now changes his claim that it is all church of Christ folks! Confusion reigns!) This is a pejorative and false claim.

This idiot lies about me again and misrepresents me. You can read my debate and see I don’t do what he claims. Don is nothing but a liar.

I’ve also spoken directly to Fr. John Behr. Don’s quoting him is incredibly dishonest. Fr. John Behr is a renowned scholar and does not see his opinion as an established fact about Irenaeus. He just gives his opinion and makes his educated opinion. I disagree with it but not everyone will.

Conley tried to escape the evidence from Revelation and 1 Peter by claiming that it is possible that both books are false productions, written by false authors years after the time of the apostles. (He admits the possibility of amenuensis / secretaries, doing the actual writing. BUT THAT DEMANDS THAT BOTH PETER AND JOHN DID THE DICTATING DEMANDING A PRE-AD70 AUTHORSHIP OF PETER FOR SURE!

Don lies again here claiming I think Revelation and 1 Peter are false productions. Since I am not under obligation to be cordial anymore, I find Don to be a despicable piece of dung for lying about me constantly like he does here. I do admit that it is possible that a secretary wrote these books. That is plausible. It would not mean that they are fake books and that would also not demand John wrote the Revelation before 70 AD. That is a false dichotomy Don gives. I am not gonna bother arguing about 1 Peter’s scholarship since Don can’t be bothered to be an honest person here. All I’ll say in response is Don that you are a piece of absolute dung and screw you for lying like you do. I never once say any of what Don spends about 2 pages lying about.

Anyone that knows anything about debating which he clearly does not, knows that anything a disputant has said or written outside the debate can and will be used against them! He never documented a single violation of the rules by me. Just empty false claims.

Okay well then I will quote Don outside of facebook where he endorses polygamy and homosexuality and pedophilia by not condemning the people he does ministry with. He obviously accepts these then since everything is relevant and can be used. I will also tell the reader that on Facebook Don talks about his prostate as well publicly with people since everything is relevant.

This debate is now over. I strongly believe that any honest, objective reader knows that Bale / Conley has utterly failed in his attempt to prove a late date for the writing of Revelation. Just think about it: Conley told us repeatedly that he did not have any definitive or conclusive evidence and yet, he claims that he has proven that the late date is probable. How in the name of reason and logic can you prove ANYTHING by not offering conclusive, definitive evidence? The debate has exposed Bale / Conley as a willful liar and his supporters as those who willfully condoned his sin.

I strongly believe that any honest and objective reader will read this debate and regardless of who did the debate will see that I have not failed. The objective for Don was that he was to give us definitive evidence for the early date. He does not. He is supposed to give established fact. He doesn’t manage a single time to do so. Meanwhile, my objective was that “WHILE NOT DEFINITIVE, the evidence I believe supports a late date and I am supposed to present my arguments and give a case which I do. Don asks “How in the name of reason and logic can you prove anything by not offering conclusive definitive evidence?” I gave strong evidence. The question should be brought back on Don. How can you prove you are going to give definitive evidence of an early date of Revelation and then NOT GIVE A SINGLE piece of information that proves your point?

Don claims lastly that this debate has exposed me as a liar and that my supporters are all evil for me lying. The fact of the matter is there was no rule that I had to give true information in this debate. The fact of the matter is this entire debate has exposed Don as a pseudo-scholar who does little to no research to peddle his lies. This entire debate has proven Don is a man with no character, is morally bankrupt and a man who is willing to lie and misrepresent his opponents’ positions. I will also again note that Don is a perverted old man who lies and supports ministries financially of polygamists like William Bell, supports homosexual full preterists, supports full preterist who engage in threatening to murder people like Steven Baisden and also supports pedophiles and their perverse “ministries”.


A Review of Robert Townley's The 2nd Advent of the Lord Jesus Christ

By: LAZARUS CONLEY As you all are aware, I often in my spare time am studying or reading books that have to do with or are related to esch...