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”.
