Roy opens his third affirmative with doubling down on his lies and trying his best to attach lies to me, which is what I expected of him seeing his poor performances in previous discussions with him. I will expose the unfruitful works of darkness (Eph.5:11) seen in his third attempt at proving his proposition.

Roy's LIES

Roy's lies break down into outright lies and lies about me lying. His third affirmative is showing his desperation. He knows he can't prove his proposition and is feeling the effects of getting answered and exposed on his arguments. SO, he turns desperately to personal insult.

First, does Roy claim that there are verses about the "time of the end" (for example, Dan.12:9)? I didn't say that he mentioned it in his first or second affirmative. I said that he claims there are no verses about "the end of time" (true) and I assumed that he would admit there are verses about "the time of the end" (Dan.12:9). Again true! He didn't mention it, and I didn't say he did mention it in his first affirmative. I just know that Roy DOES affirm that there are verses about "the time of the end", and if Roy denies it, you will know he is LYING and he is LYING about me lying, and the reader should never trust another thing he says or writes. Roy, do you deny there are verses about "the time of the end?"

Roy outright lied in his second affirmative by saying I "reconstructed his third QUESTION." I did nothing but give an answer, only listing the NUMBER so you could refer to Roy's question. Mine was only an ANSWER. Thus, I did nothing to his question. He didn't like the fact that in my answer I supplied more verses than he asked about. But I can supply all the verses I want to in clarifying my answer. He does not get to dictate what verses I may use to respond to his question. He outright LIED in saying I reconstructed his QUESTION , and then he came back in his third affirmative to DOUBLE DOWN on his lie. I told the truth that I did not QUOTE his questions AT ALL, much less reconstruct any of them. He seems to have lost his mind and said, " A quote is not a quote if the statement isn't quoted verbatim ." What has that got to do with anything unless I QUOTED his question AT ALL? This is nothing but gross dishonesty on his part and deflection from the fact that I answered his question with an answer that included more verses which did take in his particular verses. I answered showing all of Matthew 24:1-33 is about the fall of Jerusalem, not just 31ff. If I had admitted 31ff (how far ahead is "ff?") was part of "the end" of Jerusalem, then I would have been helping Roy in his false doctrine. My answer was to show the topic of the fall of Jerusalem is not ALL of Matthew 24:31 ff, but only 1-33. I get to clarify my answer as I see fit. His question was misleading, so I get to clarify MY ANSWER. At any rate, the reader can clearly see that it is a false charge that I did anything to his question, much less "reconstruct" it.

Roy then posits three more lies of his own with: 1) Terry is" blatantly refusing to answer my question." 2) "breached his agreement." 3) "lied three times." All of which are really just more of Roy's lies.

He had the audacity after such of series of his own lies to say: " Is this the kind of 'teacher' you want to continue placing your trust in to represent what you believe? Are lies and subterfuge necessary to accurately represent your Faith? If so, then you are wasting your time in pretense of being a Christian ." And I would say "AMEN!" Roy, ask yourself your own questions about yourself!

FulFilled

Another lie of Roy is when he said he "demonstrated that he (Terry) REDEFINED the term 'fulfill." That was a lie in his second affirmative and now he is doubling down on his LIE. He says he agrees to "typology" which is an INDIRECT way of depicting Christ. Well, then he admits what I said is actually TRUE, that there is more than one way a scripture can be " fulfilled'. A scripture can speak directly to one thing (Israel called out of Egypt) and indirectly about another thing (Jesus called out of Egypt). Roy, count that up! That's TWO uses of the same scripture! So, the reader can see how Roy exposed himself in his entirely dishonest accusation that I was being deceitful in saying that there is more than one way a scripture can be fulfilled. Surely, there is enough honesty in Roy to give up this argument! No?

Then Roy said that "the judgment of Babylon was typological of the judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70,…" Well, that is mere assertion! Both the fall of Jerusalem in the Babylonian period and the fall of Jerusalem in the Roman period, are similar events. He twists what I said about "representative judgment" by means of the Romans to be some kind of typology. No! I was saying that the Babylonians represented God instead of God coming PERSONALLY and the Romans were the representation of God bearing down on Jerusalem instead of God coming in person. Roy was getting desperate again! All local judgments like the one on Egypt, Jerusalem (Babylonian period), Babylon (God coming by means of the Medes), Jerusalem again in AD 70, are a foretaste, not necessarily a type-antitype, of God's final judgment of the world. To the Athenians God through Paul said "God will JUDGE THE WORLD" in righteousness (Acts 17:30,31). That did not happen in AD 70. The Athenians will know when they are judged.

Roy's Double Standard is Dishonest

When I answer briefly, Roy calls my answer a "shot-gun hermeneutic". But when he answers briefly, or not at all it is fine! To him it is a matter of "space" to expound on an argument, but it is not a matter of "space" but dishonesty when Terry does not give as much detail as Roy would like. When Terry makes a mistake, Terry corrects it. See 2^nd negative under "correction." When Roy says an untruth, he does not correct it. Instead, he doubles down to make it clear that he is intentionally lying or too dishonest to admit he messed up. Then he has the audacity to say that I am a liar!

I know this kind of debating is very distasteful, and I assure you that were it not for the agreement to debate this matter this time, Roy would not be honored with another such agreement on honorable sites I control. I would prefer that Roy stick with proving his proposition. Even if I were the biggest liar in the world, it would not prove that Roy has been truthful and honest, and it would not do one thing to prove that "the SECOND coming of the Lord was to occur during the first century AD." That is what Roy has now spent THREE affirmatives to prove, and he has not even touched it with proof. He has one more chance to prove that proposition. We will watch to see if he "breached" his agreement to prove that proposition, or was it all a lie from start to finish?

The World IS Passing Away

The Hebrew writer agrees with the OT that the world is growing old like a garment (1:10-11). Garments are in the process of passing away (1 John 2:15-17). While in the process of decay there may come a time to burn them to speed the process. That is what we see with the world. It is growing old like a garment, and it does not matter how old it is, it is still decaying. It was growing old when the Psalmist said it. It was still growing old a thousand years later when the Hebrews writer quoted it, and 2 thousand years later it is still growing old. When it finally passes away entirely is up to God. It will happen when He comes (2 Peter 3:7-12) and it didn't happen in AD 70. The heavens and the earth are compared to Jesus. They will perish, but YOU remain! Roy says that they will remain as long as the Lord Jesus remains. His hermeneutic is not working right! What is the point of contrast if both remain and neither perish?

Roy switches the text of 2 Peter 3:5-7 to tell us that Peter is saying the heavens that were of old "and the earth flooded with water" was an entirely different "heaven and earth" than Peter said was "reserved for fire." The "heavens and the earth" that was flooded was not a local flood on Judaism. It was a universal flood that changed everything above earth and on earth. The text says that Peter is talking about the world that THEN (in Noah's day) existed was flooded with water, and then talks about the world that "now exists." Same planet was flooded and same planet will burn. In neither case is it talking about the local world of Judaism. We don't have the same heaven and earth as was flooded with water. The heavens held a different amount of water that has not been replaced, and the earth is different because the water changed the surface of the land. The heavens and earth that Peter was in are "kept in store for fire." Peter is not saying Jerusalem is kept in store for fire. He is saying the heavens and earth that now exist, post flood, is the heavens and earth that will be dissolved with fire. Roy twists the passage and blows smoke to hide the fact that Peter is talking about the same planet mass that was flooded in Noah's day and will yet be burned up and dissolved in the future. It was not Jerusalem in Noah's day and it is not Jerusalem that Peter is talking about in this text either.

The Elements of Judaism?

Roy tried feverishly to connect the word "elements" in 2 Peter 3:10-12 with the "elements of the world" in Col.2:8 and 20. Col.2:8 is about "the basis principles of the world". Those principles are: 1) lust of eye, go for it. 2) Lust of the flesh, go for it, 3) Strokes your ego, go for it. (See 1 John 2:15-17). Christians already died to those basic principle in repentance and baptism. Peter is talking about the "elements" that make up the very substance of the heavens and the earth. Different elements altogether! Roy tried to tie the "elements" of 2 Peter 3:10-12 with the elements of the LOM (Law of Moses). But they became dead to the elements of the law long before AD 70. Further, people are still pressing for the Law of Moses to be observed even after AD 70. Peter is talking about the elements that make up the heavens and the earth that was once flooded. That earth has the elements that has been reserved from anymore world-wide floods and has been reserved for FIRE. How Roy can live with himself trying to connect the word "elements" to the same "elements" of heathenism and the elements of Judaism is beyond me.

How Long is the Christian Age?

Roy says that I admitted that Isa.65:20-25 "applies to the Christian age," but get this: 1) Roy has "this age" as the age of Judaism that lasted up till AD 70. 2) He has the "age to come" to be the "Christian age" which had to begin AFTER AD 70. Thus, he can't have part of Isaiah 65:20-25 being fulfilled after AD 70. If it was not all fulfilled in the pre-AD 70 age of Judaism, then he shoots his argument in the foot that has "heaven and earth" (Judaism) passing in AD 70 and all promises filled up by then. But Roy shoots his right foot, hops around on his left foot, and then turns to shoot it. He has prophecies of the "Christian age" beginning in AD 70 but says that all that was in the OT had to be completely fulfilled by AD 70 else the OT could not pass away. He's tangled himself up and can't untie his illogical knots.

Roy says that my admitting that Isaiah 65:20-25 applies to the Christian age is "fatal to Terry's paradigm", but remember, my answer to Roy's question was "Christian age viewed in its' relation to heaven and eternity." So, I don't have to get everything fulfilled by AD 70. Roy does because of his "paradigm." We have to get Roy to clarify his statement that the resurrection is "at the time when Judah would be slain." Is this slain in spirit? Is it slain physically in AD 70? And didn't you already agree that the resurrection to newness of life among Jews and Gentiles was in AD 30-40? (Rom.6:3-6). So, why are you pushing it all 30-40 years later in AD 70?

IS Passing/Dissolving

He lies again and says I "completely ignored" his argument on the present tense of "being dissolved"(2 Peter 3:11). I may not have specifically called attention to this verse, but I already answered the argument in talking about the present tense of passing away in 1 John 2:17. I pointed out that the world is growing old like a garment (Heb.1:11) while Jesus does not. Anything that is growing old is ready to vanish away. It is in process of deterioration. No matter how slow the process, it is wearing down. Besides that, Robertson says the Greek word here can be either the "futuristic present" or the process of dissolution. Why is it in "process of dissolution?" Because it is like a garment destined to wear down in processes of the law of entropy. Anything in process to that end is "temporal" (2 Cor.4:18). A garment starts new and wears down. When it was made it was in process of "passing away" or "dissolution." The world is not like Jesus, eternal. The world is like a garment. That is the point made in Psalm 102:25-27 and Hebrews 1:10-11. In 2 Peter 3:11,

" The present participle, however, can be taken with a future sense, as RSV and most translations have done (note TEV "will be destroyed"). (from the UBS New Testament Handbook Series).

It "is passing" and "is dissolving" because it is presently determined like a garment to not last as long as Jesus. The world is passing with ALL it's lust, and an example of that truth is that Judaism was in it's last time. Judaism is not "the world and all its lust", but an example of things in the world that are temporary. The things that are seen are temporary. An example of the temporary is given in 2 Cor.5 of the earthly tent (personal body of flesh) versus the coming immortal tent (personal immortal body). An example of the temporary is not the WHOLE of the subject of "the things (plural) that are seen." One example is to illustrate the general truth that "the things that are seen are temporary." Roy argued that if the world is passing away then about 2000 years world of "the worldly lust should have also passed away." Well 2000 years worth of people devoted to all that is in the world did pass away, but 2000 years worth of people who did the will of God abides forever (1 John 2:17). As long as people arise to take the course of lust for the things of the world, then lust will continue to capture new people. It should have all ended in AD 70 if that is the world and its' lust that was passing away. People are still living in lust and passing away. Thus, the world and its lusts did not pass away completely in AD 70.

Roy argued that "gar" in 2 Cor.5:1 is explaining the whole of what Paul mentioned in 4:18. "The THINGS that are seen are temporal". 5:1 explains with a single example. You have a body you can see. That is one thing among the general truth that the THINGS (plural) that are seen are temporal. Roy is unable to refute the general truth by an appeal to a specific example of the general truth.

Matthew 5:17ff

Roy argues that "till heaven and earth pass" is equal to "till all be fulfilled." I don't think so! In saying "till heaven and earth pass" Jesus is speaking of the absolute dependability of the law of Moses staying in place until the demands are filled. Jesus would have to fill up what the Law demanded. At the cross Jesus said "It is finished" (John 17:4; John 19:28-30). Heaven and earth did not have to pass. But it could more easily pass than Jesus not fulfilling the demands of the OT. Vincent observes on this verse: (Matt.5:18)

Jewish tradition mentions the Hebrew letter yod (y) as being irremovable; adding that, if all people in the world were gathered to abolish the least letter in the law, they would not succeed. The guilt of changing those little hooks which distinguish between certain Hebrew letters is declared to be so great that, if such a thing were done, the world would be destroyed! (Vincent's Word Studies).

Roy closed by saying he "forced me into the shadows of ambiguity (Tit.1:2)," which is just an admission that he couldn't answer my argument from that clear passage. Roy trotted out his same passages that he used before, ignoring "hyperbole" and ignoring the verses that show the hyperbole of his verses cannot override the verses that show that Jesus "REMAINS" while the heavens and the earth "perish" like a "garment." Roy used three affirmatives and has still failed to prove his proposition.