Roy was supposed to respond to my affirmative arguments. I listed 10 arguments, expecting him to respond to those point by point. The reader can reread and see that Roy wrote a lot of stuff, took a lot of verses out of context, misapplied others, twisted others, but has not done his job of responding to my affirmatives. The proposition has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

“ALL THINGS” QUALIFIED

Roy outright lies and said that I take away “into heaven” from Acts 1:11. I never did that. Then he said that I ADD “about the destruction of Jerusalem” to Luke 21:22. No! I just explained that “all things” is “qualified” by the context. He pointed out that Luke 18:32-33 says “all things” just as Luke 21:22 does, but he said Luke 18:32-33 has QUALIFIERS to explain that “all things” does not mean “all things” without qualification. That was my point. Luke 21:22 is qualified by the subject matter of the context. He said I took away the qualifier “concerning the Son of Man.” Well, hasn’t Roy been arguing the whole time that AD 70 concerns the coming of the “Son of Man?” So, according to his argument, the DOJ concerned the coming of the Son of Man and was fulfilled in AD 33 on his trip to be crucified in order that “all things” might be fulfilled then. The “qualifiers” are also present in Luke 21:22, namely all things concerning “the days of vengeance.” If there are “qualifiers” to “all things” in Luke 18:32-33, there are also qualifiers to “all things” in Luke 21:22.

Now get this:

1) If NO qualifier is in Luke 21:22, then “all things without qualification” were fulfilled in the DOJ of AD 70.

Thus, Jesus’ death and resurrection happened in AD 70. In fact, his ascension happened in AD 70. Did “ALL things” without qualification happened in AD 70?

2) If “all things” is qualified by the context, then it is “all things about the destruction of Jerusalem.”

Now Roy has only one of these two choices. Either way he goes he invalidates his charges against me and exposes his own dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Mello

Now, Roy says that Acts 24:15 means the resurrection of the just and unjust was "ABOUT TO come,” and appealed to the rendering of Young’s Literal Translation. Most versions say, "shall come," and thus their scholars say “shall come” with no reference to how close in time it might be. Roy is relying on "mello" to make his case that it was "about to" come in respect of timing.

But consider:

1) Acts 26:22,23. Did Moses say Jesus was "about to come"? Did Moses say Jesus was "about to" show light to the Gentiles? You know that was over 1,000 years of "about to" happenings.

2) Romans 5:14 says Adam was a figure of Jesus who was "about to come?” There were about 4,000 years between Adam and Jesus. Roy claimed that it was “present active participle” here and that is different. Yet, "mello" is the word he is depending on to make his case that the resurrection of the just and unjust was “about to” take place in the destruction of Jerusalem? The context is about Adam bringing sin and death and Jesus bringing remedy and reconciliation. The mello is connected to the first coming. He “was to come” is contextually accurate.

3) Gal. 3:23 says the Jews were kept under guard by the law, shut up unto the faith which was "about to be revealed" over a 1,000 years later?

4) 2 Peter 2:6 says Sodom and Gomorrah was overthrown and became an example only to those who were "about to" live ungodly? Not, an example to those living in Peter's day?

No! Acts 24:15 does not make the case that the resurrection of all men everywhere happened in AD 70.

Roy claimed that the word “mello” in the “present active PARTICIPIAL” case takes away the immediacy element. I challenge Roy to cite authorities in Greek that make that argument. It does not matter if it is a “participle” or not. If immediacy of timing is INHERENT in “mello,” then it is inherent even if it is a participle. A participle “participates in the nature of both verb and adjective” (Webster). So, whatever the nature of the verb or adjective, the participle “participates in the nature” of its connected verb or adjective. If it inherently means “near future,” then it means that even when it is a participle. Mello does not always demand the rendering of “about to”, and sometimes is best suited to stating what SHALL be done without suggesting only an immediate event. Roy was trying to hoodwink us with that silly argument that a present active participle is different than a present active infinitive.

If a participle participates with an infinitive it is the same meaning in mello. Thus, Gal.3:23 is a participle participating with an infinitive. If the infinitive “be revealed” connects with the participial form of mello, and it does, then “the faith” was “about to” be revealed for over 1,000 years. So, if “mello” inherently means “about to” in timing then all versions should say “about to” or “soon to happen”. Most don’t because it is not inherent in the word, and the context must demand it.

The context of Acts 24:15 does not demand it. Therefore, most scholars did not put it in there. Roy needs it to be there, but even if we granted it, it would still be like Galatians 3:23 where the faith was “about to” be revealed from the time of Moses (over 1000 years of “about to come”).

If “mello” always speaks to immediacy of timing, Elijah was “about to come” timing wise for over 400 years (Matt.11:14).

Further, mello is used right NEXT to parachrema (Luke 19:11). Guess which of the two words meant “immediate?” If immediacy of timing is inherent in mello, then the Holy Spirit would not have depended on “parachrema” to make the point in this text.

In Acts 22:16 the word “mello” means “tarry.” “Why tarriest thou?” Even YLT gives “tarriest” as the rendering. Why did he not rather say, “What are you about to do?” Obviously, immediacy is not the same as tarrying. Yet, Roy’s entire paradigm DEPENDS on it meaning “immediately” or “about to” in timing. He leans on Young’s Literal Translation, but Young is not consistent with this supposed inherent definition.

Roy says he has “NEVER” said “mello” always means “about to come.” Then the case is closed. We both agree that it does not always mean that. We both agree it sometimes contextually demands it, but not always. So, he can’t build his case on mello meaning “within two to forty years” whenever he just wants to make it mean that.

Well, then a few sentences later he said many translations “improperly” translated it “shall.” If Roy is not saying it ALWAYS means about to come, then he cannot claim that it is improperly translated “shall.” I trust the translators knew more about the word and what it demands in a given context than I trust Roy’s scholarship in Greek.

JUST AND UNJUST RAISED IN AD 70?

Roy uses Acts 24:15 to teach that the just were spiritually raised in AD 70 because he does not believe in an “out-of-casket corpse-revivifying individual” resurrection like Jesus’ (See 1 Cor.15:20 where Paul argues that our resurrection will be like Jesus’). Roy ridicules that very idea. If you need raising spiritually, you are not “just.” All that need to be spiritually raised are dead spiritually. Roy has the unjust raised in AD 70 the same as the Christians.

Now, out of what death were they resurrected? If spiritual death, then they were saved right along with the righteous dead. That is UNIVERSALISM.

If not spiritual death, then they would have had to be raised out of physical death. So, where are these 2000 year old people?

A spiritual resurrection of the just means the just were not just (justified). A spiritual resurrection of the unjust would mean they were justified. So, Roy has the Christians dead in sin until AD 70, at which point they were raised up to saved status, and he has the unjust raised to saved status in AD 70. Either way, that means all were saved in AD 70. UNIVERSALISM. Further, if “immortality” means you “can’t die” spiritually, then the forced conclusion is that NO ONE is lost in sin, nor CAN anyone be lost in sin since AD 70.

Raised to Immortality?

Roy claimed that I claimed Lazarus was resurrected “to immortality.” No! I said he was raised. I did not say he was raised to immortality. For all we know he could have been raised mortal, a state that could die again. Roy then asked how a person can be “resurrected from mortality?” That should be simple enough for God! The person died because he was mortal, and then would be raised from a state of mortal to a state of immortal.

He claimed that there was no future resurrection of the dead because he argues that Luke 20:37 says the dead ARE raised. This obviously shoots his own argument in the foot that says that the resurrection would happen for the just and unjust in AD 70. He can’t have it both ways! Now, if Roy does the two-step and says that “ARE raised” in Luke 20:37 is another one of his “prolepsis” statements, then it is a prolepsis of a real future fulfillment when we become immortal, can’t die, don’t marry, and become like the angels (v.34,35). If Roy insists that Jesus meant that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ARE already raised, then there was no future (“that age” to come) called the resurrection. Nothing could be different about “this age” where people ARE (already) raised, and “THAT age.”

He switches from my argument that “this age” IN THIS CONTEXT (Luke 20:34-35) refers to the age of mortality, which covers all of the ages of human history on earth, and finds ANOTHER context where the end of the “ages” speaks of the ages of Judaism, and switches what each context is referring to. That is like forcing Ephesians 2:7 to contradict 1 Cor.10:11. One verse says the end of the ages have come, and the other says there are ages to come. One refers to the end of the ages of God’s program with earthly Israel, and the other speaks to the many ages of preaching the gospel of grace in the future. Roy confuses the use of “age” and “ages” and tries to fit them all in his AD 70 paradigm. Still, he needs there to be no death or dying, no marrying, and all being like the angels in this post AD 70 time-period. But reality and his false-doctrinal-paradigm just don’t work together at all.

He lies again and says I give “lip-service” to the “levirate-marriage context” (Luke 20:27-38). No! I fully acknowledged that the Sadducees used that levirate law to spin a problem for Jesus and His doctrine of a resurrection. But Jesus destroyed the argument, making it IRRELEVANT because in the resurrection age there is NO marrying, levirate or otherwise. You become like the angels and you become immortal so that you can’t die. The elephant in the room is that none of that happened in AD 70, and Roy just whistles and pretends that elephant is not there. When he makes his final post that elephant will still be there. All the reader has to do is come back to Luke 20:34-35 and ask yourself, “Are people still marrying, dying, and unlike the angels?” If the answer is still “yes,” then we are not yet in the immortal age of the resurrection.

Gog & Magog

Roy makes the argument that the law of Moses was binding as long as there was any unfulfilled prophecy. I don’t make that argument. I agree with Paul that the law was abolished via the cross (Col.2:13-16; Eph.2:15) and that we are “dead to the law”(Rom.7:4) and delivered from the law (v.6) long before AD 70. My position does not demand that every prophecy about the fall of Jerusalem and Rome has to be fulfilled before the law can be non-binding. Roy’s paradigm depends on it. Therefore, he cannot make my position equal to his position. His position needs EVERY prophecy fulfilled in AD 70 because that is when his argument, that the law cannot be abolished until every prophecy is fulfilled, allows the old to pass. His argument falls apart if there are prophecies of things BEYOND AD 70. He has to move the goalpost to the fulfillment of any lingering unfulfilled prophecy. Thus, my reminder from Ezekiel that prophecy mentions things SEVEN years beyond AD 70, moving Roy’s goalpost to AD 77, and the fall of the Roman empire (beast) extends his goalpost further. He needs everything to be completely fulfilled in AD 70 but so many scriptures keep refuting his doctrine. See my notes under Ezekiel 38-39 Battle of Gog and Magog in my THIRD affirmative. Roy didn’t answer it at all.

Coming (Parousia)

He pretended that the verb elousatai and the noun Parousia are not synonymous words that can refer to any “coming.” He has argued that Jesus came as Lord of Hosts in only ONE coming (making it the SECOND coming) and that coming was in AD 70. We showed that Jesus is LORD OF HOSTS and has come in that way numerous times.

He is “the Lord of Sabaoth”(James 5:4), whose “coming” (v.8) was at hand. But, since Jesus is “Lord of Hosts” (armies), it means that Jesus has been doing this many times to be known as the Lord of Hosts.

Thus, AD 70 is not the first time Jesus, the Lord of Hosts, has “come” (Parousia).

It is certainly not the SECOND coming (Parousia).

In fact, He came as Lord of Hosts upon Jerusalem before during the Babylonian period (Isa.1:9; 2:12; 3:1); upon Babylon (Isa.13:4; 14:22 -Lord of Sabaoth), and Egypt (Isa.19:4,12).

These comings are the same in nature as the one in AD 70 upon Jerusalem AGAIN.

So, Roy lost the first proposition, claiming that Jesus never came as Lord of Hosts until AD 70. He came numerous times in that way.

Jesus came personally once in the flesh and will come personally again at the end when mortality is brought to an end (1 Cor.15:23ff). There is nothing that makes Parousia a different KIND of coming than the other times He came as “Lord of Hosts.”

Corporate Resurrection?

RR: This is why his questions on mortality/immortality &etc., are implausible, i.e., he is misconstruing Paul’s resurrection-doctrine of a corporate-resurrection into an individual out-of-casket corpse-revivifying resurrection. That was not Paul’s “hope of the resurrection.”

I wonder if Jesus had one of those “out-of-casket corpse-revivifying” resurrections? (See 1 Cor.15). Roy is saying that “mortality” is not personal and individual, but that the ONLY mortality and immortality is “corporate” or collective, combined with a group. Amazing! Paul said life would be given to your “mortal bodies” (Rom.8:11). Were the brethren at Rome in more than one “corporate” body (bodies=plural)? No! These were all in the ONE body of Christ (12:5) already. They were all baptized into Christ (6:3-6) and were not baptized into bodies (plural). They had hope of life being given to their mortal BODIES (8:11). Mortality has to do with our individual bodies, not the corporate body of Christ. Paul was already in the corporate body of Christ while still hoping for his “tent” from heaven after he put off THIS tent (2 Cor.5:1f). He was in a mortal tent, would put it off at death, and would be receiving in the future a better tent (immortal). Thus, to support his false doctrine Roy “reconstructs the texts.”

Conclusion

All ten of my points continue to confirm that my proposition is true. Roy admits that marriage was still going on before, during, and after AD 70. Therefore, the resurrection to immortality did not happen in the first century. So, as we observed earlier, THIS AGE (from the context of Luke 20:34f) includes ALL the ages of mortality, and THAT AGE, we are still trying to attain (Phil.3:11; 20-21), is the age of immortality where you don’t marry, and you don’t die. Roy could not finagle his way out of the devastating words of Jesus.

1. The graves are still being filled with mortal bodies. They should be empty, and people cease dying (John 5:28,29; Luke 20:35). As long as we are dying and bodies are still in the grave, Roy’s doctrine is proven false and my proposition is true.

2. The church was raised spiritually long before AD 70 (Eph.2:1-10). Roy contends that the church was dead up till AD 70 and was then raised to spiritual life.

3. Immortality would have to mean no one dies spiritually (once-saved-always-saved) if the church became incorruptible and spiritually immortal in AD 70.

4. We are still marrying and dying, continued proof that we are still in the age of mortality (Luke 20:34-35).

5. Our mortal bodies are still mortal bodies (Rom.8:11,23,24).

6. Mortality would end with Jesus coming and us seeing Him AS HE IS (1 Cor.15:23; 1 John 3:1-2; Phil.3:20f). Didn’t happen in AD 70.

7. There is a last day for mortality (John 6:39,44,54; 11:24; 1 Cor.15:23; Luke 20:34,35).

8. HOPE is based on promises that have not been realized. Roy confesses hopelessness.

9. Much was to happen AFTER the fall of the Harlot (Jerusalem) via Rev.17-20. Can’t get it all in AD 70.

10. NOBODY saw Him AS HE IS AND BECAME LIKE HIM in AD 70.

The reader is encouraged to come back to review my affirmatives. Ask yourself, “Did Roy really answer the arguments from scripture that I set forth?” Be diligent to show yourself approved unto God, and may your heart be filled with the HOPE of immortality as God promised.