Home
Runyon's 1st Affirmative Benton's 1st Negative Runyon's 2nd Affirmative Benton's 2nd Negative Runyon's 3rd Affirmative Benton's 3rd Negative Runyon's 4th Affirmative Benton's 4th Negative Runyon's 5th Affirmative Benton's 5th Negative
Benton's 1st Affirmative Runyon's 1st Negative Benton's 2nd Affirmative Runyon's 2nd Negative Benton's 3rd Affirmative Runyon's 3rd Negative Benton's 4th Affirmative Runyon's 4th Negative
MY SUMMATION
CONTACT PAGE

RUNYON'S SECOND NEGATIVE

To say that Terry consistently ignores the bulk of my arguments would be an understatement: Throughout this debate, he simply disregards clearly elucidated arguments which answer/refute his postulations, textual reconstructions, and redefining the terminology, as he scoffs when I say his questions are implausible. It would be like if he had asked me what brand of oil filter my Thoroughbred Race horse requires, and if I use synthetic blend oil, or regular. The question is implausible, it’s a non-starter, and the second is a non sequitur, but that doesn’t mean that my horse has no hope of winning the Triple Crown!

The repetitive exposure of Terry’s contextual disregard and textual reconstructions is obviously embarrassing him; however, not with the good results as I have prayed. I demonstrated that he attempts to avoid the force of Jesus’ words in Luke 21:22 with his blatant reconstruction of the text by inserting the entire phrase “about the destruction of Jerusalem,” thereby altering what the Word of God actually says.

Terry’s response:

“When I said regarding Luke 21:22 that it means ‘all things written about the fall of Jerusalem,’ Roy accused me of ‘reconstructing the text’ and inserting those words ‘about the fall of Jerusalem.’ Well, no! →If so←, Roy reconstructs ‘all things were fulfilled’ (John 19:28) by inserting ‘pertaining to the death of Jesus.’ Does Roy reconstruct the text or does he teach that ‘all things,’ including the destruction of Jerusalem, were fulfilled when Jesus went to Jerusalem in AD 33? (Luke 18:31). I’m pretty tired of hearing Roy continually accuse me of ‘reconstructing the text’ →when he does the same kind of thing←,” (arrows mine).

After you retrieve your lower jaw from the floor, recall that I stated in my first Negative that the bulk of Terry’s responses to my Affirmatives have been “I think...” “if,” “it may be,” “it could mean this, or it could mean that...” “not necessarily,” “there’s nothing special,” and, “in a way” distractions; and now, he has upped his deceptive Game-o-Distraction by completely fabricating something I’ve never said! He accuses me of reconstructing Joh.19:28, a passage I have never used: not in any debate, lectureship, article, nor even a discussion that I recall. This is a blatant bald-faced lie, spawned in malice, birthed in embarrassment, and truly revealing of Terry’s character, which should deter anyone from ever listening to anything this man says. Perhaps we should remind Terry where the Bible says all liars go (Rev.21:8)!!

Now folks, who reconstructed the text? What Jesus says is what Roy says; what Jesus says fits Roy’s paradigm perfectly. What Jesus says is NOT what Terry says; what Jesus says does NOT fit Terry’s paradigm, therefore, Terry reconstructs what Jesus said. It takes medicated help to misunderstand the simplicity of this fact! Just as Terry reconstructs Act.1:9-11 as demonstrated in my first Negative (which he totally ignored), he does likewise with Luk.21:22.

The reader should notice that Terry’s farcical allegation immediately follows his response to my argument on Jesus’ quotation/application of Dan.12:1-2. This demonstrates his psychological reaction as my argument, based solely on what the texts say, eviscerates his proposition right before the eyes of his audience.

A Review Of Established Facts:

Thus we have Holy Spirit’s quotation/interpretation/application of the fulfillment of His own prediction of the RJUJ synchronous with the Opening-Of-The-Books-Judgment, during the period of time TERRY ADMITS was fulfilled in/by AD 70. This is debate-over for Terry!

To reiterate: this argument is based solely on what these texts SAY: I don’t have to interpret anything. To avoid the lethality of this argument, Terry offers us another jaw-dropping response saying, “Telling the final outcome of the people delivered does not say WHEN the resurrection takes place,” and, “THAT they will be raised to everlasting life is the hope, and that had nothing to do with AD 70,” (emphasis mine); thus, Terry not only has contradicted his own admissions; not only has he fabricated a lie against me; now, he has made a liar out of Jesus and Holy Spirit. I haven’t read anything into any text, and Terry’s allegation of such is another blatant farce!

Terry also makes Paul a false prophet, because during his ministry, he said he had this “hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous” (Act.24:14-15 YLT). Since Paul’s eschatology was from Moses and the prophets, then it can’t be refuted that Holy Spirit is citing His own words through Paul. Jesus posited Daniel’s RJUJ during His generation, and Paul said it was about to be! This is fatal to Terry’s proposition and paradigm. This is why Terry makes God/Christ/Holy Spirit and the apostles out to be liars. What they SAID, untouched, no interpretation needed, refutes Terry’s proposition/paradigm. 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.”

WHY does Terry keep ignoring the following arguments:

1) Eze.38-39 is the prophecy of the battle of Gog and Magog, a last-days judgment against Israel, of which text TERRY ADMITS, “So, the Lord of Hosts (mighty angels) came in His ‘glory’ upon Jerusalem,” (emphasis mine). John cites/applies the battle of Gog/Magog AFTER the millennium—AFTER THE MILLENNIUM—in Rev.20!! Terry asserts that, “well beyond AD 70 (over 1300 years beyond AD 70) Satan is released for short time” (VERSE 7), but VERSE 8 is the battle of Gog/Magog, taken from the text which TERRY ADMITS that, “the Lord of Hosts (mighty angels) came in His ‘glory’ UPON JERUSALEM,” (all emphasis mine). See that Terry? After the millennium ends, and after satan is loosed, then AFTER that, the battle of Gog and Magog occurs which you ADMIT was a judgment against Israel when the Lord came in His glory UPON JERUSALEM. Your assertions have Old Covenant Israel still as God’s people and the Old Covenant unfulfilled “over 1300 years beyond AD 70,” yet you argue the covenant of Judaism was already dead prior to the conversion of the Roman brethren. You contradict yourself coming and going, forward and backward, upside down and inside out! Your audience deserves better from you than your convoluted fairy tales!

2) The facts demonstrated above from Daniel 12 with Jesus’ interpretation/application of the RJUJ & Opening-Of-The-Books-Judgment are posited by Him at “the end” of the Jewish age, at the parousia of Christ. Paul’s resurrection-doctrine of 1Cor.15 is posited at “the end,” at the parousia of Christ. Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other! Since there was only one parousia of Christ, and since Jesus posited His parousia at “the end” of the Jewish age, in the portion of the text (Mat.24:3-34) which TERRY ADMITS was fulfilled in/by AD 70, then by Terry’s own admissions, “the resurrection” at “the end” of 1Cor.15 occurred at the parousia of Christ in the first century. Jesus posits the RJUJ from Dan.12:2 at “the end” of the Jewish age at the parousia of Christ, and Paul posits the RJUJ as about to be (Acts 24:15) concurrently with “the end” at Christ’s parousia (1Cor.15:23-24). Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other! Terry’s own admissions refute his proposition.

This again addresses Terry’s point #10.

3) TERRY ADMITTED that “the end” of 1Cor.15:23-34 is synonymous with Mat.25:31-46. I demonstrated that Mat.25:31ff (when the Son of man shall come in His glory with the holy angels to sit upon His throne) is unquestionably parallel with Luk.9:26-27 (when the Son of man would come in His own glory with the holy angels) where Jesus said, “I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.” I further demonstrated from Mat.20:21 and its parallel Mar.10:37 that the phrases come in thy glory and come in thy kingdom are synonymous, thus eliminating all quibbles that Mat.16:27/Luk.9:26 can be divorced from Mat.16:28/Luk.9:27. This totally-ignored argument proves beyond debate by TERRY’S OWN ADMISSION that “the end” of 1Cor.15:23 (being synonymous with Mat.25:31-46), was posited in the first century generation, thus proving my proposition and simultaneously refuting Terry’s. Is it really any wonder why Terry has ignored this argument from the get-go?

4) Terry’s marrying/no-marrying fiasco:

I quashed Terry’s farcical nonsense on Luk.20:27-36 in my 2nd Affirmative, which he totally ignored. I again addressed his fictitious assertions by asking, when the Sadducees said to Jesus, “Moses wrote unto US...” (Luk.20:28), to which Jesus responded, “The sons of THIS AGE marry &etc.,” (Luk.20:34), which age is “this age,” and contextually, are “the sons” Jews, or Christians? Again, Terry totally ignores who the contextual “sons” are, and claims that I “said ‘this age’ is the age of Judaism, and ‘THAT AGE’ would have to be the age of Christianity post AD 70.” Once again, Terry has just invented something I’ve not stated in this debate.

Even Terry’s Futurist scholars such as Johnson/Clarke/Barnes/Henry/Lange/McGarvey/Gill/Robertson etc., admit the Sadducees are quoting the Levirate marriage law from Deu.25:5-10; but Terry rips one phrase out of its context to create his extra-biblical assertion, while saying, “Notice that we are staying with Jesus’ exact words,” (emphasis his!!). With his pretext in hand, Terry says, “‘This age’ is the age of mortality encompassing all mortal ages of humanity, and THAT AGE is the age where we cannot die and don’t marry because we are like the angels,” and that the “immortal age begins at ‘the last day’ of this mortal age,” (BBD).

So, Terry avers “this age” encompasses from Creation to his mythological end of time.

Since Christ appeared in the end of the ages, (Heb.9:26), and since Paul said the ends of the ages have come (1Cor.10:11), then Terry’s assertion demands that Christ’s first appearing occurred at the end of time, and the inescapable conclusion is that the age of immortality began in the first century. Guess what: Terry has just refuted His own proposition. Is it any wonder he ignored this irrefutable argument?

Terry’s contrived “future-to-us age of immortality” is misplaced since Jesus proved immortality from the book of Exodus. Referring to long-dead Abraham/Isaac/Jacob, He said God, “is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him,” (Luk.20:38).

In reality, Terry ignores the “exact words” of Jesus, because He said, “those who are counted worthy to attain that age←[heaven/immortality], and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage,” (Luk.20:35); thus, once again, the inescapable conclusion is that during “this age” (of mortality [sic]) in order to be counted worthy to attain the ‘age of immortality’ we must not marry nor be given in marriage. Terry refutes his own objection.

Terry completely ignores the context of the Levirate marriage law which specified that if a husband died leaving no male child, the deceased husband’s brother was to marry the widow and procreate a male child for his brother so that the family name would not be blotted out of Israel, i.e., marrying/giving-in-marriage was necessary for Israel’s continuance under the Mosaic Covenant. Under the new everlasting covenant, people enter/perpetuate the kingdom/covenant through baptism, not through physical copulation.

The scene depicted in Isa.65:20-25 includes marriages, child birth and death, after the creation of the new heavens, new earth, the new Jerusalem, and the resurrection (Isa.65:15-19; cf. Rev.21:1-4), at the time of the slaying of Judah, and the salvic inclusion of the Gentiles. Terry has admitted that this scene applies to the Christian age, thus by Terry’s own admission, the resurrection is in our past. Oh, this was another argument Terry totally ignored. Do you see the pattern here folks?

Terry’s 10 points:

1) I’ve already demonstrated multiple times that since Jesus came to confirm the promises made to Old Covenant Israel (Rom.15:8), that in Joh.5:28-29, Jesus is citing from Dan.12:1-2, which was fulfilled in/by AD 70 per Terry’s own admissions. Since you assert that Jesus raised Lazarus unto everlasting life, early, where is he?

2) This is unbridled convoluted nonsense as I’ve never argued that the church was raised out of spiritual death. This is another example of Terry inventing a Straw Man; but, what’s worse, Terry said “the Body (church) of Christ did not die physically or spiritually before AD 70 in order to be raised in AD 70,” (BBD, emphasis mine), but in this point, he says, “The church was already ‘raised’ out of spiritual death (Rom.6:3-6)...long before AD 70,” (emphasis mine). I suppose I should thank Terry for so thoroughly demonstrating the inane contradictory lunacy of the futurist paradigm!

3) Terry says the resurrection “will happen for those [“‘we’ humans” (sic)] who physically die... and those who do not physically die will be ‘changed’ (1 Cor.15:51-52)...at the same moment.” Paul says, “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed”; see the difference folks? Terry says only those who are physically alive at the second coming will be changed, while Paul said ALL would undergo the same “change,” thus, Terry again has reconstructed the text. Then, Terry creates a linguistic contradiction by asserting that this “change” occurs at the assumed end of time, at which time, the soul/spirit of every living person would exit the physical body, which is the definition of physical death (Jas.2:26)!

Terry’s problems grow exponentially when we look at what Paul actually says, notice:

“But someone will be protesting, ‘How are the dead being roused? Now with what body are they coming?’ Imprudent one! What you are sowing is not being vivified if it should not be dying. And, what you are sowing, you are not sowing the body which shall come to be, but a naked kernel, perchance of wheat or some of the rest,” (1Cor.15:35-37).

All bold terms are in the present tense, i.e., Paul did not say, “How shall the dead be raised...with what bodies shall they come into...when you shall sow your dead physical body &etc.” Holy Spirit’s use of the present-tense language demonstrates a process already underway, but Terry’s fictitious reconstruction has even more problems in that Paul’s seed analogy follows God’s natural laws, i.e., when you plant (sow) a seed, it dies AFTER it’s planted, then new-life emerges; the parallel in Terry’s world has people burying (sowing) living people in the graves! See the problem?

Paul’s eschatological resurrection-hope was the hope of Israel as he says, “I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers,” taken from Moses and the prophets, (Act.26:6-8; 28:20), “Unto which promise our twelve tribes...hope to come.” Notice that “the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers,” which the “twelve tribes...hope to come,” is exactly parallel with Paul’s “kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers...” (Rom.9:3-5).

Without the first keystroke of exegetical or linguistic evidence, Terry asserts, “The adoption in Rom.9:4 speaks to Israel’s PAST adoption as God’s people,” as he just eliminated Israel’s hope of the resurrection, and forces God into being an unfaithful God not being able to fulfill His promises made to the fathers!! As pointed out in my opening remarks, Terry ignores the inclusio here from “the Spirit of adoption” (Rom.8:15) to “the adoption” of Rom.9:4. “The adoption” of Rom.8:23 includes the anaphoric article (the definite article “the”) referring back to the “Spirit of adoption” in 8:15. Everywhere else “the adoption” is found (Gal.4:5; Eph.1:5) includes the definite article; hence, Paul only knew of one adoption, and it was an Old Covenant promise made to Old Covenant Israel.

So, when Paul says things like “they that are in the flesh cannot please God,” and, “But ye are not in the flesh,” and, “if Christ be in you, the body is dead” (Rom.8:8-10), it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to comprehend that Paul isn’t using “flesh” and “body” referent to individual-biological bodies.

Since Paul taught that God was reconciling both Jew & Gentile into “one body,” and that body was not an individual-biological body; and, was of the two making “one new man” (Eph.2:13-18), and that man was not an individual-biological man; then it’s only a strain on the biased mind of the futurists to comprehend that since the “one body” and the “one new man” is the spiritual body of Christ, then God was reconciling the body of Jews and the body of Gentiles into the “one body” of Christ; hence, Paul’s statement that Christ “shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you,” (Rom.8:11).

4) Implausible!

Points 5-9 are addressed in the above arguments.

We have forced Terry to clear up a little of his obfuscatory Jesus-comings by specifying Jesus-as-Jehovah comings. THIS, is progress!