Jesus nor His apostles ever contradicted themselves in defending their doctrine, nor did they consistently misrepresent/fabricate what their opponents said to give the allusion that they were defeating their arguments? I literally marvel at the ludiocrity, prevarications, and straw-men ‘arguments’ Terry has spun. Once again, he totally fabricates things I haven’t said, magnificently validating my opening remarks. The reader should note how Terry completely disregarded my arguments on 1Cor.15 which prove he is misconstruing Paul’s doctrine of the resurrection, as he filled his entire first section with things I’ve never said.

Terry (as most do), fails to comprehend that when he changes “the words of God” they are no longer the words of God. All down through history, Jehovah warned His people against altering His words, saying, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, [WHY] that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you, (Deu.4:2). Paul said, “Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man's covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it,” (Gal.3:15); and, John said, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book,” (Rev.22:18-19).

Blinded by his bias, presupposition, and Cognitive Dissonance, Terry doesn’t realize when he adds to/takes away from God’s word; for instance, I demonstrated that he takes away “into heaven” in Acts 1:11, and he adds “about the destruction of Jerusalem,” in Luk.21:22, and from sheer desperation, he does it again in his all things fulfilled Straw-man. Terry’s grade-school rejoinders cannot mitigate the lie he fabricated against me. As he fans the flames of his prevarication, watch what he does as I copy/paste his bullet point:

• Jesus says: “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished.” Jesus said ALL things would be accomplished on this trip to Jerusalem (AD 33).

See what he did? He quoted the words of Jesus, then reconstructed the text by taking away from His words, the qualifier “concerning the Son of man.” Not only did Jesus use the qualifier “concerning the Son of man,” He even listed which things “concerning the Son of man” He was referring to, notice:

Luk 18:32-33 For he shall be:

• delivered unto the Gentiles, and,

• shall be mocked, and,

• spitefully entreated, and,

• spitted on, and,

• they shall scourge him, and,

• put him to death: and,

• the third day he shall rise again.

So, Terry does not say what Jesus says. Terry takes away the qualifier in Luk.18:31, and he adds his own qualifier “about the destruction of Jerusalem” to the words of Jesus in Luk.21:22; and what did God say about those who would add unto or take away from His words?

Right on cue per my opening remarks, Terry creates confusion for the readers, rather than exegeting the scriptures, as he obfuscates and redefines the present tense verb mello. In spite of Terry’s smoke-n-mirrors distraction, the reader should be cognizant of the fact that the scriptures were penned, not in Old English KJV, but rather Koine Greek (NT), and Holy Spirit did not use words arbitrarily! When translations alter the definitions, add to and/or take away from God’s word, as Terry does, then the word of God ceases to be the word of God.

Note in Terry’s Straw-man of “Insist that ‘mello’ always means ‘about to come’” (something I never said), he asserts, “The phrase is not always about timing but always about CERTAINTY, ‘certainly to come,’” without giving you the first hint of a source for his selective-definition, because the reader would immediately recognize that he is misrepresenting the lexical definition just as he does God’s word, as I’ll demonstrate below.

In many Bible translations, the Greek term mello is improperly translated “shall” most of the time, primarily in eschatological statements and texts, which gives the reader no indication that the occurrence was imminent.

Holy Spirit’s use of mello indicates something is “about to be” or “about to” take place; therefore, rendering mello with the English word “shall,” while implying a future action, lacks any indication of timing, and cloaks the inherent imminence of the original language.

This is very important when considering prophetic texts that use mello, specifically in reference to the return of Christ, and other ‘end time’ events. An accurate understanding of mello implies that those events were about to take place. Since the majority of translators approach the original manuscripts with the presupposition that these events were still in their future, their bias causes them great difficulty in translating mello with its about to sense in most eschatological texts.

μέλλω mellō:

“to be about; to be on the point of doing or suffering something...” (Thayer);

“to intend, that is, be about to be, do, or suffer something...” (Strong's);

“to be about (to do something,) often implying the necessity, and therefore the certainty of what is to take place,” (Vine's, under “come,”; emphasis mine)

“to be about to, to be on the point of,...it serves to express in general a settled futurity...to intend…future as distinguished from past and present…TO BE ALWAYS, AS IT WERE, ABOUT TO DO, TO DELAY, LINGER…” (Moulton's Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 262);

“mellein 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).

“The verb μέλλωis used to indicate an action about to be preformed, one on the point of being done,” (Liddell and Scott).

PRESENT ACTIVE INFINITIVE:

Act.11:28, “[Agabus] did signify through the Spirit a great dearth is about to be throughout all the world–which also came to pass in the time of Claudius Caesar.”

Would Terry have trouble seeing that Agabus predicted a severe drought was about to begin, which did in fact take place shortly thereafter?

Act.28:6 “and they were expecting him to be about to be inflamed, or to fall down suddenly dead...”

Would Terry argue against the concept that the islanders expected Paul to swell up and/or die immediately from the venomous snake bite?

Act.24:15 “having 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.”

Why then does Terry disagree with and alter/redefine the words of Holy Spirit, who said the resurrection was about to take place? Same Greek word; same Greek tense! Mello in Rom.5:14 is present active participle, and thus is not the same Greek tense as Paul’s statement that the RJUJ was imminent. What Terry is attempting to do (hoping you won’t notice his projection) is to selectively-redefine mello so it always means the same thing in all eschatological texts, i.e., certainly far-far-distant future, regardless of the present tense imminence! The information you now have destroys Terry’s gaggle of Straw-men.

Attempting to negate the imminence of mello, Terry asserts that I abuse the term, saying, “Insist that ‘mello’ always means ‘about to come’ ... and you have Jesus ‘about to come’ for over 4,000 years”; but, that is exactly what he does with Heb.8:13 where Paul said the first covenant was growing old, becoming obsolete, and was ready to vanish away. If my acknowledging the imminence of mello creates an implausibility because Christ couldn’t have been “about to” come for 4000 years, then Terry can’t argue that the first covenant wasn’t still extant saying, “The Hebrew writer is speaking from the standpoint of the statement in Jeremiah 31:31. When God had Jeremiah write about ‘a new covenant’ that was THEN implying that the first covenant was growing old and ready to vanish away,” (BBD).

Terry is inconsistent/wrong on both counts since Jesus was about to come per Paul’s statement in Rom.5:14, which is emphatically confirmed by Peter and James (1Pet.4:5,7,17; Jas.5:7-9), and the first covenant was being annulled (2Cor.3:3-14; Heb.10:9, check the tenses in the original language) during Paul’s ministry.

Terry, unrelentingly insists that we are anticipating an out-of-casket corpse-revivifying individual-bodily mortality-to-immortality resurrection, exactly like when Jesus resurrected Lazarus to immortality early, but why won’t he tell us where-in-the-world is Lazarus? Audience, how is an individual resurrected from mortality? Jesus, speaking of long-dead Abraham/Isaac/Jacob said “God...is a God of the living,” (Mat.22:32); their fleshly/mortal bodies were dead, but Jesus said they were presently living, which is how Jesus proved immortality to the Sadducees; AND, Jesus said, “Now that the dead ARE (not shall be) raised...” (Luk.20:37).

Terry gives a hint of coerced lip-service to the levirate-marriage context (Luk.20:27-38). He asserts “this age” is “the age of mortality” which spans from Creation to the imaginary EOT. Likewise, Terry avers “that age” refers to immortality/eternity. Demonstrating the utter impossibility of his assertion, I pointed out, 1) Jesus appeared in the end of the age (of mortality (Terry’s “this age”)); 2) Paul told the Corinthians the end of the age (of mortality (Terry’s “this age”)) had come upon them, which posits the EOT in the first century; 3) that Jesus said in order to attain the age of immortality/eternity (Terry’s “that age”), we, living in the age of mortality (Terry’s “this age”) are not to marry nor be given marriage. After accusing me of an audaciously ignorant argument (when I was quoting his words!), Terry claims I shot myself in the foot, asserting (Straw-man) that I said, “the Levirate marriage ‘MUST NOT’ take place in ‘this age’ (Judaism),” (bolds mine); then, goes on in the same paragraph, and says, “During this age of mortality we are seeking to attain the next immortal age in good shape,” (emphasis mine). So, desperately trying to distract from the unavoidable consequences of his own assertions, Terry defines “this age” two different ways, in the same paragraph. Terry’s desperation is specious and very unintelligent.

Terry also reconstructs the words of Jesus as he says, “During this age of mortality we are seeking to attain the next immortal age in good shape.” See it? He changed the pronoun “they” to “we,” again, completely ignoring the context. The Sadducees’ hypothetical included one woman and seven men, who died. The Sadducees asked, “in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife,” (Luk.20:33). Who is the antecedent of “them” in this context folks? The seven men, right? So, when Jesus said, “But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that age...” who is the antecedent of “they”? Does “they” refer to you, me, and Terry, who died under the law of Moses??? Do you now see the unmitigated speciousness of Terry’s pretextual double-talk?! “They” in context refers to the one woman and seven men who were dead, under the law of Moses.

Gog & Magog:

Terry muses that if this war “is AD 70 stuff,” this means “the Law of Moses, is still binding 7 years after Jerusalem is destroyed”; but he doesn’t want you to consider the same consequence in his paradigm, i.e., “the Law of Moses, is still binding 7 years after” the EOT; or at the very least, “well beyond AD 70 (over 1300 years beyond AD 70)...” but wait, Terry’s understanding is that the Israel’s covenant ended at the cross. Such inconsistent ‘logic’ is indicative of the false AD 33 paradigm.

It’s tragic that Terry can’t deal with any of my arguments (of those he doesn’t totally ignore) without creating Straw-man distractions, or, simply creating a farce from thin air of which he then accuses me of saying/believing, which is a breach of debate protocol!

Let me remind the audience as Terry alleges (falsely) that I equate Gog with Rome, that I demonstrated from his own statements where he said, “The Roman armies were fighting against God by fighting against God’s people. Jesus was Lord and King during the Roman’s bringing Jerusalem down, and afterwards when the Romans turned to intensify their fight against the Lord’s church,” (emphasis mine). Then, Terry also admitted of this war: “So, the Lord of Hosts (mighty angels) came in His ‘glory’ upon Jerusalem. His glory was seen among the nations and Israel was made to know that the Lord brought this destruction to pass.”

So in reality, from Terry’s own documented words, he has Rome fighting against spiritual Israel, the very thing of which he falsely accuses me; thus, his own statements confute his Straw-man.

Terry still attempts to daze and confuse the readers by making the verb elousatai and the noun parousia synonymous, but fails to realize that his posit only links Act.1:9-11 with the parousia of Mat.24:3,27,37,39 which Jesus clearly said would occur during His generation, i.e., the time frame which Terry admits was fulfilled in/by AD 70. Terry then goes into his “various ends” obfuscation, forgetting that he admitted that “the end” of 1Cor.15:23-24 (at the time of THE parousia, cf. Mat.24:3,27,37,39; Jas.5:7-9) is synonymous with Mat.25:31-32, which I demonstrated beyond refute is also synonymous with Luk.9:26-27, which Jesus posited during the lifetime of some standing in His audience. Terry has yet to even breathe on this fatal argument.

Without a hint of exegetical proof, Terry avers, “Jesus nor Daniel told WHEN the resurrection of the just and unjust would take place...”

The Little Apocalypse (Isaiah 24-27):

Paul said the change from mortality-to-immortality (1Cor.15:53-54) would be the fulfilling of Isa.25:8; but Isa.25:8 is exactly parallel with Isa.65:15-19, which as I’ve demonstrated multiple times, inaugurates the scene in Isa.65:20-25 which Terry admits applies to the Christian age; therefore, it’s irrefutable that the resurrection cannot be at the end of the age which it inaugurates!

Isa.65:15-19, i.e., the time of the creation of the new heavens, new earth, new Jerusalem, →the passing away of the first heavens and earth←(cf. Mat.5:17-18; Mat.24:35; 2Pet.3:1-13; Rev.21:1-5), and the resurrection, is at the time of the slaying of Judah. Terry admits the first century brethren, “would see the already complete kingdom of Christ triumph over the corrupt harlot of Judaism in AD 70,” and again, stating that Jesus had taken, “His position to ‘come in clouds’ of judgment against Judaism in 67-70 AD,” and, that in the first century, “It was indeed the last hour of Judaism.” So, it’s beyond question that Terry posits the slaying of Judah in the first century, sometime from the cross to AD 70. This slays Terry’s assertions, misguided resurrection-doctrine, and his paradigm, with his own documented words!

Again, Paul said the change from mortality-to-immortality would be the fulfilling of Isa.25:8; but Isa.25:8 would be in that day “when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem” (Isa.24:23), when “the fortress of the high fort of thy walls shall he bring down, lay low, and bring to the ground, even to the dust” (Isa.25:12), which Jesus cites in Luke 19:43-44 unquestionably referring to the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem (DOJ); and, of this temple-destruction, Isaiah said “it shall never be rebuilt,” (Isa.25:2 NKJV), thus preempting all of Terry’s potential various DOJ’s distraction.

In that day (of Isa.25:8) says Isaiah, “God will appoint salvation for walls and bulwarks” (Isa.26:1), because, “he bringeth down them that dwell on high; the lofty city, he layeth it low; he layeth it low, even to the ground; he bringeth it even to the dust,” (Isa.26:5; cf. Luk.19:43-44).

Of the time when “God will appoint salvation for walls,” Isaiah says, “Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise...” [Consider that “Violence shall no more be heard in thy land,” because weapons of war are burned 7 years following the war of Gog & Magog!] “The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory [cf. Rev.21:23-27; 22:5]. Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the LORD shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended [cf. Isa.25:8; 65:17-19; Rev.21:1-4],” (Isa.60:18-20).

In that day (of Isa.25:8) says Isaiah, “Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. →Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust←[Dan.12:2]: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead,” (Isa.26:19), which would be when, “the LORD cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood←[cf. Mat.23:33-37; Rev.18:24], and shall no more cover her slain,” (Isa.26:21).

In that day, Jehovah would “slay the dragon that is in the sea,” (Isa.27:1) i.e., the destruction of satan (Rev.20:10), when, “the iniquity of Jacob will be covered; And this is all the fruit of taking away his sin: When he makes all the stones of the altar Like chalkstones that are beaten to dust...” (Isa.27:9 NKJV), “And it shall come to pass in that day, that THE GREAT TRUMPET SHALL BE BLOWN, and they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the LORD in the holy mount at Jerusalem,” (Isa.27:13).

Noted Futurist scholars such as Robertson/Gill/Kelly/Meyer point out that the great trumpet of Mat.24:31 (synonymous with 1Thess.4:16/1Cor.15:52) is drawn from Isa.27:13; therefore, Jesus posited the resurrection when the Jewish altar and temple would be destroyed in AD 70.

Terry, it’s time for you to tap out!