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 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE

My opponent has demonstrated his hermeneutic of disregard many times over thus far in these exchanges; likewise, he is attempting to evade all my exegeses on 2Pet.3 by saying, "The 'heavens and the earth' that was flooded was not a local flood on Judaism." This Straw Man deflection is specious and crassly absurd which demonstrates Terry has no substantive response; He totally ignored the heart of my argument, i.e., the Great Deluge which caused Noah's H&E TO PERISH, left the space/time continuum intact! The destruction of Sodom/Gomorrah, BY FIRE, left the space/time continuum intact!

Terry ignores the pattern established by Peter in the previous chapter, which was taught to Peter by Jesus as He appropriated the same analogies of the Noahic/Sodomic destructions in specific answer to the Pharisees' question of when the kingdom would come (Luk.17:20-22); therefore, since it is unquestionable that Jesus' application of those analogies was not an EOT prediction, then neither are Peter's! Incidentally, the context of Luk.17:20-37 falsfies the contrived theory of a divided Olivet Discourse (OD), since Jesus uses the same analogy of Noah after the alleged 'transition verse' (24:36). More on that later.

Now, let's put line upon line, precept upon precept, and allow scripture to interpret scripture. Compare the following texts from Jude and 2 Peter 2:

Jud.1:6 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

2Pet.2:4 "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;"

Jud.1:7 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

2Pet.2:6 "And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;"

Jud.1:8,11-13 "Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities... But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever."

2Pet.2:10,12-14 "But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled , they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities...But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time . Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; Having eyes full of adultery , and th at cannot cease from sin ; beguiling unstable souls..."

(Anyone see "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" here? Now, WATCH this:)

Jud.1:9 "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about THE BODY OF MOSES, durst not bring against him a railing accusation , but said, The Lord rebuke thee."

2Pet.2:11 "Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord."

See that, Terry? See that, audience? The body of Moses (Judaism) is Peter's CONTEXT taken from the words spoken by the holy prophets! But wait, there's more!

Jud.1:14-15 "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all , and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

2Pet.2:9 "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:"

This is the same day of judgment of 2Pet.3:7; the same day of judgment of which Peter had already said God "is ready to judge the living and the dead," and, "the end of all things is at hand," ... "Because the time has come to begin the judgment..." (1Pet.4:5,7,17).

Terry is right: the world is passing away IS these things are being dissolved; he simply ignores the unquestionable contextual world and judgment of the body of Moses in both texts; and, that's not all!

Unlike Terry's unethical citation of a Futurist Work (A.T. Robertson) to support his Futurist paradigm, I haven't cited Full Preterist scholars to support what I am showing you. I will however on occasion cite a Futurist scholar to corroborate what I'm saying. Vincent's Word Studies says, "To be dissolved (λυομένων) ...the participle is present; and the idea is rather, are in process of dissolution."

As a side note, on Terry's appeal to Titus 1:2, Clarke says, " Which God, that cannot lie, promised - We have often seen that the phrase, the foundation of the world, means the Jewish economy, and, before the foundation of the world, the times antecedent to the giving of the law. This is evidently the meaning here . See 2Tim.1:9-11," (emphasis mine).

Since scholars are divided, I rely on the biblical exegesis and letting scripture interpret scripture; this makes the scholar-quotes a moot point.

Since Peter's epistles are directed specifically at the diasporic Jewish Christians (1Pet.1:1), an unavoidable contextual connection is seen in the fact that Peter is citing from the Song of Moses (SoM) (Deu.32:5,6,22,32,34). This fact is supported by many Futurist scholars such as Clarke, Gill, and Poole. Terry's already-dead paradigm from the foregoing contextual facts suffers a stake-through-the-heart from the unquestionable fact that the SoM predicted the judgment of Old Covenant Israel in Israel's last days. The final hammer-blow is the fact that Peter is eagerly anticipating the New Creation (NC) (quoted from Isa 65:17-19) at the parousia (2Pet.3:4,12) of the Lord.

Terry's offers you a ton of mystifying diversion (as damage control) to my argument from his admission/answer to my first question, i.e., Isa.65:20-25 applies to the Christian age. All of his response is nothing but smoke and mirrors as he totally ignores (again) the heart of my argument, i.e., the scene depicted in the text he applies to the Christian age is ►PRECEDED◄ by the establishment of the NC and the resurrection, in the time frame of the salvation/evangelizing of the Gentiles, and the slaying of Judah. Terry either is confused himself, or attempts to confuse you by asking, "Is this slain in spirit? Is it slain physically in AD 70?" Let's see if the context will clear up Terry's confusion.

This clears up Terry's confusion with an unmistakable 1st century application!

Terry admits that Mat 24:2-34 was fulfilled in AD 70. This too is fatal to his paradigm. Here's why: In this text, the disciples asked Jesus when His prediction of the dissolution of the temple would occur, what sign there would be of His parousia (coming, Mat.24:3), and the end of the age, not the end of the universe! Jesus stated that His parousia would be like lightening (Mat.24:27) then quotes, verbatim, from Dan.7:13 of the Son of man coming (SOMC) in/with the clouds of heaven, with His angels, at the judgment (LXX), which consummates in the establishment of the everlasting kingdom. Terry posits Dan.7:13 in the first century, though erroneously at the Ascension. The SOMC occurs at the judgment of the little horn (Dan.7:21-22) which made war with and wore out the saints for 3-1/2 years (Dan.7:25). Terry cannot provide evidence for this 3-1/2 year war occurring during the ministry of Jesus, which ends at His Ascension, therefore, his application is wrong. Likewise, Terry's error here is corroborated by his own admission that Mat.24:30 (Jesus' quotation of Dan.7:13) was fulfilled in AD 70, and cannot be the Ascension.

Daniel 7:13ff is the only prophecy of the SOMC in the clouds of heaven, with His angels, for the judgment ; therefore, when Jesus speaks of the SOMC, He is quoting/citing from this one-and-only source text. If Terry offers you some subterfuge like, "The text doesn't say Jesus is quoting from Dan.7," just recall that Paul said Jesus came to confirm the promises made to the fathers, (Rom.15:8), and, " the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy," (Rev.19:10).

The fact that Daniel 7:13ff is the only prophecy of the SOMC in the clouds of heaven, with His angels, for the judgment is fatal to all Futurist paradigms, and is insurmountable when we allow scripture to interpret scripture.

"For the Son of Man is about to come with His angels in the glory of His Father. And then 'He will give reward to each according to his practice.' Truly I say to you, There are some standing here who will not taste of death , not until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom ," (Mat 16:27f, KJ3).

Note the double-negative here, which in the Greek, strengthens the force of what is being stated; therefore, not only does Jesus emphasize His statement thatthe Son of man is about to come by saying " Truly I say unto you..." He then reinforces it with a double-negative!

Terry divorces these two verses, asserting, "Matt.16:27 points to the general program where He rewards "each" person (not a whole nation) at His coming at the end of the world. Matt.16:28 is about the assurance of this because they would see the guarantee of it in His coming in His kingdom at Pentecost" (Benton's 2nd Affirmative; Baisden/Benton Debate). This is an abuse of linguistics and context (refer to my opening remarks), as Jesus never uses the phrase amēn leḡo humin ("Truly I say to you") to introduce a new topic separated by thousands of years! This phrase ἀμήν λέγω ὑμῖν found some 77 times in the Synoptics, is always used to emphasize what is already under discussion.

Let's allow scripture to interpret scripture and see that Terry's eisegesis is bogus; but first, let's consider Luke's parallel:

"For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God," (Luk.9:26f).

Notice that Luke gives us the additional detail of the SOMC in His own glory which is parallel to Mat.16:27. Now, consider this:

" Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom ," (Mat.20:20f);

" And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory ," (Mar.10:35ff).

These parallel texts demonstrate that the phrases in thy kingdom, and in thy glory relative to Jesus' coming in the kingdom are synonymous; therefore, when we compare them with Jesus' statement to the multitudes from the towns of Caesarea Philippi (Mar.8:27,34), that the Son of man is about to come in His own glory, then says, some of that multitude standing there would live to see the Son of man coming in His kingdom, there is no exegetical nor linguistic basis to divorce these two verses. Then, Terry's assertion on Mat.16:28 would have a good portion of that multitude dying before His Ascension. Where is the evidence for anyone but Judas dying prior to the Ascension?

Furthermore, when considering Mark's parallel: " Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power " (9:1), the case is closed! Jesus, irrefutably, cites and posits the fulfillment of the Danielic prophecy of the SOMC in the clouds of heaven during the lifetime of some standing in His audience. Since Daniel 7 is the only prophetic source of this prediction, and since Jesus interprets and applies its fulfillment during that first century generation of people to whom He was speaking, then I have proven my proposition.

Our exegesis proves that the prophetic fountain of this synoptic trilogy (Mat.16:27f/Mar.8:38-9:1/Luk.9:26f) is Daniel 7, and we marry this to the inescapable fact that Jesus' predictions of the SOMC in the OD are unquestionably from the same source, which Terry admits was fulfilled in AD 70, this further proves my proposition by Terry's own admission.

Let's consider another inescapable contextual fact as we revisit Jesus' words as recorded by Luke: " For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels." (Luk.9:26).

Notice the time statement of when the Son of man would come in His own glory...with the holy angels as we look again at Jesus' words in the OD:

"WHEN the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, THEN shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations ..." (Mat.25:31-32).

Notice what these texts say! This demonstrates an irrefutable fact that Jesus' application of the Danielic source-text in the synoptic trilogy above is married to the OD, and what God has joined together, let not Terry put asunder! There is no escaping the fact that Jesus' statement of the SOMC in His own glory with the holy angels of Luke 9:26/Mat.16:27 is synonymous with the SOMC in His own glory with the holy angels of Mat.25:31.

Jesus' introduction of the SOMC of Mat.24:30 and His reiteration of the same statement in Mat.25:31 creates an inclusio, indicating that everything in between pertains to the same predictions posited in His generation, thus quashing the theory that the OD is divided;

Here's the argument:

Now, it gets even worse for Terry's paradigm.

(Terry had one of those brain-foibles as we all do sometimes, and mistook Mat.25:31 for Mat.24:31 which is why he thought he had answered my third question; so, no lie on his part, just an honest mistake, my apologies extended, and we're all good on that.)

I asked Terry, "Is Christ's coming at 'the end' in 1Cor.15:24 synonymous/parallel with Mat.25:31ff, 1Th.4:14ff and 2Th.1:7-9?" In Facebook comments, Terry answered, "Yes. Those verses are parallel." This (correct) admission is doubly devastating to Terry's twice-dead paradigm. Here's why:

An additional point to not overlook is that following Mat.24:36, Jesus is still speaking specifically of His parousia (Mat.24:37-39) which again confutes the theory of a divided OD.

Don't let Terry confuse you by claiming there's multiple parousias of Christ, because the term parousia is a singular noun, and is nowhere used in plural form, and James said the parousia had drawn nigh (Jas.5:8), and was in its last hour (1Jn.2:18,28).