Terry is very effectively demonstrating to the serious Bible Exegete the utter farce of the Futurist paradigm as he offers up yet another barrage of Straw Men/Red Herring arguments (e.g., his entire first paragraph) with no proof nor exegesis; he also plays the semantics game to distract you; and, he reconstructs the arguments he didn't totally ignore. He offers the "there may have been," "maybe," "if," and, "I think" hermeneutics as his rebuttals, in a formal debate! Terry also argues "NUHH-UHH" hoping you won't take the time to analyze my arguments.
To the parallel between Jude and 2Pet.2, which demonstrates that Peter has the body of Moses/Judaism in his context, Terry rebuts with, "NUH UHH, that's not in the Bible."
"And he made me see Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of Jehovah, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And Jehovah said to Satan, Jehovah rebuke you, Satan! And, Jehovah who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand snatched out of the fire?" (Zec.3:1f).
Dr. Macknight says this angel could have been Michael before whom Satan was present to resist the efforts of Joshua "in his design of restoring the Jewish Church and state, called by Jude the body of Moses, just as the Christian Church is called by Paul the body of Christ." Jude's application of this text is an unmistakable parallel: as Satan was resisting the consecration of Joshua-a type of Christ-as High Priest and restoration of Judaic worship to God in Jerusalem, so were "these filthy dreamers" (Jud.1:8), i.e., the recalcitrant Jewish "false teachers" (2Pet.2:1) resisting and scoffing at the completion of God's plan in removing the "present H&E" to bring in the New H&E "wherein dwells righteousness," (2Pet.3:13) at the parousia of Christ.
(Please observe that Terry totally ignored my arguments on the parousia, which, based on his own admissions, refutes his paradigm and his proposition.)
This a perfect example of Holy Spirit quoting/interpreting His own words through Jude. That Jude is referencing Zec.3:1ff is admitted by Futurist scholars such as Scott, Lardner, Baxter, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, Lange, Gill, Robertson, Poole, Kelly, and Meyer to name a few.
Terry is dead wrong, as is his theology!
After I pointed out that Dan.7:13 can't be the Ascension, based on the little horn's 3-1/2 year war with the saints, and even Terry's admission that Mat.24:30 was fulfilled in AD 70, Terry totally ignored my argument in perfect Straw-man-fashion, saying, "He tried to make Dan.7:13 the only verse that Matt.24:30 could possibly be about" (emphasis mine), which is a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. I said Dan.7:13ff is the only prophecy of the SOMC in the clouds &etc., therefore, when Jesus speaks of the SOMC, He is citing from the Danielic prophecy.
Terry again implements his hermeneutic of "NUHH-UHH" denying that Mat.24:30 is quoted from Dan.7:13.
Dan 7:13 "the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven..." (NKJV)
Mat 24:30 "the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven..."
Terry is dead wrong, as is his theology!
The scriptures say Jesus would come "in" (en), "on" (epi), and "with" (meta) the clouds; nowhere-NOWHERE-does the Bible ever state that "Jesus," "God," "the Lord of hosts," etc., would come "out of" ( ek ex) the clouds!
The assiduous Bible student will note that the phrase "all the tribes of the earth shall mourn" is identical in Rev.1:7 and Mat.24:30, making the two verses synonymous; John says, "Behold, He is coming meta the clouds"; Dan.7:13, from the LXX, says He is coming "meta the clouds"; this is why I said Jesus quoted Dan.7:13 verbatim as, "the Son of man coming in/with the clouds of heaven"; this is irrefutable! These words aren't similar, they are verbatim!
Terry is dead wrong, as is his theology!
Harmonizing Dan.7:13f/Mat.24:30f posits the SOMC in the clouds with His mighty angels, at the sound of a great trumpet, being given "dominion, glory and a kingdom" when " the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom" (Dan.7:14,18,22,27); it's undeniable: this did not occur at the Ascension!
Terry attempts to negate/avoid Jesus' words in Luk.21:22 by asserting that the OT "speaks of the fall of Rome (Dan.2:44,45) which was way beyond AD 70," making a series of huge blunders as he reveals that he hasn't read the text carefully. The stone smote the feet of the image and, " Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together... " (Dan.2:35). Terry asserts that because physical Rome lasted beyond AD 70, this means Dan.2:44 wasn't fulfilled. But, this forces the conclusion that the everlasting kingdom which would "break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, together," 1) had to fight a physical warfare to destroy Empirical Rome; and, 2) since the prophecy was that all 4 kingdoms would be broken in pieces together, this would necessitate the reconstruction of the Babylonian, Medo-Persian and Grecian kingdoms "way beyond AD 70." I'm quite confident you can see the utter farce of Terry's eisegesis.
Terry is dead wrong, as is his theology!
He makes another huge blunder on this topic in the Baisden/Benton debate. Commenting on Luk.21:31, he states that the already-established kingdom, "was only further displayed then as Jesus brought the Roman armies under His control and brought the Jews and their house down," but also saying, "The Romans did not stop fighting against God in Christ in AD 70," (all emphases mine). See it? Terry has Jesus bringing the Roman armies under His control to fight against God prior to AD 70.
Terry is dead wrong, as is his theology!
I made this argument in my previous Affirmative:
-
Since Terry agrees that "the end" of 1Cor.15:24 is synonymous with Mat.25:31-46;
-
Since I have demonstrated beyond question that Mat.25:31-46 was fulfilled in the 1st century, by Terry's own admission;
-
Then "the end" of 1Cor.15:24 was fulfilled in the 1st century;
-
Since "the end" of 1Cor.15:24 was posited at Christ's parousia (v.23);
-
Since the parousia was posited by Jesus during His generation, in the portion of the OD Terry admits was fulfilled in AD 70;
-
Then, again, "the end" of 1Cor.15:24 was fulfilled in the 1 st century.
-
And thus, Terry's proposition is refuted by his own admissions several times over!
Terry's emaciated response was, "Roy tried to make 'the end' found in 1 Cor.15:24 to be synonymous with 'the end' found in Matt.24:6," but, I've never mentioned that text. This is a flagrant Straw-man deflection-deception!
Terry attempts to lessen the force of Mat.16:27 by saying I, "appealed to a version of Matt.16:27 that said, 'For the Son of Man IS ABOUT to come.' Not many versions thought 'mello' (Greek) emphasizes timing as much as certainty." I have access to about 70 translations of the Bible, 21 of which render mello as "about to/will soon." World class scholars such as Thayer, Strong, Vine, Moulton, Blass-DeBrunner, Liddell/Scott all agree that mello in the present tense indicates imminence, as well as certainly imminent, not merely sure to happen, later than no time soon!
Then Terry butchers the linguistics of Rom.5:14 (the Futurist's go-to distraction for mello) changing the present tense verb into past tense. The verse translated literally is, "who is a type of him who is coming," (KJ3), or, "...the one being about to come," (APB+). Rienecker/Rogers says, "μέλλοντος pres. act. part. μέλλω to be about to, here 'the one who is coming'" (pg. 360). So, when Terry says, "it would mean that Jesus was "about to come" ever since the days of Adam" (emphasis mine), then...
Terry is dead wrong, as is his theology!
After blatantly misrepresenting my argument by saying, "Roy claimed that the Lord "coming in glory" happened one time in the destruction of Jerusalem ," Terry stumbles into another huge blunderous self-contradiction. He says, "God 'set' His 'glory' among the nations; ' all the nations shall see My judgment which I have executed ' (Ezek.39:21) and the house of Israel 'shall know that I am the Lord.'" Ezekiel continues, "And the heathen shall know that the house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity : because they trespassed against me, therefore hid I my face from them, and gave them into the hand of their enemies : so fell they all by the sword ," (Eze.39:21-23).
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" (v.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," (emphasis mine).
So, when Terry boasts, "Revelation 17-20 absolutely destroys any credibility to Roy's doctrine,"
Terry is dead wrong, as is his theology!