Online Bible and Study Tools
Translate || Vine / Schaff || Alts/Vars/Criticism/Aramaic

 
 


End Times Chart


Introduction and Key

BOOKS:  BIBLICAL STUDIES (1500BC-AD70) / EARLY CHRISTIAN PRETERISM (AD50-1000) / FREE ONLINE BOOKS (AD1000-2008)


David S. Clark - The Message From Patmos: A Postmillennial Commentary on the Book of Revelation (1921) "This early twentieth-century Postmillennial commentary on the Book of Revelation, written by the father of theologian Gordon Clark, offers an easy-to-read alternative to the popular Pre-millennial/Dispensational views of the best-selling Scofield Reference Bible and a multitude of other dissertations on end-time prophecy that litter the shelves of Christian bookstores. "



Historical Preterism
Historical Preterism Main
Study Archive

Click For Site Updates Page

Free Online Books Page

Historical Preterism Main

Modern Preterism Main

Hyper Preterism Main

Preterist Idealism Main

Critical Article Archive Main

Church History's Preteristic Presupposition

Study Archive Main

Dispensationalist dEmEnTiA  Main

Josephus' Wars of the Jews Main

Online Study Bible Main

HISTORICAL PRETERISM
(Minor Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation in Past)

Joseph Addison
Oswald T. Allis
Thomas Aquinas
Karl Auberlen
Augustine
Albert Barnes
Karl Barth
G.K. Beale
Beasley-Murray
John Bengel
Wilhelm Bousset
John A. Broadus

David Brown
"Haddington Brown"
F.F. Bruce

Augustin Calmut
John Calvin
B.H. Carroll
Johannes Cocceius
Vern Crisler
Thomas Dekker
Wilhelm De Wette
Philip Doddridge
Isaak Dorner
Dutch Annotators
Alfred Edersheim
Jonathan Edwards

E.B. Elliott
Heinrich Ewald
Patrick Fairbairn
Js. Farquharson
A.R. Fausset
Robert Fleming
Hermann Gebhardt
Geneva Bible
Charles Homer Giblin
John Gill
William Gilpin
W.B. Godbey
Ezra Gould
Hank Hanegraaff
Hengstenberg
Matthew Henry
G.A. Henty
George Holford
Johann von Hug
William Hurte
J, F, and Brown
B.W. Johnson
John Jortin
Benjamin Keach
K.F. Keil
Henry Kett
Richard Knatchbull
Johann Lange

Cornelius Lapide
Nathaniel Lardner
Jean Le Clerc
Peter Leithart
Jack P. Lewis
Abiel Livermore
John Locke
Martin Luther

James MacDonald
James MacKnight
Dave MacPherson
Keith Mathison
Philip Mauro
Thomas Manton
Heinrich Meyer
J.D. Michaelis
Johann Neander
Sir Isaac Newton
Thomas Newton
Stafford North
Dr. John Owen
 Blaise Pascal
William W. Patton
Arthur Pink

Thomas Pyle
Maurus Rabanus
St. Remigius

Anne Rice
Kim Riddlebarger
J.C. Robertson
Edward Robinson
Andrew Sandlin
Johann Schabalie
Philip Schaff
Thomas Scott
C.J. Seraiah
Daniel Smith
Dr. John Smith
C.H. Spurgeon

Rudolph E. Stier
A.H. Strong
St. Symeon
Theophylact
Friedrich Tholuck
George Townsend
James Ussher
Wm. Warburton
Benjamin Warfield

Noah Webster
John Wesley
B.F. Westcott
William Whiston
Herman Witsius
N.T. Wright

John Wycliffe
Richard Wynne
C.F.J. Zullig

Transcendental Argument Against HyperPreterism
(TAAHP)

By Paul Manata

 


Hyper-Preterism, as a doctrinal position, undermines itself. Hyper-Preterism cannot argue that their position is the true teaching of the Bible contrary to other eschatalogical systems, without destroying their position at the same time. This paper shall seek to show that Hyper-Preterism, as a contradictory view to other views, ends up opposing itself! The reason is because Hyper-Preterism cannot provide the transcendentals necessary for even asking if it is true. This argument will only be a brief version of the Transcendental Argument Against Hyper-Preterism (hereafter, TAAHP). A more robust version is waiting to be written for publication at a few websites. My purpose for writing this argument out for the members of "Puritan Board" is to get some of you accustomed to the basic contours of this devastating critique. Once the gist of the argument is comprehended you can tweak it and add more to it. My goal is that this argument will spread like wildfire, and be used by God to defeat the Hyper-Preterists (hereafter, HP). Before I lay out the general program of TAAHP we can start by briefly defining Transcendental Arguments (hereafter, TA) in general, and also give a brief history and definition of HP. I shall begin with the former.

Transcendental arguments have a distinguished history. We can find them (in a rougher version) in the writings of Aristotle when he argued for the laws of logic. Elements of TA thinking can be found in Augustine when he argued that faith is the foundation for reason. TAs came to the forefront of philosophical argumentation with Immanuel Kant. Since Kant, they have been employed by philosophers as a way to answer the skeptic. These philosophers include Wittgenstein, Stoud, and P.F. Strawson. As Christians we can use transcendental argumentation to prove Christianity. Cornelius Van Til provided a valuable service to the Christian community when he took what philosophers like Kant did and put TAs into a Christian worldview. But what is a transcendental argument? Since I assume that most of the members of the board are familiar with TAs I will only briefly explain. TAs prove something by arguing from the impossibility of the contrary. That is, they take an argument (or fact) and seek to find what must be presupposed in order to make the argument (or fact) intelligible (i.e., make sense). Proponents of TAs rightly recognize that arguments and facts are not brute. That is to say, facts are not uninterpreted. Any fact must be understood within a broader "philosophy of fact." Put differently, if I were to say that milk costs $2.35 I would be saying (or presupposing) many of things. For example: the reliability of my senses, the existence and reality of numbers and their relation to the world, the difference between milk and beer, causal ideas such as, milk comes from cows, then we could move into knowledge of animals, utters and such. Well, we can see that this can get pretty tricky so I will assume that the point has been made; i.e., beliefs are tied into other beliefs in order to make the asserted belief intelligible.

We can see that beliefs require other beliefs then. Now, if another belief conflicted with what was being asserted we would say that that persons system of beliefs rendered itself unintelligible. For example, let's go back to the milk. Now, if someone asserted that milk costs $2.35 at the local store but also held that his senses were unreliable, we could say that his belief that milk costs $2.35 was epistemologically unjustified. That is, he couldn't know it. We would say, as presuppositionalists, that his system of beliefs do not provide the pre-conditions for the intelligibility (or make sense of) the price of milk at the local store. Thus, we can see that TAs are broad in scope. that is, they take any piece of expierience and seek to show what system of beliefs (or worldview) would need to be presupposed in order to make sense out of the particular experience in question. This, in a nutshell, is the transcendental program. Having said that, before we offer TAAHP let us briefly look at what HP claims.

Hyper-Preterism is the belief that all eschatalogical prophacy has been fulfilled. Though I have noticed that there is disagreement between them as to what counts as an eschatological prophacy we can sum up their position by stating the basic things HPs are in agreement on. Firstly, they believe that the second comming has already taken place. This second comming occured at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This idea is based of time texts in Scipture. For example, Mathew 24 states that "truly, I say to you; this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." (v. 34). And, I Peter 4:7 reads, "The end of all things is at hand." The HP will say that we must take these time texts (i.e., this generation, at hand, etc.,) seriously. They say "Don't you think that God knows how to tell time?"

Secondly, HPs agree that the resurrection has already taken place. The idea of a future phisical resurrection has simply been misunderstood by the Church for the last two thousand years. Instead it is thought that

 

quote:



Whereas the Reformed position teaches a physical resurrection of saints, Preterists agree with Paul, that "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body" (I Cor. 15:44; cf. John 3:6). Preterists believe that Jesus Christ was physically raised in His resurrection, but that we spiritually ride in Him as our "ark" of resurrection. The spiritual nature of the general resurrection is, probably, the main factor that precludes Preterism from being absorbed into any other denominational position, unlike partial Preterism, which is conformable to nearly all. Simply put, Preterist theology is a radical departure from other contemporary positions.
 




Simply put, the resurrection is spiritual in nature, similar to our understanding of regeneration.  Thirdly, HPs believe that we are in the New Heavens and Earth (hereafter, NH and E) right now. Again, this is spiritual. Heavens and earth represent covenant relationship with God. The old covenant is called the old heavens and earth the new covenant is called the NH and E. They say that with the passing of the law and the old covenant we are now in the NH and E. That is, we are living in new covenant (as opposed to old covenant) times. Hyper-Preterist Don Preston writes:

 

quote:



What have we seen in this little tract? We have seen that heaven and earth had to pass away before the Old Law could pass away! We have defined "heaven and earth" as the Old Covenant world of Old Israel. We have seen that instead of predicting the destruction of physical heaven and earth the Bible predicted the passing of Old Israel's world in order for God to create the New World of his Son-the Kingdom of God-the church of the living God. We have seen that the Bible very clearly tells when ALL prophecy was to be fulfilled--when heaven and earth would pass--in 70 AD with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem, the very heart and core of Israel's world. We have examined several objections and found them to be based upon false suppositions. We have seen that if the Old Covenant has been abrogated then ALL OF ITS PROPHECIES INCLUDING THE PREDICTIONS OF THE "END" MUST BE FULFILLED OR ABROGATED. IF THOSE PROPHECIES HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED THEN THE OLD COVENANT STILL STANDS! We have seen that the Old Law could not pass until it had fulfilled its purpose and that purpose included deliverance to the New Covenant--that was not fulfilled until all the New Covenant was revealed and confirmed. That simply did not happen at the Cross or Pentecost!
 




Now, in a sense we are in NH and E. What we want to ask is if we are in the NH and E of Revelation 21 and 22? We will return to that question later.

We can see briefly what HP believes and we will now look at the transcendental argument against it. Before I do, though, I would like to say some words about exegetical work being done to refute HP. Exegetical work is a valuable service and we have seen trememdous blows to the HP camp through various exegetical papers. I would like to think of this TA as Van Til thought of his in relation to Warfield and Machen. Van Til thought that he was firing the huge 50 ton cannons so that the ground soldiers (exegetes) could do their work. I would like to think of this TA as the nuclear bomb dropped on HP, while the exegetical work is the valuable "mopping-up" or clearing away of debris. After a neuclear bomb has been dropped the ground soldiers can freely move about and do their tasks.

I shall now offer the TAAHP. The crux of the argument goes like this: If we were in the NH and E we would not be debating doctrinal issues (e.g., baptism, Calvinism/Arminianism, eschatology, etc.,). Since we are debating doctrinal issues then, we therefore cannot be in the NH and E. I will use two lines of arguments to show this. The first is that we will reach the unity of the faith in the NH and E. The second is that in the NH and E there will be no liars there, and I will attempt to show that teaching/promoting false doctrine is to lie. The unity argument is weaker since not all HPs believe that we have reached that. Some do (e.g., the HP who has been e-mailing us) so we can apply it to them. The second referrs to the NH and E which we saw that all HPs hold to. This will obviously be more devastating.

(1) Argument from the unity of the faith. We are told in Ephesians 4 that:
 

quote:



10He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) 11And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,[1] 12to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood,[2] to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.
 




We can see that we have pastors and teachers for the "building up of the body" and once this body (Church) is built up we will "no longer be carried about be every wind of doctrine." This can be put into a syllogism. (1) When we reach the unity of the faith we will no longer believe any false wind of doctrine. (If orthodox Christianity is false then it is A wind of doctrine. Likewise if HP is false it is A wind of doctrine.) (2) Someone believes a wind of doctrine (by the law of contradiction). (3) Therefore, we have not reached the unity of the faith. Commenting on Ephesians Calvin writes:

 

quote:



13. Till we all come. Paul had already said, that by the ministry of men the church is regulated and governed, so as to attain the highest perfection. But his commendation of the ministry is now carried farther. The necessity for which he had pleaded is not confined to a single day, but continues to the end. Or, to speak more plainly, he reminds his readers that the use of the ministry is not temporal, like that of a school for children, (paidagwgi>a, Galatians 3:24,) but constant, so long as we remain in the world. Enthusiasts dream that the use of the ministry ceases as soon as we have been led to Christ. Proud men, who carry their desire of knowledge beyond what is proper, look down with contempt on the elementary instruction of childhood. But Paul maintains that we must persevere in this course till all our deficiencies are supplied; that we must make progress till death, under the teaching of Christ alone; and that we must not be ashamed to be the scholars of the church, to which Christ has committed our education.In the unity of the faith. But ought not the unity of the faith to reign among us from the very commencement? It does reign, I acknowledge, among the sons of God, but not so perfectly as to make them come together. Such is the weakness of our nature, that it is enough if every day brings some nearer to others, and all nearer to Christ. The expression, coming together, denotes that closest union to which we still aspire, and which we shall never reach, until this garment of the flesh, which is always accompanied by some remains of ignorance and weakness, shall have been laid aside.And of the knowledge of the Son of God. This clause appears to be added for the sake of explanation. It was the apostle's intention to explain what is the nature of true faith, and in what it consists; that is, when the Son of God is known. To the Son of God alone faith ought to look; on him it relies; in him it rests and terminates. If it proceed farther, it will disappear, and will no longer be faith, but a delusion. Let us remember, that true faith confines its view so entirely to Christ, that it neither knows, nor desires to know, anything else.Into a perfect man. This must be read in immediate connection with what goes before; as if he had said, "What is the highest perfection of Christians? How is that perfection attained?" Full manhood is found in Christ; for foolish men do not, in a proper manner, seek their perfection in Christ. It ought to be held as a fixed principle among us, that all that is out of Christ is hurtful and destructive. Whoever is a man in Christ, is, in every respect, a perfect man.The AGE of fullness means -- full or mature age. No mention is made of old age, for in the Christian progress no place for it is found. Whatever becomes old has a tendency to decay; but the vigor of this spiritual life is continually advancing.
 




We can ask, when will we all come together with one voice and worship Jesus? In Revelations 22: 3 tells us that in the NH and E only believers will be there with nothing accursed, and they will ALL worship him. Now, two possible objections that have been put forth by HPs is that, "debating doctrinal issues does not divide the body." And, "Eph. 4 is only talking about one type of doctrinal dispute." The Bible militates against this. Firstly, in Ephersians 4 we are told that when we reach unity we will not be carried about by every wind of doctrine. You see, it is not just ONE type of doctrine, but ALL false doctrines. As far as the second objection goes, I Corinthians 1:10 states that:

 

quote:



10I appeal to you, brothers,[1] by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
 




Notice how it states that there be "no divisions", and that "all of you agree." We can then counter this objection by a syllogism. (1) ALL debating divides the body (proven by I Cor. 1:10, thus, true). (2) We are debating (obvious, thus, true). (3) Thereofre, the body is divided (sound argument). (Note: I take this approach because most HPs believe that we are in the same body, even though I do not. The point still stands.)

In light of this, we can ask if HP is true and we have reached the unity of the faith which happens in the NH and E (cf. Calvin and Rev.), then why are we debating about whether HP is true or not. Deabating about whether HP is true or not presupposes that HP is not true. Thus, HP borrows from the orthodox worldview in order to argue against the orthodox worldview!

(2) Argument from the NH and E-no Liars there. In Revelation 21:8 we read:

 

quote:



8But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."
 




and in Rev. 21:27 we read:

 

quote:



27 and there shall in no wise enter into it anything unclean, or he that maketh an abomination and a lie: but only they that are written in the Lamb's book of life.
 




I will be arguing that teaching/promoting false doctrine is nothing short of lying. Since there will be no liars in the NH and E it couldn't be the case that there are contradictory doctrines floating around. Therefore, if we were in the NH and E no one would be teaching false doctrines (i.e., lying)! Stated another way, when the HP argues for the truth of his position over-against the truth of contradictory positions, he has presupposed that liars (i.e., teachers of false doctrine) can be in the NH and E. Now, of course the HP has rebuttals to this since they seek to preserve their supression of the truth (cf. Rom 1). We will examine the rebuttals that have been given to me and we shall find them wanting.

objection 1: "The definition of lie is to consciously tell a non-truth." This is true that this is ONE definition of lie, but it is not exhaustive. Furthermore, the Bible defines it differently. Psalms 58:3 states

 

quote:



Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.
 




Now, how could a infant knowingly tell a non-truth? Also, Romans 3:4 states, "Let God be true though all men are liars." Does this mean that ALL men purposely tell non-truths? doubtful. Rather it speakes of God as the ultimate authority and His word as the standard. If He is denied you can be called a liar.

objection 2: "Teaching false doctrine is not lying." Oh really? Prov.30:6 states:

 

quote:



6Do not add to his words, lets he rebuke you and you be found a liar.
 




Now, since the Bible only teaches ONE truth anything that we teach that is not the one revealed truth is adding to what the Bible says. For example, if I am wrong about paedobaptism then when I teach or explain it I am adding to what the Bible teaches about baptism, thus I lie. Likewise, based on the law of non-contradiction, either HP or orthodox Christianity is lying. I John 2:4 teaches us that:

 

quote:



The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
 




You see, anti-nomian teaching is called lying. Teaching a warped view of, "we are under grace not law" is to teach a lie! Furthermore, look at all the passages which call false prophets liars. These people taught false doctrines and were condemned as liars by Jehovah. Some verses are: Ez. 22:28, Jer 28:15, Jer 27:16. Therefore, we can see that the Bible plainly and authoritatively states that teaching/promoting false doctrine is lying. We saw in Rev. 21 that there will be no liars there, and that no one who maketh a lie will be there.

objection 3: "This is talking about the Jews who denied Christ." This cannot be the case for it falls into seriouse reductio ad absurdems: Really, only the jews? So you are saying that we can teach the most blatent hersies in the NH and E? If it is only the Jews, who denied Christ, then what about Prov. 30:6? Are you saying that those liars can be in the NH and E? Also, Revelation teaches that ALL liars will not be there. It does not say that only one kind of liar will not be there. Furthermore, if ALL liars in Rev. 21:8 does not mean ALL, then ALL the overcommers in Rev. 21:7 does not mean ALL. The HP cannot have it both ways. Even more devastating is this: if ALL liars does not mean ALL then neither does ALL apply to the muderers and idolaters. Therefore, since ALL means ALL in this passage then we can also include the group of liars who teach wrong doctrine about God and his word. Since we can do that then we can dismiss the HP before he even begins to utter a syllable. Because when he begins to argue he presupposes that liars can be in the NH and E (unless he says that only HPs are in the NH and E, that will be addressed below). We can multiply this list ad-nauseum.

objection 4: "There are no liars and craftily subtle conspirators against christ in the kingdom. Though oftentimes members of that spiritual union conspire against other fellow-ministers while on earth." So we can lie to men but not to God? This is untrue, isn't it? If you remember that when David sinned he said that he had not sinned against man but rather God. Based on that how could someone not lie (teach false doctrine)to man and not to God?

Therefore, the HP has again assumed that we are not in the NH ans E in order to debate about being in the NH and E. Since I have shown that teaching/promoting false doctrine is lying, and since HPs and orthodox peoples debate contradictory positions it cannot be the the case that we are in the NH and E! The TAAHP is a Kantian hammer-blow from which HP cannot recover. If orthodox Christianity were Bobby Fisher we would say, "checkmate!"

Now there are a couple of last objections to overcome. (1) HP could say that, "well, fine, then only HPs are in the NH and E." The problem with that is: not all HPs agree on everything. So which HP is in the city? Furthermore, since we are finite we cannot be sure that we are 100% correct on all our doctrine, so what HP could epistemologically justify his belief that he is in the NH and E. (2) The HP will say that I have committed a fallacy of arguing against a straw man. They will say that they do not believe that there are no liars in the NH and E but rather, there are no liars in the city (cf. Rev. 22:14-15). This is fine because all my criticisms can be applied to that way out as well; just replace NH and E with city. Moreover, you cannot prove, logically, that there are liars in the NH and E but not in the city based on a verse which says "outside [the city] are the liars." There are alot of things "outside the city," for example the lake of fire is outside the city as well. This would be similar to saying that all X's are in California simply because I said that all X's are "outside" San Diego. "Outside" San Diego could be New York, or Africa. The point is that you cannot prove that there are liars in the NH and E but not in the city simply because Revelation tells us that the liars are outside the city.

The HP now can feel free to believe his heresy but he cannot argue in support of it. You see, if the HP decides to respond he proves my position. By responding the HP presupposes that his worldview is not true and orthodox Christianity is true! HP cannot provide the pre-conditions for debate about HP. It is not ironic that all non-Christian worldviews end up falling prey to I Corinthians 1:20, "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" I can now say of the HP what Dr. Greg Bahnsen said of Gordon Stein in their famous debate: "Dr. Stein, by comming to the debate you lost the debate!" Likewise, by debating, the HP assumes that there can be contradictory doctrines in the city, i.e., liars in the city. But (!) Revelation tells us that there cannot be. So the HP, who tries to be consistant with the Bible has to believe that we are not in the city (or, NH and E) in order to debate whenther or not we are in the city (or, NH and E). Thus, HP fails as a competator to orthodox Christianity!

This is the TAAHP. I appreciate all those who read this and I pray God will use it to defeat the heresy of Hyper-Preterism. As I said at the beginning, this is just a short version but I am sure this was enough to get my fellow orthodox believers started in the right direction. We can conclude by saying, "what heresy is next, since this one is done!"

in Christ
-Paul

What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
Comment Box Disabled For Security


Date:
26 Dec 2003
Time:
06:59:29

Comments

I would say that the problem with this argument is evident in the fact that, if his argument against "hyper-preterism" is true, then the same standard should be used against the Bible. In the OT description of the "NH and E", we find that people die (Isaiah 65:17-23), but in the NT we see that there is "no death" there (Rev. 22:4). In the OT, we learn that when God is victorious, there will be a river of living/healing waters that flows into seas (Ezekiel 47:1-12; Zechariah 14:8); in the NT description of this time when the river of life flows from the throne, there is "no more sea" (Rev. 21:1). Other such examples exist, but those two suffice.

So what are we to make of this? Are we to claim that the Bible is contradictory and renounce our faith, or is it possible that we should change our understanding of what these passages mean? And if we can do such with these passages, why not with those that our critic claims "refute" "hyper-preterism"? Instead of arguing that full preterism contradicts itself, why not accept that maybe it's only the preconceptions held that contradict one another.

I should say that our friend appears to be ignoring fact that, while preterism may have its "problems" (mostly those that are imagined by people who are stuck in way way of thinking), every other view of prophecy that I have encountered has even more, more glaring problems. Those that put the Olivet discourse's fulfillment in the future make Jesus a false prophet, since all the things mentioned therein are linked directly to the temple standing in His day (Mark 13:1-4; Luke 21:5-7). Those who say that it is fulfilled but that we still await the final judgment and the resurrection do not explain how such can be the case, when the Matthew's "end of the age" parables in Matthew 13 and the "great tribulation" in Matthew 24:15-22 clearly link the great tribulation, the end of the age, and the resurrection and judgment to the issue seen in Daniel 12:1-3, in which both good and evil are raised and go on to life or punishment as seen in John 5:28, 29 and Revelation 20:11-15. Those who claim "partial fulfillment" or "double fulfillment" have no exegetical basis for doing so, except to preserve their doctrines.

Yet our author seems to ignore these problems, but instead accepts happily those who hold to such untenable views as "Orthodox Christians." Similar problems can be seen in futurist perspectives of the book of Revelation. It seems that a search for the truth is secondary, while preterist-bashing is pre-eminent in this individual's mind, and while it is OK to believe in the contradictions of "partial ("Orthodox"?) preterism or dispensationalism, when it comes to belief in full preterism, such is simply not allowed.

I will end this already lengthy post by reminding everyone that in the days of early Protestantism, it could be said that "The idea of [insert just about any "Protestant" doctrine] has simply been misunderstood by the Church for the last fifteen hundred years."

K. Perkins


Date:
26 Dec 2003
Time:
11:47:22

Comments

Good job guys. All ad-homs and not one scholarly critique.


Date:
26 Dec 2003
Time:
11:58:57

Comments

k. perkins, just deal with all the work on the liars


Date:
26 Dec 2003
Time:
18:11:52

Comments

A ridiculous article. Christ's parousia occurred more than 1,900 years ago but unfortunately both HPs and PPs don't understand what really happened in the first century. They're unable to see that IN GOD'S EYES the end of the age of the old, natural, Christ-rejecting Israel occurred in the moment of the resurrection of Christ in the spring of AD 30, when the new, spiritual and eternal Israel (Christ and the church) was born AND that IN GOD'S EYES the end of the age of the old, natural, Christ-rejecting world occurred in the moment of the resurrection of the dead in Christ at his parousia at the end of the true first century when the new, spiritual and eternal world (the eternal dwelling place of Christ and the church on the earth, described in Rev. 21,22) was born.

The merely typifying, OT, natural Israel was born in THE SPRING (Ex. 12) and it's completely wrong to say that the fulfillment, NT, spiritual Israel was born in AUTUMN. Preterists, like mankind in general and unlike God, judge by outward appearance and since the old, natural Israel didn't disappear immediately after the new, spiritual Israel appeared at the moment of Christ's resurrection, they can't undertstand that it passed away IN GOD'S EYES in AD 30. Likewise, since the old, natural world didn't disappear immediately after the new, spiritual world appeared at the moment of Christ's parousia, they can't understand that it passed away IN GOD'S EYES in AD 96. Most preterists started out as dispensationalists and apparently they can't get over Scofield's false, satanic warning that the NT must not be "spiritualized." Very sad.


 

Date:
27 Dec 2003
Time:
12:43:51

Comments

Paul - the SECOND COMING in (Hebrews 9) in context is in regards to the COVENENT CHANGE. In other words the SECOND COMING and RESURRECTION were to occur at the COVENANT CHANGE when THE POWER OF THE HOLY PEOPLE was DESTROYED (Daniel 12). Not only that but there are time texts involved. He who is coming will come and will not tarry (Hebrews 10). The SECOND COMING and the resurrectioon were to occur at the COVENANT CHANGE. Game over.


Date:
27 Dec 2003
Time:
15:11:29

Comments

hmmm, interesting that you didn't touch the liars. I have posted and answered every attempt to get out of that (and I guess the exegetical midgets Calvin, Hodge, Frame, Murray, et al have all taken Eph 4 out of context! but some dude at a beach house without any theological training knows how to interpret it correctly?). Hey, Mike, don't you think you say peoples first names a bit much? Anyway, I am glad that everyone saw how you didn;t mention what I said was the strongets part of the argument. I know that you guys and your "bible study" think you have refuted it, but many other Christians think differently, (e.g. P. Andrew Sandlin, Gene Cook, Michael Butler, ect).


Date:
27 Dec 2003
Time:
15:21:54

Comments

...also, you seem very upset Mike. This usually happens when faced with an argument you don't have an answer to. BTW, I understand all the covenant-law-change-stuff. What I want to know is if you are correct why are we debating? Furthermore, your question about the puritan board should be obvious. This website ALLOWS both. Puritan board does not. That's their perogative.


Date:
28 Dec 2003
Time:
23:58:15

Comments

The below reply was posted on the other thread – “Refuting the Transcendental Argument Against HyperPreterism”. Seems like there are 2 concurrent sessions going on.

 To Paul of HAAHP on his reply of 27 Dec.

I did not see any explanation or your TA's view on Rev 21:27, 22:14,15 and who are the nations living outside The City. Only your argument using them but nowhere did you offer any explanation for those nations or for those who are outside The City. Not a problem if you don’t have the answer.

 I am still very puzzled by your statement (and logic) – “Moreover, you cannot prove, logically, that there are liars in the NH and E but not in the city based on a verse which says "outside [the city] are the liars." There are alot of things "outside the city," for example the lake of fire is outside the city as well.”

 FIRSTLY, what is there to prove? Rev 22;15 is so straightforward. You are either inside The City or outside. If you are not in New York, then you are outside of New York. It does not matter whether you are in San Diego, in Africa or in Timbuktu. In Rev 21 and Rev 22, the location in context is the NH&NE and within this NH&NE is The City of New Jerusalem. You are either inside or outside of the City.

If you are in The City, you shall not die, no tear and shall inherit all things, meaning, you are already absent from the body and present with the Lord. (In the City, there is no need to debate any doctrinal issues. God is there!)

If you are outside the City, you could still be studying and debating doctrinal issues (like Apostle Paul did in Acts 28), trying your best to understand the Words of God, to live a godly life.

But many outside The City are not like you – they do not yet confess Jesus as Savior for forgiving of their sins, and hence are still lairs and murderers. That is why we have Rev 22:14-15 admonishing us to do His commandments so that we “may enter in through the gates into The City, for without [the City] are dogs, and sorcerers, .… , and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.”

SECONDLY, by your own TA’s argument, you have acknowledged that there are liars in NH&NE. You have stated that “There are alot of things "outside the city," for example the lake of fire is outside the city as well.” According to your argument, all liars are in the lake of fire. And where is the lake of fire? Outside the City. And where is this City? In the New Heaven and New Earth.

Oh! BTW, I need to alert you again, that “all liars SHALL [future tense] have their part in the lake which burneth with fire” not “are in the lake already”. We all are liars and murderers. And we have our whole lifetime to confess to our Lord and to do His commandments so that we may enter in through the gates into The City.

 One common assumption that all of us made is that there shall be no more death and tears in the NH&NE. That’s not what the Bible says. Rev 21:3,4 plainly tell us that God is in that City and within that City there will be no death, no crying (Isa 65:17) – where the inhabitants shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God for the former things are passed away. It is The City that needs no Light as God is Light (not NH&NE). And because God is in The City, “there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, … but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. … For WITHOUT are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.”

 Isa 65:20 does not contradict Rev 21 at all if we are careful in rightly dividing the word of God - which portion of that verse apply to inside Jerusalem (Isa 65:18) and which portion apply to the NH&NE (Isa 65:17), especially when we have the benefit of Rev 21 to guide us.

Well Paul, I shall not be belaboring on this anymore. But I hope to see a Saul of you who once persecuted HP but if God be willing, make you truly into a new Paul. ==== MS Cheo.


Date:
29 Dec 2003
Time:
12:27:19

Comments

Cheo, ...and, as my paper says, you still have the same problem. If there are no liars in the city then why are people teaching/believing/promoting controdictory doctrines (i.e., lying)...in the city? If only hyper-pret's are in the city then why do they not all agree? Why do some think that you should, say, take the Lord's supper, and some do not? This could be easily multiplied. Again, since teaching false doctrine is lying then why are there people in the city who teach lies...if there are no liars there? -Paul


Date:
29 Dec 2003
Time:
19:34:34

Comments

Hi Paul, Yea, I know I had said I will not be laboring further on this. But then, it might not be in good manner of me not to reply, or brotherly of me not to point out again where I think the error might be. (See, don't we human always find justification for our actions? <ggg>)

There is no mention of any "people teaching/believing/promoting contradictory doctrines (i.e., lying)...IN the city" in Revelation or anywhere in the Bible. It is you who have insisted it to be such. Rev 21 and 22 do not say there are liars INSIDE the City, but it does say there are liars OUTSIDE The City (Rev 22:15).

As I have said, if you are in The City, you have already put on the tabernacle made without hand - you shall not die, meaning, you are already absent from the body and present with the Lord. In the City, there is no need to debate any doctrinal issues. You have attained spirituality and the knowledge of all truths. Morever, God your Father and Jesus your Lord are there!

 It is those living OUTSIDE The City, the unbelievers, and the believers like you and me now, still studying and debating doctrinal issues, trying our best to understand the Words of God, trying our best to share our understanding and to gain further understanding, trying our best to live a godly life according to His commandments.

In the Old Heaven and Earth, there was the nation of Israel, the physical Jerusalem, the physical temple and the Old Covenant. There were 2 types of people living in it then. The Hopefuls (the Jews who have the oracles of God's Commandments) and the Hopeless (gentiles [Eph 2:12]). Unfortunately, the bulk of the Hopefuls did not make the grade to enter into the Gate, except a few (some of which were mentioned in Heb 11).

In the New Heaven and New Earth, there is the nation of Spiritual Israel (1Pe 2:9), the Spiritual New Jerusalem, the Spiritual Temple (Rev 21:22) and the New Covenant. There are 2 types of people living in it now. The Hopefuls (the believers [1Pe 2:9]) and the Hopeless (the unbelievers [Act 4:12]). So, to enter into that City, where there is no Death, we are admonished to "do His commandments, that we may have right to the tree of life, and may enter IN through the gates into The City" (Rev 22:14).

 MS Cheo.


Date:
30 Dec 2003
Time:
09:11:06

Comments

Mike X.: Your first objection assumes that what you said faith is, IS the definition. Well, if this is true then you can substitiute THAT definition EVERY time the Bible says "faith." I challenge you to go through the Bible and take out the word faith and substitute it whith what you said it ALWAYS is and see what sort of conceptual headaches you end up with. Thus, your argument 1 fails. Now for argument 2. If Mike X. is correct about his interpretation we would not be debating about whether or not he is correct (since debating contradictory doctrines shows that someone is teaching a lie). we are debating about Mike X.s interpretation. Therefore, Mike Bennets interpretation is not correct. -Paul


Date:
31 Dec 2003
Time:
08:42:08

Comments

Mike, thanks for showing everyone your refusal to answer. -Paul


Date:
01 Jan 2004
Time:
12:17:24

Comments

PAUL - PLEASE READ WHAT MIKE KRALL JUST SENT ME. THIS IS A QUOTE FROM DAYS OF VENGEANCE - AND OTHER COMMENTS - WHEN CHILTON WAS A PARTIAL PRETERIST - LOL. Here it is from Days of Vengeance on Rev 14:5. Also look at some of the other comments people are making. It is hilarious. Finally, St. John says, no lie was found in their mouth, for they are blameless. It is the Dragon who is the deceiver, the false accuser, the father of the Lie (John 8:44; Rev. 12:9); God’s people are characterized by truthfulness (Eph. 4:2427). As St. Paul declared regarding the heathen, the basic Lie is idolatry: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and fourfooted animals and crawling creatures. . . . For they exchanged the Truth of God for the Lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever” (Rem. 1:2225).

At root, the Lie is false prophecy (cf. Jer. 23), the rendering of honor and glory to the creature in place of the Creator. We have seen that the conflict between true and false prophecy, between the witnessing servant prophets and the False Prophet, is central to the concerns of the Book of Revelation. In opposition to her enemies, the Church carries and proclaims the Truth. As the prophets had foretold, God raised up a faithful Remnant during the time of wrath and tribulation on Jerusalem: "But I will leave among you A humble and lowly people, And they will take refuge in the name of the LORD. The Remnant of Israel will do no wrong And tell no lies, Nor will a deceitful tongue Be found in their mouths. . . ." (Zeph. 3:1213)

Commentators have often been vexed over the question of whether this picture is meant to represent the Church as seen on earth, or the Church as seen at rest, in heaven. It should be obvious that both aspects of the Church are in view here — especially since, as we have seen, the Church on earth iS “in heaven” (12:12; 13:6). The famous statement in Hebrews 12:2223 provides compelling evidence: “You have come to Mount Zion and to the City of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels in festal assembly, and to the Church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven. . . .”

Milton Terry rightly remarks: “The heaven of our apocalyptist is the visional sphere of the glory and triumph of the Church, and no marked distinction is recognized between the saints on earth and those in heaven. They are conceived as one great company, and death is of no account to them. . . . Thus the entire passage serves to illustrate how saints ‘dwelling in heavenly places in Christ Jesus’ are all one in spirit and triumph, no matter what physical locality they may occupy.”G For St. John, Zion “is neither in Jerusalem nor above the clouds; it is the whole assembly of the saints, living and departed.”


Date:
01 Jan 2004
Time:
17:32:50

Comments

Hi Paul, H.L. James here. I see you're still at it (smile). Wonder why you promised to answer my paper about infinite sets (you remember that paper), and then never did it.

Anyway, I have a quick question for you, in your argument, are you using the word "liars" as a noun? This is a simple yes or no question. In other words, "Yes it's a noun" or "No it's not a noun" (followed by what it is).</p> <p>I know you can't answer my paper about actual and potential infinities (although you told many people that you could and would), but I trust you can answer this one. Remember, "Yes it's a noun" or "No, it's not a noun"


Date:
01 Jan 2004
Time:
17:38:54

Comments

Paul... H.L. here again... you state in your argument above: "Now, in a sense we are in NH and E. What we want to ask is if we are in the NH and E of Revelation 21 and 22?" Could you write a short paragraph answering the following question: "In what sense are we in the NH and NE?" You said that we are in it "in some sense" so I'm curious in "what sense" are we already in the NH and NE. (Is it getting hot in here or is it me?)


Date:
02 Jan 2004
Time:
01:02:56

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. Something just occurred to me about your comment that we are in the New Heavens and New Earth "In a sense." Here's my thought: According to John's Revelation, the New Heaven and New Earth don't even appear until AFTER the Great White Throne judgment. In other words, the REASON it is said to have appeared is "for the first heaven and first earth have passed away." Paul, you say that we are in the New Heavens and New Earth "in a sense." That means that you believe that we are in the New Heavens and New Earth in some manner. That means that they must be here "in some sense." But they don't appear until AFTER the great white throne judgment. Paul, in order for the New Heavens and New Earth to exist in ANY sense, in order for us to be in the New Heavens and New Earth in ANY sense, the must EXIST! The problem is, the don't exist until AFTER the great white throne judgment according to John's Revelation.

So Paul, are you saying that the great white throne judgment has already happened? If so, then you are a Preterist. If you say we are already in the New Heavens and New Earth "in some sense," then you admit to the existance of the New Heavens and New Earth. If you admit to the existance of the New Heavens and New Earth, you're admitting to something that doesn't come into being until AFTER the great white throne judgment. So, Paul, do you believe we're in the New Heavens and New Earth "in some sense?" I can't wait to hear your answer to this. (is it getting hot in here or is it me?)


Date:
02 Jan 2004
Time:
10:17:48

Comments

H.L. I did write to some of "your people" an answer to your (assumption that Aristotle was correct) set theory, for some reason my e-mails alsways came back blocked from you? So, sorry you didn't receive it? (Though, I would say it is embarrassing to make assumptions in public without the facts, don't you think (smile).

Anyway, (1) I noticed that you had ZERO Scripture in your Aristotilian answer (something unbecomming of you), and since set theory is still debatable if Scripture contradicts your view I would say that Scripture stands over against the CURRENT ideas of set theory. (2) Following from 1, set theory, and what it answers, is highly debateble. There is no consensus that your views are the established ones (you would have needed to prove that. (3) Your key premise was that "IF(!) God/anyone stopped counting the elect it would be a number. That is, if we stopped at 200,345,678,092 then that would be a CERTAIN amount of elected people, that is, God elected them, no more, no less. Now to this I agree, the problem is that your system DOES NOT STOP. So of course, if it stopped you would have a certain fixed number of elect, but since it doesn't, you don't. I had argued that there is a certain number, say the above number, and NO MORE, NO LESS. Your view cannot account for the reformed doctrine of God electing a CERTAIN number, no more, no less. Of course you could if you say, "IF God stops counting then we have one, but the point is God does not stop counting on your system...i.e., they are ALWAYS comming in. (2) I am using liar in the sense the Bible does. I agree that it is ALL those other kinds of liars but there is one class of liars-those who teach contradictory doctrine-that are included in the NO LIARS in the city. This is a simple question.

If there are NO liars, whatsoever in the city, then why are there the type that teach contradictory doctrine? Stop playing games. (3) NH and E, in a sense. It is in the sense that God is putting EVERY enemy under his foot. There is an already not yet aspect to the NH and E. You can cunsult Ridderbos on this. furthermore, I see Isa. 65 as a theonomic post mill (note: SOME aspects of it)NH and E, but not the Rev.21,22 NH and E. Anyway, I see that no one wants toi touch the liars argument.-Paul


Date:
02 Jan 2004
Time:
14:45:28

Comments

Paul... hehehe... H.L. James here again. Could you please answer my questions? Are you using the word "liars" as noun? As you can see... I'm positioning myself to not only "deal" with your "liars" issue, but I'm here to give it a knockout punch (which I'm sure you suspect). So... Paul... please... how are you using the word liars? Are you using it as a noun? Don't answer with something like "I'm using it in the same way the Bible uses it." That's debatable. In fact, your answer will help us determine exactly if you're using liars the way the Bible uses it. So, please... just say noun if it's noun... or whatever. Try to avoid unhelpful comments.


Date:
02 Jan 2004
Time:
14:50:25

Comments

Paul... now on to your set theory issue. I have inquired of everyone I know who is in contact with you and they ALL say that you NEVER answered the set theory question. Anyway, there is a thing called "convergence" that you probably don't know about. The idea is that you can have an infinite number "converging" on a single number. An example would be the paradox of a unit of measure. To get from point a to point b you need to traverse an infinite number of "midpoints" between each "midpoint" between each "midpoint." You eventually "reach" or "converge upon" your destination. From zero inches to one inch, there is an infinite number of "midpoints" which eventually "converge" at one inch. Think about this for a bit while you're answering my questions about word "liars" and whether or not it's a noun.


Date:
02 Jan 2004
Time:
14:51:29

Comments

Paul, also... since you didn't go anywhere NEAR my question about your statement that the New Heavens and New Earth are already here, I'll repost it for you: Paul, H.L. James here again. Something just occurred to me about your comment that we are in the New Heavens and New Earth "In a sense." Here's my thought: According to John's Revelation, the New Heaven and New Earth don't even appear until AFTER the Great White Throne judgment. In other words, the REASON it is said to have appeared is "for the first heaven and first earth have passed away." Paul, you say that we are in the New Heavens and New Earth "in a sense." That means that you believe that we are in the New Heavens and New Earth in some manner. That means that they must be here "in some sense." But they don't appear until AFTER the great white throne judgment.

 Paul, in order for the New Heavens and New Earth to exist in ANY sense, in order for us to be in the New Heavens and New Earth in ANY sense, the must EXIST! The problem is, the don't exist until AFTER the great white throne judgment according to John's Revelation. So Paul, are you saying that the great white throne judgment has already happened? If so, then you are a Preterist. If you say we are already in the New Heavens and New Earth "in some sense," then you admit to the existance of the New Heavens and New Earth. If you admit to the existance of the New Heavens and New Earth, you're admitting to something that doesn't come into being until AFTER the great white throne judgment. So, Paul, do you believe we're in the New Heavens and New Earth "in some sense?" I can't wait to hear your answer to this. (is it getting hot in here or is it me?)


Date:
03 Jan 2004
Time:
01:53:49

Comments

PAUL - NOBODY TOUCHED YOUR "NO LIARS" ARGUMENT? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING - THE VERSE BELOW - ALL PARTIAL PRETERISTS SAY IS A PAST EVENT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO WERE ALIVE AT THE TIME PRIOR TO THE NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH. FOR THE FULL VERSION PLEASE SCROLL UP. Revelation 14 5 No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.


Date:
03 Jan 2004
Time:
10:16:44

Comments

H.L., (1) well I guess we could get into memory reliability, but I'm sure you don't want to waste time, just say that you assumed...it's o.k...it doesn't matter much. Anyway, for your set theory: your answer is all fine and good, except your view has NO CONVERGING POINT, e.g., the inch would be the "END" of what there were an infinite series of points in, the problem is that, your system does not have an "inch/end point!" There can never be A SET NUMBER. Why? Because you always add 1 to it. I grant that if you stop then you have no problem but the point is that you do not stop. So, as I said, which YOU did not answer. How do you have a number where, NO MORE/NO LESS if you are ALWAYS adding ONE to it. This should be pretty simple. Stop trying to intellectualy bully people.

(2) H.L. want control, but I will not give it to him. I am using liars/lie as a person who teaches false doctrine. Now, in the city there are NONE of the class of liars. Why is ONE of the classes there? H.L. you will not treat me like you do "your people." If you have the "knockout punch"...then give it! Let's go. Stop the games. I'm waiting.

(3) H.L. since you didn't understand my answer to the NH and E I refer you to Ridderbos (already/not yet, pre/post consumation) and Bahnsen, "Theonomy In Christian Ethics." (btw, your set theory paper had about 8 misssspellllled words in it. That was going to be a very funny and embarrassing response. Hint, remember the other letter you sent me? =) I guess pride does go before the fall!

(4) For the one who said they answered my liars argument: (1) H.L. must not think so otherwise he would refer me to the above post and not have a "knockout punch" waiting. (2) I find it interesting that you guys now use commetaries! Everytime I use a commentator who contradicts your view you say that, "The Bible is my creed." So, that's fine, you want your cake and to eat it to. (3) The Bible says that those who teach doctrines which are contradictory to the ONE revealed doctrine are liars. Why, then, are there people in the city who teach/hold to contradictory doctine if there are NO liars there? Would God teach contradictory doctrine? No! Why? Because "It is impossible for him to lie." -Paul

(5) Chilton says "As St. Paul declared regarding the heathen, the basic Lie is idolatry:" If you guys notice, Rev 21:8 makes a distinction between idolators and liars. John mentions types that will not be there, murders, sorcerers, idolaters, AND ALL LIARS. Thanks for your time and interesting interchange, but as we can see NONE of the above posts has even touched the argument.

(6) H.L. says that it is debatable that teaching false doctrine is a lie. Let's examine this:objection 2: "Teaching false doctrine is not lying." Oh really? Prov.30:6 states: quote:

6Do not add to his words, lets he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

Now, since the Bible only teaches ONE truth anything that we teach that is not the one revealed truth is adding to what the Bible says. For example, if I am wrong about paedobaptism then when I teach or explain it I am adding to what the Bible teaches about baptism, thus I lie. Likewise, based on the law of non-contradiction, either HP or orthodox Christianity is lying. I John 2:4 teaches us that: quote:

The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

 You see, anti-nomian teaching is called lying. Teaching a warped view of, "we are under grace not law" is to teach a lie! Furthermore, look at all the passages which call false prophets liars. These people taught false doctrines and were condemned as liars by Jehovah. Some verses are: Ez. 22:28, Jer 28:15, Jer 27:16. Therefore, we can see that the Bible plainly and authoritatively states that teaching/promoting false doctrine is lying. We saw in Rev. 21 that there will be no liars there, and that no one who maketh a lie will be there.


Date:
03 Jan 2004
Time:
22:27:29

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again (smile). So is it a noun or what? Do you use the word "liars" as a noun? Why is it so hard for you to answer one simple question? Also, in the Revelation, what did Jesus mean when He says "The time is near" and "Behold, I am coming quickly?" Here's the passage:

And he said to me, "Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is AT HAND. 11He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous[5] still; he who is holy, let him be holy still." 12 "And behold, I AM COMING QUICKLY, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.

 Paul, how do you explain the passage just quoted? Is it still future? Simple yes or now will do.


Date:
04 Jan 2004
Time:
12:24:42

Comments

Among the liars that will have their place in the lake of fire are there any in the New Covenant which Jeremiah said 'they shall ALL know me from the least to the greatest'? If you say no then your argument against the NH and NE being the NC has just been rendered null and void. 


Date:
04 Jan 2004
Time:
13:31:26

Comments

To the writer of Dec. 26, 2003, 11:58:57: both Mr. X. (by showing the existence of those who have no lie in their mouths to have already come) and Mr. Krall (by pointing out what kind of liar is meant) have addressed the issue. The point is, as even Mr. Manata points out, there are different kinds of liars, and for him to argue that the existence of liars "proves" that the NH and NE have not arrived based on one definition of "liar" when the proper definition that should be used (demonstrated in that there were already people in whose mouth there was no lie) has been given.

In addition, it is obvious that both the "literal" understandings of the passages compared (in my original post) cannot be true. Will there be dying in the NH and NE or will there be "no death"? Or would it be best to understand that there is more than one can of dying, and that the deaths in view are not the same? Likewise, we should understand that there is more than one kind of lying, and that the lying in view (as pointed out by Mr. Krall, Mr. X., and others) is specific.

Also, while I have no idea how it is possible, there are partial preterists who believe that the NH and HE are the NC: http://mikeblume.com/matrevjer.htm http://mikeblume.com/whatcity.htm http://mikeblume.com/newcity.htm http://reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/dit/dit09.97.htm The New Jerusalem and the NH and NE representing the NC is not an inherently "hyper"-preterist doctrine. <br> Again, I will end my post by pointing out that it could have been said that "The idea of [insert just about any "Protestant" doctrine] has simply been misunderstood by the Church for the last fifteen hundred years" in the early days of the Reformation. Were the Catholic scholars, with all their training and studying, right just because of their training and studying?

Kenneth


Date:
04 Jan 2004
Time:
16:41:18

Comments

so the Bible is wrong that teaching false doctrine is a lie?


Date:
05 Jan 2004
Time:
12:30:11

Comments

The Bible is just as wrong in saying that false doctrine is a lie as it is in saying that there is no death in the NH and NE/New Jerusalem (Rev. 21) and that people will die there (Isaiah 65). The Bible isn't wrong at all, it's when people try to force meanings on passages that were not necessarily intended that "problems" arise. Obviously the deaths of which these passages speak are different, or there is a contradiction. Likewise, as has been demonstrated, false doctrine and debates need not be the "lies" in view in Revelation 21, 22.

It's not whether false doctrine is a lie, but whether false doctrine is the lie in view that is the question. That there is false doctrine does not prove that the NH and NE have not come because there are no liars there any more than the fact that people die physically means that Jesus' words in John 8:51 (that those who keep His word will not taste death) are a lie. Just as the "death" of which Christ speaks is specific, the "liars" in Rev. 21 are a specific group. Take care and God bless. Take care and God bless. KP


Date:
05 Jan 2004
Time:
13:41:55

Comments

how would you prove your assertion, though?

...and, are you saying that when Rev 21:8,27 says, "ALL liars" and "ANYONE who maketh a lie" that does not mean ALL in the class of liars, but rather some? And, of course, how would this be proved?

...I have one more question. Do you think, when you get to heaven (whatever your concept of that is) that you and the other saints will debate/argue about, say, infant baptism, calvinism/arminianism/,eschatology, forms of Church government, etc.,. If not, why? If so, why?


Date:
05 Jan 2004
Time:
14:58:51

Comments

No, I don't think that we'll be debating these issues in the post-physical death "eternal state" of heaven.

I think of it this way: John 6:35, 53 speak of the believer never having hunger or thirst, but these are not with reference to ALL kinds of hunger and thirst (physical hunger and thirst), but to a specific kind. Now, do I believe that people will need physical food in heaven because we still have it here even though Jesus says that those who believe in Him will never hunger or thirst and this clearly does not refer to physical hunger? No. The same principle is in play in the case of "liars." While a specific kind of "liar" is in view in the Rev. 21, 22, this does not mean that "liars" of other sorts will continue. Rather, I see that the other kind of liar is eliminated later, at physical death, as is the case with the hunger and thirst not eliminated by faith in Christ.

The hunger of John 6:35 does not mean that since physical hunger is not eliminated while one is physically alive that it will never be eliminated; rather, upon physical death it is eliminated. In the same way, that the "liars" of Revelation 21, 22 are not doctrinal dissenters and therefore false doctrine and debating will not cease to exist during physical existence in the New Jerusalem (since they are not the "lies" of the "liars" in view) does not mean that there will be no resolution; upon one's physical death, this issue is also resolved. Since the concept is valid with reference to hunger and thirst (one kind is eliminated in Christ, while another is eliminated at death), I see no reason why this same principle would not apply in the case of "liars" (one kind is non-existent in the New Jerusalem, one kind is non-existent in the "eternal state" of heaven). KP


Date:
05 Jan 2004
Time:
16:11:49

Comments

what Scripture do you have to support your view that we will no be arguing/debating in your view of heaven? Also, why does "ALL" liars not mean "ALL" like it says, but rather "SOME" liars like you are implying?


Date:
05 Jan 2004
Time:
19:54:07

Comments

So when believers physically die and "see death," do they "prove" that Jesus' words in John 8:51 are a lie? When Christians eat food, do they prove Jesus' words in John 6:35 to be a lie? How then does your argument about liars "prove" that we are not in the NH and NE/NJ? Neither Mr. X.'s argument about the past fulillment of the day when no lie would be found in the mouths of the followers of Christ nor Mr. Krall's points about the liars has been shown to not be true. Keeping in mind that it's been pointed out so many times that there exists more than one kind of liar just like there exists more than one kind of death and more kind of hunger, there is no basis for forcing "all liars" to have any meaning other than that already put forth by Mr. X., Mr. Krall, and others.

In 1 Corinthians 8:4, Paul says, "there is no God but one." Then he turns around and writes in the next verse, "there are many gods and many lords." According to your logic about liars, Paul contradicted himself since he said both that there is no God but one and that there are many gods. Obviously the meanings of "God"/"god" in his statements were different. The Bible, in this very context, is clear as to the identity of these gods: they are so called-gods, for there is no such thing as an idol in reality. So, there are many gods (in one sense, the sense that there are many fabrications toward which people offer worship), but no God but one (in another sense, the sense of true deity). Likewise, there is no liar (in one sense, the sense of one who does not confess Jesus) in the NH and NE/NJ, while in other senses (debate of doctrine) there may be. Mr. X., Mr. Krall, and others have clearly stressed the point about the identity of the liars, and I in addition to them have shown that words can have different meanings in different contexts, and that it can be improper to force the meaning of a word in one context onto another context with various other examples.

These include: (1) Jesus promised that those who keep His word will never see death, while believers die every day. (2) Jesus promised to eliminate hunger and thirst in those who come to Him and believe in Him, yet believers still must consume physical food for nourishment. (3) In this post, that there are both many gods and no God but one. If your logic about "no liars" is true, is Jesus a false prophet based on His words in John 6:35 and 8:51? If your point about "no liars" is true, did Paul contradict himself in 1 Corinthians 8:4, 5, where he both said that there is no God but one and that there are many gods? If not, on what basis do you say that "no liars" MUST mean "liar" in every sense of the word (since you do not impose the same standard on Jesus and Paul)?

 Obviously Jesus' words in John 6:35 about "never" hungering do not speak of all kinds of hunger, and his words in John 8:51 do not speak of ALL kinds of death (since He prophesied the death of Peter - John 21:15-19). Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 8:4 can't be talking about every sense of the word "god" or else he would be contradicting himself in the next verse. So the fact that he said that there is no God but one does not preclude other kinds of "gods" (false idols that do not live) from existing. Likewise, that there is "no liar" in the NH and NE/NJ does not by definition mean that no one fitting any significance of the word "liar" can be found there, but only that kind of liar in view, which, as previously stated, has been pointed out by Mr. Krall, Mr. X., and others. What is the basis for you assertion that "no liars" must mean every sense of liar when Jesus' and Paul's similar language with reference to other things does not carry the same force? KP


Date:
06 Jan 2004
Time:
09:18:04

Comments

...actually, just had a couple questions. So, anyway, you have no proof that ALL does not mean ALL, other than, "other times hunger does not mean physical food?" Weel, this is an interesting argument...I must say. But, let's take it to its logical conclusion: ALL does not mean ALL, so then, ALL murderers does not mean ALL, ALL idolators does not mean ALL. Wow, who's left out of the city? Some idolators are in, some are not! This is silly. Furthermore, allow me to use HP eisogesis. ALL does not mean ALL in Rev 21:8...o.k., then ALL the overcommers in Rev 21:7 does not mean ALL! Therefore, there are SOME of the class of overcommers who are not there! Great position. Also, KP, do you have the verses to prove your assertion that we will not debate/argue doctrine in heaven (your concept of, of course)?-Paul


Date:
06 Jan 2004
Time:
15:51:14

Comments

H.L. James here again. Has everyone noticed how Paul Manata refuses to come straight out and say if the word "liars" he's referring to is a noun? I think he's afraid of what I may have for him. Paul, you afraid of a bit of truth? Come on... when you use the word "liars" in your argument, you're using it as a noun, aren't ya? Just say yes. Either way, as soon as you answer yes or no, I've got ya. (smile) H.L. James


Date:
06 Jan 2004
Time:
16:15:48

Comments

re: Mike X., per KP. I just let his own letters refute him. I am glad that he does the posts with so much anger (usually happens when arguments get to ya). Also, you guys had some lying HPs come on a message board that requires adherence to the WCF and LBC. Just keep doing things like that and your position will take care of itself. Furthermore, H.L., sometimes I use it as a verb, sometimes a noun, sometimes an adj. Depends. -pAUL


Date:
06 Jan 2004
Time:
17:40:11

Comments

Paul... thank you for letting us know how you use the word "liars." You said, and I quote: "sometimes I use it as a verb, sometimes a noun, sometimes an adj. Depends." Excellent, exactly what I needed you to say. You've tried to leave yourself some wiggle-room. That's exactly what I expected you to do. Oh... do you prefer hemp, nylon or dacron? Stay tuned... H.L. James

Paul, one more thing before I send the Anola Gay; in your Transcendental Argument, do you ever deal with the possibility that the New Heavens and New Earth are indeed here, but liars, no matter how verbal they are about their Christianity, are simply outside the city and therefore not part of the New Covenant? In other words, your "proof" that we are not in the New Heavens and New Earth rests upon the word "liars," and you (thank God) have given that word a VERY narrow meaning. So, in keeping with the narrow meaning you've given the word "liars" (which I'll deal with shortly), is it, in your view, possible, just based on the fact that your only "proof" so far, is the existance of what you call "liars" and what you claim that word means, is it possible, in your view that when you see "liars," you suppose you see Christian liars, but in reality, those people you see as the "liars" are simply imposters and are indeed outside the City (new covenant)?

If you don't see that as a possibility, could you just give us a short paragraph as to why it cannot be that way. In other words, given your use of the word "liars," isn't it just as possible that the New Heavens and New Earth could indeed be a reality and those individuals you say are the "liars" in the Church are "at church" perhaps, but are really simply outside the city? Remember, your agrument hinges on the word "liars" and what you say that word means. One of the passages you use as your "proof texts" from Revelation 22:15 states that "dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie" are outside the city. You say that this proves that the New Heavens and New Earth are not here because there are people "in the Church" who love and practice a lie." Right? Your argument uses the above passage of Scripture. Right?

Your argument states that since there are Christians who "love and practice" a lie, that we cannot be in the New Heavens and New Earth. Doesn't it? Okay. Doesn't your argument assume that there could be such a thing as a true Christian who "loves and practices a lie?" Wouldn't Calvin and all the other reformers vehemently disagree with that notion? Here's something I want you to think about: the verse I quoted above mentions several nasty types of people. Right? Here's the list: dogs, sorcerers, sexually immoral, murderers, idolaters, and of course, whoever "loves and practices a lie." You would agree that that's the list, right? Okay. you say, that because you see "Christians" lying, we must not be in the New Heavens and New Earth, right? Now I want you to think about the list I've quoted from John's Revelation again. DOGS, SORCERERS, SEXUALLY IMMORAL, MURDERERS, IDOLATERS. Let's just concentrate on these for a moment.

 Just keep in mind that "whoever loves and practices a lie" is in this group of extremely nasty things. You say something like, "I, Paul Manata, because I see Liars in the Church, we cannot be in the New Heavens and New Earth." Right? Good. The first thing we need to do is update your statement to more closely fit the Scriptures. Here we go: "I, Paul Manata, because I see people who LOVE AND PRACTICE A LIE in the Church, we cannot be in the New Heavens and New Earth." Isn't that better? Now, what I want you to do is to replace the word "liars" (remember, it's just one of a list of nasties) with any of the other things on the list, okay? Let's try it. "I, Paul Manata, because I see Sorcerers in the Church, we cannot be in the New Heavens and New Earth." Now, ask yourself, is anyone who is a sorcerer really IN the Church in the first place? They may be "at church," but are they really IN the Church (Christ's Body)? Oh, oh... let's do it again... this is fun, isn't it? Okay, let's do another substitution: "I, Paul Manata, because I see SEXUALLY IMMORAL people in the Church, we cannot be in the New Heavens and New Earth."

Now, would you say that people who are sexually immoral are really "in the Church" in the first place? You know, like a Christian playboy or a Christian Penthouse Pet. Sounds a bit weird, doesn't it? Sure it does. Now, let's do another substitution: "I, Paul Manata, because I see MURDERERS in the Church, we cannot be in the New Heavens and New Earth." Now, ask yourself, "are people who committ MURDER really IN the Church in the first place?" Imagine a Christian Hitler, or a Christian Al Capone. These things ARE all in the same list, right? Let's continue: "I, Paul Manata, because I see PEOPLE SACRIFICING THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS IN THE FIRES OF MOLECH in the Church, we cannot be in the New Heavens and New Earth." Now ask yourself, "are people who SACRIFICE THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS IN THE FIRES OF MOLECH really IN the Church (Body of Christ) in the first place?" Aren't these the kinds of things you would think are indicators that someone IS NOT in the Body of Christ in the first place? So, I ask again, since WHOEVER LOVES AND PRACTICES A LIE is on the list I've just used for our illustration, don't you think we can consider "whatever it means" to be as ugly and "unChristian" as all the other things on the list?

Isn't it indeed possible that the New Heavens and New Earth are INDEED here, and that the New Jerusalem (the Bride of Christ, the New Covenant) is INDEED HERE, and that the DOGS, SORCERERS, SEXUALLY IMMORAL, MURDERERS, IDOLATERS, and WHOEVER LOVES AND PRACTICES A LIE, are INDEED ALL OUTSIDE THE CITY (NOT part of the Bride of Christ, NOT part of the NEW COVENANT)? Isn't that possible, Paul? If not... tell us all how , SORCERERS, SEXUALLY IMMORAL, MURDERERS, IDOLATERS, and WHOEVER LOVES AND PRACTICES A LIE are "in the Church" in the first place. (by the way, I'm just getting started with you) . H.L. James


Date:
07 Jan 2004
Time:
00:48:28

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. In keeping with my question to you in my last post (which I hope you take the time to answer thoughtfully), here is a passage from the letter to the Ephesians where the Apostle Paul says just what I've said in my last post to you. The Apostle Paul writes: -=[ For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them.]=- I think you get my point. H.L.


Date:
07 Jan 2004
Time:
09:11:35

Comments

H.L., I'm glad your "just getting started with me." Anyway, I have NOT given liar a narrow meaning. I have said it means ALL those things (e.g., deniars of Christ, liars who don't obey his commandments, cf. IJn), but it ALSOP includes THOSE who "add to the word of the Lord (Prov. 31:6), if the Bible doesn't teach HP then you have ADDED, or if it does; I have. H.L. do you or do you not believe that there can be liars in the city? If you say "no" then what about the class that teaches false doctrine? I know you know this destroys your position and this is why you guys are going through gymnastics. Now, you may say that it doesn't mean that "ALL" of the members of the class of liars are excluded. That is, to save your position, you have to remove the BIBLICALLY DEFINED group known as "adders to the word" or teachers of false doctrine! Now, that's fine. I need to see the PROOF that that class is not there. That is, I need to see the proof that "ALL" in Rev 21:8,27 does not mean "ALL." (BTW, the passage you quoted says "lie" which is a verb).

So, you can say that ALL does not mean ALL. O.K., that's fine. But Columbo just has another question. Does that also apply to the murderers, idolaters, sexually immoral, etc as well? If so, just who don't you guys let into the city! Therefore, if you say that ALL liars do not mean ALL then you also (trying to not be arbitrary) would say that ALL the others does not mean all as well...right? Good. That's consistant. Now, by implication, what can we conclude? That SOME liars, idolaters, murderers, sexually immoral, etc., ARE IN THE CITY! But wait(!) doesn't it say that ALL those are outside. Furthermore, how do you non-arbitrarily say that ALL overcommers in Rev 21:7 means ALL? So let me see if I got it? ALL in 21:8 doesn't mean ALL, o.k. neither does it in 21:7, therefore, SOME overcommers are NOT in the city! Oh, but you don't like that do you? Hey, I learned this game from you so don't complain now. Flat-out, this is pretty simple. You need to show that ALL does not mean ALL here, while still keeping ALL of those outside the city. You need to account for the arbitrariness between Rev 21:7 and 8, i.e., one verse referrs to ALL, the other doesn't. -btw, I hope you don't end up with radiation poisoning from piloting the "Anola gay." (Oh yea, America should be referred to orthodox Christianity and Hiroshima to HP.) Anyway, waiting for this devastating argument.....Paul

H.L.'s horns of a dilema. (1) If ALL really means ALL then it includes the class of liars who teach false doctrine. Since one of us is contradicting the other one is teaching false doctrine. Thus we couldn't be in the city. H.L. "escapes" by 2. (2) All does not mean ALL. O.k. then SOME have to allowed in...right?...they have to, right?...logically. But how can SOME enter in to the city when it says "NOTHING unclean will ever enter it."? Now, you can say that, "oh they don't enter into it unclean, they wash their robes." Well (1) this is to beg the question, since that is what we are debateing. (2) If you are correct why do they wash their robes but leave some elements dity? That is, nice wash job! It really is just an out. What you are saying is just a formality, i.e., they wash their robes but still lie, murder, and such. Wow! what a washing. Anyway, I hope you think about this and the above post...I think you see the point.

therefore, by debating you lost, since debating presupposes that liars can be in the city, and we know that NONE can be. So, respond and prove my argument. -Paul


Date:
07 Jan 2004
Time:
11:38:26

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. Which one of us are you suggesting is not in the city? Since I indeed say that NONE of those mentioned in the list of Rev 22 are "in the city," or even CAN be, and since you seem to agree with me that this MUST be the case, and since you seem to want to say that "people who debate doctrine" are liars, then which one of us, in your opinion, is outside the city? Remember, I say we're in the New Heavens and New Earth, which means that I believe that ALL dogs, sorcerers, sexually immoral, idolaters, and whosoever loves and practices a lie are "outside" the city and their inheritance is the lake of fire. You see Paul, Preterists don't have a problem saying that ALL of the "whosoever loves and practices a lie" are outside the city. As I already showed you earlier, the Apostle Paul didn't have a problem with saying that either when he said that none of these would "inherit the kingdom of Christ and God."

In terms of "debating," you seem to think that both sides of the debate are "dirty," when in reality it is entirely possible that one side is right (clean), while one side is wrong (dirty). So imagine this, two people claim to be Christian. One loves the truth of Scripture as it appears in Scripture, the other wants to twist Scripture to mean that Jesus and the Apostles were "mistaken" about the clear time statements they made. Which one would you say deserves to inherit the lake of fire and to be "outside the city?" The one who twists God's word, right? I would agree (which is why I won't give up on you). You see, Paul, I, like many reformed theologians, believe that the true "elect" exhibit certain qualities. One of those core qualities is their love for "Scripture Alone." What you have done with your Transcendental Argument is you have created a Transcendental Argument against your own ability to create a Transcendental Argument. So, which one of us, in your opinion, would be excluded from entrance into the city? Jesus said he was "coming quickly" in several places in the Revelation. The Preterist leaves those words alone and says Jesus did come quickly and that the time was "at hand" at the time. You, on the other hand, say that those things didn't happen as Jesus predicted they would. You have "taken away" from the words of the prophecy of that book. What does the book specifically say about people who do that? No entrance into the city. Observe:

Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

 Okay, so Jesus says that if a person "takes away" from the words of this book of this prophecy, God would take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in the book. So here's a test to see where you stand: In the Revelation, Jesus said that the time of his coming, where he would "reward every man according to what he had done" was "at hand." Was it? The book says it was. If you say, "it wasn't," then you have taken away from the words of the book, because the book says "it was at hand." If you take away from the words of the book, you are "outside the city." I didn't say that, the book itself says that. Here's another test: Jesus said:

Revelation 22:6 "Then he said to me,'These words are faithful and true.' And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent His angel to show His servants the things which must shortly take place."

 So, did the things that Jesus showed his servants "shortly" take place? If you say they didn't, then you have taken away from the words of the book and your reward for doing that is that you are "outside the city." (and the book of life.) If you change the meaning of the words "shortly, quickly, at hand, near," then you have still "taken away from the words of this book and your reward is to remain "outside the city" and have no part in the Book of Life. Paul, just based on the Revelation as it is, even if you say that the New Heavens and New Earth have not come yet, just that very argument puts you at odds with the Word of God and specifically the Revelation, which says that it was "at hand" over 1900 years ago, which said that Jesus would "come quickly." Your Transcendental Argument against HyperPreterism "takes away" from the words of the book of this prophecy by saying that none of the things that were "at hand" really were "at hand" and therefore, makes you eligible for exclusion from the city, and inclusion in the lake of fire, because your argument says that the things that "must shortly take place" didn't shortly take place. Get what I'm saying here, Paul. Do the test on yourself. Ask yourself, "Did Jesus come quickly as he promised?" If you say yes, you're a Preterist. If you say no, you've "taken away from the words of the book of this prophecy" and you are outside the city and your name is excluded from the Book of Life. Remember, I didn't say that, it's in the book itself.

Here's another test: People like to play around with the idea that "Gods timing is not the same as man's timing." But what about "John's timing?" John was a man, right? John used words like "Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour." This is the same John who went on to report to the seven churches in Revelation 1:1-3 "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants -- things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near." Okay, John, (not God using some twisted form of the words), John said, over 1900 years ago, that Jesus "signified it by His angel to His servant John..." Then John sticks his neck out and puts everything on the line (this is John talking now) and said: "His servent John, who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw." Then, after announcing to the world that he was bearing witness to "the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw," John, in full control of his faculties makes the following declaration using words that he understood the meaning of, words his listeners would have had ONLY ONE interpretation of.

He says: "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near." John said: "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and KEEP those things which are written in it; for the TIME IS NEAR." Okay, here's the test for you, Paul: Remember, John, using normal words (not heavenly words that twist time language into something totally "otherworldly" and meaningless), John says that the "time is near." So Paul, was the time "near" or not? If you say it was, then you are a Preterist. If you say that "well, the time wasn't really near" then you have taken away from the words of this book of this prophecy and your place is "outside the city" and your destiny is the lake of fire. I don't have a problem with that because it's in the Bible. So, the Bible says those things were supposed to happen soon. Here's the simple question I want you to answer without going off on some pseudo-theological, pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo. (1.)DID JESUS COME QUICKLY? (2.)WAS THE TIME "AT HAND." (3.) WAS THE TIME "NEAR?" If you answer "no" to any of the above questions, you have taken away from the words of this book of this prophecy. If you say "these words don't mean what you think they mean," then you have taken away from the words of the book of this prophecy. If you say "yes" to the questions above, then you are a Preterist.


Date:
07 Jan 2004
Time:
12:08:52

Comments

Paul here again =). H.L. you show a misunderstanding of the argument (did you even read it?) You are playing in the farm leauge right now, I am on another field. H.L., my point is that, our debates presuppose that there are one class of liars in the city. (Btw, i see how you did not even touch the serious reductios given to you...anyway.) Now, you want to say that I am outside the city and it is you who teach the correct doctrine and thus, no liars are in the city. Or you want to say that 'I assume that both sides are dirty." No, I assume that only ONE can be right. That being the case why are we debating if there are no liars in the city and one type of liar is someone who teaches false doctrine. Oh, I forgot, you are right and I am wrong because I say Jesus lied and you didn't. O.K., I'm out...fine. Let's continue with the real Anola Gay. Why do HPs debate amongst themselves?!?!?!?!(e.g., Lord's super, what counts as fulfilled prophacy, infant baptism (you) autonomous baptism (Mike X.), etc, etc., etc.,)!? So, which HP is in the city? I know of no two people who agree on EVERY SINGLE POINT OF DOCTRINE....but let's say that there are two.

The Bible teaches that there will be a MULTITUDE there. So, you are starting to see the devastating forth of the TA (because your smart, and I know this) based on your last post. You totally avoided the issues and serious challenges and then turned to try and "prove" HPism?! But, again, if it is true then why are there liars in the city. You can say that "anyone who loves and practices is not there" but you can't exclude the other verses. Do you love HPism? Do you practice it? Furthermore, in 21:8 is says ALL liars will not be there. I am still waiting. Since teaching false doctrine is to tech a lie then why are there people teaching false doctrine in the city? Note: even HPs disagree amongst themselves! I am not trying to be mean, indeed your last post gave me hope. I think you are seeing the desparate position you are in. You know that none of the above people have answered me and that is why you stepped in. But you know that you have not answered the challenge as well. I will end by reposting the serious reductios: H.L.'s horns of a dilema. (1) If ALL really means ALL then it includes the class of liars who teach false doctrine. Since one of us is contradicting the other one is teaching false doctrine. Thus we couldn't be in the city. H.L. "escapes" by 2. (2) All does not mean ALL. O.k. then SOME have to allowed in...right?...they have to, right?...logically. But how can SOME enter in to the city when it says "NOTHING unclean will ever enter it."?

Now, you can say that, "oh they don't enter into it unclean, they wash their robes." Well (1) this is to beg the question, since that is what we are debateing. (2) If you are correct why do they wash their robes but leave some elements dity? That is, nice wash job! It really is just an out. What you are saying is just a formality, i.e., they wash their robes but still lie, murder, and such. Wow! what a washing. Anyway, I hope you think about this and the above post...I think you see the point. -Paul....and....H.L., I'm glad your "just getting started with me." Anyway, I have NOT given liar a narrow meaning. I have said it means ALL those things (e.g., deniars of Christ, liars who don't obey his commandments, cf. IJn), but it ALSOP includes THOSE who "add to the word of the Lord (Prov. 31:6), if the Bible doesn't teach HP then you have ADDED, or if it does; I have. H.L. do you or do you not believe that there can be liars in the city? If you say "no" then what about the class that teaches false doctrine? I know you know this destroys your position and this is why you guys are going through gymnastics. Now, you may say that it doesn't mean that "ALL" of the members of the class of liars are excluded. That is, to save your position, you have to remove the BIBLICALLY DEFINED group known as "adders to the word" or teachers of false doctrine! Now, that's fine. I need to see the PROOF that that class is not there. That is, I need to see the proof that "ALL" in Rev 21:8,27 does not mean "ALL." (BTW, the passage you quoted says "lie" which is a verb). So, you can say that ALL does not mean ALL. O.K., that's fine. But Columbo just has another question. Does that also apply to the murderers, idolaters, sexually immoral, etc as well? If so, just who don't you guys let into the city!

Therefore, if you say that ALL liars do not mean ALL then you also (trying to not be arbitrary) would say that ALL the others does not mean all as well...right? Good. That's consistant. Now, by implication, what can we conclude? That SOME liars, idolaters, murderers, sexually immoral, etc., ARE IN THE CITY! But wait(!) doesn't it say that ALL those are outside. Furthermore, how do you non-arbitrarily say that ALL overcommers in Rev 21:7 means ALL? So let me see if I got it? ALL in 21:8 doesn't mean ALL, o.k. neither does it in 21:7, therefore, SOME overcommers are NOT in the city! Oh, but you don't like that do you? Hey, I learned this game from you so don't complain now. Flat-out, this is pretty simple. You need to show that ALL does not mean ALL here, while still keeping ALL of those outside the city. You need to account for the arbitrariness between Rev 21:7 and 8, i.e., one verse referrs to ALL, the other doesn't. -btw, I hope you don't end up with radiation poisoning from piloting the "Anola gay." (Oh yea, America should be referred to orthodox Christianity and Hiroshima to HP.) Anyway, waiting for this devastating argument.....Paul Take care guys.-Paul


Date:
07 Jan 2004
Time:
13:04:28

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. As usual, mumbo-jumbo. Please, for the sake of your own reputation, answer the following: Here's the simple question I want you to answer without going off on some pseudo-theological, pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo. (1.)DID JESUS COME QUICKLY? (2.)WAS THE TIME "AT HAND." (3.) WAS THE TIME "NEAR?" If you answer "no" to any of the above questions, you have taken away from the words of this book of this prophecy. If you say "these words don't mean what you think they mean," then you have taken away from the words of the book of this prophecy. If you say "yes" to the questions above, then you are a Preterist. Paul In your next post, please, just say, "No, Jesus didn't come quickly" or "Yes, Jesus did come quickly." If Jesus DID come quickly, as He said he would, the we're obviously in the New Heavens And New Earth. If you say he "didn't come quickly" then you've taken away from the book. So which is it? No long paragraphs. Just answer three questions, which I've conveniently written out for you above. You could even cut and paste the questions and have someone else type the answers in for you if you're too busy to do it yourself. Could we please have an answer today. You obviously READ my post because you mention it. Why you don't answer it, I think is now obvious to everyone reading these posts. Please, answer the three questions only.

One more thing. Just so you're clear on where I stand, you said in your last post: "H.L. do you or do you not believe that there can be liars in the city? If you say "no" then what about the class that teaches false doctrine?" Do you see the fallacy in your logic in your question above? The phrase "what about the class that teaches false doctrine" is a "question begging" statement. It assumes that I believe that "those who teach false doctrine" are "inside the city." Do you see that? In order for you to be able to say that, I must first believe that "those who teach false doctrine" are "inside the city." I have already said WHOSOEVER LOVES AND PRACTICES A LIE is OUTSIDE the city. If a person who teaches false doctrine fits into the category of WHOSOEVER LOVES AND TEACHES A LIE (according to your definition), then they are OUTSIDE the city. I hope we're clear on that. ALL, means ALL. Again, if "those who teach false doctrine" fit into the WHOSOEVER LOVES AND PRACTICES A LIE, then they are OUTSIDE the city. Now, please answer my three questions above. Thanks


Date:
07 Jan 2004
Time:
13:37:23

Comments

H.L. Paul here again. As usual, side step and ask questions whithout qualifying them. H.L, we were debating the liars...everyone knows it. Don't change the subject now. You tried to answer my challenge with your "interpretation" of what ALL liars meant. I responded to THAT. Now, for the sake of your reputation (don't you love how ad-homs are always reversable...btw, you weren't arguing ad-bacculum; were you?) please respond to MY answer tou YOUR attempt to get out of the liars/false teachers/universality dilema. It is your turn. I asserted, you responded, I asserted,...you respond to what I assert. You seem to not understand what the TA does to you. That is, YOUR INTERPRETATION CANNOT be correct because if it were we would not be debating your interpretation. Now, what I think you want to show is that I add to the book and then it is I who am a liar, maybe so. But tell me, H.L., by the law of ~contradiction there are things others are lying about (e.g. debates over Lords supper, infant baptism, etc,) even if you show that I am the liar here you (1) cannot account for why there are ANY debates over contradictory premises. (2) Thus, you cannot account for the transcendentals necessary for debate itself! Your view, if true, could never ARGUE for its truthfulness in ANY doctrinal dispute.

Now, you can say only H.L. is correct on ALL his doctrine (thus verifying your cult status), but then what do you do about the MULTITUDES in the city?! H.L. remember, I answered YOUR interpretation and YOU are NOT responding to THAT argument. In a debate the judges would pick up on this. Again, ALL reading this can go back and see it is you who are not answering MY latest challenge. Again, as you said to Cook in your debate with him, "DEAL with that." Allow me to return the favor. How can you have "unclean" things in a city when it says NOTHING unclean will enter it. You cannot say that ALL murders, liars, idolaters, sexually immoral, does NOT mean ALL, because then you have SOME "unclean" entering in to a place where "NOTHING unclean can enter it." How do you handle this? Now, if ALL means ALL, then it includes the group known as people who teach contrary to the one revealed truth, then why are those people in the city? Can God contradict himself? NO! Why? Because, "It is immpossible for Him TO LIE." This attribute is a foundation for the laws of logic, specifically the law of ~contradiction. Again, why are there liars in the city? -Paul


Date:
07 Jan 2004
Time:
14:02:25

Comments

btw, still waiting for KP to give verses for why he thinks there will be not debating/arguing doctrinal issues in his concept of heaven....


Date:
07 Jan 2004
Time:
19:19:08

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. Are you sure you're reading the same posts I'm publishing? I am slowly, methodically unraveling your argument here for all to see. That's why you don't yet feel the full brunt of it and you think I'm not dealing directly with it. There are a lot of twists and turns in your logic and my job is to covertly take out as many of them as possible before I bring the thunder. Your argument is not yet "tender" enough to allow no escape when the thunder finally comes. It's not yet "unraveled." In your non-response to my questions, you state, and I quote: "As usual, side step and ask questions whithout qualifying them. H.L, we were debating the liars...everyone knows it. Don't change the subject now. " Now, Paul, you know I have not changed the subject. The subject of your article above is not "liars." The subject of your article is that you have a "transcendental argument." All arguments have several "parts" to them that have to be assaulted before the argument crumbles.

 Most people who are as "taken" with their own argument as you seem to be, require methodical, strategic and careful timing in the destruction of their argument. This is done by covering every possible logical angle and conclusion of the argument under investigation. I don't recall changing the subject when you were talking about the "all" issue. I distinctly remember saying that ALL means ALL, thereby agreeing with your assertion that "all means all." One should think that would make you blissfully happy. Instead, you seem to have missed it completely. Let me state it again for the record of the record: "All means ALL." In the Preterist view, ALL "whosoever loves and practices a lie" are OUTSIDE the city. Now, here's a logic question. When a person in debate with you, after being told that they are sidestepping the "all" issue, turns and deals with it straight on as I have done by saying, "No problem, all means all," and then goes on to show how the ALL works quite well in the Pretersit perspective (and the Bible), tell me Paul, what fallacy is it when the debater who was accusing the opponent of not dealing with the "all" issue, finally gets the answer from his opponent, but responds with a statement like: "Now, you can say only H.L. is correct on ALL his doctrine (thus verifying your cult status), but then what do you do about the MULTITUDES in the city?!"

Here's what fallacy it is. You like to speak of ad-hom? Put this in your booklet of classic ad-hom's. In other words, you're saying: "If H.L. is saying that only ONE of us is correct when we are debating an issue, then he's a cult leader!" Think about that for a second. Can H.L. say only one of us is correct and still NOT be a cult leader? I'll put it another way, can ANYONE be right on a "polar" issue and still NOT be a cult leader? You would be right if I said your name was mary and you said, "No. My name is Paul." Would your "rightness" against my "wrongness" make you a cult leader? Of course not. Can there be a polar right with regards to Biblical truth? There ALWAYS is an absolute meaning behind all Scripture. If I happen to know that truth, and say, you don't, does that mean I'm a cult leader, or just someone with the truth? Paul, your "cult leader" statement has nothing to do with what H.L. said. It is an attack on H.L. himself, and not on his argument. I've said that "whosoever loves and practices a lie" is outside the city.

You've now agreed with me on several occasions by saying that ALL MEANS ALL. In other words, you were saying in your earlier arguments that "all must mean all and as such, how can there be any liars in the city." I replied and said that their cannot be "whosoever loves and practices a lie" in the city. Since I believe that we are in the New Heavens and New Earth, it is consistent with my position to say that. It is also consistent with my position to say that no matter "what something appears to be," if it fits into the list of things that are outside the city, then it is outside the city. To put it another way, Paul, and to answer the statement you made in your last post, when you stated: [BEGIN QUOTE]"How can you have 'unclean' things in a city when it says NOTHING unclean will enter it. You cannot say that ALL murders, liars, idolaters, sexually immoral, does NOT mean ALL, because then you have SOME 'unclean' entering in to a place where 'NOTHING unclean can enter it.' How do you handle this? Now, if ALL means ALL, then it includes the group known as people who teach contrary to the one revealed truth, then why are those people in the city?" [END QUOTE] Paul, I would say that your last statement is great up to the point where you beg the question. You say "then why are those people IN the city?" Doesn't that question assume that they are? Don't tell me that you've changed sides and are now saying there IS a city. I'm saying that if the people you describe, fit into the category of "whosoever loves and practices a lie" then they are OUTSIDE the city. If that doesn't deal with the "liars" issue, then I admit I don't know how to. More to come...


Date:
07 Jan 2004
Time:
19:26:18

Comments

Paul... H.L. James here again. For clarity, "the City" is the New Covenant (not the "visible" church). The one who determins "who's in" and "who's out" is God Himself. You keep saying that you see people who are "in" who are also "liars." That begs the question (i.e. that "liars" could be "in" in the first place). I'll be back.


Date:
08 Jan 2004
Time:
08:57:41

Comments

H.L., Something odd is going on here. You say that you are dismanteling my argument, you know where you are going, your setting me up,...and then at the end of your letter you say, "if that doesn't deal with the liar issue then I admit I don't know how to." So which is it? Are you maybe misunderstanding and all your talk is for not? (Before I go on, Mike X. your comments are like an annoying fly while I'm dealing with H.L. What I am going to do is show that "your leader" is wrong, thereby getting to you." You and I have talked on many occasions, so I ask, on this one, no more comments from the peanut gallery...please). First things first: H.L. did you understand the cult leader comment? I don't think so. Are YOU reading what I say? I said that if you said that ONLY H.L. was correct on ALL his doctrinal beliefs (which I don't think you do it was just setting up the reductio) that would verify your cult leader status. I never said that if you were correct on THIS issue you would be a cult leader. I am embarrassed for you. I am sure that you would think that if someone said that they were correct on EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE and that if others disagreed on ANY point then they were not in the city, you would say that is cultish...right? I know you don't believe that but that was the other side of the reductio. Since my argument touches ALL doctrine. Secondly, you keep wanting to stress "ALL MEANS ALL" it means "anyone who loves and practices a lie." This is becomming more complicated than it should be, so I beg your help since I am not understanding something. Can you tell me if in that ALL liars class is included those who teach something contrary to what the ONE revealed truth is? That is, if someone teaches autonomy baptism as opposed to paedo, and the Bible teaches paedo is the former teaching a lie? That is what I mean by ALL means ALL. Now if you agree...great! If not, then why accuse me of not reading what you said and then turning it into a fallacy? (more horns for H.L.). So, in the ALL are there those who teach contradictory (see lying) teachings from Scripture included in there? Maybe I'm the one unraveling your argument and setting it up for the knockout punch while yours is just a phantom punch?... maybe?

I know that you think the city is the NC. What I mean by people being "in" is that there are people in the internal covenant who disagree on various doctrinal issues, thus there are liars "in" it. Now, are you saying that EVERYONE in the city/nc all hold to the SAME doctrinal positions? Well then, between you and Mike X. who is in the city(?), since you told me you believe in paedo abptism and he believes in believer baptism.? AHHH now you see my point! Your hast charge that I "begged" the question is voided. Unless, of course you accept my definition of ALL means ALL which you said you did (above) then please tell Mike X. publicly that he is not in the city? If you don't then you see my point and know I didn't beg the question so which one is it? (more of H.L.s horns of dilemas) ..I'll be back. -Paul


Date:
08 Jan 2004
Time:
12:51:36

Comments

...still waiting for KP to tell me why/give me verses showing- there will be no debating doctrinal issues in his concept of heaven?....


Date:
08 Jan 2004
Time:
13:14:47

Comments

Paul here again, H.L., since you agreed with my definition of NO lIARS then why do HPs debate amongst themselves/ (e.g., Lords supper). Since YOU said that my definition was correct until I assumed that liars were in the city then please tell me, are the HPs who think we should take the Lords supper outside the city(?) or are the ones who think that we should not? I am not assuming that there are liars in the city, I just want to know, since YOU granted MY definition, which HPs are in the city? Just exactely where are these "brothers" who are correct on ALL their doctrinal positions, and where can I pick up their systematics texts?!? -Paul


Date:
08 Jan 2004
Time:
14:21:46

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. Remember I asked you some questions dealing with the time texts and the time statements of Jesus? If Jesus did what he claimed He would do, and came before that generation passed away, and brought the New Heavens and New Earth when He said He would, isn't this argument kind of pointless? I'm just trying to figure out why you wrote your argument in the first place, knowing that Jesus made these time statements. Why did you duck my questions about the time statements? Don't say you didn't duck them because you plainly did. The reason your answer to them is important is because if Jesus succeeded at His prediction, then your argument is baseless a priori. Don't you think that it would be important in your argument to deal with the time statements all throughout the book of the Revelation as part of your argument? Think about it Paul, If you make a statement like "we are not in the New Heavens and New Earth," and someone says, "But, Paul, what about the promise that Jesus made that it was about to come way back the first century?" You'd have to stop for a second and make sure your opponent didn't have evidence of that. You'd have to say, "Show me evidence that Jesus said those things." The reason is, if Jesus DID say those things, they instantly destroy any argument that claims the events are still future. Do you see this?

Here's an example: If I say, "Hey Paul, I saw your brother today in WalMart," and you answer, "I don't think so. My brother is in Hong Kong for another 2 years. That couldn't have been my brother." Doesn't that kill the argument that "I saw your brother at WalMart?" In your case, you say, "The New Heavens and New Earth are not here yet." And you use people who debate doctrine as your "evidence." It's like me saying "I'm pretty sure it was your brother because he had the same tattoo as your brother on his right arm." But if you show me "proof" that your brother is in Hong Kong, then I know that COULDN'T have been your brother, no matter what I thought I saw and my argument would have to die right there. With your so-called Transcendental Argument, You say that the New Heavens and New Earth are not here and you give your "tattoo on the right arm" "must be him" proofs. I say that Jesus says the New Heavens and New Earth ARE here. Your next question should be: "Where does Jesus say that?" Then I would show you. Then you would deal with those passages sufficiently to show that they are not saying what I thought they were saying. Then you could go on with your argument. If you read the posts here, and elsewhere, you have not EVER dealt with those timing verses where Jesus says "soon, quickly, near and at hand." Do you see my point? I think this is a good debate, but if you as an opponent are not willing to deal with the holes in your argument, it isn't fair to the rest of us in the debate. You ask us to deal with the "liars" issue, and though you think poorly, we have begun to do so and will continue to unravel your argument. I would be only fair for you to say, "Jesus didn't say those things," or "Jesus didn't mean what you think He meant," or "Jesus was wrong" and then show us why HIS WORDS don't mean what they say. That way, we can erase a VERY serious problem for your argument. That's because, if Jesus said the New Heavens and New Earth was established over 1900 years ago, don't you see how we'd have to take His word over yours? In other words, we're saying that Jesus disagrees with you. We show you, as proof of our assertion, verses of Scripture that prove He disagrees with you. We show words that we understand to be "timing" words like "soon, quickly, at hand, and near." We honestly tell you that these words "seem" to say that Jesus was going to establish the New Heavens and New Earth over 1900 years ago.

Paul, you're a bright guy, you know what we're saying. You know the verses we're asking you to deal with. You also know that if Jesus said the New Heavens and New Earth was supposed to be established over 1900 years ago, then you know your argument fails. So, if you KNOW your argument FAILS if Jesus actually said what we think He said, then you HAVE to deal with those verses first. In fact, NONE of the other points of your argument matter if Jesus promised the New Heavens and New Earth would come over 1900 years ago. Do you see how your argument is not valid if it goes against what Jesus says? In other words, let's make this very simple. Let's back up to the time you first published your argument. Let's say you called me on the phone and said: "H.L., I think I've found proof that the New Heavens and New Earth is still future." I would answer, "But Paul, Jesus said he was coming quickly over 1900 years ago to bring the New Heavens and New Earth so your argument can't be right no matter WHAT you think you see." Do you see how your argument must FIRST get over this first hurdle? It doesn't matter how much "proof" you throw out on the table. In order for your argument to be valid, the "futureness" of it must first be valid. That's because your argument dosn't stand or fall on the "liars" issue, it stands or falls on the "futureness" of the argument itself. The "liars" issue is just one of the internal components of it. If your argument has no "futureness" to it, it cannot be an argument for future events, no matter how much proof you think you have. If the "futureness" of it can be refuted a priori, then it has no "futureness." If your argument were valid, you'd simply say to me, "H.L., those verses don't actually mean the New Heavens and New Earth were supposed to be established back then." And then you'd have to prove that assertion." Remember, in an "argument," each side is making assertions and "counter-assertions." For every assertion, there must be a "counter-assertion" for the argument to be successful. So, your main "assertion" is that you have "proof" that the New Heavens and New Earth has "futureness" to it (then you have minor assertions like the "liars" and the "unity" issues). I make the "counter-assertion" that your a priori has NO "futureness" because Jesus said He'd come and establish the New Heavens and New Earth over 1900 years ago."

Now, Paul, you must make a "counter-assertion" against my statement that your argument has no "futureness" and you must deal DIRECTLY with what I say takes away the "futureness" of your argument. You must deal DIRECTLY with the time statements of Jesus. It's like Chess. If I get you into a "check" position, you can't go to the other end of the board and move a piece that has no bearing on your King. Chess is modeled after argumentation. In fact, Chess IS argumentation. Paul, right now, your King is in "check." Now you must make a "counter-assertion" that deals directly with my chess piece that is threatening your king. The chess piece that is threatening your king at the moment is the statement "Jesus said he would come and establish the New Heavens and New Earth over 1900 years ago." If you say, "well that cannot be true because there are liars in the city," then you have not dealt with my chess piece that has your king in check. The "check" situation that threatens your king at the moment is not "there are no liars in the New Heavens and New Earth." If THAT was the thing threatening your king, then it would be an appropriate move. But if Jesus promised he'd return and establish the New Heavens and New Earth over 1900 years ago, your argument is devestated a priori. There's no "other moves" because your argument would have no "futureness" to it and therefore could not be future. It would be a "check mate" situation. So, Paul, please be respectful and get your king out of "check." Here's how you know your king is in "check:" If I ask you: "Paul, if Jesus predicted he'd come back over 1900 years ago to establish the New Heavens and New Earth, is your argument still valid on any of its merits?" Your answer would have to be, "No, my argument is no longer valid because Jesus cannot be wrong and therefore my argument has no 'futureness' to it." See how devestating it is to your argument? Your argument MUST have "futureness" to it in order for it to be a future possibility.

 Here's another question I could ask: "Paul, if Jesus predicted he'd return over 1900 years ago and establish the New Heavens and New Earth, can your assessment of the "liars" be accurate? You'd have to say, "No. My assessment cannot be accurate because Jesus cannot have lied about his coming, so the New Heavens and New Earth MUST be a reality and my argument has no 'futureness' to it." So, Paul, your king is in "Check." If you cannot deal with Jesus' time statements directly, then the only choice you leave your opponent is to say, "Check Mate." Your response will either liberate your argument, or burry it. Remember, it's not how YOU think your argument is going, it's how OTHERS think your argument is going. To claim you won a chess match after your king has been "check mated" would be illogical. Here's the question, "did Jesus say he would come quickly to establish the New Heavens and New Earth? I'm not changing the subject here. I'm simply establishing a foundation from which to debate. If your argument has no "futureness," then it fails a priori. - H.L. James


Date:
08 Jan 2004
Time:
15:22:21

Comments

wow, again you do not deal with the questions H.L. Remember it is not how YOU think you did but how OTHERS think you did. H.L why can't I get a response other than, "HPism is true so you cannot be correct." You gave some nice analogies showing how the time texts make your position correct, I can do the same. What if you said" I saw your brother at WalMart" and I said that, "If you saw my brother at WalMart then we would not be debating it becasue when he comes no one will debate whether he came or not." And then we proceded to debate about whether or not he came. You see, (1) why do you think that your question has epistemic authority in this debate? (2) You haven't proven that YOUR question is the ONE that needs to be answered. (3) Indeed, I think that mine is the one that needs to be answered. (4) Now, H.L., drop the bomb you keep refering to! Now! If your bomb is just to reassert HPism then it is weak, indeed. H.L. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DEBATING. Your view cannot be correct because if it were we would not be debating wehter or not it were correct or not. Indeed, I have answered many of your questions (e.g., verbs, NH and E, "in a sense", the city is the nc, etc.,) maybe you don't think that they were good answers but I tried. Now I'm asking you, ANSWER THE ABOVE QUESTIONS OF MINE! Your repeated dodging shows that you have nothing to say. I am surprised that you think you have answered me with time texts when I have an arguemnt which shows that YOUR interpretation cannot be true. I mean time texts are not the end all. For example, in Eze.12 we read that "NONE of my WORDS will be delayed ANY LONGER." Now, what do we have here? (1) Universal language, i.e., "NONE" (similar to when the Bible says, "the end of ALL things are at hand and you draw the conclusion that ALL means ALL...don't you?) (2) Time text, i.e., delayed any longer. (3) Audience relevence, i.e., he is speaking to the JEWS right then. he says "tell THEM" (now, you say that "you" means the person he is talking to).

So, should I use HP hermeneutic? Should I conclude that glorification, sanctification, resurrection, salvation, NH and E, happened within a generation of when EZEKIEL spoke? Note: in Ch.37 it metiones the outpouring of the Holy Spirit! Did this happen within a generation?!?!? You can arbitraly call it "project immanence" but then what about the "transition text in Matt.24? You guys say, "I can just picture the disciples saying, "Did you just see the way Jesus just transitioned that text?" Well I can say the same thing. Like: "Did you guys just see the way Ezekiel used project immanence?" Therefore, I have thrown doubt upon the epistemic priority of time texts. I think that the transcendnetals necessary for asking whether DEBATING ANY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE is intelligible is more epistemically important. THAT question MUST be answered BEFORE YOURS! Now, since you said that YOU agree that teaching false doctrine is a lie and NONE of those can be in the city, then, which HP is in the city, you or Mike B? Deal with my arguments H.L. I have now even addressed the time texts. I have addressed the noun/verb question. I have addressed the city/nc question. I want you to step up to the plate H.L. How you respond will answer how this debate will/has gone. In Christ -Paul...btw, did you still want to have that beer?


Date:
08 Jan 2004
Time:
20:07:24

Comments

-=[PAUL'S STATEMENT: "wow, again you do not deal with the questions H.L." ]

-=[ H.L.'S RESPONSE: Again, Paul, the reason I posted my questios about the timing according to the words of Jesus is because it occurred to me day before yesterday, that your so-called "transcendental" argument is in RESPONSE to an argument that already exists with a certain set of foundational truths. In other words, the Preterist view is an argument that PROVES itself on the time statements of Jesus. Your argument is supposed to refute Preterism or claim that Preterism refutes itself. Instead of showing why the Preterist's reliance on the time statements is unfounded, you instead have built a straw man argument that the Preterst view was never arguing and that has nothing to do with the FOUNDATION of the Preterist view, which are the time statements of Jesus. You've built a side argument called "Why are there liars in the New Heavens and New Earth" and now you're seeking to tear it down. That's called a STRAW MAN. But that straw man argument cannot even be begun if the FOUNDATION of the Preterist view is correct because that would mean that the New Heavens and New Earth MUST be past events. Paul, your so-called "transcendental argument" creates a side issue (based on a VERY faulty set of premises). It's a classic fallacy of distraction called a straw man argument. And your straw man argument refutes itself because it assumes that the Preterist view is false as one of its premises. In other words, your straw man argument assumes that the RELIANCE the Preterist places on the time statements of Jesus are baseless. But you and I both know that RELYING on the TRUTH of the words of Jesus is the FOUNDATION of Christianity. The only way to disprove Preterism is to deal directly with the proofs given as the basis for the Preterist view. Remember, the argument you're trying to refute is the Preterist View, not the "liars in the New Heavens and New Earth" issue (which is an argument that becomes a moot point if the time statements of Jesus are true). The reason why is because if the Preterist view is true (i.e. the FOUNDATION is true, i.e. the TIME STATEMENTS OF JESUS can be RELIED upon), then any argument you bring to the contrary is a moot point and a waste of everyone's time. The Preterist View says "1.) Jesus made clear time statements about His second coming, etc. 2.) Jesus could not lie. 3.) The words of Jesus can be COMPLETELY relied upon as being TRUE. 4.) THEREFORE: Jesus accomplished what He predicted, in the time He gave for their completion. If you'll notice, the Preterist argument is a VERY sound logical argument. Notice how it mentions NOTHING about a New Heavens and New Earth? That's because, the only reference the Preterist argument makes to the New Heavens and New Earth is when it claims: "Jesus said the New Heavens and New Earth would come over 1900 years ago." The Preterist view never states, "We think we're in the New Heavens and the New Earth because there are no liars in the city."

The Preterist view says, "We're in the New Heavens and New Earth because JESUS SAID WE ARE." See the difference there? In order to refute the CENTRAL argument of Preterism, you HAVE to refute the claim that "JESUS SAID WE ARE." The ONLY way to do that is by countering with "Jesus didn't say we are." Nothing else will work. Here's what you did, you came into the knowledge of Christianity not long ago and heard of a thing called the Preterist view. You decided that it MUST be nonsense and set out to prove that it is nonsense. I remember our earlier conversations. You didn't INVESTIGATE the REASONS why people hold to the Preterist view (the very clear time statements of Jesus). You just assumed the view was wrong a priori. Since Preterism is BUILT on the time statements of Jesus, and since it is the RELIANCE on those time statements that is the ONLY foundation to the Preterist view, the only way to refute it is to do away with the meaning Preterists put on the time statements and thereby DESTROY their RELIANCE on the time statements as a FOUNDATION. Does that make sense to you? . In other words, the foundation of Preterism is NOT the New Heavens and New Earth and therefore cannot be refuted from that position. Any discussion about the New Heavens and New Earth is wasted time until you refute the FOUNDATION of the Preterist view, which are the more than 30 time statements in the New Testament writings. You have to deal with the time texts first. Once you have sufficiently done that, you won't even need to proceed because you will have DESTROYED the Preterist view. Remember, the only way to defeat an argument that states, A said B and therefore B, is to counter with A did not B and therefore not B. So, the Preterist view states: (A) Jesus, said, (B) He would return within the generation over 1900 years ago and fulfill every prediction and promise, and therefore (B) Jesus returned within that generation over 1900 years ago and fulfilled every prediction and promise. THAT is the Preterist argument. Now, CONTAINED IN "B" is the New Heavens and New Earth. So to correctly state the argument of the Preterist with regard to the New Heavens and New Earth, you'd have to say the Preterist claims that: Jesus said he would return within the generation over 1900 years ago and fulfill the New Heavens and New Earth prediction and promise. The ONLY way to argue against that is to deny the premise and refute it, not to create a new argument (straw man). ]=-

-=[PAUL'S STATEMENT: "You gave some nice analogies showing how the time texts make your position correct, I can do the same. What if you said" I saw your brother at WalMart" and I said that, "If you saw my brother at WalMart then we would not be debating it becasue when he comes no one will debate whether he came or not." And then we proceded to debate about whether or not he came. ]=-

-=[ MY RESPONSE: Paul, you have incorrectly distributed the premises in your above answer to my analogy. Do you see how you did it? You failed to make a one-to-one correspondence and therefore have MISSED my anology completely. It's important that you GET the analogy so you don't make statements like "I can do the same." You didn't "do the same." Let me show you how the analogy is set up in the first place and what the "relationships" are to the real situation. "I saw your brother today" IS EQUAL TO: "I think I have proof that the New Heavens and New Earth are future events." (that would be YOUR statement). Then I'd answer: "That's impossible because my brother is in Hong Kong for another two years" IS EQUAL TO: "Paul, you can't have proof that the New Heavens and New Earth are future because JESUS SAID they were supposted to happen over 1900 years ago." See the difference here? ]=-

-=[ PAUL'S STATEMENT: "You see, (1) why do you think that your question has epistemic authority in this debate? (2) You haven't proven that YOUR question is the ONE that needs to be answered. ]=-

-=[ H.L.'S RESPONSE: The reason why my question has epistemic authorit in this debate is because the answer to it will determine if you even have a "controversy." In a court of law, the first thing they do is submit what are know as "the Pleadings." In these "Pleadings" is a thing called the "initial complaint." In that complaint, there is a thing called a "controversy." The reason there is a judge sitting on the bench in the courtroom is to determine if there ACTUALLY IS a controversy within the initial complaint. If there isn't, the judge can dismiss the case or suggest that both parties restate their "pleadings." In civil cases, this is done by filing what is known as a demur. The demur simply states that the initial complaint was "poorly stated" and needs to be revised. In the case of the Preterist view, the initial pleadings state that "Jesus said, etc. etc. would occur at such and such a time." The ONLY controversy that can exist in that case is one which states, "Jesus didn't say, etc. etc. would happen as such and such a time." To argue over one of the THINGS Jesus was supposed to have said in the "etc. etc." part of the argument, misses the point completely since it doesn't deal with the initial complaint, which states, "Jesus said, etc. etc. WOULD HAPPEN AT SUCH AND SUCH A TIME." Your so-called "transcendental argument" argues over one of the THINGS Jesus is supposed to have said without first refuting the "WOULD HAPPEN AT SUCH AND SUCH A TIME. I know this may all be new to you but if you're going to represent God almighty, you'd better be up on you game. And yes, I'm saying that you're NOT up on your game. Instead of parrotting Bahnsen, Ridderbos and Cook so much, you should spend that time tightening your own game. ]=-

-=[ PAULS'S STATEMENT: "(3) Indeed, I think that mine is the one that needs to be answered. (4) Now, H.L., drop the bomb you keep refering to! Now! If your bomb is just to reassert HPism then it is weak, indeed. H.L. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DEBATING. Your view cannot be correct because if it were we would not be debating wehter or not it were correct or not. ]=-

-=[ H.L.'S RESPONSE: Paul, I understand that you think your question is the one that needs to be answered, but your question doesn't mean anything if Jesus is correct with regard to the time statements He made. For you to say, "Your view cannot be correct because if it were we would not be debating whether or not it were correct or not," you are making an assumption, but you don't see that you're doing this. What I'm trying to show you is this assumption you're making. You're refusing to see it. What you're saying by your statement above is that "if we are debating, then Jesus was incorrect." Do you see that? Jesus said A, therefore B. You're saying D, therefore NOT B. If Jesus said A, therefore B, then it MUST be A, therefore B. You approach this as if the Pretist is "simply claiming that Jesus said A, therefore B." In reality, Jesus ACTUALLY DID SAY A, therefore B regardless of whether or no a Preterist ever existed to argue the point. Really look closely at what I just said. Remember, it's not the Preterist view that says the New Heavens and New Earth would be established over 1900 years ago, it's the words of Jesus that declare that. All the Preterist view says is that "Jesus said it." The discussion about whether or not we'd be debating in the New Heavens and New Earth is a side discussion. It is not important in light of the bigger issue of WHEN JESUS SAID the New Heavens and New Earth would come. In other words, we're not debating whether or not my view is true. We're debating whether or not Jesus' words can be relied upon as accurate. The Preterist view is BASED on the words of Jesus, not on anyone's view. We're not debating my "opinion" here. You have made an attempt to challenge Preterism. Preterism has countered by informing you that your challenge doesn't deal with the CENTRAL issue of Preterism. Again, if Jesus is correct, Paul Manata cannot be, and all argumentation with Paul Manata is a waste of valuable time and breath. ]=-

-=[ PAUL'S STATEMENT: "Indeed, I have answered many of your questions (e.g., verbs, NH and E, "in a sense", the city is the nc, etc.,) maybe you don't think that they were good answers but I tried. ]=-

-=[ H.L.'S RESPONSE: Paul, stop. With regard to the New Heavens and New Earth being here "in a sense," you referred to Ridderbos. That's an appeal, not an answer. My challenge to you was that in order for us to be in the New Heavens and New Earth IN ANY SENSE, it must first exist. In order for it to exist, the judgment has to have already happened. That's what the Bible says. You never touched that. Instead you made a very unsatisfying appeal to Ridderbos. You also never agreed with the Apostle Paul that the New Heavens and New Earth is the New Covenant. It would be nice to hear that you agree with the Apostle Paul and state for the record that you agree that the New Heavens and New Earth IS indeed the New Covenant. ]=-

-=[ PAUL'S STATEMENT: Now I'm asking you, ANSWER THE ABOVE QUESTIONS OF MINE! Your repeated dodging shows that you have nothing to say. ]=-

-=[ H.L.'S RESPONSE: Paul, the statement "your repeated dodging," begs the question. It assumes that what I am doing is dodging. I've been VERY clear as to what I'm doing. I'm debating you. In a debate, there is a thing called "strategy." Many times, that strategy is COMPLETELY unknown to the opponent until the very last second, then, when it's too late, the final logical blow is dealt. Logic is chess. I make moves anticipating your next move. Then, I make another move anticipating your next move. My objective is to get you to continue to move ONLY in the direction I choose for you to move. If I'm too obvious with my strategy, you will anticipate my move and make the victory more difficult for me (which would just take up time needlessly). The first thing we must do in order to have a debate is to make sure we both understand the rules of engagement. If you're playing checkers rules and I'm playing chess rules, we cannot have a meaningful exchange that will ultimately bring glory to God, and that's what this discussion is all about. So, before I will continue and "answer your questions," you must deal with the time texts. ]=-

-=[ PAUL'S STATEMENT: "I am surprised that you think you have answered me with time texts when I have an arguemnt which shows that YOUR interpretation cannot be true. I mean time texts are not the end all. ]=-

-=[ H.L.'S RESPONSE: Paul, again, stop. Did you really say "time texts are not the end all?" Again, you build a straw man argument. Preterists don't say that "time texts are the end all" and so therefore we're not arguing that. Preterists say that THE WORDS OF CHRIST are the end all. In fact, the writer to the Hebrews says the same thing. If you're going to show why those words CANNOT be relied on as true, do it by dealing DIRECTLY with the words of Christ and the Apostles. They ALL spoke of the soon events we've been speaking of. You know this to be true. If you had an answer for the verses themselves, you'd give that answer. ]=-

 -=[ PAUL'S STATEMENT: "For example, in Eze.12 we read that "NONE of my WORDS will be delayed ANY LONGER." Now, what do we have here? (1) Universal language, i.e., "NONE" (similar to when the Bible says, "the end of ALL things are at hand and you draw the conclusion that ALL means ALL...don't you?) (2) Time text, i.e., delayed any longer. (3) Audience relevence, i.e., he is speaking to the JEWS right then. he says "tell THEM" (now, you say that "you" means the person he is talking to). So, should I use HP hermeneutic? Should I conclude that glorification, sanctification, resurrection, salvation, NH and E, happened within a generation of when EZEKIEL spoke? Note: in Ch.37 it metiones the outpouring of the Holy Spirit! Did this happen within a generation?!?!? You can arbitraly call it "project immanence" but then what about the "transition text in Matt.24? You guys say, "I can just picture the disciples saying, "Did you just see the way Jesus just transitioned that text?" Well I can say the same thing. Like: "Did you guys just see the way Ezekiel used project immanence?" Therefore, I have thrown doubt upon the epistemic priority of time texts. ]=- /////////

 -=[ H.L.'S RESPONSE: Paul, did you set out to "throw doubt on the epistemic priority of time texts?" Did you just admit to that? Careful here buddy. What was Ezekiel speaking about in chapter 12? The people were saying that none of the prophet's words meant anything and that the time was far off. They were saying that the time texts had no epistemic priority, a notion which God was refuting. Note: Ezekiel 12:25 "For I am the LORD. I speak, and the word which I speak will come to pass; it will no more be postponed; for in your days, O rebellious house, I will say the word and perform it," says the Lord GOD.'" Notice how God uses the term, "In your days." What is He talking about? Whatever it was, it had to happen in "your days." If not, then God lied. It is God who places epistemic priority on the time texts of His prophets when He says: "Deuteronomy 18:22 "when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him." Notice the epistemic priority placed on the "coming to pass" of the prophets words. Watch this:

"Jeremiah 29:8-10 "For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Do not let your prophets and your diviners who are in your midst deceive you, nor listen to your dreams which you cause to be dreamed. 9 For they prophesy falsely to you in My name; I have not sent them, says the LORD. 10 For thus says the LORD: After seventy years are completed at Babylon, I will visit you and perform My good word toward you, and cause you to return to this place."

Paul, do you think the Israelites should have place epistemic priority on the term "after seventy years?" Daniel sure did. Observe: Daniel 9:2 "in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, understood by the books the number of the years specified by the word of the LORD through Jeremiah the prophet, that He would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem." Paul, again, I have shown from scripture that your supposition that time texts don't have epistemic priority is a bag of wind. You have essentially lied. Why would you do that? To cover your weak argument. To not have to face the facts. Paul, time texts are ESSENTIAL. They are what foretold the captivity of the Israelites by Egypt. They are what fortold the time of their liberation from captivity in Egypt. They are what foretold their years of wandering in the wilderness when the term "generation" was established. They were used by the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah to foretell the Baylonian captivity and liberation from said captivity. They were used by Daniel to foretell the release from that bondage by Cyrus. They were used by the prophet Daniel to foretell the rebuilding of the city and the sanctuary. They were used by the prophet Daniel to foretell the coming of Messiah and they were used by Herod to determine the age of the children he was to slaughter. They were used by John the baptist, Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Jude, Peter and the writer to the Hebrews. Time texts ARE THE FOUNDATION of proving the truth of a prophecy and they have epistemic priority a priori. So, in keeping with Biblical tradition, the only tradition that matters, please deal with the time texts directly. Jesus said "this generation," which means "within 40 years." That's pretty tight language. Jesus said he would come before "some standing there" had tasted of death. Jesus said, "before you finish going through the cities of Israel." These are statements that MUST be given the epistemic priority time texts have always demanded. But you cannot answer them. Nobody can. Instead, you say, "those words of Christ are not the end all." You should be very careful here, Paul, this is playing with serious fire. ]=-

-=[ PAUL'S STATEMENT: "H.L. I have now even addressed the time texts." ]=-

-=[ H.L.'S RESPONSE: Paul, has it ever occurred to you that theology is a bit more complicated then you treat it? Has it ever occurred to you that you don't "address the time texts?" You systematically answer the time texts as they appear in the theological argument before you. You don't just shoot from the hip, in an Internet newsgroup, using Ezekiel poorly, and say you've "addressed the time texts." If you had "addressed the time texts," it would be the central theme of every futurist who wants to refute Preterism. In fact, if you had "addressed the time texts," you wouldn't need me to answer your question about the New Heavens and New Earth because Preterism would be dashed. The fact is, you have not, nor can you show the Preterist why "A said B and therefore B," is actually "A did not say B and therefore not B." What you did was say: "A said B and therefore not B, which is rediculous. And yes, we can have that beer whenever you want. - H.L. James


Date:
08 Jan 2004
Time:
20:23:09

Comments

I am just curious,if the baptism issue is considered false doctrine. Why does the baby-baptizer and non-baby baptizer fellowship with each other? Seems to me that Manata refutes his own argument if he fellowships with those who believe differently from him. In other words, if he fellowships with those who believe differently than himself then he either disobeys God

Romans 16 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

Or he doesn't really think that the baptizm issue is really what the scriptures had in mind when it came to false doctrine. I can't find one scripture that teaches of false doctrine and mentions baptizm. The only one I can think of is the one where people that were claiming that they were baptized by Paul the Apostle etc etc. Which really had nothing to do with baptism, it had to do with worshipping men. So Manata, if you are going to hold to your argument, do you disobey God by fellowshiping with those who believe the opposite of you? Or do you really not see baptism as a false doctrine issue. Seems to me that the transcendental argument against Paul Manata would be that if he fellowships with those who believe opposite of himself then he proves that he does not see the baptism issue as a false doctrine and thereby proves that we are in the New heavens and the New Earth. Either that or he is not a Christian.

 1 John 2 4The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

I would also like to know if Manata always does what the Lord commands? At this rate, if that is the interpretation he takes without looking at the context of the verse, then none of us know God because we all disobey God's commands at some time or another.


Date:
08 Jan 2004
Time:
20:49:30

Comments

Maybe Paul is right. He states: "I think that the transcendentals necessary for asking whether DEBATING ANY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE is intelligible is more epistemically important. THAT question MUST be answered BEFORE YOURS!" So what is that "precondition?" If Jesus is incorrect, there is no "christian" doctrine to debate. So, when Jesus said this in Matt. 16: 27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. 28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Either he did or he didn't. If he didn't, there is no "christian" doctrine. There is no "Way, Truth or Life." My other curiousity is this. How does a person that has told a lie (making them a liar)get out from under that (not a liar). There must be a way, or the "city" will be empty. Is there some kind of "statute of limitations" on lies? Peter lied three times about knowing Jesus. How does he get from liar, to in the city? In fact, I think he was being cowardly (lake of fire Rev. 21) in Galatians 2 "fearing" the party of the circumcision. When does this "perfection" come, that allows entrance in to the city? Is it at physical death? But there is no city until after the judgement, right? So is this "city" Heaven? The City that "comes down out of Heaven from God" becoming "the tabernacle of God among men". So it's Heaven, coming down from Heaven to....???? Just some comments from the "peanut gallery"! Scott


Date:
09 Jan 2004
Time:
09:26:23

Comments

o.k. we are not getting anywhere. I will just ask questions and see if this is something H.L. really wants to discuss. H.L. do you believe that "ALL means ALL" (as you said) includes the group of liars known as people who teach something contrary to what God has revealed? This is simple, I think. H.L. can you answer that question.? -Paul


Date:
09 Jan 2004
Time:
11:19:50

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. You're deliberately ignoring a very important issue here. Why are you doing that? You KNOW that if Jesus said the New Heavens and New Earth were to be established over 1900 years ago, then your definition of liars cannot be correct. Do you see that. What you fail to understand is that no matter what kind of "liars" you think you see, and no matter HOW you define those liars, if Jesus said the New Heavens and New Earth was to be established over 1900 years ago, then your understanding of the "liars" and how that word is defined is prima facie incorrect. The foundation of your argument has a flaw. I'm pointing out that flaw and you're ignoring it. Don't you even care about these things? You've stated the following as premises: "if we were in the New Heavens and New Earth we wouldn't be discussing doctrinal issues."

But Paul, if Jesus says we're in the New Heavens and New Earth now, which the Preterist has shown to be true, then we ARE in the New Heavens and New Earth and we ARE discussing doctrinal issues, so "discussing doctrinal issues" CANNOT be "whosoever loves and practices a lie" because THOSE people are OUTSIDE the city. So, either the people discussing doctrinal issues are "whosoever loves and practices a lie," and are therefore "outside" the city, or that is a completely differenct class of people and your argument is flawed. You're asking that I assume a premise that I CANNOT logically assume. You're asking me to "answer your question." But Paul, your question is POORLY STRUCTURED. You have included in your question a thing logicians call "loading." It is a LOADED question that asks me to ASSUME many things that I cannot just assume. Don't you see that? Does any of this matter to you or are you just in this to be right? I've been VERY methodical in showing you how you have formed a broken argument. I've given you several ways you can "fix" the broken argument. You refuse to listen to instruction. I've been at this a long time, Paul. Not that I'm some great scholar, but if there's one thing I know how to do it's form a tight argument. And if there's one thing my teachers taught me was how to pull down a weak argument. Your argument is weak. Now, stop asking me to make assumptions.

Your argument "assumes" futureness and you're asking me to make the same assumption. Jesus said the argument must CONCLUDE "pastness." So who do I listen to, you, or Jesus? You said that you had thrown doubt on the time texts. Why do you have to throw doubt on the time texts? Because they shatter your argument. If they didn't, you wouldn't say you had thrown doubt on them. Just by that statement alone you've tipped your hand and shown that the time texts are a problem for your argument. Now the entire world can see that even you agree that the time texts are a problem for you. Paul, debate is good. But the Greeks showed that there are a set of rules for debate. This set of rules has come to be known as logic. If we violate the rules of logic, we cannot be assured that we are approaching the truth. I don't want to waste my time on something that is a lie, so I apply the laws of logic. When I apply those laws to your argument, I immediately stumble upon a glaring flaw in your reasoning. I've explained this flaw to you. "You are not arguing against the central foundation of the Preterist View." I've also shown you how your argument is a "straw man" that Preterists were not arguing. You could have come back and shown why your argument is NOT a straw man and shown why it deals with the CENTRAL foundation of the Preterist View, but you didn't, because you know it doesn't.

 I'm trying to help you here by showing you logically why your argument doesn't work. I'm trying to give you hints as to how to fix it. I didn't say "I think" your argument doesn't work, or "I assume" your argument doesn't work. I gave you logical reasons WHY your argument is broken and tried to show you ways to fix it. Here is a short summary of WHY your argument doesn't work: (1) Your argument asks me to abandon my initial proofs and "assume" that your argument is true prima facie. You do this by putting a definition on the word "liars" that is arbitrary and doesn't take into account the time statements of Jesus. What I mean by arbitrary is that you have "constructed" the definition that best fits your argument. This is commendable, but it also shows immaturity in dealing with logic. In other words, it shows that you FIRST had to believe that the Preterist view was false. But this creates an innate circular nature to your argument.

Your argument must first ask, "Is the Preterist view true?" It must not initially state emphatically, "The Preterist view cannot be true," because this is a conclusion that is baseless. Another way of starting your argument could have been: "Is the Preterist justified in his/her reliance on the time statements of Jesus?" Then, you could set out to show why the Preterist's "reliance" on the time statements of Jesus is a shaky foundation. Then, once you had destroyed the foundation upon which the Preterist view is based, you could then show what you would call "other weakenesses inherent in the argument." Paul, this is how I came to the Preterist view. I sought to first DESTROY it. I formed tight, logical arguments which I then attempted to tear apart. I applied the same scruitiny that Josh McDowell applied to Christianity. The weakness I have shown your argument to have, is something that would drive me nuts if it were my argument. Listen Paul, this argument starts with the statement "Jesus says we ARE in the New Heavens and New Earth." The only counter-assertion you can give is, "No, Jesus DOES NOT say we are in the New Heavens and New Earth." Do you understand this? If I make the statement, "JESUS SAYS we are in the New Heavens and New Earth," you cannot answer with, "But we CANNOT BE in the New Heavens and the New Earth because there are people discussing doctrine!" Do you see how this violates the laws of logic?

Look again at my assertion mathematically: "A says B happened P." You have to then UNDO that mathematical equation by counter-asserting, "A does not say B happened P." If you instead answer with, "B cannot have happened P becauses of Z," you have not refuted the argument "A says B happened P." The assertion that "B cannot have happened P becauses of Z" may indeed be true, but that's beside the point. Do you see this? As long as the initial argument is "A says B happened P," then your secondary argument of "B cannot have happened P becauses of Z," cannot be addressed, since it RELIES on the primary argument of "A says B happened P" being false. I'm trying to make this as clear as I can here. Logic is just mathematics, and the math is usually pretty simple. So write out on a piece of paper: "A says B happened P." Now, if the A is a mere man, we can say, "so what?" But since A happenes to be the Messiah, who cannot be mistaken, we must see if "A really does say B happened P." Because if "A really did say B happened P," then "B MUST HAVE happened P." Remember, the Preteris is not asserting: "we THINK A says B happened P." We are asserting: "A SAYS B happened P." Even if you come back with "B COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED P because Z" you haven't dealt with the primary argument and as long as the primary argument stands as true (i.e. unrefuted), the entire argument stands as true. Paul, if the argumet "A says B happened P" stands as true (i.e. unrefuted), then the minor argument of: "B cannot have happened P becauses of Z," means that "Z" must be incorrect or misunderstood.

The reason is that "A says B HAPPENED P" remains unrefuted and therefore "Z" (i.e. "liars in the city") must be incorrect or misunderstood. Remember, we're just using mathematics. That way, we don't have to rely on opinions or traditions. When you ask me to "answer your question," you're asking me to assume that my argument of "A says B happened P" is false, but that would be idiotic, since I DO assert that "A says B happened P." How can I NOT assert that? Even if you say, "A CANNOT have said B happened P" and then give as your reason: "Z," that still is not an argument that refutes "A says B happened P." I would simply reassert my initial argument that indeed "A says B happened P" and it would remain unchallenged and therefore prima facie true.

 Right now, the Preterist view, in terms of this debate remains unchalleneged and therefore prima facie true. Each post that you place here more firmly establishes the truth of the Preterist view because none of them, nor your initial argument, answer the core assertion that "A says B happened P." I hope this is clear now. As long as "A says B happened P" remains unchallenged, it is prima facie true, and if it is prima facie true, then the assertion of yours that "B cannot have happened because of Z" means that your "Z" is a misunderstanding that needs to be reinvestigated in light of the unchallenged statement: "A says B happened P." If you want to hear a classic example of an opponent of the Preterist view not dealing with the core equation of "A says B happened P," listen to my debate with Gene Cook. Use that debate to see how many side equations you can construct out of Gene's statements. See if you ever hear him state: "A does not say B happened P." If you don't hear him say "A does not say B happened P," then he walked away from that debate leaving "A says B happened P" unchallenged and still prima facie true. Logic is amazing stuff. By the way, Gene Cook NEVER challenged the assertion: "A says B happened P." He never has and he never can, nor can you, nor can anyone. Know why? Because "A says B happened P." - H.L. James - www.ad70.com


Date:
09 Jan 2004
Time:
13:26:12

Comments

H.L., it goes both ways my friend. Jesus inspired ALL the Bible, not just the time texts. So if Jesus said that when x comes y will not be there and y is there we don't have to assume he was wrong we can assume that it has not happened because y is still there. Don't you see that? Your only defense is that I have made a definition to fit my argument. No I haven't. I said ALL the definitions of liar are included, not just mine and not just yours,...ALL. You want to debate the time texts and that is fine but can't we do one thing at a time? I still have not heard an answer to the argument other than Jesus says your wrong. Well, Jesus says your wrong, so there. You still haven't SHOWN that my argument is wrong you have assumed that yours is correct and then said, "well you CANNOT be correct because I am." Please answer me. This is what i will do to get an answer. Pretend that I am a new HP. That you have converted me by your sterling time text arguments (which I have shown doubtful and am not interested NOW to get into because I want to be methodical and dtay on track..anyway). SO I am now a new convert. I hold to HP. I am a baby and have questions though. I want some answers. Will you answer me or dogmatically assert that I cannot ask questions because it destroys your position? So, here I am, a new baby HP with some questions for the man who converted me: H.L., why does Rev 21:8 say that "ALL LIARS" will not be in the city and the Bible teaches that ONE way to lie is to teach something that contradicts God's revelation, and so since people in the city argue and teach contradictory doctrines (e.g., HPs debate over the Lords supper) how can they be in there?

Please help me understand HP, my leader. I have thought about this because I want to be a good little HP and I thought that maybe ALL doesn't mean ALL. But this seems to have problems, like: why do SOME get to enter the city if NOTHING unclean can enter it. And it also must mean (if we aren't going to be arbitrary) that when it says that ALL murderers and idolaters and sexually immoral, etc., that doesn't mean ALL as well. So, then I must conclude that SOME-of a class- enter into a place where NONE-of the class- enter into. This makes me scratch my head. Please help me. And then, since the BIBLE DEFINES a liar as one who teaches something contrary to God's revelation (there are other liars too) then how can we debate doctrine in the city since that presupposes someone is lying? Please help me, my leader. The text needs to be delt with, not dogmatically, but you need to help me. Does ALL mean ALL, i.e., even people who teach contradictory doctrines (which, again, the Bible says are liars)? If yes, then how do you account for the debate? If no, then how do you account for SOME entering into a place that NONE can? If all doesn't mean all in this passage then why assume that all the overcommers in 21:7 means all of them?

H.L. remember, I have agreed that you are correct, I hold to HP, I don't need a lecture on the time texts, I want a specific answer to my questions. Please help this baby HP understand. Now, are you going to deal with the questions directly, or are you going to try to side-step them again? Also, I will ask you what I asked KP. H.L. do you think that we will debate/argue about revealed doctrine in your concept of heaven (e.g., calvinism/arminianism, paedo/creado baptism, to take/or not to tkae the Lord's supper)? Do you think that people will teach, say, arminianism in heaven? Will we argue and teach contradictory doctrine in heaven? Please give verses to prove your position. btw, you are correct that I have assumed my position, because if I didn't I couldn't account for the necessary presuppositions needed to even debate the issue. My position is assumed because it has to be, it is a transcendnental.

The funny thing is that you have to assume my position in order to argue against my position as well. So, H.L., you have defeated me I give up, I just have some honest questions...can you directly answer them. If you do not this time I will assume that you have none and the reason you never answered my questions was because you didn't have an answer. And that is fine, I will pray for you but I will not continue to cast pearls before swine and this will be my last post. Of course I would like to be able to put out a new TAAHP complete with answers to the new (ad-hoc) answers, and be able to spell check it and review it other than a one time deal. So maybe we can discuss this on the next one because I believe that you will again run from the questions. -Paul


Date:
09 Jan 2004
Time:
13:58:17

Comments

...still waiting for KP to give verses why he believes that we will not debate in his concept of heaven....


Date:
09 Jan 2004
Time:
18:07:49

Comments

Paul - we are still waiting for you to tell us how this group that went through the TRIBULATION had NO LIES ON THEIR LIPS. This included Peter and John and I must ask - didn't Peter teach judaizing at one time in Galatians? Didn't John deny Jesus 3 times? --- Revelation 7 4Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel. 15And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore, "they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them. Revelation 14 1Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads. 4These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. 5No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.


Date:
09 Jan 2004
Time:
18:19:55

Comments

Hello Paul, I’ve been a little busier since school began again, please forgive me. Here is my final post on the subject. I’ve enjoyed this discussion, but as I said, school has started again, and between schoolwork, writing original articles, and passing time with my friends I won’t have as much time for these comments. As such, all questions are rhetorical. But I will try to stay up to date on other people’s comments (and yours). I thank you for your article in that it has obviously caused many people to think!

 First, while you’ve criticized the no hunger and no death arguments, I do not see why this principle is not applicable to the case of the New Heavens and the New Earth. As I stated before, Jesus said that those who believe in Him will never hunger. NEVER means NEVER just as all means all, right? (Note: the same word used in John 6:35 and 8:51 with reference to people never dying, having hunger, or thirsting, is used in Revelation 21:27.) So since Christians hunger, does that mean that Jesus is a liar? Or does that mean that the hunger of which he speaks is not physical hunger? Again, Jesus’ declarations about hunger do not negate the fact that people must eat in the physical life; neither then can the statement about “liars” (as pointed out by the Michaels and others) being in the new covenant mean that no type of liar (doctrinal debate) can exist in the physical life. <br> Moreover, it should be clear from the use of “all” elsewhere in scripture that “all” doesn’t necessarily imply “each and every.” “No flesh” in Mark 13:20 is limited to the Jews (the context is seen in Mark 13:1-4). “Every creature” in Mark 16:15 is limited. (Were the apostles to preach to the chickens, rabbits, and ants?) Other examples could be produced, but I am sure that you are aware of many of them. So “all” is limited to “all” of whatever is in view in the passage. Since it is accepted that “flesh” and “creature” are limited in the passages mentioned, why cannot the same be true of the “liars”? Just as “all” in Luke 2:1-3 has reference to the Roman Empire and not the Native Americans and the Chinese, “all” in “all liars” has reference to those liars in view, which the Michaels and others have pointed out.

No, there is no passage that says whether people will argue doctrinal issues in the “afterlife,” just as no passage says whether the holy kiss of love will be there. But I do think that what I stated about hunger previously is reasonable and a valid point. As I wrote, that the hunger of which Jesus spoke is spiritual in John 6 while this does not mean the eternal duration of “physical” hunger in the eternal state. Likewise, that the “liars” of Revelation 21, 22 are limited in some way does not mean that other types will not also be addressed at physical death. Will people need to eat food in heaven? Will there be the kind of hunger there not eliminated by believing in Christ in the physical life? (Bear in mind that none of the “no hunger and no thirst” passages refers necessarily to “heaven,” but to the new state of things that would come in the restoration of the people of Israel, in the church/new covenant –Isaiah 49; John 4, 6; Revelation 7.) And since there’s a tree from which people will eat and a river from which people will drink in the supposed “eternal state” concept of New Jerusalem, would you see this as meaning that eating and drinking will be an eternal necessity there? Admittedly, even given that some passages taken by preterists to refer to the new covenant refer to the post-resurrection eternal state, we still do not have an extensive description of “heaven” and how things will go there. So my lack of a definitive passage of scripture on this subject proves nothing but that: that there is no passage speaking of the debating of doctrinal issues.

Now, let’s disregard the above and say that people do actually debate doctrine in heaven. Would that prove that the argument presented by Mr. Krall about “all liars” is false? No, because “all liars” can still mean what he has presented it as meaning. H.L. James’ point about who is “in” the city, which allows a broader definition of “liar” is also valid. And, as Mr. X. has pointed out, those who have no lie in their mouths are in existence before the city comes out of heaven (whether futuristically or preteristically), so that no liars are in the city does not mean that this city is inherited after the judgment and the futurist “end of the world.”

 So, even if my original point is incorrect and no passage teaches that the debating of doctrinal issues will cease in heaven under my preterist view (or that the only way to “reconcile” such a view is to accept the New Heavens and the New Earth as the post-judgment eternal state), that doesn’t mean that the New Heavens and the New Earth haven’t arrived. Such an idea is a non sequitur. It’s both possible for no passage to say that there will be no debating of doctrinal issues in heaven and for the New Heavens and the New Earth to be here. There’s no passage on a lot of issues on how existence will be in the “afterlife.” How will people communicate (in some language never heard, by “telepathy,” will words be translated into their native tongue in life)? How will people be “clothed”? In immortality, of course, but will there be “clothing” (something corresponding to shoes, pants, etc.) or will people be like Adam and Eve in the garden in their new bodies? (Will gender difference continue?) Over what will the people reign if the New Heavens and the New Earth are what comes after the judgment and resurrection? New planets or galaxies? Something else? And so on and so on.

That these questions are not specifically addressed (and are not resolved by the New Heavens and New Earth being the post-history, post-judgment eternal state) means nothing. They don’t in any way affect the truth of whether the New Heavens and New Earth have already come. Likewise, no that passage teaches that doctrinal disputes will cease does not have anything to with whether the New Heavens and New Earth have arrived. While a futurist “eternal state” understanding of Revelation 21, 22 might resolve this issue, as one critic of preterism once titled a work of his against preterism “a false gospel is not a ‘good offense’,” LOL (Keith Mathison, http://www.gospelcom.net/hsc/articles/FalseGospel.php That a futurist perspective might answer this issue of doctrinal debates by attributing passages such as Ephesians 4:12-14 and Revelation 21, 22 to the future post-judgment “eternal state” does not make this a better view than preterism when one can see that to do so leads to a disregard of the texts indicating a soon parousia of Christ to judge the living and the dead of the world (and these texts are addresses in many other works on this site).

Again, I apologize that this has taken so long to send. May God bless you and may we all grow and earnestly seek the truth.

 Kenneth Perkins


Date:
09 Jan 2004
Time:
18:38:53

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. I'm in the process of preparing an answer to your latest post to me but in the meantime, could you please tell me, what does the word ALL mean in the following passages? John 12:32 "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." And: 1 Timothy 2:3-6 "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires ALL men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for ALL, to be testified in due time," Paul, did Jesus draw ALL men to himself? Did Jesus give himself as a ransom for ALL men? (meaning EVERY SINGLE man?) Does that exclude women? What do these words ALL mean?


Date:
09 Jan 2004
Time:
19:01:54

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. Please read the following carefully:

-=[ MANATA'S STATEMENT: " H.L., it goes both ways my friend. Jesus inspired ALL the Bible, not just the time texts. So if Jesus said that when x comes y will not be there and y is there we don't have to assume he was wrong we can assume that it has not happened because y is still there. ]=-

-=[ H.L. JAMES' RESPONSE: Paul, it doesn't go both ways. You're not listening. Remember, the Preterist view is the first assertion. Your argument against it is the "counter-assertion." Your counter-assertion MUST refute the mathematical (logical) structure of the INITIAL assertion. For you to say it goes both ways, is to assume that your argument is an "assertion" and as such, bears equal weight (i.e. "goes both ways"). It is not and does not. It is a "counter-assertion" against an assertion that says: "A said B would happen P." If your "counter-assertion" doesn't refute the INITIAL assertion, it fails and the initial assertion remains true. Please understand that arguments flow. One person makes an assertion and before the next person can make an assertion, he/she must first refute the first assertion that was made in the argument with a "counter-assertion." Until that happens, the initial argument remains true. Until the INITIAL assertion is PROVEN to be false, we cannot go on to YOUR assertions.

You must give a rebuttal to the initial assertion before you can then make an assertion. The Preterist argument has been around for long before you and I were born. You came on the scene purporting to "refute" it. The problem is, you have not refuted it, because IT says: "A said B would happen P," and you have never given a rebuttal to that assertion that follows the mathematical form of the initial assertion ("A does not say B would happen P"). Now, let's see if your statement "it goes both ways" really holds logical liquid. You asserted an argument that goes like this: "A said that when B there would be no Z." Okay so far. You then make the assumption that this refutes "A said B would happen P." You reason that "A couldn't have really said that B would happen P because A said that when B there would be no Z." So "A couldn't have been saying B would happen P." Here's the problem, the assertion "A said B would happen P" also contains in it "Z," since "Z" is one of the things A said would happen P." Do you see this? If "A (Jesus), said that B (which contains "Z" (New Heavens and New Earth with no liars)) would happen P (within the first century), then "Z" is a past event and CANNOT be a future event no matter how you slice the pie, since this would violate the law of non-contradiction. I'll put it another way: "A said (the New Heavens and New Earth, which EXCLUDES Dogs, Sorcerers, Sexually Immoral, Idolators, Murderers and Whosoever Loves and Practices a Lie) would happen P" (within the first century). Now you can see that we first have to "liberate" "Z" out of it's cage called "B." "Z" is "trapped" within "B," and Jesus said that "B" would happen "P." "B" makes "Z" a past event, since "Z" is contained in "B" and since "B" was supposed to have happened "P" then "Z," (which is within B) MUST be a past event. Before we can discuss "Z" as a future event, we must "liberate" it from "B." The only way to liberate it is to show that "A did not say B would happen P. That way, "B" can happen whenever we want it to.

As long as "A says B would happen P," our friend "Z" is constrained to having to happen "P." If "A never said B would happen P," then you're free to say "Z" (which is included in B) is a future event. If "A said B would happen P" and you claim that "Z" is still future, you have to say that "A" lied or was mistaken when "A said B would happen P" since "B didn't happen P." Do you see this? Unless you PROVE that "A DID NOT SAY B would happen P," then "B MUST HAVE HAPPENED P," or "A" lied or was mistaken. If "A" cannot lie or be mistaken, then THAT means that Z (which is CONTAINED in B), MUST HAVE HAPPENED P." So Paul, H.L. James is not saying you're wrong. Jesus is saying you're wrong, because you're using as one of your premises something that JESUS says is a past event. I'm not asking you to prove it's not a past event (that's what you're attempting to do with your Transcendental Argument). I'm asking you to prove that JESUS DIDN'T SAY it is a past event. Until you can PROVE that Jesus didn't say it is a past event, it either IS a past event, or Jesus lied or was mistaken. Your transcendental argument doesn't deal with what Jesus said and when, it simply "assumes" that the Preterist has misunderstood whatever it is that Jesus said and must therefore be incorrect. This begs the question because you've never shown that Jesus didn't say "B would happen P." You've never shown how the Preterist is wrong in his/her interpretation of "A said B would happen P." As I said earlier, you may indeed see a problem here. You may have a valid argument. But your argument would not refute the Preterist view, it would refute the deity of Christ and the truthfulness of Christianity. That's because, if you argue that you see proof that we cannot be in the New Heavens and New Earth, yet leave the words of Christ intact, then it means that you agree that Christ DID say "B would happen P," but that Christ was wrong because "B didn't happen P." Burtrand Russell used the same type of reasoning because Burtrand Russell KNEW that Jesus DID INDEED say "B would happen P." So, instead of trying to say that "A did not say B would happen P," (which he couldn't honestly do) Burtrand Russell simply said that "A said B would happen P," "B did not happen P," Therefore, "A" lied or was mistaken and therefore cannot be divine. Paul, unless you deal with the assertion: "A said B would happen P," you're agreeing that "A did indeed say B would happen P," and then going on to assert that "A" lied or was mistaken. ]=- -=[ MANATA'S STATEMENT: "Your only defense is that I have made a definition to fit my argument. No I haven't. I said ALL the definitions of liar are included, not just mine and not just yours,...ALL. You want to debate the time texts and that is fine but can't we do one thing at a time? I still have not heard an answer to the argument other than Jesus says your wrong. Well, Jesus says your wrong, so there. You still haven't SHOWN that my argument is wrong you have assumed that yours is correct and then said, "well you CANNOT be correct because I am." ]=-

 -=[ H.L. JAMES' RESPONSE: Paul, think about this, if the Preterist view is true, then your argument IS wrong. I don't have to say it, it's just what's so if the Preterist view is true. As I mentioned earlier, you came into this already facing an intact argument that the Preterist claims that nobody can refute. The argument you came into this facing states: "A said B would happen P." It's not my fault that you didn't face that argument head-on, but I cannot give you sympathy now that you've done it. I have to let you know that you've formed a flawed argument. There's nothing I can do about that. You simply have to re-write your argument so that it's no longer broken. The only way to do that is to refute the argument you came in to refute (i.e. "A said B would happen P"). Instead, you've created a NEW argument and have sought to refute that. That's unacceptable, Paul. You know as well as I do that a straw man is unacceptable behavior in a true theological debate where the stakes are so high. Jesus Himself said that the New Heavens and New Earth (and whatever that entails) were said to have been established over 1900 years ago. That's what's in the "B" part of the "A said B would happen P" argument and that's what's in the Bible. Now, you can say that Jesus and His Apostles were mistaken, you can say that Jesus and His Apostles lied, you can say that the Preterist has somehow "misunderstood" the time texts, but you CANNOT say "A did not say B would happen P," because "A DID SAY B would happen P." As long as "A said B would happen P" remains unchallenged, then the ONLY way "B didn't happen P," is if "A" was mistaken or lied. Now, if you think the Preterist has somehow misunderstood the time texts, you should write a tight argument showing why. To say that "not all time texts that say 'near' mean near" doesn't work because it implies that "some time texts that say 'near' DO MEAN near and then doesn't give us a way to distinguish which ones we should believe are near and which ones we should think will take thousands of years. In order to destroy the time texts, you'd have to show that EACH ONE fits into the category of "not all time texts that say 'near' actually mean near." If just ONE time escapes, your "refutiation of the time texts" fails. In other words, in your "dealing with the time texts, " you didn't even attempt to say that NONE of the Biblical time texts really mean what they are saying. You know that's not true just based on Jeremiah's 70 year captivity prophecy. So, SOME of the time texts would get through your filter. Unless you can show that EACH AND EVERY time text put forth by the Preterist view gets caught in your filter, then your argument fails. Gary Demar knows this and has come up with the silly statement, "If the passage doesn't contain a time text, then it wasn't about to happen back then." Demar realizes that to play with the time texts is playing with fire so he leaves them alone. He knows that he's just not smart enough to say which time texts are "really saying what they're saying" and which ones are not. So do you see how your "dealing with the time texts" was an exercise in futility? Do you see how it was a useless attempt to deal with something you obviously see as a problem? ]=-

-=[ MANATA'S STATEMENT: "Please answer me. This is what i will do to get an answer. Pretend that I am a new HP. That you have converted me by your sterling time text arguments (which I have shown doubtful and am not interested NOW to get into because I want to be methodical and dtay on track..anyway). SO I am now a new convert. I hold to HP. I am a baby and have questions though. I want some answers. Will you answer me or dogmatically assert that I cannot ask questions because it destroys your position? So, here I am, a new baby HP with some questions for the man who converted me: H.L., why does Rev 21:8 say that "ALL LIARS" will not be in the city and the Bible teaches that ONE way to lie is to teach something that contradicts God's revelation, and so since people in the city argue and teach contradictory doctrines (e.g., HPs debate over the Lords supper) how can they be in there? ]=-

-=[ H.L. JAMES' RESPONSE: Paul, first of all, you ARE a baby Preterist, every partial Preteris is. Secondly, the time text argument is not what should convince you. It is the TIME TEXTS themselves that should convince you. I'm not ARGUING that the time texts say "B would happen P." They ACTUALLY SAY THAT. See the difference? The other thing is that if you are a "baby Preterist," you KNOW that there are unrefuted time texts. So you've asked the following question as a baby Preterist: "why does Rev 21:8 say that "ALL LIARS" will not be in the city and the Bible teaches that ONE way to lie is to teach something that contradicts God's revelation, and so since people in the city argue and teach contradictory doctrines (e.g., HPs debate over the Lords supper) how can they be in there?" The first thing I would point out is that this question commits the logical fallacy of question begging because you've assumed that your premises are sound (i.e. that those who teach false doctrine are the "liars" spoken of in the Revelation and that they are "in the city"). I would point out that we must look at your assumptions in light of the fact that Jesus said the New Heavens and New Earth were supposed to have come over 1900 years ago.

As a baby Preterist, you'd already agree with this since the ENTIRE view is based on the time texts. Then I would ask if you believe Jesus cannot lie. If you said yes, I would go to the next question. If you said no I would not deal with this until you said Jesus cannot lie. Once we agree that Jesus cannot lie, I would ask if the Bible really says "A said B would happen P." We would look at each time text individually and ask the same question: is "A" really saying that "B would happen P." If even ONE of the time texts yields a YES answer, then I would ask: "Do you believe this statement in the Bible is true?" If you said no, then I would stop until you understood the concept of inerrancy. Once you understood that concept, we would go on and I'd ask again, "Do you believe this statement in the Bible is true?" You would say, "Yes, I believe it's true." Then I would explain the law of non-contradiction and show you that "A" can never be "Not-A." Then I would ask: "If the time texts we looked at in the Bible, which state that "B would happen P," are accurate (which we would have to believe they are because of inerrancy), is it possible that "B did not happen P?" Remembering your lesson on the law of non-contradiction, you would reply that it is not possible for the verse that says "B would happen P" to mean anything other than that. Then I would ask you, "If B happened P, as we've agreed, is it possible that any of "B" didn't happen P? You would answer, "No, if B happened P, it happened P." Then I would ask, "Is the New Heavens and New Earth one of the things that was supposed to have happened P? You would answer, "Yes, according to the time statements of Jesus and the Apostles, this is correct." Then I would ask, "Is there any way they could have been wrong about it?" You would answer, "absolutely not." Then I would ask: "If the Bible says that "B would happen P," and yet you think you see evidence that "B did not happen P," what is the probablilty that your evidence is incorrect? You would have to answer that the probablity is pretty high that your evidence is incorrect because if your evidence is correct, it would mean that Jesus and the Apostles must have been mistaken about the timing. Then I would say, "since you agree there's a probablity that your review of the evidence is flawed, I would ask what are some of the ways you could be mistaken? Ask yourself that same question Paul, what are some of the ways you could be mistaken? Could you be placing an erroneous definition on the word liars? Remember, if Jesus indeed did say that the New Heavens and New Earth were supposed to have happened over 1900 years ago (which He definitely said), then you would be forced to re-evaluate your understanding of what you're seeing, because you'd understand that whatever it is you're seeing, it cannot contradict what Jesus has said is true (unless of course Jesus lied or was mistaken). You'll notice here that the first thing I did was go back to the time statements and make sure you understood that the Preterist view rests on them. I'd make it clear that they have not been, nor can they be refuted without making Jesus a liar. Once we were clear on our foundation, all other study would be done from that perspective. Then, you and I would begin an in-depth study and exegete EVERY verse you think yields proof that the New Heavens and New Earth have not come. Paul, we have never done that. But if you would like to do it, we can. I had this in mind from the very begining. That's why I asked how you were using the word "liars." I'm going to show you some things about your use of language. You commit what are called "exegetical fallacies" all the time. That's okay, as long as that kind of thing tapers off to a trickle. Now let's look at your next set of statements ]=-

 -=[ MANATA'S STATEMENT: Please help me understand HP, my leader. I have thought about this because I want to be a good little HP and I thought that maybe ALL doesn't mean ALL. But this seems to have problems, like: why do SOME get to enter the city if NOTHING unclean can enter it. And it also must mean (if we aren't going to be arbitrary) that when it says that ALL murderers and idolaters and sexually immoral, etc., that doesn't mean ALL as well. So, then I must conclude that SOME-of a class- enter into a place where NONE-of the class- enter into. This makes me scratch my head. Please help me. ]=-

-=[ H.L. JAMES' RESPONSE: Paul, the first thing I would do to help you with this last set of statements is to first ask that you not condescend (smile). Not that it bothers me. I know who and what I am, but it shows an arrogance that far outpaces your actual intellectual stature. Secondly, I would put your assumptions in the form of a logical argument based on our initial agreement. Remember, you're a baby Preterist, so we're taking the time texts as unrefuted truth, which means the New Heavens and New Earth HAVE to be here already. I would show that at the time of the great white throne judgment, which Jesus said was going to happen soon when he came quickly at a time that was "at hand," all liars were cast into the lake of fire and all who overcame inherited eternal life and entrance into the city. I would show how the great thing about the New Jerusalem is that God would not allow "false" people into the convenant from then on. I would show that there are indeed different classes of liars in the Bible. Some just tell one lie and ask for forgiveness. Some tell three (like Peter did) and are still okay. Some, like the person who denies the Christ is called "THE LIAR," using the Greek "ho" before the noun, and indicates pure liar, not just someone who tells lies. I would show that the "liar" in Revelation 21:8 is a "false person." This is distinct from a true person "speaking falsely." I would show that the word "pseudes" (adjective) is used in the Revelation 21:8 and only two other places in the New Testament. I would show that in each case, it is used to show the "falsehood" of the person. It is describing the very being of the person and not that the person "tells lies." In other words, a person who tells lies (pseustes - a noun) like Peter did, is distinct from someone who IS a lie (pseudes - an adjective) like the false witnesses in Acts: 6:13 or the "false apostles" in Rev 2:2. I would show how these "false people" cannot tell the truth because their very life is a lie. I would show how they would be excluded from participation in the New Jerusalem. I would show the parable of the Wedding where there is a man there who is not wearing wedding clothes and he is thrown out of the wedding. He had "snuck in" and tried to "appear" like he belonged, but the New Jerusalem is very different than the old one. You cannot just "sneak in" to the New Jerusalem, you have to be invited and the "wedding clothes" are given to you by God. The great thing about the New Jerusalem is that someone could sneak into a wedding in the Old Jerusalem and get away with it. In the New Jerusalem, that is impossible because no "false" person is invited to enter. Paul, you and I would spend a lot of time exegeting passages that speak of liars to ensure that we really understand their important distinctions in Greek culture. ]=-

 -=[ MANATA'S STATEMENT: "And then, since the BIBLE DEFINES a liar as one who teaches something contrary to God's revelation (there are other liars too) then how can we debate doctrine in the city since that presupposes someone is lying? Please help me, my leader. The text needs to be delt with, not dogmatically, but you need to help me. Does ALL mean ALL, i.e., even people who teach contradictory doctrines (which, again, the Bible says are liars)? If yes, then how do you account for the debate? If no, then how do you account for SOME entering into a place that NONE can? If all doesn't mean all in this passage then why assume that all the overcommers in 21:7 means all of them? H.L. remember, I have agreed that you are correct, I hold to HP, I don't need a lecture on the time texts, I want a specific answer to my questions. Please help this baby HP understand. ]=-

-=[ H.L. JAMES' RESPONSE: Paul, in this part of the discussion I would show you that your definition of the word ALL begs the question. You have not proven that the phrase "all liars" in the Revelation 21:8 carries the narrow meaning that we put on the word liars. I would show you first that there are numerous passages in the Bible that say "all" to mean a class of THAT TYPE of thing. In other words, I would show that the Bible says that if Jesus was "lifted up from the earth" He would draw "ALL MEN" unto himself. I would then ask if Jesus actually did draw ALL MEN unto himself or if he ever would. I would also ask if the Apostles were "hated of all men" for Christ's name sake. I know I don't hate them. Does that mean that Jesus lied? I know Peter didn't hate Jude, wouldn't these be included in ALL MEN? In fact, shouldn't Peter hate himself? He's a man. I would show that "ALL" only means every one in the set under discussion. Peter saying "I don't know that man," is a far cry from someone saying "Jesus has not come in the flesh." Both are lies, both individuals could be considered liars, but we know Peter was forgiven. We also know that someone who denies the Son, also denies the Father. We would spend much time on this. Paul, in the final section of your last post to me, you state that I have to assume your position in order to argue against your position. That statement begs the question because you have not proven that "A said B would happen P." In fact, until you do, "B did happen P," which renders your argument moot. I'd really like to see you come back with an argument that states: "A did not say B would happen P" and then really develop that argument. Now THAT would make theological history. - H.L. James - www.ad70.com ]=-


Date:
09 Jan 2004
Time:
19:15:56

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. I wanted to treat this issue seperately from the rest to make it easier to filter. You stated in your post to me: "if Jesus said that when x comes y will not be there and y is there we don't have to assume he was wrong we can assume that it has not happened because y is still there."

 Okay, I want you to read your statement very carefully again. What's missing in it? This is another impromtu logic lesson. Know what's missing? The "P" in the Preterist argument! If "A said B" but didn't say "would happen P," then your statement would be correct. But your statement calls Jesus a liar if you plug in the "would happen P" part! Do you see how you've tried to sneak out of it here? Here's how you'd have to update your statement to make it fit the facts. But watch how it makes Jesus a liar: " Since you know the time texts are the foundation of the Preterist argument, you'd have to phrase your statement this way: "if Jesus said that when "X" comes "P(BACK IN THE GENERATION THEN LIVING AT THE TIME)," "Y" will not be there and "Y" is there we don't have to assume he was wrong we can assume that it has not happened because "Y" is still there." See? Jesus said that when X (the New Heavens and New Earth) came (BACK THEN OVER 1900 YEARS AGO), "Y" would not be there. Do you see how this is a statement that doesn't allow for your statement "we don't have to assume he was wrong"?

If he said that X would come BACK THEN, then we HAVE TO SAY Jesus was wrong. Wouldn't you agree? If Jesus said that X would come BACK THEN, and it didn't happen, isn't Jesus wrong? Try not to skate around this one Paul. If Jesus said he was going to drive by in a purple porche at 10:00 am tomorrow and then didn't do it, wouldn't Jesus have been wrong? Could you just say "it hasn't happened yet, but we don't have to say that Jesus was wrong." Oh really? How silly would THAT sound. If Jesus said He was going to do something at a certain time and then didn't do it, either He was mistaken or outright lied. WE HAVE TO SAY He was wrong. We would have NO OTHER CHOICE. Get it? - H.L. James - www.ad70.com


Date:
09 Jan 2004
Time:
19:56:16

Comments

tell you gys what. H.L. maybe you can see if the person who runs this site will allow me to write my argument out, and in the updated version I will include responses to all the new arguments. These past posts are just to much to sit here and respond to. Is that o.k.? tell me how I can accomplich this? thanks. -Paul


Date:
09 Jan 2004
Time:
20:16:23

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here. You don't need to respond to the ENTIRE post. Just respond to the main points. For example, answer my question about the word "ALL" in the verses I posted. Just get to the nugget of what I've argued and refute each nugget. For example, you could write a short response as to why the Preteris should abandon ALL the time texts of Jesus, since that's what we'd have to do to not be right. Just show us how that's possible. Little stuff like that. (smile) - H.L. James


Date:
09 Jan 2004
Time:
20:54:35

Comments

one thing, though, H.L. No, the ALL passages about salvation don't mean ALL. I have never said that every time ALL is mentioned it means all. So if an arminian asked me if those ALLs meant SOME were going to hell I would say yes. Now, regarding Rev 21. If those ALL don't mean ALL then we have to say that SOME of those mentioned classes do enter into a place that NOTHING unclean can enter into. Are you willing to say that? Also, you can't be arbitrary and so would have to conclude that there are SOME murderers and idolaters and sexually immoral people who can enter...right? And, why conclude that Rev 21:7 means ALL the overcommers?

Well. i should have saved that for my paper=) and, I will briefly answer your A said B would happen P. the P is "BACK THEN" No, it is a millenia." Therefore, He did not say that B would happen P. Now, the 1000 yras has to be at least that long since you guys take the "time texts seriously." Like when we read that "we are in the final hour." Now, does God know how to tell time? Does he know what an hour is? If I wrote you a letter and said that, "I will be there in an hour" would you think that meant years? Of course not. So I can date that letter, it was written at 11:00 p.m. 69 a.d. Now, if you say that, 'no, it didn't mean an hour, that letter was written around 60 a.d. the we can say that 1 hour could = 10 years. Now, how many hours are in a 1000 yrs? So, jesus said that B would happen P because B has not come yet it will come at P, which is future. At that time there will be no Christians debating false doctrine because that would be to teach a lie. I must say, with all your refutations you still didn't answer the specific questions. I don't think you want to play that game with me. Why don't you give answers. Like: define the liars in Rev 21:8/ Who are they?

so, I answered the ALL question. I answered the "P" question. After thinking about this I would like to tell you, H.L., that as long as you know that I know that you are avoiding the questions. I mean, when someone asks you about, "no more death." You say that is spiritual death, you don't pontificate about the time texts and say that it can't be physical because A said B when P. When someone asks you about, "no more sea." You tell them that is referring to the gentiles, you don't go into a big treatise of time texts. When someone askes you about, "no more tears," you say that means no more crying out for God for salvation, you don't say, your begging the question, you need to deal with my time texts. In EVERY SINGLY OTHER instance you give nice, direct, answers to direct questions. How come you REFUSE to answer me about the liars? Why H.L.? Moreover, I know that you think yours is more important, but it's not. You see, you want me to debate the time texts, but that begs the question against my argument. I am saying that if your interpretation were correct we would not be debating the time texts, or ANY doctrine for that matter. Mine comes EPISTEMOLOGICALLY before yours does.

What you want me to do is to say that my argument is wrong! You want me to DENY my conclusion! This is a trick. You see H.L. you can intellectually bully people, but as long as you know that I know this is one fight you have lost. You have not treated this like EVERY OTHER question asked you about the NH and E. All people who read this, including you, know that you avoided my questions and then said, "my questions are the more important ones." "If mine are wrong then Jesus lied." Well, that is the same for me as well. If my definition is correct, a nd there are liars in thr city, don't you see... that means Jesus lied as well, Stop the intimidating. I have proof that you are running. You were saying that "noun" was going to be used to destroy my argument, where did THAT come up. Your answers are totally ad-hoc. In my last post I asked you again(!) to answer specific questions and you again refused! We both know this. You know that if I am correct then I HAVE refuted you. You know that and that is why you REFUSE to answer me. This is a public calling out. -Paul


Date:
10 Jan 2004
Time:
09:22:45

Comments

Pardon me for interrupting this 'James versus Paul' dialogue.

 The crux of the problem is that Paul had insisted that there are Liars INSIDE The City whereas Rev 21:27 and Rev 22:15 plainly show us that they are OUTSIDE the City.

 We can never agree on a conclusion as it just does not compute because he is missing one critical parameter in his equation. Paul argued that "In X (The City or NH&NE) there will be no Y (liars). But since there are liars, so we are not in The City or in NH&NE. He is missing another critical parameter - W. Here goes : In W (NH&NE [Rev 21:1]) there is X (The City [Rev 21:2]) and in X there will be no Y (Liars [Rev 21:27]). The Y is outside X (Rev 22:15).

 Take this analogy - In California is the city of LA ("New Jerusalem"). There is no Golden Gate ("Liars") in LA. But the fact is Golden Gate exists. Therefore all living in LA are not living in LA NOW because there is a Golden Gate. Sound confusing? It is because that is the twisted logic that Paul is trapped in. He simply refused to acknowledge that Golden Gate is outside of LA - that Liars are outside of the City of New Jerusalem.

 Did not Rev 21:27 and Rev 22:15 states that the liars are not in the City, but OUTSIDE? Perhaps he may be aware that New Jerusalem is spiritual. If you are spiritual now, you are inside the City of the Living God. If you are physical, you are outside the City - on this Earth. We are now physical, so of course we cannot be in the City - but that does not mean that God (and Christ and the saints) are not ruling over us from the holy City of New Jerusalem in Heaven now.

 All of us are liars and murderers! (Who is not?) But it is not hopeless. Jesus had given us the key to enter into That Holy City: "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and MAY ENTER IN through the gates INTO THE CITY." (Rev 22:14)

 MS Cheo.


Date:
10 Jan 2004
Time:
09:42:42

Comments

btw, H.L. were you ever going to apologize (or at least quote me) for the lies you spread about me on MK page? You said "I TEACH that we can be epistemologically equal to God." You are a liar and I resent the spreading of falshood. You need to quote me. I have NEVER said that or came close. If you think that by me saying that we will not debate doctrinal issues in heaven is saying that i am epistemologically = to God then (1) non-sequitar, (2) KP said the same thing so why don't you say that of Him. (3) This doesn't even COME CLOSE to saying that we are E=G. this shows that you have NO answer to me, so you need to spread lies about me to make yourself look better. (btw, if you say that it is fair since I say you are a cult leader, then i will give you the proof of that. As I metioned on Cook's radio show, when I read about 10 quotes from different cultic groups, you and them ALL had ONE thing in common, i.e., the whole history of the Church has been wrong.) Anyway, I challenge you to make good on your accustation or all will know that you have dropped to lying to win this debate in which you have NEVER answerd my questions. -Paul


Date:
10 Jan 2004
Time:
11:19:33

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. Here's what you state in one of your most recent posts to me:

-=[ PAUL'S STATEMENT: "I will briefly answer your A said B would happen P. the P is 'BACK THEN' No, it is a millenia." Therefore, He did not say that B would happen P." ]=-

-=[ H.L.'S RESPONSE: Paul, look at the statement above that you made. What fallacy are you committing here? It is a broken statement, which commits the fallacy of "insufficient sample" (among others which I will point out shortly). You have used as your refutiation of the time statements OF JESUS, ONE PASSAGE!!! You know very well that there are a MOUNTAIN of verses from Jesus and His Disciples that speak NOTHING of "millenia." In fact, Jesus said that SOME STANDING THERE would not taste death before they saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. By your reasoning, those people would at least have to stay alive (i.e. "not taste of death") for at least 1000 years. Your statement is broken logically. What is the problem with you seeing these logical breaks? Are you saying that you have just refuted "A said B would happen P" with your statement that "P" means "Millenia?" In light of the miriad of other verses to the contrary, your statement is proven to be patently absurd, Paul. You go on to say: "Now, the 1000 yrs has to be at least that long since you guys take the 'time texts seriously.'"

Paul, that is a non-sequitur and an equivocation all in the same breath. Just because we "take the time statements seriously" doesn't logically conclude that we must take the number 1000 literally! do you see how you've substituted "seriously" with "literally?" That's an equivocation and a non-sequitur. Come on man, you have to know better than this, especially dealing with me. Paul, if your statement is correct, if the 1000 in the Revelation is "at least 1000 years" literally, then all the things Jesus said would come upon that generation, DID NOT COME upon THAT generation and Jesus is proven a liar. Paul, the Preterist doesn't "INTERPRET" Jesus to have said that, Jesus actually DID SAY THAT. Remember, the passage that contains the lanugage you have quoted, speaks of them REIGNING with Christ a thousand (chilioi - a plural of UNCERTAIN AFFINITY) years. Paul, if the 1000 years in the Revelation is literal, if it is "at least that long," then other statements of Jesus and the Apostles DON'T WORK. I'm not talking about verses like the "final hour" verse, I'm talking about verses like, "all the righteous blood shed upon the earth will come upon THIS GENERATION." Paul, if "all the righteous blood shed upon the earth" was to come upon THAT GENERATION, then it must have.

If it did, then the judgment CAME UPON THEM and your understanding of the 1000 years is broken. Do you see that? You don't just take ONE passage out of the Bible and say you've refuted a position when there are MANY that support the position. This is called "proof texting" and it is not exegesis. Don't you understand that the language of the Revelation is SYMBOLIC. It was supposed to "signify" to John certain truths. Please recognize that your argument is broken. It's not wrong per se, it's just broken at the moment because it doesn't do what you claim it does. Paul, don't you see that you are clutching at straws regarding the time statements? Don't you see that your attempts to "refute" them are seriously lacking? Read the above again and think of how you would have scolded me if I had said the things you've said here. I would never hear the end of it. It would be the topic of entertainment everytime you and Gene Cook got together to talk about "H.L. the cult leader." Now, Paul, if "millenia" is not millenia (because the Greek word is used symbolically, and means a "plural of uncertain affinity"), then "P" CANNOT be millenia either. Therefore "P" remains UNREFUTED. If "P" remains unrefuted, you STILL have a problem and your argument is STILL broken. You wouldn't have attempted to "fix" it if you didn't recognize it was broken. You see why my "A said B would happen P" is so important? It shows where your argument is broken. It FORCES you into a position where you have to begin patching holes.

When you reach out to patch a hole, EVERYONE can now see the hole. It's the spot you're trying to patch. By you using your "millenia" comment, we can all now see a gaping hole in your argument. Here it is: If "millenia" doesn't REALLY mean ONE THOUSAND, which indeed it does NOT (it is a plural of uncertain affinity), then your attempt to patch the hole has failed. Your boat is still sinking and now we can clearly see the hole, which is "P." Remember, you must interpret the term "1000" in light of what it is (symbolic), and in light of the mountain of other time statements that make a literal 1000 impossible. Just based on the symbolic nature of the Revelation and the Greek word used in the passage, along with the mountain of other very clear time statements, the 1000 doesn't help your argument, in fact, it further hurts it because now, everyone can see by your own admission that the time statements are a problem for your argument for the reasons I've already stated in other posts. In your statement cited above, you've openly agreed that "A said B would happen P," (as you also did later in the same post) you simply attempt to make "P" equal "1000 years." Do you see that. That's good, that's what you were supposed to do, but do you see how that now you've shown your cards? I'm not doing this to humiliate you Paul, I'm trying to get you to think with pristine logic, because I know that once you do, you will go from being a baby Preterist, to a mature one.

Notice how you have no response at this moment. I know you'll probably "come up with one" in a couple of days, but notice how at THIS MOMENT you have no answer to what you'll do if "P" CANNOT be an actual "1000 years." Do you feel that? Do you feel how that if P is not 1000 years, then you're still in trouble with "P?" That's because you KNOW that the New Heavens and New Earth are contained in the "B" part of the argument. You've already admitted it earlier and you do it again later in your post (as I'm about to point out). So, you admit that the New Heavens and New Earth is contained in "B" but you then try to say that "B" was not supposed to happen for "millenia." [NEWS FLASH!!!]=- So, now I have Paul Manata, agreeing that the A is Jesus and the Apostles and that the "B" contains the New Heavens and New Earth!!! Wow! The only thing I need to do now is show you that "P" is past. Once I do that, since you've already agreed that "A said B" and that "B" contains the New Heavens and New Earth, you will be foreced to say that B is past (which would by default mean that the New Heavens and New Earth are established. Even if you go on being a baby Preterist, you'll know that "B happened P." Here's what you admit to in your previous post here for all to see. Paul, you must admit, you DID say the following: "So, jesus said that B would happen P because B has not come yet it will come at P, which is future." Do you see your admission here? Let me repeat it, you said: "So, Jesus said that B would happen P."

 One more time. Paul Manata agreed to the following, "So, Jesus said that B would happen P." Then, you go on to try to manipulate "P." Here's how you attempt to do that. You say: "because B has not come yet it will come at P, which is future." Before I go into why this statement makes your situation worse, let me point out your blatant admission and another equivocation. In your statement cited above, you say "because B has not come yet." Notice how this is an admission that the thing that you're arguing is future, is CONTAINED in "B." Do you see how you've admitted to that? You can now NEVER go back on that admission. It is here on the Preterist Archive for all to see. Then you go on to equivocate on "P." Here's how you do it. Remember, "P" EQUALS "by AD70." So you cannot say that "P" is still future. Whatever you say in your equation, it could never be "P." You could assign another letter, like R or something. But "P" is a variable that already has a value (AD70). Okay, now let's look at the kind of trouble you're in by making that statement. The end of your statement says, "because B has not come yet it will come at P, which is future." So, Paul, I have already shown how "P" can never be "future" because it is already defined as past. Now, let's revise your statement so we can use it in a productive argument. You would have to phrase your statement like this: "because B has not come yet it will come at "R," which is future. So "R" equals "some future time," whereas "P" equals "by AD70." Okay? So, now we can use "R" in a useful argument. Notice the following argument:

You see what I have done? I'm using simple logic here to make a decision as to which one I'll chose to believe. You helped me make that decision by agreeing that "A DID INDEED say B would happen P." You agreed that the New Heavens and New Earth ARE CONTAINED in "B." The problem is, you tried to get me to believe that "B would happen R," instead of "P." You tried to get me to go against what Jesus said, which is that "B would happen P." You tried to make "P" appear to be "R." But I caught you. You used your "millenium" argument to try to make "P" appear to be "R." You did that because if "P" remains "P," then B has happened. If B has happened Paul, then B (and everything it contains) ARE PAST EVENTS. Please read this post over and over until you see clearly what's being said here. If, as you've agreed, "A said B," and it turns out that "A said B would happen P," your transcendental argument is a logical impossibility (as you've pretty much already agreed to in your last post), and any discussion regarding parts of your transcendental argument (i.e. the "liars" issue) are rendered moot. - H.L. James - www.AD70.com


Date:
10 Jan 2004
Time:
12:23:42

Comments

H.L., first that post of mine was mostly for humor, like 11:00 p.m 69 a.d. I never agreed to anything. I was just using your notations. forget all that. the point is that those things are going to happen after the millenium. I believe that the millenium is still going on. I agree with J.S. Russell that it is going to far to say that the millenium could be 40 or so years. This is highly debatable. One reason it couldn't be 40 years is because we are still debating it. So, you took what was mostly meant as humor, typed a long post (which you had previously asked me not to do) and actually set up a straw man. Guess what else you didn't do? That's right. You AGAIN didn't answer my questions. You continue to RUN from answering it. You are trying to control the debate so I don't get to answer my questions. H.L. why do you:when someone asks you about, "no more death." You say that is spiritual death, you don't pontificate about the time texts and say that it can't be physical because A said B when P. When someone asks you about, "no more sea." You tell them that is referring to the gentiles, you don't go into a big treatise of time texts.

When someone askes you about, "no more tears," you say that means no more crying out for God for salvation, you don't say, your begging the question, you need to deal with my time texts. In EVERY SINGLY OTHER instance you give nice, direct, answers to direct questions. How come you REFUSE to answer me about the liars? Why H.L.? maybe this will finally force you to answer. Pretend this is a debate. It is now my turn to cross examine. I ask you a question, and the audience is listening to see if you will answer it, or avoid it. Now give me just four questions and then you can ask four, sound good. I will ask my first now. H.L. when Rev 21:8 says that ALL liars will be outside the city does that mean ALL in that class (e.g., deniars of Christ, non followers of God's commandemnts, haters of therre brothers, and people who teach something which contradicts what God has revealed). Does it mean ALL of them. After you answer I will ask my next, then 3,4. You can ask your 4 and then we can take turns rebutting each others answers. O.k. Now, if you refuse again then.....ouch! btw, btw, H.L. were you ever going to apologize (or at least quote me) for the lies you spread about me on MK page? You said "I TEACH that we can be epistemologically equal to God." You are a liar and I resent the spreading of falshood. You need to quote me. I have NEVER said that or came close. If you think that by me saying that we will not debate doctrinal issues in heaven is saying that i am epistemologically = to God then (1) non-sequitar, (2) KP said the same thing so why don't you say that of Him. (3) This doesn't even COME CLOSE to saying that we are E=G. this shows that you have NO answer to me, so you need to spread lies about me to make yourself look better.


Date:
10 Jan 2004
Time:
12:28:26

Comments

MS Cheo, I agree. There are NO liars in the city, you agreed to that as well. Good, we both agree, maybe their in the NH and E, maybe their not...but we both agree that they are not in the city. right? now, if that is the case, and if, as the Bible tteaches-to contradict Gods word is to lie-then why do people IN THE CITY lie? Maybe only HPs are in the city.,o.k., fine, then why do HPs debate about, say, whether we should continue to take the Lords supper. They cannot both be right, one is contradicting God's word (i.e., LYING). Now, since YOU agreed that NONE can be in the city...right?...you said "ALL" are outside the city then will you recant your HPism? I have proven that liars are in the city (if your view was correct)....anyway, back to the "James Paul debate."...


Date:
10 Jan 2004
Time:
15:23:30

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again in response to your last post to me:

 -=[ PAUL'S STATEMENT: "H.L., first that post of mine was mostly for humor, like 11:00 p.m 69 a.d. I never agreed to anything. I was just using your notations. forget all that." ]=- -=[ H.L. JAMES' RESPONSE: Notice how the first line in your response is how you never agree to anything? You not only agreed once, but twice in the post I cited. Now you want to say (and you want us to believe) it was "mostly humor." Well, I'm talking about the part that was "partly seriousness." I expected that you would at least take a day or two and try to salvage the situation. I NEVER expected for you to just say "I never agreed to anything." Everyone reading your posts sees that you agreed that "A said B." I say "A said B" also. That's an agreement. Then you said that "B would happen P (which really means "R" in your argument). By stating that, you are saying that the New Heavens and New Earth are contained in "B." I state that the New Heavens and New Earth are contained in "B." That's an agreement. Wouldn't you agree? Now, you can just tell the truth that you agreed with me, since you did and everyone here knows you did. The only part you didn't agree on was the "P" part. Remember? You simply said that you disagree that "B" would happen "P." You said that "B would happen R." (actually you said P, but we know what you were trying to say. I even helped you say it more clearly.) Paul, then you say "forget all that." Why would you want us to do that? That's like being at a poker game, accidentally showing you're holding no aces (after putting a HUGE amount of money in the kitty), and then saying, "forget you saw my hand fellas, just go ahead and bet." Sorry Paul, this is a debate for the truth of God's Word. It's serious business. You have shown that you are a big better who holds no high cards. But it gets even words... watch this...]

 -=[ PAUL'S STATEMENT: "the point is that those things are going to happen after the millenium. I believe that the millenium is still going on. ]=-

-=[ H.L. JAMES' RESPONSE: So, Paul, you've now said that you believe we're in the millenium, which means you believe the millenium has begun. You said that you believe the New Heavens and New Earth is still future (will happen after the millenium). Okay, this is good. Now let's look at whether or not your belief that we are in the millenium can be supported from Scripture. If the Bible says we're NOT in the millenium, then you'll have to admit that your assessment that we ARE in the millenium is incorrect. Right? Great. What does the Bible say are the conditions during the millenium? Let's take a look. You will soon see that conditions don't support your assertion that we are in the millenium. Revelation 20 is the chapter that introduces us to the millenium of which you speak. I've already pointed out that the word "1000" doen't mean a literal thousand. It is a "plural of uncertain affinity." The English words "thousands," "often," "many," "some," "much" would all be considered words which are "plural of uncertain affinity."

If I were to say I had been to Disneyland "many" times, you would never fix an exact number to it. Even if I said I'd been there "a thousand" times, you would not affix an exact thousand to it, nor would you say I would have to have been there "at least 1000 times." In fact, if you later found out I'd only been there 30 times, you'd understand that I was using a language convention that was a "plural of uncertain affinity." Chilioi is the same in the Revelation. It is a Greek word that is understood as a "plural of uncertain affinity." In other words, no certain number attaches (affinity) to it. (An "affinity" is an "attachment." For example, Paul has an "affinity" to chocolate means, Paul has an "attachment" to chocolate.) So, what are some of the things the Bible says are present during the millenium? Here is a list: (capitals for clarity)

1. SATAN IS BOUND IN THE BOTTOMLESS PIT (so you agree that he is). 2. THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN BEHEADED AND DID NOT RECEIVE THE MARK OF THE BEAST ARE LIVING AND REIGHNING WITH CHRIST (so you believe that they are). 3. THE BEAST AND THE FALSE PROPHET HAVE ALREADY BEEN SLAIN AND TROWN INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE (so you believe that they have). 4. THE RIDER ON THE WHITE HORSE AND HIS ARMY HAVE ALREADY GONE TO WAR WITH, AND CONQUERED THE BEAST (so you believe they have). 5. BABYLON HAS BEEN JUDGED ALREADY (so you believe she has).

So Paul, if we are in the millenium of Revelation chapter 20, all the preceding things I mentioned are already past events and you agree with all the preceding clauses. Furthermore, Satan remains in his prison until the end of the thousand years (at which time you say the New Heavens and New Earth come). You would agree with me so far, right? You believe that 1-5 mentioned above are a past reality. Okay, the Apostle Paul taught that Christ would reign until all His enemies had been made his footstool. The Apostle said the LAST enemy to be defeated was death, right? You would agree with me so far, right? I'm simply quoting the Apostle Paul from his first letter to the Corinthians, right?

1 Corinthians 15:20-26 "20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death."

Okay. So the LAST enemy to be destroyed is death. That's what this passage says, right? And the Apostle Paul CANNOT be mistaken. Afterwards the Apostle Paul said "the end" would come. Right? Okay, how was death to be destroyed, Paul? Do you remember? Let's put it this way, if death has already been destroyed, the end must have already come, right? Okay, let's look first at the Revelation, chapter 21 and see how Death is finally destroyed.

  Revelation 20:14 "Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire."

Okay, so death is destroyed at the same time as Hades by being cast into the lake of fire. You would say that this HAS NOT happened yet, right? Right. Okay, when did the Apostle Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, say death would be destroyed? Remember, the Apostle Paul CANNOT be mistaken, right? Cool. When "Death and Hades" are defeated, those who are already dead, would be raised imperishable (incorruptible), right? And those who are alive and remain, would be "changed," right? So, the Apostle Paul is talking about those who are ALIVE and those who are already DEAD. Right? Okay. Here's what the Apostle Paul says about the death of death and hades. I want you to pay special attention to the phrase: "the dead will be raised incurruptible and WE shall be changed." I'll explain the significance of this in a moment.

"1 Corinthians 15:50-56 50 "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed -- 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and THE DEAD will be raised incorruptible, and WE SHALL be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." 55 "O Death, where is your sting?O Hades, where is your victory?" 56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law."

Paul, do you notice in this letter that the Apostle makes a distinction between on group he calls "THE DEAD," and another group he calls "WE." Now, lets say you're correct, and we are still in the millenium. You with me so far? Okay. If we are STILL in the millenium, and the Apostle Paul is DEAD. And all the people who read that letter are DEAD, then they are all part of the group that the Apostle calls "THE DEAD" in his letter. In other words, there is no longer the group called "WE," since that group represented those who were NOT DEAD at the time the Apostle Paul wrote this letter. Do you see that? Okay, so what does this tell us about the Apostle Paul? It tells us that either he he EXPECTED there to be TWO groups of people represented in Corinth at the event he's speaking of, or he DIDN'T KNOW WHEN the event would happen and he was just throwing it out there. The Apostle Paul indicated by his clear language that there would be THE DEAD (those who "sleep") and there would be the "WE" who are not "SLEEP." So, if the event the Apostle Paul was speaking of has not happened yet, then ALL of the corinthians "SLEEP."

But wait a minute, the Apostle Paul said that they would NOT all sleep, which means that SOME of them would be ALIVE at the death of death. Remember, according to this same chapter in the Apostle's letter, each group would be "made alive" and "each in his own turn." Then the END would come, after He had destroyed all dominion and power, the last enemy destroyed would be death. The Apostle Paul said that this would happen while there were TWO groups of people STILL in Corinth (i.e. the "WE" who are alive, and "THE DEAD" who "sleep.) The Apostle then goes on to tell us that the power of death is sin, and the power of sin is THE LAW. The Apostle tells us that Death is defeated by the victory we gain through Christ. He goes on to tell them to STAND FIRM and let nothing move them. Paul, the death of death occurred when the Law was removed from the face of the earth. That is one of the promises of the New Covenant. We no longer have a law written on tablets of stone. The Law is now written on our hearts. If that's true, then DEATH is dead because SIN is dead. Remember, the Apostle Paul was waiting for the New Covenant promised by Jeremiah and others in which the Law would be written on their hearts. That would occur at the "renewal of all things" when the law and the old covenant it represented were finally once and for all taken away. This happened at AD70.

We have been in the New Covenant since then. The New Covenant is the New Heavens and New Earth.When the "former is no longer rememberd or comes to mind" we are in the New Heavens and New Earth. When the former sins are "remembered no more" then we are in the New Heavens and New Earth." Paul, we cannot be in the millenium because the law of "sin and death" is gone, burned down in AD70. In the millennium of the Bible, death and hades are still there, but as I have shown, the Apostle Paul wasn't expecting to wait 1000 years to receive his liberation from death. He was expecting to receive it while there were still THE DEAD and the WE who were alive. Your belief that you are still in the millennium says that death is still here (which means the law and the old covenant are still here). This is clearly not the case. The old covenant is gone. The New Covenant has come. If the Old Covenant is gone, then the law is gone. If the law is gone, then sin is gone. If sin is gone, then it's wage is gone as well, which is death. That is why you and I rejoice as Christians! Not only has chapter 20 of the Revelation been accomplished, Chapters 21 and 22 have also. Not because we "interpret" it that way, but because it IS that way and that notion is supported by all of Scripture. - H.L. James -- www.ad70.com


Date:
10 Jan 2004
Time:
16:53:52

Comments

UNBELIEVABLE! Again, you have REFUSED to answer a SPECIFIC question!!!! I asked you to answer it as it was a cross examination question. Hps you need to seriously ask yourself why it is the H.L. REFUSES to debate the issue. Also, H.L. you wasted a large portion of this debate upon the assumption that I agreed with you. Now you spend half of your latest time arguing against something that I never did hold to. You are too narrow to see that what i was doing. You just want to "win" and so you out alot of your eggs in a basket, when you were refuted what did you do? Did you say, o.k. YOU must know what YOU meant better that I? No! You say, "I know what YOU mean better than YOU do." H.l., ever hear of taking a position for arguments sake? All I was doing was saying, "o.k., using H.L.'s form I will say that P came at another time. that's it. I was assuming your position. This is absurd. I cannot believe that you are forcing me into something that I never agreed to, just to win! Also, I would think that the more Christian thing to do, rather than win, is to address the charges I have leveled against you. YOU LIED ABOUT ME. H.L., this is serious, I have proof that you lie, now you expect me to take your say-so on things? Why have you refued to answer me? Take an analogy that you like to use; chess. In chess, before you can castle you HAVE TO move at least on pawn, the bishop's. You are defending (against my argument), i.e., you are trying to castle. BEFORE you can do that you need to do something else, otherwise it makes NO SENSE to castle. Now, what you have to do here is to answer MY questions FIRST, because mine is the one needed to see whether we can debate or not.

You want me to debate, thus assume my position is false! You said I couldn't do that to you! You are unfare and have no answer. All your talk about the millenium is in the air. Because OTHER things would have to be there as well. You are focusing in on the things that YOU want to, but there are MORE! Like, if you are correct and the millenium is over then all those things you mentioned have happened PLUS there are NO LIARS in the city! Why are there liars in the city H.L.? Why? Why? Why? Furthermore, SOME things are going on, some are over, some still to happen: like the great apostacy. You cannot IGNORE something that YOU say is here NOW when I am trying to show that it isn't. H.L., how come when Josh brisby asked you at your house, "why is there an ocean outside your window if there is no more sea?" You said, "sea means gentiles." YOU ARE NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTION BECAUSE YOU DON"T HAVE ONE! On top of that, the CEREMONIAL law is gone, not the moral/civil/judicail/penal. So, I have no problem. You are dodging me! I thought this argument was good, but i didn't think it would make the infamous H.L. James speechless!

Now answer my questions. Now answer my charges that you have lied about me. Why would you do that? Is my argument so strong that you feel that you needed to go somewhere else and tell people that "I TEACH that we can be epistemologically equal to god." Quote me, Quote me, Quote me. Also, you say that after 70 a.d. former sins are remembered no more? Why, then, does David say, "Blessed is he who's sins the Lord removes as far as the east is from the west," and "blessed is who who's transgressions the lord remembers no more." this happened in the OC as well. Also, you think the "law was written on the heart AFTER 70 a.d.? Well, in Deut 6. it says, "TODAY (like the time text, (grin) my law shall be upon YOUR (like the auduebce relevence, grin) HEART! You have a very strange view of the covenants. But, alas, I am almost positive that you will refuse to answer me yet again. ATT:(!) Hps, you know H.L. is dodging. If not, then why have you guys tried to directly answer my questions? H.L. knows. he saw the SERIOUS reductios he will get into. If yu refuse to answer one last time, then we are done. -Paul


Date:
10 Jan 2004
Time:
18:07:45

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. You keep saying that your questions need to be answered first. If I answer your questions first, I have joined you in a "loaded" argument. It's just like if you were to say, "H.L. when did you stop visiting sea world." That "assumes" I've ever visited sea world. If I allow you to say "if we were in the New Heavens and New Earth, we wouldn't be discussing doctrine," I'm joining you in your unproven "assumption" that WE ARE NOT THERE. Do you understand? I CANNOT join your debate until you fix your argument. The ONLY way to do that is to show why "A DID NOT SAY B would happen P." As long as "A said B would happen P" remains unchallenged, WE ARE IN THE NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH and your argument remains LOADED. You must first PROVE that "A DID NOT SAY B would happen P." Saying "A said B would happen R" is not the same as saying "A DID NOT SAY B would happen P." Until you refute that, you are assuming its falseness. If I engage in your argument, I am essentially accepting your premise (which I patently reject as false). You think I'm dodging your questions. If that were the case, I wouldn't spend hours giving well-reasoned answers. I'd just say C-ya! And as far as you saying we would be epistemologically equal with God, I want you to think about your visit to Gene Cook's program and think about what you said on that program. The one where you said we'd someday be "perfect."

 Listen to the theology in your definition. Let's not get off the point though. We can discuss that also, but let's stay on the point that your Transcendental argument begs the question. It is "loaded." I must first "assume" we are not in the New Heavens and New Earth before it say "we must not be there because there are liars, etc." Do you see how your argument seeks to "support" an assertion that has never been proven by you." In other words, you would have first had to prove that we are NOT in the New Heavens and New Earth before you can say "see, this proves we're not." Do you get that? Your Transcendental "argumet" is only given in support of the thing you must first have assumed, which is that the New Heavens and New Earth are not here yet. Your argument goes like this: "The New Heavens and New Earth are not here yet and I'll prove it." You'd then have to start where the Preterist starts, with "A said B would happen P." You have to destroy the initial argument before it becomes false. That's because if the original argument stands, it contradicts whatever "evidence" you may find to the contrary. Thinking you see "liars" in the city doesn't answer the initial argument. It just means that you've misundersood what you see because the initial argument remains true.

Again, it's like if you were to say "your sister's new purple car is cool." and I answer, "My sister drives a yelow truck." I would be absurd for me to get into a discussion about where she purchased the purple car, because she DOESN'T HAVE ONE. You'd have to FIRST show me the purple car before I would get into a discussion about it. If you insisted I discuss a purple car my sister doesn't have, I would think you were losing it! You continue to want me to discuss an argument you don't yet have. If I discuss your "purple car," I'm admitting to the existance of a purple car, when I know there is no such thing. The burden is on YOU to prove that "A said B would happen P" is not true BEFORE you assume that "A said B would happen P" is not true. You have ASSUMED that the Preterist argument is false. You have not PROVEN it false. Until you prove that the events are not in the past, how can you ask that I discuss them as if they are not past? Jesus say they are. You haven't disproven Jesus yet. I'm looking at your word against that of Jesus. NOT my interpretation of the words of Jesus, I'm talking about the actual words of Jesus. They say you cannot be correct right out of the gate.

Until you show me how the words of Jesus don't mean what they are clearly saying, then your argument must be false. Jesus says we're in the New Heavens and New Earth. All you have to do is disprove that Jesus says that. It should be easy, since you believe we're not in the New Heavens and New Earth, I would expect you to already have a tight answer as to why the words of Jesus have been misunderstood by the Preterist. You should be able to form a tight, logical syllogism that shows everyone why. You would need to do that first. That's because words spoken over 1900 years ago, by someone superior to you, say that the New Heavens and New Earth are already here. Your words mean NOTHING in light of Jesus' words. You're asking me to believe that I've misunderstood Jesus words. You offer as proof your argument about the New Heavens and New Earth. You have to use as one of your premises the very thing you're trying to prove.

Your so-called Transcendental Argument may indeed have proof that we're not in the New Heavens and New Earth, but that doesn't deal with the words of Jesus. As it stands right now, your Transcendental Argument (if it were true) would simply prove Jesus a liar, because it doesn't deal with the WORDS of Jesus. Do you understand that? In other words, your argument says, "Okay, so Jesus said the New Heavens and New Earth would happen soon, quickly, and that it was at hand back then. Well, he must have been mistaken because I have evidence that we are NOT in the New Heavens and New Earth." Your argument doesn't show me why Jesus can be wrong and Christianity still be viable. If Jesus was wrong or lied, then Christianity is no longer viable as the truth and this entire discussion is moot. First, you HAVE to show me either, how Jesus could have been mistaken, or how Preterists have misunderstood the STATEMENTS of Jesus. I'm not interested in your assumptions until you can show me one of the two things I just mentioned. Once you show me 1.) How Jesus could be wrong about what he said, or 2.) How Preterists have misunderstood the WORDS Jesus used. Until you can explain one of these two things, NONE of your evidence to the contrary means anything. I can't trust your assessment because it goes against my understanding of the words of Jesus.

Until you can either show me how Jesus can have been mistaken and still remain Lord, or until you can show me how I have misunderstood time statements, your argument is just a distraction from the truth. It is loaded with assumption. Please, if you can tell me why "A said B would happen P" is actually "A did not say B would happen P," or how it is actually "A said B would happen R," then you and I can move foreward. If you cannot do that, then I have to go on believing that "A said B would happen P." And you should commend me for that level of committment to the words of Christ. Instead, you want me to throw them out the window. Shame on you, Paul.

 I'd like you to take the exchanges on this page between you and I and take them to a bona fide logic professor at a reputable univeristy. Or, you can have one visit the page. Here's what I'd like you to have that person do. I'd like you to have him/her review your argument, then have him/her review my answers to your argument. I want you to hear from a "professional" that your argument is currently broken in terms of its "loaded" nature. Will you do that for me? I want you to see that I am trying to have a meaningful debate with you but I would be "enabling" you to continue poor logic practices. If you'd like, you and I can spend some time going through the time statements of Jesus right here on this page. I could post just the statement, then you could tell me why it doesn't say what it appears to say or how I've misunderstood it. The posts could be short. We could do this while we're waiting for the logic professor to get back to you. What do you think? We won't discuss doctrine, I'll just post the time statements, and you can respond with why they don't say what they appear to say or how I've misunderstood them. I really think this would be a step in the right direction. Don't you? - H.L. James - www.AD70.com


Date:
10 Jan 2004
Time:
21:17:48

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. Okay, here is my first time statement: "Luke 21:23 "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people." [I understand the "this people" to be referring to the first century jews and their holy city. Is my interpretation correct in your view?]


Date:
11 Jan 2004
Time:
07:33:33

Comments

Hi Paul. MS Cheo here.

 I am a Preterist not because of what the Preterist School (if there is one) taught me. I 'become' one because of what I could read and understand of the Bible. I am a free man and I don't have to ascribe fully to what other Preterists may believe. I don't believe I am infallible, nor any other Preterists, Futurists or Christians in general are infallible. But God's Word is infallible. I just believe what the Bible said even if it is contrary to what Preterists or the whole world now believes.

My belief is that the New Jerusalem is still in Heaven. The resurrected Saints are living and reigning with Christ now (Rev 21:3, 22:5). We are now at the same point where the first century saints were before their resurrection - we are come "unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels" (Heb 12:22 )

Hence, like I said, there is no liars in Heavenly Jerusalem. But we, believers and non-believers (liars and murderers) are OUTSIDE the City. And as believers waiting for our redemption, we have come to Mount Zion, even unto the gate of New Jerusalem, waiting for our moment in eternity to be absent from our body and be present with the Lord.

MS Cheo.


Date:
11 Jan 2004
Time:
10:39:59

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. Something just occurred to me that I wanted to run by you. Your argument of "We must not be in the New Heavens and New Earth because there will be no doctrinal disagreements there and since there are doctrinal disagreements we cannot be in the New Heavens and New Earth," is very similar to the futurists argument that says: "The Rapture couldn't have happened yet because at the rapture the dead will come out of their graves, and since the dead are still in their graves, the Rapture cannot have happened yet." Now, Paul, let's just say that Jesus said the Rapture would happen within the generation alive at the time he spoke. And let's also say that Jesus cannot lie or be mistaken (which means that the rapture must have happened when Jesus said it did). How would you answer the futurist who gave you the argument that the Rapture MUST still be future based on their proof? Does their argument PROVE that the Rapture hasn't come yet, or just that they may have missed something in their investigation of the evidence? Just curious how you would respond to them. H.L. James -- www.AD70.com


Date:
11 Jan 2004
Time:
18:39:05

Comments

H.L., " Does ALL mean ALL in Rev. 21:8. This is loaded? I want you to go to a logic professor and ask him if that is a "loaded" question. It does not presuppose that we are in/or not in the NH and E. You have avoided me for the last time. You now try to intellectually bully me. What;s worse is that you refuse to answer a NON loaded question but rather mistate my question (remmber, q.#1 Does ALL mean ALL?) to say that I am asking you to answer 'If we are in the NH and E why are we debating. That's what I'm trying to PROVE by my simpler questions. You know this. Therefore, flat-out, you have been refuted. I PROVED that my question was not loaded. I asked THAT question at least 10 times. THAT is what you are avoiding. Why have you made my question a question I am not asking, YET. We will get there, but you were having trouble understanding and that is why i am trying to walk you throug something.

You have tried to make me look silly by referring me to a logic professor, but He would laugh at the refusal to answer a question, which wasn't even the question I am asking! I know that you know where my question leads, you have seen the reductios that have happened to the other HPs and that is why you are trying a different tactic. It's called, "pull the wool over the eyed tactic, or, rather, the "pay no attention to the man behind the mirror tactic." You know you will be on a serious horns of a dilema if you answer "does ALL mean ALL." Answer: NO!, o.k, then SOME enter into a place where NOTHING can enter. Or, "YES" o.k. it includes the group known as contradictors of Gods revelation. POINT 2: Quote the whole section of where I say "we will be prefect." We will in some senses. Define perfect, H.L.? I mean Jesus said, "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." Therefore Jesus taught that we can be epistemologically equal to God!!!! QED! You have spread lies about me, you have refused to answer a straight forward question. You have stated a question that I am not asking you to answer, then declared victory. I have answered the timing part. Jesus said the NH and E would come AFTER the millenium. We can debate it, of course, but I have bent over backwards to try to answer you. Even though I knew that you are doing all this as an avoidance tactic.

So, in conclusion (since this will be my last post-and you can respond now to what I have asked and when i don't respond you can declare victory, but it's not for those reasons. It is because you are debating shaddy) I would like to say that, (1) HPs why did H.L. mistate what i wanted him to answer? (2) why would he lie about me? (3) Why wouldn't he answer my questions (remember you can't take his above reason why becasue I have shown it to be false)? Is it becasue he knows that i have a point? You decide. Also, if Mike Krall is reading this, since I am done posting on your page as well. here is your refutation: You told me that you are now working on a third refutation You know what that tells me. That your first two are bogus. Your first one was called "Refuting the TAHHP." Now, if it did its job, why write two other ones? What you are doing tells me that you are not to confident in your own refutation. Anyway guys, its been fun. When i get done with my finals I will redue my TAHHP to include the "latest" ad-hoc "refutations"

You want me to debate the time texts, the A said B would P, etc, well i cannot, since this is a loaded question. You want me to assume that my argument is false. I am trying to argue that we wouldn't be debating in the NH and E, by allowing you to do this I have to assume that my argument is false (since you say that we are in the NH and W yet still debate, contradictiong my conclusion). Thus we see that it is not I who had the loaded question but rather it was you. H.L. my argument need not refute you, just tell all the HPs to stop debating us and agree on EVERYTHING, o.k.? You can still win, Harley, it is a pyrrhic victory though. So, all your hard work showing that we are in the NH and E came at the cost of not being able to show that we are in the NH and E! -Paul


Date:
12 Jan 2004
Time:
09:36:31

Comments

just to clear something up: Above I said "So Jesus taught that we can be epistemologically equal to God." That is not what I believe, I said that because H.L. would have to conclude that Jesus meant that since Jesus said that we should be perfect and H.L. said that I said we will be perfect (without quoting the context ar anything surrounding what i said). So I don't want anyone misreading what I wrote and thinking I am saying Jesus taught we can be epistemologically = to God. Also, here is the Anola Gay, H.L. Since I have shown that you have a CONTADICTION in your system, i.e., SOME liars being in a place where NOTHING unclean can enter then qwe can prove ANYTHING. I am sure you know, H.L. that from two contradictory premises we can come to ANY conclusion by a disjunctive syllogism. So, here is the Anola Gay: (1) There are NO liars in the city. (2) Either there are no liars in the city or HPism is wrong about when Jesus said he would return. (3) There are SOME liars in the city (contradicting premise 1. (4) Therefore, HPism is wrong about Jesus' comming. Since I have shown in this debate, over and over that you cannot have it both ways, i.e., either there are NO liars in the city, which includes the group known as teachers of contradictory doctrine, or there are SOME liars there in a place where NOTHING unclean can enter. And since my argument has went unaddressed, i.e., not dealing with the "ALL means ALL" and the, "O.K. ALL doesn't mean ALL, then SOME enter a place where NOTHING unclean can enter, then I am justified in the above disjunct and have PROVEN that H.L. James/HPism is wrong! (now, that really was my last post)-Paul


Date:
12 Jan 2004
Time:
11:43:58

Comments

-=[ PAUL MANATA'S STATEMENT: "...here is the Anola Gay, H.L. Since I have shown that you have a CONTADICTION in your system, i.e., SOME liars being in a place where NOTHING unclean can enter then qwe can prove ANYTHING. I am sure you know, H.L. that from two contradictory premises we can come to ANY conclusion by a disjunctive syllogism. So, here is the Anola Gay: (1) There are NO liars in the city. (2) Either there are no liars in the city or HPism is wrong about when Jesus said he would return. (3) There are SOME liars in the city (contradicting premise 1. (4) Therefore, HPism is wrong about Jesus' comming..." ]=-

 -=[ H.L. JAMES' RESPONSE: Paul, H.L. James here again. You keep insisting there is a contradiction in MY system. The "TA" is YOUR argument. I have rejected your premise that we are NOT in the New Heavens and New Earth because JESUS SAID we ARE in it. The Preterist view IS NOT that we are in the New Heavens and New Earth! The Preterist view is that "JESUS SAID" we are in the New Heavens and New Earth. If you construct an argument to refute the argument "Preterists say" we're in the New Heavens and New Earth, THAT'S A STRAW MAN. It's a NEW argument that the Preterist ISN'T ARGUING. Do you see the difference here? I can lie, JESUS CANNOT. Again, YOUR FIRST PREMISE in the TA is that "Preterists teach that we are in the New Heavens and New Earth." The PREMISE is broken. That's because Preterists DON'T TEACH that we are in the New Heavens and New Earth, we teach that JESUS SAID we are in the New Heavens and New Earth.

We simply BELIEVE and TEACH what JESUS SAID. In order to refute the ACTUAL ARGUMENT of the Preterist, you HAVE to refute the "JESUS SAID" part. Until you show how it is possible that "JESUS SAID," and yet WAS INCORRECT, your argument is useless because your argument is simply saying, "IT CANNOT BE." But JESUS SAID IT CAN BE AND INDEED IS. Your argument of "it cannot be," is a silly argument. It's like if I tell you that I am in California and you say "IT CANNOT BE." But Paul, I AM, and no amount of "it cannot be's" will make that untrue. I'm not asking you to show me how we CANNOT be in the New Heavens and New Earth, that is beside the point and makes no sense. I want you to show me how JESUS CAN BE WRONG in what He CLEARLY stated. I want you to show me WHY I should NOT BELIEVE JESUS. I don't want to hear, "You must have misunderstood Jesus." That begs the question and assumes that Jesus was saying something different than I believe he was saying! I want you to show me how JESUS CAN BE WRONG in the time statements. You MUST KNOW, since you reject them. You MUST KNOW how they "SHOULD" be understood, since you reject them.

When Jesus says THIS GENERATION, how do YOU understand those words? When Jesus tells John that He's COMING QUICKLY to reward every man according to his works, how do YOU understand those words? I say it means that Jesus was coming quickly to reward every man according to his works! Now show me how I have misunderstood that? Paul, if I HAVE NOT misunderstood it, then JESUS DID come quickly to reward every man according to his works. JESUS SAID THAT, yet YOU don't believe JESUS. The REALLY unfortunate part is that you have no REASON why you shouldn't believe Jesus, since He REALLY DID SAY THAT. You just DON'T believe Jesus and you ask the Preterist to do the same. The New Heavens and New Earth is what JESUS said those who overcame would inherit. As I have pointed out, your "argument" DOESN'T refute the Preterist assertion that "JESUS SAID." Do you understand this? Your argument is simply saying that what "JESUS SAID" didn't happen (i.e. "Jesus was wrong/lied/etc."). You then show "proof" that Jesus must have been wrong. You don't show proof that Jesus never made the statements because you know He did (I just quoted a couple. There are thirty or so more). You have not dealth with the assertion "JESUS SAID."

The Preterist wants to remain true to JESUS. Can't you see that. The Preterist believes that he/she is remaining true to their MASTER when we believe Jesus. You're asking the Preterist to ABANDON the clear words of THEIR MASTER and believe YOU (who are NOT their Master), yet you give us NO REASON why we should not believe what OUR MASTER said. You try to get around this by saying that "JESUS COULDN'T HAVE SAID THAT because "this, this and this." Paul, saying "Jesus couldn't have said that," or saying "you must have misunderstood Jesus," doesn't SAY anything. They are NOT arguments! Any statement that leaves the question, "Why not?" IS NOT AN ARGUMENT! I'll use your argument as an example. If you were to say "Jesus NEVER said the New Heavens and New Earth were to be established quickly after he gave the message to John,' THAT would be a conclusion that someone could sink their teeth into. Instead, you say that "Jesus COULDN'T HAVE SAID we are in the New Heavens and New Earth because WE'RE NOT IN the New Heavens and New Earth, and here's proof. But Paul, that doesn't deal with the fact that JESUS DID SAY THAT and it also ASSUMES the thing you're trying to prove.

Why is it so difficult for you to see the broken nature of the first premise of your so-called "TA?" Paul, Jesus says WE ARE in the New Heavens and New Earth. You say, "BUT WE CAN'T BE." Do you see how that's not an argument? In other words, look at it like this: Imagine I came up to you and said that Kevin told me he's your brother. You answer, "that can't be, Kevin is of Asian descent and I'm of European descent." Then, I say, "well, here's a document where Kevin swears under oath that it's true." And you answer, "well, it can't be." Then I say, "But Paul, here's a sworn affidavit where Kevin swears under oath that YOU ARE." And you answer, "That can't be a sworn afidavit because Kevin is not my brother." Then I say, "Paul, it's a sworn affidavit. Kevin says you're his brother."

Now Paul, your ONLY response at this point is to say that KEVIN LIED OR WAS MISTAKEN. Because YOU CANNOT refute the FACT that Kevin said it. Do you see this? You can argue all day long that Kevin lied, or was wrong, but you CANNOT argue that HE NEVER SAID IT. Now, what if Kevin were incapable of telling a lie? In other words, what if it were IMPOSSIBLE for Kevin to be wrong about it? Then, YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE HIS BROTHER, no matter WHAT you think to the contrary. Right? You would have to further investigate the situation to find out HOW you could be his brother, but you could NEVER say Kevin was wrong if you KNEW Kevin couldn't tell a lie. In the case of Jesus, He said what the Preterist claims He said. If He didn't, then the Preterist view would be EASY TO REFUTE. Instead, futurists are running for cover because they are on the ropes. They have NO ANSWERS because they can't deny that JESUS SAID what the Preterist says He said. You can't deny it either.

So Paul, now you do what every other futurist does, you duck and run, claiming your opponent didn't play fair, instead of standing up and facing the flaws in your argument. You remind me of so many novice philosophers, who explode on the scene with great visions of grandeur that they are going to be the next Bahnsen or Lewis, they take a couple of Greek classes, read a couple of chapters in some of the "popular" commentaries, and then they launch into an argument that gets them spanked. Now would be a good time to think about what you were really attempting to do with your "TA." 

I don't think you were trying to refute Preterism at all, because if it were the poison you claim it to be, you'd have more staying power than you exhibit. You want to be a fighter for the cause of the truth of God? You want to be a warrior for God's truth? Then Christian Up! Stay in the fight. Be brutally honest with your own arguments and skills. Don't attempt to be something you're obviously not. Be humble. You want to refute the Preterist view, don't you? Sure you do! You know why you do? Because you've already ASSUMED it's NOT TRUE! See why that reasoning is broken? I wish you would just fix your argument and keep the dialog going, but I think you know that it will lead you to the Preterist view and you're afraid of that. I just don't get why you would be afraid of God's truth. Don't leave the discussion Paul, that would be tragic. - H.L. James - www.AD70.com


Date:
12 Jan 2004
Time:
13:49:18

Comments

H.L., Ummmm, let's see, I'm ducking and running. O.K., then why did YOU make a big "what-to-do" about my "loaded question?" I refuted that. Now, did you respond in your LATEST letter? No, you kicked and ran. I will show by quoting this debate that you have ran.

[PAUL SAID] Pretend this is a debate. It is now my turn to cross examine. I ask you a question, and the audience is listening to see if you will answer it, or avoid it. Now give me just four questions and then you can ask four, sound good. I will ask my first now. H.L. when Rev 21:8 says that ALL liars will be outside the city does that mean ALL in that class (e.g., deniars of Christ, non followers of God's commandemnts, haters of therre brothers, and people who teach something which contradicts what God has revealed). Does it mean ALL of them. After you answer I will ask my next, then 3,4. You can ask your 4 and then we can take turns rebutting eachothers answers.

[H.L. SAID] You keep saying that your questions need to be answered first. If I answer your questions first, I have joined you in a "loaded" argument. It's just like if you were to say, "H.L. when did you stop visiting sea world." That "assumes" I've ever visited sea world. If I allow you to say "if we were in the New Heavens and New Earth, we wouldn't be discussing doctrine,"

Does everybody see. My previous question WAS NOT the question H.L. said I was asking. He then claims that I am the one dicking?!?!?! H.L. there you go, your own words refute you. All I asked was, does ALL mean ALL, i.e., ALL the members that the BIBLE defines as liars? So, point one fails. On top of that it is you who are begging the question. You want be to debate with you when it is my conclusion that if you were correct we would not be debating. Don't you see that. So, point one really fails. Point two, futurist run. No, I have answered ALL your questions it is YOU who are running. Maybe this is why YOU THINK they run. I am not running, I am opting not to continue in a debate where someone lied about me and REFUSES to answer the most serious reductio. Therefore, point two refuted.

Point three, "we are just following what Jesus said." C'mon, this is simplistic. I know that you THINK you are. jesus said OTHER THINGS would happen in the NH and E, like NO LIARS there. One way to lie is to teach doctrine which contradicts God's revealed word (e.g., the false prophets, the adders to the word, those who teach antinomianism). Now, since there are people who teach contradictory doctrine, in WHAT YOU THINK IS THE CITY, then we have a contradiction. Again, from contradictory premises we can prove any conclusion. Like this: (1) There are NO liars in the city. (2) Either there are no liars in the city or the HP INTERPRETATION of what Jesus said is wrong. (3) There are SOME liars in the city. (4) Therefore, the HP INTERPRETATION of what Jesus said is wrong. Therefore, point three...refuted. Point four: I teach that we can be epistemologically = to God because I said (on H.L.s authority without context) that we will be perfect.

Well Jesus said that we are to be perfect even as our heavenly father is. Thus, H.L. would have to conclude that Jesus Himself taught we could be epistemologiocally = to God. I have called you out for lying and also refuted your reason why my 'teaching" leads to that. Therefore, point four ...refuted. Point five: EVERY SINGLE ONE of your points. I can substitute ANY of them and sgow that you are wrong by using the disjunct.! Therefore, point five....refuted. Point six: "If your TA was the poison you claim then you would have more staying power." H.L. does this follow? Show me, logically, how this is not a non-sequitar? I'll do more though H.L. Here is what the Bible says: "Do not cast your pearls before swine." I believe that this debate has degenerated to this level. Uh-oh. .H.L., I have ran my TA by these men: Gene Cook, P. Andrew Sandlin, Rusty Entreken, Michael Butler (philosophy and apologetics prof @ BTS), my Pastor, Dr. Roberet Strimple, Dr. Scipione, etc.,. All of them have said that it was poison!

I know it is hard to give up your position because of how you have said that the ENTIRE CHURCH has been wrong. This is why you hold to it. IT HAS BEEN REFUTED. Your not being PERSUADED has no weight on its objectivity. Now, I have quelled the last objection having to do with me "ending the deabte." It is in the class of "casting pearls before swine." So now if you tell me to continue you are arguing with the Bible (hmmm, isn't THAT ironic, smile). I have shown that you have a contradiction. I have shown you by logic (disjuctive syllogism) that your interpretation is wrong. I have shown that you lied about me. I have shown that not continuing is fine, and indeed bad reasoning on your part to ask me to. I have shown that ALL means ALL in Rev 21:8, but not in the salvation passages. I have thrown doubt on the universal acceptance of time texts (cf. Ezekel 12).

I have shown that at least ONE of the things supposedly present, or rather, not present in the NH and E/City are present. So, you can do what every other HP does, get refuted and then continue to argue and then say that we run. H.L. just because you can move your fingers and type out things does not mean that you haven't been defeated. Even so, maybe I would have been inclined to continue if you had at least responded to my post showing how I didn't ask a loaded question (as you claimed)...but you STILL didn't...you ran. So, in closing I would like to say, H.L. I just don't get why you would be afraid of God's truth (that's what you closed with, smile). I mean, c'mon H.L., this is fallacious. most of your post was loaded. As if not continuing to deabte means that your afraid of God's truth!?!?! That's like, "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Your latest post shows that you have sunk to new lows. Anyway, as I said, when i get done with my finals I will write a new article answering the ad-hoc "refutations" of it. So, it cannot even be said that I ran! I am just postponing it. I need to study so I can be better at logic. like you. I'm young. I still need to study and learn, but THIS debate has not served HPism well.

You have failed to answer the questions and refutations and then used trickery to try and get out of answering. Now, as everyone can read, even your slippery ways of not dealing with them has come back to haunt you. I will end with one more example of YOUR broken logic. To say that if I keep dialog it will lead to HP is called a slippery slope. O.K.? My job is done. I have done all that I can. I have answerd (however poor I did) and YOU have not. Take care, and I do care for you H.L. Please come back into the fold. -Paul


Date:
12 Jan 2004
Time:
15:18:55

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here. Please read the following statement carefully. It is from your last post. And I quote: "On top of that it is you who are begging the question. You want be to debate with you when it is my conclusion that if you were correct we would not be debating. Don't you see that." Do you notice Paul, how you said "it is my conclusion that if YOU were correct we would not be debating?" Now, look closely at the phrase. You'll notice that you said: "if YOU were correct." Do you see that you said, "IF YOU WERE CORRECT?" Okay. The "YOU" in that sentence is the flaw with your argument! In order for your statement to be accurate, you'd HAVE TO SAY, "If JESUS WERE CORRECT." Please, please, please get the fact that it is NOT the Preterist who says we're in the New Heavens and New Earth! It is JESUS who says it. As I stated in my earlier post, when you say, "IF YOU WERE CORRECT" you are assuming that I'm saying "I AM CORRECT." I'm NOT saying that, nor is any Preterist. We are saying that JESUS is correct. In order to refute the ACTUAL ARGUMENT WE'RE MAKING, you'd have to rephrase your statement to read: "IF JESUS WERE CORRECT."

All I'm saying is that Jesus is correct because he can't lie. The next quote of yours shows that you know the Preterist argument has nothing to do with Preterists saying he's/she's "correct" and has EVERYTHING to do with the words of Christ. Again, here as elsewhere, you make an implicit confession that Jesus said the things Preterists say He said. And I quote: "Point three, 'we are just following what Jesus said.' C'mon, this is simplistic. I know that you THINK you are. Jesus said OTHER THINGS would happen in the NH and E, like NO LIARS there." Paul, you see how you said "you THINK you are?" THAT is the problem with your argument that I am trying as hard as I can to point out to you. Your statement "I KNOW THAT YOU THINK YOU ARE," begs the question. Your statement, "C'mon, this is simplistic," begs the question. You see how you didn't DISAGREE that Jesus made the time statements? You can't, because JESUS DID. Instead, you say that to simply BELIEVE what JESUS SAID, is "simplistic." Yes it is, Paul. It IS simplistic, which is BESIDE THE POINT (straw man). When the Preterist says he/she's taking Jesus at His word, you reply by saying "I know you THINK you are." Paul, WE ARE. Your statement that, "Jesus said OTHER THINGS would happen in the NH and E, like NO LIARS there," shows that you accept that statement of Jesus.

You clearly state that JESUS SAID OTHER THINGS about the New Heavens and New Earth. But Paul, how can you ACCEPT that Jesus said there would be no liars in the New Heavens and New Earth, and at the same time, REJECT what JESUS SAID about the TIMING OF IT? IT'S ALL TOGETHER IN THE SAME CHAPTER OF THE BIBLE! In fact, it's only a FEW VERSES APART!!! By your argument, I can see that you AGREE with the words of Jesus in this regard (i.e. "no liars"). What amazes me, Paul, is that in the same passage of Scripture, JESUS SAID, "I'm coming quickly and my reward is with me to reward each man according to his works." So you admit that you ACCEPT some of the words of JESUS, and yet you REJECT other words of JESUS from the SAME PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE! The Preterist is UNWILLING to do this. Paul, this is very disturbing, and it should disturb you and your "teachers" also. Somewhere, you got the idea that you should feel okay ripping God's word apart to fit your scheme. Who is teaching you this? I've just shown here for all the world to see, that you ACCEPT and REJECT portions of the SAME SCRIPTURAL PASSAGE. Here's the passage:

Revelation 22:12-15 "And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last." 14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie."

So Paul, do you believe that Jesus was "coming quickly" when he made this statement to John? You already ADMITTED that you ACCEPT the second part of the passage I just cited. Do you ACCEPT the first.

According to ALL OF YOUR WORDS ON THIS PAGE, you REJECT the first part of this passage from GOD's WORD!!! How can you do that? You MUST have a reason why you REJECT the WORDS OF JESUS when He says: "I AM COMING QUICKLY." So, let's break the above passage into two parts "V and N." "V" equals the words of JESUS "I am coming quickly." And "N" equals the words of JESUS "no liars in the city." Now, let's say that both V and N are located in the SAME PASSAGE of the Bible only two verses apart. Paul, are you saying that you REJECT "V" as being true, yet ACCEPT "N" as being true? Are you a Christian Paul? You've already stated that you ACCEPT that the "no liars in the city" part is TRUE. Yet you show by your arguments that the "I AM COMING QUICKLY" part is NOT TRUE. THEY ARE BOTH THE WORDS OF CHRIST!!! They're not even in different parts of the Bible! In my Bible, THEY'RE IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH!!!

Paul, please, before I get the impression that you are more sinister than you appear, please explain how you can argue the "no liars in the city" part as true, and IN THE SAME ARGUMENT, deny that the "I am coming quickly part is true?" Do you see why I won't engage you in your argument? It is absolutely FULL of cracks! This is probably the most horrific crack exposed yet! Paul, there's no getting around this one. This is too big for even you to squirm out of. You have agreed IN YOUR OWN WORDS, that you ACCEPT the "no liars in the city" part because you are DEFENDING IT AS TRUE in your Transcendental Argument.

Yet, your Transcendental Argument REFUTES AND DENIES where JESUS SAID just THREE VERSE BEFORE the verse you DEFEND, "BEHOLD, I AM COMING QUICKLY." Paul, how in the world can you do this with a strait face? Paul, you have GOT TO FACE THIS HEAD ON. Forget the "All" argument for a moment and LOOK AT THIS ISSUE! It is a HUGE problem for your argument. The only difference between you and I is that I ACCEPT THE ENTIRE PASSAGE AS TRUE, and YOU DON'T. Which one of us is correct? The Bible says it's THE PRETERIST. What do you have to say for yourself mister?

 The phrase, "but I think you know that it will lead you to the Preterist view and you're afraid of that" is not a slippery slope argument. It would have to be rephrased to be a slippery slope argument. My statement says "You're afraid of where you know it leads," NOT "it will lead to." See the difference?- H.L. James - www. AD70.com


Date:
12 Jan 2004
Time:
19:22:03

Comments

The commentators have absolutely destroyed your arguments in so many directions it is hard to count. They have done it scripturally. The have done it logically. They have shown that you even contradict your own creed. That you even contradict the partial preterist view. That you even contradict yourself.


Date:
12 Jan 2004
Time:
19:26:21

Comments

Paul - we are still waiting for you to tell us how this group that went through the TRIBULATION had NO LIES ON THEIR LIPS. PARTIAL PRETERISTS SAY THAT REVELATION 7 AND 14 ARE PAST EVENTS.

=== Revelation 7 4Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel. 15And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore, "they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them.

=== Revelation 14 1Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads. 5No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.


Date:
13 Jan 2004
Time:
08:45:10

Comments

H.L., I do not assume that Jesus was wrong. I said your INTERPRETATION was. Now, Jesus did come in JUDGMENT when He said he would. I have accounted for the first part of my "cracked" argument. Now, are you going to address mine? For all the other HPs, why does H.L. NOT answer, "Does ALL mean ALL?" You say he has destroyed my argument(?), well, how so when he hasn't even addressed it? You must find it disheartening that H.L. will not answer a question, "Does ALL mean ALL?" H.L. what about my quoting you that you said I was asking a loaded question and then I quoted my question which was not even the one you asked?

Do you think that embarrassment is going to just disappear? All you HPs, it must be a blow to see H.L. rephrasing my question, and then when I point it out and ask it again he still avoids it. It must b a blow to know that WHENEVER people ask you, "why are people still dying if we are in the NH and E?" And you guys simply say, "that means spiritual death." WHENEVER people ask, "WHy do people cry if we are in the NH and E?" And you simply say, "it means crying out for salvation." But when my argument is put forth it is NOT EVEN ATTEMPTED to be addressed! This is sad. I have now addressed the BIG part I had to, will H.L. finally address me? I don't think so. he will try and show how what I said is wrong, he will not address my argument head on. Look guys, maybe you guys don't like my answer, BUT AT LEAST I HAVE AN ANSWER(!), H.L. HAS NONE!!!......

Mike B, notice how they had no lie AFTER the robes were washed. AFTER they were before the throne of God. It was AFTER they died!....back to H.L., now I have shown that I don NOT accept some of the things that Jesus says and do not accept other things. Again I (the running futurist) have rose to the challenge, I have AGAIN answered H.L. James to show that I care about truth and the debate. Notice, how H.L. has INGNORED EVERY SINGLY ONE OF MY QUESTIONS. In a debate there is such a thing as cross examination. Now, I have refuted H.L.'s NEWEST ad-hoc attempt to get out of answering my questions. I have answered Mike X.. The futurist (who was accused as ducking and running) is the ONLY one answering questions here.

What about the "ending the debate means you're afraid of the truth." Hps how come no one has mentioned the embarrassment put forth there? H.L. how come you didn't answer me how that was a non-sequitar? You told me about the slippery slope (btw, it is) but not about that one? HPs how come H.L. won't respond to the embarrassment put forth regarding, "I teach we can be epistemologically equal to God." H.L. are you just going to pick and choose which refutations you will address? HPs, how come you haven't mentioned this is my getting defeated, logically and scripturally? H.L., how come I have answered the ALL parts about salvation and you have dropped that attempt to refute me? HPs how come you haven't mentioned this in H.L.s defeate of me? HPs why haven't you asked H.L. to anser a simple question, "does ALL mean ALL?" How come this evasion wasn't mentioned in H.L.'s defeat of me? HPs, how come you didn't mention the REASON H.L. gave for why he doesn't answer my question is because it is loaded, and then mention my showing that it wasn't loaded? You would think that H.L. would have addressed, wouldn't you?, since his REASON for not answering it was refuted. How come THAT wasn't mentioned in H.L.'s defeat of me?

Now, the BIGGEST CRACK in my argument, i.e., "Jesus said he would come quickely" has been answered by pointing out that he did, in judgemen. When H.L. AGAIN doesn't answer me will you mention THAT in his defeat of me? Also, show me where I contradict myself (seeing as I never said I didn't believe "N" but rather everything that was said to happen)? Show me where I contradict my creeds? Show me where i contradict partial preterism (even though I tend more towards and idealist approach/partial preterist approach)? Show me, don't just assert....anyway. I have done all I can, i.e., I answered and H.L. did not. So I guarentee that this is my last post. -Paul


Date:
13 Jan 2004
Time:
16:10:48

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. Are your professors and the other futurists who's ears you have bent with your broken TA watching the posts on this page? They should be. If they were, they'd see that you continue to dig yourself deeper into a hole that you will not be able to climb out of. Let me illustrate what I mean...

Do you teach your friends on the other bulletin boards you frequent, that Jesus came in judgment as He said he would in the Revelation? You know the bulletin boards I'm talking about. The ones where people are always patting you on the back about how great your Transcendental Argument is. The boards where you lament your constant struggles against those heretical HP's. Do you tell them that you AGREE that Jesus came in judgment WHEN He said He would?

Here again, you have AGREED to something that destroys your so-called Transcendental Argument. Think about it for a second. Here is your latest admission, only this time, it is not implicit, it is thoroughly EXPLICIT. You stated in your last two posts, and I quote:

"H.L., I do not assume that Jesus was wrong. I said your INTERPRETATION was. Now, Jesus did come in JUDGMENT when He said he would."

Paul, aside from the fact that the assertion "your INTERPRETATION was [wrong]" has never been proven, aside from that, here, in your last couple of posts to me, you have ADMITTED that Jesus came in judgment WHEN HE SAID HE WOULD. Did you just admit that? I'm going to show you in a moment why that admission DESTROYS your argument. By YOUR OWN WORDS you have refuted your OWN ARGUMENT. You probably don't even see that yet. That's okay. When I'm finished with this post, it will be PAINFULLY clear to you.

So, again, you have AGREED that Jesus came in JUDGMENT when He said He would (I'm amazed you've even admitted to this because of how devastating it will be to your argument). Then, in the second post, you state, and I quote: "Now, the BIGGEST CRACK in my argument, i.e., 'Jesus said he would come quickly has been answered by pointing out that he did, in judgment."

So Paul, YOU AGREE THAT JESUS DID COME IN JUDGMENT. Okay, so now, HERE IN FRONT OF GOD AND THE WHOLE WORLD, you AGREE, that JESUS DID COME IN JUDGMENT. Excellent! Now, let's create a "variable" and call it "G." A "variable" is kind of a "box" that holds things. In this case, the box will be the judgment. "G" will represent the Judgment mentioned in Revelation 22, verse 12. You have already ADMITTED that THIS PARTICULAR JUDGMENT, the ONE IN THIS PARTICULAR VERSE, happened BACK THEN OVER 1900 YEARS AGO.

So, YOU ADMIT THAT "G" IS A PAST EVENT. Remember, you've ALREADY AGREED IT HAPPENED. Okay, "G" represents the judgment you agree took place back when Jesus said it would. Also, you AGREE THAT JESUS SAID THIS JUDGMENT WOULD TAKE PLACE BACK THEN. Let me refresh your memory so that everyone is CLEAR on what you said.

You stated, and I quote: "Jesus did come in JUDGMENT when He said he would." See how you used the words "DID" and "WHEN" in your statement? These are TIME statements. They imply PAST status. So, you've stated that Jesus DID come in judgment WHEN He said He would. So you're agreeing that He said He WOULD come BACK THEN and you admit and agree that HE DID COME "BACK THEN" in this "judgment," AS HE SAID HE WOULD.

Okay, so again, we're calling the judgment you say happened back when Jesus said it would, we're calling that judgment "G."

Now, "G" is like a box, containing in it, certain elements that cannot be removed from "G." If you ACCEPT "G," you accept the ENTIRE box and everything it contains in it. One element, which you've already AGREED that the box called "G" contains, is it's PASTNESS. In other words, you ADMIT that the "judgment" in verse 12 of Revelation 22, HAPPENED BACK THEN. You have already stated for the record that this judgment is past. You also stated that Jesus said IT WOULD BE accomplished BACK THEN. So you've AGREED TO "G." In other words, you've accepted the package called "G" into your possession in its entirety, including the following elements: "the fact that it happened" and "the fact that Jesus said it would happen.".

So imagine you are now holding a box, and on the box is a HUGE letter "G." You have ADMITTED HERE BEFORE THE WORLD, that this "box" is the judgment that JESUS SAID would come BACK THEN (the one spoken of in Revelation 22, verse 12). Since you have ACCEPTED the box (the judgment contained in verse 12 of Revelation 22), you have ACCEPTED everything that happens to be "in the box." If you haven't ACCEPTED EVERYTHING in the box, you have not "accepted the box." Accepting the box, necessitates that you ACCEPT EVERYTHING IN THE BOX (since the "box" represents a past set of events that cannot be altered). If you REJECT ANYTHING IN THE BOX, YOU REJECT THE BOX, since EVERYTHING IN THE BOX is IN THE BOX. If you REJECT THE BOX, then you REJECT Revelation 22, verse 12. If you reject Revelation 22, verse 12, then your statement that you ACCEPT this verse is a lie, since you cannot both ACCEPT and at the same time REJECT the same verse.

So, are you ready to open the box called "G" and see what you've accepted? Good thing your parents didn't name you "Troy."

The first thing we see in this verse is a "reward." Jesus says, "My reward is with Me." So we know, that if Jesus DID come in judgment WHEN he said He would, He would have HIS REWARD WITH HIM at THAT EVENT. So the obvious question is, "What is the reward that Jesus would have with him?" Whatever the reward is, it MUST BE CONTAINED IN "G," since we've already agreed that "G" represents Revelation 22, verse 12 (which you admitted here before God is a past event).

So, what did Jesus say His reward would be AT THAT JUDGMENT? It will soon be irrefutably clear what the "reward" would be (even though Jesus says it in verse 14 of Revelation 22, just two verses away from the one you say you accept as past).

The phrase, "to give to everyone according to his work" is the key to the "reward" we're looking for. In Matthew 16, verse 27, Jesus says

"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works."

Okay, so we see the phrase "He will reward each according to his works." Notice that language is conspicuously similar to the language used by Jesus to describe the judgment Jesus mentions in the Revelation where Jesus was going to "reward each according to his works." Where do we see this language elsewhere in Scripture? We find it in Paul's letter to the Romans, where he tells us EXACTLY what the "reward" would be.

Watch what the Apostle Paul says:

[Romans 2:5-9 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who "will render to each one according to his deeds": 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness -- indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;"]

Paul, cold this be the SAME judgment spoken of in the Revelation? If it is, then that means when JESUS said "MY REWARD IS WITH ME," he was talking about ETERNAL LIFE or ETERNAL DAMNATION.

Let's look at it another way: we have shown that "G" contains the concept "will reward every man according to his works." In fact, the passage ACTUALLY SAYS THAT in Revelation 22, verse 12. So, Paul, you AGREE that "G" is a past event and if Jesus came in judgment as you claim He did, you would agree that it is reasonable to expect that He came with His "REWARD" to give to EVERY MAN according to his works. Wouldn't you agree that this is a reasonable expectation based on the fact that Jesus ACTUALLY SAID that is what would happen? You've already ADMITTED that the judgment in verse 12 of chapter 22 of the Revelation is a past event and you can't go back on what you've already AGREED TO.

I've just shown that the box called "G," the "judgment" you've ALREADY ADMITTED IS A PAST EVENT, also contains it it a "REWARD." I've already shown from the Apostle Paul's writings that the REWARD was to be ETERNAL LIFE or ETERNAL DAMNATION.

But wait a minute, isn't that the SAME judgment spoken of in Revelation 19? Isn't eternal life and eternal damnation the rewards that are handed out at that judgment? They CERTAINLY ARE. So, when Jesus says "My reward is with Me," He's talking about Eternal Life or Eternal Damnation? He CERTAINLY IS. He was going to "give to each man according to what he had done." The Apostle Paul finishes the statement by saying,

"who "will render to each one according to his deeds": 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness -- indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;"

So, Paul, YOU HAVE AGREED that JESUS CAME QUICKLY as He promised. But what was Jesus supposed to be carrying WITH HIM when he came in judgment? REWARDS! What were those rewards? ETERNAL LIFE AND ETERNAL DAMNATION.

So Paul, are you SURE you AGREE that the judgment in Revelation 22, verse 12 IS PASSED? Are you sure you've REALLY agreed to "G?" Let's dig deeper.

I've shown that "G" contains the handing out of rewards (IT IS RIGHT THERE IN THE SAME VERSE YOU SAY YOU AGREE HAPPENED ALREADY). So, Paul, did Jesus, at the judgment YOU AGREE HAPPENED BACK THEN, hand out REWARDS to EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS? Jesus SAID He would. DID HE? I mean, you ALREADY ADMITTED it was a past event, right? And I've just shown that the REWARDS cannot be "taken out of the box called 'G.'" If you AGREE to "G," then you AGREE TO EVERYTHING IN "G" and THEREFORE, you MUST agree that Jesus HANDED OUT REWARDS. If you don't, then you don't ACCEPT "G" as true.

The Apostle Paul said that on the day when Jesus was to "give to every man according to his works," there would be REWARDS. The Apostle Paul says that those REWARDS would be ETERNAL LIFE AND ETERNAL DAMNATION. So, Paul, did Jesus hand out ETERNAL LIFE AND ETERNAL DAMNATION at the judgment YOU SAY IS PAST? If NOT, then YOU REJECT THIS PASSAGE and conclude that it is NOT TRUE.

Didn't Jesus also say that there would be ANGELS at this event where he was to "give to every man according to his works?" That's what He said in Matthew 16, verse 27 and again in Matthew 24, 30-31? Don't we see this AGAIN in Matthew 25, verse 31? Of course we do. So were there ANGELS present when you say JESUS CAME IN JUDGMENT as and WHEN he said he would? There were supposed to be, according to the BIBLE.

So Paul, is THIS the judgment YOU AGREE IS PAST? The one where Jesus was to "give to each man according to his works?" If you say "NO," then you have REJECTED the judgment spoken of in Revelation 22, verse 12 that JESUS SAID was COMING QUICKLY, and have REJECTED the words of Christ.

Remember Paul, the REWARD that Jesus said was WITH him when he came QUICKLY, was ETERNAL LIFE. But wait a minute, isn't this the SAME judgment spoken of in Chapter 20 of the Revelation? Isn't this the Great White Throne judgment? It MUST be, since it is HERE that the dead are judged and ETERNAL LIFE is given according to... uh... according to... hold on... wait a minute... as I read the passage from Revelation 20, I find the following verse:

(Revelation 20:12-13) "And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And THE DEAD WERE JUDGED ACCORDING TO THEIR WORKS, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And THEY WERE JUDGED, EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS."

Paul, it's the SAME JUDGMENT you say is a PAST EVENT!!! Is EVERYBODY CATCHING THIS? Paul, what in the world are you doing arguing theology? You don't even have a clue WHAT YOU BELIEVE! Doesn't that bother you? The VERY JUDGMENT you have AGREED TO, has DESTROYED YOUR ARGUMENT. You've AGREED to a judgment that contains as one of the rewards, THE NEW HEAVEN AND NEW EARTH! You say that the judgment is past but the New Heavens and New Earth is FUTURE!!! Do you see how that's impossible based on YOUR OWN ADMISSION?

Still not convinced that the judgment YOU ADMIT IS PAST is the one where ETERNAL LIFE is given? Still want to argue that THIS IS A DIFFERENT JUDGMENT? Okee dokee... in Chapter 21 of the Revelation, just a few verses from the ones you say you AGREE ARE PAST, Jesus says:

"Revelation 21:6-8 "And He said to me,"It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. 7 He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. 8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

Paul, doesn't this sound EXACTLY LIKE the verses in chapter 22? It's all talking about the SAME THING. Paul, by your OWN ADMISSION, the judgment that was supposed to bring the NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH is past. You already agreed to it.

Now is your moment of truth. Now is your moment to show the world if you really care about God and His Word. You have admitted here on the Preterist Archive, for all to see, that you believe that the judgment spoken of in verse 12 of Revelation 22, is a PAST event. You have agreed to a judgment that was supposed to carry with it REWARDS to "each man according to his works." That's EXACTLY WHAT THE PASSAGE ITSELF SAYS.

Now, lover of God, lover of His Word and His Truth, are you willing to concede that the judgment YOU HAVE AGREED is past, also carries with it REWARDS to "each man according to his works?" Are you willing to concede that the REWARD was to be eternal life and eternal damnation? At this point Paul, you have nowhere to go. You have already openly agreed that Jesus came in judgment just as He said He would. Now, all you have to do is agree with Jesus that he brought with Him His REWARD and He gave to "each man according to his works." We know from the verses I've cited here that "giving to each man according to his works" was the great white throne judgment, because that is exactly what happens at the Great White Throne judgment.

You say this judgment is past. You've ALREADY admitted it essentially. Why don't you just come out and admit it publicly. What in the world do you have to lose? You've already been found out publicly. All you have to say is, "You know H.L., I can't refute what you're saying. I did say that the judgment is past, and you've shown me H.L. that the rewards to "each man according to his works" MUST be eternal life and eternal damnation, and since I already agreed it is a past judgment, I must also agree that it is the great white throne judgment where eternal life and eternal damnation were handed out as rewards."

Paul, wouldn't THAT be easier than trying to come back in here and "defend" the position you've put yourself in? This is Check Mate Paul. You have nowhere to go from here. If you say that Jesus is speaking of a DIFFERENT JUDGMENT than the one in Revelation 20 and Matthew 16, 24, and 25, then you contradict the words of Jesus in Revelation 22 (each man according to his works) and call Jesus a liar. If you say that "My reward is with Me" and "each man according to his works" means a different reward other than Eternal Life and Eternal Damnation, then you contradict Paul the Apostle and call him a liar.

Why not accept that you have agreed that the judgment is past? Why not just agree that the judgment you AGREE is past carried with it "rewards" of eternal life and eternal damnation? You have already done that anyway. Now, why not just come out and say it? You've already said it Paul.

This is your chance to escape the maze of insanity that is the futurist view. Look at what trying to defend futurism has forced you to do? You've been forced to contradict yourself publicly and say that the judgment is past but all the things that judgment contains in it (IN THE EXACT SAME VERSE) ARE STILL FUTURE.

Even if you are afraid to face the faults in your logic, I pray that others who are caught up in the lie of futurism will see how you have been forced to step all over yourself trying to defend it and, as a result, will abandon it as the empty, unBiblical bag of wind that it is. Please study what I've said here very carefully.

You agree that the judgment is past, by your own admission. Now, have the courage of a true warrior of Christ and admit that you've agreed.

 -- H.L. James - www.AD70.com


Date:
16 Jan 2004
Time:
09:19:12

Comments

H.L., I just started reading you paper. I just wanted to say two things that I have noticed. H.L., you said that I say that "The preterist believe that we are in the NH and E rather than Jesus says that." You then said that I "didn't deal with why they say that, i.e., because of the time texts (for one reason)." I hope that I don't sound rude and I am not trying to be an ass here, but if you read my TAAHP, towards the top I actually did say that you believe it "based on the time texts." I even used some HP lingo, such as, "Don't you think Jesus knows how to tell time?" And I quoted "This generation," and 'The end of ALL things is at hand." etc.

I think out of charity you should admit that and at least edit what you said. So your claim that I didn't show "WHY the preterists believe these things is wrong." And secondly, I was actually using Rev. 21:8,27 in my argument. You said that I am using 22:15. So by saying that I based it of 22:15 is wrong (cf. TAAHP). Also, I said (below) that i agreed that Jesus came in judgement in 70 a.d. I never said that I believed that based on Rev 22 (could you please quote me where I said that?) So, as I said, I just started reading it, but those two things are wrong. Lastly, you changed it to "discussing theology" rather that debating doctrine/theology. This may seem small but actually your phrasing makes it weaker. Two people can "discuss" things without contradicting eachother. You should make it the stronger version, i.e., debating contradictory doctrinal positions."

(1) I DID give reasons WHY you believe it. (2) Deal with 21:8,27 please(or at least say that is what I based it off instead of changing it to 22:15). (3) Change my phrase into the stronger of the two, please. I would appreciate if you could do this please. Now can you also put this valid syllogism in your paper as well (which you never delt with)? (1) If we are in the Nh and E(/city) then we would not be debating doctrinal issues (based of all the work I did showing that NO liars included those who teach false doctrine...until refuted ALL LIARS includes those who debate contradictory doctrinal positions). (2) We are debating contradictory doctrinal positions (this is obvious, and therefore, true). (3) Therefore, we are not in the NH and E(/city). This IS a valid form. Premise 2 IS true. Premise one is what needs to be shown false. I have argued for its truth, and for now claim its truth (since IT hasn't been refuted). As you know this would make it a SOUND argument. This LOGIC would need to be addressed. It is valid, only premise ONE needs to be debated, once that is shown to be true then you have to say, logically, that it is a sound argument. Thank you and God bless. -Paul


Date:
16 Jan 2004
Time:
09:51:56

Comments

Now, I'm done reading it. H.L. you did not address the argument. You used verses which I didn't use in my TAAHP. You didn't bring up the ALL doesn't mean ALL then how can SOME (contradiction by an E and an I statement) enter into a place where NOTHING (E statement) can enter. I am saddened by the fact that you think that if the TAAHP is true than Christianity is a fraud. You see, if you say that then you do not have the transcendentals to say that, Christianity would still be true otherwise you would have no standard to say that it wasn't! Note to all you HPs: you don't need to give up your Christianity. Note to HPs: My valid/sound argument has NEVER been dealt with. HL has committed the fallacy of ignoratio ellanchii (sp?). Also, I have made up a new fallacy: the "don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain" fallacy. My argument has not been addressed. If we are in the NH and E(/city) then we would not be debating contradictory doctrinal positons. We are debating contradictory doctrinal positions. Therefore, we are not in the NH and E(/city). This is a valid form. Premise two is true. Premise one was shown to be true (cf. the TAAHP). Thus it is SOUND. That is, the conclusion NECESSARILY follows from the premises. -Paul


Date:
16 Jan 2004
Time:
12:12:44

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. You've obviously missed the thrust of my article. The thrust of my article deals with your words. Things YOU admitted to. So let's get right to it, shall we? You stated in your most recent posts, and I quote: "And secondly, I was actually using Rev. 21:8,27 in my argument. You said that I am using 22:15. So by saying that I based it of 22:15 is wrong (cf. TAAHP). Also, I said (below) that i agreed that Jesus came in judgement in 70 a.d. I never said that I believed that based on Rev 22 (could you please quote me where I said that?)" Paul, do you notice in the above passage that you say that you "agreed that Jesus came in judgment in 70 a.d.?" Okay, that is an admission. It is an agreement upon which an argument can be established. What I've done is essentially clear away all the smoke and confusion or your TAAHP and get right into your head and to the bottom of the issue. Now I have YOU stating that "Jesus came in judgment in 70 a.d." You've done it yet again. Now, the question is, where did this conversation about Jesus coming in judgment begin? It began with some comments I made in my post above, dated 12 Jan 2004 at 15:18:55, in which I show you a verse in which Jesus says "Behold, I'm coming quickly." Then I said that you reject that verse.

You then came back and defended yourself by stating, and I quote: "H.L., I do not assume that Jesus was wrong. I said your INTERPRETATION was. Now, Jesus did come in JUDGEMENT when He said he would." Paul, notice how your response is in DIRECT RESPONSE to my earlier challenge. You came back to show me why you ACCEPT the words of Jesus in Revelation 22:12, that I had previously accused you of REJECTING. I was very clear on the location of the verses in question. You KNEW EXACTLY what verses I was speaking of because I mention them over and over again in my post. In other words, you were saying that the judgment mentioned in REVELATION 22:12 (which is the verse I gave you) was a past event. Notice how you're now trying to dance around that? You're now saying that you were talking about SOME OTHER verse. Sorry, that's not true. All I've done was show that the judgment YOU'VE AGREED IS PAST, contains "rewards" and "to every man according to his works." You agreed that this judgment is past. You've IMPLICITLY agreed that the "reward" to EVERY one according to their works is PAST. Paul, please get this: Jesus said "MY REWARD IS WITH ME" in the passage you say is a past event. Jesus said He had His reward with Him "TO GIVE TO EVERY ONE ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS."

Paul, you've already agreed to this THREE TIMES NOW IN PRINT. Now that you've agreed to this, it is now on YOU to show how this judgment THAT YOU AGREE IS PAST, isn't the one that brings with it the New Heavens and New Earth. If you cannot show this, then you argument that we're NOT in the New Heavens and New Earth is dead, regardless of what you think you see. You keep accusing me of using fallacies you don't understand an in some cases can't even spell. Please stop doing this. If you want to accuse me of a fallacy, please look it up, make sure that's the one you think I'm committing, and make sure you know how to spell it. One other thing; mentioning that the Preterist holds to the time texts of Jesus doesn't show WHY the Preterist believes the way they believe. The Preterist believes the time statements because JESUS CANNOT LIE. You NEVER state this in your argument.

In other words, you glibly throw out the phrase about God being able to tell time and then accuse the Preterist of "misunderstanding" the words of Jesus and you use a very faulty argument to "prove" your case. In an earlier post, you state the following argument, "(1) There are NO liars in the city. (2) Either there are no liars in the city or HPism is wrong about when Jesus said he would return. (3) There are SOME liars in the city (contradicting premise 1. (4) Therefore, HPism is wrong about Jesus' comming..." Now, Paul, look again at that argument and tell me what's wrong with it. Do you see it? It's in your second premise and again in your conclusion. The statements "HPism is wrong about when Jesus said he would return" and "HPism is wrong about Jesus' coming" are broken statements. Can you see how? Look closer. The "break" in your logic is when you say "HPism is wrong about." Do you see that? In other words, the original argument you're concluding would flow like this: "Jesus said He would return at a certain time." That is implicit in your statement.

The math would look like this: "A said B would happen P." You've already agreed that "A said B would happen P." In other words, JESUS said HE WOULD COME when? WITHIN THAT GENERATION. To do WHAT? JUDGE. Whom? THE LIVING AND THE DEAD. How many places in Scripture record this? TOO MANY TO DISPUTE. He indeed SAID it. But then, you say that the Preterist is WRONG about "A said B would happen P." That doesn't make any sense logically. That's because, all the Preterist is saying is that JESUS SAID B would happen P. That's the ENTIRE Preterist argument. The whole point behind the Preterist view is to preserve the words of Christ. If, as you say, "HPism is wrong about Jesus' coming," then you're saying Jesus was wrong about His coming. Your argument flows along this logical (illogical) path: "A said B would happen P, the Preterist says that 'A said B would happen P, 'I see 'E,' which is not supposed to exist if B,' ' 'B must not have happened P,' therefore the Preterist is mistaken." Paul, do you see how your perceived existance of "E" doesn't refute the argument of the Preterist and make him/her wrong? Do you see how "A said B would happen P" is still valid on the part of the Preterist? Just because you see "E," which you say isn't supposed to exist if "B happened P," doesn't mean the Preterist is incorrect about the claim that "A said B would happen P." It just means that "B didn't happen P." But the Preterist didn't say it would. The Preterist simply said that "A" said it would. "A" represents Jesus, who the Preterist says cannot lie. The Preteris says that if "A" said something was supposed to happen "P," then it MUST HAVE HAPPENED P and your argument must be flawed. That's all the Preterist is saying. Now back to the issue at hand. Paul, you have agreed that Jesus said the judgment in Revelation 22:12 is a past event. You have implicitly agreed the term "Behold I am coming quickly" means Jesus was "coming" quickly.

You have agreed implicitly that Jesus would "reward each one according to his works" at that "coming." Paul, please understand that if the New Heavens and New Earth are here already, which YOU AGREE THEY ARE (implicitly), the YOUR ARGUMENT IS DEAD. It's just that simple. You think you see "liars" INSIDE THE CITY. You are WRONG. So, go back to the drawing board and first determine why the judgment you AGREE is past, DIDN'T bring with it the New Heavens and New Earth, and PLEASE don't say "IT COULDN'T HAVE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT IN THE NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH." That begs the question and assumes the thing you're trying to prove. You AGREE Jesus came quickly. You have declared this before the entire world. You have AGREED that it is the coming mentioned in Revelation 22:12.

Your TAAHP is therefore logically impossible. Now show why Jesus could have come quickly AS YOU AGREE HE DID, and how His reward DOESN'T INCLUDE the establishment of the New Heavens and New Earth. You want a way out of the mess you're in? This is the only way to do it now that you've agreed Jesus came quickly. Every other element of your TAAHP is now on the back burner. You must first show how your own admission doesn't implicitly included in it the New Heavens and New Earth, because as it stands right now, you've agree to the establishment of the New Heavens and New Earth, whether you want to openly admit that or not, you've done it. And until you "undo" it, your argument is dead. - H.L. James - www.AD70.com


Date:
16 Jan 2004
Time:
18:33:37

Comments

H.L. thanks for taking the time to respond to me. I would still actually need my argument that I gave (above) to be refuted (the valid denial of the consequent). Could you please do that for me(?), that would help me. also, I do understand what you are trying to say but I don't think it's that simple. As you told me, "If you had refuted the time texts it would make the front page." Now, many PPs hold that Jesus came in judgment in 70 a.d. (indeed so do idealists) but they don't follow it to the conclusion that you do.

If you think what you did to me was to refute how one can say that Jesus came in judgment in 70 and therefore, the HP system is unavoidable then that would have made the front page. All we have done is to contradict each other. So can you please deal with the VALID argument I posted? And, you are correct, I don't see liars in the city, because we are not in the city. If we were then we would not be debating contradictory doctrine since the one who teaches contradictory doctrine teaches a lie (cf. Prov. 30:6, and ALL the passages about false prophets in the OT, and the 1st John passages about antinomian teaching), since we are debating contradictory doctrine we cannot be in the city. Also, i hope this isn't to much to ask, but can you please address those areas that you committed libel in, i.e., saying I never mentioned the time texts and Rev 21:8,27.

Furthermore, H.L., your paper was to address my TAAHP, it was in THAT that I used 21:8,27. I'm not sure that I can make the same point about ALL liars from 22:15, since that has some qualifiers that are (as you correctly stated) troublesome. So, I will ask again, can you please address my VALID(/sound) argument? Remeber you need to prove that P1 is false, if you do not then it is a hammer-blow, since that would make it sound. Anyway, I appreciate all the hard work you are doing along with my iron that is being sharpend. Also, I appreciate the logic lessons since I need to learn more. btw, I know that you and the other HPs think that you have refuted my argument, but for us "futurists" we are having a hard time seeing it because of the valid/sound argument that has been ignored. Anyway, I hope you are doing well and again thatnks for your time and graciousness towards me.

One more thing, and I hate to be bothersome, H.L., in your donut paper you said that I "unwisely base my argument on 'whosever loves and practices a lie.'" I was just wondering if you could, out of a desire to correctly represent people, quote me where I say that? I know that is what YOU want me to base it on but actually as my paper, the one you were supposed to be refuting, shows I based it on 21:8,27. I would appreciate if you would omit this libel (along with the part about "Manata does not say WHY we believe what we believe" when in fact i did. This would go a long way in making me feel better about you saying that I teach that we can be epistemically = to God. That, plus the others is making me have thoughts that I would rather not, I want to think the best of you H.L. ...Anyway, back to dealing with my above post. Thanks for taking the time to read this post and I do hope that you can man-up to these charges. (I hope all that didn't sound rude, it was not my intention to do so). His servent -Paul


Date:
16 Jan 2004
Time:
19:27:08

Comments

Paul, I'm in the process of writing an article that goes right to the heart of P1 of your argument as you have asked me to do. What I would like to know from you is, "Do you consider those who tell lies liars?" I know you consider those who debate doctrinal issues liars, but do you consider those people who tell lies liars? In other words, let's say there's a set "W," and in it are all the possible liars in the world past present and future, including anyone who tells a lie. Okay, so "W" represents the set of ALL LIARS, meaning everyone who has ever lied, which includes anyone who has ever lied or ever will lie. Is the "all liars" you use in your argument, let's call that set of liars "Q," is "Q" equal to the set I've described and called "W?" In other words, are you saying that every liar that ever existed is excluded from the Holy City? If your answer is yes, just state it. If it is no however, I need you to show me why and how "all liars" doesn't mean "all liars." In other words, if you say that "some liars repent, are forgiven and therefore would enter the city (i.e. the Apostle Peter)," I need you to explain for the record how the term "all liars are outside the city" should be understood. In other words, if the Apostle Peter told a lie, would you consider him a liar? Based on the definitions you gave above in your argument, you would have to include Peter in the group of "all liars." I need you to explain just briefly how "all liars" doesn't include the Apostle Peter (and the Apostle Paul for that matter since they disputed certain doctrinal issues).

 I'm assuming you believe the Apostle Peter would be in the New Jerusalem. I also want to ask you to avoid the statement "we will all reach the unity of the faith by that time." The reason I want you to avoid that statement is because "all liars" would mean liars no matter what they were lying about.

In other words, if you state that "there will be no liars because we will have reached the unity of the faith," that doesn't address those liars who, for example, lie about their age, or lie about their education, or lie about their credit status or their job history: things that have nothing to do with their "faith." In other words, you use the term "all liars" in a certain way. You have shown that it MUST include literally ALL LIARS. So my question is, does the ALL LIARS say is present in Revelation 21 literally include ALL LIARS? And if not, why not? Something very brief and to the point if you wouldn't mind. It would really help me collect my thoughts for my newest article. - H.L. James - www.AD70.com


Date:
16 Jan 2004
Time:
20:00:14

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. I wanted to post this seperately from the above because I think it is a very important point for all to see. In your post above, you make the following statement, and I quote: "Furthermore, H.L., your paper was to address my TAAHP, it was in THAT that I used 21:8,27. I'm not sure that I can make the same point about ALL liars from 22:15, since that has some qualifiers that are (as you correctly stated) troublesome." Paul, are you trying to throw out a "red herring" here? Are you actually stating here for the record that the "liars" of Revelation 21:27 is different from the "whosoever loves and practices a lie" in Revelation 22:15? Are you honestly saying that these passages are speaking of different things? Is that what you're hoping we all believe here?

Above, in the quote I cited from your earlier post, you also state, and I quote: "I'm not sure that I can make the same point about ALL liars from 22:15, since that has some qualifiers that are (as you correctly stated) troublesome." Paul, here's a newsflash, THESE ARE DISCUSSING THE EXACT SAME THING. So, THEY BOTH 9by implication) CONTAIN THE QUALIFIERS THAT YOU CALL "TROUBLESOME" because they are IDENTICAL. Remember my lesson on the "indescernibility of identicals," that I did in my "Hole in Paul Manata's Donut" Article? These "two" passages are speaking of the EXACT SAME THING. They are IDENTICAL. Look at the text. Here are the verses back to back. You'll notice that there is a mention of "gates," and then those "GATES" are CONTRASTED with the fact that NOTHING UNCLEAN will EVER ENTER THOSE GATES. That's the point of what's being said. Here are the verses: (Revelation 21:23-27) "The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. 24 And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it. 25 Its gates shall not be shut at all by day(there shall be no night there). 26 And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it. 27 But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life." AND AGAIN: (Revelation 22:14-15) "Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie."

NOW PAUL, Please explain how these two are NOT mentioning the exact SAME THING. You asked me to quote where you talk about Revelation 22:15. This is a RED HERRING. If you discussed REVELATION 21:27, then YOU DISCUSSED REVELATION 22:15, since they are IDENTICAL. So, since you seem to have alluded to the possibility that these two verses could be talking about "different" things, I need you to tell the world right here and now how you can make that decision. You MUST have a reason why you believe this. Please don't forget that if these two verses are speaking of the same thing, Jesus was supposed to be COMING QUICKLY to bring it about.

Please explain how your admission that the judgment spoken of in Revelation 22:12, which was to result in rewards and "entrance" into the city, isn't the same thing being discussed in Revelation 21:27? I can't believe you would even attempt to say these are different things. Help us all, including your futurist friends, understand how this can be two different things? And PLEASE don't make some weak appeal to the "idealists" or "many PP's." I'm not asking them, I'm asking YOU. How are these two passages NOT discussing the SAME THING? - H.L. James - www.AD70


Date:
18 Jan 2004
Time:
12:26:38

Comments

H.L., thanks for replying. Before I answer the "all liars" question I will address the latter, re: "whosoever loves and practices a lie." Now, to answer, I nevber said that they were not the same, maybe they are, all I said was that it would be more difficult to show and argue from that because of the definitional games that would probably be played. As Wittgentstein has pointed out: many of our problems arise from our use of language. Now, I just wanted to use a simpler verse. One that says, "ALL LIARS." My reasoning is that, a sophist could spend countless hours and many posts arguing over "loves" and "practices."

We could spend alot of time debating those terms without getting to the heart of the matter. As I have said before I am trying to finish to 40 page final exams, I also have full custody of my son, I work for an emergency service company which includes long and wierd hours, I do not have a computor at my home, the only time I have access to one is at work (when I'm not out in the field) and on the weekends, but I usualy work weekends and if I don't I would rather not come in to work on my weekend. So, I simply said that because I felt that we could spend alot of time on those two words, believe me, percising definitions are good and defining terms is vital, but for now I will have to take the fastest route. Maybe in the future i will have time to actually spend weeks going over the arguments with a fine tooth comb and then i will write a response. So for now I beg your forgiveness but Jehovah has me involved in many other things and this is not the most important. I do hope that answer made sense. This is one reason this debate has been frusterating. I know that I am not giving you the attention that you deserve, and I usually have about 15 min in the morning to type something out, and thus we are not having a fruitful dialog. I appreciate your understanding on this matter.

Now, for your first question: You said, [QUOTE]:"Do you consider those who tell lies liars?" I know you consider those who debate doctrinal issues liars, but do you consider those people who tell lies liars? In other words, let's say there's a set "W," and in it are all the possible liars in the world past present and future, including anyone who tells a lie. Okay, so "W" represents the set of ALL LIARS, meaning everyone who has ever lied, which includes anyone who has ever lied or ever will lie. Is the "all liars" you use in your argument, let's call that set of liars "Q," is "Q" equal to the set I've described and called "W?" [END QUOTE] My reply: There is a confusion going on here. I would not say that no FORMER Ws will not be in the city. I am saying that no Ws WILL be in the city, once it is comes. And, my group of liars that I am concerned with are those who contradict God's word. Forgive me, but I do not like the set W. Upon one analysis I can say that my group is included in your set W. Upon another I cannot say that. Since you mentioned past, present and future, I would say that that is not the way I am using it. This is because I am using it POST city-entrance. Since there will be NO LIARS who enter then it could not be the case that there are past, present and future liars in the city, in the sense that THEY HAVE LIED IN THE CITY. No, of course many, indeed all, have lied BEFORE thye entered the city. You then ask: [QUOTE]In other words, are you saying that every liar that ever existed is excluded from the Holy City? If your answer is yes, just state it. If it is no however, I need you to show me why and how "all liars" doesn't mean "all liars."[END QUOTE]

My answer is no. But(!) I don't need to follow it to your conclusion. That is, I can still say that "ALL means ALL." I can say this because in my scheme, since the elect are finally sanctified and glorified BEFORE they enter the city they would, thus, not ENTER the city as liars. Therefore, there would be NO liars in the city. Remember, I am focusing on who is in the city. In the city there will be NO lying of ANY kind (including my definition) because NO LIARS will be there. You ask: [QUOTE]In other words, if you say that "some liars repent, are forgiven and therefore would enter the city (i.e. the Apostle Peter)," I need you to explain for the record how the term "all liars are outside the city" should be understood." [END QUOTE] My reply: again, this is because it is POST final sanctification and glorification, and therefore no liars ENTER the city. So, for the record, ALL lIARS should be understood as one who makes a lie of ANY sort...In THE CITY. That is, in the city there will be NO LYING of any kind. Well, H.L., I tried to be brief for you (as you requested) and I hope that it was. I do hope that it was not to the extent of being to uniformative. If you would further care to look into my views I am sure that you can find them in many a systematics text (Gruedem(sp?) Hodge, Dabney, Bahnsen, et al) as well as the WCF LC SC. So again: NO current lying will go on in the city, but that is not to say that no FORMER liars will not be there. NOTHING unclean will enter it because they will have been sanctified and glorified BEFORE they enter it.

This will NOT be positional anymore (as it is now) but rather it will be actual. Now, if I may ask two questions of you to help me prepare for the comming onslaught (joke): I would appreciate it if you could tell me if you believe, according to your scheme, that we will not sin in your concept of heaven? That is, I know you believe that we still sin now, but do you believe that we will continue to sin in heaven? Yes or no, could you provide just a couple of verses with your answer? And question number two: do you believe that we will deabte doctrine that is revealed in the Bible in your concept of heaven, i.e., calvinists and arminians still deabting, baptists and credo's still debating, preterists and futurist still deabting, etc.,? Yes or no could you provide verses in support of your answer? I would appreciate if you could give me some of your time and answer these two for me as I have tried to answer your questions. I thank you for reading this and spending the time to reply. Christ's slave -Paul


Date:
18 Jan 2004
Time:
13:46:53

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. You are still missing my point. I will answer your questions above but I need you to stay on topic in terms of answering mine. I asked you to show me why the two "city" verses in the Revelation that I mentioned are not identical. The reason you didn't give a quick "explanation" as to why you think they are not identical, is because you don't have one, I suspect. Here's why this question is so important: You have stated that we are not in the New Heavens and New Earth. You have then chosen to use a verse in the Bible that says we ARE in it as you proof that we're NOT in it. Do you see the problem here? In other words, if Revelation 21:8,27 are speaking of the same event as Revelation 22:15, then you have an obvious contradiction in your argument that cannot be repaired. Here's why: Jesus said in Revelation 22:12 "Behold, I am coming quickly."

You have already AGREED that Jesus DID COME QUICKLY. By agreeing, you have implicitly agreed to verse 15 of that same chapter being a PAST event, which means we are in the city and by default in the New Heavens and New Earth. What you keep failing to see (and I don't know why you keep doing this) is that if Revelation 21:8,27 are indeed identical to Revelation 22:12-15, then the City is here because it was due to come "quickly" back then (as you've agreed) and your "all liars" understanding in that case must be flawed (which I will show in my upcoming article). Paul, please get this, here's a mathematical equation to make it easier to understand: You argue that "Q, therefore NOT K." If your understanding of "Q" (liars) is correct, your argument is pristine and sound. Here's the rub: you say that "Q, therefore NOT K." "K" in your argument represents "the City." Here's how we can see if your reasoning is logical. We have two possible references to your "K" in the Revelation. One of those references you have chosen to use to prove your "Q, therefore NOT K" argument. But remember, there are TWO references. The second reference comes with a time statement attached to it. In other words, the second reference says: "A is coming quickly and He'll be bringing K." Your argument says: "Q, therefore NOT K." Now, if the second reference, which says "A is coming quickly and He'll be bringing K" is speaking of the same thing as YOUR reference in chapter 21, then "K" must have come "quickly." So it is critical for you at this point to show why Revelation 22:15 is not speaking of an IDENTICAL event as your proof text.

Paul, here is a disturbing statement from your last post. The reason this statement is so disturbing is that you don't seem to realize the damage it is to your argument. Speaking of the possibility that Revelation 21:8,27 and Revelation 22:15 are identical, you state, and I quote: "I never said that they were not the same, maybe they are." Paul, in other words, you've ADMITTED that they MAY BE IDENTICAL. What you don't realize is that IF THEY ARE, IT IS IN THE PAST! Please take a look at this, Paul. You have AGREED that Revelation 22:12 is a PAST EVENT. The think you've agreed is past contains with it Revelation 22:15. In other words, Revelation 22:15, by your own admission, MUST be PAST. If Revelation 22:15 is IDENTICAL to Revelation 21:8,27, then IT IS PAST. Paul, you have again made an admission that shoots more holes in your argument. You have left open the possibility that the two passages in Revelation ARE IDENTICAL. Your statement BLATANTLY indicates that YOU DON'T KNOW! How can you NOT KNOW this BASIC, FOUNDATIONAL issue to your argument? How could you have written an argument without first making sure the verse you're using in it as proof isn't IDENTICAL with a verse that carries in it a time reference that kills your argument? Are you getting what I'm saying here, Paul? In other words, you've admitted to using, as proof of a future event, a verse that very well may show that the event you're trying to prove is future, is already past. Paul, as I said before, if you can't show how these two passages are different, your argument is dead. The entire point of my "The Hole in Paul Manata's Donut" article was to show that YOU have destroyed your own argument by basing it on a verse that is IDENTICAL to a verse with a time constraint (one which you have already agreed to). Unless you can cut the tie between these "two" verses, they are one and the same, which means your argument CANNOT be true. Paul, again, unless you can salvage this situation, but dealing DIRECTLY WITH THE VERSES FROM REVELATION and showing why they are NOT IDENTICAL, there is no need for further discussion regarding your TAAHP. If you cannot logically SEPARATE Revelation 21:8,27 from Revelation 22:12-15, then they are speaking of the same thing, and JESUS SAID He was coming quickly to bring it about. So Paul, again, here's your statement: "I never said that they were not the same, maybe they are." What we need you to do is determine whether they ARE THE SAME or whether they are NOT THE SAME. That's all. If they ARE THE SAME, then the subject matter they speak of IS A PAST EVENT. If they are NOT the same, we need to know how they can be different. If the subject matter about which they speak is PAST, then your argument (which depends on the subject matter about which they speak being future) is a logical impossibility and your argument is dead. At this point Paul, your TAAHP is broken beyond repair. Your own admissions have shown it to be so. The only way you can fix this is to show that Revelation 22:15 is not identical to Revelation 21:8,27. We'll be waiting for that response, hopefully not too long. - H.L. James - www.AD70.com


Date:
19 Jan 2004
Time:
07:38:04

Comments

Just a couple comments about Paul's last post. First, I commend Paul for all the hard work he is doing in his personal life, his academic pursuits, and taking on the very big responsibility of single father. However, it's a little troubling that he has gone through much effort to present an article on this website, that claims to be the death blow to the huge volume of work presented here, but when challenged on his claim, he doesn't have the time to deal with it properly. Perhaps next time he should consider the gravity of the claim he is making.==Scott


Date:
19 Jan 2004
Time:
09:28:20

Comments

H.L., thank you for responding. I have posted a valid argument and since the first premise wasn't refuted, along with the liars argument I, along with many others, will conclude that it is sound. I am saddend by the fact that H.L. didn't address my answer to his question which was what he was using to probe me so he could refute the first premise (which he HAS to do, otherwise the conclusion necessarily follows). I am upset that he didn't bother to answer my questions. Now, if I were to use his line of reasoning I would conclude that he, therefore, didn't have an answer? No, I will treat him better then he is me.

I also gave an answer, to the 22:15. I could argue that those are ONE (or two) types of liars and not the ALL in 22:8. H.L. made it sound as if he wanted me to answer the ALL question since THAT is what he was going to respond to (was that just a smokescreen?). Since it is obvious that in this latest attempt H.L. has again refused to debate my argument that this debate is unfruitful. To all reading this: I have posted a VALID argument. The next thing to do is check for soundness. I have proven P1 and P2. This means that the conclusion, i.e., we are not in the NH and E(/city), NECESSARILY follows from the premises. It is UNAVOIDABLE. I am upset by the way I have been slandered. The way that I have been misrepresented (e.g., teaching that we can be epistemologically equal to God, I teach perfectionism, I deny essential Christian doctrine, etc.,).

I guess when the argument is to strong people will then turn to lying about someone. HP has been defeated. At best, H.L. just showed that there is a contradiction in the Bible (since he NEVER refuted my argument). But there isn't! Mine has to have priority, since if mine is wrong we couldn't even ask if it is wrong! Again, I must hammer home the point that my argument was not refuted. Since P1 is true, then my conclusion HAS TO BE! I want everyone reading this to ask themselves why H.L. James again didn't answer questions that he needed to. Why did he want me to answer questions yet he REFUSED to answer that I asked. This is shaddy debate tactics. This is shoddy work. Many orthodox Christians have seen this. They all know that your argument was, basically, "well you cannot be right since I am." O.K., maybe you are, well what about this, "well, I don't need to answer that since I have to be right." I would recomend that you HPs read something on valid/sound arguemnts and you will see that since P1 wasn't refuted my conclusion HAS TO follow. Since this has degenerated to the level of "don't cast pearls before swine," I cannot see the fruit in continuing.

I will take the advice of one of my elders and be happy with the fact that an argument was flat-out ignored. I will stand by my claim that H.L. has committed the fallacy of: "don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain." H.L. has committed the falacy of ignorantio elenchi. Thank you for your time. Thank you for the slander, so that I can be counted like my Lord who was slandered. Thank you for the time you have spent with me H.L. I ask all of your forgiveness for any way that I might have mistreated you. Most of all, I thank God for showing me the strength of my argument. That is the silence of the answer comming back was deafening! Scott, thank you for those kind words about me, and I would encourage you to ask yourself why it is that you believe what you believe if the face of a SOUND argument against it. waiting for His glorious appearance -Paul


Date:
19 Jan 2004
Time:
12:00:04

Comments

....I thought this might help. I gave this argument: P1: If we were in the new heavens and earth/city then we would not be debating contradictory doctrinal positions. P2: We are debating contradictory doctrinal positions. P3: Therefore, we are not in the new heavens and earth/city. This is a valid form, i.e., if p then q. not q. therefore, not p. Now, at best, all H.L. has shown is that we are in the Nh and E/city. So he has affirmed the antecedant. Thus, I would have to conclude that we are not debating. But this is false. You see, it is *not enough* to show that we are in the NH and E. What needs to be done is to refute my argument that, *if we were* we would not be debating. Therefore, we can all see that H.L.'s argument has not touched mine. If he was trying to one-to-one refute mine then all he has shown is that we are in the NH and E, ALONG WITH, we are not debating contradictory doctrinal positions. Hopefully this is seen. My point MUST be refuted, otherwise all you are left with is a contradiction in your system, from which we can deduce ANY conclusion, namely; that we are NOT in the NH and E/city. Hopefully this should clear things up for those who have read my posts and this debate. I post this mainly for my orthodox brothers. -waiting for my physical body to be sanctified (e.g., II Cor 7:1, etc., etc., etc.,)-Paul


Date:
19 Jan 2004
Time:
12:04:07

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. Are you reading the same words I'm typing? It's as if you're seeing something totally different than I'm saying. Please read these words carefully. Paul, If the New Heavens and New Earth are already here (according to Revelation 21:8,27 (which is restated in Revelation 22:12-15)), how is it logically possible that IT ISN'T HERE? THAT IS A LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

Look, if your argument were sound, I'd concede to it. It's not sound. Hey, it's not me who decided to use Revelation 21:8,27 as the BASIS for my argument. It was YOU who chose to do that! Don't blame me now because you happened to chose a verse that has come back to haunt you. Look, all I did was point out that the verse you use to PROVE P1 of your argument actually refutes P1 of your argument. What do you want me to do? Do you want me to just ignore this fact and continue debating P1 as if it was still a valid premise? The very verse you use to "prove" it is a valid premise, actually proves quite the contrary. Do you want me to "refute" P1? Paul, P1 doesn't SAY ANYTHING. It is not a valid premise. Look at it like this: The verse you use as the basis for your "all liars" argument (Rev. 21:8,27) has several elements. It has the WHAT element, it has the WHO element, it has the WHEN element (which we see in its restatement in Rev. 22:12-15). The most important element in that passage is the WHEN element. Your argument is broken because it is arguing for something that is a logical impossibility. Your argument violates the WHEN element of the very verse you use. You're essentially saying: "See this verse in Revelation 21:8,27, yeah that's right, the one that's restated over here in Revelation 22:15? Yeah, uh huh, those verses that say that these events already happened when Jesus came quickly? Well, these verses are proof that the things they're speaking of haven't happened yet." Paul, you're using a verse that contradicts your argument and you're saying that this verse that contradicts your argument is "proof" of the soundness of your argument. Is there anyone else reading these posts that sees what I'm talking about? If so, would you PLEASE just post a quick note above that simply says, "I see it," because I think Paul is having a hard time seeing what I'm talking about.

 I don't know WHY he's having such a hard time seeing this. It's not like I'm saying anything that is difficult to understand. Paul, the verse you have chosen to use actually strengthens your opponent's position. Revelation 21:8,27 is what Jesus said He was "coming quickly" to bring about (restated in Revelation 22:12-15). You already AGREED that Jesus came quickly. You have agreed that the thing you're arguing isn't here IS ACTUALLY HERE. You keep coming on and posting things that say "H.L. HAS NOT REFUTED MY ARGUMENT!!!" That's right. H.L. has shown that YOU DON'T HAVE AN ARGUMENT. I cannot refute an argument that you don't have. You keep bringing up the STRUCTURE of your argument and how "sound" it is. You are substituting the word "correct" with the word "sound." The STRUCTURE of an argument can be PERFECTLY CORRECT and the argument can still be garbage (unsound). Even if the structure of your argument were textbook perfect (which is debatable), the LOGIC of your argument is broken. Your argument is NOT "sound" because the logic is flawed. Here's an example, the STRUCTURE of the following argument is "correct" but the LOGIC is not "sound:" 1.)Dogs had four legs 2.)Dogs are animals 3.)Therefore, all animals have 4 legs. Paul, the STRUCTURE of that argument is sound, but one of the premises is broken, and therefore the argument is useless in terms of providing light on some truth. Your argument doesn't accomplish its goal, which is to refute Preterism. That's what it claims to be for. That's what it claims to do. You want me to engage you?

I have shown that I am more than willing to take your argument on. In fact, I have probably done more DEEP THINKING about YOUR ARGUMENT than YOU have (I know I've done more writing). Anyway, if the message you're getting from all this attention I'm giving to this discussion is, "H.L. doesn't want to debate," then you are TOTALLY missing the boat. I WANT to engage this issue, I HAVE engaged this issue, and I have shown you BREAKS in your reasoning. I have shown you BREAKS in your evidence and therefore I have shown that there MUST be a break in your conclusion. Now, please, tell me why Revelation 21:8,27 (which are restated in Revelation 22:12-15 with time constraints) doesn't render your argument useless. You CANNOT show me why. All you keep coming back with is "your debating proves that we're not in the New Heavens and New Earth!!!" Paul, THAT BEGS THE QUESTION! It is BROKEN REASONING! Let me put it another way: If your argument were truly sound logically, you would just come on here and post an answer to the problem that the time reference in Rev. 22:12 causes your argument. You'd just come on and post something like, "well H.L., here's why the time constraints in Rev. 22:12-15 don't pose a threat to my argument, blah, blah, blah..." Would you please do that Paul? Would you just please show how an event that was supposed to have happened "quickly" (and which you've agreed has), can you please help us all understand how that doesn't refute your argument? You MUST have an answer to this, since you seem to think this problem is really no problem at all. Just post the answer here for us to see. In other words, when Paul Manata reads what I've just read, how does Paul Manata, in his own mind, answer this?

Does Paul Manata ignore the evidence and just keep saying to himself, "See, he's debating, that proves we're NOT in the New Heavens and New Earth," is that what you say to yourself? Does Paul Manata say, "I don't know how to get around the time language in these verses but I'm still correct and my argument still stands unchallenged," is that what you say to yourself? Or, as I sincerely hope, do you have a logical, reasonable explanation why the verses I've mentioned don't betray a HUGE GAPING HOLE in your reasoning? Please give us all a glimpse into the mind of Paul Manata regarding this issue. Just post what Paul Manata says to himself when he is shown that Revelation 21:8,27 (which contains no obvious time language) is shown to be restated in Revelation 22:12-15 with GLARING time language that Paul Manata has already AGREED must be taken as stated by Jesus. What does Paul Manata say to himself? Just ask yourself that same question. "What does Paul Manata say to himself?" And whatever comes into your mind at that moment, post it here for us to see. We want to know how you get around the OBVIOUS time language in the verse that is simply a restatement of the verse you use to support P1 of your argument. Paul, there HAS to be an answer inside your head. All I'm asking you to do is share what that answer is. - H.L. James - www.AD70.com


Date:
19 Jan 2004
Time:
14:21:47

Comments

Paul, in answer to your post about affirming the antecedent (it's spelled with an "ent" at the end, not an "ant"), your opponent is SUPPOSED TO AFFIRM THE ANTECEDENT!!! What logic book are you reading? Logical arguments will either AFFIRM THE ANTECEDENT, or DENY THE CONSEQUENT! Invalid arguments (deductive fallacies), will either DENY THE ANTECEDENT or AFFIRM THE CONSEQUENT! Come on man, stop playing these games Paul. You keep trying to sound like you're this big theologian, throwing words around that are misspelled and misused and it keeps getting you into trouble. Of course I've affirmed the antecedent! You state in your post above, and I quote: "at best, all H.L. has shown is that we are in the Nh and E/city. So he has affirmed the antecedant." Paul, do you HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT YOU'VE JUST ADMITTED TO? You have now admitted that I have shown that "we are in the Nh and E/city" and successfully AFFIRMED THE ANTECEDENT!

In other words, you have essentially stated, "H.L. James, using a valid form in his argument (i.e. affirming the antecedent), has 'at best' shown that we are in the New Heavens and New Earth." Paul, AT BEST? "At best" I've shown this? You say that like it's no big deal that my argument PROVES we're in the New Heavens and New Earth. Paul, by stating that I've shown (by valid argument form, i.e. affirming the antecedent) THAT WE ARE in the New Heavens and New Earth, you are implicitly agreeing that THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. Hello?! You state above that, and I quote: "You see, it is *not enough* to show that we are in the NH and E." WHAT?!!! Now you're saying that since "at best" I've shown that WE ARE in the New Heavens and New Earth, that "IT IS *NOT ENOUGH*? Not enough? Paul, if I've shown that we are in the New Heavens and New Earth as you say I've "at best" done, than that IS ENOUGH to destroy your argument's conclusion. You're in even HOTTER water now! You've admitted that I've successfully contradicted your conclusion. Paul, how can you STILL BE DEFENDING Premise 1, when you've admitted to the destruction of the conclusion? Your conclusion is "Therefore we are not in the Nh and E/city." That's YOUR CONCLUSION in YOUR ARGUMENT. If MY argument destroys YOUR CONCLUSION, then your argument is FALSE, FALSE, FALSE. You keep concentrating on P1 as if it can stand on its own. IT CANNOT. P1 is used to SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSION. If we are in the New Heavens and New Earth, which you now admit that I've "at best" proven, then your CONCLUSION is a logical impossibility and the Transcendental Argument is dead. Paul, no matter how strong you think your P1 is, that is irrelevant if we are already in the New Heavens and New Earth.

You go on to state in your post above, and I quote: "at best, all H.L. has shown is that we are in the Nh and E/city. So he has affirmed the antecedant. Thus, I would have to conclude that we are not debating." Paul, you have created a false dilemma here, which, as I'm sure you know, is a logical fallacy. You have said that "at best" I have proven we are in the New Heavens and New Earth (using valid argument form), and as a result, you would HAVE TO CONCLUDE that we are not debating. Do you see anything wrong with that statement? Is the conclusion that "WE ARE NOT DEBATING," the ONLY thing you could conclude from discovering that WE ARE INDEED in the New Heavens and New Earth? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! This is non-sequitur and it creates a dilemma that isn't really there.In other words, we'd simply be forced to conclude that WE ARE IN THE NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH, and WE ARE DEBATING DOCTRINE. To say that "we're not debating" would indeed be a false statement. So, if WE ARE DEBATING, and WE ARE IN THE NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH, and those two things have been shown to be true, then SOMETHING ELSE MUST BE GOING ON in the premises of your argument that is OUTSIDE your logical "field of vision" at the moment, since the above reality nullifies your argument's conclusion (i.e. no debating in the New Heavens and New Earth). So, saying that you'd "have to conclude that we are not debating" is an invalid argument. You're essentially saying that you'd be forced to conclude a logical impossibility (which doesn't logically follow). Although you couldn't conclude "we're not debating," since that would be a false statement, you'd HAVE TO CONCLUDE that WE ARE DEBATING, since that is what we are doing.

So, if WE ARE DEBATING, and WE ARE IN THE NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH, then those two things must not be mutually exclusive, and therefore your understanding of "all liars" is flawed. In place of the non-sequitur false dilemma appeal to consequences you give above as your ONLY choice if we are in the New Heavens and New Earth, you could conclude MANY other things. For one, you could conclude that your ARGUMENT IS BROKEN. That would be the most LOGICAL thing to conclude, since we CANNOT BE and at the same time NOT BE in the New Heavens and New Earth. Here are some of the ways your argument could be broken. Your argument contains several "components," any of which could be hiding some secret flaw that you've missed. Let's look at the elements: 1)New Heavens and New Earth, 2)Liars, 3)"Futureness." Okay, if my sound logical argument shows that we are in the New Heavens and New Earth (which you've agreed it does "at best"), then that takes care of number 1 and number 3, since we ARE in it, and since being in it presently, necessitates "pastness." Okay, that leaves the "liars" issue. If my argument is sound and the structure is valid (both of which you say I've "at best" accomplished), then your "liars" premise must be broken. In other words, perhaps your belief that "all liars" includes "those who debate contradictory doctrine" is flawed. Perhaps, between the two people debating, only one of them is "in the city" and the other is not. Perhaps "all liars" is speaking of something that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything other than a specific class of liars (i.e. "all liars" within that class of liars"), for example "all liars who have not been forgiven." Paul, you also state in your post above, and I quote: "My point MUST be refuted, otherwise all you are left with is a contradiction in your system, from which we can deduce ANY conclusion..."

Paul, again, you commit a logical fallacy in concluding that your "point" must be refuted. If your conclusion has been refuted, which it has, then to argue that your P1 has not been "touched" is a straw man argument and attempts to take focus away from the fact that your conclusion has been rendered void. Remember, your conclusion is that we are NOT in the New Heavens and New Earth BASED on premise 1. I didn't have to move on your bishop or your queen, I just went straight for your King. Not moving on your queen or your bishop doesn't mean they are any safer than your king, but it doesn't matter. Once the king is in check mate, the bishop and the queen become unimportant, since there's nothing they can do to save the king from check mate. Paul, you looked at your queen and your bishop and thought you had a good defense for your king (i.e. your conclusion that we're NOT in the New Heavens and New Earth). You thought that your queen and your bishop were in a position to protect your king. The problem is that your king was already in a position the queen and bishop couldn't help him out of. I simply went directly for the king. Paul, please understand, if my argument "at best" shows irrefutably that WE ARE in the New Heavens and New Earth, then YOUR ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY is a logical impossibility. As long as I have a SOUND, LOGICAL argument that shows we ARE in the New Heavens and New Earth (which you've all but openly admitted I do), then you MUST conclude that your argument to the contrary is flawed LOGICALLY, since we cannot BE and at the same time NOT BE in the New Heavens and New Earth, as that would violate the law of non-contradiction. You go on to say in your post above, and I quote: "Therefore, we can all see that H.L.'s argument has not touched mine. If he was trying to one-to-one refute mine then all he has shown is that we are in the NH and E, ALONG WITH, we are not debating contradictory doctrinal positions."

Paul, look at the quote I've just cited and think about what's wrong with the REASONING in it. Let's look closely at your statement, and I quote: "Therefore, we can all see that H.L.'s argument has not touched mine. If he was trying to one-to-one refute mine then all he has shown is that we are in the NH and E..." Paul, don't you GET that if my argument shows that WE ARE IN THE NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH it DOESN'T MATTER whether I dealt with your premise (queen, bishop)? By showing that we are in the New Heavens and New Earth, I have rendered your premise (queen, bishop) null, empty, useless. Your original argument CONCLUDES with the statement, "THEREFORE WE ARE NOT IN THE NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH." Paul THAT is your argument. If you now want to begin a new argument and call it "there will be no liars in the New Heavens and New Earth," that's fine, let's have at it, but the argument that we're NOT in the New Heavens and New Earth is DEAD, since you have conceded that I have "at best" proven that WE ARE IN THE NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH. The argument "There will be no liars in the City" is a great topic and one that I think should be discussed so that we can more clearly understand the nature of the city THAT IS ALREADY HERE. But using this premise to prove that we're not here is now logically impossible. I hope you see what's going on here Paul. The Preterist view is true and neither you nor anyone else can refute it because it's foundation is the very words of Christ. If I've proven we're in the New Heavens and New Earth, please admit it publicly. You've already done it by implication, and I think that is now clear to all who read this post. - H.L. James - www.AD70.com


Date:
19 Jan 2004
Time:
15:19:57

Comments

H.L., I conceded nothing. That is called charity. H.L. I never said that affirming the antecedent was wrong. Why do you want to view people in the worst possible light. Re-read what I have said with some charity. So I will now state it stronger. YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT WE ARE IN THE NH AND E BECAUSE IF YOU HAD THEN WE WOULD NOT BE DEBATING ABOUT IT. What don't you understand about this? I am not confusing soundness. Why do you want to read people in the worst light? A sound argument is one that has a valid form and true premises. I am not acting like some "big theologian" why do you want to name-call? I do not have a spell checker and only type what i say once, without looking at it. Why do you want to act like this? If you still have your set theory "refutation" go through it and see how many missssspelllled words were in that. Why bring that up? You want to play? You want to pick on people? Well, here is one, your dogs argument had the mood and figure of AAA-3. H.L. this is an INVALID form.

The structure IS NOT OK. Your middle terms were both subjects in 3 universal affirmative statements. Anyway, you have not shown that we are in the nh and e. IF, get that(?) IF, we were we would not be debating. Moreover, we will not because of the unity of the faith. The removal of the noetic effetcs of sin. God being all in all. The purpose of the Bible, and not needing it in the NH and E (though we will still need revelation). I can go on and on. H.L., there is a reason that ALL the theologians and philosophers that i have asked all agree that we will not be debating doctrine in the NH and E. Now, will you answer my questions? Do you think that we will sin in your concept of heaven? Why? Verses. And, do you think that we will debate contradictory doctrines in your concept of heaven? Why? Verses? I am sorry to have to do this to you, but can you just play nice? Stop playing and answer this critique: You said in your post that it only meant some liars. therefore, We HAVE TO CONCLUDE that there are also SOME liars IN THE CITY. You said it. You have refuted yourself. I don't have to...you did. By saying that in the NH and E there CAN BE SOME LIARS (by implication) then you have LIARS (i.e., unclean people) entering a place where NOTHING unclean can enter! If you don't exclude ALL then you have to have SOME in the city! You have to (if E is false then I HAS TO BE TRUE, c'mon refute the logic). I don't need to show you that we are not in the NH and E, you have done it for me. These post prove what Paul said about HP. That you destroy the faith of others. You continue to lie about me, youy have never apologized for saying that I teach that we can be epistemologically = to God. Have you changed what you wrote about me not mentioning the time texts? Paul said that you guys destroy the faith of others. I bet Hymanaeus lied about orthodox christians in his time as well! -Paul


Date:
19 Jan 2004
Time:
17:21:42

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. First off, my dogs argument was correct in that it contained a major premise and a minor premise and a conclusion, you needed LOGIC to figure out what was wrong with it. In the same way, your "structure" may be correct, but the "logic" may be flawed (as in your argument). In other words, your argument commits the fallacy of Apriorism, which I haven't yet brought up because I don't need to. Your argument fails in enough other areas that it's just not necessary to show your fallacy of Apriorism. Okay, so that we can someday get an answer, suppose we're not debating. Suppose you and I are both futurists. Now, suppose I come to you and I simply ask you if Revelation 22:12-15 says that Jesus was coming quickly to accomplish those things contained in those verses. I don't want to know if He did or not, I just want to know if He SAID he was "coming quickly" to accomplish the things contained in verses 12-15. What would you say to me? So again, suppose we're not debating. In fact, just pretend it's one of your friends from the puritan board, and all they want to know is what I've stated above: Does Rev 22:12-15 SAY that Jesus is "coming quickly" to accomplish "REWARDS" "GIVING TO EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS, and PROVIDING ENTRANCE INTO THE FINISHED CITY." What would you, Paul Manata say? And please, stop it already with the sympathy play, okay? You keep trying to get people to feel sorry for you. Paul, this is a debate. So, how would you answer the question above? - H.L. James - www.AD70.com


Date:
20 Jan 2004
Time:
00:05:08

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. Here's another way to look at what I've written in my last post: Let's say that your Transcendental Argument turns out to be true and "debating doctrine" turns out to be correct and you've put the "HP's" to flight. With me so far? Okay, so let's say that you've just come back from winning the puritan of the year award for refuting Preterism once and for all. So you get home, get the house all buttoned up, you put your award in that place over the fireplace you've been saving for it, and now you sit down to study the Scriptures. During that time of study, you come across Revelation 22:12-15 where Jesus says "Behold I am coming quickly, etc." When Jesus "came quickly," what would you say He accomplished at that coming, in light of His statement about "rewards" and "to give to every one according to his works." Would you say that Jesus came quickly? And, what "rewards" did He "give to every one according to their works?" What are the rewards, and who are the "everyone?" I'd love to finally be able to hear you speak to this issue, since you seem to be deliberately avoiding going near it. Paul, what are the "rewards" as you see it, and who are the "everyone?" - H.L. James - www.AD70.com


Date:
20 Jan 2004
Time:
00:40:41

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. I am going over my notes here and I notice you use the name Jehovah quite a bit. Are you a Jahovah's witness? - H.L. James - www.AD70.com


Date:
20 Jan 2004
Time:
09:25:53

Comments

H.L., I see you didn't answer the questions. That's o.k., didn't expect you to. You said that the liars mentioned were only ONE type (or two, three, whatever) you said it wasn't ALL, i.e., EVERY kind the Bible names. Now, how can you have SOME liars in a place where NONE are. Let me explain: NO LIARS are there. This is an E statement on the square of oposition. Now, if E is FALSE, then according to the law of ~contradiction I has to be true. An "I" HAS to be true, if E is false. Therefore, it HAS TO BE THE CASE that SOME liars are in the city! Now, how can this be when NONE (another E statement) can will enter into it, or EVEN BE THERE? By allowing the group that teaches false doctrine you have allowed SOME to be CURRENTLY in a place where NONE can be in. I waited long enough for you to put the rope around your own neck.

Now, if you are going to say that ALL liars doesn't mean ALL, then you would also say, otherwse how would you escape arbitrariness, i.e., that Rev. 21:8 doesn't mean ALL murderes, idolators, sexually immoral, etc.,? Also, if it doesn't mean all then does Rev.21:7 mean ALL overcommers? Again, you now have the problem. Now, to answer the "WHEN" which was your BIG point: You keep saying that Jesus said he would come back. Now I have said that He said he would come in judgement. But as far as His final, i.e., "the Second comming" I will say what Jesus said, "But of THAT day no one knows, NOT EVEN THE SON OF MAN!!!!!!" H.L. said that Jesus said WHEN he would come, but JESUS said that he didn't know WHEN! Furthermore, along with that goes his stories about the master/bridegroom, etc.,/ being away for a LONG time (do you take the time texts seriously?)! I have shown that the "WHEN" problem isn't mine but rather H.L.'s. I have shown that H.L. is on the horns of a dilema, i.e., SOME in a place where NONE are. I have shown that the pre-conditions necessary for debate are that we are NOT in the NH and E/city. Now, for the last point: H.L. asks if I am a Jehovah's witness? Well what does he care, I mean he has no creed in order to call then heretics. JWs are JUST AS orthodox as he is!!!! This is the sad situation of the HP, i.e., NO ONE IS A HERETIC. He of course can say that they disagree with the Bible, but they will say the same of him. Your turn, -Paul


Date:
20 Jan 2004
Time:
09:31:24

Comments

...btw, H.L. are you going to give me verses showing that we do not sin in your concept of heaven? And do you believe that in your concept of heaven we will debate, say, calvinism/arminianism, escahtology, baptism, norman shepard controversy, etc.,? Verses please. that's o.k. if you don't answer I know this is a weak spot for the hps. -Paul


Date:
20 Jan 2004
Time:
16:24:29

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. I think we need to reach an agreement. If we're going to have a discussion, we have to start dealing directly with the issues. If we don't do that, we will never come to truth. Can we agree to that? First, we need to determine why the Preterist believes what He/She believes. Then, once it is shown that the "reasoning" behind believing that is faulty, then we can go one with the rest of the story.

Paul, I think you will agree, that in any debate, there has to be a starting point. In the debate you and I are engaged in, the starting point is what the Preterist believes. When I first met you (over the phone) last year, you informed me that you had not been a believer for very long. I think 2 years or so. Not that it makes a difference in terms of your ability to debate, but that's just what's so. When you and I spoke, you were just "looking into" the Preterist view because your mother expressed some concerns about your friend Laurie, who at that time was just investigating the claims of the Preterist view. As I recall, your mother wanted you to speak with Laurie and do your best to persuade her away from the view. You admitted to us at the time that you were not very familiar with the claims of the view.

The next thing I hear, you were having discussions with Gene Cook about how you could "refute" the Preterist view. You knew at the time that the reason the Preterist believes what he/she believes is because Jesus said them. I have made it painfully clear that this is the case and to date, nobody in any theological circle has been able to say that Jesus DIDN'T say the things the Preterist know Jesus said. The Preterist, based on the words of Jesus, which I have pointed out to you many times, has never been shown why they should not take Jesus at His word.

Paul, any argument, no matter how "sound" it may seem to the arguer, is flawed if it doesn't deal with the statements of Jesus head on. I have tried to show you this and I think we need to stay on this foundation during this debate or it will just keep going around in circles. I have shown you why Preterists believe the way they do. I have given you a simple formula to illustrate it: "A said B would happen P."

I have asked you to please refute that argument. I'm not asking you to refute whether it happened or not, I've asked that you refute the Preterist argument that "A said B would happen P." "A" being Jesus, "B" being the things we all know Jesus said would happen and "P" being the timing of the events.

Here's why this is so critical: In your Transcendental Argument, you mention the time texts and say that this is why the Preterist believes what they believe. However, just mentioning the time statements doesn't show why Preterists believe what they believe nor does it show why they are incorrect in their belief. Here's why: to mention the time texts, without carefully taking your reader through them and showing them why they should not be relied upon, you're essentially saying, "yeah, they rely on the words of Jesus, but we all know they shouldn't do that." That is circular reasoning Paul, and you've never shown your readers why the words of Jesus, that you mention in your argument, mean anything other than what they are saying.

Paul, this then becomes a "hidden" assumption in your argument; the assumption that Jesus didn't really say those things. Notice how I didn't say "how Preterists INTERPRET what Jesus said? In your argument, you don't address Preterists "interpretation" of Jesus' words. You simply mention that Jesus actual words are why Preterists believe what they do. Most Christians would say that's a good idea, to believe what Jesus said and believe it to be true. So the question that comes up, in the mind of someone reading your argument could be: "Well, isn't it a good idea to believe the words of Jesus and take them at face value?"

In other words, you state in your argument that the Preterist "believes the words of Jesus and takes them at face value." You then go on to call the Preterist, who "believes the words of Jesus and takes them at face value," a heretic for believing the words of Jesus and taking them at face value. At this point your reader has been manipulated in a particular direction unwittingly. Instead of you taking the reader through WHY "believing the words of Jesus and taking them at face value" shouldn't be followed in this particular case, you simply lead the reader to assume that this is okay to do in this case, without explanation. You have essentially said to your reader: "Jesus said these things, yes He did, any Preterist will tell you He did, but it is okay to discard the words of Jesus in this special case since to BELIEVE the words of Jesus and take them at face value, would mean you're a Preterist, and goodness knows, we wouldn't want you to become a Preterist."

Here's another way it can be stated. If you mention the time statements of Jesus, and then don't deal with them in your argument, you're essentially saying one of the following: "Dear reader, the Preterist says that Jesus said He was coming quickly to establish the New Heavens and New Earth, and Jesus did say those things, but they didn't happen back then, and as a result, the Preterist is incorrect."

Ask your philosophy professor what type of reasoning this is. You keep mentioning all the learned people you've shown your argument to. I find it absolutely unfathomable that your professors would allow you to get away with this type of breaks in reasoning. I submit the following quote from your argument. Remember, this is in your argument and something you never deal with in your argument. In other words, the ASSUMPTION that the Preterists have no reason to believe the words of Jesus is implied in your treatment of them in this following quote.

To anyone else reading this post, please read the following citation carefully. See if you can see from the verses Paul posted, why the Preterist would believe Jesus over anyone else. See if you can see the logic of a Preterist when you read this citation. Ask yourself as you read this, "If I were just to take Jesus at His word, how would I read the verses cited here?" Ask yourself, "would there ever be justification for believing that Jesus didn't mean what He said in these verses" Paul, here is your statement from your so-called Transcendental Argument, and I quote:

"Firstly, they [Preterists] believe that the second comming has already taken place. This second comming occured at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This idea is based of time texts in Scipture. For example, Mathew 24 states that 'truly, I say to you; this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.' (v. 34). And, I Peter 4:7 reads, 'The end of all things is at hand.' The HP will say that we must take these time texts (i.e., this generation, at hand, etc.,) seriously. They say 'Don't you think that God knows how to tell time?'"

Paul, you state that "The HP will say that we must take these time texts (i.e., this generation, at hand, etc.,) seriously." Paul, shouldn't EVERY CHRISTIAN take the time texts seriously? I mean, THEY ARE THE WORDS OF CHRIST right? Paul, in your argument, you are basically saying that the Preterist is admonishing everyone to take the words of CHRIST seriously. Isn't this a good thing to practice? Shouldn't we ALL take the words of our MESSIAH "seriously?" Don't YOU take these words of OUR LORD AND SAVIOR "seriously?"

Here's how you have cheated your reader logically, violated the creedal notion of "Sola Scriptura," violated the creedal notion of a Church that is REFORMED and ALWAYS reforming (captive to the words of Scripture alone) and what I've been trying to point out to you with each post. You have asked your reader, who we assume loves Christ, you have suggested that they DO NOT DO what they know in their heart they SHOULD DO and what the creeds clearly state THEY SHOULD DO. You have created an exception to the notion that "a Christian should always believe the words of Christ first over all other words." You have created the notion that the only creedal concept that should be vehemently denied is SOLA SCRIPTURA and ALWAYS REFORMING (captive to the words of Scripture alone).

Paul, it is only AFTER you have manipulated your reader to "shrug off" the words of their CHRIST, that you proceeded with your "argument." I would recommend that if at any point during a discussion, it is pointed out that a person has knowingly or unknowingly manipulated his/her listeners to summarily discard the words of Christ, that they turn around, go back to that issue or point, and clarify what they are saying for the record. At this point, you are simply saying that the verses you posted in your argument, are the rationale behind the Preterist view, and must therefore be abandoned and discarded.

I think Paul that we need to establish some ground rules if we are to have a meaningful debate. I think you know by now that I can answer any question you throw at me, but I will only do it if the premise is sound logically. I have told you this time and time again. I don't dodge questions that are built on valid arguments. But I don't have time to deal with issues that are not real logically.

I have here again brought up a very serious issue that plagues your TA. In your TA, you have asked your reader to have a DIFFERENT response to the WORDS OF CHRIST than the Preterist has had. That's all you've essentially done. You simply asked that they have a different response. In other words, you've stated that the Preterist takes the time statements of Jesus "seriously," implying that this is a bad thing. You then proceed without showing why the Preterist SHOULDN'T take the time statements of Jesus "seriously." Here's your quote again: "The HP will say that we must take these time texts (i.e., this generation, at hand, etc.,) seriously." What's implied in this statement of yours is: "The HP will say that, but not Paul Manata and neither should you, because if you DID, you'd be in agreement with the Preterist."

That's why I say you have to deal with the time texts. You MUST show WHY the time statements you mention in YOUR OWN ARGUMENT "shouldn't" be taken seriously. If you don't, all you've done is say that the Preterists are doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing in keeping with the Scriptures and the creeds, that is, holding the Bible as the "ultimate standard of orthodoxy" and holding to the concept of "SOLA SCRIPTURA" and the creedal mandate that the church should be reformed and always reforming. You have asked your readers to abandon these cardinal notions in spite of the fact that you show that Jesus actually said these things and affirm that the time statements are indeed there.

Paul, you keep saying that the Preterist doesn't have the "transcendentals" to argue their position. You have said that your questions have "epistemological priority" over mine. You say that the Preterist view "undermines itself." Paul, the thing that undermines itself is when people such as you, come along and try to get the Church to change the words of Christ into a lie (I'll point this out from your last post in a moment). The thing that doesn't have the "transcendentals" is someone who argues that the words of Christ have no meaning or power. Paul, as Bertrand Russell pointed out, if Jesus is wrong, none of this matters. You argue we're not in the New Heavens and New Earth and that's all well and fine. But if Jesus says we ARE and it turns out that we're NOT, that is a far greater blow to Christianity than you claim Preterism is.

So, before I deal with your last post, I'll ask you again, would you please tell your readers why they SHOULDN'T take the time statements of Jesus SERIOUSLY? I promise you here before God as my witness, I will thoroughly answer all of your questions. You have my solemn word on that. But I CANNOT answer what I believe to be useless questions. I take the time statements of Jesus SERIOUSLY. You have stated in YOUR OWN ARGUMENT that the Preterist says WE SHOULD do this. I submit that the creeds are clear on this issue as well in terms of the ONLY ORTHODOX response to the words of Christ are to SUBMIT and be taken captive by them, in spite of what men call the "ultimate standard of orthodoxy." The creeds, and everything else MUST BOW and be made CAPTIVE to the words of Christ. They should be taken SERIOUSLY. You have asked your reader to accept that the Preterist takes the words of Christ seriously. You then ask your reader to deem the Preterist a heretic. You NEVER however let your reader know WHY they SHOULDN'T take the time statements of CHRIST seriously.

I would ask that you take your time, go to the library if you can, get on a word processor with a Bible in front of you instead of a commentary, and explain why there is something LOGICALLY wrong with what the Preterist is doing in taking the time statements of Jesus seriously. What is LOGICALLY wrong with that? How does TAKING JESUS AT HIS WORD violate SCRIPTURE? How does TAKING JESUS AT HIS WORD violate the CREEDS? How does TAKING JESUS AT HIS WORD make the Preterist wrong? Here is your quote again so that it is what you are left with and what the world that reads this post will be left with. Why SHOULDN'T the Preterist do what you claim we do in your following quote, and why shouldn't EVERY OTHER CHRISTIAN?

And I quote: "Firstly, they [Preterists] believe that the second comming has already taken place. This second comming occured at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This idea is based of time texts in Scipture. For example, Mathew 24 states that 'truly, I say to you; this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.' (v. 34). And, I Peter 4:7 reads, 'The end of all things is at hand.' The HP will say that we must take these time texts (i.e., this generation, at hand, etc.,) seriously. They say 'Don't you think that God knows how to tell time?'"

Now, to your post above. Because I want to stay on track about the time statements, I will for the moment disregard your other statements about heaven and so on. I have already promised you that I will deal with them. In fact, I am writing an extensive article about your "all liars" issue which I think you will find adequate. In your above post, you say the following:

"Now, to answer the 'WHEN' which was your BIG point: You keep saying that Jesus said he would come back. Now I have said that He said he would come in judgement. But as far as His final, i.e., 'the Second comming' I will say what Jesus said, 'But of THAT day no one knows, NOT EVEN THE SON OF MAN!!!!!!' H.L. said that Jesus said WHEN he would come, but JESUS said that he didn't know WHEN!"

So, Paul, you're now claiming that you have found sanctuary for your futurist view in the very words of Christ? Okay, let's see if you have not made yet another admission that harms, not helps your argument. Now, you say that Jesus, with regard to His "second coming" (the one I assume you're implying is future), said that He didn't know the day or the hour of His coming and so therefore it has to be future from today. Do you see anything wrong with that logic? Non-sequitur maybe? A bit circular maybe? Does it logically follow from Jesus statement of not knowing the day or the hour, that it was thousands of years away from happening? Of course not. It could have happened within seconds after He said it and the statement of Jesus would have still been true. Here again, instead of helping your readers better understand the words of their Christ, you have further obscured them.

I asked you to deal with the time texts of Jesus in the Revelation 22:12-15 to clarify for your readers what you are stating when you agree that it is a past event. You, instead have now, in an attempt to yet again minimize the sacred words of Christ, abandoned your readers and suggested that Jesus essentially contradicted Himself (saying He was "coming quickly" and then didn't) and so it's okay to remain a futurist. That's not what you said but that is what is implied in your argument above. Your readers are not left more confused than before, because instead of answering a question you KNOW they must be asking by now, you continue to abandon them and their needs to protect yourself, even though you claim that it is for their good you are doing it.

Let's look closely at your reasoning here with regard to your "no man knows the day or the hour" statement. You have already stated in your so-called Transcendental Argument that the Preterists say the time statements of Jesus must be taken seriously (implying that this is a bad thing). You thereby indicate that those time statements do indeed exist and you make no attempt in your argument, or any of your subsequent posts, to deny their existence (i.e. you admit Jesus said them). (For the reader, this is nothing short of a manipulation to a particular direction without any reasonable explanation why they should go that direction.)

You then, in an effort to refute the irrefutable "A said B would happen P," you then state that "Jesus said that he didn't know when!" You thereby equivocate on "P," hoping not to get caught. How did you equivocate on P? How did you misrepresent your Lord and Christ? How did you minimize His divine words? You said that Jesus said He didn't know WHEN. But is this what Jesus really said in the verse you're referring to? Did Jesus say He didn't know WHEN or did Jesus say He didn't know the DAY OR THE HOUR? If Jesus didn't say he didn't know WHEN, then you have told a lie in the name of Christ. In fact, that is EXACTLY what you have done, because Jesus didn't say He didn't know when (within that generation), He simply said He didn't know the DAY or the HOUR. Paul, how many days and hours are there in a 40 year period? There are 14 thousand, 600 days not including leap years. How many hours are there within a generation? There are three hundred fifty thousand, four hundred days in a 40 year period.

Could Jesus know the generation of His return and still claim to not know the DAY or the HOUR? Sure. In fact, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE DID. But, is that how things remained? What would the writers of the creeds want me to do RIGHT NOW? They'd want me to hold up the Scriptures so that you are staring them right in the face. So here goes. Jesus said the following:

(Matthew 24:34-36) "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away. 36 But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only."

So, in the passage you reference, Jesus said that the FATHER ONLY knew the day and the hour, but Jesus also said quite clearly that the generation would not pass away until all the things he spoke of, including his coming, were fulfilled. So, JESUS KNEW that it would be within 40 years, just not exactly what DAY or HOUR within that period. Is there any logical merit to saying that because he didn't know the DAY or the HOUR, that this must mean he was WRONG about THAT GENERATION? Absolutely NONE.

Luke, as always, gives us a new perspective on Matthew's account. Here is Luke's version. Sola Scriptura buddy:

(Luke 12:40) "Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect."

So, would Luke be talking about the "coming of the Son of Man?" Sure sounds like it. So when was the "coming of the Son of Man" supposed to take place, Paul? You implied in your statement above that Jesus was suggesting that His "second coming' would be some time in the future. But Paul, wouldn't that be His THIRD COMING? Sure it would, based on the fact that you ALREADY AGREED he came the SECOND time in judgment. Didn't you say that Jesus came in judgment back then? Well, isn't that a "coming?" He'd already come ONCE. That would have been TWICE right? You must have gotten mixed up. You mean the "third coming" don't you? But Jesus makes no mention of a "third coming." Nor do His Apostles. But didn't Jesus say that the FATHER ONLY knew the day and the hour? Sure He did.

So, Paul, WHEN did the FATHER say that day and hour was to be? What? You're surprised that the FATHER actually DID weigh in on the issue before it happened? Paul, the FATHER weighed in WAY BEFORE it happened. God the Father spoke of these events way back in Daniel when He said that it would be in "the days of those kings." What kings? Well, read the passages in Daniel 2 and 3 and you'll see.

So what about the New Testament? Did our Father weigh in on it there? Sure did. Read this:

(Revelation 1:1) "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants -- things which must shortly take place."

So, God the FATHER, gave the Revelation to His Son, to show His servants -- things which must shortly take place. Paul, what things were those? All of them from the beginning of the book to the end of it. All these things were supposed to "shortly take place." What should your readers do with these words Paul? Was John sent to show things that were to shortly take place? If so, what were those things? Were only SOME of the "things" to take place "shortly" and others supposed to NOT take place for thousands of years? If the latter, which "things" would YOU SAY didn't "shortly take place?"

Paul, you are essentially saying that "I'm leaving it up to Jesus. If Jesus didn't know WHEN, then I can say I don't either." Okay, let's turn it around for a second. What if Jesus DID know the day and the hour? Would you believe Jesus? Would you agree with the EXACT WORDS of Christ, even if it went against your current mode of thinking? Absolutely NOT. You've already proven it in several of your posts. In fact, I dare say that these posts of ours have created more Preterists than they have dissuaded from the view. So, did Jesus REALLY say He didn't know when He would come? Did Jesus REALLY talk about "three comings?" One at AD70 and one thousands of years later (the THIRD ONE)? Is that accurate Paul? Is it honest? Do you even care at all about Christ and His word? Paul, did Jesus say his SECOND coming would be before that generation passed away? You know, the COMING after His FIRST one (making it SECOND). Sure He did, and you know any Preterist and most futurists can validate this statement by simply opening their Bibles to Matthew 24, Mark 13 or Luke 21 and simply reading down to the end of each chapter I've cited.

Here again, you are trapped in a room alone with the time statements of Jesus

So, Paul, are you ready, to admit before the world, that Jesus indeed DID know the day AND the hour because by the time John had received the Revelation of Jesus Christ, the Son had been made privy to that information and passed it on to John. Jesus was no longer just saying "within this generation." Jesus was now saying "I am coming quickly." This was a drastic change in urgency from the earlier sayings of Christ. Not only was Jesus still saying to keep watch, now Jesus was saying "let him that is vile, continue to be vile." that's how short the time was by the time the Father gave His Son the Revelation to give to His servants.

Paul, as I have said before, the time statements of Jesus, the ones you say the Preterist says must be taken seriously, these time statements of Jesus are the foundation of the Preterist view. You can into your argument against the Preterist view mentioning the time statements of Jesus and you simply brushed them aside like some piece of unimportant trash that needed to be quickly swept to the side so you could get to your more important points. Paul, your points are garbage in light of the words of Christ. Your words mean less than nothing in comparison to the surpassing greatness of the glorious words of Christ. Until you can show WHY the Preterist is incorrect in their admonition that the time statements of Christ must be taken seriously, then you are simply asking the Christian to do something that goes against his/her nature. You are simply asking the Christian to abandon their only Rock, their only foundation. - H.L. James - www.AD70.com


Date:
21 Jan 2004
Time:
08:54:56

Comments

H.L. I am supper busy right now. We are getting slammed at work (with floods). If I could beg your patience for a day or so I will respond. If I could ask that more posts don't go up that would make it easier, in that I don't want to be 2-3 posts behind. Thank You and I appreciate your waiting. -Paul


Date:
21 Jan 2004
Time:
11:50:16

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. This post is simply a supplement to my previous post. Take whatever time you need to give your readers the attention they deserve. As I've already promised, I will answer every single one of your questions in a scholarly manner. My reason for dealing with the above information first is because of your concern that statements be handled in order of epistemological priority. As you know, I share that concern. As Parmenides points out, the thing that "is" has epistemological priority over that which "may be argued from what is." As Parmenides puts it, and I quote: "Come now, I will tell thee — and do thou hearken to my saying and carry it away — the only two ways of search that can be thought of. The first, namely, that It is, and that it is impossible for it not to be, is the way of belief, for truth is its companion..." Paul, the "companion" of "what is" is truth. Since we want to eventually come to truth in this discussion, we must first begin with "what is." If "what is" has been misunderstood, then that misunderstanding must be first know. In other words, if Jesus cannot lie, and Jesus makes a statement that appears to be false, then there is a break in one of two primary (and hermeneutically necessary) systems. Either Jesus CAN lie, or the "lie" is some truth that has been misunderstood on its face. Before we can discuss what follows from words spoken by Christ, we must first "know" if His words are accurate, or we must "know" if it is possible for Christ to speak an untruth. Once we establish the "what is," we can then proceed from there. If we don't first establish this, we can later imply all sorts of things contrary to the "what is" in our argument without impunity. we have begun a journey not of words, but of concepts. Every logical discussion, as you have pointed out in your so-called Transcendental Argument, begins with a certain set of pre-conditions or implicit essentials that must at once be made explicit. If it is to be believed that Jesus and His Word are inerrant, than this must be established BEFORE any discussion can ensue that contains as the subject of study, His words. In your argument, you bring up verses of Holy Scripture as mentioned in my post above. Those words of Christ are "what is." Not the meaning "behind" the words, but the words themselves are "what is." The Preterist has argued that these "words" mean what they say on their face. This is what must be first "known" before any other thing that flows from the "what is." We must study the "what is," to make sure we fully understand it first. If we don't first understand "what is," then everything that flows from the "what is," is in jeopardy of being untrue. That's why we need to discuss the time statements of Jesus first. We need to give epistemological priority to them, since from them, all other discussions flow. If these words are misunderstood, then they are not KNOWN and no discussion about them can ensue (since they can either be true or untrue). They must be "known first" (epistemological priority). Once we have come to KNOW what is being said, once we understand "what is," then we can begin to KNOW those things that flow from "what is." I hope this is clear. Your reader deserves to KNOW how the Preterist has "misunderstood" the words of Jesus BEFORE we can show him/her "proof" of that misunderstanding. If we don't show your reader HOW the Preterist has "misunderstood" the time statements of Jesus, then you are just asking your reader to "assume" that the Preterist has misunderstood Jesus' words. You must do this by starting with the "what is," which are Jesus very words and explain how those words have been misunderstood. In other words, how "A" is really not "A" at all, but "B." Since it is KNOWN that Jesus cannot lie, and since I have pointed out above that God the Father gave the Revelation (no man knows the day or the hour... only the Father), we must FIRST address these time statements and be sure that they do not say what they appear to be saying. Without knowing this first (epistemological priority), there can be no further discussion, since any further discussion would simply "imply" the possibility of error on the part of God and would render any further discussions about God's Word completely without a solid foundation upon which to build any kind of sound argument. Put another way, if the words of Christ can be wrong (which would have to be proved given the solid doctrines of Christianity to the contrary), then He can be wrong, and His predictions, whether past, present or future, are rendered untrustworthy and therefore unwise to pursue (since they may be in error). I hope you see the importance of taking a step back, and dealing first with the words of Christ as they appear in the text of Holy Scripture to determine if either they are in error, or have been misunderstood by the Preterist (we cannot simply "assume" either possibility). The most critical thing to deal with first, the thing which must have epistemological priority, is the refutation of the statement: "A said B would happen P." Any discussion, without first dealing with the above equation, assumes the untruth of the equation and therefore implies error on the part of "A," which would mean that "A said B would happen W" is just as untrustworthy. Failure on the part of "A" or lack of understanding on the part of your reader as to how "A" has been misunderstood, undermines everything we are discussing here and indeed renders this discussion useless. I, for one, have no time for useless conversations. It would appear that you share this constraint as well - H.L. James - www.AD70.com


Date:
21 Jan 2004
Time:
12:07:10

Comments

please let off for a moment. I have a minute so I will BRIEFLY respond. Do you understand why I say it has epistemological priority? It is because the debate is not even intelligible without my question being delt with. That is, we cannot make epistemological sense out of debating. I hope you understand (even though I will still debate and I don't want this to get into yet ANOTHER rabbit trail) that by us debating we are essentially ASSUMING that my conclusion is wrong. ANyway, I will try and respond friday or saturday. -Paul


Date:
21 Jan 2004
Time:
16:05:00

Comments

I was told the debate was going on here but I dont have time nor patience to read alllll of the looong posts you guys are making here can I just ask this? In the comments page in Mike Krall's refutation I asked Paul what promise Peter was referring to in 2Peter 3:13. It seemed to me that Paul M was saying that Isa 65-66 was not the same nh and ne as Rev 21-22. If so then please answer my question as to what he was referring to. Thank you. Miquel Santa Maria


Date:
21 Jan 2004
Time:
17:21:57

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. QUICK NOTE: I understand your rationale, but you are taking the "antagonist" side of the argument. Your side of the argument is ALWAYS assumed incorrect when you take the antagonist side. The reason why is because there was already an argument on the table before you entered the room. The argument "A said B would happen P" was already there. You can't enter the debate saying "well, that's simply silly," and then continue on with your argument. I understand that your "argument" is that we cannot make epistemological sense out of debating. I understand that is your argument, but that argument begs the question (assumes "A said B would happen P" is false without having first proved it false). In other words, your argument is built on the notion that either "A DIDN'T SAY B would happen P," or "A WAS MISTAKEN about B happening P." In either of the above cases, we now have a conclusion from which to continue the discussion. However, if we determine that "A DID SAY B would happen P," then we must look at how this DIDN'T come to pass as predicted by "A." Your present argument has to "assume" its conclusion in its first premise, if we don't first deal with "A said B would happen P." Again, your argument may indeed be valid, but right now, it has no target. In other words, if "A said B would happen P," and that remains unchallenged (leaving "P" in the past), then your argument (if sound) simply proves "A" lied or was incorrect and doesn't target Preterism at all, since it would simply prove that the Preterist was simply doing the right thing in believing Jesus' words. Of course at that point, any claims made by Jesus would become untrustworthy. See how that outcome totally misses the mark of your argument? If however, "A" never said these things, or if it can be shown how the statements made should be viewed another way (logically), now you have an argument worth fighting for, since now your target is the one you first intended it to be; The Preterist. Right now, if your argument is sound, we have at least three possibilities that it creates: a.) Jesus was incorrect, b.) Jesus lied, and c.) Preterists misunderstand what Jesus said. You have stated that you believe it is the third of these possibilities. By stating this, you have shown that there is an "assumption" present in your reasoning (since you've never offered an argument to show how this has happened), and that is a logical fallacy. If you use your argument to prove your assumption, that is circular, since your assumption is your conclusion (i.e. Preterism is incorrect). Paul, it the assumption that the Preterist "misunderstood" Jesus' words that makes your argument even possible, for if Jesus' words are true, then your argument is a logical impossibility (since it would mean the New Heavens and New Earth are indeed here). Take all the time you need to respond to these posts, but please be advised, this debate will not continue if we don't first fix the foundation upon which it is built. - H.L. James - www.AD70.com


Date:
22 Jan 2004
Time:
09:00:22

Comments

h.l., I will try to respond sometime on saturday. Also, you show a rather naive view of who has "burden." We both have a job do. Especially when worldviews are being debated. But taking your rationale it is we (orthodox christians) who had our argument on the "table," so-to-speak,-first. So, even on your own terms, it is you who has burden. -Paul


Date:
22 Jan 2004
Time:
11:14:55

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. When you say that it is "orthodox" Christians who have their argument on the table first, that is a misstatement. Orthodoxy, in modern terms is gauged in terms of the Creeds and confessions. The definition placed on the word "orthodox" assumes that this is a "static" term. The Creeds themselves teach us that "orthodoxy" is not determined by the Creeds, but by Scripture. The Creeds are dynamic, changing, pliable. What is "Creedally" orthodox one century, can be altered or can change completely the next. The Scriptures which govern those Creeds, and therefore the pinnacle of true orthodoxy, are unchanging and the ultimate authority. The Preterist is saying that the Creeds have become, yet again, out of step with the deepening understanding of Scripture with regard to eschatology and are therefore due for another alteration (this is the very heart of reformed theology). Since we have appealed to the ultimate authority (Scripture), all others must prove us wrong. Like Luther, we are making the argument that the Preterist view is the view that most closely holds to Scripture (if the Creeds are out of step with that, then they must be altered and brought again into submission to the authority of the Word of God). Our argument is not one of "moral" or "philosophical" issues, it is one of defense for the very Word of God, which is the transcendental for all issues of philosophy and morality. The Creeds are malleable, in fact, every incarnation of the Creeds since the council of Nicea has been altered a bit. Each time, the alteration had to do with that era's deepening understanding of God's Word. Even though in many cases the Creeds have been used to battle error in the Church, that error was ALWAYS proven to be so from Scripture, and not from the Creeds. The Creeds were simply a statement of agreement with the Holy Scriptures. As admonished in the Westminster Confession, chapter 31, article IV, and I quote: "All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both." Paul, the statement "since the apostles' times" simply means "from the beginning of the Church." Orthodoxy is not determined by the Creeds unless those Creeds are, as stated in the Westminster Confession, are "consonant to the Word of God." The Preterist is saying that the Creeds are NOT "consonant" to the Word of God and have clearly shown why. However, Symbololatry is the order of the day, where Symbololaters worship the Creeds rather than making them bow to the authority of Scripture. These new idolaters fear the death of their god and so fight to protect it. The Preterists have a very valid argument that needs to be addressed, in spite of what the Creeds, and their worshippers say. In fact, anyone who says the Church should be reformed but NEVER reforming, is going against the Creeds and Confessions and is therefore an heretic pursuant to the Creeds and Confessions themselves. Creedal orthodoxy, by its very nature, means to allow the Scriptures to dictate truth. Once the Creeds become a wall through which the Scriptures cannot pass, they become the new Pope of the reformed Church and she sinks yet again (as is happening in the world today), back into eras of darkness and lies. I'm really trying to make sure, along with other Preterist theologians, that this doesn't happen again on our watch. Since the Word of God is the ultimate standard of orthodoxy and the final arbiter of any dispute regarding doctrine, it is the Word of God that must first be investigated to see if it REALLY is saying what we claim it is saying. If you recall, in the early arguments regarding the Trinity, the same was true. The proponents of the view were saying that the Bible teaches this concept. The opponents were saying it did not. The final arbiter was not previous "opinions." The final arbiter was the Bible itself. All the Preterist demands is that theologians embrace the legacy of Scriptural Supremacy. At this point, it is critical that we allow the Scriptures to clearly speak to this issue, without fear, without idolatrous allegiances to Creeds and Confessions, without appeals to consequences, and without guile. All I'm asking is that you rise to the occasion. You and I have the perfect forum to truly investigate the words of Christ. Let's courageously investigate the notion that "A said B would happen P," and see if that is really true or not. The Atheist Bertrand Russell had the courage to look this equation dead in the face, with honesty and candor. Are we, as Christians willing to do the same? Your ad hom comment that I "show a rather naive view of who has 'burden...'" is simply that; ad hom. I await your response to my above post. - H.L. James - www.AD70.com


Date:
22 Jan 2004
Time:
11:33:37

Comments

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen." -- Martin Luther, April, 1521


Date:
22 Jan 2004
Time:
14:34:57

Comments

Well I guess my question is not going to be answered. At least I know it is being read here and being dodged. Over in the other article's comments I gave the benefit of the doubt that it wasnt read but I know it was read here and avoided. That speaks volumes. Miquel


Date:
22 Jan 2004
Time:
16:37:59

Comments

HEY MR MIGUEL YOU QUESTION AINT GONNA BE ANSWERED CANT YOU SEE HE IS DODGING YOU? HEE HAW HEE HAW


Date:
22 Jan 2004
Time:
16:38:58

Comments

Mr Miquel you question aint gonna be answered. CAN YOU SEE HE IS DODGING YOU???????????????????? HEE HAW HEE HAW


Date:
23 Jan 2004
Time:
08:50:25

Comments

H.L., those last two posts did VOLUMES in those "undecided" peoples minds. I thank the above poster, again, for his representation of preterism. btw, I don't know what question Miquel was referring to? And, H.L., again you misrepresent me in order to make you sound better (this is something I will go into detail in in my post) You firstly equivocate, i.e., you said your ARGUMENT was on the table first, I pointed that ours was-in the creeds-you now turned that into me saying that I BELIEVE it based on the creeds. Now, was that what I said? Any charitable reader would not think so. I could have said that my argumemt was in the Bible, but you would have said that I begged the question. The only point I was making was that our ARGUMENT was on the table first. You ignore this point and then put me in the worst possible light, in order to "refute" me. Now, since our argument was on the table first (and both sides can say, "well mine is in the bible") then it is you, NOT ME, who has burden. further, my comment was not ad-hom in the fallacious sense anyway. I simply pointed out that you have a naive view of burden of proof, especially when worldviews are on the line. A good resource for you to read is, John Frame's "The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God," especially his section on burden. Anyway, I will try my best to have something in on Saturday. -Paul


Date:
23 Jan 2004
Time:
13:01:16

Comments

Miquel here- for Paul's sake I will ask my question again. Since it appears that you believe that the nh and ne of Isaiah 65-66 is not the same one in Rev 21-22 then what promise was Peter referring to in 2Pet 3:13 when he said according to his promise we look for a nh and ne? Thanks Miquel Santa Maria


Date:
23 Jan 2004
Time:
14:18:35

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. Your statement, and I quote: "H.L., again you misrepresent me in order to make you sound better (this is something I will go into detail in in my post)" is completely untrue.

I didn't misrepresent you. Again, are you reading the same posts I'm publishing? My statement that you depend on the creeds for your view is accurate. You believe in a "future" coming of Christ and a "future" resurrection of the "flesh." These things are NOT in the Bible, as has been pointed out by numerous scholars.

Your view is not in Scripture. That's not a misrepresentation. It's the truth. Here is the proof that your view is not in Scripture: You mention the time statements of Jesus and then simply brush them aside without dealing with them in your argument. By mentioning them in your argument, you agree that they are indeed in the Bible, in other words, "Jesus said them.". As I mentioned earlier, you then simply "assume" that the Preterist "must have misunderstood" the words of Jesus that you agree are indeed there.

The problem is, you have never, nor can you, explain to your reader how the Preterist has "misunderstood" the time statements of Jesus. In fact, when you had run out of ammunition in this regard, you simply resort to the tired statement: "Well, Jesus did say that no man knows the day or the hour!" Paul, face it, if you had an answer as to how the Preterist has "misunderstood" the time statements, you'd just type a couple of paragraphs up real quick and show us why.

What you do is similar to what Gene Cook and many others do, they say "I don't know exactly what's wrong with the Preterist view, but I know it's not right." You've simply stated, "I don't know exactly HOW the Preterist has misunderstood the words of Christ, I just KNOW they have." Paul, that's a circular argument. If that puts you in a "bad light," then so be it. That's the light you're in right now.

You have no answer as to why the Preterist should NOT take the words of Jesus at face value. You've thrown out phrases like: "that's simplistic" and "you've misunderstood." Yet you NEVER explain what you mean by that. You have never explained it, and I suspect you will never explain it because you cannot explain it. The fact is, you don't know exactly HOW the Preterist has misunderstood the words of Christ. You just "assume" they MUST have. If you knew the actual "mechanism," you'd be able to say it.

In other words, you would say something like, "The Preterist has misunderstood the words of Jesus in the following way:" Then you could go on and say something like, "The word "generation" means "race," and the word "quickly" actually means "lively," and the words "at hand" actually could mean thousands of years, and the words 'to give to each one according to his works' is actually speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, and not the final coming in judgment, etc."

Paul, see how you have to deal directly with the statements for this to ever find resolution? You have to alter the "A said B would happen P" argument by dealing with either "B" or "P." You can't alter "B" because "B" is at the foundation of everything the Christian believes. What is at issue is the "timing" of "B." So, your job, if you ever want to be in a position to even bring an argument against the Preterist view, is to show that "P" is actually not in the past at all, even though the language clearly seems to indicate that it is indeed in the past.

You have to show your readers how the time statements DON'T MEAN what ANY unbiased reader would believe they DO mean. I sincerely hope that in the "answer" you've been promising, you deal DIRECTLY with this issue. Because as it stands right now, it's Jesus word against yours. The burden is on you, my friend, to prove my last statement wrong. Jesus says these things are past events. You have even admitted this to your readers in your so-called Transcendental Argument.

Now, show me, and your readers, how the words of Jesus (that YOU CITED IN YOUR ARGUMENT) don't really mean what they appear to be saying. In the time statements you mention in your argument above, Jesus says "past." Now, show us why "past" really means "future." Without that, I will have to take Jesus' words over yours. Here is your statement from your argument again. Please consult the verses you cite so that you have a clear understanding of what they're saying. Then, show your readers why the actual words contained in these verses don't really mean what they say.

And I quote: "Hyper-Preterism is the belief that all eschatalogical prophacy has been fulfilled. Though I have noticed that there is disagreement between them as to what counts as an eschatological prophacy we can sum up their position by stating the basic things HPs are in agreement on. Firstly, they believe that the second comming has already taken place. This second comming occured at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This idea is based of time texts in Scipture. For example, Mathew 24 states that "truly, I say to you; this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." (v. 34). And, I Peter 4:7 reads, "The end of all things is at hand." The HP will say that we must take these time texts (i.e., this generation, at hand, etc.,) seriously."

Paul, has that "generation passed away?" If so, then all the things spoken of by Jesus have already taken place. Paul, was the "end of all things near?" If not, then Peter lied. There are over 60 texts just like these two, and you cannot even deal with these two, even though you have implicitly asked your readers to simply "accept on faith" that they don't mean what they appear to be saying. You've asked your reader to ignore that Jesus said that "generation" would not pass away until all those things were fulfilled. You've asked your reader to put a different meaning on "the end of all things is NEAR." You've asked your readers to conclude that NEAR doesn't mean near at all

Now we look to you to show us why the words "generation" doesn't mean generation (40 years), and why NEAR actually means "thousands of years." Paul, your only options are to either take the words at face value, alter the words of Christ, or insult the intelligence of your reader. You've already done enough of the latter, so I hope this "answer" you're preparing gives us all at least some small morsel of satisfaction intellectually and finally shows us why all your readers shouldn't believe that Jesus meant what He said and why Peter was wrong when He said the "end of all things" was "near" over 1900 year ago. - H.L. James - www.AD70.com


Date:
23 Jan 2004
Time:
20:13:36

Comments

Miquel here- for Paul's sake I will ask my question again. Since it appears that you believe that the nh and ne of Isaiah 65-66 is not the same one in Rev 21-22 then what promise was Peter referring to in 2Pet 3:13 when he said according to his promise we look for a nh and ne? Thanks Miquel Santa Maria


Date:
24 Jan 2004
Time:
10:06:17

Comments

when I get done with my jobs today I plan to write you H.L. This is a quicky for Miquel. Miquel, I never said that ALL Isa. 65 is past. I have continually stated that there are already/not yet elements to it. So, your view that I do not believe that the Isa nh/e and the Rev nh/e is not totally accurate. Thus, I believe that Peter is talking about the promise of a new PHYSICAL heavens and earth, where we get our glorified bodies and a UNcursed earth. In Rev we read that there will be "no longer any CURSE." Now, in Gen we read that the GROUND was cursed. Since man is still toiling and breaking his back pulling weeds I must conclude that the ground is still cursed, thus we cannot be in a place where there is NO curse. There was NO curse PRE-fall, i.e., man didn't break his back and toil, to the earth, there will be none in the consumated NH and E. I think if IIPet.3 is read you can see that, starting from verse 5, Peter is talking about the CREATION, i.e., the creation of the physical heavens and Earth. I think the context of the whole chapter demads a PHYSICAL Nh and E. Any that is my two cents. My next post will be a response to H.L. and I think I will end it at that. -Paul


Date:
24 Jan 2004
Time:
14:33:31

Comments

I am confused now. I still dont understand if the nh and ne of Isa 65 is what Peter was referring to. Either it is not. If it is and the physical heavens and earth is what is being destroyed in 2Peter than ALL of Isa 65-66 is yet future. I dont see how proper biblical interpretation can say otherwise. Miquel Santa Maria


Date:
24 Jan 2004
Time:
14:34:40

Comments

Correction on last post. I meant it either is or is not fulfilled. Miquel


Date:
24 Jan 2004
Time:
16:22:26

Comments

Paul - Matthew 24 can not be divided. Luke 17 mixes the Matthew 24 verses. Therefore heaven and earth in Matthew 24 has passed away. Therefore heaven and earth fled away in Revelation 20 (the great white throne judgment). Therefore we are in the new heaven and new earth of Revelation 21. Case closed <><


Date:
29 Jan 2004
Time:
11:57:40

Comments

Well...I guess the case IS closed!


Date:
29 Jan 2004
Time:
15:20:24

Comments

Yea case is closed and Paul gets away with dodging another question. That figures.............


Date:
07 Feb 2004
Time:
10:26:31

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. Hello stranger. On January 24, 2004, you posted a message to me on this board letting me know that you would be writing a response to my post about your mention of the time texts in your article above. ___________________________________________________________________ You said that you were going to be writing it on the following Saturday. Now, weeks have gone by and you have failed to answer that simple request. I was looking forward to reading it. ___________________________________________________________________ Paul, what I think is now clear to all is that you have no answer to the above questions. If you did, you would do what you always do and just put together an answer. Now, I'm going to ask you to do something for me. You don't need to attempt a response because your King is now in Check Mate. As such, I would like you to get together with me in some capacity and go over these things from the Bible. ___________________________________________________________________ It is now obvious to all that you need to learn a bit more about the Preterist view and why people like myself believe it so strongly. In fact, I believe it cannot be refuted and your attempts to do so have merely proven my point even more. ___________________________________________________________________ I hope that it is now clear to you, and everyone who reads this board, that you have no argument or explanation as to why you used the time statements in your argument without showing your readers why those time statements should be taken any other way than they are stated. In doing this, you have been dishonest, however not meaning to be. In addition, your dishonesty was further exibited when you said you would write a response and then you didn't. ___________________________________________________________________ Paul, the Preterist view of these things is the ONLY view that makes sense. The Preterist view is so difficult for you to argue against because it is true. I invite you to embrace this view of Scripture at least until you can refute it. Any other option would be dishonest. To continue to attempt to refute the truth will only result in more dishonesty. Give what I've said here some serious thought and please, if you're going to post something in response to this post, please let it by the answer you promised on January 24. Anything other than that will simply further strengthen my position. - H.L. James -- www.ad70.com


Date:
07 Feb 2004
Time:
17:18:18

Comments

Hey stranger. James I don't know if you work or not, or if you are familar with the type of work i do?...or not. But I have been busy...sorry. What I am doing though is typing up a response to send to Todd Dennis. This is the way I will debate from now on. So whenever I get that done it will be posted and then you can poat a response on your site. Sound good? I will address more than the time texts. i will also include your lies and misrepresentations about me (epistemologically equal to God...for one). Addressing it the way I am going to will be good so that others will be forced to read that instead of it being ignored on this message board. I will make it clear that those are points that need to be addressed..thus you will not get away with the libel. I will give you time to prepare: you said that in Rev the things that are about to soon take place meant ALL the things mentioned after that. I will show how I can be a better HP than the HP's buy applying that logic to Eze. 12. Also, I will go into more detail with the transition in Matt 24. Further, i will expand on my TA to address the "refutations of it." Also, you chided me for not putting my response out as promised?, well, you also promised an explanation of the liars...!...so let us not act so innocent. I will include the other verses which support my view. So, be patient and it will come. I know that HPs have nothing to do but talk about HPism but I do other things and study ALL Scriptural doctrines. p.s., I like how you mentioned the secular city as a fantasic book. I got it and have seen many arguments used against me from that book. I hope you don't think that it is that good though. I mean, the evidentialism and non-reformed epistemology is rampant in there. Anyway, don't worry, it will come. It will just be debated on my terms...not this forum where I have a few minutes here and there to post something. Again, for those reading, it was NEVER answered how SOME liars can enter a place where NONE can. Anyway this will be more painful as I draw it out. I would appreciate if you could post your "liars answer" for me so I can interact with that as well, instead of having to do that later. Thanks, oh yea, maybe I won't need to after the hammering Mathison and Co. will be giving you in the edited book comming out at the end of the month. -paul


Date:
07 Feb 2004
Time:
17:18:24

Comments

Hey stranger. James I don't know if you work or not, or if you are familar with the type of work i do?...or not. But I have been busy...sorry. What I am doing though is typing up a response to send to Todd Dennis. This is the way I will debate from now on. So whenever I get that done it will be posted and then you can poat a response on your site. Sound good? I will address more than the time texts. i will also include your lies and misrepresentations about me (epistemologically equal to God...for one). Addressing it the way I am going to will be good so that others will be forced to read that instead of it being ignored on this message board. I will make it clear that those are points that need to be addressed..thus you will not get away with the libel. I will give you time to prepare: you said that in Rev the things that are about to soon take place meant ALL the things mentioned after that. I will show how I can be a better HP than the HP's buy applying that logic to Eze. 12. Also, I will go into more detail with the transition in Matt 24. Further, i will expand on my TA to address the "refutations of it." Also, you chided me for not putting my response out as promised?, well, you also promised an explanation of the liars...!...so let us not act so innocent. I will include the other verses which support my view. So, be patient and it will come. I know that HPs have nothing to do but talk about HPism but I do other things and study ALL Scriptural doctrines. p.s., I like how you mentioned the secular city as a fantasic book. I got it and have seen many arguments used against me from that book. I hope you don't think that it is that good though. I mean, the evidentialism and non-reformed epistemology is rampant in there. Anyway, don't worry, it will come. It will just be debated on my terms...not this forum where I have a few minutes here and there to post something. Again, for those reading, it was NEVER answered how SOME liars can enter a place where NONE can. Anyway this will be more painful as I draw it out. I would appreciate if you could post your "liars answer" for me so I can interact with that as well, instead of having to do that later. Thanks, oh yea, maybe I won't need to after the hammering Mathison and Co. will be giving you in the edited book comming out at the end of the month. -paul


Date:
07 Feb 2004
Time:
17:18:25

Comments

Hey stranger. James I don't know if you work or not, or if you are familar with the type of work i do?...or not. But I have been busy...sorry. What I am doing though is typing up a response to send to Todd Dennis. This is the way I will debate from now on. So whenever I get that done it will be posted and then you can poat a response on your site. Sound good? I will address more than the time texts. i will also include your lies and misrepresentations about me (epistemologically equal to God...for one). Addressing it the way I am going to will be good so that others will be forced to read that instead of it being ignored on this message board. I will make it clear that those are points that need to be addressed..thus you will not get away with the libel. I will give you time to prepare: you said that in Rev the things that are about to soon take place meant ALL the things mentioned after that. I will show how I can be a better HP than the HP's buy applying that logic to Eze. 12. Also, I will go into more detail with the transition in Matt 24. Further, i will expand on my TA to address the "refutations of it." Also, you chided me for not putting my response out as promised?, well, you also promised an explanation of the liars...!...so let us not act so innocent. I will include the other verses which support my view. So, be patient and it will come. I know that HPs have nothing to do but talk about HPism but I do other things and study ALL Scriptural doctrines. p.s., I like how you mentioned the secular city as a fantasic book. I got it and have seen many arguments used against me from that book. I hope you don't think that it is that good though. I mean, the evidentialism and non-reformed epistemology is rampant in there. Anyway, don't worry, it will come. It will just be debated on my terms...not this forum where I have a few minutes here and there to post something. Again, for those reading, it was NEVER answered how SOME liars can enter a place where NONE can. Anyway this will be more painful as I draw it out. I would appreciate if you could post your "liars answer" for me so I can interact with that as well, instead of having to do that later. Thanks, oh yea, maybe I won't need to after the hammering Mathison and Co. will be giving you in the edited book comming out at the end of the month. -paul


Date:
07 Feb 2004
Time:
17:18:26

Comments

Hey stranger. James I don't know if you work or not, or if you are familar with the type of work i do?...or not. But I have been busy...sorry. What I am doing though is typing up a response to send to Todd Dennis. This is the way I will debate from now on. So whenever I get that done it will be posted and then you can poat a response on your site. Sound good? I will address more than the time texts. i will also include your lies and misrepresentations about me (epistemologically equal to God...for one). Addressing it the way I am going to will be good so that others will be forced to read that instead of it being ignored on this message board. I will make it clear that those are points that need to be addressed..thus you will not get away with the libel. I will give you time to prepare: you said that in Rev the things that are about to soon take place meant ALL the things mentioned after that. I will show how I can be a better HP than the HP's buy applying that logic to Eze. 12. Also, I will go into more detail with the transition in Matt 24. Further, i will expand on my TA to address the "refutations of it." Also, you chided me for not putting my response out as promised?, well, you also promised an explanation of the liars...!...so let us not act so innocent. I will include the other verses which support my view. So, be patient and it will come. I know that HPsx(4íR


Date:
07 Feb 2004
Time:
17:18:27

Comments

Hey stranger. James I don't know if you work or not, or if you are familar with the type of work i do?...or not. But I have been busy...sorry. What I am doing though is typing up a response to send to Todd Dennis. This is the way I will debate from now on. So whenever I get that done it will be posted and then you can poat a response on your site. Sound good? I will address more than the time texts. i will also include your lies and misrepresentations about me (epistemologically equal to God...for one). Addressing it the way I am going to will be good so that others will be forced to read that instead of it being ignored on this message board. I will make it clear that those are points that need to be addressed..thus you will not get away with the libel. I will give you time to prepare: you said that in Rev the things that are about to soon take place meant ALL the things mentioned after that. I will show how I can be a better HP than the HP's buy applying that logic to Eze. 12. Also, I will go into more detail with the transition in Matt 24. Further, i will expand on my TA to address the "refutations of it." Also, you chided me for not putting my response out as promised?, well, you also promised an explanation of the liars...!...so let us not act so innocent. I will include the other verses which support my view. So, be patient and it will come. I know that HPs have nothing to do but talk about HPism but I do other things and study ALL Scriptural doctrines. p.s., I like how you mentioned the secular city as a fantasic book. I got it and have seen many arguments used against me from that book. I hope you don't think that it is that good though. I mean, the evidentialism and non-reformed epistemology is rampant in there. Anyway, don't worry, it will come. It will just be debated on my terms...not this forum where I have a few minutes here and there to post something. Again, for those reading, it was NEVER answered how SOME liars can enter a place where NONE can. Anyway this will be more painful as I draw it out. I would appreciate if you could post your "liars answer" for me so I can interact with that as well, instead of having to do that later. Thanks, oh yea, maybe I won't need to after the hammering Mathison and Co. will be giving you in the edited book comming out at the end of the month. -paul


Date:
07 Feb 2004
Time:
17:18:29

Comments

Hey stranger. James I don't know if you work or not, or if you are familar with the type of work i do?...or not. But I have been busy...sorry. What I am doing though is typing up a response to send to Todd Dennis. This is the way I will debate from now on. So whenever I get that done it will be posted and then you can poat a response on your site. Sound good? I will address more than the time texts. i will also include your lies and misrepresentations about me (epistemologically equal to God...for one). Addressing it the way I am going to will be good so that others will be forced to read that instead of it being ignored on this message board. I will make it clear that those are points that need to be addressed..thus you will not get away with the libel. I will give you time to prepare: you said that in Rev the things that are about to soon take place meant ALL the things mentioned after that. I will show how I can be a better HP than the HP's buy applying that logic to Eze. 12. Also, I will go into more detail with the transition in Matt 24. Further, i will expand on my TA to address the "refutations of it." Also, you chided me for not putting my response out as promised?, well, you also promised an explanation of the liars...!...so let us not act so innocent. I will include the other verses which support my view. So, be patient and it will come. I know that HPs have nothing to do but talk about HPism but I do other things and study ALL Scriptural doctrines. p.s., I like how you mentioned the secular city as a fantasic book. I got it and have seen many arguments used against me from that book. I hope you don't think that it is that good though. I mean, the evidentialism and non-reformed epistemology is rampant in there. Anyway, don't worry, it will come. It will just be debated on my terms...not this forum where I have a few minutes here and there to post something. Again, for those reading, it was NEVER answered how SOME liars can enter a place where NONE can. Anyway this will be more painful as I draw it out. I would appreciate if you could post your "liars answer" for me so I can interact with that as well, instead of having to do that later. Thanks, oh yea, maybe I won't need to after the hammering Mathison and Co. will be giving you in the edited book comming out at the end of the month. -paul


Date:
09 Feb 2004
Time:
09:40:06

Comments

Mike, Luke is WELL KNOWN as a writter who MIXES TIMING! This is well known, so to use Luke as the defining force is not wise since his gospels are not chronological. Furthermore, Luke 17 is NOT the the olivet, Luke 21 is! Moreover, in 17 we read that Jesus is even in a different place. On top of that we read in Mathew that in the verses before the transition it will be a time a great DISTRESS...after the transition everyone will be eating, drinking, and partying....doesn't seem like the same events. Even more, before the transition we read of judgment on ISRAEL, or JUDEA. That is, is is always specific. After the transition the language gets universal in charachter. Even more stuff, if the judgment took place and we are in the NH and E then we would not be debating it since there ARE NO liars there. If you say that it doesn't mean NO then you HAVE TO say that SOME are in the city, but we read that NOTHING can enter it. So, which is it? Does it really mean all...like it says? Or does it mean not all? If the former than my point is granted. if the latter you make the bible contradictory and silly. Example, it doesn't mean ALL lIARS, then it doesn't mean ALL murders and sexually immoral and idolaters. Oh it does mean ALL of those? then it is ad hoc to say it doesn't at the liars. Anyway, you know my position. -Paul


Date:
11 Feb 2004
Time:
16:14:34

Comments

Well THEY ARE BACK!!!!!! Well it is good to see some are back so maybe now DaMann will clarify that question that guy Miquel is asking. I wonder if Miquel had the patience to wait and see if his confusion would be set straight. I hope your there Miquel.....HEE HAW HEE HAW................


Date:
13 Feb 2004
Time:
14:29:38

Comments

miquel, it's called already/not yet


Date:
14 Feb 2004
Time:
14:00:35

Comments

already but not yet heh? Good way to dodge an answer. Either Peter was talking about Isaiah 65 or he wasnt. It is that simple.


Date:
14 Feb 2004
Time:
14:00:41

Comments

already but not yet heh? Good way to dodge an answer. Either Peter was talking about Isaiah 65 or he wasnt. It is that simple.


Date:
16 Feb 2004
Time:
15:58:40

Comments

no it's not. Oh. I guess this theological doctrine held to by the majority of Christianity is also false! Basically you guys are saying that everyone was wrong about everything. but let's embarrass you: there are "apparently" conflicting accounts in the Bible (e.g., rez. virgin birth, geneologies, etc) not an atheist could say, either their were two angels are there was one...it's simple. Now you wouldn't accept this would you? You see, maybe the reason presterists err is because they think everything is so simple and has to fit together like a nice puzzle....rationalists. Theology is hard work. -paul


Date:
20 Feb 2004
Time:
17:16:22

Comments

that last remark by paul smells of priestcraft


Date:
21 Feb 2004
Time:
18:00:37

Comments

oh, so you just deal with the first sentance and don't deal with the argument that follows? and...go read a BEGINNERS logic text and find out about valid and invalid arguments from authority...you will find that I used a valid one. ...preistcraft lol. gimme a brake


Date:
28 Feb 2004
Time:
08:06:57

Comments

I aint given you a break you had enough of them. Start being consistent.


Date:
23 Mar 2004
Time:
16:36:25

Comments

H.L. James, next time that your on paltalk, and you are talking to bradford Meyers, can you let him know...included with telling him that i didn't respond because I know that you "refuted" me (which is untrue and I think you have not even touched it, and I gave the reasons why i wasn't responding-I'm sure you want the best response possibe)...can you also tell him that my main argument about the liars (which was never addressed by the way) is something that you said you would post a refutation of...but you haven't either! Can you do that? Can you not be hypocritical, please. It embarrasses you. btw, Rom 8:3 is talking about the law justifying you...sheesh, this is theology 101 man. take care, Paul


Date:
18 May 2004
Time:
19:12:38

Comments

Hey Paul... H.L. James here. It's now almost June and still no response from you. You keep mentioning the things I said I'd answer. The issue, as you know, is that your argument has cracks in its reasoning that have to be addressed before I can take it seriously. I've already shown you what those cracks are in my posts above. Once you have fixed those cracks, only then can your argument be taken as a serious argument. Until then, it is simply an example of poor logic in argumentation that students of logic can use as a tool to show how NOT to argue. Let me know when you have posted logical answers to the inconsistencies I've pointed out in your argument. Thanks... H.L. James


Date: 28 Oct 2005
Time: 07:32:50

Comments:

Is this the best you have Mr. Manata? The internet is full of much, much better insults given out to the Preterist, and their viewpoints.
I suggest the Don Rickles school of insults.

Butch

 

Click For Index Page

Free Online Books Historical Preterism Modern Preterism Study Archive Critical Articles Dispensationalist dEmEnTiA  Main Josephus Church History Hyper Preterism Main

Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis  (todd @ preteristarchive.com) Opened in 1996
http://www.preteristarchive.com