Home Parody Discuss all kinds of neat stuff.

Skeptic X: J. P., who hops, skips, and jumps over rebuttals that he can't answer in a debate, Yeah right! We're still waiting for X to produce an actual example of such a "hopped, skipped" argument that actually affected his case. When recently challenged to do so on TheologyWeb, he evaded and told me to go first. I did -- he evaded my comparison of myself to InfidelGuy in terms of donations. No peep back from him, and since then he has disappeared on alleged family emergencies, which seem to crop up every time he gets in trouble. Maybe he's just lucky. Anyway, let's start this with an advisory so that the reader who doesn't enjoy the exchange can get to the point. regular commentary will be in green; responses to significant point will be in red. Easy to scan for, won't waste your time if you don't want to. Sound good? Now have fun looking for the red parts. As little substance as X provides, you may miss it. has complained that I didn't reply to 90% of the material And he didn't. in his article "Come Again?" which put his spin "Spin" here is X's word for "interpretation backed up by relevant contextual study" on the so-called "Olivet Discourse" "So-called"? What? He thinks this is an issue? Hey, we can nitpick as good as he can. Maybe he wants to call Matthew 24 "Fred". in Matthew 24.  I have explained that my first reply to him, which was published in the September/October 2002 issue of The Skeptical Review, had to skip several of his points and touch others just briefly because he wanted to insert a long and irrelevant diversion on the Petrine epistles to cover his inability to address the other points. Now maybe we'll shame him into doing more. his rehashing of Gary DeMar's article Book, actually, and we're still waiting for an explanation of why one can't use source material and not have X make an issue of it with such terms as "rehashing". As if X were the kingpin of original thought to begin with. on the Olivet discourse took up 10 pages and left me only five pages All the more reason he never should have wagged the Petrine dog's tail into the mix. This is some excuse: "I had little room to reply to your article, so I brought up a different topic!" to reply to a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions that X can't answer, but needs to instill confidence to do so that he had pieced together from the works of Gary DeMar and other preterists. Uh gee, using sources is such a crime. So any time you see a scholarly article in Journal of Biblical Literature with lots of footnotes, you can diss it by saying that the author "pieced together" his material "from the works of" those he cited as sources. This is just X's typical boo game of trying to distract from the issues by pretending the use of sources somehow is significant and actually detracts from argument quality.  I have just completed a 9-part, 120,000-word reply to Holding's so-call [sic] answer What does he want to call it? "My Daddy"? to my five-page reply. Yep, and we have already answered all of it while X was busy complaining that we should not be allowed to solicit funds.   In this series, I answered him point by point in detail.  I skipped nothing, I.e., he bored us to death with distractive bombast -- we'll see how he likes it this way. and now I intend to go through his original article in the same format so that he cannot say that I have evaded anything. Not by skipping it, anyway. X has other ways to evade, plenty of 'em. He will not be able to say the same, because he is not about to take my replies and answer them point by point. And you'll see why here. It's as dull as all get out to reply to all this bombast X produces and the way he uses 5000 words to say what could have been said in 50. This paragraph is a great example.  For one thing, he doesn't have the patience. No one does. That's what X hopes. If he can put you to sleep reading his bombast, you'll never notice he didn't actually make an argument worth beans. I do go through all of X's stuff, though, and in so doing perform the public service of eliminating all that bombast and repetition. I know of no one who enjoys combing through X's articles other than X himself and a few of his loyal fans who would think it brilliant if he answered the question, "Name three secular references to Jesus," with the reply, "Peter Piper, Peter Parker, and Peter Principle."  It takes patience to go through a debating opponent's articles as I have done to his, Or a hard head. and he isn't going to do that. I.e., I refuse to waste the reader's time addressing bombast like this. But if you are bored anyway, you have by now been scanning for the stuff in red. Unless you are a sadomasochist who likes reading X's every word. He wants to keep the crank turning so that he can produce quantity with no concern for quality. He wants to dream, let him. He has to apply some skilled rationale to get out of predicaments. For an example check TheologyWeb and the "Contrived Gospels" forum for the litany of excuses he made up to get out of his "90% of the website" reading error. First he blamed it on not understanding how I could arrive at a figure. Then he blamed me for not communicating clearly, though he seems to be the only one who had the problem reading.   The fact is that I have seen indications that he is looking for a way to get out of the debates with me. Nope. He can keep it running. This is more like projection.  I will have more to say about this later in an article entitled "Where Are the Links?", Actually this was already up BEFORE this article I am now responding to, so I guess X's webmaster attended to it out of order. But see here -- it's more a case of X not following or remembering instructions. but here I will say only that this is no surprise to me. No surprise to me either that X can't recall which sock went on which foot.   I predicted early in the land-promise debate that he would drop out. Ain't dropped diddly. And it was X that ran from a debate on TheologyWeb under the pretense of needing "guidelines" that were mostly already in place under TWeb's rules, and that he didn't need to debate people on his own list-forum. I will now go through his "Olivet Discourse" article and reply to any sections in it that I didn't specifically address in any of the rebuttal articles I have written so far. About time, 6 months late.  Any sections that were previously answered will be deleted to avoid unnecessary repetition, Heaven knows that X, who repeated the Deut. 9 argument only 30 times in Land Promise II, wants to avoid "unnecessary repetition" but it may be that I will go over some points again if I should think of anything that should have been said about them in the other articles. Holding [in his original article]: A skeptic with an inflated view of his own knowledge recently commented concerning my plan to write this article, "It's not clear how an article of any size can equate the destruction of Jerusalem with seeing the Son of Man in clouds coming in his kingdom." So it might not be clear, as we have been taught time and time again by popular works, ranging from The Late Great Planet Earth to the Left Behind series, and now also in books like John MacArthur's The Second Coming, that the quotes from Matthew and parallels concern a Temple yet built, a coming yet made, and a tribulation yet suffered. Repetition tends to become fixed in such a way that any alternative is automatically viewed with suspicion or dismissed as an "excuse" (as one person wrote me) to try and preserve the inerrancy of Scripture. Skeptic X: I think I know who the skeptic was that Holding referred to, and those who have read my other articles undoubtedly know that I agree with the skeptic. That's nice. So what? This is the kind of bombast (and what is below) that I edit out and that X thinks is worth repeating. We don't need all of these life stories, but it's the sort of fluff X produces to imitate substance.  The preterist attempt to make all of the astronomical signs of the "coming" and the fiery destruction of the earth just figurative language is without merit, or at least neither Holding nor any other preterist I have read has ever shown any sound literary reasons why the language should be so interpreted. We're of course arguing that very point, and that doesn't stop X from inserting fluff like this as part of his confidence game. Which he thinks we need to quote in full.  On the other hand, I have presented very detailed reasons why the language should be interpreted literally. All of which we have thoroughly refuted. Once broad assertion deserves another.   As for the views of MacArthur and the other authors mentioned, I have made it clear in my other articles that I am not a dispensationalist, so I don't really care what they may have said in their books. Well, sorry, X, but the original article wasn't written with just you and your personal interests in mind. When you are through with your seat at the center of the universe, can someone else have it?  I will say the same thing about them as I have said about preterists. And say it, and say it, and say it...  Until they can produce sound literary support for their views on biblical passages related to the second coming, We have. It's called understanding Hebrew imagery and language. I will consider them just another group of biblicists frantically looking for some way to explain the obvious failure of New Testament prophecies that the return of Jesus was imminent. Thank you for that valuable personal opinion on dispensationalists. Now why did all of that need to be said? It didn't. It's just X's inflated self-perception bursting from the page. If you aren't skipping all of this and looking for stuff in red by now, you are either a true sadomasochist or else enjoying the riposte. Holding: But is it? The charge implies that the interpretation is somehow "new," a construction invented by modern believers who are resisting the past. Actually, dispensationalism and it's [sic] own idea of a Rapture are the new kids on the block; preterism, and the idea that the Olivet Discourse and other passages refer to 70 AD events, has a much longer pedigree. Skeptic X: I have already commented on this line of reasoning in Holding's articles, but I will go over it again to show how Holding debates out of both sides of his mouth. I.e., to waste time repeating another error in perception he made ages ago.   In our debate on the Jehu/Hosea issue; he based his position on the meaning of Hosea 1:4 on "new research" on the Hebrew word paqad that had just been done within the last decade or so, and in his inimitable way made sarcastic comments about my not being up to date on the issue. And he wasn't up to date.  The new research, of course, had been done by conservative commentators like McComiskey, Stuart, Coogan, Provan, Sorry, but Coogan and Provan are not conservative commentators. Not that it makes a difference. This is just X's same old "that was published in Grand Rapids" game that he uses as an excuse for his inability to answer arguments from such sources intelligently, and that he excuses away by claiming I'd do the same if he quoted Barker, a liberal source, etc. which I never have done and never will, merely based on their ideologies. and such like, and, needless to say, the new research had uncovered information on the meaning of paqad that removed a biblical discrepancy. Nothing but a hint of conspiracy, which is not an answer. That's because again, X doesn't have the wherewithal to answer the arguments, so ad hominem and "that was published in Grand Rapids" is all he can do to reply. This is also a guy who thinks that it's impossible that anything new could be discovered about ancient languages. Be sure and see the corrective he got on this (and ignored) from GrayPilgrim in the Contrived Gospels thread on TheologyWeb. X did more to embarrass himself in that 2-3 weeks than he did in the entire past 6 months.  At that time, Holding's theme song was new is better, but now in this debate, we see him doing an about face and arguing that preterism is an "old position," which somehow makes it the right position. Oh boy, did you see that? I didn't either. I didn't say dip about "old is better". I was replying to a specific charge made by those who argue -- as X thinks I do -- that by virtue of newness, preterism must be incorrect. In other words I am responding to the very argument X imagines that I am making, and that he doesn't read this right speaks volumes for his comprehension skills. No doubt he'll ring up some skilled rationalization about how it was my fault for not writing "clearly" as he did in the 90% issue, even though I had a person with a Masters' in English and no more knowledge of website operation than X tell me that the statement was perfectly clear.   I dare say that he will not be able to present any evidence that preterism is as old as the writings of the earliest church fathers. Some ideas are, but not all of them. Interpreting the O. Discourse as referring to 70 AD is an example.   My explication of 2 Peter 3:1ff quoted early sources written after AD 70 that showed no awareness that the "coming of the Lord" had already happened, Actually, one source (1 Clement) that probably is pre-70, and another that doesn't even clearly refer to the "coming of the Lord." so if there were any early church writings that took the preterist position on Matthew 24 and its parallels, he should quote them for us. Why should I? This is just another diversion from the Olivet Discourse. Besides, if X wants to play that game, he is obliged to tell us why we need to believe the church fathers on this, but not on stuff like, i.e., who wrote the Gospels. It's not enough to just quote them, which is why I don't use this as a main argument -- patristic evidence needs to be sifted critically, not just thrown on the floor and buffed with Windex. See more on the Contrived Gospels thread for how GrayPilgrim waxed X for using a rabbinic source the same way -- to which X had no answer. Holding: Commentators such as Lightfoot (1859), Newton (1754), and Gill (1809) predated dispensationlism [sic] and agreed that 70 AD was in view in these passages [Dem.LDM, 59]. To be sure, some in the early church held a view that what was recounted in places like the Olivet Discourse was a reference to a far-flung future event (though their views didn't match exactly with dispensationlism [sic]); but others held views akin to preterism as well, so the preterist view is not a new view, but an old one revived. Skeptic X: Notice that Holding presented no real evidence here. Putting [Dem.LDM, 59] after an assertion that "others held views akin to preterism" does not constitute any real proof that some in the early church held views "akin to preterism." Heck no, citing a source who is a trained authority doesn't prove anything. This is just X's lazy way of getting out of producing an actual detailed reply to something he is way out of his education in answering.  In the first place, we have to wonder what these views "akin to preterism" were. He can "wonder" all he wants but I doubt if he "has" to beyond needing something to talk about to get and distract attention. I gave the example above of the 70 destruction. If he wants to talk more about the patristics, that's not my specialty area, but we have a couple of people on TWeb who would probably be glad to give X his medicine on this subject, who are more specialists in patristics.  If preterism is the true position on the meaning of the things that Jesus allegedly said in Matthew 24, then why wouldn't "early church leaders," who had been so close to the apostles who had heard this discourse, have taught preterism period. Once again it's a matter of sifting their works critically, not just plopping them on the floor. The patristics were of a different culture and thoughtlife than the Jewish apostles. This is a simple principle of contextual exegesis, but not for X, who reads the texts like thy were written yesterday and as though every person wrote, thought and read as he did.   What is this "akin to preterism" stuff? Didn't he just ask this?  Why didn't they teach exactly what Holding is telling us if what he is telling us is the truth? Didn't he just ask this again? X thinks if you ask three different ways, you can prove something.   Furthermore, why didn't Holding quote to use what these "early church fathers" had said on this subject? Because the main subject of my article was Matthew 24. Not what the church fathers said.   The bracketed reference above is Gary DeMar's book Last Days Madness.  Did DeMar present any kind of quotations from these "early church fathers" that would show that they understood Jesus's Olivet discourse to mean that the astronomical signs he referred to were just figurative expressions that meant no more than that the "age of the law" would end with the destruction of Jerusalem? He presented some material, though since it was not directly germane to what I was writing, I didn't bother to remember it.  If so, let Holding present them. If so, let X get off his Pringle-munching behind and read it. X loves throwing out these "you present it" challenges as a delaying tactic for covering his own inability.  Otherwise, we can assume that this is just another Holdingism, which consists of making an assertion and then trying to give credibility to it by putting a reference to DeMar or Caird or Wright or some such in brackets. Yes, that's much easier than actually answering the arguments with legwork. Not that it matters in this context. My comment about the Fathers was a parenthetical aside, and had little to do with the core topic. If and when I or someone else decides to address this issue in more detail, then X can play his games in that venue. For now we are not obliged to explicate every life story and side point we make just for X's personal satisfaction. Holding: Like most, I was taught the dispensational view, but never paid much heed to it and never had much invested in it. As a very young believer and a teenager, my sole concession to Edgar Whisenant's 88 Reasons the Rapture will be in 1988 (does anyone still have a copy?), while others were selling houses and quitting jobs, was to turn off my VCR. (To this day, the episode of the program I did not record, I jokingly refer to as the "Rapture episode.") Thus I had no great intellectual investment, and can hardly be said to have been looking for an "excuse" to disprove the dispensational view (though I expect skeptics to claim I did anyway, since they don't have answers to the arguments below). Skeptic X: All I need to say here is what I said several times in my nine-part series.  I am not a dispensationalist.  Well, sorry, but again, this article was not written for the man at the center of the universe. This is the kind of fluff and bombast I edit out usually and which X thinks is meaningful. I consider dispensationalism to be just another attempt to explain away the obvious failure of the New Testament prophecies of an imminent return of Jesus. Didn't he already say this? How many times do we need to hear this bombast repeated?  I consider the correct position toward these prophecies to be that those who made them sincerely believed that the end of the world was near, and so they predicted an early return of Jesus, who would usher in the destruction of the world and the final judgment to follow.  It didn't happen, so the failure of the prophecy gave rise to movements like preterism and dispensationalism, which look for ways to make the prophecies not mean what they were clearly saying. Thanks tons for the begged question and point of view. That Holding was taught the dispensationalist view is irrelevant to this debate, So why does X see a need to talk about it? I objected to him skipping arguments from my article, not introductory commentary. He still hasn't learned a thing from that EVERYTHING cactus we made him sit on in the Land Promise debate. because that would mean that he is just one of millions who were taught an incorrect position.  If he was trying to imply that his change from a dispensationalist to a preterist constitutes some kind of evidence that preterism is true, No, and that's just X doing his usual game of sticking arguments in the mouths of opponents to make it look like he's actually arguing something. then he needs to think about the logical axiom that says what proves too much proves nothing at all. More like X needs to think about actually answering presented arguments rather than jumping headfirst into them on assumption. This is typcial of X's rampant illogic, as for example when I made a point on TWeb about how he debated Jason Gastrich without any guidelines, he asked whether I was saying Gastrich was a competent apologist. Competence or lack thereof had nothing to do with the point at issue, and this is just typical wax from X, who throws out these gratuitious leaps because he either can't reason properly or is trying to waste time with diversions. Given his recent efforts, I vote for a combo.  There are dispensationalists who were once preterists, so does that prove that dispensationalism is true and preterism wrong? No, and since I never made the reverse argument, this is just X wasting more of our time with bombast, and he's not through yet.  I, for example, was once a fundamentalist biblical inerrantists, but I am now an atheist.  Would my change in positions constitute any proof that inerrancy is wrong and atheism is truth? No. Now let's cut the bombast and move on. Holding: Further research has confirmed to me that the preterist standpoint of eschatology--the idea that much of the prophecy of the Bible was fulfilled in 70 AD--is the correct one, although I am still looking into finer details. Skeptic X: If Holding is indeed still looking into the "finer details," then he should seriously reexamine his preterist position. I have actually looked into more of them since, including those that X brings up. Not that he would have the wherewithal to check my site to see, or ask me before shooting his mouth off for rhetorical advantage.  My nine-part rebuttal buried his preterist position so deep that not even a backhoe could dig it up. What the backhoe is needed for is to unbury X from the pile of bulldada he buried himself in on TWeb with his numerous evasions and rationalizations on a variety of subjects. As for preterism:  Whether he was sincere in saying that he is still looking into the "finer details" on this subject should soon become evident, because if he does not reply to my rebuttals point by point, we will have sufficient reason to conclude that he can't reply to them and is just engaging in more evasive tactics. So far all of X's objections were stuff I had already looked into even by the date he started confronting my material. I'll provide links as needed, but anyway: Holding: (I am distinguishing this view from a view Seraiah calls pantelism the idea that all Bible prophecy is now fulfilled, including prophecies of the resurrection; this in particular I do not agree with, for example.) Skeptic X: If Holding believes that the promise of Jesus's return was fulfilled in AD 70, then he should believe that the prophecies concerning the resurrection were also fulfilled at that time, because there were scriptures that clearly taught that the resurrection would accompany the return of Jesus. That's the pantelist error, all right. They think it's clear, too.  I have quoted several of them, so I will confine myself to just one this time around. 1 Thessalonians 4:13  But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. 15For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18Therefore comfort one another with these words. That's clear enough that anyone who can see through cellophane should be able to see it. Well, now we know what X wears on the weekends. I answered this here. X needs to think about the idea that Paul is not using parousia with a capital P.  Paul said that those of his readers who were still alive at the "coming of the Lord" would not precede or go before those who had fallen asleep (died), because when the Lord descended, the dead in Christ would be resurrected and then those who were still living would be caught up in the air to meet the Lord. See again the link, even as X repeats himself 100,384 times for effect.   The New Testament clearly taught that the general resurrection would accompany the return of Jesus, so if Holding believes that the Lord came in AD 70, why doesn't he believe that the resurrection happened then? Repeats himself for the 786,867th time. This is what he thinks I'm skipping: repeated blather. I'm sure he will tell us that we would understand this if we just knew biblical idioms and the culture of the times as well as he does. Not idioms and culture this time, but try word usage.  No doubt, he will claim that being "caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" was just "apocalyptic" language that wasn't intended to be taken literally. No, that would be the pantelist view, actually. It's funny that X thinks I'll respond with the very view that I work against in other quarters. Meanwhile this is still a diversion, since the subject is the fulfillment of the O. Discourse. Theoertically Jesus could be right and Paul wrong, so X is wasting our time with this diversion. Holding: So to our self-important skeptic's question: How can these prophecies equate with the destruction of Jerusalem? It is very simple--and all it takes is the sort of social and background knowledge that I have admonished skeptics and encouraged believers to acquire for years. Skeptic X: What did I tell you?  If those of us who aren't preterists were just as smart as Holding is, everything would be crystal clear to us. That's quite true, though of course the above was not given as an answer on 1 Thess. 4, so X's placement strategy is rather slimy here. Holding: We'll use Matthew 24 as our basis, providing parallels in Mark and Luke where they differ significantly; if the differences are minimal, we will simply note them after the cite [sic]. Matthew 24:1-2 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to show him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. Our first verses of Matthew 24 set the stage and establish context. There is no controversy of interpretation here; most agree, regardless of stance, that Jesus predicts here a destruction of the Jerusalem temple standing in his own time, and will agree that this was literally fulfilled, to the point that critics use this as evidence that the Gospels were written after 70 AD. This merely sets the stage for the question of the disciples: Skeptic X: Yes, the fact that Matthew 24 and its parallel texts clearly made references to the destruction of the temple should be sufficient evidence to any reasonable person that these texts were written after the time the temple was destroyed.  To argue otherwise is to assume that the destruction of the temple was known prophetically before it actually happened. I'm glad X agrees, but do you think he stops there? No, he sees a need to waste our time with diversions on another subject:  In a letter to The Skeptical Review in reply to Everette Hatcher's claim that Daniel, a 6th-century BC character, knew prophetically about second-century BC events, Bruce Wildish showed how unlikely this explanation is for the apparent uncanniness of some of Daniel's prophecies.  I am going to quote this letter because it will provide a time-wasting, space-filling diversion to distract from X's inadequacies in argumentation on the subject at hand I thought it was a particularly good rebuttal of prophetic claims, but in doing so, I am not claiming that it is definitive proof that prophecy is impossible. Who would think that other than someone like X who puts agruments in other people's mouths? I'm going to delete the letter about this because it is indeed a waste of time and for our purpsoes X may as well have inserted his favorite salsa recipe. It takes up almost a tenth of X's reply, which is impressive only to those already hypnotized by X's putative charms. We move to his summation, stopping only to note that we addressed claims on Daniel here: Wildish stated a critical principle that I'm sure Holding would apply to any other book except the Bible. He's sure, but he didn't ask, so he's about to put his foot in his mouth.  In the Book of Mormon, for example, reference is made in 1 Nephi 13:19ff to a "book" containing prophecies.  To Mormons, this book was the Book of Mormon, and in 2 Nephi 27 is a lengthy  prophecy about the "discovery" of this book through "a man" whose description obviously identified him with Joseph Smith. X wastes another tenth of his article quoting 1 Nephi, which we'll omit and which is more of his delaying tactics like wasting 6 months to buy time to reply to Hatcher. We'll get to his point at hand: I doubt that Holding's mouth gaped in awe when he read this, despite the striking allusions to events that allegedly accompanied the "discovery" of the Book of Mormon, because he has no emotional attachment to Mormonism. My mouth neither gaped nor shut because I don't care. I have addressed Mormonism from a strictly Biblical-usage perspective, how Smith and other Mormons use the Bible to validate Mormon claims. On the basis of that failure I found alone I have seen no need to delve into Mormon claims about 1 Nephi (and they do in fact try to show it is based on an ancient document). But my approach if I did care would be the same as it is for the NT: Work out ways to figure a date of the document with no prejudice beforehand against predictive capabilities.   In fact, he has written and published a short book in opposition to Mormonism, so he will have no difficulty applying Wildish's critical principle to this prophecy and recognizing that it is far, far more likely that this is an after-the-fact prophecy than that someone thousands of years ago had divine prophetic insights into the future and wrote this "prophecy" in "ancient Egyptian" script. Only, uh, my book didn't even address such issues, which means X has his other foot in his mouth now. I had to correct him on this on TWeb as well but I guess it didn't make the editor's cut in time.   However, his emotional attachment to the Bible will not permit him to apply the same common-sense principle to "prophecies" like the obvious references to the destruction of Jerusalem in Matthew 24 and its parallel texts. That's the usual psycho-effort from X, who uses these fantasies in place of actual argument about things like how to date ancient documents.   These references make it far more likely that these texts were written after AD 70 than that they were written prior to that date by prophetic insight.  Therefore, the principle of Occam's razor makes it unlikely that the prophetic references to the destruction of the temple were written before AD 70. Occam's Razor is actually a logical fallacy, but if X wants to discuss dates of the Gospels he can confront what we have here when he is done with the other 298 topics he has thrown out gratuitous challenges on. Holding: Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? Mark 13:4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled? Luke 21:7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass? All of what is recorded here is inarguably related to the statement of Jesus in the previous verse concerning the Temple's destruction--with the exception of one argument. Mark and Luke provide no distraction, but Matthew, so it seems from the KJV, records Jesus as referring to the "thy coming" and to the "end of the world." Isn't this clear evidence of the dispensational view?  No, it isn't. These considerations, first, about "the end of the world": Skeptic X: My nine-part series of replies to Holding show that "the end of the world" could well have meant the end of the physical world, even though the text used the word aion, whose primary meaning was "age."  I showed at the end of Part (8) that aion was sometimes used to convey the sense of the world and cited Arndt and Gingrich in support of that view. And we showed in our reply, linked above, that X was off on a wild goose chase and catching nothing but feathers with that.   Then in Part (9), I explicated 2 Peter 3:1ff to show that this text was clearly presenting a current belief of that time that the world would be destroyed in a conflagration that would melt the elements and cause the heavens to collapse with a great noise. And we refuted that lame bit of "clarity" with more contextual study and X-evisceration.  Hence, Holding must do more than just assert that the disciples of Jesus were not asking him about the end of the world.  He must present textual evidence that aion in this passage meant only "age," because--as I have said umpteen times now and still haven't got it right or proven anything --the meanings of words must be determined from the contexts in which they are used. And the determining context is not only the meaning of the word, which does NOT favor X's case, but also the Jewish ideas of two ages, which X had nothing to say about before. He finally does now.   Holding, however, has made no effort to present contextual evidence that tes sunteleias tou aionos in Matthew 24:3 meant only the end of an age and not the end of the world.  He has merely asserted it. I did present it. X ignored it. Holding: The coming and the close of the age are grammatically linked [Keener, commentary on Matthew 563n]. Skeptic X: Here is an example of why, after having nailed Holding's "shimmying hiney" in my nine-part series, I am taking the time to go through his first article point by point.  I want to remind readers that Holding's apologetic methods consist primarily of making an unsupported assertion and then putting a bracketed reference after it, as if the name, in this case, of Keener is supposed to settle the matter. It does, until X finds data to the contrary. Keener is a Biblical scholar with a thorough knowledge of Greek. X is -- what? A retired teacher of English with only enough Greek to not know what B Greek is. X pretends that "argument from authority" invalidates citing any authority, and it doesn't.   Did he give us any of Keener's reasons for saying that "(t)he coming and the close of the age are grammatically linked"?  No, he didn't; he just presented it as an unsupported assertion. I.e., X knows he can't answer, doesn't have the ability to answer, so just pretends that he has the justification to sit at the feet of a scholar like Keener and wag his tail demanding "justification". Imagine if some nimnul came up to him demanding "proof" for his "assertion" about some point of English grammar. He'd probably give proof that first time but would lose patience after the third or fourth try. If he ever shows up on TWeb again, we'll try it. But with some nerve, he then goes on to say: I won't say anything else about this, because I agree that the two were linked, What! So what was all that blather about anyway? It was just for show is all it was. but I don't agree that they were linked in the way that Holding claims.  As I showed in my nine-part series, especially Parts (8) and (9), the second coming of Jesus and the end of the world were integrally linked in the minds of his disciples, who before they became followers of Jesus were part of a generation that had grown up believing that the end of the world was near.  Hence, they believed that the two events, i. e., the second coming and the end of the world, would happen simultaneously. (That is how the two were linked.) When the disciples heard Jesus saying that the temple would be destroyed, they quite naturally assumed that he was talking about his coming and the end of the world. Hence, they asked, "What will be the signs of your coming and the end of the world?" And we replied to all of that, again, in the link above. Holding: These are meant to be taken as simultaneous events. Skeptic X: Right.  Holding and I agree on this point, except that I do not believe that "the end of the age" [tes sunteleias tou aionos] Hey, is he trying to impress us with his knowledge of Greek by inserting this? meant just the end of the Jewish age.  In Part (8), I discussed this Greek expression and showed that it was identical to the one used in Matthew's version of the "Great Commission," when he told his disciples that he would be with them till "the end of the world" [tes sunteleias tou aionos].  If it meant just the end of an age in the "Olivet discourse," then why did it mean till the end of time or the end of the world in the Great Commission? Because, uh, the Messianic age had just started with the Resurrection.   The more likely meaning of the disciples' question was that they were asking Jesus what would be the signs of his coming, which would occur at the end of the world. Already answered, as noted. It's in here and we're waiting for years for X to get back to it. Holding: The word for "world" is not a reference to the physical world, but is the Greek aion, or "age." The question is about the end of the age a time period, not the end of the world. Had that been the intent, the Greek word kosmos would have been used. Skeptic X: I discussed this quibble all through my nine-part series, so I won't take the time to rehash my rebuttals here. We flattened that anti-quibble in the link just above, and also will not rehash. Readers do deserve this courtesy more often. Holding: That leads to point 2: What "age" is referred to here? The answer is found in knowing that the Jews divided time into two great ages: the age of law, and the age of the Messiah. This belief is commonly reflected in the Jewish apocalyptic era [Harrington, Matthew commentary, 352]. Skeptic X: Here is another example of apologetics à la Holding. And here comes another example of (non)replying a la Skeptic X.   Notice that he made an assertion and supported it with only a bracketed reference to Harrington's commentary on Matthew. Notice that Harrington is a Biblical scholar with numerous credits and a relevant education, and X is just barking up Harrington's pant leg in response.   He gave no examples of literature from "the Jewish apocalyptic era" that would illustrate this division of time that he alleged. Oh? What, does he think Harrington just makes this stuff up? Or that I did? Why doesn't he get his "shimmying hiney" out and get a copy of Harrington, and prove me wrong? Or, if I am citing correctly, why not prove that Harrington is full of fluff?   He didn't even quote what Harrington said. So why doesn't he get out and get Harrington's book?   I don't disagree with the division of time, Then all this bull fluff is a waste of time and a cheap attempt to score rhetorical points. but if he is going to base an argument on it, he should realize the need to support the assertion with examples. In other words, X doesn't actually disagree with what I offer -- knowing that he can't spare any more embarrassment like he did when that social science scholar skinned him alive -- so he just complains about a non-issue. He wants details to back up a point I made that he says he doesn't disagree with. And he has the nerve to ask why I feel free to edit his responses for readers. Holding: As Wright puts it [New Testament and the People of God, 299-300]: The present age was a time when the creator god seemed to be hiding his face; the age to come would see the renewal of the created world. The present age was the time of Israel's misery; in the age to come she would be restored. In the present age wicked men seemed to be flourishing; in the age to come they would receive their just reward. In the present age even Israel was not really keeping the Torah perfectly, was not really being YHWH's true humanity; in the age to come all Israel would keep Torah from the heart. Skeptic X: I have to wonder about the relevance of this quotation, because this text is merely commenting on Jewish views about the division of time into two ages, but the foundation premise of preterism is that the destruction of Jerusalem ended the age of Jewish law.  Do preterist [sic] believe that "the age to come," presumably the one that followed the end of the Jewish age in AD 70, brought a "renewal of the created world." Yes, though perhaps not as particular Jewish messianic expectations were anticipating.   If so, in what way? Via the spread of the Gospel and the renewal of individual hearts. Not that that's what I cited Wright for. The purpose was only to show that there was a two-age concept and that this was the paradigm within which the aion references needed to be interpreted. Since it seems X can't dispute this, all of his previous objecting was pure showmanship.   If the creator was "hiding his face" in the Jewish age, when he was routinely chatting with Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, and various prophets, then it is hard to imagine how the "age to come" would have been any great improvement. "Routinely"? X still can't get through his head something I noted ages ago in his direction, that his interpretation of the Biblical encounters with God by humans are mere snapshots in the panorama of history from Abraham to the end of the first century. We're talking hundreds and hundreds of years at a time when God "chatted" with no one, and even in the age of Moses, had actual contact with only a miniscule portion of the human population of the world for only the most fleeting of time. Routine? That's a wild overestimation caused by reading the Biblical snapshots as all there is. Now in comparison, the paradigm holds that God's Holy Spirit indwells human hearts. Not that I expect X to take that as true but this is what the view is within the preterist paradigm.   Furthermore, if the Jews rejected the Messiah during the age of the law, how likely is it that Yahweh would have rewarded them with a "renewal of the created world"? I'm wondering what the issue is here and why X thinks this is an issue at all. Maybe he'll explain in about 17 years when he gets back to this one.   At any rate, Holding et al believe that the "age to come" was the end of the Jewish age, so why is he quoting a passage like this that claims Jewish beliefs that were contrary to reality as perceived by preterists? That's a little mixed up. we believe that the "age to come" overlapped with the age of the law by about 40 years. The why we have stated above: to show that "end of aion" statements need to be understood within this Jewish paradigm. Not "end of the world" as in physical world as X wants it to be.   If the Jews were so right about "ages," why did they fail to understand that the new age had come with the advent of Jesus? Wow. X just can't get it through his head at any time that understanding of concepts is not an all or nothing affair. Excuse me, but who out there wants to argue that it is impossible that Jews could understand correctly about the timing issues, while not getting it right when it comes to content? We have a vast difference of content here. Two ages was an agreed upon concept; what happened in those two ages was a matter of discussion. This is the same analogical impairment X displays when he objects that I can't compare myself to Dan Barker when it comes to fund solicitation, because Barker's FFRF is bigger than my ministry. No connection, just apples and oranges.   In a word, what does the quotation from Wright do to show that when the disciples asked Jesus what would be the signs of his coming and the end of the "world," they were asking what would be the signs of the end of the "age of law"? It shows that the conception of the two ages was a known Jewish paradigm and that it exists as a context within which Jesus' "end of the aion" statements must be interpreted. His Jewish listeners would have heard "end of the aion" (the Aramaic equivalent, anyway) and thought, "Ah, this is like this concept we know aboout." In contrast we're still waiting for X to show us that the Jews believed in a literal "end of the world" (other than by begging imagery questions) and that aion was used to refer to it and not to a time period.     It does exactly nothing to prove the preterist position on the point, but, of course, it looks good to the gullible ones who read Holding's article, doesn't it? X just doesn't have the tools needed upstairs is all it is. Now watch him waste time with more rhetoric, of the sort he objects to when I use it:   "My God," they no doubt exclaimed, "just look at the number of commentaries Holding is quoting." "My Zeus," we say in reply, "just look at X hiding under the sofa at the prospect of having to do a little legwork against scholars who know their business."   It never occurs to them to look to see if the quotations from the commentaries do anything to prove Holding's position. Yeah, you're all a bunch of dummies and X knows his stuff, the guy who thinks the ancients had guilt and to refute a scholar on the subject just yells, "Yeah, how do you know?" Of course X would prefer to enterain this fantasy of Tekton readers as drooling morons who hinge on my every word, since it keeps his own fantasy alive that intelligent people would agree with him if they really knew better. Holding: There were various views about what this age would constitute; not all views involved a Messianic figure, and the disciples themselves show some confusion when they ask if the kingdom will be restored to Israel (Acts 1:6). Skeptic X: This amounts to an admission that what I said above is correct.  What Jews of that time may have thought about "the age to come" can have no relevance to this debate, because the preterists obviously think that the Jews were mistaken all the way around. Say what? X just leapt right into the bucket on that one and shut the lid over himself. Again: He fails to distinguish between the simple concept of two ages -- preterism DOES hold that the Jews were right about that -- versus the more complex concept of what would happen specifically in those ages. Age 2 was the Age of the Messiah -- but what would Messiah do? How long would his age last? What would men do? What would life be like?   They didn't recognize that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, and they didn't recognize that the "age of the law" was coming to an end. Indeed, for many reasons, but in this context, the most relevant being that some of their messianic expectations -- the content part -- didn't fit in with Jesus.   No, they knew none of this.  It took the preterists centuries to figure out what it all meant, To figure out what WHAT meant? so as I pointed out in Part (9) of my nine-part series, we have to be suspicious of a biblical interpretation that was apparently "hidden" for centuries but then just recently figured out by a select few. Sure. It's utterly impossible that we can ever have new insights based on later research. All those Biblical scholars are wasting their time writing articles. Holding: They are in line with certain Messianic expectations when they ask this; they are expcecting [sic] that now that the Age of the Messiah has dawned, Israel will be restored properly again. It boils down to this: the "end of the age" refers back to the destruction of the Temple and the end of the covenant, and the beginning of the new covenant. Skeptic X: In Part (1), I analyzed various passages to show that New Testament writers obviously taught that the age of the law of Moses ended with the death of Jesus on the cross.  As I said there, it is a silly doctrine, of course, but it is what was clearly taught by the apostles and New Testament writers.  I don't know of a single passage that says that the law of Moses ended with the destruction of Jerusalem.  Perhaps Holding can quote for us some that do. We answered in our reply. We're still waiting for X to get back to it and will probably wait for a long, long time. Obviously no verse could say that the end of the law was with Jerusalem being destroyed if the NT was written before 70 AD, but tune back to the first part of our reply to see the corrective. Perhaps pigs will fly someday too. If I edited this I would be editing X's strongest argument. Holding: "The age to come, the end of Israel's exile, [was seen] as thge [sic] inaugration [sic] of a new covenant between Israel and her god" [NTPG, 301]. Skeptic X: Statements like this one are the primary reason why I am taking the time to go through Holding's first article point by point after I have already nailed his "shimmying hiney" to the wall in my nine-part series.  Notice that he just quoted someone and then put a bracketed reference after it, as if that is supposed to settle everything. Notice that X still doesn't have the wherewithal to answer such things and thinks that sitting back on his haunches like this is an acceptable argumentative substitute.   The reference is from the book New Testament and the People of God by N. T. Wright, who is another preterist, of course. Well that's another of X's ridiculous boo games, the old "bias" claim which it never occurs to him looks just as good worn on his frame. And again, he wonders why I edit this stuff out. It's just bombast and evasion.   Those who care to see how far Wright will lean over backwards to give preterist spins to some rather clear references to the second coming of Jesus, the destruction of the world, the final resurrection, and the judgment should check out his section at the Preterist Archives. I.e., for more stuff that flies so far above X's head, it makes him look like an ant's kneecap freckle. While reading through Wright's verbal contortions, i.e., informed scholarship above X's head keep in mind that Holding said in his article that I replied to in nine parts that my biased views could not be considered evidence. Not because they were biased, but because they were ludicrously uninformed.   If biased views cannot be considered reliable evidence--and I agree that they can't--then Wright's views should not be considered reliable, since he had an opinion to promote. More lines of blather to a non-argument I never made.   I'll quote again the standard that Holding set in this matter when he replied to a statement from Philo Judaeus that I had quoted in an internet debate. I.e., he'll fill more space with bombast and irrelevant rhetoric to make his reply look more impressive. Apparently he hasn't noticed yet that I replied to his abuse of this Philo statement he keeps cuddling with. We will indeed skip that until he finds it and go down to: As for Wright's statement about the "inaugration [sic] of a new covenant" with Israel, I showed in Part (1) of my nine-part reply to Holding that the New Testament clearly teaches that the new covenant was inaugurated with the death of Jesus on the cross. And that part agrees with preterism's viewpoint. Holding: (Cf. Matt. 12:32, "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." "World" in both cases is aion.) Skeptic X: Yes, the word for "world" in this verse was aion, but I have shown in Part (8) that aion was sometimes used to convey the sense of the world.  The meaning of the statement was more likely that the one who blasphemed the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven in this world or life or in the one to come. And we showed that X was just stuffing himself with rhetoric and replied to his attempts to make aion mean "world". There are no parallel accounts of this text in the synoptics, but the probable meaning of the expression "the world [aion] to come" can be determine by looking at how it was used elsewhere. Mark 10:28  Then Peter began to say to Him, "See, we have left all and followed You." 29So Jesus answered and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel's, 30who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time—houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions—and in the age [to aioni] to come, eternal life. 31But many who are first will be last, and the last first." Notice that the passage says that the ones who forsook all to follow Jesus would receive a hundredfold now in this time, i. e., this life, and in the age to come would receive eternal life.  This clearly shows that aion was being used in reference to a world to come and not an age to come. Oh, that's a hoot. How so? Get this:   Otherwise, Holding would have to argue that Jesus promised that those who left all to follow him would receive eternal life in the age that followed the end of the law in AD 70, but that obviously was not the intended meaning.  Eternal life could not have been given in an "age" that transpired in this world.  It would be given in the world to come. Says who? This is just another wind-around Church of Christ undershirt grab, the same stuff X tried to pull to claim that Leviticus was being figurative when it had God say the land was "mine." Eternal life can't be "had" now? Tell that to John: "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13) "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." (John 10:27-28) Sounds to me like eternal life is a "present reality" for people believing in Jesus. Of course X may pull the end-around that these passages are speaking proleptically, but if he wants to play that Joker, then why not say the same of the passage he just quoted? Either way he just bit a big one. As an aside, let's not also forget that the convert's "eternal life" as a believer in the Risen Jesus went from the time he died, on into eternity -- all of which was past Jesus' time and therefore in the "age to come". Oops. The same Greek expression was used in Luke's parallel account. Which he'll see a need to repeat, just to fill space. And he'd think we robbed him blind if we edited and dealt with the two passages together. Luke 18:28 Then Peter said, "See, we have left all and followed You." 29So He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age [to aioni] to come eternal life." This statement was made in a broader context where the rich ruler had asked Jesus (v:18), "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?"  Surely, then, Jesus was telling his disciples that those who left all to follow him would be rewarded with what the ruler wanted, i., e., eternal life, and the Bible did not promise eternal life in this world but in the one to come.  Here again is clear evidence that aion was often used in the New Testament to convey the sense of world.  Same answer as above, and X bit the big one here twice. It's just like him to make a serious mistake, and then repeat it for effect. See how he did it against that social science scholar. Is Holding still not convinced? Nope. Not at this rate certainly.   Then he should take a look at Luke 20:34, where Jesus answered the Sadducees who had asked him whose wife the woman who had survived seven husbands would be "in the resurrection."  Clearly, they were asking Jesus whose wife this woman would be in the next world.  Look at Jesus's answer. Nice try upcoming, but it'll flop like all the rest of the sausage sandwiches X has thrown out so far. Luke 20:34 Jesus answered and said to them, "The sons of this age [tou aionos toutou] marry and are given in marriage. 35But those who are counted worthy to attain that age [tou aionos ekeinou], and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. Unless Holding wants to argue that Jesus was saying that it was possible to attain a state in an earthly age to come in which one could die no more, here is another clear case of aion having been used to denote world.  In this case, it meant the world that will follow this one, when the righteous will be resurrected to eternal life. Another bad case of smashmouth exegesis. Look at it closely, the key part: "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead..." What we have here is a reference to those who go through NOT ONLY the Messianic age, but ALSO those who are resurrected. And X's hidden premise is that the resurrection will follow immediately upon the inauguration of the age to come.   Holding is flat out wrong in his assertion that aion meant age, and so Jesus was referring only to the end of the "age of the law" in Matthew 24:3. As for Holding's claim above that aion was used in "both cases" for world in Matthew 12:32, he is wrong again.  Actually, the world aion was not used twice in Matthew 12:32 but only once, because the verse literally says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either "in this world [aion] or in the coming [one] (to mellonti)." The word one was implied, but aion was not used a second time as Holding said.  I point this out just to remind readers that they need to be cautious about taking what Holding says about Greek.  He has certainly shown us that he is no expert in Greek. X would like to think this is a repeat of the anistemi error I drew from Quickverse, but no bonus this time for him, for two reasons. First, I did not say that aion was used twice, and I did not say "used for". Here at least Quickverse is reliable, for it shows that the second "world" is a KJV clarity addition and does not present a Greek parallel word. What I did say is that "world" in both cases is aion, and that IS correct. Aion stands for what is behind both English uses of "world" here. X is just playing his usual game of reading more into what is written than is warranted so he can knock down a scraecrow. Second, even if I had made the same mistake, it doesn't change the argument. Beyond that Let's also remember, if X wants to play this game, that he has made Goliath-sized bungles in things like guilt in the ancient world, and that's one that CAN'T be pinned on misreading a reference source. The difference between X's usual mistakes and mine is that his mistakes reflect a fundamental miseducation concerning his subject matter, whereas mine have to do with typical lapses in concentration and reference that any Joe can and does make regularly. Holding: One counter to this idea has been that in other places Matthew uses the phrase "end of the world/age" to indicate a time of final judgment (Matt. 13:39, 49). The latter example reads: Skeptic X: Before I reply to Holding's quotation of Matthew 13:39ff, I will remind readers...an accurate translation of sunteleias tou aionos. Now we can look at Holding's Matthew 13:39 "proof text." Yes, after having front-loaded even more repetitive bombast to keep the readers dazed. For thos reason I have chopped out the core of the above. It's just X re-re-re-re-repeating things he said before, which is part of his manipulative debate tactical scheme to make sure that the reader doesn't get clear time to read and digest an opponent's argument without X's constant interruptions. Holding: Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. The verse 39 example has the same theme, only it uses the analogy of a harvest. (One other use, Matt. 28:20, offers no contextual clues.) Skeptic X: Why wouldn't Matthew 28:20 offer any "contextual clues"? Because it doesn't specify any time references beyond the consciousness of the "yous" being spoken to.   This is where Jesus promised that he would be with his disciples until the end of the world in their preaching of the gospel.  To show that this text does offer "contextual clues" about the meaning of "the end of the world," I'll quote what I said about this text in Part (8). I.e., he'll repeat himself some more for effect. But does he actually "have a clue" for us? If I juxtapose two passages in which "Matthew" used aion, those who don't have a pet doctrine to defend should have no trouble seeing that "Matthew" at times did use aion  to mean the world. Yes, and where's the clue from 28:20? Remember of course we answered this already as noted above. Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world [sunteleias tou aionos]? Matthew 28:16  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world [sunteleias tou aionos].  Even those who have not studied Greek should be able to look at the transliteration of the final three words in each passage to see that they are the same.  Now Holding claims that sunteleias tou aionos in the question the disciples asked Jesus in the first passage above meant not the end of the world but just the end of the "age of law." Oh, now it's clear, isn't it? X doesn't get that we're saying that there are no contextual clues in Matthew 28:18-20 by itself. More time wassted by X.   If that is so, then does Holding think that the same three words in "Matthew's" version of the so-called "Great Commission" meant that Jesus would be with his disciples, who were to go to all nations to preach the gospel, only until AD 70 when the "age of the law" ended? No, because as noted, the age of the Messiah had started with Jesus' crucifixion/resurrection. They were now "in" the Messianic age, and that's the age Jesus was going to be with them until the end of.   If so, does that mean that after AD 70, the disciples who went about preaching the gospel to all nations were on their own? No, because as noted X is confusing the two ages.   If sunteleias tou aionos in Matthew 28:16 I think he means 16-20. Oops, so much for Mr. Perfecto's typing record today. meant the end of the world, the end of time, the end of an age in which the gospel would be preached to all nations, then why did it mean just till the end of the "age of the law" in Matthew 24:3? Because something happened between 24:3 and 28:16-20 that inaugurated the new age of the Messiah.   What is there in the context--c-o-n-t-e-x-t-- Ooh, he spelled it right. Now if X learns some reading comprehension ("(0% of your website") we can be on our way. of Matthew 24:3 that enables Holding to know that it had this meaning that the same expression obviously didn't have four chapters later in a document written by the same person? A big honking event in between. Can you guess what it is, kiddies? We need an explanation, and Holding should remember that his biases are not justifiable reasons for saying that these three words had a different meaning in 24:3. He's got it. Now we'll wait 65 years for him to get back to it. Lexicographers say that aion sometimes conveyed the sense of "the world," and translation committees have rendered aion as world in various New Testament texts.  I don't know about others reading this, but I would prefer to put my trust in what the translators have said rather than in the opinion of a biblical inerrantist trying frantically to make the Bible not contradict itself. Well, as we showed in that previous reply, even the lexicon X used is iffy. And of course X would rather just read the English version and stick with it -- it saves a lot of depth, critical argument for him.   If there is scholarly consensus that aion did at times convey the sense of "the world," Holding must offer more than his mere biased opinion that the disciples did not mean world when they asked Jesus what would be the signs of his coming and of the end of the world (Matt. 24:3). I did. X just doesn't like the answer. Same as on the Contrived Gospels thread. These questions were asked in response to Jesus's prediction that not one stone in the temple would be left upon another that would not be thrown down.  In the minds of the disciples, such destruction would be associated with the cataclysmic end that was expected at that time. Not at all. Why? Now X is the one who's just "asserting" and running.   If "the end of the world" [tes sunteleias tou aionos] meant just the end of the Jewish age in Matthew 24:3, did it mean this too in Matthew 28:20 when Jesus promised that he would be with disciples preaching the gospel until "the end of the world" [tes sunteleias tou aionos]?  Holding needs to explain why there are no "contextual clues" in Matthew 28:20. I already did. X is just repeating himself for lack of anything substantive to offer. Holding: This would sensibly fit in with Matt. 24:31, a later part of the discourse ("And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.") How could this refer to the "end of the age" in 70 AD? I think rather easily. Skeptic X: Of course, Holding would think that it fits in "rather easily" with the "end of the age" in AD 70, because he has a preterist view to promote. And X would think it wouldn't, because he has an anti-preterist view to promote. There, did X just vanish in a puff of smoke?   Readers should keep this in mind, because his own standard quoted above will make what he thinks about this to be unreliable, because he has a belief to "promote"? I.e., keep my biases in mind, but not X's. Brilliant. X doesn't even see how simple it is to turn his own pseudo-argument back on him. Holding: Dispensational commentators see here a reference perhaps to the "Rapture" and/or final judgment. Skeptic X: Dispensationalists also have a belief to promote, so what they think is equally unreliable, since they too lean over backwards to try to make the Bible inerrant. That's nice. What's the need for this bombastic commentary? There isn't any -- X just likes to hear himself talk.   As I will show--and in fact have already shown--the people of that time believed that the "end of all things" was at hand, an "end" that would destroy the world and bring about final judgment, so New Testament writers predicted that this end would come with the imminent return of Jesus.  Their prediction didn't come true, so both dispensationalists and preterists twist and distort those predictions to try to make them not mean what they obviously said. As we said, he likes to hear himself talk, which is why he sees a need to interrupt after every third sentence and unwind a spiel. That's fine. The feedback we get is that no believer can stand to read X's material because they get bored with all the repetition. Holding: But neither a harvest nor a fishing expedition is such a quick event. Harvests took days to process in the age before tractors. Skeptic X: Well, I have news for Holding.  I grew up on a cotton farm, and I now live in the Illinois corn belt where corn fields are all around me, so I know that harvests still take "days." That's nice.  So what? "So what"? The point is very clear: Anyone seeing in this a lickety-split Rapture of all saints is violating the analogy.   Is he trying to suggest that because all elements of the parables in Matthew 13:39ff aren't exactly parallel to the end of the world/judgment passages elsewhere in the New Testament, the parables of the tares and the fishing net could therefore not have been referring to the end of the world? No, I'm not, it's just X showing his usual ability to try to rush up to his opponent's mouth and stuff an argument in that he thinks he can refute. Or his poor reading comprehension. Either way his sun is not shining here.   His comments immediately below seem to indicate that this is his point, so I will dismantle this quibble when I come to it. Oh boy. He'll spend time addressing in detail and argument we didn't make. Holding: Fishermen stayed out fishing for extended periods (as Peter and co. stayed out all night, until Jesus leant a hand). Skeptic X: Yes, sometimes, but fishing nets have been known to gather fish immediately. Not if you wanted to make any money. Peter and Co. didn't just take one haul and go in for the night if they wanted to make a living from their industry. Plus get this: X quotes for "proof" John 21, where Peter and Co. catch fish at once, implicitly because of miraculous or providential influence by Jesus! Did all fishermen have that kind of advice handy? Yeesh. So here is a case where a net was cast into the sea and was immediately filled with fish. Um, yeah, thanks to a miracle of either effect or providence. And AFTER a night and more without success. That aside, the parable that Holding quoted did not say that the kingdom is like a ship that went to sea on a fishing expedition and after an extended period returned to shore with a load of fish.  It said that the kingdom of heaven is "like a net that was cast into the sea and gathered of every kind" (Matt. 13:47). Yes and, what? This is a difference with no difference. Fishermen didn't just cast one net and call it a night. They might feed themselves but they'd never get enough done to go to market and make a living. They'd net, haul in, row ashore, sort, repeat. And they didn't get their catch all at once without special help.   Hence, the comparison in the parable was not to a fishing expedition but to a single act of casting a net into the sea, which a fishing crew would do several times on a trip.  Each casting of the net would gather fish of every kind, which would then be separated, so the point of comparison in the parable was to a single act of casting a net into the sea and not to the time that a ship would spend at sea on a fishing trip. Same problem as above. If X wants to stretch that analogy to the breaking point, then that means the angels couldn't possibly get that many people collected for judgment, since nets could only hold so many fish. He can keep trying, but he'll only dig himself deeper trying to cram the analogy into his paradigm. The context--there is that word again--makes it clear that this parable was speaking about the final judgment, Yes, and we made it clear earlier that people enter into final judgment on death. Thus indeed the parable fits in with an extended fishing expedition done one netting at a time. because verses 49-50 said that the casting away of the bad fish would be like the end of the world when the angels--there are those angels again--would separate the wicked from the righteous and "cast them into the furnace of fire," where there would be "weeping and gnashing of teeth."  Those two expressions were used elsewhere in the New Testament in obvious reference to the eternal punishment awaiting the wicked. Yep. And folks ewxperience their eternal fate on death, as we showed. Still waiting for X's answer, and wait and see how he fudges and fuddles on this issue below. Matthew 8:10 When Jesus heard it [the centurion's expression of faith], He marveled, and said to those who followed, "Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! 11And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." The reference to sitting down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven was surely a reference to a gathering of the righteous in the next world and not to the "end of the age of law" with the destruction of Jerusalem. That is correct.   The outsiders [gentiles] who had  been righteous, like the centurion, would be gathered together with the patriarchs, but the "sons of the kingdom" [Jews], who had been unfaithful, would be cast into outer darkness where there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth.  If Holding doubts that this referred to a final judgment, he should consider the following texts. I don't doubt it. As far as I am concerned the centurion is sitting with Abe, Ike, and Jake right now in the kingdom of heaven, which is active now, and which people are entering into -- or into the outer darkness -- even at this very moment. X also quotes Matthew 22:13 and 24:46, and Luke 13:23, and my answer for those is the same. Thus: Verse 29 clearly shows that the intention of this passage was to describe a final judgment, which would include people from all nations [from the east and the west, from the north and the south] who would be taken into the kingdom of God while the "chosen ones" would be thrust out. Yep. And people have been coming to the party and sitting down since the first century, and still are.   Immediately below, Holding makes the claim that "no commentator" would disagree that the wicked meet their final judgment "upon death," but I have already shown that his proof text (Heb. 9:27) does not teach that the wicked encounter final judgment upon death, so I won't have to rehash my rebuttal of that incorrect claim. He's right he won't have to rehash, because it is a waste of time. We flattened that "rebuttal" already. He'll catch up eventually.   At this point, I will just say that if Holding wants to talk about what "commentators" think, I am willing to make a substantial wager with him that most commentators see the passages that I referred to above--and even the parables in Matthew 13 that he is trying to quibble his way around--as references to a final judgment that will come at the end of the world. X likes to throw money around, but I would only say such about Hebrews 9:27 and most commentators, and never said anything more than that.   I'll say more about that when I come to his quibble, but I just want to notice here that if Holding is going to argue that what "commentators" say should be sufficient to settle disputes over the meanings of biblical texts, he will have to abandon his preterist position, because he will find himself way outnumbered on this issue. Hey, fine. So that means if X wants to go by what patristic writers say, he'll have to abandon any idea that the Gospels weren't written by anyone but who they are attributed to. Fair enough. But let's be fair -- I wasn't using "most commentators" as an argument per se but as a way of summarizing and not engaging direct argument on the specific passage. I had no idea someone like X would have the teremity to interpret Heb. 9:27 any other way. I'm still wondering what he thinks the Bible says about the state of a person after death. Holding: No commentator would disagree that upon death the wicked, and the justfied [sic] in Christ, are encountering their final judgment (Heb. 9:27)--and the "field" here is the "world" (kosmos), the entire world. Skeptic X: Well, Holding is half right, because most commentators I have read do agree that the "field" in the parable of tares was the whole world, but it isn't true that "no commentator" would disagree that the wicked encounter final judgment upon their death.  Readers may refer to Part (8) of my nine-part series to read my rebuttal of this claim, so I won't quote it here. And you can read our flattening of that "rebuttal", which X may get to in 2015.   Instead, I will show that there are commentators who disagree with his spin on Hebrews 9:27.  If "no commentators" disagree that the wicked encounter final judgment upon their death, how does Holding explain the following comments on this text? This should be fun. Problem is, I don't disagree with any of these. Watch: These vss. offer another analogy.  Men die once and then come before God's judgment. Yes...exactly as I say. They die. They face judgment.   Christ also has been offered once--note the stress on his death as the act of God--and also appears a second time, not, however, to be judged but to be savior of his people.  It is often noted that this is the only explicit reference in the  NT to a 2nd coming of Christ.  Elsewhere the writers speak of his parousia--his "coming" or "presence, i. e., manifestation.  But it would be a misplaced emphasis to stress a second time in this text.  The words appear in the completion of the analogy and the accent falls, not on the word "second," but on the fact that both the death and the reappearance of Christ are distinctively different from those of others.  Christ died, but not as a hapless victim.  He offered up his life in freedom, and his death has a sacrificial and redemptive character.  When he appears at the judgment he does not join the long line awaiting assessment but is Lord of the judgment and savior and deliverer of those who are waiting for him That is correct and in line with my position. People experience their "results" upon death but there is a time of judgment -- a sit-down hoe-down with Christ as judge, verifying the justness of what most everyone has already been experiencing once they died. (Warren A. Quanbeck, "The Letter to the Hebrews," The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, pp. 910-911, italicized emphasis added). So here is a commentator who apparently believes, as I showed in Part (8) referenced above that the New Testament teaches that judgment of the righteous and the "wicked" will begin when Jesus returns. X is mixed up here, because he is confusing "judgment" in terms of experience with "judgment" in terms of a decision. The difference here is one of mixing up the jail sentence with the judge's decision. In this case we experience the judgment upon us before (in time) sentence is pronounced.   Until then, like the angels "Peter" referred to in 2 Peter 2:4, the unrighteous are "reserved for judgment," which will occur on a "day of judgment" that accompanies the destruction of the earth (3:7ff). Sorry, but that's not what Quanbeck is saying at all -- not in the way X wants it. As a preacher I am sure X delievered threats along the lines of the popular bumper sticker, "If you died tonight, would you go to HEAVEN or to HELL?" X hasn't said anything yet about what he thinks the Bible does teach about our experience immediately after death, and this is something we need to know from him.  Here is John Wesley's comments on Hebrews 9:27-28, with emphasis added. John Wesley! And I get shafted for quoting scholars like Wright... 9:27 After this, the judgment--Of the great day. At the moment of death every man's final state is determined. But there is not a word in scripture of a particular judgment immediately after death. Um, does Wesley mean here "judgment" as in a judge's decision, or "judgment" as in experience of a final state? Given the first sentence, it seems more likely that he means the former. 9:28 Christ having once died to bear the sins--The punishment due to them. Of many-- Even as many as are born into the world. Will appear the second time--When he comes to judgment. And in this case, again the first one. Without sin--Not as he did before, bearing on himself the sins of many, but to bestow everlasting salvation. Here is the explication of this verse in Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament with emphasis added. Did X see the word "Pictures" in the title and think it was his speed? It is appointed (apokeitai). Present middle (or passive) of apokeimai, "is laid away" for men. Cf. same verb in Luke 19:20; Colossians 1:5; 2 Timothy 4:8 (Paul's crown). Once to die (apax apoqanein). Once for all to die, as once for all to live here. No reincarnation here. After this cometh judgement (meta touto krisiß). Death is not all. Man has to meet Christ as Judge as Jesus himself graphically pictures (Matthew 25:31-46; John 5:25-29). Um hm. The first understanding, yet again. X is three for three missing that boat. Here is the interpretation of Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown in Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible with emphasis added. Awesome. 27. as--inasmuch as. it is appointed--Greek, "it is laid up (as our appointed lot)," Colossians 1:5. The word "appointed" (so Hebrew "seth" means) in the case of man, answers to "anointed" in the case of Jesus; therefore "the Christ," that is, the anointed, is the title here given designedly. He is the representative man; and there is a strict correspondence between the history of man and that of the Son of man. The two most solemn facts of our being are here connected with the two most gracious truths of our dispensation, our death and judgment answering in parallelism to Christ's first coming to die for us, and His second coming to consummate our salvation.  once--and no more. after this the judgment--namely, at Christ's appearing, to which, in Hebrews 9:28, "judgment" in this verse is parallel.  Not, "after this comes the heavenly glory." The intermediate state is a state of joyous, or else agonizing and fearful, expectation of "judgment"; after the judgment comes the full and final state of joy, or else woe. This is the closest so far to disagreeing with me, but folks, I have been through this wringer based on Mormon use of Heb. 9:27, and for whatever Fausset and Brown have to offer, here's the rub. Hebrews 9:27 uses the word krisis, which refers to the results of a judging action. Not the passing of sentence. That's the bottom line, and it renders X out of the picture. The following interpretation is from John Gill's Exposition of the Bible with emphasis added. but after this the judgment; the last and general judgment, which will reach to all men, quick and dead, righteous and wicked, and in which Christ will be Judge. There is a particular judgment which is immediately after death; And that is exactly what I have been saying. by virtue of which, the souls of men are condemned to their proper state of happiness or woe; and there is an [sic] universal judgment, which will be after the resurrection of the dead, and is called eternal judgment, and to come; this is appointed by God, though the time when is unknown to men; yet nothing is more certain, and it will be a righteous one. I have not quoted these sources with any intention of even suggesting that they prove that Holding's position on Hebrews 9:27 is wrong but to show that he is wrong in saying that "no commentator" would disagree with his position. Well, sorry, but 4 out of 5 definitely agree with me, and 1 might, but it's not clear without more context. X is just confused again.   He has a habit of quoting or citing a source and then hastening on to something else as if the opinion of a Bible commentary is sufficient to settle the issue, but as I have said before, just about any religious belief can be supported by quoting books, because it isn't at all difficult to find books and commentaries that agree with one's religious position. And it's much easier than actually critically comparing arguments. Of course.   My primary purpose in taking the time to go through Holding's article paragraph by paragraph is to waste time with bombast...er, show that he suffers from commentatoritis. If that means consulting scholars in the know, then I'll gladly suffer that disease, as opposed to the psych-disroder of being unskilled and unaware of it.   He thinks that if he cites a commentary that agrees with his belief, then he has proven his position. If it presents data and arguments, and X can't refute that data other than by complaining, then I certainly have proven my position as far as this context is concerned.   By the time I have finished replying to this article, everyone is going to see that Holding almost always just cites commentaries, but he makes little or no effort to show that the opinions of his commentators are sound. Thus, he repeatedly argues by assertion and question begging. I.e., the same repetitive bombast: X can't handle the words of those in the know, so rather than make critical comparisons, he implicitly insults them by acting as though his mere "nuh uh" is enough to respond to them. That's a lesson he hasn't learned yet as we showed here. Holding: The seed sown by Jesus is sown over the entire kosmos. Skeptic X: Correction!  It wasn't Jesus who sowed the seed. Huh? Now get this: Matthew 13:24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. In this parable, a man sowed good seed in his field.  The sower was not identified, so the obvious intention of the parable was to teach a lesson based on what happened when a sower--just any sower--went out to sow good seed in his field. Oh. And who was the first "man" to sow seed? Thank you. It says so in Matthew 13:37, which I guess X forgot about: "He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man..." Holding: We'll note the significance of this when we get to verse 12. What it comes down to is this: With the "end of the age" in 70, the "angels"--there is a special issue with this word as well--were sent out to harvest, based on reaction to the Gospel. Skeptic X: Notice how Holding begs the question he is obligated to prove.  Instead of presenting evidence that "the end of the age" in this parable had reference to AD 70, he simply asserted that it did. There's that fantasy state again. The proof was made with the data already presented; the reality is that X has no actual answer, and that is why he returns to his inevitable well of "you just asserted that" to throw smoke in the eyes of the readership. We showed that aion meant "age" and related that to the two-ages conception. We showed how 70 AD fit the prophecy of the Discourse. And we're still waiting for X to get to that stuff.   I can hardly blame him for that, because he has no evidence to offer in support of this position, so he has no other alternative except to assert that this is what it mean. Reflection in the mirror: Vague one-hand-clapping like this is all the X actually has as a response. Holding: The harvest (and the fishing expedition) is still going, and people are still being separated based on their reaction to the good news. We'll discuss this more when we get to a later part of the discourse. Skeptic X: No, that isn't at all what the parable meant. Yes, that is at all what the parable meant. See how easy it it to just assert rhetorically?   The "separation" did not take place until the "end of the age [world]," Oh, it didn't, did it? Since X likes to throw around word comparisons, here's another for him: Matthew 9:36-8 But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd. Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few; Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest." And what's this refer to? It's said right after Jesus did a preaching and healing mission -- the "harvest" started with his own mission. Now then, what "age" have we been saying saw the begining of its end at the time of Jesus? As I said: "With the 'end of the age' in 70, the 'angels'...were sent out to harvest, based on reaction to the Gospel. The harvest (and the fishing expedition) is still going, and people are still being separated based on their reaction to the good news." That process started with Jesus' mission, continued through to the "end of the age" in 70, and is still going today. but Holding's spin on the passage would have the separation taking place all through the "age." All through this one, the Messianic one, yes. But that's not the ending "age" in view here.   The way the parable was told, however, the tares and the wheat were to grow together until the reapers went out at harvest time to pull up the tares, bundle them, and burn them.  Contrary to Holding's quibble that the harvest is an ongoing affair, the harvest was actually a one-time event that came at the end of the growing season. And as we showed, the harvest is still going, but X still hasn't explained to us what he thinks happens to people, Biblically speaking, upon death.   As I will show later, there is no reason to think that the New Testament's view of final judgment is that it will be an instantaneous matter that will begin and end quickly. Slippery eeling at work. X is still mixing up "final judgment" with experiental judgment.   There are reasons to think that it would necessarily have to happen over an extended period that would take even longer than the harvesting of a field of wheat.  Holding's spin on this parable is that the harvesting is a day-by-day separation that has been going on now for over 1900 years, but that isn't what the parable was saying.  It was actually depicting a growing period that ended with a harvest. Well, heck -- is there an analogy that could have adequately depicted a 1900-year or more span that would have been understood in rural Galilee? Nothing in the real world of men lasts that long.   The growing period, as any person with farming experience could tell Holding, is much longer than harvest time.   Hence, the man who owned the field told his servants to let the tares grow with the wheat--with no separation taking place--until harvest time. Oh well, if X wants to stretch the analogy that far, then how about the fact that the "sowing" continued with Jesus' disciples, and still goes on now? Maybe he'll eventually argue that the parable teaches that believers will be made into bread and eaten. Then, at that time, the reapers would go out, pull up the tares, bundle them, and burn them.  And by then, the sowing would stop -- have been stopped months before! -- if we want to play that game. See where this will lead you? But if sowing is evangelism, then the fact is, it started in 30 with Jesus and is still going today. That leads to the conclusion that the harvesting process is likewise continuous. If X wants to press the analogy, he needs to ask why we still aren't in the "leave it to grow a while" stage that follows sowing. His pressing that far leads to a ridiculous conclusion. In the parable, there was a sowing time, a growing time, and a harvest time, which coincides with New Testament passages that teach a period of "longsuffering" [growing time] Remember that we have already dropped X flat on the idea that "longsuffering" requires a long time. Here he is just doing what dispensationalists fallaciously do, which is jumping across books and ramming them together to make a case. on God's part, after  which there will be a harvest [final judgment and punishment] Still that mixing up of experiental judgment with judicial decision. at the end of the world. "Age" and don't forget it.   Holding's spin on the parable makes the growing time and the judgment [separation] time the same. In a sense he's right -- preterism says that sowing as well as growing and harvesting are all going on simultaenously, even now. No earthly analogy could capture all of that at once using agriculture as a symbolic basis.   That obviously is not what the parable was intended to teach. Only if you try to stretch the analogy to meet your needs -- which is what dispensationalism does. Holding is trying to quibble on the grounds that a harvest period and the casting of a fishing net aren't exact parallels to his perception of final judgment as an event that happens expeditiously, but there are two things wrong with his quibble.  First, there is no reason to think that the final judgment as presented in the New Testament will happen in the twinkling of an eye. Actually I agree and this is what I have been saying all along. But that's assuming that X means "final judgment" here to mean experientally, and it's not clear that he does mean that. Since he confuses the two, who knows.   The New Testament teaches that in the judgment every person will have to give a personal account of himself before God. Yes -- in this case and in the cites below, that would refer in this paradigm to the "decision" judgment that comes, for us, after we've already spent some time experiencing our judgment results. Romans 14:12  So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. Romans 2:5  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, 6who "will render to each one according to his deeds..." 1 Peter 4:4 In regard to these, they think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you. 5They will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. Matthew 16:27  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. This one though does more likely refer to the experiental aspect -- when Jesus has assumed the throne of judgment and declares by his authority what each person will experience upon death. This is again to be distinguished from the day of accounting. Such an individualized judgment would not be something that could be done instantaneously, so there is no reason for Holding to try to make the "harvest" in the parable of the tares an ongoing "separation" on the grounds that harvest time for a farmer takes place over an extended period. Which is not exactly what I did, but that's X for you.   As for the casting of the net into the sea, I discussed that above and showed that the parable did not say that the kingdom of God was like a fishing trip.  It said that the kingdom was like a net that was cast into the sea and gathered every kind.  The comparison was to a single casting of a net. And we showed how X flopped like a fish trying to use a miraculous ctach as something typical. Second, Holding's quibble fails to consider that there is no such thing as an analogy or comparison that is alike in all details. Well what do you know! Isn't this what we just said? So now how can X have the nerve to try to claim that his view is better suited?   No metaphor or simile can be perfect; some points of difference will always be present.  Let's take the parable of the mustard seed as an example. No, let's not. X is just filling space here and we don't need his tutorials. Just note the irony that he agrees with what we wrote above, and therefore has emasculated his argument that we can't exegete the harvest as being over 1900+ years and still going today. Instead we move to X's conclusion: I'll continue my point-by-point reply in Part (2), where Holding tries to find proof for his preterist position in the meaning of the Greek word parousia. And we'll be here to respond. Well, that's it for now, and we may or may not use the same method of response next time. Either way we figure it is good now and then to remind the reader that the editing we do here of Skeptical material, especially by X, involves mostly editing repetition, bombast, and worthless chatter. Next round we'll get into evidence of fulfillment of the O. Discourse in the 30-70 period -- which is where X's attempts should be of most interest. A couple of points to begin this round. First of all. Skeptic X's webmaster seems quite the incompetent, as he posted the part of this we are replying to on March 1, but didn't note an update date under Skeptic X's name -- it was still 2/19/03. And these guys are telling other people that I edit articles after the fact, etc. -- given this sort of incompetence, how would they know? (Vague generalization -- just like they do!) Second, some folks have said that the color coding gives them problems, so we will now respond in bold rather than in color, and begin any significant responses (i.e., not to X's excessive blather, repetition, etc.) with a "grin" face like this one . Why? Because you'll be happy I didn't make you read through all the drivel X produces if you don't want to. Here goes. Holding: But what, then, of Jesus answering regarding his "coming"? The word Matthew uses is parousia, and Matthew alone among the Gospels uses this word. The word means presence or arrival. Here is how it is used in an "everyday" sense: 2 Corinthians 10:10 For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible. 1 Corinthians 16:17 I am glad of the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied. Skeptic X: Well, why be selective? "Why be selective"? Didn't X notice that I said that I was giving examples of "parousia" as it was used in an everyday sense? Fans of X who wonder why I can't take him seriously need only look back at this section of his. The man can't read. He has problems with missing these little qualifying phrases, like he did with the "90% of my website paid for" routine.   Let's just look at a wider range of texts where parousia was used. It was used 24 times in the NT, and as it happens, some of the examples X gives are the same "everyday" sense, leading us to wonder what the heck he is trying to prove. It's little more than a cheap case of show-off for his adoring readers.   I will use bold print to emphasize the English words used to translate parousia. Philippians 1:25  And being confident of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy of faith, 26that your rejoicing for me may be more abundant in Jesus Christ by my coming to you again. Philippians 2:12  Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.... 2 Corinthians 7:6  Nevertheless God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the coming of Titus, 7and not only by his coming, but also by the consolation with which he was comforted in you, when he told us of your earnest desire, your mourning, your zeal for me, so that I rejoiced even more. Notice that in all of these examples, including Holding's two, parousia denoted a physical presence or coming.  We must wonder, then, why parousia was not intended to denote a physical coming in the following passages. Well, uh, we haven't even finished explaining how we will argue about parousia, and X just has to throw in all of his comments beforehand to pre-empt our argument. It's a blatant manipulation and nothing more.   I will quote all of the passages first and then note some reasons why the parousia referred to was probably intended to convey the sense of an actual coming or presence rather than just the fuzzy mystical coming that Holding and his preterist cohorts claim. Fuzzy mystical meaning my behind. The parousia was actual and real -- Jesus arrived as ruler in Heaven, in line with Daniel 7 and the use of the word as "for the arrival of a ruler, king or emperor." If X finds that a little too fuzzy, that's his issue, not ours. 1 Thessalonians 2:19  For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Is it not even you in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at His coming? X is so busy lagging behind that he still hasn't read my analysis of Paul's use of this word. It has relevance. 1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Ditto here. No, all X does is hunt for the word and assume it means the same thing, same event, each danged time. Note that this is a guy who wanted "tribe" to mean something different when it was used in the NT! Broader context of the word -- usages in other places -- defeats him both times. James 5:7  Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, waiting patiently for it until it receives the early and latter rain. 8You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand. Yep. James is just fine here with the idea that in a few years, Jesus will assume the throne in heaven. Holding has chided dispensationalists for not admitting that New Testament passages clearly spoke of the "coming of the Lord" in terms that plainly indicated that this "coming" was imminent.  Therefore, he will no doubt argue that James, in the passage immediately above, was referring to that spiritual or mystical Spitirual or mystical, please! There is nothing "mystical" or "spiritual" about it. We hold that Jesus assumed a real throne in heaven. X is confused as ever, as this shows: coming of the Lord that would happen soon in the destruction of Jerusalem, Good grief, man! No one here has said that the "coming of the Lord" would happen IN the destruction of Jerusalem! The destruction was a correspondent event, but it did not have the coming "IN" it! As I say quoting Wright: His parousia, his enthronement as king, would be "consequent upon the dethronement of the present powers that were occupying the holy city." Not IN it! And you people who adore this guy still want to know why I can't do anything but laugh at him! which would bring to an end the "age of the law," And again! He thinks the destruction of Jerusalem is seen here as an antecedent cause of the end of the age! He's as mixed up as a beaten egg under the Kitchen Aid! but that interpretation is hard to reconcile with the two passages quoted immediately above the text in James.  Paul told the Thessalonians that they would be his "hope, joy, or crown of rejoicing" in the presence of the Lord at his coming [parousia].  In other words, Paul was saying that the Thessalonian Christians would be a source of pride for him when the Lord came, but this text is rather hard to understand if the "coming of the Lord" that Paul mentioned was just that mystical or spiritual coming that would occur when Jerusalem was destroyed, because Thessalonica was in Greece, about 500 miles across the Mediterranean Sea from Jerusalem.  How could the Thessalonians have been a source of pride for Paul (who was already dead by AD 70) during the localized destruction of a city 500 miles away from Thessalonica?  This statement makes no sense if the "coming of the Lord" is interpreted to mean just a local event that would happen on a tiny area of the earth, but if the "coming of the Lord" is seen as a universally observable scene, which early Christians believed was going to happen in their lifetime and be seen by "every eye," the statement makes perfectly good sense. All of this is because X still hasn't bothered -- though he has been told "umpteen times" to use his own verbiage -- that I have addressed Paul's usage of parousia elsewhere;