After it was pointed out a list of 101 Prophecies Mr. Green compiled didn’t support his intended case Mr. Green responded by once again employing logical fallacy. In this case Mr. Green begs the question. For those of you who don’t understand what “Begging the question” means, the term describes, “…a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.” Let’s look at how Mr. Green employed the logical fallacy. Mr. Green writes,
However, if there is one “particular” verse (or actually two verses together) that directly and explicitly proves (i.e., bluntly states) creedally heretical preterism, it is Matthew 16:27-28:
“The Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and will then recompense every man according to his deeds. There are some of those who are
standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”Here we have the Second Coming, the Resurrection the Dead (implied), the Judgment, and the consummated Kingdom, all about to be fulfilled before Jesus’ contemporaries died.
The question Mr. Green’s claim begs is the meaning of the phrase, “The Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father”. Mr. Green assumes the phrase is a reference to what he refers to as, “the Second Coming”. I guess the fact the term “Second Coming” is nowhere found in the text he quotes or for that matter the entire N.T. doesn’t matter to Mr. Green. Based on Mr. Green’s extraordinary “exegetical” skills the passage clearly teaches of a term nowhere found and get this, implies the idea that dead people will also come back to life. Truly it is amazing what Mr. Green is capable of winnowing out of a text.
However, and germane to the topic at hand, how does Mr. Green know that the phrase, “The Son of Man is about to come” is not an allusion to Daniel 7:13,14, a passage in which the Son of man is portrayed coming into the kingdom when He ascended to the Father? Mr. Green, without offer of proof has assumed the phrase, “The Son of Man is about to come” necessarily is reference to the Second Coming. However, Keith Mathison points out it is an, “assumption that the words “coming of the Son of Man” must mean second coming.” [i] That’s right, Mr. Green has assumed the premise of his claim to be true without first establishing that fact. Ergo Mr. Green’s is guilty of employing the logical fallacy of question begging.
What Mr. Green must overcome is the immediate context, given the immediate context in which Matt 16:27-28 in the NET Bible(r)" rel="external">Matt 16:27-28 is found, is a judgment scene. The similarities between the immediate context of Matt 16:27-28 in the NET Bible(r)" rel="external">Matt 16:27-28 and Daniel 7:13,14 are striking. Dr. Mathison explains, “Once we realize that Jesus is simply using a phrase from Daniel 7…texts such as Matthew 16:28 are much more readily understood. Jesus was not predicting that his second coming would occur within the lifetime of some of his hearers. He wasn’t speaking of the second coming at all.” [ii] Mr. Green must overcome the immediate context to support his assumption, something he never does
However N.T. Wright explains Jesus very well may have been explaining an alternative point. Dr. Wright explains, “The main point is expressed in the traditions which, in classic apocalyptic language, emphasize that those who followed Jesus would eventually be acknowledged as his true people…This vindication could be relied upon utterly; although Jesus followers might have seemed totally unprotected and at risk in every way, they were to trust the true god for their safety and vindication…Israel’s god would speedily vindicate his elect; those who acknowledge Jesus would themselves be acknowledged on that great and terrible day. [iii]
So rather than as Mr. Green claims, “we have the Second Coming, the Resurrection the Dead (implied), the Judgment, and the consummated Kingdom, all about to be fulfilled before Jesus’ contemporaries died.”, we find out the text is dealing with something else. What in fact we have depicted is a reference to the reception of the Son of Man in heaven by Christ Jesus Himself. Dr. Mathison explains, “The point that Jesus is making when he says that there are some standing here who will not die before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom is that there are some to whom he is speaking who will not die before the prophecy of Daniel 7 is fulfilled, in other words, before Jesus receives the kingdom from his Father.” [iv[
Thus, given the Son of Man receives the kingdom in heaven, the scene in which Daniel 7:13,14 takes place and begins to render judgment having been given the seat of authority, one would be hard pressed to consider that a “second coming” or second appearance. Dr. Mathison explains, “…the judgment Jesus is referring to in verse 27 (Matt 16:27) is the judgment referred to in Daniel 7:9-10, a heavenly judgment of the “beasts/nations” that is directly related to Jesus’ receiving of the kingdom of God from the Father, an event that occurs in connection with his first advent.” [v]
Kind of hard to turn the “second coming” into a heavenly scene, if you catch my drift.
Well don’t that beat all Aunt Mae! The text is not referring to the “Second Coming”, but a judgment that occurs in connection with His first advent! I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised as there is nothing in the text which states, much to the chagrin of Mr. Green, implies or otherwise indicates the dead in Christ will rise. No, the clear context of the passage is, “will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?” (Matt 16:26) Clearly, as Dr. Wright explains, the immediate context is dealing with the vindication of the followers of Christ Jesus and the condemnation of His enemies, something that really did occur in AD70.
Perhaps we should put Mr. Green on, what does he call it, oh yeah, “Exegesis Moderation”. However, in keeping with the topic of the blog, that begs the question. Folks did you catch the question I just begged? You got it; the question is, “Is Mr. Green capable of performing “exegesis”? Frankly, all I ever see from him are examples of where he puts up a text and claims it means something as in the case with his claim regarding Matt. 16:27-28. We like him, have assumed something that has yet to have been demonstrated as fact. LOL!
[i] From Age to Age, The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology, P&R, pg. 365
[ii] Ibid, pg. 365
[iii] Jesus and the Victory of God, N.T. Wright, Fortress Press, pg. 337-338
[iv] From Age to Age, The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology, P&R, pg. 365
[v] Ibid, pg 366
Matthew Henry’s Commentary on Matthew 16:27-28:
“2. Here are some considerations proper to encourage us in self-denial and suffering for Christ.
(1.) The assurance we have of Christ’s glory, at his second coming to judge the world, v. 27. If we look to the end of all these things, the period of the world, and the posture of souls then, we shall thence form a very different idea of the present state of things. If we see things as they will appear then, we shall see them as they should appear now.
The great encouragement to steadfastness in religion is taken from the second coming of Christ, considering it,
[1.] As his honour; The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels. To look upon Christ in his state of humiliation, so abased, so abused, a reproach of men, and despised of the people, would discourage his followers from taking any pains, or running any hazards for him; but with an eye of faith to see the Captain of our salvation coming in his glory, in all the pomp and power of the upper world, will animate us, and make us think nothing too much to do, or too hard to suffer, for him. The Son of man shall come. He here gives himself the title of his humble state (he is the Son of man), to show that he is not ashamed to own it. His first coming was in the meanness of his children, who being partakers of flesh, he took part of the same; but his second coming will be in the glory of his Father. At his first coming, he was attended with poor disciples; at his second coming, he will be attended with glorious angels; and if we suffer with him, we shall be glorified with him, 2 Tim. ii. 12.
[2.] As our concern; Then he shall reward every man according to his works. Observe, First, Jesus Christ will come as a Judge, to dispense rewards and punishments, infinitely exceeding the greatest that any earthly potentate has the dispensing of. The terror of men’s tribunal (ch. x. 18) will be taken off by a believing prospect of the glory of Christ’s tribunal. Secondly, Men will then be rewarded, not according to their gains in this world, but according to their works, according to what they were and did. In that day, the treachery of backsliders will be punished with eternal destruction, and the constancy of faithful souls recompensed with a crown of life. Thirdly, The best preparative for that day is to deny ourselves, and take up our cross, and follow Christ; for so we shall make the Judge our Friend, and these things will then pass well in the account. Fourthly, The rewarding of men according to their works is deferred till that day. Here good and evil seem to be dispensed promiscuously; we see not apostasy punished with immediate strokes, nor fidelity encouraged with immediate smiles, from heaven; but in that day all will be set to rights. Therefore judge nothing before the time, 2 Tim. iv. 6-8.
(2.) The near approach of his kingdom in this world, v. 28 . It was so near, that there were some attending him who should live to see it. As Simeon was assured that he should not see death till he had seen the Lord’s Christ come in the flesh; so some here are assured that they shall not taste death (death is a sensible thing, its terrors are seen, its bitterness is tasted) till they had seen the Lord’s Christ coming in his kingdom. At the end of time, he shall come in his Father’s glory; but now, in the fulness of time, he was to come in his own kingdom, his mediatorial kingdom. Some little specimen was given of his glory a few days after this, in his transfiguration (ch. xvii. 1); then he tried his robes. But this points at Christ’s coming by the pouring out of his Spirit, the planting of the gospel church, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the taking away of the place and nation of the Jews, who were the most bitter enemies to Christianity. Here was the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Many then present lived to see it, particularly John, who lived till after the destruction of Jerusalem, and saw Christianity planted in the world. Let this encourage the followers of Christ to suffer for him, [1.] That their undertaking shall be succeeded; the apostles were employed in setting up Christ’s kingdom; let them know, for their comfort, that whatever opposition they meet with, yet they shall carry their point, shall see of the travail of their soul. Note, It is a great encouragement to suffering saints to be assured, not only of the safety, but of the advancement of Christ’s kingdom among men; not only notwithstanding their sufferings, but by their sufferings. A believing prospect of the success of the kingdom of grace, as well as of our share in the kingdom of glory, may carry us cheerfully through our sufferings. [2.] That their cause shall be pleaded; their deaths shall be revenged, and their persecutors reckoned with. [3.] That this shall be done shortly, in the present age. Note, The nearer the church’s deliverances are, the more cheerful should we be in our sufferings for Christ. Behold the Judge standeth before the door. It is spoken as a favour to those that should survive the present cloudy time, that they should see better days. Note, It is desirable to share with the church in her joys, Dan. xii. 12. Observe, Christ saith, Some shall live to see those glorious days, not all; some shall enter into the promised land, but others shall fall in the wilderness. He does not tell them who shall live to see this kingdom, lest if they had known, they should have put off the thoughts of dying, but some of them shall; Behold, the Lord is at hand. The Judge standeth before the door; be patient, therefore, brethren.
So, with that, Jesus was encouraging the disciples to give up their lives for Him because He would one day reward them. And the evil that they suffered for Him, would be reckoned with. Proof of that reckoning would be shown to them in power by the spreading of the gospel and the destruction of Jerusalem, something they thought was impossible, yet happened in their own time as proof.
Thus it seems Matthew Henry sees both the judgment coming in AD70 and the final coming spoken of in those 2 verses. When you pay attention to the greater context in which Jesus is speaking, his exegesis makes a lot of sense.
Greg,
Indeed it is amazing what happens when you allow the text to speak for itself.
God Bless,
As if on cue one of Mr. Green’s esteemed associate Mr. Sullivan chimes in explaining,
Mr. Sullivan is alluding to a topic covered by this post here, http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=5041
Oh, and regarding his claim as to what “most” reformed theologians understand as to the parallels between Matt 24 and 1 Thess 4 it appears Mr. Sullivan has amended his former position wherein he claimed “virtually all” scholars claim the basis for 1 Thess 4 is Matt 24,25. We cover his ignorance of the issue here, http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=4629 and here, http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=4622
BTW, it would be prudent for Mr. Sullivan to acquire a copy of Dr. Beale’s book “New Testament Biblical Theology” as it appears Dr. Beale has changed his opinion on Matthew 24. Within that book Dr. Beale recommends R.T. France’s book “Jesus and the Old Testament”, a book wherein he clearly explains the concept of the resurrection of the dead is NOT taught in Matthew 24. So much for the parallel with 1 Thess 4. LOL!
Folks, maybe we will all see Mr. Sullivan amending his position even more.
Have not read that site in a couple of weeks and now I know why. We can site scholars that parallel these passages….we can site scholars who don’t, Reformed and non-Reformed. Does it help Sullivan that ALL (every single one) of the Dispensationalists parallel these passages? OOOOHHHH…..STIINGGGG. Kind makes the case that FP and Dispy are in the same camp, so to speak - the EXTREME camp (wholly future, or wholly past).
And, where is “resurrection” mentioned? Ah, I see: “and he shall reward each man according to his deeds.” Yes. Well, if that’s the case, there was a resurrection in 589 B.C.! How do I know? Read Ezekiel 7:3: “I will reward you according to your conduct and judge you according to your deeds.” Wha? How about Psalm 18? “The Lord has rewarded me according to my works…” (18:24); or Ezekiel 18:30: “I will judge you Israel, each one according to their deeds.” Sounds to me as if God has been doing this “judging, rewarding” according to deeds done in history for quite some time now….oh, but the Hyper Preterists insists there is only ONE time that he has done this: AD 70! Silly hypers….they need the WHOLE counsel of God’s word……
Folks,
The “esteemed” exegete extraordinaire Mr. Sullivan asks,
Why would I need to waste my time on an entire post from the “esteemed” Mr. Sullivan? I demonstrated that he misrepresented Dr. Beale which, although he claims it was a joke lead to an awfully embarrassing situation for Mr. Scargy.
In case the reader isn’t aware of the situation Mr. Scargy took it upon himself to defend Mr. Sullivan only to withdraw from the discussion as pointed out here, http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=4821 You see, Mr. Scargy thought I was misrepresenting Dr. Beale, only he found out all I was doing was “interacting” with what Mr. Sulllivan had represented of Dr. Beale’s position. When Mr. Scargy realized this he opted to move on. I guess he figured out, correctly so, it didn’t look very good for Mr. Sullivan.
Given Mr. Sullivan has moved from a position of “virtually all scholars” to his now, “most”, which while offering NO support for his “most” is clearly a move away for his misrepresentation of “virtually all scholars”. The simple fact is Mr. Sullivan has been shown on several instances to misrepresent authors views, the facts and a whole host of other things. That I’ve discredited his claims in reviewing just a part of his post indicates there is no warrant to respond to his “entire” post. The guy isn’t worth the time.
BTW, Folks, has anyone yet to see from Mr. Sullivan an explanation as to why BDAG got the slotting of the term “Mello” in Acts 24:15 wrong? What say you, No? Yeah, I didn’t think so. The guy can’t get beyond the basics yet demands his posts be answered. Talk about a joke! LOL!
Fixed the funky formatting
Paul,
I like how Sullivan says I, “was content in saying that she [I] agreed with Talbot-Paul’s or Talbot-Sam’s points on these passages — and letting them do her thinking/writing for her.”
How does it logically follow that since I agree with what some other people write, that means I am not thinking for myself? If this is the case, then I guess Dorothy is allowing Mike and Dave to do her “thinking” for her - not to mention anyone else on that list that doesn’t post. LOL
Sharon,
I hear you and given Mr. Green apparently must authorize postings, I’d say it appears there is only one doing the thinking for a few over there.
LOL!
Folks,
I believe we’ve pointed out in the past Mr. Sullivan’s penchant for missing the obvious for example here, http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=4980 Proving he seems to be incapable of catching the point, once again Mr. Sullivan explains,
The facts are, no one suggested Mr. Sullivan was embarrassed by his mistake, clearly the man is incapable of honestly representing the positions of those he quotes. The issue was Mr. Scargy who after attempting to rehabilitate Mr. Sullivan’s claim was embarrassed to find out I was representing what Mr. Sullivan had reported as to Dr. Beale’s position. Mr. Scargy, as indicated in the link provided ended up apologizing to me for his mistake.
Futhermore when pressed to EXPLAIN why BDAG got the slotting of the term “Mello” in Acts 24:15 wrong all Mr. Sullivan claims to have done is, “we provided other Greek scholars and translations that translate mello in Acts 24:15 as “about to.”
So what, BDAG is a world renowned source. Mr. Sullivan claims the world renowned source got it wrong and has yet to explain why. Clearly the man should not be weighing in on the Greek grammar of the issue, he can’t offer a reasoned explanation.
As indicated Mr. Sullivan isn’t worth the time. The guy doesn’t even realize that offering sources which contradict the world standard doesn’t address the question asked. Gee, I wonder if Mr. Sullivan even passed 1st year Greek?
LOL!
Folks,
It has become apparent most of what Mike Bennett offers up isn’t worth commenting on, as he clearly doesn’t seem capable of comprehending what he is reading. However, I couldn’t resist this comment. Mr. Bennett observed,
I do believe Mr. Bennett is a fan of the San Diego Chargers. Thus that is all that needs to be said about how he defines the term “win”.
ROFL!
Folks,
The esteemed Mr. Sullivan persists writing,
Without fail the point continues to elude Mr. Sullivan, why am I not surprised.
Actually I responded to two of Mr. Sullivan’s points. Pointing out why both of his points were wrong. As mentioned if Mr. Sullivan’s positions are discredited over such mundane matters truly it is a waste of time to deal with the man. Mr. Sullivan’s inability to accurately represent the authors whom he chooses to quote demonstrates his lack of honesty in dealing with the subject. And clearly he is unqualified to critique areas like the translation of concepts from one language to another as demonstrated by his inability to explain why BDAG got the slotting of Acts 24:15 wrong. The man is dealing in areas he is unqualified to comment upon and clearly isn’t professional enough to accurately handle the facts.
Mr. Bennett’s honesty comes right through doesn’t it Paul!
So clear you can see right through him.
Chargers…lol.
Paul, Mr. Sullivan’s issue with Acts 24:15 is founded upon the area in which we have all been asking them to deal with time and time again. The body. What is the body? They don’t deal with the text, nor do they deal with the historicity and culture behind the text itself, that in turn forces them to rethink the definition of the body. Yet they ask us to deal with the text. Historical Preterist Wayne Jackson says:
[quote]The Lord’s “second coming,” however, will be as visibly apparent as his ascension back into heaven was (Acts 1:11). Indeed, he will be “revealed” (2 Thessalonians 1:7), or “appear” to all (2 Timothy 4:1; Hebrews 9:28).
It is a mistake of horrible proportions to confuse the symbolic “comings” of Christ with the “second” (cf. Hebrews 9:28) coming. And this is what the preterists do.
Secondly, it is utterly incredible that the preterists should deny the eventual resurrection of the human body—just as the Sadducees did twenty centuries ago (Acts 23:8). The entire fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians was written to counter this error: “How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead [ones – plural]?” (15:12).
But those who subscribe to the notion of realized eschatology spiritualize the concept of the resurrection, alleging that such references are merely to the emergence of the church from an era of anti-Christian persecution. In other words, it is the “resurrection” of a cause, not a resurrection of people.
The theory is flawed in several particulars, but consider these two points:
The Scriptures speak of the “resurrection” as involving both the good and the evil, the just and the unjust (Daniel 12:2; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15). Where, in the preterist scheme of things, is the resurrection of the “evil”? Was the “cause” of evil to emerge at the same time as the “cause” of truth?
As noted above, the resurrection contemplated in 1 Corinthians 15 has to do with the raising of “dead ones” (masculine, plural)—not an abstract “cause” (neuter, singular). Significantly, the bodily resurrection of Jesus is cited as a precursor to the general resurrection—in this very context (15:20,23). Christ charged that those who deny the resurrection of the body are ignorant of both the Scriptures and the power of God (Matthew 22:29).[/quote]
We ask them again to deal with the text first, then coupled with the historicity and culture of the concept for the resurrection of the dead. Not their presumed influx of ideas into the text as if the Bible is cut straight out of history and to be cherry picked without any historical support to weigh its etymology. Sure we can redefine terms to fit our fancy (as he does with scripture and the words of men), but when we weigh them up against what the society Jesus taught to, His apostles taught to, what they understood, and a complete unbroken chain of interpretation of the text to the body is apparent, we have something very different from what Mr. Green and Sullivan are espousing. What we have are redefinitions.
Ken,
You nailed it!
God Bless,
Folks,
What can you say…
How about, “Slow on the uptake” I can certainly understand why Mr. Sullivan continues to misrepresent the views of those he cites.
Folks,
This is interesting. Mr. Sullivan, the man who we’ve demonstrated on several occasions is incapable of comprehending the written word responds to the blog above. Mr. Sullivan writes,
This appears to be another example of where Mr. Sullivan failed to comprehend the argument offered. In addition to this, Mr. Sullivan appears confused on the matter. Thus Mr. Sullivan never addresses the argument offered. Mr. Sullivan is in the same boat as his colleague “assuming” the term “coming of the Son of Man” means “Second Coming”.
As pointed out, if the reference to the phrase, “coming of the Son of Man” is in reference to Daniel 7:13,14 then that scene depicts the entrance of the Messiah to heaven, which of course could not be the “Second Coming”. Perhaps Mr. Sullivan can explain how it is an entrance into heaven by the Messiah to receive the kingdom would qualify as a “Second Coming”. This will likely prove to be a difficult task for Mr. Sullivan given the implication is that the “First Coming” is as a result of incarnation of the Son of God wherein God took on the form of a man appearing on earth.
BTW, you really have to love the irony of Mr. Sullivan’s question, “This is no small pill to swallow and will Talbot-Paul object to what I say next concerning the previous sentence — “VIRTUALLY NO ORTHODOX REFORMED THEOLOGIAN OR COMMENTARY THROUGHOUT CHURCH HISTORY AGREES WITH THIS.” Is that “exaggerated” or “misrepresentation” as well Mr. Talbot-Paul?!?” Especially when you realize Mr. Sullivan disagrees with EVERY “Orthodox, Reformed Theologian” over the goal of God’s redemptive plan. Evidently consistency is a hard pill for the RINO’s to swallow.
LOL!
Folks,
Finally it appears Mr. Green has opted to weigh in claiming,
LOL, “Christ died” does NOT refer to the “death of Christ”, Oh, OK!!!
It would appear Mr. Green’s response to his logical fallacy is followed up with the absence of logic altogether.
LOL See what I mean Paul?
Ken,
I hear you, but I’m hoping this is an example of where Mr. Sullivan is finally starting to catch on. Mr. Sullivan writes,
Indeed, as pointed out demonstrating just one of Mr. Sullivan’s points are invalid saves the time in having to deal with all of his nonsense. However, what is truly a laugher is his complaint,
Remember, Mr. Sullivan is the guy who failed to quote Dr. Beale in context, yet he takes exception and accuses me of allegedly taking his quote out of context when I pointed out the utter absurdity of his claim here, “VIRTUALLY NO ORTHODOX REFORMED THEOLOGIAN OR COMMENTARY THROUGHOUT CHURCH HISTORY AGREES WITH THIS”
Folks, what you have to bear in mind is that Mr. Sullivan’s entire argument is based on what he thinks theologians views are with respect to certain texts as indication of “orthodoxy”, yet this very guy holds nothing in common with what orthodoxy clearly spells out is the goal of God’s redemptive plan. The irony of his complaint above is only surpassed when he goes on to explain,
Yeah, sure, quoting Mr. Green’s absurd statement, “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3). That statement doesn’t refer to the actual death of Christ”, is now “misrepresenting him. LOL! Why would I need to deal with the entire post when the post begins with such an absurd proposition as, “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3). That statement doesn’t refer to the actual death of Christ”
Ken,
Well, what can we say, 1 step forward 2 steps back. Mr. Sullivan writes,
Evidently Mr. Sullivan’s self-delusional tendencies persist. Nevertheless, as pointed out here, http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=5041 Mr. Sullivan was and apparently remains less than forth-right about his representation of Dr. Beale’s opinion as represented in his commentary of 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Indeed Dr. Beale’s opinion on the matter appears to have continued to evolve to the point where he no longer understands Matt 24 as “implying” the resurrection of the dead. A view Dr. Beale articulated in his commentary which as not “explicitly” taught. Something the reader of Mr. Sullivan’s representation of Dr. Beale’s work would never know. Yeah, sure, Mr. Sullivan never took Dr. Beale out of context. Mr. Sullivan made it clear that Dr. Beale qualified his chart! LOL!
Actually, what I think this goes to is the incredibly amateurish standards these guys apply in providing the views of those they cite as sources.
BTW, to that “anonymous” poster out there who is keeping Mr. Sullivan informed of the comments in rebuttal to his absurd claims and positions. I don’t blame you for keeping him informed. Clearly the man has a problem and has yet to address the issue.
All,
Please bear this in mind. According to Mr. Sullivan it appears Mr. Green’s statement, ““Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3). That statement doesn’t refer to the actual death of Christ” was intended as “sarcasm”. Mr. Sullivan explains on behalf of Mr. Green,
Interesting, Mr. Sullivan who failed to provide the qualification Dr. Beale provided with his chart as pointed out here, http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=5041, suggests to take Mr. Green’s written word at face value isn’t “honest”. I wonder if Mr. Sullivan thinks withholding what an author wrote in qualification to the work he provided is “honest”. Needless to say, the irony is slaying especially in light of Mr. Green’s following comment,
Folks, this is the guy whose famous for quote mining and continually offering false allegations. The audacity of this guy is slaying!
Dave Green has some gall for accusing anyone of “false witness” when he writes things like the following:
“Dr. Talbot wrote for/with Jason Bradfield”
Dave, if you have PROOF of this, please bring it forward. If NOT, then you need to stop bearing false witness against Jason (and others) with these kinds of lies.
You STILL have not brought forth any proof of previous accusation such as these (against Dee Dee and PaulT), yet you persist in carrying on these lies.
Dave, the FACT is, you are a liar. A flat out liar. PROVE it or stop it. That is the right thing to do.
Dave Green. I read your lame response to my comment above. You, sir, are full of baloney.
Produce some PROOF or retract your lie.
Dave Green’s response:
Dave, you are a liar. Being innocently “wrong” is NOT the same thing as deliberatly saying something which you have been repeatedly told is incorrect.
Repent of your lies. It isn’t a slight thing to be disparaging people’s reputations for lies.
Folks,
Truly Mr. Sullivan has issues with comprehension. Mr. Sullivan concludes this…
How Mr. Sullivan concluded what he did above after reading this, http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=5936#comment-19760, is certainly beyond me. However the fact that he does arrive at an erroneous conclusion tends to explain why he is regularly misrepresenting the views of the authorities he cites. In any event I’m amazed the man didn’t understand the reason I provided for his misrepresenting Dr. Beale in quoting him out of context is his “amateurish” research skills. That he apparently missed this point would tend to suggest why he thinks “implied” means “explicitly taught”. LOL!
Sharon,
All I can add is “yup”.
God Bless,
Folks,
This is a rather interesting request from Mr. Sullivan especially in light of what he goes on to claim. Mr. Sullivan requests,
I wouldn’t want to side track the main issue here, but apparently Mr. Sullivan doesn’t understand the term “parousia” means “presence” and as a result ones “presence” can be manifested in a variety of forms, especially for God. Thus his question, “Does Mr. France or Mr. Beale believe there are TWO “the parousia(s)””, is a non-starter. His question would have been better framed were he to ask, “Does Dr. France or Dr. Beale believe the presence of God can be manifest if a variety of forms?” Obviously the answer to that question would be “while I haven’t spoken to either man directly about the subject, their work would tend to indicated they believe God has the ability to manifest His presence in a variety of manner”.
That said, for a guy who represents Dr. Beale’s views, I’m a bit astonished he isn’t aware of what the scholar has published on the subject. You would think a guy who represents the views of Dr. Beale would invest in his work and find out for himself what the scholar has written on the subject. I wonder if this is how Mr. Sullivan typically approaches his research on a matter, leveraging the explanation of a third party rather than evaluating the sources himself?
In any event were Mr. Sullivan acquire Dr. Beale’s book, http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Biblical-Theology-Unfolding/dp/0801026970/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342275244&sr=1-1 and then refer to the issue discussed here, http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=5570 his research into the issue would be vastly accelerated. However, what is truly interesting regarding his above question is the following comment. Mr. Sullivan went on to pontificate,
Actually Folks, Mr. Sullivan is once again back tracking. His statement indicated a bit more than what he now claims above. What Mr. Sullivan had explained is,
What we are disputing is Mr. Sullivan’s claim “virtually” every commentator parallels 1 Thess 4 with Matt 24. It is interesting he is attempting to change the argument, while at the same time dropping like a hot potato his former claim. In any event, one needs to ask, the basis for Mr. Sullivan’s claim. Has Mr. Sullivan surveyed the work of “virtually” every commentator who has ever written on Matt 25:31-46? This doesn’t seem likely as he is requesting me to provide him Dr. Beale’s work on a related passage. I mean if the man can’t even perform his own research into the views of Dr. Beale, how is it we are to believe he has thoroughly researched “virtually” every commentator who has written on Matt 25:31-46. Clearly, this is just another example of Mr. Sullivan’s amateurish skills when it comes to the subject.
Paul, Sullivan may be a lost cause. He is so wrapped up in disputing other people that he can’t seem to follow your argumentation.
I applaud your attempt at keeping him on track though.
Sharon,
You are right, it appears Mr. Sullivan ignores what is written yet keeps on asking questions as though he has already addressed what has been put to me. These guys somehow think D.A. Carson contradicted in private to Dorothy what he made clear in public in his commentary on the Gospel of John. With deductive reasoning like that, I don’t think it possible to get Mr. Sullivan to recognize the errors inherent within the balance of his “reasoning”. A fine example of Mr. Sullivan in his fantasy world is his attempted spin out of his dilemma in Acts 24:15. The man actually had the audacity to write,
I’m not sure about Dr. Gentry, although I would bet Mr. Sullivan has garnered his ignore list. Anyway, Mr. Sullivan is living in a dream world. Regarding Acts 24:15, he was provided the BDAG’s slotting and asked to explain why the world-class Greek lexicon got the slotting wrong. We’ve explained the answer, “because these other sources slot it different” doesn’t work. We’ve been waiting on him to provide a detailed answer as to why the slotting in BDAG is wrong.
As mentioned you are right, the man clearly doesn’t understand citing a source without providing the qualifications the source provides isn’t representing the views of the author accurately. Clearly, Mr. Sullivan isn’t qualified to be making the claims he does.
God Bless,