PART 2 – DEBATE CHALLENGE AND RESPONSE TO: JAMES WHITE, SHABIR ALLY, SAM SHAMOUN, AND ANTHONY ROGERS – "TIME/HOUR OF THE END"="THE END OF THE AGE" RESURRECTION (DAN. 12=MATT. 13=LUKE 20:27-40=MATT. 24:30-31, 36=JOHN 4-5) ALL FULFILLED IN AD 70

I am continuing my series in challenging to debate and giving a response to James White, Shabir Ally (Muslim), Sam Shamoun, and Anthony Rogers concerning the Islamic charge that Jesus was a “false prophet” in that He allegedly taught that His Second Coming connected to “the end of the world” would take place in some of the lifetimes and generation of His first century audience and that the NT continued teaching this failed hope (Matt. 16:27-28/Matt. 24/1 Thess. 4-5).
In my last article I gave 8 exegetical arguments from Matthew 16:27-28 which proved Christ was faithful in fulfilling His Second Coming promise to come and close the end of the Old Covenant (OC) age (not end planet earth) in AD 70.  This not only refutes Shabir Ally’s charges (and that of liberals and atheist critics), but these exegetical arguments destroy James White’s Amillennialism and the Partial Preterist views of Anthony Rogers and Sam Shamoun. In this article, I will further develop that neither White’s Amillennialism nor Roger’s and Shamoun’s Partial Preterism have a sound “apologetic” against their Muslim critics as we enter a study on Daniel’s “time/hour of the end” (not end of time) judgment and resurrection event, and how Daniel 12 is developed in Jesus’ teaching on the “end of the age” or coming resurrection “hour” in Matthew 13:39-43/Matthew 24:3, 30-31/Luke 20:27-40/John 5:28-29.
The timing of the resurrection of the dead is the Achilles heel of creedal Partial Preterism and Amillennialism. I can and will prove that Muslim Shabir Ally’s “prophet” Muhammad was a false prophet on three points. First, by demonstrating that the last hour was not fulfilled when Muhammad taught it would be – in the lifetimes of those he was speaking to. Secondly, Muhammad was a false prophet because the Quran places the event in the future when Jesus in fact has already fulfilled the end of the [OC] age resurrection hour event in AD 70. And lastly, Muhammad was a false prophet because he claimed the end time resurrection would be physical when in fact the NT teaches it to be a spiritual one to be fulfilled by AD 70. And by the same standards I can prove that the eschatological NT Jesus James White, Anthony Rogers, David Wood, Robert Spencer, Robert Morey bring into their debates with Muslims (on this topic) – is also unfortunately a false prophet. Therefore, it is necessary that they repent from their views and accept the “Faithful and True Witness” of the Scriptures and not a failed creedal Jesus who did not accomplish what, when, and how He said He would fulfill the end of the age resurrection. Selah.       
I will begin addressing my Christian futurist brethren first and then address Shabir Ally and Islam’s false prophet Muhammad at the end of this article. Anthony Rogers quoting Milton Terry in his article agrees with Full Preterists such as myself that the “end of the age” or “the end” throughout Matthew 24 is not discussing the end of world history or the end of planet earth – but contextually it is referring to the end of the old covenant (OC) age in AD 70. This destroys the faulty premise of Shabir Ally and all those liberals which he quotes from that merely assume Jesus was predicting “the end of the world” or end of world history to take place within His generation. But as I will demonstrate claiming Matthew 24-25 is about the “end of the old covenant age” also destroys Anthony Roger’s Partial Preterism!
I reached out to Anthony Rogers and asked him why in his article he spent no time on how Jesus uses “the end of the age” in the rest of Matthew’s gospel (cf. Matthew 13:39-43 and Matthew 28:18-20)? I asked him if he agreed with other Partial Preterists (such as Joel McDurmon and Gary DeMar) that the end of the age in Matthew 13:39-43 is identified as the end of the OC age in AD 70? And if so does he realize that Jesus is referencing the resurrection of Daniel to be fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70 (cf. Matt. 13:39-43/Dan. 12:2-3)? What was Anthony Roger’s response? He told me he was too busy to answer my question, referred me to ask Mr. Gentry these questions, and eventually “blocked” me from asking any further challenging questions directed at his article! Wow, what a bold public “apologist” he is – right up there with White and Shamoun apparently. He follows the same cowardly approach as Kenneth Gentry (whom he says lives just 10 miles from him – big deal is my response). I asked him to ask Ken to respond to questions and challenges we have given to him in our book which to this very day Ken has avoided answering (6 years and counting). What follows are the arguments and challenges that Partial Preterists such as Anthony Rogers and Kenneth Gentry want to literally block me from challenging them on and if they can block you from seeing (and is also the one that Amillennialists such as James White don’t want you to see or have them to address in a public setting with a Full Preterist theologian being present):
Partial Preterism (Anthony Rogers/Kenneth Gentry/Joel McDonald/James Jordan) – The “time of the end” resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was spiritually fulfilled in AD 70 at Christ’s parousia.  The “end of the age” is the end of the OC age in AD 70 in Matthew 13 and Matthew 24.  Jesus references the resurrection and glorification of Daniel 12:2-3 to be fulfilled at the end of the OC age gathering/judgment in Matthew 13:39-43 (ie. in AD 70).
Classic Amillennial view of the two ages (James White) – The “time of the end” resurrection takes place at Christ’s ONE Second Coming or “the parousia” event.  Jesus picks back up this “end of the age” “gathering” judgment/resurrection motif from Matthew 13:39-43 in Matthew 24:30-31 to be fulfilled at His One Second Coming event (ie. Dan. 12:2-3=Matt. 13:39-43=24:3, 30-31).
Full Preterism (Michael Sullivan/David Green) – Jesus teaches that the one “end of (the OC) age” resurrection and judgment gathering of (Dan. 12:2-3=Matt. 13:39-43=Matt. 24:3, 30-31) was fulfilled in AD 70 at His ONE Second Coming or “the parousia” event.
Here is the challenge in my chapter that I gave Partial Preterists such as Kenneth Gentry and Keith Mathison (authors of WSTTB? – the book James White ironically recommends which he alleges refutes Full Preterism) from my/our book response to them (in House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology…”):
“The fulfillment that has been wrought in Christ is no piecemeal fulfillment that has remained a “yes and no” fulfillment/non-fulfillment for 2,000 years, as futurists such as Mathison imagine. The Law of Moses does not remain “imposed” as it did between the Cross and the Parousia (Heb. 9:10, NASB). Rather, Christ returned and the old covenant vanished in His Presence forty years after His Cross (Heb. 8:13). If He did not return, and if the dead were not raised in Him, then the old covenant never vanished, and we are still in our sins. This is the inevitable implication of denying that literally “all things written” (Luke 21:22) have been fulfilled in Christ today.
A comparison of Daniel 12:1–2 with the Olivet Discourse proves that literally every eschatological prophecy in the Scriptures would be fulfilled in AD 70:
Daniel 12:1-12 Olivet Discourse

Mathison believes that the majority of scholars “rightly understand” the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 as being a future biological resurrection of all believers.[2] But he has not explained how that resurrection can be separated from the first-century great tribulation, abomination of desolation, and destruction of Jerusalem in Daniel 12:1, 7, 11. Daniel 12:7 says that when the power of the holy people would be completely shattered (in AD 70), then “all these things would be finished” –not “some” of them.
Partial Preterist James Jordan now understands the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 (and Daniel’s personal resurrection in verse 13) as being a spiritual and corporate resurrection that took place from Jesus’ earthly ministry to AD 70. Jordan actually sees this past resurrection as being the resurrection of Revelation 20: “The death of the Church in the Great Tribulation, and her resurrection after that event, were the great proof that Jesus had accomplished the work He came to do. The fact that the Church exists today, nearly 2000 years after her death in the Great Tribulation, is the ongoing vindication of Jesus work.”[3] “Revelation takes up where Daniel leaves off, and deals mostly with the Apostolic Age and the death and resurrection of the Church.”[4] “What Daniel is promised is that after his rest in Abraham’s bosom, he will stand up with all God’s saints and join Michael on a throne in heaven, as described in Revelation 20, an event that came after the Great Tribulation and in the year AD 70.[5]
Mathison’s co-author Gentry has also finally come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70:
“In Daniel 12:1-2 we find a passage that clearly speaks of the great tribulation in AD 70.”
“…But it also seems to speak of the resurrection occurring at that time…”
“Daniel appears to be presenting Israel as a grave site under God’s curse: Israel as a corporate body is in the “dust” (Da 12:2; cp. Ge 3:14, 19). In this he follows Ezekiel’s pattern in his vision of the dry bones, which represent Israel’s “death” in the Babylonian dispersion (Eze 37). In Daniel’s prophecy many will awaken, as it were, during the great tribulation to suffer the full fury of the divine wrath, while others will enjoy God’s grace in receiving everlasting life.”[6]
We commend Gentry for his recently developed full preterist exegesis of Daniel 12:1-3. However, it presents a problem for him. Gentry stated, in the same book, that the resurrection in the parable of the wheat and tares is not yet fulfilled.[7] Yet Jesus taught that Daniel 12:2-3 would be fulfilled at the same time as that parable (Dan. 12:2-3; Matt. 13:39-43).
Nevertheless, some of Gentry’s partial preterist colleagues have come to the conclusion that the parable of the wheat and tares was also fulfilled in AD 70. For example, Joel McDurmon (Gary North’s sonin-law, and Director of Research for Gary DeMar’s American Vision)[8]:
It is clear that Jesus did not have in mind the end of the world, nor did He mean the final judgment. Rather, Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43 describe the judgment that would come upon unbelieving Jerusalem. During this time, the angels would “gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity” (13:41) and these would be judged with fire. Many of them literally were burned in fire during the destruction of Jerusalem. During this same time, however, the elect of Christ—“the children of the kingdom” (v. 38)—will be harvested. While the explanation of the parable does not tell us their final end, the parable itself has the householder instructing the harvesters to “gather the wheat into my barn.” In other words, they are protected and saved by God.
This, of course, is exactly what happened to the Christians. Not only were they saved in soul, but they mostly fled Jerusalembefore the Roman siege. This was consequent to Jesus’ advice to flee and not look back once the signs arose (Matt. 24:16-22); indeed this would correspond with the angels’ work of harvesting the elect (24:30).[9]
Curiously, McDurmon does not mention that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 is quoted by Jesus in Matthew 13:39-43. Partial preterists such as McDurmon also ignore the fact that Paul, in agreement with Daniel and Jesus, also taught that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 was imminent in the first century:
having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both ofrighteous and unrighteous (Acts 24:15, YLT & WEY; cf. Matt. 13:39-43).
There is only one passage found in “the law and prophets” that explicitly speaks of a resurrection of believers and unbelievers, and that is Daniel 12:2-3. This is Paul’s source in Acts 24:15, as virtually any commentary or scholarly work agrees. As G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson wrote on Acts 24:15:
The resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous is based on the prophecy of the end in Dan. 12:2-3, which indicates two groups of people, some being raised to eternal life and others to eternal reproach and shame, and then refers to the “righteous” (Θ) or to “righteousness” (MT). Clearly this passage lies behind Paul’s statement, although the wording is different.[10]
Partial Preterists such as Gentry who admit the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70 need to not only address the issue of this being Paul’s source for his resurrection doctrine in Acts 24:15, but other places in the NT. Again Beale points out in one of his most recent works, that Jesus is following the (OG) LXX of Daniel 12:1-2, 4 as His source for His teaching on “eternal life” and the coming resurrection “hour” (or “the hour of the end”) of both believers and unbelievers in (John 5:28-29).[11]
And clearly the books being opened in judgment and the resurrection of all in Daniel 12:1-2 is the judgment and resurrection of Revelation 20:5-15. Gentry at one point seeking to refute the Premillennial Dispensational theory of two resurrections cited Daniel 12:2/John 5:28-29/John 6:39-40/Acts 24:15 as evidence of “one resurrection and one judgment, which occur simultaneously at the end…”[12] We couldn’t agree more with Gentry #1 – that these texts are descriptive of “one” and the same resurrection and judgment which take place at the same time in history. And yet we also agree with Gentry #2 – Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70.
Another question or challenge for partial preterists who see the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 as being fulfilled in AD 70 is this: How many times must Daniel be raised unto, and receive, “eternal life?”

To be fair and thorough I should point out a recent development in Gentry’s understanding of how the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 is fulfilled.  As we saw above, Gentry, in order to refute the two-resurrection theory of premillennial dispensationalism, claimed that the resurrection of this text is the one and same, yet-future resurrection as described by Jesus and Paul in John 5:28-29; John 6:39-40; and Acts 24:15 (and no doubt Revelation 20).Then later, Gentry changed his interpretation when responding to a full preterist (apparently realizing that he could no longer arbitrarily sever the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 from the first century Great Tribulation in verse 1, and the first-century “time, times and half a time” and “shattering of the holy people” in verse 7). On Gentry’s Facebook wall, he wrote regarding Daniel 12:2 that it has nothing to do with a biological resurrection:
“Daniel 12 is not dealing with bodily resurrection but national resurrection (as does Eze 37). Dan 12 sees the ‘resurrection’ of Israel in the birth of the Christian Church, which is the New Israel.”
But later, following his lecture on the millennium at Criswell Bible College, Gentry gave a slightly different response.  After being challenged on how the New Testament develops the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 in Matthew 13:39–43; John 5:28-28; Acts 24:15 and specifically in Revelation 20:5–15, he responded by saying that Daniel 12:2 was typologically and spiritually fulfilled in AD 70 and that it will be anti-typically and ultimately fulfilled in a literal “bodily resurrection” at the end of world history.
Besides this not being taught by Daniel or any New Testament author, my question and challenge to Gentry’s new explanation of this passage is this:  If Gentry can give Daniel 12:2 two fulfillments (one in AD 70 and one in our future), then what is to stop the dispensationalist from saying something like this:
There may have been some kind of fulfillment of the Great Tribulation in an AD 66–70 (Dan. 12:1; Matt. 24:21) and in the “desolation” of Jerusalem and her temple in AD 70 (Dan. 9:27; Matt. 24:15), but those events were only typological fulfillments.  The ultimate fulfillments will be in our future when Israel rebuilds her temple.
Or why should Gentry oppose the amillennialist teaching that, while the Great Tribulation may have had some aspect of fulfillment in the events leading up to AD 70, we should not consider it as one historic event but an “already but not yet” process the church goes through until the end of history?
Gentry gives Daniel 12:2 two fulfillments but won’t allow dispensationalism or any other futurist system to do the same thing with the Great Tribulation, the three and a half years, or the Abomination of Desolation in Daniel 12 and Daniel 9:27. Jesus in Luke 21:20-22 and Matthew 13:3943 did not say that all Old Testament prophecy or the resurrection and glorification of Daniel 12:2–3 would be fulfilled in two totally different ways spanning thousands or millions of years from AD 70 to the end of world history.  He said that these things would all be fulfilled in His generation (“this generation”) at the end of the old covenant age.” (Taken from Michael Sullivan’s chapter 4: The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?) in my/our book, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?; (Ramona, CA: Vision Publishing, Second and Expanded Edition, 2014) pp. 89-95).
James White and our Amillennial opponents in WSTTB? would agree with Full Preterists that the gathering/judgment/resurrection described in the parable of the wheat and tares taking place at the “end of the age” is the same eschatological event described for us in Matthew 24:

This is obviously a problem for the Reformed community in that Partial Preterism agrees with Full Preterism that the “end of the age” in both Matthew 13 and Matthew 24 are referring to the OC age in AD 70.  Therefore, once again our opponents don’t refute us, they have formed us “Reformed and always reforming”:
Amillennialism:  The judgment, resurrection “gathering” at the “end of the age” in Matthew 13 and Matthew 24 are the same ONE eschatological event depicting the ONE Second Coming “the parousia” event.
Partial Preterism:  There was a spiritual and corporate resurrection and judgment of the living and dead that took place at the “end of the (OC) age” at Christ’s Parousia in AD 70.
Full Preterism:   The ONE Second Coming (“The parousia”) was fulfilled at the end of the (OC) age in AD 70, at which time there was a spiritual and corporate resurrection and judgment of the living and dead.
Let’s get back to Mr. Anthony Rogers and his unfinished response to Shabir Ally.  So in my brief communications with Anthony Rogers, he referred me to Kenneth Gentry (since Anthony couldn’t finish his articles and didn’t have time to answer my questions).  As one can see, I have addressed and challenged Gentry on these issues in our book and in several of my article online, and no in-depth scholarly article or book response to my/our challenges have been given. In fact NONE of the authors of the book James White recommends (WSTTB?) have attempted to refute my/our book that I just quoted from. Selah.
Again, since the “last hour” is a key element to Islamic eschatology and the failed predictions of the “prophet” Muhammad (a serious problem for Shabir Ally) and it is sticking point between creedal Reformed eschatology and Reformed or Sovereign Grace Full Preterism, I want to spend some time on John’s development of the judgment and resurrection in Daniel 12. Commentators have long understood that Daniel 12:2 is the source for Jesus’ teaching on the resurrection in John 5:28-29 because the only OT passage which mentions a resurrection for both the righteous and the wicked is Daniel 12:2 and the only OT passage addressing “eternal life” is Daniel 12:2.  And as I already addressed G.K. Beale points out an additional connection – in that Jesus is following the (OG) LXX of Daniel 12:1-2, 4 when it comes to this coming resurrection “hour” of both believers and unbelievers:
AD 30

1. Daniel 12:1:  “And at that hour…”

1. John 5:25:  “…an hour is coming and now is…”

AD 70

2. Daniel 12:1:  “And at that hour…”

2. John 5:28:  “…for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,”

AD 30

1.   Daniel 12:2:  “Many of those who sleep in the width of the earth will arise   [anatesontai]…some unto eternal life and others to reproach…and to eternal shame.”

1. John 5:24:  “…he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into   life.”

AD 70

2. Daniel 12:2:  “Many of those who sleep in the width of the earth will arise   [anatesontai]…some unto eternal life and others to reproach…and to eternal shame.”

2. John 5:29:  “and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection   [anatasin] of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection [anatasin] of judgment.” (also related:  1 John 2:18: “Dear children it is the last hour…” and Revelation 14:7:  “…the hour of His judgment has come.”).

David Green wrote the following in our book on the coming resurrection hour of John 5:28-29:
“In order to understand John 5:28 and 29, we must first look three verses above it, in John 5:25, where Jesus said that the hour “now is” when “the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.”  As most Reformed interpreters agree, Jesus in that verse was referring to the preaching of His death and resurrection.  The preaching of that message commenced at Pentecost.  “The dead” were physically living people who were spiritually dead in sin, and “the voice of the Son of God” was the gospel.  Having heard the gospel, those who were spiritually “dead” were spiritually resurrected.  They lived in that they received eternal life through faith in the gospel (“the voice of the Son of God”).
Then, in verses 28 and 29, Jesus expanded His teaching on the resurrection to include those who were not only spiritually dead, but who were also physically dead.  He did not call them “dead” (as He had already called the living who were spiritually dead), but He referred to them through another figure of speech as “all who are in the graves.”  They were not literally in their graves or tombs, of course, but were in Hades/Sheol.
What is often missed in this passage is that, like the physically living in verse 25, the physically dead in verse 28 were also going to live by means of hearing Christ’s “voice.”  As we know from verse 25, that “voice” is the gospel.  The physically dead therefore were going to hear the gospel (cf. 1 Pet. 4:6.) and were, as a result of hearing the gospel, going to be resurrected (regenerated, born from out of death and Hades).  This means that the physically dead were, like the physically living, spiritually dead.  And this inescapably means that both the physically living and the physically dead were going to be spiritually resurrected by means of the gospel-voice of the Son of God.  One resurrection in two main stages:  First, the last days saints; then, the Old Testament dead (“the rest of the dead” in Revelation 20:5). Note the parallels between John 4:21, 23 and John 5:25, 28:

1. . . . [T]he hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. . . . (Jn. 4:23)
2. . . . [T]he hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. (Jn. 4:21)

1. . . . [T]he hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. (Jn. 5:25)
2. . . . [T]he hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice. . . . (Jn. 5:28)

These two sets of prophecies are parallel.  They speak of the same timeframes, which were these:
Pentecost (AD 30)

1. The true worshipers would worship the Father in spirit and in truth.

1. The dead would hear the voice of the Son of God, and live.

Fall of Jerusalem (AD 70)

2. God’s worshipers would no longer worship Him in Jerusalem.

2. All who were in the graves would hear His voice.

After hearing the gospel, the dead were raised out of their Adamic graves (Hades) in the end of the age.  And those among them who believed the gospel received eternal life in the kingdom of God.  But those who hated the gospel (those who had done evil) were raised out of Hades only to stand before God and to enter into “eternal punishment” / “the second death” (Matt. 25:46; Jn. 5:28-29; Rev. 20:14).” (David Green, Chapter 7: The Resurrection of the Dead, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology, pp. 178-179).
Another exegetical challenge for Anthony Rogers and his friend Ken Gentry is that Partial Preterism agrees with Full Preterism that Jesus’ “already and not yet” eschatological “hour” in John 4:20-24 is between AD 30 – AD 70 when the era of old covenant mountain / temple worship is removed and the new was established (Kenneth Gentry, FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 46.  Kenneth Gentry, THREE VIEWS ON THE MILLENNIUM AND BEYOND, (Grand Rapids MI:  Zondervan, 1999), 246 footnote 45). But then Gentry asserts with no exegetical justification that Jesus’ same phrases depicting an eschatological “already and not yet” coming “hour” in John 5:24-29 allegedly deal with a literal resurrection at the end of world history?!?  We again find this arbitrary and exegetically unconvincing. The inconsistency of the Partial Preterist hermeneutic should be clear enough from these texts:
OT echo / reference to John 5:24-29:  The coming resurrection hour of Daniel 12:1-2 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70.
Same phrases in previous context:  This “already and not yet” coming “hour” of John 4:20-24 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 30 – AD 70.
The immediate context of John 5:28-29:   It is admitted that the “already” aspect to the resurrection “hour” of John 5:24-26 is a spiritual resurrection, but unlike what we find in John 4:20-24 (the “not yet” of this “hour” that was fulfilled in AD 70), the “not yet” “hour” of Daniel 12:1-2 in John 5:28-29 is now mystically moved to be a literal/biological resurrection at the end of time?!?
Gentry and Partial Preterism in general, have painted themselves into a corner.  Based upon the above exegetical points, why can’t someone believe the resurrection of John 5:28-29 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 (“the time of the end”=”the end of the (OC) age”) since Partial Preterism teaches us that its source of fulfillment (Dan. 12:2) has a spiritual fulfillment in AD 70? This is more than terrible logic, it is horrendous and arbitrary exegesis designed to try and attempt to honor NT imminence on the one hand (and deal with critics such as Shabir Ally), while on the other hand try to please man and not violate what the Reformed creeds teach on a literal resurrection – supposedly to take place at the end of world history.
Before leaving John’s development of the coming judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-2 let’s briefly address his teaching on the judgment and resurrection in Revelation 20:

As I noted earlier, Partial Preterist James Jordan believes that Daniel’s soul was raised out from among Abraham’s Bosom or Hades to inherit eternal life in God’s presence in fulfillment of Daniel 12:1-2, 13 and Revelation 20. As my chart demonstrates – if Partial Preterism wants to be exegetically consistent in its view that “John picks up where Daniel leaves off,” then THE (not “a”) spiritual resurrection in Revelation 20:5-15 was fulfilled in AD 70 at Christ’s Second Coming event. Selah. Interestingly enough when Partial Preterists such as Gentry debate other futurists who try and give his AD 70 fulfillments a “…double fulfillment” or claim they may have “…repeated recurrence until the end as the already/not yet nature of prophecy unfolds” in his own words these statements have “no exegetical warrant” and is nothing more than “pure theological assertion.” (Kenneth Gentry, FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 44).
So Partial Preterism’s NEW position of taking the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 as being fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70 spiritually while now trying to claim it can have a double fulfillment or be stretched out within an “already and not yet” scenario has “no exegetical warrant” and is nothing more than “pure theological assertion.”  Selah.
The Reformed creedal position is that the “already and not yet” process ends with the ONE Second Coming event to close the ONE “end of the age” Jesus instructed us on in the gospels (White’s position).  IF Daniel’s “time of the end” is the end of the OC age (per Partial Preterism), and the “end of the age” in Matthew 13 and Matthew 24 is the OC age (per Partial Preterism), then the creeds are in error (as they themselves claim can be) and need to be Reformed further to place the ONE “time of the end” Second Coming, judgment and resurrection at the close of the OC age in AD 70 (that is if they still believe in “Sola Scriptura” and “Reformed and always reforming”).  Selah. Once again our opponents don’t refute Full Preterism, they form it:
James White (Classic Amillennialism) – The ONE judgment and resurrection depicted in Revelation 20:5-15 (and those elements to the millennial period) have already been recapitulated within the rest of the book (1-19, 21-22) and is brought about by Christ’s ONE Second Coming event (at the end of the age).
Anthony Rogers/Sam Shamoun (Partial Preterism) – The contents of Revelation 1-19, 21-22 were fulfilled imminently at Christ’s coming in judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70.
Michael Sullivan (Full Preterism) – The ONE judgment and resurrection depicted in Revelation 20:5-15 (and those elements to the millennial period) have already been recapitulated within the rest of the book (1-19, 21-22) and were fulfilled imminently in Christ’s ONE Second Coming event in AD 70 (at the end of the [OC] age). There are a couple of other texts that I want to briefly address on this theme of the coming resurrection hour of Daniel 12:1-4 and it taking place at the “time/hour of the end” or the “end of the (OC) age” in the gospel of Matthew – Matthew 24:36 and Matthew 22:23-33/Luke 20:27-39.
Matthew 24:36 / 1 John 2:18 Day and Hour
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” We understand this “day” and “hour” to be the “DAY of the Lord” (ie. the ONE Second Coming event known in the NT as the “day of the Lord,” “day of the Lord Jesus Christ,” “day of God,” “the great day of God Almighty,” etc…) or “HOUR” of resurrection/judgment described for us in Daniel 12:1-2ff. (OG) LXX. This “day” and “hour” is not a 24 hour day or a 60 minute hour, but rather an eschatological day and hour that describes Christ’s parousia (presence) whereby He would unleashing His wrath upon unbelievers and Jews in their land between AD 66 – AD 70 (and judging the unbelieving dead in the unseen realm – emptying Hades into the Lake of Fire) on the one hand, and on the other hand delivering Christians from Jerusalem (to Pella – a physical salvation) and raising / glorifying His corporate body the Church by in-filling them with His presence (overcoming “the [spiritual] death” – a spiritual salvation which overcome “the death” that took place the day that Adam sinned). Jesus is instructing His contemporary “this generation” (AD 30 – AD 70), that they would not know the day or hour of His coming, but (within the context), this day and hour (time period) would be known when the specific signs began being fulfilled.
And in 1 John 2:18 this is exactly what we see. John writes under inspiration: “Little children, it is the last time/hour: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time/hour.” (1 John 2:18). Both Jesus and John are describing Daniel’s “time/hour of the end” of judgment and resurrection as described for us in Daniel 12:1-4. “The Word” (Jesus Christ the eternal God) in His humanity did not know the “day and hour” (time period – roughly between AD 66 – AD 70) of His Second Coming while in the flesh. But beginning in His ascension (engulfed and rising within the glory cloud) when He was “glorified” in the Father’s “presence with the glory He had before the world began” (without a physical body anymore) He did know the “day and hour” of His coming and revealed such to John in 1 John and throughout the book of Revelation. 1 John and Revelation were written prior to AD 70 as the day and hour had begun or was on the verge of beginning.  Matthew Henry’s suggestion of 1 John 2:18 is helpful:
“…it is the last time; our Jewish polity in church and state is hastening to an end; the Mosaic institution and discipline are just upon vanishing away; Daniel’s weeks are now expiring; the destruction of the Hebrew city and sanctuary is approaching, the end whereof must be with a flood, and to the end of the war desolations are determined,” Dan. 9:26.” (Henry, M. (1994). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: complete and unabridged in one volume (p. 2446). Peabody: Hendrickson, bold emphasis MJS).
Anthony Rogers and Kenneth Gentry enjoy quoting John Lightfoot a lot (Gentry in his books and Rogers in his response to Shabir Ally). Since Rogers thus far seems to be following the non-division theory of Matthew 24-25 and position of Gary DeMar, I’m assuming he would agree with John Lightfoot at least at this point that the “day and hour” of (Matt. 24:36) is referring to Christ coming in the judgment of AD 70: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man.] Of what day and hour? That the discourse is of the day of the destruction of Jerusalem is so evident, both by the disciples’ question, and by the whole thread of Christ’s discourse…” (Lightfoot, J. (2010). A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians, Matthew-Mark (Vol. 2, p. 442). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software).
“Now, therefore, the foreknowledge of things to come, of which the discourse here is, is to be numbered among those things which flowed from the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and from immediate revelation; not from the hypostatic union of the natures. So that those things which were revealed by Christ to his church, he had them from the revelation of the Spirit, not from that union. Nor is it any derogation or detraction from the dignity of his person, that he saith, ‘He knew not that day and hour of the destruction of Jerusalem;’ yea, it excellently agrees with his office and deputation, who, being the Father’s servant, messenger, and minister, followed the orders of the Father, and obeyed him in all things. “The Son knoweth not,” that is, it is not revealed to him from the Father to reveal to the church. Rev. 1:1, “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him.” (Ibid. p. 444-445).
“The reason why the divine wisdom would have the time of the destruction of Jerusalem so concealed, is well known to itself; but by men, since the time of it was unsearchable, the reason certainly is not easy to be searched. We may conjecture that the time was hid, partly, lest the godly might be terrified with the sound of it, as 2 Thess. 2:2; partly, that the ungodly, and those that would be secure, might be taken in the snares of their own security, as Matt. 24:38. But let secret things belong to God.” (Ibid. p. 446).
The “hour/time of the end” judgment and resurrection in Daniel 12:1-4 is found in Jesus’ teaching on the eschatological gathering of the wheat/elect into the barn/kingdom at the end of the OC age in AD 70 (ie. Matt. 13:39-43=Matt. 24:30-31, 36ff.). That Matthew 24:30-31 is the resurrection event (predicted to take place within Jesus’ “this generation”) will be more evident once we get into an exegesis of 1 Thess. 4:15-17 and compare the two), but for now these are sufficient points that connect the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4 with Matthew 13:39-43=Matthew 24:3, 30-31, 36ff. as fulfilled by the end of the OC age in AD 70. There is an obvious “domino effect” for Anthony Rogers with him taking the “end of the age” in Matthew 24 as referring to the OC age ending in AD 70, that his (conveniently unfinished) article series does not address. Selah.
Matthew 22:23-33/Luke 20:27-40 End of the age and resurrection
“Then some of the Sadducees, who deny that there is a resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, saying: “Teacher, Moses wrote to us that if a man’s brother dies, having a wife, and he dies without children, his brother should take his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. And the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her as wife, and he died childless. Then the third took her, and in like manner the seven also; and they left no children, and died.  Last of all the woman died also. Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife does she become? For all seven had her as wife.”  Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age (OC age cf. Matt. 13:39-40) marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age (NC age – “age to come”), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. But even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised, when he called the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him.” (Luke 20:27-38).
“This age” is once again easily identified as the OC age since the giving in marriage in the story is dealing with the Mosaic or the OC Levirate marriage law. I don’t think any Christian would claim this law and practice should be imposed today in the NC age – do they? At the end of the OC age the resurrection would take place for the dead, and while being raised into the eternal NC age they would be like the angels (having no physical bodies) so physical marriage and unions was to be non-existent or a moot point to make from the start! But as a Full Preterist I usually get a challenge something like this:
“You claim the resurrection or “change” for the living took place in AD 70 with the dead. Well, since you and others marry (and Jesus said marriage wouldn’t take place in the NC age), then your view must be false.”
First, while it is true that the resurrection did involve the dead and the living being raised or “perfected” together at the end of the OC age and rising into the NC age by AD 70, the context of this passage is dealing with the physical dead being raised and thus not being able to marry (not having physical bodies).
Secondly, let’s assume the passage does have an application or is dealing with marrying or not marrying for living Christians who have been raised in the NC age in AD 70 and beyond. If this were to be dealt with, again the context is clear in that under the OC Mosaic age marrying to produce (or raise up seed) was connected to the land of Israel. Christians being raised into the NC age by AD 70 and beyond no longer marry for that purpose because the OC law “vanished” “soon” in AD 70 (Heb. 8:13).
Therefore, if the passage has any application to living Christians, (in context) they will no longer marry for the purpose of raising up seed connected to the land and the law of Moses in the NC age. The passage poses no problem for Full Preterists and since it is “orthodox” for Partial Preterists (such as James Jordan) to believe that Daniel’s soul was raised out of Abraham’s Bosom or Hades at Christ’s parousia in AD 70 – I don’t see why this passage isn’t a fulfillment of that resurrection, do you?
This argument by the Sadducees (who denied any existence after physical death) worked well against their Pharisee opponents. Why? Because many of the Pharisees believed that the OT Torah would be carried into the New Creation or Messianic age. Therefore, the Sadducee challenge could be summarized like this:
“Since you believe in a physical bodily resurrection to take place before the New Creation arrives and that the Torah will be practiced at that time, then explain to us whose wife will this woman belong to once all seven brothers are raised and they are living in the New Heaven and Earth?!?” You can almost hear them chuckling because this was forcing the Pharisees into the practice of polyandry (the practice of a woman having more than one husband at once), which unlike polygamy (which was condoned and practiced under the OT law) was not lawful and considered an abomination of sorts.
While this argument worked for the Pharisees it did not work for Jesus. Why?
First, Jesus did not teach that the resurrection involved physical bodies capable and ready to produce (as they had in their lives upon earth).  Believers would be raised to be like the angels in heaven – spiritual beings not producing offspring.
Secondly, Jesus refutes the notion that the OT law (Levirate marriage law) would be applicable in the New Creation or New Covenant age (as most Pharisees had). The practice and purpose of marrying your husband’s brother for the purpose of raising up physical seed to be inherited “in the land” (OT type) would “vanish” in AD 70 (Heb. 8:13), while raising up seed/children through the gospel and producing an inheritance “in Christ” (the anti-type) would be the emphasis for the NC believer.
Jesus effectively silenced BOTH groups (Sadducees and Pharisees). He silenced the Sadducees who denied that the dead were still living, because He stated, that in effect they were very much still “alive” (even though they had physically perished) — “He is not the God of the dead (Sadducees view), but of the living (inferring that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still very much alive/existing).” He silenced the Pharisees by in effect teaching that the dead would be “like the angels” (not having physical bodies) so the issue of “marrying” is a moot point for them. And if there is an application for the living – it also caused them to marvel in that He was supporting the view that the OT or Mosaic OC law would not be carried into the New Creation.
But this does pose a series of challenging question for James White and other futurists who see literal things being fulfilled in the New Creation of Isaiah 65. Since he/they believe a physical resurrection takes place before the arrival of the New Creation (ie. Isa. 65-66/Rev. 20-22), and there is no marriage and reproduction in the age of the resurrection, what kind of sexual unions are taking place in Isaiah 65:17-25 that are producing children at this time? If there is no physical pain in the New Creation, are these painless births for the mothers? If everyone is raised in physical bodies and then placed in the New Creation with no marrying and given in marriage being allowed – are these illegitimate or bastard children being born from these biologically raised individuals?  If everything is perfect in the New Creation, why is there still labor, sin, and biological death being described in the New Creation?
Concluding Part 2 “End of the age” and resurrection
When we use the sound hermeneutical principle of interpreting the Scriptures (the analogy of Scriptues) while at the same time paying attention to the Reformed historical views of the classical Amillennial view with that of Partial Preterism, we arrive at the conclusion that the ONE Second Coming event, judgment, and spiritual/corporate resurrection of the living and dead was fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70 — Full Preterism.
The NT develops these eschatological events described in Daniel (cf. Daniel 7:13-14; 9:24-27; 12:1-13) as being fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70 – and NO OTHER AGE.  Anyone who loves God’s Word will have no desire to go “beyond what is written” and hold to traditions that the Bible does not teach.
James White application:  White “dreads” studying eschatology and avoided the texts Shabir Ally brought up in the debate (Matt. 16:27-28/Matt. 24/1 Thess. 4-5), because he “saw the train (problem) coming” and decided to stick his head in the sand instead of debating and answering the challenge.  If White wants to claim he didn’t have enough time in the debate to address how he would answer Ally’s challenges, he should have requested a follow-up debate exclusively on this subject.  And if Ally was smart, he would call White out on a debate on the subject exclusively.  I am willing to debate either one (or both at the same time) on this subject – anytime anywhere.
White holds to the classical Amillennial view of the “two ages,” but wrongly identifies “this age” as the Christian NC age (which in reality is the OC age of the law and prophets) and the “age to come” to be the heavenly state (instead of the NC or gospel age).  This and his blind obedience to the Reformed creeds (which ironically claim they can and are mistaken on issues) causes him to not be able to deal with NT imminence.
Anthony Rogers/Sam Shamoun application:  Having been a Partial Preterist myself, I can see the “wall” so to speak that Rogers has hit in his response to Shabir Ally in Matthew 24.  He claims he hasn’t had enough time to finish the series, but I have a feeling that much more is involved.  Time will tell.  My debate challenge extends to Mr. Rogers as well.  Rogers has no apologetic for Muslim and other Bible skeptics on Matthew 16:27-28; Matthew 24; 1 Thessalonians 4-5 (or NT imminence in general) because all of these described the ONE Second Coming event to be fulfilled in the first century lifetimes of those Jesus and Paul are addressing.
Shabir Ally application:  Like James White, Anthony Rogers, and Sam Shamoun, Shabir Ally does not understand HOW the Second Coming and resurrection event was to be fulfilled at the end of the age in AD 70 – therefore he arrives at the false conclusion that Jesus was a “false prophet” and therefore the NT was corrupted with Muhammad allegedly fixing them for everyone.  But unfortunately for Islam, the “prophet” Muhammad did not understand the time and nature of these prophecies when he STOLE bits and pieces of these eschatological doctrines from the OT and NT inspired Scriptures.
For Shabir and Islam to claim these are future and physical events when the NT states they would be fulfilled spiritually by AD 70, causes Islam to be a false religion and Muhammad a false prophet.  Selah.
Apparently Islam and Shabir Ally, are willing to forget its rich history of alleged “inspired” and yet failed eschatological predictions (space forbids to address all of them, but for our topic here are a couple):
 Muhammad predicted the “Last Hour” would come within the lifetime and generation of his contemporaries:   
“Anas reported: A young boy of Mughira b. Shu’ba happened to pass by (the Holy Prophet) and he was of my age. Thereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: If he lives long he would not grow very old till the Last Hour would come (to the old People of this generation).”  (Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 7053).
Muslims claim these hadiths are not sound narratives because they come from Sunan Abu Dawud.  But since these narratives are from Sahih Muslim, they are considered to be very authentic collections of hadiths in Islamic theology.
Other attempts to explain this passage away is that Muhammad was supposedly only teaching that as the child got older the day of judgment would get closer.  But as Sam Shamoun and others have pointed out:
“In the first place these narratives are from Sahih Muslim, considered the second most authentic collection of hadiths.
Secondly, Muhammad didn’t say that as the child grows the hour would be approaching ever closer. Rather, he expressly and unambiguously says that the child WILL NOT GROW VERY OLD until the Day of Judgment comes, which is clearly a false prophecy.” (Sam Shamoun, “Was Muhammad a Prophet of God?” Response to Sami Zaatari’s Debate Points [Part 1] http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zaatari_wood_debate1.htm)
Muhammad predicted that everyone would die on the earth within a hundred years (thus predicting the end time/last hour events of the judgment and resurrection):
“Once the Prophet led us in the ‘Isha’ prayer during the last days of his life and after finishing it (the prayer) (with Taslim) he said: “Do you realize (the importance of) this night? Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight will be living after the completion of one hundred years from this night.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 1 Book 3, Number 116).
Of this Sam Shamoun and other Christian apologists to Muslim correctly point out:
“Nearly fourteen centuries have gone by and there continue to be human beings alive all around the earth! This particular hadith was so troubling that one narrator tried to explain it away by arguing that Muhammad really meant that none of his generation would be alive in a hundred years:
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar:
The Prophet prayed one of the ‘lsha’ prayer in his last days and after finishing it with Taslim, he stood up and said, “Do you realize (the importance of) this night? Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight would be living after the completion of one hundred years from this night.”
The people made a mistake in grasping the meaning of this statement of Allah’s Apostle and they indulged in those things which are said about these narrators (i.e. some said that the Day of Resurrection will be established after 100 years etc.) But the Prophet said, “Nobody present on the surface of earth tonight would be living after the completion of 100 years from this night”; he meant, “When that century (people of that century) would pass away.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 10, Number 575)
There are several points to note from this specific report. First, pay attention to the candid admission of the narrator that Muslims themselves understood from Muhammad’s words that the world was going to end in a hundred years. This provides corroborating evidence that the plain meaning of Muhammad’s so-called prophecy was that the last day would occur within a hundred years.
Second, also notice just how irrational this ad hoc explanation is. The hadith compiler really expects his readers to believe that what Muhammad meant was that no one of his generation would be alive within a hundred years when there is nothing amazing about such a claim. To say that one’s generation would all be dead within a hundred years doesn’t require supernatural knowledge. The only thing required to make such a claim is common sense since life expectancy was low in those days. Hardly anyone lived beyond the age of a hundred years. If it was supposed to be a statement (“prophecy”) about the life expectancy of the people living around him, then it was trivial. What is the point?
Even though trivial, it would almost certainly be wrong. Muhammad said “on the surface of the earth” – that is a large place. Although centenarians are rare, they probably existed at all times. Even in the life of Muhammad there was at least one such person. Abu Afak is reported to have lived to the age of 120:
SARIYYAH OF SALIM IBN ‘UMAYR
Then occurred the sariyyah of Salim Ibn ‘Umayr al-‘Amri against Abu ‘Afak, the Jew, in Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijrah of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. Abu ‘Afak, was from Banu ‘Amr Ibn ‘Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to instigate the people against the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, and composed (satirical) verses. Salim Ibn ‘Umayr who was one of the great weepers and who had participated in Badr, said: I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu ‘Afak or die before him. He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu ‘Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn ‘Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people, who were his followers rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him. (Ibn Sa’ad’s Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002 India), Volume II, p. 31; bold and underline emphasis ours)
Did Muhammad really want to say that in a hundred years from now, there will be no more people who are older than a hundred years? Again, what would be the point of such an announcement? What has that to do with the message of Islam?
Moreover, Muhammad introduced his announcement with these words: “Do you know the importance of this night?” For that main reason, the alternative interpretation supplied by the narrator makes little sense. After all, in what sense would the observation that a time will come when nobody will be older than a hundred years be important for Muslims or Islam? It is simply irrelevant, and irrelevant is the opposite of important.
On the other hand, the proclamation of the Day of Resurrection and Allah’s judgment of all people is an essential part of Islam. If it had been revealed to Muhammad in his prayer that the world would end in exactly one hundred years, such a revelation would mark this night without question as being very important.
Only this interpretation really makes sense of the statement. The problem is, however, that the only meaningful interpretation of it has the consequence that Muhammad made a false prophecy. Muslims have tried to avert this by putting instead an utterly trivial, irrelevant – and most probably still incorrect – statement into Muhammad’s mouth.
It must also be kept in mind that imam al-Bukhari collected these traditions roughly 250 years after Muhammad’s migration to Medina (c. 622/623 AD), long after the time that Muhammad said the world was going to end. In light of this, it is not surprising that he or someone else would provide an explanation in order to avoid having to admit that Muhammad was a false prophet for falsely claiming that the Day of Resurrection would take place a hundred years after his time.” (Sam Shamoun, Ibid.).
For White, Rogers, Shamoun and other Christians to mock Muslims who try and explain these statements away or ignore them, is hypocritical, for they themselves have stuck their heads in the sand when it comes to Jesus’ teachings on a first century Second Coming (cf. Matt. 10:17-23; Matt. 16:27-28; Matt. 24; Matt. 26:62-64) and then how their inspired Scriptures and first century Prophets understood them to be fulfilled in some of their lifetimes and in their generation (cf. Acts 2:20-40; Acts 17:31YLT; Acts 24:15YLT; Rom. 8:18-23YLT/AV; Rom. 13:11-12; Rom. 16:20; 1 Cor.7:29-31; 1 Cor. 10:11; 1 Cor. 15:51; Phil. 4:5; 1 Thess. 4:15ff–5:1-10; 2 Thess. 1:5-10; 2 Tim. 4:1YLT; Heb. 9:26-28, Heb. 10:37, Heb. 13:14YLT; James 5:7-9; 1 Pet. 1:4-12; 1 Pet. 4:5-7, 17; 1 John 2:17-18; Rev. 1:1–22:6-7, 10-12, 20).  Is it not hypocritical for Sam Shamoun to claim he knows Muhammad was teaching that the last hour of the resurrection and judgment would take place within a 100 years of some of those Muhammad was speaking to, BECAUSE that is how his listeners understood those words; and then turn around and try and deny that the NT understood Jesus’ teaching to be fulfilled within some of their lifetimes (just as Jesus taught them He would)?!?  Some like Sam merely assume that Matthew 16:27 has to be separated thousands of years from verse 28 pretending that Jesus wasn’t predicting that His Second Coming would take place within some of the lifetimes of those He was speaking to.  And Sam Shamoun claims, I’m “worse than a Muslim” because at least they still think he is coming in the future?!?  But in reality Sam shares the same false literal view of the Second Coming that Muslims do, and the truth is that Sam is treating these imminent texts the same way Muslims do of Muhammad’s teachings on the last hour — trying to justify them away using very bad arguments!
Others like James White try and claim the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:27-30 is the Second Coming, but Jesus really wasn’t claiming it would be fulfilled within His AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” when clearly He said “all these things” (the signs, end of the age, and His coming) would be fulfilled at that time.  Or perhaps they make embarrassing statements that “at hand,” “soon,” “about to be,” “near” “shortly,” don’t really mean what they mean.  They want to claim Muhammad’s disciples have put “words into his mouth that aren’t really there,” when it came to his false predictions, and yet due to their creedal allegiances and carnal literal interpretations and hopes of what they think the kingdom is to look like when it comes, that too have no problems putting words into Christ’s mouth or changing the meaning of words in the NT in order to fit their agenda!  Take the plank out of your own eye before trying to take the one growing out of the Muslims!  

I want nothing to do with their futuristic Second Coming “false prophet.”  I’ll stick with the Jesus of the NT that really did come when and how He said He would!  As this series will prove, not all Christians stick their heads in the sand like James White, Anthony Rogers, and Sam Shamoun on these crucial texts.  And I don’t “dread” the subject like White, I actually live and breathe the subject!  I have proven (better than the Muslim or Bible skeptic ever could) that Jesus did in fact teach that His Second Coming would arrive in the first century, but have also proven that He did fulfill this promise by Coming to end the OC age (not end world history) and fulfill a spiritual and corporate resurrection for His body (the Church). 
PART 1 – Debate Challenge and Response to:  James White, Shabir Ally, Sam Shamoun, and Anthony Rogers – Matt. 16:27-28/Mark 8:38-9:1 https://fullpreterism.com/james-whites-embarrassing-failure-to-address-matthew-1627-28-matthew-24-and-1-thessalonians-416-17-in-his-debate-with-shabir-ally-and-my-public-challenge-to-debate-shabir-ally-james-whit/
PART 2 – Debate Challenge and Response to: James White, Shabir Ally, Sam Shamoun, and Anthony Rogers – “Time/Hour of the End” = “End of the Age” Resurrection (Dan. 12=Matt. 13=Luke 20:27-40=Matt. 24:30-31, 36=John 4-5) All Fulfilled In AD 70 https://fullpreterism.com/debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-shabir-ally-sam-shamoun-and-anthony-rogers-part-2-the-end-of-the-age-matthew-13-matthew-24/
PART 3a. – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Shabir Ally, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun – All The Signs, Abomination That Causes Desolation, Tribulation, Times Of The Gentiles – “In Fulfillment Of All That Has Been Written” (Matt. 24:1-25/Luke 21:20-24) https://fullpreterism.com/part-3-a-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-shabir-ally-anthony-rogers-sam-shamoun-matthew-241-25/
Part 3b. – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Shabir Ally, Sam Shamoun, And Anthony Rogers – The Coming Of The Son Of Man (Matt. 24:27—-25:31) Fulfilled By Ad 70 https://fullpreterism.com/part-3b-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-shabir-ally-sam-shamoun-and-anthony-rogers-the-coming-of-the-son-of-man-matt-2427-2531-fulfilled-by-ad-70/
Part 3c. – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun, Shabir Ally: Matthew 24-25 “This Generation” And Division Theories Refutedhttps://fullpreterism.com/part-3c-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-anthony-rogers-sam-shamoun-shabir-ally-matthew-24-25-this-generation-and-division-theories-refuted/
Part 4 – Debate Challenge And Response To: James White, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun And Shabir Ally (1 Thess. 4:16-17 & Acts 1:9-11) https://fullpreterism.com/part-4-debate-challenge-and-response-to-james-white-anthony-rogers-sam-shamoun-and-shabir-alley-1-thess-416-17-and-acts-19-11/