Turkel:
But what, then, of Jesus answering regarding his "coming"? The word Matthew uses is parousia, and Matthew alone among the Gospels uses this word. The word means presence or arrival. Here is how it is used in an "everyday" sense:

2 Corinthians 10:10 For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.

1 Corinthians 16:17 I am glad of the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied.

Till:
Well, why be selective?  Let's just look at a wider range of texts where parousia was used.  I will use bold print to emphasize the English words used to translate parousia.

Philippians 1:25  And being confident of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy of faith, ²⁶that your rejoicing for me may be more abundant in Jesus Christ by my coming to you again.

Philippians 2:12  Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling....

2 Corinthians 7:6  Nevertheless God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the coming of Titus, ⁷and not only by his coming, but also by the consolation with which he was comforted in you, when he told us of your earnest desire, your mourning, your zeal for me, so that I rejoiced even more.

Notice that in all of these examples, including Turkel's two, parousia denoted a physical presence or coming.  We must wonder, then, why parousia was not intended to denote a physical coming in the following passages.  I will quote all of the passages first and then note some reasons why the parousia referred to was probably intended to convey the sense of an actual coming or presence rather than just the fuzzy mystical coming that Turkel and his preterist cohorts claim.

1 Thessalonians 2:19  For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Is it not even you in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at His coming?

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. ²¹For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. ²²For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. ²³But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming.

James 5:7  Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, waiting patiently for it until it receives the early and latter rain. ⁸You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand.

Turkel has chided dispensationalists for not admitting that New Testament passages clearly spoke of the "coming of the Lord" in terms that plainly indicated that this "coming" was imminent.  Therefore, he will no doubt argue that James, in the passage immediately above, was referring to that spiritual or mystical coming of the Lord that would happen soon in the destruction of Jerusalem, which would bring to an end the "age of the law," but that interpretation is hard to reconcile with the two passages quoted immediately above the text in James.  Paul told the Thessalonians that they would be his "hope, joy, or crown of rejoicing" in the presence of the Lord at his coming [parousia].  In other words, Paul was saying that the Thessalonian Christians would be a source of pride for him when the Lord came, but this text is rather hard to understand if the "coming of the Lord" that Paul mentioned was just that mystical or spiritual coming that would occur when Jerusalem was destroyed, because Thessalonica was in Greece, about 500 miles across the Mediterranean Sea from Jerusalem.  How could the Thessalonians have been a source of pride for Paul (who was already dead by AD 70) during the localized destruction of a city 500 miles away from Thessalonica?  This statement makes no sense if the "coming of the Lord" is interpreted to mean just a local event that would happen on a tiny area of the earth, but if the "coming of the Lord" is seen as a universally observable scene, which early Christians believed was going to happen in their lifetime and be seen by "every eye," the statement makes perfectly good sense.

As for James's claim that the coming of the Lord was "at hand," I won't spend a lot of time bothering Turkel with the well known fact that some biblical scholars date James after AD 70, because he would just deny it and probably refer me to Glenn Miller's website.  It is a fact, however, that some commentators--and Turkel likes commentators but only if they agree with him--date James well after the destruction of Jerusalem.  That then is a problem that he will have deal with if he wants to secure his preterist position, because some people just won't be willing to reject scholarly opinion in favor of an amateur apologist's desire to make the Bible inerrant. 

The passage in 1 Corinthians 15:20ff presents the same problem as the text in 1 Thessalonians.  This reference to the "coming" was made to Corinthian Christians, who also lived in Greece and were only slightly closer to Jerusalem than the Thessalonians.  Furthermore, the text in 1 Corinthians said that Christ was the "firstfruit" of those who had returned from the dead, but those who were "Christ's," i., e, those who had died in a state of "salvation," would be brought with Christ at his "coming."  If the "coming" that Paul was referring to was just a "spiritual" or :mystical" coming of the Lord that would happen when Jerusalem was destroyed, in what sense did Jesus bring with him at that time those who had died "in Christ"?  Was that just a "spiritual" bringing too, or does Turkel say that the general resurrection happened at that time? 

This preterist doctrine has more problems in it than a hound dog has fleas, but the problems multiply as we look at other passages where parousia was used in reference to the return of Jesus.

1 Thessalonians 3:13  And may the Lord make you increase and abound in love to one another and to all, just as we do to you, ¹³so that He may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints.

As we have already seen and will see again farther along, Turkel has argued that the "angels" that so many New Testament passages say will come with Jesus on the clouds--figurative clouds, of course--were not "supernatural beings" but just "messengers."  Turkel, of course, sees these angels as messages who would go out after the destruction of Jerusalem and "harvest" the elect from one end of the earth to the other by just preaching the gospel.  Notice, however, that the text above says that the Lord Jesus Christ will come with all his saints.  The word for saints used here was agion, which meant "holy [ones]."  It is the same word that was used in Jude 14, which quoted the text in 1 Enoch 1:9, which prophesied the coming of the Lord with "ten thousands of his holy ones [agiais]."  This word was almost always used in the New Testament in reference to "saints," i. e., those who were deemed to be righteous ones.  Whether it meant that in 1 Thessalonians 3:13 or whether it meant angels doesn't matter, because either meaning would pose a problem for Turkel's preterist view.  If it meant "holy ones" in the sense of angels, that would lend support to the view that the various texts that refer to angels coming in the clouds with Jesus upon his return meant actual angels and not just human "messengers" who would go forth to the "harvest" by preaching the gospel.  If the word was intended to mean "saints" or "righteous ones," this text will support the many others that indicate the "coming of the Lord" would be accompanied by a resurrection of those who have died "in Christ."  In addition to 1 Corinthians 15:20-23, quoted above, the following text, also previously quoted, states the same thing.

1 Thessalonians 4:13 But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. ¹⁴For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.¹⁵For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming [parousia] of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. ¹⁶For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. ¹⁷Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

That's clear enough for anyone who doesn't have a pet belief to defend.  The text clearly said that when the Lord came, descending from heaven, he would bring with him those who "sleep in Jesus."  When did anything like this happen in AD 70? In other words, in what sense did Jesus bring with him all his saints in AD 70?

That Paul was referring to the parousia referred to in Matthew 24:3 is evident from his use of the word parousia in verse 15 above [indicated in brackets]. On the mount of Olives, the disciples asked Jesus what would be the signs of his coming [parousia] and the end of the world, and Paul said in this passage that the Lord would bring with him, at the time of his parousia, those who were asleep in Jesus, so Paul was clearly saying here, as he did elsewhere, that the coming [parousia] of Jesus would be accompanied by the resurrection of those who had died "in Christ." Is it Turkel's position that this resurrection happened in AD 70?  We have passed the point where Turkel can dismiss texts like this by just saying that it was all figurative or spiritual or "apocalyptic."  Real evidence for his position is long overdue.  Argumentation by assertion and question begging just won't cut it.

There is even more. 

2 Thessalonians 2:1  Now, brethren, concerning the coming [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, ²not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.

This passage has already been quoted in support of another point, but there is something else in it that warrants comment.  Several passages that I have already explicated show that New Testament writers believed that the coming of Jesus was imminent and that it would be accompanied by a resurrection of the dead, who would then be judged according to their works.  Turkel agrees that the "coming" was to be imminent, but he argues that it was only a "spiritual" or "figurative" coming and not a literal one.  In his first epistle to the Thessalonians, however, the apostle Paul had said that the "coming of the Lord" would be accompanied by the dead in Christ who had "fallen asleep" (4:15-16) and that those who were alive at the time would be "caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" (v:17) and would then be forever with the Lord.  In other words, Paul taught that the Lord would gather the righteous, both living and dead, unto him when he came.  In the passage above, where Paul was writing "concerning the coming [parousia]," he said again that there would be a "gathering together" with the Lord Jesus Christ at that time.  There can be no doubt, then, that New Testament writers thought that there would be an imminent return of Jesus at which time the righteous, both living and dead, would be gathered unto him.  If Turkel is going to claim that this was some kind of figurative gathering, he needs to give some reasonable evidence to support that claim.  What is there in the contexts of passages like this one that gives any reason to think that the writers were speaking figuratively.  The answer is that there are no reasons for such an assumption beyond a fanatical desire to make the Bible inerrant.  If passages that referred to the "coming of the Lord" had not stated that this coming would be imminent, no one would be preaching the preterist view that the Lord came "spiritually" or "figuratively" in AD 70.  They take this position simply to protect their cherished belief in biblical inerrancy.

Turkel:
Some observations on this word: Prior to the NT and into the second century, the word was used "for the arrival of a ruler, king or emperor." It is used for example of a special visit by Nero to Corinth, when coins were cast in honor of his visit. 

Till:
Yes, so what?  I have already pointed out that when parousia was used in this way, it denoted a physical presence or coming, even when the people referred to were not kings or dignitaries, as in the cases of Paul, Titus, Stephanas, and Fortunatus, so why should we think that the many references to the "coming [parousia] of the Lord" were not intended to mean a literal coming? 

Turkel:
However, the term was also used in Hellenistic contexts to refer to a theophany, or a manifestation of deity.

Till:
Did everyone notice that Turkel gave no examples of such usage?  Did anyone wonder why he didn't give examples?  I can tell you why.  He was cutting and pasting from reference works that didn't give any examples either.  Commentaries are notorious for making statements like this and leaving them unillustrated. 

Turkel:
In the Greek form of several Jewish apocryphal works (Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Testament of Judah, Testament of Levi) it is "used to refer to the final coming of God."

Till:
Turkel made a major issue out of my failure to give the page number of a definition that I had quoted from Arndt and Gingrich's Greek lexicon, a definition that anyone who knows Greek could easily find in an alphabetically arranged lexicon, but then he will make undocumented references like the one above.  I have an English translation of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs,  but I don't have a Greek copy.  It would have facilitated my reply to this point if he had given exact references here.  After all, this pseudepigraphic work is divided into chapters and verses like the Bible.

I took the time to glance through T12P and found the possible places that Turkel was referring to.

Testament of Levi 18:5-6  And the angels of glory of the Lord's presence will be glad by him.  The heavens will be opened, and from the temple of glory sanctification will come upon him, with a fatherly voice, as from Abraham to Isaac.  And the glory of the Most High shall burst forth upon him.

I'm just assuming that the word translated presence in the English version was parousia in the Greek text.  If so, I would like for Turkel to explain how he knows that the writer was not referring to a literal presence of the Lord.  After all, there are numerous references in ancient literature to literal presences of gods, even the Hebrew god.

Testament of Judah 22:2  My rule shall be terminated by men of alien race, until the salvation of Israel comes, until the coming of the God of righteousness, so that Jacob may enjoy tranquility and peace, as well as all the nations. 

Again, I am only guessing that this was the passage that Turkel was referring to in the Testament of Judah.  I suspect that even Turkel doesn't know what verses in these works he was referring to, because he was probably cutting and pasting from some commentary or book he consulted, and the book itself probably didn't reference the works.  At any rate, if this is the passage that Turkel was referring to, I would like for him to explain how he knows that the writer was not referring to a literal coming of the God of righteousness.

Turkel:
Josephus uses the term to refer to OT theophanies (Ant. 3.80, 202-3; 9:55).

Till:
Turkel's references here are vague too, but if he meant Antiquities 3:2.80, this was a reference to Yahweh's appearance to Moses at Mount Sinai, but Exodus 20:20ff says that Yahweh came down on the mountain, called Moses up to him, and talked to him "face to face."  The face-to-face conversations were clarified in Exodus 33:10-11.

¹⁰All the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the tabernacle door, and all the people rose and worshiped, each man in his tent door. ¹¹So Yahweh spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.

Antiquities 3:5.202-203 told of other visible appearances of Yahweh to the Israelites in clouds and pillars of fire over the tabernacle.  The last one referred to escapades attributed to Elisha, but without a Greek text of Antiquities, I can't determine what the word was that was presumably translated from parousia.  Turkel might keep that in mind from now on and give clearer references. 

At any rate, Turkel has actually used the right word, because a theophany is an appearance of a deity in visible form, and the examples that I was able to identify with reasonable certitude in his rather vague references were about visible appearances of Yahweh.  With that in mind, I'd like to ask Turkel what his point is.  He is presumably trying to prove to us that the "coming" [parousia] of Jesus was just figurative, and so no one during the destruction of Jerusalem literally saw him, yet Turkel is trying to support his "argument" with references to texts where parousia was used to denote physical or visible appearances of deities, and those involved in the events saw the deities.

Does he even know what he is trying to do?

Turkel:
In our later examination of the Pauline use of this word, we will be tying together some issues and Paul's own use of parousia to refer to the time of the resurrection. For now, it should be remembered that parousia has several shades of meaning (including an "everyday" meaning whose "everyday" use by Paul suggests that it is not a technical term referring to one event), and is also clearly a word choice of Matthew.

Till:
The passages I have previously quoted from the apostle Paul clearly indicate that he thought the "coming of the Lord" [parousia] was a specific event that would occur simultaneously with a resurrection of the dead and "flaming vengeance" on them that "know not God and obey not the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ."  The text reads very clearly for those who don't have a preconceived doctrinal mold to force it into.

1 Thessalonians 1:3 We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is fitting, because your faith grows exceedingly, and the love of every one of you all abounds toward each other, ⁴so that we ourselves boast of you among the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure, ⁵which is manifest evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer; ⁶since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, ⁷and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, ⁸in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. ⁹These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, ¹⁰when He comes, in that day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.

There is nothing at all difficult about this passage.  The "Lord Jesus" will take flaming vengeance on those who do not know God and don't obey the gospel.  They will be punished with everlasting destruction when "the Lord" comes in that day with his "mighty angels."  If New Testament writers had not thought that this "coming" was imminent and said so in numerous passages, there would be no preterist doctrine today, because there would be no need to twist and distort perfectly clear texts to make them fit into a mold designed to explain away the texts that mistakenly predicted an imminent return.

At any rate, the text above refers to the coming of the "Lord Jesus" in that day, so this sounds very much as if Paul was referring to a one-day event.  If Turkel thinks otherwise, he has an obligation to stop his asserting and take the time to analyze texts like the one above to show that the writers obviously intended them to convey the preterist doctrine.

Turkel:
I believe that these word choices were made independently and may have caused the confusion referred to by Paul in the Thessalonian church.

Till:
Then the New Testament is not "the inspired word of God"?  If it isn't, how can we trust it?  If it is, then why would writers have been making word choices "independently"?  Does Turkel have any idea what guidance by the omniscient, omnipotent Holy Spirit would necessarily involve?  Why not let the "inspired word of God" answer that question?

Jesus taught that when his disciples were guided by the Holy Spirit the words that they spoke would not be their words but the words of the Holy Spirit.

Luke 12:11  "Now when they bring you to the synagogues and magistrates and authorities, do not worry about how or what you should answer, or what you should say. ¹²For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."

Luke 21:10  Then He said to them, "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. ¹¹And there will be great earthquakes in various places, and famines and pestilences; and there will be fearful sights and great signs from heaven. ¹²But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and rulers for My name's sake. ¹³But it will turn out for you as an occasion for testimony. ¹⁴Therefore settle it in your hearts not to meditate beforehand on what you will answer; ¹⁵for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist.

Matthew 10:19 But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; ²⁰for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.

When faced with textual inconsistencies, inerrantists will claim that biblical writers were inspired but were left free to choose the words to use in writing the revelations they had received through inspiration, but the texts above clearly say that when the apostles spoke in the situations described, they were not speaking but the Holy Spirit was speaking through them.  Yes, inerrantists will quibble, but this pertains only to what they spoke; it says nothing about what they would write.  So are we supposed to believe that the Holy Spirit put his very words into the mouths of the apostles when they were speaking so that they would be protected from error at that very moment in saying something that would be forever lost to the world after it was spoken but when they sat down to write the books of the New Testament, which would serve as a guide to mankind till the end of the world, they were left free to use whatever words they wanted?  That's a bit illogical, isn't it? 

This is the type of inconsistency that biblical inerrancy will drive people to, but it is not a view that was held by biblical writers.  It would take hours to count the number of times that Old Testament writers claimed that "the word of Yahweh" had come to them and said thus and so.  "Peter" said that "prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21), but inerrantists like Turkel who have biblical discrepancies to explain will claim that biblical writers were left free to choose their words "independently." In other words, they will say that some prophecies did come by the will of man.  Turkel said that these independent choices may have "caused the confusion referred to by Paul in the Thessalonian church," so Turkel apparently believes in a kind of divine inspiration that causes confusion.

The reality is that there was no confusion in what Paul wrote about the "coming of the Lord" in his first epistle to the Thessalonians.  What he told them about the coming was very clear.

1 Thessalonians 4:13  But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. ¹⁴For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.¹⁵For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. ¹⁶For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. ¹⁷Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.  

Paul, like other New Testament writers, thought that the coming of Jesus was imminent, so imminent that he and some of his readers would still be alive to experience it, but when it didn't happen, damage control was necessary, so a second epistle was written to "explain" why the "coming" hadn't happened yet.  Just about any commentary that doesn't have an inerrancy axe to grind will discuss the reasons why some scholars think that 2 Thessalonians is a pseudepigraphic work like 2 Peter, which was written primarily to explain why the imminent coming promised in the first epistles didn't happen.  As previously noted, "Peter's" excuse for the delay in the coming was that the Lord is "longsuffering" and doesn't want anyone to perish.  "Paul's" excuse was that a falling away had to come first.

2 Thessalonians 2:1  Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, ²not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. ³Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, ⁴who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

Notice that "Paul" referred to the "day of Christ" again in this passage, an indication that he thought that there would be a day when Jesus would return and that the "coming" would not be the protracted, ongoing affair that Turkel claims.  In the first epistle (1:9-10), he had commended the Thessalonians for turning from idols to "serve a living and true God, and to wait for his son from heaven," a rather clear statement about the Thessalonians' expectation of an imminent return. Why would Paul tell the Thessalonians to "wait for his [God's] son from heaven," if the "coming" of that son was going to be just a "spiritual" coming that would be experienced only in Jerusalem, 500 miles away? Then in 5:2, Paul warned, as Jesus and "Peter" did, that "the day of the Lord" would come as a thief in the night.  Statements such as these conveyed the idea of a sudden coming to render judgment and not a protracted, ongoing "coming" that Turkel is trying to sell.

What it all boils down to is this.  In the passages quoted above, the apostle Paul said that the Thessalonians should wait for God's son to come from heaven, but Turkel says, "Well that's figurative."  Paul said that God would bring with him those who had fallen asleep in Jesus, but Turkel says, "That's all figurative too."  Paul said that the Lord would descend from heaven with a shout, but Turkel says, "That's all figurative." Paul said that the loud shout would come from the voice of the archangel with the trump of God, but Turkel says, "That's all figurative."  Paul said that those who were alive at this time would be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, but Turkel says, "That's all figurative."  Paul said, those who were caught up in the air at this time would forever be with the Lord, but Turkel says, "That's all figurative."  In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul said that the dead in Christ would be raised "at his coming," but Turkel says, "That's figurative too."  In 2 Peter 3, "Peter" said that the world that now is has been stored up for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, but Turkel says, "That's all figurative."  "Peter" said that the day of the Lord would come as a thief in the night in which the heavens would pass away with a great noise and the elements would melt with fervent heat, but Turkel says, "That's all figurative."  "Peter" said that the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up, but Turkel says, "That's all figurative."  "Peter" said that the heavens will be dissolved in fire and the elements will melt, but Turkel says, "That's all figurative."  Jesus said that after days of tribulation, the sun would be darkened, the moon would not give her light, the powers of the heavens would be shaken, and the stars would fall, but Turkel says, "That's all figurative."  Jesus said that the sign of the son of man would then appear in heaven and all the tribes of the earth would mourn as they saw the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, but Turkel says, "That's all figurative."  Jesus said that he would send his angels with the great sound of a trumpet to gather the elect from one end of heaven to the other, but Turkel says, "That's all figurative."  Jesus said that the son of man would come in his glory with all of the holy angels and would sit on the throne of his glory, but Turkel says, "That's all figurative."  Jesus said that all nations would be gathered before him, but Turkel says, "That's all figurative."  Jesus said that he would separate the people in these nations like a shepherd separates his sheep and goats, but Turkel says, "That's all figurative."  Jesus said that he would say to those on his right hand that they were inheriting the kingdom that had been prepared for them for the foundation of the world but would send those on his left hand into the everlasting fire that had been prepared for the devil and his angels, but Turkel says, "That's all figurative too."

Figurative--every passage that speaks about the "coming of the Lord" is figurative.  Does anyone besides me think it is a bit strange that no New Testament writer ever gave a direct, literal description of this "end of the age" that Turkel and his preterist cohorts are trying to sell us?  Was that any way for the omniscient, omnipotent Holy Spirit to "inspire" those who wrote about this all-important event?  It does seem that at least once the omniscient, omnipotent one would have directed a writer to say something like, "The Lord will come in a symbolic sense when the Romans destroy Jerusalem and bring the age of the law to an end," but it didn't happen.  This should be sufficient reason for rational people to conclude that it probably didn't happen because that was never the intention of those who wrote about the "coming of the Lord."

Turkel:
But we will reserve that commentary for later, and will return to the word parousia in Matthew 24:27 and following, where it is next used, and discuss in that context what it means and how Jesus' "coming" could have occurred in 70 AD. It is enough for now to observe that the disciples are asking about Jesus parousia in terms of expecting Jesus to take the throne of David as the Messiah.

Matthew 24:4-5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many (cf. Mark 13:5-6).

Luke 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

In order to show that the Olivet Discourse found fulfillment in 70 AD, it has to be shown or suggested that these events came to pass in that time. Did we see many coming and claiming to be Christ?

Till:
Before I reply to this section of Turkel's article, I want to make sure that I understand what he is claiming.  If he can show that during a 40-year period, there were prophets, wars and rumors of war, famines, and earthquakes, this would prove that the "Olivet Discourse" could have found fulfillment in AD 70.  Is that his argument?  If so, he could likewise claim that if he could show that wars and rumors of war, famines, and earthquakes happened between AD 30 and AD 92, this would prove that the Olivet prophecies could have found fulfillment in AD 92.  Let's suppose, for example,  that someone picked another date, say, AD 135, the year of Shimon Bar Kokhba's defeat at Bethar by emperor Hadrian's forces as the time when the Olivet prophecies were fulfilled.  (I picked this date because Turkel referred to Bar Kokhba immediately below.)  If one  chose this date, he could present a scenario for the "fulfillment" of the coming-again prophecy of Jesus that would be just as believable as the preterist one.  In AD 135, there would no doubt have been at least some centenarians, who would have been born before Jesus made his Olivet "discourse" and hence a part of "this generation" that Jesus said would not pass away till all "these things" be accomplished.  In between their birth and the Bar Kohkba rebellion, there would have been earthquakes, famines, wars and rumors of wars, as well as false Christs, because if such as these happened between AD 30 and 70, then they would also have happened between AD 30 and 135.  As Turkel noted below, even Bar Kokhba claimed to be the Messiah, so he would be evidence of at least one who came saying that he was the Christ.  As I go through the following section of Turkel's article, I will show that AD 135 would be a more logical date for the "end of the age of the law" than AD 70.

Turkel:
I have noted in other contexts that until the time of Bar Kochba, there is no evidence of any person actually coming forth and saying, "I am Messiah" or any person being identified as such, and I have argued that to make such a clear identification of one's "Messianic self" was likely not permitted socially.

Till:
Well, this admission certainly doesn't do anything to help Turkel's position, because Jesus said that "many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ, and shall lead many astray" (Matt. 24:5), but if, as Turkel says, there was no evidence, until Bar Kokhba,  that any person had actually come forth and said that he was the Messiah, then an important element is missing in Turkel's attempt to prove that "the Olivet Discourse found fulfillment in AD 70."  Bar Kokhba did, however, claim to be the Messiah, so someone who wanted to claim that the Olivet prophecy was fulfilled in AD 135 would have at least one verifiable Messianic pretender to point to. 

Turkel can't explain away this missing element by arguing that it "was likely not permitted socially" to make "such a clear identification of one's 'Messianic self,'" because Jesus did not say that many will be reluctant to say, "I am the Christ"; he said that there would be many who would say that they were the Christ.

Turkel:
We do of course have people who took some putative military action against Rome, and failed miserably; one suggests that they might well have made a claim had their little schemes succeeded--Theudas and Judas are two examples (Acts 5: 36-37), as perhaps was the Egyptian Paul was mistaken for; Simon Magus has been cited as one who claimed to be God, in a non-Jewish Messianic context; a Samaritan named Dositheus claimed to be the lawgiver prophesied of by Moses [Dem.LDM, 73-4]. That's five for sure (enough to qualify for "many" in the context of pretenders), and there may have been more who were spectacular failures not worthy of the record.

Till:
Turkel is obviously struggling to find the "many Christs" he needs to support this part of his fulfillment scenario.  He said that the Egyptian was "perhaps" mistaken as one, but "perhapses" are weak foundation stones for a prophecy-fulfillment claim.  As for Simon Magnus, if he claimed to be God "in a non-Jewish Messianic context," then he could not have been one who "came forth" and said, "I am the Christ," because Christ was simply the Grecian word for Messiah.  If Simon Magus declared himself God but in "a non-Jewish Messianic context," then he wouldn't have been declaring himself to be the Messiah.

This all shows how far Turkel is willing to lean over backwards to find evidence for his speculative "solutions" to biblical discrepancies, but the worst is yet to come.  He cited Theudas and Judas as two examples, who were referred to in Acts 5:36-37, but according to this text, these phony Messiahs had had their day in the sun before Jesus's speech on the mount of Olives.

Acts 5:33 When they [members of the Jewish council] heard this [the refusal of the apostles to stop preaching], they were furious and plotted to kill them [the apostles]. ³⁴Then one in the council stood up, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in respect by all the people, and commanded them to put the apostles outside for a little while. ³⁵And he said to them: "Men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do regarding these men. ³⁶For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody. A number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was slain, and all who obeyed him were scattered and came to nothing. ³⁷After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed. ³⁸And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; ³⁹but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God."

According to Josephus (Antiquities 20:5.1), the uprising led by Theudus happened when Fadus was procurator of Judea, so this would have happened about 10 years after the speech attributed to Gamaliel in the passage above.  This would mean that the writer of Acts had Gamaliel referring to a revolt that had not yet happened.  Being a biblical inerrantist, however, Turkel is stuck with what the text says, so he will have to defend the claim in verse 36 that Theudus "rose up some time ago."  The significance of this should be apparent even to Turkel.  Jesus made his speech on the mount of Olives just a few days before his crucifixion, and he allegedly remained on earth only 40 days after his resurrection (Acts 1:3).  Pentecost came 50 days after the crucifixion, which would have been about 10 days after the ascension, so the speech attributed to Gamaliel would have been made just a few days after Pentecost.  Therefore if the revolt of Theudus had happened "some time ago," it would have happened well before Jesus told his disciples that many false Christs shall come [yet future at that time], so Theudus could not be counted as one of the false Christs whom Jesus said would come.

The revolt of Judas of Galilee happened "in the days of the census," which would have been around the time that Jesus was allegedly born (Luke 2:1), so he too could not be counted as one of the false Christs that Jesus was warning about.  This leaves Turkel plumb out of false Christs between AD 30 and 70, so this puts a big hole in his claim that the Olivet prophecies were fulfilled by AD 70.  The best he could do after stretching facts like a rubber band to find even the five false Christs he named above was to say that "there may have been more [false Christs] who were spectacular failures not worthy of the record."  All he is left with, then, is another "may have been."  This makes him a typical biblical inerrantist, because "may have beens" is one of the primary apologetic tools of biblical inerrantists. "May have beens," like "perhapses," are weak foundation stones on which to base prophecy-fulfillment claims.

Turkel:
Josephus in his Antiquities 20.8.5 says, "Now, as for the affairs of the Jews, they grew worse and worse continually; for the country was again filled with robbers and impostors, who deluded the multitude."

Till:
Remember when Turkel complained that Philo Judaeus was "reading into the text what was not there" when Philo said that even all the ground water in Egypt had been changed into blood?  Well, just look at what he is reading into the text in Antiquities.  Josephus said that the country was "filled with robbers and imposters," and Turkel tries to make these "imposters" false Messiahs, as if there is nothing that an imposter can pretend to be except a Messiah. 

To show that Turkel is reading into this text far more than what Josephus actually said  about false Messiahs at this time period, I am going to quote an extended section of the passage cited in Antiquities.  Notice that the primary concern of Josephus was the havoc that was being caused by robbers and bandits and that when he referred to "imposters," he was apparently talking about robbers who also posed as false prophets.  I'll emphasize in bold print the sections that make this clear.

Now as for the affairs of the Jews, they grew worse and worse continually, for the country was again filled with robbers and impostors, who deluded the multitude. Yet did Felix catch and put to death many of those impostors every day, together with the robbers. He also caught Eleazar, the son of Dineas, who had gotten together a company of robbers; and this he did by treachery; for he gave him assurance that he should suffer no harm, and thereby persuaded him to come to him; but when he came, he bound him, and sent him to Rome. Felix also bore an ill-will to Jonathan, the high priest, because he frequently gave him admonitions about governing the Jewish affairs better than he did, lest he should himself have complaints made of him by the multitude, since he it was who had desired Caesar to send him as procurator of Judea. So Felix contrived a method whereby he might get rid of him, now he was become so continually troublesome to him; for such continual admonitions are grievous to those who are disposed to act unjustly. Wherefore Felix persuaded one of Jonathan's most faithful friends, a citizen of Jerusalem, whose name was Doras, to bring the robbers upon Jonathan, in order to kill him; and this he did by promising to give him a great deal of money for so doing. Doras complied with the proposal, and contrived matters so, that the robbers might murder him after the following manner: Certain of those robbers went up to the city, as if they were going to worship God, while they had daggers under their garments, and by thus mingling themselves among the multitude they slew Jonathan and as this murder was never avenged, the robbers went up with the greatest security at the festivals after this time; and having weapons concealed in like manner as before, and mingling themselves among the multitude, they slew certain of their own enemies, and were subservient to other men for money; and slew others, not only in remote parts of the city, but in the temple itself also; for they had the boldness to murder men there, without thinking of the impiety of which they were guilty. And this seems to me to have been the reason why God, out of his hatred of these men's wickedness, rejected our city; and as for the temple, he no longer esteemed it sufficiently pure for him to inhabit therein, but brought the Romans upon us, and threw a fire upon the city to purge it; and brought upon us, our wives, and children, slavery, as desirous to make us wiser by our calamities.

6. These works, that were done by the robbers, filled the city with all sorts of impiety. And now these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs, that should be performed by the providence of God. And many that were prevailed on by them suffered the punishments of their folly; for Felix brought them back, and then punished them. Moreover, there came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem one that said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said further, that he would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down; and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those walls, when they were fallen down. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He also slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more. And again the robbers stirred up the people to make war with the Romans, and said they ought not to obey them at all; and when any persons would not comply with them, they set fire to their villages, and plundered them....

The overall context of this passage shows that Josephus was primarily concerned with robber bands and that he was using the word imposter in reference to robbers who (1) infiltrated cities and posed as ordinary citizens, and (2) pretended to be prophets who could perform signs and wonders.  Not once did he give any indication in this passage that the "imposters" claimed to be the Messiah, so this still leaves Turkel without even one Messianic pretender during this period that he claims fulfilled Jesus's prophecy that there would be "many" who would come saying, "I am the Christ."

Those who read Turkel's "apologetic" attempts should be careful to check whatever sources he cites or quotes, because we have seen that he is not above twisting and distorting sources to make them appear to support his position.  Here we see that to try to prove that "many" false Christs came before AD 70, he cited a text in Josephus that made no reference at all to false Messiahs.  This is typical inerrantist methodology.  Hoping that their readers won't take the time to check them, they will cite, without quoting, references that contain no proof at all of what they are asserting.

 Turkel:
Pretenders of various types undoubtedly abounded--

Till:
"Undoubtedly" abounded?  Is that the extent of Turkel's evidence that "many" came during this time saying, "I am the Christ"?  If I tried to support my hypothetical doctrine that fixed AD 135 as the date when the Olivet prophecies were fulfilled, I too could say that "pretenders of various types undoubtedly abounded" during this time.  Turkel's wording of this statement shows that he is a prophecy-fulfillment claimant without any real evidence.

Turkel:
yet does this contradict that we have no evidence of these claimints [sic] saying, "I am Messiah"?

Till:
Yes, it would seem so; otherwise, Turkel would produce the hard evidence instead of talking about "undoubtedlies."  Why would one rely on an "undoubtedly" if he had hard evidence of what he is claiming?

Turkel:
Not at all--here is an important point: Only in Matthew is the word "Christ" actually used in the text--Mark and Luke leave it implied, and the KJV and other versions add it in for clarity in Mark and Luke. Matthew's addition of "Christ" is redactional, his own addition for clarity; the claimants, in line with the restraint of Messianic self-identification, will mirror the claim to divine power by saying, "I AM" (ego eimi, as in John's Gospel, as from Exodus; "name" here is used in the sense of authority) and leaving the rest to be worked out.

Till:
Matthew's addition of Christ was "redactional"?  Does Turkel believe that Matthew wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?  If so, did the Holy Spirit give Matthew a "mouth" [pen] so that he would know what to write, or was Matthew just taking a previously written work and revising it to conform to what his personal opinions were?  Is Turkel trying to make a point here by actually denying that Matthew wrote what the Holy Spirit wanted him to write? If the gospel of Matthew was just a "redactional" work, then why should anyone consider it an authoritative work?

Besides that problem, Turkel is flat out wrong in saying that Matthew was the only one who actually used Christ in the text.  He was the only one who said that those who came falsely claiming to be the Christ would say, "I am the Christ," but Mark used "false Christs" [pseudochristoi] to describe them later in the text.

Mark 13:21  "Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'Look, He is there!' do not believe it. ²²For false christs [pseudochristoi] and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. ²³But take heed; see, I have told you all things beforehand."

So Turkel is trying to prove that the various aspects of the Olivet prophecies could have been fulfilled by AD 70, but he has been unable to verify any cases of false Messiahs who came, saying, "I am the Christ."  Inerrantists who want to swallow the preterist line should not worry, however, because pretenders of "various types undoubtedly abounded" at this time.  We have Turkel's word for that.

By the way, I would be interested in seeing Turkel document the "signs and wonders" that the "many" false Christs showed during this period to deceive "the elect."  If this happened, there would surely have been some record left of it by someone.

Turkel:
There were indeed false prophets claiming to represent God in plenty [Josephus War 6.5.2 refers to a "great number of false prophets" who gave false hope to the people]; these tried to initiate various signs to "activate God's eschatological salvation" [Keener, 567-8], and they did indeed deceive many.

Till:
Well, let's take a look at this text in Josephus so that readers can see how Turkel--and apparently Keener too--will distort source information to try to make it fit into their doctrinal mold.  The text that Turkel cited related events that happened in Jerusalem while the Romans were burning the temple.  The wealthy had built "cloisters" around the temple, where they kept their valuables.  The Romans burned the cloisters and also the temple, which resulted in the conflagration of many people who were taking refuge on top of the temple.  In the passage that Turkel cited, Josephus explained that their deaths were due to false prophets.

A false prophet was the occasion of these people's destruction, who had made a public proclamation in the city that very day, that God commanded them to get up upon the temple, and that there they should receive miraculous signs of their deliverance.  Now, there was then a great number of false prophets suborned by the tyrants to impose upon the people, who denounced this to them, that they should wait for deliverance from God: and this was in order to keep them from deserting, and that they might be buoyed up above fear and care by such hopes.

There are two reasons why this information from Josephus cannot be used to show fulfillment of the Olivet prophecy that "many" would come in Jesus's name, saying, "I am the Christ":  (1) This text does not say that these false prophets claimed that they were the Messiah; it simply says that they were false "prophets," who had brought about the deaths of many people by telling them that they would be delivered from the Romans if they climbed upon the temple  (2)  Jesus said that when these false Christs came, the people should not worry because the end had not yet come.

Matthew 4:4-6  And Jesus answered and said to them: "Take heed that no one deceives you. ⁵For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. ⁶And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet."

So Jesus told his disciples that when they heard deceivers saying, "I am the Christ," they should not be "troubled," because the end had not yet come, but the "false prophets" that Josephus described were deceiving the people on the very day that the temple was burned and Jerusalem destroyed.  Hence, if Turkel is right in claiming that the destruction of Jerusalem was the "end" that Jesus told his disciples about, then the end had come at the time of the false prophets that Josephus wrote about in the text cited by Turkel, so  they could not have been the false Christs that Jesus said would come while the end was "not yet."

Turkel:
Though there do continue to be pretenders around, this word was fulfilled between 30-70 AD.

Till:
I have just shown that none of the examples that Turkel cited could be fulfillments of Jesus's prophecy that many false Christs would come before the "end," so if "this word was fulfilled between 30-70 AD," where is the proof that it was?  Are we just supposed to take Turkel's mere word for it?

Turkel:
(And of course there is more to this: While some may have made "messianc" [sic] overtures, you won't find anyone other than Jesus who claimed to be God's Wisdom, a much stronger and clearer claim to divinity in context than "I am Messiah" would have been at any rate!)

Till:
Turkel is straining to make a point, whose relevance eludes me, because it wouldn't matter if Jesus's claim to divinity was "much stronger and clearer" than false Christs saying, "I am the Christ."  Jesus's prophecy was that "many" would come saying, "I am the Christ," so it is Turkel's burden to prove that "many" did come and say this.  So far, he has done nothing but assert that "undoubtedly" some did come and claim this, so his attempt to prove that this part of the prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70 has flopped.

Turkel:

Matthew 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet (Mark 13:7; Luke 21:9).

Wars and rumors of wars have always been part of human history, and the time between 30-70 AD was no exception.

Till:
Yes, and the time between AD 30 and 135 was no exception either.  The time between AD 30 and 210 was no exception either.  Name your time period that you want to fix as the period in which this prophecy was fulfilled, and there will have been wars, famines, earthquakes and everything that Jesus mentioned in the prophecy, because, as Turkel said, these have always been a part of human history.  That is why such prophecies were ridiculous.  A prophet predicted that there would be wars and rumors of wars, famines, earthquakes, etc.?  Big deal!  Anyone could make this prophecy and have a virtual guarantee that it would all happen.  In the last century, our culture experienced World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnamese War, and Desert Storm, and it looks as if Desert Storm II is already on the horizon.  How many earthquakes happened in the last century?  How many times have we seen TV images of children who have been reduced to skin and bones by the ravages of famine?  One could pick any date for the fulfillment of the Olivet prophecies, and he would be sure to find that wars and rumors of war, earthquakes, and famines happened in advance of that date.  If Turkel wants to prove that the Olivet prophecies were fulfilled in AD 70, he is going to have to do more than point out that wars, earthquakes, and famines happened between AD 30 and 70.

Turkel:
The Jews suffered tumult under a series of incompetent and insensitive Roman leaders, who did not hesitate to kill people. Skeptics have often said, in this light, "What's the big deal about these predictions, then?" In a sense they are right; the key here is not Jesus' predicitons [sic] of such things, but his admonition, "the end is not yet"--in other words, he is in a sense giving the same advice, Don't read too much into the times. But of course we need to show that such events did happen in the time specific, and here is a list of such events in this period [DeM.LDM, 78-9; Keener, 569]:

Till:
Before I go through Turkel's list point by point, I will first show that preterists attach an undue importance to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, because the second destruction of Jerusalem in the Bar Kokhba rebellion was worse than the first.  The information in my synopsis of the Bar Kokhba rebellion (below) can be verified by consulting general reference books on Jewish history, such as Morris Kantor's The Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia, published in 1989 by Jason Aronson, Inc., in New Jersey or "Bar Kokhba" in Encyclopedia Judaica by Keter Publishing House in Jerusalem.  Various website articles about this rebellion are accessible on the internet.

Although the battle of Jerusalem in AD 70 was destructive and killed as many as one million Jews by some estimates--probably an inflated figure--this event did not end the Jewish age by any means. Hadrian, who became emperor in AD 118 was at first sympathetic to Jews.  He permitted them to return to Jerusalem and even gave them permission to rebuild the temple.  He possibly did this thinking that they would be unable to rebuild, but when organizational and financial preparations looked as if the project might actually become a reality, he told them that they would have to build their new temple in a different location.  The withdrawal of Hadrian's permission to rebuild the temple almost precipitated a new rebellion, but Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah succeeded in pacifying Jewish leaders, who instead of rebelling outright turned to preparing for guerrilla wars in the hillcountry.  When Hadrian announced plans in AD 123 to build a new city on the site of Jerusalem, including a temple to Jupiter, and to name the new city Aelia Capitolina in tribute to Jupiter Capitolinus, this triggered actual guerrilla war that the Jews had been preparing for.  Their leader was Shimon Bar Kokhba, who proclaimed himself the long-awaited Messiah.  His forces had surprising initial success.  They captured several towns and fortified them with walls.  Altogether, they built 50 fortresses and occupied over 900 undefended villages.  They even minted coins with "The Freedom of Israel" struck on the backside.

Hadrian sent General Publus Marcellus, the governor of Syria, to help Rufus, who was the procurator of Judea, but the Jewish forces defeated his army.  The Jewish successes required Hadrian to send 12 legions into Palestine under the leadership of Julius Severus, who had been one of Hadrian's most successful generals in Britain.  The strategy of Severus was not to engage the Jewish forces in battle but to lay siege to their fortresses to deprive them of food and supplies.  Only when he thought the Jewish forces were sufficiently weakened did Severus engage them in direct battle.  The decisive battle came at Bethar, the headquarters of Bar Kokhba, where the Jewish Sanhedrin was also located.  Every Jew in the fortress was killed, except for Bar Kokhba, who was taken alive and later executed.  Thousands of Jewish refugees had fled to Bethar during the war, so casualty figures were high.  Some estimate that as many as 500,000 Jews were killed in this second war with the Romans, but others think that these numbers are also inflated.

A few minor battles were fought after this, but the Roman victory at Bethar effectively ended the revolt.  The Romans plowed Jerusalem under with oxen and build their pagan city, which they named Aelia Capitolina.  Jews were not allowed to live there, and Hadrian dealt with the survivors harshly.  Many were transported to Egypt and sold as slaves, and Judean settlements were not allowed to be rebuilt.  He prohibited the studying of the Torah and observance of the Sabbath, and the rite of circumcision was no longer allowed.  These persecutions continued until the end of Hadrian's reign in AD 138. 

The defeat of the Jewish forces at Bethar in AD 135 brought an end to Jewish power in the region, so that date would be a much better fulfillment date for the Olivet prophecy than AD 70.  In the first war in 66-70, Jerusalem was destroyed, but it was more thoroughly destroyed in AD 135, when it was plowed under so that a new Roman city could be built on the ruins.  After the first destruction of Jerusalem, the Romans did not impose on the Jews the severe restrictions that Hadrian decreed after quelling the Bar Kokhba uprising.  The fact that the Jews were able to regroup and launch a second war against the Romans within decades shows that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 did not really end the Jewish age.  Hadrian's iron-fisted restrictions, however, put an end to Jewish political power in the region. 

So why do Turkel and his preterist cohorts pick AD 70 as the date for the "coming of the Lord"?  Well, they need a fulfillment scenario to explain away the obvious failures of the many predictions that the coming of Jesus was imminent.  If there had been no prophecy of an imminent return, there would have been no preterist movement.

Now let's look at Turkel's list of fulfillment events that happened before AD 70.

Turkel:
Caligula tried to erect his statue in the Jewish temple; the Jews resisted.

Till:
And the Jews resisted Hadrian's attempt to build a temple to Jupiter in Jerusalem.  Their resistance failed, and the temple to Jupiter was built.

As for Gaius Caligula's attempt to erect his statue in the Jewish temple, this did not result in any serious danger to public peace.  The Syrian governor,  Petronius, and  Herod Agrippa both stalled in carrying out the decree, and the Jews were pacified.  When Caligula died in AD 41, the decree to erect the statue died with him.

Turkel:
In Caesarea, Jews and Syrian [sic] went at each others' throats for mastery of the city; 20,000 Jews were put to death.

Till:
At Bethar and other battle sites, the Jews and Romans went at each others' throats, and the Jews lost.  An estimated 500,000 Jews were killed. 

Turkel:
Similar bloodshed occurred in Alexandria and Damascus.

Till:
Bloodshed similar to what the Jews suffered at Bethar occurred when the Jews tried to take the coastal regions of Palestine and when the Romans besieged the Jewish fortresses and took them back in battle after the Jewish forces had been weakened.

Besides this, Alexandria and Damascus were miles away from Jerusalem, where Turkel and his preterist cohorts say that fulfillment of the Olivet prophecies was localized.  What would events happening in distant towns have to do with the fulfillment of a prophecy that was to be localized in Jerusalem?  Apparently Turkel is arguing that wars, rumors of war, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes that happened anywhere in the world would fulfill a prophecy that the "end" would come only to Jerusalem and environs. 

Well, why not?  That makes about as much sense as 99.9999999999% of the nonsense that they spew in support of biblical inerrancy.

Turkel:
The Jewish rebellion itself took place in 66 AD.

Till:
The second Jewish rebellion book place in AD 132.

Turkel:
Tacitus in the Annals refers to distrubances [sic], insurrections, war, and commotions in as diverse places as Germany, Africa, Gaul, Parthia, Britain, and Armenia.

Till:
So these "distrubances: [sic] would have occurred before AD 135 and would therefore have been "wars and rumors of war" that Jesus predicted would come before the "end."

Does everyone see what I pointed out above?  Turkel's position is that the fulfillment of the Olivet prophecies occurred only in Jerusalem, but to find some kind of "evidence" of prophecy fulfillment, he is citing "distrubances" [sic] insurrections, war, and commotions that happened in far away places like Germany, Africa, Gaul, Parthia, Britain, and Armenia.

This is what you call desperation to find fulfillment evidence.  I wonder how many in Jerusalem were aware of these "distrubances" [sic] in Germany, Britain, Gaul, etc.?  If they were not aware of them, how could they have "seen" the signs that were supposed to tell them that the "end" was coming just as Jesus had predicted?  If they couldn't see the signs, why did Jesus even bother to give them?

Problems!  Problems!  Problems!

Turkel:
Josephus says that Roman civil wars in this era were so common that he didn't see a need to write about them in detail. The Roman civil wars were especially pronounced between 68-70 when three emperors held the top spot in short order and their rival troops fought it out.

Till:
As usual, Turkel gave no details about what Roman civil wars were "especially pronounced," but if they were especially pronounced between 68-70, they could not have been the wars that Jesus referred to in the Olivet prophecies, because he told his disciples that when they heard of wars and rumors of war, they should understand that the "end is not yet."

Matthew 24:6  And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

Turkel's premise is that the Olivet prophecies were fulfilled in AD 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed, but in the passage just quoted, Jesus said that wars and rumors of wars would mean that the end is not yet.  Hence, the "Roman civil wars" that Turkel referred to could not have been the wars that fulfilled this prophecy, because if they happened in 68-70, they would have happened just before the destruction of Jerusalem.  Hence, these wars would have signaled that the end was "not yet" rather than alerting the people of Jerusalem that the end was near, so by Turkel's own fulfillment scenario, AD 70 could not have been the "end" that Jesus prophesied.

Does Turkel ever think before he writes?

On the other hand, these "especially pronounced" wars would have happened long enough before AD 135 to make them the wars and rumors of wars that Jesus prophesied would happen before "the end" came.  Anyway you cut it, if Turkel's "evidence" for prophecy fulfillment is applied to the Bar Kokhba rebellion, it will become a more likely fulfillment event than the first Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Turkel:

Matthew 24:7-8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be  famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the  beginning of sorrows (Mark 13: 8).

Luke 21:11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

Till:
But when these things happened, "the end" was not yet near, or else Jesus was a false prophet.

Turkel:
As in our previous verse, these are things that (except for signs) have continued to happen, but again, we should provide evidence of such between 30-70 [DeM.LDM, 79ff]. Acts 11:27-9 alludes to the famine in the time of Claudius. Tacitus speaks of signs in the form of "repeated earthquakes," a shortage of grain resulting in famine (at one point Rome had only 15 days' worth of food);

Till:
I suppose everyone noticed that Turkel gave no specific reference to let us know where Tacitus wrote of those "signs."  Did he report them in The Annals of Imperial Rome or in his Histories?  Turkel didn't say, and I suspect that if the truth were known, he doesn't know himself where this was said but was just rehashing something he had read in a preterist source book.  At any rate, we have seen that his references aren't too accurate.  Immediately above, we saw him trying to prove that wars and rumors of war that happened in the late AD 60s fulfilled Jesus's prediction that his disciples would hear of wars and rumors of war before the end came, but as I pointed out, Jesus also said that these wars and rumors of war would be a sign that the "end" was not near.  Therefore, wars and rumors of war in the late AD 60s couldn't possibly have been evidence that the Olivet prophecies were fulfilled in AD 70, but Turkel used them anyway, because Turkel isn't above twisting and distorting information to make it fit into whatever preconceived mold he is defending.  We saw earlier, for example, in Part Six of my Humpty Dumpty replies that Turkel attributed a poem by the 19th-century British poet Alfred Tennyson to 1st-century BC Roman poet Vergil, so Turkel has proven himself not very reliable in his citation of sources.

If Turkel will cite a specific source for this Tacitus reference, I'd be glad to check to see if it has any relevance to his claim that events of AD 70 fulfilled the Olivet prophecies, but I am under no obligation to read both of the books by Tacitus to see if I can find what Turkel was referring to.

Turkel:
Josephus reports of famine during the siege of Jerusalem;

Till:
Yes, this report can be found in Wars of the Jews (5:10.2-3), but there is no surprise in this.  After all the Romans had laid siege to the city, and the idea of a siege was to starve the people into surrendering.  The same happened when the Romans besieged Jewish fortresses during the Bar Kokhba rebellion.  At any rate, Turkel is forgetting that Jesus said that wars and rumors of war, earthquakes, and famines would happen in "various places," but the end is not yet (Matt. 24:7), so how could a famine during the Roman siege of Jerusalem, when the end of Jerusalem was right at hand, be a sign of the fulfillment of Jesus's prophecy about wars, earthquakes, and famine?  Turkel keeps forgetting that Jesus told his disciples that wars, earthquakes, and famines should not be seen as signs that the end was near, so Turkel can't cite a famine that happened in the very year that Jerusalem was destroyed as evidence that the destruction of Jerusalem fulfilled the Olivet prophecy.

Think, Turk, think!

Turkel:
the earthquake in Philippi (Acts 16);

Till:
Earthquakes happened all over the Mediterranean region.  They happened before the time of Jesus, they happened after the time of Jesus, and as we know from news coverage, they are still happening.  A man living in a region where earthquakes were commonplace predicted that there would be earthquakes before the end came, and. lo and behold, earthquakes did happen.  Some prophecy!  At any rate, earthquakes happened after AD 70 too, so why couldn't this be seen as prophetic evidence for AD 135 as the most likely fulfillment date for the Olivet prophecies?

Besides all of this, Philippi was located in Macedonia about 500 miles from Jerusalem, so how could such a far-flung event have been a sign for the people living in Jerusalem?  Does Turkel seriously think that the people of Jerusalem felt this quake and said, "Hey, there's another fulfillment of what Jesus said would happen before the end came"?

Turkel:
Pompeii suffered quakes as a preliminary to the eruption of Vesuvius;

Till:
Vesuvius erupted on August 24, AD 79, so did these "preliminary" quakes begin 10 years before the eruption of Vesuvius?  If not, then (1) they could not have been the earthquakes predicted in the Olivet prophecies or (2) the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was not the "end" that Jesus predicted.  Furthermore, if these "preliminary" quakes did begin as early as 10 years before the eruption, they still could not have been the predicted earthquakes, because the prophecy was that when the disciples heard of wars, rumors of war, famine, and earthquakes, "the end was not yet" and that "these things [would be] the beginning of sorrows" (Matt. 23:6-8).  Turkel is trying to make them contemporaneous with the end and thus the end of "sorrows" rather than the beginning, but, of course, Turkel is having to grasp for any straw in sight to try to find evidence for his preterist position.

Turkel:
Josephus reports a severe earthquake in Judea, and quakes were reported by secular historians as occurring throughout the Greco-Roman world.

Till:
Again, Turkel gave no specific references, so I can't comment on which earthquake Josephus and "secular historians" referred to.  I have taken the time to research the writings of Josephus and found that he mentioned in Antiquities (15:5.2) a great earthquake in Judea in the seventh year of the reign of Herod, but that would have been much too early to fulfill the Olivet prophecy, because it happened before the prophecy was made.  He made another apparent reference to this earthquake in Wars of the Jews (1:19.2) and described it as a quake that killed "an immense number of cattle" and 30,000 men, whose fame spread abroad.  In Wars (4:4.5), Josephus referred to an earthquake in Jerusalem.  The text reads awkwardly midway during this section, but I have checked and verified that it has been accurately quoted.

This earthquake happened when Jerusalem was besieged on two sides by the Romans, so for reasons noted above, it could not be considered an earthquake that fulfilled the Olivet prophecy.  Jesus said that wars, rumors of war, famine, and earthquakes would be a sign that the end "was not yet," but the earthquake the Josephus described in this passage allegedly happened when the "end," as perceived by Turkel, was right upon Jerusalem.

I have done an on-line search of electronic versions of both Antiquities and Wars, and I have found no reference to a severe earthquake that would qualify for fulfillment of the Olivet prophecy about earthquakes.  The ones I found were either too early or too late.  This kind of referencing is typical of preterists.  Those who check preterist literature will find the proponents of this theory grabbing any war or famine or earthquake that happened anywhere in this time period and trying to twist it into fulfillment of the Olivet prophecy.  They cite cases of wars, famines, and earthquakes that occurred long distances from Jerusalem as fulfillment of a prophecy that those living in Jerusalem would hear of wars, famines, and earthquakes that would occur before the "end" came, but how likely is it that residents of Jerusalem would have heard of earthquakes in Italy and Greece or wars in the Germanic regions of Europe, and so on. They likewise cite cases of wars, famines, and earthquakes that happened right before AD 70, even though Jesus said that these calamities would be signs that "the end was not yet." These are examples of the extremes that believers in a silly doctrine will go to try to find supporting evidence for it.

Turkel:
Again, none of this is surprising; much of the Roman Empire was subject to quakes (See map),

Till:
And the fact that much of the Roman Empire was subject to quakes does not make a prediction that the disciples would hear of earthquakes much of a prophecy.  It was a prophecy that any nitwit could have made.  Also, it was a prophecy that could be applied to the Bar Kokhba rebellion as well as the first destruction of Jerusalem.  Thus, Turkel's attempts to find fulfillment of the Olivet prophecies in wars, famines, and earthquakes becomes a case of that which proves too much proves nothing at all.

Turkel:
and famine was extremely common in the ancient world.

Till:
Yes, it was--which makes a prophecy that famines would occur before the "end" came not much of a prophecy.  As I said above, it was a prophecy that any nitwit could have made.

Turkel:
Pestilence was also common; indeed, it was more normal to be sick than healthy!

Till:
Right!  So the commonness of pestilence makes this part of the prophecy (in Luke's account) just like the prophecy of wars, famines, and earthquakes.  When a prophet predicts that which is commonplace and bound to occur, the prophecy wouldn't be very convincing when the commonplace events later happened.

Turkel:
What about Luke's signs from heaven?

Till:
Whoa!  What about them?  Turkel ranted and raved at great length about how the signs from heaven were just "apocalyptic" and not literal, but now he is trying to find fulfillment in Luke's signs from heaven.  Talk about inconsistency.

If Turkel is going to try to prove that Luke's signs from heaven happened as predicted, then let him present corroborating evidence that the signs in the following passage happened as Luke predicted.

Luke 21:25 "And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; ²⁶men's hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. ²⁷Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. ²⁸Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near."

Specifically, what were these signs in the sun, the moon, and the stars?  And why, after arguing that the astronomical signs were figurative, is Turkel trying to find evidence that these signs happened as predicted?  Is he claiming that the son of man was seen coming in a cloud?  If so, when did this happen?  What records were left of this phenomenal event?  What did the people see when they looked up and lifted up their heads? 

If the "heavenly signs" of Luke were fulfilled, what about the down-to-earth signs of nations in distress and the roaring of the waves and sea?  Were these fulfilled too?  If so, why?  If the "end" was going to be just a localized event in Jerusalem and environs, why have nations located outside of this region in distress and waves roaring in seas that the inhabitants of Jerusalem wouldn't have seen?

Turkel:
Tacitus reports a comet during the reign of Nero in 60 AD, and Halley's Comet came for a visit in 66.

Till:
Again, Turkel gave no reference, but he is probably referring to the following, which is in the chapter in The Annals that discussed Nero's burning of Rome.

As the year ended, omens, of impending misfortune were widely rumoured--unprecedented frequent lightning, a comet (atoned for by Nero, as usual, by aristocratic blood); two-headed offspring of men and beasts, thrown into the streets or discovered among the offerings to those deities to whom pregnant victims are sacrificed.  Near Placentia a calf was born beside the road with its head fastened to one of its legs.  Soothsayers deduced that a new head was being prepared for the world--but that it would be neither powerful nor secret, since it had been deformed in the womb and given birth by the roadside (Penguin Books, 1989, p. 367).

Notice first of all that Tacitus referred to these as "omens that were widely rumoured," but there is no corroboration that I know of that these events actually happened.  At any rate, if they did happen and were in any way divinely intended as part of the fulfillment of the Olivet prophecies, look at how the Holy Spirit missed another great opportunity by not including some of these "omens" in the prophecy.  It could have been written like the following so that no one would have failed to recognize that these "omens" were fulfillments of a divine prophecy. 

1 Till 24:5-8 (Revised Version):  Take heed that no man lead you astray, for many will come in my name saying, "I am the Christ," and shall lead many astray.  And you shall hear of wars and rumors of war; see that you are not troubled, for these things must need come to pass, but the end is not yet.  For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there shall be famines and earthquakes in various places.  There will be omens: there will be lightnings such as the world has never seen, and comets will be visible in the heavens for as long as a year at a time.  Two-headed offspring of man and beasts will be born and thrown into the streets, and a calf will be born beside a road with its head fastened to its leg.  All these things will be but the beginning of sorrows.

Exactness like this would have enabled people to recognize fulfillments of the prophecy, but the omniscient, omnipotent one apparently couldn't "inspire" such clarity.  He had to wait for preterists with great insights to come along and tell us what everything really meant.

Aside from this, I don't believe that the Olivet prophecies said anything about comets, did they?  At any rate, Turkel's about face should be evident to everyone by now.  After having argued at length that the prophecies of astronomical signs were not literal but simply "apocalyptic," Turkel is now trying to find fulfillment of the Olivet prophecies in literal astronomical events.

As I have said before, consistency is not one of Turkel's virtues.

Turkel:
Josephus also records a third astronomical phenomena, a "star resembling a sword" which stood over Jerusalem, and a comet that "continued a whole year."

Till:
Turkel didn't give a reference here, probably because he was cutting and pasting from some preterist source that didn't give a reference either, and so he didn't know where Josephus said this.  The source is Wars of the Jews (6:5.3, 289).

Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year.

Before I discuss the likelihood of a comet that stayed in the sky a whole year, let's take a look at the context in which this statement was made. I will highlight in bold print the verse quoted above and italicize other claims about "signs" in this passage and ask Turkel to tell us if he believes these things really happened as Josephus claimed.

Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them. Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year. Thus also before the Jews' rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus, [Nisan,] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple. Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner [court of the] temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared that the signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them. Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple,] as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence."

A comet is a gaseous, icy body that orbits the sun, and it becomes visible when during its approach to the sun, radiation pressure produces a luminous tail, which disappears after it loops around the sun and continues its orbit into deep space.  Therefore, a comet would not be visible for an entire year or anywhere close to an entire year.  If such an event like this actually occurred, it would have necessarily been some kind of miracle, but if Turkel is going to claim a miracle, he must prove that the event really happened.  If we appeal to Occam's razor, this alleged phenomenon could be explained by more likely hypotheses than the miraculous one, which would include the simple explanation that this year-long comet, appearing in a context that claimed many other miracles, was probably just another alleged "sign" of many that were routinely reported in this time period by people caught in the throes of hysteria.  Does Turkel believe, for example, that a light so bright shined around the altar the ninth hour of the night that it gave the appearance of daylight for half an hour [in italic print above]?  Does he believe that a heifer being led to the altar gave birth to a lamb [in italic print above]?  Does he believe that a temple gate, which required twenty men to shut it opened of its own accord [in italic print above]?  Does he believe that an army was actually in the clouds surrounding the city [in italic print above]?  Does he believe that a great multitude was heard during a "quaking" saying, "Let us remove hence"?  If he doesn't believe that these events actually happened, then why should he believe that a star shaped like a sword stood over the city and that a comet was visible for a whole year?  If he does believe these phenomena, let him explain how a star could stand over a city or a comet could be visible for a whole year.

Oh, I know, I know.  God did it!  How silly of me not to realize this.

Since he is grasping for any straw he can use to offer some semblance of evidence for his preterist belief, Turkel will probably claim that he accepts Josephus's report of these miraculous signs.  If so, I wonder if he would be willing to defend everything that Josephus said about miraculous events, and if not, I wonder if he would explain to us what criteria he uses to determine when miraculous claims reported in ancient, superstitious times should be accepted.  The most reasonable view for such claims is that they were simply a product of the times and cannot be verified, and if they cannot be verified, they cannot be used as proof of anything, much less a prophecy fulfillment. Turkel has mentioned Tacitus, for example, so I wonder if he accepts the other miraculous claims that Tacitus reported.  An entire chapter was devoted to "Signs and Wonders" in The Histories (Penguin Books, 1995, pp. 272-276].  Among these were the claim that Vespasian healed two men who had been sent to him by the god Serapis.  According to the report, which Suetonius also reported [The Twelve Caesars, Penguin Books, 1989, p. 284), one of the men was blind and the other had a "withered hand."  Vespasian healed the blind man by "anoint[ing] his cheeks and eyeballs with the water of his mouth," and healed the other man's arm by touching the withered arm with the heel of his foot.  These miracles are suspiciously similar to miracles attributed to Jesus in Matthew 12:10ff and John 9:1ff, but the main question to consider at this moment is whether these miracles happened as Tacitus and Suetonius reported them.  Both writers claimed that the miracle were seen by many witnesses.  If Turkel believes that they happened, does he believe Tacitus' report of the Egyptian named Bastilides, whom Vespasian saw standing besides him when he knew that this man was supposed to be in another place "several days' journey distant and upon inquiry of the priests in that city learned that Bastilides "at the relevant time... had been eighty miles away"?  Does Turkel believe the report of Suetonius, who claimed that when the governor of Dalmatia started a civil war, he could not move his troops to battle, because when they tried to raise their standards to march into battle, they "resisted all attempts to pull them out of the ground" (The Twelve Caesars, p. 193)?  Does he believe Suetonius' claim that he spirit of Caesar Augustus was seen "soaring up to heaven" from the flames of his funeral pyre (p. 111).  Does he believe Suetonius' claim that "two divine forms" suddenly appeared and set fire to Julius Caesar's funeral couch while the senators were debating whether to cremate the body in the temple of Capitoline Jupiter or in Pomey's Assembly Hall (p. 52)?

I could quote other examples, but these are more than enough to make my point.  Turkel is straining to find prophecy fulfillment in the miraculous claims of writers who lived in highly superstitious times when "heavenly signs" and "miracles" were as common as dirt. The most ridiculous part of Turkel's article, however, is his attempt to prove fulfillment of the Olivet prophecies by references to dubious claims of heavenly signs after he had expended so much energy claiming that biblical references to heavenly signs that would accompany disastrous events were not to be understood literally but merely "apocalyptically."  Now he has devoted an entire section of his article to trying to prove that Luke's "heavenly signs" were fulfilled.

Go figure!

Turkel:

Matthew 24:9-10 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

Mark 13:9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.

Luke 21:12-19 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake. And it shall turn to you for a testimony. Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist. And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. But there shall not an hair of your head perish. In your patience possess ye your souls.

There can be little doubt that such events as alluded to here took place between 30 and 70,

Till:
There can be little doubt that such events as alluded to here took place?  Is Turkel not even aware that the very historicity of some of the apostles is doubtful?  I'd like to see him quote records of the times--apocryphal nonsense excluded--that would corroborate the New Testament claims alluded to immediately below.  I'll address these individually as I come to them, but I'm serving notice here and now that I won't permit him to prove prophecy fulfillment by assuming the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Turkel:
and of course, such things do continue even today. Paul was himself a persecutor, and took the stripes from the synagogue himself (2 Cor. 11:24);

Till:
How does Turkel prove his claims?  He resorts to begging the question of biblical accuracy.  I'd like to see him quote contemporary records that would corroborate the New Testament claim that Paul was a persecutor.  How does Turkel know that Paul "took the stripes from the synagogue"?  Why, the Bible tells him so; that's how he knows.

Turkel:
we may doubt that it had anything uniquely to do with him or his preaching. Peter and John were flogged; Peter was thrown in jail; James the brother of Jesus was martyred--

Till:
How does Turkel know that Peter and John were flogged and that Peter was thrown into jail?  Why, the Bible tells him so.  There is some contemporary evidence to corroborate the claim that James was martyred, but most of the New Testament claims about early persecutions are probably exaggerations that cannot be corroborated.  The writer of Hebrews, for example, claimed that his readers had not suffered physical harm because of their faith.

Hebrews 12:3  For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls. ⁴You have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin.

What the writer said here is inconsistent with other New Testament whinings about persecutions, but inconsistencies in the Bible are nothing unusual.  In Contra Celsum, Origen claimed that there had been only a few Christian martyrs.

But with regard to the Christians, because they were taught not to avenge themselves upon their enemies (and have thus observed laws of a mild and philanthropic character); and because they would not, although able, have made war even if they had received authority to do so--they have obtained this reward from God, that He has always warred in their behalf, and on certain occasions has restrained those who rose up against them and desired to destroy them. For in order to remind others, that by seeing a few engaged in a struggle for their religion, they also might be better fitted to despise death, some, on special occasions, and these individuals, who can be easily numbered, have endured death for the sake of Christianity--God not permitting the whole nation to be exterminated, but desiring that it should continue, and that the whole world should be filled with this salutary and religious doctrine. And again, on the other hand, that those who were of weaker minds might recover their courage and rise superior to the thought of death, God interposed  His providence on behalf of believers, dispersing by an act of His will alone all the conspiracies formed against them; so that neither kings, nor rulers, nor the populace, might be able to rage against them beyond a certain point. Such, then, is our answer to the assertions of Celsus, "that a revolt was the original commencement of the ancient Jewish state, and subsequently of Christianity" (Book 3, Chapter 8).

This would have been written around AD 240-250, so as late as two centuries after the beginning of Christianity, a respected "church father" was claiming that only a few had "endured death for the sake of Christianity."

Turkel:
Acts reports regular harrassment [sic] and persecution at intervals.

Till:
Yes, it does, but were these claims historically accurate, or were they written by someone with a desire to present Christianity as a persecuted religion?  If Turkel is going to claim that the early church was persecuted to the degree that he is claiming, he needs to present more evidence that his mere assertions, which are no evidence at all. I will not let him beg the question of biblical accuracy by claiming that X is true, because the Bible says that it is.

I wonder if he can say, "Circular reasoning."

Turkel:
Tacitus and Josephus confirm persecution of Christians,

Till:
Where?  I suppose everyone noticed that once again Turkel gave no specific references.  I'm sure I know what he is alluding to in Tacitus, but I do wish he would stop the undocumented assertions and put a bit more "scholarly effort" into his methodology.  No doubt, he had in mind chapter 14 in the Penquin Books version of The Annals of Imperial Rome (pp. 361-367).  On pages 365-366, Tacitus devoted two short paragraphs to Nero's attempt to make Christians the scapegoat for the burning of Rome.  However, I don't think that even Turkel would claim that any of the apostles fell victim to this persecution, and that is important, because Jesus's prophecy had indicated that the apostles would be persecuted and brought before kings.

Matthew 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

I quoted this from the KJV so that the archaic nominative ye will show that this was the second-person plural personal pronoun.  In other words, Jesus was saying that you, i. e., the apostles he was speaking to, would be delivered up, afflicted, killed, and hated of all nations, and he was speaking to his apostles.  Hence, this part of the prophecy was saying that the apostles would be delivered up, afflicted, killed, and hated of all nations, so Turkel proves nothing about fulfillment of this part of the prophecy by referring to a persecution that probably did not include the apostles.  At any rate, I would like to see Turkel present evidence that the apostles were "hated of all nations" at any time during this interval.

Turkel may point to verse 10, which told what others besides the apostles would do during a period of persecution.

Matthew 24:10  And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another.

The ones referred to here, of course, were not the apostles, but the reference to Tacitus says nothing about Christians betraying and hating one another.  My point is that if Turkel is going to claim fulfillment of the Olivet prophecies, he needs to cite evidence that relates to specific points in the prophecies and not try to cover everything with a catch-all claim that "Tacitus and Josephus confirm persecution of Christians."  Did Tacitus and Josephus report specific kinds of persecution, such as betrayal within Christian ranks, that would "confirm" this part of the prophecy.

Finally, I would like to ask Turkel just where Josephus "confirmed persecution of Christians."  If Josephus really did this, Turkel should be able to cite the specific reference.

Folks, when Turkel makes an assertion, take it with a grain of salt, because we have repeatedly seen how he twists and distorts source information to try to make it fit into a preterist mold that it was never intended to confirm.

Turkel:
and the social background data provided by Meeks' The First Urban Christians tells us enough about why. Such events of course lay enough of a background for enmity between and betrayal by family.

Till:
Isn't this just typical of Turkel?  He makes another appeal to authority without even citing the specific place in the source that he is referring to.  Are we just supposed to take his word that "Meeks" provided "the social background data" to prove fulfillment of this part of the prophecy?  If so, how can we evaluate the reliability of Meeks' information if we don't even know what it is?  Does Turkel expect us to obtain a copy of The First Urban Christians and read it through to try to find the information that Turkel was referring to? Someday I hope to finish a compilation of the correspondence that Turkel and I exchanged before our debates began so that people can see how he boasted that he was going to expose my poor critical methodology.

I'll quote just one example.  Believe it or not, when the correspondence began, he demanded that we debate the issue of whether Marco Polo ever went to China.  He brought up this issue because in an article in The Skeptical Review I had referred to Frances Wood's belief that Polo's accounts of his travels showed indications that he had never actually visited China.  In my article, I had taken no position one way or the other on this issue but had merely cited Wood's conclusion about this as an example to show that critical historians don't just pick on the Bible but also question the historical accuracy of other early writings.  I was willing to debate this issue just to get Turkel into a public forum, but for some reason he changed his mind about it and decided to drop the issue.  At any rate, during these discussions, I had said to him that I thought his Marco Polo issue was just a straw man.

I think that your concern about Marco Polo is a straw man that you're kicking around to leave the impression on your readers that you will debate, but in order to get you into serious debates on inerrancy in an open forum, I will gladly waste time on an issue that has nothing to do with biblical inerrancy.

In reply to this, he made the following statement in an e-mail message to me dated 4/24/02.

No, it is a way of showing something about your methodology, which remains the same regardless of topic. I think you are evading serious stances on Polo and Shakespeare because you do not wish your core thinking processes, such as they are, to be subjected to critical scrutiny. So be it. The silence speaks enough.

I have no idea what he meant about my silence, because the record will show that I had readily agreed to debate his straw-man issue in order to get him into a public forum where he would eventually have to defend biblical inerrancy.  At any rate, he indicated that he wanted to show everyone "something about my methodology," and what have we seen by way of his methodology?

1.  He has constantly argued by assertion.

2.  He has made constant appeals to authorities, i. e., Demar, Wright, Caird, Longenecker, Glenn Miller <snicker, snicker>, and so on without even bothering to try to defend their assertions.

3.  He has falsely attributed information to the "authorities" he appealed to, as in the case of attributing to the 1st-century BC Roman poet Vergil a poem that was actually written by Alfred Tennyson, a 19th-century British poet.

4.  He has constantly begged the question of biblical accuracy.

5.  He has repeatedly appealed to authorities without documenting the citations.

In a word, Turkel has conducted his part of these debates as if he doesn't have a clue to what constitutes proper debating methods.

Turkel:

Matthew 24:11-13 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Little needs be said here, again--we have already referred to false prophets;

Till:
Yes, Turkel has referred to false prophets, and I have taken each of his references and shown that the "false prophets" referred to couldn't possibly be cases that fulfilled the Olivet prophecies.  All one has to do is scroll up and review my rebuttals of these references to see that Turkel's examples of false prophets cannot be considered fulfillments of Jesus's prophecy about false prophets.  Furthermore, the fact that the Olivet prophecy of an imminent return obviously failed requires that Jesus himself be considered a false prophet.

Turkel:
iniquity is a commonality, though Caligula and Nero between 30 and 70 took pains to exemplify poor morals.

Till:
Once again, Turkel gave no details here, so there is nothing to rebut.

Turkel:
Paul and John also refer to false prophets within the church (Acts 13:16, 2 Tim. 2:16-17, 1 John 4:1).

Till:
I listed above some examples of Turkel's methodology, one of which was begging the question of biblical accuracy.  Here is an example of Turkel's using that method.  He made an assertion and then listed three scripture citations as if appealing to what the Bible said would prove the point that he is trying to make about false prophets.  Let's look at the kind of "proof" that Turkel uses.  Here is what Acts 13:16 said.  I will include several verses after it so that readers can judge if it says anything about false prophets in the church.

Acts 13:16  Then Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said, "Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen: ¹⁷The God of this people Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm He brought them out of it. ¹⁸Now for a time of about forty years He put up with their ways in the wilderness. ¹⁹And when He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land to them by allotment.

²⁰"After that He gave them judges for about four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet. ²¹And afterward they asked for a king; so God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years. ²²And when He had removed him, He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, 'I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.' ²³From this man's seed, according to the promise, God raised up for Israel a Savior—Jesus—²⁴after John had first preached, before His coming, the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. ²⁵And as John was finishing his course, he said, 'Who do you think I am? I am not He. But behold, there comes One after me, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to loose.'

²⁶"Men and brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to you th