Billingsly/Benton Debate on The Gospels

 
 
 Proposition: 
 The Scriptures teach that the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- before 
 the cross, belong to the Old and not the New Testament.
 
 Affirm:  Dan Billingsly
 Deny: Terry Benton
 
 It is the responsibility of the affirmative in a debate to set forth the arguments to prove the 
 proposition; it is the responsibility of the negative to deny all arguments set forth by the 
 affirmative. Unfortunately, Terry  did not  answer all the different points in  our affirmative 
 arguments simply because he could not scripturally answer them.  I encourage all to reread both 
 my 1st Affirmative and his 1st Negative.
 
 Answers To Terry's Arguments  In His 1st Negative
 
 It is not the responsibility of the affirmative to answer all of the arguments raised by the negative. 
 However, by answering and exposing two or three of Terry's major arguments we will show that 
 all of Terry's major and minor arguments in his position are unscriptural.
 
 1. In his opening statement, Terry ridicules the proposition of this debate by arguing that the 
 "books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- before the cross" cannot mean "THE EVENTS THEY 
 DESCRIBE." However,  he then answers his own argument by stating that I (Dan Billingsly) 
 mean "MMLJBC equals the BOOKS that describe the events." Please, Terry, no more quibbling! 
 Our readers are smarter that this!
 
 Our first exchange clearly shows the difference in our positions.
 
 BILLINGSLY'S POSITION: The COVENANT TEXT AND CONTEXT of a book  in the Bible  
 determines to which covenant it belongs.  The overwhelming  old covenant text and context (the 
 doctrinal teaching) of MMLJBC proves that these four books -- before the cross -- belong to the 
 Old Testament.
 
 BENTON'S POSITION: WHEN a book of the Bible was WRITTEN determines to which 
 covenant it  belongs.  Terry argues that because MMLJBC were written after the cross and Acts 2, 
 MMLJBC belong to the New Testament.
 
 2. Terry erroneously argues that, according to Billingsly, because Acts 7 describes some 
 historical events of the Old Testament Mosaical age this chapter  should be in the Old Testament. 
 Not so!  The Scriptures teach that all books of the Bible are historical in nature; all books of the 
 Bible  were written after the fact, after the events occurred. Moses wrote the book of Genesis 
 hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years after the events of creation and after all other events in 
 Genesis occurred. Doesn't Terry know that no book of the Bible was written before the events 
 occurred.
 
 The Scriptures clearly  teach that the COVENANT TEXT  and CONTEXT  of each book 
 determines to which covenant the book belongs. Therefore, if the historical and covenant age and 
 teaching of MMLJBC  is set in the covenant text and context of the Old Testament Mosaical age 
 and teaching of the law of Moses -- and they are,  then these  books clearly  belong to the Old 
 Testament.
 
 In Acts 6 and 7,   Stephen was not teaching  Old Testament history as New Testament doctrine, he 
 was teaching it as Old Testament history. Stephen was  preaching that those alien Jews  in Acts 7 
 should believe in and obey the new covenant gospel of Christ.  He is showing that the Old 
 Testament prophecy of the "new covenant" that God promised to make with Israel (Jer. 31:31-32), 
 was made in Acts 2. Acts 6 explains Stephen's message in Acts 7  -- the growth of the New 
 Testament church of Christ among the Jews (v. 1-7). Once again, Terry is in error.
 
 3.  Terry unscripturally  teaches the following: "Genesis -Exodus 19 do not belong to some earlier  
 covenant than the Old Testament." Terry doesn't even understand the nature of the Old Testament. 
 Doesn't he realize that the Old Testament does not consist of just one covenant, but  of a series of 
 different covenants that God made with various individuals and families.   Terry doesn't 
 understand the nature or scope of the Old or New Testaments, and that is why his position on 
 MMLJBC is wrong.
 
 Moses declared that the covenant that God made with Israel at Horeb was a different covenant 
 than any covenant that God had made with any earlier people  in the Old Testament.
 
 "And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which 
 I speak in you ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them. The Lord our God 
 made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, 
 who are all of here alive this day"  (Deut. 5:1-3).
  
 This passage proves that Terry is wrong, and that the Old Testament consists of more than one 
 covenant.  Readers, how can Terry with such a distorted misunderstanding of the Old Testament 
 present any valid argument on the covenants. This again shows how convoluted Terry's 
 misunderstanding of the Scriptures is and how false are his "traditional" doctrines.  
  
 3. Terry writes, 
 "This would be even more true of MMLJ. They are New Testament Christians. They write of the 
 Savior and TESTATOR. Like the Old Testament gives its' own prologue in Genesis through 
 Exodus 19, so these New Testament ministers give the prologue to the New Testament as part of 
 the Testament itself. The NEW Testators' life and teachings about the kingdom were not 
 something to write about and then consider them "nailed to the cross". They were written to 
 defend New Testament Christian's faith. They were not written to get people to follow the Old 
 Testament. They were written to get people to follow the Savior of the New Testament age. " 
 
 Terry, of course, is wrong, wrong, wrong about every argument he makes because he 
 unscripturally mixes old and new covenant teaching, history, commandments and promises. The 
 Scriptures do not teach that Old Testament teaching is  New Testament doctrine.
 
 MMLJ describe the last thirty-three years of the Old Testament age, when Matthew, Mark, Luke 
 and John were all Old Testament Israelites. There were no New Testament "Christians,"  no New 
 Testament "ministers" during the Old Testament age of MMLJBC.  These writers did not write 
 about the time they were "Christians" before the cross. They did not become New Testament 
 "Christians" and "ministers" until Acts 2 -- after the New Testament age began.  
 
 They wrote MMLJBC to show the END of the Old Testament age -- not the BEGINNING of the 
 New Testament age.
 
 The Scriptures teach that MMLJBC were written to show the coming of the Christ -- the Messiah  
 to only   Old Testament  Israel. They were written to show  the fact that the Messiah had not come 
 to destroy but to fulfill "the law and the prophets" (Matt. 5:17-18).  Christ's mission and work in  
 Israel was to fulfill of all of God's promises and prophecies to God's old covenant nation (Lk. 
 24:44), to turn the Jews away from the false rabbinical "traditions" (Matt. 15:1-14) to follow the 
 Messiah's teaching of the true law of Moses  in MMLJBC.  Finally, Christ came to Israel to 
 abolish the old covenant law of Moses at the cross (2 Cor. 3:6-14).  The Scriptures teach that the  
 name "Christian" was not used by Christ or anyone else in MMLJBC. Those inspired writers who 
 wrote MMLJBC described themselves as Old Testament as Jews and Israelites during  the Old 
 Testament age of MMLJBC. 
 
 Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not New Testament "ministers" during the time of 
 MMLJBC. Christ was the Savior of only Old Testament Israel at the time of MMLJBC (Matt. 
 1:21; 2:6), and MMLJ were only Jewish disciples of the Messiah. In fact,  during the time of 
 MMLJBC, Jesus said, "...I am sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24). 
 
 After the cross, after the New Testament age began in Acts 2, after Matthew, Mark, Luke and John 
 became New Testament "Christians," as inspired New Testament writers they described the end of 
 the Old Testament age and Mosaical covenant. But they certainly did not portray themselves as 
 New Testament "Christians"  or "minister's" during the time of MMLJBC.
 
 The Scriptures teach that Jesus was the Old Testament SAVIOR of Israel during MMLJBC, he did 
 not become the Savior of the world until after his resurrection (Eph. 1:19-23).   In MMLJBC, 
 Jesus preached his Father's Old Covenant "will" for Israel,  Christ did not reveal his New 
 Testament "will" or "doctrine."
 
 "For I came  down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me...My 
 doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me"  (Jn. 6:38; 7:16).
 
 The Scriptures in new covenant text and context describe  Jesus as a TESTATOR after Acts 2  -- 
 not before the cross in MMLJBC. The New Testament of Christ was not revealed by Christ and 
 Jesus never refers to himself as TESTATOR in MMLJBC. 
 
 Christ did not reveal his New Testament in MMLJBC. The foreordained New Testament of Christ 
 was written in heaven long before the creation of the world (Acts 2:23; 1 Cor. 2:7);  it was 
 predestined and purposed before the world began (Rom. 8:29; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2; 1 Pet. 1:2); 
 and it was revealed by Christ, the Holy Spirit and written by the apostles only in Acts 2 through 
 Revelation 22. 
 
 "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a  testament 
 is of force AFTER MEN ARE DEAD, otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth" 
 (Heb. 9:16-17, emphasis mine, D.B.).  
 
 Why would Christ reveal his testament in MMLJBC when it could not be in force and when no 
 one could understand what it meant? Once again, Terry is wrong.
 
 QUESTION 1: In the three questions set forth for both Billingsly and Benton to answer, in the 
 first question Terry agrees that the Old Testament law of Moses was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14; 
 Eph. 2:14). 
 
 Then Terry  mistakenly adds, 
 "MMLJ all wrote after this point to give the new revelation of Jesus Christ to the whole world." 
 Readers, I have never heard a sectarian pastor or "traditional" preacher 
 among churches of Christ claim that MMLJBC reveals the  new revelation of Jesus Christ to the 
 whole world. How can you possibly claim that the whole New Testament is reveal in MMLJBC? 
 Once again, readers, you can see clearly that Terry is wrong, wrong, wrong.
 
 The Scriptures teach that the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- before the cross - 
 describe the last thirty-three years of the Old Testament age and authority of the law of Moses in 
 Israel.  By their divine and inspired teaching, Christ, the Holy Spirit and the apostles place these 
 four books in the Old Testament and not in the New Testament as done by the Roman Catholic 
 church in 1486 AD and as Terry argues today.
 
 Readers, why didn't Terry even attempt to answer our arguments about the Roman Catholic 
 "heresy" of 1486 AD,  when this sectarian church  arbitrarily divided between the Old and New 
 Testaments by erroneously inserting a New Testament "title page" between the books of Malachi 
 and Matthew? 
 
 Terry's response to our argument about the Roman Catholic New Testament "title page": "So 
 what?"  Good answer Terry, that is really a scriptural answer to the argument. It is deep and 
 profound. This helps our readers to see that you cannot answer this historical fact -- and this 
 proves my argument!
 
 Why didn't Terry attempt to answer? He can't! Readers, every biblical manuscript authority in the 
 world agrees with my argument on the erroneous Roman Catholic insertion of the New Testament 
 "title page" in 1486AD. 
  
 Nothing added to the Scriptures by sectarians has done more to mislead, misinform and deceive 
 humanity about the Bible than the blasphemous  Roman Catholic New Testament "title page" of  
 1486 AD.  Because Terry's "traditional" arguments on MMLJBC are based on this Roman 
 Catholic "heresy,"  his arguments continue to mislead, misinform and deceive those who are 
 attempting to study and understanding the Bible.
 
 Question 2:  Terry writes, 
 "MMLJ all were writing to accomplish the same thing Peter was trying to accomplish on the day of Pentecost." 
 If this is so, Terry, why  did Christ preach the Old Testament plan of salvation for Jews  only 
 under the law of Moses in Matthew 19:16-20,  while Peter preached the New Testament plan of 
 salvation for alien sinners in Acts 2?  
 
 No Terry, they were not attempting to accomplish the same thing. In MMLJBC, Christ  was 
 attempting to "restore" unfaithful Jews back to the law of Moses. In Acts 2,  Peter was 
 encouraging alien sinners to obey the New Testament gospel. Christ in MMLJBC and Peter in 
 Acts 2 were not trying to accomplish the same thing.
 
 Question 3: Are all men today in this New Testament age, alien sinners New Testament 
 "Christians" alike, accountable to "all" New Testament teaching? 
  Benton answers:
  "Yes. All are obligated, but not all are qualified to do certain things until they come into Christ."
 
 Readers, look at this answer!  This is outright blasphemy! This answer repudiates the New 
 Testament truth of Christ! Terry, where is your doctrine taught in the New Testament? Give us 
 book, chapter and verse.
 
 Readers, the word qualify or qualified is not in the New Testament and neither is Terry's doctrine. 
 This is a "traditional" dodge that denies Christ and his new covenant.
 
 Terry asks,
  "Dan where would you put a 'title page?'"
 
  I would place a New Testament "title page" where the Scriptures teach that Christ, the Holy Spirit 
 and apostles began the New Testament age -- and where  churches of Christ have always taught 
 that the New Testament age began --between Acts 1 and 2.
 
 Finally, Terry  states: 
 "...is it all right to believe that "ALL SCRIPTURE" (including the Scriptures of the Old Testament) 
 is "profitable for  DOCTRINE (2 TIM. 3:16-17). Dan, is this so? or not?" 
 
 Readers, Terry believes that "all Scripture"  of  both Old and New Testaments is New Testament 
 doctrine, and "all doctrine" of both Old and New Testaments should be believed and practiced by 
 "Christians" in the New Testament church. 
 
 Terry, when Christ commanded "animal blood sacrifice" in keeping Moses commandment in  
 Matthew 8:1-4 -- is that New Testament doctrine? Are "the ten commandments" in Exodus 20 
 New Testament doctrine? 
 
 How long, Terry, since you and the Trussville church ate the passover as commanded by Christ  in 
 Matthew 26? Terry, can one be "saved" today like the "thief" on the cross? Terry, you are simply 
 wrong on every argument you make!  You are wrong on everything you teach about the 
 covenants.
 
 2 Timothy 3:16-17 must be interpreted in light of 2 Timothy 2:15 where Paul teaches that we must 
 "rightly divide" between the teachings of the Old and New Testaments. Paul teaches that "all" Old 
 Testament scripture produced and was profitable for Old Testament doctrine,  and "all" New 
 Testament scripture produces and is profitable for New Testament doctrine. The apostle Paul  does 
 not teach, as Terry would have our readers to believe,  that "all" Old Testament scripture should be 
 used for New Testament doctrine.
 
 Terry teaches that Jesus said that "His words  would judge even those who reject Him" (Jn. 12:48).
 
 No where is Terry more unscriptural in his interpretation of the Scriptures, than his 
 misunderstanding of John 12.  Doesn't Terry realize that John 12 is a discussion between Jesus the 
 Messiah and the Jews in Old Testament Israel.  Not one word of John 12  refers to men living 
 today in this New Testament age. 
 
 Note the Old Testament text and context of John 12. In verse 1, it is the passover feast. In verse 
 11-12,  the Jews and chief priests are involved. In verse 13, Christ is called the King of Israel. In 
 verse 19, it is the Pharisees complaining. In verse 37, John refers to the unbelief of the Jews and 
 quotes Isaiah repeatedly. In verse 42, it is the chief priests and Pharisees again and the Jewish 
 synagogue. John 12:48 is a discussion of Jewish unbelief in the Messiah, it has nothing to do with 
 anyone in this New Testament age.
 
 2ND AFFIRMATIVE by Dan Billingsly:
 
 Proposition: The Scriptures teach that the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- before 
 the cross -- belong to the Old and not the New Testament.
 
 ARGUMENT 9: The Scriptures teach that the Old Covenant text and context of  MMLJBC belong 
 to the Old and not the New Testament. The Scriptures teach that only the  original twenty-three 
 books of the 1st century New Testament in Acts 2 through Revelation 22 belong to the New 
 Covenant. These books were inspired and revealed by Christ, the Holy Spirit and the apostles to 
 the 1st century church of Christ.
 
 1. The old covenant text and context of MMLJBC describe the last thirty-three years of the Old 
 Testament age, authority and teaching of the law of Moses to the "last generation" Jews in old 
 covenant Israel. Malachi was not the first book of the Old Testament,  and Matthew is not the first 
 book of the New Testament. Therefore, by virtue of the historical old covenant age, teaching and 
 people found in MMLJBC, these four books -- before the cross -- belong to the Old and not the 
 New Testament.  
 
 2. The old covenant text and context of MMLJBC describe Jesus declaring more than 100 times 
 that he is teaching the Old Testament law of Moses to Israel. Not once -- in MMLJBC -- did Jesus 
 ever declare that he was revealing or teaching New Testament doctrine. In MMLJBC, hundreds of 
 times the disciples of Christ describe him teaching the Old Testament law of Moses. Not once do 
 they ever describe him or state that he was teaching New Testament doctrine. By the declaration 
 of  Christ and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the four books of MMLJBC  belong to the Old and 
 not the New Testament.
 
 3. The old covenant text and context of MMLJBC describe Jesus as the old covenant Messiah or 
 Savior  sent only to "seek and save...the lost sheep of the house of Israel" by restoring them back 
 to God under the authority of the law of Moses (Matt. 1:21; 2:6; 15:24; Lk. 19:10). Not once in 
 MMLJBC, while the Old Testament law of Moses was in force. did Jesus ever attempt to save 
 alien sinners among the Gentiles by teaching them the Old Testament law of Moses. The mission 
 and work of Christ in MMLJBC under the Old Testament law of Moses show clearly that 
 MMLJBC belong to the Old and not the New Testament.
 
 4. The old covenant text and context of MMLJBC describe Jesus as an Old Testament Israelite - 
 not a New Testament Christian. As an Israelite, Jesus worshiped in the temple at Jerusalem, he 
 lived the Jewish life under the law of Moses. Jesus used the name "Jew" many times  in MMLJBC 
 but he never used the word Christian in MMLJBC; therefore, he never revealed new covenant 
 doctrine for Christians in MMLJBC. By language, worship and life,  Christ teaches that the four 
 books of MMLJBC belong to the Old and not the New Testament.
 
 5. The old covenant text and context of MMLJBC reveal Jesus as an Old Testament Jew and 
 Israelite -- not as a New Testament Christian.  There was no revelation of New Testament 
 doctrine, the new covenant plan of salvation, new birth or new covenant Christians until the New 
 Testament age began in Acts 2. By doctrine, Christ teaches that the four books of MMLJBC 
 belong to the Old and not the New Testament.
 
 6. The old covenant text and context of MMLJBC describe Jesus as an Old Testament prophet - 
 not a New Testament evangelist.  In MMLJBC Jesus restored unfaithful Jews back to God under 
 the authority of the law of Moses, he did not save alien sinners by the New Testament gospel. By 
 his role as Old Testament prophet, Christ teaches that the four books of MMLJBC belong to the 
 Old and not the New Testament. 
 
 7. The old covenant text and context of MMLJBC describe Jesus as a member of the Old 
 Testament kingdom of Israel -- not as a member of the New Testament kingdom or church. There 
 was no New Testament kingdom on earth during the time of MMLJBC. Because Christ did not 
 establish the New Testament kingdom/church in MMLJBC, this proves that these four books 
 belong to the Old and not the New Testament. 
 
 8. The old covenant text and context of MMLJBC show that Jesus, like John the Baptist,  
 preached only the Old Testament Mosaical gospel of the Messiahs coming, minister to the 
 poor and broken hearted in Israel, deliver the Jews from the sins, liberating many sick and dying 
 and to prophesy of the soon-to-come New Testament age. Neither John the Baptist, Jesus the 
 Messiah nor their Old Testament disciples under the law of Moses ever preached the New 
 Testament gospel of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Had they done so, 
 they would have established the new covenant church on earth before Acts 2. Because Christ did 
 not preach the New Testament gospel in MMLJBC, this proves that these four books belong to the 
 Old and not the new Testament
 
 9. The old covenant text and context of MMLJBC show that Jesus preached only the Old 
 Testament plan of salvation for the restoration of unfaithful Jews only (Matt. 19:16-20). Jesus 
 never preached the New Testament gospel for the salvation of alien sinners in MMLJBC. He never 
 produced one New Testament Christian before the cross or he would have established the New 
 Testament church on earth before Acts 2. Because Christ's role as the Jewish Messiah was to 
 restore unfaithful Jews in Israel -- not save alien sinners from among the Gentiles, this proves that 
 the four books of MMLJBC belong to the Old and not the New Testament.
 
 10. The old covenant text and context of MMLJBC describe Jesus preaching and obeying  the 
 righteousness of the law of Moses  (Matt.  3:15; 5:6,20; 9:13; 21:32; Lk. 1:6, 75) -- not  new 
 covenant righteousness. There was no new covenant righteousness on earth during the Old 
 Testament age of MMLJBC, this proves that these four books belong to the Old and not the New 
 Testament.
 
 11. The old covenant text and context of MMLJBC show that every time the words brethren or 
 disciple were used in MMLJBC, they always referred to the Old Testament brethren in Israel 
 (Matt. 18:15-17), and the old covenant Jewish  disciples of  Moses (Jn. 9:28), the old covenant 
 disciples of the rabbis  (Mk. 2:18), the old covenant Jewish disciples of John the Baptist (Matt. 
 9:14) or the old covenant Jewish disciples of Jesus the Messiah (Matt. 10:1).  Because the two 
 words "brethren" and "disciples" in MMLJBC never refer to New Testament "brethren" in the new 
 covenant church or new covenant "disciples" of the risen Savior, this proves that these four books 
 belong to the Old and not the New Testament.
 
 12. The old covenant text and context of MMLJBC show Jesus' Old Testament genealogy  (Matt. 
 1; Lk. 3), that he  was born under the Old Testament law of Moses (Matt. 1; Gal. 4:4), that he was 
 circumcised under the authority of the Old Testament law of Moses (Lk. 2:22), that he was raised 
 in an Old Testament  Jewish household (Matt. 2:23), that everything he taught in MMLJBC was a 
 part of the law of Moses  -- even his Old Testament prophecies  about the then-soon-to-come New 
 Testament kingdom (Matt. 7:12; 22:34-40), and that he died under the Old Testament law of 
 Moses (Matt. 27, Mk. 15, Lk. 23, Jn. 19).  Jesus did not live one day or teach one lesson on earth 
 during the New Testament age. The Old Covenant text and context of Christ in MMLJBC  prove 
 that these four books belong to the Old and not the New Testament.  
  
 13. The old covenant text and context of MMLJBC shows that all of the teaching of Christ - 
 before the cross -- was in perfect harmony with the old covenant text and context of the teaching 
 of Moses and the prophets in the law of Moses from Exodus 20 through Malachi.  It also shows 
 that the old covenant text and context of the teaching of Christ in MMLJBC is not in harmony 
 with the new covenant text and context of his teaching in Acts 2 through Revelation 22. This one 
 argument alone proves that the four books of MMLJBC belong to the Old and not the New 
 Testament.
 
 When And Why Were MMLJBC Written?
 
 WHEN were the four books of MMLJBC WRITTEN?   Because there were no inspired Old 
 Testament prophets or Israelites remaining on earth to record the end  of the Old Testament age, 
 these four Old Testament books  were written by inspired New Testament Christians  some 30-45 
 years after Acts 2.  What does it mean that the four books of MMLJBC were written so late in the 
 1st century?
 
 1.  It means that Christ, the Holy Spirit did not guide the apostles to use the teaching of MMLJBC 
 in preaching the New Testament gospel in Acts 2 and the establishment of the New Testament 
 kingdom.
 
 2. It  means that Christ, the Holy Spirit did not guide the apostles to use the teaching of MMLJBC 
 throughout the first thirty-five years of New Testament history as recorded in Acts 2 through 
 Revelation 22.
 
 There is not one quote in Acts 2 through Revelation 22 of any of Christ's teaching from 
 MMLJBC!
 
 WHEN  MMLJBC were written does not change the Old Testament text and context of MMLJBC.
 
 WHY were MMLJBC WRITTEN?: As the New Testament apostles began to preach the new 
 covenant gospel  into regions outside of Jerusalem and the Roman province of Palestine,  they met  
 Jews   who had never heard of  Christ the Messiah and the end of the Old Testament law of 
 Moses.  Because their apostolic preaching of the  New Testament gospel of Christ denied these 
 Jews  access to God through the law, these unbelieving Jews often reacted violently against the 
 apostles (Acts 4:1-12; 5:17-40; 8:51-54;11:19-30; 17:5-9).  
 
 Late in the ministry of the apostles, in an effort to convert Jews, MMLJBC were written to 
 convince the unbelieving Jewish world that Christ was the Messiah and that the Old Testament 
 world of Judaism had ended and  was abolished. Without the record of MMLJBC, the Jews would 
 have no reason to believe the apostles. Without MMLJBC, the Jews would have had no reason to 
 believe that the Old Testament age had ended at the cross and that the New Testament age had 
 begun in Acts 2.
 
 All churches of Christ have not used the same New Testament. The 1st century church used and 
 taught the apostolic New Covenant of Acts 2 through Revelation 22 that was confirmed by the 
 spiritual gifts of the time. The apostate church and sectarian teachers of the 2nd through the 14th 
 centuries used many different canons, lists and  books -- including the fourteen books of the 
 "apocrypha" as a part of the Bible and  New Testament. The Roman Catholic church and "heresy" 
 of  1486 corrupted the modern Bible, and has led millions, including Terry Benton, astray from the 
 new covenant truth of Christ.  
 
 If all churches of Christ today would use the same 1st century New Testament certified by the 
 apostles, most of our confusion and doctrinal division would disappear. Let us pray for Terry and 
 our brethren.