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
 
 I am thankful to God for this opportunity to deny a very simple proposition. The wording was 
 designed by Dan Billingsly. He offered to AFFIRM and PROVE this proposition. Since the 
 wording was so obviously wrong, I knew he could never prove such a thing, and I knew it would 
 be an easy task to look for ANY arguments he would set forth to prove that proposition, and then 
 it would be a simple thing to answer THOSE arguments.
 
 Other Issues 
 
 As the negative of THAT proposition, it is not my job to answer all UNRELATED arguments that 
 Dan might set forth. For example, here are things he mentioned that have nothing to do with 
 proving HIS proposition: 
 
 1. When a "title page" was placed in between the testaments and IF the Roman Catholics had 
 something to do with deceiving us. Even IF it was true, it would not prove Dan's proposition that 
 there were four BOOKS of MMLJ "before the cross" and that they were recognized originally as 
 OLD Testament BOOKS.
 
 2.  That Jesus lived under the law of Moses. We recognize that. (Gal.4:4). That is not related to the 
 proposition. The proposition says there were "...books...before the cross", and that four Christians 
 wrote them.
 
 2. That Jesus told others, under the law, to keep it while it was still in effect. We recognize this. 
 Why should I argue a matter that I do not disagree with? That has nothing to do with the 
 proposition. While I deny and could argue the extent that Dan takes this matter, it has nothing 
 to do with proving the proposition.
 
 4. That Terry agrees with the Pope.
 
 5. That the Sermon on the Mount agrees with the righteous principles found in the law of Moses. 
 That may be so, and still the righteousness of the law could be expected to be fulfilled in the new 
 kingdom. Rom.8:3,4; 13:8-10. That STILL has NOTHING to do with proving the proposition 
 about the four "...books...before the cross" that are supposed to belong to the Old TESTAMENT.
 
 6. That Jesus spoke "the law and the prophets"(Matt.7:12). That could be true on the particular 
 points Jesus was making, and He could STILL be expecting those righteous principles to 
 characterize those who would enter His new Kingdom. In fact, Paul says that these things OUGHT 
 to be fulfilled in us, the New Testament church. Rom.8:3,4; 13:8-10. That STILL has NOTHING 
 to do with whether there were "books...before the cross" written by four New Testament 
 Christians, whose books should be post-nailed onto the Old Testament. 
 
 ALL of the matters Dan brought up in each of his affirmatives had NOTHING to do with proving 
 the proposition he signed. If he really wanted to debate these OTHER issues, I would not have 
 signed my name to THIS proposition. Therefore, I answered only those arguments that had any 
 bearing at all on proving his proposition. Dan made it further easy for me by ADMITTING in his 
 second affirmative that there were NO BOOKS of MMLJ "before the cross". When Dan said that, 
 he blew away his own proposition that says there were BOOKS of MMLJ "before the cross". My 
 job was very simply completed. Dan disproved his own proposition and I had nothing else to do 
 but to further demonstrate the fact admitted. 
 
 As the negative of THAT proposition, it was not my job to answer any arguments about MMLJ "describing" 
 Jesus' life under the Old Law. Paul affirmed it (Gal.4:4), I knew it, Matthew affirmed it, Mark affirmed 
 it, Luke affirmed it, and John affirmed it. We all agree that Jesus lived "under the law". Any argument 
 set forth to prove that is totally UNRELATED to the proposition. The proposition affirms the following: 
 
 1. There were BOOKS of MMLJ "before the cross". 
 2. These BOOKS belong to the Old Testament and Not the New Testament. 
 3. The SCRIPTURES teach something about these BOOKS before the cross.   
 
 "Totally Ignored" Arguments 
 
 Dan fussed a lot because I "totally ignored" most of his arguments. Actually, "most" of his arguments went 
 with the assumption that he could go on talking about "MMLJBC" without first proving that there WAS such a 
 thing. His affirmations NEVER proved there were such "books...before the cross". I looked and looked for ONE 
 scripture he would bring up that had ANYTHING to do with proving his proposition. He never offered even ONE. 
 I looked for even ONE logical argument that said there were "books of MMLJ before the cross"(HIS proposition). 
 The only things that I "totally ignored" were issues unrelated to proving the proposition. 
 
 If he does not address the proposition, then I am free to show whatever fallacies of his extra verbiage I decide 
 will be pertinent to disproving his proposition and overall position. This I have done, and my job was complete by 
 the time Dan admitted in his second affirmative that these BOOKS were written "by New Testament Christians AFTER Acts 2". 
 For once, Dan told the truth. But, when he told the truth, his proposition was defeated that mentions "books...before 
 the cross". 
 
 MMLJ Wrote As "Ministers of the New Covenant" 
 
 Consider the following. I made this point in BOTH my first and second rebuttal. Dan ignored it both times. 
 So, I ask the reader to look at the passage and then answer the questions for yourself.
 
 2 Cor 3:5-8
 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God,
 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills,
 but the Spirit gives life.
 
 Questions:
 1. Were the apostles ministers of the old covenant or the new covenant?
 2. Was Matthew (an apostle) a minister of the OLD covenant when he (by the Spirit) wrote his book years after the cross?
 3. Was John (an apostle) a minister of the OLD covenant when he (by the Spirit) wrote his books years after the cross?
 4. Was Paul a minister of the OLD covenant when he spoke of Jesus' life under the law of Moses in Acts 13, Gal.4:4, etc.?
 
 7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look 
 steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,
 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?(NKJ)
 
 Questions:
 1. Was the book of Matthew a part of the law of Moses that was passing away, or was it a part of the glorious ministry of 
 the Spirit?
 2. Did Luke write one book that was passing away to Theophilus, and was his first book a "ministry of death" to Theophilus?
 3. Was Luke's second book (Acts) "the ministry of the Spirit" to Theophilus? If so, why was one book a part of the ministry 
 of death and the other of the Spirit when both were given by the Spirit long after the OT was nailed to the cross?
 4. Is John's gospel a "ministry of death"? Or is it the "ministry of the Spirit" that gives life?
 
 2 Cor 3:14-16
 14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament,
  because the veil is taken away in Christ.
 15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart.
 16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.(NKJ)
 
 Questions:
 1. When Paul wrote this (A.D.57?), were the Jews reading MML&J as part of the Old Testament? And were these books part of 
 what kept them from turning to the Lord?
 2. Does Matthew's gospel try to lift the veil on Jewish hearts and get them to turn to the Lord, or is it too part of the 
 Old Testament that the Jews wanted to cling to?
 3. By describing some OT history in Acts 13, does Paul's gospel try to lift
 the veil on their hearts, and does he use that history to turn them to the Lord?
 
 Can anyone seriously believe that MML&J are part of the ministry of death?
 Aren't these books CLEARLY part of the ministry of the Spirit of life?  
 
 SAME GOSPEL / SAME MINISTRATION OF THE SPIRIT
 
 Please notice the following carefully, and notice my notes in parenthesis in between the verses:
 
 Acts 13:16-33
 16 Then Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said, "Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen: (This sermon comes 
 years AFTER the cross, in the NT age)
 17 "The 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.
  18 "Now for a time of about forty years He put up with their ways in the wilderness.
 
 19 "And 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.
 
 21 "And 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.
 22 "And 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.'
 
 23 "From this man's seed, according to the promise, God raised up for Israel a Savior-- Jesus-- ( This is what you 
 find in Matthew 1-2).
 24 "after John had first preached, before His coming, the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. 
 (This is what you find in Matthew 3)
 25 "And 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.' (Matthew 3)
 26 "Men and brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to you the word of this 
 salvation has been sent.
 27 "For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they did not know Him, nor even the voices of the 
 Prophets which are read every Sabbath, have fulfilled them in condemning Him. (This is found in Matthew 4-27)
 28 "And though they found no cause for death in Him, they asked Pilate that He should be put to death. (This is found 
 in Matthew 27)
 29 "Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a 
 tomb. (Matthew 27).
 30 "But God raised Him from the dead. (Matthew 28)
 31 "He was seen for many days by those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses to the people. 
 (Matthew 28; Mk.16; Lk.24; Jno.20-21).
 32 "And we declare to you glad tidings-- that promise which was made to the fathers.
 33 "God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second 
 Psalm: 'You are My Son, today I have begotten You.' (NKJ)
 
 (Notice that promise or gospel to Abraham is fulfilled in the gospel of Christ so that it was not 3-4 different gospels as 
 Dan teaches. One gospel predicted, taught, and fulfilled in Jesus.)
 
 Notice that this is basically the same material we find in MML&J. Question: Why can Paul here cover the same period of 
 Jesus' life under the law, but if MML&J cover that same material with a little more detail, their books (written in the 
 NT gospel age long after the law of Moses was nailed to the cross) become OT books or part of the law of Moses? Is Paul's 
 sermon the OT law of Moses? Or, is Paul simply preaching the NT gospel? But, if Paul's sermon is not the law of Moses and 
 nailed to the cross, how can Matthew's gospel be an OT book and nailed to the cross? Why can Paul TALK about the same thing 
 as Matthew, both giving their material AFTER the law of Moses was nailed to the cross, but Matthew's gospel becomes an OT 
 book, part of the law of Moses?
 
 If Paul had WRITTEN what he said in Acts 13, adding a few more details, would his letter become a part of the law of Moses? 
 Would he have written an OT book that gets nailed to the cross after the fact? This is the position that Dan, and a few 
 others, have taken. Obviously, MML&J are presenting the same NT gospel that Jesus said He wanted "preached in ALL the world"
 (Matt.24:14; 26:13f; 28:19-20).(Dan affirmed about these verses that Jews would be inviting themselves into "Old Testament 
 Israel" and the "Old Testament kingdom" all throughout the world and tell the story of Jesus and the woman who washed His 
 feet as they continued preaching the Old Testament Gospel to each other. Can you believe it?).
 
 The gospel described in 1 Cor.15:1-6 is not another gospel. The good news is that Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection 
 makes possible the kingdom among men. The gospel of the kingdom is not one gospel, and the gospel of Jesus' death, burial, 
 and resurrection another (as Dan teaches).
 
 The DBR is the foundation upon which the kingdom can be experienced among men. Jesus wanted the gospel of the kingdom He 
 had been preaching to continue to be preached in all the world (Matt.24:14; 26:13f). It WAS continued. The Christians did 
 not trade off what Jesus wanted preached for another gospel. They continued to preach the gospel of the kingdom. Notice 
 the following:
 
 Acts 8:12
 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they 
 were baptized, both men and women.(KJV) (Was Philip preaching a different gospel than the gospel described in 1 Cor.15:1-6 
 or the one Jesus was preaching and wanted continued? No, the DBR AND the things Jesus had been teaching are among "the 
 things concerning the kingdom of God").
 
 Acts 19:8
 8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things 
 concerning the kingdom of God.(KJV) ( Wasn't he supposed to be preaching the DBR gospel described in 1 Cor.15? He was. 
 These points are among "the things concerning the kingdom of God". In fact, doesn't MML&J teach "the things concerning 
 the kingdom of God" and also present the DBR of Christ? Unless a person has an agenda, he can easily see that MML&J are 
 presenting the things concerning the kingdom that Jesus taught, as well as the DBR. Same material as we see presented in 
 the sermons in Acts).
 
 Acts 28:23
 23 So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of 
 the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening.
 (NKJ) (Isn't this precisely what Matthew does in His gospel? If so, how can it possibly be an OT book? If Paul's lesson 
 lasted from morning till evening, it is probable that he presented the same material that you find in MML&J. If he had 
 written it all out, our friends want us to believe that it would have been an OT book that was nailed to the cross. 
 Believe it if you can.
 
 Stop Using The Present Misleading Words  
 
 Instead of the words of his proposition, Dan says he means "MMLJBC equals the BOOKS that describe the events"(1st page, 
 2nd Affirmative). He is not clear, and should make his words fit what he means. To be truthful and accurate he should 
 affirm: "The events described in the New Testament Books of MMLJ are events that happened in the Old Testament period." 
 But, then, that is not what he believes, and no one would debate that proposition. In fact, I would affirm that proposition. 
 So, what does Dan mean by "MMLJBC equals the BOOKS that describe the events"? Let's see if I can clarify this for you. 
 M =Matthew. BC=Before the Cross. Matthew =a BOOK that describes the events before the cross. Conclusion: No Christian can 
 write or speak and describe events before the cross without their book or speech being an Old Testament book or speech. 
 Therefore, since Matthew wrote about events before the cross, then his writings became a part of the Old Testament, and his 
 book an Old Testament BOOK. But, there is a logical consequence if one wants to go with this reasoning. You have to apply 
 the logic across the board. So, here is the reasoning above taken to its' logical conclusion. No Christian can write or 
 speak and describe events before the cross, people before the cross, or verses of scriptures before the cross without their 
 book or speech being an Old Testament book or speech. If Christian MATTHEW cannot do it, then Christian Peter and Christian 
 Paul cannot do it.
 
 Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Hebrews, 
 James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Revelation write of some events, people, or verses from the Old Testament period. Therefore, 
 these books are partially Old Testament books. The conclusion is inescapable. It does not matter HOW MUCH one Christian 
 describes of the Old Testament period, whatever he uses in his descriptions that come from the Old Testament period, turns 
 at least that much of his book into a partial Old Testament BOOK. If not, why not?
 
 Remember, that when Dan says, "MMLJBC" (and he says it so much it is beyond "repetitious"), he is saying that these BOOKS 
 describe events that happened in the Old Testament period, and THEREFORE these PORTIONS of their books are Old Testament 
 BOOKS. We must conclude, then, that ANY OTHER Christian who "described" events, people, or verses from the Old Testament 
 period wrote a PARTIAL Old Testament Book. If not, why not? It is inescapable.
 
 When Dan says "MMLJBC", he is clearly saying that Matthew wrote a book that contains PART of the Old Testament. Well, what 
 about the other part? The resurrection and the great commission? He says that was before Pentecost and Acts 2. So, Dan 
 concludes that this part of Matthew goes in NEITHER testament. So, Dan's conclusion is that Matthew, a New Testament 
 Christian, wrote a PARTIAL Old Testament and a PARTIAL NON-Testament BOOK. Mark, a New Testament Christian, wrote a 
 PARTIAL Old Testament and a PARTIAL NON-Testament Book. Luke, a New Testament Christian, wrote a PARTIAL Old Testament 
 and a PARTIAL NON-Testament book, and John wrote a PARTIAL Old Testament and a PARTIAL NON-Testament book. This is clearly 
 what he is saying.
 
 Now, we have simply taken his logic a step further. When ANY OTHER New Testament Christian, such as Peter or Paul, wrote 
 about events that happened in the Old Testament period, then THAT PART of their book is PART of an Old Testament BOOK. 
 For example, when Paul talked about the children of Israel being baptized unto Moses, he is "describing" things that happened during the Old Testament period. THEREFORE, this PART of 1 Corinthians is an Old Testament BOOK. When Paul "described" Jesus on the night He was betrayed (1 Cor.11), then this PART of 1 Corinthians is an Old Testament BOOK. Thus, we must conclude that if Matthew, a new Testament Christian, wrote a Part Old Testament and Part Non-Testament Book, then PAUL, a New Testament Christian, wrote a Part Old Testament and PART New Testament Book. Thus, we must, to follow suite with Dan's "MMLJBC", write as much about ActsBC, RomansBC, 1CorinthiansBC. etc. Now the book of Romans contains about 41 quotes of the Old Testament and several references to events and characters of the Old Testament. Therefore, all of this is clearly "RomansBC" (Romans "before the cross"). 1 Corinthians clearly describes several events and words that happened or were said "before the cross". Therefore, to follow suite with Dan's "MMLJBC", we must spend an equal amount of time talking about "1 CorinthiansBC", and declare that 
 "1 CorinthiansBC" is a book that "belongs to the Old Testament". Just think about "HebrewsBC". It is the SAME logic, 
 and MUST be applied consistently.
 
 Brethren, if you let yourself get caught up in Dan's invented terminology, then use it consistently. The fact is that 
 there was NO MMLJ "before the cross", just as there was no "ActsBC" or "1 CorinthiansBC" or "HebrewsBC". That being the 
 case, we can nail down Dan's proposition as a total error. It does not express any kind of logical truth.
 
 Now, I realize, as I've said before, that other brethren believe that all that Jesus said before the cross is inapplicable 
 because it was said during the Old Testament period. These brethren do not necessarily believe that MMLJ are Old Testament 
 BOOKS. Now, we can debate that issue. But, that is not the essence of what DAN has said. He goes a step further than these 
 other brethren. He has signed the proposition that SAYS there were "books...before the cross". He further uses the logic, 
 different than these other brethren, that we can make these BOOKS into Old Testament BOOKS. He further uses the logic that 
 we should think of "MMLJBC" and make these PARTS of BOOKS, Old Testament BOOKS or PARTS of non-Testament BOOKS. While some 
 would have liked for me to have addressed the concerns of these other brethren, that is not the essence of THIS particular 
 proposition. When a man formulates a proposition, such as Dan has, he must be ready to PROVE THAT proposition. If Dan and 
 others do not like me disproving the proposition because of the wording, then they should word their proposition in such a 
 way that they can substantiate the wording, and they should CEASE using such wording in all their writings. If the wording 
 is inaccurate, then the proposition fails and cannot be substantiated by ANY evidence, AND every time such inaccurate 
 wording is used in ALL OTHER documents, such as his web-site, then such inaccurate wording should be totally abandoned 
 because it is false and misleading.
 
 We believe that Dan's proposition has failed, and that EVERY time he uses the abbreviation "MMLJBC", it has false 
 implications, and that if anyone accepts the terminology, they have to accept the same logic of thinking of "1CorinthiansBC" 
 and other PARTIAL-TESTAMENT BOOKS.
 
 Now, if someone wants to debate another issue, like: "The scriptures teach that all that Jesus said before the cross was 
 nailed to the cross", or "The scriptures teach that all that Jesus said before the cross belongs to the Old Testament", 
 we will be happy to debate those propositions. However, Dan and I have not been debating either of those propositions. 
 We have been debating the 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. 
 
 I have shown that THIS proposition is incorrect. It is incorrect for three main reasons. The proposition affirms the 
 following:
 
 1. There were BOOKS of MMLJ "before the cross". 
 2. These BOOKS belong to the Old Testament and Not the New Testament. 
 3. The SCRIPTURES teach something about these BOOKS before the cross.
 
 I have shown that there was NO "MMLJBC" just as there was no "ActsBC" or "1CorinthiansBC". To think in terms of a BOOK 
 "before the cross" that was written by New Testament Christians, is totally false reasoning. Therefore, Dan should STOP 
 affirming such a proposition and STOP using such misleading terminology.
 
 I leave it to the reader to judge whether Dan proved his proposition. May God bless all who read and study this debate.
 
 More answers to the same basic arguments Dan has been using and these other propositions can be seen by joining my
  Yahoo Group at: Subscribe: understandingMMLJCorrectly-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
 
 A booklet answering these other propositions can be downloaded at:
 
 http://y42.briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/terrybentonus/lst?.dir=/My+Documents&.view =l
 
 Study and rightly divide the word of truth. But do not get caught up in inaccurate terms and ideas as expressed in the 
 affirmative proposition of this debate.
 
 Terry W. Benton