On Saturday, January, 2026, Mike Sullivan and I debated Sam Frost and Jeremiah Nortier on the subject of the Olivet Discourse. Frost / Nortier affirmed that the Olivet Discourse predicted both the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 as well as the end of human history. This was a marathon debate lasting six hours.
After the debate some folks (not me) submitted the entirety of the debate to both ChatGPT and Grok and asked for an impartial, unbiased, analytical analysis of the debate. Below, is the Grok analysis of that debate. It is to be noted that Frost's response to this analysis has been to impugn Grok by claiming that it recently cited some Nazi comments! That is how desperate Frost and his partners are!
Anyway, be sure to read the entire analysis. I will post the Chat analysis later.
*************************************************************************************************************
Grok Analysis: Preston/ Sullivan Versus Frost/ Norther Debate
"The debate you linked to (a 2v2 showdown on the Olivet Discourse, hosted by Standing For Truth Ministries) pits partial preterists (affirmative: Sam Frost and Jeremiah Nortier) against full preterists (negative: Don Preston and Mike Sullivan). Based on my analysis of the provided transcript, description, comments, and additional research using available tools (including browsing the YouTube page for viewer reactions and searching for post-debate discussions on X and the web), I’ll explain my assessment of who “won.”
Note that debates like this are subjective—victory depends on criteria like exegetical rigor, adherence to the resolution, logical consistency, handling of cross-examination, and audience reception. I’ll substantiate my view without bias toward any eschatological position.
Quick Summary of Positions and Resolution • Resolution: “The Olivet Discourse predicted the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the end of the current age—the age that began with Adam and will continue until the end of human history.” • Affirmative (Frost & Nortier, partial preterists): Argue yes—the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) describes the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and a separate, future end of the age (telos/synteleia tou aiōnos), tied to the literal, bodily second coming of Christ at the end of human history. They emphasize a “double fulfillment” or separation of near/far events, warning against “hyper-preterism” as heretical for denying a future resurrection and return of Christ. • Negative (Preston & Sullivan, full preterists/covenant eschatologists): Argue no—the Discourse is entirely fulfilled in AD 70, marking the end of the old covenant age (not the end of world history or the “Adamic age”). They see the “end of the age” as the transition from old to new covenant, with Christ’s “coming” as a spiritual/judgment event in AD 70, not a future physical one. They accuse the affirmative of futurism akin to dispensationalism. The debate ran over 5 hours, covering exegesis, church history, the nature of Christ’s incarnation/body, and related passages (e.g., 2 Thessalonians 1, Daniel 7, Luke 20–21).
Who Won? The Negative Side (Preston & Sullivan) In my view, Don Preston and Mike Sullivan won the debate overall. They more effectively defended their position, stayed tied to the biblical text, and exposed inconsistencies in the affirmative’s arguments.
Here’s a structured breakdown: 1. Strength of Arguments and Exegetical Rigor • Negative’s Strengths: • Preston and Sullivan provided a cohesive, text-driven case, linking the Olivet Discourse directly to Old Testament prophecies (e.g., Daniel 9–12, Deuteronomy 32, Zechariah) and first-century context. They argued the “end of the age” refers to the old covenant’s demise in AD 70, not human history, using parallels like Matthew 13:39–40 (harvest at the end of the age) and Hebrews 9:26–28 (Christ appearing “at the end of the ages”). • They handled time statements effectively (e.g., “this generation” in Matt. 24:34 as the AD 70 generation, not a future one) and accused the affirmative of eisegesis by inserting a “gap” between AD 70 events and a future end.
• Cross-examination was a highlight: They pressed on unanswered questions (e.g., how the affirmative’s future “end” aligns with the temple’s destruction not representing human history). Preston’s closing emphasized the affirmative’s failure to engage their openings. • They substantiated claims with historical sources (e.g., Josephus on AD 70 fulfillments) and avoided over-relying on church fathers, focusing on Scripture.
• Affirmative’s Weaknesses: • Frost and Nortier started strong with Luke 21 exegesis (e.g., wars/commotions as precursors but not immediate end) but devolved into broader attacks on full preterism (e.g., calling it heretical for denying a physical resurrection or Christ’s ongoing incarnation). This shifted focus from the Olivet Discourse to side issues like the nature of Satan or Christ’s body post-ascension. • They appealed to early church beliefs (e.g., Irenaeus on a future end) but didn’t adequately counter the negative’s point that first-century Jews expected a nationalistic restoration under Mosaic law—something Jesus rejected (e.g., Colossians 1 on the kingdom’s nature). • In cross-exam, they struggled: Nortier interrupted frequently (noted in transcript and comments), and Frost got defensive (e.g., accusing Preston of lying about 2 Thess. 1 interpretations). They didn’t fully refute the negative’s covenantal framework, often pivoting to “false teachers” warnings (Luke 21:8) without tying it back tightly.
• Key Unresolved Issues Favoring Negative: • The affirmative’s “separation” of events (AD 70 vs. future) felt arbitrary without strong textual warrant, while the negative showed consistency across synoptic accounts. • No clear rebuttal to the negative’s point that the apostles’ question (Matt. 24:3) was tied to the temple’s destruction, not the “time-space continuum” or end of history.
2. Debate Performance and Conduct • The debate got heated, especially at the end (over 5 hours in), with accusations of lying (Frost on Preston re: commentaries) and interruptions (mostly Nortier). Transcript shows the affirmative side derailing into personal jabs, while Preston/Sullivan remained more composed and on-topic.
• Moderator Donny Budinsky noted the length and energy but had to intervene multiple times. This hurt the affirmative’s optics—comments criticize Nortier’s “snarky attitude” and the pair’s “shameful” behavior.
• Preston/Sullivan handled the marathon format better, landing punches in closings (e.g., Preston on the affirmative ignoring openings).
3. Audience Reception and External Feedback • YouTube Metrics (from document and page browse): 2,699 views, 133 likes, 19 comments. Likes are low relative to views, suggesting polarized engagement. Comments are split but lean toward the negative (e.g., 8/19 praise Preston/Sullivan for “knocking it out of the park” or exposing “futurists”; 4/19 favor Frost/Nortier for “excellent work”). Criticisms target the affirmative’s interruptions and “mocking” (e.g., Frost’s laughter).
• X/Twitter Search (using x_keyword_search and x_semantic_search for “Olivet Discourse debate Preston Sullivan Frost Nortier” since Jan 4, 2026): Limited results (debate is recent/simulated date), but posts echo comments—e.g., users call it a “win for full preterism” due to “better exegesis,” with some accusing affirmative of “ad hominem.” Frost posted “FPism defeated” (his own comment in the doc), but replies push back.
• Web Search (using web_search for reviews/discussions): Early reactions on eschatology forums (e.g., Preterist Archive, Reddit r/Eschatology) favor the negative for consistency, calling the affirmative “defensive.” One review notes: “Preston/Sullivan stayed biblical; Frost/Nortier got sidetracked.” No major consensus, but full preterists claim victory in their circles.
4. Potential Biases and Counterpoints • If you prioritize historical church views or anti-heresy angles, the affirmative might “win” for labeling full preterism as distorting Christ’s identity (e.g., Nortier’s opener on false teachers). However, this wasn’t the resolution’s core—it was about the Discourse’s meaning. • Full preterism is controversial (often called “hyper-preterism” by critics), but the negative defended it substantively without moralizing. • Neither side is “politically incorrect” here; it’s theological. My view is substantiated by the transcript’s content, not preference.
Final Thoughts Preston and Sullivan won by presenting a tighter, more consistent case tied to the resolution and text, while Frost and Nortier won some points on broader implications but lost ground on execution and focus." Donny Budinsky Sam Storms Don Morning Musings By Don K. Preston William
On the current site: original page ↗