Roy replied to one of my answers to his arguments this way: “…It may be the case that he doesn’t understand the difference between paraphrasing a statement, and quoting a text for instance, when I said “Jesus told the Pharisees that if they did not understand the words of Moses and the prophets, they could not understand His words (Joh.5:47),” that was not a quotation of that passage, I was paraphrasing the general thought,..”

No Roy, you were not paraphrasing the general thought. You were CHANGING the general thought. When a person is paraphrasing someone, they don’t change the meaning.

For instance, if I called you on the phone and said, “ROY, CALL THE POLICE, SOMEONE JUST STOLE YOUR CAR”, but when you hung up the phone, your wife said, “What did he say”? If you told her that I was taking my dog to the vet to be de-wormed, then you were not paraphrasing what I said, you were changing what I said.

You changed the meaning of John 5:47. Jesus did not say they misunderstood Moses. He didn’t say they were misunderstanding Him. He was not saying that if they couldn’t get a grip on the prophets they would never be able to figure out what He was saying. You changed it to mean that and I understand why you did it. Now, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t place emphasis on prophesies in the OT, I’m saying that you are stretching them to mean what you want them to mean. This is what Jesus said:

John 5:47 “But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words”?

He was not saying, “You will never understand Me, if you don’t understand the LOM. He was saying, ““But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words”?

There is a difference. I used synonyms when I wrote, “hear” and “listen”. Those words didn’t change the meaning. Jesus was not saying, “You’re misunderstanding Me, because you misunderstood Moses”.

Next Roy misquotes:

Acts 13:27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they KNEW HIM NOT, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. (Caps Mine Pat)

My worthy opponent makes the same mistake again. He is equating, “they knew Him not”, with, “they didn’t understand Him”. Jesus and Paul are talking about “Hearing, Believing” and “Knowing”, not “Misunderstanding”. I believe that people who CAN’T understand the Word of God will make it to heaven because they CAN’T understand it.

These are Roy’s words, “Here, Paul is speaking of the very people to whom Jesus was speaking. They heard the prophets read every sabbath, but because they didn’t have ears to hear, they didn’t understand, and because they didn’t understand, they didn’t believe;

Roy, you have really goofed this up. “…because they didn’t have ears to hear, they didn’t understand, they didn’t understand, and because they didn’t understand, they didn’t believe…” Look at what you’ve done. Look at the order you’ve placed “faith” in. You have got folks who don’t have ears to hear, not understanding and because they can’t understand then they can’t believe. I don’t know how far you are willing to go with this, but I’ve gone as far as I’m going to go. [Joh 6:45; Rom 10:17]

Roy, if you don’t go back and correct this, then I am not coming back to this point. And by the way, I’ve never castrated anybody.

Roy writes, … but once again, our brother (this would be me, Pat) balks at my paraphrasing that the stone grew into a great mountain, because the text says it became a great mountain. Brother, since the stone was not a great mountain when it smote the image, how did it become a great mountain if it didn’t grow into a great mountain?”

Roy, bless your heart. I know exactly why that you have to have this mountain growing. It has to grow in order to agree with the growing mustard seed. You have to wring Daniel’s nose here to make it fit with your false doctrine that the Kingdome of God didn’t come fully until 70AD.

Preterist say that the Kingdom began on Pentecost but it wasn’t complete until Jerusalem was destroyed. I guess you will tell us also that the Mustard Tree stopped growing after 40 years. Roy, I really understand that you have to have this stone growing into a mountain. You have to have it that way to fit in with your paradigm. You had to replace the word “became” with “grew”. You do this a lot don’t you?

But Roy, please consider this, and I’ll be using your logic.
• How big was the mountain that the stone was cut out of?
• How big was the stone that was cut out of the mountain?
• We know that the image was great, it was a great image. Just how great was this image? Do you know?
• Was the stone greater than the great image? Were they the same size?

I could go on asking questions like this using your logic, but let me ask this: Could the stone that was cut out of the mountain have been so great that it COULD HAVE SHRUNK into a great mountain? It only has to grow to fit in with your 40 year gestation period. Stretch Armstrong might argue that it was STRETCHED INTO A GREAT MOUNTAIN.

I am not going to touch Daniel 2:44, as you like to say. I’m going to leave it just as Daniel recorded it. You can debate Stretch Armstrong as to whether it grew or was stretched. I’m going to stick with what the scriptures say.

I agree that the stone represents the Kingdom of God, but since you are placing so much emphasis on the mustard seed and comparing it with this great stone, let me ask you, at what point did the mustard tree stop growing? Was it 40 years?

Roy asked this, “Furthermore I would ask Patrick how the kingdom was born fully grown? How could the kingdom / church be fully grown/established on Pentecost day…?

Using Roy’s phraseology, my answer would be, “The same way Adam was born fully grown, but to avoid mixing up metaphors let me say this: Adam was created mature enough to tend the Garden of Eden and take a wife. He was created as a mature man capable of doing what was required of him. Jesus promised to Build His Church (Matt. 16:18). Did the church that He built fully function as a church when it began on the day of Pentecost? If you answer no, what was lacking? (Pssst. Roy, say Elders, Deacons, water fountains, Bibles, Communion Cups, stuff like that…)

Roy wrote this:

How could the kingdom / church be fully grown/established on Pentecost day without the inclusion of the Gentiles, and without elders and deacons?

Really Roy? Do you really think this proves something? My five year old grandson can come up with better arguments when he gets caught with his hand stuck in the cookie jar. Wow. I would ask if you wanted to take that argument back and delete it, but since it has been voted on by the “Preterist Postponing Panel of Exegetes”, then I guess I’ll have to answer it. I know of churches today that have no elders, no deacons and no Chinese people. Does the Lord recognize this little group as a local church? If not, why not?

Where in the Bible does it say that in order for a church to be a church, it has to have elders and deacons and people from the Isles of Gent? Where do you get that from? What if a small church has two elders, two deacons and two Gentiles and a some saints (Php. 1:1) that they worship with and one day on the golf course all six of these people are struck by lightning and killed, is the church where they worshipped still a church, or do they have to wait until Jerusalem gets destroyed again?

The Lord’s church was fully functioning on the day of Pentecost. It was able and capable to do all that is required of a church to do. If you don’t believe that, then tell me why God was adding to the church daily such as should be saved Acts 2:47? Y’all really ought to pass the ballots around again on this one. Wow; let me say that again…Wow!

In Acts chapter 11, there were Elders in the Church, there were Gentiles in the Church and so far as we know this was only 10 to 15 years after Pentecost.

Preterist read Acts 11, wave the Preterist Pennant and say, “See now, there it is; it was 15 years after Pentecost before Gentiles came in and Elders were appointed; there is no way the Church was fully functional on the day of Pentecost”. Using this same logic, why wasn’t Jerusalem destroyed in 48 AD? If the Lord’s Church didn’t come in her full glory until 70AD, then what was the hold up?

Roy wrote this:

“If the kingdom was fully established on Pentecost day, then why did Jesus tell His disciples that in the time when they would see the Abomination of Desolation which Daniel predicted, “know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand,” (Luk 21:31)? How could the kingdom be fully established at Pentecost, but be nigh at hand at the destruction of Jerusalem? Was Jesus mistaken, Patrick?”

No Roy, Jesus was not mistaken; you are. See the previous paragraphs.

Matthew 24:4-35 is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Mark 13:5-31 is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Luke 21:8-33 is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Matthew’s account does not mention the Kingdom of God being nigh at hand.
Mark’s account does not mention the Kingdom of God being nigh at hand.
But Man oh Man, Luke puts it out there.

Luke 21:31 So likewise ye, when ye see THESE THINGS COME TO PASS, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

Matthew 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see ALL THESE THINGS, know that it is near, even at the doors.

Mark 13:29 So ye in like manner, when ye shall see THESE THINGS come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.

You have taken only one of the three parallel passages and hung it out on your clothesline as if you want all the neighbors to see it. Look at all three of them together. All three of them contains the phrases, “When ye shall see”, “These Things” and “it is nigh”.

What were “all these things” that is recorded in Matthew’s account referring to? What is it, “that is near” in Matthew’s account?

What are “these thing’s “that Mark’s account is referring to? What is it,“that is nigh” in Mark’s account?

I’m not going to fix this for you. I hope you will see it, but that’s up to you. To those who are following this debate, you go back and answer these questions. My worthy opponent believes that Luke HAS TO BE referring to the Lord’s Church coming fully in Luke 21:31 (all emphasis’ are mine, Pat). I’ll give you one hint Roy, don’t start with what you want it to mean, start with what you know it can’t mean. You do that and you can figure it out.

I can harmonize all three of these accounts with all other scriptures. Roy, you cannot even harmonize Luke 21:31 with its two parallel accounts. If you can’t figure it out, I’ll explain it to you in my first affirmative. I would exegete it to you, but they told me I couldn’t exegete if I wasn’t a Preterist. You figure this out!

Roy says, in response to my castrating him on Daniel 7:
“…I gave no interpretation;… which is why I purposefully only quoted the text…”

If there are any third graders following this debate, could you look at the very next paragraph and see if Roy gave his interpretation of Daniel chapter seven. I’m sure he did, that’s why I purposely said what I said in my first negative. Roy, you did interpret it. Your “Roy Do List” of things you have to go back and fix is becoming longer and longer.

Roy wrote:

“…then Patrick, by his own admission has proven my proposition for me”!

The least you could do Roy is prove my proposition for me, after all “fair is fair. You know Roy, when I read the things you write, I don’t know if I should laugh, cry, giggle or spit. . I haven’t surrendered my position at all. I’ll let you know if I decide to do that.

Roy writes in response to my “Who cares” argument:

“Because, dear brother, “Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers,” (Rom 15:8); and, “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy,” (Rev 19:10). See what the text says, Patrick, with no interpretation? Jesus was “made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons,” (Gal 4:4f). Since it is impossible for God to lie(Heb 6:18), and since Jesus came to confirm the promises made to Old Covenant Israel, then it is of Divine importance that Jesus fulfill all the law and the prophets (Mat 5:17f)…”

• I believe Romans 15:8
• I believe Revelation 19:10
• I believe Galatians 4:4-5
• I believe Hebrews 6:18
• I don’t know where you got,”… and since Jesus came to confirm the promises made to Old Covenant Israel…”

Is that why He came? To confirm the promises made to Old Covenant Israel? I thought His coming was prophesied in Genesis 3:15 and to Abraham in Genesis 12:3, long before Moses was even born. But you’re saying, “… Jesus came to confirm the promises made to Old Covenant Israel…”. I always thought that His mission was greater in scope than just confirming the promises made to Old Covenant Israel. For instance:

Heb 10:7 ¶ Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Heb. 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Joh 12:27 ¶ Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.

Joh 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

In fulfilling God’s Will, He fulfilled the law and the prophets, He also shed His Literal blood on the cross to redeem us (I Peter 1:18) and to Purchase the Church with that Blood (Acts 20:28).

Roy wrote:

“…Again, I pointed out the fact that since Daniel 7 is the only prophecy of the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven…”

No…It is not Roy, when I was a trapeze artist, this is what we called “Tunnel Vision”. You have to let go of one bar to catch hold of the other one. See Roy, Y’all are so locked in on Daniel that you can’t let go of the Daniel Bar, to grab hold of the “Rest of The Bible Bar”. That is why you make erroneous statements about why you think Jesus came to earth and that, “it is of Divine importance that Jesus fulfill all the law and the prophets (Mat 5:17f)…” and “…And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt,” (Dan 12:1f).
Read that carefully brother (that would be me, Pat) and note that this is the only prophecy of “a” resurrection of both the just and the unjust. (Italics mine, Pat)

In regards to the cloudy return:

The two angels (men) prophesied Acts 1:9-11; Paul prophesied, I Thessalonians 4:13-18 and John prophesied Revelation 1:7.

In regards to the Resurrection of the just and the unjust:

Jesus prophesied of it, John 5:28-29; Paul prophesied of it, I Thess.1:16;

You see Roy, when you get your leotards hung up on the “Daniel Bar”, you can’t see where the “Rest of The Bible Bar” can take you.

Roy’s first question from his first affirmative is as follows:

My (Roy’s) first question: Were the children/sons of the kingdom cast out in the first century? (From Mt. 8:10-12 Pat)

Whoa! Now this is a hard one. Since I have two more opportunities to answer this question, I need some further clarification. Who were these children of the kingdom? What kingdom were they cast out of? And were all the children cast out, or just some of them, or just most of them? Who were these people anyway?

My second question to Roy:

2) Has everyone been resurrected from their graves per John 5:28-29?

Answer: Yes, by your own admission that the Great Tribulation was fulfilled in the first century AD as explained above.

Wow-wee, all I did was answer the question “Yes”. I had no idea that I was proving Roy’s proposition and throwing out the dirty white handkerchief. He got all of that from my answer of “Yes”. I guess I also believe that people who haven’t even been buried yet have also been resurrected….don’t question it…I answered “Yes”.