(Emphasis Mine, Pat will be (EMP)
Roy wrote this: (From now on will be, (RWT)
(RWT) “…so, I have to waste words explaining the difference even though Patrick said that he agreed with my point which he is contesting…”
Pat’s Reply: Roy you weren’t wasting words. I see now that I did indeed overlook something I wrote. I appreciate you pointing out my mistake. I did say, “I agree with Roy up to…” I’m sorry for the confusion. Where I drew the line and the way I wrote my statement does make me contradict myself; I admit it. So Roy, accept my apology please and let me fix my mistake and make my thoughts plainer.
I realize there are passages where Jesus says, “hear and understand”; passages such as Matthew 15:10 and Mark 7:14. However John 5:47 is not talking about understanding the LOM and the Prophets and how they fit in with the doctrine of Christ. That is what you claim, but it is not what the scriptures are teaching in John 5:47.
That is why I took issue with it. You might think that changing a word or an entire thought in a particular passage is harmless, but taking that step causes you to take the next step in other places to bolster the first adaptation and it just continues to snowball. The statement below is what you wrote in your first affirmative. It is one of the many, that I took issue with.
“Jesus told the Pharisees that if they did not understand the words of Moses and the prophets, they could not understand His words (John 5:47)”.
Pat’s thought on Roy’s assumption above:
1. You have to assume that Jesus is speaking to Pharisees because they are not even mentioned in chapter 5 or 6. You just assumed it. (EMP)
2. You have changed the meaning of the verse from believing Christ and Moses, to understanding how the LOM and the Prophets fit in with Christ. Your interpretation is not anywhere near what John 5:47 is teaching. But you claim it is anyway. (EMP)
3. There is no mention of prophets or a prophet in John 5, but you claim that all these things you assumed signals the downfall of what you call futurism. (EMP)
Pat continues: Please believe me Roy; I know the difference between paraphrasing a thought and quoting a passage. You did not paraphrase John 5:47, you changed its meaning. The three verses below are not in any way speaking of a failure to understand Moses and the prophets. They are showing the hypocrisy of those who claim to hear Moses, yet choose not to hear Christ, and the inconsistency of claiming to believe Moses, yet not believing in Christ. (EMP)
The apostle John writes: John 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? (EMP)
(RWT) “…I demonstrated that the general thought was accurate by quoting Acts 13:27 where Paul says, “For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets..." and said that "because they didn’t have ears to hear, they didn’t understand, and because they didn’t understand, they didn’t believe;" (Roy’s emphasis)
Pat further explains the damage that Roy is doing to the scriptures;
· Roy; the only thing you demonstrated was that you could care less what a verse really teaches; what matters to you is what you want it to teach. As you have repeatedly demonstrated. (EMP)
· Roy, your general thought was not accurate. The general thought was accurate only in your head, but to everyone else; you changed it. (EMP)
· You could have quoted Goliath and it still wouldn’t support your false belief. Acts 13:27 doesn’t bolster what you claim John 5:47 is teaching. You could have quoted, “Jesus Wept”. That verse fits in just as well as Acts 13:27 to support your view; they neither fit.
· Roy, you quote 21 words from Acts 13:27 and then draw a conclusion that has nothing to do with what you are claiming.
· “Because they didn’t have ears…didn’t understand…didn’t believe…”
Pat writes: Below is Acts 13:27….what you wrote above is 21 words of scripture and a bucket of flapdoodle.
Doctor Luke wrote: 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.”
(RWT) “…Stunningly, Patrick’s sentiment here seems to indicate that he thinks people who don’t understand God’s word can still obey the gospel.
Pat writes: Roy draws this conclusion because I made the statement below…Pat slaps his forehead as his jaw drop and answers.
· “I believe that people who CAN’T understand the Word of God will make it to heaven because they CAN’T understand it.” Roy, maybe I should have used the words, unable, incompetent, incapable or mentally deficient. (EMP)
· But, since we have been arguing back and forth on the difference in hearing, believing and knowing versus understanding. I thought my meaning was plain. I stated that someone who CAN NOT UNDERSTAND God’s word will make it to heaven because they CAN NOT UNDERSTAND God’s word. I was not talking about someone who chooses to not understand; I was speaking of those who CAN NOT UNDERSTAND, people such as infants or someone who can never comprehend what the scriptures teach. I don’t know how you drew your conclusion. (EMP)
·
(RWT) “…the phrase “because they knew Him not” is defined exactly as meaning they “didn’t understand” Him!...)
Pat’s Reply: Once again, Roy opens up a can of spinach, blows smoke out of his pipe and goes to beating the daylights out of Strong’s Greek Lexicon. Below, I have shown the complete definition. According to Strong’s, “AGNOEO” has more than one definition, one of which is, “not understand”, but there are other definitions to this word. So I guess that it’s only defined exactly if you feed all the other definitions to the goldfish.
Acts 13:27 “…“because they knew Him not”, <agnoeo>him <touton> not <agnoeo>…” (EMP)
Strong’s # 50. agnoew agnoeo, ag-no-eh'-o
· from 1 (as a negative particle) and 3539; not to know(through lack of information or intelligence); by implication, to ignore (through disinclination):--(be) ignorant(-ly), not know, not understand, unknown. (EMP)
(RWT) “Tell us Patrick, what is the order in which Jesus placed faith?
The apostle Paul wrote this: ‘For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?...For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” (Rom 10:13-17).’” (Roy’s emphasis)
Pat’s answer: After hearing. (Rom 10:13-17)
Pat says, “Roy Castrated me when he wrote”:
(RWT) “…Brother, I didn’t say you castrated me, please pay more attention to the words; I said you CASTIGATED me, which means “to reprimand severely.” This is a perfect illustration of the way you [mis]read and [mis]handle the scriptures as well. You reconstruct and redefine the scriptures based on what you already believe, regardless of how plainly the text reads!” (Roy’s emphasis)
Pat replied: I will certainly agree that all of what you said in the previous paragraph is going on; you are right about that, but I’m not the one doing it. Roy, I was trying to lighten the mood. I thought it was funny. I’m sorry that you didn’t. I didn’t misread or mishandle your words or the scriptures.
(RWT) “…how could the kingdom/ church be fully grown/established on Pentecost day without the inclusion of the Gentiles, and without elders and deacons?” (Roy’s emphasis)
(RWT) “Then, Patrick in attempting to answer my question says, “Using Roy’s phraseology, my answer would be, ‘The same way Adam was born fully grown...’” Sorry brother, but Adam was not born, he was created from the dust of the ground, remember? Now who is changing the words and the general thought?“ (Roy’s emphasis)
Pat’s Reply: Dear reader, read what Roy wrote above and then read what I wrote in answer to his question in my second negative. This time, you can read it all. My complete answer to his question is as follows:
“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...” Roy, are you even reading what I write? Are you paying attention? What are you really focused on when you should be reading what I wrote?
Roy continues: “Patrick goes on to say, Did the church that He built fully function as a church when it began on the day of Pentecost? This is another misunderstanding! Tell us Patrick, when a baby is born, does its body fully function? “
Pat’s reply: I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt Roy. It’s possible that you’ve never seen a baby born, but they don’t exit the womb like an erector set. They aren’t born inside a box with “SOME ASSEMBLY REQUIRED”printed on the box. They are complete little people. Everything on them works. So my answer to this question is “YES”. The newborn is capable of doing EVERYTHING that God expects of it. It eats and makes the stock prices at Huggies increase. It cries, goo’s and gah’s. It is a fully functional baby. It is doing everything that God designed it to do. Adam was fully functional when he was created. He functioned fully as God designed him to do. You really need to start paying attention to what I’m writing. And the church was fully functional on the day of Pentecost. You know Roy, if you can see through a coat hanger, you can see this. Why can’t you see it? Are your eyes closed…or is your Bible closed? (EMP)
Roy continues with this thought. He writes:
“…in whom all the building BEING fitly joined together GROWS INTO a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are BEING BUILT TOGETHER into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit,” (Eph 2:19ff, KJ3; bolds and caps for emphasis RR).
Is Paul talking about the kingdom / church here Patrick? Do you see that Paul said the household of God, and the building GROWS INTO a holy temple, a dwelling place of God? Why would Paul say that the kingdom / church was being built up, and, being fitly joined together, and, grows into a holy temple, if the household/building/holy temple was fully functional at Pentecost as you assert? Was Paul wrong, Patrick? ; bolds and caps for emphasis RR).
Pat’s reply: No Roy; once again, Paul was not wrong; you are. Dear reader, my opponent, for some reason, cannot wrap his mind around the fact that something can be fully functional and yet continue to grow. A baby is fully functional, but it continues to grow, as a human does. It is fully functional as a human from the womb until its death. On Pentecost the church was fully functional but it continues to grow even today. If you can see through a leaf rake, you can see that…unless you purposely close your eyes.
You have spent a thousand words in an attempt to explain away 11 words in the following verse:
Colossians 2:14 “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;” (EMP)
Pat continues: You can line this verse up however you want to. You can quote Paul, the prophets and the Brady Bunch in an attempt to tell us that it says what it says, but it doesn’t mean what it means. However; at the end of the day and despite all of your wrangling; it still teaches that the Law of Moses was taken out of the way and Nailed to the cross.
(RWT) “…He (this would be me, Pat) attempts to negate the words of Jesus recorded by Luke, by saying that neither Matthew nor Mark mentioned the kingdom being nigh at hand… Patrick, does baptism have to be mentioned in every record of conversion for us to realize that because it is established in Acts 2:38, that all cases of conversion included baptism, even if it is not mentioned?...”
Pat replies: No Roy; baptism does not have to be mentioned in every record of conversion. The reason it doesn’t is because of the other scriptures that harmonize with the scriptures that do mention it. This is where you fail to grasp my argument. Taking all three parallel accounts (of Luke 21:31) and harmonizing them with one another and with all other scriptures you can see, well, maybe you can’t, but everyone else can see that the kingdom of God in Luke 21:31 is talking about something other than the church. You admitted it in answer to my very first question put to you… I paraphrase here: it depends on the context for its definition as to how you use ‘kingdom’. You do have eyes to see, but they’re closed; you just don’t want to see.
Roy continues: “…and thus, Patrick, once again has just contradicted his own assertion that the law of Moses (LOM) ended at the cross, because if Genesis 3:15 predicted the coming of Messiah, and Paul is applying that prophecy (from the LOM) during his ministry, then the LOM could not have been fulfilled at the cross!
Pat scratches his head, rolls his eyes, screams at the dog and replies: Wow! How many gorilla biscuits do you eat every morning? You need to turn your television off when you are studying the Bible. As much as you charge me with mistakes, how could you mistake Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 12:3 with the Law of Moses? I’ve done answered this once. Get you a cup of coffee and go back and reread what I wrote. ADAM AND ABRAHAM DID NOT LIVE UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES. MOSES WASN’T EVEN BORN YET. When Paul quoted the promise made to Abraham there was no Law of Moses. In fact there wasn’t even a “MOSES” yet. However; Roy wants to engage the LOM before God does and he wants to allow it to exist forty years after it was dead. (EMP)
(RWT) “…See that Patrick? Jesus, retroactively tied Able to the administration of Moses!”
Pat replies: No Roy, I do not see that. Were you on some kind of medication when you saw it? You ought to write a children’s book and call it;”Runyon’s Fairy Tales”. You just made that up. Where in the world does the Bible say or teach that “Jesus, retroactively tied Able to the administration of Moses!”? I know you want it to say that in Hebrews 11, but it doesn’t. But, I am sure that is where you’ll take us. (EMP)
(RWT) Patrick objects by saying, “Jesus prophesied of it, John 5:28-29; Paul prophesied of it, I Thess.1:16,” again demonstrating that he is not paying attention to what he reads as he cites 1Th 1:16 a non-existent verse.
Pat just shakes his head and replies: Roy, you need to follow Alice down i the Rabbit Hole and have her give you one of those pills that makes you grow up. Are you seriously contending with a typo? Are you so unfamiliar with God’s word that you are not aware of what I and II Thessalonians are teaching? You either don’t know what the Bible teaches or you’re just strutting around with your feathers fanned out because you found a typo. Make sure you report this to all the Preterist.
(RWT) “…therefore, what He is stating in John 5:28f is His interpretation of Daniel 12. I am taking Patrick to task here: IF John 5:28f is not Daniel 12:2, then Patrick MUST prove when the Danielic resurrection of both the just and unjust occurred, because “the scripture cannot be broken,” (Joh 10:35),
Pat replies: Roy, you can take me to task here, but you have to promise to bring me back home. There is a big difference in Daniel 12:2 and John 5:28-29. They are not referring to the same event. The first is figurative and the second is literal. Now Roy, I’m sorry that you don’t know the difference in a figurative passage and a literal one, but I do not have to prove something to you thatI don’t believe myself. You might as well, demand that I prove that Lady Bugs were the first ones on the ark or you’re not bringing me back from Task.
You have Jesus, “The Word”, interpreting “The Word”. This is the most ridiculous statement I’ve read to date. I’m sure one of y’all will top it, but as of right now you are in the lead in “THE RACE TO RIDICULOUSNESS”.
I want to spend some time on your answer to my third question. Your answer was a mix of unrelated verses jumbled together that proved nothing. God willing, I will in my next Negative.