To those who are following this debate,
I’ve went back and read my opponents last two negatives and confirmed my suspicion; he thinks he is in the affirmative. He is supposed to follow me, yet he spends 4500 words in his last two negatives reaffirming what he believes instead of answering the arguments I made. In his first negative, I lost count of how many of his arguments he just copied and pasted from his earlier affirmatives.
I would encourage all of you that are following this debate to go back and read for yourself, who answered whose arguments. Go back to when I was in the negative and see how I would bring up his questions and arguments by saying, “Roy wrote this”, and then I would write. “Pat replies”. There can be no doubt that when I was in the negative, I was responding to his affirmative arguments. In fact, I did the same thing in some of my affirmatives.
Dear reader, please go back and see my three questions that my opponent was supposed to answer. He didn’t even reference them or say, I’ll get them next speech. He just ignored them completely. Since this is my last correspondence in this debate, I have no way to even respond to his answers. I’m not worried about it. He never meant to answer them anyway. Now it’s too late.
Friends, please go back and read these arguments again and their answers. I would encourage you to make up your own mind as to what is correct. One of us is wrong, or both of us are wrong.
There are certain rules to follow in a debate. The bantering doesn’t bother me; in fact, I think it lightens the mood of the conflict. But there are things that you just don’t do. You don’t completely ignore your opponent’s questions, you don’t present new arguments in the last negative that cannot be responded to and you definitely don’t post your third negative an hour after your opponent posts his third affirmative. Go back and notice the time stamps. There is no way that any man can read a 3000 word manuscript, contemplate it and then write his own 3000 word argument to combat it. It is humanly impossible.
It is proof that his third negative was completed before I even finished writing my third affirmative. Unless he is psychic, how did he even know what my third affirmative would contain? But I am not worried about it. He can go ahead and post his last negative if he wants to. It’s just proof that he had no intention of following me from the very beginning.
My opponent has harassed me about his third question in his first affirmative, by saying repeatedly that I didn’t answer it. I have answered it; in great detail in my first negative. This is his question below:
3) Since Peter is reminding his readers (the Diaspora) of what the holy prophets predicted as he quotes from the Law of Moses, where does the LOM predict the end of time?
Those who are following this debate, I would ask that you look at the question above and notice how similar it is to the two examples of ridiculous questions I’m asking below. How would you answer these questions?
1. Since Noah was told to build the ark out of gopher wood, and Moses was placed in an ark of bulrushes, where does the LOM predict that David would kill a giant Philistine?
2) Since Boaz married a Moabite widow named Ruth, and this story is told in the book of Ruth, why doesn’t Peter remind the Diaspora that Boaz and Ruth got married?
I’m dealing with his nonsensical question # 3 for the last time. Peter DID NOT have to quote from the Law of Moses on everything he taught. Christ told him:
Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
My opponent would be wise if he quit listening to Moses and started listening to the words of Christ, since that is what he is going to be judged by.
Re 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
MY OPPONENTS SECOND TIRADE.
My opponent proclaims that he is in absolute stunned disbelief about my answer to his first question in his first affirmative. Here is that question, my answer and his response to my answer.
Roy’s first question: “Were the children/sons of the kingdom cast out in the first century?”
Pat’s answer: “No.”
Roy’s response to my answer: Patrick asserts “the children/sons of the kingdom” have not yet been cast out of the kingdom, which leaves me in absolute stunned disbelief!
Jesus said, “...That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But THE children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” (Mat.8:11f). Since the children of the kingdom must be IN the kingdom in order to be cast OUT, if this is yet in our future, then Patrick’s assertion means that Christians will be cast out of the kingdom;OR, that Old Covenant Israel (Judah) remains as God’s chosen people with His covenant (the law of Moses) with them still fully binding! Please do NOT avoid your serious dilemma here. (Perhaps you would just like a do-over on this question.) (All Emphases are Roy’s)
Below are the scriptures in question, but before we go there let me take you back to my first question in my first negative and my opponent’s answer to it, to which I consider to be correct.
Pat’s question # 1: Is the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of the Lord, The Kingdom and The Church synonymous terms?
Roy’s Answer: Not always, it depends on the context.
Please remember he answered, “Not always, it depends on the context.” In the passage below, from which my opponent drew his question, notice what is transpiring in the text.
Matthew 8:5 ¶ And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, I HAVE NOT FOUND SO GREAT FAITH, NO, NOT IN ISRAEL.
11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (All Emphases are mine)
Notice that in verse 10 Jesus is declaring that He has not found so great faith, (from a Gentile) in Israel. Is Christ not proclaiming that this Gentile has greater faith in His authority than anyone in Israel? I’m going to assert that Christ is contrasting the faith of those in Gentile kingdoms with the faith of those in the kingdom of Israel. Check me on that point.
In verse 11, When Jesus talks of those who will come from the east, west, north and south (Luke 13:29), is He not speaking of all the kingdoms of the world, in contrast to the kingdom of Israel? I believe that He is. And I base this on what caused Him to Marvel in verse 10. I believe that Jesus is speaking of many who come from all the kingdoms here on earth and they will sit in the Kingdom of Heaven with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Check me on this point also.
Verse 12 begins with the word, “BUT”, which is an adversative conjunction. It’s not joining what came before with what’s about to come, BUT, rather it is contrasting the one against the other. Thus; many from all the kingdoms of men, from all over the world, will sit with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven.” BUT, the children of the kingdom shall be cast out.
If I was teaching on this subject in an adult Bible study, this is where I would stop and ask the question, “The children of what kingdom?” I would also ask, “Where is this outer darkness that they are cast into?” Anyone can answer these two questions correctly if they are interested in what the Bible teaches and they have an honest heart. One more hint. The word, “BUT” is also contrasting two different places and their inhabitants based upon their faith in whatever it was that the Gentile Centurion had faith in. Figure that out and it all falls into place.
I hate to answer this for you, but if I don’t I’ll be accused of avoiding my serious dilemma. The serious dilemma is in my opponents head, and it seems as if it’s going to stay there.
Here’s the simple answer to my serious dilemma. The Kingdom of Heaven, where Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be is not here on earth, it’s in Heaven. Those who come from the North, East, South and West, are coming from all the kingdoms on earth. They are not going to sit with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in Moscow, or Taiwan; they are going to sit with them in the Kingdom of Heaven. People of earthly kingdoms will sit in the Heavenly Kingdom. The children of the kingdom that is going to be cast out, is the kingdom of Israel, not the church.
This is the crux of what Jesus is teaching here. He is not talking about Christians or the Church. To put these passages in a nutshell; the Centurion had faith in the authority of Christ, whereas those in the kingdom of Israel would never recognize that authority and would eventually put Christ to death.
As you can easily see, I’m not the one with a serious dilemma; my opponent is. I would urge you to go back and read what he wrote above. His screaming fits are evidence of his ignorance of what the Bible teaches. This is not the only place in this debate where he starts screaming and twisting the scriptures into knots. I’ve pointed out many others. My opponent does not know the scriptures as well as his boast. If he did, he wouldn’t be yelling at me for HIS misunderstanding of God’s Word.
This is part of my opponent’s comments above. I hate to waste words quoting it again, but I want him to realize that I’m not in a dilemma, I do not want a do over and I’m not avoiding anything. Here is his conclusion of how I answered his question:
“…Patrick’s assertion means that Christians will be cast out of the kingdom; OR, that Old Covenant Israel (Judah) remains as God’s chosen people with His covenant (the law of Moses) with them still fully binding! Please do NOT avoid your serious dilemma here. (Perhaps you would just like a do-over on this question.) (All Emphases are Roy’s)”
Pat replies to Roy’s Rampage: “…Patrick’s assertion means that…Christians will be cast out of the kingdom OR The Law of Moses is still binding…” Roy, let me hand you some more OARS and you can paddle around the Sea of Galilee with them while you ponder what a hypocrite you are and just how rotten of an unstudied Bible student you are. Here you go; Roy’s assertions of Patrick’s assertion means that Roy doesn’t know how to study the Bible, OAR he doesn’t care what the Bible teaches, OAR he is so enamored with the Preterist big dogs that he will just write anything, whether it makes any sense or not.
My opponents two oars were bought at a yard sale and they were broken when he bought em.
My opponent and his fellow Preterist can’t communicate for ten minutes without screaming, “AUDIENCE RELEVANCE, AUDIENCE RELEVANCE;” I don’t think they know what it means? Were there any Christians anywhere in the world when Christ spoke the words above? (Acts 11:26) How could Christians, who weren’t even around yet be cast out of a Kingdom that wasn’t even in existence yet. You know what I say about that Roy? “AUDIENCE RELEVANCE, AUDIENCE RELEVANCE.”
My opponent wrote these words, “I respectfully suggest that Patrick and his collaborators are twisting/redefining/reconstructing these passages to make them not mean what they clearly say.”
Pat replies: I will admit that one of us is guilty of this!
My opponent asked me these three question in his previous negative speech. I know. That’s weird right? I thought he was supposed to be following me.
1) What did John Baptist really literally mean when he predicted that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand”? (Mat.3:2)
Pat’s replies: In reference to the church, he was teaching that it was very close. It began about three later and by the way, John the Baptist was not a weather man or an astrologer; he was a prophet. He wasn’t predicting, he was prophesying. Also, the kingdom of heaven cometh not with observation Luke 17:20-21 and the kingdom of heaven is not of this world John 18:36. I’ll let my opponent take a crack at it. Maybe he can really, literally explain a kingdom that is not of this world, invisible and within us and really do it literally.
2) What did James really literally mean when he said, “You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand”? (Jas.5:8)
Pat replies: In order to harmonize this scripture with all others, I believe that James is referring to the coming Judgment of the Lord on Jerusalem. I apologize that I cannot really explain this literally, because I don’t believe the Lord literally came in judgment on Jerusalem. He came in Judgment the same way He did to Babylon Isaiah 13, which was a figurative coming.
3) What did apostle Peter really literally mean when he said, “But the end of all things is at hand”?(1Pet.4:7)
Pat replies: A question like this is why my opponent graduated with honors from kindergarten. He wants me to explain to him what Peter LITERALLY meant when he wrote “the end of all things is at hand.” I can’t explain that literally, because if Peter wrote 2000 years ago that the LITERAL end of all things is right around the corner, then we wouldn’t be here to discuss it. This is where my opponent keeps falling off the ski lift.
He doesn’t know the difference in symbolic and literal language. I’ve said this twenty million times; now see, what I just wrote, I didn’t say anything, I wrote it, but I didn’t write anything, because I typed it, but since I don’t have a typewriter I keyboarded it, but that doesn’t make a lick of sense so I have to resort to figurative language and say, “I’ve said this twenty million times”.
I haven’t literally said it twenty million times; see that is a figurative expression that means, “I’m sick of pointing out the same thing over and over to you. Have someone vacuum the play-doh out of your ears and listen. Do you know the difference between a cow and a bird? Why can’t you get a grip on the difference between symbolic language and literal language?” See, instead of saying, writing, typing or keyboarding all of what I just said, wrote, typed or keyboarded, i.e. “I’ve said this twenty million times”. I saved myself a lot of trouble and you can still get what I’m saying.
As I have pointed out numerous times in this debate, I cannot really, literally explain something figuratively. It’s impossible. Herbert Cromwaddle couldn’t even do it. Whatever it was, it wasn’t the literal end of all things, was it? I believe that he is referring to the end of Israel as a nation, which would come about in 70AD.
Once again, this is what I’m affirming:
“THE SCRIPTURES TEACH THAT THE SECOND COMING OF THE LORD WILL BE A LITERAL, PHYSICAL AND VISIBLE COMING THAT IS STILL IN OUR FUTURE”.
1Thessalonians 4:13 ¶ But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus wills God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.