Pat replies: Roy, if you want to kill a tree, you don’t start by removing each individual leaf. You go after the roots. Your false doctrine needs to be killed at the roots. People need to be shown how you got as far afield as you’ve gone. The roots of Preterism are planted in the soil of pride, deceit and confusion. However; I will have to agree with you. I did spend (WASTE) WAY too much time trying to show you that you were not paraphrasing, but changing the text. In your case, it fell on deaf ears.

Roy writes: “…which as I have demonstrated several times now, some are even based on his own admissions.”

Pat replies: Roy you have demonstrated NOTHING. You have CLAIMED several times (numerous times) a great deal. You CLAIMED to have won this debate numerous times before we were half way through it. You have CLAIMED a lot of things, but you have demonstrated nothing and then you have castrated me because I didn’t respond to your demonstrations (CLAIMS). Roy, if you spent 800 words CLAIMING that you were from the planet “KRONDUNK”, I’m not going to waste my time responding to that. I’m going to ignore it. What others do is their business.

Likewise; just because you sling out three dozen passages and then CLAIM that they all tie together and mean this or that, doesn’t mean I’m going to spend a lot of time and words trying to make sense of your tangled mess. If others want to do that on their two week vacation, they’re free to do so.
Roy writes: “…When I pointed out that Patrick is not paying attention to what he reads as he cites 1Th 1:16 which is a non-existent verse…AND, he still didn’t point out the verse(s) to which he was referring as 2 Thessalonians 1:16 is also a non-existent verse!...) (All emphases are Roy’s)

Pat replies: Good save Roy: It could be over there in XII Thessalonians 1:16, but after exhaustive research, I found it in I Thessalonians 4:16. Silly us, we were thinking that the typo was the number “1”, when all the time it was the number “4”. What really made me feel stupid was the fact that I had cited this verse in my first negative.

I believe that now we would both agree that this verse has moved up to an existing verse. It shows that Paul is prophesying a coming of the Lord in the clouds (I Thessalonians 4:13-18). Too bad you can’t deal with it now. I wish I had given you time to deal with it in my first negative. Well, you can deal with it in your first negative.

Roy writes this: “…This sounds really impressive to the gullible, naive, and unstudied Bible student! This demonstrates that Patrick approaches the scriptures with the presuppositional bias that there is actually a text in the Bible which speaks of a literal-physical-visible coming of the Lord, and a literal-physical-visible resurrection,…”

Pat replies: These verses are for all you gullible, naïve and unstudied Bible student, Acts 1:9-11, John 5:28-29, Revelation 1:7; II Thessalonians 1:7-9 and I Thessalonians 1:16. (Roy, I made the same typo on that last scripture. Just for fun see if you can find it). By the way Roy, what is an “UNSTUDIED BIBLE STUDENT?”

Roy writes:”… Well, I submit that since Colossians 2:14 does not say “Blotting out the law of Moses...” that this is a glaring demonstration of Patrick not seeing the context,…” (All emphases are Roy’s)

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;

Pat replies: Wow! Would one of you unstudied Bible students please tell me what was nailed to the cross?

Roy wrote this: “…Let’s glance at the context where in the same breath Paul says, “So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths...” See that Patrick? There’s nothing more “law of Moses” than the Jewish feasts, right? Now, watch what Paul says next: “...which ARE a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ,” (Co 2:16f). Tell us Patrick, why would Paul identify the LOM specifically, and say that these Jewish feasts “ARE” (present tense) “A SHADOW” of things ABOUT TO come”? How is it brother, that if you are correctly interpreting verse 14, that the LOM was fulfilled at the cross, that Paul said in the same breath that the LOM was THEN-PRESENT, currently in Paul’s NOW time, “a shadow” of good things about to come?...” (All emphases are Roy’s)

Pat replies: Yes Roy, let’s not only glance at the context, but let’s be good unstudied Bible students and delve into it.

Colossians 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
Colossians 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Colossians 2:13 ¶ And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

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;

Pat continues: Roy, it pains me that I, an unstudied Bible student, have to explain this to you, another unstudied Bible student. I will try though. Paul is speaking to Gentiles, (uncircumcision of your flesh), but he is also speaking to Jews, his use of the word “us” twice in verse 14. These people were now Christians, both Jews and Gentiles. What was it that made that possible? How could Gentiles now be in fellowship with Jews? What was it that was taken out of the way that made this possible? What was it that had divided them before? I’ll tell you this, it was a lot more than the Jewish Feast days. I believe that even gullible, naïve and unstudied Bible students can decide on their own what was nailed to the cross

Roy writes: “…See that Patrick? There’s nothing more “law of Moses” than the Jewish feasts, right?...”

Pat replies; No Roy, I don’t see that; only Preterist and those caught up in the SDA see that. I think they were the first to make the distinction between the “MORAL LAW” and the”CEREMONIAL LAW” . In my Bible, it’s all the “LAW OF MOSES”. Roy, have y’all discussed when y’all are going to start worshipping on Saturday yet? Why don’t you jump out in front and bring it up at the next synod?

Roy continues: “...which ARE a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ,” (Co 2:16f). Tell us Patrick, why would Paul identify the LOM specifically, and say that these Jewish feasts “ARE” (present tense) “A SHADOW” of things ABOUT TO come”? (All emphases are Roy’s)

Pat replies: Roy, if you would learn that you cannot base a doctrine on only one passage, you could graduate to the next level and become a Bible student. Other passages have to fit in with your pretext and if they don’t, then your doctrine is a false doctrine. Look in Hebrews 9; I would encourage you to focus on the first 7 verses and then see how they fit in with verse 8 & 9 and your false conclusions of Colossians 2:14

Hebrews 9:8 ¶ The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; (Emphases are mine Pat)

Pat continues: There was a great amount of significance to the veil tearing from top to bottom the moment that Jesus died. Matthew 27:50-51. It explains all of your faulty arguments about the shadows and the very image. Under the LOM that veil barred all but the High Priest from entering, and that only once per year. I’m not going to tell you what that meant because I want you to graduate, but I did give you a hint in Hebrews 9:8-9; if you can’t figure it out, let me know and I’ll send over a gullible, naïve and unstudied Bible student.

Roy wrote: NOT ONE KEYSTROKE OF A RESPONSE!
I demonstrated that based on what these texts say unaltered, proves beyond debate that the Olivet Discourse is not divided. (All emphases are Roy’s)

Pat replies: I didn’t count my keystrokes, but I did respond to your faulty reasoning in my first negative. So no matter HOW LOUD YOU SCREAM IT; I did respond. Just because you scream that Matthew 24 is not divided, that doesn’t make it so. I contend that the Apostles asked Christ two questions and He answered two questions. I will be so proud of you when you graduate. (Emphases mine Pat)

Roy writes: I asked Patrick, was the Great Tribulation (Mat 24:21) fulfilled in the first century? He said "Yes." I demonstrated that the RJUJ was inextricably linked to the Great Tribulation, which Jesus said would be fulfilled during His generation, and Patrick responds that I'm wrong and he doesn't have to prove something he doesn't believe.

Pat replies: In the first place Roy, “THE GREAT TRIBULATION” is deeply entrenched in Premillennialism. Why don’t we just call it “A” great tribulation Matthew 24:21; affliction Mark 13:19 and great distress in the land Luke 21:23. It’s something that happened during the fall of Jerusalem; it’s not something that signals or identifies or marks the fall of Jerusalem. It just happened in those days. It’s not an event that is going to usher in something of significance. This is what Premillennialism teaches. (My emphasis)

Pat continues: Once again Roy, you didn’t demonstrate that the resurrection of the Just and the Unjust is inextricably linked to “THE GREAT TRIBULATION”, you assumed it, you claimed it, but you did not demonstrate it. What you have done is taken a very figurative passage Daniel 12:1-2 and mixed that in with, what you call “The Great Tribulation” of Matthew 24:21. After you jostled these back and forth for a while you stuck the two of them out there and contradicted literal passages such as John 5:28-29 and all of I Corinthians 15 as well as numerous others.

Daniel 12:1 ¶ And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
2 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. (Emphases mine Pat)

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

You’ve castrated me many times because I have not proven a certain passage was figurative. I didn’t think I had to prove that to anyone. I didn’t want to insult anyone’s intelligence. But I did mention it already in my rebuttal of Daniel chapter 7. That’s the one where the horn was talking. See that’s why that is figurative. Horns can’t talk.

But we’ll look at Daniel 12:1-2 which is above. I’m just going to point out the things that are figurative: In the first place, if you will back up a few chapters you will discover that Daniel saw these things in night visions, some of which were interpreted for him. That is the first big sign that this is figurative. Then you have Michael the great Prince followed by some references to a particular nation of people; notice the words “children of thy people, since there was a nation, thy people shall be delivered. Whoever these people were, were found written in a book.

Verse 2 is where you change the radio station. Now all of a sudden we are turning cartwheels in literal land and you are demanding that verse 2 is now literal and you’ve went back to verse one and made THE TIME OF TROUBLE also literal and you’ve wedged that in to Matthew 24:21.

Now you have got all three of these passages mixed together and you think this jumble of scriptures proves some point you are trying to make. The only thing it proves is that you don’t know how to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

In Matthew 24, Jesus is talking about the desolation of Jerusalem and the tribulation of that event. No one saw this in a vision. This is not symbolic of something else. Jerusalem would be literally destroyed and there would be a literal tribulation on the folks who were still in the city.

Now Roy, you’ve got a figurative passage about “A” resurrection and you have that contradicting literal passages about “THE” resurrection. ←[Did Paul have a figurative passage contradicting his ‘literal’ passage in 1Co 15??] Daniel 12:2 say’s many of them that sleep in the dust shall awake as opposed to John 5:28-29 which teach that,”… ALL that are in the graves shall hear his voice and come forth…” Most of I Corinthians 15 is talking about a bodily resurrection from the ground on the last day, but you have taken an admittedly figurative passage and taken it literally, which forces you to take John 5:28-29 and I Corinthians figuratively. Roy, I pray that you will realize that you are jumping out of a literal airplane with a figurative parachute.

This is why you stated in my answer to your second question that I had admitted that the resurrection of John 5:28-29 happened in the first century. I said no such thing. You believe Daniel 12:1-2 and Matthew 24 agree literally; I don’t. Therefore; your claims that I have admitted something and given up my position and handed you your proposition on a silver platter is nothing more than a claim you have made on your assumptions and misunderstanding.

If I believed that everything in the universe was the color of bologna skins, then almost every question I asked someone else about colors would be incorrect based on my faulty understanding. If you can see through a flyswatter you can see that. That is what you have done with your misinterpretations of scripture. You gauge everything by your standard. No matter what anyone says, they are going to wrong in your eyes. In your eyes, everything they say; every answer they give has to be wrong because it doesn’t measure up to your standard.

You go back and read this debate and count how many times you’ve already won it, how many times I contradicted myself, how many times I forfeited my proposition, how many times you had me taking your position, the list goes on and on. Nobody will ever match up to your standard. Everything everyone disagrees with you on is going to make them guilty of one of your rules. Roy, I was married 35 years and my wife let me win a few arguments; she wasn’t right 100% of the time. Nobody is. I’ve admitted I was wrong in this debate, a couple of times. Can you do the same?

Roy, I will admit that there are scriptures that are hard to understand; Peter admitted it II Peter 3:16, but when we come across one we can’t just force it into a pigeon hole and cram other passages in on top of it.

If you were in Wal-mart with one of your buddies and a lady comes through the door and your buddy says, “Hey, there’s your wife”. If it’s not your wife, you would tell him, “That’s not my wife.” He might then ask you, “Well, who is it?” If you didn’t know the lady, you would say, “I don’t know”. He then says, “If you don’t know who it is, how do you know it’s not your wife?”

You would probably agree that your buddy, in this illustration was having a problem. He didn’t understand that you might not know who or what someone or something is, but you can easily eliminate what they or it is not. The same is true with scripture. I might not understand exactly what some passage is talking about, but I can eliminate pretty easily what it is not talking about. I’m going to take the literal passages to be literal and if I run across a scripture that is difficult, I don’t throw the literal passage out and start all over with the difficult passage. I’m going to hang on to the literal passage and work on harmonizing the other passages with it.

I don’t have very many words left. I wanted to discuss your answer to my third question. I believe you have committed the same error in my third question as you did in the second. However; you did spend a lot more time on the third question. You have basically thrown Romans 14:11 and Philippians 2:10-11 out the window and spent 426 words trying to explain why they didn’t mean what they say.

Remember; your faith has to be your faith.