Once again, I engage my opponent in hopes that this will calm him down like a bottle of Valium. I will reaffirm my position, even though I know he won’t be able to or be willing to follow my arguments. However; here we go.

I stipulated that I would go a fifth round with my opponent if he would admit that he was dishonorable in replying to my third affirmative an hour after I posted it. He has admitted that he did so, but he has rationalized it away saying he was answering my first affirmative. He also offered a few more different excuses:

Roy also defends his misconduct in this way: “…No, this is another of Patrick’s Straw Men deflections of desperation and frustration. Patrick FAILS TO COMPREHEND HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE DEALT WITH THE FUTURIST’S TYPICAL OBJECTIONS, and he us unaware of MY ABILITY TO KNOW WHERE THE CONVERSATION IS GOING, and as he points out below, I was still responding to assertions made in his first affirmative. (All caps mine Pat)

Pat replies: Folks, please pay close attention to my opponents second and third excuses as to why he had his third negative written before I even posted my third affirmative.

• He has dealt with my typical objections so many times that he can go ahead and write his negation…before he even sees my affirmative. We’ll just call this, “Rationalization Number Two”, for his dishonorable conduct. HE’S HEARD IT ALL BEFORE.
• He has this great ability to see where the conversation was going before I even put pen to paper (See Roy, that was figurative language, I really typed this on my computer). Therefore; he was in perfect harmony will all rules of debating in writing his answers to my questions that I hadn’t even asked yet. We’ll call this “Rationalization Number Three” for his dishonorable conduct. HE KNEW WHERE I WAS GOING.

Roy Writes: “…And herein is his (that would be me, Pat) motive exposed, i.e., Patrick is bumfuzzled and embarrassed because I CAN SO READILY RESPOND TO REFUTE HIS FALSE DOCTRINE. MY PROMPT AND THROUGHOUT REFUTATION of his Affirmatives put a lot of pressure on him in front of his peers, pressure which he can’t handle without loosing composure.” (All caps are mine, Pat)

Pat replies: Now folks please pay close attention at my opponent’s fourth excuse for his dishonorable conduct.

• He can so readily respond and refute my false doctrine. He is prompt and throughout in his refutation. We will call this, “Rationalization Number Four”, for his dishonorable conduct in this debate. HE’S PROMPT AND THOROUGH WITH HIS REFUTATIONS. HE CAN SO READILY RESPOND AND REFUTE…

Pat replies: I admit that I am bumfuzzled trying to figure this out. Did he already have his third negative written before I posted my third affirmative? His reasons, one, two and three admit that he wrote it before hand and he gives three separate reasons why.

Pat continues: However; he is now exclaiming that when he responds to affirmatives, he puts his hands on his hips, dons his cape and becomes “Super-Duper-Man. He becomes this strange visitor from the planet Duper. He is faster than a speeding bullet….

Pat continues to continue: Did he promptly and readily respond to and refute my third affirmative, or did he already have it written before hand? Wow, Super-Duper-Man, YOU ARE fast! We are all bumfuzzly by your great powers. (By the way Super-Duper-Man, you misspelled two words up there, I believe you meant thorough and losing, but don’t worry, I’m not going to mention it here)

Roy continues: “… Patrick’s frustration is exemplified by the fact that I CAN SO EASILY AND SPEEDILY REFUTE HIS FALSE DOCTRINE which leaves him embarrassed. There is no dishonor in KNOWING AND BEING ABLE TO HANDLE THE SCRIPTURES QUICKLY AND ACCURATELY. That is why Paul told Timothy to study, you know, so that you won’t be ashamed! (All caps mine, Pat)

Pat replies: It appears that this excuse is a repeat of the one directly above it, but it is not. This will be Super-Duper-Man’s fifth and sixth excuse for his dishonorable conduct in this debate. Notice that in this segment he says, “…I can so easily and speedily refute his false doctrine…” Also, he knows and is able to handle the scriptures quickly and accurately…. Wow Super-Duper-Man, are there no limits to your arrogance and fantastic feats of super-human debating?

Pat continues: We will call “Rationalization Number Five”: IT IS SO EASY FOR ROY TO REFUTE ERROR.

Pat continues: We are going to call this, “Rationalization Number Six”, HE KNOWS HOW TO HANDLE THE SCRIPTURES QUICKLY AND ACCURATELY.

Roy writes yet another excuse for his dishonorable conduct: “…There was no "dishonorable conduct" in answering your questions, after all that is what you asked me to do.”

Pat replies: We are going to call this “Rationalization Number Seven”. PATRICK ANDREWS ASKED HIM TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

Pat continues: These reasons and many more are why I charge Roy Runyon with being a hypocrite and a liar. What is the real reason you posted your third negative an hour after I posted my third affirmative. I’ve listed seven different reasons you gave which contradict one another, but the one you are lacking is the truthful one. You had no intention of reading my affirmative. You are lying with all of your self- exonerating rationalizations. All seven answers don’t agree. You are a hypocrite.

Pat continues: If you were so intent on answering arguments in my first affirmative, why didn’t you answer them in your first negative? Once again, it’s because you are a liar.

Roy wrote this: “Here is an example of Patrick massaging the conversation to tilt it in his favor. After all of his boasting and castigating several of us, and refusing to discuss the issues in a structured format on John Watson’s program, and, John not having the time now for a written debate, I offered to step into Patrick’s challenge to which he reluctantly accepted and lamented not landing a debate with one of the “big dogs”!

Pat replies: My opponent continues to lie. I never challenged anyone to debate. I told John Watson that I could not and would not come on the Twilight Zone with him, but I would be willing to have a written discussion with him. That’s not a challenge; that’s an answer to a challenge. Roy; you are a liar! You didn’t offer to step into my challenge because John Watson was too busy for a written debate; I accepted your challenge that you had issued to everyone who believes in God. You lie so often that you don’t even pick up on it yourself.

Roy also wrote this: “…Ianswered all of your questions, and I admitted within 20 seconds of your charge that I did in fact have my 3rd Negative already written when you posted you 3rd Affirmative, and explained (several times now) that I was doing so in response to questions in your 1st Affirmative…. I do hope you don't just start typing whatever comes into your mind when responding to my 4th Negative. I pray that you will read and re-read the points I have laid out for you and study them prayerfully.

Pat replies to the above: Friends, please read the two statements my opponent wrote above. Roy, this is why I call you a hypocrite! You want me to read and reread your points and study them prayerfully, but you are so advanced in the scriptures and so fast and have heard it all before, etc. etc. that you are above that. You are the biggest hypocrite I’ve ever ran across. The only ones who run a close second to you are those in your camp who are cheering you on in your nonsensical tirades. [1308 words]

A DIFFERENT TOPIC: I JOHN 3:1-2

Pat writes; Below is the divine scriptures directly above and my opponent’s explanation of why they don’t mean what they say. The reason he has to believe these two verses are teaching the opposite of what they teach is because he doesn’t believe that the Lord is coming back, or a bodily resurrection, or Judgment Day, or the end of the World. Since he does not believe those things he has to make alterations on these two verses…and numerous others.

I John 3:1 ¶ Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (italics and bold mine, Pat)

Pat writes: I would explain to you what these two verses mean, but nobody needs to do that for they are self evident. However; my opponent explains them below in his own way. I’m not going to make any comments on his statements because they also are self evident. I would just encourage all to read both the scriptures and his explanation and make up their own mind what is being taught.

This is my opponents bullet pointed explanation of the above passage:

• Since John also had first-hand knowledge of Christ’s post-resurrection body, then if he was anticipating Him to return in this imaginary ‘glorified body,’ then John would not have said, “it does not yet appear what we shall be;”
• If John intended to convey Patrick’s perception of a personal-literal-ocularly-visible appearance, then John should have written “Beloved, now are we the sons of God; because as Jesus has already appeared once personally, then likewise, we know already what we shall be like when he appears personally again.”
• The context of John’s statement here is the parousia, which was in its last hour.

A DIFFERENT TOPIC: ACTS 1:9-11

Pat writes: Below is what the inspired writer (Luke) wrote in Acts chapter 1:9-11. This is a historical narrative and a prophecy of the Lord’s second coming. This event really happened. It is as historically accurate as Abraham Lincoln giving the Gettysburg Address. Once again, I am going to put the passage first, and then my opponent’s arguments in his attempt to make it teach just the opposite of what it teaches.

Pat continues: The reason my opponent’s explanation of this historical event and prophesy of the Lord’s second coming is not going to make sense to you is because he doesn’t believe that the Lord is coming back. He believes He came back 2000 years ago and he was shrouded in the clouds. Once again, I will make no comments after his explanation, because none are needed. If you are following this debate and my opponent’s explanation of why Acts 1:9-11 is teaching just the opposite of what it is teaching then you are free to climb in his hot air balloon and fly away with him. The choice is yours. I don’t think I’ve ever read anything as ridiculous as his rape and twisting of these three verses. You decide.

I will say this: The things that he states that my Bible says, is not what my Bible says. My Bible says what is written directly below. My Bible says they BEHELD Him, the cloud received Him out of their SIGHT, they LOOKED steadfastly toward heaven, They were GAZING up into heaven…and He will return the same way they SEEN Him go.

Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they BEHELD, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their SIGHT.

10 And while they LOOKED stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye GAZING up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner AS YE HAVE SEEN HIM GO INTO HEAVEN. (All caps mine, Pat)

My opponent’s explanation of these three verses:

You (that would be me, Pat) ignore the flow of the text in Acts 1:9-11:

Let's look at what the text actually says:

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up...

How high do you suppose He got off the ground before He was obscured from their literal eyesight by the cloud?

...and a cloud received him out of their sight.

WHAT obscured His physical body from their literal sight? A cloud, right?

And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven...

...as He now is obscured from their physical sight by the cloud; therefore, He ascended into heaven, obscured from their literal sight in the cloud, right?

...as he went up, ←[into heaven, in the cloud] behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, ←[in the cloud, obscured from human sight] shall so come in like manner←[in the clouds, obscured from human sight] AS YE HAVE SEEN HIM GO into heaven.

HOW did He "GO into heaven"? He was obscured from their literal-physical-visible sight by a cloud. This is what your KJV says; Jesus went up INTO heaven obscured from their sight!

HOW did/will He come FROM heaven? In a cloud, obscured from literal sight!

A DIFFERENT TOPIC: MY AFFIRMATION GIVEN AGAIN.

“THE SCRIPTURES TEACH THAT THE SECOND COMING OF THE LORD WILL BE A LITERAL, PHYSICAL AND VISIBLE COMING THAT IS STILL IN OUR FUTURE”.

By scriptures, I mean the 66 books of the Old and New Testament. II Timothy 3:16-17

By Teach, I mean that by studying the scriptures we are able to learn the truth. The scriptures are alive and powerful and through them we learn and are guided by the Holy Spirit. Knowledge is imparted when we study with an honest heart. (Acts 17:10-11; Hebrews 4:12; II Thessalonians 2:9-14)

By The Second Coming, I mean the second and final coming of the Lord when He comes in the clouds on that last day. I Thessalonians 4:13-18

By Literal, I mean this coming in the clouds is not a figurative coming; it will not be symbolic of anything. It will literally happen. The clouds will be literal, the Lord will be literal, and every literal eye will witness this. II Thessalonians 1:7-9

By Physical, I mean that He who is coming in the clouds is actually Jesus, albeit, in His Glorified Body. The same Jesus that ascended into heaven will come back from heaven in the same manner in which He left. Acts 1:9-11; I John 3:2

By Visible, I mean that it’s not going to be a secret or an invisible coming. It’s going to be witnessed by every person who has ever lived on earth, even those who drove the nails through His hands and feet. Revelation 1:7

By Still in our future, I mean it ain’t happened yet.

Pat writes: My opponent has built his false doctrine on a faulty foundation. He has taken passages that are admittedly difficult to understand and mixed them all together. Literal passages are made to be symbolic of something else and figurative passages are taken to refer to a specific event and a specific time that doesn’t necessarily follow. There is harmony in the scriptures, but that doesn’t mean that we are allowed to shove, push and beat one scripture into another and claim that one scripture is explaining the other or fulfilling it. I’ll provide an example below:

Roy writes in his infamous third negative: “…Just as Peter crowbars/sledgehammers the context of the SOM (Song of Moses, Pat) into his Pentecost sermon, likewise, he draws heavily upon its context in his epistles, particularly in the second-third chapters of his second epistle.

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction," (2Pet.2:1; cf. Deu.28:20). (Emphasis in II Peter 2:1 are Roy’s)

Pat replies: My opponent quotes two verses directly above and attempts to make the Old Testament passage fulfill the New Testament Passage. He even emphasizes part of II Peter 2:1 and wants us to compare them (cf.) but look at these two passages side by side and see if Peter is drawing heavily on the Song of Moses.

Deuteronomy 28:20 The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.

2Pe 2:1 ¶ But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Roy, would you please explain how Peter drew heavily on the Song of Moses in II Peter 2:1?

LAST TOPIC: MY THREE QUESTIONS: PLEASE ANSWER!

Pat’s questions for my opponent: (From my second affirmative)

1) Are the passages of Acts 1:9-11; I Thessalonians 4:13-18; II Thessalonians 1:5-9 and II Peter 3:9-12 literal or figurative?

What I want you to do Roy is answer figurative or literal. That’s all.

2) If you classify them as figurative, what makes them so? What word or phrase in the passages causes them to be symbolic of something else?

If you say figurative: Explain why.

3) If you have an “undeniable figurative passage” and it’s not in harmony with an undeniable Literal passage, which one trumps over the other one. Which are you going to take first and build on; the figurative or the literal?

Adios, Popsicle