I want to applaud Patrick for his much-improved demeanor in this Affirmative which is such a refreshing change from his presentation in his Negatives. Even though Patrick is mistaken, I want thank him for laying out his material in such a fashion that it is easy to follow. I can say that because what Patrick has presented is the typical futurist objections against Realized Eschatology, which is what I taught for 29 years.
One of the greatest difficulties to overcome in communicating with others is their understanding/use misunderstanding/misuse of language. Looking though the lenses of heavily biased presupposition, Patrick greatly inhibits his ability to comprehend both the scriptures themselves, as well as what I point out to him, because he abuses the language, redefines terminology, and totally ignores Audience Relevance (AR). As I pointed out in my opening remarks, Futurism cannot survive without changing/redefining the Biblical terminology, reconstructing all eschatological passages, while ignoring AR, along with changing the tenses of the original language; with all due respect to our brother, this is confirmed to be true throughout Patrick’s first Affirmative as I will demonstrate in my Negatives.
Patrick repetitively cites an eschatological text and asks, “do you have to take a trip to the Old Testament and find some figurative verse to shove in here in an attempt to make them mean what they don’t mean?”
First, I must ask Patrick: “Was Jesus, Peter or Paul wrong for shoving an OT passage in there” or is Patrick misconstruing these texts because he is ignoring the fact that the OT passage is inherent in the context, many times specified by the writer? Secondly, Patrick should edit his question to read, “...in an attempt to make them mean what I don’t presuppose them to mean”? Again, I mean no disrespect, as this is how I used to handle the scriptures.
Patrick makes the same typical mistake as do all futurists in that they approach the scriptures with the supposition that their understanding is already infallibly correct, and supply no proof for their assertions, and just expect everyone to accept whatever they think or feel is the appropriate interpretation. This is exemplified in Patrick’s opening remarks of his first Negative when he said, “it is my job to refute what Roy has presented,” No, it’s all our jobs to approach the sacred texts with the Berean attitude of searching the scriptures daily (OT scriptures because the NT didn’t exist yet!), laying aside emotions and personal thoughts,/feelings to see if the things presented are based on an evidentiary exegesis, or, if they are founded upon words, phrases and verses ripped out of their context(s) and misrepresented through illogic, eisegesis, and flawed hermeneutics, which, I submit, Futurists fail to comprehend because of their own Cognitive Dissonance.
Patrick has offered several of the typical Futurist’s go-to texts as the assumed proof of his Affirmative; however, the principle which he fully understands and employs regarding the necessity of baptism not needing to be restated in every case of conversion, he abandons when he approaches the subject of Eschatology.
Of John 5:28f, Patrick asks, “do we have to find a prophecy in the Old Testament to validate Jesus’ Word?”
Patrick, show me what NT passage Jesus was quoting? You asserting that Jesus (or the apostles) didn’t have to say they were quoting from the OT is not an argument! You can’t just make up your own personal hermeneutic which allows you to make passages mean something totally disconnected from the Hebrews’ OT foundational data base! Jesus was a Hebrew; Jesus taught Hebrews, from the Hebrew scriptures, in Hebraic thought. The Jews trusted in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc., as being their fathers. Did Jesus just arbitrarily make up stuff during His ministry that was not in their foundational data base of Moses and the prophets? Paul would later write, “Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers,” (Rom 15:8). Isn’t Paul referring to the Jews as the circumcision? Isn’t Paul referring to Old Covenant Israel (OC Israel) as the fathers?
“Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,” (1Co 10:1).
“Now there came a dearth over all the land of Egypt and Chanaan, and great affliction: and our fathers found no sustenance. But when Jacob heard that there was corn in Egypt, he sent out our fathers first. And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brethren; and Joseph's kindred was made known unto Pharaoh. Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls. So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers,” (Acts 7:14-16).
Who does this text/context specifically identify as the fathers, Patrick? I pointed out to you that Jesus came to confirm the promises made unto the fathers and you scoffed at it in your second Negative by saying, “I always thought that His mission was greater in scope than just confirming the promises made to Old Covenant Israel,” then you cited Hebrews 10:7-9 which was a promise made to OC Israel, from Psalms 40, which Paul inserted into the text without the use of “crowbars and sledgehammers!” Until you are able to comprehend AR, you will always misapply and misconstrue the scriptures.
In each of Patrick’s examples, he has employed the chide about “running to the OT”; this is his desperate attempt to preempt and circumvent us from considering the OT foundational data base, and to dissuade his admirers from doing the same. The reason behind his motives here is obvious: Patrick is sufficiently intelligent to realize that if we exegete the inherent OT background, then his Futurism suffers a fatal blow at every turn.
I have demonstrated the following irrefutable fact in my Affirmatives, but we must revisit it here:
“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. 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 12:1-2).
There can be no sustainable doubt that there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time is inextricably linked to the resurrection of the just and the unjust (RJUJ) by the phrase “and AT THAT TIME”; therefore, Daniel marries both the judgment and the RJUJ “...AT THAT TIME” to the great tribulation with the conjunction “AND.” Again, Patrick, if you honor the grammar, this is unavoidable and ungetoverable. Simply because you fail to comprehend and/or understand this fact does not prove it to be false. Simply because you assert “there is a big difference” between this text and John 5:28-29 is not proof.
First: When I pointed out that this Danielic prophecy is the only prophecy of “A” RJUJ, Patrick objected in his 2nd Negative, saying, “In regards to the Resurrection of the just and the unjust: Jesus prophesied of it, John 5:28-29.” My question, which Patrick dodged, is, since the NT didn’t exist when Jesus spoke those words, and therefore, Jesus was not citing John 5:28f, nor, 1 Corinthians 15 nor 1 Thessalonians 4, and since Jesus came to confirm the promises made to OC Israel, (which promises are in the OT), from what prophecy was Jesus quoting if not Daniel 12:2?
Then Patrick has the added difficulty, which he has likewise ignored, that Paul said, “And I confess this to thee, that, according to the way that they call a sect, so serve I the God of the fathers, believing all things that in the law and the prophets have been written, having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous,” (Acts 24:14-15), i.e., here, without me having to, needing to, nor wanting to “run to the OT,” Paul quotes this one-and-only Danielic source-text from his foundational data base of the promises made unto the fathers. Patrick, since Paul didn’t have the NT to quote from, and since Paul said his doctrine of the resurrection was nothing but what Moses and the prophets said (Acts 26:22-23), then you have no exegetical basis to deny that Jesus and Paul are quoting from Daniel 12:2 for their predictions of the then-imminent RJUJ.
Secondly: Jesus quotes, interprets and applies both context and terminology of Daniel 12, specifically naming “Daniel the prophet” (Mat.24:15); Patrick admitted in his 2nd Negative, “Matthew 24:4-35 is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD;” therefore, Jesus’ quotation and application of Daniel’s RJUJ was fulfilled in/by the destruction of Jerusalem (DOJ), by Patrick's own admission. This is inescapable Patrick! Simply asserting, “There is a big difference in Daniel 12:2 and John 5:28-29” (in your 3rd Negative) is not proof. In debate, you must prove your assertions. Just because you fail to comprehend this does not prove your proposition, nor does it disprove mine.
Note this literary pattern where Jesus said to the woman of Samaria, “believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, AND NOW IS, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him...” (Joh.4:21-23).
When did “that hour” come Patrick? Was it not already breaking in on them?
Observe the same literary pattern in Joh.5:25-29, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, AND NOW IS, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall LIVE. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice...”
Patrick, what do you call it when the dead LIVE? Is that not resurrection? Did Jesus not clearly say the hour is coming AND NOW IS for the dead to live? Isn’t that resurrection? Just because you presuppose “the RJUJ” to be literal-physical-visible in our future is not proof! Your presuppositional opinion does not trump what Jesus, Daniel, and Paul clearly said!
Thirdly: Patrick’s quibble of many (Daniel 12) versus all (Joh.5:28) making the two predictions much different is specious and untenable!
“Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors,” (Isa.53:12);
Patrick, did Jesus bare the sin of some, or ALL?
“Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many,” (Mat.20:28);
Patrick, did Jesus give His life a ransom for some or ALL?
“For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins,” (Mat.26:28);
“So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many...” (Heb.9:28);
Patrick, did Jesus shed His blood and bears sins for some, or ALL?
You 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!
Patrick asserts the typical Futurist misunderstanding/misapplication of Revelation 1:7. The fatal flaw here is that the subject-matter of Revelation is specifically stated to be “things which must shortly come to pass,” because “the time is at hand,” (Rev.1:1-3); and, the vision closes with, “and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done, Behold, I come quickly...” (Rev.22:6-7). Patrick flatly denies what the inspired text clearly and emphatically says; but, let’s look at the verse:
“Behold, →He is coming with clouds←[A], and →every eye will see Him←[B], even they who pierced Him. And →all the tribes of the earth will mourn←[C] because of Him.”
“Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then →all the tribes of the earth will mourn←[C], and →they will see←[B] the →Son of Man coming on the clouds←[A] of heaven with power and great glory,” (Mat.24:30).
Now, note that the identical elements are found in both statements:
A) He is coming with clouds, (Rev.1:7);
the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, (Mat.24:30);
B) every eye will see Him, (Rev.1:7);
they will see the Son of man, (Mat.24:30);
C) all the tribes of the earth will mourn, (Rev.1:7);
all the tribes of the earth will mourn, (Mat.24:30);
Check the Greek Patrick, because "C" "all the tribes of the earth will mourn" is identical in both verses, which proves beyond question that the passages are synonymous! AND, Patrick, recall that you admitted that Matthew 24:4-35 applies to the DOJ, thus, it is fulfilled per your own admission.
Three things which you are overlooking here are:
1) This is a quotation from OT prophecy:
"And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; THEN→ they will look on Me whom they pierced←. Yes, →they will mourn for Him← as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn,” (Zec.12:10).
Patrick, the "every eye shall see" statement of Rev.1:7, taken from Zachariah's prophecy was posited in the time frame of when the Spirit would be poured out on the inhabitants of Jerusalem which began at Pentecost?
2) The Greek term rendered "tribes" in the Mat.24:30/Rev.1:7 texts is phulè„ which has 31 NT occurrences, and is used exclusively in reference to the tribes of Israel, and never refers to all people on the globe.
The "they" who would be the "every eye" who would see Him is a specific reference to Israel, undeniably quoted from OT prophecy, and Jesus applied the fulfillment of this statement specifically to the DOJ, and in the Revelation, a stated text of, "things which must shortly come to pass," because, "the time is at hand," written 2000 years ago.
3) Mat.24:30 is Jesus' quotation/application of the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with His angels, at the judgment, in the time frame of the establishment of the everlasting Messianic kingdom predicted in Dan 7:13-15
This prophecy in Daniel 7 is parallel with the prediction of the establishment of the everlasting Messianic kingdom during the days of the 4th world empire, in the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Dan 2:44-45; AND, the Daniel 7 prophecy is the ONLY prophecy of the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven; therefore, since Jesus quotes and applies the fulfillment of this one-and-only the-Son-of-man-coming prophecy to the DOJ, then your proposition is eviscerated as it has no scriptural foundation for a future-to-us coming of the Son of man on the clouds of heaven.
The entire futurist paradigm hangs on this mythological end of time, and the visible/bodily coming of the Son of man at this fictitious event, i.e., this 'end of time' coming of the Son of man on the clouds of heaven is the lifeblood of the futurist paradigm, and without it, your entire eschatology dissolves, (pun intended).
My three questions for Patrick:
1) Were baptized believers (Christians) on Pentecost and there afterwards considered to be, and called "sons of God."
2) If Paul's doctrine of the resurrection at the day of the Lord coming like a thief in the night was what you have espoused in your Affirmative, tell me how the false teachers/apostles such as Hymenaeus and Philetus were successful in convincing "some" that the resurrection had already passed and the day of the Lord had already arrived? (2Thess.2:2; 2Tim.2:17-18)
3) Since Holy Spirit knew the Divinely appointed time of the second coming, the resurrection and the judgment, why did He use the language of imminence (soon, near, at hand, shortly, quickly, etc.) if these events were not near and not soon to take place?
Addendum:
This paragraph will exceed my 3000 word limit slightly and is added to remind Patrick: 1) to include his 3 questions for me; 2) Patrick did not answer my first and third questions from my Affirmatives. Please answer those for us Patrick.