To say that I am confused would be a huge understatement. It seems that Patrick spent more time on my opening remarks than on the arguments I presented in my Affirmative. It may be the case that he doesn’t understand the difference between paraphrasing a statement, and quoting a text; for instance, when I said “Jesus told the Pharisees that if they did not understand the words of Moses and the prophets, they could not understand His words (Joh.5:47),” that was not a quotation of that passage, I was paraphrasing the general thought, which Patrick said “I agree with this point,” but then after he makes a joke about Helen, he says I, “need to go back and read John 5 and this time read at least vs. 45-47. Jesus is saying that if you had BELIEVED Moses that you would also BELIEVE Me. He did not say UNDERSTAND, He said HEAR, if you won’t LISTEN to Moses, you won’t LISTEN to Me. You need to go back and fix this!” (caps his).
Stunning! Brother Andrews castigates me for paraphrasing this passage using the word understand, while he paraphrases the passage with the words hear and listen. Funny thing is, this time, we’re both right! Paul said, “Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent. 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, (Acts 13:26f). Here, Paul is speaking of the very people to whom Jesus was speaking. They heard the prophets read every sabbath, but because they didn’t have ears to hear, they didn’t understand, and because they didn’t understand, they didn’t believe; so I reiterate that the same is still true today as Patrick demonstrates stellarly in his first Negative.
I began my first argument from Daniel 2:44 which Patrick admits, “I agree that this prophecy was fulfilled,” but once again, our brother balks at my paraphrasing that the stone grew into a great mountain, because the text says it became a great mountain. Brother, since the stone was not a great mountain when it smote the image, how did it become a great mountain if it didn’t grow into a great mountain? Jesus taught a parable, about the kingdom, saying, “Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it,” (Mark 4:30ff). See what this text says Patrick? Didn’t that stone represent the kingdom?
Furthermore I would ask Patrick how the kingdom was born fully grown? How could the kingdom / church be fully grown/established on Pentecost day without the inclusion of the Gentiles, and without elders and deacons? If the kingdom was fully established on Pentecost day, then why did Jesus tell His disciples that in the time when they would see the Abomination of Desolation which Daniel predicted, “know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand,” (Luk 21:31)? How could the kingdom be fully established at Pentecost, but be nigh at hand at the destruction of Jerusalem? Was Jesus mistaken, Patrick?
As I continued to build my argument, I moved to Daniel 7, and Patrick responded by saying, “I agree with these verses, but not your interpretation of them.” This is the classic Straw Man argument I mentioned in my opening statements! Regretfully, our brother has confirmed my predictions in spectacular fashion. Patrick dodges my argument by suggesting that my interpretation of the text is faulty; however, he is simply dodging the fact that I gave no interpretation; Patrick’s Straw Man deflection is the typical method of the futurist to evade the force of my argument, which is why I purposefully only quoted the text. Thank you brother for admitting that this language of Daniel 7 is “highly figurative” which reinforces the force (pun intended) of my argument that when Jesus quotes this source-text in the Olivet Discourse (OD), then His Divine application thereof cannot be anything other than “highly figurative,” i.e., the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with His angels at the judgment is highly metaphoric language, and not to be interpreted as an ocularly visible event. Patrick has already defeated his proposition and surrendered the debate!
I want to point out that of all the times Patrick asserted that certain passages are literal, out of 3000 words he gave not the slightest hint of proof. Merely asserting your opinion of a text is not proof. This is the purpose of a debate, i.e., to produce evidence in a logical and exegetical manner to establish an argument.
I laid the foundation for my argument by quoting from Daniel chapters 2 and 7, both of which Patrick agrees are fulfilled. Patrick admits (correctly) that, “I believe that the Lord’s Kingdom, the Church was established during the days of that fourth kingdom...” (bolds mine, RR), therefore:
Since Patrick admits that the everlasting Messianic kingdom of this prophecy was fulfilled during the days of that fourth kingdom;
Since Patrick admits that the everlasting Messianic kingdom was established in the first century AD;
Since the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with His angels at the judgment was posited by Daniel and the divine interpretation of the angel during the days of that fourth kingdom, then Patrick, by his own admission has proven my proposition for me!
Patrick quotes me when I said, “What is studiously avoided by futurists, but absolutely critical to note is, this Danielic prophecy is the only prophecy of the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven, with His angels, at the judgment; therefore, when Jesus speaks of the Son of man coming, He is quoting / citing from this one-and-only source text.”
Patrick responds by saying, “My initial thought to this argument is ‘Who cares’? If futurists studiously avoid this then I would pat them all on the back and say, ‘Good job guys, now let’s go and eat some bologna sandwiches.’” Here, our brother has exemplified the foundational platform of the Futurist Paradigm! When confronted by the context, “Who cares”?
Patrick goes on to ask, “Why in the world is it so important to you that Jesus quotes Daniel? If He didn’t quote him at all, it wouldn’t matter to me. If He had just said what He said, I would still believe Him.”
Because, dear brother, “Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers,” (Rom 15:8); and, “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy,” (Rev 19:10). See what the text says, Patrick, with no interpretation? Jesus was “made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons,” (Gal 4:4f). Since it is impossible for God to lie (Heb 6:18), and since Jesus came to confirm the promises made to Old Covenant Israel, then it is of Divine importance that Jesus fulfill all the law and the prophets (Mat 5:17f). I am glad that you said, “If He had just said what He said, I would still believe Him.” Jesus did say what He said, as He quoted from the Danielic text, and Jesus said that it would be fulfilled during the generation which would witness the demolition of the Jewish temple. Do you believe the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, with His angels, at the judgment during the days of that fourth kingdom, i.e., during the first century AD? Jesus said He would, and you said you would believe Him. That proves my proposition Patrick!
Again, I pointed out the fact that since Daniel 7 is the only prophecy of the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, that when Jesus is predicting the coming of the Son of man, He is citing from this Danielic source-text as He does in Matthew 16:27f. Patrick seems to apply some of his comedic genius here as he respond to my argument by saying, “I really am surprised when Preterist quote theses two verses every forty-five minutes as if this proves their position...The fact that I believe they are still married takes care of a lot of your arguments on divorcing these two verses. Therefore, I can skip over them unless you want to phrase your statements differently.” (bolds mine RR)
No Patrick, you don’t have the prerogative to skip over my arguments: the purpose of a debate is for the participants to address the arguments made; however, I am very happy that you don’t divorce these two verses as futurists typically do, and here’s why: Jesus, quoting from the Danielic source-text as I’ve demonstrated, posits the coming of the Son of man during the lifetime of some standing in His audience. Since you keep these two verses married (correctly so), then that establishes the inescapable fact that the coming of the Son of man with His angels, coming in His own glory, and the glory of the Father, at the judgment, (he shall reward ever man according to his works, v.27), is the same coming of the Son of man in His kingdom of verse 28. Because you keep these verse together as they should be, then you give up your assertion that the kingdom was fully established on Pentecost day.
But, let’s go further: we find that John the Revelator also recorded the words of Jesus saying, “And, behold, I COME QUICKLY; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be,” (Rev 22:12). See that Patrick? The Revelation closes with JESUS SAYING the same words that He spoke in Matthew 16:27, which JESUS SAID would be fulfilled during the lifetime of some standing in His audience. See it? You just admitted, “If He had just said what He said, I would still believe Him.” Do you believe Him Patrick?
Again, note that I have quoted the texts verbatim, and the texts say what I am saying.
My first question: Were the children/sons of the kingdom cast out in the first century?
Patrick didn’t understand my question, and that’s no problem: read Mat 8:10-12, then you can answer the question in your next Negative. Side note: we each have only 3 questions, i.e., we don’t ask each other 3 new questions in each round, so you have plenty of opportunity to answer this question.
My second question: Was the great tribulation (Mat 24:21) fulfilled in the first century?
Patrick responded, “Yes, of course.”
That’s good, and I agree!
“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 12:1f).
Read that carefully brother, and note that this is the only prophecy of “a” resurrection of both the just and the unjust. Also, notice carefully, that this prophecy of the judgment of every one that shall be found written in the book and the resurrection of the just and the unjust is inextricably linked to the time of the Great Tribulation; again, notice this carefully Patrick: “ 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...” see that Patrick? “...and at that time...” At what time? At the time when “there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time...” Now, watch what JESUS SAYS:
“When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains...For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be,” (Mat 24:15-21).
See what Jesus said? See what the text says, untouched!
Since Daniel 12:1f is the ONLY prophecy of a resurrection of both the just and the unjust;
Since Daniel tied this resurrection to the Great Tribulation;
Since Jesus quotes this one-and-only resurrection prophecy in the OD and said unequivocally that the generation then living would see the fulfillment;
Then my proposition is proven once again by your own admission that the Great Tribulation was fulfilled in the first century AD; because the resurrection of the just and the unjust is inextricably linked to the second coming of the Lord, then you can’t have one without the other.
Furthermore, Daniel 12:1f is the ONLY prophecy of a resurrection of both the just and the unjust, then when Jesus predicts the resurrection in John 5:28f, He is citing this one-and-only source-text of the resurrection of the just and the unjust.
My third question: 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?
Patrick responded by saying, “See Roy, you’ve built a textbook straw man, and he is falling apart. Where did you get that Peter wrote only to the Jews?”
Well, no, Patrick, that is not a Straw Man: “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” (1Pe 1:1 NKJ). “Dispersion” here is διασπορά diaspora. The Straw Man is yours when you say, “where does it say that Peter had to quote from the Law of Moses on everything he taught?” That is not even close to what I said, so, regretfully, once again, Patrick has confirmed what I said in my opening remarks in that he is dodging contextually-specific questions, and building a Straw Man deflection.
“This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour,” (2Pe 3:1f). Please answer my third question Patrick: where does the law of Moses predict the end of time?
Patrick’s questions:
1) Is the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of the Lord, The Kingdom and The Church synonymous terms?
Answer: Not always, it depends on the context.
2) Has everyone been resurrected from their graves per John 5:28-29?
Answer: Yes, by your own admission that the Great Tribulation was fulfilled in the first century AD as explained above.
3) When and where will every tongue confess and every knee bow to Christ per Romans 14:11?
Answer: The problem for the futurist's application of this statement is the undeniable fact that Paul, begins by saying, "As it is written…" then Paul quotes from Isaiah 45:23. The fact that Paul quotes from Moses and the prophets creates a devastating blow to the futurist's end-of-time theology; since Paul quotes prophecy mid-first century, and applies its fulfillment as currently in progress, this demonstrates that the law and the prophets did not end at the cross; and, even more crippling news is found in the fact that when people reconstruct Paul's statement to an event in our future, they are forcing the conclusion that the law of Moses remains valid yet today. Do you see the contradiction Patrick? You cannot insist that the law and the prophets was fulfilled, and ended at the cross, while arguing that this prophecy applies to an event yet in our future!
The futurist's problems grow exponentially as we look at the prophecy Paul quotes here: "I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory," (Isa 45:23-25).
The context of the prophecy from which Paul's every-knee-shall-bow statement is drawn, is the SALVATION of all Israel, not an end-of-time judgment of all mankind! Paul had already addressed this earlier in the Roman epistle when he said, "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins," (Rom.11:25-27).
This text, again, demonstrates that the law of Moses could not have been fulfilled at the cross; and, that Paul's "every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess" statement was then taking place, as he said, "for which cause I bow the knee" (Eph 3:14), and Timothy had already "confessed the good confession," (1 Tim 6:12).