I opened my second Affirmative by saying, “It may be the case that Patrick doesn’t understand the difference between paraphrasing a statement, and quoting a text;” and short of blatantly calling me a liar, Patrick has demonstrated adequately that I was right, i.e., he doesn’t understand the difference between the two; so, I have to waste words explaining the difference even though Patrick said that he agreed with my point which he is contesting. Patrick, a “quote” is bracketed by quote marks ( “-”) just as I did when I quoted my statement mentioned above. Paraphrasing is not enclosed in quote marks. I paraphrased a general thought, which you said you agreed with, using the word understand which you said you agreed with my point, so why is it that you disagree with yourself? I demonstrated that the general thought was accurate by quoting Acts 13:27 where Paul says, “For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets..." and said that "because they didn’t have ears to hear, they didn’t understand, and because they didn’t understand, they didn’t believe;"
“And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them,” (Mat 13:14-15).
“Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand,” (Luk 8:10).
In responding to Acts 13:27, Patrick says that I am “equating, ‘they knew Him not,’ with, ‘they didn’t understand Him.’” Yes, Patrick, that is exactly right, i.e., the phrase “because they knew Him not” is defined exactly as meaning they “didn’t understand” Him! Thank you for refuting your own objection.
The phrase “because they knew Him not” is rendered from Agnoeō and is defined, “From G1 (as a negative particle) and G3539; not to know (through lack of information or intelligence); by implication to ignore (through disinclination): - (be) ignorant (-ly), not know, not understand, unknown,” (Strong’s, bolds mine, RR).
Not paraphrasing, but quoting me within quote marks, Patrick says that I “really goofed this up. ‘…because they didn’t have ears to hear, they didn’t understand, they didn’t understand, and because they didn’t understand, they didn’t believe…’ Look at what you’ve done. Look at the order you’ve placed ‘faith’ in. You have got folks who don’t have ears to hear, not understanding and because they can’t understand then they can’t believe. I don’t know how far you are willing to go with this, but I’ve gone as far as I’m going to go.” Stunningly, Patrick’s sentiment here seems to indicate that he thinks people who don’t understand God’s word can still obey the gospel.
“It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me,” (Joh 6:45).
Tell us Patrick, what is the order in which Jesus placed faith?
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?...For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” (Rom 10:13-17).
“In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation,” (Eph 1:13).
Again, Patrick, what is the order in which Isaiah and Paul placed faith?
Brother, I didn’t say you castrated me, please pay more attention to the words; I said you CASTIGATED me, which means “to reprimand severely.” This is a perfect illustration of the way you [mis]read and [mis]handle the scriptures as well. You reconstruct and redefine the scriptures based on what you already believe, regardless of how plainly the text reads!
Then, Patrick, even though he admits that Daniel 2 is fulfilled; even though he admits that the stone represents the kingdom, he builds yet another Straw Man and says, “I guess you will tell us also that the Mustard Tree stopped growing after 40 years,” but alas, our brother has inadvertently refuted his own objection again by admitting that the kingdom / mustard tree grew at least for 40 years! Then, Patrick misrepresents what I said; even though he quoted my words accurately, when I asked him how could the kingdom / church be fully grown/established on Pentecost day without the inclusion of the Gentiles, and without elders and deacons? Patrick keeps applying my statement solely to the local congregation.
Then, Patrick in attempting to answer my question says, “Using Roy’s phraseology, my answer would be, ‘The same way Adam was born fully grown...’” Sorry brother, but Adam was not born, he was created from the dust of the ground, remember? Now who is changing the words and the general thought? The church was in its prenatal state from the preaching / baptizing of John, and it was born on Pentecost day, which I will demonstrate further under your Affirmatives. Patrick goes on to say, “Did the church that He built fully function as a church when it began on the day of Pentecost?” This is another misunderstanding! Tell us Patrick, when a baby is born, does its body fully function? Does it walk the walk and talk the talk, eat footlong hotdogs and milkshakes, or, does it begin to grow on mamma’s milk? If the kingdom / church was fully functional on Pentecost day, tell us why Paul said the following:
“So, then, you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens of the saints and of the household of God, BEING BUILT UP on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the cornerstone, in whom all the building BEING fitly joined together GROWS INTO a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are BEING BUILT TOGETHER into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit,” (Eph 2:19ff, KJ3; bolds and caps for emphasis RR).
Is Paul talking about the kingdom / church here Patrick? Do you see that Paul said the household of God, and the building GROWS INTO a holy temple, a dwelling place of God? Why would Paul say that the kingdom / church was being built up, and, being fitly joined together, and, grows into a holy temple, if the household/building/holy temple was fully functional at Pentecost as you assert? Was Paul wrong, Patrick? Again, those are the inspired words of Paul, untouched and not redefined, present tense in Paul’s NOW time!
Just as an observation, I would like the readers to notice Patrick’s growing frustration in not being able to deal with my actual arguments. This is being expressed in his arrogant slurs toward me. In his first Negative, it was the suggestion of a “stupid paradigm;” in only this his second Negative, he has ramped it up with, “My five year old grandson can come up with better arguments...” and, “If there are any third graders following this debate...” Typical!
And now, for another classic example of Futurist deflection when faced with a contextual question. After I pointed out Jesus’ prediction of the Abomination of Desolation, which He said His apostles would see, that it would be at that time, said Jesus, “know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand,” (Luk 21:31). I asked Patrick, “How could the kingdom be fully established at Pentecost, but be nigh at hand at the destruction of Jerusalem? Was Jesus mistaken, Patrick?” Our brother responded by saying, “No Roy, Jesus was not mistaken; you are.” Did I misquote the words of Jesus, Patrick? Did Luke get it wrong? Please explain how it is that I am mistaken by quoting Jesus’ words verbatim (notice the quote marks), then asking you why Jesus would say that the kingdom would be “nigh at hand” at the destruction of Jerusalem, if the kingdom was fully established at Pentecost as you assert? You told us in your first Negative that if Jesus said it, you believe it (paraphrasing). You are in the negative, so I suggest that you follow and answer my questions, and deal with my arguments instead of deflecting.
Then, Patrick says the following:
“Matthew 24:4-35 is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Mark 13:5-31 is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Luke 21:8-33 is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.”
I want to thank Patrick for proving my proposition for me once again by his own admission.
Within Matthew 24:4-35 we find Jesus quoting from Daniel 7:13, the only prediction of the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with His angels at the sound of a great trumpet (Mat.24:30-31); and, in Mat.24:35, we find Jesus saying, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away,” which Patrick as just admitted right before your very eyes “is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.” See that Patrick? See that folks?
Patrick has just handed me my proposition on a sliver platter!
To reiterate: Daniel 7 is the ONLY prophecy of the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, and Jesus quotes this prophecy; Jesus interprets this prophecy, and Jesus applies the fulfillment of this prophecy during His generation, which Patrick has just admitted in public debate “is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.” Patrick has proven my proposition for me. The Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with His angels, in great power and glory, at the sound of a great trumpet, at the time when Heaven and earth passes away “is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.” Thank you Patrick.
Also note that as our beloved brother continued, with these words scarcely off the tips of his fingers, he builds another diversion attempting to evade the fatal truth he has just (inadvertently) admitted. He attempts to negate the words of Jesus recorded by Luke, by saying that neither Matthew nor Mark mentioned the kingdom being nigh at hand. This is a really—REALLY—bad hermeneutic, consistent with my remarks in the outset of this debate! Patrick, does baptism have to be mentioned in every record of conversion for us to realize that because it is established in Acts 2:38, that all cases of conversion included baptism, even if it is not mentioned? That’s a rhetorical question, but, it demonstrates a hermeneutic which you clearly understand when speaking of baptism, or, the one church. Apply the same hermeneutic to the Olivet Discourse and you must admit that just because 2 of the 3 writers, guided by Holy Spirit did not mention the kingdom being at hand, it doesn’t negate Luke’s inspired record which does in fact mention it, even as you admit, “But Man oh Man, Luke puts it out there.”
So, I reiterate my question: if the kingdom was fully established on Pentecost day as you assert, 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?
Patrick says, "My worthy opponent believes that Luke HAS TO BE referring to the Lord’s Church coming fully in Luke 21:31." Again, Patrick misrepresents what I acutally said, after quoting my words. This again is another glaring demonstration of how he [mis]reads the Bible, i.e., he disregards what the texts say, then creates his own narrative.
Again, I will admonish the readers to observe how Patrick dodges my exegetical argument from Daniel 7 with, "________________________."
That's right! In his first Negative, he skipped over it, and here again, he never even breathed on how I tied Daniel 7:13 to Matthew 16:27-28; not the first keystroke of a response to my argument pointing out the verbatim words of Jesus in Luk 9:26 being parallel with Matthew 25:31-46. But he spends loads of time and energy on insisting that I gave an interpretation (not a quotation) of Daniel 7; and yet, Patrick admitted in his first Negative that the language is "highly figurative," so what do we have? Patrick has admitted that Matthew 24:29-35 “is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD”; Patrick has admitted that the language of Daniel 7 is “highly figurative”; therefore, since Daniel 7 is the ONLY prophecy of the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with His angels, for the judgment, which is “highly figurative” language per Patrick, then not only is the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven fulfilled in the the first century AD (my proposition proven), Patrick has admitted that the only prophecy of the Son of man coming, &etc., is “highly figurative,” ergo, Patrick has no prophecy of a literal visible coming of Jesus: not then, not ever, and Patrick not only has proven my proposition multiple times, he again, has defeated his own proposition!
Now, we must look at this: Patrick says he believes Romans 15:8 but doesn’t know where I “got, ‘…and since Jesus came to confirm the promises made to Old Covenant Israel…’
Is that why He came? To confirm the promises made to Old Covenant Israel? I thought His coming was prophesied in Genesis 3:15 and to Abraham in Genesis 12:3...”
And thus, Patrick, once again has just contradicted his own assertion that the law of Moses (LOM) ended at the cross, because if Genesis 3:15 predicted the coming of Messiah, and Paul is applying that prophecy (from the LOM) during his ministry, then the LOM could not have been fulfilled at the cross! Jesus said that the queen of the South, the Ninevites, and Able would be judged with the generation then living:
“The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here,” (Mat 12:42-43).
“Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? ...That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, ALL THESE THINGS shall come upon this generation,” (Mat 23:33-36).
Patrick, please note the statement, “...from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar...” See that Patrick? Jesus, retroactively tied Able to the administration of Moses!
“...Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers,” (Rom 15:8).
Who were “the fathers” Patrick?
“And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham,” (Mat 3:9).
“Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent,” (Acts 13:26).
The Abrahamic covenant was subsumed in the law of Moses, and the promises made to Abraham were fulfilled through the LOM with the salvation of The Remnant, inclusive of the Gentiles (Gal 3-4).
In response to my stating that Daniel 12 is the only prophecy of “A” resurrection of the just and unjust, Patrick objects by saying, “Jesus prophesied of it, John 5:28-29; Paul prophesied of it, 1 Thess.1:16,” again demonstrating that he is not paying attention to what he reads as he cites 1Th 1:16 a non-existent verse.
Now, as demonstrated previously, Jesus came to confirm the promises made to the fathers; in doing so, He quotes/cites/echoes Moses and the prophets throughout His ministry; therefore, what He is stating in Joh 5:28-29 is His interpretation of Daniel 12. I am taking Patrick to task here: IF John 5:28-29 is not Daniel 12:2, then Patrick MUST prove when the Danielic resurrection of both the just and unjust occurred, because “the scripture cannot be broken,” (Joh 10:35), and as such, his assertion demands TWO resurrections of BOTH the just and the unjust.
What Patrick fails to comprehend is the fact that Paul’s eschatology was nothing other than Moses and the prophets:
“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 24:14-25, YLT).
“Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come,” (Acts 26:22).