Paul said to let all things be done unto edifying (1Cor.14:26). Tragically, Patrick’s 5^th Affirmative is modeled after the standard modus operandi of the Far Left Liberal politicians who have worked tirelessly to impeach the will of We The People through personal smear campaigns, and likewise have relentlessly endeavored to thwart the POTUS’ Judicial appointments by the same tactic. Patrick, shockingly, even uses the term “rape” in his portrayal of my exegeses!

Instead of addressing my exegetical responses to his questions which demonstrate that his admissions prove my position repeatedly, Patrick used nearly half of his final speech stitching together a haphazard collage of comments from his Facebook Timeline, flailing in desperation as he attempts to assassinate my character. This is the worst display of a convoluted emotional temper tantrum as I have ever encountered, supported by the mirror image of a recent email respondent, who likewise, after his first argument disintegrated upon basic exegesis, launched the identical ad hominems as Patrick.

As I pointed out in my previous Negative, personal insults are a violation of Debate Rules. Patrick demonstrates he has no regard for rules, nor basic Christian decorum as he even insults people not engaged in this debate which is the typical (supportive) approach of Futurist Czar Howard Denham. Patrick’s allegations have been quelled numerous times, corroborated with screen shots of the conversations, therefore, I’ll not waste valuable space addressing his bait-and-switch maneuver.

1 John 3:2:

After 1300+ words of slander and personal insults, this is the first text mentioned. Because I have neither taught nor said anything except what each of these texts say contextually, Patrick accuses me of altering “these two verses...and numerous others” without the first syllable of proof. Then he says, “I would explain to you what these two verses mean...” (emphasis mine, RR) which is how Patrick twists what the text actually says, contorting it to suit his presuppositional opinions, thus validating again what I said in the opening remarks of my 1^st Affirmative regarding the Futurist’s hermeneutic. Note that Patrick never touched the points I made, as he disregards my quotation of the immediate context which verifies my argument. Patrick’s inability to follow a coherent contextual fact from point “A” to point “B” does not refute my argument.

Notice these syllogisms:

• Pat admits Jas.5:8 is Christ’s figurative (not ocularly visibly/bodily) coming in judgment in AD 70;

• The coming of the Lord of Jas.5:8 is the parousia;

• Therefore, the parousia is figurative (not ocularly visibly/bodily).

 

• The context of 1Jn.2:18-3:2 is the parousia (which was in its last hour, v.18);

• The parousia is figurative (not ocularly visibly/bodily);

• Therefore, John’s next pen-strokes of His then-imminently anticipated appearing was His parousia which was figurative (not ocularly visibly/bodily).

Patrick’s failure to comprehend the basic principle that things equal to the same thing are equal to each other doesn’t refute my argument. I have demonstrated here as well as numerous other places that Patrick has no clue of how to exegetically determine the difference between literal versus figurative contexts. This is not only demonstrated here, but also in the next passage he cites.

Acts 1:9-11:

Patrick asserts that I “attempt to make it teach just the opposite of what it teaches,” and that my, “explanation of... Act.1:9-11 is teaching just the opposite of what it is teaching,” but is it? Could it be the case that my pointing out the flow of what the text actually says differs with what Patrick wants the passage to mean? Let’s see:

• Luke says, “while they beheld”;

• Pat says, “they BEHELD Him”;

• Roy says, “while they beheld”;

See any difference? Me neither!

• Luke says, “and a cloud received him out of their sight”;

• Pat says, “the cloud received Him out of their SIGHT”;

• Roy says, “and a cloud received him out of their sight”;

See any difference? Me neither!

• Luke says, “And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven”;

• Pat says, “they LOOKED steadfastly toward heaven”;

• Roy says, “And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven”;

See any difference? Me neither!

• Luke says, “as he went up”;

• Pat says, “They were GAZING up into heaven”;

• Roy says, “as he went up”;

See the difference now? Patrick completely skips the portion of the text that doesn’t fit what he wants this passage to mean! How did Jesus go up into heaven? “Out of their sight,” and “in a cloud,” as Pat admits, but ignores!! Patrick demonstrates by his own words how he ignores the flow of the text? He must ignore the portion of what Luke says in order to avoid the fact that Jesus ascended into heaven obscured from their literal-physical-visible sight by a cloud. Luke does not say that Jesus will descend to earth, nor does he say that He will descend in the same manner in which you saw him taken up from the earth. Luke says that Jesus would return from heaven in like (not exact same) manner as they saw him go into heaven, i.e., obscured in the clouds. The scriptures state that the Son of man would come “in” “with” and “on” clouds; nowhere does it say He would come “out of” the clouds!

• Luke says, “shall so come in like manner AS YE HAVE SEEN HIM GO into heaven”;

• Pat says, “and He will return the same way they SEEN Him go”;

See the difference? Pat changes “like” to “same” and lops off “into heaven” to force this passage to mean what it doesn’t say!

• Roy says, “shall so come in like manner←[in the clouds, obscured from human sight as Pat admitted He went up!] AS YE HAVE SEEN HIM GO into heaven.”

See that?

• Luke says, “shall so come in like manner AS YE HAVE SEEN HIM GO into heaven”;

• Roy says, “shall so come in like manner...AS YE HAVE SEEN HIM GO into heaven.”

• Pat says, “and He will return the [same] way they SEEN Him go ____ ______.”

Now folks, just who is it that alters the Holy Writ, then shocks the reader by saying “I don’t think I’ve ever read anything as ridiculous as his rape and twisting of these three verses” hoping you won’t notice his cunning deception as he “corrupts the word of God,” (2Cor.2:17)! This is the type of tantrum and gutter lingo a person resorts to when his false doctrine has been eviscerated by the sword of truth leaving him with no answer. Every argument I have made throughout this debate has been based solely on what each text says, in context, and unaltered.

In my very 1^st Affirmative, I asked Patrick the following 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?” Throughout the entirety of this debate, after being reminded numerous times, Patrick has refused to answer this question. The reason is, he can’t answer it, nor can any non-Full Preterist answer this question.

The fact that Jesus came and fulfilled every Jot and tittle of the law of Moses (Mat.5:17-18) (Futurists insisting at the cross), coupled with the fact that time and material creation has continued since the 1^st century proves by default that the end of time is not found in Moses and the prophets. The fact that Peter is quoting from the holy prophets, and states clearly that he is, and reminding his audience of the parousia day of the Lord predicted in prophecy proves by default that 2 Peter 3 is not predicting the dissolution of the physical (literal to use Pat’s definition) kosmos.

After addressing only two passages, and selecting only one verse of the 1645 word text I presented on 2 Peter 2-3, in the closing words of his 5^th Affirmative, Patrick asks one legitimate question: “Roy, would you please explain how Peter drew heavily on the Song of Moses in 2 Peter 2:1?”

Aside from the facts that I was applying “draws heavily” to “both of his epistles” and, that you isolate one verse out of two specified chapters, I will gladly demonstrate how Peter draws from the Song of Moses (SOM).

2 Peter 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 them¹, and bring upon themselves swift destruction²." (cf. Deu.28:20).

Peter cites #1 from verse 6 of the SOM:

Deuteronomy 32:5-6: The Song of Moses:

(v.5) "They have corrupted themselves, their spot³ is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation. (v.6) Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee¹? hath he not made thee, and established thee?"

Peter cites #2 from Deuteronomy 28:20, i.e., The covenant of Blessings and Curses:

“The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed², and until thou perish quickly²; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.”

Then, in verse 2 Peter 2:13, Peter cites #3 from verse 5 of the SOM:

(v.12) “But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; (v.13) And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are³ and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you.”

Having cited the curse from the covenant of Blessings & Curses, Peter refers to the impending judgment to come upon OC Israel in Israel’s last days with the analogy of the destruction-judgment that befell Sodom and Gomorrah. In the SOM, Jehovah refers to Israel thusly:

“For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter,” (Deu.32:32).

Then, in 2 Peter 3:7, he again cites from the SOM:

“But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.”

“Is not this laid up in store with me, and sealed up among my treasures?” (Deu.32:34).

Again, as Peter says, “But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire...” he then says, “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up” (v.10).

From the SOM:

“For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains,” (Deu.32:22).

Then, after Peter elucidates the imminently anticipated New Heavens and Earth, quoted from “the holy prophets” (Isa.65:17-19), he says, “Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless” (2Pet.3:14), again citing from Deu.32:5 of the SOM as he did in chapter 2. This demonstrates beyond debate that the entirety of Peter’s predictions of the dissolution of the heavens and earth are cited directly from the context of the SOM, i.e., Jehovah’s prediction of judgment against OC Israel in Israel’s last days, and not the assumed end of the Christian age, which has no end. Futurists are woefully unaware that their [mis]application of these predictions to our future forces the conclusion that Jehovah will destroy Christians at the (mythological) end of time, and, that the LOM remains in effect, every jot and tittle. This forced conclusion has they eating their own objection that two laws can’t be in effect simultaneously, which of course is another Futurist ruse!

Since Futurists admit that the LOM ended in the first century, and since time and the material universe still exist, then the inescapable conclusion is that the end of time is not contained anywhere in the LOM. Since it’s irrefutable that Peter is quoting, citing and echoing from the LOM in 2 Peter 2-3, Peter himself stating that he is reminding his readers of what the holy prophets said, then Peter can not be predicting something that is not found in the LOM; thus, the futurist's end of time paradigm based on this text is eviscerated.

Patrick closes his final Affirmative by restating his 3 questions which have been thoroughly answered throughout my Negatives. Patrick fails to comprehend that all of his cherry-picked words, phrases, and verses are based solely on Moses and the prophets.

Peter says:

“Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days,” (Act.3:24);

Paul says:

“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,” (Act.26:22).

As stated above, Patrick admitted that “the coming of the Lord is at hand” (Jas.5:8) applies to Christ’s figurative coming in judgment-destruction upon Jerusalem in AD 70. Christ’s coming here is the parousia. The parousia-coming of the Son of man when “the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken” (Mat.24:29) would be the end of the Jewish age (Mat.24:3). Jesus said the end would come when the gospel had been preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations (Mat.24:14). Paul said that mission had been accomplished (Rom.10:18; 16:26; Col.1:6,23; Tit.2:11).

Paul said, “But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming←[parousia]. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power,” (1Cor.15:23-24).

Since Paul’s eschatology was based solely on Moses and the prophets (Act.26:22), then his dissertations on the resurrection must be interpreted within that frame work. Paul’s resurrection-doctrine was nothing more than the hope of OC Israel (Act.26:6-8; 28:20) which Paul “expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets,” (Act.28:23).

Since Christ’s parousia-coming was posited at the end of the Jewish age, and since Paul told these Corinthians that the ends of the ages had come upon them (1Cor.10:11), then Paul’s parousia-coming at the end (1Cor.15:23-24) is synonymous with Christ’s figurative parousia-coming in judgment-destruction upon Jerusalem in AD 70. Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other.

Paul went on to say that not all of the Corinthians would die before the resurrection would occur (1Cor.15:51). These are contextual-exegetical facts which can’t be successfully negated. The fact that Paul repeatedly posited the resurrection in his immediate future proves that the nature of the resurrection was not an out-of-the-casket literal-corpse-revivifying event thousands of years into Paul’s future. The parousia-coming of the Lord at the end of the Jewish age is inextricably linked to the resurrection of all the righteous dead ones (nekros) stretching back to Able (Mat.23:33-37). The blood of these slain-righteous souls would be vindicated (Isa.4:4 in OC Israel’s last days) at the parousia-coming of the Lord when they would be resurrected from hades into the kingdom of God’s dear son (Col.1:13). This is solidified by the fact that Paul said, “So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written [Isa.25:8], Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O HADES, where is thy victory,” (1Cor.15:54f).

I demonstrated in my previous Negative that all of Patrick’s pretexts of 1 Cor.15/1Thess.4:15-17/2Thess.1:7-9/1Jn.3:2, and Rev.1:7 are all contextually the parousia-coming of the Lord in the clouds of heaven. Patrick has made wild—WILD—claims that these passages are literal, but Patrick has failed—Epically—to prove his proposition exegetically.

Peter said the scoffers were asking “Where is the promise of his [parousia]-coming” and responded that he was, “Looking for and hasting unto the [parousia]-coming of the day of God,” (2Pet.3:4,12); therefore, recalling that he is reminding his audience of what the holy prophets predicted, and that there is no end-of-time-doctrine in the holy prophets, we find that contextually, Peter is predicting the imminent parousia-coming which as Patrick has admitted, was a figurative (not ocularly visibly/bodily) coming in judgment in AD 70.

Patrick stated in his 1^st Affirmative, “No man or angel knows when that moment will occur. (Matthew 24:36)” in blatant disregard of the fact that Jesus specifically identified the century and the generation!

Patrick said, “There can be only one ‘Second Coming’” Amen! He further said, “Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him SHALL HE APPEAR THE SECOND TIME without sin unto salvation,” but fails to read on to see that Paul said, “For yet a very, very little while, and the one who is coming will come and will not delay” (Heb.10:37). Patrick’s false denominational doctrine has Christ delaying for a very very long—LONG—while! See the difference!

While I lament Patrick’s petulant/acerbic demeanor, sympathizing with his baptism of embarrassment for proving my proposition for me, I will commend him for his willingness to defend what he believes is right. Very few have Patrick’s courage.

Thank you,

Roy