- This topic is empty.
- Posts
This debate is only for myself and WJ for the time being. It is a simple Q and A debate, which means I will ask Keith ONE bolded question that he MUST DIRECTLY ANSWER. He can use as many words as he wants to explaining his answer, but HE MUST ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION POSED TO HIM. He can then ask ONE bolded question only that I MUST DIRECTLY ANSWER. And so on, and so on.
This debate is designed to actually get to the bottom of an issue without causing the debaters to spend hours and hours responding to many other various points. There is no “wiggle room” at all, so we might not even hear from Keith. I hope we do.
I had said to WJ in the “Does God Procreate?” thread:
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 30 2010,18:42) Jesus is that one GOD's Son, not that one GOD Himself. Unless maybe you are aware of any other instance known to mankind where someone's son is also the same exact being as that one? 
WJ responded with his same old tired logic:
Quote Faulty logic as if the term “Son of God” is antithetical to the title “God” which does not describe identity, for instance you are the son of a human but are you not also human? I want to take this point of his to completion so it never need be brought up again. It all lies in the word “a” that I bolded and underlined in Keith's post.
Hello Keith, let me introduce myself…….my name is Cain. It is the year 4000 B.C.; my father's name is Adam, and my mother's name is Eve. I am the ONLY son of man that ever existed in history, and I have a simple question to ask of you.
I think we will both agree that I am the son of “a” man, and therefore have the same human nature as my father, Adam does.
Jesus is the Son of “a” God, and therefore also has the same divine nature as his Father. But here's where it gets tricky for you.
You use the faulty logic that a son of a human being is equally and exactly a human being just like his father, so therefore the Son of God must be equally and exactly God.
But there is only ONE son of man at this point in time, just as there is only ONE God, so does your logic follow through?
Since I am not only the son of “a” human father, but the only son of the ONLY human father, am I now equally and exactly Adam?
If not, then why would the only Son of the only God be equally and exactly that God?
You only need answer the bolded question Keith.
peace and love,
CainHi Keith and All,
Keith has decided not to answer my post. The point was to address the “word games” that Keith likes to play. It is nothing but a word game for Keith to say things like this:
Quote for instance you are the son of a human but are you not also human? And now that I've solidly debunked his statement….and reasoning, he has nothing to say. But somehow I think he will make the same statement to me or some of you in later posts.
Let me give you what might be an entertaining example of this kind of “misdirection”…..I hope you like it.
Three hunters ended up far from their vehicle after a long day of hunting. They noticed motel lights ahead, and decided to spend the night there.
The clerk told them that the room was $25. Each man had a $10 bill……but no change. So the men each gave the clerk a $10 bill, and the clerk said he would send their change back with the bell boy.
On the way to the hunter's room with the change, the bell boy thought, “How can I divide $5 between 3 men? I know….I'll pocket 2 of the dollars and give them each back one dollar.”
(Pay attention….here comes the misdirection)
And that's just what he did. So now, each of the men got 1 dollar back from their $10, so in effect, they each paid $9 for the room, right?
Well, $9 times 3 is $27. And we know the bell boy kept $2 for himself…….so that adds up to $29.
Where did that 30th dollar go?
Think you know the answer? Feel free to post it here in this thread because I never expected WJ to answer my post anyway……as I said in my post, “There is no 'wiggle room' at all, so we might not even hear from Keith.”
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 06 2010,16:10) Hi Keith and All, Keith has decided not to answer my post. The point was to address the “word games” that Keith likes to play. It is nothing but a word game for Keith to say things like this:
Quote for instance you are the son of a human but are you not also human? And now that I've solidly debunked his statement….and reasoning, he has nothing to say. But somehow I think he will make the same statement to me or some of you in later posts.
Let me give you what might be an entertaining example of this kind of “misdirection”…..I hope you like it.
Three hunters ended up far from their vehicle after a long day of hunting. They noticed motel lights ahead, and decided to spend the night there.
The clerk told them that the room was $25. Each man had a $10 bill……but no change. So the men each gave the clerk a $10 bill, and the clerk said he would send their change back with the bell boy.
On the way to the hunter's room with the change, the bell boy thought, “How can I divide $5 between 3 men? I know….I'll pocket 2 of the dollars and give them each back one dollar.”
(Pay attention….here comes the misdirection)
And that's just what he did. So now, each of the men got 1 dollar back from their $10, so in effect, they each paid $9 for the room, right?
Well, $9 times 3 is $27. And we know the bell boy kept $2 for himself…….so that adds up to $29.
Where did that 30th dollar go?
Think you know the answer? Feel free to post it here in this thread because I never expected WJ to answer my post anyway……as I said in my post, “There is no 'wiggle room' at all, so we might not even hear from Keith.”
peace and love,
mike
hi mikethe deceit way of people to try to confuse others,
it is the way the math is made ;the truth is that they have given 30 .00 and at to pay 25.00 so the balance to be returned would be 5.00 but the bellboy kept 2 and only give 3
what add up to 5 the count is correct if we add the 25 =30
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 09 2010,07:31) hi mike the deceit way of people to try to confuse others,
it is the way the math is made ;the truth is that they have given 30 .00 and at to pay 25.00 so the balance to be returned would be 5.00 but the bellboy kept 2 and only give 3
what add up to 5 the count is correct if we add the 25 =30
Pierre
Hi Pierre,You hit the nail right on the head. The math problem is worded in such a way to give the illusion that $1 is unaccounted for…..when it really isn't.
Keith is an expert at wording things to give the illusion that what he's saying makes perfect sense…….and the other person would have to be an idiot to not believe it.
But with both the math story AND Keith's stories, if you scratch just below the surface, the fact that it is just an illusion becomes clear.
That's probably why he won't answer this post……even though I keep saying he won't in a effort to goad him into answering it.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Lightenup @ Sep. 09 2010,09:29) Mike,
That is soooo second grade!
Are you saying you don't know the answer, Kathi?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 05 2010,17:10) Hi Keith and All,
Keith has decided not to answer my post. The point was to address the “word games” that Keith likes to play. It is nothing but a word game for Keith to say things like this:
Quote for instance you are the son of a human but are you not also human? Mike
Keith has never said he wasn't going to answer. Keith has said “If I answer it will be when I want to and not when you demand by making or creating a thread in the debates section without asking if I would debate you?”
In case you haven't heard, my internet is still down and I am in the process of moving. I haven't been able to post much.
So stop with all the beating of the chest and claiming that you have debunked anything when you have done no such thing.
BTW as far as word games it is you that plays that game by claiming there is only “One True Theos” yet there are “Other True Theos”, and Jesus is a “True theos” but not YOUR THEOS!
1 true theos = 1 true theos. But mike says 1 true theos = 1 true theos but there are other true theos. Kinda of like that missing dollar huh?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 10 2010,06:08) BTW as far as word games it is you that plays that game by claiming there is only “One True Theos” yet there are “Other True Theos”, and Jesus is a “True theos” but not YOUR THEOS!
And THIS is EXACTLY why I put these in the debates. The point you comment about on THIS thread is the one that you said this about in the actual thread that discusses it: “ I WILL ANSWER WHEN I FEEL LIKE IT!!!
You don't have time to answer it in the thread dedicated to that exact point, but you have time to come over to THIS thread, which is about something completely different, and not only NOT answer my point in this thread, but bring up the whole reason for the OTHER thread HERE!
Keep your……what do you call them?……”ad hominems” to yourself and just answer the right point in the right thread, okay?
BTW, I hope you like these debate threads, because everytime you spout stupid stuff like you just did here, I will start a new thread to challenge you to defend the stupid stuff you said.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 06 2010,09:10) Hi Keith and All, Keith has decided not to answer my post. The point was to address the “word games” that Keith likes to play. It is nothing but a word game for Keith to say things like this:
Quote for instance you are the son of a human but are you not also human? peace and love,
mike
Hi Mike,He don't answer that way with regard to Jesus.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ Mar. 01 2011,02:06) Hey Mike. Did WJ actually answer your question in the end?
Did he wimp out of this debate?
Funny you should ask, t8. Do you want the long or the short answer? The short answer is “NO, he has not yet answered the question DIRECTLY.” The following represents the long answer, which is a discussion on this very subject Keith and I have been having for the last 13 days. I'm having a hard time getting him to simply answer a simple question directly – as you can see:
At some point, weeks ago, Keith said:
Quote Son of Man = Man
Son of God = GodOn February 16, I said:
Quote God is a PERSON, not a SPECIES. Jesus either IS the BEING OF GOD, or he is NOT. It's as simple as that. And he can't possibly be the BEING OF GOD if he is the SON of the BEING OF GOD. To which Keith responded:
Quote If he is everything that being is then he is that being. I said:
Quote But he's not everything that Being is, Keith. Jesus is not the Father, is he? Jesus does not GRANT the Father to sit in HIS throne, does he? Jesus has not placed the Father's enemies as a footstool for Him, has he? Jesus did not GIVE the Father all power and authority, did he? Jesus never SENT the Father anywhere for any reason, did he? The Father didn't suffer to attain perfection in the eyes of Jesus, did He? The Father was not found WORTHY to take a scroll from the hand of Jesus, was He? Keith, knowing that Jesus is NOT everything the BEING OF GOD is, can Jesus possibly BE the BEING OF GOD that he is the Son of?
Keith said:
Quote Hi Mike Another loaded question that is full of assumptions.
I said:
Quote Do you or do you not believe that Jesus is the Son of the SINGULAR BEING we know as “God”? Keith said:
Quote Yes Jesus is the Son of the Father. I said:
Quote Keith, I just counted 41 scriptures that call Jesus the “Son of God”. NOT the “Son of the Father”, but the “Son of GOD”. And that's not even counting the one that says he is the “Son of THE Living God”, or the ones that refer to him as “God's Son” or “His Son”. In light of these 41+ scriptures, and the 6900+ times that God is referred to by a SINGULAR pronoun such as “He” and “Him”, could you answer my question with a simple YES or NO?
According to MANY scriptures, is Jesus the Son of the SINGULAR BEING called “God”? Yes or No?
Keith said:
Quote The question once again is assuming God is a “Singular being”? But as usual even when I answer you ask again.
My answer was… Yes Jesus is the Son of the Father
I said:
Quote Okay, then let me ask a completely different question: Keith, according to scripture, is Jesus the Son of the SINGLE BEING of God?
Keith said:
Quote Mike God is a plural being. So your question is based on a false premise.
Jesus is the Son of the Father and the Father is God, but so is the Son and so is the Holy Spirit.
I don't care if you don't like my answer Mike. That is what you will get so don't ask it again.
I said:
Quote Not so fast Keith, Is there more than one being who is God Almighty?
Keith said:
Quote Mike No! God is a plural unity, meaning there are three in one.
I said:
Quote IS JESUS THE SON OF THIS BEING? Keith said:
Quote Jesus is the Son of the Father and is in the Fathers Bosom and is One with him and the Holy Spirit. Which leaves us with my last post:
Quote Hi Keith, What we have here is a failure to communicate.
You seem to be purposely avoiding a DIRECT answer to my question………….why?
This is a part of the Athanasius quote that YOU underlined:
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God
Keith, I know that YOU, like Athanasius, believe that we have only ONE GOD.
IS JESUS THE SON OF THAT ONE GOD LIKE PETER SAID? YES or NO?
mike
Crazy, huh? Should it really be that hard for Keith to admit the scriptural fact that Jesus is the Son of THE SINGLE BEING we know as “THE LIVING GOD”?
I know one thing for sure: When someone has to play games instead of answering a simple question with a DIRECT answer, then the doctrine they are defending sounds a little shaky. When an intelligent man must claim that he is the same being as his father to bolster his claim that Jesus is the same being as his Father , as Jack has now claimed, then it's time for them to reevaluate this doctrine they're defending.
peace and love,
mikeMike said:
Quote When an intelligent man must claim that he is the same being as his father to bolster his claim that Jesus is the same being as his Father , as Jack has now claimed, then it's time for them to reevaluate this doctrine they're defending.
What Jack claims is standard trinitarianism:Quote The Son is the exact impression of the very nature of God; of His real being. He is one and the same hypostasis repeated. It exists in one form in the Father, in another in the Son. From this point of view, if we take hypostasis in it later, Cappadocian sense (person0we cannot say that the person of the Son is the exact person of the Father because (in Cappadocian terms) the Son is begotten and the father is not. What is duplicated in the Son is the father's nature or BEING; which is why he himself could say, 'Anyone who has seemn mme has seen the Father' (John 14:9). The Person of Christ, Donald Macleod, IVP, pages 82-83
THE FATHER AND THE SON ARE THE SAME HYPOSTASIS (BEING OR ESSENCE) MIKE! HEBREWS 1 IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT IT! I HAVE SHOWN FROM THE DICTIONARIES THAT THE WORD “BEING” MAY MEAN “ESSENCE.” THE FATHER AND THE SON ARE THE SAME BEING IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE THE SAME ESSENCE. BUT THEY ARE INDIVIDUAL, DISTINCT PERSONS AND I HAVE BEEN CLEAR ABOUT IT! YOU AND I ARE THE SAME ESSENCE (OR BEING) MIKE. WE'RE BOTH DUST MIKE! BUT WE'RE INDIVIDUAL PERSONS.
Jack
Hi Jack,
It's easy just to claim things with bolded, capitalized letters and exclamation points. It's another to prove your claim.
Can you show me, ASIDE FROM TRINITY WRITINGS, where two people are ever said to be the SAME BEING? Do you have scriptural support aside from your claims about a triune God?
Do you have the secular support of any sane person claiming they were the same being as another person?
Please present your evidence for our consideration.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 02 2011,10:48) Mike said: Quote When an intelligent man must claim that he is the same being as his father to bolster his claim that Jesus is the same being as his Father , as Jack has now claimed, then it's time for them to reevaluate this doctrine they're defending.
What Jack claims is standard trinitarianism:Quote The Son is the exact impression of the very nature of God; of His real being. He is one and the same hypostasis repeated. It exists in one form in the Father, in another in the Son. From this point of view, if we take hypostasis in it later, Cappadocian sense (person0we cannot say that the person of the Son is the exact person of the Father because (in Cappadocian terms) the Son is begotten and the father is not. What is duplicated in the Son is the father's nature or BEING; which is why he himself could say, 'Anyone who has seemn mme has seen the Father' (John 14:9). The Person of Christ, Donald Macleod, IVP, pages 82-83
THE FATHER AND THE SON ARE THE SAME HYPOSTASIS (BEING OR ESSENCE) MIKE! HEBREWS 1 IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT IT! I HAVE SHOWN FROM THE DICTIONARIES THAT THE WORD “BEING” MAY MEAN “ESSENCE.” THE FATHER AND THE SON ARE THE SAME BEING IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE THE SAME ESSENCE. BUT THEY ARE INDIVIDUAL, DISTINCT PERSONS AND I HAVE BEEN CLEAR ABOUT IT! YOU AND I ARE THE SAME ESSENCE (OR BEING) MIKE. WE'RE BOTH DUST MIKE! BUT WE'RE INDIVIDUAL PERSONS.
Jack
Hi Jack,I fail to see how you and Mike are the same essence?
CERTAINLY YOU ARE NOT THE SAME “BEING”!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgDUPLICATED FOR CORRECT SPELLING. T8 PLEASE DELETE POST ABOVE
Mike,
If a sculptor takes a big rock being and saws it in half and then from each half makes an individual sculpture, do the sculptures by their individuality become two separate beings?
Suppose the sculptor makes an image of the The Thinker from one half of the rock being and then makes an image of Homer Simpson from the other half. Do the two images become two separate beings? No! They are one being but two individual images existing in two separate forms.
I rest my case.
BTW, the word “person” as it is used in modern times originated with a Trinitarian by the name Tertullian:
Quote Tertullian thereby launched the modern understanding of the word “person.” The modern meaning originates in the Christian theological explanation for how God exists in Himself – God is three Persons. Because Christians see mankind as being in the “image and likeness of God” (Genesis), thinking of God as three “Persons” meant we could also think of men as “persons” and, for that matter, angels as well. “ Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought … Whatever you think, there is a word … You must speak it in your mind …
Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech … The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness you are?…Before all things God was alone … He was alone because there was nothing external to him but himself. Yet even then was he not alone, for he had with him that which he possessed in himself—that is to say, his own Reason.
… Although God had not yet sent out his Word, he still had him within himself …
I may therefore without rashness establish that even then, before the creation of the universe, God was not alone, since he had within himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, his Word, which he made second to himself by agitating it within Himself. – Tertullian, (Against Praxeas 3)
”As can be seen, Tertullian's explanation depends not only on existence of Reason and Word within the Godhead, but also on the relationships between them. This aspect of “person” continued to be emphasized throughout the centuries of subsequent discussion. According to this understanding, a person is (1) that which possesses an intellect and a will, (2) defined in part by relationships. Since there is only one God, every Person of the Godhead is fully God. The only thing which distinguishes the three Persons of the Godhead is the relationships: Father to Son (Begetting to Begotten), Son to Spirit (Begotten to Breathed, or spirated), and Father to Spirit (Begetting to Breathed, or spirated).
Although Tertullian had now introduced the terms and given a basic explanation for how they interacted, a more precise explanation of “person” and “substance” was necessary. In response to various misunderstandings of what constitutes a “person”, the first six Catholic Ecumenical Councils attempted to define the boundaries and meaning of the word more completely. Much of the context of these disputes centered around differences in translation and nuance between the various Greek and Latin technical terms used to explain “person” and “substance.”
The First Council of Nicaea established that the person of Christ was not just of a similar substance of divinity, but was actually of the same substance of divinity as the Father. This establishes the basis of personhood for the second Person of the Trinity.
The First Council of Constantinople established that the person of the Holy Spirit was, indeed, divine. This establishes the basis of personhood for the third Person of the Trinity.
The Council of Ephesus confirmed that Mary was actually the mother of a person, the second Person of the Trinity, and did not merely conceive and give birth to the divine nature. This establishes how persons come into the world. It also settled the question Nestorianism raised: were there two persons in Christ or only one? The Council decided there could be only one person, but this divine person possessed two full and complete natures, thus helping to settle several issues raised by translation problems at Nicaea.
The Council of Chalcedon established that Christ was a single divine person, yet possessed two complete natures – the complete divine nature composed of the one divine intellect and the one divine will, and a complete human nature composed of the human soul (human intellect and human will) and human body. This solved several additional translation and definition problems concerning personhood raised at Nicaea.
The Second Council of Constantinople settled the question of monophysitism – how nature related to person. It reaffirmed that Christ's person did, indeed, have two full and complete natures; his human nature did not disappear, nor was it mixed with or subsumed by the divine nature. The two natures were completely separate (like two banks of a river), joined only by the person of Christ. It is the person of Christ which joins the two, thus one of Christ's titles is drived precisely from his personhood: he is the Pontifex, or “bridge,” between God and man.
The Third Council of Constantinople settled the question of whether it is the person or the human nature which possesses a will. Monothelitism argued that since Christ was a divine person, He possessed only the divine will, and did not need or possess a human will. The Council rejected this notion, pointing out that a complete human nature included both a human intellect and a human will. Since the person of Christ possessed a complete human nature, he therefore possessed a human will. However, in deference to the definition established at Ephesus, which established that he is a divine person and not a human person, Christ is the only person who possesses a complete human nature, yet is not himself a human person. As Tertullian pointed out, personhood is, in part, defined by relationship. Because Christ is already a divine person, he did not need to be a human person in order to be in relationship with God.
As can be seen, the connections between person, nature, intellect and will were quite complex. By the fifth century, Boethius gave the definition of “person” as “an individual substance of a rational nature” (“Naturæ rationalis individua substantia”). By the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas gave a more thorough and precise definition to the various words in Boethius' definition, allowing a much greater degree of precision. Although disagreement about various aspects of “personhood” continued, the Christian understanding of the word was the bedrock foundation to Western legal, philosophical and theological thought through the Enlightenment. Indeed, the idea of “inalienable rights” found in the United States Declaration of Independence is rooted in the idea that God has rights and man is a person in God's image, so man has rights.
Late twentieth century philosophy and science is currently working to redefine “person” so as to remove the theological references and create an entirely empirical, secular understanding of the concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PersonJack
Hi Jack
Also, God is a consuming fire, therefore his nature can be understood to be like fire.
If you light a candle with another candle is the fire on the other candle not also equally fire.
Is there any other substance in the Universe like fire? Therefore the Fire on both candles are One!
Fire begets Fire, God begets God.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 03 2011,03:53) Hi Jack Also, God is a consuming fire, therefore his nature can be understood to be like fire.
If you light a candle with another candle is the fire on the other candle not also equally fire.
Is there any other substance in the Universe like fire? Therefore the Fire on both candles are One!
Fire begets Fire, God begets God.
WJ
Amen Keith!God is light. Christ is the TRUE light (John 1:9). The implication is clear. If Christ was the mere reflection of God, then He could not Himself be the TRUE (or genuine) light.
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 03 2011,03:13) Mike, If a sculptor takes a big rock being and saws it in half and then from each half makes an individual sculpture, do the sculptures by their individuality become two separate beings?
Suppose the sculptor makes an image of the The Thinker from one half of the rock being and then makes an image of Homer Simpson from the other half. Do the two images become two separate beings? No! They are one being but two individual images existing in two separate forms.
I rest my case.
Jack
Hey Jack,Even identical twins are different;
your logic then, is severely lacking.
A sculpture can NEVER be 'a being'!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 03 2011,04:31) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 03 2011,03:13) Mike, If a sculptor takes a big rock being and saws it in half and then from each half makes an individual sculpture, do the sculptures by their individuality become two separate beings?
Suppose the sculptor makes an image of the The Thinker from one half of the rock being and then makes an image of Homer Simpson from the other half. Do the two images become two separate beings? No! They are one being but two individual images existing in two separate forms.
I rest my case.
Jack
Hey Jack,Even identical twins are different;
your logic then, is severely lacking.
A sculpture can NEVER be 'a being'!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed,A “being” is anything that exists whether personal or non personal animate or inanimate terrestrial or celestial.
Christ is the EXACT representation of the Father's being. He is the same being as the Father but a different person. Adam and Eve were the same being but different persons. God called both of them “The Adam.”
Jack
Hi Mike,
Jack said:
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 03 2011,04:43) A “being” is anything that exists whether personal or non personal animate or inanimate terrestrial or celestial. I told you Jack defines words in a 'confusing' manor!
That is why you MUST ask him 'how' he is defining
the words he uses to present his beliefs to you.Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
