- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 20 2010,10:26) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 20 2010,10:08) Paul, How can Mike's psychological disorder “kick in” when it is never at a stop?
And I've even got the one you ducked for all those months in our debate for you, Roo.
Show me scripturally or secularly when being at someone's right hand EVER meant you were equal to that person or the same exact being as that person.
Put up or shut up!
mike
I have answere from scripture a a zillion times Mike. The fully investitured Son was not the servant of his father. Ergo, he was equal to his father. I have NEVER said that Jesus was the “exact same being” as His Father. Where is your evidence that I said this? You “put up or shut up.”Pick a topic so we can proceed to have a structured debate. You won't will you? You will compete for the last word and deny that I ever gave an argument from scripture. You do not mean, “Show me….” You mean, “Convince me….” And when you are not convinced you accuse me of not answering altogether.
From my debate with t8:
Quote 1 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus, 2 who was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was faithful in all His house. 3 For this One has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as He who built the house has more honor than the house. 4 For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God. 5 And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which would be spoken afterward, 6 but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end.
Two points are very clear:1. Christ is counted worthy of the glory that belongs to the builder. The builder is God. Therefore, Christ is counted worthy of the glory that belongs to God
2. Christ is Son over His own house in contradistinction to Moses who was but a servant. Therefore, the Son is not a servant. Again, to the Hebrew mind the fully investitured son was not a servant. He was the “only Lord.”
This is why we must have a structured debate! You falsely accuse people fo dodging you.
the Roo
TO ALL:
My posts above to Mike are my final word on the history of our debate and what was answered and what not and what was said and what not. This all goes to show that it is better to engage in a scructured debate.
So I will allow Mike the final word – again. From this point on I just want Mike to say yeah or nay to my offer to have a structured debate similar to the one I posted on page ten (10) on this thread. If Mike accepts he will choose the topic from his list on page 5 of our debate except the four (4) I have disqualified which are
1. begotten
2. protokos
3. right hand
4. pasa ktisisI am sending a copy of this post to SF to make sure that he does not miss it on this page.
the Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 21 2010,00:12) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 20 2010,11:16) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 20 2010,11:08) I've answered this. More than once.
You have NEVER DIRECTLY answered this question. You said he could have meant he was preeminent over creation. That is not the question though, is it?Do you think he meant Jesus was preeminent over MANKIND by his statement?
Do you all see what I put up with? I ask. They avoid. I ask again. They say I want the last word and keep asking questions that they already answered.
But you can clearly see right here and now that they haven't actually answered the question I asked.mike
Mike,Who cares what Eusebius believed anyway? If he believed the things you claim he did thenleft his personal friend Arius hanging out to dry.
What Paul meant by “pasa ktisis” is all that counts anyway. In the context it means “all mankind” vs. 23.
You invoke Eusebius to detract from scripture.
the Roo
You see, Jack?Everything you said in your two previous posts have nothing to do with the simple question I asked you….and ALMOST all of it is false.
ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTION, JACK! I didn't ask anything about “investitured sons”, did I? I asked, when, in the history of the world, has being at someone's right hand meant you were EQUAL to that person, or the same exact being as that person?
The closest you came to answering is to say you never said Jesus was the exact same being as God. WHAT?!?! Isn't that what the trinity is all about? Three persons, one being?
You said:
Quote Who cares what Eusebius believed anyway? If he believed the things you claim he did thenleft his personal friend Arius hanging out to dry. What Paul meant by “pasa ktisis” is all that counts anyway. In the context it means “all mankind” vs. 23.
And this is what I put up with during our debate. You make this unsubstantiated claim, and just expect me to buy it. Eusebius obviously didn't take “pasa ktisis” to mean “all mankind”, did he? Do you think YOU know more about 1st century Koine Greek than Eusebius? Okay, maybe you do, BUT if that is the case you must PROVE that. You can't just ASSERT that it means “all mankind” with nothing to back you except the ASSERTIONS of other trinitarians that want nothing more than to do away with any scripture that might suggest Jesus had a beginning.
As far as this second debate, since you bailed on the first one, I have already posted my first question about “plural God”. I'm waiting for Dennison to post it in a debate thread.
The question I asked of Paul was: Do you think he meant Jesus was preeminent over MANKIND by his statement?
Your response was:
Quote Who cares what Eusebius believed anyway? If he believed the things you claim he did thenleft his personal friend Arius hanging out to dry. What Paul meant by “pasa ktisis” is all that counts anyway. In the context it means “all mankind” vs. 23.
You invoke Eusebius to detract from scripture.
How does that answer actually answer my question, Jack? My question starts with “DO YOU THINK…..” Not to mention that YOUR ASSERTION of what Paul MEANT, as if you were there and had a personal conversation about it with him, is bunk. Paul SAID “every creature”, the Greek words MEAN “every creature”, and both Eusebius and Ignatius took those words at their REAL definition because they both thought it happened BEFORE THERE WAS ANY MANKIND to be preeminent over. YOUR assertion has been soundly debunked, sir.
So I agree. Let's get on with this debate. If you are too scared to do the Q and A with a judge to keep things addressed properly, I will fake my way through the other kind of debate.
mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 20 2010,15:16) This is never ending. The option is open when the time is right.
Dont forget.
Mike, If you want to debate a Q and A and Roo agrees let me know.
ill set it up.
I've already gave the question on an earlier post. Set it up.mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 21 2010,04:48) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 20 2010,15:16) This is never ending. The option is open when the time is right.
Dont forget.
Mike, If you want to debate a Q and A and Roo agrees let me know.
ill set it up.
I've already gave the question on an earlier post. Set it up.mike
Hi Dennison,From page 17 of this thread:
Quote But if it makes you feel better, put a 10 question limit on it. But I will only do a Q and A. Anything more is just the two of us writing our opinions. Roo, after all my repeated attempts to move OFF begotten, I now have evidence to refute everything you said in that debate, but now you, ALL OF A SUDDEN have had enough of begotten? Okay. PLURAL GOD
Question: How do you arrive at “persons in a godhead” from the word Eloyhim, which literally means “gods”?Dennison, do you want to set up the debate thread? That is my first question to Jack.
peace and love,
mikeDUPLICATE:
TO ALL:
My posts above to Mike are my final word on the history of our debate and what was answered and what not and what was said and what not. This all goes to show that it is better to engage in a scructured debate.
So I will allow Mike the final word – again. From this point on I just want Mike to say yeah or nay to my offer to have a structured debate similar to the one I posted on page ten (10) on this thread. If Mike accepts he will choose the topic from his list on page 5 of our debate except the four (4) I have disqualified which are
1. begotten
2. protokos
3. right hand
4. pasa ktisisI am sending a copy of this post to SF to make sure that he does not miss it on this page.
the Roo
sf,
I received your pm that Mike has sent you his opening statement. I was totally left in the dark about it. We were supposed to discuss word length and all rules first. On page 18 of this thread I explicitly told Mike:
Quote Do you want to have a structured debate that has a definitive end or not? If so, then pick the topic so we can determine word length, rules and all else. You are competing for the last word on this too.
We did not discuss maximum word length or rules or anything.I want to discuss all of this and I want all stipulations posted on this thread for public view.
Kangaroo Jack
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 22 2010,19:00) Fair enough! Mike you need to agree to the rules of engagement first. You've jumped the gun.
SF jumped the gun too. I thought he was a debate judge?KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 22 2010,13:02) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 22 2010,19:00) Fair enough! Mike you need to agree to the rules of engagement first. You've jumped the gun.
SF jumped the gun too. I thought he was a debate judge?KJ
A debate judge has a set of guidlines that are strict and are universal and dont change,and that are not based on what the debators think the rules should be
actually the rules are set regardless of what the debators think
Again i thought you knew about this already,
I presented guidelines, i presented a format,
actually KJ, note that you are posting in the thread that i created for these set of guidlines.
here is the problem between you and mike,
first you cant agree what to debate about,
now its about the format.Get on with it already.
its ridculous. that one has to wait days to debate a formal debate.
I didnt jump the gun, im just the judge.
I imagine this like playing a combat game online, and waiting for the oppenent to choose his style…. wating on him to see if he even wants to fight or not…..
waiting waiting waiting.
its getting frustrating.
debating about debating is rediculous.
Thank God, Mike finally agreed,the next step is to pick the darn format,
PICK ALREADY!Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 22 2010,13:00) Fair enough! Mike you need to agree to the rules of engagement first. You've jumped the gun.
“Jumped the Gun”totally stealed my phrased.
KJ,
By the way you know very well that i even asked you, what is going on, are we doing this my way (the guidelines that i presented) or your way, (the guides you presented)
I Asked for clrafication, and to prepare your case.
Is the resolve even clear?
Do you at least willing to debate the resolve?
or is it just about format now?man talk about taking a step forward and than two steps back.
SF,
Your pm said that Mike accepted my offer by a pm. I did not receive a pm from Mike. You asked if I wanted to do the debate your way. I have already indicated the format on page 10
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….7;st=90
Did Mike send his opening statement to a mediator first?
I explicitly said on page 18 that all details were to be discussed first:
Quote Do you want to have a structured debate that has a definitive end or not? If so, then pick the topic so we can determine word length, rules and all else. You are competing for the last word on this too. There you have it. But you received and revised Mike's opening statement without my knowledge. I explicitly said that there was to be no revision. NO ALTERATIONS!
Quote Mike and I will not begin debate until WJ and Mike's person post confirmations verifying that the opening statement of his man was posted UNALTERED.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….7;st=90It is my understanding that as a judge you are supposed to make sure that all the rules are being followed. Since when does a debate judge revise men's opening statements?
So here we are back to square one. It has become impossible now that Mike can post his opening statement unrevised. Mike must now pick another topic so he can send his opening statement to the mediator of his choice who will then send that statement to you. You will then wait until my opening statement comes from my mediator. Then you will post them AT THE SAME TIME with mine on top. Debate will not begin until each man's mediator first post confimations that the statement he received was posted unaltered..
Kangaroo Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 22 2010,13:41) SF, Your pm said that Mike accepted my offer by a pm. I did not receive a pm from Mike. You asked if I wanted to do the debate your way. I have already indicated the format on page 10
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….7;st=90
Did Mike send his opening statement to a mediator first?
I explicitly said on page 18 that all details were to be discussed first:
Quote Do you want to have a structured debate that has a definitive end or not? If so, then pick the topic so we can determine word length, rules and all else. You are competing for the last word on this too. There you have it. But you received and revised Mike's opening statement without my knowledge. I explicitly said that there was to be no revision. NO ALTERATIONS!
Quote Mike and I will not begin debate until WJ and Mike's person post confirmations verifying that the opening statement of his man was posted UNALTERED.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….7;st=90It is my understanding that as a judge you are supposed to make sure that all the rules are being followed. Since when does a debate judge revise men's opening statements?
So here we are back to square one. It has become impossible now that Mike can post his opening statement unrevised. Mike must now pick another topic so he can send his opening statement to the mediator of his choice who will then send that statement to you. You will then wait until my opening statement comes from my mediator. Then you will post them AT THE SAME TIME with mine on top. Debate will not begin until each man's mediator first post confimations that the statement he received was posted unaltered..
Kangaroo Jack
KJ,I revised his opening statments according to the CF formant, since mike statement didnt meet those requierments, i told him to revise it.
Second since your not all knowing
i told him that if you guys are debating your way, than no changes are nessary. but just advisable for organzation.I never said he sent an OPENING statement persay, i said that he sent me his case,
again Mike has never done debate before, im showing him how to present an effective case,
did you forget Roo that we are here to learn?
even organizing arguements correctly is learning.
You guys never agreed on ANYTHING so get to it already.
my job is to enforced what is agreed upon.
AGain did i not say that i said and qoute “under the impression” as in not sure, as in what is going on Roo.
so defensive.
My observation: your way is too complicated.
but whatever its up to ya.Again, Mike asked me to make sure is Case was proper to the format.
I think to myself, is he talking about mine, or yours…..
i just did it anyways under the impression the terms were under my format.
than i rememberd your post about the format your presented. assuming that ya already talked this out.again we can simply solved this confusion, by posting the Pms that were sent.
with Mikes permission.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 22 2010,19:38) KJ, By the way you know very well that i even asked you, what is going on, are we doing this my way (the guidelines that i presented) or your way, (the guides you presented)
I Asked for clrafication, and to prepare your case.
Is the resolve even clear?
Do you at least willing to debate the resolve?
or is it just about format now?man talk about taking a step forward and than two steps back.
SF,The resolve would have been fine had you not revised Mike's opening statement. But now he must start over and pick a new topic because he is unable to post an unaltered opening statement on the topic he selected.
It is not your job to revise statements. Mike should consult his mediator for that and then make the changes and send it to you. Then you post it as you received it. Then our mediators must post confirmations that the statements were posted unaltered. Then debate begins.
Sorry, Mike must pick another topic. He still has 18 left from which to choose. He can pick from one that he can work the Plurality topic in. I would have enjoyed debating the Plurality of God.
sf:
Quote man talk about taking a step forward and than two steps back.
Let's hammer all things out BEFOREHAND so there will be no steps backward.Later,
KJ
sf said:
Quote I revised his opening statments according to the CF formant, since mike statement didnt meet those requierments, I told him to revise it.
Then you send it back and telling us what to do. Then we revise it ourselves. How do I know you did not revise the content at all?KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 22 2010,13:56) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 22 2010,19:38) KJ, By the way you know very well that i even asked you, what is going on, are we doing this my way (the guidelines that i presented) or your way, (the guides you presented)
I Asked for clrafication, and to prepare your case.
Is the resolve even clear?
Do you at least willing to debate the resolve?
or is it just about format now?man talk about taking a step forward and than two steps back.
SF,The resolve would have been fine had you not revised Mike's opening statement. But now he must start over and pick a new topic because he is unable to post an unaltered opening statement on the topic he selected.
It is not your job to revise statements. Mike should consult his mediator for that and then make the changes and send it to you. Then you post it as you received it. Then our mediators must post confirmations that the statements were posted unaltered. Then debate begins.
Sorry, Mike must pick another topic. He still has 18 left from which to choose. He can pick from one that he can work the Plurality topic in. I would have enjoyed debating the Plurality of God.
sf:
Quote man talk about taking a step forward and than two steps back.
Let's hammer all things out BEFOREHAND so there will be no steps backward.Later,
KJ
What do you think it means when i say revised?just because i looked at it, it somehow disfavors you?
when i say revised, it means im looking to make sure that your case is alligned with the format.
Thats it.
Thats what mike was asking for.
in other words am i doing this correctlyhaving to many people involved in a debate creates confusion.
if two cant agree what makes you think 5 will?
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 22 2010,13:59) sf said: Quote I revised his opening statments according to the CF formant, since mike statement didnt meet those requierments, I told him to revise it.
Then you send it back and telling us what to do. Then we revise it ourselves. How do I know you did not revise the content at all?KJ
You know that i did not revise the content at all because again i stated that all i did was revise the FORMAT.not the content.
For example mike sent me contentions with no organization with no conclusion nor introduction.
also he sent a errored position within the debate. i corrected that as well.what would a judge do if both were presenting neg cases? he would correct that.
again like i said,
under my format, Mike would go first, and you would present your case, which will also include your attack.so it realy wouldnt mattter, you would have the advantage either way.
You can see the other oppenent arguements and than present a case.
but the Aff has the ability to have the last conclusive refute.
again Why would i revise content? do to what charge? to disprove the plurality of God?
really, do my posts within this forum really go in favor of that?
accusing the wrong person.Im fair, and i have my own position, but im not stupid.
What!?!? Dennison BELIEVES in a plural God? No fair – I want my mommy!
Oh brother, Roo! Haven't you figured out that Dennison leans toward the 3 in 1 position yet? Still I sent him everything I could think of to kick your butt about plural god – JUST so he could advise me on format. It has been my life experience that the ones accusing others of deception only do so because they know that if they were in the same position, THEY would be deceptive. I don't lie, and have no reason to think Dennison would have sent you my info so you could have a heads up. I just don't think that way. Besides, what does it really matter? Everything I claim is supported by scripture and experts and archeaology. It is no big secret, Jack. All my info is either in scripture or out there on the web ripe for the picking.
You sir, are a big crybaby. Either deal with the plural god thing or forget it. I'm tired of this crap. I didn't want to debate within boundries anyway. I did it this way so you and Paul would stop crying. We wouldn't need a “format” if you just agreed to a question and answer debate with Dennison (or ANYONE else, for that matter) steering us toward a conclusion. All I want is for my questions to be DIRECTLY answered. That's it. Nothing more. If you are right, then you should easily be able to answer any question I put forth and solidly debunk any claims I make. It's really just that simple.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
