Cf and bif debate

[KangarooJack]

SF said:

Quote

(KJ vs. Mike was hilarious, never reached anything though, it was a waste of time.)

SF,

The debate between Mike and I did become a waste of time. This is one of the chief reasons why I decided to drop it. You can't get anywhere with a person like Mike. I pointed out to Mike several times that God appointed David to be his firstborn (Ps. 89). Yet Mike continually denied that David was God's son because the word “son” was not present in the verse. But the word “firstborn” means “eldest son.” And God said that David would say to God, “My Father.”

One cannot get anywhere with such unreasonable people. I received two pms from the same person suggesting that I drop it and when I came to realize that Mike was competing for the last word over the acquisition of truth I decided to heed the advise.

Kangaroo Jack

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,09:05)

SF said: Quote (KJ vs. Mike was hilarious, never reached anything though, it was a waste of time.) SF, The debate between Mike and I did become a waste of time. This is one of the chief reasons why I decided to drop it. You can't get anywhere with a person like Mike. I pointed out to Mike several times that God appointed David to be his firstborn (Ps. 89). Yet Mike continually denied that David was God's son because the word “son” was not present in the verse. But the word “firstborn” means “eldest son.” One cannot get anywhere with such unreasonable people. I received two pms from the same person suggesting that I drop it and when I came to realize that Mike was competing for the last word over acquiring truth I decided to heed the advise. Kangaroo Jack

Hi Kj,

The point of the proposition is to end nonsense.
The point of this, is to deal with people who continue to debate in nonsense. no more denial.
Now we have a chance to get to the point, as reasonable individuals.

I would suggest to redo your debate with mike, under these formats and styles so that there can finally be a conclusion to it for the public and for yourselves.

Much love,

[KangarooJack]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 15 2010,11:17)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,09:05) SF said: Quote (KJ vs. Mike was hilarious, never reached anything though, it was a waste of time.) SF, The debate between Mike and I did become a waste of time. This is one of the chief reasons why I decided to drop it. You can't get anywhere with a person like Mike. I pointed out to Mike several times that God appointed David to be his firstborn (Ps. 89). Yet Mike continually denied that David was God's son because the word “son” was not present in the verse. But the word “firstborn” means “eldest son.” One cannot get anywhere with such unreasonable people. I received two pms from the same person suggesting that I drop it and when I came to realize that Mike was competing for the last word over acquiring truth I decided to heed the advise. Kangaroo Jack Hi Kj, The point of the proposition is to end nonsense. The point of this, is to deal with people who continue to debate in nonsense.  no more denial. Now we have a chance to get to the point, as reasonable individuals. I would suggest to redo your debate with mike, under these formats and styles so that there can finally be a conclusion to it for the public and for yourselves. Much love,

SF,

First, the debate was nonsense on Mike's side alone. He argued points which he himself admitted that he could not scripturally prove. Now that's nonsense!

Your formats and styles are welcome by me if I should care to debate another. But your suggestion that Mike and I redo our debate…. Come on! That also is nonsense!

Kangaroo Jack

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,11:54)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 15 2010,11:17) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,09:05) SF said: Quote (KJ vs. Mike was hilarious, never reached anything though, it was a waste of time.) SF, The debate between Mike and I did become a waste of time. This is one of the chief reasons why I decided to drop it. You can't get anywhere with a person like Mike. I pointed out to Mike several times that God appointed David to be his firstborn (Ps. 89). Yet Mike continually denied that David was God's son because the word “son” was not present in the verse. But the word “firstborn” means “eldest son.” One cannot get anywhere with such unreasonable people. I received two pms from the same person suggesting that I drop it and when I came to realize that Mike was competing for the last word over acquiring truth I decided to heed the advise. Kangaroo Jack Hi Kj, The point of the proposition is to end nonsense. The point of this, is to deal with people who continue to debate in nonsense.  no more denial. Now we have a chance to get to the point, as reasonable individuals. I would suggest to redo your debate with mike, under these formats and styles so that there can finally be a conclusion to it for the public and for yourselves. Much love, SF, First, the debate was nonsense on Mike's side alone. He argued points which he himself admitted that he could not scripturally prove. Now that's nonsense! Your formats and styles are welcome by me if I should care to debate another. But your suggestion that Mike and I redo our debate…. Come on! That also is nonsense! Kangaroo Jack

hey kj,

lol why not redo it?

it will be different this time roo,

[mikeboll64]

He's just scared, Dennison. It's okay. He ran away once, so he definitely doesn't want to be locked in a cage with me again.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 15 2010,13:44)

He's just scared, Dennison.  It's okay.  He ran away once, so he definitely doesn't want to be locked in a cage with me again.

Mike,

Was David God's firstborn [son] or not (Ps. 89)?

the Roo

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,19:11)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 15 2010,13:44) He's just scared, Dennison.  It's okay.  He ran away once, so he definitely doesn't want to be locked in a cage with me again.       Mike, Was David God's firstborn [son] or not (Ps. 89)? the Roo

A straight forward question, demanding a yes or no answer. We wait to hear Mike's answer with baited breath….

I have one too – Is Israel God's firstborn or not (Ex 4:20)?

[SimplyForgiven]

Kj, Is

Why dont we just make a debate about this,
make your cases,
make your points,

and lets see what up holds and what drops.

The point if a point is not addressed its automaticly droped.

For example. You guys state that thing abotu teh first born, and you make a point about it.
and if there is not attack on it, than it holds valid.

now if you guys attack mikes about abut the first born and what not, and he doesnt defend it, it is dropped.

you see why dont we do this formally???

[KangarooJack]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 15 2010,13:43)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,11:54) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 15 2010,11:17) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,09:05) SF said: Quote (KJ vs. Mike was hilarious, never reached anything though, it was a waste of time.) SF, The debate between Mike and I did become a waste of time. This is one of the chief reasons why I decided to drop it. You can't get anywhere with a person like Mike. I pointed out to Mike several times that God appointed David to be his firstborn (Ps. 89). Yet Mike continually denied that David was God's son because the word “son” was not present in the verse. But the word “firstborn” means “eldest son.” One cannot get anywhere with such unreasonable people. I received two pms from the same person suggesting that I drop it and when I came to realize that Mike was competing for the last word over acquiring truth I decided to heed the advise. Kangaroo Jack Hi Kj, The point of the proposition is to end nonsense. The point of this, is to deal with people who continue to debate in nonsense.  no more denial. Now we have a chance to get to the point, as reasonable individuals. I would suggest to redo your debate with mike, under these formats and styles so that there can finally be a conclusion to it for the public and for yourselves. Much love, SF, First, the debate was nonsense on Mike's side alone. He argued points which he himself admitted that he could not scripturally prove. Now that's nonsense! Your formats and styles are welcome by me if I should care to debate another. But your suggestion that Mike and I redo our debate…. Come on! That also is nonsense! Kangaroo Jack hey kj, lol why not redo it? it will be different this time roo,

sf,

I take your word that it will be different this time. So I have decided to do it. Set it up!

Kangaroo Jack

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,19:37)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 15 2010,13:43) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,11:54) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 15 2010,11:17) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,09:05) SF said: Quote (KJ vs. Mike was hilarious, never reached anything though, it was a waste of time.) SF, The debate between Mike and I did become a waste of time. This is one of the chief reasons why I decided to drop it. You can't get anywhere with a person like Mike. I pointed out to Mike several times that God appointed David to be his firstborn (Ps. 89). Yet Mike continually denied that David was God's son because the word “son” was not present in the verse. But the word “firstborn” means “eldest son.” One cannot get anywhere with such unreasonable people. I received two pms from the same person suggesting that I drop it and when I came to realize that Mike was competing for the last word over acquiring truth I decided to heed the advise. Kangaroo Jack Hi Kj, The point of the proposition is to end nonsense. The point of this, is to deal with people who continue to debate in nonsense.  no more denial. Now we have a chance to get to the point, as reasonable individuals. I would suggest to redo your debate with mike, under these formats and styles so that there can finally be a conclusion to it for the public and for yourselves. Much love, SF, First, the debate was nonsense on Mike's side alone. He argued points which he himself admitted that he could not scripturally prove. Now that's nonsense! Your formats and styles are welcome by me if I should care to debate another. But your suggestion that Mike and I redo our debate…. Come on! That also is nonsense! Kangaroo Jack hey kj, lol why not redo it? it will be different this time roo, sf, I take your word that it will be different this time. So I have decided to do it. Set it up! Kangaroo Jack

Alright Roo,

To set this up,
I need to know if its going to be the same topic of the last debate ya had or is there going to be a new resolve?

1. The Resolve: has to be at least a phrase.
ex: The Trinity is what God is.
ex: Jesus is only the son of God.
ex: Jesus is only the first born of God.

2. Picks either Affirmation for the resolve or negation.
3. Makes your individual cases.
4. Aff will always go First.
5. the order and process is stated as the main topic of this thread.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 15 2010,19:45)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,19:37) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 15 2010,13:43) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,11:54) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 15 2010,11:17) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,09:05) SF said: Quote (KJ vs. Mike was hilarious, never reached anything though, it was a waste of time.) SF, The debate between Mike and I did become a waste of time. This is one of the chief reasons why I decided to drop it. You can't get anywhere with a person like Mike. I pointed out to Mike several times that God appointed David to be his firstborn (Ps. 89). Yet Mike continually denied that David was God's son because the word “son” was not present in the verse. But the word “firstborn” means “eldest son.” One cannot get anywhere with such unreasonable people. I received two pms from the same person suggesting that I drop it and when I came to realize that Mike was competing for the last word over acquiring truth I decided to heed the advise. Kangaroo Jack Hi Kj, The point of the proposition is to end nonsense. The point of this, is to deal with people who continue to debate in nonsense.  no more denial. Now we have a chance to get to the point, as reasonable individuals. I would suggest to redo your debate with mike, under these formats and styles so that there can finally be a conclusion to it for the public and for yourselves. Much love, SF, First, the debate was nonsense on Mike's side alone. He argued points which he himself admitted that he could not scripturally prove. Now that's nonsense! Your formats and styles are welcome by me if I should care to debate another. But your suggestion that Mike and I redo our debate…. Come on! That also is nonsense! Kangaroo Jack hey kj, lol why not redo it? it will be different this time roo, sf, I take your word that it will be different this time. So I have decided to do it. Set it up! Kangaroo Jack Alright Roo, To set this up, I need to know if its going to be the same topic of the last debate ya had or is there going to be a new resolve? 1. The Resolve: has to be at least a phrase. ex: The Trinity is what God is. ex: Jesus is only the son of God. ex: Jesus is only the first born of God. 2. Picks either Affirmation for the resolve or negation. 3. Makes your individual cases. 4. Aff will always go First. 5. the order and process is stated as the main topic of this thread.

sf,

Let Mike pick the topic since he thinks I am “scared.” He knew that I quit because the hours to reply to one post was taking its toll. Yet he childishly boasts I am “scared” when he knows better. He has so much idle time on his hands and is able to keep it up.

So let the novice pick the topic.

KJ

[SimplyForgiven]

KJ,
lol… no problem.

As soon ya do. prepare your case.

The case is the center of these arguemetns,
you would want it to be really good.

[Is 1:18]

This should be interesting…I look forward to reading a structured debate where questions must be addressed and answered without equivocation.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 15 2010,20:40)

This should be interesting…I look forward to reading a structured debate where questions must be addressed and answered without equivocation.

Paul,

Yeah man! The more I thought about this the better I liked it. Mike will be held accountable if he tries his equivocation and shenanigans like, “David was God's firstborn but not His son.”

Mike knows that if he admits that God had more than one firstborn SON then his whole Christology falls to the ground.

Jack

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 15 2010,03:23)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,19:11) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 15 2010,13:44) He's just scared, Dennison.  It's okay.  He ran away once, so he definitely doesn't want to be locked in a cage with me again.       Mike, Was David God's firstborn [son] or not (Ps. 89)? the Roo A straight forward question, demanding a yes or no answer. We wait to hear Mike's answer with baited breath…. I have one too – Is Israel God's firstborn or not (Ex 4:20)?

Hi Paul

They have reinvented the words firstborn and begotten.

They are being dishonest and vague in their Christology by claiming that “first born” and “begotten” must apply to Jesus as being literraly born from the Father before the beginning of all things, yet if this was so then that would also be a beginning before the beginning, for we know that Jesus already existed with the Father in the beginning of all things.

Not only that they are not true to their analogy of the  procreation of humans, which was accomplished be a Father and Mother having a Son, but instead the new definition of the terms is an asexual God beget or brought birth to a god. This is in line with Greek Mythology!

Blessings Keith

[KangarooJack]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 16 2010,03:56)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 15 2010,03:23) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,19:11) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 15 2010,13:44) He's just scared, Dennison.  It's okay.  He ran away once, so he definitely doesn't want to be locked in a cage with me again.       Mike, Was David God's firstborn [son] or not (Ps. 89)? the Roo A straight forward question, demanding a yes or no answer. We wait to hear Mike's answer with baited breath…. I have one too – Is Israel God's firstborn or not (Ex 4:20)? Hi Paul They have reinvented the words firstborn and begotten. They are being dishonest and vague in their Christology by claiming that “first born” and “begotten” must apply to Jesus as being literraly born from the Father before the beginning of all things, yet if this was so then that would also be a beginning before the beginning, for we know that Jesus already existed with the Father in the beginning of all things. Not only that they are not true to their analogy of the  procreation of humans, which was accomplished be a Father and Mother having a Son, but instead the new definition of the terms is an asexual God beget or brought birth to a god. This is in line with Greek Mythology! Blessings Keith

Keith,

Yeah bro! I have tried to tell Mike that his views have their origin in Greek paganism.

btw, I have two JW acquaintances by the names Maxine and Delores. I seen them today for the first time in a while and I spoke with them about Mike's view that Jesus is a god in the “same sense” as satan. They were visibly appalled by the idea. They said that God has appointed Jesus as our Lord and Savior because He shed His blood for our sins.

They said that those who adhere to Mike's ideas are considered as the “evil slave class” and they usually end up leaving the JW church. So I am wondering if this may be a reason why Mike is no longer a JW.

I am reading here that Mike has become a moderator. Who would want a man to moderate who believes that Jesus is a god in the “same sense” as satan?

Jack

[SimplyForgiven]

Hey guys,

save it for the debate.

Note: defining terms is also part of your case.

Remember in the English language words change meaning all the time,
hitherto,
Replenish,
gay,

there are alot of words within the KJV that meant something different back than and today is not the same.
I would suggest on gettting a really old dictionary.

replenish use to mean to fill back than. until 1892 (something like that) the secondary meaning was to fill again. than later the primary defintion was to fill again.

Going back to the hebrew or greek it always good to.
Definition of terms are very important in this debate,

you define the words within the resolve fyi. and anything else that you think it nessary.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 15 2010,19:23)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,19:11) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 15 2010,13:44) He's just scared, Dennison.  It's okay.  He ran away once, so he definitely doesn't want to be locked in a cage with me again.       Mike, Was David God's firstborn [son] or not (Ps. 89)? the Roo A straight forward question, demanding a yes or no answer. We wait to hear Mike's answer with baited breath…. I have one too – Is Israel God's firstborn or not (Ex 4:20)?

You guys are all crazy – WJ, Paul, Roo  

As I answered Jack MANY, MANY times in our debate, God made David His firstborn among kings of the earth.  So no, it is never said that David is God's firstborn son anywhere in scripture.

And Paul, are you saying Israel was a firstborn “son” of God?

Epraim is also called His firstborn.  Was the northern part of the nation of Israel God's “son”?

Do you see, Roo?  Like I said many times, firstborn doesn't have to mean “firstborn son”.  And now Paul makes the point again for me.  I think I used the firstborn calf to make the point, but it didn't take.  

Let's do this debate, man!  I'll debate all three of you at once.  I'm not worried that I'm the novice – I've got scripture and the One who wrote it on my side.  Who wants to go first?

WJ and I are working (ever so slowly) on “all power and authority” and John 1:1.  Roo and I were in the final stages (I think) of monogenes and pasa ktisis when he quit.  I left them both with one very simple straightforward question – but no answers yet.

Why don't we start there.   Bump one of the posts, one of you guys can answer, and Dennison can “moderate”.  I only have two requests:
1.  No million word posts.  Let's take ONE point at a time.  I know there are sometimes multiple scriptures to support your view of that ONE point, but I don't want to answer to EVERY scripture in the Bible on EVERY post.  Bring them on one at a time unless the two are tied into one “evidence” to support your view.

2.  No harrassment.  Capitals and bolds are great for highlighting certain parts of your statement, not for “yelling” at your adversary.  And these graphics, insults and ridicules are not Christian, and IMO are childish and counterproductive.

Let's keep it clean and respectable, and may the truth win in the end.

peace and love,
mike

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 16 2010,14:27)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 15 2010,19:23) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,19:11) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 15 2010,13:44) He's just scared, Dennison.  It's okay.  He ran away once, so he definitely doesn't want to be locked in a cage with me again.       Mike, Was David God's firstborn [son] or not (Ps. 89)? the Roo A straight forward question, demanding a yes or no answer. We wait to hear Mike's answer with baited breath…. I have one too – Is Israel God's firstborn or not (Ex 4:20)? You guys are all crazy – WJ, Paul, Roo   As I answered Jack MANY, MANY times in our debate, God made David His firstborn among kings of the earth.  So no, it is never said that David is God's firstborn son anywhere in scripture. And Paul, are you saying Israel was a firstborn “son” of God? Epraim is also called His firstborn.  Was the northern part of the nation of Israel God's “son”? Do you see, Roo?  Like I said many times, firstborn doesn't have to mean “firstborn son”.  And now Paul makes the point again for me.  I think I used the firstborn calf to make the point, but it didn't take.   Let's do this debate, man!  I'll debate all three of you at once.  I'm not worried that I'm the novice – I've got scripture and the One who wrote it on my side.  Who wants to go first? WJ and I are working (ever so slowly) on “all power and authority” and John 1:1.  Roo and I were in the final stages (I think) of monogenes and pasa ktisis when he quit.  I left them both with one very simple straightforward question – but no answers yet. Why don't we start there.   Bump one of the posts, one of you guys can answer, and Dennison can “moderate”.  I only have two requests: 1.  No million word posts.  Let's take ONE point at a time.  I know there are sometimes multiple scriptures to support your view of that ONE point, but I don't want to answer to EVERY scripture in the Bible on EVERY post.  Bring them on one at a time unless the two are tied into one “evidence” to support your view. 2.  No harrassment.  Capitals and bolds are great for highlighting certain parts of your statement, not for “yelling” at your adversary.  And these graphics, insults and ridicules are not Christian, and IMO are childish and counterproductive. Let's keep it clean and respectable, and may the truth win in the end. peace and love, mike

Ok mike,

So how are we doing this?
a free style way
or are we going to do this formally with a true debate case?

The formats i presented are speacialy for debating one resolve or scripture at a time.

So how are we doing this, just choose a topic!
lol agree on something!!!

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 16 2010,14:27)

WJ, Paul, Roo No million word posts.  Let's take ONE point at a time. peace and love, mike

Hi Mike,

That is what I said to WJ months ago!
He strings many unrelated points together
thinking that will make what he says stick.
I'm glad you could see through this as well!

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Author]

Posts