- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 16 2010,14:40) 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!!!
Hi SF,Contact me by pm when it is all set up. As I have said the more I think about a debate with rules and guidelines the more I like it. The way Mike and I “debated” before was tooooo time consuming and frustrating.
Kangaroo Jack
KJ,
i sure will pm you.
but the thing is ya need to agree on a topic, or ill make one up.
ya's choice, this can be a trinity debate or a scripture debate.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 17 2010,06:38) KJ, i sure will pm you.
but the thing is ya need to agree on a topic, or ill make one up.
ya's choice, this can be a trinity debate or a scripture debate.
SF,Mike can choose the topic to show that I am not “scared.” After he wore me out with his filibustering he then beats his chest about it. I don't care what the topic is or who goes first. I just want a scructured debate with rules that has an end in sight.
KJ
Quote (Ed J @ June 16 2010,15:13) 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
Hi Ed,Amen. And in the end of all that posting and answering, nothing ever gets resolved. I want some closure on a point here and there.
peace and love and hope you are well in Christ,
mikeQuote (SimplyForgiven @ June 17 2010,07:12) Mike,
Choose a topic already old man!
Hi Dennison,Respect your elders, young man!
Look, we have a perfectly good debate going right now. We started off debating the trinity doctrine. The posts started getting too long, so I broke it down into 23 separate points. I think it is on page 5 of our debate. Roo picked the first point of discussion, “pasa ktisis” which grew into including “monogenes”. It was to be my choice of the 23 when (if) we ever finished the first point. We didn't.
I want to finish the point we started. What I need you for is forcing Roo to answer direct points.
So, do you want to start where we left off? I've got two questions right now on that thread. OR…… Do you want me to spif it up and follow your format and start a new thread?
Either way, the first topic will be the Greek meaning of “monogenes” and “prototokos pasa ktisis”. I think they mean what they say, while Jack believes his friends who have invented some new definitions for them. So if you want to start the thread under your guidelines, be my guest. I'd prefer you just tell him to answer the two questions that have been waiting for him in our thread, and we can go from there.
peace and love,
mikeMust we have a debate about the debate?
Fellas, my suggestion is you follow the CF debate protocol as stipulated by SF in the very first post in this thread. That will provide some structural integrity to proceedings. It will also mean the debate duration/termination is limited and understood.
The topic should be:
The intended meaning of “monogenes” and “prototokos pasa ktisis” as applied to Yeshua by new testament writers is “…….” and “…….” [fill in the gaps] respectively.
Mike, you argue for the affirmative. KJ you argue for the negative.
Start it in a new thread in the debates forum, to filter out all the noise that is already prevailing on the topic.
Let's get it on.
Dude, I will debate you about whether or not we should have a debate about the debate!
Paul, I just re-read the outline, and right from the jump we are up to 4 pages of text before we get started. That's exactly what Jack and I both want to avoid. Why can't we go question by question? I ask one. He answers and asks one of his own? I will also in my reply HAVE to directly answer his point along with refuting his answer to mine if possible or necessary. And so on. All I want is for my questions to be answered directly. And I want to actually get to the bottom of a single question here before I die of old age. I don't care if it is you or WJ or JA, Nick, t8, Dennison or whoever doing the moderating, as long as someone besides me is saying, “Uh, Roo? Are you going to actually answer that point?”
mike
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 17 2010,13:14) Must we have a debate about the debate? Fellas, my suggestion is you follow the CF debate protocol as stipulated by SF in the very first post in this thread. That will provide some structural integrity to proceedings. It will also mean the debate duration/termination is limited and understood.
The topic should be:
The intended meaning of “monogenes” and “prototokos pasa ktisis” as applied to Yeshua by new testament writers is “…….” and “…….” [fill in the gaps] respectively.
Mike, you argue for the affirmative. KJ you argue for the negative.
Start it in a new thread in the debates forum, to filter out all the noise that is already prevailing on the topic.
Let's get it on.
Hi mike!!elder? maybe im older than you!!!
lets do it with the new format, because i cant force anyone to answer a question. As a judge I can only validate or drop cliams at the end of the debate and enforce the rules during the debate. IF kj decides not to defend his point, it is dropped in other words not valid. If Kj decides not to attack your point, than his attack drops and your point upholds into validation. thats how CF debate works.Its better becasue its formal and points can actually validate.
its all about validation.
Hi Is,
I couldnt have said it any better myself Is!!! I have to make a side within the resolve so i had to change it up a bit.The Resolve: The Greek interpretation of the intended meaning of “monogenes” meaning only of a kind and “prototokos pasa ktisis” also meaning the firstborn or head of all mankind when applied to Jesus.
KJ- is Affirmitive,
Mike- Is NegIm posting this up on the debate section.
Prepare your cases. KJ is starting this off.
any questions? about the format? Rememer the page limits font: times new romans, 12.Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,13:39) Dude, I will debate you about whether or not we should have a debate about the debate! Paul, I just re-read the outline, and right from the jump we are up to 4 pages of text before we get started. That's exactly what Jack and I both want to avoid. Why can't we go question by question? I ask one. He answers and asks one of his own? I will also in my reply HAVE to directly answer his point along with refuting his answer to mine if possible or necessary. And so on. All I want is for my questions to be answered directly. And I want to actually get to the bottom of a single question here before I die of old age. I don't care if it is you or WJ or JA, Nick, t8, Dennison or whoever doing the moderating, as long as someone besides me is saying, “Uh, Roo? Are you going to actually answer that point?”
mike
MIKE,You have the ability to ask ten questions in the Cross ex of the debate, that he has to answer.
If he doesnt, you can use it against him, to attack his points.and if your not satisfied after the debate which should be short, should be open to all. after the debate ask your questions.
If you would like lets also create a Q&A debate as well that includes a Judge.
It should be limited in questions and page limits.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 17 2010,13:55) Its better becasue its formal and points can actually validate.
I don't know, Dennison. What we end up with is you, a mere man, deciding how many “debate points” we each won. How does that help us get to the bottom of what scripture really means?Here is the problem as I see it (and I'm sure the trinitarians think the same from their point of view). When I come up with a great point that they can't refute, they don't acknowledge that – instead they run and insult and ridicule my point without ever addressing it.
All Jack and I need is for you to decide whether someone has honestly answered a question to the best of their ability or whether they are stalling and avoiding. If it's the latter, we must both agree that your word decides whether the answer was honest and complete enough, or if that person needs to more DIRECTLY address the point in question.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,14:17) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 17 2010,13:55) Its better becasue its formal and points can actually validate.
I don't know, Dennison. What we end up with is you, a mere man, deciding how many “debate points” we each won. How does that help us get to the bottom of what scripture really means?Here is the problem as I see it (and I'm sure the trinitarians think the same from their point of view). When I come up with a great point that they can't refute, they don't acknowledge that – instead they run and insult and ridicule my point without ever addressing it.
All Jack and I need is for you to decide whether someone has honestly answered a question to the best of their ability or whether they are stalling and avoiding. If it's the latter, we must both agree that your word decides whether the answer was honest and complete enough, or if that person needs to more DIRECTLY address the point in question.
mike
Mike,Than you want a Q&A debate.
I can do this as well.
validation as everything to do with honesty.
not answering a question correctly or ridculing someone does not uphold in a debate.Again its up to you, the Debate is ready to go if you wish to continue in the Cf
if not lets do a Q&A debate.
basically would be a certain amount of questions with many rebuttles.
I think there should be a limit, because the problem with Q&A debates it can continue forever. and also do you want your oppenent to speculate? go off topic?I think one has to set the paradimes. where as for me as a Judge i despise speculation. debates based on speculation continue forever and ever, never ending.
so its up to you.
im ready when you are.
I was just about to post the CF Debate on the debate section, but i wont post it if you dont want me to.
Make a choice, in what exactly you want.
FYI Mike,
It does get to the bottom of what scripture means by finally dropping points and never bringing them up again.
There is alot of nonsense in this forum, by finally making these points silent, one can continue to see what is valid and what is invalid.You know what lol forget it im posting it Up,
Either debate or not!
Or do both a Q&A and a CF!!!
if you want do both, i can setup a debate where its based on questions and answers.IT doesnt matter to me!
WHOOPS TO LATE:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….274;r=1
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, CHILDREN OF ALL AGES
Heaven.net proudly presents in the blue text Corner Kangaroo Jack with 1028 posts!
and in the Red corner Mikeboll64 with 1207 Posts!!LETS GET READY TO RUMBLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
TO SIMPLY FORGIVEN:
I can't believe Mike man! Before I debate him again you have to get him honest. Note that he said that the first point of discussion I picked in the debate was “pasa ktisis.”
Quote Roo picked the first point of discussion, “pasa ktisis” which grew into including “monogenes”.
This is a bald faced lie! Please go to page 5 of the debate third post down. I picked the topic “When was Jesus begotten” which was #11 on Mike's list of topics. I said,Quote Hi Mike, Let's start with your point #11 which is “WHEN WAS JESUS BEGOTTEN?”
Mike lied also in saying that “monogenes” was to be his next choice if we ever finished with “pasa ktisis.” Laughable! First, I did not pick “pasa ktisis.” Second, “monogenes” was not Mike's next choice. His next choice was “Sitting at Right Hand Means Equality” (#1). On page 7 fourth post down Mike said:Quote I'm ready for you to show me that being at someone's right hand means equality with that person.
Then again in the last post on page 7:Quote Can we move on to the right hand of God now? 1. How do come to the understanding that it means “equality”?
Again second post down on page 8:Quote Now can you tell me how right hand means equality?
So we have three occurrences in less than two pages where Mike said that he wanted to discuss “The Right Hand Means Equality.”Then at the top of page 9 we start getting into monogenes. Mike brought it up at the beginning of his post. But by the end of that post he said this:
Quote So, if you have more on “begotten”, let me have it.
But if you want to keep going on “firstborn”, handle the “right hand” first, then we'll come back to it.
Okay, Mike says that if I have more on begotten (monogenes) to let him have it because he wanted to leave the “firstborn” subject and go straight to the Right Hand. So I gave him more on begotten in my next post and by the end of his first reply he said this,Quote We have spent many days and thousands of words on this point (most of them the same repeated words), it's time to move on. Show me how being at the right hand of God means equality with God.
There it is! He asked for more on “begotten” if I had it. Then after one post each he says that we have spent many days and thousands of words “this point” and it's time to move on to the right hand of God means equality.But now he says that the “first” topic will be the Greek meaning of “monogenes” and “prototokos pasa ktisis”. No deal! We are discussing these points right now in Scripture and Biblical Doctrine.
In our debate I said that I would not discuss the Right Hand issue because we had already been discussing it in Echad. So what makes Mike think that I would discuss monogenes and protokos when we are already going at it in Scripture and Biblical Doctrine?
Look, when I invited Mike to choose the topic I expected that we would be exploring a point not yet discussed on Mike's list. But he wants to keep on the same subject after he himself said that “we had spent many days and thousands of words.”
NO! He said that he wanted to leave “firstborn” but to give him more on “begotten” if I had it. So I gave him more on begotten and immediately he wanted to get to the Right Hand issue. Then he engaged me on that issue in Echad and I asked him to save it for the debate. But he wouldn't wait and I warned him that if we discuss it in Echad we will not take it up in our debate. So the following points are out:
1. begotten
2. protokos
3. right hand
4. pasa ktisisWhen I invited Mike to pick the topic I expected that we were going to discuss a topic we have not yet discussed. So he needs to pick again.
And the topic he picks will not be the “first” topic. It will be the one and only topic we debate. After that first nightmare I have no desire to debate many topics with Mike. I enjoy myself much more by posting freely on the various topics throughout the board. Mike is too demanding on my time for many topics.
So it is evident then that many things must still be ironed out before we proceed.
the Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 18 2010,05:58) TO SIMPLY FORGIVEN: I can't believe Mike man! Before I debate him again you have to get him honest. Note that he said that the first point of discussion I picked in the debate was “pasa ktisis.”
Quote Roo picked the first point of discussion, “pasa ktisis” which grew into including “monogenes”.
This is a bald faced lie! Please go to page 5 of the debate third post down. I picked the topic “When was Jesus begotten” which was #11 on Mike's list of topics. I said,Quote Hi Mike, Let's start with your point #11 which is “WHEN WAS JESUS BEGOTTEN?”
Mike lied also in saying that “monogenes” was to be his next choice if we ever finished with “pasa ktisis.” Laughable! First, I did not pick “pasa ktisis.” Second, “monogenes” was not Mike's next choice. His next choice was “Sitting at Right Hand Means Equality” (#1). On page 7 fourth post down Mike said:Quote I'm ready for you to show me that being at someone's right hand means equality with that person.
Then again in the last post on page 7:Quote Can we move on to the right hand of God now? 1. How do come to the understanding that it means “equality”?
Again second post down on page 8:Quote Now can you tell me how right hand means equality?
So we have three occurrences in less than two pages where Mike said that he wanted to discuss “The Right Hand Means Equality.”Then at the top of page 9 we start getting into monogenes. Mike brought it up at the beginning of his post. But by the end of that post he said this:
Quote So, if you have more on “begotten”, let me have it.
But if you want to keep going on “firstborn”, handle the “right hand” first, then we'll come back to it.
Okay, Mike says that if I have more on begotten (monogenes) to let him have it because he wanted to leave the “firstborn” subject and go straight to the Right Hand. So I gave him more on begotten in my next post and by the end of his first reply he said this,Quote We have spent many days and thousands of words on this point (most of them the same repeated words), it's time to move on. Show me how being at the right hand of God means equality with God.
There it is! He asked for more on “begotten” if I had it. Then after one post each he says that we have spent many days and thousands of words “this point” and it's time to move on to the right hand of God means equality.But now he says that the “first” topic will be the Greek meaning of “monogenes” and “prototokos pasa ktisis”. No deal! We are discussing these points right now in Scripture and Biblical Doctrine.
In our debate I said that I would not discuss the Right Hand issue because we had already been discussing it in Echad. So what makes Mike think that I would discuss monogenes and protokos when we are already going at it in Scripture and Biblical Doctrine?
Look, when I invited Mike choose the topic I expected that we would be exploring a point not yet discussed on Mike's list. But he wants to keep on the same subject after he himself said that “we had spent many days and thousands of words.”
NO! He said that he wanted to leave “firstborn” but to give him more on “begotten” if I had it. So I gave him more on begotten and immediately he wanted to get to the Right Hand issue. Then he engaged me on that issue in Echad and I asked him to save it for the debate. But he wouldn't wait and I warned him that if we discuss it in Echad we will not take it up in our debate. So the following points are out:
1. begotten
2. protokos
3. right hand
4. pasa ktisisWhen I invited Mike to pick the topic I expected that we were going to discuss a topic we have not yet discussed. So he needs to pick again.
And the topic he picks will not be the “first” topic. It will be the one and only topic we debate. After that first nightmare I have no desire to debate many topics with Mike. I enjoy myself much more by posting freely on the various topics throughout the board. Mike is too demanding for many topics.
So it is evident then that many things must still be ironed out before we proceed.
the Roo
KJ,Ok this is getting frustrating,
I jumped the gun.
why dont you just choose a topic that hasnt been discussed.Or let me pick it.
Should I ask for the moderatoers to delete the thread that i posted up, because ya are not going to dicuss it?
Someone needs to make a decision already.
grrr
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
