- This topic is empty.
- Posts
TO MIKE:
Mike,
I over reacted in calling you a bald faced liar. I will apologize for that. I am still burning from your false accusations that I said that Jesus is above His Father. You falsely accused me of this at the beginning of our debate and again near the end. The second time you even included WJ and said that we are both blasphemers. I proved that your charges were wrong both times and you never apologized.
And we did discuss the Right Hand point on Echad 2. I even copied and pasted the beginning of our discussions to the debate because I did not want to discuss points we had agreed upon elsewhere. And you would not discuss it there. Remember my saying that king David called Christ his “Adonay” (God) in Psalm 110:5 and you denied that Adonay always refers to God? David replied to Jehovah saying, “My Adonay (God) is at your right hand.” I showed you that Jesus reigns at God's right hand as God. But you denied that Adonay always refers to God and you even said that Christ does not reign at all now. Then I asked you what Jesus is doing at God's right hand and you said He is “waiting” on God.
REMEMBER?We continued to discuss it on Echad for several long posts after that. At the same time we were discussing it on Echad you were demanding that we discuss in the debate even after you had ignored that I copied and pasted it there. It is somewhere in the last half of the debate.
I am willing to debate anything on your list that we have not discussed but it must have format with an end in sight. You are too demanding on my time. By “format” I mean that we each present opening remarks of certain word length, a fixed number rebuttals each within a certain amount of words and closing statements each within a certain amount of words.
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 18 2010,20:04) I am willing to debate anything on your list that we have not discussed but it must have format with an end in sight. You are too demanding on my time. By “format” I mean that we each present opening remarks of certain word length, a fixed number rebuttals each within a certain amount of words and closing statements each within a certain amount of words.
These are very reasonable conditions. I hope Mike finds the courage to accept this debate.Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 18 2010,20:12) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 18 2010,20:04) I am willing to debate anything on your list that we have not discussed but it must have format with an end in sight. You are too demanding on my time. By “format” I mean that we each present opening remarks of certain word length, a fixed number rebuttals each within a certain amount of words and closing statements each within a certain amount of words.
These are very reasonable conditions. I hope Mike finds the courage to accept this debate.
Paul,
Do you remember Mike saying that Christ hasn't reigned yet but is “waiting” on God? Yet he claims that we never discussed the Right Hand point. Mike gets our history mixed up just as he gets Eusebius' history mixed up.Jack
Quote (Ed J @ June 17 2010,20:43) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,13:39) Why can't we go question by question? I ask one. He answers and asks one of his own? mike
Hi Mike,That's exactly what I told WJ Here –>(Third Post). but he ran from me.
“Bible Truth” is hard to refute, so the 'only option' is run. (James 4:7)God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
I run from your confusion!
Run, ha, not me. I am a veteran here and have run from no one!
Don't flatter yourself! I have chosen not to have dialogue with you because of all the sickening ad hominems I have to wade through!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2010,01:02) Quote (Ed J @ June 17 2010,20:43) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,13:39) Why can't we go question by question? I ask one. He answers and asks one of his own? mike
Hi Mike,That's exactly what I told WJ Here –>(Third Post). but he ran from me.
“Bible Truth” is hard to refute, so the 'only option' is run. (James 4:7)God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org I run from your confusion!
Run, ha, not me. I am a veteran here and have run from no one!
Don't flatter yourself! I have chosen not to have dialogue with you because of all the sickening ad hominems I have to wade through!
WJ
Keith,I thought you would enjoy this brief video of Mikeboll and ED J beating their chests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQEwZZDD344
Jack
Hi WJ,
You can claim whatever reason best 'suits face' for you, but
the fact remains; at least you have admitted you ran.
Kang also: at has not denied this provable fact.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ June 19 2010,02:36) Hi WJ, You can claim whatever reason best 'suits face' for you, but
the fact remains; at least you have admitted you ran.
Kang also: at has not denied this provable fact.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
A non denial is not an admission. I have said many times here that I am not interested in discoursing with you. I only engaged with you on the “new earth” thread because you appeared sincere.KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 18 2010,09:53) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2010,01:02) Quote (Ed J @ June 17 2010,20:43) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,13:39) Why can't we go question by question? I ask one. He answers and asks one of his own? mike
Hi Mike,That's exactly what I told WJ Here –>(Third Post). but he ran from me.
“Bible Truth” is hard to refute, so the 'only option' is run. (James 4:7)God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org I run from your confusion!
Run, ha, not me. I am a veteran here and have run from no one!
Don't flatter yourself! I have chosen not to have dialogue with you because of all the sickening ad hominems I have to wade through!
WJ
Keith,I thought you would enjoy this brief video of Mikeboll and ED J beating their chests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQEwZZDD344
Jack
Quote (Ed J @ June 18 2010,10:36) Hi WJ, You can claim whatever reason best 'suits face' for you, but
the fact remains; at least you have admitted you ran.
Kang also: at has not denied this provable fact.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDYou think way to high of yourself!
WJ
Quote (Ed J @ June 18 2010,10:36) Hi WJ, You can claim whatever reason best 'suits face' for you, but
the fact remains; at least you have admitted you ran.
Kang also: at has not denied this provable fact.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDYou treat my words like you do the scriptures.
You pick what you want and then throw this rest out!
Its not only your ad hominems, but it is also your silly confusing numbering system!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 18 2010,11:17) Quote (Ed J @ June 18 2010,10:36) Hi WJ, You can claim whatever reason best 'suits face' for you, but
the fact remains; at least you have admitted you ran.
Kang also: at has not denied this provable fact.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDYou treat my words like you do the scriptures.
You pick what you want and then throw this rest out!
Its not only your ad hominems, but it is also your silly confusing numbering system!
WJ
…And your disengenuous method of quoting others post!Have you noticed that hardly anyone cares to dialogue with you because of these and other reasons like your condescending “I am” right and you are of satan, attitude?
WJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 19 2010,02:49) Quote (Ed J @ June 19 2010,02:36) Hi WJ, You can claim whatever reason best 'suits face' for you, but
the fact remains; at least you have admitted you ran.
Kang also: he has not denied this provable fact.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
A non denial is not an admission. I have said many times here that I am not interested in discoursing with you. I only engaged with you on the “new earth” thread because you appeared sincere.KJ
Hi Jack,Facts remain facts, period!
My dialog is sincere no matter where it occurs.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2010,03:20) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 18 2010,11:17) Quote (Ed J @ June 18 2010,10:36) Hi WJ, You can claim whatever reason best 'suits face' for you, but
the fact remains; at least you have admitted you ran.
Kang also: at has not denied this provable fact.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDYou treat my words like you do the scriptures.
You pick what you want and then throw this rest out!
Its not only your ad hominems, but it is also your silly confusing numbering system!
WJ
…And your disengenuous method of quoting others post!Have you noticed that hardly anyone cares to dialogue with you because of these and other reasons like your condescending “I am” right and you are of satan, attitude?
WJ
Hi WJ,'i am' is satan's title. (Mark 13:6)
Mark 13:6 For many shall come in my (Christian) name,
saying, 'i am'; and shall deceive many.Ed J (Daniel 11:18, 11:45)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2010,03:17) ED You treat my words like you do the scriptures.
WJ
Hi WJ,John 15:20-21 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord.
If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
But all these things will they do unto you for my [יהשוע] name's sake, because they know not him [יהוה] that sent me.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2010,02:54) Quote (Ed J @ June 18 2010,10:36) Hi WJ, You can claim whatever reason best 'suits face' for you, but
the fact remains; at least you have admitted you ran.
Kang also: at has not denied this provable fact.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDYou think way to high of yourself!
WJ
Hi WJ,Are you looking at yourself in the mirror again? (Click Here)
James 1:23-24 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer,
he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a [mirror]: For he
beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.Psalm 18:25-28 With the merciful thou(YHVH) will show thyself merciful;
with an upright man thou(YHVH) will show thyself upright; With the pure
thou(YHVH) will show thyself pure; and with the froward thou(YHVH) will
show thyself froward. For thou(YHVH) will save the afflicted people; but wilt bring down high looks.Ed J (Eccl.9:12-16 / Is.60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (SimplyForgiven @ June 18 2010,20:17) So Jack? so are willing to go with the format? or what?
SF,I would like a debate with a format inwhich we both give an opening statement of our premise. This would be followed by a fixed number of rebuttals and then we each give our closing statements. All would be limited to a maximum number of words.
I am at a disadvantage in going first because Mike could rebut my opening statement in his opening statement. The opening statement of the second person cannot be a rebuttal to the first person's opening statement. It must be a statement of each man's position on the selected topic alone. No argumentation will be allowed in the opening statements. So I would like to send my opening statement to WJ if he is willing. Mike can also send his opening statement to a person of his choice. Then WJ and Mike's person will send the opening statements to you. After you have perused them both making sure that they are in order and that there is no argumentation you will post them at the same time with my opening statement on top. 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. This protects you from being falsely accused by Mike and myself for altering our statements. So WJ and Mike's person would need to save the opening statements so they can compare what you posted.
After this we may engage in free for all rebuttal with me going first. Each of us will have a total of ten (10) rebuttals and each rebuttal will have a maximum number of words allowed. After each man has posted exactly ten (10) rebuttals we will both work on our closing statements. Again there will be a maximum number of words allowed.
The closing statements may contain anything each man wants to say. It may be a summary of one's own position or a critical analysis of the other man's position. Both closing statements may contain rebuttal from the main body of the debate including the opening statements.
Since my closing statement will be first then Mike's closing statement cannot contain rebuttal to my closing statement. Any rebuttal in the closing statements must be from the body of the debate. We may rebut anything from body of the debate within the word limitation. The closing statement will be the final word for each man.
Then WJ again will send my closing statement to you and the same with Mike's person. Then you will peruse them and post them at the same time with my closing statement on top. This protects me from the disadvantage of Mike having the last word. Again WJ and Mike's person will post a confirmation incicating that each closing statement was posted exactly as they received it.
This will be the end of the debate. After this anyone can start posting on the thread giving his/her 2 cents.
It is regrettable that this procedure is based on such a level distrust. But it does give format with an end in sight. It also gives each man protection and is not too structured for Mike.
I welcome the input of all who might feel this procedure needs to be tweeked. In the end we should have a procedure that is agreeable to Mike and myself. The selected topic will be from Mikes list on page 5 of our debate second post down. I have disqualified four of them which are these:
1. begotten
2. protokos
3. right hand
4. pasa ktisisSo Mike has 19 of 23 topics from which to choose. I believe that I am showing good faith to Mike.
I. Opening statements indicating each man's position on selected topic. No rebuttal
II. Main body containing ten (10) posts/ea. Free for all rebuttal
III. Closing statements with summary and/or rebuttal from main body of debate onlyLet the tweeking begin!
KJ
It is amusing to watch christians arguing over how they will argue over their nonsense fantasy stories.
Keep up the good work!
Stuart
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 12 2010,00:31) I hope that this can open up formal Debates between two individuals or teams of individuals which can be organized and instead of there being a winner or a loser, we become humble students of the word.
Do you expect this process to result in atheists becoming humble students of “the word”?What if “the word” is shown to be wrong? Does that concept exist in Texas?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ June 19 2010,05:27) It is amusing to watch christians arguing over how they will argue over their nonsense fantasy stories. Keep up the good work!
Stuart
Hi Stuart!Kang just called me an ape (a few Posts back on this thread);
looks like he's beginning to think more and more like you.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
