- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ June 19 2010,19:43) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 19 2010,19:24) Hi all, I was recently adviced that if i want people to understand the simplicity of this format, and the good results it can produce, i need to be the example or in other words lead by example.
So I have been thinking who would be great to debate.
I have many choices.
I cant debate KJ, or WJ, becuase we havent clashed enough yet. and i think they are old timers too, like mike. (JK have a sense of humor)
I thought about numbers, but he doesnt make any sense, he makes knife comments.
Ed J i cant argue agaisnt numbers or english gamteria, or what not.
Mike is off the list for sure, becuase he doesnt want to debate the format.
Nick doesnt make sense. i might debate me with one line.
Gene and jodi almost fall in that same category.
So im left down to T8, Just Askin, David or Chosenone who many times have made very reasonable points. but the only one i really clashed with was with David and Co more than t8 or Ja. whomever wants to debate is fine.I talk to Rokkaman about being the Judge, because he is willing to argue with me all the time, and we duke it out alot, so its good because i know he is not biased. and is ready to make reasonable actions and validations.
Anyways those are the four people im willing to debate for now.
These are the topics im willing to debate for each individual, first come, first serve.
Under the CF Format. Im AFF for the first three topics.Chosenone- Resolve: “God has given man the choice to choose Him and receive eternal life or reject Him and recieve eternal damnation.”
David or T8- Resolve: “The Jews refered to in John 10, sought to stone Jesus for claiming to be God but not for claiming to be the Son of God, which results that Jesus intended to cliam that the Father and Son are one.”
JA- I cant think of a topic for you……surprise me.
if the topics arnt good enough let me know if you come up with something better.
I think Is/Paul, should debate david by the way.
much love,
For me a debate is not about clashing with someone who is very different to me, I accept people's differences. My wife is different to me. She speaks a different language, is from a different culture, and we have other cultural differences. But I love that. For me, it is about debating truth versus lie.If scripture says one thing and a person says that scripture is saying something different, then I will debate that because truth is important and it needs defenders.
My only motive is for truth to be the winner. Think of it as putting a light on a hill, and not under a blanket. Even if I lose and truth wins, then I take that as a win, because truth should be the winner, and if truth proves me wrong, then I have the opportunity to align to that truth and become a better person which is my desire. After all, I want to stand when I am judged and not cover my face in shame on that day.
I totally agree.I just want to debate to show an example i guess of what im presenting.
When i state clash, i meant that i havent had enough to come up with a subject where Wj or Kj and i can have different view points and actually debate.
The only one i can think of is the Sons of God issue referring to angels and not mighty men or what not.
again back to the point,
i totally agree with youi have expressed many times the same points taht you have said, i rather let God be God, and let him win, he is Truth, he should know.
but in regards to debating, there needs to be an end to all the repitition and running away plus insults.
I think having the option to have a formal debate would be conclusive, and a answer to that problem.
again its an option.
Quote (t8 @ June 19 2010,19:43) For me, it is about debating truth versus lie.
And for me. But we need to provide a medium where the truth and lies will not be lost in the noise of unfocused thought in an unstructured format. Which is where SF's expertise comes in. The objective is to create a platform for truth to prevail.Quote (t8 @ June 19 2010,19:47) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,19:39) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 14 2010,05:10) Okay Dennison, I'll wait for a taker. I've asked katjo, JA and Jack. We'll see what happens.
mike
t8, Mike has already agreed to this….
OK, let it begin.I hope that the people involved will be honest. And remember it is OK,to say, “I don't know”. And in saying that, it doesn't make the other person win the debate either. After all, we do not know all things. We need to be reasonable and look at the whole debate and add up the answers and non-answers and see who if any is in line with scripture.
There are no winners in these debates.
the only things that is clear is what has been held valid still or what has been dropped,In other words the Judge is just stating the obvious.
Like hey you know what you didnt answer this questions, or the person just didnt know. whatever.
but it makes it clear. there is not hit and run tactic of dodging bullets.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 19 2010,18:52) Mikeboll daid: Quote And why can't we finish what we've already started?
For two reasons:1. We have already beaten the topics into the ground. All you have to offer is repetition. Let me ask you: Why not start a new topic?
2. Because there is no such word as “finish” with you. You will continue to compete for the last word until you wear me out again. Then I would quit and you would start beating your chest again. I want a debate that will actually “finish” without my having to quit.
Is this too hard for you to comprehend Mike?
the Roo
This is in response to Jack and Paul's constant personal attacks about me always having to have the last word. These are some of my closings from my debate with Jack. The debate is 15 pages long, (so far) and the first comment below was way back on page 6.Quote I never set out to prove anything. I read the words as they are written for what they actually mean. You are the one speculating they mean something different. You, my friend are the one with the burden of proof since you are the one who is trying to say “black” means “white”. And so far, you have provided nothing to prove they mean anything other that what they say. Are you ready to give up and move to the next point? Page 6
Quote The next point of discussion should be easy. All you have to do is prove to me that being at someone's right hand means equality with that person. peace and love,
mikepage 7
Quote I'm ready for you to show me that being at someone's right hand means equality with that person. peace and love,
mikepage 7
Quote Can we move on to the right hand of God now? 1. How do come to the understanding that it means “equality”? page 8
Quote The fact is, you think that Jesus was begotten when he was raised. I think Jesus was begotten in the beginning, before God created anything else. You think you have Scriptures that support your belief, I think I have many more Scriptures that show your belief to be false. This point of discussion looks like a stalemate, Jack. Now can you tell me how right hand means equality? page 8
Quote Right Hand 
?page 8
Quote Come on Jack – stop keeping me in suspense. I can't wait to hear what Trinitarian scholar you're going to quote that says “right hand” is a position of equality. (Hint: I know it won't be Strong's) page 8
Quote Your mission, should you choose to accept it – show me how you consider “right hand of God” to mean “equal with God”. page 9
Quote Slow your roll there, player. First, you are not the teacher, the Scriptures are. You are the catalyst for me to learn more about them. Second, you had your choice of “when was Jesus begotten”. My choice was “right hand”, but we've by passed my choice and went straight to “firstborn of all creation”. 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. That's only fair.page 9
Quote I'm not being obstinant, you are just simply not proving your point. 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.
page 9
Quote You are just spinning your wheels, man. We're getting nowhere with this. I have avoided NO question you've put forth. I have answered honestly from the heart, and the answers I have given are truly what I believe the Scriptures say. I have also showed support for my beliefs from “the experts”, while none of them support your beliefs. Let's move on for a while. Some of the other points will undoubtedly shed more light on these points. Right hand?
page 9
Quote We don't have to agree on this point to move on. Maybe you can enlighten me to the fact that Jesus is God while discussing one of the other points. But we'll never know if we don't move on. page 10
Quote The rest of your post, I've already answered clearly, and you are playing word games. Move on or move out. I'm done with “begotten” and “firstborn of all creation”.
page 10
Quote That's it. Everything else has been discussed repeatedly and my view, NOT YOURS has been corroborated by t
he experts.Right Hand or move on.
page 10
Quote You have failed to show a Scripture that supports your theory that Jesus was “appointed” as firstborn, God's Son, or God's only begotten Son, or that they are “titles” or “positions”. Give up, man – I simply do not agree with your opinions. page 11
Quote Show me that “at the right hand of” means equality. page 11
Quote Our debate is to investigate whether or not Jesus is God Almighty. I can prove he's not without the “begotten” or “firstborn” points. So let's move on – we have been at a stalemate on these for a long time. Everything is repetition. To answer your quote – There is absolutely no other GOD besides Jehovah. That includes His Son, Jesus Christ. There are however, other “gods”. The Scriptures prove it, and Jesus is one of them. So is Satan. We can discuss this after the “right hand” point if you like.
page 11
Quote Jack, I am done with this. My questions in this post are rhetorical. I will not respond to any more of this nonsense. You have failed miserably to show the two terms mean anything other than what they say. The scholars and the Scriptures agree with me, Amen. If you fail to answer on the right hand, I will post a different debate, but I am done responding on begotten and firstborn of all creation.
page 12
Quote You're right. You've got me pinned down. I'm tapping out. You have overwhelmed me with your Scriptural prowess. Begotten is a title. Firstborn is a position. You win. Let's move on. Show me how being at the “right hand” of someone means you are:
a. That same being.
b. Equal to that being.page 12
Quote Show me how being at the “right hand” of someone means you are:
a. That same being.
b. Equal to that being.page 12
Quote You have now crossed into harrassment. ANY POINT THAT HAS “MOVE ON” UNDER MY ANSWER MEANS I DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS IT ANYMORE. YOU BRING NOTHING NEW TO THE TABLE, ONLY THE SAME OPINIONS I'VE DISAGREED WITH FROM THE START OF THIS DEBATE. YOU HAVE NO SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE, ONLY SCRIPTURES THAT YOU THINK ARE EVIDENCE. I DO NOT INTERPRET THEM THE SAME AS YOU, AND I HAVE SHOWED MOUNTAINS OF SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE THAT REFUTES WHAT YOU THINK THEY SAY. MOVE ON! MOVE ON! MOVE ON! Show me how right hand means eqaulity. I am done with begotten and firstborn. This has been months now. Move on to “right hand”, or admit you're scared to. Because I know that's why you won't move on. The Scriptures will destroy your whole trinity when you finally answer to the “right hand” question, and you know it.
MOVE ON!,
mikeThere are three more pages of this, but I think we all get the point, right? So two quick questions for Paul and Roo:
1. WHO has to have the last word?
2. WHEN did you answer either of my “right hand” questions?
Do you see that I am not afraid to debate anyone in truth. I just don't want to be constrained as to how I do it. You can all see that if Roo is forced to both VALIDATE HIS CLAIMS and ANSWER MY POINT DIRECTLY, it will be a short debate.
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,
mikeQuote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 19 2010,19:11) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,13:18) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,13:11) Mike can you at this point agree to a debate with KJ? You can pick the resolve (a colossal advantage), let him pick the format and lets be done with all this posturing….
Agree to a debate? We HAVE ONE GOING!
Jack should agree to let others pipe in on our ongoing debate. No arguments, just some “Answer the flippin' question, Jack” comments.
You know as well as I do that he just wants to avoid the topics HE originally picked because of Eusebius and Ignatius. Another attempt at an end run.
Finish what you started, Jack!
TO ALL:Is Mike mentally present on this board? Is he under the influence of a substance when he is here? He wants to debate protokos and monogenes. We are PRESENTLY doing this in Scripture and Biblical Doctrine.
Mike wants others to pipe in. Duh! That's exactly what's going on in the Protokos thread right now in Scripture and Biblical Doctrine
Mike tells me to finish what I started. WHO STARTED THE PROTOKOS THREAD? ANSWER: MEEEEE!
1. We are dicusiing protokos and begotten now like Mike wants
2. Others are piping in like Mike wants
3. I am continuing with the subject like Mike wantsSo what's Mike's stone walling all about?
the Roo
Hi Jack,To set the record straight, I am the one who started the “trinitarian scholars are wrong” thread. YOU only moved the discussion to a different thread. Just like you did to Martian with your duplicate “echad and elohim” thread. Does it make you feel like you're more in control if the thread has your name on it?
Second, a debate involves ONLY us. There are no others to help in your evasion techniques.
Third, the “others” I am talking about in this debate idea of t8's would ONLY pipe in to force you to answer my points and to force you to validate your claims. But I'm fine with Dennison being the only “cattle prod”.
And fourth, if you were REALLY continuing with “my” subject, you would answer the two questions pertaining to it in our debate thread. They've been there for a while now.
So WHO'S not mentally present? WHO'S under the influence of some substance?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 18 2010,22:24) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,13:48) I like the idea of letting one of them (Mike) pick the resolve and the other (KJ) the format. Otherwise this isn't going to happen. I agree with KJ that there's a potential for the debate to go on ad infinitum if Mike runs with a freestyle format. I wouldn't sign up to that. I imagine KJ, like myself, would like it structured and with strict rebuttal and word limits.
And you'll have a voice in the matter when WE debate. What all of you fail to understand is that it will be short and sweet IF Jack has to account for his claims and IF he has to actually answer to mine. This has not happened for me on HN when debating against ANYONE. Kathi came the closest, and is taking a break, so I exclude her from my comment. EVERYONE else on this sight that I have disagreed with ALWAYS ENDS UP RUNNING from my questions and points.You did it today, Paul. And it wasn't the first time.
mike
Wrong Mike,We answer you but your problem is you don't like the answer so you just go on about the same thing as if it hasn't been answered!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 20 2010,09:33) Wrong Mike, We answer you but your problem is you don't like the answer so you just go on about the same thing as if it hasn't been answered!
WJ
That's true. Mike get's his questions answered but if he doesn't personally agree with the answer he disregards it and we have to constantly recycle the issue. People tire of this (understandably!) and want to move on to more productive discussions. Mike then accuses them of “bailing” on the argument. It's pathetic.Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,18:57) Michael, KJ is right, you need to start with a new topic or the debate is going to go stale very quickly. And it needs to have a strictly defined timeline (with rebuttal and word limits) or your psychological disorder is going to kick in and KJ will be trapped on the neverending theological merry-go-round.
Paul,How can Mike's psychological disorder “kick in” when it is never at a stop?
Jack
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 20 2010,09:33) Wrong Mike, We answer you but your problem is you don't like the answer so you just go on about the same thing as if it hasn't been answered!
WJ
Lies, Keith.What did Ignatius mean when he said the “unbegotten” Father was the “begetter” of the “only begotten Son”? Use your “only” and “unique” and “only one after his own kind” definitions here and see what you come up with.
Here's your chance. Answer the question.
mike
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 20 2010,09:41) That's true. Mike get's his questions answered but if he doesn't personally agree with the answer he disregards it and we have to constantly recycle the issue. People tire of this (understandably!) and want to move on to more productive discussions. Mike then accuses them of “bailing” on the argument. It's pathetic.
OH GOOD! I've got one for you too, Paul.
Eusebius said:
We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father,Based on the “before all the ages” part, do you think Eusebius thought “prototokos pasa ktisis” to mean “preeminent over mankind” in this letter?
Put your money where your mouth is, Paul.
mike
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
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,18:19) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 20 2010,09:33) Wrong Mike, We answer you but your problem is you don't like the answer so you just go on about the same thing as if it hasn't been answered!
WJ
Lies, Keith.What did Ignatius mean when he said the “unbegotten” Father was the “begetter” of the “only begotten Son”? Use your “only” and “unique” and “only one after his own kind” definitions here and see what you come up with.
Here's your chance. Answer the question.
mike
Lies!I have answered you and said it didn't matter because Ignatius didn't believe that Jesus had a beginning, yet you insist that his words mean he did.
He said he “Was born yet not Born”, you have ignored this.
So stop with your grandstanding that somehow you think that you are the only one that answers questions and everyone else runs. We have three witnesses here saying that you do not accept answers given you, so we are all lying right?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 20 2010,10:26) I have answered you and said it didn't matter because Ignatius didn't believe that Jesus had a beginning, yet you insist that his words mean he did. He said he “Was born yet not Born”, you have ignored this.
So stop with your grandstanding that somehow you think that you are the only one that answers questions and everyone else runs. We have three witnesses here saying that you do not accept answers given you, so we are all lying right?
WJ
The question is:what do you think he meant by this:
What did Ignatius mean when he said the “unbegotten” Father was the “begetter” of the “only begotten Son”? Use your “only” and “unique” and “only one after his own kind” definitions here and see what you come up with.
DIRECTLY answer the question, Keith.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 20 2010,10:23) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 20 2010,09:41) That's true. Mike get's his questions answered but if he doesn't personally agree with the answer he disregards it and we have to constantly recycle the issue. People tire of this (understandably!) and want to move on to more productive discussions. Mike then accuses them of “bailing” on the argument. It's pathetic.
OH GOOD! I've got one for you too, Paul.
Eusebius said:
We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father,Based on the “before all the ages” part, do you think Eusebius thought “prototokos pasa ktisis” to mean “preeminent over mankind” in this letter?
Put your money where your mouth is, Paul.
mike
I've answered this. More than once.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
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.Mikeboll said:
Quote 1. WHO has to have the last word?
Who got the last word Mike? Not me?You admitted that you cannot scripturally prove that Jesus was begotten at His creation and then continued to argue it for pages and pages and thousands of word after your concession. You said:
“When was Jesus begotten? While I think it was from his very creation, I cannot Scripturally prove it.“
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=80
This is nutty Mike! I have never discoursed with anyone who admitted that he cannot scripturally prove a point who continues to argue it.
You went on and on for pages and pages trying to prove a point you admitted you cannot prove. To top it off you want to continue arguing this point even now. You also accused me twice of saying that Jesus was above His Father and I disproved your false accusations twice. The second time you even included WJ and said that we commit blasphemy.
You continue to beat the Eusebius issue into the ground. It has been shown you that Eusebius signed the Creed which condemned Arianism. This resulted in his personal friend Arius being anathematized and exiled. So if you're right that Euesbius believed that Jesus had a beginning, then he clearly did not stand up for his principles. So how can Eusebius be a noteworthy source in your thinking? He cannot be. You just want the last word. No reasonable man would continue to invoke someone as a noteworthy authority who signed a creed that he didn't believe and that also betrayed his personal friend.
You continue to invoke Eusebius who signed the Creed which anathematizes your views on begotten even when you have admitted that you cannot scripturally prove that Jesus was begotten at His creation.
I have had enough of this nonsense Mike! You do not know how to let something go. That takes its toll on people. You do not have the skills to argue intelligently so you just wear people out instead and then beat your chest about it. It's either a formal and structured debate or there is no debate.
Quote 2. WHEN did you answer either of my “right hand” questions?
Ha! I can't believe you asked this! We started discussing the Right Hand on Echad 2 and I pasted it over to our debate to keep it in our debate. I told you why I had pasted it there and you ignored it. Let me refresh your memory for the umteenth time. On Echad (or Echad 2) I showed that David replied to Jehovah saying, “My Adonay (God) is at your right hand.” I had shown that David was calling His Messiah his God. I had indicated that the word “Adonay” ALWAYS refers to God and you denied it without even showing an example where it refers to anyone else.You never even bothered to show an example from scripture where Adonay referred to someone other than God.
I am done arguing with you about the history of our debate. I will allow you the last word. If you don't take the last word I will drop dead from the shock.
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.
Yes or No Mike? Will here be a structured debate or not Mike?
the Roo
Mike,
Our argument over the history of our debate proves why we should have a structured debate. Will there be a structured debate on a topic of your choice from the remaining 19 topics on your list?
Yes or no?
Jack
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 must be logged in to reply to this topic.
