- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 09 2010,00:22) Why are you like this? If you want that question answered so badly right now, then just agree to a question by question debate and let's get down to it, man.
Why Mike, so you can tell me the same thing on another point that I have made and you will not admit you are wrong, but then you will give me the same excuse and say you will answer it later?You are the one playing games and I refuse to let you do it with me.
You insisted on a point by point debate and made this thread to answer my points, and now you want to move to another point without answering the first one?
But what is crazy is you have already answered it but now deny your own words and try to make my point look invalid!
Concede the point or we will not move on!
WJ
Show me anything that was written in your original point A that I didn't address.
We are debating whether or not Jesus had a beginning. Does you point A prove he does? NO. Does it prove he doesn't? NO. The point is useless to our efforts to prove whether or not Jesus had a beginning because iIt proves nothing either way. So it's done IMO. If there is something I missed that is actually printed in that original point A, let me know. If not, let's move on.
mike
Mike
My internet has been down which has put me way behind in my buisness, not to mention I have had diarrhea for 5 days and have been ill.
I will get to you post ASAP.
Keith
Quote (JustAskin @ July 14 2010,12:29) WJ, Was that revelation relevant?
[Moderator]
Was your post relevant?Thanks for the empathy by the way!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 15 2010,04:54) Quote (JustAskin @ July 14 2010,12:29) WJ, Was that revelation relevant?
[Moderator]
Was your post relevant?Thanks for the empathy by the way!
WJ
Hi WJ,Feel better. Thanks for the update…..I was beginning to think I sacred you off!
mike
Quote (JustAskin @ July 15 2010,04:29) WJ, Was that revelation relevant?
[Moderator]
JA,Why do you keep interupting my debates? Please stop! If it is in a debate thread that doesn't have your name on it……KEEP OUT!
You posting [Moderator] under your post is not an excuse to interupt. We moderators are supposed to help control spam and watch for explicite language, etc. Not act as a busy-body judge over what others post here.
You need to seriously chill, man. Step down off the pedestal you placed yourself on.
mike
Mike,WJ,
yuo are right.
Shall i delete the posts and related Posts including this one and your response saying “yes please”??
Mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2010,01:52)
Show me anything that was written in your original point A that I didn't address.
a. Thank you. Then end of discussion right? Your confession here now means that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on your part.Your confession here now means that ANYTIME YOU SAY THAT THE WORD MONOGENES APPLIES TO JESUS BEFORE HE CAME IN THE FLESH IS MERELY CONJECTURE ON YOUR PART.
Your confession here now means THAT ANYTIME YOU SAY THAT THE WORD MONOGENES APPLIES TO JESUS BEFORE HE CAME IN THE FLESH IS MERELY CONJECTURE ON YOUR PART.
Is this true or not Mike? If it isn’t true then prove it using the word “Monogenes”.
You refuse to admit that my point above is valid.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2010,01:52) We are debating whether or not Jesus had a beginning. Does you point A prove he does? NO.
Exactly, which means…Your confession here now means that ANYTIME YOU SAY THAT THE WORD MONOGENES APPLIES TO JESUS BEFORE HE CAME IN THE FLESH IS MERELY CONJECTURE ON YOUR PART.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2010,01:52) Does it prove he doesn't? NO.
That is not my contention that is your contention. Conjecture does not disprove facts.Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2010,01:52) The point is useless to our efforts to prove whether or not Jesus had a beginning because iIt proves nothing either way.
I never said the word “monogenes” proves Jesus did or did not have a beginning.Are you dense? The point is….
Your confession here now means that ANYTIME YOU SAY THAT THE WORD MONOGENES APPLIES TO JESUS BEFORE HE CAME IN THE FLESH IS MERELY CONJECTURE ON YOUR PART.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2010,01:52) So it's done IMO. If there is something I missed that is actually printed in that original point A, let me know. If not, let's move on. Mike, is it true that…
Your confession here now means that ANYTIME YOU SAY THAT THE WORD MONOGENES APPLIES TO JESUS BEFORE HE CAME IN THE FLESH IS MERELY CONJECTURE ON YOUR PART.
Focus Mike! It's the term “monogenes”!
WJ
No more games Keith. Your point A does NOT prove Jesus HAD a beginning, nor does it prove he DID NOT have a beginning. That's all there is. Let's move on to you other points which I'm sure DO prove Jesus didn't have a beginning, right?
I've already posted my reponse to your point B.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2010,00:09) No more games Keith. Your point A does NOT prove Jesus HAD a beginning, nor does it prove he DID NOT have a beginning. That's all there is. Let's move on to you other points which I'm sure DO prove Jesus didn't have a beginning, right? I've already posted my reponse to your point B.
mike
MikeSo you won't answer the question?
You kept this going on because you said my point was not a valid point.
You insisted on addressesing my points one at a time.
Is it a valid point or not?
Yes or no?
WJ
Hi Keith,
The answer is NO. It is NOT a valid point. I told you before that Psalm 2 tells us God has a begotten Son. At that point, we don't yet know he is an only child. There could be more that aren't mentioned, right? But then Jesus explains that he is the ONLY begotten Son of God……so all of a sudden, that makes Psalm 2 about the ONLY begotten Son of God by deductive reasoning, right?
So NO, it is not just “conjecture” on my part but a case of something said in the OT being further explained in the NT.
Bottom line: Does your point A prove Jesus HAD a beginning?
Does your point A prove Jesus DIDN'T have a beginning?No on both counts, so the point cannot be used to prove that Jesus did or didn't have a beginning. And that's what this debate is about, right? So as far as THIS DEBATE goes, your point A is useless and invalid. Get it?
mike
Mike, is it true that…
Your confession here now means that ANYTIME YOU SAY THAT THE WORD MONOGENES APPLIES TO JESUS BEFORE HE CAME IN THE FLESH IS MERELY CONJECTURE ON YOUR PART.
Focus Mike! It's the term “monogenes”!
WJ
Mike
I am done with you here. If you are to proud to admit that my point concerning “Monogenes” is valid based on the scriptures, then I will not proceed past this point for it will be useless to discuss other points with you.
So if you will not concede the point then I say this thread is open to discussion by any one who wants to comment.
WJ
We'll let Dennison decide.
Dennison, is WJ's point A a valid point in determining whether Jesus had a beginning or not.
And if so, how does it prove Jesus either HAD a beginning or DIDN'T HAVE a beginning?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 17 2010,12:50) We'll let Dennison decide. Dennison, is WJ's point A a valid point in determining whether Jesus had a beginning or not.
And if so, how does it prove Jesus either HAD a beginning or DIDN'T HAVE a beginning?
mike
MikeI saw your post that you posted before this admitting that my point was valid and to go to the next point.
I wish I had of copied it because you deleted it somehow.
Post that have been posted are not to be deleted and it shows your dishonesty!
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 17 2010,12:50) We'll let Dennison decide. Dennison, is WJ's point A a valid point in determining whether Jesus had a beginning or not.
And if so, how does it prove Jesus either HAD a beginning or DIDN'T HAVE a beginning?
mike
MikeEven here you are being dishnest.
The point is…
…that ANYTIME YOU SAY THAT THE WORD MONOGENES APPLIES TO JESUS BEFORE HE CAME IN THE FLESH IS MERELY CONJECTURE ON YOUR PART.
It has nothing to do with being proof that Jesus didn't have a beginning but that it is “MERELY CONJECTURE ON YOUR PART to say that Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh”.
WJ
HI Wj, and Mike
1.Point A
First Lets clear up what Point A is,
And so that we can understand eachother im going to define some terms and explain myself.Point A:
Quote Thank you. Then end of discussion right? Your confession here now means that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on you part.
Terms
Monogenes= Is the word Begotten
Applies= to make use of as relevant, suitable, or pertinent:
Jesus= as the Word before flesh
before= previous to
came=to approach
Flesh= Biblical term for being born in human likeness or in physical human entity
Conjecture=the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.The claim of point A is that Monogenes when applied to Jesus before he became flesh can only be a conjecture
>So basically from my reading in this debate,
I hold that point to be valid, not including the comments WJ saying that Jesus has no beginning,
But the problem is that the Beginning and Begotten (Monegenes) are two different things.
The biblical verses support that there was a day that Jesus was begotten in the flesh,
But there isnt a verse that supports that Jesus was begotten before flesh or before creation,
It would be a theory if he was, but not as biblical truth.Unless Mike proves that Psalms verse he provided stating that Jesus was begotten before flesh, than it is merely a conjecture,
So i do find it valid, because the statement of point A, is not saying its wrong, nor that its right, more as its a theory and its uncertain whether he is or isnt.
but we only know for sure he was begotten in flesh, and thats the only evidence we can support and hold as truth.So if your asking me whether if Monegenes is a conjecture when applied to Jesus before flesh,
>I would say yes it would be unless there is another verse that supporst the theory that he was begotten at some time before hand.
Is it possible? of course, is it not? of Course, We couldnt say he wasnt nor that he was,2. Beginning
Now about whether Jesus has a beginning is irrevelant to Point A. There isnt a any proof to say that Jesus started living at the beginning nor that it was before hand,
It just says the he was IN the beginning,
anything other than that without biblical support that directly supports this, is a conjecture as well.Conclusion: Move on, Point B please.
Mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 17 2010,00:11) Mike I am done with you here. If you are to proud to admit that my point concerning “Monogenes” is valid based on the scriptures, then I will not proceed past this point for it will be useless to discuss other points with you.
So if you will not concede the point then I say this thread is open to discussion by any one who wants to comment.
Quote (mikeboll64 July 17 2010 @ 12:40)
Okay Keith,YES, your point A is a valid point.
Answer my rebuttal to your point B now.
mike
I was able to pull up your deleted post from my cache.I believe it is against the board rules to delete a post.
But it shows that you obviously have been playing a game of deception and distractions. Sad indeed!
WJ
It is against the rules to delete or change posts substantially if people have posted after you, because it ruins the time that others spend replying to them and makes conversations hard to follow. It is better to post later why you don't like one of your own posts.
At this stage, I can't tell if it was deleted or not though. So I can't make a comment about it, rather a general statement.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
