- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 02 2010,13:34) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 02 2010,13:01) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 01 2010,10:50) Pick your referee Mike. I am done with your diversional methods of debate and I am beginning to question your honesty! WJ
WJ
Keith,Good! A controlled debate is the only way with Mikester. He has too many personality issues that get in the way. He wears you out with his incessant nonsense and then beats his chest claiming that you are running form his arguments even after you have answered his arguments a zilion times.
He belongs to no religious comunity. Even to the JW's he is an apostate. So he has a lot of time to make mischief here. He can't exasperate in a controlled debate. After I answer his points and he comes back and says I didn't SF will set it straight.
Jack
First, SF isn't one of the choices. Second…..WHY? Is there any Christian good that can come of your many, many insuting posts?
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 02 2010,06:01) WordhippingJesus said to Mikeboll: Quote I am done with your diversional methods of debate and I am beginning to question your honesty!
Exactly!KJ
I think you spelled it wrong. It is not a “diversion”, but a “division”. I divide out all the stuff you spew at the speed of light, and make you answer to each divided point. Well, at least that's what I'm trying to do. So far, you both seem a little lacking in actually supporting your many linked claims when they are broken down into individual claims.
Believe you me, it is a stategy, and most of your “Jesus is God” “evidence” will fall way short of any kind of “evidence” by the time we are done.
mike
Mike …………I want you to commit on the Confusion thread about a simple general term for Spirit that we all can simply relate to brother would like you and JA and All to tell what they think spirit would be in a overall simple view brother.
peace an love to you and yours…………………………gene
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 02 2010,07:42) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 02 2010,13:34) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 02 2010,13:01) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 01 2010,10:50) Pick your referee Mike. I am done with your diversional methods of debate and I am beginning to question your honesty! WJ
WJ
Keith,Good! A controlled debate is the only way with Mikester. He has too many personality issues that get in the way. He wears you out with his incessant nonsense and then beats his chest claiming that you are running form his arguments even after you have answered his arguments a zilion times.
He belongs to no religious comunity. Even to the JW's he is an apostate. So he has a lot of time to make mischief here. He can't exasperate in a controlled debate. After I answer his points and he comes back and says I didn't SF will set it straight.
Jack
First, SF isn't one of the choices. Second…..WHY? Is there any Christian good that can come of your many, many insuting posts? mike
what….?Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 02 2010,13:42) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 02 2010,13:34) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 02 2010,13:01) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 01 2010,10:50) Pick your referee Mike. I am done with your diversional methods of debate and I am beginning to question your honesty! WJ
WJ
Keith,Good! A controlled debate is the only way with Mikester. He has too many personality issues that get in the way. He wears you out with his incessant nonsense and then beats his chest claiming that you are running form his arguments even after you have answered his arguments a zilion times.
He belongs to no religious comunity. Even to the JW's he is an apostate. So he has a lot of time to make mischief here. He can't exasperate in a controlled debate. After I answer his points and he comes back and says I didn't SF will set it straight.
Jack
First, SF isn't one of the choices. Second…..WHY? Is there any Christian good that can come of your many, many insuting posts? mike
Mike ……..Amen to that brother.Peace and love to you and yours………………gene
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 01 2010,21:26) oops, I thought the word “referree” was “preferrence” 
That's what happens when you get old.
I offer Ed J or Gene. You pick which one. They are not to comment or offer opinions at all – only direct one of us to answer the others question and rule on if it was in fact answered in a direct fashion if the other complains.
If you want to do this, I'll ask t8 to move this to a debate thread. Remember, ONE question answered, ONE question asked each post. Fair enough?
mike
OKMy understanding was it would be JA or SF. I have never suggested ED j or gene.
I don't think they will be objective, IMO. They both have personal beefs against me. While I think JA does to, I think he would be fair! SF doesn't hold either one of our beliefs so he would also be OK!
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 01 2010,21:56) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 02 2010,06:01) WordhippingJesus said to Mikeboll: Quote I am done with your diversional methods of debate and I am beginning to question your honesty!
Exactly!KJ
I think you spelled it wrong. It is not a “diversion”, but a “division”. I divide out all the stuff you spew at the speed of light, and make you answer to each divided point. Well, at least that's what I'm trying to do. So far, you both seem a little lacking in actually supporting your many linked claims when they are broken down into individual claims. Believe you me, it is a stategy, and most of your “Jesus is God” “evidence” will fall way short of any kind of “evidence” by the time we are done.
mike
MikeYou can beat your chest all you want.
But your are not telling the truth again, for it is obvious who is answering who “point by point”. Just look over this thread and see how many points of yours I have addressed while you have basically balied out of most of the dialogue and whined about sticking to a question that has already been answered.
WJ
WJ………….I have no personal Beef against you personally, I in fact i respect you in some ways, I believe you are an intelligent Person, But when it come to you Trinitarian Beliefs, yes i totally disagree with them brother but that does not mean i have any Beef with you personally or KJ Or Isiah 1:18, I believe you are all intelligent. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………………..gene
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 01 2010,21:18) I've made your point “a” null and void. I've done the same with your point “b – parts 1 and 2”. And I am really looking forward to your answers to my rebut of B-1&2, so I can beat you over the head with Ignatius in “b – part 3”.
MikeThere you go again Mike. Claiming victory over something you have not proven. And the only thing that you are beating is your chest!
I said…
Quote 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 you part.
So how have you made my point null and void?You said…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,22:22) I CANNOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO PROVING JESUS WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD PRIOR TO HIS COMING IN FLESH WITH ONLY THE FACT THAT HE WASN'T CALLED THAT UNTIL HE CAME IN THE FLESH. AND I WILLINGLY ADMIT THAT. THAT IS WHY I WON'T USE THIS INFO AS MY FOUNDATION – GET IT?
So my point was you cannot prove that “monogenes” applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh.You have agreed that you cannot prove it, therefore it would be merely conjecture on your part to say that “Monogenes” does apply to Jesus before he came in the flesh!
Can someone tell this guy he has not made my point null and void? Can someone tell this guy he has not made my point null and void? Can someone tell this guy he has not made my point null and void?
As far as Ignatius it will be interesting to see you prove that Jesus had a beginning for remember this….
3. The church Fathers including the earliest and most credible, “Ignatius” never speaks of Jesus having a beginning and in fact as I have shown Ignatius said…
There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, BORN AND UNBORN, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord. 7:2
Here we see Ignatius claiming Jesus was “UNBORN” and God in man both Spirit and flesh!
This is gonna be fun!
WJ
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 02 2010,10:32) WJ………….I have no personal Beef against you personally, I in fact i respect you in some ways, I believe you are an intelligent Person, But when it come to you Trinitarian Beliefs, yes i totally disagree with them brother but that does not mean i have any Beef with you personally or KJ Or Isiah 1:18, I believe you are all intelligent. IMO peace and love to you and yours…………………………..gene
GeneThanks, but I can't help but remember all the times you have spoke against me being even anti-christ etc, etc.
However I am glad to know that you don't have an personal beef against me!
WJ
WorshippingJesus said to Mikeboll:
Quote here you go again Mike. Claiming victory over something you have not proven. And the only thing that you are beating is your chest! Pic of Mikester beating his chest
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Vx5cKu….est.gif
the Roo
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 03 2010,02:45) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 02 2010,10:32) WJ………….I have no personal Beef against you personally, I in fact i respect you in some ways, I believe you are an intelligent Person, But when it come to you Trinitarian Beliefs, yes i totally disagree with them brother but that does not mean i have any Beef with you personally or KJ Or Isiah 1:18, I believe you are all intelligent. IMO peace and love to you and yours…………………………..gene
GeneThanks, but I can't help but remember all the times you have spoke against me being even anti-christ etc, etc.
However I am glad to know that you don't have an personal beef against me!
WJ
WJ…………I truly do not have any thing against any body here, personally in fact i don't even know any body here on a personal bases, but that does not mean that i am not absolutely against what you are saying at times, and i do believe all those who preach the Doctrine of the Trinity are preaching against Jesus. Even though they do not realize it.Peace and love to you and yours……………………gene
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 03 2010,02:12) My understanding was it would be JA or SF. I have never suggested ED j or gene.
Hi WJ,I originally said on page 8,
Quote So instead you crying “DEBATE!” when I have you cornered like Jack did when he couldn't answer the Eusebius question, how about we let someone neutral jump on board this very thread. I see you have suggested that and I WHOLE HEARTEDLY AGREE! That is all I wanted with Roo, someone to keep things on track. I'll accept JA, Dennison, Nick, Paul, t8, Lightenup, Gene, Ed J, Pierre……just about anyone on this site. You pick the person, and we will continue as is, and go through EVERY point you made in the opening post, plus any and every other point you have yet to make – BUT ONLY ONE POINT AT A TIME.
Then YOU said:
Quote Pick your referee Mike. I am done with your diversional methods of debate and I am beginning to question your honesty! WJ
You told me to pick, so I narrowed it down to Gene and Ed and left you with the final choice. My first thought was to let Dennison do it because he started the whole “structured debate” idea on HN. But when I asked him to jump in and direct you to answer the simple question I've been asking since the beginning, he first started “clarifying” what YOUR views were in his opinion. And after some back and forth posts about whether my question was “irrelevant”, I asked him the same point blank question I've been asking you all along, and it took him 3 times of me asking before HE finally answered.
You understand? I asked him to look at this thread as a judge, and the next thing I know, I'm also debating him and feeling like I must explain my stategy to him.
But whatever, let's give SF a try. Maybe he didn't think he was in the role of “judge” before. So, it's agreed…….Dennison's role will ONLY be to enforce us to answer questions DIRECTLY. And ONLY if one of us appeals to him to do so – otherwise, he is to remain mute. Fair enough?
I'll pm t8 to see if he will move this thread to the debates so we can get on with it.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 03 2010,02:21) Mike You can beat your chest all you want.
But your are not telling the truth again, for it is obvious who is answering who “point by point”. Just look over this thread and see how many points of yours I have addressed while you have basically balied out of most of the dialogue and whined about sticking to a question that has already been answered.
WJ
Hi WJ,First, I just pm'd t8 to move this to the debates.
You keep claiming I've avoided points in this thread. We're only discussing one so far, so how is it I have avoided it?
I'm the one trying to close that first point while you keep bringing up others out of turn. Here's how I see the first and ONLY point we are discussing right now:
Let's say Genesis 3:1 said, “When Adam was 700 years old, he looked up into the blue sky.”
Your first point is to claim that it is only my conjecture that the sky was blue for Adam's first 699 years. And I readily agreed – it is only assumption on my part.
My rebuttal of that point was that it is ALSO ONLY conjecture on your part to assume the sky WASN'T blue for Adam's first 699 years, just because it wasn't mentioned until Genesis 3:1. And you don't want to simply say, “Yes, that is also true. Based on ONLY this info, I cannot prove that the sky WASN'T blue before Genesis 3:1.” Why was that so hard for you?
Anyway, you DID finally admit it, so your first point was made a non-point because BOTH of our assumptions cannot be counted as proof of anything. Point “a” is null and void, which also nullified your point “b-part 1”. So please move on and answer my rebuttal of your point “b-part 2”.
mike
Mike,
Why do you need t8 to do anthing.
Just start a new debate thread. It will give you and WJ the chance to make a 'clean' start.
Did SF agree to be umpire?
Does he know the difference between a 'four' and a 'six', or a 'by' and a 'leg before wicket'?
If so, then so.[Moderator]
Here we go again.
You said:
Quote So my point was you cannot prove that “monogenes” applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh. You have agreed that you cannot prove it, therefore it would be merely conjecture on your part to say that “Monogenes” does apply to Jesus before he came in the flesh!
And my actual answer was:
Quote I CANNOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO PROVING JESUS WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD PRIOR TO HIS COMING IN FLESH WITH ONLY THE FACT THAT HE WASN'T CALLED THAT UNTIL HE CAME IN THE FLESH. AND I WILLINGLY ADMIT THAT. THAT IS WHY I WON'T USE THIS INFO AS MY FOUNDATION – GET IT? Can you read the WHOLE quote? I can't prove it based on this little info. And the flip side is that you can't prove he DIDN'T have a beginning based on this same little info. Therefore, your point that this little info in some way diminishes my claim while boosting yours is nonsense. It is a “sway” tactic useful for nothing but making something appear like something else on the surface. But when you peel away the layers, it is clear for all to see that your point “a” is a non-point. And the worst thing for you is that the crux of your point “a” is a fallacy to start with because of Psalm 2:7. I just haven't addressed that yet, because I want you to understand that even WITHOUT Psalm 2:7, this little bit of info STILL DOES NOT prove Jesus didn't have a beginning.
So again, here is your mission, should you choose to accept it:
The ONLY info you have to work with:
Monogenes wasn't applied to Jesus until he was flesh.Your task:
Prove with ONLY that info that Jesus didn't have a beginning OR admit you can't and move on.peace and love,
mikeBump for Mike
Address my point that you lettered “a” so that we can move on.
How is my point “null and void”?
I said…
Quote 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 you part.
So how have you made my point null and void?You said…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,22:22) I CANNOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO PROVING JESUS WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD PRIOR TO HIS COMING IN FLESH WITH ONLY THE FACT THAT HE WASN'T CALLED THAT UNTIL HE CAME IN THE FLESH. AND I WILLINGLY ADMIT THAT. THAT IS WHY I WON'T USE THIS INFO AS MY FOUNDATION – GET IT?
So my point was you cannot prove that “monogenes” applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh.You have agreed that you cannot prove it, therefore it would be merely conjecture on your part to say that “Monogenes” does apply to Jesus before he came in the flesh!
And as far as you saying…
“WITH ONLY THE FACT THAT HE WASN'T CALLED THAT UNTIL HE CAME IN THE FLESH.“
That is the only fact that was being discussed when I said…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010 @ 10:39)
Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth?
In which you agreed…Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010 @ 20:45)
Not that scripture records.
Can someone tell this guy he has not made my point null and void? Can someone tell this guy he has not made my point null and void? Can someone tell this guy he has not made my point null and void?WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 03 2010,10:08) But whatever, let's give SF a try. Maybe he didn't think he was in the role of “judge” before. So, it's agreed…….Dennison's role will ONLY be to enforce us to answer questions DIRECTLY. And ONLY if one of us appeals to him to do so – otherwise, he is to remain mute. Fair enough?
Fine! What does SF say?WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 03 2010,10:59) Prove with ONLY that info that Jesus didn't have a beginning OR admit you can't and move on.
That has never been my contention Mike. That is your contention.You are supposed to be addressing my points in this thread Mike, remember that is why you created it.
So far you have failed to prove my point that you lettered “a” as being “null and void”.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 04 2010,05:23) Address my point that you lettered “a” so that we can move on.
It has been addressed many times.Mike: My hair is brown, so therefore Jesus cannot be God, and any time you say he is based on only this fact, it is merely conjecture on your part, WJ.
WJ: True, but it is also only conjecture on YOUR part that Jesus is NOT God based on only this evidence that your hair is brown.
Mike: Okay, true enough. My point has been effectively nullified by you, WJ. It is a non-point for it proves nothing for either side.
I don't believe your stubborness. It is so simple.
Does the fact Jesus wasn't called monogenes before he was flesh in any way prove that he wasn't monogenes before he was flesh?
If your answer is YES, please show me how you can prove when Jesus was begotten using ONLY this little bit of info. If your answer is NO, your point “a” is dismissed, neutralized, equalized, invalid, whatever you want to call it – it is not a valid point because it CANNOT be used as any proof that so far your view is more justified than mine!
Why are we still talking about this? I have admitted it is not proof for what I believe, you have admitted that it is not proof of what you believe, so it's done. Please answer my rebuttals of your point “b”.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
