Mikeboll64 vs francis

[SimplyForgiven]

Francis Said

Quote

The debate over Hebrews 1:8 is WHETHER OR NOT your tranlsation is correct.  So just like above, you can't use your translation to PROVE that your translation is correct!!! I'll repeat it because it is worht repeating:   you can't use your translation to PROVE that your translation is correct    To argue like that is to argue in circles… to beg the question. I'm not arguing in such a way, because I have been giving you what I feel is evidence that demonstrates that the English Translators have it correct.  I'm not arguing that “elohim” means God because “elohim” means God.  I'm arguing that “elohim” means God in Hebrews 1:8 because  of this and that and this. Now.. you were on the right track when you tried to justify your translation of “elohim” into “leader” earlier.  But the moment you started to argue in circles… begging the question… as you just did above… you lost focus and got confused.

This is a debate fallacy that i call the “Knife comment”.
Its found in the debate errors thread.

ITs when a poster basically claims in a murder trail example as “we have the KNIFE, I rest my case” without proving if the knife has DNA evidence, or who does it belong to, or how can you assume that this wife killed the deceased.

So its a claim without any warrants or substances to prove thier point.
Mike typically does this alot.

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 21 2011,00:41)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 21 2011,06:29) Has JA been Banned again? He shouldnt be banned, I wanted to discuss alot of things with him after we were done with Mike. “After we're done with Mike.” LOL KJ Jr.

Actually we are DONE with him, im just waiting for him to accept, he still in that psychosis of denial.

Acceptance is the first step.

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 21 2011,06:47)

Francis Said Quote The debate over Hebrews 1:8 is WHETHER OR NOT your tranlsation is correct.  So just like above, you can't use your translation to PROVE that your translation is correct!!! I'll repeat it because it is worht repeating:   you can't use your translation to PROVE that your translation is correct    To argue like that is to argue in circles… to beg the question. I'm not arguing in such a way, because I have been giving you what I feel is evidence that demonstrates that the English Translators have it correct.  I'm not arguing that “elohim” means God because “elohim” means God.  I'm arguing that “elohim” means God in Hebrews 1:8 because  of this and that and this. Now.. you were on the right track when you tried to justify your translation of “elohim” into “leader” earlier.  But the moment you started to argue in circles… begging the question… as you just did above… you lost focus and got confused. This is a debate fallacy that i call the “Knife comment”. Its found in the debate errors thread. ITs when a poster basically claims in a murder trail example as “we have the KNIFE, I rest my case” without proving if the knife has DNA evidence, or who does it belong to, or how can you assume that this wife killed the deceased. So its a claim without any warrants or substances to prove thier point. Mike typically does this alot.

SF,

Yeah Mike does that the “knife comment” alot. He assumes the NET “Bible” translation of Isaiah 43:10 is correct and then says, “The scripture says” even when the NET's own footnote indicates how the inspired text actually reads. Instead of saying to himself, “Now why did these morons insert the word “outlive” in the text and then give the true reading which is “there will not be”?

And he pits Daniel B. Wallace against the seventy Jewish scholars that Jesus and the Apostles invoked.

Mike's biggest problem is that he does not THINK. He is ready to post anything and everything that he can use to keep his head above water.

KJ

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 20 2011,17:33)

1. Of course its diversive.  But what your trying to do is now distract everyone into if the NETNOTES are the true source of it all.

NO, NO, NO!  You either AGREE that not all things NETNotes says is the absolute REALITY of scriptures, or you AGREE that we have a triune God.  Which is it, sonny?  You got all up in my face saying things like this, “Whats funny is that you only use it to your convience.  Mighty unfair dont you think?”, but now YOU are the one wanting to disregard something they say.  

So, WHICH IS IT, hotshot?  

1.  Must we ALL agree with EVERYTHING NETNotes says?  

2.  Or can we ALL use ONLY the things that we know the scriptures support……………without smart aleck comments from the peanut gallery?

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 20 2011,17:33)

2. LOL mike we couldnt even FINISH “Elohim” so how dare you prounce around like we are going into another debate. Lets finish “elohim”

Alright smarty.  Answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION about “elohim”.

SCRIPTURALLY SPEAKING, DOES BEING CALLED “ELOHIM” MEAN THAT ONE IS ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY “GOD ALMIGHTY”?

If I don't see a “1” or a “2” and a “YES” or a “NO” from you, then you are wasting my time, D.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 20 2011,17:47)

lol… Mike… God of gods, Daniel 2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret. In the Eyes of the King other “Supreme beings” existed in his polytheism, but he realized that the God of Daniel was above all of them. so he is the God above the supposed Gods. CONTEXT MIKE CONTEXT.

Deuteronomy 10:17
For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.

This one is MOSES calling Him the “God of gods”. CONTEXT, D. Explain this one away with false gods.

And you have yet to answer about Deborah, elohim of Israel. Was she a “false god”? Was she God Almighty?

PLEASE ADDRESS WHO DEBORAH WAS.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 21 2011,06:29)

I wanted to discuss alot of things with him after we were done with Mike.

What a joke, Dennison. Look at you attaching yourself to the scriptural knowledge of Jack and Keith as if it is YOUR knowledge!

YOU don't even believe in a trinity. And that cracks me up. Because Jack and Keith KNOW that you think Jesus is THE FATHER, yet none of you will discuss that matter. Why not?

Do you guys even realize that Francis' main claim so far is the Father calls Jesus HIS God? WHERE IS THAT IN SCRIPTURE? WHERE DOES THE FATHER SAY TO JESUS, “GOD OF ME“?

Oh, and he has the other “rational” claim that calling someone “MY God” doesn't imply inferiority in any way. IN WHAT WORLD IS THAT?

Stick around guys. Pay attention. If he doesn't bail, and decides to start STICKING TO THE SCRIPTURES IN QUESTION instead of all these petty diversions, you are all about to learn just how far away from logic you must go to PRETEND that Jesus is God Almighty.

But that is right up SF's alley. I mean, who can argue with the logic that the Son really IS the Father?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Jack……………WHY?

Why must you spend 99% of your time trying to belittle people?  

If no other “elohim” existed at all, then Deborah is a lie, right?

PLEASE ANSWER THIS DIRECTLY.  You say “she was a representative OF Elohim, and therefore CALLED elohim”.

Okay, but so is Jesus.  He is a representative OF Elohim.  Did you not know this?  

Jack, was Moses LYING when he said YHVH was the “Elohim of elohim”?  How does that work if there were no other elohim at all?

You see?  Simple logic will tell you that in this case, NETNotes translates it correctly.   But they're not the only ones….many Bibles do.

Jack, make SCRIPTURAL points once in a while.  All you are here is a cheerleader.  You run around saying, “Ooohhhhh, WJ said this to Mike!  Ha ha ha!”

That's childish, and now you've got your little boy Denny doing it.  Come on guys…………grow up.  Please?  Address the scriptural FACTS that I make instead of ganging up to “laugh at me”.  Because I'm having the last laugh daily.

Not one of you has the brass to acknowledge what I've asked Francis to acknowledge.  And that's sad, because we all KNOW of scriptures where elohim is used of those who are neither God Almighty or “false gods”.  

So why can't any of you but Keith ADMIT that being called “elohim” didn't NECESSARILY mean that you were God Almighty or a “false god”?

It's a scriptural FACT boys.  Yet SF remains content with his “there is only ONE elohim” confusion.  

And Jack refuses to comment on this scriptural FACT.  So let me ask it LOUD and CLEAR.  Keith has already correctly answered.  How about you Jack?  Will YOU, D?  Francis?

Are there elohim mentioned in scripture who are neither “God Almighty” nor “false gods”?

peace and love children,
mike

[Ed J]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 21 2011,04:29)

Quote When WJ is confronted with the truth of a Scripture, he moves off in a different direction to avoid a response or just accuses the one of some other distracting and often unfounded point. A bold faced lie! KJ Jr.

Hi Jack and Francis,

I have seen WJ do this many times.

Because you believe this is 'a lie', do you consider Mike to be 'a liar'.
Francis has trouble understanding this difference: let me explain to you both…

If someone is propagating 'the rapture' doctrine. What they are saying is 'a lie'.
But they themselves are not 'a liar'. because they believe what they say.

I hope you can understand the difference now Francis.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 21 2011,04:32)

Quote He demands that Istari tells him the name of the Holy Spirit (reverse psychology!) but when I say it does not have a name, it is the Spirit of God, does your Spirit have a name? JA ignores that an answer was given by KJ Jr. The Holy Spirit's name is “Parakletos” (helper or comforter). KJ Jr.

Hi Jack,

My spirit has the name “Ed” because my husk is nothing without my spirit.
That is why the “HolySpirit” is called YÄ-hä-vā, based on his name YHVH.

Hope this helps you.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 21 2011,11:07)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 21 2011,06:29) I wanted to discuss alot of things with him after we were done with Mike. What a joke, Dennison.  Look at you attaching yourself to the scriptural knowledge of Jack and Keith as if it is YOUR knowledge!   YOU don't even believe in a trinity.  And that cracks me up.  Because Jack and Keith KNOW that you think Jesus is THE FATHER, yet none of you will discuss that matter.  Why not?   Do you guys even realize that Francis' main claim so far is the Father calls Jesus HIS God?  WHERE IS THAT IN SCRIPTURE?  WHERE DOES THE FATHER SAY TO JESUS, “GOD OF ME“?   Oh, and he has the other “rational” claim that calling someone “MY God” doesn't imply inferiority in any way.  IN WHAT WORLD IS THAT?       Stick around guys.  Pay attention.  If he doesn't bail, and decides to start STICKING TO THE SCRIPTURES IN QUESTION instead of all these petty diversions, you are all about to learn just how far away from logic you must go to PRETEND that Jesus is God Almighty. But that is right up SF's alley.  I mean, who can argue with the logic that the Son really IS the Father?   mike

Hi Mike,

Francis asks you to accept his reasoning and at the same time he ignores you reasoning.
He has done this to me as well. I suggest you address his reasoning, and then demand(so to speak)
that he addresses your reasoning instead of just moving on to more of his reasoning, while ignoring yours.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Thanks Ed.

I hope he just addresses the Psalm 45 point right now. I'm really curious about his understanding of this song.

peace and love to you and yours,
mike

[Ed J]

Hi Mike,

Francis uses the English language different than most,
as he has admitted to me that he uses it differently than I.

<!–QuoteBegin–Francis[/color]+Jan. 18 2011,05:45–>

Quote (Francis

@ Jan. 18 2011,05:45)

we are not using the English language in the same way.

Let me site some examples for all the readers here what Francis has said to Mike:

<!–QuoteBegin–Francis[/color]+Jan. 21 2011,05:01–>

Quote (Francis

@ Jan. 21 2011,05:01)

As for twisting things?  No way.  I never do that.  To twist something to me is like lying

<!–QuoteBegin–Francis[/color]+Jan. 21 2011,05:01–>

Quote (Francis

@ Jan. 21 2011,05:01)

More likely what is happening is that I am UNTWISTING what you are saying… not twisting what you are saying

Now according to Francis' logic is that not saying: Mike is like lying?
Now Francis has also told me if you say someone is lying, you are calling them 'a liar'. Here is the reference…

<!–QuoteBegin–Francis[/color]+Jan. 15 2011,06:52–>

Quote (Francis

@ Jan. 15 2011,06:52)

if you call a person's words they have spoken as being a lie, this does not mean you are calling the person a liar?

<!–QuoteBegin–Francis[/color]+,Jan. 15 2011,06:52–>

Quote (Francis

@ ,Jan. 15 2011,06:52)

Only a liar would write words that are a lie. Why would a person who is not a liar, spout words that are a lie?

So you see: Francis does not use the English language in the same way we do.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org  

[SimplyForgiven]

Mike,
As you have done this many times, you get confused and making many implications that have nothing to do with the Debate and implying points that I did not make, but I willl personally extensively point out where you got confused and correct your assertions.

Quote

NO, NO, NO!  You either AGREE that not all things NETNotes says is the absolute REALITY of scriptures, or you AGREE that we have a triune God.  Which is it, sonny?

***Added***
What Scripture are you talking about, and where is the source you are referring too, that you keep on neglecting to give it to me***
I never argued that the Netnotes are a Reality of Scriptures, so why would that matter.   And I do agree that God is Triune, but that Depends what you define certain aspects.

The only info you have on my beliefs is that I dont call myself Trinitarian, nor will i claim the Trinity as my doctrine.  This is what your trying to do Mike with that info, your trying to use a Trinity aspect so that you assume i disagree with so that I would admit that the fallacies of the Netnotes.

The Reality of scriptures first of all is God, and second “Grandpa” You need to get off your high horse and undrstand why we brought this up. which i will explain in a bit.
So far your Claiming that I find the Netnotes Absolute, which is not true, BUT you are. Which i will explain in a bit.

Quote

You got all up in my face saying things like this, “Whats funny is that you only use it to your convience.  Mighty unfair dont you think?”, but now YOU are the one wanting to disregard something they say.

Actualy thats NOT what I meant at all.
Let me quote on some of the things you have Said for you can understand why im saying this.  It Is YOU who started using Netnotes to DEFINE Elohim which started on pg.62.  

Quote

And the word itself simply means “leader”.  I've accepted “leader” because of NETNotes and the NIV, among others.  A lot of newer translations render “elohim” (when not referring to YHVH) as “leader” with a footnote saying “traditionally judges”. But NETNotes explains that the Judges over Israel were not judges as we understand the term today, but they were also governmental and military leaders.  And since they have rendered “elohim” as “leader”, and their reasoning behind it is scripturally sound, I concur and will use “leader” from now on instead of repeating “judge” or “ruler”.  Okay by you?

Quote

Yet that's what the word “god” means to most of us.  And it causes confusion for many people because Jesus was simply called a “judge” or “ruler” or “leader”.  And none of those words by themselves say Jesus is the “supernatural supreme being who created the universe”.  But because that's how we today understand the word “god”, many of us think Jesus must BE God because he is called by that title.

Quote

NETNotes says the actual Hebrew is “He chose new gods”. Who were these “new elohim” that God chose?  They were the human beings Deborah and Barak during the time that Deborah was the Judge of Israel.

I LOVE THIS COMMENT YOU MADE, (RIGHT BACK AT YOU MIKE)

Quote

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 11 2011,07:21) I didn't make this stuff up, guys.  It's all right there in the words of scripture and in the words of the scholars who have tirelessly studied those scriptures and have defined the Hebrew and Greek words for us.   Consider these scriptures: Exodus 21 KJV 6Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. 'elohiym 1) (plural)  1a) rulers, judges  1b) divine ones  1c) angels  1d) gods 2) (plural intensive – singular meaning)  2a) god, goddess  2b) godlike one  2c) works or special possessions of God    2d) the (true) God  2e) God Know of what you speak, young Dennison.  “God” with a capital “G” is only two of the nine definitions given for the word above.  And even then, it still simply means “ruler” or “judge”.  It was used of humans, angels, Jesus, and the Omniscient Being Who Created All. peace and love, mike Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 12 2011,17:16) Your Definition and contentions that “Elohim” is only a Title and only means “Rulers or Judge” Is a fallacy, [/color] D, how can you honestly even say “it's a fallacy” when the green words above are staring you right in the face?    I didn't make this up, this info is from Biblical scholars.

And I can add on and on and on, about the countless times you have claimed using Netnotes as your source and only evidence to define “Elohim”.

So Lets clear up this confusion.
Whats unfair Is that when I or anyone else usess Netnotes to disprove your theory/theology you get frustrated and say

Quote

Here, they do it right.  They don't claim that “kurios” actually MEANS “God” or “Jesus”.  They correctly explain that it is a title that MEANS “master”, and then go on to say that TITLE sometimes REFERS TO God and Jesus and others. And THAT'S how they should have done “elohim”.  It is a TITLE that MEANS “judge/leader/ruler”, that sometimes REFERS TO God and Jesus and others. So I reject “God” as a DEFINITION of the word “elohim”.  It is not the case.  The word never MEANS “Supernatural Supreme Ruler”. mike

Thats not proof at all mike because we are using the same source that DOESNT agree with you in the first place.
So how is it apprantly fair that its ok for you to use Netnotes coviently as you see fit and when we start using netnotes, you just “reject” it because you “think” it shouldnt be that way?  Your source made a mistake?  
So why should i even debate against your source in the first place?

dont i also have the Right to say “Well Netnotes has it wrong it shoud be defined as a 'Supreme God' so therefore I Reject leader or judge as the definition?

I mean if you can do that, than i ALSO can do the same, and we are just stuck in the same line of reasoning.
This is what i see as UNFAIR.
You are asking us to accept your claims becasue “in the words of the scholars who have tirelessly studied those scriptures and have defined the Hebrew and Greek words for us.” and “this info is from Biblical scholars.” Yet in the same breath you deny the Secondary and Eqaul a,b,c,d,e de
finitons to the primary definitions of Elohim.

Thats unfair.  I can also say, why cannt you accept “God” as a definitinon for “Elohim” if this info is form Biblical Scholars who tirelessly studied those scriptures and have defined Hebrew and Greek for us?

Do you see the problem we are having here?

Quote

So, WHICH IS IT, hotshot?   1.  Must we ALL agree with EVERYTHING NETNotes says?

I am a hotshot, im the Flaming Torch.
Part of the Fantastic Four of those who believe that Jesus is God.  
1. I never claimed that, BUT YOU CERTAINLY HAVE! In the above quotes you stated countless times how we MUST accept “judge/ruler/leader” as the ONLY defintions to Elohim.
Even though in the same breath you REJECT the other defintions that YOUR SOURCE provides.
And In the first place, my orginal comment was reflecting how you used your source however you wanted to but didnt allow us the same rights.

Quote

2.  Or can we ALL use ONLY the things that we know the scriptures support……………without smart aleck comments from the peanut gallery?

Mike, stop crying your a Grown Man already.
Mike it was  YOU how started using netnotes, not US.
In response we started using it, but it didnt matter because all the evidences were based on the CONTEXT of scripture which in fact is “only the things that we know the scriptures support”. because the CONTEXT is SCRIPTURE, so its obvious its supported.

Quote

Alright smarty.  Answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION about “elohim”. SCRIPTURALLY SPEAKING, DOES BEING CALLED “ELOHIM” MEAN THAT ONE IS ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY “GOD ALMIGHTY”? If I don't see a “1” or a “2” and a “YES” or a “NO” from you, then you are wasting my time, D. peace and love, mike

“Alright Smarty”? wow mike, Your such an Example  
So you were crying about smart aleck comments:

Quote

without smart aleck comments from the peanut gallery?

What happen mike? cant you lead by example?

Mike, first off Elohim is used to present a “Surpeme being”
and second It always depends of the Context to prove that one is FACT TRUELY THE SUPREME BEING.

So NO, being called Elohim without proving that you actually are doesnt in fact make you God almighty.
So if i call you Elohim for example, You are not a Supreme being, and though other people would worship you as a Supreme being, the fact is that you are not, regardless of what people believe.
So though you are called a God, doesnt mean you really are one.

So there is only ONE TRUE GOD, which is defined by his
works, ethics and character.
Which is why we are using the CONTEXT to prove that Jesus is called God is being used correctly.
And we already gave our reasons why.
So YES being called “Elohim” can mean in fact that you are God Almigthy because you fullfill the role of what Makes a True God.

So if you Render Elohim as just a Title, than the person in question HAS TO fullfill the ROLE.

BUT thats not always the case in scripture, because God is mentioned as “God” many times just like Genesis1:1 as a particular individual, but not as a title.

So Context defines the Usage of Elohim.
In all languages the “Context clues” defines the word and how its applied.
We learned this in 3rd grade Mike, try to catch up.

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 21 2011,04:52)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 20 2011,17:47) lol… Mike… God of gods, Daniel 2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret. In the Eyes of the King other “Supreme beings” existed in his polytheism, but he realized that the God of Daniel was above all of them. so he is the God above the supposed Gods.   CONTEXT MIKE CONTEXT. Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. This one is MOSES calling Him the “God of gods”.  CONTEXT, D.  Explain this one away with false gods. And you have yet to answer about Deborah, elohim of Israel.  Was she a “false god”?  Was she God Almighty? PLEASE ADDRESS WHO DEBORAH WAS. mike

Sooo Mike,
Since you didnt refute Daniel and the Kings dream nor Exodus where Israel believed in a Calf as a God, im going to assume that you conceded.

Context provides that in Exodus these people lived in a world where they believed in many “Supreme Gods' that were false, such as the CALF, and the Egyptian gods of Ra, and etc.
But in the plagues, God smote all there “so called” gods.
because their gods were represented by natural things, that belonged to the ONE True God to begin with.

Consider 14Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.
What do the “other gods” have than?
so its pretty easy to determine that God is simply the God of all things.

And Deborah
(Now Consider, i shouldnt even be obligated to even answer this, because you IGNORED alot of points i have made, and now including the Kings dream and the Molten Calf but i will anyways.)
Context provides on the very FIRST mention of Deborah in scriptures is this.
Jdg 4:4
Now Deborah, a prophetess, wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time.
5And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.
Isnt it pretty obvious that She is not GOD.
She was a Judge who was leading Israel.
Mike when was she called “Elohim” in scripture?
I have asked you many times to give me the scriptures but you have yet to present it.

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

SF said to Mike:

Quote

So far your Claiming that I find the Netnotes Absolute, which is not true, BUT you are. Which i will explain in a bit.

Mike clings to the NET notes like a drowning man holds on to the life preserver. This is how Mike survives. That's all Mike does here is survive.

Mike's treatment of isaiah 43:10 is anathema. God said that no other deities were formed besides Him and that none came to be after Him. Therefore, Jesus Christ was not “begotten” in the sense that Mike thinks for He is deity and no deity was formed besides God or came to be after him.

This thread was started months ago to challenge Mike's view that Christ as “begotten” is a lesser deity. But there are no deities besides of after God. None! Zilch! Nada!

The Roo with the brew

[Ed J]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 21 2011,20:03)

Mike's treatment of isaiah 43:10 is anathema.

Hi Jack,

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen:
that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I he: before me
there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Do you believe God was formed; if so, who formed him?

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 21 2011,05:07)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 21 2011,06:29) I wanted to discuss alot of things with him after we were done with Mike. What a joke, Dennison.  Look at you attaching yourself to the scriptural knowledge of Jack and Keith as if it is YOUR knowledge!   YOU don't even believe in a trinity.  And that cracks me up.  Because Jack and Keith KNOW that you think Jesus is THE FATHER, yet none of you will discuss that matter.  Why not?   Do you guys even realize that Francis' main claim so far is the Father calls Jesus HIS God?  WHERE IS THAT IN SCRIPTURE?  WHERE DOES THE FATHER SAY TO JESUS, “GOD OF ME“?   Oh, and he has the other “rational” claim that calling someone “MY God” doesn't imply inferiority in any way.  IN WHAT WORLD IS THAT?       Stick around guys.  Pay attention.  If he doesn't bail, and decides to start STICKING TO THE SCRIPTURES IN QUESTION instead of all these petty diversions, you are all about to learn just how far away from logic you must go to PRETEND that Jesus is God Almighty. But that is right up SF's alley.  I mean, who can argue with the logic that the Son really IS the Father?   mike

Quote

What a joke, Dennison.  Look at you attaching yourself to the scriptural knowledge of Jack and Keith as if it is YOUR knowledge!

Attached? We Agree on many aspects, so whats the problem?
And PROVE IT TO ME, where i have STOLEN knowledge or claiming a point as my own from Jack or Keith?

Quote

YOU don't even believe in a trinity.  And that cracks me up.  Because Jack and Keith KNOW that you think Jesus is THE FATHER, yet none of you will discuss that matter.  Why not?

Actually thats not really the case, I dont CLASSIFY myself nor put my self under a doctrinal name, but to be precise on what i believe, i believe BEYOND the Trinity but not excluding it at all.
Well that DEPENDS on what they MEAN by that, because from what Francis has presented as the Trinity, i totally agree with it, because what Trinitarians present as the Trinity here in houston texas is different from what he Explained.
And in fact, i have claimed that Jesus is IN the Father, as much as the Father is in him.

Quote

Do you guys even realize that Francis' main claim so far is the Father calls Jesus HIS God?  WHERE IS THAT IN SCRIPTURE?  WHERE DOES THE FATHER SAY TO JESUS, “GOD OF ME“?

Quote where exactly he said that Immediatly.

Quote

Oh, and he has the other “rational” claim that calling someone “MY God” doesn't imply inferiority in any way.  IN WHAT WORLD IS THAT?

But YOU dont even know what that means lol.
Dont you believe that Elohim, theos means “leader”
jokes on you kid.

Quote

Stick around guys.  Pay attention.  If he doesn't bail, and decides to start STICKING TO THE SCRIPTURES IN QUESTION instead of all these petty diversions, you are all about to learn just how far away from logic you must go to PRETEND that Jesus is God Almighty.

Mike seriously your full of it.
You should probably take JA advice and learn from his “debate tactics” but not from his attitude.
Thats sad you cant take anything seriously.
We showed you rational, logical, points yet you call them “petty diversions”?? YA YOU SHOULD TALK RIGHT? You know all about “petty diversions”
dude…….lol you went from believing in many gods, to redefining elohim.  right?  Yet we are the one who are logically corrupt?

Dude actions speak louder than words.
Who would believe you when your actions say contrary?

Quote

But that is right up SF's alley.  I mean, who can argue with the logic that the Son really IS the Father?   mike

Lol, but you dont even know what that MEANS?
If we cant AGREE in what Elohim means, how are you sure that we even begin to agree what is meant by the SON or FATHER.
You have said many times that God can do anything and that we cant equate him to us.
But here we go again, how are you so SURE that being called the “Son” makes Jesus a LITERAL Son as much as a human father has a son?

How come you dont argue against Jesus being the “SON OF MAN”?
Is Jesus literally a Son of Man?  what MAN was Jesus a Son too by blood?
Was Jesus literally the Son of Joshua?
To what Man is Jesus the Son too?

Jesus said himself, if you see him, you see the FAther.
Yet we know that scriptures says that no one has seen God at any time.
So Jesus is that EXPRESSED IMAGE, the knowable of the Father.
Its that simple.

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 21 2011,03:46)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 21 2011,06:47) Francis Said Quote The debate over Hebrews 1:8 is WHETHER OR NOT your tranlsation is correct.  So just like above, you can't use your translation to PROVE that your translation is correct!!! I'll repeat it because it is worht repeating:   you can't use your translation to PROVE that your translation is correct    To argue like that is to argue in circles… to beg the question. I'm not arguing in such a way, because I have been giving you what I feel is evidence that demonstrates that the English Translators have it correct.  I'm not arguing that “elohim” means God because “elohim” means God.  I'm arguing that “elohim” means God in Hebrews 1:8 because  of this and that and this. Now.. you were on the right track when you tried to justify your translation of “elohim” into “leader” earlier.  But the moment you started to argue in circles… begging the question… as you just did above… you lost focus and got confused. This is a debate fallacy that i call the “Knife comment”. Its found in the debate errors thread. ITs when a poster basically claims in a murder trail example as “we have the KNIFE, I rest my case” without proving if the knife has DNA evidence, or who does it belong to, or how can you assume that this wife killed the deceased. So its a claim without any warrants or substances to prove thier point. Mike typically does this alot. SF, Yeah Mike does that the “knife comment” alot. He assumes the NET “Bible” translation of Isaiah 43:10 is correct and then says, “The scripture says” even when the NET's own footnote indicates how the inspired text actually reads. Instead of saying to himself, “Now why did these morons insert the word “outlive” in the text and then give the true reading which is “there will not be”? And he pits Daniel B. Wallace against the seventy Jewish scholars that Jesus and the Apostles invoked. Mike's biggest problem is that he does not THINK. He is ready to post anything and everything that he can use to keep his head above water. KJ

Well Mike Typicaly uses this fallacy as his main Contention alot.
He just doesnt see it at all.
He doesnt even comprehend to understand his error when he makes such arguements.
Im Glad someone took the time and effort to probably show him his error.

I think the Tabernacle point that Francis made was A GREAT POINT!
What was inside the Tabernacle was as much as God was, and the madmade object was just a simple object.

Its a very good point that Francis made.

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote

That's childish, and now you've got your little boy Denny doing it.  Come on guys…………grow up.  Please?  Address the scriptural FACTS that I make instead of ganging up to “laugh at me”.  Because I'm having the last laugh daily. Not one of you has the brass to acknowledge what I've asked Francis to acknowledge.  And that's sad, because we all KNOW of scriptures where elohim is used of those who are neither God Almighty or “false gods”.   So why can't any of you but Keith ADMIT that being called “elohim” didn't NECESSARILY mean that you were God Almighty or a “false god”? It's a scriptural FACT boys.  Yet SF remains content with his “there is only ONE elohim” confusion.   And Jack refuses to comment on this scriptural FACT.  So let me ask it LOUD and CLEAR.  Keith has already correctly answered.  How about you Jack?  Will YOU, D?  Francis? Are there elohim mentioned in scripture who are neither “God Almighty” nor “false gods”?

Mike this is my last post for Tonight than im going to Sleep.
note its 5am, and  i will be angry tommrow to find out that you dont intentively respond to me because I worked 4 hours on this.

Mike.
Again this is ANOTHER diversion.
Let me Remind you how this all started.
Irene posted this:

Quote

WJ I did address your question by stating that Jehovah God in LORD and that Jesus is Lord.  Did God the Father call Jesus God, yes.  Hebrew 1:8 and  John1:1 however God and The Word of God are titles.  Both have other names.  Jehovah God and LORD is above all according to Ephesians 4:6 and by Jesus own words He said that “MY FATHER IS GREATER THEN I. Keith, I happen to know what you are after.  Just because both are called God, that still makes Jehovah God greater.  Satan and others were called God, so are they too to be worshiped??? Of course not…….. .One more thing.  I used to teach the trinity to our four children and the Holy spirit is a person.  So does that now make the Holy Spirit the Father of Jesus?? Unless you teach not that the Holy Spirit is a person, do you?? ……… Peace and love Irene

After a long post of explaining why I posted this:

Quote

Once you cliam there are many gods, the debate is over. There is nothing left to say, the Bible is clear, there is only ONE GOD. unless your a Pagan Greek Gentile who believes in many gods.   This is ya's basic cliam: There are many gods but only one Jehovah Almighty God. Fallacy……………

You Responded:

Quote

D, it is not Irene and I who are just making this stuff up.  There are many gods mentioned in the scriptures.  Like we've determined, “God” is a title, just like “President”.  And while there are many presidents of many different clubs and societies, from an American point of view, there is “but one President………Obama”. Do you understand this D?  You can be “president” of your Pokemon Club, but you are not to be confused with “THE President”.  And that was what Paul was saying.  He was saying that although there are many who have been given the TITLE of “god”, we should confuse NONE OF THEM with “OUR ONE GOD, THE FATHER IN HEAVEN”.  And that “NONE OF THEM” includes God's Son, Jesus Christ. Let us know which part of this “title” stuff you don't understand, and Irene and I will help you out, okay?   peace and love, mike

and you responded many times sayings such things

Quote

Then your argument is with scripture, not me.  For scripture mentions many gods.  But of all of them, we are to worship only the “God of gods”. mike

Your FIRST mention of Elohim only meaning Judge ruler and leader

Quote

Who's the “them” you mention, Keith?  Oh, the OTHERS who have been given the TITLE of “god”? Keith and D, please answer this ONE simple question: Do you understand that “god” is but a TITLE, which means, “judge, ruler, mighty one”?  YES or NO? mike

I Said:

Quote

Prove that they are actually gods Mike, since you claim them to be. Lets go point by point.

Mike Said

Quote

Hi D, I don't think it's the fact you guys disagree, but the fact you use silliness to do it.  Think about it.  If Satan is one of the so-called gods, and therefore not the only true God, then why isn't Jesus?  YHVH is Jesus' God as well as Satan's, right? On the other hand, if Satan is a real god (which he is) but still not the only true God, then why can't Jesus also be a real god without being the only true God? Now you guys will go around and around in circles claiming all the things that Jesus is that Satan is not, and that's fine.  But you cross the line by asserting those things make Jesus the God he is the Son of, and that's just plain silliness.  Remember this one fact D:  Whoever and whatever Satan is, he is not the God of gods, for that title belongs only to the one he refers to as “God”.  And whoever and whatever Jesus is, he is not the God of gods, for that title belongs only to the one he refers to as “my God”.

I Said in response

Quote

Actually its compelelty Logical.   Its like if i say, Im God.  will you believe me just because i claimed so?  Jesus made Cliams and he backed it up by his WORKS.  He said if you dont believe me, believe my works for they are from the Father.   False Idols are cliamed as gods, but are they really gods? So the question arises, who and what is God? how can you define what God attributes are? and by what measure can you understand what is God and what is not God.  Perfection is the clear marker Perfection sets apart God from everything and everyone else. This is what i was referring to with Astaria, because he made a excellent point about defining what Is God.  Which i agree, but unto what terms? You cliam God is just a Title. Yet many verses state “God our father” so are you also stating that its impossible that the word “God” can be used as a name to identify someone? Your only Contention thats left, is that God is a title, and its used to identify many individuals.  Yet the bible that we read claims about one True God that is the only one who can be perfect and creator of all things.

My Point is that In fact it is YOU who claimed that there are many ELOHIMS!
And it was us who was tellling you that just because they were called Gods doesnt mean they were really Gods at All!

You see the Confusion????
You just turned this whole thing backwards as if We were claiming that These elohims are false gods or God almighty just because they are called Elohim.

But ALL THIS TIME, WJ, Jack, Francis and I have all made claims in reference to Context, and by the fact that not all who were called elohim didnt nessarily make them a God, just like the Molten Calf that Israel worshipped was never a GOD to begin with.
These are the ORGINAL claims and arguements that we have been lead astray from.

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

SF said:

Quote

I think the Tabernacle point that Francis made was A GREAT POINT!   What was inside the Tabernacle was as much as God was, and the madmade object was just a simple object.

Yeap! Our brother Francis is a genius. Hebrews says that Christ IS the tabernacle and therefore God Himself. Christ is the SUBSTANCE which clearly infers that He is God.

Mike is choking for sure. His nonsensical treatment of Isaiah 43:10 is a prime example.

Roo

[Author]

Posts