Mikeboll64 vs francis

[francis]

Hello Ed J…

Quote

Do you now understand my explanation how: what someone says can be 'a lie', but they themselves are NOT 'a liar'? A classic example is: those who spread 'the rapture' doctrine, which is 'a lie'; but those who spread this lie are not LIARS!; but merely mistaken in believing 'a lie'.

I can see and appreciate what you are trying to say in the above.  

But the problem with this example  as I see it, is that you are doing the very same thing that you are accusing those who believe in the rapture of doing.    

It is your opinion that the rapture doctrine is incorrect or false… but unless you are God Himself, there is no way to prove that your opinion is 100% and absolutely correct… and therefore there is no way to label the rapture doctrine as a lie.  If you want to call it a mistake, that's your privilege.  If you want to call it wrong, that's your privilege.  But to call it a lie?  I don't think that is possible, because no one has access to absolute knowledge to make absolute statements about the rapture, etc.

And btw, this cuts both ways.   In reality, both sides of the rapture issue believe that their position is correct, and that the other side's position is false.

But to call something a lie, to me anyway, this means you that are telling us that you can  PROVE that your side is correct, and the other side is wrong.  Well Ed J… I know that neither side can absolutely prove 100% that their position is the correct one.  How can I be so confident?  Because neither you nor I nor anyone in here nor the greatest minds on this planet can even prove 100% that God exists.  Even the atheists cannot prove 100% that God DOES NOT exist.

If no one can absolutely prove 100% that God exists, then you're not going to have a better chance with the rapture.

What scholars do… and this is all that any of us can do in regard to the rapture… is present the best case/argument for our respective position.   And the position that has the best evidence and most convincing proofs, will more than likely be closest to the truth.  

When you view the rapture discussion in that manner, you can see that it is overstating things when you introduce the word “lie” into the mix.  Using such an emotionally charged word in an arena where neither side can absolutely prove 100% that they are correct, can only cause rancor and resentment… both of which will stunt any reasonable discussion.

Quote

Such was the case when I mistakenly said: “what you said was 'a lie' “, because I believed you were merely mistaken; but as it turned out that I was the one who was mistaken, not you.

I understand what you are saying and I appreciate that.  I would only add that even if I was mistaken, it would still have been a mistake by you to characterize my mistake as a “lie”.  My mistake would have been a mistake… not a lie.

For example, does the fact that you say that you were mistaken, mean that what you said was a “lie”?  Does your mistake qualify as a “lie”?  No, I don't believe that all.  To me, a mistake does not equal to a lie.   And I think that is where we had a conflict.

Quote

So I apologized for calling your words 'a lie', because I was mistaken. But in no way did I believe you were intentionally lying; so I did not call you 'a liar'.

Thanks for that clarification.  And I hope you can understand what I am saying as well.

Quote

I pointed out this FACT to you: that I did not call you 'a liar'; which you apparently did not understand.

We still understand the word “lie” a bit differently from each other it appears.  But I can appreciate your point of view and your desire to try and clarify things.

Quote

I hope now you can see the difference, so we can move forward with no animosity on your part; OK?

I have no problem moving forward with no animosity.  But I think it would help things if we try and not use the word “lie” because it is can be a very provacative word and a flashpoint.  

Even when you look at the best debators on this planet… between atheist and theists… they never call the other sides position or viewpoint a “lie”.   Instead, they will always say that they strongly disagree with their opponents positon or statements… or that they believe the other side is mistaken… etc.  They never go and call the other sides position or viewpoint a “lie”.

Look at all those great debates between all those great intelligent debators.  You won't ever see one side calling the other side's position a lie.  A Christian or a theist doesn't call the atheist position a lie, even though they believe the atheist position is completely wrong and mistaken.  And vice versa.

So what do you think?  Let's not call each other's position a lie… whether it is theism vs atheism or the rapture discussion, etc.

Anyway, that's my humble opinion.

Respectfully
Francis

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Ed J said:

Quote

Hi Jack, I would be willing to discuss this as well. There is something to “The Trinity” doctrine, but not what the systems of religion have taught. WJ knows (as I have told him this before) there's a bridge between the Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian views.

Ed,

Not interested.

Jack

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 20 2011,11:43)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 20 2011,04:02) WJ said to Mike: Quote To percieve Jesus the “Image of the invisible God” as less than God is to have a “false image” of God and to me that is “Idolatry”. Wow! Again I must bow to Keith's intellect.   Roo That just proves you'll worship anyone, Jack.  Jesus, Keith………….who's next?

Make up your mind Mike! I thought you JW's called bowing “obeisance” which is acceptable. Now you throw me a curve ball and call it worship. Can't win!

Jack

[Ed J]

Hi Francis,

I appropriate your concern, and I will avoid using the word 'lie' while addressing you.
There is a 'rapture' thread here…   https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….9;st=50
Forum » BELIEVERS PLACE » Scripture & Biblical Doctrine » The rapture

If this is something you would like to discuss, but I would not understand why you would
if you did not believe in a 'rapture'; because it would be a moot point; nevertheless
I would be willing to produce the evidence against such an erroneous belief.

I have been trying to get to the bottom of another issue with you,
but you seem unwilling to explore where “The Truth” lies; I should instead
use improper English so there is no mistaking what I say; where “The Truth” lays.

Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 21 2011,14:51)

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  
Bravo, Ed.

And thank you. He is a sharp one…….that's for sure. I think he's maybe a lawyer or something.

He's good at using others words against THEM and in favor of HIM. I'm also pretty good at it too. And I wrote a 500 word essay about the “apology” thing today. But then I thought, “Why bother? Let it go so we can get to the heart of the matter!”

Thanks for you support on this debate, Ed. I DO appreciate you.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 21 2011,19:33)

Mike, first off Elohim is used to present a “Surpeme being”

So Deborah, the elohim of Israel, was a “Supreme Being”?

YES or NO, D.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 21 2011,19:57)

Mike when was she called “Elohim” in scripture?

NASB ©
“New gods were chosen; Then war was in the gates. Not a shield or a spear was seen Among forty thousand in Israel.

This is part of a song that Deborah and Barak sang to praise God.  They sing about how He chose new “elohim” to lead Israel and how those elohim lead the Israelites to victory without the use of a single shield or spear because God delivered Sisera the Canaanite and his army into their hands.

I never saw where you asked for this scripture…………but here it is.  And Deborah is just one example, D.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 21 2011,20:11)

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.

Do you or do you not believe that Jesus IS the Father?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 21 2011,20:51)

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!

Yeah,

I'm up to speed on all this. Remember when I asked you what context showed that the elohim in Hebrews 1:8 was God Almighty?

I asked if it was the fact that he had a God of his own.

D, does God Almighty have a God?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 22 2011,03:11)

Mike is choking for sure.

Says the man (and I use the term lightly) who refuses to answer even the simplest of questions.

What a joke!

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 22 2011,09:28)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 21 2011,19:33) Mike, first off Elohim is used to present a “Surpeme being” So Deborah, the elohim of Israel, was a “Supreme Being”? YES or NO, D. mike

Mike why didnt you quote the WHOLE point of how to find out what is a “supreme being” or not.

I already posted a scripture that clarified that DEBORAH was in fact not a God at alll, she was a Woman who happen to be a Prophet who lead Israel and was also a Judge who settled Disputes.

I am not trying to prove that every mention of Elohim means Supreme being,
What Im trying to prove that the Definitino of Elohim entirely is defined by Context.
Elohim is typicaly use to present a “Supreme God” or the idea of it.
I liked what T8 said, Deborah was a Authortive Figure.
thats it.

So I never was trying to prove that Deborah was a God, in fact im want to prove that she isnt.
Mike how come you ignore alot of my points?

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 22 2011,09:39)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 21 2011,20:11) 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. Do you or do you not believe that Jesus IS the Father? mike

Jesus Told Philip if you See him, you see the Father.
He is the IMAGE of the Invisible God.
the Father is IN him, and He is IN the Father.

What is the Father Mike?
And what do I believe that Jesus is?

the answer to those to questions easily answers your own.

So That depends what you define things.
If we cant agree on what “Elohim” means than im not even going phantom on how many other terms we disagree on.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 22 2011,05:22)

No because she is a mortal human being and not ” a god” at all. Context says she is “elohim” (little e) and if elohim can also mean Judge (which it does) then it should be translated as Judge. Now if the context said they were bowing down to her and offiering sacrifices and worshipping her then she would be an “idol” or “false god”. Context dictates why the translators translated it a certain way. You can't seem to get that.

Really Keith?  “Little e”?      

Was it originally written in Hebrew with a “little e”?  

The word is ELOHIM.  And it does NOT refer to either God Almighty OR a false god.  It refers to a servant OF God Almighty.

Hmmm……..where else in scripture is a SERVANT OF GOD ALMIGHTY referred to as “elohim”?    Oooh, oooh, I know one!  Hebrews 1:8!        

And there is absolutely NOTHING any of you can do to refute this.  You can't possibly PROVE Jesus is God Almighty just because he's called “elohim”, or you would be in the same breath “proving” that Deborah was God Almighty.

“Little e”……………….you kill me!  

peace and love,
mike

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 22 2011,09:42)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 21 2011,20:51) 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! Yeah, I'm up to speed on all this.  Remember when I asked you what context showed that the elohim in Hebrews 1:8 was God Almighty? I asked if it was the fact that he had a God of his own.   D, does God Almighty have a God? mike

Mike,
I remember I quoted some verses and such.
do i really have to go back and bring back the whole point all over again?
I used the first 3 chapters as Context.

Define God Almighty?
dont you mean Leader Almighty? im seriously asking.

Are you asking if the leader almighty has a leader?
or a Supreme being?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 22 2011,05:31)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 20 2011,19:31) Are there elohim mentioned in scripture who are neither “God Almighty” nor “false gods”? Mike Yes

Thanks Keith,

But I already have your answer.  You are the one who has HONESTLY admitted the only thing I ever set out to prove so far.  I am hoping for D and Francis and Jack to follow your lead.

THEN…………you may continue to persuade me as to WHY when Jesus was referred to as “elohim”, it ABSOLUTELY AND POSITIVELY MUST HAVE MEANT HE WAS GOD ALMIGHTY………..one scriptural point at a time.

If I was debating with YOU, we would have moved on by now, because you alone are willing to admit what the others haven't so far been willing to acknowledge.

My whole point thus far is this:

If there are others called elohim who are neither God Almighty nor false gods, then JUST being called “elohim” is not proof of being God Almighty.  You need more.  And I'm willing to hear out and discuss all the “more” that you are willing to dispense.  But it frustrates me that you are so far the only one to acknowledge this clear and scriptural truth.  And if further frustrates me because I (think: per Francis) KNOW that the others are being obstinate and difficult because they simply don't want to give up this “big gun” they think they have.

Keith, I didn't quote only part of your post to be deceitful.  It's just that the rest of your reasons can be addressed after we all are willing to acknowledge the CLEAR and SCRIPTURAL FACT that it will take more than JUST being called by the title “elohim” to PROVE Jesus is God Almighty.  That, IN AND OF ITSELF, proves absolutely NOTHING about the deity of Jesus.

peace and love,
mike

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 22 2011,09:42)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 21 2011,20:51) 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! Yeah, I'm up to speed on all this.  Remember when I asked you what context showed that the elohim in Hebrews 1:8 was God Almighty? I asked if it was the fact that he had a God of his own.   D, does God Almighty have a God? mike

Oh and by the way, the Context proves that Hebrews 1:8 was used to present a “supreme being” because the context supports that this God created and has a Throne and what he is and what not.
I brought up several points in the past that proved this.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 22 2011,16:07)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 22 2011,09:42) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 21 2011,20:51) 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! Yeah, I'm up to speed on all this.  Remember when I asked you what context showed that the elohim in Hebrews 1:8 was God Almighty? I asked if it was the fact that he had a God of his own.   D, does God Almighty have a God? mike Oh and by the way, the Context proves that Hebrews 1:8 was used to present a “supreme being” because the context supports that this God created and has a Throne and what he is and what not. I brought up several points in the past that proved this.

Hi D,

Would you like to go through ALL of Hebrews 1 and see if you're right?

Should we start with 1:1?

1. In the past, GOD spoke to us through prophets, but lately GOD spoke to us THROUGH His Son.

Two people there, D. And only ONE of them is GOD.

2. GOD appointed Jesus HEIR OF ALL THINGS. Hmmmm…….Why would “God Almighty” need to “inherit” anything from HIS GOD?

3. GOD made the universe………….THROUGH His Son. WHO made the universe, D?

That's just the FIRST verse, D. Shall we continue?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 22 2011,06:58)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 20 2011,11:43) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 20 2011,04:02) WJ said to Mike: Quote To percieve Jesus the “Image of the invisible God” as less than God is to have a “false image” of God and to me that is “Idolatry”. Wow! Again I must bow to Keith's intellect.   Roo That just proves you'll worship anyone, Jack.  Jesus, Keith………….who's next? Make up your mind Mike! I thought you JW's called bowing “obeisance” which is acceptable. Now you throw me a curve ball and call it worship. Can't win! Jack

And I thought YOU insisted it is “worship”. Boy, I just can't win with you.

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 22 2011,10:13)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 22 2011,16:07) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 22 2011,09:42) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 21 2011,20:51) 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! Yeah, I'm up to speed on all this.  Remember when I asked you what context showed that the elohim in Hebrews 1:8 was God Almighty? I asked if it was the fact that he had a God of his own.   D, does God Almighty have a God? mike Oh and by the way, the Context proves that Hebrews 1:8 was used to present a “supreme being” because the context supports that this God created and has a Throne and what he is and what not. I brought up several points in the past that proved this. Hi D, Would you like to go through ALL of Hebrews 1 and see if you're right? Should we start with 1:1?   1.  In the past, GOD spoke to us through prophets, but lately GOD spoke to us THROUGH His Son. Two people there, D.  And only ONE of them is GOD. 2.  GOD appointed Jesus HEIR OF ALL THINGS.  Hmmmm…….Why would “God Almighty” need to “inherit” anything from HIS GOD? 3.  GOD made the universe………….THROUGH His Son.  WHO made the universe, D? That's just the FIRST verse, D.  Shall we continue? mike

1. And what is GOD/Theos according to you?
2. Why would “God the Supreme Being” (clarity needed) need anyone to create the World?
3. Ummm God? duh? Who happens to be Jesus.
Context says that God created the world, Yet God says Jesus did. shoulnt that tell you something?
Plus i would like to add that Chapter 3 holds the Son as not part of the House but as over it. In other words Jesus is not part of creation, but Lord/Master over it.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 22 2011,15:47)

I am not trying to prove that every mention of Elohim means Supreme being, What Im trying to prove that the Definitino of Elohim entirely is defined by Context.

Very good.

So……….can I add YOU to the list of those who agree that being called “elohim”, IN AND OF ITSELF, is not proof that one is God Almighty?

mike

[Author]

Posts