- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi t8,
It is interesting that you have made no effort to answer any questions posed to you.
It seems that the standards you apply to theirs you do not apply to yourself.
So the thread is just a way to escape facing the hard questions yourself.
Nick has had his posting rights blocked for not answering a fair question with a clear yes or no answer.
If he decides to answer clearly and honestly in this topic, he is free to PM me (Admin) and I will reinstate his posting rights so he can answer the question.
It is interesting that you have made no effort to answer any questions posed to you.
I don’t think it is interesting. The format is I start with a question and when you answer with a yes or no, then you ask a question.
The ball was in your court not mine. If you answered the outstanding question, then so too would I would follow and answer yours.
I have no problem at all answering people’s questions, but I do have a problem when people cannot answer a simple yes/no question. I believe it is because they cannot hide the devil in the details so they avoid it at all costs. They may not even aware of why they cannot answer with a simple yes/no.
To All,
Nick Hassan has agreed to let Ed J represent him in “T8 vs Nick Hassan”
Hi Ed,
Do what you will.
I have no voice there now.
Peace.
NHot Seat rules: Link
The Hot Seat forum has a special rule that allows a member to ask another member a fair question that demands an answer. If the member does not answer, then he/she will be banned from the forums until they answer the question. A ‘yes / no / I don’t know’ is required followed by an optional explanation to why you answered that way. Remember this though, if you put someone on the Hot Seat, they too can ask you to answer questions with the same rule. But one question at a time, unless both parties agree to multiple questions.
In the following post #816925 Nick Hassan has answered T8’s original question:
“for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord”?
In the bolded text in the above scripture, is it saying:
Jesus was ‘Christ the Lord’ when he was born that day?
Yes / No
Hi T.8,
My answer is YES.
In prophetic terms.
As stated according to the said highlighted rule in the Hot-Seat rules thread Nick has answered T8’s question.
Acting as Nick Hassan’s representative in this thread I humbly ask that you restore Nick’s posting rights.
And I further ask that you in tern answer Nick’s question before asking your next refining question.Nick’s Question, which requires an answer by T8:
So your belief is that he was not made Lord and Christ but he was born Lord and Christ? y/nT8, please answer Nick’s question posed to you
____________
Thanks
Ed JPlease respect the rules. I will give you another chance to answer and if you do that,
you can explain your answer in another post.Hi T8,
Rather than Nick it is you that is not respecting the rules. By the highlighted part
of this post you are attempting to disassociate Nick’s answer from his optional explanation.
And by demanding this you are attempting to enact another “Ex-Post-Facto-Law” (see the following)Ex-Post-Facto-Law
An ex post facto law. (Latin for “from after the action” or “after the fact”), also called a retroactive law.,
is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed,
or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed;it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed;
it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences;
or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.I have explained to you before that doing so is unreasonable. (Link)
I thank you in advance for restoring Nick’s posting rights.Ed J
Hi T.8,
My answer is YES.
In prophetic terms.
That is a not how you are to answer. I asked specifically that he answer yes or no in a separate post, then provide and explanation in a later post if he so desires. This is to let your yes be yes and no be no, and stop the anything else from the Evil One.
Nick’s answer is probably a no if you look at it.
If I say, yes but… that is a no. If he says, yes, and only in a particular sense, that means no in the literal sense or other senses.
Hence he needs to say yes or no to the question and avoid anything else in his replying post. This enforces a level of honesty that is rarely seen by some members here and it is the no 1 frustration for some who never get a straight answer.
His answer is really no, but he knows that looks bad, so he crafts it his answer in the best possible way as to come across as credible.
If Nick wants to give me a clear yes or no to the fair question, then his posting rights will be restored. This standard is not going to drop to pander for those who want to subtly bring in false doctrine or not answer truthfully.
Look at the question again, and you will see that it doesn’t say anything about a prophetic sense.
“for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord”?
In the bolded text in the above scripture, is it saying:
Jesus was ‘Christ the Lord’ when he was born that day?
Yes / No
Let your yes be yes and no be no. Simple. He should be able to answer this clear question with a yes or no if he is an honest man.
ED J, this is a topic between Nick and myself. If he uses you as a proxy, then it defeats the whole point of enforcing honesty to the level of yes and no. You know full well how some here tout the rules and if you give them an inch they take a mile.
Please refrain from posting. If Nick wants a discussion, then he needs to learn how to engage in an honest discussion. That is not too much to ask. He can PM the Admin for only that role can restore his posting rights. If he has no intention of letting his yes be yes and no be no, then I am not interested in his input.
This site is about refuting false doctrine. If we cannot get straight answers, then that mission will never happen. It will be an endless merry go round of which we have seen in action for some time now.
God is patient with us and I have been patient with some members here. But God’s patience will give way eventually to judgement. Likewise, the time has come to clean up these forums and end the endless debates that never answer the core issues.
If Nick feels that he has no voice here now, it is his own doing. Look at the post that poses the question. It has specific rules which are fair and have to be adhered to. The rules state that you define the rules in the topic and the rules are clearly defined in this post quoted below. Rules that may be additional to that already stated in the Hot Seat. To clear up any confusion on that, I have also updated the Hot Seat Rules to make this yes no in a separate post format mandatory, unless the topic starter decides differently in which case they too can stipulate different rules in their topic.All such rules are subject to the Admin if a complaint about them is laid.
Following the format, I require a yes no answer only your next post. You can explain all you like in a following post.
Regarding this scripture:
“for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord”?
In the bolded text in the above scripture, is it saying:
Jesus was ‘Christ the Lord’ when he was born that day?
Yes / No
Nick refused to answer in the format clearly asked in the post containing the question. This is the reason why he is banned from posting. The format was required for one reason only. To extract an honest answer and to avoid question evasion.
ED J, this is a topic between Nick and myself. (1)If he uses you as a proxy, then it defeats the whole point of enforcing honesty to the level of yes and no. (2)You know full well how some here tout the rules and if you give them an inch they take a mile.
Hi T8,
1) I fully agree with your position that Jesus was born Christ. so obviously I did not
enter into this thread to argue Nick’s position in his stead. It is rather silly for you to even suggest such.2) The problem is, one which you are failing to recognize, is you are attempting change the rules (after-the-fact).
2a) The Hot Seat rule was/is: ONE yes/no question – followed by an optional explanation.
Here we see Nick has answered your question, followed by an optional explanation.Hi T.8,
My answer is YES.
In prophetic terms
(2a)You might not like his answer, because you say it sounds more like a “no” than a “yes”.
And I even agree with you, it does sound more like a “no” then a “yes”.(2b) The problem is: you (as King Neb. of H-net) are attempting to add in an added mandate midstream –
one that attempts to disassociated One’s optional explanation from One’s mandatory answer.In legal terms it called an Ex-Post-Facto-Law:
(spelled out for you in post number 817230)Nick’s answer was a legal answer when he gave it. Just Pony-up and face the music:
He escaped question #1. Quit trying to play Hitler here and change the rules midstream.Remember the Hot-Seat was my idea,
so it’s not like I’m asking you to let up on him.
SIMPLY ASK ANOTHER QUESTION. And quit trying to be Judge Dred.Oh yea, and one more thing, please answer Nick’s question #1 before you reformulate a new question.
Nick’s Question:
So your belief is that he was not made Lord and Christ but he was born Lord and Christ? y/n_______________
God bless
Ed J1) I fully agree with your position that Jesus was born Christ. so obviously I did not
enter into this thread to argue Nick’s position in his stead. It is rather silly for you to even suggest such.I was referring to any communication between you and Nick and the possibility that you are posting for him (proxy).
2) The problem is, one which you are failing to recognize, is you are attempting change the rules (after-the-fact).
I specifically asked for a yes or no in a post so his position was clear and the question was fair. When people say: ‘yes but…’ or ‘yes in this sense and no in another’, then I haven’t received a yes or a no. The question was a fair one and yes and no were legitimate answers. He couldn’t say yes or no and needed details to hide the devil in the details. The reason he couldn’t answer yes or no was because the text and the question demanded a ‘yes’ but his view is really ‘no’.
Further, if rules get added later on, then so what, you still have to comply later on right? He was not willing to comply and I was within the rules anyway. If you check the rules, it has said for some years now that you post up the rules in the topic if they are additional or different to the default rules. That is what I did. I asked him for a yes or no in a single post and he didn’t comply.It amazes me how dishonest people and the lengths that people go to in order to dodge a fair question. Such people are not welcome here. And how silly others can be to jump on board and try to railroad the conversation with details. That itself is akin to assisting in the dodging and dishonesty IMO. You would think the Devil himself had a legion of demons fighting the process. lol. But I won’t budge. If a person cannot say yes, no, I don’t know (without any buts) to a fair question, then they are not being honest. Simple as that.
(2a)You might not like his answer, because you say it sounds more like a “no” than a “yes”.
And I even agree with you, it does sound more like a “no” then a “yes”.EdJ, you may be naive, but people will dodge being honest and will never exhaust strategies that allow them to dodge yes and no. If you give them an inch they take a mile. You are arguing to allow this. But you do not set the rules do you?
In my post I stipulated the rule that the answer had to be either a yes and to not add anything to the post but could do that in another post. And this was within the rules of the Hot Seat that says that you stipulate the rules in the post, unless of course you are happy to run with the default rules.
I have added this in as the default now so no one can worm their way out of it. All you are doing now is his bidding and perhaps trying to come across as a champion for rights and maybe to look like a hero to Nick, but I don’t care about any of that. I care about the truth and what I have done is only for the truth’s sake. Remember that I am subject to the same rules and I have no problem at all answering the question in such a manner if it is a fair question of which mine was.
e.g., if a scripture said: there were three sheep on a hill, and I asked were there three sheep on a hill, then you answer yes or no. I don’t want to hear yes but only in a prophetic sense or yes but only in the mind of the viewer. If the sentence says three sheep were on a hill, then yes three sheep were on a hill.
As for the scripture I was talking about it clearly states “Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.”
If I ask, was he born the savior, then the answer is yes according to that scripture right?
But Nick’s answer is really no and you are now trying to be a hero and siding with him in principle but not siding with his view.
Why can’t I set up the rules to get a fair yes or no without having to argue all day with foolish people about it. Wake up man.
In case you are not aware it is a good thing that our yes is yes and no is no. And details after that are often for evil purposes. Why can’t these forums require honesty without fighting against this honesty every step of the way.
As I said, you do not set the rules anyway, so if you don’t like them, then find a forum that suits you and rejoice in the fact that you will never truly get a straight answer. I don’t mind if you do that. But I am sick of all the crap and did something about it. Live with it or leave.
@nickhassann
We still have a matter to clear up.
But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.
Remember this? I will repost the question to allow you to answer.
Following the format, I require a yes no answer only your next post. You can explain all you like in a following post.
Regarding this scripture:
“for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord”?
In the bolded text in the above scripture, is it saying:
Jesus was ‘Christ the Lord’ when he was born that day?
Yes / No
Hi T8,
I guess your fears and your need to be in control would lead you back to demanding man’s logic rules in our answers.
But we are discussing spiritual matters and room must be made for the ways of God.
Hi T8,
When Simeon saw Jesus in Lk 2
He said prophetically
“Behold this child is APPOINTED for the fall and rise of many in Israel.. }
He was anointed for service at the Jordan and you should not Deny it.
The fruit followed that anointing.
Hi T8,
When Jesus was asked in Mk 14
”Are you the Christ, the Son of the blessed One”
he did not give a YES/NO answer
He said
“I am, and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
