- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Hi t8,
Gave this some thought last night and realised that one post with all 12 proof texts (and personal interpretation, arguments etc) would be too long and arduous to read for almost everyone. It might be better to submit texts as individual postings. Then the other can respond and in the next post submit their proof text, so one person does not always have the last say. Because we will only get one chance to have the right of reply, we will have to anticipate likely objections/nullifications. There would be perhaps no more than 3 questions posed at the end of the post to answer. It might also be good to have a trustworthy, informal moderator.We could loosely model it on this (10 post) format, tell me what you think:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33973BTW, This debate particular was entitled “Will Unbelievers Spend Eternity in the Lake of Fire?” – so it might be of interest to some here (David comes to mind)
Is 1:18, I think you missed some of my humour on page 609.
Quote Quote
My agenda is, primarily humor.I've noticed that we both edit our posts quite a bit.
Go back to the two or three posts before the post where I said the above.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 12 2007,13:54) Hi t8,
Gave this some thought last night and realised that one post with all 12 proof texts (and personal interpretation, arguments etc) would be too long and arduous to read for almost everyone. It might be better to submit texts as individual postings. Then the other can respond and in the next post submit their proof text, so one person does not always have the last say. Because we will only get one chance to have the right of reply, we will have to anticipate likely objections/nullifications. There would be perhaps no more than 3 questions posed at the end of the post to answer. It might also be good to have a trustworthy, informal moderator.We could loosely model it on this (10 post) format, tell me what you think:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33973BTW, This debate particular was entitled “Will Unbelievers Spend Eternity in the Lake of Fire?” – so it might be of interest to some here (David comes to mind)
Sounds good.It should be done in the 'Biblical Doctrine' forum in that case as it will be based on scripture itself.
Perhaps we could have one thread/discussion per scripture, and then later everyone can put there 2 cents worth in.
So each discussion is called by the scripture.
E.g., 'John 3:16'.
What do you think?
Quote (david @ Mar. 11 2007,22:42) Is 1:18, I think you missed some of my humour on page 609. Quote Quote
My agenda is, primarily humor.I've noticed that we both edit our posts quite a bit.
Go back to the two or three posts before the post where I said the above.
You know David, that one is a little oblique for me, you are going to have to spell it out plainly….of course humour always loses its impertus/impact when you have to explain it to people after the punchline has been delivered, but thems the brakes….i'm sure i'll find it funny on some level when I finally get it.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 12 2007,00:21) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 12 2007,13:54) Hi t8,
Gave this some thought last night and realised that one post with all 12 proof texts (and personal interpretation, arguments etc) would be too long and arduous to read for almost everyone. It might be better to submit texts as individual postings. Then the other can respond and in the next post submit their proof text, so one person does not always have the last say. Because we will only get one chance to have the right of reply, we will have to anticipate likely objections/nullifications. There would be perhaps no more than 3 questions posed at the end of the post to answer. It might also be good to have a trustworthy, informal moderator.We could loosely model it on this (10 post) format, tell me what you think:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33973BTW, This debate particular was entitled “Will Unbelievers Spend Eternity in the Lake of Fire?” – so it might be of interest to some here (David comes to mind)
Sounds good.It should be done in the 'Biblical Doctrine' forum in that case as it will be based on scripture itself.
Perhaps we could have one thread/discussion per scripture, and then later everyone can put there 2 cents worth in.
So each discussion is called by the scripture.
E.g., 'John 3:16'.
What do you think?
I can see the benefit in others giving their views after we have posted but I think it will disrupt the general continuity of the debate if it's in pieces all over the place. Also people will get a better read of the relative merits or otherwise of trinitarianism/henotheism if all the material is presented in contiguous fashion. People can always quote our posts in a seperate thread and offer comments….My thoughts.
Quote You know David, that one is a little oblique for me, you are going to have to spell it out plainly….of course humour always loses its impertus/impact when you have to explain it to people after the punchline has been delivered,
IS 1:18, Page 608. I underlined a sentence for you to make it more obvious. Notice what you said in the post after that post where I “edited” it, which we both like to do. And you're right, now that I have to point it out, it really won't be that funny.Quote I can see the benefit in others giving their views after we have posted but I think it will disrupt the general continuity of the debate if it's in pieces all over the place. Also people will get a better read of the relative merits or otherwise of trinitarianism/henotheism if all the material is presented in contiguous fashion. People can always quote our posts in a seperate thread and offer comments…. And how about this, when anyone uses a fallacy in thinking, I'll point it out, in a separate thread. I now like pointing out wrong thinking. Once you study it, it's everywhere.
I'll be the reff and decide who “wins.” I predict T8 will most likely win. Now that that's settled…
Hi,
Those of the trinity doctrine believe there are three persons in God.
But the Father of Jesus by conception is said by scripture to be the Holy Spirit.
How can this hold water when surely the least we should believe about God the Father is that He is the father of Jesus as He Himself said when the Spirit of God alighted on Jesus in the Jordan?Quote (david @ Mar. 12 2007,09:37) Quote You know David, that one is a little oblique for me, you are going to have to spell it out plainly….of course humour always loses its impertus/impact when you have to explain it to people after the punchline has been delivered,
IS 1:18, Page 608. I underlined a sentence for you to make it more obvious. Notice what you said in the post after that post where I “edited” it, which we both like to do. And you're right, now that I have to point it out, it really won't be that funny.Quote I can see the benefit in others giving their views after we have posted but I think it will disrupt the general continuity of the debate if it's in pieces all over the place. Also people will get a better read of the relative merits or otherwise of trinitarianism/henotheism if all the material is presented in contiguous fashion. People can always quote our posts in a seperate thread and offer comments…. And how about this, when anyone uses a fallacy in thinking, I'll point it out, in a separate thread. I now like pointing out wrong thinking. Once you study it, it's everywhere.
I'll be the reff and decide who “wins.” I predict T8 will most likely win. Now that that's settled…
Ahhhh…he he…very clever….still very oblique humour though.Don't want to be pedantic david but “spreading the good news of peace and love, and truth” isn't really theology (the study of the God/ the things of God).
T8,
So when do you think you will have finished your first post in the debate? I need to know so I can set aside some time to reply if I need to. Also I would like to nominate “seekingtruth” as a moderator (if he's interested), he's relatively non-partisan and impartial to both our views, level headed and mature.Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 13 2007,08:28) T8,
So when do you think you will have finished your first post in the debate? I need to know so I can set aside some time to reply if I need to. Also I would like to nominate “seekingtruth” as a moderator (if he's interested), he's relatively non-partisan and impartial to both our views, level headed and mature.
Is 1:18I second that motion for Seekingtruth!
Quote Also I would like to nominate “seekingtruth” as a moderator (if he's interested), he's relatively non-partisan and impartial to both our views, level headed and mature. Ummm. Perhaps you didn't see my words which you actually quoted:
Quote I'll be the reff and decide who “wins.” I predict T8 will most likely win. Now that that's settled…
I can be mature. I'm very impartial. I do recognize the trinity to be wholy unbiblical in every way imaginable. But I am not partial. IT IS SIMPLY A STATEMENT OF FACT.To Is 1:18.
How about this:
I start a discussion dedicated to 1 scripture and call the discussion by the name of the scripture.
In the fist post I quote the scripture and then explain why it cannot be reconciled with the Trinity doctrine.
You will then reply with your rebuttal.
I then get a chance to reply to your rebuttal and then you get a chance to reply to my rebuttal.
Then you start a discussion and the whole process starts again with your preferred scripture.
After 12 scriptures (discussions) each, we can start a new discussion each that quotes all our 12 scriptures and we can make a summary. The other person gets a chance to rebut the summary and the discussion starter can rebut the rebuttal and the other guy gets the last say.
How does that sound?
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 13 2007,08:50) To Is 1:18. How about this:
I start a discussion dedicated to 1 scripture and call the discussion by the name of the scripture.
In the fist post I quote the scripture and then explain why it cannot be reconciled with the Trinity doctrine.
You will then reply with your rebuttal.
I then get a chance to reply to your rebuttal and then you get a chance to reply to my rebuttal.
Then you start a discussion and the whole process starts again with your preferred scripture.
After 12 scriptures (discussions) each, we can start a new discussion each that quotes all our 12 scriptures and we can make a summary. The other person gets a chance to rebut the summary and the discussion starter can rebut the rebuttal and the other guy gets the last say.
How does that sound?
It sounds like it will take about 3 years!I did a 10 post one (single post each) not too long ago and it took several weeks. I like my idea better for the reasons I gave, and if the post is comprehensive enough it will address the anticipated objections anyway….but obviously I can't force my idea on you and don't really want to have a debate about the debate so….I say we let the moderator make a call on it.
David
Quote I can be mature. I'm very impartial. I do recognize the trinity to be wholy unbiblical in every way imaginable. But I am not partial. IT IS SIMPLY A STATEMENT OF FACT. How can you be impartial when you are indoctrinated by the Watchtower.
I too think that's funny.
Hi Is
Yes that and also, what I see. In my point of view or perception
Jesus is lesser than God the Father and he said so himself.
The Holy Spirit is the essence that God sends to us through Jesus Christ.
God… is the One and Only God.
I think I mentioned in the Salvation thread that I dont believe God came down to be Jesus.
Hugs
PhoenixQuote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 12 2007,23:41) Hi,
Those of the trinity doctrine believe there are three persons in God.
But the Father of Jesus by conception is said by scripture to be the Holy Spirit.
How can this hold water when surely the least we should believe about God the Father is that He is the father of Jesus as He Himself said when the Spirit of God alighted on Jesus in the Jordan?
NHYou say the Spirit is not God, so how can Jesus be his Son when he was concieve by the Holy Spirit?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
