Trinity – t8's proof text #1

[Proclaimer]

Hi Tim2.

Not sure what you mean by statement of faith. I do not have a creed prewritten if that is what you mean. I am also not interested in promoting myself, but the truths that God put in my heart.

So it doesn't really matter if I am a donkey, God put something inside me that I need to speak.

I am fighting for the truth that Jesus Christ is the messiah and the son of God. This includes exposing any stumbling block to this truth which includes the false doctrine of the Trinity which says one thing and contradicts it by another.

It is the truth that is important, not me, another man, or any denomination.

[Tim2]

Hi t8,

Just tell me as many statements about who and what Jesus is as you can, please.

Tim

[Proclaimer]

I will be brief as we know that there are not enough books in the world to describe Yeshua.

[Tim2]

t8,

Will you add the following statements to your doctrine:

1. Jesus is God. John 1:1, 1:18, 20:28.
2. Jesus is the first and the last. Revelation 1:17, 1:13.
3. Jesus is the wisdom and power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:24.
4. Jesus is equal to God. John 5:18, Philippians 2:6
5. Jesus and the Father are one. John 10:30.
6. Jesus does whatever the Father does. John 5:19.
7. Jesus is to be honored as the Father is honored. John 5:23.
8. Jesus sits on the same throne as the Father. Revelation 22:1, 22:3.
9. Jesus shares the same glory as the Father. John 17:5.
10. All things are through Jesus. 1 Corinthians 8:6.
11. All things are for Jesus. Colossians 1:16.
12. Jesus is before all things. Colossians 1:17.

Tim

[Proclaimer]

Yes I am happy to add those too.

Except the second point (I don't know anything about that yet) and your John 1:1 interpretation.

I believe that Jesus is divine not 'the' Divine. It is talking about the Logos in a qualitive sense and not his identity.

John 1:1 shows that there are two beings (not three): God and a second who was 'theos' but this second is related to God in a manner which shows that God is the absolute over which the second is defined. They are not presented as two coequal gods.

Obviously, in John 1:1 we have one individual with the characteristic of THEOS who is “with” TON THEOS, thus he cannot be the God he is with! The LOGOS is unique.

This Logos is further identified as “a son from a father,” as “begotten”, and as a visible being verses the unseen God.

John 1:1 can be read as the Logos was divine. Just the same way that Jesus said of Judas “one of you is a devil” as opposed to one of you is the Devil. In other words as a quality and not an identifier. Interpreting John 1:1 as talking about the Logos as 'theos' in quality is grammatically and theologically sound and agrees with 100s of other scriptures that say that the Father is the true God and his son is his image.

If you wish to talk about John 1:1 in greater detail, I encourage you to join a discussion dedicated to this subject. If we discuss this to any great detail here, then we can be accused of wandering away from John 17:3 which is the focus of this discussion.

BTW: Did you accept my points?

[Tim2]

t8,

So you do accept all of my points? This means you believe Jesus is God? I'm about to start singing praises:)

With regard to your points, I would start by capitalizing all references to Jesus. He is God, so He should be called He. I'd also make these changes:

4. He is the Word of God. (If He's called the Word of God, He is the Word of God.)

I would also add, after “He intercedes for us now,” that Jesus is eternally equal to the Father, but in His ministry on earth, He voluntarily chose not to assert His equality, but chose to become subordinate, as is fitting a man. Therefore, it is appropriate for Him to call the Father His God.” Philippians 2:6

I would then qualify the next two statements by this. “Jesus in His ministry as Lord and Christ receives this authority from God.”

And, “Jesus is not above the Father but is equal to Him. He has voluntarily subordinated Himself as part of His ministry and willingly submits to the Father now. However, He is eternally equal to and of one will with the Father and the Spirit.”

And, “He was sent by the Father in the ministry of reconciliation, after He voluntarily subordinated Himself to the Father, which subordination is not eternal but temporary.”

And, “Knowing Jesus and God the Father is true life.”

Tim

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (t8 @ April 12 2007,15:51)

Yes I am happy to add those too. Except the second point (I don't know anything about that yet) and your John 1:1 interpretation. I believe that Jesus is divine not 'the' Divine. It is talking about the Logos in a qualitive sense and not his identity. John 1:1 shows that there are two beings (not three): God and a second who was 'theos' but this second is related to God in a manner which shows that God is the absolute over which the second is defined. They are not presented as two coequal gods. Obviously, in John 1:1 we have one individual with the characteristic of THEOS who is “with” TON THEOS, thus he cannot be the God he is with! The LOGOS is unique. This Logos is further identified as “a son from a father,” as “begotten”, and as a visible being verses the unseen God. John 1:1 can be read as the Logos was divine. Just the same way that Jesus said of Judas “one of you is a devil” as opposed to one of you is the Devil. In other words as a quality and not an identifier. Interpreting John 1:1 as talking about the Logos as 'theos' in quality is grammatically and theologically sound and agrees with 100s of other scriptures that say that the Father is the true God and his son is his image. If you wish to talk about John 1:1 in greater detail, I encourage you to join a discussion dedicated to this subject. If we discuss this to any great detail here, then we can be accused of wandering away from John 17:3 which is the focus of this discussion. BTW: Did you accept my points?

t8

Not true!

You are going totally against every credible Greek and Hebrew scholar and inventing your own interpretation based on your inability to see by the Spirit that God is more than one person.

I will respond further with a previous post.

t8

You say…

Quote

I am saying that you need to be consistent in your rendering of the words 'theos' and 'elohim'. You cannot just pick and choose the word theos and elohim as meaning different things to different people. If you believe they are applied to the Almighty only, then you need to include men and angels in your Almighty.

Why are you picking and choosing here t8?

Of course if we didnt pick and choose who and what the words 'Theos' and 'Elohim' are applied to based on the context then how can you even claim the words apply to the 'True God' with certainty?

So then we dont know who Paul was speaking of when he said “the God, (Theos), of this world hath blinded the minds…”.

So he could have been speaking of a man or a ruler or an angel of God, right? Wrong!

I believe that the writters were very careful in how they used the words!

For Example…

1336 times the word “Theos” is found in the New Testament scriptures.

All were translated “God” referring to the Father and Yeshua, except 13 times for “False gods” including satan and the man of sin and man, and eight times Godly.

I checked them all. *Not once* out of all 1336 times is there a mention of any Angel of God with the word “Theos”.

Neither is there any example of the word “Theos” ascribed to a living man or king or lord of the most high *in that day* other than Yeshua.

And this is where you need to listen!

Not once is the word translated anywhere in the New Testament as *divine*!

Jn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This is one of the scriptures that you have a problem with. Because you say that you shouldnt pick and choose and yet that is exactly what you do. You say he is “A” god or he is divine.

John knew exactly what the word “Theos” meant to him, because in every other place the word is used for Yeshua, he used this word when he could have used another?

Do you think he would create this kind of confusion by using “Theos” in John 1:1 as well as John 20:28?

Why didnt he use “chrematizo, Acts 10:22, Heb 11:7”

or

“theios, 2 Pet 1:3,4, which by the way is used by Peter for divine nature and power, which you try to force this word to mean that we are equal to Yeshua or the Father in being. Yeshua *is* divine, “Theos”,  not “Theios” which is what we share”, This word is found only 3 times in scripture. Which describes his nature and not his being.

or

“theotes, Col 2:9”

or

“theiotes” Rom 1:20″

Why didnt John use one of these words instead of “Theos” in John 1:1?

Why didn't Paul or Peter or Timothy or Titus use one of the other words?

You talk about being consistant with the word “Theos”.

It seems to me that being consistant with “Theos” is exactly what over 500 Greek and Hebrew scholars did when they translated  John 1:1.

So do you believe the Scriptures and the Apostles or not?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Tim2 @ April 13 2007,11:22)

t8, So you do accept all of my points? This means you believe Jesus is God? I'm about to start singing praises:) With regard to your points, I would start by capitalizing all references to Jesus. He is God, so He should be called He. I'd also make these changes: 4. He is the Word of God. (If He's called the Word of God, He is the Word of God.) I would also add, after “He intercedes for us now,” that Jesus is eternally equal to the Father, but in His ministry on earth, He voluntarily chose not to assert His equality, but chose to become subordinate, as is fitting a man. Therefore, it is appropriate for Him to call the Father His God.” Philippians 2:6 I would then qualify the next two statements by this. “Jesus in His ministry as Lord and Christ receives this authority from God.” And, “Jesus is not above the Father but is equal to Him. He has voluntarily subordinated Himself as part of His ministry and willingly submits to the Father now. However, He is eternally equal to and of one will with the Father and the Spirit.” And, “He was sent by the Father in the ministry of reconciliation, after He voluntarily subordinated Himself to the Father, which subordination is not eternal but temporary.” And, “Knowing Jesus and God the Father is true life.” Tim

Well let look at those points properly:

3. Jesus is the wisdom and power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:24.

He is of God. Being of something is different to being the source.

4. Jesus is equal to God. John 5:18, Philippians 2:6

I will look at this one in the future. I don't have time to comment on it now, except to say that being equal is another way to say that you are different. 2 NZ dollars equals 1 US dollar is not meant to be taken that a NZ 2 dollar coin is exactly the same object as a US dollar note. Or 3 + 2= 4 + 1 doesn't mean that 3 and 2 are the same 2 numbers as 4 and 1. It just means that they are equal in value. Equal in it's English definition is taken as meaning something with a different identity that has the same value or quality. If Jesus is equal to God as you think, then he is a different identity to God as I think.

5. Jesus and the Father are one. John 10:30.

We too can be one with both of them. It is written. Yet who says that we are also God. I don't and you don't, so why does your bias choose in this case Jesus is God because he is one with him, when we can be one with them too?

6. Jesus does whatever the Father does. John 5:19.

Because he submits his will to the Father and so should we.

7. Jesus is to be honored as the Father is honored. John 5:23.

Yes honour isn't a bad thing and even men can be honoured.
The Father is honoured as God and Jesus is honoured as the Lamb and the son of God. “And they cried out in a loud voice: “Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, AND to the Lamb.” & “Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

8. Jesus sits on the same throne as the Father. Revelation 22:1, 22:3.

Yes he sits with his Father and guess what? We sit with Christ. So does that mean we are Christ and Christ is God? Of course not.

9. Jesus shares the same glory as the Father. John 17:5.

Not sure about the same glory. It says “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” Yes he had glory before he came to earth as a man. He is now back in that glory. Amen.

10. All things are through Jesus. 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Yes God made all things through Christ and for him. How that makes Christ, the Almighty God is beyond me. I guess you need a wandering imagination. It is clear that God made things THROUGH him.

11. All things are for Jesus. Colossians 1:16.

Yes God made all things for him. Are you your son if you give him all things because you love him? Therefore is Jesus God if God GIVES him all things?

12. Jesus is before all things. Colossians 1:17.

Correct. He is before all things (creation) and all things were made by God through Christ. i.e., God > Christ > creation. So how you confuse Christ with God from this is again beyond scripture.

None of the above points were meant to be taken that Jesus is the Almighty God. None of them. But if you start with the Trinity then you finish with the Trinity. It's like getting vinegar from a sponge. Of course you cannot do it, unless you first soak the sponge in vinegar.

Your mind is soaked with the Babylonian doctrine of the Trinity. So that is all you see.

You need to empty yourself and let Christ live in you. Then the truth will set you free.

[Tim2]

t8,

A few responses and then a big point:

1. If Jesus is equal to God (meaning God the Father), but He's not the same God, then you have polytheism. This isn't possible.
2. “The glory I had with you.” That's one glory. They both had it. How is that not sharing?
3. Salvation belongs to God and to the Lamb. If the Lamb isn't also YHWH, this isn't possible according to Isaiah 43:11.

More generally, it seems that you believe Jesus is uncreated, which I applaud you for. But you don't think He is the one God. So you are saying that there are two uncreated beings, the Father and the son, who are not one God. This is polytheism.

Tim

[NickHassan]

Hi Tim2,
If Jesus is a deity and your God then you are involved in polytheism.
If you are with US there is only ONE GOD for US.

[Cult Buster]

t8

Quote

He is called the Word of God.

T8. Didn't you read in the Bible that the Word of God is God?

Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,

and the Word was God.  John 1:1. This of course refers to Jesus.

This one Bible text renders all your arguments to nought.

and the Word was God.  John 1:1

Lets see in some more detail that Jesus is the Word of God.

                     Jesus, The Word of God is Jehovah God

Rev 19:13  And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:14  And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Rev 19:15  And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God .
Rev 19:16  And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
Rev 19:17  And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

The Word of God described in verse 13 is Jesus because

Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. .
Joh 1:14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,

Jesus is described here as KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS ,The Word of God, Almighty God, and the great God

The following  verse confirms that Jesus (the Lamb of God) is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Rev 17:14  These shall make war with the Lamb , and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

Let us now look more closely at Rev 19:15.

Rev 19:15  And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Who is this Almighty God who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron?

Rev 12:5  And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron

It’s JESUS!……the Almighty God!  

All these verses are obviously speaking of the same Person our Lord and God Jesus Christ.
Look at all of His titles.

the Lamb, the Word, The Word of God,  KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS, Lord of lords, and King of kings,  Almighty God, and the great God,

Jesus Christ, The Word of God is our Almighty Jehovah God.

Joh 1:5  And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Cult Buster @ April 13 2007,16:23)

t8 Quote He is called the Word of God. T8. Didn't you read in the Bible that the Word of God is God? Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Joh 1:14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and the Word was God.  John 1:1. This of course refers to Jesus. This one Bible text renders all your arguments to nought. and the Word was God.  John 1:1 Lets see in some more detail that Jesus is the Word of God.                      Jesus, The Word of God is Jehovah God Rev 19:13  And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. Rev 19:14  And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. Rev 19:15  And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God . Rev 19:16  And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. Rev 19:17  And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; The Word of God described in verse 13 is Jesus because Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . Joh 1:14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, Jesus is described here as KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS ,The Word of God, Almighty God, and the great God The following  verse confirms that Jesus (the Lamb of God) is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Rev 17:14  These shall make war with the Lamb , and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. Let us now look more closely at Rev 19:15. Rev 19:15  And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. Who is this Almighty God who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron? Rev 12:5  And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron It’s JESUS!……the Almighty God!   All these verses are obviously speaking of the same Person our Lord and God Jesus Christ. Look at all of His titles. the Lamb, the Word, The Word of God,  KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS, Lord of lords, and King of kings,  Almighty God, and the great God, Jesus Christ, The Word of God is our Almighty Jehovah God. Joh 1:5  And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

CB

Good points!

[Not3in1]

Food for thought: Jesus was not the Word “OF” God until after he was born [of Mary]…….

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 03 2007,19:25)

Just wanted to clear a couple of things up…. It's seems that there's a perception that i'm being a bit precious about the debate. It's standard practice to forfeit a debate if you breach the time limit, and for good reasons. It's important to understand that in the format of a formal debate (in contrast to the general chaotic disorder of the message board thread) all things, apart from the skill set of the participants and the apologetic material at their disposal, should be held equal. The rules are there to ensure an unfair advantage is not held by one participant over another. The time limitation is particularly important as it imposes pressure, and has a significant influence on the quality of the each participant's output. In this debate, to a certain extent, I had to rush my post to ensure I made the three day time limit and, of course, soon after submission thought of a few more points I could have made. Had I had longer I could have incorporated them and the post would have been more compelling. T8 had a full 8 days to respond and didn't, so the debate had to end. You could liken it to the time limit of an exam, students who are subjected to limitation of time will generally be outperformed by those that can finish at their own discretion. The rules are there to make it fair for both participants. With regard to me supposedly “winning” the debate. For the record I have never declared it, nor intimated it. No body “won”, the debate never really got off the ground and even if it did and went to completion the final result would still have been subjective. No matter how one-sided the exchanges might have been, inevitably those whose views are akin to t8's would propbably have sided with him and those who share my views would likely have sided with me. Such is human nature. The real value of debates (conducted properly) is that they provide a great platform to expose both the strengths and weaknesses in both arguments, and the information can be filtered through by the undecideds. That's why I like good debates. Too bad this one didn't work out.

Can someone please explain to t8 what “forfeit” means?

[Cult Buster]

Noun forfeit

Something that is lost or surrendered as a penalty;A penalty for a fault or mistake that involves losing or giving up something

A penalty for a fault or mistake that involves losing or giving up something

“the contract specified forfeits if the work was not completed on time”

The act of losing or surrendering something as a penalty for a mistake or fault or failure to perform etc.

Verb forfeit

Lose or lose the right to by some error, or offence.

Adjective forfeit

Surrendered as a penalty

[Is 1:18]

Thanks Cult Buster.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Tim2 @ April 14 2007,01:35)

t8, A few responses and then a big point: 1. If Jesus is equal to God (meaning God the Father), but He's not the same God, then you have polytheism. This isn't possible. 2. “The glory I had with you.” That's one glory. They both had it. How is that not sharing? 3. Salvation belongs to God and to the Lamb. If the Lamb isn't also YHWH, this isn't possible according to Isaiah 43:11. More generally, it seems that you believe Jesus is uncreated, which I applaud you for. But you don't think He is the one God. So you are saying that there are two uncreated beings, the Father and the son, who are not one God. This is polytheism. Tim

Tim.

Thanks for your post.

Yes there are 2 who were not created. God is not created and the son is not created rather he was begotten.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 1:18 (English-KJV)
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

God then created all things through Christ. Created things are that which God made through Christ. Obviously Christ is not created, but even then he partook of created flesh later on. But he himself is not a creation.

Colossians 1:16
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

Ephesians 2:10
For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

I am saying that there is one eternal God and his son who was begotten from God. Neither are created in the sense that created is described in the above verses.

As the Word, he was with God in the beginning, before creation.

God created all things through him and for him.

God is the Father, the son of God is the son and his Father is his God and our God. So God became a Father when he begat a son.

John 20:17
Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,
`I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

These scriptures I quoted is what I believe and is what I teach.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Cult Buster @ April 14 2007,11:23)

t8 Quote He is called the Word of God. T8. Didn't you read in the Bible that the Word of God is God? Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and the Word was God. John 1:1. This of course refers to Jesus. This one Bible text renders all your arguments to nought. and the Word was God. John 1:1 Lets see in some more detail that Jesus is the Word of God. Jesus, The Word of God is Jehovah God Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. Rev 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God . Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. Rev 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; The Word of God described in verse 13 is Jesus because Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, Jesus is described here as KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS ,The Word of God, Almighty God, and the great God The following verse confirms that Jesus (the Lamb of God) is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb , and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. Let us now look more closely at Rev 19:15. Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. Who is this Almighty God who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron? Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron It’s JESUS!……the Almighty God! All these verses are obviously speaking of the same Person our Lord and God Jesus Christ. Look at all of His titles. the Lamb, the Word, The Word of God, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS, Lord of lords, and King of kings, Almighty God, and the great God, Jesus Christ, The Word of God is our Almighty Jehovah God. Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

To CultB.

I can see that this is turning into a John 1:1 discussion. I am happy to carry on with this discussion in an appropriate thread. If you wish to do that, then feel free to copy and paste this post to an appropriate discussion.

This thread is focussed around 1 John 17:3 and we shouldn't go off the subject unless it is to give a context for the subject.

I feel that this discussion will deviate from the proof text if I reply to you here.

Thanks CultB.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 16 2007,06:07)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 03 2007,19:25) Just wanted to clear a couple of things up…. It's seems that there's a perception that i'm being a bit precious about the debate. It's standard practice to forfeit a debate if you breach the time limit, and for good reasons. It's important to understand that in the format of a formal debate (in contrast to the general chaotic disorder of the message board thread) all things, apart from the skill set of the participants and the apologetic material at their disposal, should be held equal. The rules are there to ensure an unfair advantage is not held by one participant over another. The time limitation is particularly important as it imposes pressure, and has a significant influence on the quality of the each participant's output. In this debate, to a certain extent, I had to rush my post to ensure I made the three day time limit and, of course, soon after submission thought of a few more points I could have made. Had I had longer I could have incorporated them and the post would have been more compelling. T8 had a full 8 days to respond and didn't, so the debate had to end. You could liken it to the time limit of an exam, students who are subjected to limitation of time will generally be outperformed by those that can finish at their own discretion. The rules are there to make it fair for both participants. With regard to me supposedly “winning” the debate. For the record I have never declared it, nor intimated it. No body “won”, the debate never really got off the ground and even if it did and went to completion the final result would still have been subjective. No matter how one-sided the exchanges might have been, inevitably those whose views are akin to t8's would propbably have sided with him and those who share my views would likely have sided with me. Such is human nature. The real value of debates (conducted properly) is that they provide a great platform to expose both the strengths and weaknesses in both arguments, and the information can be filtered through by the undecideds. That's why I like good debates. Too bad this one didn't work out. Can someone please explain to t8 what “forfeit” means?

Hi Isaiah and everyone else.

A good debate for the purposes of the truth is one where each person or group can state their case without hindrance. I feel after some squabbling that this was accomplished. I gave a good answer although I could have posted a better one (with more research time), but I feel that we both put our best foot forward. In truth I actually only dedicated about 1 hour possibly a bit more, so you probably ended up with more time than I did anyway.

Worldly debates can be useful but they are also designed to let the one with skill win or at least give him an edge and the competition can resort to low standards in order to win too.

I feel that such a design is unbecoming of a Christian and a person who places the truth higher than himself.

If two Christians disagree on something, I feel that they should be allowed to state their case unhindered and when each feels he has given the best answer he can, then others are in a better situation to judge which if any speaks the truth. Is this not better if the real mission is to test things to see if they are written?

You are allowed to forfeit/give up if you want Isaiah, I will not hold you to the other debates because I respect your free will to choose otherwise. But if I wanted to be harsh I could say that you are forfeiting the other 11 proof texts and I win by default if that is what you are proposing to do? But of course I win absolutely nothing as you are aware.

If you feel that you have the right to forfeit it would be with 1 debate only given the times were not strictly adhered to. There is still another 11 to go as originally agreed. If you want more time for the other 11, take as much as you want. I am patient. Also remember that you can add more than one post after the each makes their first post.

So if you feel that more time could have provided you with a more compelling answer then feel free to post the compelling information now.

Will you continue or are you giving up on the other 11? If yes, why?

[Is 1:18]

t8,
You forfeited when you couldn't honour the rules you agreed to before the debate started. Remember?

[Author]

Posts