- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi All
I am bumping this for all…
On March the 18th as Kathi pointed out I had already admitted that his sources “OPINIONS” say that it is possible for John 1:1c to be arthrous in this quote————–>
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 18 2011,13:07) You have quoted a few sources opinions that it possibly could be translated that way and one of the sources admits that in context it could not be translated anarthrous because of the entire context of the scriptures which teaches Monotheism.
Later I explained my answer to his “reworded” question and Mike in the following post even accepted my answer on March the 22nd yet he continues to call me dishonest and then creates this thread on April the 3rd to discredit me by calling me dishonest and by insinuating I was lying.This was Mikes acknowledgement…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,18:54) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,17:12)
The answer would still be “NO” it is not “grammatically possible” BUT ACCORDING TO THESE FEW SCHOLARS, “YES” THEY SAY it could be.
I'll take that for now. I'll move this answer and my follow up question to the “Freak Greek” thread.Also Mike stated again that he acknowledged my answer in this post———————>
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,19:07) Quote (mikeangel @ Mar. 22 2011,07:45) No 
If this “NO” is in response to my question, then you're falling behind the rest. Kathi has immediately answered truthfully. Keith has FINALLY answered truthfully.Mike said on March the 22nd…”Keith has FINALLY answered truthfully“, yet he continues with his accusations and then creates a thread to say I am dishonest and that I didn't answer his question.
Then once again in the following post I had told him here that I already had answered him before.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 23 2011,10:49) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,19:22) Now that we all know it IS a grammatical possibility, whether some of us like it or not, are we ready to move on?
MikeI have never agreed that it is Grammatically possible but only that “they say” it is possible.
So move on if you like, but get your facts straight.
WJ
Notice again the date was March the 23rd that I answered him again yet he still created this thread to defame me.
WJ
I am bumping this once again to show that Mike continued to accuse me even after I answered his revised question but Mike has apparantly reversed his admission of guilt and his appology for doing this.
At least two weeks after I told him he had been answered he continued insinuating I was a liar.
Where is his admission of guilt when he only defends his postion and continues to insist I was lying?
My answer to his question was a “No” “ONCE” but when I realized he reworded it then I still answered “NO” but “YES” I agree the scholar said it was possible.
Mike acknowledges I answered him twice in the above, yet he still set out to accuse me of dishonesty!
Mike can you prove that I intentionally was misleading or lying or was it because of the confusion you created by copying this converstaion into at least 3 threads and you yourself admitting that you reworded the quesiton 5 times?
If you cannot prove this then your insinuation that I am a liar should stop.
Show your proof I was lying Mike!
Prove I was dishonest or misleading Mike or hush with the accusations I am dishonest or a liar.
WJ
WJ said:
Quote Mike can you prove that I intentionally was misleading or lying or was it because of the confusion you created by copying this converstaion into at least 3 threads and you yourself admitting that you reworded the quesiton 5 times?
Keith,Don't forget that all this started when I posted Mike's major blunder regarding 1:1 and 8:44 in the Freak Greek thread. His “grammatically possible” tactic diverted everone's attention from Mikes' freak Greek to you the question of your integrity. Mike needs for his daddy to put him over his knee.
Mikes' persistence with this makes me wonder if he does not have the fear of God. I do not want to see what God has in store for Mike.
Jack
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 06 2011,20:32) But once again I ask, if the HONEST answer was “YES”, then what was Keith's answer of “NO!”? Obviously a lie, right?
MikeIs someone a liar if he thought he was answering the same question with the same answer though he finds out the question was reworded?
Prove it! Prove that I lied!
Could it be that I thought you were still asking the same question over again? You admitted that you reworded it 5 times and you also posted your question in several threads.
Prove I was being dishonest Mike.
All you are doing is diverting the attention away from you seeking to slander me for about 2 weeks even after you admitted twice that I had already answered you!
Where is your honesty Mike? Are you being honest? Are you sorry that you created this thread without all the facts and now have slandered myself and kathi?
I am sorry for the confusion but the confusion was created by you.
WJ
Keith,
I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I pointed out that you must have either MISREAD THE QUESTION, or lied. You had the chance right then and there to say, “OH! I didn't notice the 'according to these scholars' part, Mike. Of course the answer is YES now that you've brought that part to my attention.”
Did you take that chance and say those words? NO! In fact, Jack took that very same exchange and posted a derogatory thread about me. Which was kind of strange considering he posted the whole exchange that proved you lied in his OP.
Keith, you finally answered “YES”, and that's good. But it shouldn't take me three weeks to get an honest answer out of you. I shoudn't have to reword my question five times like I'm now doing in the “A question for Keith” thread.
But if, after I've gone through this thread with you and jumped though all of your “obstination” and “stubborness” hoops, it turns out that your first answer to my question was untrue, I'll start another thread just like this one to spotlight your deception and hoops. Get use to either answering my questions directly and honestly or being spotlighted.
Notice the difference in these two answers, Keith:
Does Paul call Jesus our “one God” in 8:6?
Answer #1: No, but because of this trinitarian crap I've learned and that trinitarian crap I've learned, I believe Paul to be saying that Jesus is both God and Lord as well as the Father is both God and Lord.
See? I could never say you lied in that answer, because your very first word was “NO”, and that answered my question DIRECTLY and HONESTLY. Now on the other hand, if you had answer with………….
Answer #2: YES, Mike! Paul is saying that both Jesus and the Father are God, and they are both Lord.
……………then I could truthfully say you lied. Because Paul SAYS nothing of the sort. Are you seeing the difference? For you to claim you THINK Paul MEANS this or that is one thing, and not a lie. For you to claim that Paul actually SAYS this or that when he doesn't, IS A LIE.
Are we understanding “lie” the same way here, Keith?
mike
Mike asked:
Quote Does Paul call Jesus our “one God” in 8:6? Does Paul call the Father our “one Lord” in 1 Corinthians 8:6?
And if “God” only means “ruler” as you say, and “Lord” also means “ruler,” then waht's your point?
The Greek “Kurios” (Lord) according to Strong's#2962;
supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by impl. Mr. (as a respectful title): GOD, Lord, master sir.
Note that 'kurios' (Lord) as a noun means SUPREME IN AUTHORITY.
You prove nuttin Mike! The distinction in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is only FUNCTIONAL.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 08 2011,09:43)
Does Paul call the Father our “one Lord” in 1 Corinthians 8:6?
NO. He calls Jesus our “one Lord” in 8:6. See how that's done guys? Honest and direct.Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 08 2011,09:43)
The distinction in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is only FUNCTIONAL.
So we both agree there IS a distinction, but I don't agree with your “only functional” claim. Show me from that scripture how you know the distinction is “only functional”. What scriptural words teach you this?mike
One of you just step up and walk away…let God be your witness and get busy proclaiming His mercy and love and the reason for it. He loves each of you and all of us more than we deserve. He has shown me His loving smile this week…look for His smile to you. When you start looking up you stop putting down. Please! Kathi
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 07 2011,19:28) Keith, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I pointed out that you must have either MISREAD THE QUESTION, or lied. You had the chance right then and there to say, “OH! I didn't notice the 'according to these scholars' part, Mike. Of course the answer is YES now that you've brought that part to my attention.”
Did you take that chance and say those words? NO!
MikeYou had the answer at least 12 days before you made the thread on April the 3rd accusing me of dishonesty even though you acknowledged twice that I had answered? Is it not possible I didn't see the question had changed nor notice you giving me the benefit of the doubt? Since I answered the reworded question the very next time you asked it, why wouldn't I have addressed my mistake if I knew it was there?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,18:54) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,17:12)
The answer would still be “NO” it is not “grammatically possible” BUT ACCORDING TO THESE FEW SCHOLARS, “YES” THEY SAY it could be.
I'll take that for now. I'll move this answer and my follow up question to the “Freak Greek” thread.And here———————>
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,19:07) Quote (mikeangel @ Mar. 22 2011,07:45) No
If this “NO” is in response to my question, then you're falling behind the rest. Kathi has immediately answered truthfully. Keith has FINALLY answered truthfully.Do you see the dates Mike? On March the 22nd I had pointed out to you that you changed the question and agreed “Yes” they say it is”.
You say you gave me the benefit of the doubt and I should have answered you then, yet you yourself right after that acknowledged that you had accepted my question twice and then set out to still accuse my of dishonesty.
So as you can see it was I that gave you the benefit of the doubt for not attacking you for calling me dishonest for at least 12 days by creating a thread to degrade you.
Did I call you a liar for accusing me even though you already agreed twice that I had answered you?
If it is possible for you to think that I hadn’t answered you even though you had already admitted twice that I had, then how can you say I was being dishonest when it is also possible that I had thought I answered the question correctly not knowing you had reworded it? Prove that I was dishonest or apologize for creating this thread without all the facts.
Notice Mike I didn’t create a thread to slander you for insinuating I was dishonest and a liar even though I had answered you and you had agreed that I did, then for about 12 days you accused me of not answering repeatedly and then created this thread..
Is it possible that I answered you thinking it was the same question?
Is it possible that even after you questioned me that I still thought it was the same question?
You dog gone right it is and in fact it was the next time you asked it that I realized it wasn’t the same question and I answered correctly.
Prove what I am saying is not true! Prove that I was being dishonest?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 07 2011,19:28) Keith, you finally answered “YES”, and that's good.
Really? You said that 2 other times that you acknowledged my answer then you still accused me of being dishonest. Are you sure you won’t start in the future accusing me again? What do you mean by finally? How about finally you should have quite harassing me with false accusations for about 12 days after I answered the reworded question.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 07 2011,19:28) But it shouldn't take me three weeks to get an honest answer out of you. I shoudn't have to reword my question five times like I'm now doing in the “A question for Keith” thread.
Ha-Ha the answer to the question was different because you changed the question 5 times you said. What are you talking about 3 weeks, who is being dishonest here? I answered your question “One day” after I originally answered your reworded question wrong. Look at the post above and the dates.In this following post there is proof that I had answered your original question way back…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,18:12) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 17 2011,19:53) Is it GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to translate John 1:1c as “the Word was a god”?
And we answered “NO” it is not grammatically possible, and in fact his conclusion was John 1:1c is anarthrous.
Since the answer wasn't what you wanted to hear you reworded it as your normal manner is too…Get your facts straight. It wasn’t 3 weeks as the above post clearly shows.
Can you see that after answering the question so many times that it is possible that I didn’t see you changed the question?
Is it okay for you to have amnesia for 12 days, yet I can’t overlook something in your post after you posted the conversation in several threads and reworded the question 5 times according to your own words?
Are you being honest here Mike?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 07 2011,19:28) But if, after I've gone through this thread with you and jumped though all of your “obstination” and “stubborness” hoops, it turns out that your first answer to my question was untrue,
And after I dodge and endured your attacks on me personally with you accusations for about 12 days I find out that you already had agreed twice that I had answered you.But I noticed you used the word “untrue” but does one speaking something “untrue” mean that they are lying or are liars?
The rest of your post is a distraction here and I will deal with it in the other thread you created.
Mike, I sincerely did not intentionally answer you dishonestly!
I think that the numbers voting on this poll should tell you something and truth be known after seeing all the facts I think the outcome would be different for Kathi and I.
I am “SORRY” for the confusion and take the blame for the wrong answer though I would hope that you will believe me when I say I was not being dishonest but rather did not look closely at your question or your comments. With you changing the question as you said at least 5 times and moving the conversation into at least 3 threads caused confusion, but the very next time you asked that reworded question I answered you correctly and at that time did not even realize I had answered you previously incorrectly!
Suddenly I look and here you are accusing me of something I had already answered several times correctly!
Are you going to apologize for falsely accusing me and creating this thread to slander me without all the facts?
These are your words Mike…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,20:38)
Jack, I have never:
2. Tried to be deceptive
3. Failed to answer a direct question that was related to the topic at hand
Are you going to be a man of your words and answer my questions above or are you just going to spin right on out of this?WJ
Hi All
I want to personally thank everyone who voted that Kathi and I answered Mike honestly! I have been here a long time and have no reason to be dishonest, I can scripturally defend my beliefs with scriptures and have no need of twisting, blotting out, or claiming corruption in the scriptures to support my beliefs.
Thanks again to all…
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 12 2011,14:37) Hi All I want to personally thank everyone who voted that Kathi and I answered Mike honestly! I have been here a long time and have no reason to be dishonest, I can scripturally defend my beliefs with scriptures and have no need of twisting, blotting out, or claiming corruption in the scriptures to support my beliefs.
Thanks again to all…
WJ
Yes, thank you to all the people who, seeing only Keith's “NO” answer to the question, still voted that he answered honestly!
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 12 2011,13:05)
I am “SORRY” for the confusion and take the blame for the wrong answer though I would hope that you will believe me when I say I was not being dishonest but rather did not look closely at your question or your comments.
Apology accepted. As far as “believing you”, show me by this example from the “Freak Greek” thread:I prefer “a god” in John 1:1, because I know that Jesus is a god who was with the God in the beginning, but who was not that God he was with. Kathi agrees with this, but for some reason feels the capitalized “God” in part c says this just the same as using “a god” would.
You, Keith, seem to prefer “the God”, which goes against even the Trinitarian scholars, due to part b. From NETNotes:
Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.
1. Keith, do you see that there are THREE possibilities, not TWO?
2. Do you see that one of those possibilities is “a god”?
3. Do you further notice that of the three discussed, the Trinitarian NETNotes scholars only rule out one of them?
4. Did you notice it was YOUR possibility that is ruled out by these Trinitarian scholars?
It was NOT my possibility nor t8's possibility that was ruled out…………but YOURS!
Keith, answer the above four simple “YES or NO” questions promptly, directly, and honestly, and I will begin to believe in your “honest intentions”. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 12 2011,13:05)
Are you going to apologize for falsely accusing me and creating this thread to slander me without all the facts?
No. In fact, every dishonest answer you ever give me will be handled the same way. I will give you a “benefit of the doubt” post, and if you don't fix your dishonest answer when given the chance, I will start another poll highlighting your dishonest answer for all to see. And I don't really care that you later fixed it under pressure or whatever, because you should have been honest to start with.I'm heading over to the “question for Keith” thread now to see how you're doing with honest answers over there. I hope I won't be needing another poll………..time will tell.
And Keith, don't ever lose sight of the reason all of this started in the first place: The “a god” translation is grammatically possible. Even many Trinitarian scholars admit this, while not one of them says it is grammatically impossible. And it was your hell-bent attitude that you were not going to budge on this point no matter how much evidence I put forth that got you into trouble in the first place. Now I've added to my three spotless scholars the many Greek experts of NETNotes to support me. How many will it take, Keith? How long will you grit your teeth and refuse to acknowledge the undeniable truth of the matter?
All you have is your determination to “not let me be right” and to dig your heels in instead of relenting. You have no rule of Greek or English grammar you can quote. You have no scholar that says “a god” is grammatically impossible. You have NOTHING except for your sheer determination to hold on to a lie because you're scared that if you tell the truth on this matter and many others, the actual teachings of the unadaulterated Bible will not be enough to support your flawed doctrine.
So don't preach to me about “honest intentions” when your intention all along was to do anything and everything it took to deny the TRUTH about “a god”.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2011,22:43) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 12 2011,14:37) Hi All I want to personally thank everyone who voted that Kathi and I answered Mike honestly! I have been here a long time and have no reason to be dishonest, I can scripturally defend my beliefs with scriptures and have no need of twisting, blotting out, or claiming corruption in the scriptures to support my beliefs.
Thanks again to all…
WJ
Yes, thank you to all the people who, seeing only Keith's “NO” answer to the question, still voted that he answered honestly!
mike
Yea well I have been here a long time Mike and most know me as being sincere, maybe mislead in their opinion.But I have never given anybody here a reason to think I am dishonest and my credibility has only been questioned by you.
Not only that if they would have seen in your opening post that you had agreed twice that I had answered you honestly, well we probably wouldn't have this poll would we?
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2011,23:19) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 12 2011,13:05)
I am “SORRY” for the confusion and take the blame for the wrong answer though I would hope that you will believe me when I say I was not being dishonest but rather did not look closely at your question or your comments.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 12 2011,13:05)
Are you going to apologize for falsely accusing me and creating this thread to slander me without all the facts?
No. In fact, every dishonest answer you ever give me will be handled the same way.
Hi MikeYou want me to answer questions yet how many answers to my questions have you given in the last few pages of this thread?
These are your words Mike…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,20:38)
Jack, I have never:
2. Tried to be deceptive
3. Failed to answer a direct question that was related to the topic at hand
Again with your own words you said…Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2011,23:19) Keith, answer the above four simple “YES or NO” questions promptly, directly, and honestly, and I will begin to believe in your “honest intentions”.
How about your honest intentions in answering my questions in the previous post on this thread Mike?Here is the deal Mike, I will answer no more of your questions until you start answering mine.
If you don't answer mine then don't expect any dialogue from me.
WJ
Hi All
I asked Mike…
Are you going to apologize for falsely accusing me and creating this thread to slander me without all the facts?
He said “NO!”.
These are your words Mike…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,20:38)
Jack, I have never:
2. Tried to be deceptive
3. Failed to answer a direct question that was related to the topic at hand
Are you going to be a man of your words and answer my questions above or are you just going to spin right on out of this?Well we can see by his above post how that came out. SPIN – SPIN – SPIN! Sad!
WJ
Keith, if there is A question you would like me to answer, ask IT please.
I won't ever answer every question in your flood posts. I've told you this over and over. In fact, I've told you that when you ask so many questions in one post, you end up hurting yourself, because I will cherry pick the ONE that I WANT TO answer.
If you have a question that you feel is important, ask that one question in a direct way in a small post to me, okay? I won't read through your novels and spend my time answeing 20 questions in one response.
And know that starting now, you will get ONE question answered from me for each ONE question of mine that you DIRECTLY and HONESTLY answer. So go ahead and ask your first question, and my #1 from the previous post will be my first question to you.
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ April 13 2011,18:05) And know that starting now, you will get ONE question answered from me for each ONE question of mine that you DIRECTLY and HONESTLY answer.
MikeYou and t8 insisted on people answering questions or threatened that we would get tiles if we don't.
Wow, that sure gives you guys a hell of an edge doesn't it?
Because that means that we would have to answer all of your questions or we get tiled but you guys can answer only the one you want without any fear of a tile because we can't give tiles.
So now you want to make a “new rule” about how many questions you will or will not answer? Forget it.
I will tell you what Mike…How about as long as you continue to call me a liar and dishonest and make all these rules, then I just not have dialogue with you at all.
Fair enough?
WJ
BTW Mike
You can beat your chest all you want, because I don't care. Why would I continue to have dialogue with someone whos attitude is like this?…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 05 2011,19:46) Keith, I apologize for going for YOUR juggler vein with this thread.
You admit you were going for my juggler vein. I know it is a figure of speech, but it gives me a glimpse of what is going on inside you. Rage on Mr Mike O Mighty one!WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 15 2011,02:46) Mike You and t8 insisted on people answering questions or threatened that we would get tiles if we don't.
Wow, that sure gives you guys a hell of an edge doesn't it?
That goes for ourselves too WJ.Of course we cannot answer every question that is ever asked, but if there is a question that we are avoiding, then bring it to a debate, and failing that, I am happy to tile myself for attempting to ignore it and hoping that the question goes away.
I hope I don't ever stoop that low and like I said, I like anyone else will deserve a tile.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
