I am sure I answered the first question. Might have been here or in our debate, but I have you the answer.

Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 16 2012,15:30)The word 'God/god' has different meanings. In the Shema, it doesn't say that YHWH is one God. Is says that YHWH our God is YHWH Echad.This is where you trip up.Echad does not mean unity of multiple things. It simply means one as in number.I think I demonstrated to you in our debate that you can have one group…[Read more]

Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 15 2012,14:00)Please answer this:Do you agree that a unity of two members can be made up of one member that is in authority over the other member?Yes I agree with that.Let's see. The crew of a boat. One captain and many members.However, God is not a unity of two or more members.He is one.For us there is one God the…[Read more]

Okay thanks for answering.Would you say this is a fair evaluation with the usage of the word theos in the New Testament?THEOS is predominately the Father.In second place are idols.Then comes Jesus with 5 possible uses, although some may not be referring to Jesus at all.Men are called theos at least 1 time.Satan is called theos at least 1 time.

Yes we have a new spirit and we have it eternally, unless our name is removed from the Book of Life.In the meantime, we have to contend with our body of death which wages war against the spirit.When the body is discarded, we will be given a perfect body which will perfectly match the spirit we have.We will then be at peace and will be perfect even…[Read more]

Carmel, you can post by all means, but not off topic. It would have been better (but not perfect) to make a link to an appropriate topic, rather than try and get the last word in. Please shift this conversation to its own topic or a related existing one.Thanks.

Quote (david @ Nov. 15 2012,12:33)I don't think there is any way at the present to logically prove that there MUST be a creator, without creating logical inconsistencies.Hey what happened to david. Put him back okay.To whoever wrote this: Scripture strongly disagrees with your view here.It says that the fool believes there is no God. It says that…[Read more]

Quote (david @ Nov. 15 2012,12:33)I really feel like it isn't anyone's job to disprove the existence of God. It seems that it should be more upon someone who makes a claim to prove their claim.Incorrect david.Because saying there is no God is also saying that everything came from nothing, or that something has always existed, but that something is…[Read more]

Glad to here that you admit that you can't disprove the existence of God.However, I would like to press this issue further because I have much to debate regarding the eternal universe or eternal something that is the universe at the moment which I take it that you will be arguing for.This could be the subject of our debate to differentiate with…[Read more]

No problem with a tag team, however because I am already debating Stu, (or will be), it doesn't seem that great an idea. I also think that I might not get to the heart of how Tim thinks, which is what I want to do.So prefer to keep it myself and Tim.I will make a post with a new topic that is satisfactory to debate.

Still Gene, your opposite conclusions are obvious when you read those scriptures.Remember that we don't have your filters, so we are reading it as it is written.It seems to me that you need to add a paragraph to each of these verses in order to arrive at your conclusion.Hence why you always take a paragraph when explaining it.I too could add a…[Read more]

I will make it mooootable and see if he accepts or makes another excuse then.

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 13 2012,22:49)Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 13 2012,13:55)The problem with this Mike, is YHWH is not just God but God and Lord. You just want YHWH to be God but not Lord apparently.LU, you appear confused.God made Jesus Lord.So God is greater than Lord.Yes technically speaking God is the Lord of Jesus, but God made Jesus Lord over all,…[Read more]

Cheers Ed J.

Okay if you decline it on that basis, then that seems to infer that you would accept if the title was better. I will come up with a better one for you later as it is getting late now. A title that is acceptable to the point that you will either accept or make a further excuse to not debate me.

Well then. You are subscribing to the idea that no one can believe that particular verse.I believe it and as I said before, it is not my standard. So it is not me doing the judging. I simply concur with scripture by believing it.Also I didn't say that Tim was a fool. I said that a fool is one who denies the existence of God. It is Tim who says…[Read more]

Okay that is fair.I would appreciate no dodging. It is very annoying and not helpful to anyone.And I won't edit posts so that we are even.I will open the debate if you are happy to proceed.I won't start tonight as it is late.Would also like to add that I won't be pushing you to answer promptly. I prefer quality answers, not quick ones.

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 15 2012,00:18)I think Tim shouldn't accept because this is way beneath him.Stuart

Would you call a person who drank 24 bottles of beer and then took his family for a drive as a fool. I wouldn't because the person could have been driving his family, away from a tsunami or bush fire or something like that. We cannot know the full circumstances behind every action and therefore must reserve judgement to God and the law of the…[Read more]

Further, I would like to ask that either of us can set a must answer question and that it must be a fair question. There must also be no more than one of these question types at any one time, unless the person being asked this question is happy to answer more. A reasonable answer to a must answer question is an explanation that answers the…[Read more]