Posts by dubla

156

Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy in

before i get started, my name is mark whitmore, 20, i live in vancouver, canada, and i am a follower of the way, a true christian, not a jw.

if you reply, please post who you are, how old and what you believe so that i know where you are coming from.

thanks.. now down to business.. strongs' hebrew and greek online:.

dubla

hairdog-

well, it didnt take me long to look up and laugh at the joke of a notion you proposed, namely that these scriptures you cited supposedly make it "clear" that before "the beginning" only god existed. ill quote you first before showing the fallacies in your argument.....

quote: Second (and finally), before the beginning (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1), only God existed. This is clear from John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16.

-are you serious hairy? lets break down each scripture one at a time, looking specifically for indications that "before the beginning" only god existed, ("the beginning" are obviously the two key words here), shall we?? here we go......

john 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

-okay, clearly this scripture states that everything was made/created by god. im not sure where in this scripture though, that is states god didnt create anything before "the beginning". hmmm, hardly a clear proof as you would have us believe. in fact, it sheds little if any light on "the" actual "beginning" referred to in gen. 1:1, does it? next scripture.....

1 corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

-all things come through god, and all things come through jesus.....okay.....but again, im baffled here hairy. where in this scripture is "the beginning" ever reffered to? it isnt, another obvious fallacy in your statement that this scripture makes it "clear" that before the beginning only god existed.......okay, last one, and this is the best example of a scripture used out of context by you.....

colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

-AGAIN, for the THIRD time we see a scripture that supposedly makes "clear" that god was the only being in existance during "the beginning", that does not for some reason even mention or allude to "the beginning". hmmmmm, im seeing a pattern here hairdog, are you? and if you arent implying that these scriptures back up this notion, you might want to restate whatever it is that you think they back up. this particular scripture does say that god created all things, but ive already granted you that, thats what i believe too! the key thing were looking for is whether or not it "makes clear, blah blah", im a broken record here.

and why dont any of these scriptures state, even in a roundabout way, that god was the only being in existance at "the beginning"? because god wasnt the only being in existance, obviously. lets think about this logically (which i realize isnt your strong suit). if the angels, michael and satan included, were created during "the beginning", why was this not part of the account of "the beginning" at genesis 1:1? why would this account detail the creation of all these things, from man, to animals, right down to trees and water, (obviously not in that order), and just mysteriously leave out something as important as all the angelic creatures? think about it, ALL THE ANGELIC CREATURES....surely this was an important creation, wasnt it? so would this make sense to leave out if indeed it was during this detailed account of "the beginning"? of course not. the obvious answer is that the account of "the beginning" doesnt include angelic creatures, because they had already been created!!

it does not surprise me that you resort to stretching the meaning of scriptures such as these to back up your arguments hairy. in fact, this is an EXTREMELY common practice of trinitarians (which you havent professed to be as of yet, so im only speculating here) during these types of debates. id say it happens at least 99% of the time. meanings get stretched, scriptures get used out of context, etc., etc., the list goes on. this is what happens when you try to explain something that isnt there; when you try to show that the scriptures support a man-made doctrine that the scriptures absolutely do not support.

hope this helps.

aa

156

Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy in

before i get started, my name is mark whitmore, 20, i live in vancouver, canada, and i am a follower of the way, a true christian, not a jw.

if you reply, please post who you are, how old and what you believe so that i know where you are coming from.

thanks.. now down to business.. strongs' hebrew and greek online:.

dubla

hairdog-

let me first start out with LOL, as you are beginning a pattern of inciting my laughter, now, with each and every one of your subsequent posts.

okay, now that ive caught my breath, i can continue. im not sure which part of your post to dismantle first, youve given me so many options. well lets start with a quote, as is the normal practice. this particular one was in my reference to your constant definitions of exegete, exegesis, etc.....

quote: Well, by golly aa, I think you are right. It seems to be rather important that for us to successfully communicate with one another, we must first define words that we use. And one of the best places to look for these definitions is in our English and Greek dictionaries, eh? But of course if you have another word source, please let me know what it is so that we can both be operating from the same authoritative source.

-this is such an obvious and unsuccesful attempt at minimizing the signifigance of my statements, its bordering on hilarious. for one thing, the "reason" i was referencing your constant use and definition of those words wasnt to discount the use of the dictionary at all, but was in actuality a reference to the constant lack of proper context in which you used them. it was, on my part, an attempt at humor. its called sacrasm hairy, and i can give the definition of that one if youd like. secondly, for you to imply that i disagree with your use of the dictionary, or that i would like to use "another word source", is preposterous (and possibly just a poor attempt at sarcasm from you), due to the fact that ive already quoted the dictionary several times myself in order to point out your obvious contradictions. (and you again attempted to suggest i would like to use another word source later in your post saying, "I’m sure you would have a good “reason” to select something else besides an English dictionary, eh?" and AGAIN, this was possibly just another poor attempt at humor on your part, im not entirely sure).

another one of your quotes, which i would like to shed some light on, maybe this will help you out.........

quote: Based upon the definitions of “evidence,” you should be able to (finally) see that this is not a humorous statement; it’s reasoning based upon the Bible.

-i believe when you say i should be able to see "that this is not a humorous statement", you are referring to my last post where i said that your conclusion sounded like at attempt at humor. am i correct in assuming that? you are confused it seems, which does not surprise me in the least. what i said was (and i think what youre responding to),
"the post that you tagged this ending onto was entirely just an argumentative post trying to scramble and respond to me exposing your OBVIOUS contradictions, and it had NOTHING to do with giving "evidence, as provided by john 1:1, that the word is the eternal being." its an attempt at humor, i see. again, let me say, LOL."
...................remember now? okay, lets look at this closely. where in this statement of mine am i referring to the definition of "evidence"? i am not. no, to the contrary what i was referring to was the fact that you put this conclusion on a post that had entirely nothing to do with showing evidence about john 1:1. it had absolutely NOTHING to do with that. all that post was, was an attempt to respond to me breaking down your contradictions, and all of 0% of it pertained to john 1:1. THAT is why i thought you were attempting sarcasm, it had absolutely NOTHING to do with the definition of "evidence", (which btw ive already shown is "proof" just to reiterate). im not sure if youll understand this explanation or not. youve been pretty slow to understand the context of most of my responses, so im guessing no.

speaking of 0% pertaining to john 1:1, geez, thats almost all of our posts now, isnt it? this is common when discussing the trinity with a trinitarian. (okay, i know were only discussing the deity of the word right now, you dont have to correct me again. but come on, its all about the trinity, isnt it? otherwise it wouldnt be on this particular thread). what i mean to say is, 9 times out of 10, when debating these matters, the trinitarians will veer off the subject, and concentrate more on pointless "side debates" if you will; its perfectly normal, and i expect it. i do commend you on your very first use of cross-referencing other scriptures this time though. let me just say, ITS ABOUT TIME. i know its not usually "the way you do things", and youd rather try and convince someone the meaning of ONE scripture before looking at any others, but maybe youre starting to see the importance of cross-referencing. or maybe im just getting to you with some of my other statements so you felt compelled to respond, who knows. but i do think looking at the context of other scriptures is important, no, essential, for the bible has meaning only as a whole, and as youve said before, one scripture does not and cannot prove a doctrine. ill be reading the scriptures youve quoted and reflecting on the context youre using them in, and trying to decide whether or not you have a valid argument. im sure youll eagerly await my findings.

I appreciate the opportunity to give evidence, as provided by one of hairdogs favorite secular writings, that evidence and proof are one and the same.

aa

156

Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy in

before i get started, my name is mark whitmore, 20, i live in vancouver, canada, and i am a follower of the way, a true christian, not a jw.

if you reply, please post who you are, how old and what you believe so that i know where you are coming from.

thanks.. now down to business.. strongs' hebrew and greek online:.

dubla

pom-

excellent post. ive been doing some thinking on this myself, this topic of whether or not god was omniscient, and i have to say im leaning toward your view of it which really makes alot of sense, and you layed it out nicely. to answer one of your questions, you could probably start a new thread on it if you so choose, im sure youd get some good responses.

aa

156

Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy in

before i get started, my name is mark whitmore, 20, i live in vancouver, canada, and i am a follower of the way, a true christian, not a jw.

if you reply, please post who you are, how old and what you believe so that i know where you are coming from.

thanks.. now down to business.. strongs' hebrew and greek online:.

dubla

bibleBOY (and all)-

quote: jdubla, you are cut. EXIT STAGE LEFT. You are not right for the part. I am trying to achieve 100 posts on this, not 100 slanders. You're Not the right style; not zybo enough...

-i can understand you wanting me to discontinue my posting, i expect that from you mark. usually when someone feels threatened, that is their first line of defense. instead of trying to uphold their own stance, its much easier to resort to "just go away" or "im not listening to you anymore." please understand these are normal responses to someone showing obvious fallacies, inconsistencies, and contradictions in anothers arguments, but i would urge you to reconsider writing me off for that simple reason that i am a threat to your stance. even though it does not surprise me, i still think its unfortunate. and EXIT STAGE LEFT mark? come on, surely you know i will not discontinue posting simply because you do not like me, or ive gotten "under your skin" so to speak by exposing what you are. if you wish, you can plea your case to simon and ask that i be banned, but i would imagine he would re-read my posts and then proceed to laugh in your face for implying that ive been slanderous or unusually cruel. i imagine that you will indeed ignore my posts nonetheless, but as ive said before, youve never really responded in debate style with me anyhow, so it wont really be a big loss.

as far as you referring to my posts as "slanders", mark, do i really need to repost my last post to you? i think i fully explained and showed that my stance is not one of slander, and i believe that any intelligent person that read it will only agree with what im saying from a debate standpoint. if you wish to continue to refer to my views as slanderous, i will re-explain it to you (but this is getting old, and im starting to wonder if youll ever get the point anyhow). about the only thing ive said that can be construed as slander, might me my various references to your lack of intelligence. if this really bothers you or hurts your feelings, i can, i suppose, bite my tongue, but i must say you have truly brought this on yourself by constantly and obviously showing your ignorance, (your quote on this post being a prime example).

and last but not least, im "not the right style"? lol, again you make me laugh. how am i not the right style, is it MAYBE because i keep showing everyone the ridiculous nature of your comments? again, refer to my first paragraph regarding one feeling "threatened".

god bless mark, have a good move!

aa

156

Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy in

before i get started, my name is mark whitmore, 20, i live in vancouver, canada, and i am a follower of the way, a true christian, not a jw.

if you reply, please post who you are, how old and what you believe so that i know where you are coming from.

thanks.. now down to business.. strongs' hebrew and greek online:.

dubla

bibleBOY-

quote: I have come to understand that you don't want to or not argue constructively on the point that whether Jesus is God or not. Therefore I am not considering your arguements until you come in peace and stop arguing savagely about my style and pointing out everything wrong about me personally.

-okay mark, first off, i have indeed been discussing whether or not jesus is god from the very beginning. if you look back over the posts youll find contradictions and logical reasoning backing anti-trinity beliefs from myself and many other posters. the reason ive quit trying to argue these points with you is because youve ignored every single fact or idea ive pointed out in the subject (so yeah, it gets a little old talking to a wall with no response). thats great that you find poms view interesting and have decided to discuss it (despite the lack of requisite information from pom, age, location, belief), and no one elses. what this says to me mark, is that you choose to ignore what you cannont effectively debate.

as far as me "arguing savagely" about your style, and "pointing out everything wrong" about you personally, that i will address. number one, pointing out your constant evident ignorance on topics that YOU are debating, is not a personal attack. when i make your ignorance evident (whether it be debate style or content), it is merely attacking the validity of your arguments (not you personally, for i do not even know you), which is what an argument/discussion is all about! so if you cannot handle someone attacking the validity of your claims, i suggest you refrain from ever discussing something as controversial as the trinity period.

as far as you refusing to "consider" my arguments, well hell mark, youve been doing that from the very beginning, so i wouldnt expect any less.

aa

69

"AHA! AHA! OUR EYE HAS SEEN IT!"

by You Know in

jw
friends

the question has always been, primarily: is jehovah really god?

secondarily, the question has been: are jehovahs witnesses really jehovahs witnesses?

or, perhaps worded differently: is the watchtower really the voice of christs appointed faithful and discreet slave of prophecy?

dubla

YK-

well, im convinced. thanks for the insight. so, since this child abuse case merely "certainly appears to have the potential to inflict a heavy blow upon us", but isnt apparently worthy in your eyes of concern, is there new light on the horizon after this? will child abuse be acceptable soon? will jehovahs witnesses start protecting known murderers and rapists next? just wondering. i know youve got the inside track on forthcoming new light, so please let me know.

aa

156

Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy in

before i get started, my name is mark whitmore, 20, i live in vancouver, canada, and i am a follower of the way, a true christian, not a jw.

if you reply, please post who you are, how old and what you believe so that i know where you are coming from.

thanks.. now down to business.. strongs' hebrew and greek online:.

dubla

bibleBOY-

quote: An apple has three parts, skin, flesh and core, but it is STILL ONE APPLE.

-question: what about the seeds and stem?

aa

156

Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy in

before i get started, my name is mark whitmore, 20, i live in vancouver, canada, and i am a follower of the way, a true christian, not a jw.

if you reply, please post who you are, how old and what you believe so that i know where you are coming from.

thanks.. now down to business.. strongs' hebrew and greek online:.

dubla

hairdog-

one more thing....ill quote you first....

quote: Ah, yes, Mr. aa, “exegete” in English sure enough is a noun. Gosh, I fell into my old habit of using a Greek verb to express myself. Once again, I made a boo-boo.

-no problem, i can see where the mistake was made. it just doesnt quite fit though that someone as literate and knowledgeable on diction, as yourself, would make such an obvious blunder (especially considering that the websters dictionary is "one of your favorite secular writings"). and if we are all to believe how passionate you are on the matter, you might want to just pre-qualify your statements by saying something along the lines of "once in awhile im planning on interjecting greek words throughout my sentences, right along side the english words", then you might want to add footnotes with definitions of the greek words youll be using, as i am not knowledgeable on greek grammar/vocabulary/diction (as ive stated many times), and im sure there are others on here as well that arent avid scholars on the matter.

I appreciate the opportunity to give evidence, as provided by one of hairdogs favorite secular writings, that evidence and proof are one and the same.

aa

156

Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy in

before i get started, my name is mark whitmore, 20, i live in vancouver, canada, and i am a follower of the way, a true christian, not a jw.

if you reply, please post who you are, how old and what you believe so that i know where you are coming from.

thanks.. now down to business.. strongs' hebrew and greek online:.

dubla

bibleBOY-

quote: there's nothing wrong with quoting somebody that you are in agreement and unity with.
God Bless!

-true mark, theres nothing wrong with quoting someone youre in agreement with, i couldnt agree more with you. just dont provide it as a source of proof/evidence. and i understand its much easier for you to argue the trinity by merely restating someone elses arguments. hell, that would be easier for any of us wouldnt it? as a matter of fact, i think thats what you were implying possibly when you first said, and again i quote:

"question: are you getting your arguements from God's Word, (the bible)or are you getting them from the watchtower?(or elsewhere for that matter?)"

so what did this mean mark? does not this same reasoning apply to you, or are you immune to your own reasoning? in other words mark, we should feel free to start quoting the watchtower if indeed we are in agreement with it? (which i am not btw). well hell, then why did you ask this silly question (quoted above) in the first place?? im pretty sure it was to imply that people were posting ideas that were really just restatements of someone elses arguments (watchtower, etc.). once again mark, you show your ignorance.

aa

156

Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy in

before i get started, my name is mark whitmore, 20, i live in vancouver, canada, and i am a follower of the way, a true christian, not a jw.

if you reply, please post who you are, how old and what you believe so that i know where you are coming from.

thanks.. now down to business.. strongs' hebrew and greek online:.

dubla

hairdog-

let me first just say, LOL. your posts are beginning to humor me almost as much as your dense fellow trinitarian mark whitmore. aside from that, i guess ill respond to a few things here real quick......

quote: Me: By golly, Mr. aa, I think you got me there. Silly old (very old, by the way) me. I just naturally assumed that, since it was indicated as a reply to my post that it was directed towards me. Man, do I owe you an apology. Sure am sorry ‘bout that.

-okay hairdog, (which btw, is that your name or are you still just as "anonymous" as you made frenchy out to be? or were you just making a fool out of yourself with the anonymous thing because you failed to see that the writer indeed had a name just the same as the rest of us, but just didnt sign the bottom?), how was it indicated as a reply to "your" post any more than ANY of the other posters on this thread considering the title of EVERY post on here is in reply to marks first post, specifically: Re: Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD? nevertheless, i think i still did end up granting you that leeway, so its really a mute point.

quote: Oh, by the way. A synonym for “preconceived opinion” is eisegesis (and, by the way, it’s in the dictionary).

-um, yeah, we got that already. i think weve all figured out that constant definitions of exegete, exegesis, eisegesis, etc, etc, are going to be expected in all of your posts. which we all enjoy, it really hammers home frenchy points about the way trinitarians dwell on grammar instead of reasoning. your knowledge on these particular words, though interesting, once again lends next to nothing on the matter at hand. its merely a way for you to say (in lamens terms): "the way i go about discovering/arguing, is better than the way you do." great, we get it.

quote: John 1:1 does not provide proof for the doctrine of the trinity. “Evidence” means something that provides testimony that aids in ascertaining the truth of a matter. It is a “beginning;” not completely conclusive. John 1:1 gives me evidence.

-okay hairy, i already posted the definition of "evidence", (showing the contradiction in your statement "evidence, not proof", an idea you continue to spout), but if i must, here it is again. color it redundant if you will. (hint: look closely for synonymity of the words "prove/proof" and "evidence". its really not that difficult.) These are from "one of your favorite secular writings, websters dictionary", i added bold lettering to assist you.

evidence (v):To render evident or clear; to PROVE
evidence (n):that which furnishes, or tends to furnish PROOF;
any mode of PROOF

okay, now that ive once again exposed that particular contradiction, you didnt reply to the first contradiction i posted, so ill repost it here as well (again, excuse the redundancy, but you obviously pick and choose what you respond to, which is normal for a debater that stands on weak "legs" so to speak "proof" wise).

ill put my repeats in brackets to make it easier. sigh, deep breath, here we go.......

MY quote: [quote (in response to me): I never intended to say that the verb, “was,” proved the eternal existence of the Word (Jesus).

-okay, now lets cross reference this with your last post.....

quote (in response to frenchy, or the anonymous one): This morning, as I was reading in one of my favorite secular writings, Webster’s Dictionary, I thought that I might take a look at the word, “was.” It seems that “was” is indicated to be the English “past indicative” of the verb, “to be.” In layman’s language, it refers to the existence of someone, or -thing. The past indicative is used in the English translation of John 1:1, while in the Greek, the imperfect indicative is used. In both languages, the mood of the verb is identified as the “indicative.” This is the mood of certainty. So the action or state described by the particular indicative mood verb is one of certainty; in the case of the verb, “was,” it is certain that (in the case here in John 1:1), the Word’s state was one of being. The Greek language has several “past” tenses. The imperfect tense indicates durative action in the past. Therefore, the state of the Word is not only certain, but it is certain that He “continually” was; that He continually existed.

-hmmmm....seems to me for not using the word "was" as proof he eternally existed, youre going way out of your way to say that the verb "was" proves he continually existed (or are continually and eternally two different ideas for you?)..........]

again, id like to repost another one of my statements, and maybe youll choose to respond, or maybe you have nothing to say. here we go AGAIN.......

MY quote: [quote: The use of “was” in this verse simply lends information that points out that anything that existed before the beginning had no beginning. The heavens, earth, animals, angels and satan all are created beings. Therefore, they had a beginning.

-does this one verb "was" really imply that hairdog? that ANYTHING that existed before "the beginning" (which we already have agreed in a past post is "the beginning" described in genesis chapter 1), had no beginning? so in this account of "the beginning" (genesis ch.1), why are there no mention of angels being created? were they created during "the beginning" then, or are they already present as it would seem? and what of jesus being one of the angels (michael)? of course, this is what i believe, and since youve already said all the angels were created, on this basis i guess we have already agreed that jesus was created. maybe until we agree on whether or not jesus is michael, we should go no further, for this no doubt is part of your preconceived opinions on jesus himself, also leading you in a certain direction with 1john1:1. do you see where this "preconceived opinions" idea can take a discussion?

i realize you dont want to drop the "was" issue until i concede that your viewpoint on it is the correct one, so maybe we will not get past it (or maybe its the one thing you cling too, and you have no logical reasoning for any of the other arguments).]

whew....now, on to ONE last quote, this time a quote from you in your last post.....

quote: I appreciate the opportunity to give evidence, as provided by John 1:1, that the Word is the eternal Being.

-be honest here hairy, you just threw this in because i mentioned it and discounted it as garbage before, right? i mean come on, the post that you tagged this ending onto was entirely just an argumentative post trying to scramble and respond to me exposing your OBVIOUS contradictions, and it had NOTHING to do with giving "evidence, as provided by john 1:1, that the word is the eternal being." its an attempt at humor, i see. again, let me say, LOL.

aa