"BATTLE TALK" for BATTLE ROYALE #1 - Freak vs. me again

"BATTLE TALK" for BATTLE ROYALE #1 - Freak vs. me again

  • Freak

    Votes: 17 51.5%

  • me again

    Votes: 16 48.5%
  • Total voters
    33
Status
Not open for further replies.
me again

me again

New member
I'm more interested in the truth then anything else. If it's not the truth, then it's chaff.

If I see that I'm spiritually wrong in an area, I'm willing to conform to the scriptural truth -- no matter what it is.

That is the motivation behind my spirit. I guess we all believe we're right, eh?
 
B

bill betzler

New member
Me again,

We worship Jesus, never angels or others. In Rev 1:17 Jesus does not rebuke John when he falls prostrate before Him. But in Rev 19:10 when John makes a mistake and attempts to worship someone else, he is rebuked.

bill
 
me again

me again

New member
We need another thread for this one!

We need another thread for this one!

Bill,

You make a good point: We don't worship angels. Here are some questions for you:
  • Did Jesus exist prior to His birth? If He did, then by what name was He called in the O.T.?
  • Are there any references in the Bible where the Lord was ever referred to as an "Angel?" And, if so, why would He be referred to as an Angel?
Before we get too deep into this, let me emphatically say that Jesus is not an angel. Look at the following scripture:
  • Exo 3:2-4

    [*]And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush:

    [*]and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.

    [*]And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said...
Please note that:
  • The Angel of the Lord was in the burning bush.
  • God called out to Moses from the burning bush.
In this scenario, I believe:
  • The Voice that called out to Moses was the Lord Jesus Christ Himself in his pre-incarnate form.
  • He is described as an "Angel of the Lord."
  • He is described as "God."
Have you ever read this interpretation before? What do you think? :confused: :)
 
J

Jaltus

New member
Freak has appealed to very solid authorities in his defense of his position.

Morris is a well-respected scholar (though i do not like his writing style, a personal thing). He has worked in such series as New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT) and the Tyndale New Testament Commentary series (TNTC). He also has numerous other publications.

Hendrickson is also a well-respected scholar, though not as respected as Morris.

A. T Robertson wrote the most important Greek grammar of the 20th century (I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that, no matter the language). His scholarship and insight is unsurpassed in the pre-computer days (he had a complete catalogue of every single construction in the NT, quoting every occurance in the Greek, doing the work BY HAND!). By far Freak's strongest authority.

Ryle is solid, though dated.
 
Evangelion

Evangelion

New member
LOL @ Cirisme. Remember, folks - I'm hearing this from somebody who doesn't even understand the Trinity, and who has gone on record as saying that he doesn't want to debate in Battle Royale.

Come back when you can put your money where your mouth is, Cirisme.

Poseur. :p
 
Last edited:
me again

me again

New member
THE BIBLE AND THE BIBLE ALONE IS MY SOLE AUTHORITY

THE BIBLE AND THE BIBLE ALONE IS MY SOLE AUTHORITY

Jaltus,

If I’m going to debate in the ring about the scriptures, then I want the debate to be exclusively with the scriptures. No addendums are necessary, unless you’re going to refer back to the original language.

The debate should be limited exclusively to the authority of the scriptures. Using non-scriptural quotes as an appeal to authority won't work because each of those human authors has his or her slant that is unique to their denomination.

The Bible and the Bible alone is the sword of the spirit. Our appeal to authority should be limited to the Bible itself. If someone needs to refer to:
  • Morris
  • Joseph Smith
  • Hendrickson
  • Mary Baker Eddy
  • A. T Robertson
  • Ellen G. White
  • Ryle
  • et al
Then they are getting sidetracked into denominationalism or they are unable to comprehend the Bible for themselves, based upon the scriptures alone. All of the above authors are respected by their respective denominations.

The Bible and the Bible alone is my sole authority. If the opinion can’t be backed by the scriptures, then it is chaff.
 
J

Jaltus

New member
Actually, both Robertson and Morris are even respected by non-believers and liberals.

I am not saying how to argue the point, I was just responding to a query from Pa.
 
P

Pilgrimagain

Guest
Me Again, the actual fallacy is "simplistic" appeals to authority.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with looking at the evidence of historic christianity because we are afterall, standing on the shoulders of giants.

One fallacy that I think Freak is falling to and using again and again is known as the "cavalier dismissal."

Quoting from DA Carson in "Exegetical Fallacies"...

"The fallacy in this instance lies in thinking that an opponents argument has actually been handled when in fact it has merely been written off. To cite but one of many example, Hanz Conzelman raises a possible interpretation of 1 Cor. 11:4-6 - only to banish it by adding the words, 'this is fantastic.

Often what is meant by such cavalier dismissals is that the opposing argument emerges from a matrix of thought so different from a scholar's own that he (or she) finds it strange, wierd, and unacceptable (unless he or she changed his or her entire framework). If so, something like that should be said and expounded upon rather than resorting to the hasty dismissal which is simultaneously worthless as an argument and gratingly condescending." (Exegetical Fallacies p.120)

I see this one all the time here on TOL but I have noticed it in the current Battle Royale as well. "I have dealt with that" when in fact it has been merely written off.

Pilgrim
 
Evangelion

Evangelion

New member
Calvin also taught that Jesus is the Archangel Michael. Other mainstream Christian theologians have done the same.

Then there's the old "Jesus is the angel of the LORD" trick - the Christological implications of which seem to be lost on those Trinitarians who use it... :rolleyes:
 
B

bill betzler

New member
Me again,

Hello.

Jesus existed before before being born of Mary. He is the Word of God. God created all that was made by him. Jesus is second only to the Father. Jesus has no OT names that I know of. Yet any name that the Father has so does Jesus. See Isaiah 9:6. But, as most are happy to point out I don't know everything. :)

The burning bush individual is God according to Jesus when he speaks of it in the NT. Since the human eye cannot see the spiritual world and God is spirit, somehow God must take on a form that human eyes can see if he wants to appear like He is seen, hence the Angel of the Lord designation. A theophany or Christophany if you will.

I have probably heard of that interpretation before. When you get old it is hard to remember too much. Whether God is Jesus or the Father I'm not sure.

bill
 
B

bill betzler

New member
Theophilus,

Thank you. It reflects my interpretation of my position in the kingdom of God. I hope to change it some day. God willing.

bill
 
me again

me again

New member
My thesis is supported exclusively by the bible !

My thesis is supported exclusively by the bible !

If we are going to be allowed to use other books that are outside the bible, then I am unable to spar. My undergraduate degree is in business management and my graduate studies are in criminology.

In my own time, I have studied the bible and the bible alone. How many of us give eternal credence to other books? Are those books on par with the bible? No, of course they are not.

If a thesis is going to rest on those ”other books,” then the thesis is weak. It’s ironic that Freak is unable to support his thesis using only the bible. :D

At this point, I am awaiting a decision by the referee. I have wasted a valuable post calling for a "time out."
 
Nathon Detroit

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally posted by jjjg
Can somebody set me up with someone about any topic for a battle
Click to expand...
You need to earn your battle worthiness!

We don't just hand out battle's like they are Dixie Cups ya know! :D

Spend some time battling on the other forums first and who knows, you may get your shot!
 
Nathon Detroit

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
me again, I am not sure what the problem is. Of course people are allowed to reference material other than the Bible, why wouldn't they be able to do that?

If you choose to use the Bible exclusively, GREAT! Ultimately the debate (Battle Royale I) is a debate focused on the Bible and the material found within the Bible so you would do just fine sticking within the Bible. Remember, you needn't prove extra biblical material wrong or in error you simply need to provide a good argument for your side of the issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top