FORMAL DEBATE WITH THE PROPOSITION "THE ETERNAL FATHER IS THE ONE THAT MANIFEST IN THE FLESH"

A FORMAL ONLINE DEBATE

WITH

THE PROPOSITION

“THE ETERNAL FATHER IS THE ONE

WHO MANIFEST IN THE FLESH”

"... GOD manifest in the flesh" 1 Tim. 3:16

Facebook Forum:

DEFENDING THE TRUTH ( Destroying the cult ONENESS , Calvinism , INC , , )

Trinitarian Forum

May 6, 2017

Affirmative:

Dr. Carl C. Cortez, DMin, DTh, DVEd

Oneness of God believer

Negative:
John Jake Eumeda (nurse)

Trinitarian believer

Moderator:

Armando Borja

Trinitarian believer

Armando Borja, (Who turned out to be biased bordering my opponent John Jake Eumeda, his co-admin in the Forum they created with the Rules of the Debate they also made, interpreted it the way they want it to be but it went out that they don't understand the standard flow of formal debate structure. They used the rules of the debate they created to accuse me several times of violations that I never did. It was John Jake Eumeda who did the offenses such as labeling my colleagues including me as cult during our debate, and edited most of his official posts which isn't allowed as mentioned in the rules.

I mentioned this violation my opponent was doing yet the moderator ignored it and told me it wasn't a big deal. After I questioned him and began doubting his character, he then threatened me to stop the debate and will declare me a loser.

Yes, he did it during the interpolation part. He insisted, it was the second time around cross examination and second round rebuttal preceded by blocking me in the thread the moderator created unceremoniously and proclaimed my opponent the winner!

He became not just a moderator but my opponent as well and the judge. NEVER in the debates online, one can proclaim who is the winner and also the loser but the READERS yet Armando Borja violated the rules he himself has created!

Here are the accusations the biased moderator Armando Borja has said.

Check it out if I really don't answer the questions of my opponent accordingly and do check as well if my opponent answers my questions accordingly.

Also find out if what rule I have violated that he alleged me being defiant and arrogant. Am I accusing him when I raised some clarifications of why he hasn't confronted my opponent of the violations he did? Check it out below.

What prompt the moderator to do such of being unbecoming? You will know the obvious reasons why, as you will investigate and read between lines of the details of the debate proper.

(YOU CHECK MY OPPONENTS CONSTRUCTIVE ARGUMENT AFTER MINE FIRST!

and IF MY OPPONENT REALLY HAS BEEN ABLE TO DESTROY MY PRESENTATION THROUGH HIS CROSS EXAM AND HIS REBUTTAL.)

---------------- o O o ------------------

Carl C. Cortez’

AFFIRMATIVE PRESENTATION

(2,494 word argument)

Scriptures as Reference: 31

Extra Biblical Reference: 6

“BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ETERNAL FATHER OR EVERLASTING FATHER IS THE ONE WHO MANIFEST IN THE FLESH.”

– Carl C. Cortez

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD (Theos) was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

1 Timothy 3:16(KJV) Italics mine

Introduction:

Understanding properly definition of terms will help a researcher find the good track of reaching to his destiny of knowing what is true in obtaining the knowledge of truth. In the contrary, people who aren’t meticulous in speaking carelessly having no respect of applying proper study or being so rush in presenting zer (his/her) own personal idea un-academically is prone to be fallacious and therefore deceiving especially to zer own kind (same feathers).

In this proposition, your servant will present academic presentation of

(A) WHAT is

(i) Eternal or Everlasting,

(ii) God,

(iii) manifest means by tracing back its etymology,

(B) HOW these words has been used in the Bible in reference to the only ONE GOD, and

(C)WHO is this ONE GOD that is Eternal and called the Everlasting Father, the one that manifest in the flesh.

A. TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF THE “WHAT”

(i) DEFINITION OF TERMS

1. What does Eternal or Everlasting means?

- Collins English Dictionary

PoS: Adjective

Def: Something that is eternal lasts for ever.
Syn: everlasting, lasting, permanent, enduring

- Oxford Dictionary
PoS: Adjective,
Def: Lasting or existing forever; without end.
Syn: everlasting, never-ending, endless, without end, perpetual, undying, immortal, deathless, indestructible, imperishable, immutable, abiding, permanent, enduring, infinite, boundless, timeless

- Merriam Webster
PoS: Adjective
Def: having infinite duration, continued without intermission, archaic, valid or existing at all times
Syn: ageless, continuing, dateless, enduring, abiding, everlasting, immortal,

2. What does God means?

GOD

“Old English god "supreme being, deity; the Christian God; image of a god; godlike person," from Proto-Germanic *guthan (source also of Old Saxon, Old Frisian, Dutch god, Old High German got, German Gott, Old Norse guð, Gothic guþ), from PIE *ghut- "that which is invoked" (source also of Old Church Slavonic zovo "to call," Sanskrit huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke."” - Etymology Dictionary

The original reference of English word God is El/Elah/Elohim in Hebrew language and is Theos in Greek. – Blue Letter Bible, Strong’s Interlinear

3. What does manifest means? (adjective)
"To manifest" is generally the translation of phaneroo, "to make apparent" – Bible Dictionary

“When something is manifest it is evident, obvious, apparent, and plain for everyone to see. “ – patheos

man•i•fest
clear or obvious to the eye or mind.
synonyms: obvious, clear, plain, apparent, evident, patent, palpable, distinct, definite, blatant, overt, glaring, barefaced, explicit, transparent, conspicuous, undisguised, unmistakable, noticeable, perceptible, visible, recognizable” – online dictionary

By the definitions provided by credible references, it has so been established that the word “ETERNAL” cannot be understood beyond its meaning and if their maybe any, it cannot be regarded as eternal or everlasting but the opposite. On the hand, the word “GOD” where it derived its meaning has also its bearing nonetheless from its etymology and how it was first used by the ancient people specifically in their language. No word can best express the accurate meaning of the word except how it has been expressed by its native tongue.

The word “MANIFEST” was clearly defined well and never it will be replaced by the word “BECAME”.

(ii) BIBLICAL REFERENCE

There is only one reference to who and what is referred to by attribution as being eternal no other than of course the ONE God of Israel. “Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.” - Psa. 90:2

THE WORD ETERNAL OR EVERLASTING IS ATTRIBUTED TO NO OTHER THAN GOD HIMSELF

Nehemiah 9:5
"Then the Levites, Jeshua, Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabneiah, Sherebiah, Hodiah, Shebaniah and Pethahiah, said, "Arise, bless the LORD your God forever and ever! O may Your glorious name be blessed And exalted above all blessing and praise!"

Deuteronomy 32:40
"Indeed, I lift up My hand to heaven, And say, as I live forever,"

Deuteronomy 33:27
"The eternal God is a dwelling place, And underneath are the everlasting arms; And He drove out the enemy from before you, And said, 'Destroy!'

Job 36:26
"Behold, God is exalted, and we do not know Him; The number of His years is unsearchable.

Psalm 48:14
"For such is God, Our God forever and ever; He will guide us until death."

Psalm 102:12
"But You, O LORD, abide forever, And Your name to all generations."

Isaiah 40:28
"Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth. Does not become weary or tired His understanding is inscrutable."

Habakkuk 1:12
"Are You not from everlasting, O LORD, my God, my Holy One? We will not die You, O LORD, have appointed them to judge; And You, O Rock, have established them to correct."

B. UNDERSTANDING THE “HOW”

(i) HOW GOD REVEALED HIS NAME?

GOD PLANNED TO MANIFEST HIMSELF TO HIS PEOPLE TO REVEAL HIS NAME THAT SAVES

In the custom and traditions of Israel, or the Hebrew race, a name is so important to them. All their names has its own corresponding meaning and obligations, yet God denied to gave Moses His name when Moses inquired it in Exo. 30:4 instead God told him, He be called “I AM” the one “that send you.” God told Moses as well that His name is the ALMIGHTY or “El Shaddai” in Exo. 6:3 and that in Exo. 23:20-21 God was that specific of telling them that His name was kept by an angel. It was hidden by an angel. The name JESUS was secret and was a mystery in the OT but yet to be revealed by an angel who kept it in due time.

"Behold, I am going to send an angel before you to guard you along the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. 21"Be on your guard before him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression, since My name is in him…”

(ii) GOD NEEDS TO MANIFEST HIMSELF TO MAN IN VISIBLE FORM TO REVEAL HIS NAME

Paul in his letter to Timothy emphasized it clearly that it was GOD (Theos) himself who revealed in the flesh. 1 Tim. 3:16 is a controversial text and has been debated for centuries after an attempt of translating the Latin Bible “Latin Vulgata” to English rather than using the original Greek Manuscript where “Theos” was written meaning God, not “Os” which means “who”, the so called “A Crucial Discrepancy in Modern Bible” of choosing the version of Latin back to Greek. It was the Septuagint that came first which was Greek translation of Hebrew Bible, known as the oldest Bible and being the reference for the KJV. Here’s how theologians and scholars describes the discrepancy of the modern Bible.

- “Modern Bibles offer some advantages in helping us with passages obscured by the older language of old bibles such as the KJV."

An old saying is that the “Devil is in the details.” We must be vigilant that important truths are not lost in the rush to make the Bible “readable” to modern ears.

We must compare bibles. 1 Timothy 3:16 is arguably the strongest Bible Verse showing Jesus Christ was GOD in human flesh. But, almost all modern versions replace the noun, “God” with a pronoun, usually “who.”” – Ken, Creation Outreach

- “Dr. Bloomfield and other learned authorities have demonstrated that the new reading “the mystery…who was manifested” violates all the rules of construction and exhibits only too clearly the marks of accidental or deliberate corruption. The context makes it plain that Paul is presenting six propositions relating to the Lord Jesus Christ, in Whose divine Person – God was

(1) Manifest in the flesh

(2) Justified in the Spirit

(3) Seen of angels
(4) Preached unto the Gentiles

(5) Believed on in the world

(6) Received up into glory.” - Trinitarian Bible Society

(iii) THE ONE GOD WHO IS INVISIBLE REVEALED HIMSELF IN THE VISIBLE FORM

"The One God, the King of dreams, revealed his plan and secrets to his people through His prophets." – Amos 3:7.

“Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';.. "I bring near My righteousness, it is not far off; And My salvation will not delay. And I will grant salvation in Zion, And My glory for Israel." – Isa. 46:10,13

"But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity." – Micah 5:2

“For, behold, the LORD cometh forth out of his place, and will come down, and tread upon the high places of the earth.” Micah 1:3

C. UNDERSTANDING THE “WHO”

(i) THE NAME OF JESUS IS UNKNOWN in the OLD TESTAMENT

The name JESUS is not known in the Old Testament and was hidden but that doesn’t mean HE wasn’t in the OT but as the great “I AM” or the self existent one and the ALMIGHTY or creator of all things. Exo. 3:14; 6:3; John 8:58. By the time the name JESUS wasn’t revealed yet, God was also called the Father who demonstrated Himself through emphasizing the importance of a relation to men.

Basically, Father is a term or a title used as a designation referring to a relation, obligation and authority. It is much being realized and demonstrated in the family. God chose to have a relation in His creation that it has been clearly understood God has a Family.

ONE ETERNAL GOD DEMONSTRATED HIS ROLE AS A FATHER TO HIS CREATION

1) He is God (Father) to all created things both visible and invisible. – Col. 1:16

2) He is a Father to the Sons of God in the OT who were the angels. - Genesis 6:2,4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7

3) He is a Father to all the Saints. John 1:12-13; 1 Jn. 3:1-2; Eph. 2:19-22

(ii) JESUS IS TO BE CALLED THE EVERLASTING FATHER

“… and his NAME shall be called… EVERLASTING FATHER”. Isa. 9:6

(iii) THE NAME JESUS IS THE REVEALED NAME WHICH WAS KEPT SECRET IN THE OT. IT WAS HIDDEN BY AN ANGEL.

It was when due time came, the mystery was revealed, in Ephrata, Betlehem, a child is born which was born of a woman, made under the law the angel of the Lord or the messenger of the Lord Arch angel Gabriel who kept the mystery name revealed it to Mary, “call his name JESUS, for he shall save his people from their sins.”. Gal. 4:4; Matthew 1:21

(iv) THE MEANING OF THE NAME JESUS

The name JESUS in Hebrew is Yeshua which means “The LORD that SAVES”.

The name JESUS is the revealed name of God and is no longer a mystery in the New Testament which was unknown in Old Testament. The name of JESUS is the name of the One God who alone created the heavens and earth. The name of JESUS is the name of the One God who alone is the Savior. The name of JESUS is the name of the Everlasting Father who is also called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God and the Prince of Peace, the ALMIGHTY.

The day people will know the hidden name of God in OT be revealed, in that day the revealed name which is the One NAME of the One LORD GOD, they will call it the EVERLASTING FATHER… JESUS is the name of LORD of Lords and the KING of Kings.

“That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else.” - 1 Kings 8:60

“And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.” – Zech. 14:9

“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior.” - Isaiah43:10,11

“Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Fear ye not, neither be afraid; have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.” - Isaiah44:6,8

CONCLUSION:

By concrete understanding of the right definition of terms, no one should be able to deny and will wrongfully apply the words eternal which is synonymous to everlasting, derivation of the word God and its proper meaning, and the word manifest that is far and cannot be defined as “become” or “became” but rather revealed and obvious or being seen. Grasping the detailed and most accurate meaning do compliments in understanding well the scriptures presented which is of course fall by its proper context.

Many people understood God according to the measure of how they perceive and measuring Him by their finite mind that often times putting God out of context and limited Him as if God is bound to their imagination that God needed some aid to accomplish His purpose, and that God isn’t working His plan ALONE in all different generations but in need of another god, making him helpless without the support of another. GOD did it by Himself from planning to executions without failing to understand the limitations of men’s finite mind. He should need to draw an analogy first, establishing an abstract of Him that cannot be apprehended by a solitary dispensation of time but processes until such God’s due time of revealing Himself to men in the full-grown.

God who is from everlasting to everlasting revealed Himself by manifestation in the flesh to be observed, felt, seen and be modeled. After this obvious, after God has been understood, so well He had to be known by His name, where it was revealed after His manifestation in the flesh, in the person of Christ Jesus, the LORD.

Therefore, JESUS is the name of the one true GOD, the only One creator, the only One Savior and the Everlasting Father who is also called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God and the Prince of Peace, the ALMIGHTY, the I AM, the First and the Last. JESUS is the ETERNAL FATHER and beside Him, THERE IS NO OTHER GOD, and HE DOES’NT KNOW ANY.

JESUS is the EVERLASTING GOD THE FATHER manifest in the flesh!

(end of affirmative statement)

---------------- o O o ------------------

John Jake Eumeda’s

CONSTRUCTIVE STATEMENT

(373 words)

Scriptural Reference: 6

Extra Biblical Reference: 0

A DIRECT TO THE POINT NEGATIVE PRESENTATION
– John Jake Eumeda

In John 3:16 it is very precise and clear that the SENDER (referring to THE ETERNAL FATHER ) is not as the same person to the one being Sent ( referring to THE ETERNAL SON ).

That means the Father and the Son are two different persons. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. But they are not two Gods. There is only one God - John 10:30,

When we say that God manifests in the flesh we are referring to the becoming flesh of the Word which is Christ. It is the Word that became flesh and not the Father. This is how I negate the topic of this debate - John1: 1,14

Although it is not the Father that became flesh, we can correctly say that Christ manifested the Father when he was physically on earth. This is because Christ is the exact image of the Father whom we cannot see. (See Colossians 1:15). But being the image of the Father does not mean that Jesus is the Father. When Jesus said to his disciples that when they saw him they saw the Father, it is not because Jesus himself is the Father but because Jesus is the exact image of the Father.

And when Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" he did not mean they are one person or else the disciples would become one person when Jesus said they may be one as we are one. See John 17:22

Jesus himself said that the Father and he are two when he claimed that there are two that testifies for him.

In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.” John 8:17-18 NIV

It is so clear that the person of the Father is not the person of the Son. They are two different persons.

And so we can correctly conclude that it was not the Father who became flesh or manifested in the flesh in the incarnation of the Word which is Christ.

And again, although they are two persons, they are not two Gods.

(end of negative statement presentation)

---------------- o O o ------------------

Carl C. Cortez'

15 QUESTIONS TO John Jake Eumeda

1st QUESTION: (Based on John Jake Eumenda's presentation)

Who said in John 3:16 that the sender ETERNAL FATHER (emphasized) is not as the same person to the one being Sent?

A1. In John 3:16, no body directly said that the person of the Father is not the same person He sent. There is no need to say it since it is axiomatic or self-evident that the sender is not the one being sent. The Father sent or gave His Son. The Father is not the Son.

2nd QUESTION: How do you define the word Eternal?

A2: THE word eternal refers to the attribute of God who exist eternally without beginning and without end

the Father is eternal -psalms 90:2

the SON is eternal -revelation 1:8,17

Both the FATHER and Son is eternal and both exist before ALL things created -John 1:1

3rd QUESTION: (Follow up question from John Jake Eumenda's answer to Q1)

You said that "no body directly said that the person of the FATHER is not the same person He sent", who then now directly said that the sender ETERNAL FATHER is not as the same person to the one being Sent?

A3: Jesus indirectly said that the person of the father is not the person of the Son. They are two different persons.

4th QUESTION: (Follow up question from John Jake Eumenda's answer to Q2)

You were asked to answer how you define the word Eternal, but you failed to gave your credible references of which 2 or 3 witnesses are necessary that a word shall be established. Where did you get your definition of the word "Eternal" John Jake Eumenda?

A4: Biblically supported , As I said their being as two distinct persons is self evident. No need to say that they are not one person,

Read: John 8:17-18

5th QUESTION: (Follow up question from John Jake Eumenda's answer to Q3)

You were asked to answer "who directly said that the person of the father is not the person of the Son" but you failed to answer it and you said, "They are two different persons." Who then said that they are two (2) persons based on John 3:16?

A5: I do not claim that somebody said in John 3:16 that they are two persons. But they are two persons because the Sender is different from the one sent. And It is not true that i failed in answering your question. I just don't believe your assumption. that is self evident. No need that someone has to say that the sender and the one sent is the same. It is so obvious that they are not the same person.

I mean no need to say that the sender and the sent are two different persons

6th QUESTION: Define Son? (not based on your understanding but by proper credible references based on rule #5)

A6: In John 5:18, when Christ claim that God was his father, it means he is claimed equality with God. So the meaning of SON when it comes to Christ and the Father, is a special, unique relationship between the two that when you say that Christ is the Son of God you are saying in effect that Christ is God. http://www.truthmagazine.com/arch.../volume27/GOT027193.html

7th QUESTION: When we are required to define a word, of course best proof of evidences should be provided to have a clear understanding of the meaning of the word being asked. The best citations or references for this are the dictionaries and encyclopedias which are the authority for proper definitions, not statements or ideas of any person, or even a scripture that never mentioned and defines the word being required, NOW, give me the proper definition of the word SON?

A.7: The topic is about Jesus Christ so, the relevant definition is from how the word is used in relation to Jesus. The literal definition of SON as it is used with ordinary people is not applicable to the Son of God. This is because Christ being SON is different from ordinary peoples' being son. In Vines Expository Dictionary of NT words this how SON is defined as its is used in the phrase SON of GOD.

An eternal relation subsisting between the Son and the Father in the Godhead is to be understood. That is to say, the Son of God, in His eternal relationship with the Father, is not so entitled because He at any time began to derive His being from the Father (in which case He could not be co-eternal with the Father), but because He is and ever has been the expression of what the Father is; cp. John 14:9, 'he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.' The words of Hbr 1:3, 'Who being the effulgence of His (God's) glory, and the very image of His (God's) substance' are a definition of what is meant by 'Son of God.' Thus absolute Godhead, not Godhead in a secondary or derived sense, is intended in the title."

https://www.blueletterbible.org/.../Dict.../viewTopic.cfm...

8th QUESTION: Prior to the meticulousness of using properly the right definition of the word Son, does Son have a beginning or not?

A8: The very person of the Son of God has no beginning and no end. Being eternal is an attribute of God and the Son of God is God. John 1:1; Phil 2:5-8; John 5:18

9th QUESTION: Where in the Bible you can read the word Eternal Son?

A9: The question is based on the assumption that we can read ETERNAL SON in the Bible.
I don't believe it can be read word for word. the deity of the Son of God is enough for me to believe that he is eternal. John 1:1, Phil.2:5-8, John 5:18- The Son is God , therefore HE IS ETERNAL since He is GOD.

10th QUESTION: How do you understood (the word) Eternal Son?

A10: The Son is one of the persons in one God. And he has no beginning and no end -revelation 1,8:17

Just as the Father is eternal Father-psalms 90:2

11th QUESTION: How do you define person based on best proof of evidences such as dictionaries/encyclopedias not based on your understanding or biased theological references?

A11: A person is anyone who is self conscious and rational.

Definition 5 of this dictionary http://www.dictionary.com/browse/person

12th QUESTION: If you said that there is only ONE God not two and each person is god based on your doctrine, who among the 2 persons whom each is god is the One God?

A12: When I said there is only one God, Im not referring to only one person in God. I am referring to one being which is composed of three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They are the one God.

In Genesis 1:26 God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…”. It is clear that the creator is more than one. The word God in this verse is ELOHIM which is the plural form of EL (God). But God is not more than one. Since it says in Deuteronomy 6:4, “The LORD our God is one LORD”. The word GOD in this verse is, again, ELOHIM, the plural form of EL. Although Elohim is plural, it says it is only ONE. There is one God but there is plurality in this one God. The three persons in in one God is the one God.

13th QUESTION: Do you believe that God is eternal?

A13: YES

14th QUESTION: Are each person or two persons you claimed God is God or not? (I need a direct answer)
YES or NO!

A14: Yes
The Father is God-John 17:3
THE SON is God-1john5:20

The two of them are God

15th QUESTION: Do you believe that it was God who manifest in the flesh?

A15: Specifically it was the Son that was manifested in the flesh. He is God so in this sense I agree that it was God who manifested in the flesh! Read John 1:1,14,Phil 2:5-8

(end of affirmative side's cross examination)

---------------- o O o ------------------

John Jake Eumeda’s

15 QUESTIONS TO Carl C. Cortez

Q1: How did God manifest in the flesh?

ANSWER #1:

Paul was so clear in the context of his letter to Timothy recorded in 1 Tim. 3:16 how God manifest in the flesh. He didn't say, the Son manifest but GOD (Theos not Huion) manifest or was revealed in the flesh.

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..." and here's the proof HOW. GOD was revealed and was:

- justified in the Spirit

- seen of angels

- preached unto the Gentiles

- believed on in the world

- received up into glory.

Q2: when did God start to be manifest or revealed in the flesh?

Answer to QUESTION #2
No where in the scriptures the word "God manifest in the flesh" was mentioned except from the epistle of Paul to Timothy in 1 Timothy 3:16 the question of John Jake Eumenda again falls.

I don't know what John Jake Eumenda was asking the fact that Paul never mentioned that God started to manifest in the flesh in this verse but that God manifest in the flesh as was justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

(You said this in your presentation:

(iii) THE ONE GOD WHO IS INVISIBLE WILL REVEAL HIMSELF IN THE VISIBLE FORM

Then you used Micah 5:2

Q3: What is the connection of Micah 5:2 to the revealing by God of himself?

Answer to QUESTION #3

Micah 5:2 is a prophecy of the coming Messiah. It was so clear that it refers to Christ JESUS as majority of people in our times know. How is it connected to the revelation of God in the flesh was so obvious. God manifest in the flesh of which it was therefore known as Christ, the visible image of the invisible God. Col. 1:15

Q4: Can we correctly say that when Christ came or physically born, the manifestation of God in the flesh began?

Answer to QUESTION #4

Absolutely YES!

Q5: Why don't you want to answer my Q2 in which I asked you WHEN DID GOD START TO BE MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH? Even you knew it?

Answer to QUESTION #5

Question #2 was answered and you just don't like it. Your question #2 was not that so specific and wasn't clear as your question goes this way "when did God start to be manifest or revealed in the flesh?" compared to your question #5 that has already had its bearing and reference such as Micah 5:2.

(You said Micah 5:2 is about the coming Messiah. And that God who manifested in the flesh is known as Christ.)

Q6: is there a connection also between the revealing of God in the flesh and the becoming flesh mentioned in John 1:14?

Answer to QUESTION #6

From what I said "God manifest in the flesh of which it was therefore known as Christ, the visible image of the invisible God." has its specific references which are 1 Tim. 3:16 and Micah 5:2.

John 1:14 didn't say God was manifest in the flesh but the LOGOS (Word) became flesh. Both scriptures speak not the same thing. Manifest means revealed or seen/witnessed NOT become or became.

(You said manifesting in the flesh and becoming flesh speak not of the same thing.)

Q7: Are you saying that the flesh in John 1:14 is not the flesh in 1 Tim 3:16?

Answer to QUESTION # 7

John 1:14 tells us that the LOGOS/word (plan/concept/expressed thought of God) became flesh or it materialized. When? When due time came, the Son was sent, made of a woman, made under the law." Gal. 4:4.

1 Tim. 3:16 tells us that GOD was manifest in the flesh. Paul didn't say, the Son was manifest in the flesh or that God became flesh. God is a Spirit and cannot become flesh and will always remain a Spirit.

It was the plan/concept or the thought of God about salvation that materialized when due time came, after Mary gave birth to a child called the Son of God.

So, was the flesh materialized in John 1:14 which was the plan of God to salvation is the same flesh where God manifested himself? YES, the same flesh but John 1:14 and 1 Tim. 3:16 showed it differently by How and a What.

(Carl Cortez said the Word in John 1:14 was just a plan/concept/expressed thought of God. If the Word was just a plan/concept/expressed thought of God, it was not existing as a person with intellect, emotion or will. It was not a self-conscious, rational person.

John 1:1 (KJV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. )

Q8: According to John 1:1 the Word was what?

A. a plan/concept/expressed thought of God

B. GOD.

Answer to QUESTION #8
I am not buying the corrupt rendition of original manuscript of John 1:1 which John Jake Eumenda used as reference to his question but as to satisfy him of his question using the KJV in quoting John 1:1 and to complete the statement, of course it's B. the word was God in King James version.

Q9: Whom does the pronoun HIS refers to?

A. THE GOD WHO IS INVISIBLE

B. The coming ruler of Israel

Answer to QUESTION #9

To give clarity, answer to whom does the pronoun "his" refers to in v. 4 of Micah 5, let's examine first the context of the chapter.

v.2 already revealed the (WHERE) place to which God will be manifested in the flesh - Ephrata, Betlehem.

v. 3 already revealed the (WHY) purpose to which God will be manifested in the flesh - calling the remnants of Israel

v.4 already introduced the (WHO) person God will use to reveal his name - Christ, the ruler of Israel where the INVISIBLE GOD manifest in the flesh..

The pronoun "his" refers to CHRIST, the person (Heb. 1:3), the man (1 Tim. 2:5), the Son of God (Gal. 4:4) , the RULER OF ISRAEL (to call all the remnants of Israel), who is the VISIBLE IMAGE of the INVISIBLE GOD(Col. 1:15!

Since Christ is the one referred to by the pronoun HIS in the phrase HIS GOD, it is obvious that GOD and Christ are two.

Q10: Who was seen by people in the flesh?

A. Christ, the Son of God

B. The invisible God

Answer to QUESTION #10

God is Spirit (Jn. 4:24) and invisible (Col. 1:15)

Who was seen by people in the flesh of course is the visible image of the invisible God who was known Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God.

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

"Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Who (Christ Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:" Col. 1:13-15

"Who (Christ Jesus) being the brightness of his (God) glory, and the express image (Christ) of his (God) person..." Heb. 1:3

"...God (Spirit/Father) manifest in the flesh (Christ)..." 1 Tim. 3:16

(So Jesus Christ is seen while the Father is invisible.

Based on your explanation, Jesus manifest the Father in the flesh but Jesus Christ is not the Father.

You said also that Jesus is the Son of God. When Jesus said God was his Father (John 5:18) he was making himself equal with God. (Not in rank).

Q11: Do you agree with Jesus that he was equal with God?)

Answer to QUESTION #11

What Jesus the Christ said to the Jews was, that God was his Father. It wasn't Jesus that said he was equal with God but the Jews as Christ claiming he was with the Father. This is therefore blasphemy for them that observed the Torah and the Laws for they only knew One God not two or three. The Father alone is God (Mal. 2:10) and Jesus being the Christ or the man, the Son of God isn't God but born of a woman, made under the law. (Gal. 4:4). The Father (God) is not equal with the Son (Christ, according to the flesh/man).

"To whom then will you liken Me That I would be his equal?" says the Holy One."" Isa. 40:25

"Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is ONE Lord." (not 2 or 3 Lords) - Deut. 6:4

" Thou shalt have no other gods before me." - Exo. 20:3
"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." John 5:18

(John 5:18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

The Jews wanted to kill Jesus because he was calling God his OWN Father. And we cannot read in the verse that it was the Jews that said Jesus was making God his own Father.

You said it was the Jews that said Jesus was claiming equality with God. )

Q12: Where can we read in John 5 that it was the Jews that SAID Jesus was making himself equal with God?

Answer to QUESTION #12
Neither John 5:18 says that JESUS said he is equal to God but

further, it is quite clear that Jesus was being ACCUSED of making himself equal with God the Father by calling God his own Father.

The Greek word translated as "equal" simply means "the same as" and the Jews were very angry because being God's "own" son implied his origins were directly in God the Father himself and this would mean that Jesus had no earthly father but was claiming that God himself was his father. The Jews thought that the claim he was God's Son made him "the same as" their God in some sense.

By the context and knowing proper comprehension of (a) Jewish customs and tradition with their belief; (b) keen knowledge of the Torah or the OT scriptures, it was an obvious reason why they sought to kill Christ Jesus for claiming God his own father. It was in this statement the Jewish leaders ACCUSED and wanted to kill him for the fact that his claims was a blasphemy and a violation to the "Law of Moses". Never Jesus destroyed and violated the LAW, he fulfilled it. The Jewish leaders obviously didn't understand Jesus' statements resorting of accusing him of claiming to be equal or the same as God..

Here are other Bible versions of John 5:18

New Living Translation

So the Jewish leaders tried all the harder to find a way to kill him. For he not only broke the Sabbath, he called God his Father, thereby making himself equal with God.

English Standard Version

This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Berean Study Bible

Because of this, the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him. Not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

Berean Literal Bible

Therefore because of this, the Jews were seeking the more to kill Him, because not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but also He was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal to God.

New American Standard Bible

For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

King James Bible Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

(Jesus was a Jew and he knew that when he claims that God was his own Father, the Jew would understand it as equality with God. In spite of that he intentionally claimed that God was his own Father. )

Q13: why did Jesus wanted the Jews to think that He was making himself equal with God by saying that God was his own Father if he was not equal with God?

Answer to QUESTION #13

Why calling God your Father makes you equal with God?

It wasn't JESUS that made them think he is equal to God or the same as God. It was the Jewish leaders that think that way to ACCUSE Jesus in order to kill him. To say the "Father is my own God" doesn't make anyone think you are claiming to be God or equal to God. So obvious, the Jewish leaders were finding means to accused him as the scripture clearly emphasized "they (Jewish leaders) sought to kill him." They really lack the understanding and they don't know what they are doing.

Why calling God your Father makes you equal with God?

"Son of a carpenter" doesn't literally meant "You are a carpenter". Instead, it meant that you are the son of a carpenter, a job or work of your father. It was an affirmation of a role or job/work the father is doing. It was also in this context that calling God your Father will also makes you God? No! A son of a carpenter doesn't make a son a carpenter. A son of doctor doesn't make a son a doctor. A son of God doesn't make anyone God. So logically speaking, the Jewish leaders in this manner took their best moment of ACCUSING the Lord Jesus.

(Carl Cortez admitted that we cannot read that the Jews said that Jesus was making himself equal with God. He also said that neither we can read that it was Jesus who was making himself equal with God. )

Q14: Did you know that it was John the author of the book of John who obviously said that Jesus was making himself equal with God and he was right?

Answer to QUESTION #14

I know well who wrote the Book of John, the 4th canonical gospel book, it was John the Apostle, son of Zebedee and one of Jesus' Twelve Apostles. John wrote his observation based not on what trinitarian or pagan/cult thinks but prior to his knowledge of the scriptures, of Jewish customs and traditions especially their keen knowledge of the Torah. John wrote HOW the Jewish leaders sought to kill JESUS of blasphemy and violating the LAW. They were wrong of their accusations. They don't know what they are were doing.

JESUS never violated the TORAH or the LAW. He fulfilled the LAW and knew well his role as the SON of GOD not as GOD but a Son whose Father is God. If John wrote that Jesus claimed God his Father, and that he was accused of equating himself to be God or same as God, that doesn't mean John favored the Jewish leaders. He only wrote what he had observed as the writer of the book of John.

To prove that the Christ is not God, In your analogy, you are saying that if the father is a carpenter, the son is not necessarily a carpenter also but I am sure that you would not deny that the son must be of the same nature as that of his father.

Q15: In Hebrews 1:8, the Father called his Son GOD, while you, Carl, is saying that he is not God, should we believe you rather than God, the Father?

Answer to QUESTION #15

Heb. 1:8 "But to the Son He says, 'Your throne O God'

The Grammar of the Original Greek

Let us first look at the original Greek text as it was originally written:

'o qronoV sou 'o qeoV eiV ton aiwna tou aiwnoV

ho thronos sou ho theos eis ton aiona tou ainos

the throne of you the God to the age of the age

Heb. 1:8 didn't say "the Father called his Son GOD" but a pure invention and wild guess based on paganistic and cultic mindset about God.

Hebrews 1:8-9 is a quotation of the Septuagint translation of Psalm 45:6-7. The 45th Psalm is a love song for the Davidic king's marriage to a foreign princess from Tyre in Phoenicia. The following represents how an English translation would look by translating the verse as "Your throne O God." Remember, this is being said to the human Davidic King who is marrying the princess of Tyre.

The Determining Factors

- The Greek text literally reads, "the throne of you the god to the age of the age"

- The verse is a quotation of Psalm 45:6 where we read the Davidic king is marrying the princess of Tyre.

- 2 Samuel 7:14, quoted in verse 4, applies to both the Davidic King, Solomon, as well as Jesus.

- The Davidic King, Solomon, sat on the throne of YHVH.

- This chapter is about Jesus being the Christ sitting down on the throne of YHVH.

- The structure of the verse parallels "the throne of you the god" with "the sceptre of your kingship/reign"

- The chiastic structure of verses 8-9 also parallels "Your throne O God" with "God, your God anointed you... above your fellows," another reference to the man Jesus being the Christ becoming superior to the angels.

- The Trinitarian translation absurdly results in God having a God

- The context is explaining that Jesus is positionally superior to the angels because he has ascended to the throne of his God.

- The entire chapter is about Jesus as the Christ ascending to the right hand of the throne of God.

- To translate the verse as "Your throne the God" fits the context perfectly.

- The Trinitarian translation does not fit the context which is about a man becoming superior to the angels.

If we are truly honest with ourselves here the truth is quite plain. The man Christ Jesus became better than the angels. Hebrews 1:8 obviously means that this man's authority as the Christ, the Son of God mode is the thronal authority of sitting at the right hand of the throne of His God (Father) and he obtained that authority by virtue of his resurrection glory. His throne is God's throne after conquering the last enemy which is death that will take place after the role as a Son or the Sonship will be surrendered. As he himself says, "I myself conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne"

(end of negative side's cross examination)

---------------- o O o ------------------

CARL C. CORTEZ

REBUTTAL PRESENTATION

A. CORN WITHOUT KERNEL ARGUMENT (373 word argument)

In John Jake Eumeda’s presentation, he only used 373 words and that he wasn’t even been able to meet most formal debate standard’s minimum number of words, enough to present a clear convincing academic and logical showcase of his constructive argument but leaving a blurred representation of his case. He himself challenged me of having a formal debate yet in his presentation he doesn’t have introduction, a clear body and concrete conclusion, evidently very informal or unstudied “off-the-cuff”. So in this case, his credibility has been doubted. He as well even failed to take his argument from the scriptures of the Bible supposedly be the basis of his best proof of evidences to establish his claims such as:

- a) The Sender is a person and the one being Sent is also a person.

- b) Eternal Son

- c) God are two different persons.

- d) 3 persons in one God.

- e) Two of them are God.

These are the core words of which John Jake Eumeda presumed to be basis of his best strong arguments but wasn’t backed up by the scriptures nor by any credible extra biblical references.

a) The Sender is God who is Spirit not a person. John 4:24

b) Eternal means no beginning and has no ending yet the Son has a beginning (been born in a manger), has a mother, died and has an ending. Gal. 4:4, 1 Cor. 15:28 This unbiblical term “Eternal Son” is really contradicting so obvious a man-made invention and not from God who is not the author of any confusions.

c) No one among all the Bible writers mentioned God has two persons, and then three persons and the two of them are God lacks the other god, the third one.

B. MANIFESTATION OF “SELF INTERPRETATION”

The manifestation of “self interpretation” rather than relying solely in the truth of the scriptures and to grasp right understanding in definition of terms properly is so obvious. It was seen in John Jake Eumeda ‘s answers to my cross examinations.

1) He admitted that nobody directly said that the person of the Father is not the same person He sent tantamount to saying that nobody really in the Bible has mentioned that the Father who is Eternal is a person for the Father who alone is God is Spirit NOT a person. I am not asking him if the Father is the Son for never I believe it either.

2) When I asked him of his definition of the word Eternal, he mentioned that it is without beginning and end yet he mentioned that the son who had a beginning is eternal that never the Bible mentioned nor had taught. The Father is eternal who alone is God I agree. Rev. 1:8,17, Jn. 1:1 never said that the Son is Eternal but his own invention, so saying both the Father and the Son is Eternal is totally wrong for the son has a beginning and ending unlike the Father who alone is God.

3) John Jake Eumeda insisted his invention clearly from his mouth saying

(i) “Biblically supported, As I said their being as two distinct persons is self evident.”

(ii) “I do not claim that somebody said in John 3:16 that they are two persons”.

So it was clearly his interpretations and to justify his invention that never the Bible mentioned or had been teaching, he insisted it is “self-evident” which is purely based on his manmade doctrine. John 8:17-18 never even had mentioned it.

4) When John Jake Eumeda was asked to define the word Son, he failed to provide 2 or 3 references as to establish his answer except citing an article of a magazine authored by a Trinitarian (truthmagazine.com) not from reliable dictionaries which has the authority of providing the right definition of terms. Quoting John 5:18 that doesn’t defined the word Son. Much more it never proved what John Jake Eumeda has said that “when Christ claimed that God was his father, it means he is claiming equality with God” but purely his invention that again contradicts the scriptures. God has no equal. “ Isa. 40:12; Psa. 40:5.

5) John Jake Eumeda tried not to use credible and reliable dictionaries as to the define the word “son” but mitigating dictionaries that it only endowed with the literal he said, and saying it can’t be used to compare ordinary people’s son. So what’s the spiritual, what is the special meaning whom he was referring to define properly the word “Son”, he failed to provide. Vines Expository Dictionary of NT didn’t even supported him of what he was saying as using it the phrase of “son of God”.

6) The very person of the Son of God has no beginning and no end yet John 1:1, Phil. 2:5-8 and John 5:18 never mentioned “the very person of the son of God has no beginning and no end” but John Jake Eumeda’s invention contradicting again the scriptures and the proper meaning of the word “son”, “begotten”, “born of a woman”, “made under the law”, “born in the manger”, “it died” “it shall be surrendered”.

7) John 1:1, Phil.2:5-8, John 5:18, NEVER mentioned that the Son is God, much it mentioned that the Son is Eternal. This is purely John Jake Eumeda’s obvious corruption to the scriptures insisting his own interpretation based on man-made doctrine.

8) Rev. 1:8,17 NEVER mentioned “the Son is one of the persons in one God but again John Jake Eumeda’s invention, an obvious corruption what has already been written.

9) John Jake Eumeda was not able to show any scripture where he can read “eternal son”, thus failed to defined it providing at least 3 reliable and credible references.

10) He provided a reference when asked about the meaning of a “person” and here it is what it provides.

Person - noun
1. a human being, whether an adult or child:
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. an individual human being who likes or prefers something specified

He was so selective and chose to say “A person is anyone who is self conscious and rational.” which was not the primary definition of the word person from his reference itself.

11) John Jake Eumeda believed that God is One and is Eternal, and he wasn’t able to deny the fact it was the Father. From all the scriptures he quoted, never it mentioned and supported his man-made doctrine 3 persons of which the 3 are separate persons whom each is god.

Gen. 1:26 never mentioned his invented doctrine 3 persons. The “us” offered 4 different theories yet John jake Eumeda again hallucinated of insisting his own interpretation never the verse mentioned. He used the word Elohim as to justify his man-made invention never the Bible mentioned without considering Moses was also called “Elohim” yet Moses isn’t 3 persons.

12) He said in his last answer that “the two of them are God” but the scriptures he quoted again never mentioned and supported his fallacious claims.

So evident, from this point of time John Jake Eumeda failed to support his argument that only showed:

a. being unstudied lacking the substance and the best proof of the scriptures including all reliable and credible references.

b. insinuating self interpretation, he did an obvious manifestation of man-made invented doctrines that steal the merit of the truth that should only be to the written Word of God. Prov. 30:6; John 8:44

The argument John Jake Eumeda never gave a hint of refuting the TRUTH that the Eternal God who is the Father is the one that manifest in the flesh known as Jesus Christ.

(end of affirmative side's rebuttal)

---------------- o O o ------------------

JOHH JAKE EUMEDA

REBUTTAL PRESENTATION

JOHN JAKE EUMEDA’S REBUTTAL PRESENTATION

1.) When Carl posted his first presentation, he agreed with the rule of this debate. We have no other standard but the rules of this debate.

2.) Carl's first presentation is too long. Too much words in his presentation may mean his stand is not directly supported by the scripture that he has to use too many words and exert too much effort to force the bible to support his stand. But the length of his presentation is not my basis why he is wrong. It is Carl’s fallacy to think that number of words determine the truthfulness of one’s stand. My first presentation, on the other hand, is short and precise. This is because I don’t have to exert too much effort to prove my stand because it is so evident in the Bible.

3.) It is so ridiculous to argue that when your presentation is short and has no format like his, you don’t have credibility. I think it is Carl’s credibility that is doubtful because he is focused on format of my presentation rather than the content. Is he saying, “I am right and you are wrong because the format of my presentation is introduction, body and conclusion and yours is not”? That’s ridiculous and so fallacious.

4.) Carl Cortez tried to prove in his first presentation that God is one. And we both believe that. But what Carl does not want to accept is the plurality of persons in one God. I will post again the Biblical proof that there are more than one persons in one God:

In John 3:16 it is very precise and clear that the SENDER (referring to THE ETERNAL FATHER ) is not as the same person to the one being Sent ( referring to THE ETERNAL SON ).

That means the Father and the Son are two different persons. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. But they are not two Gods. There is only one God-John 10:30,

5.) So Carl was not telling the truth that I don’t have scriptural proof. Now he is saying that Genesis 1:26 does not say they are three persons. Is he saying that the “us” are trees, stones, or wood? They can create and yet Carl is telling us they are not self-conscious and rational? Because a definition of the word person is someone who is self-conscious and rational. He accuses me of being selective of the definitions given by a dictionaries and yet he is the one who rejects the definition that a person is someone who self-conscious and rational. He is so inconsistent and has a double standard. He is unreliable.

6.) The verse that says “there is no other god beside me”, which Carl also used, does not harm my stand since I don't believe that Christ, the Son of God, is another god. The Son of God is one of the persons in one God. I already proven this in paragraph 4.

7.) In John 1:1, two of the persons in one God was mentioned. (I am not saying that there are two persons in one God) The verse says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” and in verse 14 it says that, the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…

8.) Carl admitted that the FLESH in this verse and the FLESH in 1 Timothy 3:16 are the same. And when I asked him on whether there is a connection between the revealing in the flesh and the becoming flesh, Carl refused to give direct answer. He would rather violate the rules than answer the question accordingly. The connection that Carl does not want to admit is that God manifested in the flesh by becoming flesh. It is clear that it is not God, the Father, that became manifested in the flesh by becoming flesh but it was the WORD that was manifested in the flesh by becoming flesh.

Me: Q8: According to John 1:1 the Word was what?

A. a plan/concept/expressed thought of God

B. GOD.

Carl: it's B. the word was God

Although he said that the WORD was just a plan/concept/expressed thought of God, but when I gave him the two choices he was forced to admit that the WORD is not a plan/concept/expressed thought of God but GOD who has intellect, emotion and will.

John 1:1 shows that the Word was already with God, the Father, but distinct from Him. And the Word was God -- not plan.

10.) Although he answered that the WORD was GOD, he said this about John 1:1:

“I am not buying the corrupt rendition of original manuscript of John 1:1”.

But he did not give proof that the rendition is corrupt. Almost all Bible scholars who translated the Greek NT translated the original Greek of John 1:1 as THE WORD WAS GOD. It seems that when a Bible verse disagrees with Carl, he would question the correctness of its translation.

11.) John 1:1 proves that the God who was manifested in the flesh is not the Father but the WORD who is God. The Word did this by becoming flesh. So when Carl said God cannot become flesh, he was wrong and was refuted by John 1:1, 14.

12.) Carl argued that, “ the word manifest that is far and cannot be defined as “become” or “became” but rather revealed and obvious or being seen.”

Maybe Carl was expecting that I believe “became” and “revealed” are synonymous. If he was, he was wrong. They are not the same but they are connected as I explained above. The Word -- not God, the Father -- manifested in the flesh by becoming flesh.

13.) And notice his definition of the word MANIFEST. He said MANIFEST is revealed and obvious or being seen.

In the light of that definition let us read a question I asked and his answer:

______________
Since Christ is the one referred to by the pronoun HIS in the phrase HIS GOD, it is obvious that GOD and Christ are two.

Q10:
Who was seen by people in the flesh?

A. Christ, the Son of God

B. The invisible God

Carl Cortez Answer to QUESTION #10:

God is Spirit (Jn. 4:24) and invisible (Col. 1:15)

Who was seen by people in the flesh of course is the visible image of the invisible God who was known Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God.

____________________
I think Carl’s answer made the debate over. In his Answer 10, Carl admitted that It is not the invisible God, the Father, that was seen (manifested) but Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the living God. He just sided with my stand.

And this Son of God has no beginning and has no end. Even before he was manifested in the flesh he was already God up to the present.

18. ) Carl’s principle is that when it is not written in the Bible is not true and just an invention. This argument is so fallacious.

If We will use this argument of Carl to himself, he must admit also that he has no scriptural proof since his claims cannot be read in the Bible. Let’s give Carl a dose of his own medicine.

Carl's claims:

A. The sender is not a person.

B. The Son of God is not eternal

C. The Father and the Son are not two different persons. (God is not telling the truth when he said I claim “God are two different persons.”.)

D. There is no three persons in one God. (Again, the belief that “two of them are God” is invented by Carl and make it my belief. His is a strawman fallacy.)

Where are these claims of Carl written in the Bible? NONE. Since Carl believes that when it is not written in the Bible it is not true, he must admit that these claims of his are not true. Taste a dose of your own medicine, Carl.

(end of negative side's rebuttal)

---------------- o O o ------------------

OBSERVATIONS BASED ON PRESENTATIONS

FALSE CLAIMS and ALLEGATIONS of JOHN JAKE EUMEDA

Exhibit #1

John Jake Eumeda's CLAIMS were not my CLAIMS but his and was being REFUTED!

In refute to his constructive argument I stressed out clearly his flaws I SAID:

"In John Jake Eumeda’s presentation, he only used 373 words and that he wasn’t even been able to meet most formal debate standard’s minimum number of words, enough to present a clear convincing academic and logical showcase of his constructive argument but leaving a blurred representation of his case. He himself challenged me of having a formal debate yet in his presentation he doesn’t have introduction, a clear body and concrete conclusion, evidently very informal or unstudied “off-the-cuff”. So in this case, his credibility has been doubted. He as well even failed to take his argument from the scriptures of the Bible supposedly be the basis of his best proof of evidences to establish his claims such as:

a) The Sender is a person and the one being Sent is also a person.

b) Eternal Son

c) God are two different persons.

d) 3 persons in one God.

e) Two of them are God.

These are the core words of which John Jake Eumeda presumed to be basis of his best strong arguments but wasn’t backed up by the scriptures nor by any credible extra biblical references.

a) The Sender is God who is Spirit not a person. John 4:24

c) No one among all the Bible writers mentioned God has two persons, and then three persons and the two of them are God lacks the other god, the third one."

HERE'S THE FALSE ALLEGATIONS of John Jake Eumeda. LOOK HOW HE LABELED ME "CULT" PART OF HIS REBUTTAL :

"PART 4 : exposing The CULT oneness!

Exposing the inconsistency of Dr Carl Cortes of oneness group , a man with 3 doctorates turn to be a losser!

Rebuttal against Dr Carl Cortes cultist BELIEF:

18. ) Carl’s principle is that when it is not written in the Bible is not true and just an invention. This argument is so fallacious.

If We will use this argument of Carl to himself, he must admit also that he has no scriptural proof since his claims cannot be read in the Bible. Let’s give Carl a dose of his own medicine.

Carls claims:

A. The sender is not a person.
B. The Son of God is not eternal
C. The Father and the Son are not two different persons. (CARL is not telling the truth not God when he said I claim “God are two different persons.”.)
D. There is no three persons in one God. (Again, the belief that “two of them are God” is invented by Carl and make it my belief. His is a strawman fallacy.)

Where are these claims of Carl written in the Bible? NONE. Since Carl believes that when it is not written in the Bible it is not true, he must admit that these claims of his are not true. Taste a dose of your own medicine, Carl."

JOHN JAKE EUMEDA'S FALSE ALLEGATIONS WERE CLEARLY BASELESS, INAPPROPRIATE AND MALICIOUS.

Exhibit #2

John Jake Eumeda HIMSELF IS THE INCONSISTENT ONE.
In John Jake Eumeda's rebuttal he accused me of these words,

"Rebuttal against Dr Carl Cortes cultist BELIEF:

18. ) Carl’s principle is that when it is not written in the Bible is not true and just an invention. This argument is so fallacious.

If We will use this argument of Carl to himself, he must admit also that he has no scriptural proof since his claims cannot be read in the Bible. Let’s give Carl a dose of his own medicine."

Instead of responding properly and to provide the proofs I was requiring him to establish his constructive arguments and claims, he wasn't able do it instead resorted to false allegations and accusations leaving a word of insult.

These statements I said is enough to prove John Jake Eumeda's allegations is false and look the counterpart reliable definitions and scriptures I presented in establishing my points.

1. What does Eternal or Everlasting means?

- Collins English Dictionary

PoS: Adjective

2. a) The Sender is God who is Spirit not a person. John 4:24 (God is Spirit)

b) Eternal means no beginning and has no ending yet the Son has a beginning (been born in a manger), has a mother, died and has an ending. Gal. 4:4 (The Son was made and has a beginning) , 1 Cor. 15:28 (the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him (God)),

This unbiblical term “Eternal Son” is really contradicting so obvious a man-made invention and not from God who is not the author of any confusions.

c) No one among all the Bible writers mentioned God has two persons, and then three persons and the two of them are God lacks the other god, the third one."

SO THESE STATEMENTS OF JOHN JAKE EUMEDA THAT SAYS,

"If We will use this argument of Carl to himself, he must admit also that he has no scriptural proof since his claims cannot be read in the Bible. Let’s give Carl a dose of his own medicine."

IS AGAIN, BASELESS AND PURELY A FALSE ACCUSATIONS!

Exhibit #3

In my cross examination, John Jake Eumeda admitted that
Exhibit #4

Exhibit #5

Exhibit #6

Exhibit #7

Exhibit #8

Exhibit #9

Exhibit #10

Carl C. Cortez

INTERPOLATION TO JOHN JAKE EUMEDA’S REBUTTAL

1st QUESTION:

Aren't you aware that we are having a formal debate and that formal debate's constructive argument has its proper structure that consists the introduction, definition of terms, the body and its conclusion and that you should include everything you need to present to showcase your best presentation?

A1: I am aware that we are in a forma l debate. And for a debate to be formal, there should be rules, format of the debate, and moderators. And we have no rule that a formal debates constructive presentation must have certain structure. As long as I don't violate the rules of this debate, and as long as I present my arguments and evidences, my presentation is proper. If I feel I need to define something to prove my point, I will do it. And what I did in my first presentation is proper. I don't believe with what my opponent thought as proper structure of presentation. I presented why I dont believe that the Father is the one manifested in the flesh. It is my opponent's task to refute my arguments and don't make a big issue on outward form of presentation. If there is something I did not explain further or define, he can ask questions.

2nd QUESTION:

Have you read my constructive argument John Jake Eumenda specially the 31 scriptures presented and the proper definition of words I included with sufficient credible sources that proved, I am not using my own or private interpretations?

A2: Yes I read it. But using sources and bible verses does not automatically prove that you are right. Your sources and the verses you used must be examine first before you can say that they are valid evidences.

3rd QUESTION:

Assuming that you read my constructive argument John Jake Eumenda, why is it that you never refuted it and showed me specific subject I presented obscure and erroneous where infact it has been arranged accordingly for a clearer understanding such as the structure of the flow below?

INTRODUCTION

A. TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF THE “WHAT”

(i) DEFINITION OF TERMS

(ii)BIBLICAL REFERENCE

THE WORD ETERNAL OR EVERLASTING IS ATTRIBUTED TO NO OTHER THAN GOD HIMSELF

B. UNDERSTANDING THE “HOW”

(i) HOW GOD REVEALED HIS NAME?

GOD PLANNED TO MANIFEST HIMSELF TO HIS PEOPLE TO REVEAL HIS NAME THAT SAVES

(ii) GOD NEEDS TO MANIFEST HIMSELF TO MAN IN VISIBLE FORM TO REVEAL HIS NAME

(iii) THE ONE GOD WHO IS INVISIBLE REVEALED HIMSELF IN THE VISIBLE FORM

C. UNDERSTANDING THE “WHO”

(i) THE NAME OF JESUS IS UNKNOWN in the OLD TESTAMENT

(ii) JESUS IS TO BE CALLED THE EVERLASTING FATHER

ONE ETERNAL GOD DEMONSTRATED HIS ROLE AS A FATHER TO HIS CREATION

(iii) THE NAME JESUS IS THE REVEALED NAME WHICH WAS KEPT SECRET IN THE OT. IT WAS HIDDEN BY AN ANGEL.

(iv) THE MEANING OF THE NAME JESUS

CONCLUSION

Remember John Jake Eumenda, you labeled my 2,494 words presentation

- “as too long”,

- “is not directly supported by the scriptures” and

- "forcing the Bible to support my stand”

BUT you never cited any specific subject from my presentation you alleged fallacious and is not directly supported by the scriptures. You failed to provide proofs of your accusations to establish your assumptions and accusations, so pls. answer my question stated above.

A3: It is not true that I did not refute your arguments.

Carl:

A. TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF THE “WHAT”
(i) DEFINITION OF TERMS
(ii) BIBLICAL REFERENCE

THE WORD ETERNAL OR EVERLASTING IS ATTRIBUTED TO NO OTHER THAN GOD HIMSELF
__________
Me:
I said that we both believe this. And Jesus is not other God. And I have proven that Christ is eternal by his being God. Maybe you just ignore this in my rebuttal.

Carl:
B. UNDERSTANDING THE “HOW”
(i) HOW GOD REVEALED HIS NAME?

GOD PLANNED TO MANIFEST HIMSELF TO HIS PEOPLE TO REVEAL HIS NAME THAT SAVES

(ii) GOD NEEDS TO MANIFEST HIMSELF TO MAN IN VISIBLE FORM TO REVEAL HIS NAME

(iii) THE ONE GOD WHO IS INVISIBLE REVEALED HIMSELF IN THE VISIBLE FORM

C. UNDERSTANDING THE “WHO”
(i) THE NAME OF JESUS IS UNKNOWN in the OLD TESTAMENT

ONE ETERNAL GOD DEMONSTRATED HIS ROLE AS A FATHER TO HIS CREATION

Me:
There s nothing refute here since these points does not prove that it was the Father that was seen (manifested) by people.

Carl:
(ii) JESUS IS TO BE CALLED THE EVERLASTING FATHER

Me:
In my rebuttal, you already agreed that Jesus is not the Father when you answered Q10.

Carl:
(iii) THE NAME JESUS IS THE REVEALED NAME WHICH WAS KEPT SECRET IN THE OT. IT WAS HIDDEN BY AN ANGEL.

(iv) THE MEANING OF THE NAME JESUS

CONCLUSION

Me:
This does not harm my stand, why should I refute this?
________________
Carl:
Remember John Jake Eumenda, you labeled my 2,494 words presentation

- “as too long”,
- “is not directly supported by the scriptures” and
- "forcing the Bible to support my stand”

BUT you never cited any specific subject from my presentation you alleged fallacious and is not directly supported by the scriptures. You failed to provide proofs of your accusations to establish your assumptions and accusations, so pls. answer my question stated above.

Me:
Moderator, Carl cannot discipline himself from making rebuttals.

This accusation is not true. My questions are based on what he said in his first stand and my rebuttal is based on his answers.

4th QUESTION:

My 2,494 words presentation you labeled John Jake Eumenda

-“as too long”,
- “is not directly supported by the scriptures” and
- "forcing the Bible to support my stand”.

so John Jake Eumenda, can you site part of my presentation you alleged fallacious and is not directly supported by the scriptures?

Pls. provide proofs of your accusations to establish your assumptions and accusations.

A4: Carl's first presentation is too long. Too much words in his presentation may mean his stand is not directly supported by the scripture that he has to use too many words and exert too much effort to force the bible to support his stand. "

a) I said it is too long compared to my presentation which is just 300 plus words.

b.) It is not directly proven by the Bible I discuss it in paragraph 18 of my rebuttal. Here again are

Carl's claims based on his first presentation, answers to questions and few from his rebuttal.

Carl claims that:

- The sender is not a person.

- The Son of God is not eternal

- The Father and the Son are not two different persons.

- There are no three persons in one God.

I proved that these claims are not directly supported by the Bible by saying:

Where are these claims of Carl written in the Bible? NONE.

The Bible does not say that the sendeer is NOT a person.

The Bible does not say that the Son of God is not eternal.

The Bible does not say the Father and the Son are NOT two different persons.

The Bible does not say that there are no three persons in one God.

In that sense his claims are not directly supported by the Bible

See paragraph 18.

_____________________________

"9.) To recover from being refuted, he argues that the WORD here is just a plan that materialized by becoming flesh and not someone who is self-conscious and rational."

I said he is refuted because because -- while Carl claim that it is the Father that was manifested in the flesh -- John 1:14 says that it was the WORD that became flesh. Although the word BECAME is not the same with the word MANIFEST, they are inseparable since the WORD which is God and which is also Christ will not manifest unless he became flesh first. This argument proves that it was not the Father that manifest in the flesh but the WORD. I believe he is refuted by this argument.

___________________________________
I said in my rebuttal: "I think Carl’s answer made the debate over. In his Answer 10, Carl admitted that It is not the invisible God, the Father, that was seen (manifested) but Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the living God. He just sided with my stand."

This is discussed in paragraph 13 of my rebuttal

_________________________
I said also in my rebuttal that: "Carl’s principle is that when it is not written in the Bible is not true and just an invention. This argument is so fallacious.

I said this because he said this in his rebuttal:

He as well even failed to take his argument from the scriptures of the Bible supposedly be the basis of his best proof of evidences to establish his claims such as:

- a) The Sender is a person and the one being Sent is also a person.

- b) Eternal Son

- c) God are two different persons.

- d) 3 persons in one God.

- d) Two of them are God.

Carl was insinuating that since I don't read the above claims in the Bible, I failed to take my argument from the Scripture.

So I said, that priciple is a fallacy because, even if you dont read that God, the sender is a person, for example, it does not mean he is not a person. He is a person since one of the definition of a person is someone who is self-conscious and rational. And God is self-conscious and rational. Therfore he is a person. Fo Carl it is not true because you cannot read in the Bible the God is a person. That is again fallacious.
___________________________________
And about forcing the bible to support his stand; This is true. Fore example he uses the following verses to prove that only God, the Father is eternal, implying that the Son of God is not eternal:

THE WORD ETERNAL OR EVERLASTING IS ATTRIBUTED TO NO OTHER THAN GOD HIMSELF

Nehemiah 9:5

Then the Levites, Jeshua, Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabneiah, Sherebiah, Hodiah, Shebaniah and Pethahiah, said, "Arise, bless the LORD your God forever and ever! O may Your glorious name be blessed And exalted above all blessing and praise!

Deuteronomy 32:40

'Indeed, I lift up My hand to heaven, And say, as I live forever,

Deuteronomy 33:27

"The eternal God is a dwelling place, And underneath are the everlasting arms; And He drove out the enemy from before you, And said, 'Destroy!'

Job 36:26

"Behold, God is exalted, and we do not know Him; The number of His years is unsearchable.

Psalm 48:14

For such is God, Our God forever and ever; He will guide us until death.

Psalm 102:12

But You, O LORD, abide forever, And Your name to all generations.

Isaiah 40:28

Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth Does not become weary or tired His understanding is inscrutable.

Habakkuk 1:12

Are You not from everlasting, O LORD, my God, my Holy One? We will not die You, O LORD, have appointed them to judge; And You, O Rock, have established them to correct.

These verses does not say that Christ is not eternal. IN that sense, Carl was forcing these verses to mean what it does not mean. They don't say Jesus Christ was not eternal. The idea is forced into them by Carl.

5th QUESTION:

John Jake Eumenda, from your quote part of my presentation with the sub heading

"THE WORD ETERNAL OR EVERLASTING IS ATTRIBUTED TO NO OTHER THAN GOD HIMSELF" ,

followed by the scriptures as proof stated below:

Nehemiah 9:5
Then the Levites, Jeshua, Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabneiah, Sherebiah, Hodiah, Shebaniah and Pethahiah, said, "Arise, bless the LORD your God forever and ever! O may Your glorious name be blessed And exalted above all blessing and praise!

Deuteronomy 32:40
'Indeed, I lift up My hand to heaven, And say, as I live forever,

Deuteronomy 33:27
"The eternal God is a dwelling place, And underneath are the everlasting arms; And He drove out the enemy from before you, And said, 'Destroy!'

Job 36:26
"Behold, God is exalted, and we do not know Him; The number of His years is unsearchable.

Psalm 48:14
For such is God, Our God forever and ever; He will guide us until death.

Psalm 102:12
But You, O LORD, abide forever, And Your name to all generations.

Isaiah 40:28
Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth Does not become weary or tired His understanding is inscrutable.

Habakkuk 1:12
Are You not from everlasting, O LORD, my God, my Holy One? We will not die You, O LORD, have appointed them to judge; And You, O Rock, have established them to correct.

DID I MENTIONED CHRIST or DO ALL THE SCRIPTURES PRESENTED ABOVE MENTIONED CHRIST or it DOES NOT?

A5: they don't mention Christ.

6th QUESTION:

John Jake Eumenda, I quoted Prov. 30:6 with regards to knowing proper handling of the scriptures - the word of God emphasized by King Solomon “Do NOT ADD to his (God) WORDS, or he will REBUKE you and PROVE you a LIAR.”

Is ADDING WORDS not found in the scriptures or not spoken by God nor His people a LIE or NOT according to King Solomon?

A6: Adding words prohibited in the scripture. And it is adding words if you say that something is said or found in the Bible when it is not. And i never said, something is in the Bible when it is not found or said in the Bible.

A6: NO. Adding words is in the scripture.
Adding words to the scripture is prohibited in the scripture.

And it is adding words if you say that something is said or found in the Bible when it is not.

And i never said, something is in the Bible when it is not found or said in the Bible.

7th QUESTION:

John Jake Eumenda, If you can’t read the word “person or persons” in Gen. 1:26 as referring to the word “us” which may or can refer also to (a) angels, or it can be (b) a prophetic utterance pointing the coming of the perfect image of God as the prototype of man and the person of God, who then among all the Bible writers especially the writer of Torah mentioned or wrote the word person or persons referring to God?

A7: This question is based on the assumption that someone said the word person is written in the Bible referring to God. Who said that? Not me.

The US in Gen 1:26, have the ability create. Angels cannot create and a prophetic utterance cannot be one of the US since it is not self-conscious rational one. Only God can create. Therefore the US is God and are self-conscious and rational. You don't have to read PERSON in the Bible to believe that someone who is self-conscious and rational is a person.. The US are self-conscious and rational. Therefore they are PERSONS. And the Word Person is not limited to human beings. God and angels are persons too. We don't read in the Bible that the perfect image of God, Son of God, is a person and yet you believe he is a person.

(Note: There was no Question #8 but the moderator was unaware of it or he might intentionally had ignored it.)

9th QUESTION:

John Jake Eumenda, you said that "Adding words prohibited in the scripture. And it is adding words if you say that something is said or found in the Bible when it is not. And i never said, something is in the Bible when it is not found or said in the Bible."

You never clarified to me WHAT are those words you said prohibited in the scriptures, WHO are in the authority that will weight what's prohibited or not, and you have not provided me HOW will you justify your statements saying "And it is add words if you say that something is said or found in the Bible when it is not."

HERE is my question.

Do you really understand what you mean or what you have said the fact that the Bible never mentioned or it says God is a person, 3 persons or even angels are persons as to confirm as well of what you have just said that prohibition of ADDING words to the Bible is when ".. it is add words if you say that something is said or found in the Bible when it is not - (your own interpretations)."?

A9: Yes. I understand my words.

And I never said that we can read in the Bible that God is a person or three persons. So I am not adding to the Bible,

But The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are persons, since a person is defined as someone who is self-conscious and rational. The word is not limited to human being. Again, Carl also said that the Son of God, is a person even though he cannot read it in the Bible. But he will not admit that he is adding words to the Bible.

10th QUESTION:

You never clarified to me again John Jake Eumenda WHAT are those words you said prohibited in the scriptures, WHO are in the authority that will weight what's prohibited or not, and you have not provided me HOW will you justify your statements saying "And it is add words if you say that something is said or found in the Bible when it is not."

Here is my question:

WHO said that the Father, Son and Holy ghost are persons in the Bible John Jake Eumenda, YOU or the (40) writers of the Bible?

(Remember, the reference you provided to me when you were asked of the definition of "person" never mentioned what you said)

A10: The personal pronouns such as I, you, and he are used in the Bible to refer to the Father. They are also used to refer to the Son. They are also used to refer to the Holy Spirit. What is personal pronoun?

Personal pronoun (ex. I, you, he etc.) expresses a distinction of person.

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/defi.../personal%20pronoun

Since personal pronouns are used in the Bible to refer to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each one of them is a person.

Aside from that, and I repeat, one of the definitions of the word person is someone who is self conscious and rational. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are self conscious and rational. Therefore they are persons.

In Hebrews 1:3, it says that Jesus is the express image of his person referring to God, the Father. So the Father is a person.

Secular dictionaries does do not say that the 3 in 1 God are three persons. But each one of them is a person because each one of them are qualified to the definition of the word PERSON.

Personal pronoun - Definition for English-Language Learners from Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

Definition of personal pronoun written for English Language Learners from the Merriam-Webster Learner's Dictionary with audio pronunciations, usage examples, and count/noncount noun labels. (LEARNERSDICTIONARY.COM)

11th QUESTION:

John Jake Eumenda, Can you show me a scripture of any Bible translations that says or we can read in John 1:1 that there were two persons written or was mentioned or it was your personal interpretation you call yourself so clear? Hope you can answer now my question sufficiently.

A11: I cannot find any Bible version that directly says that there are two persons in John 1:1, just as you cannot find any Bible verse that the Son of God is a person. But you assume that he is a person based on a definition of the word person. Only Hebrews 1:3 clearly shows that God, the Father, is a person.

12th QUESTION:

You asked me of a question that only you understood it about the connection rambling and mixing Micah 5:2 to manifestation in the flesh in 1 Tim. 3:16 and becoming flesh in John 1:14 which were

three (3) different subjects and context or different thoughts and idea presented .

I already laid my answer yet you’re insisting of placing your words in my mouth and hammered rule #7 just to nullify my answer for you can’t accept it.

Now, tell me, what was your motive behind of insisting me what you think and then saying “It is clear that it is not God, the Father, that became manifested in the flesh by becoming flesh but it was the WORD that was manifested in the flesh by becoming flesh” which never (the 3 writers) Micah, John and Paul collaborate ideas met and conniving them with what you John Jake Eumenda thinks?

A12: My motive is to negate what the debate topic says. It was not the Father that was seen/manifested in the flesh.

It was Carl who first relate Micah 5:2 to 1 Timothy 3:16 when he used the word manifest or revealed. See the screenshot. He said in his answer to my Q10 that it was the Son, Jesus Christ who was seen in the flesh. There were two choices and he did not choose God, the Father. So it was the Son that was manifested in the flesh and not the Father based on his A10.

I asked Carl if the flesh in John 1:4 and the flesh in 1 Tim 3:16 are the same. He said yes, they are. So that is a connection. And there will be no manifestation in the flesh if there is no becoming in the flesh.

He said it was the Son that was seen and in John 1:14, it was the Word that became flesh. Therefore it was not the Father that was seen in the flesh. These are based on Carl's Answers to my questions. I don't put words in his mouth.

13th QUESTION: (Referring from my answer to John Jake Eumenda Cross Exams #8 and his Rebuttal statement)

John Jake Eumenda, I know well that the first English Bible translations were the works of William Tyndale from Hebrew and Greek manuscript in the 14th century AD and KJV1611 translating the Septuagint or Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible to English and Douay Bible from the Latin Vulgata (latin) to English, which only few afforded to read it being made available in the 16th century AD.

(If you have taken a GREEK subject even for a one semester you will know this.)

English grammar aren't the same with Greek grammar and Latin grammar, but WHY is it that you John Jake Eumenda destroyed and modified my statement as answer to your question regarding John 1:1 in English version or the KJV of which I emphasized it saying “as to satisfy you with" ?

Proof of my answer you modified and maligned John Jake Eumenda.

"Answer to QUESTION #8

I am not buying the corrupt rendition of original manuscript of John 1:1 which John Jake Eumenda used as reference to his question but as to satisfy him of his question using the KJV in quoting John 1:1 and to complete the statement, of course it's B. the word was God in King James version."

HERE in your REBUTTAL quoting your Cross Exam, you changed my answer replacing it with yours, saying:

"Carl: it's B. the word was God"

YOU REMOVED what I said

"as to satisfy him of his question using the KJV... and to complete the statement, of course it's B, the word was God in King James Version."

AGAIN, my question is about why you REMOVED and MALIGNED my answer and replaced it with yours John Jake Eumenda?

A13: You can see in Carl's screenshot that I gave him two choices. He will just choose between the two.

The answer is just A or B.

I am not asking more than that. So I just focused on his answer which is B. The rest of his comments are not asked. That is the reason.

But in the next paragraph, which is paragraph 10 which Carl did not include in his screenshot, I quoted the part which I did not include in paragraph 9. In paragraph 10, I discussed his statement about the corruptness of the Bible translation I used for John 1:1.

I just made a separate paragraph for the portion he said I removed.

It is not true that I maligned his answer. It is him who maligned my question when he give what I dont ask.

14th QUESTION: (Based on John Jake Eumenda Rebuttal presentation #18)

He said:

18. ) Carl’s principle is that when it is not written in the Bible is not true and just an invention. This argument is so fallacious.

If We will use this argument of Carl to himself, he must admit also that he has no scriptural proof since his claims cannot be read in the Bible. Let’s give Carl a dose of his own medicine.

Carls claims:
A. The sender is not a person.
B. The Son of God is not eternal
C. The Father and the Son are not two different persons. (God is not telling the truth when he said I claim “God are two different persons.”.)

D. There is no three persons in one God. (Again, the belief that “two of them are God” is invented by Carl and make it my belief. His is a strawman fallacy.)

LET'S COMPARE THIS TO MY ORIGINAL REBUTTAL STATEMENT

I said,

"So in this case, his credibility has been doubted. He as well even failed to take his argument from the scriptures of the Bible supposedly be the basis of his best proof of evidences to establish his claims such as:

- a) The Sender is a person and the one being Sent is also a person.
- b) Eternal Son
- c) God are two different persons.
- d) 3 persons in one God.
- d) Two of them are God."

There was nothing the Bible will refute as to which when there was/were no issue/issues been raised and being questioned from Genesis to Revelation as to STRANGE words is concern such as

God is a person,
son is eternal,
the father and two different persons, etc.but contrary to the scriptures itself.

Those strange words claimed by John Jake Eumenda weren't mentioned in the Bible so John Jake Eumenda forgot that it weren't my claims but his. It was me who demanded proofs from him of his claims and the burden of proof shouldn't not be of me but John Jake Eumenda twists NOW, as to clarify what he said and to prove that John Jake Eumenda was not lying, here is my QUESTION:

You accused me again John Jake Eumenda that I invented this words as said,

"D. There is no three persons in one God. (Again, the belief that “two of them are God” is invented by Carl and make it my belief. His is a strawman fallacy.)"

WILL YOU DENY NOW John Jake Eumenda that it was you who said
"TWO OF THEM ARE GOD"?

You said it in your answer to my Cross Exam # 14 to you:

"A14: Yes
The Father is God-John 17:3
THE SON is God-1john5:20

The two of them are God"

A14:

As you can see in his screenshot, Carl asked me: Are each person or two persons you claimed God is God or not?

Carl was asking about the two persons only. So I answered accordingly. I said Yes. and I specifically said that the Father is God and the Son is God.

The two of them are God.

Carl, remove the article "The" to make it look like two of the three are God.

When I said the two of them are God, I am not saying that ONLY the two of them are God. I am not saying that the Holy Spirit is not God. I did not say what Carl accused me of saying. I did not say "TWO OF THEM ARE GOD". What I truly said is: THE TWO OF THEM ARE GOD referring to the two persons he asked me about.

There is a big difference between "TWO OF THEM ARE GOD" and "THE two of them are God."

When you say TWO OF THEM ARE GOD, you are saying that of the three, only two of them are God. But when I say THE TWO OF THEM ARE GOD, I am saying that the two persons that are given by Carl in his questions are God.

I stand by what I said and I repeat it: The belief that “two of them are God” is invented by Carl and make it my belief. His is a strawman fallacy.

Again Carl is not telling the truth when he accused me of saying "TWO OF THEM ARE GOD." That is not what I said.

Now it turns out that it is Carl that use dirty tricks and corruptions not me.

15th QUESTION

If you are to answer of confirming what prophet Malachi has said in Mal. 2:10,

WILL YOU DENY John Jake Eumenda THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD WHO IS THE FATHER THAT CREATED ALL THINGS or YOU WILL AGREE WITH GOD'S PROPHET? (Pls. chose A or B)

A. I will Deny that “there is only one Father, the only one God that created us (all things).

B. I will Agree with God’s prophet that “there is only one Father, the only one God that created us (all things).”

---- unfinished ----

Comments

Armando BorjaJune 2, 2017 at 9:01 AM
Carl is a sour loser. He cannot accept his defeat. This debate is too damaging for Carl. This article obviously made for damage control. He cannot move on.

Carl edited the debate he post here. This is not faithful to the original debate.

Again, the topic is: “THE ETERNAL FATHER IS THE ONE WHO MANIFEST IN THE FLESH”

Carl lose the debate since he admitted that it was the the Son of God that was seen (manifested) and not God, the Father when he was asked. See how it happened.

John Jake: The pronoun "his" refers to CHRIST, the person (Heb. 1:3), the man (1 Tim. 2:5), the Son of God (Gal. 4:4) , the RULER OF ISRAEL (to call all the remnants of Israel), who is the VISIBLE IMAGE of the INVISIBLE GOD(Col. 1:15!
Since Christ is the one referred to by the pronoun HIS in the phrase HIS GOD, it is obvious that GOD and Christ are two.

Q10: Who was seen by people in the flesh?
A. Christ, the Son of God
B. The invisible God

Carl Cortez: Answer to QUESTION #10

God is Spirit (Jn. 4:24) and invisible (Col. 1:15)

Who was seen by people in the flesh of course is the visible image of the invisible God who was known Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God.

IF you are honest you will agree that Carl Cortez admitted that it was not God, the Father that was seen in the flesh but Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

As someone who claims to be professional, he should accept his defeat and not recourse to spreading malicious post against me and John Jake. This is unbecoming for a servant of God, if he is a servant of God.
UnknownAugust 9, 2017 at 8:15 AM
isa pang katotohanan sa debate nila. Hndi tlga kaya ni John Jake ang stand ni Ptr. Carl Cortez at DAHIL ang moderator ay ISA lang at Trinitarian pastor pa. Ang nangyari sa debate ay two versus one. dahil ang trinity defender ay mayroong defender din sa katauhan ni ptr. Armando Borja na isang baptist pastor na syang iisang moderator ng debate.
UnknownAugust 9, 2017 at 8:27 AM
Dahil Hindi kaya ni John Jake Eumenada(trinitarian) ang stand ni ptr. Carl Cortez at nahuli na si nurse sa salungat na mga statement niya. napagtanto ni Armando Borja(trinitarian) na Biglaang mag desisyon ng TALO daw si ptr. Carl.. khit ang totoo. ok naman usapan nila bago sya mgdeclare ng bias nyang desisyon
UnknownAugust 9, 2017 at 8:29 AM
Naalala mo ba ptr. Armando, Nung time na kinompronta kita about sa bias mong desisyon.... Nagpeplaying safe ka pa nung una sa mga reply mo sakin. pero bndang huli nagulat ako hindi na kita mreplyan. diba ganun ginawa mo sa debate nila nurse at ptr. Carl sa debate pra hindi papormahin si ptr. Carl at Pra mapaniwala ang madla sa bias mong desisyon. tinanggal niyo si ptr. Carl sa Naturang Forum.

Search This Blog

CHURCH MATTERS

FORMAL DEBATE WITH THE PROPOSITION "THE ETERNAL FATHER IS THE ONE THAT MANIFEST IN THE FLESH"

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Truth About Reckart's Group

Paglalahad ng Kasaysayan ng Wikang Hebrew