ECT Classical Original Sin Doctrine Vs. Biblical Origonal Sin Doctrine (A Multi OP Study)

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Where is that quote written in the scripture as you wrote it? ("IN THE NAME of GOD")? "God" by itself is not generally a name and that is likely why those passages do not say what you say they say, (Mt 21:9, 23:39, Mk 11:9, Lk 13:35, 19:38, Jn 12:13).



If indeed you can use the scripture in the literal wooden way that you do, as being full of "proof texts" for you to hammer other people with, then you cannot be correct and have nullified your own argument because the very same thing is stated by the same author, using the same exact word for "good" concerning Barnabas. Therefore according to your assertion and your example of proof texting "Barnabas is God" because Barnabas was a good man; and if Barnabas was a good man then he must also have been a God-Man according to your own assertion:

Luke 18:19 KJV
19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, [αγαθος] save one, that is, God.

Luke 18:19 Textus Receptus, (KJV)
19 ειπε δε αυτω ο ιησους τι με λεγεις αγαθον; ουδεις αγαθος ει μη εις ο θεος

Lo and behold from the same author:

Acts 11:22-25 KJV
22 Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.
23 Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.
24 For he was a good man, [ανηρ αγαθος] and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.
25 Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:

Acts 11:24 Textus Receptus
24 οτι ην ανηρ αγαθος και πληρης πνευματος αγιου και πιστεως και προσετεθη οχλος ικανος τω κυριω

How do you explain this in your doctrine? It clearly says that Barnabas was a good man, (ανηρ αγαθος), the same agathos which the same author employs in Luke 18:19 to quote the Master saying that there is none agathos-good, save one, God. So how can you even be sure that what you have in the Luke passage is rendered correctly? What if it literally says "IF-NOT", (ει μη), instead of "except" or "save" as the KJV renders that portion? It does indeed literally mean "if not" but what would that mean in the context of Luke 18:19? Could it mean "none is good, if not one of God's" (people)? or maybe "if not one with God"? Or is it rather that you are now willing to stick to your guns and confess that Barnabas must also be a God-Man according to your stiffnecked stances and arguments? It appears from where I stand that there must be something flawed with your argument because none of us believes that Barnabas was God or a God-Man. If you want to understand you must be willing to question everything you read in your English translations and dig down to the source texts. However you just accused me yet again of be a continual "scripture corrector" in one of my threads; so I suppose you will stay in your pit of confusion, allowing other men to tell you what to believe by way of their translations. You do not even realize you are slave to those men whose translations you depend on. It is not possible to render Greek or Hebrew into any other language without being forced to make interpretations; it simply cannot be done, and if you say that one of the English translations is "inspired English" then you pretty much need to default to the KJV because it became the most widespread first and foremost. However the KJV just fouled you up in your own argument, (and that is nothing compared to what else it will do to you elsewhere, if not already, lol).

Hi Daqq.

Jesus is God. Why resist ALL scripture and the very Holy Spirit of Christ. (Romans 8:9)

If you think the "Word" is the Torah... your under a bad spell.

- Happy Ressurection of God celebration.

- EE

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Also, those passages are all quoting the same place from the Psalms:

Matthew 21:9 KJV
9 And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.

Matthew 21:9 TS2009 W/Footnotes
9 And the crowds who went before and those who followed cried out, saying, “Hoshia-na to the Son of Dawiḏ! Blessed is He who is coming in the Name of יהוה! Hoshia-na in the highest!” ^{Psa 118:26.}

Matthew 23:39 TS2009 W/Footnotes
39 for I say to you, from now on you shall by no means see Me, until you say, ‘Blessed is He who is coming in the Name of יהוה!’ ” ^{Psa 118:26.}

Luke 13:35 TS2009 W/Footnotes
35 “See, your House is left to you laid waste. And truly I say to you, you shall by no means see Me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is He who is coming in the Name of יהוה!’ ”^{b Psa 118:26. Footnote: bSee Mat 23:39.}

Luke 19:38 TS2009 W/Footnotes
38 saying, “ ‘Blessed is the Sovereign who is coming in the Name of יהוה!^{a Psa 118:26} Peace in heaven and esteem in the highest!” ^{Footnote: a Mat 23:39.}

John 12:13 TS2009 W/Footnotes
13 took the branches of palm trees and went out to meet Him, and were crying out, “Hoshia-na! ^{Psa 118:25} Blessed is He who is coming in the Name of יהוה,^{a Psa 118:26} the Sovereign of Yisra’ĕl!” ^{Footnote: aSee Mat 23:39 and Psa 118:26.}

Psalm 118:25-26 TS2009 W/Footnotes
25 I pray, O יהוה, please save us now;^c I pray, O יהוה, please send prosperity. ^{Footnote: cHebrew: Hoshianah.}
26 Blessed is He who is coming in the Name of יהוה!^d We shall bless you from the House of יהוה. ^{Footnote: dAlso see Mat 21:9, John 12:13 and Deut 18:18-20.}

Is it not you who says, "Jesus is YHWH"??? But none of this says what you say and rather teaches that YHWH is his, (and our), heavenly Father because the Master himself also says this:

John 5:43 KJV
43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

Messiah comes in the name of the LORD, he comes in the name of his and our Father, he comes in the name of יהוה, (YHWH), and moreover the name of the Father is all of Torah, Prophets, and Writings, (Tanakh | "Old Testament"), because a name is so much more than a simple spelling of letters. A name is character, attributes, quality, authority, power, and so many more wonderful things that are found in the Word of the Father which expounds Him unto us His children.

Daqq,

If you would read it, instead of treat it like a Rubiks Cube, you would be shocked what Jesus can teach you. Do you "hear" Him?

 

[daqq]

Hi Daqq.

Jesus is God. Why resist ALL scripture and the very Holy Spirit of Christ. (Romans 8:9)

If you think the "Word" is the Torah... your under a bad spell.

- Happy Ressurection of God celebration.

- EE

Same ole same ole: no answer, change the subject, deflect, deflect, deflect. And if you think Torah is not The Word you have cast one too many of your own spells on yourself.

 

[daqq]

Daqq,

If you would read it, instead of treat it like a Rubiks Cube, you would be shocked what Jesus can teach you. Do you "hear" Him?

Do you HEAR, O Israel?
That is the very first word of the Shema, (confirmed in Mark 12:29).
Yes, HEAR Torah The Word.

 

[daqq]

If you think the "Word" is the Torah... your under a bad spell.

Matthew 4:3-4
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be a Son of Elohim, command that these stones be made bread.
4 But he answered and said, It is written, [Deut 8:3 LXX] Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of Elohim.

And if one will not "hear" Moses and the Prophets then neither can such a one be fully convinced or persuaded that one has actually risen from the dead; for the so-called "faith" of such a one is really not faith at all according to the way in which it is meant to be understood in the scripture, which scripture-based faith is based on knowledge and evidence. The only kind of knowledge and evidence that would be available in such matters would necessarily be the knowledge, evidence, and prophecy given in fore-written Torah, Prophets, and Writings. The one who either does not or cannot hear Moses and the Prophets is therefore most likely engaged in a fideistic and many times irrational faith. One of the primary meanings of logos is reason or reasoning. Fideistic faith denies the very reasoning which is the Logos because it rather says paraphrased, "I believe it simply because it is written in the New Testament", while not being capable of validating what the New Testament says by way of comparison to what the Tanakh says was supposed to come to pass and be fulfilled. In short it is necessary to divorce the Tanakh from the New Testament in order for you to come up with your schemes about what the New Testament actually says, portrays, and intends to convey. You apparently do not believe Messiah rose from the dead because you heard and understood Moses but rather because you read the New Testament and choose to believe what one or all of the authors have written without any other evidence to validate their claims; that is essentially "blind faith" in the words of someone whom you have never met and who lived two thousand years ago. My faith is not like that because I do hear Moses and the Prophets and I know by historical fact that those writings came first: therefore I have fore-written evidence expounding what was supposed to happen before it actually happened and from before it was recorded in the Apostolic writings. The unseen things of Elohim take faith but Messiah having been raised from the dead is found in Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms. You really cannot know such things you claim to believe unless and until you actually do hear Moses and the Prophets: but how shall that come to pass when your paradigm-mindset tells you that Torah is not the Word? or that Torah has been rendered completely ineffective, or idle, or "inoperative", (as Fruchtenbaum would say), or done away with, or abolished? For the Master and all his disciples and apostles, including Paul, Torah was the Word because there was no New Testament written yet. What do you suppose the Bereans used when they "searched the scriptures" to prove whether what had been preached to them was true or not? You may not even realize what you have done by way of your doctrine but you have essentially abolished the "old Word" to make way for your new improved version of a "new Word". :nono:

It is all One Word of the Father.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

.

Spoiler

Matthew 4:3-4
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be a Son of Elohim, command that these stones be made bread.
4 But he answered and said, It is written, [Deut 8:3 LXX] Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of Elohim.

And if one will not "hear" Moses and the Prophets then neither can such a one be fully convinced or persuaded that one has actually risen from the dead; for the so-called "faith" of such a one is really not faith at all according to the way in which it is meant to be understood in the scripture, which scripture-based faith is based on knowledge and evidence. The only kind of knowledge and evidence that would be available in such matters would necessarily be the knowledge, evidence, and prophecy given in fore-written Torah, Prophets, and Writings. The one who either does not or cannot hear Moses and the Prophets is therefore most likely engaged in a fideistic and many times irrational faith. One of the primary meanings of logos is reason or reasoning. Fideistic faith denies the very reasoning which is the Logos because it rather says paraphrased, "I believe it simply because it is written in the New Testament", while not being capable of validating what the New Testament says by way of comparison to what the Tanakh says was supposed to come to pass and be fulfilled. In short it is necessary to divorce the Tanakh from the New Testament in order for you to come up with your schemes about what the New Testament actually says, portrays, and intends to convey. You apparently do not believe Messiah rose from the dead because you heard and understood Moses but rather because you read the New Testament and choose to believe what one or all of the authors have written without any other evidence to validate their claims; that is essentially "blind faith" in the words of someone whom you have never met and who lived two thousand years ago. My faith is not like that because I do hear Moses and the Prophets and I know by historical fact that those writings came first: therefore I have fore-written evidence expounding what was supposed to happen before it actually happened and from before it was recorded in the Apostolic writings. The unseen things of Elohim take faith but Messiah having been raised from the dead is found in Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms. You really cannot know such things you claim to believe unless and until you actually do hear Moses and the Prophets: but how shall that come to pass when your paradigm-mindset tells you that Torah is not the Word? or that Torah has been rendered completely ineffective, or idle, or "inoperative", (as Fruchtenbaum would say), or done away with, or abolished? For the Master and all his disciples and apostles, including Paul, Torah was the Word because there was no New Testament written yet. What do you suppose the Bereans used when they "searched the scriptures" to prove whether what had been preached to them was true or not? You may not even realize what you have done by way of your doctrine but you have essentially abolished the "old Word" to make way for your new improved version of a "new Word". :nono:

It is all One Word of the Father.

Hi Daqq.

Your theology...

The Word is "The Torah"
There is no atonement
Jesus isn't God or "The Word" of the "TriUnity"

And... you appear to dislike that it is original SIN to be told we can "Be Like God".

 

[daqq]

Hi Daqq.

Your theology...

The Word is "The Torah"
There is no atonement
Jesus isn't God or "The Word" of the "TriUnity"

And... you appear to dislike that it is original SIN to be told we can "Be Like God".

You would be much better off to simply believe what people say about their theology rather than putting false words in their mouths so that you can discredit them. However you do the same with scripture so why should I be surprised?

Moreover you now define "original sin" as "to be told we can Be Like God"? That is what you just said, "it is original SIN to be told that we can "Be Like God"". I thought you did not even believe in original sin? Is that not what your three-part thread extravaganza, including this thread, is supposed to be proving? And yet you have now misdirected and misinterpreted what the scripture clearly says in the passage which you reference. The only reason I can imagine you would want to deny what the scripture says would be for your own purposes and your own private dogma; so once again you show that you really do not care what the scripture actually says just so long as you, as god in your own mind, can tell everyone else what it says and what it means. The emperor has no clothes; you are naked, and yet you claim to have atonement. But I have never said there is no atonement, so in that you lie once again, just as you have continually done since you and I first began to interact here in these forum boards.

The lie in the garden was not "Ye shall be as elohim" and that is clear from the passage. The lie was, "Ye shall not surely die", for indeed Adam died, just as he was forewarned.

Genesis 3:1-7 KJV
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

There are three main things the serpent says in the above passage:

1) "Ye shall not surely die"
2) "Your eyes shall be opened"
3) "Ye shall be as elohim-gods, knowing good and evil"

Which one of these three things did not come to pass according to the scripture?

Genesis 3:22 KJV
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Two of the three things spoken by the serpent came to pass according to the scripture:

1) "Your eyes shall be opened", (came to pass immediately in Gen 3:7).
2) "Ye shall be as elohim, knowing good and evil", (came to pass according to Gen 3:22).

Therefore which of the three things spoken by the serpent was the lie?

This was the lie spoken by the serpent in the garden, "Ye shall not surely die", and you yourself do therefore lie; for you do not actually care what the scripture says when it refutes your dogma, and these things above herein were already shown to you before now, and neither did you care what the scripture actually says in this passage the first time this was shown to you. You do not believe the Word. You only believe *you* and those who agree with you in what things you have chosen to believe. The above is exactly what I meant about logos-reason, reasoning, and logic. You do not even appear to be capable of a simple straightforward understanding of what the surface text plainly states. You read the text by filtering it through your own paradigm-mindset which makes you "the god" who decides what the text is supposed to say so as to suit your own private interpretations. You exalt yourself against the Father and His Word; and in so doing you break the very first commandment, O little "e" elohim. :chuckle:

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

You

Spoiler

would be much better off to simply believe what people say about their theology rather than putting false words in their mouths so that you can discredit them. However you do the same with scripture so why should I be surprised?

Moreover you now define "original sin" as "to be told we can Be Like God"? That is what you just said, "it is original SIN to be told that we can "Be Like God"". I thought you did not even believe in original sin? Is that not what your three-part thread extravaganza, including this thread, is supposed to be proving? And yet you have now misdirected and misinterpreted what the scripture clearly says in the passage which you reference. The only reason I can imagine you would want to deny what the scripture says would be for your own purposes and your own private dogma; so once again you show that you really do not care what the scripture actually says just so long as you, as god in your own mind, can tell everyone else what it says and what it means. The emperor has no clothes; you are naked, and yet you claim to have atonement. But I have never said there is no atonement, so in that you lie once again, just as you have continually done since you and I first began to interact here in these forum boards.

The lie in the garden was not "Ye shall be as elohim" and that is clear from the passage. The lie was, "Ye shall not surely die", for indeed Adam died, just as he was forewarned.

Genesis 3:1-7 KJV
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

There are three main things the serpent says in the above passage:

1) "Ye shall not surely die"
2) "Your eyes shall be opened"
3) "Ye shall be as elohim-gods, knowing good and evil"

Which one of these three things did not come to pass according to the scripture?

Genesis 3:22 KJV
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Two of the three things spoken by the serpent came to pass according to the scripture:

1) "Your eyes shall be opened", (came to pass immediately in Gen 3:7).
2) "Ye shall be as elohim, knowing good and evil", (came to pass according to Gen 3:22).

Therefore which of the three things spoken by the serpent was the lie?

This was the lie spoken by the serpent in the garden, "Ye shall not surely die", and you yourself do therefore lie; for you do not actually care what the scripture says when it refutes your dogma, and these things above herein were already shown to you before now, and neither did you care what the scripture actually says in this passage the first time this was shown to you. You do not believe the Word. You only believe *you* and those who agree with you in what things you have chosen to believe. The above is exactly what I meant about logos-reason, reasoning, and logic. You do not even appear to be capable of a simple straightforward understanding of what the surface text plainly states. You read the text by filtering it through your own paradigm-mindset which makes you "the god" who decides what the text is supposed to say so as to suit your own private interpretations. You exalt yourself against the Father and His Word; and in so doing you break the very first commandment, O little "e" elohim.

:chuckle:

Hi Daqq...

Elohim is the Hebrew name for God. The God. As in... YHWH. As for the OP... please read the first one and if that doesn't fix your misunderstanding... note that the OP is a multi part, organic OP that will span however many more necessary. And... note the name of the OP is "Classical" Original Sin "vs" "Biblical" original sin.

- EE

 

[daqq]

Hi Daqq...

Elohim is the Hebrew name for God. The God. As in... YHWH. As for the OP... please read the first one and if that doesn't fix your misunderstanding... note that the OP is a multi part, organic OP that will span however many more necessary. And... note the name of the OP is "Classical" Original Sin "vs" "Biblical" original sin.

- EE

Just about everything you have ever thrown my way has been answered with scripture.
You have answered almost nothing in most of the time since you started posting here.
Have a nice thread dreamer.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Just about everything you have ever thrown my way has been answered with scripture.
You have answered almost nothing in most of the time since you started posting here.
Have a nice thread dreamer.

Twisting scripture... Claiming false rebuttal... personal insight that is devoid of grace...

Daqqtics never change... You are consistent... I'll give you that!

 

[daqq]

Twisting scripture... Claiming false rebuttal... personal insight that is devoid of grace...

Daqqtics never change... You are consistent... I'll give you that!

The scripture and what it plainly states in Genesis 3:4-5, 7, 22 was just quoted.
You are the scripture twister, as usual, while accusing others of your own deeds.

And... you appear to dislike that it is original SIN to be told we can "Be Like God".

And... note the name of the OP is "Classical" Original Sin "vs" "Biblical" original sin.

By the way, since your premise for "Biblical" original sin is now shown to be based on a lie, which was just shown by what is actually written in Genesis 3:4-5, 7, 22, (refuting you to your face), the scripture has now nullified your entire tripartite three-pronged-thread direct assault on the gates of heaven, O god, and the same passage you are always trying to throw in my face actually applies to you yourself, Isaiah 14:14.

 

[glorydaz]

The scripture and what it plainly states in Genesis 3:4-5, 7, 22 was just quoted.
You are the scripture twister, as usual, while accusing others of your own deeds.





By the way, since your premise for "Biblical" original sin is now shown to be based on a lie, which was just shown by what is actually written in Genesis 3:4-5, 7, 22, (refuting you to your face), the scripture has now nullified your entire tripartite three-pronged-thread direct assault on the gates of heaven, O god, and the same passage you are always trying to throw in my face actually applies to you yourself, Isaiah 14:14.

Too bad you can't keep your personal vendetta from interfering with our discussion. :nono:

 

[glorydaz]

Hi Daqq.

Your theology...

The Word is "The Torah"
There is no atonement
Jesus isn't God or "The Word" of the "TriUnity"

And... you appear to dislike that it is original SIN to be told we can "Be Like God".

I guess he's missed the fact that the "pride of life" is right there among the lusts Adam and Eve encountered when the wicked one encountered them in the garden.

1 John 2:16
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.​

 

[daqq]

Too bad you can't keep your personal vendetta from interfering with our discussion. :nono:

HUH???
Too bad you intentionally blind yourself and show respect to the persons of men. :nono:

Do you know WHO JESUS the Messiah is yet? Do you know my King?

Why resist ALL scripture and the very Holy Spirit of Christ. (Romans 8:9)

If you think the "Word" is the Torah... your under a bad spell.

Daqq,

If you would read it, instead of treat it like a Rubiks Cube, you would be shocked what Jesus can teach you. Do you "hear" Him?

Hi Daqq.

Your theology...

The Word is "The Torah"
There is no atonement
Jesus isn't God or "The Word" of the "TriUnity"

Twisting scripture... Claiming false rebuttal... personal insight that is devoid of grace...

Daqqtics never change... You are consistent... I'll give you that!

:nono:

 

[daqq]

I guess he's missed the fact that the "pride of life" is right there among the lusts Adam and Eve encountered when the wicked one encountered them in the garden.

1 John 2:16
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.​

Anyone who reads the previous page of this thread will see what actually happened.
Making more false accusations only reveals your own hearts, O judges.

 

[glorydaz]

HUH???
Too bad you intentionally blind yourself and show respect to the persons of men. :nono:

You really don't need to make yourself look any more foolish than you have already. I did see a couple of your points that were interesting, but this is not your thread, and there are several of us who have been finding it interesting. EE has not been shoving his thoughts on me or anyone else that I have seen. It's actually called having a dialogue which you, alone, seem determined to squelch.

 

[glorydaz]

Anyone who reads the previous page of this thread will see what actually happened.
Making more false accusations only reveals your own hearts, O judges.

As he goes about judging. :chuckle:

 

[daqq]

As he goes about judging.

Why did you attack me first? Treat others how would like to be treated. You showed me first how you wanted to be treated by your own actions. If you do not like getting what you give then perhaps you should try giving better things. Likewise when you call good evil and evil good you condemn yourself already. I have posted much scripture already and what I have posted is plain truth from plainly worded texts; which you apparently do not like. Would that be perhaps because you know you cannot argue against it without exposing your own faulty understanding? Why do you need to attack if your understanding is truly on solid ground?

You really don't need to make yourself look any more foolish than you have already. I did see a couple of your points that were interesting, but this is not your thread, and there are several of us who have been finding it interesting. EE has not been shoving his thoughts on me or anyone else that I have seen. It's actually called having a dialogue which you, alone, seem determined to squelch.

You are making yourself look foolish by attacking me without any real reason outside the fact that a lie is being exposed here. Does that bother you so much? Interesting.

By the way, since your premise for "Biblical" original sin is now shown to be based on a lie, which was just shown by what is actually written in Genesis 3:4-5, 7, 22, (refuting you to your face), the scripture has now nullified your entire tripartite three-pronged-thread direct assault on the gates of heaven, O god, and the same passage you are always trying to throw in my face actually applies to you yourself, Isaiah 14:14.

EE's whole premise is a lie. The lie in the garden was not "Ye shall be like gods", but rather just as the scripture says, "Ye shall not surely die", (that was the lie), and I know from much discussion elsewhere with EE that he indeed believes his own lie; and that is what he now has said to me previously above in this thread to supposedly support his own private "Biblical" version of original sin. It simply is not true and that is shown from a basic reading of the surface text in Genesis 3 as posted above herein. What I said was therefore on-topic but do I not also have the right to fend off his accusatory blathering at the same time? And now you have done the same thing without actually contributing anything to the topic. Do you not see that you attacked me first here? I am on-topic, in fact, disproving with the scripture the entire three threads right here because EE's whole premise for his three threads on this topic is a lie.

 

[glorydaz]

Why did you attack me first? Treat others how would like to be treated. You showed me first how you wanted to be treated by your own actions. If you do not like getting what you give then perhaps you should try giving better things. Likewise when you call good evil and evil good you condemn yourself already. I have posted much scripture already and what I have posted is plain truth from plainly worded texts; which you apparently do not like. Would that be perhaps because you know you cannot argue against it without exposing your own faulty understanding? Why do you need to attack if your understanding is truly on solid ground?

If you consider what I did an "attack", then you are one paranoid dude.

You are making yourself look foolish by attacking me without any real reason outside the fact that a lie is being exposed here. Does that bother you so much? Interesting.

Looks to me like you're the only one who cares about looking foolish. What I was exposing was your gall at butting into our ongoing conversation in order to express your personal animosity.

EE's whole premise is a lie. The lie in the garden was not "Ye shall be like gods", but rather just as the scripture says, "Ye shall not surely die", (that was the lie), and I know from much discussion elsewhere with EE that he indeed believes his own lie; and that is what he now has said to me previously above in this thread to supposedly support his own private "Biblical" version of original sin. It simply is not true and that is shown from a basic reading of the surface text in Genesis 3 as posted above herein. What I said was therefore on-topic but do I not also have the right to fend off his accusatory blathering at the same time? And now you have done the same thing without actually contributing anything to the topic. Do you not see that you attacked me first here? I am on-topic, in fact, disproving with the scripture the entire three threads right here because EE's whole premise for his three threads on this topic is a lie.

Since when does the devil know how to keep it to just one lie? Does he ever tell the truth?

I'd sure like to see an example of when he did that.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Why did you attack me first? Treat others how would like to be treated. You showed me first how you wanted to be treated by your own actions. If you do not like getting what you give then perhaps you should try giving better things. Likewise when you call good evil and evil good you condemn yourself already. I have posted much scripture already and what I have posted is plain truth from plainly worded texts; which you apparently do not like. Would that be perhaps because you know you cannot argue against it without exposing your own faulty understanding? Why do you need to attack if your understanding is truly on solid ground?



You are making yourself look foolish by attacking me without any real reason outside the fact that a lie is being exposed here. Does that bother you so much? Interesting.



EE's whole premise is a lie. The lie in the garden was not "Ye shall be like gods", but rather just as the scripture says, "Ye shall not surely die", (that was the lie), and I know from much discussion elsewhere with EE that he indeed believes his own lie; and that is what he now has said to me previously above in this thread to supposedly support his own private "Biblical" version of original sin. It simply is not true and that is shown from a basic reading of the surface text in Genesis 3 as posted above herein. What I said was therefore on-topic but do I not also have the right to fend off his accusatory blathering at the same time? And now you have done the same thing without actually contributing anything to the topic. Do you not see that you attacked me first here? I am on-topic, in fact, disproving with the scripture the entire three threads right here because EE's whole premise for his three threads on this topic is a lie.

Shall we eat of your fruit and be like God Daqq? Who's Jesus Daqq? Is He God? What did atonement accomplish? Who is our atonement? What does this... 1 Co. 15:55f and Heb 2:14 mean Daqq?

Shall we trade the Living Bread for Stones of Law that only the Good Shepherd is GOOD by?

Will you teach us how to be like God Daqq?