₦airaland Forum

Gabrielshow24:
Everything in Genesis wasn't literal.
These are the kind of misleading statements you make.

Man does not die - this is also misleading, I could end saying "Jesus didn't die he only translated" but this negates the emphasis on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ!

Probably you don't know how to choose words to represent your idea correctly.

Your analogies are flawed is just like saying The U.S. created F18's to fly forever when everyone knows they require refuelling! The idea of immortality is that you don't require sustenance because you are already sustained. Because man was sustained of God doesn't mean he was immortal of his own accord he could do nothing! The point is that it will become a thing of renown if the U.S. are able to create planes that never have to refuel again!!!

But it doesn't mean that as long as they are not being refueled that they won't fly forever (exaggeration) but of the inherent nature of them to fly forever without refueling that is false!

Hence man is not immortal he is sustained of God hence as a consequence he is immortal; that's why when that sustenance was removed men began to die! If truly they were immortal in the first place they won't have died!

Hope you now understand
Once again proper understanding is key!

My dear, they were all literal except probably the serpent symbolism which is still being debated.

Every other things about the trees, the creation, the naming of animals, etc were all literal. The tree of life wasn't a spiritual tree. It was a real tree.

Proof:

1. God has to chase man away from the garden because of it. Was the garden a spiritual garden? No!

2. Angels with flaming swords guarded the way to that tree. Was the way to the tree a spiritual way?


The tree of life is currently a spiritual tree to us after we lost it in Eden. But in the world to come, it would be a physical tree bearing 12 different kinds of fruits. A fruit for each month. That's a literal tree my dear friend.

Man was immortal before he became mortal my dear friend. That tree was man's literal food my friend. Not a spiritually implied food.

Christ died. In Bus death He was translated to hell. He didn't cease to exist. He conquered death and received the keys of hell and death. Returned back to earth to announce the victory. Went back to heaven to await the period of full restoration.

[quote author=Gabrielshow24 post=131996662][/quote]But you have alluded to the matter twice and saying that I was in error for thinking that God and man can marry. Meanwhile I was not even particular about the marriage. I was talking about the position God has put believers. A position not given to angels.

You know, the beginning of these things is that I said Man was an improvement on angels. I never said man was superior to angels. Improvement does not imply superiority but you immediately saw it as superiority.

Gabrielshow24:
It seems like a logical proposition but if you consider the effects of the tree of Life as mentioned in the bible which grants immortality. Then if truly they had eaten of it then they would be no need for modern medicine!
And Christ would have had no need to die.
Which means if your proposition is to be valid then the tree doesn't grant immortality at all!! but rather more like a supplement that aids you for meantime(temporal ) hence the tree they ate falls short of the description of the tree that grants eternal life as a consequence it would be fair to state the "tree was no different from the present trees we have now, which only sustain life" which now implies that if it sustains life and doesn't grant life then why would God have need to block them from eating?

No, please answer my 5 questions, and I'll even do more exposures.

As I said in an earlier post. There were two trees that had the capacity to cancel each other.

1. The tree of life can cancel the tree of death. That's why God didn't want them to go back and eat it after eating the tree of death. (For illustration sake, I choose to call to forbidden tree the tree of death so accentuate the death that came with it).

2. The tree of death can cancel the tree of life. That's why we are where we are today. In its absence we need doctors and medicines. We must grow old and return to dust. Adam didn't need all these before eating the forbidden fruit.

Gabrielshow24:
But the law is the law even if the person offers himself instead it's in the discretion of the Law to uphold the law letter by letter; word for word hence such offerings will not be acceptable before the law which negates your sentiments!

In the united States have you ever seen them jail innocent mother for her son's crimes? even though she is willing to serve time, Never!!!

Can you provide instances in the US?

Have you watched a movie by Evangel Films? It's titled Life for Life. You'll understand the law and his it relates to Jesus laying down His life much better.

Now, as you said, the law is already stated, and it's at the DISCRETION OF THE LAW to uphold the law letter by letter and word for word. Then, it's at the discretion of the law too to allow someone to substitute himself for the crime of another.

This is called substitutionary punishment in law. It happens even though early. When it happens, It is made permissible under strict conditions. That's why the conditions where Christ was made our substitute are actually really strict. This happened because man cannot sufficiently pay the penalty for his own sins.

Research before you make general statements that are misleading!

From the law's(Torah) perspective(physical perspective). Jesus had no right to die for our sins the emphasis of the judgement is on individual accountability and responsibility. Some might even argue that he was crucified because of his charges! That he died because of his sins but we know of the Spiritual perspective involved which defeats this physical views that's why I am a son of God. It doesn't mean I don't know what to expect from the minds of men.

Let your statements be clear without contradictions!!!

You could do so well as to add more years to the study of the bible you still need more work!!!

As I've explained above, that's how things are from God's perspective. God gave Jesus the liberty to offer Himself as a substitute for man because man cannot sufficiently pay for his own sins. This substitutionary punishment Christ took upon Himself was well expounded in the book of Hebrews where the writer detailed the legality of that action from chapter to chapter.

Gabrielshow24:
[b] Everyone knows that in the presence of God there is life, it didn't matter whether the tree was there or not as long as God was with them they had life. God wanted them to see beyond that. Likewise the tree of Knowledge as long as they were with God also they had knowledge they didn't need to go looking for that which they already had!

But from the perspective of men they thought they didn't have these things; they thought eating of the tree of knowledge would make them gain knowledge hence the illusory effect of seeking that which one already had was in motion- they just had to ask!!!

But your arguments is misleading saying they ate of the tree of life when the bible says in Revelation implying that the tree which was denied man in the beginning will be available for all those who make it!

Please quote the scriptures that say the tree was denied man in the BEGINNING. Emphasis on 'Beginning'

Everything in Genesis was literal my friend. There was not death in the very beginning. They only had life. Death came by the forbidden fruit they ate and was announced by the curse, "...to dust shalt thou return."

There was no death, that's why God said, "On the day you eat of it, you will die." Death entered the world after they ate. It was not instant death. It was gradual death through body degradation.

Now, let me ask you another question. If God didn't create man to be immortal, that means He intended that man would live and die some day. That's your position, isn't it? Then what was the tree of life doing in the garden? It negates God's intention. Doesn't it? God created mortal man because it was His will for man to die, then, He put a tree of life in the garden, which runs contrary to His will mortality. Does that sound logical to you? I'm trying to break things down and not rush you as I've been doing.

Now, please follow me:

Man was originally created to be immortal. He was supported by the tree of life - probably for a particular form of nourishment for the body initially. It probably drives away weaknesses and rejuvenates strength. In Revelation, the tree of life is said to beast 12 different kinds of fruits. That's instructive.

Now, if man was created mortal, why is it that up till now, it is impossible for man to be completely annihilated? He can only translate - whether to heaven or hell. Not annihilate. Man cannot be completely annihilated, I suppose you believe that too. If that's the case, where would man be translated to after death in the beginning since God never promised heaven or hell to Adam and Eve?

Man does not die, he only translates. Translation was not necessary until sin came. "...to dust shalt thou return" was an addition. It was not not originally part of man's creation.

And if truly they ate of the tree of Life like you propose then they would not have died!

The forbidden tree terminated life. They had the ability to terminate each other. If Adam had quickly eaten of that tree of life after eating the forbidden tree, death would have been terminated. The reason why God would not allow them to terminate the death that they acquired was because their body was now prone to evil. Evil beings prone to crime, sicknesses, pains, etc and living forever portends a danger. God in Hjd Wisdom had to keep them in a dying state, redeem their spirit later, give them a new body after shedding off the faulty old one, and then restore their Immortality.

Scriptures says "Seek first the Kingdom of God and its righteousness and all other things shall be added unto you"

They didn't eat of the tree of life cause if they had eaten God would have made it clear and his statement "lest they eat" would not be the same as it was written down![/b]

That statement was necessary because they have now invited death, and the eating of the tree of life is the only thing that could terminate death even as the eating of the forbidden tree had terminated life.

Gabrielshow24:
Using your own logic against you; you call me an heretic. It's now you know of symbolism. That verse is just to show you that everything in script must be properly interpretated unlike the fallacies you have said before.

Now I know for a surety that you lack understanding.
You never seem to get complete understanding of things.
You hastily choose that which pleases you.
Where in the Bible was it written that Adam ate of the tree of life?
No where!!! you just make it up as you go

My dear, answer my questions. Banters cannot save you.

If you want me to tell you where in the Bible Adam was said to have eaten of the tree of life, then, you have to tell me which tree the Bible said Adam ate from.


Which tree did the Bible say Adam ate from? Can you?

Now, see it this way:

1. Adam was given all trees to eat except the forbidden one.

2. The tree of life was among the 'ALL trees'.

3. What would have stopped Adam from eating the tree that was given him and going for the one that was forbidden?

4. All the while he was in the garden, spanning a period of many years, what would stop him for eating of the tree of life?

5. If Adam was not eating of it, why would God bother Himself to have acted so quickly to block them from accessing the tree that they have never been interested in eating?

5 questions my dear. No fluffs. Go straight to the answers. I'm waiting.

Gabrielshow24:
And from the law is that valid? that's why jews don't believe Jesus is the messiah because the law clearly says that "the mother shall not die for the child's sins and vice versa" but context makes us know that a temporal solution was the law for the meantime until when God provides an eternal(permanent) solution in the blood of Son! Is it not understanding that kills the Jews that they do not believe in the sonship of Jesus? Also likewise the Muslims in the sonship of God! When Muslims ask you show me unequivocally a place where Jesus said he was God but in the bible he only made mention of the prophecy of Daniel "the son of man" but we know from wisdom that God will give everything to the Son of Man.

"In all thy getting get Understanding"

This is not how to view that law my friend.

It's very simple.

God will not judge someone for the sins of another. That's the law. A man would not die for another man. That's what the law says which you quoted. No dispute about that.

What the law didn't say is "a man cannot offer himself for the sins of another."

These are two different things. The law says a judge won't say because your father sinned, you must die for the sins of your father.

But if you offer yourself as a propitiation for your father's sins, there's no law against that.

That's why Jesus said clearly in John 10:13

"No one can take my life from me (not even a judge because the law does not permit any judge to take my life for the sins of another). I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again."

This is the Scripture. Please be advised.

Gabrielshow24:
Let me expose you for lying against me for saying I faulted you as regards marriage analogy when I did no such thing!!!

From the picture below you can see the statement you said angels are servants in Heaven; men are rulers!

I want to expose your evil doctrine to the world. Your gainsaying from a 30yr+ bible reader how pathetic!!!

I have never reneged on anything I said here. So, what exactly are you exposing?

You're the one who said you never berated me for alluding to the marital symbolism between Christ and the Church. You even attributed the statement to me. Then, you denied that you never berated me. The screenshot below exposes you.

Gabrielshow24:
Once again here are your doctrines going as far as saying that Adam ate of the tree of Life! What kind of misleading remark is this ? You will find attached replies of people even before I came in

I have not denied that I said that.

Adam ate of all the trees in the garden except the one in the middle which he eventually took from.

Can you show us any scripture that says he didn't eat of it? Adam ate until his right to that tree was removed.

Infact in Revelation 22:14, the scriptures say:

"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. "

Once the right is restored at the restitution of all things, we would have access AGAIN to the tree of life.

Give us a scripture that says Adam never ate of the tree of life. Perhaps in your thinking, you are of the opinion that Adam fell a few days after he was created. According to Jewish traditions, Adam and Eve were in that garden for many years, probably hundreds of years before they fell. Tell me why they would not eat of the tree of life to which they had all access.

I know you wouldn't respond but instead bring up your own heretical fallacies. I'm demanding two things from you:

1. A scripture that says Adam and Eve never ate of the tree of life.

2. Tell me why they would not eat of that tree of life all the while they had access to it.

God didn't want them to live forever in their fallen state, that's why He removed their rights to the tree. The angels had to quickly guard the tree because Adam and Eve would make a frantic effort to recover the immortality which they have lost.

Death is a curse in our world. It started at the time when God said "Dust thou art, and to dust shalt thou return." Man was not created initially to return to dust. It was the curse which came as a result of disobedience.

May the Lord give you understanding.

Gabrielshow24:
Bible says Jesus was crucified in Egypt!
But doesn't the verse above not require understanding.

Foolishness from a 30+ bible teacher.
I wonder what would have become of those Pupils of yours; parading around with wrong doctrines and interpretation!

I won't be the one to be throwing banters while discussing scriptures. That's for kids like you.

Hey! Where does the Bible say Jesus was crucified in Egypt? Any scripture reference? Just one!

The Bible says Jesus was crucified in Sodom and Egypt. Revelation 11:8. Everyone understands that Sodom and Egypt is a symbolism.

The Bible never said Jesus was crucified in Egypt. Show us such verse!

We can differentiate symbolic languages from literal expressions in scripture. You are just an arrogant heretic.

OlujobaSamuel:
This stati sense go just dey post nonsense without any scientific methodology claiming it as fact

I tire o!

Gabrielshow24:
The bible also says "no man will die for another man's sin"
At least that's from Exodus but does that negate that Jesus died for us?

Once again you don't know what you are saying

Has any man ever died for another man's sins according to the context?

Jesus laid His own life down for us of His own accord. He took our sins upon Himself. No one laid out charges upon Him.

Gabrielshow24:
The bible also says men should slays rams and cows.
What's your point?

And the Bible says that Jesus our passover lamb have been sacrificed for us. What's your point?

The bible mentions that men should eat in haste!
I can say that from exodus but does wisdom not tell me to check the context ?

My dear these are Old testament things which the Bible clearly says are gone with the old dispensation. Why are you so confused? Just because you want to water down the Word of God that says Adam was not deceived, in order to establish your own word that he was. God will.judge every unrighteous!

Ha, once again you don't know what you're saying!

But is understanding not key to get the right context?

Which context? Do you even read the Bible at all?

Gabrielshow24:
Now I see you are child of belial When did I fault you for using a marriage analogy when it is predominantly in the bible you transfer this thought to me as if I ever faulted it. That's not my bone of contention: your logic of man being enlightened before the fall, your emphasis on superiority with Angels etc

Your microscopic point of view would never let you learn. I said Christ is the tree of life I consider all life(in whole of existence) not measly earthly life!
If you truly read what I first wrote you would have seen what I meant by this.

Once again You portray your foolishness!

You still want to add lies to your stock in trade? I'll expose you with just a screenshot!

[quote author=Gabrielshow24 post=131989209][/quote]Jumbled mention again?

Yawn.

Gabrielshow24:
By their fruits we shall know them
How pathetic?
A grown up christian that cannot discern when the logic of gender is used to uphold the office holding of men.

If you read my previous write up you would have seen the answer to this question!

How can you say someone is enlightened and yet get stumped?
How can I say someone is a Grandmaster in chess and yet an amateur beat him in a tournament match? Either one that Grandmaster title is false or He didn't take it seriously then what's the point of him coming to a tournament?
What does that tell you?
They were not enlightened at all
Secondly if I were already enlightened how come would I be tempted with enlightenment?
Or do they tempt people with things they already have?

When Jesus was hungry what did the devil tempt him with? Perhaps according to your logic he tempted him with hunger or maybe the devil motivated him to fast more and attain more hunger!!! That's how your analogy sounds

You are a child
Go and study the scripture and stop saying fallacies .

Imagine a newborn christian taking that in!
How disastrous that will be?
The christian will now believe that Adam and eve were enlightened before the fall!!!

Do I even have time for empty boasting? I'm a teacher of the Word by the Grace of God. I have celebrated over 30yrs of being a Bible student.

If you don't believe what the Bible says, and you believe your own logic instead, no one can help you.

The Bible says Adam was not tempted.

[quote author=Gabrielshow24 post=131989308][/quote]Mtcheww.

Someone who is thinking angels are related to the tree analogy of Romans 10 still thinks he has something to say.

This is someone who was faulting me for using the marriage analogy of Christ without seeing that it was the Bible that actually made the analogy.

Someone comparing fallen men to upright angels. Lol.

Should I keep mentioning all the errors you have made so far?

I can't read whatever you muddled up there in this empty mention. Stop jumbling my words with yours if you expect me to really read and mention you in response.

You're even already really angry and upset. It shows in all your name calling. Emotionally immature kid. Carnal Christian.

Gabrielshow24:
By their fruits we shall know them
How pathetic?
A grown up christian that cannot discern when the logic of gender is used to uphold the office holding of men.

If you read my previous write up you would have seen the answer to this question!

How can you say someone is enlightened and yet get stumped?
How can I say someone is a Grandmaster in chess and yet an amateur beat him in a tournament match? Either one that Grandmaster title is false or He didn't take it seriously then what's the point of him coming to a tournament?
What does that tell you?
They were not enlightened at all
Secondly if I were already enlightened how come would I be tempted with enlightenment?
Or do they tempt people with things they already have?

When Jesus was hungry what did the devil tempt him with? Perhaps according to your logic he tempted him with hunger or maybe the devil motivated him to fast more and attain more hunger!!! That's how your analogy sounds

You are a child
Go and study the scripture and stop saying fallacies .

Imagine a newborn christian taking that in!
How disastrous that will be?
The christian will now believe that Adam and eve were enlightened before the fall!!!

The logic of gender was not used to perpetuate a lie. Adam was not deceived! Is that a lie? Answer me!

Gabrielshow24:
Even a logical person can argue that Adam was not deceived, Eve was deceived that's even why when God asked him. He transferred blame saying the woman you gave me made me eat of the tree but before the law there is no ignorance go and read the analogy I gave to answer this. Read it and get clarity!

And stop Preaching fallacies.
This above even goes against your enlightenment doctrine because if she were enlightened she would have known that the devil meant her no good and if he were enlightened he would have convinced her that the devil also meant them no good!

Paul stylishly used this to show the consequences of having women in positions of power because Adam heeded to Eve they both fell!!!

Logic son!!!

1 Timothy 2:14
"And Adam was not deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

Emphasis is on Adam. Argue with the Bible.

Gabrielshow24:
It shows you are a shallow thinker and don't understand scriptures deeply. It doesn't take a child to conclude that anything apart from God will not have life and using Marriage as a metaphor to exemplify the joining process between man and God. Is it only the groom and bride that make up the wedding feast? Are there not other attendees? God said there was jubilation in heaven when God brings a sheep home. You are the sheep those in heaven are happy because their number is increasing. Don't get it wrong child!!! The parable of the prodigal son also exemplified this when the prodigal son came home what happened? A feast was thrown for him( a marriage ceremony) after the marriage ceremony does he not become as his brother which didn't leave in the first place? Understanding his key, you are just bleating. You quote scriptures without understanding in depth what they mean!!!
Like I said; an illusory effect! I am a child of God, a Son of God. I seat and dine with God! I know him by his names but I can see the prevalent trend in doctrine is misleading and promotes pride.

Go and read the scriptures very well. The tree analogy by Paul is between Israel and the Gentiles and not between angels and men.

Chai! This ignorant kid! Should I take you through the whole of Romans chapter 10 before you can see that Paul was using the analogy of a branch that was cut off from a tree in relation to Israel and the Gentiles? Angels are not part of that tree in anyway whatsoever. Where did you learn your theology from?

I was not the one who used marriage as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and the Church but the Bible itself did. In revelation 20/21, we even saw again that the Church is Christ's Bride. Go argue with the Bible.

Gabrielshow24:
Enlightened that cannot discern.
How is that for enlightenment?
He was swept away🤔

Yet, the Bible says he was not deceived. Should we believe you or the scriptures?

Gabrielshow24:
Now your reasoning faculty is opening up🤔
You can see as regards fallen angels and fallen man, it's very simple. A Judge commiting murder will not be spared/acquitted by another judge because he should know better, he is guilty of every offence. But let someone perhaps a child commit an offence the Judge might want to pity him/her because of ignorance but we all know that there is no ignorance before the law he will get a sentence but it might be less severe as compared to the judge's own!

Now, you're using human logic and your observation of human activities to reach conclusions that are contrary to scripture. A judge being more punished than a layman does not in anyway make the judge superior to the layman!

Infact, the layman could be the ruler of the nation. You're not reasoning with balance regarding these things.

Man has a special place with God because the main and most important reason why God created man is fellowship. Fellowship!

If angels were the judges over men, I might oblige but actually the reverse is the case. Lest you come and later attribute biblical references to me, referring to me as the sayer, I'll quote scriptures for you and leave you to it:


Don't you realize that we will judge angels?
1 Corinthians 6:3.

Resurrected Man is greater than fallen Angels because these Angels have been reduced to
the scum of creation but without the resurrected aspects; without Jesus it's a massacre!

I dare not use the words "greater than" or "superior to" in relation to man and angels. These are your own words. I have never directly said man is greater than or superior to angels.

What I have said so far is that man has a special place with God by virtue of the purpose of his creation. Superiority or Greater thanism is your own interpretation.

Christ the only begotten Son of God became a man, not an angel. He came down to earth to be born by a woman, not by an angel. He's in heaven now, and the Bible makes us to know that we're seated together with in heavenly places far above principalities and powers, thrones and all names that are named. Think about that. I'm not positing any form of superiority. I'm only staying who God says we are in Christ Jesus. If you now put a superiority tag to that, it's your own doing, not mine.

Now you are thinking!!!
Jesus had to provide a way to defeat them without his sacrifice we were doomed to their control but after his sacrifice we gained the power over them!

"The disciples were excited that the demons were subject to them"!👌

When John saw the angel in Revelation he wanted to bow what did the Angel tell him?

Go and study the scripture!!!
Learn to interpret scriptures correctly.

You're just arrogantly trying to make yourself sound biblical when you know you're not biblical at all. Please humble yourself and study the a
Word under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

Listen, superiority is not a matter of power or strength. A 4 year old child might not be as strong as a General but he could be his superior. Angels excel in strength by virtue of what God created them for. That doesn't make them superior to humans.

Moreover, I am here simply stating whom believers are in Christ Jesus. I am not concerned about being superior or not superior to angels. I am only declaring the position God has placed me in Christ.

Read that your reference in Revelation 19:10 again. The response of that being when John wanted to bow to him shows he might not even be an angel but a glorified saint. He said "I am one of your brethren..." Angels are not the brethren of men.

Gabrielshow24:
You still missed the whole point. Jesus said those that are sick have need of the physician not those that are not sick!!!

When they talk of angels what do they say about them? (covered in glory, wearing white and holy) but what was said of man's righteousness; like a filthy rag!

You're comparing upright angels to fallen man. Why not compare fallen angels to fallen man? Hen? What sort of logical fallacy is this?

That's why we had to take on the righteousness of God.

While in this fallen state.

I can see clearly it's the entitlement mentality.
The child that is being carried does yenot know the length of the journey.

When parents are doing things for their kids, the kids don't know the value because from their perspective they have always had it which brings entitlement.

Man is the one sick🤕. The sickness, wars, corruption etc where are they?
Are they not here? Many are blind going amiss; doing what seemeth right in their sight. They are the ones that need the help. When you grow it is expected of you to help others; become an helping hand. The bible says freely have you received freely should you give.
As you grow the emphasis no longer becomes on the value you receive but on the value you Give back.

Once again which shows you don't understand spiritual things.

One is spirit one is flesh.
Wisdom tells you that which is spirit will be judged based on spiritual laws and that which is flesh of physical laws.

The bible mentioned in Genesis 1 all things the Lord made was good! It didn't take up to 50chapters after, the Lord repented making man.

Bible also confirms that which is earthly is known/judged by its fruits!!!

Fallen man is sick. Man was not always sick. I can't even understand why you cannot see that I'm talking about man in his original state before the fall.

Gabrielshow24:

First of all, I feel you don't even know what we are talking about. You said man was enlightened from the very beginning! A simple analogy shows your statement is a fallacy and it's in fact wrong. A smart child will ask you if he were enlightened how come did he fall? How come his enlightenment did not make him discern that the snake was beguiling him? Hence as a matter of fact at the beginning he was not enlightened. Secondly if he were enlightened why would he be tempted for another enlightenment in the form of knowledge of good and evil?


That above negates every statement you made. You don't know even know what you are saying. That's why I said your statement is misleading to the newborns (those with little comprehension of the word). I didn't throw away any deep thing of the spirit if infact you mentioned anything it was shallow and filled with lots of personal bias. You mentioned clothed with Glory I gave you a simple physical example; babies to which you have no reply to. Are they covered with Glory?

The errors in your thinking are in 3 sections below:

1. By what rule or law did you arrive at the conclusion that enlightened persons don't fall?

2. Who told you that Adam was tempted and did not know he was dealing with a deceiver?

1 Timothy 2:14
"And Adam was not deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

3. Babies are fallen creatures too. They all have the fallen Adamic nature. A baby not knowing he's naked does not in anyway prove that Adam was in the same league with babies. They both didn't know they were naked for opposite reasons. A baby does not actually have any knowledge at all. Does not even know its own name. Adam wasn't like that.

But yet you insist on this stupid gainsaying ideology of Pride trying to Lord over others. When the entire christian message is all about humility and servitude to God. You do the obvious reverse. Even when Jesus spoke of The Angels he said my Father's "mighty Angels" he didn't from his own mouth say he was greater than them which he was but in all things he exhibited humility. Leave the declaration to God and exaltation to God. He gave us a parable of the wedding where some men like you went to a wedding and took the choicest seat; what became of them? They were sent back. Yet you say I exhibit childishness you don't know the core theme of the scripture; the scripture is not here to serve as stepping stone for the Proud but to make him/her humble just like God. Even the bible says God resists the Pride! All the great men of God from Moses to Jesus what can you say of them they were meek/humble not proud personalities like you. You in person might not be proud but the gospel you preach appeal to the pride of men that's why some were promised paradise of women and drink because it appealed to their lustful desires. The bible is all about self denial if you can't get that then Christianity is not for you. You just handpick the verses that sooth you. David records and says a little lower has thou made him from Angels.

From your above post,no one needs any further proof to know that you're the one who is proud and arrogant. You even termed me stupid. Lol.

Knowing who you are in Christ Jesus is not being proud. A prince who knows is a prince is not proud just because of that knowledge or because he tells people he's a prince. Lol. What you do with the knowledge is what determines pride. Have I boasted here on this forum? Have I referred to myself as someone more special than others? I have declared what the scriptures say a out new believers in Christ. How is that pride?

Let me give you more reasons to call me a proud man. I really need some good laugh. Look at what the scriptures say about those who believe:

Ephesians 2'6
"For he raised us from the dead along with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms because we are united with Christ Jesus."

Lol. Let me declare the Word of God to someone who doesn't know who we are in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 1:22- 23
"He put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things for the church which is His Body, the fullness of Him who fills everything in every way"

Christ is Head over all things. The church is Christ's body. If the head is ruling over ALL THINGS, where's the Body too? If the Head is sitting on a throne, where's His Body? That's shallow too? Cab you tell me where Christ's Body sits when He sits on the throne ruling over all things? Are we not the Bride of Christ? Why are you so ignorant and obstinate at the same time?


May God give you understanding.

More Scriptures? Here you go:

Psalm 8:6
"You made them rulers over the works of your hands; you put everything under their feet."

Romans 5:17
"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!"

Want more Scriptures? Ask and it shall be given unto you.

The truth is that people like you who don't have s revelation of who you are in Christ Jesus are the ones who become pawns in the hands of Satan. It won't even surprise me if you do not know that Satan is put under your feet if indeed you are of Christ.

You said in your write up what we attain to be in the "FUTURE" which prompted me to give you that sarcastic question that ARE YOU NOT A SON NOW?

When your hands are caught you look for an excuse. You are not open minded at all you are stiff, I give analogies without holes, simple yet relatable analogies that would convince a little child. But yours, a simple contradiction and your arguments crumbles.

Which analogy did you give man? Could I even read anything you typed previously when you jammed everything together and I couldn't even differentiate what I wrote from you wrote.

I am a SON now still awaiting the restitution of all things in which my former place in God shall be fully restored. So, while in this body, I groan in earnest expectation of that which would be made manifest in me at His coming.

Romans 8:18
"I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed in us."

"Christ in me the hope of Glory." - Colossians 1:27.

I don't know if you can understand this Scripture below. I don't have enough time for explanation but I'll accentuate some parts for your observation.

2 Corinthians 5:1-4

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life."

Again, may the Lord give you understanding.

[b] You said man saw God and didn't die. Where are Adam and Eve? Are they alive now? A simple logical person will conclude that the biblical statement of 'No man can see God, an d any that sees God will "SURELY" die' hence your statement can be rephrased "they saw God and later died" very simple and logical which shows a flaw in your thought pattern
It's not my fault that you didn't choose the right words or analogies.
When next you converse choose a well thought analogy that your opponent can stomp with ease.

I could go on and on but time will not allow me.

All these bleaters that haven't achieved anything worth while in the presence of God many of whom Haven't even heard him speak. I doubt whether you have even heard from God.

I.judt hope and not discussing with some kid behind these screens.

So, in essence, God wanted them to die, that's why He was visiting them, isn't it? Lolz. How ludicrous can it get?

Adam and Eve are clearly shown in Scripture to have invited death through sin and not because they saw God. Infact God stopped visiting them after they sinned.

And you compare yourself to an Angel because of lack of proper interpretation. When you don't understand that the biblical writer of hebrew made emphasis on the Lordship of the son the sum of the bible is who? JESUS.

And who's Jesus' Body? The Church. Who's His Bride? The Church. Who's seated with Him in heavenly places? The Church. Who body would be fashioned like unto Christ's Glorious Body? The Church. You want the scriptures for these too? Ask and it shall be given unto you.

And to show your pride you say Angels are messengers, you have forgotten that you too have been sent to go forth into all nations and preach the gospel unto them. How's that for a messenger!!!

Your pastors which serve your stead are they not your ministers but are you greater than them? Can't wisdom not tell you that it is he that give that is greater not he that receives
!!!

Just imagine me going to a far country and teaching them my ways can't wisdom not tell you that in my home country those there are doing my ways!!!

Even scriptures confirm it by saying Let your will be done on Earth as it is "Heaven".

can't Wisdom not also tell you that if I can travel over the long distance - as far as heaven is to the earth and teach men that whosoever that must be the greatest among them must serve the rest that this would have already been implemented in heaven?

By the grace of God, I am a servant of the Most High God. I am also a son of the Most High God. I was not the one who said Angels are our ministers. The Bible says so. Go and argue with the Bible!

At least the Bible says"Judgement will start from the Lord's house"

Where's the Lord? Heaven. Who are those there? Angels and other other beings when there was war; the devil was cast out(Judgement) and he was reduced to the least of all creation

Or did they tell you that the judgement that is to come is for those angels that stood by God which resisted the devil and threw him away from Heaven? Don't envy; they already have a crown for that

Now that Satan is come unto you, you too should do so well as to cast him out(resist him).

Once again:
"Do not say you are better than an Olympic Gold medalist until you have won yourself some Gold"

[/b]

Lol.

The last battle will actually be fought by Christ, His saints and angels. The scriptures says so. You need that Scripture? Ask and it shall be given unto you!

There's no single humility in you. Yet you're calling a child of God proud simply because he declares what the Word of God says about him. Your posts are full of fluffs, personal bosses, mental gymnastics and illogical conclusions, yet I never called you stupid. Meanwhile I'm the one who's proud and you whose posts are full of jabs and subtle insult are the one whose humble. Glory to God!

Gabrielshow24:
And yet you call me childish. What is it with man that they always go about in circles? You made a statement, I gave you a reply showing errors in your thought pattern then the next thing as a form of defense,(attack the character) call the person childish or perhaps wave(evade) the counter questions entirely🤣🤣. You said man saw God and did not die- Your statement not mine, I gave you a simple way a philosophical mind will see it. First question, Where are they now? - they are dead because they are dead that alone violates your statement hence your statement becomes "they saw God and later died". That's incoherence, it doesn't matter whether it's past or not. Your words not mine.
The verse you quoted is just a very sublime and cheeky way of supporting the disposition of men in positions of power by making reference to the logic that both sinned but one was deceived. It's very simple: you go to buy something perhaps to convert money they give you cash then you gave me, I too due to my excitement decides to go spend the money without checking whether the money is fake or not. I end up being beaten as a result I tell them where you're they round us both up, I can plead to the judge that I wasn't deceived but rather I was complicit because I didn't vet it. Hence whether it was voluntary or not it's speculation but reason goes along the line that it was most likely voluntary but with the added "emphasis of be like God". She must have related everything she was told(by the serpent( to him) and he must have seen reasons as at that time why it was good to do so. Which buttresses my point if they could discern or were enlightened like you said they would have seen reasons not to.

Once again you shot yourself in the leg!

My dear, I think you should go back to all our discussions. My emphasis have been on what God created man to be and not what man has become.

I don't want to be arguing unnecessarily since it seems you're not even getting the very essence of the discussion. I'll advise you to go through our discussions again from the beginning and read with an open mind. I am a very busy person and would not like to spend time discussing A with someone who is discussing B.

I don't even see any reason why anyone would be arguing with me just because I commented on an analogy to have been an excellent one.

You actually didn't show me any error. There was none. The way you jam my mentions with yours make it difficult to reply you. I scripturally explained deep things of the Spirit to you which you threw away. All your thoughts so far are that of the letters and not of the Spirit. They're that of someone who reads the Bible without revelation.

Look at your recent gaffe where you said Adam was not a super being, that's why he didn't know he was being deceived by Satan. I showed you the error through scriptures but all you do is to reply and boast and talk about me being proud for showing you what the scriptures say. Such insincerity in discussions isn't encouraging for anyone to keep engaging.

My emphasis has been on Adam and who he was at the beginning., yet you didn't see that. You're now telling me it's a new claim I'm making. How can I continue discussing with someone who doesn't even understand what we're discussing. You claim I shot myself in the foot. Which foot per say? And howl did I do the said shooting. That's a bland statement to make because there's no basis for that statement.

The original intention of God about man before man fell and what man was prior to the fall is what I'm talking to you about for heavens sake.

Gabrielshow24:
I seek complete understanding irrespective of personal dispositions. Like they say the truth doesn't care about your feelings. I seek to understand the mind and psychology of God to see things for what they are, from his perspective. I can see through your disseminations it is predominantly PRIDE and it's not of your working but the seeds that have been planted in you both by the present world at large and by people with little understanding.

You can't even see the childishness in your responses. The Bible clearly says Adam was not deceived. He knew what his was doing 1timoty 2:14.

You're actually the one who is proud because you want us to dwell on your inadequate knowledge of scripture and agree to your reasoning in spite of scriptural positions to the contrary.

Asking me how many people have seen God from the population of the works shows you don't even know what you're talking about.

We are talking about who man was before the fall. That question is absolutely invalid. We are talking about what we'll be in our future. Adam is our past Adam. The Lord Jesus is our second Adam that restores our former state to us in our future. Hence He's called the second Adam for a reason. The first Adam failed but the second Adam has succeeded.

Please go study the Bible for yourself. I find your arguments lacking in substance.

Wilgrea7:
Inability to prove that there's something outside our universe does not make the claims about outside said universe automatically true.

It is an imaginary universe at best. There's no logical position that draws conclusions on the basis of "What ifs". You cannot use a 'what if' to negate a logical observation except the 'what if' can be tested and examined. In this case, your 'what if' is something imaginary.

I don't know where you got that idea about atheism from... But that's not true. Also, you've presented no superior argument so far. You're the one trying to make a case for something that cannot be proven or falsified. You sir, are the one trying to argue based on something that cannot be proven.

Neither have you countered the argument in any way. For the most part you have agreed that all my arguments are true within our universe. Your idea of a superior argument is a determination of facts from an imaginary outer universe which I call mental gymnastics. It's such a very easy argument to make. If someone says this thing is black, just tell the person that he cannot conclude that it is black because it might not be black in another universe - an imaginary one for that matter. You win? Nope! That's no argument at all.

Simple question. Before the thing was created then, where was the creator?

Can you please differentiate these two expressions?

1. There is a Creator.
2. Where was the Creator?

Does a lack of knowledge of the latter negate the former? Not knowing where the Creator is negates His existence? So, the question is not what this argument addresses.

Everything should be done in stages and in the right order. You first establish that there's a Creator. Then you move to the next stage. Where was the Creator? That's putting the cart behind the horse.

I could take the time to explain how the scientific method works, but that would just derail from our main point. So I won't bother with that now.

I don't believe in a creator because I have not seen evidence of one based on the definitions, or in your case, a lack of definition given. You failed to define what you mean by a mind, and how you would go about locating or showing one. You instead avoided clearly defining a mind, by telling me we all know what a mind is.

You have then contradicted yourself because you have once admitted in the course of this argument that all I have said are true within this universe. When you find your imaginary universe you can then start to see if these realities in our universe apply there too.

I don't have to define a mind for you. It's just a way of deviating from the main course because we all know what a mind is. But if you insist, I'll say that whatever your definition of a mind is, as long as it can have consciousness, perception, thoughts, plans, cognition and imagination, you already have a mind.

You want to posit the existence of something you refuse to clearly define, nor explain. Sir... how exactly do you expect us to progress in the analysis of the alleged claim then?

I should clearly define a Creator?

The burden of proof lies on the person making claims of some external super mind. More on this below

A mind is not nothing. It is a type of thing. If you claim a thing is responsible for creating the universe, and you call it a mind.. that is a description of said thing. That falls under the nature of said thing.

I didn't call the Creator of the universe a mind. I only said the purposefulness of the things we see in the universe points us to they fact that they can only have their sources in a mind. This you admitted to be correct only as far as our universe is concerned. Then, turning around to tell me to define the mind is just being too playful of you.

My analogy of the house was to make a point, that when talking of a thing being brought into existence, it is impossible to not make reference to a sort of metaphorical outside. The house was an example. But to buttress my point further, I will ask you the same question.

But your analogy of a house falls short because it only looks at a weak example out of multiple examples to draw an inadequate inference.

Before said creator created the universe.. where was it?

The question is invalid because "where was the Creator?" Is not an argument for "There must be a Creator." This is an attempt to shift the argument away from the main point rather than addressing the original argument.

If you want to claim there was a "somewhere", then you're alluding to the possible existence of said outside, which proves my point. Just like the plot of land before the house was built.. or the area of grass or surrounding before the fence was built.

The somewhere is not the stage I'm concerned with right now. I'm saying THERE IS a Creator. You should prove that there was none by negating my idea regarding purposefulness. You are not arguing against my point but creating your own points for me to argue on. That's not an argument at all. You've boy countered me at all. Asking where the Creator is or was is not in line with this argument. Did I say that the Creator existed because there was a place? No, but because we saw purpose in certain things, and we know from experience that purposeful things have only originated from a mind.

If you say there was not a "somewhere", then you're claiming there was absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing in the most absolute sense, except said mind.

I'm not concerned about a somewhere at this stage.

In that case, you need to explain how a mind can just "exist".. because for someone who happens to draw inferences from our observable universe, you know more than anything that minds do not exist without something like a body or form, which would be in a "somewhere".

Now you see how it goes in a circle?

Have you agreed that a mind exists behind these purposeful things before we would now start looking for how that mind came to exist? This is another attempt to refocus the argument in another direction away from the main argument. Please the only claim I have made is for the possibility of the existence of a Creator. I did not make a claim on how a mind can exist.

Your argument about an imaginary universe is an "appeal to possibility" fallacy, which suggests that just because something is possible, we can't draw conclusions based on our current knowledge.

We have no evidence of another universe, and even if we did, it's unclear how that would affect our understanding of purposefulness and minds in our universe.

This your kind of argument can lead to a kind of epistemological nihilism, where we question all knowledge claims because they might not be true in some hypothetical scenario. This is not a productive way to approach knowledge and understanding.

In science and philosophy, we rely on empirical evidence and observation to inform our conclusions. And based on what we've observed in our universe, it's reasonable to conclude that minds are the source of purposeful things.

If we question everything based on hypothetical scenarios like that of an imaginary outer universe, we'd never be able to make any knowledge claims or communicate meaningfully in our world.

Wilgrea7:
That was not my point, but okay.




There was never a disagreement in this area.




No Sir. I think I need some clarification on this. If you want to talk about the potential purpose and source of a thing that exists, you cannot ignore how and why that thing would exist in the first place. And that applies to everything.

We are not ignorant about the why of the existence of these things. Science has confirmed that they work harmoniously to sustain life on earth. We can actually ignore the how because we don't need the how to know there's a source for such things. We don't need to know how a car moves or how an airplane flys to know it has a creator. Do we? We don't even need to know the source of a thing for us to know it has a source, do we?

All we're saying is that these things, by virtue of the functions they fulfil and how they fulfil those functions could have only been the products of a mind. That's sufficient information for us in this universe to know that such things have a creator.

I'm not opposed to the idea of a creator. If you want to posit such idea, you need to provide reasonable evidence for it. So far, you've not provided such. Your argument rests on our observation of how things work in a system we are observing from the inside. And I have pointed out reasons why that line of reasoning is faulty.

I opened up the foundation for more critical thinking that questions the idea of a Creator not existing. There's no evidence for the lack of a Creator too. Is there? All are speculations based on inferences. No one has any proven evidence that a Creator does not exist. Yet, people like you believe such a notion as though it was already proven. However, i am questioning that notion and telling you that, given the framework of these things and the harmony they exhibit in fulfilling a shared purpose, they cannot be without a Creator. It takes a mind to make purpose happen. This you have admitted to be correct within our universe. But your reference to an imaginary outer universe is what I find amusing.

You responded by saying we have no knowledge from outside the system, which would be the universe in this case to draw information from. And that is exactly my point.

That's not a point actually. I never said we have no knowledge from outside our universe to draw information from. I said we do not need to bother ourselves about an imaginary universe. It is actually very illogical to dismiss an observation, a finding or a discovery on the basis of something so imaginary as an outer universe. The argument does not have any basis whatsoever. It should be stricken out. That's not an argument.

Due to a lack of sufficient information, your conclusion is unfounded.

There's no lack of sufficient information on the basis of an imaginary universe. We should then say that due to a lack of information about an imaginary universe, the stored knowledge in our libraries are unfounded. You want to be sure if the mind is the source of purpose in another universe before you can draw your conclusion? That's ridiculous. You must test all scientific laws in another universe before you accept them too. For example, why should we believe that there's an equal and opposite reaction for every action? What if there's another universe where the reverse occurs? Hence this law is unfounded according to you. The same applies to all laws and all knowledge acquired in this universe based on your logic.

That's a non-starter and you know it. The entire fulcrum of this discussion is the concept of a creator for the universe. In what way would something inside that same universe negate that premise?

Is there anything purposeful in our world that has no creator?

Gabrielshow24:
...

You muddled up the whole mention as though I was the one who said everything you said, hence, I'm unable to properly mention you so that I can provide answers to every section of your response.

But actually, let me just puncture your ideology a bit.

I read where you said Adam and Eve didn't see because the eyes of their understanding was not enlightened. That's quite laughable because you blatantly contradict scripture.

We are currently in the state Adam fell into. We are not in the state he fell from. Do you know what a fall is? From a higher level to a lower level. All because of sin. Just think of it a bit. Adam fell from somewhere. He was higher than where he fell to. Or you don't believe that Adam fell as the Scriptures say?

The eyes of his understanding were actually enlightened at the beginning. They dimmed only because of the fall. We inherited that dimness. That's why in Ephesians 1:18, Paul prays that "the eyes of our understanding be enlightened." That's talking about the spiritual eye which we have but could no longer use. Adam was actually a spiritual being with functional spiritual eyes. He was in God's likeness. God is Spirit, His likeness is a spirit too.

The first thing the Holy Ghost does in us when we give our lives to Christ to REVIVE our dead spirit and reactivated our dead senses. We have dimmed spiritual eyes from our glorious nature from which we fell. It's there. It only needs enlightenment as you can see from Paul's prayers. Adam used it before the fall. He was no ordinary being.

My friend, the Glory of God lifted from man. Shame came in, and all manner of sicknesses, diseases and death. Adam was created naked but he had no need of clothes because the Glory of God was his natural clothing.

Moses experienced a bit of what Adam had when he spent time with God on Horeb. His face did shine. The Glory of God covered his face. Men with canal eyes could not even behold him. He had to wear a veil to cover the blinding glory of his face in order to be able to interact with fallen men. Moses only spent 40 days with God to achieve that. Compare that with Adam and Eve who had God visiting them face to face for regular heart to heart discussions in the cool of each day. We're talking about people who beheld God face to face on a daily basis and never died. Fallen man would die if he were to see God face to face as Adam and Eve did before the fall. Adam and Eve were not ordinary beings my brother!

Do you know that it isn't all angels that can see God face to face? Lol.

The Bible is deep but you seem to have concerned yourself only with surface knowledge; and argue based on that surface knowledge.

Gabrielshow24:
You have this tendency of changing direction midway. Assuming a form means you are in that form but it doesn't necessarily mean you are of that form. Which means it's a being of higher understanding that can assume a form of lower transcendency. Man assuming a dog form walking on all fours but it's not necessarily all dogs(that can walk on the hind legs like man). Man can emulate a swaying motion of a fish when swimming but it's not also all fishes that can walk on land. Very simple an higher concept being can easily take the form of a lower being that's why it was very easy for God to take the form of man but is the converse true? Nope! Similarly, Angels taking the form of man but is the converse true, also Nope!

My dear, assuming new forms does not make you a higher being. A human being has two states - celestial and terrestrial. That's because he needs the latter to live on earth and needs the former to survive once he leaves the earth. An angel has only one state because he lives only in a celestial realm. He therefore has a celestial body. God didn't give bodies according to superiority. Lol. Bodies are given according to needs.

Bodily transformation is a mere apparition. Never real but made to look real for specific purposes. An apparition is not the same as stateliness. A witch can also transform. That doesn't make her superior in anyway.

These are deep spiritual things you're just using surface knowledge to view. Man had a celestial undying body at the beginning. Through sin, death came into the world. When God judges death by casting it into hell, there'll be no more death. Our mortal bodies shall be transformed into a celestial state - the state from which we fell. In that state, we shall live forever as God originally intended. This is the eternal life promised by God to those who believe. And this is the truth of the Gospel.

jaephoenix:
Ok. Apology accepted. I apologize too

That's noble of you. Keep it up!

jaephoenix:
The screenshots actually showed I responded to your post. Youre further showing how clueless u r

Number two insult without even replying to you. Does anyone need further proof?