₦airaland Forum

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?

jaephoenix:
And my insult was a reply of your insults…

Please show me my insulin that you replied to. Let's follow it up from link to link and see the aggressor.

jaephoenix:
Nope. Im not. Cant you see my chat with others? How many are vile?
If you insult me, I reply you. End of

This has never been the truth and you also know it. Did I insult you today before you did again?

Please let it rest.

jaephoenix:
Yeah, so correct yourself

What am I to correct myself about? Maybe you don't understand what I'm saying

jaephoenix:
Please refer to my very first post

Jaephoenix. Trace the discussions. I even apologized for doing you no wrong. I cannot be spending time here trying to trace insults or prove insults. I don't have that time. If you change, I'll talk well about you.

jaephoenix:
Lol. You didn't even bother to counter mine

Which yours? I didn't see it. Refer me to it. I've been offline. Just returned online today to answer numerous mentions.

jaephoenix:
Yep. So correct yourself then. Your previous statement was wrong

My previous statement is based on the confessions of AIs themselves. They claim they're no sentient beings and therefore cannot believe or disbelieve. That doesn't mean they cannot argue according to the knowledge fed into them.

jaephoenix:
That was my first post on this thread. What thread are you talking about?

And you had a first aggression that started from previous threads.

Can't you see my discussions with others! Do you see me insulting people for no reason? Even today again you have insulted me again. What's wrong with you? Among all atheists here, you're the vilest.

jaephoenix:
In the post I replied, you virtually insulted me. Look at the screenshots. You throw insults around and when same insult gets thrown back at you, uh pretend to be a saint

Even from the post, it is clear that it was a response I gave to your insult.

jaephoenix:
Where is the proof

I think you should go back to where I put screenshots and links.

Gabrielshow24:
I beg to differ. A simple example are newborn babies; they are naked but they do not know and in fact are not ashamed which portrays innocence. This is just a clever way to explain a simple narrative with exuberance and splendour, as usual of men to emphasis their importance(pride)

But Adam and Eve were not babies. Perhaps, you don't know that the opposite of Glory is shame, and the opposite of shame is glory. Why were they ashamed? They were not blind my brother. The saw for the first time their own unclothedness which they did not see before. They didn't know they were naked simply because they didn't see the unclothedness until what covered the unclothedness departed. The spiritual implication today in our lives is that, in the absence of God's glory, a man's life would be full of shame and reproach.

Am sure Moses was not blind, he hath seen Angels covered with Glory; he even saw the glory of God hence he would have known if man was covered by His Glory or not and would have reported it. Leave it as it is, they were naked- simple

When you read the Original Hebrew Bible and listen to Jewish traditions and take a study of the Jewish Kabbalah, you'll understand that there are many things known to the Jews about the Bible that are not known to you. You're saying leave it as it is just because that's the limit of your knowledge. Most of the arguments we have would be unnecessary if we know what the Jews know. Even the argument about creationism would cease because these things are very clear in the Original Hebrew Bible.

Wilgrea7:
Apologies for the late response. It's been a busy week/weekend.

No worries my friend. We all have busy schedules.

I disagree with you. I think the purpose of nairaland was simply to make the creator money.

You should complete it. The purpose of Nairaland is to make the creator money through socialization which attracts ad revenues. But still, Nairaland has a purpose anyway. And that is just the point.

I change my mind. I think the purpose of nairaland was to have a platform where you could create as many threads as possible. Now do you get my point?

Whatever the purpose is. Nairaland has a purpose and therefore emanated from a mind. You cannot consider all the complex codes and the intricate libraries that work harmoniously on Nairaland to fulfil that purpose, and then conclude that Nairaland has no creator. The mind is the source of everything you see on Nairaland.

In what sense? How exactly?

In any sense and any how. Purpose is not the reason for the existence of things.

So a short recap so we don't go around in circles.

You believe things can exist without a purpose. You also believe the creator of a thing determines the purpose. Then without knowledge of the creator of a thing, how are you sure that something fulfils the purpose for which it was intended (by the creator)?

Should that concern me? I'm only concerned that it is fulfilling a purpose because it was made to do so by the one who designed it so. If it is not fulfilling a purpose, it would be very easy for you to argue that it has no creator. Isn't it? The argument against a creator is hard simply because you yourself know that only a mind can create things that fulfil specific purposes as could be observed in our universe.

Basically.. do you think your observation (as NOT the creator) of a thing could be wrong?

Also... I want you to answer my question regarding how something purposeless can just "exist" but something purposeful can't. I'm very very curious to know.

You'll need to point me to something purposeful in our world that has no creator. Afterwards, I'll answer your question.

jaephoenix:
So calling someone a liar, deceitful, shameless etc isn't insult, when in fact, the person in question didn’t lie?

I actually proved the person lied.

Wilgrea7:
Enough in what sense? I literally talked about systems and how things aren't always the same outside a system as they are inside.

Enough because you cannot prove that there's something outside of this system.

You atheists say you believe only what you can see and be proven. Now, because you've met a superior argument, you want to start arguing based on what you cannot see and cannot be proven. We have no knowledge of any outside system. We cannot base our conclusions on what no one has ever claimed to exist.

I feel like this is pretty self explanatory. We are talking about a possible creator of the universe... where else are we supposed to look? If you're trying to find out who made a pencil.. do you search inside the pencil?

The argument has a very obvious imbalance. It is not always true that you must be outside of a thing before you create that thing.

You're the one trying to posit the existence of some external super-mind. We don't know what exists outside our universe. You're using the idea of what we've observed to try to describe what could exist outside it. I'm just pointing out that it's faulty logic.

The bolded is exactly what science does. The Creator is not necessarily outside of our universe. We can use what we observe to determine the possibility of an existence of a Creator. And that's perfectly normal. It becomes abnormal when you start doing mental gymnastics to say you don't believe in the existence of a Creator simply because the rules of an imaginary outer universe could be different. Who reasons like that? Scientists or Artists? Tell me.

[quote]The person who observes that things fall down when you toss them up is 100% correct if he applies his logic to the boundaries of the system, being earth.

We're do not need to apply the logic of an imaginary universe. That's mental gymnastics.

No one is negating our observations here so far. Observations within the system do not necessarily translate to the reality outside the system. That was my point all along.

You need to first prove to us that there's a reality outside the system.

You've lost me... what do you mean?
You talk of a mind able to create purpose.... is that not something about the nature of said creator?

Yeah, if you limit it within the context of a mind only. Not trying to make it look as though I'm talking about the Creator's nature in the broader sense of the word. My position is that there is a mind. That mind can also be a creator without assuming the nature of anyone. We cannot talk about nature until we agree that there's a mind.

Before the house was created, there was no "inside" or "outside".. there was just the environment. The creation of the house and living in it doesn't negate the fact that the builders of the house were in the area that would now be considered "outside" before the house was created.

Let me give a very clear example.

A plot of land is bought in a field... A house is built there.. fields have discernable properties, as do houses. When we talk of the creation of the house, we're talking of the time when the house, and the properties that define the house did not exist. The properties that defined the field are what existed on that plot of land.

When we talk of the creation of the house, we are referring to the activities and processes that took place outside what you refer to as the house.. because at the time, the properties that defined the house did not exist in that area.

To sum it all up... It is impossible to talk about the creation of a thing without making reference to what conditions existed before it was created.

Also... if you're trying to imply that the creator may be inside said universe, then the floor is yours to prove it.

Your analogy of a house does not do justice to the point you raised. I have provided better examples to prove that a creator can actually be within what he created. You obviously ignored those and decided on a soft point.

I don't need to prove that the Creator was within the universe He created because I never said so. This is what I said, "The Creator must not necessarily be outside the universe to create it." He could be within or without because we have evidence within our own world that a Creator could be within or without his creation.

Remember, you believe the creator is a super-mind capable of creating purpose. I'm curious to see how you define what a mind is, and how exactly the said mind would be clearly identified as existing within the system and not outside it.

I don't think we should be defining a mind since we all have one. Whatever you think a mind is, it is the only known source of purpose. We all know what a mind is. We don't need to know how the said mind would be clearly identified. We're not here to discuss that. We're here to establish that the results we see in our universe are a product of a mind.

Gabrielshow24:
Even the bible records of "some that have encountered Angels unaware", the angels sent to lot; what form do you think they assumed? Don't be childish

Assuming a form does does not mean they're actually in that form.

You don't even understand spiritual things. We're talking about stateliness. Not transformation.

So, if a witch takes the form of a cat, it means she has a Carly state as part of its creation? Why are you do obdurate in ignorance?

GorillaApp:
so Jesus told your so called Daddy G.O to cover the whole world abi? as if there are no other competent humans in other countries to work in Gods vineyard over there. you are just a piece of garbage no need talking to you

My dear. What did Jesus command?

"And he said unto them, GO YE INTO ALL THE WORLD, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but that believeth not shall be damned."

It surprises me when ignorant people also think they can contribute! They'll be talking nonesense and still think they're sensible.

jaephoenix:
Oga, you said your post isn't about intelligent design. Now I have proved that your post was actually about intelligent design. Now you're screaming I should have added other posts. How do I cram all your posts in one screenshot? How do you think it would fit? Are you always dense 24/7?

It's not about intelligent design. I have clarified this to you in a latter post.

You see again another fresh insult from you at the bolded. Even after I apologized for doing you absolutely nothing. I might start ignoring you. I consider you a very immature kid worthy of no response.

You will still lie that you never insulted me or that I was the first. Are you not even ashamed of yourself? Well, people like you don't actually have self worth.

jaephoenix:
https://www.nairaland.com/8193100/completely-destroys-atheism-renders-atheists#131647987

Above is my first mention of you. Where did I insult you this mo.. ron?
Also which insults did I crop out?

Trace the post. The moment I proved that I truly floored you, what was your response?

jaephoenix:
You ignore posts you can't counter. Oya counter that one

Every post have been countered.

jaephoenix:
I thought said AI argues against creationism. Now youre saying it doesn't believe or disbelieve anything. LMAO

That it can argue doesn't mean it can believe. It's argument is knowledge based. Not because it believes anything.

DaddyCoool:
I'm just amazed you don't realize how CONVOLUTED you sound. You and that other guy saying Christ was a Roman invention.

Like I've said, people with "super intelligence" know they're naked when they are, and know the difference between good and bad!

Soo God wants to know that man was obedient (don't confuse with Peter Obi follower😁), and of all the millions of ways He could test it, it was a way that would irretrievably destroy man's innocence and immortality! And it wasn't that the tree was hard to reach. And it wasn't that they were left alone to see if they'll obey - nooo, extremely wise Satan whom they were "rulling over" was introduced to tempt them - not Adam who was given the commandment o, but Eve who wasn't even created yet! I wonder what Eve said to Adam b4 he also ate the fruit. Must have been something like "Adam, you slowpoke, you're naked!"😆

As for tree of life, God gave Adam and Eve characteristics of fruits they were to eat. There is no proof life fruit meet those characteristics. And it was in the middle of the garden right next to knowledge fruit for a reason. Anyway, people who spent their lives studying the Bible and pondering these things have concluded they did NOT eat it. Who are you?? And, no, they're NOT adding to the Bible - their conclusion is the conclusion any reasonable person will reach from the words.

As for immortality, please know the difference between extremely long life and immortality. God said they would die if they ate, but Adam lived about 1000 years. Maybe if they didn't eat they'd live to a million. But the question you haven't answered: what was the life tree doing there if they were created immortal?

What were your questions I didn't answer?

I don't think I'll like to drag this any further because you don't seem to grasp anything I said.

1. Adam was not naked! He was covered with God's glory. When he became naked after the glory departed, he knew it.

2. Being super intelligence does not mean you must know about the existence of evil.

3. Please tell the reason why God placed a forbidden tree in the garden if you have Devine revelation.

4. Give me proof that Adam didn't eat of the tree of life. No need to argue.


Man, I have been studying the Bible for over 30yrs. I am not a conventional Bible student who takes whatever I'm told without examining the facts.

If you think you have anything you want to say about the Bible contrary to what we can see in the Bible, then, let's begin.

DaddyCoool:
I edited my post. See it below. Try not to respond with stupid human logic. Adam did not know he was naked, probably did not know he had a body, what a wise man!
>>>>>>>>>>>

You read the Bible with no revelation. Adam was not naked because he was covered with God's glory. When the glory departed, he found himself naked. In place of the glory, God gave him animal skins for garments. How can you be so ignorant?

I take it you have accepted that mindless Adam and Eve, without even self-awareness, cannot rule over anything, talkless of knowledgeable Satan.
Also, Satan and other angels had knowledge of good and evil yet could live forever.
So QED on those ones.

The knowledge of good and evil only made man unstable to live on earth. Man still lives forever. Man can never die. His glorious body became a death-prone body but his spirit within him is eternal. His immortality in the cosmos was not affected. Only his ability to retain himself on earth. To live on earth he herd that glorious body. The body is just a clothe. Are you this ignorant. The putting off of that cloth does not mean man is no longer immortal. When that clothes is put off, he can no longer abide in this world. But he'll be transported to another world where his spirit can abide forever. In the new earth, Jesus would restore that glorious body back to man. This glorious body would enable us to live eternally on the new earth. I can't believe I still have to explain these things to someone given the depth of truth and revelation now available to the body of Christ. I see you as someone who eats the letters without encountering the Spirit of the Word. I will provide you full Scriptural teachings regarding these things if you oblige.

As for the life fruit, I told you these things are beyond human logic! Also, I hope you know you shouldn't be adding words to the Bible. Here's what God told them in Genesis 1:29: "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food". We don’t know if the life fruit had seed in it. But nowhere does it say the life fruit was their normal food, and the consensus of SCHOLARS is that they never ate of it.
Hence the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
You have to be really insincere to read that statement and conclude it says they were already eating the fruit. We don’t know if their BODIES were immortal or to what extent. If it were physical death then Christ's work would have corrected it but it doesn't - what it corrects is spiritual death.

Man, why don't you answer the pertinent questions I asked you? You refused to answer them because you know clearly that in their answers lies the answers you're seeking to hide away from. Don't deceive yourself. Answer the questions. If you don't know the basis of the eternal life we're promised in Christ Jesus. If you don't know what Christ has come to restore to us. If you don't know the dominion that was stolen from you. If you don't know your place in communion and fellowship with the Father, you'll never realize the full benefits of Christ's death and resurrection. Who is Satan than you're so much giving credence to? He was an illegal entity in our world until Adam gave him legality.

Those of us who are in Christ Jesus exercise authority over Satan and his horses of filthy demons today. Our authority will be fully restored when the Lord Jesus finally restitutes all things.

Adam was not a mere being. God didn't create man in HIS IMAGE and likeness so that he'll live and die! Think about it. Open your heart and let the Holy Ghost illuminate you when you're reading the scriptures. Man was in God's likeness:

1. In immortality
2. In Dominion: God was in dominion in Heaven. Man was in dominion on earth.

Tell me how man was in God's likeness apart from those 2 above. Or you still carry the childish notion of man being in God's likeness in terms of physical resemblance? Lol. Physical resemblance was not the likeness God was talking about. God is spirit. God is not physical! Therefore man cannot have any physical resemblance or likeness of God because God has none.

But beyond all these, using human logic, why would God put the knowledge tree in the garden in the first place?? Who can resist eating it for ETERNITY (assuming physical immortality)? Not only that, He also allowed Satan around to tempt the woman who wasn't around when the commandment was issued! It was Adam alone He gave the commandment, before Eve was created. (And when Eve ate the fruit Adam could see clearly she did not die😁). Not only that, once they ate the fruit why couldn't omnipotent God wipe their memory and restore them to mindlessness - the way He liked them?? Or destroy them and create new ones, minus tree?

Bottom line: don't reason these things with limited human reasoning!

Okay, seems I'm replying a mention I already replied.

Everything I've said so far is scripture based. Scriptures are not human logic.

DaddyCoool:
I take it you have accepted that mindless Adam and Eve, without even self-awareness, cannot rule over anything, talkless of knowledgeable Satan. So QED on that one.

The Bible says in Genesis 1:26 - 28 that God gave the Dominion to Adam. He was given rule over all things. Adam was very knowledgeable in his glorious state. He was a prince in his own domain. Can we even start to teach you about these things also. They're clearly in the Bible. Adam gave names to everything on earth in one day and still could remember the name he gave to each and everything. That's super intelligence. Such intelligence is not available to us in our fallen state. Psalm 115:16 says God gave the earth to man. Man is not what man used to be at the beginning. It would be myopic of you to see man only as he is in his fallen state. Please take your Bible for yourself and read.

Hey! Who are you to say man couldn't rule when God gave the dominion of the whole earth to man? You don't actually know the scriptures. Did you answer the questions I asked you in my previous post? Answer them please.

As for the life fruit, I told you these things are beyond human logic! Also, I hope you know you shouldn't be adding words to the Bible. Here's what God told them in Genesis 1:29: "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food". We don’t know if the life fruit had seed in it. But nowhere does it say the life fruit was their normal food, and the consensus of SCHOLARS is that they never ate of it.

My friend, when Scholars said they never ate of it, were they not adding to the Bible? Did the Bible ever say they never ate of it? Yet, you believed it without examination!

Did Eve not tell the serpent that they do eat of ALL the trees in the garden except that one in the middle of the garden that was banned?

Hence the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

The bolded in that scripture is the stated reason why God said the man has become like one of them - he now knows good and evil. Simple! Even Satan told them they'll become like God 'knowing good and evil.' Immortality is what they already had. The knowledge of good and evil was what they didn't have. And that was the only addition that made them become like God.

They now could die but a taste of the tree of life would restore eternal life. O man, "Death came into the world through the forbidden fruit." It was not originally in the world. That is why God will cast death to hell at the end of time.

You have to be really insincere to read that statement and conclude it says they were already eating the fruit. We don’t know if their BODIES was immortal or to what extent. If it were physical death then Christ's work would have corrected it but it doesn't - what it corrects is spiritual death.

Eve actually told the serpent they were eating all Fruits except the forbidden one. You have to be insincere to even say they never ate of the fruit of life which was given them by God to eat. Meanwhile they left that one and ate the forbidden one. Hen? This your theology sef, e get as e be.

Go read your Bible again!

But beyond all these, using human logic, why would God put the knowledge tree in the garden in the first place?? Who can resist eating it for ETERNITY (assuming physical immortality). Not only that, He also allowed Satan around to tempt the woman who wasn't around when the commandment was issued! It was Adam alone He gave the commandment, before Eve was created (To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you..). Not only that, once they ate the fruit why couldn't omnipotent God wipe their memory and restore them to mindlessness - the way He liked them?? Or destroy them and create new ones, minus tree?

Bottom line: don't reason these things with limited human reasoning!

My friend, God put the forbidden fruit in the garden because loyalty cannot be judged until it is tested. God wants to know that the man is truly obedient when he has the opportunity to disobey but yet, chooses to obey. That means he's not a zombie and his obedience to God is genuine. That's the kind of obedience God wants. Your obedience carries no weight when you do not have the opportunity to disobey.

[quote author=Gabrielshow24 post=131915797][/quote]Please which burble are you bursting?

Did you read well that "Michael fought and 'his' angels?

Do you think that all Angie in heaven are Michael's angel? Don't you know that Michael's angels are the warring angels under his command? Michael is a commander of the heavenly host. The highest ranking soldier in heaven.

He has other colleagues who are also archangels like himself. Those ones are not soldiers and Michael has no authority or command over them.

DaddyCoool:
This is truly laughable😅. Ok, so they were already immortal, so what was the use of the tree of life that'd make them immortal??
So God didn't want beings with knowledge to also be immortal. Have you forgotten Satan and the angels??
As to "us", wasn't God referring to immortal beings? Isn't it same as "lest they become immortal like we all are in heaven"??
Na wa 4 u o

The tree of Life was their normal food.

Ask yourself, why would God create humans that die? Why did God say if you eat the fruit, you'll die? Why did Jesus have to come and restore eternal life? Why would there be a new heaven and a new earth where immortality reigns if that wasn't God's original plan. Or you don't know that our coming immortality is simply a restoration?

Man doesn't die, we only die because of a sinful nature. Man can never die. He can only depart earth and translate. He lives forever whether in heaven or hell! Man is an eternal being.

The fact that death itself would be cast into hell is proof that death itself is a violation of in our world. Revelation 20:14.

In the beginning, God created man to live on earth forever. He had no plan of translation to heaven or hell until sin crept into our lives. The glory of God departed and we earned ourselves a dying body.

Gabrielshow24:
Angels that presents themselves before the Father, surround the throne of God, tell the Son to cast forth his sickle to reap the world, offer your prayers before God and angels that had self will to rebel does that seem like a robot. I remember scriptures saying in the Torah that the Lord will send his Angel to go before you ensure that you do not provoke him. You paint angels as robots and as a result servants as a consequence you still exhibit pride. What you are doing is appeal to emotion there is a stage you reach that you are held accountable for your deeds no matter what soever you do you will get judgement; even Moses after striking the rock did not see the promise land even after supplication to God. Don't be deceived for a man to attain something of value he needs discipline albeit a great God. If the chief of justice commits murder will any judge pardon him he is guilty of the law at which he preaches/practices but if a child commits murder you can claim ignorance what does the bible say? My people perish because of ignorance(lack of knowledge). Hence there is a certain level of knowledge you attain that you can no longer feign ignorance the judgement of God will be mete. Once again angels are spirit, man is flesh. It is the flesh that dies because the spirit moves away.

One angel came and bound the devil am pretty sure of your own will you can do that, right?
Angels also came to take Lazarus to Abraham's bosom. Of your own will can you go there? you don't even know where to go, where to turn your face?. You blaspheme against God's holy angels. You claim yourself to be something when you are not what did the Lord teach about pride as regards the parable of the wedding? You are still missing the point. You seem to forget so soon about Matthew13:47-49. You are the fish they are the fishermen sorting good from bad🤔. I wonder how many fishes must have thought they were better than those that sort them?

The 24 elders are not angels please.

Yeah, some angels can bind the devil. Strength is not superiority.

Please read your Bible. Angels doing their work which are assigned to them does not mean they're superior. Angels carrying Lazarus to heaven does not mean they're superior. Read your Bible with an open mind and get rid of humanly inspired theology. I hope you can see how God qualified man in scriptures. How God had to send His Son to die. You can see the length to which God had to go to get man back to Himself. You can see that we're going to occupy thrones beside Jesus in the world to come. You can see that we would judge Angels. Please read your Bible for yourself. Don't dwell on what someone has thought you as that person could be wrong.