After The Fall

[Ricky Spanish]

It is a judicial transaction that takes place in God’s mind the moment you believe, God is the Sanctifier, not the person, in this case. Our justification, our righteous standing before God is accomplished through our being set-apart, justification is accomplished through sanctification. God’s act of sanctification is a part of that gift transaction connected with justification. Something was true (works), but now something else is true (reconciliation). Does reconciliation mean the whole world is saved? No.

Yup, you are quite right. The answer is No.

Which God is the Sanctifier?

Who is the Justifier?

Where do we Transaction?

[newnature]

Quite apart from you just asserting (without reasoning) what the "answer" is, you appear to have overlooked the obvious possibility that the scriptures of which you speak are nothing but a bunch of old and inconsistent myths.

Then show me. Where are my myth inconsistent? My myth has two flood accounts. What about your myth you hold so dear too?

[Ricky Spanish]

Ajhhh fuck ..

I see what have you have done here.

Don't have an answer, create a false reply with an irrelevant question.

Well played sir, well played.

[Ricky Spanish]

Why do we pander to these poor delusional "souls"?

All we do is feed their falsity of content!!

[newnature]

Yup, you are quite right. The answer is No.

Which God is the Sanctifier?

Who is the Justifier?

Where do we Transaction?

Does your myth story have a gift from God to the whole human race? Tell me about it.

[Dicky Underpants]

Yup, you are quite right. The answer is No.

Which God is the Sanctifier?

Who is the Justifier?

Where do we Transaction?

The answer is apparently to be found in Romans:

"Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us."

or something.......

[newnature]

Ajhhh fuck ..

I see what have you have done here.

Don't have an answer, create a false reply with an irrelevant question.

Well played sir, well played.

Let's compare myths. Let's see who has the coolest myth.

[Dicky Underpants]

Then show me. Where are my myth inconsistent? My myth has two flood accounts.

Which are contradictory.

[newnature]

Which are contradictory.

1st flood - “Without form” the Hebrew word is ‘tohu va bohu’ and is the figure of speech Paronomasia or Rhyming words. The repetition of words similar in sound,  but not necessarily in sense. Without form, one of the Hebrew words is ‘tohu’ and is used as a subsequent event. Not created ‘tohu’ (Isa. 45:18), but became ‘tohu’ (2 Pet. 3:5-6). The other word is ‘bohu’ and is rendered “void”, means desolate. The two words together occur in Gen. 1:2a; Isa. 34:11; Jer. 4:23.

2nd flood- The progeny of the fallen angels before the flood. These abnormal beings, their destruction was necessary for the preservation of the human race, and for the faithfulness of Yahweh’s Word (Gen. 3:15).

[Dicky Underpants]

1st flood - “Without form” the Hebrew word is ‘tohu va bohu’ and is the figure of speech Paronomasia or Rhyming words. The repetition of words similar in sound,  but not necessarily in sense. Without form, one of the Hebrew words is ‘tohu’ and is used as a subsequent event. Not created ‘tohu’ (Isa. 45:18), but became ‘tohu’ (2 Pet. 3:5-6). The other word is ‘bohu’ and is rendered “void”, means desolate. The two words together occur in Gen. 1:2a; Isa. 34:11; Jer. 4:23.

2nd flood- The progeny of the fallen angels before the flood. These abnormal beings, their destruction was necessary for the preservation of the human race, and for the faithfulness of Yahweh’s Word (Gen. 3:15).

I meant the two accounts of Noah's Flood, which are cobbled together in one chapter, to appear to read as a continuous story. It is anything but.

[newnature]

I meant the two accounts of Noah's Flood, which are cobbled together in one chapter, to appear to read as a continuous story. It is anything but.

Genesis 1:1-2a is before the 'a days.' Your talking about the sixth 'a day.' Noah's flood happened after the fall.

[Dicky Underpants]

Genesis 1:1-2a is before the 'a days.' Your talking about the sixth 'a day.' Noah's flood happened after the fall.

Jolly good - when did the Somatids arrive? Was that before or after the Thetans?

Sorry, you're probably not a Scientologist, but no doubt there has been some cross-fertilisation.

[newnature]

Jolly good - when did the Somatids arrive? Was that before or after the Thetans?

Sorry, you're probably not a Scientologist, but no doubt there has been some cross-fertilisation.

Those Somatids are a trip. How our body is a machine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9ff4FQ39CE&spfreload=10

[horsethorn]

Othin, chief of the gods, always conscious of impending disaster and eager for knowledge, calls on a certain “Volva,” or wise-woman, presumably bidding her rise from the grave. Interesting, what is the beginning of this grave Volva came out of?

It's a figure of speech.

ht

[horsethorn]

Jolly good - when did the Somatids arrive? Was that before or after the Thetans?

Sorry, you're probably not a Scientologist, but no doubt there has been some cross-fertilisation.

I suspect it was probably just after the Midichlorians got here...

ht

[ippy]

It is a judicial transaction that takes place in God’s mind the moment you believe, God is the Sanctifier, not the person, in this case. Our justification, our righteous standing before God is accomplished through our being set-apart, justification is accomplished through sanctification. God’s act of sanctification is a part of that gift transaction connected with justification. Something was true (works), but now something else is true (reconciliation). Does reconciliation mean the whole world is saved? No.

Sorry I don't get whatever it is you have in mind NN, I do however notice your constant referrences to something like a god figure or whatever that's supposed to be, since there is no evidence that supports this god idea, well I've never seen any evidence of that kind; perhaps it might be better if you could establish that there is more to this god idea than the magical, mythical or the superstitious, before you continue with this thread.

ippy

[jjohnjil]

Can anyone work out whether new is an intelligent person deliberately posting gibberish as a wind up, or someone genuinely away with the fairies?

Either way, it's all a bit dull for me so I'll leave it to others to engage with him or not as they wish.

I think he is intelligent, someone like Steven Fry.  He could make up shit like this, adding a few grammatical errors to fool everyone.

No complete idiot could compose this sort of gibberish, answering posts as though he hasn't even read them!  And he obviously has no interest in convincing anyone. 

It's a great method of showing religion in it's true light ... complete bollocks! 

[newnature]

It's a figure of speech.

ht

The figure Hypocatastasie for grave. This grave is something much more real and truer to truth is intended.

[newnature]

I suspect it was probably just after the Midichlorians got here...

ht

Mitochondria, with their own DNA, they replicate on their own. Somatids are not cells and do not contain DNA or any kind of genetic material. But they seem to carry information.

[newnature]

Sorry I don't get whatever it is you have in mind NN, I do however notice your constant referrences to something like a god figure or whatever that's supposed to be, since there is no evidence that supports this god idea, well I've never seen any evidence of that kind; perhaps it might be better if you could establish that there is more to this god idea than the magical, mythical or the superstitious, before you continue with this thread.

ippy

The bible doesn't prove there is a God. My God wasn’t known through nature or natural phenomena. He was known through history, events and a particular relationship with a man, which he formed from the dust of the earth.

[newnature]

I think he is intelligent, someone like Steven Fry.  He could make up shit like this, adding a few grammatical errors to fool everyone.

No complete idiot could compose this sort of gibberish, answering posts as though he hasn't even read them!  And he obviously has no interest in convincing anyone. 

It's a great method of showing religion in it's true light ... complete bollocks!

A person couldn't make this stuff up. Religion hates me more for showing this made up stuff. I get it from both sides.

[Nearly Sane]

A person couldn't make this stuff up. Religion hates me more for showing this made up stuff. I get it from both sides.

Diddums, this is for you then


https://m.youtube.com/?hl=en-GB&gl=GB#/watch?v=TCULiAKoDcM

[newnature]

Diddums, this is for you then


https://m.youtube.com/?hl=en-GB&gl=GB#/watch?v=TCULiAKoDcM

Here's a crazy one for you. The word "lord" doesn't belong in any of Paul's writings.

The Lord: The Hebrew states God’s name, YHVH, meaning according to v.14): ”He Will Be.” The Lord is actually a translation of “adonai” (lit. “my Lord”) because that is what the Israelites now pronounce whenever the consonants YHVH appear. YHVH was probably originally pronounced “Yahweh,” but in Second Temple times, as an expression of reverence, Israelites began to avoid uttering it, substituting “adonai” and other surrogates. (As a reminder to do so, in printed Hebrew Bibles the consonants are accompanied by the vowels of the surrogate words, leading to such hybrid English forms as Jehovah [I.e., “Yehovah” or the consonants Y-H-V-H with the vowels from “adonai”].)


Paul (Philippians 3:4-6)  would have never used Lord in Romans 10:9! Paul would insist that a person confess Jesus as Savior, not Jesus as Lord.

[ippy]

The bible doesn't prove there is a God. My God wasn’t known through nature or natural phenomena. He was known through history, events and a particular relationship with a man, which he formed from the dust of the earth.

How can you confirm any of this, "he was known through history"?

What's this about "a man being formed from the dust of the earth"?
 
It sounds like you're romancing about the magical, mystic days of yore, where superstition ruled due to the ignorance of the times, hasn't most of the modern world moved on from all of that dream like nonsense.

If you do by any chance decide to answer my post, is there any chance you could use modern day intelligable English, Because I still can't make out what the point is that you're trying to make?

ippy

[Brownie]

jjjohnjil: "I think he is intelligent, someone like Steven Fry.  He could make up shit like this, adding a few grammatical errors to fool everyone."

Definitely and we don't have to go far to work out who.