divine flesh and original sin - Page 13

rrford · #**121** 07-30-2007, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

No.

It was from Abraham. Just like the bible says. It was his seed. The seed of the woman is the seed of Abraham which is the promised seed....Christ.

Hmmm, so following your reasoning here, Paul's mother also was the recipient of this same seed as he claims 3 times to be "of the seed of Abraham." Is that ocrrect or is this a different seed? Was it not protected from Mary also and sent on to Paul's mother?

SDG · #**122** 07-30-2007, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrford

Hmmm, so following your reasoning here, Paul's mother also was the recipient of this same seed as he claine 3 times to be "of the seed of Abraham." Is that ocrrect or is this a different seed? Was it not protected from Mary also and sent on to Paul's mother?

Now that you ask ... looks like ES ... has himself a dilemma ...

rrford · #**123** 07-30-2007, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Now that you ask ... looks like ES ... has himself a dilemma ...

I really intended to just read, but this one REALLY stood out to me. Especially after the explanation of the generations of "protected" seed.

SDG · #**124** 07-30-2007, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yes I know he does, but that is not the same as saying it is Divine sperm or Divine blood....God also created trees but nobody says they are Divine trees. Nor is it the same as what the HF doctrine asserts....which brings us right back to where you started with the accusations and lies...what do the HF people believe

You are indeed missing it as the trees don't claim to be all man and all divine ...

Elder Strange hit on some of where I see the error of the divine sperm doctrine.

Quote:

So, if the seed is manufactured by the Holy Ghost, surely the HG did not produce fallen or Adamic seed. The HG would have produced pure seed from which the blood is derived.

#**125** 07-30-2007, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

He's not arguing with me on that and I was not arguing with him on that. He is arguing what I said Divine Flesh advocates believe and you actually agreed with me when I posted what they believe. lol

I haven't even tried to have a discussion with Dan on that issue. If anyone wants to discuss that I am all for it. But you are confusing what Dan was saying to me and about. I was defining what HF advocates believe, from their own mouths.....you agreed and Dan disagreed...on the definition of WHAT HF advocates believe.

Another topic.

I went back and reviewed several pages. I'm right about what Dan is saying in his usual "charming" manner in equating the ludicrous idea of the half/half doctrine which he sees as not much different than the equally absurd HF doctrine.

But, I disagree that any of us "hard nosed" PAJCers would consign any of them to hell or would we consign the preterist to the regions of outer darkness either. While we can be very confident in the correctness of the absolute neccessity of the Jn 3:5/Acts 2:38 experience there is no comparion to that with the doctrine of Preterism of the HF doctrine either.

JMHO, of course.

SDG · #**126** 07-30-2007, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrford

I really intended to just read, but this one REALLY stood out to me. Especially after the explanation of the generations of "protected" seed.

This stuff is so funny that it's .....

SDG · #**127** 07-30-2007, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

I went back and reviewed several pages. I'm right about what Dan is saying in his usual "charming" manner in equating the ludicrous idea of the half/half doctrine which he sees as not much different than the equally absurd HF doctrine.

But, I disagree that any of us "hard nosed" PAJCers would consign any of them to hell or would we consign the preterist to the regions of outer darkness either. While we can be very confident in the correctness of the absolute neccessity of the Jn 3:5/Acts 2:38 experience there is no comparion to that with the doctrine of Preterism of the HF doctrine either.

JMHO, of course.

Sometimes Elder I think you are an Andrew Urshanite ...

#**128** 07-30-2007, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrford

Hmmm, so following your reasoning here, Paul's mother also was the recipient of this same seed as he claims 3 times to be "of the seed of Abraham." Is that ocrrect or is this a different seed? Was it not protected from Mary also and sent on to Paul's mother?

Same seed. But in the spiritual sense. It is the seed of faith.

rrford · #**129** 07-30-2007, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Same seed. But in the spiritual sense. It is the seed of faith.

Ahhh, but then how do you find any SCRIPTURAL differentiation when it comes to Christ? I personally see none.

(Although we do realize that "the seed of Abraham" is indeed the reference to him being the Father of many nations. Hence, Paul's usage.)

Praxeas · #**130** 07-30-2007, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

You are indeed missing it as the trees don't claim to be all man and all divine ...

Elder Strange hit on some of where I see the error of the divine sperm doctrine.

Saying "divine sperm" has meaning. This problem here is in the definition of Divine Flesh or Heavenly Flesh, which is why I tried to point out what they teach or believe and that was where you reduced the discussion to barbs.
Divine Flesh advocates believe the Flesh of Jesus IS Divine in NATURE not merely in origin.

I don't see anyone saying the DNA or sperm or blood that God created was Divine in Nature.