you do not precisely apprehend what I am claiming, have missed my basic contention, and,
You claim to disprove the deity of God and Jesus by pointing to "one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure;... human action upsurges ex nihilo... God command men via written law." Humanity is not determined by God's enforced laws, but by their ontological state. God "proclaiming man shall be determined.. by law,... thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action."
I agree, but I also note that this is a Strawman argument as the biblical authors (not to be confused with those who believe the man is determined by law) show that humanity cannot be determined or exert human action effectively through adherence to the law. Adherence to the law does not change one's ontological state.
"If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined, in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture;"
True. Again, to assume this to be the case of the biblical authors is false.
"...thereby indicating Judaeo-Christian Deity, as described by Biblical Prophets, are inauthentic Deity,"
I disagree for the salient reason that you have not supplied one single verse to support this claim while I have supplied you with at least three direct citations as well as numerous other references not directly cited, but so well known by those familiar with the texts as to make citations superfluous.
I apologize for assuming you were familiar with the biblical god who you are claiming can't be divine because of what he supposedly states through the biblical writers. This isn't usually considered an unrealistic assumption.
"...and, further, are inauthentic Deity which both practice mistake and exhibit ignorance regarding the genuine nihilative mode of originative upsurge of human action, and, of human forbearance to act."
You have supplied nothing from the biblical texts to support this claim.
you immediately go on to discuss what scripture states Law cannot do.
Yes, I do this to support my claim as well as to show that your claim is nonsensical to those who wrote these texts. The entire Old Testament is literally a testament to the fact that laws kept cannot save or determine anyone's fate. Paul literally points this out by contrasting the results of the old method (this would be the one you think God instituted to determine people) with the New which is determined by one's recognition of their own ontological state which literally renders the Mosaic law obsolete. Again, this is only relevant to those who see what Spinoza or Sartre are pointing out.
My fundamental contention has nothing to do with biblical scripture which states that God's law cannot "fix'' persons.
Here again, you seem to be contradicting yourself again. You might be able to clear this up with more punctuation. God's law cannot fix anyone which is effectively no different than pointing out it can't determine anyone either.
I am maintaining that Jehovah was in error per the fact that He originally chose to posit law and direct law unto man,
Again I'm familiar with your claims. I am pointing out that this is not the claim of Jehovah to begin with. He is not directing law to men. He is stating an ontological fact which humanity ignores to their own detriment.
... for, man's actions upsurge ex nihilo and not on the basis of any given state of affairs like law.
Again, I totally agree. I have not forgotten this fact either.
To keep saying that Paul said such and such, and that I already know Paul's position (which I truly do not),
This is an odd admission due to the fact that he has a superior grasp of the texts; one that sheds significant light on just why your claims make no sense.
... and, therefore, that my position is mistaken,is wrong on your part.
No. it's the reason I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument. Again, the flaw is in assuming that God is directing humanity by his law. This is an assumption on your part. It is a false assumption.
All scriptural considerations, subsequent to Jehovah originally positing law, regarding what law is efficient and not efficient to achieve is irrelevant,
It is relevant in that you are the one who is assuming that God posited law to determine humanity. He didn't. He posited law to show that in a presumed fallen ontological state, humanity will never be able to determine anything by the law.
because, what I am holding is that at the very outset Jehovah erred by conceiving language of law as an efficacy among men efficient for prohibiting certain acts;
And this is a blatant Strawman argument as well as Begging the Question. You are assuming this is what JHVH did. HE didn't. We have the entire Old Testament proving this can't be the case, and that those who do attempt this methodology are doomed to failure. Again, Paul spotlights this fact in his letters.
--it is the original error of even making law for man upon which I am focused.
I am focusing on the fact that this is an error on your part due to the fact that God did not institute the law to save humanity, but to point out their presumed as well as actual ontological state.
Your responses are so extensive that one cannot readily write response to your entire texts;
You don't seem to have any trouble producing a wall of text focusing on irrelevant considerations. Take them one at a time.
lets just stick for now to being clear with each other regarding what my fundamental contention is.
I'm quite clear on your fundamental assumptions. Here they are again with my contentions:
You claim to disprove the deity of God and Jesus by pointing to "one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure;... human action upsurges ex nihilo... God command men via written law." Humanity is not determined by God's enforced laws, but by their ontological state. God "proclaiming man shall be determined.. by law,... thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action."
I agree, but I also note that this is a Strawman argument as the biblical authors (not to be confused with those who believe that man is determined by law) show that humanity cannot be determined or exert human action effectively through adherence to the law. Adherence to the law does not change one's ontological state.
"If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined, in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture;
True. Again, to assume this to be the case is false. It is a Strawman argument.
I am unhappy that you immediately alienated me with the troll nonsense.
I must say that I was disappointed that you completely ignored the content of my original posts altogether, and instead sought to accuse me of sowing discord on this forum. What goes around comes around. One doesn't need to be a Christian to assume the validity of the golden rule which states that one treat others the way they wish to be treated. I am simply complying with that assumption. If you wish to be treated better than you treat others, you've come to the wrong place.
we need, [to] get clear... what I am claiming regarding Jehovah's mistaken idea to apply law to man...
Here it is again:
You claim to disprove the deity of God and Jesus by pointing to "one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure;... human action upsurges ex nihilo... God command men via written law." Humanity is not determined by God's enforced laws, but by their ontological state. God "proclaiming man shall be determined.. by law,... thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action."
I agree, but I also note that this is a Strawman argument as the biblical authors (not to be confused with those who believe the man is determined by law) show that humanity cannot be determined or exert human action effectively through adherence to the law. Adherence to the law does not change one's ontological state.
"If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined, in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture;"
True. Again, to assume this to be the case is false.
"...thereby indicating Judaeo-Christian Deity, as described by Biblical Prophets, are inauthentic Deity,
I disagree for the salient reason that you have not supplied one single verse to support this claim while I have supplied you with at least three direct citations as well as numerous other references not directly cited, but so well known by those familiar with the texts as to make citations superfluous. I apologize for assuming you were familiar with the biblical god who you are claiming can't be divine because of what he supposedly states through the biblical writers, but this isn't usually considered an unrealistic assumption.
"...and, further, are inauthentic Deity which both practice mistake and exhibit ignorance regarding the genuine nihilative mode of originative upsurge of human action, and, of human forbearance to act."
You have supplied nothing from the biblical texts to support this claim. You appear to be assuming this, perhaps from secondhand hearsay.