(kriss;47501)
I have no problem teaching one who wants to learn even if they decide they do dont agree but your past posts show you just want to see it your way no matter what so if you wont hear A how can I explain B and C?? I dont think you care what I say you just want to argue. And I dont want to argue with you because I dont get what your idea of scripture is. So far all Ive heard is how bad the Jews are. I have already given you links to explain all this
Your first two links were Not Found/404…..The requested URL /par...35.html was not found on this server.The requested URL /his/ad...e=anf05-18.htm was not found on this server.This one was……
http://www.christianityboard.com/true-sin-...study-t509.htmlI presume this is what you consider to be, “….the earliest church teachings…”and, “….a basic knowledge of deeper scripture…”? And therefore, make the boast, “My scripture is just fine”. So, let’s see if any of your claims are just. Starting with two, prominent, seedline advocates, let us see what they acknowledge, as truth, in their writings. "While the evidence is circumstantial, we are led to believe that Satan seduced Eve....". “Last Battle Cry: Christianity's Final Conflict with Evil”; Jarah B. Crawford; Jann Publishing, 1986; p 334."There are several opinions regarding the actual nature of this seduction which can not be clearly decided by the text alone." Star Wars; Nord W. Davis, Jr.; The Northpoint Teams; p 11.The writers of the above quotes were referring to Genesis 3, but why weren’t they completely honest and state that, in fact, there is NOT ONE passage in the entire Old Testament that supports the seedliner’s interpretation of Genesis 3. NOT ONE!! And, I am well aware of how the seedliner’s distort the use of words like, fruit, seed, naked, eat, etc., to try and give credence to their hypothesis, which, by the way, doesn’t have enough scriptural support to even qualify as a theory.So, let us go to the New Testament and see where, “all this knowledge of deeper scripture”, is to be found. Let us start with 2 Corinthians 11:3, because ALL seedliners have to treat it the same. No exceptions.2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.The following definitions and commentary, in Italics, are Denver’s and were taken from.....
http://www.christianityboard.com/true-sin-...study-t509.html My comments are in
bold. serpent = Greek word #3789 ophis (of’-is); probably from 3700 (through the idea of sharpness of vision); a snake, figurative (as a type of sly cunning) an artful malicious person [, especially Satan: —serpent.] The words in brackets were not included in Denver’s, not so concise, definition of the word serpent, even though they are part of Strong’s definition. beguiled = Greek word #1818 “exapatao” (ex-ap-at-ah-o); to seduce wholly. [— beguile, deceive.] Again, Denver did not include Strong’s entire definition. This is nothing but deception. He totally leaves out the words that the translators used to translate exapataho. And, this is done on purpose!Now, pay close attention to how the deceivers change Strong’s definition of the Greek word exapataho. Keep in mind that James Strong, LL.D S.T.D., never once says that, “to seduce wholly,” means to be sexually seduced.
Bingo. Further confirmation that this was indeed a sexual act. There is only one single meaning of the Greek "exapatao" and it's quite clear. [End
Italics – Bold]There it is. “Bingo.” Just like that Denver redefines James Strong’s definition of the Greek word “exapataho”. Where does Denver get the authority to changeStrong's definition from a mental seduction, i.e. beguile, deceive, to what he claims is a sexual seduction?Then he says this is “further confirmation”. Excuse me! Further confirmation of what? There is no proof to begin with? All Denver has done is make a false claim that “seduce” is sexual. The English word seduce is used three time in the Bible, all in the New Testament. Seduce is translated from #4105 in 1 John 2:26 and Rev 2:20, and from #635 in Mark 13:22. There is absolutely no sexual implication, implied or suggested, in Strong’s definitions. To say otherwise would be totally dishonest. 4105)— plan-ah’-o; from (4106) to (properly cause to) roam (from safety, truth, or virtue): — go astray, deceive, err, seduce, wander, be out of the way.635)— ap-op-lan-ah’-o; from (575) and (4105) to lead astray (figurative) passive to stray (from truth): — err, seduce.Now, if exapataho has, “only one single meaning and it's quite clear that it is indeed a sexual act”, as Denver adjudges, and you are one of the deceiving seedliners, then you will have to also believe the following.In Romans 7:11, Paul was declaring that sin sexually seduced him! This is because the verb, exapataho, is in the active voice and in the Greek the active voice represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action.In Romans 16:18, Paul was warning the church trying to prevent them from being sexually seduced by false teachers! Not only is the verb, exapataho, in the active voice it is also in the present tense.In 1 Corinthians 3:18, Paul was commanding the Corinthian Christians not to sexually seduce themselves! Here the verb, exapataho, is in the present tense, active voice and the imperative mood. In the Greek the imperative mood expresses a command to the hearer to perform a certain action by the order and authority of the one commanding.In 2 Thessalonians 2:3, Paul is commanding the Thessalonian Christians not to be sexually seduced by any body. Here the verb, exapataho, is in the aorist subjunctive and is used as an imperative which forbids an action that is not in progress and therefore commands that it not be started. (And if this action has all ready started it should be stoped immediately)The seedliner’s assertion that there is, “….only one single meaning and it's quite clear that it is indeed a sexual act”, for the Greek verb, exapataho, shows how nonsensical their averments are. There is nothing in the Biblical use of the Greek verb, exapataho, to support the seedliner’s interpretation and therefore they rely on deception to promote their damnable seedline hypotheses.In John 8:44 we have one of the seedliner’s favorite passages and it is unbelievable what they try to claim from this passage, not the least, that these Pharisees, Sadducees, and Jews are actually the seed of Cain who is the son of satan/devil/wicked one/serpent/humanoid of some satanic race….take your pick.Denver says, “One more verse confirms the nature of Satan for us:”John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. But what does the breathed word of our Lord and Savior say as to who these Pharisees, Sadducees, and Jews really are? In John 8:37, Jesus the Christ identifies who they are, “I know that
ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.”Oooops!! I don’t know who you are going to believe but I do know who I am going to believe, and it sure “ain’t” them. Jesus the Christ identifies who they are. If you still want to believe the deceiving seedliner’s interpretation of John 8:44 then you must also be prepared to believe that Abraham is of the seed of Cain, and when you carry it to its final conclusion, it is demanded of you, to believe that Jesus the Christ is also the seed of Cain!! It can be no other way because the deceiving seedliners are demanding a literal interpretation of John 8:44.Just for the record, in John 8:44, Jesus the Christ is making a spiritual identification, NOT a physical identification. The physical identification is avowed by the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Jews themselves, in John 8:53, “Art thou greater than
our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself”?There is one other passage in the New Testament that the deceiving seedliners hang their hat, and that is 1 John 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous. The deceiving seedliners demand a literal translation of that verse also, and in so doing, unbeknownst to them, place themselves in a very precarious position because in demanding a literal interpretation of 1 John 3:12, verse eight, of 1 John 3, must also be interpreted literally. 1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Are you a sinner, Denver? How about you Kriss, are you a sinner? Romans 3:23 says you are, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” Therefore, 1 John 3:8 says that because of your beliefs in the seedline hypotheses that you are both of the seed of satan/devil/serpent/wicked one/humanoid of some other satanic race/Cain…..take your pick.One more minor detail, and that is when the deceiving seedliner’s read 1 John 3:10-14, they must interpret those verses to either mean that all Israelites are to love the Cainites or all Israelites who do not love their brothers are of the offspring of the devil.Proverbs 24:28 Be not a witness against thy neighbour without cause; and deceive not with thy lips.Titus 1:10-11 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake."Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." "Identity Crisis," The Jewish Almanac, compiled and edited by Richard Siegel and Carl Rheins (New York, NY: Bantam Books, 0-553-01265-7, 1980) p. 3Gary
