Search results

Oh Lord have mercy, not another thread about the trinity. For the hell of it, you can ask yourself this question. Did the Father kill himself and raise himself from the dead three days later? If the answer is no, then your salvation is assured because the atonement was legitimate. If the answer...

Pretty sure he wouldn't have offered them in place of his daughters if they couldn't actually "know" them, so to speak.

......Uh huh, yep, so in other words you don't have a legitimate argument, you just spout off random verses that's irrelevant to the subject at hand to save face, as is typical. I'm moving on now.

:rolleyes:......You just know that a person doesn't actually have a real argument when all they can do is throw ad hominiem insults at people, calling them "ignorant" and such. You think it makes you look good, it really only makes you look weak. Just stop it OK, you ain't impressing anyone...

This tells us nothing about what a "spirit" actually is. The most we know about "spirits" is that they are something not of this material existence, that's about it. Yes, they are "spirits", which is no basis whatsoever for limiting them as "spirits" because for one, we know next to nothing...

Nothing about this scripture explicitly states "angels cannot have sex with humans". Just because Gods holy angels did not have sex with humans doesn't mean the fallen ones didn't. Jesus here is only saying that we won't HAVE to marry and procreate because we gain immortality in the resurrection...

Not that angels can't "leave their first estate" to have sex with humans. Its quite clear they did in Genesis 6. the real issue is there is no basis for believing Satan had anything to do with Cain's conception, since it quite plainly states it was between Adam and Eve.

Its not so much about what he desires, but more about what he foreknew. Does God know the future or not?

:rolleyes:.....Where are you getting this rubbish from about Satan banging Eve to conceive Cain?

In any story, the beginning and ending are the most crucial parts. If Jesus is called the second Adam, then there must have been a first Adam. So if the beginning of the book isn't literal, then there is literally no reason to believe the rest of it.

Who said I was anybody's "fellow brethren"?

Well we have an immune system for that, but if he didn't allow us to heal ourselves faster through the various sources in nature, I'd still call him inept.

I'm sure we all know that, at least we should by now. I already brought this up in one of my earlier posts. Jesus is the ONLY reason why any human can be called a son of God. Before Jesus, the only human that was ever called a Son of God was Adam, because he was fashioned by God himself. This...

Uh huh, well "in the process of time" before Cain went upside his brothers head, we don't know how many children they could have had is what I'm saying. They along with their offspring could have easily had a ton by the time Cain got uppity.

No, I just don't see a reason to believe that they had any children before Satan came along and ruined it all for them. It certainly didn't take long at all for that to happen.

You can promote whatever tripe you wish, at least for the average Joe, telling lies has consequences. There is no such thing for the media and high level, deep state government officials. They can tell you a bunch of half wit Arab's managed to elude the entire American Intelligence/Military...

@CharismaticLady *This site is run by a bunch of prudes, good riddance* All this is a cool story, but I can say that any schmuck claiming his computer is impervious to infection or any type of compromise because he believes its locked down air tight clearly has his head too far up...

I keep it real simple, its all explained with the verse below. How much time passed between the time she birthed Cain and Abel and the time Cain KO's Abel is anyone's guess. It could have been ten, twenty, fifty, or even closer to the time they birthed Seth, which was 130 years into Adams life.

Where does it say they had any sons when they were in Eden?

I've been in many different forums, and live YouTube debates about the faith, science, etc the last ten odd years. Don't let my age fool you into thinking I haven't been in the dirt. I've been a member of this site for four years now, I've seen all the foolishness before.