The myth of grace-only & easy-believism shattered forever

[Eternally Grateful]

yeh, and i would cut out any Aleister Crowley you quoted too i guess. You keep saying "proved my point" as if it proved something, when all it really does is bolster your belief, right? Do you really want me to shred your fave scribe?

If you really need "proof" or imagine you have any maybe we should go to court?

everything i say is a lie lol, maybe that makes you correct, dunno

One thing is for sure.

You claim you know what a word means, and a defenition of the word is given to you you did not like. So you attack the one who gave it as if it is there fault

You are not being honest my friend, So I beliee I will cut off communications. I can not converse with someone who is not going to be honest

 

[bbyrd009]

whenever someone--including me--tells you "this is the truth" you can reliably trust, according to other Scripture that plainly says so, that you are about to get hosed imo

 

[BreadOfLife]

You need to learn to be a cherry picker,
in the other thread I proved they are not the same
you continue to believe however you wish though, but if you want to continue to talk, I suggest you back off with your remarks and accusations,

No - cherry-picking Scripture the way YOU do simply leads to more confusion.
This is the reason you are woefully-ignorant of the Scriptures and their meaning.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

however, you took that from this, right,
Strong's Greek: 166. αἰώνιος (aiónios) -- agelong, eternal

only you cut out the part you didnt like, right, in order to get to your version of "truth?"
or i mean bam please provide a link to your source, so that we can see

Nope I did not take it from that source,

I took it from another source.. People think strongs is the end all. Strongs gives you a defenition of the root word and all possibilities.

the source I used gave a definition of the word as written,

 

[Eternally Grateful]

whenever someone--including me--tells you "this is the truth" you can reliably trust, according to other Scripture that plainly says so, that you are about to get hosed imo

Oh you think you are going to "hose me"

lololol

Ok, feel free. I will get the popcorn

 

[bbyrd009]

One thing is for sure.

You claim you know what a word means, and a defenition of the word is given to you you did not like. So you attack the one who gave it as if it is there fault

You are not being honest my friend, So I beliee I will cut off communications. I can not converse with someone who is not going to be honest

provide us a link and we can clearly see i guess, i am not attacking anything except your proof, we are just talking right

 

[Eternally Grateful]

No - cherry-picking Scripture the way YOU do simply leads to more confusion.
This is the reason you are woefully-ignorant of the Scriptures and their meaning.

Nope

No confusion

The confusion comes from you taking two different events and trying to force them to be the same when nothing in either passage would support this view.. As I showed..

 

[bbyrd009]

Nope I did not take it from that source,

I took it from another source.. People think strongs is the end all. Strongs gives you a defenition of the root word and all possibilities.

the source I used gave a definition of the word as written,

in and out and in and out,
please provide a link to the source, ty

 

[bbyrd009]

Nope

No confusion

The confusion comes from you taking two different events and trying to force them to be the same when nothing in either passage would support this view.. As I showed..

lol, or rather maybe are afraid to show? Where is the link to the source

already know what ima find there, and i guess you do too huh

 

[Eternally Grateful]

provide us a link and we can clearly see i guess, i am not attacking anything except your proof, we are just talking right

I do not have a link, I have logos bible siftware. which includes many lexicons, dictionaries commentaires and forms of resources. I took it from there

If you want to look it up feel free

Greek-english lexicon of the new testament

Joseph Henry Thayer

you can find it according to my layout on page 20

 

[Eternally Grateful]

in and out and in and out,
please provide a link to the source, ty

lol

 

[bbyrd009]

I do not have a link, I have logos bible siftware. which includes many lexicons, dictionaries commentaires and forms of resources. I took it from there

If you want to look it up feel free

and they got it right from Strong's wadr, as a search of a snip from your quote makes plain

but i am not saying you have to believe it, and you are welcome to continue believing eteral means forever for as long as you like imo, after all, youll be dead when your "eternal" is accomplished anyway i guess, so not much diff

as long as you seek life, more abundantly anyway, right

 

[bbyrd009]

αἰώνιος, -ον, and (in 2 Th. 2:16; Heb. 9:12; Num. 25:13; Plat. Tim. p. 38 b. [see below]; Diod. i. 1; [cf. WH. App. p. 157; W. 69 (67); B. 26 (23)]) -ος, -α, -ον, (αἰών);
1. without beginning or end, that which always has been and always will be: θεός, Ro. 16:26, (ὁ μόνος αἰώνιος, 2 Macc. 1:25); πνεῦμα, Heb. 9:14.

αἰώνιος, -ον, and (in 2 Th. 2:16; Heb. 9:12; Num. 25:13; Plat. Tim. p. 38 b. [see below]; Diod. i. 1; [cf. WH. App. p. 157; W. 69 (67); B. 26 (23)]) -ος, -α, -ον, (αἰών); 1. without beginning or end, that which always has been and always will be: θεός, Ro. 16:26, (ὁ μόνος αἰώνιος, 2 Macc. 1:25); πνεῦμα, Heb. 9:14. at DuckDuckGo

see for yourself, and my apologies fwiw
you just picked a believer in Death, More Abundantly rather than an unbiased third party i guess. Thayer was deceived too right

 

[FollowHim]

so maybe you can see

I do wonder at why someone would behave in this manner and then turn round and say they do not.

dunno why you cannot be said to be living in "eternity" right now, wadr. Eternities end just like aeons do i guess, however terrible that is for one's belief system, particularly the Cult of Sol Invictus, oh well

I dug a little deeper.
If eternal means without beginning or end exclusively, we cannot be made eternal, because everything eternal in this sense is God.

So a lot of the uses of eternal are in regard to their continuation without end.
When an attribute of God they have no beginning or end.

So an adjective can have more than one implication depending on the subject, noun, it is referring to.
Also eternal can be a pointer to a type of the subject applied from one context to another.

So Paul says we inherit life through righteousness, or death through sin.

8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
Gal 6:8

If this is an equation between opposites, eternal life is the opposite of destruction.

7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.
Gal 6:7

Now this could be written to unbelievers except the letter is for believers, and about those believers caught in sin.

1 Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.
Gal 6:1

Now if we sow to the Spirit and reap eternal life, and this life is now God, so we are now gods, you can see how the small gods heresy can spring from a restricted view of one word, eternal.

 

[bbyrd009]

I do wonder at why someone would behave in this manner and then turn round and say they do not.

ha well i am a hypocrite too i guess, i dont get too plexed by that stuff

I do wonder at why someone would behave in this manner and then turn round and say they do not.


I dug a little deeper.
If eternal means without beginning or end exclusively, we cannot be made eternal, because everything eternal in this sense is God.

So a lot of the uses of eternal are in regard to their continuation without end.
When an attribute of God they have no beginning or end.

So an adjective can have more than one implication depending on the subject, noun, it is referring to.
Also eternal can be a pointer to a type of the subject applied from one context to another.

So Paul says we inherit life through righteousness, or death through sin.

8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
Gal 6:8

If this is an equation between opposites, eternal life is the opposite of destruction.

7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.
Gal 6:7

Now this could be written to unbelievers except the letter is for believers, and about those believers caught in sin.

1 Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.
Gal 6:1

Now if we sow to the Spirit and reap eternal life, and this life is now God, so we are now gods, you can see how the small gods heresy can spring from a restricted view of one word, eternal.

imo the definition is deliberately obscured, and even intentionally inferred as "forever" so that those who seek immortality after death can be revealed, and they might then find Apollos waters for themselves, or at least harrumph about how everything that drips from their lips is gold, thus revealing anyway

 

[BreadOfLife]

Nope
No confusion

The confusion comes from you taking two different events and trying to force them to be the same when nothing in either passage would support this view.. As I showed..

WRONG.

YOU are trying to pit one verse against another. Scripture doesn't contradict itself. The Gospel message is consistent throughout. It is simply told through different points of view. The Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 corresponds with ALL of the Last Supper narratives in Matt. 26:26–28, Luke 22:19–20, Mark 14:22–24, and 1 Cor. 11:23–25. You can't dissect Scripture and pit it against itself simply because YOU disagree with it.

This is the Word of God - not YOUR plaything . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

ha, "mess with the bull you get the horns" has never been more apropos imo lol
see, if you keep believing the sun rose out your anus too, you get to have a "conversation" with bread of death i guess lol

You claim you know what a word means, and a defenition of the word is given to you you did not like. So you attack the one who gave it as if it is there fault

Thayer is not a bad source imo, but also not the only one, nor hardly the authority on the matter; the problem imo is that he was a believer, and so could not help but forward his belief in Death, More Abundantly, as a comparo with other etymologies reveals. Doesnt mean he was bad or evil tho i guess

You are not being honest my friend

yet you are the one cherry picking lexicons, wadr
and "eternity" is not ever going to not be derived from aion, right, no matter what either of us "believe"

so fwiw i dont really blame you seeking facts and proof ok, that is how we are trained to reason i guess. Like lawyers

 

[bbyrd009]

he who says he knows, does not

 

[bbyrd009]

funny imo that we are known as "believers," right, but we seek proof and facts, and Absolute Truths that after all do not require "belief" at all, huh

 

[Grailhunter]

Jesus

lol