FrankForum (Frankness IS Forum)

Apparently there are some people who are so fixated on Thieme that they don't do their homework in basic LAW prior to making videos they hallucinate as disproving what he taught. What Thieme taught is either right or wrong, so what: it's the BIBLE at issue, not the believer. Here, the issue is, ANGELIC APPEAL TRIAL? Yeah, and that issue begins its coverage in Genesis 1:2, explaining why man was made. Ooops.

Here's a video and rather irrational arguments claiming there cannot be an Appeal Trial (in order to bash Thieme, not to learn Bible). I put a link to this topic in the video's comments; but the video owner deleted my comments, including my comments replying to what he said I needed to reply. So discussion will have to occur, here. For here in frankforum, only the user can delete his own comments. Exceptions are violations of the forum rules against spammers and stalkers and anti-semites.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eqxZ_zs7PY

Now, as you read through that video's comments if inclined (not sure you should be interested, I'm not), you'll see that he makes a lot of convoluted arguments, where some of the points are in the right direction but with wrong conclusions, etc. I recorded all of it in case he deletes my comments back to him, and will edit this sentence with a link to that recording, if need be.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, this whole fracas brings up the importance of knowing what 'Appeal Trial' even means, and all that Bible on it, which of course obviously folks like him, don't know. I spent 15 years on it, still not done, started in year 2000 with the Lord vs. Satan series, starting here. Not saying you should read that, either: however, it is on this topic, and takes months to read. Took me about six years just to finish the first draft (so much more re-editing is needed).

Am saying that it might be helpful to those who are searching on the internet, to have a thread on this Appeal Trial, since a) there's junk misinformation like this video 'out there', and b) it's not common for pulpits to cover it. There are hundreds of pastors teaching it now, just Google; but they too, might be teaching garbags. So if you know of any pastors you think a reader will find helpful, would you mind posting links?

And your own research into the matter is solicited, if and as you've inclination. Thank you for your time!

EDIT: related movies you can post or watch, are here.

Whoa. Just saw this, don't have much time, so I'll be brief.

God didn't need a trial. God knows all facts ahead of time, before time, and on time, and as the perfect, rightful judge, He does not require juries or "evidence" to pass a sentence.

But, apparently, the elect angels and we do need a trial. This trial is for us. Hell, this is for Satan and the fallen angels too. I mean, God could have created me as a soul in perpetual stand by mode, and know exactly what I would do and why I would do it if I were to be incarnated in a human body without actually going through the trouble of letting me be born. God doesn't need that, just like he doesn't need a trial or "evidence" to justify locking someone up. But I need to live my life. I need to make my choices. I need to partake in this trial. God fulfills those needs, and viola! I was born.

Thanks for posting this. This is probably the most nuanced clown act I've ever seen, but it made me think.

_________________
"Do not worry then, saying, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear for clothing?'---Jesus Christ


"You seem to think because you have chicken to go you're in luck."---G. Lightfoot

Good points, and whatever you see fit to say later on, I appreciate, be it pro or con. I just posted my (not-worth-watching) Youtube video on this topic, so that the guy and whoever else, can also weigh in. (You can just read the better description, and bypass the video, if you want.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QowI_vx3pw

FREE SPEECH is needed to LEARN, and APPEAL is part of that. You see that, and thank you!

FYI, one of the guy's big sticking points is that in the Mosaic Law (which technically has nothing to do with the Angelic Trial, as the Mosaic Law was post-salv spirituality and principles) -- he thinks that in the Mosaic law, there is no 'appeal'. So he's not aware of the many appellate provisions, like Numbers 5:27, going to the king, going to the safe cities, etc, the other provisions with the Sanhedrin, etc.

So if any of those appellate provisions hit your mind and you feel like talking about them, feel free. I'm sure the guy will be watching this thread, and I'm sure others will, too.

I apologize for ASSuming this APPEAL doctrine was so obvious, no one would contest its existence, my bad, maxima mea culpa. (My writing in LordvSatan is about the Appeal's effect on what constitutes the Dispensations, not about debating the Appeal's existence.)

A trial by any other name, or no name at all, is still a trial. I think of the two women who pleaded before Solomon about their son. Perhaps many such cases were brought before the kings, kind of like the Roman appeal to Caesar. I think the Judges in OT were sorting out all sorts of matters that are not necessarily spelled out in the code, and even if they were, someone had to administrate, and if they did, matters of guilt or innocence must necessarily have had to be determined. And I think the sanctuary cities were God's way of letting the individual appeal to Him directly. If He agrees with your innocence, you get to live another day somewhere else, without undermining the establishment principles of the city you were falsely accused in.

As far as the Appeal Doctrine not being widely known, most Christians today have no idea how to stay in fellowship with God. Therefore, they know even less about anything else. 'tis tragic. That is why I pray often that God will raise up men all over the United States to teach proper doctrine. I don't pray for the rest of the world in this regard. We're it. We are the last nation that speaks English, the current universal language, who has the potential to evangelize the world. If we can't get it right, well...I don't want to finish the sentence.

_________________
"Do not worry then, saying, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear for clothing?'---Jesus Christ


"You seem to think because you have chicken to go you're in luck."---G. Lightfoot

I thought I'd respond to Tim's infant question, but unfortunately to get to it we'll have to go through some of his principle beliefs. Basically he's obsessed with concepts he has developed about the law-- and applies it across everything (including salvation).

On his about page he states this:


But if we pop over to his doctrines page:

Metanoia is *not* "repent" (repent or re-penance is an English word masked on top of metanoia that was derived when Catholics had to do penance for their sins). Anyone who has studied Greek for a few days should know that metanoia is composed of META and NOUS. Which if we were to do a literal translation would be "mind change". The English word repent is not a word found in the Bible... ANYWHERE. No Christian (especially one that studies Greek) has an excuse to use it. Humorously he shows disdain for the "traditional church" yet utilizes their vocabulary occasionally.

On his book the "principled legal standard" he states everywhere on the webpages and on the book itself (and this is important to keep in mind when reading any of his material):

Any Christian who loudly exclaims they have found secret knowledge that was forgotten, especially for 1700 years-- is basically making themselves a prophet or a pope. Nobody who is sane will ever make a claim like that: sure knowledge can be forgotten, but to proclaim YOU for the first time have REDISCOVERED everything (all of the "lost doctrines")? Give me a break. Furthermore it defies how God orchestrates time, if people had lost doctrines for that long, planet earth would have been aborted. And if you read his book, apparently he alienated everyone around him after enforcing a lot of his bizarre conclusions-- so he only had (apparently) one student remaining that was faithful to him. Of course when people get like that they blame others for not "being in the truth" when the reality is, it's because they're unpleasant people unwilling to listen to anyone.

Next we'll need to understand how he defines salvation and what he believes, we'll take a look at the video "can salvation be lost":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxVMZ2MPmKw

First and foremost salvation can't be lost. But he doesn't actually believe that salvation consists of *believe* (believe that Christ paid for your sins):

Salvation is not "putting off the flesh".
I've looked through his other writings and they always emphasize learning--and in this case putting off the flesh. Okay, salvation isn't about how much you know or if you know it, it's about believing that Christ paid for your sins:


There's no mention of "putting off the flesh" as a requirement for salvation or being associated to salvation. And notice he uses a prependism for a "true" circumcision (there's no such thing). He doesn't understand the doctrines of the refilling of the spirit-- so being re-filled vs. un-filled:

If *you* had to "put off the flesh" (as an action for salvation), that wouldn't be living in the spirit anyways-- since you would be bypassing 1 John 1:9.



So yeah, putting off the flesh has NOTHING to do with salvation, but being re-filled in the spirit (1 John 1:9) and learning Bible Doctrine. It's post-salvation. None of that is pre-salvation, it can't be and would be ridiculous to claim. A new believer isn't going to KNOW the Bible in and out, and they WILL make mistakes. But Tim here says they have to instantaneously know "all true doctrines" and be "delivered from the flesh" (of course he associates that to a "work of God", but it's not that would be a work of yourself).


He continues (in regards to the unforgivable sin):

The unforgivable sin is *never having believed (Christ paid for your sins)*! That's just it. It has nothing to do with *post* salvation or *post* maturity. It has nothing to do with believers... but unbelievers who *never* believe, that can't be forgiven since they haven't believed.

Christ explains that a Type 2 believer is one who believes for awhile (and gets saved as a result of that belief), but later switched to unbelief, so they're STILL SAVED but spiritually on standby, so they're carnal:


So let's pop over into one last video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkiaCaD-wzM

He goes between the difference between faith alone vs faith plus works. For starters PISTIS is not "faith" when used in this context, IT'S BELIEVE. I guess those two decades of Koine Greek aren't paying off. To be fair he's parroting the terminologies of the common argument, but he never corrects it. Then he states salvation is: "deliverance from the satanic accusation". There's the money shot. He goes on to say that this means you need to be delivered "from the flesh" and "false doctrines". The problem with this is that... all of that is POST-SALVATION, and it has nothing to do *with* salvation directly.

So he makes salvation a 'work' that requires YOU to instantaneously have all "true doctrines" in your frontal lobe and be delivered from "the flesh". His definition of salvation isn't belief + 0... nor does he ever say "believe Christ paid for your sins", as you'll notice.

Now we can get to the primary question (unfortunately he removed all of his responses so this is all I can comment on):

For starters infants who die prematurely or those with a severe mental defect are auto-saved. So that's not an issue.
Fact: Everyone is born spiritually dead in the human body
Fact: God provided salvation, so it's not an issue

However because Tim doesn't believe salvation is by belief (and instead by "deliverance from the satanic accusation"), he will never come to that conclusion.

I am not sure whether or not he's saying that the infants / mentally ill would have to be nailed to crosses to pay for their sins-- I suppose he doesn't understand that *only* Christ could pay for sins (since as already mentioned everyone is born spiritually dead in a human body). Christ paid for sins with his thinking (blood), not physical blood:

Because if we jump to Luke:

THAT moment is when sins were paid for... notice it wasn't the physical death.

So... Tim doesn't even understand how Christ paid for sins or salvation, it seems. But like any works salvation Christian, he IMMEDIATELY jumps to the "worst possible case" and uses that to defame common logic.


As mentioned previously, Christ paid with his thinking and not physical death-- so if we were to take Tim's perspective it still wouldn't make sense SINCE A PHYSICAL AGONIZING DEATH CAN'T PAY FOR SINS! Christ's physical death or our physical death would mean nothing for a payment. Only Christ's thinking could pay for our sins.

Good points, you guys. I really appreciate anything and everything more you see fit to say here, as clearly 'Tim' is confused wholly. Surely he doesn't mean to be so confused, so he needs lots of prayer and intelligent rebuttal, like you are doing!

At present, he doesn't research his doctrines at all, is kinda too emotional. Doesn't even know basic theology or law. For example, even in that goofy movie Mark of the Beast, someone gave Craig Schaeffer the line about babies being raptured owing to the Age of Accountability. That, they went to heaven because they were too young to understand and refuse the Gospel. Yeah, of course. Duh. I had said so in comments to him (but more succinctly), and he deleted what I wrote. So, I stopped writing.

As for why suffering, well that's the God Deeds series which is the audio complement to LordvSatan1.htm et seq, but just think: if God gerrymanders freedom, then where should He stop? Suffering at heart proves that we are free (i.e., have free will, and God doesn't interfere). So I suffered as a child, didn't you? So is that to be blamed on GOD? Or on the fact that freedom requires we suffer? Justice requires God make good ON the suffering, and surely He has.

Well, Age of Accountability's a longtime doctrine taught in pretty much all the Judaic and Christian theologies (excepting maybe Calvinism), and Thieme used that term to teach it. I did a (very boring) Word search to show the verses, here, starting on the doc's page 4 (did it 10 years ago or so, it was hasty, to answer a video).

Now, y'all might not agree with all those verses, and I didn't go through my 40 years of classes to see which verses Thieme uses. But there is one we can all see readily, 2 Sam 12:23, why David stopped fasting when God killed his firstborn from Bathsheba: I will go (lit. Greek, journey, poreuomai) to him, but he will not return (lit. Greek, pass through, conduct/live anastrephw) to (Greek is pros) me. (Greek is used since 'Tim' claims to know it, as clearly he can't know the Hebrew, which hahaha uses shub both times.)

Link to Alleman-Tellez book and the reviews, here:

Yeah I saw the amazon reviews: I know they're not supposed to be funny, but I found them hilarious. Either laughing *with* the 1 star reviewers, or laughing *at* the 5 star reviewers. I've only read the preview of the book (which was like reading the book of Mormon to be honest because it's *so slow* and utilizes unnecessary excess vocabulary... and the style of writing is polar opposite from mine).

Apparently Tim is a unitarian as one reviewer says that he claims (in the principled legal standard) Jesus Christ isn't God. Well that explains a lot, and would affect the way he views salvation even more since it's no longer *God* paying for sins. That would also explain why he brought up the idiotic point of that it makes no sense for others to "suffer and agonize" to pay for sins-- he doesn't realize that Jesus Christ *was* God and that only *God* can pay for sins.

Oh and check this out:
http://www.principledlegalstandard.org/answer_saved/


BINGO! Tim states that the spiritual death of Christ (payment through Christ's mind) is absent! Which I find amazing since he was just claiming two decades of Greek: oh but you know he does imply to use the LXX instead of the HEBREW as a useful tool, so he can't read anything in Isaiah. Sure the LXX is helpful BUT YOU DON'T USE IT ENTIRELY TO REPLACE THE HEBREW which is inspired, and to claim otherwise is to side with Roman Catholicism. And he also completely reverses the fact that the thief on the cross BELIEVED and was saved. And then Tim says believing is the "exact opposite" of the penal substitution gospel.

Wow, he basically shot down the whole gospel:
*Jesus Christ isn't God and didn't pay for our sins as God
*Jesus Christ didn't pay with His thinking
*The thief on the cross didn't get salvation by belief

That's a hideous awful distortion of the gospel. And yet he somehow thinks he doesn't believe in works salvation and calvinism (when he exhibits both).

@hupostasis:

Good points in your post. Reading the link you provided to his site, I see Tim doesn't understand Greek itself: Greek 'huper' means SUBSTITUTE FOR, not merely 'for'. So he'd know that, if he had studied Greek. For example in the Appendix of Mounce on huper, Mounce explains that very issue: the translators TRUNCATE the meaning to 'for', but as Mounce warns, the Greek reader should always remember the SUBSTITUTIONARY meaning.

And then there's the famous 2 Cor 5:21, which uses huper, substitutionary Spiritual Death baldly there:

Ton me gnonta hamartian HUPER hemwn hamartian epoiesen, hina hemeis genwmetha dikaiosune theou en autoi.

Translated: He (Father) made Him (Son) who knew no sin, Sin! as a substitute for us, so that we would become the righteousness of God in/by agency of Him.

So then Tim's opinions about anything are suspect, if no homework done on the basics.

Thieme taught about the substitutionary meaning of huper often. So these guys didn't hear Thieme very much to know what he was talking about, either.

Ooops.
=======
And of course, hupostasis, you don't mean to say that His Godness paid for sins, do you? You know that He had to become human in the first place to pay. Human Sins, Human Payor, 1Tim2:5 and Hebrews 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10. There are more.

That Tim denies His Deity is clearly wrong. But it's not His Godness that paid. Rather, only as God-man would He be qualified to be Mediator. A point which Tim can't read in Greek, apparently, heis gar theos heis mesites.

I now understand Tim's problem (above, red-glow text), hupostasis. Timmy doesn't understand Greek of Romans 5:12, aorist of hamartanw: meaning, we all are deemed sinners IN ADAM (ties to 'in Adam all die'), because the sin nature is biological. We inherit it. So the soul is perfect at birth, but the body is not. So therefore if dying even if baby sins (like crying, since it's rude) -- the child goes to heaven.

So, Tim doesn't understand Original Sin. It's due to Original Sin that a baby is born condemned and can immediately go to heaven, for the only way you CANNOT go to heaven, is to refuse the Gospel, John 3:36 (should be translated refuse, Greek verb apeithew). Baby and many others below the age of accountability, are too young to do that.

In short, the default is to-heaven. You are written in the book of life and have to be blotted out. Hebrew is mahah, Greek is exzaleiphw. Really obvious examples are Exo 32:32-33 (33 is very important here), Rev 3:5 (and playing on it), Rev 20:11-15.

Accountability was one of the points I made in my comments, which Tim deleted. I didn't see that question of his at first. He had very long unbroken paragraphs, and I was trying to record at the same time and type. Apparently he expected me to be breathlessly awaiting his typing, but sorry -- I didn't know that and did something else for six hours or so, NOT KNOWING HE EVEN REPLIED. Oh well.

So he doesn't understand 2 Sam 12:23, either. To remedy this situation, I brought up Accountability again in the Amazon reviews, directly to him. So maybe he'll figure it out, but he'll still be confused, as he's conflating personal with positional sin. The two are juridically different. So again, he doesn't know law.

In law, you can be positionally guilty but not personally guilty. Like, you're properly standing on a street corner; someone swerves his car in shock at 'seeing' you (doesn't matter why), driver then harms self/property. It's because you were WHERE you were that the accident happens: but you didn't cause the accident.

Doc on 2Sam and blotting out is here but it's borrrriiinnggg.

So no wonder he can't understand the true Gospel. Hope he's saved.

Yeah, and he's not upfront about it (he just assumes everyone believes the same that he does, and if he knows they don't believe in his weird doctrines, he just continues anyways). So then you get images like this to pull a fast tear jerker:

WHAT DO *YOU* PERSONALLY THINK INFANTS DESERVE? Give me a break.

He's not going to change his mind because he just wrote an 800 page book and took sword to crusade this book and its beliefs (just like a Roman Catholic who lives their entire life in Roman Catholicism-HOW could they admit themselves wrong and turn to the truth?). And of course it will only ever garner a small following, so he'll just attribute it to other people not "coming to the truth" *sigh*--the whole claim of the book is that its doctrines were forgotten for 1700 years. Which is just as ridiculous to claim as calvinism is. And yet he and his Ouky can't see that.


In some cases, certain peoples' pride won't fall until they're on the bema. And then they'll be sulking because they were wrong and wasted their time and others' time.

As to whether or not he's saved, depends if he accidentally saved himself through belief prior to shouting "that's not a penal substitute" and going on about his principled legal standard.

There's really only one thing I can say to Tim Alleman: watch the doughnut, not the hole (since he may as well do nothing):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzV-8TofHTw


Just change "bread" to "doughnuts" and we're right on track. Here it is in the Principled Legal Standard Version (PLSV)

Well, someone on a tirade needs to twist data to create red herrings. Happens all the time with Windows 10: oh, Google does the same thing. Fact is, Google does NOT do the same thing, online is not offline and non-personal data is not personal data. Further, that if Google were doing the same thing, that wouldn't make MSFT right.

Here, PLS twists data about babies like the Prolifers all do, in order to gain sympathy ('babies, see we are for babies!) -- essentially thereby calling God Himself, evil. Then in order to avoid that, invents another falsehood of whatever he claims you do to earn salvation.

Meanwhile, Bible says there's no earning of salvation nor any baby going to hell in the first place.

So our boy will likely not ever learn this side of heaven, as you say, because then the inventions have to be admitted and the book revenue lost.

TIPOFF: if someone's SELLING you info about God, then God isn't in that info.

Keyword: Shatan = (legal) adversary, specifically opposing attorney, accuser.

Trial verses are many, in every chapter, and definitely in the the meter of every book's opening chapter, if not every chapter.

Gen 1:2, Job 1, Job 2, Zech 3, Matt 4, Matt 25:41, John 8:44, 1John 3:12ff, Hebrews 11:39-40, all of Psalm 110, whole book of Hebrews is on how Church completes the trial, Ephesians 3-5, all of Revelation: especially clear on how Satan is shut up first for the 1000 years, then let out for the rebellion (which unsaid lasts 50 years), then the GWTJ; Ezekiel 28, Isaiah 14. Jude 9 and 23. I'm typing as the chapters/verses come to mind, so they're not in order.

In particular, you know from Isaiah 14 and 28 what Satan's sin was. You know from the stars fell from heaven clauses that this already happened, and that therefore the back-and-forth of Satan and the demons is AFTER the guilt and can only be due to an appeal, as now man not angels, is on trial. MAN on trial, means a PREVIOUS trial for the ANGELS, so now must be only an APPEAL as the same WITNESSES are not used.

Duh. There's no relevance to human witness unless this is an appeal trial, specifically to prove that the Judge is not guilty of malfeasance (which would justify a mistrial verdict). Appeal trials are run specifically to say that the RULING in the prior trial was wrong, and if the appeal proves the opposite, then the first trial is nullified. Especially if (as in the OJ Simpson trial) there can be some claim made AND PROVED that the prior trial was tainted (as to evidence or the judge's ruling).

Collateral verses on the 'stars' being behind us in the trial, are Judges 5:20 (axiomatic tone), Daniel 8:10, Rev 12:4 (as an identity for a past event). Stopping now. There's more but I'm tired.

Well apparently Tim supports a 'flat earth':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cbxeqlfCUA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHGrs46QnOA

He's also against the pre-tribulation rapture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYiNHCzKsac

So let's tally it up Tim's beliefs so far:
#1 He believes in works salvation (even if he thinks he doesn't, like so many)
#2 He believes in unitarianism and claims Christ is not God
#3 He believes in calvinism as a result of his unitarianism (John 8:58) and is ironically vehement against it simultaneously
#4 He denies Christ's payment for sins & the 'dual deaths'
#5 He denies the pre-tribulation rapture
#6 He believes in a flat earth

I if I actually bought the 'principle legal standard' and wasted some time reading it that list would become exponential, but no thanks. Kind of hard to believe in a flat earth when the Bible is against it. But hey, Tim isn't interested in the Word, just himself.

This actually sucks because now he's promoting really stupid secular material (flat earth) and trying to link it up with what Christianity represents. So then an atheist will look at Tim's stuff and say "hey, this Christian stuff is stupid because they believe in a flat earth and argue nonsensical legal B.S."

IMHO...

The elect angels would to this day have remained perpetually confused about God, if God did not resolve this conflict they had. God has no conflict of his own understanding. God is now resolving it for the sake of men and angels with tangible evidence as found in fallen men that is displayed as evidence before He will be executing the actual judgment. God is doing this with evidence that angels can easily relate to and identify with. That evidence being? Fallen man. Men who reflect the same nature as fallen angels.

After all, God could not have simply judged Satan and have the faithful angels be at peace with God..Why? For,it all began with a private thought held in the heart of Lucifer. "I will make myself like the Most High.' No one else could see that thought, let alone understand the implications because of their state of innocence.

Here is an attempt to explain a part of the resolve God brought about:

Jesus warned that if a man lusts in his heart towards a woman? That in God's eyes, that man had committed an actual act. And, that if a man has a malicious anger in his heart towards another? That he in effect had murdered that person. Link that with what Satan desired? It was such a desire of the heart. One that had no angel had a point of reference to define at the time it was desired. But, God had a plan to take care of that area of angelic ignorance.

Enter the fall of Adam.. After man fell Satan's desire towards the Lord was able to be displayed through fallen men before the angels. It can be clearly seen when Absalom pursued his father the righteous king David. Pursued in his desire to usurp David's throne. Absalom's rebellion was a matter of assassination and take over in Absalom's heart.

Now, when Lucifer had his evil desire in his heart? There was no such thing as death to be known to the angels. For, nothing yet was fallen. There was no death to be witnessed to by the angels, let alone murder out of envy. Evidence of such envy and murder to be tangibly manifested was first displayed with Cain and Able. Evidence A.

The elect angels who would otherwise remain confused about God were being presented living metaphors as evidence. Evidence as found in examples of various fallen men. By means of what they observed in the sinful acts and evil of men angels were developing a frame of reference in order to understand why God had to judge Lucifer for "just a thought." For those evil thoughts of the fallen angels were now being outwardly acted upon and manifested by fallen men in a tangible way for angels to see in the courtroom of life.

Lucifer's desire in his heart wanted to assassinate the Lord and to take His place. "I will make myself like the Most High." It was all about Satan's desire to assassinate and take over. Satan was in no mood to share the Lord's position of the throne. Therefore.. (in his heart) Satan was a murderer *from the beginning.*

That is why Jesus said Satan was a murder from the beginning. It was from the very beginning of his own fall. Satan had desired to murder the Lord of Creation and to take over His throne. At that point, only God could understand the implications of Satan's desire towards the Lord... and that judgment included the angels who shared in Satan's desire to see Lucifer as the Most High.

How could God reveal to the angels a reality they had no point of reference for? Murder? What's that!?

Satan did God a big favor by bringing on the fall of man. For, from that point on, God had His perfect evidence that He needed to make it clear to all the angels as to why God had judged Satan and his angels. Evidence on display through fallen man's actions. Sinful and evil actions to show angels something tangible that they could identify with. Identify as to agree that God was totally justified in Hid judgment of Satan and his angels.

Man's fall that was brought on by Satan's evil seduction. But Satan's deception of the woman was actually doing God a big favor. For, by being the tempter, Satan heralded in the defective actions in fallen men. Men who have since been displaying attitudes and actions that reveal what it was in the fallen angels and Satan's heart from the beginning of his murderous 'mental attitude sin.'

Satan and his angels had evil thoughts that were not originally able to be actualized and understood by seeing the outcome of the desire. For they had no means to manifest the goal of their desire. For before his fall? Satan had been living in a perfect environment. Therefore, Satan was not cognizant of what murder was. Just the same, God in His omniscience fully understood Satan's inexcusable desire towards the Lord. An inexcusable desire towards the Beloved second member of the Trinity.

The elect angels now understand by means of centuries of displaying of the depravity of man what Satan and his angels desired (and now desire) would produce if allowed to. Their confusion about God ended and was made possible only because of their observation of fallen man's sins and acts of evil... Thanks to Satan ushering in the fall of those to be used against him!

The elect angels now have learned and know that Satan was without excuse for what he desired of the Lord. All the while, Satan is getting his nose rubbed into the very thing he caused... That being. Men who the Bible calls "children of the Devil." For all fallen men will reflect in their volition and actions the wide variety of expressions of fallen angels, be it human good, or evil violence...

Case closed.

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

Adam and Eve could have fallen without Satan's help. It might have taken a million years, but they were capable all by themselves. Though they were lower than angels, they still had a limited but perfect knowledge with which to work. And had Christ continued walking with them in the garden, more perfect knowledge would have been imparted to them in that context. The same is true of the holy angels. Satan's treachery was not needed or desired by God to teach the angels or us, more. The angels and Adam and Eve in their original state were not confused. Everyone knew what God was saying.

Experience is not the great teacher, God's word is. Experience is the great reinforcement of what is already known. Experience without knowledge is just mindless, pointless, filler. Experience is an opportunity to build on what you already know, as in a drill. You know the drill, or otherwise you couldn't do it, but repeating it and repeating it in a multiplicity of scenarios lets you carry it out more efficiently, aids you in doing it on command in future, helps you understand why it is important you know it in the first place. The holy angels are not learning that God is full of grace by watching this warfare and trial unfold down here, they are learning just how full of grace He is. At the beginning it was about grace. At the end it is about grace. And grace all the way through. God's glory on display.

Satan got a trial because he requested one. Grace. The holy angels are learning just how right their initial decision was to take God at His word and not follow Satan. Grace. Adam and Eve were created sinless and perfect. Grace. After the fall, they were offered a way back home. Grace. The Church Age is grace on top of grace on top of grace, its members even becoming higher than the angels through marriage with Jesus Christ. (After the Fall of Satan and Co., the holy angels could no longer be a perfect number anyway, hence their place in the pecking order had to be taken by someone.) In every stage of the trial we have hard, cold realities to face: the ramifications of imperfect decisions made by imperfect man being answered at every turn by God with grace, grace, grace. It is a drill. You must know a taste of God's grace, whether angel or human, to be saved, to even wear a uniform. Grace is a known factor, just to get in the door. But the trial is demonstrating to all just how important that one basic thing already known (GRACE) really is, and thus, how much God really is who He says He is. Satan, his angels, and fallen humanity can only come to know one thing out of this trial: Grace. Until they do that, they will fail to really understand what they are now experiencing. For everything that comes to us is by God's grace. Even hell.

_________________
"Do not worry then, saying, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear for clothing?'---Jesus Christ


"You seem to think because you have chicken to go you're in luck."---G. Lightfoot

Could have... sure.

I believe you are missing the main reason for allowing Satan to usher in their fall. How else could God show through examples the intent of the evil desire that Lucifer had towards the Most High? Was there any death or murder existing in the their kingdom prior to Lucifer's fall? Did he know what murder and death was? No.. How could they? They were created in a world of no death.

God had to provide a perfect teaching tool to educate the angels, but at the same time, God could not be the author of sin in doing so. So, God graciously allowed Satan to do what he does best with the woman and Adam. Then God was able to begin to teach about the implications of the desire that the fallen angels had in their hearts towards the Son.

The climax in the presentation of God's evidence took place when the Pharisees handed perfect Jesus over to be murdered. For what reason? They were jealous of Jesus. Just like Lucifer was jealous of the Lord...

_________________
God has two dwellings:
one in heaven, and the other
in a meek and thankful heart.
Izaak Walton
(1593-1683)

Genez-- Adam and Eve sinned of their own accord. And the fact satan was involved (in my opinion) would actually make the forbidden "variable" *less* tempting. When someone tells you to do something you'll be LESS inclined to do it-- this phenomenon can be observed anywhere in humanity and in your own psyche. So drop it, it's a dead-end argument.

Also, Lucifer is Christ's title in Latin, NOT satan's; and you should know that (although I don't have a mental profile on you so maybe not?). Some catholicke priest decided to use Lucifer in place of Haylale (without knowing what he was really doing), thus converting Satan into Christ: it's a satanic joke. And any occultist will point this contradiction out to 'show' how Christ is made-up. Of course most christians will just diarrhea their pants and not know what to say in response when pointed out. THINK: Bible is not, was not written in Latin.
When we use the Hebrew instead of Latin-bastard English translations this problem becomes eradicated.
---

Tim Alleman is at it again, this time creating his opus article on the flat earth:
http://www.principledlegalstandard.org/ ... th-kosmos/


This is so IDIOTIC and makes anyone who believes in the Bible look STUPID, I'll be creating a follow up response when I get time (I have higher priorities with some of my computer hardware modification projects). Genesis 1 completely blows away the flat earth theory.

Here is more rambling of Tim regarding the Penal Substitute:
http://www.principledlegalstandard.org/ ... christian/

I don't feel like going through it right now since Tim has a way to make anything he writes mental chloroform. "I'm a unitarian, I deny Christ's payment, I believe in a flat earth, I believe in works salvation" <-- he should just sum up all of his garbage in a sentence that pithy.

Actually, Haylel ben Shachar was first Satan's title, and the point of the Lord getting it in His Humanity is to show His Victory, compare Isaiah 14:12 (showing the title was Satan's, pre-fall) with 2 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 2:28; 22:16 in Bibleworks.

Lucifer is just the Latin translation, which dummy Gail Riplinger didn't know,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sujiLMKS8ZE

Haylale is satan's title in Hebrew, but Christ's title (in latin) would be Lucifer. SO the joke is haylale is turned into Lucifer. Or the son of dawn is made into into the son of morning.

Satan's title translated into Latin was Lucifer, from Isaiah 14:12, please look at the VULGATE for that verse in Bibleworks.

That there is also a joke, yes, but it's a different joke than the one you're claiming.

Thought you twerps might be interested in this
http://www.principledlegalstandard.org/ ... amination/
http://www.principledlegalstandard.org/ ... versation/

Thank you for the courage of direct reply in this forum. So long as you do not stalk or make anti-semitic remarks you are welcome here, and welcome to name-call or whatever.

I mean that. Here, we all disagree or agree with each other. One minute we might be beating each other up, and the next minute drooling over each other. Both are FREE and FRANK. So it's fine if you think we are twerps (cute name, btw, thanks). You can be as nasty as you like, subject to the two rules above. And your privacy is sacrosanct (I hope you used a FAKE email address in your profile, so no spambot will find you).

Of course, you are not able to read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek original mss, so whatever you THINK you're saying about it, will be incorrect. You are nonetheless free to say it, here or in your own site. You will not be censored. Censured maybe, but this is FRANK forum, not politically-correct-fake-niceness forum.

So because you cannot read the Real Bible, I won't take the time to rebut what you say in your own site. You wouldn't understand the text I'm using. For everything you've written and said thus far, demonstrate an appalling ignorance of LAW101, Greek101, and Bible101. So discussion won't be fruitful.

When you at least prove you can understand what follows below, then maybe we can argue the merits/demerits in your arguments. Until then, it would be a waste of your and my time.

As to Matt25:41, we've been working on its Greek meter (which you cannot understand apart from 1John1:9 used like breathing) for some months here, viewtopic.php?f=16&t=512

I just posted the latest Luke 21 counterpart an hour+ ago, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Cvj_S ... 4fmi3Xs3Yf

The Luke 21 text surgically maps to Matt24-25 (which is one chapter in the Greek), and its own thread is here: viewtopic.php?f=36&t=521

You are welcome to rebut as you choose. Seriously. Free to be nice or nasty, so long as not stalking or anti-semitic. Welcome to the Forum.

. .

You idiots want to use unprincipled exegesis as the standard for their beliefs or arguments, rather than principles of law. (i'm not asking what happens to infants after they die, i am not asking about what adam did...you state that all men of human history ALL MEN deserve wrath...and you do not base it on what "all men have done"...for the infant who lives two months and dies, those who will never learn their own names in this life because of mental defect...YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN AND ESTABLISH A BASIS FOR THEM DESERVING TO BE PUNISHED...you also have to give the basis and explain WHAT THEY THEMSELVES HAVE DONE AND ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES...NOT FOR WHAT OTHERS HAVE DONE, THEIR UNCLE, GRANDPAH OR EVEN ADAM. Infants have not chosen to sin, infants do not do anything deserving of wrath, much less infinite wrath, beaten bloody, crucified and thrust through the heart. You say wrath in all men's places, talking about "their needs", or just stating "born alienated from the life of God", or stating "born in sin"...THEY DID NOT DO THAT. In order for punishment, one has had to have done something themselves, that is without mitigating circumstances or states. It is not law to punish someone for something they did not do and are not responsible for and could not and cannot prevent. Infants are not responsible for your satanic misinterpretation of "condemned in Adam", they do not deserve to be punished for it....AS IF THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE!

You can talk "separation" all you want or consequences...then I will state once again WHERE DID THE WRATH GO??? You must make your case for WRATH and you must use principles of law and personal responsibility AS IS SEEN IN REAL LIFE. I saw what you wrote before "infants crying is rude"...well, at least they don't deserve wrath for miscounting 10% of their damn MINT DILL AND CUMMIN SEEDS! Talk about a speck and turning it into a mountain of wrath! PHARISEE! It isn't classified as rude when one cries out in pain and ignorance, being unable to cope BECAUSE HE DON'T EVEN KNOW HE IS HUMAN IS AND WHAT THE WORD PAIN EVEN IS...YOU DUMB ASS PSYCHOTIC! Name what infants themselves have done are responsible for and how they themselves could have avoided it...tell us how infants deserve to be nailed to trees and suffer infinite wrath! IN THE PLACE OF INFANTS AND THE MENTALLY RETARDED, JERRY'S KIDS, ZIKA INFANTS...MEANS JUST THAT! ( you want to hide in fantasy exegesis? no way bitch). You must answer this question and you are not going to get away pretending that you did, or mentioning things that are irrelevant to the question....WHAT HAVE INFANTS PERSONALLY DONE THEMSELVES TO DESERVE WRATH AND YOU BETTER NAME SOME CRIMES, NOT MISDEMEANORS NOR CRYING WHEN THEIR ASS IS RED, YOU PSYCHO!

Just like on youtube where you said you would copy and paste our whole conversation...AND DID NOT...because you got busted and wanted to cover it up...we will not move on here FROM THIS QUESTION, UNTIL YOU DIRECTLY ANSWER IT ACCORDING WHAT IT IS ASKING SPECIFICALLY. Name the crime, name the sin, name-n-splain how infants have no mitigation, where in a state of the total absence of any knowledge at all and total inability....THAT THEY DESERVE WRATH! WRATH IS THE SUBJECT BABY...YOU SAY ALL MEN DESERVE WRATH...this is because it says Jesus Christ died FOR all men...you twist into IN THE PLACE OF all men...therefore all men personally deserve wrath...for all men are judged INDIVIDUALLY and not ALL AS A SPECIES IN GENERAL. Each man must give account for his own deeds...not for the deeds of others. God will repay each man according to HIS OWN DEEDS...try and exegete "for the deads each man has done"...into "for the deeds that others have done, even Adam"...YOU LOON...SO WE WILL NOT MOVE ON UNTIL YOU GIVE ANSWER to my question about infants, the mentally retarded and so forth. You are a satanic liberal, you do not use the laws of personal responsibility, accountability, conditions and states of mitigation...you portray God as violating all of the law and principles of jurisprudence. INFANTS-WRATH-ANSWER-USE LAW!

You have a rotten attitude. To say that you're being childish would be an insult to the children of the world.

If you really believe in Christ, then you should know what kind of damage you are inflicting upon yourself with such behavior. So I really would not expect anybody to debate you over any issue, (especially ones that you clearly do not understand).


Reading through your links, I see no biblical support for your position, and frankly I can't even tell what position you're trying to argue. All I see is an obsession.

Maybe you should calm down and start over?

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

"you are welcome here, and welcome to name-call or whatever. I mean that. Here, we all disagree or agree with each other. One minute we might be beating each other up, and the next minute drooling over each other. Both are FREE and FRANK. So it's fine if you think we are twerps (cute name, btw, thanks). You can be as nasty as you like, subject to the two rules above."

Anonynomenon did not address the question and responded with the typical religious over severity that would make the pharisees jealous of such refined pettiness. hell fire for calling a psycho, a psycho....NEXT

Yeah, you're free to call names, just as I am free to quote Jesus' words. What exactly was your question? I kinda got lost in your incessant ranting.

Why infants are still dead in Adam? Is that what is bothering you?



All humans are born spiritually dead because of Adam's sin. He was the first of our species, therefore the federal head. Infants have no capacity to understand that, therefore infants cannot be held accountable.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

"Anonynomenon: Infants have no capacity to understand that, therefore infants cannot be held accountable."

Then Jesus Christ was not punished in their place, did not suffer wrath in their place, your "penal substitute gospel" and youe "isogesis interpretation" contains a lie...it says "for all men" and you all say that is every person ever born except for Christ himself. You got a conundrum pal.

I shall quote from your grand exulted and (but dead) leader: Jesus Christ became true humanity to be our substitute and pay the penalty for our sins. When our Lord Jesus Christ was on the cross, He was judged for the sins of the world. Every sin that has ever been committed in the history of the human race was imputed to Him on the cross and judged. (he did not say some sins and he did not say some people).

So it is a lie that "Jesus Christ suffered the wrath of God for all men that all men deserve". Care to exegete "all men"? All ain't some. The truth is that Jesus Christ died FOR all men...not "in the place of all men". Unaccountable means not punishable or deserving of wrath. "every sin ever committed" (no legal distinctions, no mitigating circumstances taken into account, ignorance inability is not taken into account...some sins are not cause for punitive wrath.) Now they gonna play word games! All don't mean all, every sin don't mean every sin...YOU DIDN'T DEFINE THOSE WORDS THAT WAY WHEN YOU SPOKE YOUR "GOSPEL"...and the hearers heard and understood it as ALL MEN DESERVE WRATH, EVERY SIN EVER COMMITTED IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY DESERVES WRATH....you are liars and you misuse words and you mislead people. Did Christ suffer the wrath in the place of ALL MEN for every single sin every committed? (for that which I want to do I do not, and that which I do not want to do I do...AND PARROT HEAD THIEME SAYS WRATH FOR ALL SINS!).

Jesus Christ died FOR ALL MEN...it comes down to more than just interpretation (it sure as shit ain't exegesis). You idiots claim he was PUNISHED WITH THE WRATH THAT ALL MEN DESERVE!...Clearly your "twisterpretation" does not work...for the infant that lives 5 minutes and dies, or 2 months or 6 months or 3 years ect., cannot be held accountable and cannot be said to deserve wrath. YOU HAVE A CONTRADICTION THAT YOU CANNOT RECONCILE.

Oukexergon,



He was, "the Lamb of God who removed sin from the world."

Every human (other than Christ) is born spiritually dead in Adam's sin, from the new born to the one taking in his last breath. Personal sins are never the issue. They are simply evidence of our spiritually dead nature resulting from Adam's sin. However, because Christ died in place of all sinners (Lamb of God becoming sin), children who die before they have the capacity to exercise faith in Christ are saved by default.

I don't see the problem with that. From OT to NT, that what the Bible teaches.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Sorry, but a harsh reply is demanded. Has nothing to do with Thieme. Your writing and posts and videos all prove you don't know law or exegesis. You don't know what PRINCIPLED means. At all. What you claim to know, is kinda like Donald Trump's talk about 'nuclear'.

I do law for a living, since 1985. So it takes two seconds to know you're inept.

You don't know Bible either, for anyone dying before reaching the age of accountability automatically goes to heaven. Lots of Bible verses on it, http://www.brainout.net/Accountability.doc . I did that years ago, a quick pasting, just from using Bibleworks for a few minutes.

You don't know what 'wrath' is. Too many verses to cite there.

In short, you are so ignorant of Scripture, its exegesis and law, that dialogue with you is unfruitful. When you prove to know something, will love to engage with you. But until you use 1John1:9 regularly, you cannot process anything we say.

BTW, you are fixated on Thieme. He's been dead since 2009. What I asked you to read in the meter, is not at all related to him. But it would prove that you don't know Scripture, which proof you've just provided by moving the goalposts.

UNTIL AND UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT MATT24-25 METER, since you allege 20 years of exegetical expertise in 'koine', then like all KJVO you prove a liar and not worth one more minute's discussion.

You cited Matt25:41, which is a key verse in the METER. Thieme didn't know about meter, so this has nothing to do with him. So you can't pull something you hallucinate being from him, to reply. You have to look at the GREEK BIBLE TEXT in the documents I provided in my prior post, and reply to them.

In short, like Trump you invent some new nonsense to avoid giving your tax returns (proof you actually can READ the Greek). Basta.

But hope remains that you will use the verse. At least with meals, for 7 days. It WILL make a difference.

Penal substitute whackos have several different "gospels" and they are not in harmony with each other. They run to the "spiritual death gospel" when they cannot make the case for wrath on ALL MEN. "Spiritual death" isn't in the Bible...that's why they dont EXEGETE IT! You cannot exegete what isn't there. So they run to the "spiritual death gospel"....and my question is "WHERE IN THE HELL DID THE WRATH GO???" They are full of contradictions, and claim that "ALL MEN ARE BORN WITHOUT HUMAN SPIRITS" and define that as "spiritual death". A spirit has to live in order to die, but a spirit that goes into annihilation (as in does not exist anymore) is not "death". Its "spirit anihilationism". What compounds their convoluted illogic...is the claim that Christ suffered "spiritual death" in the place of all men...while all men are in that state to begin with (according to them). So lets see: All men are born in a state of "spiritual death" and Christ dies a "spiritual death" INSTEAD of ALL MEN. They first start with "spiritual death" being a "consequence of sin" (because God cannot touch sin)...and therefore it is not the penalty or punishment. This is circular reasoning...then they invent some new insanity "HE PAID WITH HIS THINKING!" (pure isogesis and is not but pure unbiblical interpretation, because it is not based on anything from the bible or original languages) (that is not exegesis and cannot be found in the bible). WHAT CANNOT BE EXEGETED ISN'T THERE AND ISN'T BASED ON KNOWLEDGE OF GREEK OR HEBREW, ETC.)

"spiritual death" (not having a human spirit) is not only not found in the bible...and what they claim is "new creation", using "anothan genneo"...is bad grammer and is also not from the original languages. I remember the 3 creation verbs. Nothing is created in "genneo" it not an exnihilo word. Genneo, means born and nothing is created out of nothing with the human body...THE HUMAN BODY (REPRODUCTION) IS FROM PRE-EXISTING MATERIALS. A human spirit out of nothing is not genneo. Souls are not born nor are spirits, only bodies and out of pre-existing materials. They break most fundamental rules of grammar that it is pitiful. Human spirits are "NOT BORN"...much less born again. But what the hell do they care what words mean? WHERE'S THE WRATH??? If SPIRITUAL DEATH IS THE PENALTY FOR SIN THEN EVERY HUMAN WHO EVER LIVED (CEPT CHRIST) SUFFERED THE PENALTY AND PAID IT IN FULL. Of course they will say that spiritual death isn't the penalty, or punishment or WRATH. They will then split hairs and create two kinds of spiritual death...like ours isn't the penalty but Christ's was. But they started out as spiritual separation occurred because man sinned (in Adam that is...we actually didn't) and they go back to "God not being defiled" and it being a non-punitive consequence of sin...Then "spiritual death" in christ's case (which isn't the same at all, for they claim He retained His spirit because He did not sin). This is once again "the pretense", "the farce"...God pretending like Christ sinned...God separates from God the Son...as if He sinned...AND GOD CANNOT BE DEFILED BY HIS OWN SINFUL SON!!!! Then they state that the Father knew the Son wasn't sinful and wasn't "putting on a pretense". THEY LIE, THEY LIBERALS, THEY CHANGE THEIR GOSPEL AND ACTUALLY HAVE SEVERAL GOSPELS! First its the Son must suffer fiery punishment wrath THAT WE ALL DESERVE(in order to satisfy justice!) and they go over the Greek word for wrath, angry snort etc. Then they switch to another gospel when the wrath gospel don't work...."spiritual death" in our place (which they say all men are in spiritual death)...CONUNDRUM! IS IT TIME TO GO BACK TO WRATH??? God having WRATH on His Son is not from exegesis....NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE!

The greeks and hebrews had words for spirit, death, wrath, but if you will notice none of their doctrines are found and cannot be derived from exegesis. Thanatos does not mean spiritual death. You will find thanatos all over the new testament. You will find Paul in 1 Corinthians 15...still waiting for deliverance from THANATOS! (same word as in Romans 5)...

THIS IS TALKING ABOUT PHYSICAL DEATH AND THANATOS IS A JUDGMENT BY A GOVERNMENTAL LEGAL AUTHORITY OF DEATH, WHICH CAN BE PUNITIVE OR MAY NOT BE AS THE CASE MAY BE. Paul is still waiting for deliverance from THANATOS, WHICH IS A JUDGMENT OF PHYSICAL DEATH, (MORTALITY not punitive).
50I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death(thanatos) has been swallowed up in victory.”h
55“Where, O death(thanatos), is your victory?
Where, O death(thanatos), is your sting?”i
THANATOS JUDGEMENT OF THE DIVINE COURT OF A NON PUNITVE PHYSICAL DEATH
56The sting of death(THANTOS) is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

They want to make thanatos mean only a few things "spiritual death"...or "death in hell".And they mistranslate it wherever they can to make it seem like their bullshit doctrine is found in the bible and it is derived from exegesis, AND IT IS NOT.

What do we see THAT IS THERE? Adam ate and gained the knowledge of good and evil (you cannot exegete "knowledge of FALSE good and FALSE EVIL") Just as stupid as they are, the liberal satanic morons, they cannot give 1 example of "false good" that does not contain kakos or poneros evil! They cannot even give 1 example of false evil because it is so blitheringly insane...("well I meant to do evil, but it was only a false evil...so it is good instead???? WTF?). What we see that is there, is Adam gained the knowledge of good and evil and was subject to motive testing (katakrima) and therefore physical death (from dust to dust). There is no "because you ate of the tree your human spirit will be annihilated!"...IT AINT THERE. We see wrath being poured out of abominable wrongdoers and criminals ALL OVER THE BIBLE! It says it plain as day dozens upon dozens of times! It does not say that God had wrath on His Son or punished His Son NO WHERE, NOT EVEN ONCE! They pretend like it is exegesis or the writers said it....yet the writers never use the words and it is never found.We see Adam and all men suffering mortality, or physical death The first Adam all APOTHNESKO (all physically die). What we see that is there in EXGESIS is physical death, which is the result of mortality coming upon mankind through Adam. IT CAN BE EXEGETED. "spiritual death" cannot be exegeted. AND TRYING TO USE THE BOOK OF JUDE WHICH DOES NOT BELONG IN THE BIBLE, ALONG WITH 2 PETER AND JAMES...Jude and 2 peter were written by imposters and they had a false doctrine of non human chimera type hybrids...unreasoning animals that did not have a spirit, only born to be caught ans slaughtered like animals....thats why the heretic of Jude called them the ZOON, STRANGE FLESH! DO NOT HAVE A SPIRIT...NOT HUMAN. "BRUTE BEASTS".

You can't deal with any of my statements or arguments...and your psychotic penal substitute bullshit, ain't any LAW that is practiced on this earth. I won bitch...I won bitch, and blew you out of the water...destroyed all your bullshit false interpretations for what they are...lies. NOT EXEGESIS. Tell where you practiced law on this earth where infants deserve death? full shams (that you call trials) are conducted with no defendants, no evidence...NOTHING Tell us where you practice the law of punishing the innocent and declaring the clearly guilty as innocent? THAT AINT LAW. its satanic garbage. What court room did you work in where the judge pretends that the innocent are guilty and the guilty never committed any wrongdoing? What court? what legal firm? you satanic bitch, I leave you to the wrath of God...THAT WAS NEVER PUT ON CHRIST. You're busted.

Everything you say is wrong and pointless to explain why, since you STILL don't prove you can understand http://www.brainout.net/Matt24-25ParsedR5.pdf which includes many of the doctrines you claim to address. And it's not what you've seen before, so you can't bring Thieme into it. We're talking GREEK TEXT, not your fixation.

So your claims about thanatos mean nothing. You can't READ Greek. You don't even know how to use a lexicon.
Bibleworks 9 lexicons betray your ignorance.
THAYER's: thanatos means the act of the soul LEAVING the body. Emphasis on the SOUL.

BDAG: Meaning #2, taken from Philo, SPIRITUAL DEATH (transcendental usage of the term).

I also have other lexicons, but those are two you can check online. I have TDNT (Big Kittle) in hardback and on software, somewhere and can add that as well. Bibleworks 9 doesn't have it, but it does have a number of other (lesser-known) lexicons.

So you see, I've good reason to claim you are totally ignorant of Greek. So there is no point talking, since it requires KNOWING what the Greek words MEAN, to explain WHY you are wrong.


BTW, it will take you MONTHS to even grasp the afore-linked threads or that pdf's content including its master LukeDatelineMeters.pdf .

Until you do prove you grasp it all, I will not reply to you again. You are free to post, others are free to reply or post, as usual. But I'll not waste my time with someone who pontificates on topics they clearly do NOT understand.

If you could choose your own salvation plan, which would you choose? Don't worry, results remain anonymous. Salvation Coverage Plan Poll

Ouky, Christ *already* outlined the four types of believers (and it's mirrored multiple times in the gospels to bring out different information each time)--


Type 1: These individuals HEAR the Word, but they decide that they don't wish to believe. Not saved.
Type 2: These individuals HEAR the Word, but after awhile STOP believing (i.e. they no longer believe in Christ). Permanently saved.
Type 3: These individuals HEAR the word, and continue on to believing, but never mature in Bible Doctrine. Permanently saved.
Type 4: These individuals HEAR the word, continue on to believing, AND mature. Permanently saved.

Therefore it's not possible to pick one type and apply it across all believers, since depending on what the believer does, will affect their inheritances post-salvation.

Pre-salvation is the same for everyone; which depends whether or not the person believes Christ paid for their sins*:

*Of course believers at this point are utter spiritual babies so unitarians are saved too, but the potential to learn Bible Doctrine is insanely crippled as a unitarian or works salvationist since anyone who believes Christ isn't God and/or works salvation may as well throw the Bible in the dumpster.

We have no righteousness of our own, which is why we need Christ's.

Why not put your poll and post into some new topic? Else it gets buried here. We get a lot of viewers who don't post or join. But it's up to you. You can just copy it to some new topic in whatever forum or subforum you like. No mods here (just cuz I own the forum, doesn't mean I want to police it).