Predestination Theology

[William]

I don't think the false predestination god should be the one to define that seeing how he is willing to torture people eternally for conditions that he placed on them. The false predestination god is a sicko.

Q:1 Is there a "True Predestination God?"

Q2: Even if hellish experiences exist for individuals, does this mean that the god is "a sicko"?

Or

Q:2.1 Is the god only a "Sicko" if those hellish experiences last forever for said individuals?

[PinSeeker]

I see God's answer to Job to be primarily about how much love and care God has for the world, including Job, which Job has not been seeing. Job either decides to repent through seeing the power and majesty and love of God or is comforted by it (42:6).

Well, not either/or, but both/and. God leads us to repentance. Paul says this in Romans 2:4. Our repentance is a work of the Holy Spirit in us. Repentance is a gift. It is an act that the Holy Spirit works in us resulting in an act that flows out of us (Philippians 2:13, Acts 5:22-23). Although it is our act, it does not originate from within us. If we think we can truly repent of our sin in and of ourselves, then we need to repent of our repentance. Because everything we do is tainted with sin.

I wholeheartedly agree. But what Paul is saying in Romans 9 through 11 -- and Ephesians 1 and 2 (and his other epistles in various ways), as well as Peter in 1 Peter 1, as well as Ezekiel in chapters 36 and 37 of his prophecy, as well as Isaiah, as well as even Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- is that our choice is in the context of God's sovereign choice, His purpose of election.

Which I understand to be that our choice is in the context of whether we will rely upon Christ's work (God's sovereign choice) or rely on ourselves to reach God.

Okay, well, I guess it's clear that we disagree on this. I see what you're saying here as asserting that God's regarding salvation, God's choice is in the context of our choice, that His choice -- His will -- depends on our choice -- our will, which is exactly opposite of what Paul says in Romans 9:16, that God's granting of salvation -- to individuals -- depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. It really can't be any clearer than that.

I think John 6:37 is talking about the Jews of Jesus' day who truly knew God in faith being given their long awaited Messiah.

Right, but don't you think John's gospel is meant for us too?

I do. What's the principle of 6:37, though? I would say it's something like: that those who are truly seeking God find that culminating in Jesus, just like the Jews of Jesus's day who truly knew God had their faith culminate in Jesus.

Okay, well what I would say is that, while what you say is true in and of itself, what Jesus says in John 6:37 cannot be separated from what He continues in the same breath with in 6:38-40 -- the whole statement:

"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

There is nothing in that statement referring, really, to "those truly seeking God," or even about faith or lack thereof in people, Jew or otherwise. Jesus's statement here is directly relatable to the Father's sovereign will and His purpose of election and Paul's statement that it doesn't depend on the person's will or strength but on God who has mercy (or not), and to the perseverance of the saints in that He keeps us in His power, not the person keeping himself in his. Again, I hear another great hymn, this time "Jesus! What a Friend for Sinners!" (emphasis mine):
.

Hallelujah! what a Savior!
Hallelujah! what a Friend!
Saving, helping, keeping, loving,
He is with me to the end.

.

Here is the 3rd Article of the Remonstrants... Arminianism agrees that, unaided by the Holy Spirit, no one is able to respond to God's will (I would say to either the outward or the inward call). We are spiritually dead to the point where God must make the first move. We completely need God to bring us from spiritual death to spiritual life. Every step we need God, we can't do any of it for ourselves. The differences are that Arminians believe (1) God wants to do it for everyone but (2) won't go against our free will in order to do it, (i.e., we must make a choice), while Calvinists seem to believe that (1) God only "wills" (in spite of His desire) to do it for some and (2) goes against their free will to do so.

Right, I know it well, but the inconsistency among the points is unavoidable. In article 1, they deny that election is unconditional, and they do the same thing in article 5 regarding preservation of the saints (which they themselves stated they were not sure about). At any rate, those two things -- while maybe not in intention, but certainly in effect -- deny total depravity, thus saying the depravity is not total but only partial, or "far-reaching." They asserted that even after the Fall, man retained the ability to choose spiritual good, and upon doing so would merit God's grace. And it presents an unavoidable conflict with your assertion that, correct as it is, we completely need God to bring us from spiritual death to spiritual life. Dead is dead, Tanager, not "mostly dead." I would also refute the statement that God wills "in spite of" His desire -- one does not trump the other in any sense -- or that God goes against people's free will. With regard to salvation, God changes hearts, and their wills inevitably follow.

God's election is conditional (rather than unconditional)...'U'

Whether God's choice of which individuals are 'in' has some unknown reason behind it (like you seemed to say earlier) or is completely random, there still seems to be a condition behind the election.

Right, the condition is based purely upon God's will and subsequent call. His election is unconditional of anything required of us. Again, Paul is very clear in Romans 9:16. And we see it in Ezekiel 36 (already quoted) and 37 (the valley of dry bones).

God's sovereign choice conditions why Person A is elect and Person B isn't. In that sense, universalism would be the only unconditional election to salvation.

No, God's sovereign choice conditions IF Person A is elect and Person B isn't (or vice-versa).

If "unconditional" is about our works vs. God's working it, then Arminians agree with you. God's saving grace is unconditionally given Accepting a gift earned by another is not earning it. If "unconditional" is about free will vs. determinism, then we obviously disagree there, but that is what the "I" is about.

I wouldn't characterize it as free will vs. determinism, but it is a matter of a heart changed from it's natural condition or not, and this is a work of God. If this is done, if a person is given new birth by the Spirit, then the free will will inevitably follow the newly acquired heart of flesh. That's what the 'I' is all about.

Here is the First Article:

That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son before the foundation of the world, has determined that out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who through the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath and to condemn them as alienated from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36

Yes, this article asserts that election is conditional upon faith in Christ, and that God elects to salvation those He knows beforehand will have faith in Him.

the atonement can not have been limited in scope (only effectual for those whom God unconditionally elected) and therefore that God's call is not irrevocable...

I'm not sure of your point here.

Not sure of the original full quote, but Arminius asserted that the atonement can not have been limited in scope... and therefore that God's call is not irrevocable (which is not the intent, but the effect). In actuality, the atonement is only effectual for those whom God unconditionally elected. God's call is irrevocable.

Here is the 2nd article about unlimited atonement:

That, accordingly, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word

where he quotes John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2

There are two senses here, which I made clear before and will do so again here. Yes, Jesus's atonement was sufficient to cover all and redeem all, but only effectual for those whom the Father, from all eternity, elected. This is the only thing that corroberrates Jesus's statement in John 6:37-40. Yes, not all will be saved. But Jesus's atonement was not merely partially effective, but accomplished everything for which it was intended.

God's grace, though He has purposed it, is resistible (rather than irresistible)... 'I'

Yes. It is more loving for God to allow free will than to do away with it.

Who ever said goes "does away with" free will? That is only a false perception. It's not a matter of the will first, but of the heart. If God changes the heart -- brings the person from spiritual death to spiritual life by the power of His Spirit -- then the will inevitably follows. The will is never "not free." In response to your statement here, I would say it's more loving for God to save some despite their initial incapability of returning that love.

it is we who enable ourselves by our own power (rather than God by His) to persevere to the end, the Day of Christ... 'P'

Here is the first part of the 5th article...

That those who are incorporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, as a result have full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no deceit or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28

It's all about God's power, not ours. Our role is to simply grab Jesus' hand.

See, that's just it. Jesus grabs us. We are given to Jesus by the Father, and Jesus loses not one of us.

Whether one can "lose their salvation" the article continues:

But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of neglecting grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full confidence of our mind.

This article doesn't outrightly reject the notion of perseverance of the saints but argues that it may be conditional upon the believer remaining in Christ. The writers explicitly stated that they were not sure on this point, and that further study was needed. Sometime after the pivotal Synod of Dort in 1618), the Remonstrants became fully persuaded in their minds that the Scriptures taught that a true believer was capable of falling away from faith and perishing eternally as an unbeliever. This is unscriptural. Among other things, as I cited before, if God begins a good work in us, He will bring it to completion at the day of Christ (Philippians 1:6), and He is able to keep us from stumbling and to present us blameless before the presence of His glory (Jude 24). And of course, Jesus Christ is the founder and protector of our faith (Hebrews 12:2).

Again, the intent may be good, but by not fully accepting TOTAL depravity, the resulting inconsistency, however unintended, is glaring.

Grace and peace.

To you also, Tanager.

[PinSeeker]

Sorry for the multiple posts, Tanager. I tried to break it up into more manageable pieces, but maybe I made it even more unmanageable. Maybe you can make it more concise.

Grace and peace to you, brother.

[myth-one.com]

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Believers gain everlasting life.

Nonbelievers perish.

There is no eternal torture.

In defining "believers" we know already that there are too many beliefs to be able to decide what to believe, so we continue to be referred to as "unbelievers" by all those who believe we have to believe their particular beliefs...

It would be justice if the believers were allowed to believe the unbelievers "perished" while in actual fact the unbelievers were enjoying life eternal somewhere where the believers couldn't see them existing but the unbelievers could see the believers existing...and therein observe the fate of the believers as to where their beliefs took them...

The main problem in the idea of believing in Jesus, is that there appear to be so many conflicting beliefs as to what that actually means...

Greetings William,

Universal Balance and Harmony Myth 1.

To me, the "what to believe" is very elementary and clearly stated:

Whosoever believeth in Jesus as their Savior from the wages of their sins, will not perish, but have everlasting life.

If believers will not perish, then nonbelievers will perish, because there are only two groups.

While all denominations claim to believe John 3:16, ask them if nonbelievers perish, and all that I know will state that perishing or dying in this verse refers to a "spiritual death" -- where "spiritual death" is defined as being eternally separated from God.

=========================================

The root cause of Christianity's failure is this false belief that all mankind is born with an immortal soul. I call it "myth one."

Once one believes myth one, John 3:16 cannot be true as written in scripture, because mankind is born with an immortal soul which cannot perish. Since we live forever, we must live somewhere. Christians proclaim they spend eternity in heaven while all others burn in hell or experience some other form of torment forever and ever.

This false belief of the immortal soul was suggested to mankind in the Garden of Eden:

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: (Genesis 3:4)

Satan lied when he informed Eve that she would live forever.

Sadly, most (or all?) Christian denominations have incorporated that lie into their theologies!

The problem with your belief system shared above is that it is based upon something you take as truth, but is not true.

How can I tell?

Well first up, The Serpent didn't so much lie as not tell the total truth. I acknowledge that this in itself may be considered 'lying' but for now will assume that it is not, because the God in the role of The Creator in that story also did not tell the whole truth, so if it is the case that that God does not lie, then withholding the whole truth is not lying.

Having said that, while withholding the whole truth may not be lying for The Creator, it may still be lying if angels, demons, serpents or humans etc...do so...so in that regard we would have to look into why withholding the whole truth would be considered lying, by looking into what motivates the one not telling the whole truth.

Your accusation is that The Serpent did not tell the whole truth in regards to them not being eternal souls. This is based upon the belief that humans were not created to live forever, but we can stop right there, because the Garden mythology gives the impression that human beings were created to exist within this universe eternally. That was taken away from them when The Creator in the story prevents humans from having access to the tree of life, and it was the fruit of that tree which enabled humans to exist in this universe in a permanent state of stay.

What is oft overlooked in the hurry to cement the Doctrine of Death as the valid truth to accept, is that clearly [re the Story] we are eternal beings, "breathed" into the human form, and in that regard the human form itself was designed to accommodate the eternal soul within it for eternity as long as access to The Fruit of The Tree of Life was available.

I will leave it there for now, with the question "can you agree with me on this so far?"

Absolutely not!

Living until one dies is not the definition of immortal. Immortal means incapable of dying. Immortality is described throughout the Bible as something we can gain -- not a birthright.

The breath of life is actually oxygenated air!

The word in the original Hebrew text which was translated into English in Genesis 2:7 as soul is "nephesh." Nephesh occurs over 750 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is used to describe living, breathing, beings, both man and beasts. It is best translated as a "living breathing being." In the plural it could be translated as "creatures or animals that breathe." Look at the use of nephesh in I Kings. The son of a widowed woman in the town of Zarephath fell sick and his breath left him (he died):

And it came to pass after these things, that the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick; and his sickness was so sore, that there was no breath left in him. (I Kings 17:17)

Elijah prayed to God to let the child's nephesh (translated soul here) return to him, and his nephesh or breath did return, and he revived:

And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul (nephesh) come into him again. And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul (nephesh) of the child came into him again, and he revived. (I Kings 17:21-22)

The same Hebrew word nephesh was used to refer to all animals and man. One of many instances where it obviously referred to beasts is Genesis 2:19:

And whatsoever Adam called every living creature (nephesh), that was the name thereof. (Genesis 2:19)

So in the original Hebrew language, the same word is used to refer to man and animals:

For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20)

If man has an immortal soul, the other animals do also!

Do you agree?

[William]

[Replying to myth-one.com in post #84]

Living until one dies is not the definition of immortal. Immortal means incapable of dying. Immortality is described throughout the Bible as something we can gain -- not a birthright.

I wasn't arguing it was a birthright. I was arguing that human forms required the tree of life in order to become a suitable instrument which could house the immortal.

The breath of life is actually oxygenated air!

Nice try, but no. Oxygenated air is not able to make the human form immortal. Otherwise every form which ever breathed it would still be alive.
Therefore when The Creator "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" this refers to the placing of an aspect of immortal consciousness from the donor into the recipient [human form] which allowed for that form to be aminated by the consciousness occupying it.

The form itself required the addition of The Fruit of The Tree of Life in order for the body to maintain itself indefinitely, that it would remain a container for the eternal life [breath of The Creator who is Eternal] within it.

If man has an immortal soul, the other animals do also!

Do you agree?

The problem with the whole mythology is that people confuse 'having a soul' with 'being a soul' because they have been taught to think of themselves as the body.
Once one understands their true self as being the soul occupying the body, one then understands the reason for why human beings were prevented from reaching the fruit of the Tree of Life and their bodies allowed to gradual die of [relatively] natural causes... this amounts to the wages of sin being that an eternal consciousness had to experience existing within a cadaver of sorts...living but in the living, also dying, and having to experience that 'great pain and all'.

The eternal beings occupying the human forms would have to experience the form dying. This amounts to the eternal consciousness being contained within the human instrument for a lifetime of said human instrument [however 'long' but not indefinitely] and eventually leaving the human form when the form eventually dies, and then moving into the next phase that this process created for said souls to experience.

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to myth-one.com in post #84]

Living until one dies is not the definition of immortal. Immortal means incapable of dying. Immortality is described throughout the Bible as something we can gain -- not a birthright.

I wasn't arguing it was a birthright. I was arguing that human forms required the tree of life in order to become instrument which could house the immortal.

The breath of life is actually oxygenated air!

Nice try, but no. Oxygenated air is not able to make the human form immortal. Therefore when The Creator "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" this refers to the placing of an aspect of immortal consciousness from the donor into the recipient [human form] which allowed for that form to animate [become living].

The form itself required the addition of The Fruit of The Tree of Life in order for the body to maintain itself indefinably, that it would remain a container for the eternal life [breath of The Creator who is Eternal] within it.

If man has an immortal soul, the other animals do also!

Do you agree?

The problem with the whole mythology is that people confuse 'having a soul' with 'being a soul' because they have been taught to think of themselves as the body.
Once one understand their self as being the soul occupying the body, one understands the reason for why human beings were prevented from reaching the fruit of the Tree of Life.

The eternal beings occupying the human forms would have to experience dying. This amounts to the eternal being contained within the human instrument for a lifetime [however 'long' but not indefinitely] and eventually leaving the human form when it dies, and moving to the next phase that this process created for said souls to experience.

Man is not immortal!

Oxygenated air keeps man alive. Without it, man dies. No one ever claimed that it makes one immortal.

How many "phases" do the other animals have who received the same breath of life as humans?

Man was separated from the Tree of Life to prevent them from becoming immortal like the angels:

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. (Genesis 3:22-23)

The eternal beings occupying the human forms would have to experience dying.

That's an oxymoron!

No eternal being can experience dying. That's why the Word had to be made flesh.

The "next phase" for any human is their second and everlasting physical death, or everlasting spiritual bodied life.

[William]

[Replying to myth-one.com in post #86]

You are incorrect for the reasons already stated. Your reply is not arguing logically against my own argument, but merely shouting out I am wrong.

What you refer to a 'man' is misidentification. If you do not accept this now, you will see in the next phase the truth of what I am saying. You are not a human flesh device with a soul. You are a soul within a human flesh device. Very important to understand the difference as self identifying incorrectly can lead to being misinformed in relation to this.

This is part of what it means to be 'Born Again" - one transforms one's understanding of self from that of the flesh to that of the spirit.

All your choice of course.

Arguing 'the bible says so' isn't the truth of the matter as the bible can be read both ways, depending upon how the individual self identifies.

What you are arguing in regard to oxygen is to say that the Planet is The Creator in the story. That is a pagan concept which I am willing to explore with you in some other thread.

No eternal being can experience dying. That's why the Word had to be made flesh.

Exactly. Jesus is the word made flesh and as an eternal being. was unable to experience death otherwise. He too had to incarnate into human form. So you are arguing against your own argument by claiming it is impossible for an eternal entity to experience death.

So yes - it is possible for an eternal being to experience death, as I already explained. Once the body dies, the death is experienced and from there the next phase is experienced by the eternal entity [Soul/Spirit].

[myth-one.com]

. . . we are eternal beings, "breathed" into the human form, and in that regard the human form itself was designed to accommodate the eternal soul within it for eternity as long as access to The Fruit of The Tree of Life was available.

And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7)

Definition of eternal: lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning.

Where do the scriptures state that we were created eternal beings?

[William]

. . . we are eternal beings, "breathed" into the human form, and in that regard the human form itself was designed to accommodate the eternal soul within it for eternity as long as access to The Fruit of The Tree of Life was available.

And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7)

Definition of eternal: lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning.

Where do the scriptures state that we were created eternal beings?

Nowhere because eternal beings cannot be created without having a beginning point to their existence. In which case they are enternal only from that point on.

But the script given was to do with The Creators breath.

If The Creator is eternal *tick*
Then The Creators breath is also eternal...the point being that an aspect [consciousness] of The Creator was placed into the form [literally a cadaver] and in this act, the cadaver [human instrument] became alive.

Then in order for the form to not have a use-by date, the fruit of the tree of life needed to be consumed. Death [for the form] did not happen because the fruit of the tree of KoGaE was consumed, but because The Creator prevented Adam and Eve from having access to the fruit of the tree of life, which up until that time the pair had access to.

So in that the Serpent didn't lie "You shall not surely die" but neither was the whole truth told...so it has to be established if not telling the whole truth, is lying, and what advantage the Serpent might have over the humans if the humans were not aware of the whole truth...but we can get to that only after we can agree that we are not the flesh...and this problem appears to be the source of Christian confusion and subsequent argument and schism...

IF Jesus 'died that we may live" "For The Creator so loved the world...that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" THEN what does that actually mean, if all are eternal beings already?

It is a conundrum for Christians to solve, and by claiming we are the flesh and not the spirit, the question is not solved...it is swept to one side...because it ignores other biblical evidence...thus we can understand that the things Jesus did [such as teach] in private which were not recorded and were different to those things he taught in public [which are recorded in the Bible] will most likely include the answers.

Certainly we can ascertain from what Jesus did teach publicly, that he himself believed in afterlife events which the individual would experience. Certainly it is evident that Jesus regarded human beings as spirit within form...

[myth-one.com]

. . . we are eternal beings, "breathed" into the human form, and in that regard the human form itself was designed to accommodate the eternal soul within it for eternity as long as access to The Fruit of The Tree of Life was available.

Where do the scriptures state that we were created eternal beings?

Nowhere

That's correct. No takes back!

But the script given was to do with The Creators breath.

If The Creator is eternal *tick*
Then The Creators breath is also eternal...the point being that an aspect [consciousness] of The Creator was placed into the form [literally a cadaver] and in this act, the cadaver [human instrument] became alive.

The Creator is a Spirit and has absolutely no cause to breathe! Breathing is a characteristic of physical beings.

Then in order for the form to not have a use-by date, the fruit of the tree of life needed to be consumed. Death [for the form] did not happen because the fruit of the tree of KoGaE was consumed, but because The Creator prevented Adam and Eve from having access to the fruit of the tree of life, which up until that time the pair had access to.

Eating once from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil was was sufficient for the entire existence of the human species.

Eating of the Tree of Life works the same way. One only has to eat from it once to be born again as an immortal spiritual body. Once one gains everlasting spiritual life, it cannot be taken away by anyone.

Adam and Eve never ate from the Tree of Life. They chose poorly and ate from the Tree of Knowledge.

Had they eaten from the Tree of Life, they would have become equal unto the angels:

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. (Genesis 3:22-23)

So in that the Serpent didn't lie . . .

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3:3-5)

The Serpent and some angels under his command had already rebelled against the commands and authority of God. Mankind was created a little lower that the angels and is being groomed to ultimately replace these rebellious earthly angels.

So at this point, the Serpent tempts Eve into committing the identical crime which he committed -- disobeying a commandment from God -- thinking that will thwart God's plan.

Satan's statement about their eyes being opened to good and evil was correct.

His statement that they would not surely die was a lie.

IF Jesus 'died that we may live" "For The Creator so loved the world...that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" THEN what does that actually mean, if all are eternal beings already?

That what if is based on Satan's lie being true. Anyone who "shall not surely die" is immortal like God.

If "all are eternal beings already," then we don't need Jesus or God -- as we are already equal unto the angels and God.

Basically, Satan is trying to get Adam & Eve to commit the same sin which he committed:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!... For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God... I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. (Isaiah 14:12-14)

And it has worked!! The vast majority of Christians believe mankind was created with an immortal soul! Thus, they seal the scriptures from their understanding -- because the scriptures repeatedly state otherwise.

It is a conundrum for Christians to solve, and by claiming we are the flesh and not the spirit, the question is not solved...it is swept to one side...

In actuality, admitting that we are flesh and not Spirit solves the problem.

Those who believe that man is an immortal spirit are still believing the lie told to Eve. Here is where that inevitably leads:

The vast majority of Christian theologians believe and teach that man is born as an immortal, spiritual "soul" housed within a physical body. This creates an obvious problem, as spiritual bodies do not feel pain. Only flesh and blood physical bodies experience pain. When the physical body dies, these theologians teach that the soul is released. Since the soul is a spiritual body, when the souls of nonbelievers are cast into hellfire for eternity, they will feel no pain! Nonbelievers are blessed with eternal life, and their punishment is totally pain free! Theologians solve this problem by creating another myth, the bodily resurrection.

Virtually every Christian church admits to a belief in the rejoining of an incorruptible physical body with the eternal soul at the time of the resurrection. This is known as the "resurrection of the body" doctrine, and is included in many affirmations of faith. For example, from the "Apostles Creed":

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

They believe this body to be different from the present earthly body in that it cannot be destroyed or killed. Therefore, when nonbelievers are cast into hellfire, they will suffer the pain of burning alive for eternity. The fire will never kill them.

What a wonderful system!

Certainly we can ascertain from what Jesus did teach publicly, that he himself believed in afterlife events which the individual would experience. Certainly it is evident that Jesus regarded human beings as spirit within form...

Jesus believed in an everlasting afterlife for believers only!

Believers shall live forever, and nonbelievers shall perish -- never to live again!

[PinSeeker]

Where do the scriptures state that we were created eternal beings?

Nowhere because eternal beings cannot be created without having a beginning point to their existence. In which case they are enternal only from that point on.

I'll actually quote your entire statement, because it is absolutely correct. All are eternal beings from the point of their creation forward. But I would say that Scripture does state explicitly that man was created an eternal being... here:

• "Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:26-27)

Eternality is but one among a great many things being said there. We are all created in Their/His image.

But the script given was to do with The Creators breath.

If The Creator is eternal *tick*
Then The Creators breath is also eternal...the point being that an aspect [consciousness] of The Creator was placed into the form [literally a cadaver] and in this act, the cadaver [human instrument] became alive.

Then in order for the form to not have a use-by date, the fruit of the tree of life needed to be consumed. Death [for the form] did not happen because the fruit of the tree of KoGaE was consumed, but because The Creator prevented Adam and Eve from having access to the fruit of the tree of life, which up until that time the pair had access to.

So in that the Serpent didn't lie "You shall not surely die" but neither was the whole truth told...so it has to be established if not telling the whole truth, is lying, and what advantage the Serpent might have over the humans if the humans were not aware of the whole truth...but we can get to that only after we can agree that we are not the flesh...and this problem appears to be the source of Christian confusion and subsequent argument and schism...

This is... excellent, William. I'm... proud of you, bud.

IF Jesus 'died that we may live" "For The Creator so loved the world...that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" THEN what does that actually mean, if all are eternal beings already?

Are you asking this rhetorically? Or is this really a question in your mind? It's a good question. Maybe you're asking it of myth-one so that he might re-think his position(s)?

It is a conundrum for Christians to solve, and by claiming we are the flesh and not the spirit, the question is not solved...it is swept to one side...because it ignores other biblical evidence...

Right. Some of us understand that "conundrum" correctly, so that there is no conundrum. The conundrum is caused by erroneous conflation of the concepts of mortality and eternality, among other things.

thus we can understand that the things Jesus did [such as teach] in private which were not recorded and were different to those things he taught in public [which are recorded in the Bible] will most likely include the answers.

Whatever Jesus said or did in private, I'm... pretty sure He never contradicted Himself.

Certainly we can ascertain from what Jesus did teach publicly, that he himself believed in afterlife events which the individual would experience. Certainly it is evident that Jesus regarded human beings as spirit within form...

Well... Jesus was well aware that human beings were created eternal beings... going forward, as you said.

Grace and peace to all.