I understand that no prophecy of God will disagree with the Word of God written, taken in its entirety.
I understand that what one thinks is prophecy may simply be imagination.
(Sigh) Again, that should be posed as a question. How did prophets like Paul know the difference? Was Paul making wild random guesses when he wrote Romans? And Moses, when he wrote the Pentateuch? Obviously random-guess "prophecy" doesn't work. You keep repeating that "argument" as if everyone around here is too stupid to figure that out for themselves. And that's why I keep accusing you of making silly objections to Direct Revelation.
Your rebuttal was not a Biblical demonstration.
Gotcha. You only count your own arguments as "biblical demonstration" even when they are so far out in left field that no one even can follow your reasoning.
Elijah in the sense that John the Baptist was Elijah's parallel.
Well duh - of course that's what you believe, as you're not open to reincarnation. But the historian Luke said he had the spirit/soul of Elijah, as I noted, AND Jesus said that he is Elijah. That's already two strikes against. Now here's the third:
"
14And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come."
The wording here is crucial. Bear in mind that ANY prophet, in virtue of being a prophet, already qualifies as a type/parallel of Elijah. Thus if Jesus were merely speaking of typology/parallelism, the allusion to Elijah would NOT be difficult to accept - in fact it would essentially be a a tautology (a self-evident statement). Jesus is therefore referring to something DIFFICULT for some of us to accept (such as reincarnation). One commentator said something like this (I think it was Albert Barnes), paraphrased:
"Whatever Jesus meant by this statement, it was definitely something that many people would have difficulty accepting".
Three strikes and you're out.
Look I realize that reincarnation is considered a dirty word due to the presumed affiliation with eastern religions. But the reality is that all religions have similarities - what's important, therefore, are not the similarities but the differences. In that sense, Christianity is quite unique.
The one and only Son of God was never anyone but the one and only Son of God.
Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not postulating a change of identity as eastern religions do. When I say that we are reincarnations of Adam, I mean that we ARE Adam. There was no change of identity. In fact, if I believed there were a change of identity, I would consider myself innocent of Adam's sin.
My bias regarding us all being reincarnations of Adam is grounded in it being nowhere presented in the Word of God written.
(Sigh) Any number of logical constructs, including the Trinity, are not explicit in Scripture. Exegesis was a logical construct starting from the day you first put your trust in a lexicon created by fallible men. You conveniently continue to ignore such facts.
Where did you get that idea?
The atonement itself is not imputed, the results/benefits of the atonement are imputed.
Is this another unconvincing effort to conflate two different justice systems?
(1) Atonement
(2) Representation/Imputation
Just because Reformed theology has been pushing that nonsense-conflation on us for 500 years, doesn't make it right.
Death is the wages of sin (Ro 6:23), so whose sin is responsible for their death?
Adam's sin is (Ro 5:15).
That's like arguing that Christ should have been incriminated as a descendant of Adam. Oh but I see how it works. Your God is a chameleon who "changes" (your word) when it suits Him. He cruelly incriminated all the OTHER descendants of Adam but left His own Son intact.
But Scripture does state imputation of Abraham's righteousness by faith (Ge 15:6).
The same righteousness imputed to Abraham by faith is also the righteousness resulting from our faith.
Hence, the word "imputed" is used in regard to us being made righteous, through our faith, by Christ's obedience (Ro 5:19).
(Sigh) As stated, I have no issue with the idea of imputation in the sense of righteousness being credited to us by virtue of ATONEMENT. I even gave a speeding ticket as an example!
And in that same example I explained the difference between 2 different usages of the word "imputation"
(1) Atonement
(2) Represenation.
You did not deal with the principle it plainly presents--responsibility of the Jews in Jesus' lifetime for the murder of all the prophets from the beginning of the world (Lk 11:50-51).
Sure I did. If God can divide one physical soul (Adam) into 100 billion descendants - if we are all pieces of Adam - then Christ's contemporaries could easily have been pieces of prophet-slaying murders stretching back to the beginning of the world. There is no impossibility here.
And that's not the only solution, by the way. Remember, if we consciously sinned in Adam, as my theory of Adam insists, then God can hold us responsible for ANYTHING (as long as He doesn't punish us beyond our guilt accumulated in Adam).
The point is that neither of those solutions are in tension with Ezekiel 18. Each person, ultimately, pays for his own sins.
It is Ro 5:12-14 which "contradicts" Eze 18.
Can you show from Ro 5:12-14 that it does not?
Admitting to a contradiction in your position is not a solution for it.
And talk about ignoring objections! You keep ignoring the Problem of Evil! How can it be maximum kindness, generosity, and justice to incriminate 100 billion innocent descendants of Adam? The more I reflect on the absolute absurdity of your position, the less inclined I am to continue this discussion with you. If you want to believe complete nonsense for the rest of your life, that's your prerogative.
