Marvelous Ihechukwu

Alright so here it is. Part 1 #morality #moralrealism

@NonTriviality32 @darwintojesus the second Adam. Pre-Christian Jewish theology didn't have the hermeneutical occasion to develop it. Citing what Judaism concluded before the resurrection doesn't adjudicate what the apostolic witness yields after it.

@NonTriviality32 @darwintojesus Collins documenting that Second Temple Judaism lacked original sin is not disputed but it's also not the argument. Paul's reading of Adam in Romans 5 is explicitly christological and retrospective. The full weight of Adam's federal significance only becomes intelligible through

Babies shouldn't get cancer and Adam shouldn't have rebelled against God. This is why sin is so serious, because of the fallout it causes. Blaming God for your choices and their consequences only makes you look ignorant.

@TawhidTakes @Thatnsukkaboy_ dignity of the Person who condescended to die. Your "pick one" is a false dilemma. You smuggled in a premise and called it a plot hole.

@TawhidTakes @Thatnsukkaboy_ Logos did not cease to be. As for "sacrifice means nothing if only human nature died" this gets the logic backwards. The atonement's infinite worth comes precisely from *who* died as man: the eternal Son. The value isn't in the divine nature ceasing to exist. It's in the

My God entered time, stepped into creation, and took on humanity. He was tempted in every way, yet without sin. He felt what I feel. When I cry out in pain, He does not stand distant. He says, “I know. I have been there.” He sees me. He understands my tears. He comforts me. He is not distant or untouchable. This is why He is my advocate, my defender, my eternal High Priest, my Lord and my Saviour. He came exactly as He promised. Through the prophet, it was written, “A virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and His name shall be Immanuel” which means, God with us. He is compassionate. He entered our condition, even tasting poverty, so that I might become rich in His righteousness. He tasted death for my redemption. Yet death could not hold Him. He rose in victory, so I have the assurance of resurrection. Because He lives, I will live also. He did not lose to death. He conquered it. Now to your claim. You say, “If your god can die, then he is not God.” But you misunderstand the gospel. God did not cease to be God. The Son took on human nature and, in that humanity, truly experienced death. Not as defeat, but as victory. If your god has never entered human suffering, then he cannot truly relate to it. If he has never faced death, then he has never conquered it. The power of the gospel is this: God did not remain distant. He stepped in. He did not avoid the battle. He won it. He did not escape death. He defeated it. That is why He is not only God above me, but God with me, God for me, and God who has secured my eternal life. In your framework, a person stands before God hoping their good outweighs their bad. There is no full assurance, only the expectation of judgment. In Christ, I do not stand on the scale of my works. I stand on a finished work. My confidence is not in what I have done for God, but in what God has done for me in Christ. He has already borne my judgment. He has already secured my righteousness. So I do not face eternity with uncertainty. I face it with assurance. Not because I am good enough, but because He is. And that is not a dangerous hope. That is a secured salvation.

@NonTriviality32 @darwintojesus the Mosaic covenant. Original sin addresses the condition of human nature through federal headship. These answer different questions. That's not my "interpretation of Romans 5:12" that's basic exegetical context.

@NonTriviality32 @darwintojesus humans are incapable of any good. Even many Eastern Fathers affirm a thoroughly disordered human nature post-fall. The disagreement is narrower than you're presenting. You still haven't answered the original point: Ezekiel 18 addresses individual retributive accountability within

@NonTriviality32 @darwintojesus This is a "Nuh uh" argument.

@MarvelousLogos @darwintojesus Ezekiel verse does refute orginal sin. That's what oriental Christianity teaches.

@leomessay @GodLogic_GL You mean the Miraj that only he and the donkey witnessed? But if we take this as evidence then we have to take Acts 9 where Paul meets the risen Christ on the road to Damascus.

That reply was a COMPLETE failure 🤡 The Prophet PBUH did in fact meet Jesus during Al-Isra’ wal-Mi‘raj, one of the most significant events in Islam. “Then I was taken up to the second heaven… there I saw Jesus and John… they said: ‘Welcome, O righteous brother and righteous prophet.’”

This guy failed at Math and destroyed Islam all in one tweet. Notice, his issue with Paul is that he didn't meet Jesus, yet this guy blindly accepts everything Muhammad---a guy who NEVER met Jesus---says about Jesus. Lol

@Ihunanya_chi I mean all she is trying to describe is almost perfectly who a Jew was in His time 😂. Jesus didn't eat camel either, He prayed to His "Father". When they list all these things my first question is"So are you saying that Jews that do similar are also Muslims?"

Jesus, as a Muslim, said this: 👇 “Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die.’” (John 11:25-26) “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.’” (John 14:6) “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.” (John 10:11) “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.” (John 10:27-28) “But whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.” (John 4:14) Muslims have to act like bots to defend Islam. Allah claimed that Jesus and his disciples were Muslims, so they must search for every possible thing they can find to defend Allah, otherwise Allah will appear as a false god.😭

@MYirrell @Gogettacs @RFupdates All creation” includes individuals. When Scripture says God gives rain and sun to the evil and the good (Matt 5:45), that’s kindness to actual people, not an abstract ‘creation.’ So does God show real goodness to non-elect individuals or not?

@MarvelousLogos @Gogettacs @RFupdates I said He shows kindness to all His Creation, not to all individuals. Those individuals He doesn't place His love upon continue in their sin & receive what it deserves. Only those individuals He loves are saved.

Christianity vs. Islam: Does God Hate Sinners?

@Alchemisknights @Ihunanya_chi Yep, this response was almost predictable and disappointing. All you could come up was "Nuh uh" with no explanation, that's not a refutation at all.

@MarvelousLogos @Ihunanya_chi That's absolutely against the saying of that your corrupted book!.. the book statements was clear 👌 no backup bro!.

Muslim lady: Islam teaches men to treat their wives nicely, that’s why your sisters are running off to marry our men.😹😹😹 Me: Awww… you mean the same Islam that tells men to beat their wives in Surah 4:34? 😏 Muslim lady: You’re taking it out of context! It doesn’t say beat! Me: Oh really? It says: “But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance, [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.” Muslim lady: You don’t understand Arabic, that translation is wrong. Me: LOL, the Arabic word wa-ḍribuhunna literally means “to strike” or “to beat.” It’s the same word used elsewhere in the Quran for actual physical action, not symbolism. So… what exactly are you saying? Muslim lady: I’m not here to debate. You are rude and arrogant… I’m going to block you now. Me: Wait, before you block me… do you at least agree that Islam allows men to beat their wives? …Seen. 🚫 Oops. Blocked. Well, she read it, and I’m pretty sure she agrees, she just wasn’t brave enough to say it out loud. 😅

@NonTriviality32 @darwintojesus against inherited corruption; they're witnesses against one specific Augustinian formulation of guilt-transfer. So the question isn't Augustine vs. Chrysostom. The question is whether Ezekiel 18 refutes original sin and it doesn't, for the reasons I already gave.

@NonTriviality32 @darwintojesus eph' hō debate in Romans 5:12 is real, but even the Eastern reading "because all sinned" presupposes that death spread universally through Adam and produces a condition in which all inevitably sin. That's still a doctrine of original sin. The Eastern Fathers are not witnesses