Is The Serpent Seed Doctrine A "Damnable Heresy"?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Acts 20:28.

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

Now Brother.... that was smooth as silk

The blood of God mentioned in Acts 20:28 is the same blood of God mentioned in Ephesians 1:7 and (and elsewhere). Colossians 1:4 tells us that the blood that purchases us was the blood of "his dear Son" which seems to be making a distinction between the Divine and the human when read together with verse 3.

The blood that paid for our redemption was entirely human blood. Anything else and you've got Teke's Gnostic dualism coming back into play.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Still don't see it ... perfect blood cell ... where is it ...???

That scripture says we are are blood bought ,,,,, anything else is a stretch.

But it's good to see you and the good doctor agreeing on false doctrine.

Dan notice ....the Church of GOD which HE(GOD) has purchased with HIS(GOD"S) own blood. What is difficult about that?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Dan notice ....the Church of GOD which HE(GOD) has purchased with HIS(GOD"S) own blood. What is difficult about that?

God has blood or sperm or even toes? When did this happen?

Where is the part that says he placed his perfect blood cell in Mary??? That's in Acts 20 also?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The blood of God mentioned in Acts 20:28 is the same blood of God mentioned in Ephesians 1:7 and (and elsewhere). Colossians 1:4 tells us that the blood that purchases us was the blood of "his dear Son" which seems to be making a distinction between the Divine and the human when read together with verse 3.

The blood that paid for our redemption was entirely human blood. Anything else and you've got Teke's Gnostic dualism coming back into play.

That's exactly what it is ... Pela. And they don't see it.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

God has blood or sperm? When did this happen?

Dan I am not a geneticist(if that is a word) all I know it says the church was purhased with God's own blood.
Lev. 17:11 says the LIFE of the flesh is IN the blood.
1Jn. 3:16 ".....the love of God, because He (GOD) laid down His(GOD'S) LIFE(which is in the blood) for us.
I just believe what is written.

Don't throw me in the pile with Branham however a broke clock is correct twice a day.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Dan notice ....the Church of GOD which HE(GOD) has purchased with HIS(GOD"S) own blood. What is difficult about that?

Jesus, the man, was God (John 9:38). That man was born in the city of Bethlehem around the year 4 B.C. (and that dating shouldn't be hard either, but look at we've done!).

In any event, Jesus was of the House of David the king. Jesus was a human being. He had human blood. There is nothing in Scripture that shows us that His blood was anything other than human blood.

What made the blood efficacious for the atonement was the life that Jesus Christ lived as a human being for those 33 and one half years. He lived a sinless life. See Galatians 4:4-5 and 1 Peter 3:18. That's why His entirely human blood worked for the atonement.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Dan I am not a geneticist(if that is a word) all I know it says the church was purhased with God's own blood.
Lev. 17:11 says the LIFE of the flesh is IN the blood.
1Jn. 3:16 ".....the love of God, because He (GOD) laid down His(GOD'S) LIFE(which is in the blood) for us.
I just believe what is written.

Don't throw me in the pile with Branham however a broke clock is correct twice a day.

My ... my .. my.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The blood of God mentioned in Acts 20:28 is the same blood of God mentioned in Ephesians 1:7 and (and elsewhere). Colossians 1:4 tells us that the blood that purchases us was the blood of "his dear Son" which seems to be making a distinction between the Divine and the human when read together with verse 3.

The blood that paid for our redemption was entirely human blood. Anything else and you've got Teke's Gnostic dualism coming back into play.

I never said it was not human blood! It was human blood created by God.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Jesus, the man, was God. That man was born in the city of Bethlehem around the year 4 B.C. (and that dating shouldn't be hard either, but look at we've done!).

In any event, Jesus was of the House of David the king. Jesus was a human being. He had human blood. There is nothing in Scripture that shows us that His blood was anything other than human blood.

What made the blood efficacious for the atonement was the life that Jesus Christ lived as a human being for those 33 and one half years. He lived a sinless life. See Galatians 4:4-5 and 1 Peter 3:18.

Right. Blood formed as he developed in his mothers womb as his circulatory system developed ... not blood cells that caused his conception.

This doctrine is debunked theologically and biologically.

[Rico]

I am a little confused about what the issue is with this blood thing. God came to Earth as a man, His blood was spilled while He was being crucified, and the Bible talks about Him purchasing the Church with His blood. Where is the controversy? Am I missing something?