Jesus a MAN or Morphed Being

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 19 2012,17:07)

Mike……..How about this Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy “SEED” and HER “SEED”

Yes Gene,

Jesus WAS of the seed of the woman……….ACCORDING TO HIS FLESH.

1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: he was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Gene, what does it mean that Jesus was “manifest in the flesh”?

Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Gene, what does it mean that Jesus was of human seed ACCORDING TO THE FLESH? Why do you suppose they use that phrase so often concerning Jesus coming to earth?

So you can easily see that being “manifest in the flesh”, and being of the seed of the woman “according to the flesh” does nothing in the way of saying Jesus didn't pre-exist in the form of God BEFORE he was “manifest in the flesh”, right?

Gene, please ANSWER that last question, so I know we're on the same page.

[GeneBalthrop]

Mike……….they used the Phrase according to the Flesh becasue they know people like you were trying to say He was something different then a flesh and  blood being like the Gnostic's for instances.  As far as manifested in the flesh goes the same applies to us all we are all manifested in the flesh we all have Spirits that are  Manifested (IN) the Flesh , there is no “MYSTERY” about that. We all Are seed of women “according to the flesh” how does that make Jesus any different then we are? It doesn't IMO. You Preexistences and Trinitarians are constantly trying to make some KIND of “MYSTERY RELIGIOUS” concept work for you, by move Jesus away for our EXACT IDENTITY with him.  Trying to make it seem He was a “MORPHED BEING” of some kind, instead of a purely human being brought into existence just as we are, all false teachings and Pure garbage IMO.

peace and love………………………………………gene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 20 2012,16:24)

Mike……….they used the Phrase according to the Flesh becasue they know people like you were trying to say He was something different then a flesh and  blood being like the Gnostic's for instances.

Actually Gene, they used it for people like YOU, who think Jesus was never nothing more than a man just like you.  Think about it for just one minute Gene.  Put your own wishes aside for a second and think:

Has anyone ever said anything about you or anyone you know that includes the phrase “according to the flesh”?

Would it make sense for someone to say, “Gene was the son of James, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH”?  Of course not, because you've never been anything BUT flesh.  

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 20 2012,16:24)

……we are all manifested in the flesh……

And since none of us have ever been anything BUT flesh, you won't hear anyone saying, “Gene was manifested in the flesh, and then became a carpenter”.

They won't say that, because it would be ludicrous for them to speak of someone being manifested in the flesh if all they ever were was flesh.

Gene, you fight logic and scripture so hard.  Why?

[GeneBalthrop]

Mike…………Why did Jesus say Greater works we could do then He did, if that potential was it not there? You say you believe Jesus' words so when are you going to start believing, Why did he say the Son OF Man (which by the He was) “could do “NOTHING” of or  BY HIMSELF”  If he is so removes from our exact LIKENESS. Jesus alway Identified himself with us “ALWAYS”. Face it Mike you word is a work of separation of Jesus from his brothers and sisters You and the rest of the Preexistences who are Trinitarians , are all in error by teaching Jesus preexisted as a sentinel “BEING” before his berth on this earth, and aren't even to able to consider the question of “WHY” would GOD take a Preexisting Angel and “MORPH HIM” into a Human Being in the First Place?, was God trying to Perfect Angels or HUMANS?  Its much like John 1:1 you people can't even think If John Meant to say Jesus He would Just have written Jesus there in the first Place if that is what he meant to say. And you talk to me about “SIMPLE LOGIC” You are a JOKE at BEST MY FRIEND>  IMO

peace and Love……………………………………………………………..gene

[mikeboll64]

Gene, address the points of my previous post, please.

Let's say your dad's name was “James”, (because I don't know your father's name).

Would it make sense for anyone to say, “Gene was the son of James, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH“?  YES or NO?

[terraricca]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 22 2012,12:02)

Mike…………Why did Jesus say Greater works we could do then He did, if that potential was it not there? You say you believe Jesus' words so when are you going to start believing, Why did he say the Son OF Man (which by the He was) “could do “NOTHING” of or  BY HIMSELF”  If he is so removes from our exact LIKENESS. Jesus alway Identified himself with us “ALWAYS”. Face it Mike you word is a work of separation of Jesus from his brothers and sisters You and the rest of the Preexistences who are Trinitarians , are all in error by teaching Jesus preexisted as a sentinel “BEING” before his berth on this earth, and aren't even to able to consider the question of “WHY” would GOD take a Preexisting Angel and “MORPH HIM” into a Human Being in the First Place?,  was God trying to Perfect Angels or HUMANS?  Its much like John 1:1 you people can't even think If John Meant to say Jesus He would Just have written Jesus there in the first Place if that is what he meant to say. And you talk to me about “SIMPLE LOGIC” You are a JOKE at BEST MY FRIEND>  IMO peace and Love……………………………………………………………..gene

gene

let get things strait ,you are not one of Christ brothers(144k) this is fact;
so you will at best be resurrected.(like most of us)
you are not understanding Gods words unless you leave them alone by quoting them,

your support for untruth to Gods word is well known and written in your quotes ,why do you try to foul anyone even your self to what is not.

Pierre

[GeneBalthrop]

Pierre………..You have no idea who or what i am or going to be either, Just more irrational thinking coming from you mouth.

Why just not answer the previous quote i made “FROM SCRIPTURES” after all you “SAY” you are a “SCRIPTURAL” PERSON right?

Do you agree with Mike, that says Jesus is “nothing” like we are , so address my post and don't be like Mike and just dismiss it or perhaps you can't help being like him right?. Because the same Spirit (intellects) of accusations and dismissing what others say is working in both of you. From what is obvious here.

In fact you have no idea who the 144K are now do you even though scripture clearly say who they are, Need Help to identify them Here is is they are from the 12 tribes of Israel listed below

12,000, from the tribe of Joseph
12,000, from the tribe of Judah
12,000 from the tribe of Ruben
12,000 from the tribe of Benjamin
12,000 from the tribe of Issachar
12,000 from the tribe of Levi
12,000 from the tribe of Simenon
12,000 from the tribe of Zebulun
12,000 from the tribe of Naphtali
12,000 from the tribe of Asher
12,000 from the tribe of Gad
12,000 from the tribe of Manasseh
But what ever happened to the tribe of Dan? So “ALL” of the tribes of ISREAL are Not Mentioned there right? Can you tell us why? Let me help you out a little, do you see there the tribe if Joseph , that includes the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh , becasue Joseph got a
DOUBLE PORTION, His two childern were as a result numbered as separate tribes making the number of the total tribes of Israel as thirteen instead of twelve tribes. It is my opinion where it say Manasses in revelation it “PROPERLY” should be DAN, It is even spelled wrong it is spelled Manasses, when in fact it should be spelled Manasseh, Just another sloppy trinitarian translation job. IMO

Now Pierre, if you would care to keep reading in Revelations you would find that there were also a GREAT Multitude that no Man could count there also of all kindreds of Nations and tongues

You have no idea if I am from not from one of those tribes or not, in fact what i have discovered I am a decedent of Israel also.

peace and love………………………………………….gene

[terraricca]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 23 2012,13:40)

Pierre………..You have no idea who or what i am or going to be either, Just more irrational thinking coming from you mouth. Why just not answer the previous quote i made “FROM SCRIPTURES” after all you “SAY” you are a “SCRIPTURAL” PERSON right?   Do you  agree with Mike, that says Jesus is “nothing” like we are , so address my post and don't be like Mike and just dismiss it or perhaps you can't help being like him right?. Because the same Spirit (intellects) of accusations and dismissing what others say is working in both of you.  From what is obvious here. In fact you have no idea who the 144K are now do you even though scripture clearly say who they are, Need Help to identify them Here is is they are from the 12 tribes of Israel listed below 12,000, from the tribe of Joseph 12,000, from the tribe of Judah 12,000  from the tribe of Ruben 12,000  from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000  from the tribe of Issachar 12,000  from the tribe of Levi 12,000  from the tribe of Simenon 12,000  from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000  from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000  from the tribe of Asher 12,000  from the tribe of Gad 12,000  from the tribe of Manasseh But what ever happened to the tribe of Dan? So “ALL” of the tribes of ISREAL are Not Mentioned there right? Can you tell us why? Let me help you out a little, do you see there the tribe if Joseph , that includes the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh , becasue Joseph got a DOUBLE PORTION, His two childern were as a result numbered as separate tribes making the number of the total tribes of Israel as thirteen instead of twelve tribes.  It is my opinion where it say Manasses in revelation it “PROPERLY” should be DAN, It is even spelled wrong it is spelled Manasses, when in fact it should be spelled Manasseh, Just another sloppy trinitarian translation job. IMO Now Pierre, if you would care to keep reading in Revelations you would find that there were also a GREAT Multitude that no Man could count there also of all kindreds of Nations and tongues You have no idea if I am from not from one of those tribes or not, in fact what i have discovered I am a decedent of Israel also. peace and love………………………………………….gene

gene

Rev 7:13 Then one of the elders asked me, “These in white robes—who are they, and where did they come from?”
Rev 7:14 I answered, “Sir, you know.”
And he said, “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Rev 7:15 Therefore,
“they are before the throne of God
and serve him day and night in his temple;
and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them.
Rev 7:16 Never again will they hunger;
never again will they thirst.

that great Multitude have wash them self in the blood of the Lamb and NOT IN THEIR own blood ,got it ???own truth

REV 14:4 These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb.
REV 14:5 And no lie was found in their mouth; they are blameless.

this is not like you  right ?yes

REV 14:13 And I heard a voice from heaven, saying, “Write, ‘ Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on!’ ” “Yes,” says the Spirit, “so that they

die IN the Lord  means in his truth not ours right ??yes
so you are not here either.

REV 22:14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.
REV 22:15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.

see what scriptures says ;they WASH their robes and be cleaned by Christ ;NOT by our own ways and believes

so this again eliminate you I guess ?? yes

all this is the present ,GENE you can Change all that if you want,

it is either YOU or CHRIST that you follow but it can not be both

Pierre

[mikeboll64]

Gene, were you unable to answer my last post to you?

[GeneBalthrop]

Terricca……….So you Just ignore the Post i posted to you again and come out with all kinds of stuff i never even Mentioned or ever said i disagreed with. Trying to make me into something I am Not , as i said before, the scripture that fit you the best is this one , “Why behold the mote in thy brothers eye and see not the beam in your own eye”. Pierre i would suggest to you to Start there first , before you go mouthing off at others and their relationship with God the Father and Jesus Christ, of which you know absolutely (NOTHING ABOUT). Your distorted “OPINIONS” Of me I nor anyone else care “NOTHING ABOUT”> If i posted wrong then PROVE it instead of just running off your Mouth about thing you have no knowledge about. IMO

peace and love………………………………………………………….gene

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 22 2012,07:38)

Gene, address the points of my previous post, please. Let's say your dad's name was “James”, (because I don't know your father's name). Would it make sense for anyone to say, “Gene was the son of James, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH“?  YES or NO?

Mike……….Yes it would make sense if he were referencing my Fleshly existence as opposed to a Heavenly one.  You see, one of my Fathers is My Father “according to the Flesh” , just as one of your Fathers is according to the flesh, Why say it that way?, becasue i have a Father that is “NOT” according to the Flesh and He is GOD the FATHER. Did not Jesus say “OUR” Father which is in Heaven”. and Did He not say YOUR FATHER WHO IS (IN HEAVEN ) knows you have need of these things,  Did John not Say “NOW” we ” ARE” the (SONS) of the LIVING GOD, And again, and again. So can i also say My Father who is (IN HEAVEN) and MY EARTHLY FATHER “according to the Flesh”.  When are you truly going to start to believe what Jesus said, MIKE? He REALLY MEANT what he Said. IMO  

Trying to force the text to meet you own Personal views and convictions is wrong Mike , take all scripture into consideration before making some off the wall statements. And then asking me to answer them in a way to support you slant on them. IMO

peace and love to you and yours…………………………….gene

[mikeboll64]

Okay Gene,

I accept that explanation as sensible. How about this one:
Romans 8:3 NET ©
For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

What does it mean that God SENT His own Son in the “likeness of sinful flesh”? If Jesus never was anything BUT “the likeness of sinful flesh”, then how does that statement make sense?

[terraricca]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 24 2012,11:01)

Terricca……….So you Just ignore the Post i posted to you again and come out with all kinds of stuff i never even Mentioned or ever said i disagreed with.  Trying to make me into something I am Not , as i said before, the scripture that fit you the best  is this one ,  “Why behold the mote in thy brothers eye and see not the beam in your own eye”.  Pierre i would suggest to you to Start there first , before you go mouthing off at others and their relationship with God the Father and Jesus Christ, of which you know absolutely (NOTHING ABOUT). Your distorted  “OPINIONS” Of me I nor anyone else care “NOTHING ABOUT”>  If i posted wrong then PROVE it instead of just running off your Mouth about thing you have no knowledge about. IMO peace and love………………………………………………………….gene

gene

sorry I stick to what I have said,you have the habit of refusing to see scriptures in plain letters,your conviction over rules Gods rules ,just as the Jew made there TRADITION BE OVER GODS LAW,

this is plain to all of us that can read your posts ,we know you do not answer to verses in the bible that are saying your wrong ,and search to twist them,call others that they don't understand what you are saying ,so to make your words above scriptures,

well that s your choice I just make you aware of it ,

Pierre

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 24 2012,10:40)

Okay Gene, I accept that explanation as sensible.  How about this one: Romans 8:3 NET © For God achieved what the law could not do because  it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, What does it mean that God SENT His own Son in the “likeness of sinful flesh”?  If Jesus never was anything BUT “the likeness of sinful flesh”, then how does that statement make sense?

MIke………….If God were to sent YOU right Now , would he be sending you as in the “LIKENESS” of a sinful flesh being or not? God was (IN) Jesus reconciling the Worlds to “HIMSELF”. The word which is and was GOD was (IN) the likeness of Sinful Flesh Man called Jesus. I did not say Jesus Sinned but he was In the “Likeness of sinful Flesh.

Another thing to consider is when did God send him into world, was it at his berth or after he was Baptized and tested in the wilderness. When was he sent Mike? I maintain it was after He was tested in the wilderness, God sent him out into the world to preach the gospel, Just as Jesus told his disciples God sent Him he was also (in like manor) sending them out into the world to Preach the gospel of the Kingdom of God. IMO

peace and love to you and yours………………………………gene

[terraricca]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 25 2012,13:34)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 24 2012,10:40) Okay Gene, I accept that explanation as sensible.  How about this one: Romans 8:3 NET © For God achieved what the law could not do because  it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, What does it mean that God SENT His own Son in the “likeness of sinful flesh”?  If Jesus never was anything BUT “the likeness of sinful flesh”, then how does that statement make sense? MIke………….If God were to sent YOU right Now , would he be sending you as in the “LIKENESS” of a sinful flesh being or not? God was (IN) Jesus reconciling the Worlds to “HIMSELF”.  The word which is  and was GOD was (IN) the likeness of Sinful Flesh Man called Jesus. I did not say Jesus Sinned but he was In the “Likeness of sinful Flesh.   Another thing to consider is when did God send him into world, was it at his berth or after he was Baptized and tested in the wilderness. When was he sent Mike? I maintain it was after He was tested in the wilderness, God sent him out into the world to preach the gospel,  Just as Jesus told his disciples God sent Him he was also (in like manor) sending them out into the world to Preach the gospel of the Kingdom of God. IMO peace and love to you and yours………………………………gene

Mike

gene as made you Christ now ,this is how far he is ready to go in his folly ,to persuade other to become like him “blind”to truth

[GeneBalthrop]

Pierre………..Where have i Made Mike Christ now, can't you even respond at all, without lying about what people say. Pierre you are simply an ACCUSER of the brethren and a FALSE ONE AT THAT> But i just consider the source and let it go. I understand your lack of English learning and simply over look you snide remarks Pierre.

peace and love………………………………………….gene

[terraricca]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 25 2012,18:12)

Pierre………..Where have i Made Mike Christ now, can't you even respond at all, without lying about what people say.  Pierre you are simply an ACCUSER of the brethren and a FALSE ONE AT THAT> But i just consider the source and let it go.  I understand your lack of English learning and simply over look you snide remarks Pierre. peace and love………………………………………….gene

MIke………….If God were to sent YOU right Now , would he be sending you as in the “LIKENESS” of a sinful flesh being or not

[GeneBalthrop]

Pierre…….So to you that means I am calling MIKE CHRIST. That has nothing to do with calling anyone a Christ. in the English language that is> Funny i don't see mike say that Pierre. Just you. IMO

peace and love……………………………………..gene

[terraricca]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 25 2012,18:37)

Pierre…….So to you that means I am calling MIKE CHRIST. That has nothing to do with calling anyone a Christ. in the English language that is> Funny i don't see mike say that Pierre. Just you. IMO peace and love……………………………………..gene

gene

your claim is a allusion to Christ ,but you can not see that it is not the same ,your mind is twisting you apart,

Pierre

[GeneBalthrop]

Terrica…………..Again i don't see Nike saying that, just you mouthing off your usual garbage Pierre!. If what i say is a allusion as you say then prove it instead of just mouthing off about it showing you lack of true knowledge. IMO

peace and love………………………………………………gene

[Author]

Posts