- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 24 2012,13:34) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 24 2012,10:40) 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?
Of course, Gene. But no one would ever word it that way, because I've never been anything other than sinful flesh.God also sent John, and the disciples of Jesus, but none of them were ever said to have been sent “in the likeness of sinful flesh”, because none of them had ever been anything but sinful flesh.
Doesn't it strike you as an odd thing for Paul to say if Jesus had only ever been in the likeness of sinful flesh up until the time God sent him?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 27 2012,06:30) [
Doesn't it strike you as an odd thing for Paul to say if Jesus had only ever been in the likeness of sinful flesh up until the time God sent him?
No i don't think it strange Mike , if Paul was trying to show Jesus was true in every way like we are, not strange at all. It only seems strange if you view it the way you do. MIKE.peace and love………………………………………..gene
gene
Quote No i don't think it strange Mike , if Paul was trying to show Jesus was true in every way like we are, not strange at all. It only seems strange if you view it the way you do. MIKE. nothing surprise me with you Gene you are the unique so called self serve believer ,and make God the father of Christ be a subject of your church,
but what you do not understand is that in reality you are serving the purpose of the devil ,you know the one that disagree with what ever comes out the scriptures ,
but you know that already ,no news there,
just a note,
Pierre
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 26 2012,17:35) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 27 2012,06:30) [
Doesn't it strike you as an odd thing for Paul to say if Jesus had only ever been in the likeness of sinful flesh up until the time God sent him?
No i don't think it strange Mike , if Paul was trying to show Jesus was true in every way like we are, not strange at all.
John was a man sent from God, right? Why didn't they say John was sent from God “in the likeness of sinful flesh”?Actually Gene, the fact that Paul points out the flesh part is telling us something that you're not quite ready to accept. Had he just said, “God sent Jesus”, no one would think anything of it. But because he added “in the likeness of sinful flesh”, it is telling us a story.
Hebrews 2:14
Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—The above scripture is another part of the story, Gene. What does it mean that Jesus “shared” in our humanity? That's another odd thing to say if Jesus wasn't ever anything but human.
gene
????Gene. What does it mean that Jesus “shared” in our humanity? That's another odd thing to say if Jesus wasn't ever anything but human.
Mike……..Why shouldn't he share in our humanity after all he was a human being, and as it says, since by man came sin By a man came redemption from sins” If Jesus was a “PREEXISTING” Angel, he would never qualify for that position. You have yet to produce ONE SCRIPTURE that say HE WAS a “MORPHED ANGEL” not even ONE, AND heres some points for you to consider Mike, When the Angel told Mary about He caring a Baby , If Jesus was a “MORPHED” Angel why did he SAY and “that” which is conceived in here is of the HOLY GHOST” Notice the language (THAT) which is Conceived in Her. Does this appear that the Angel knew it was a past angel of any kind> No it does not, But surely if the Angels know it was another Angel he would have said it like he knew who it was. Next,
Luke 1:31…> and behold thou shall conceive in in thy womb, and shall call “HIS” name Jesus, 32..> He shall (now notice Mike) Be (future tense) called the Son of the Highest and the Lord GOD “SHALL” give (future tense again) unto Him the Throne of his father (WHO?) DAVID; No MORPHING or Past existence found there Mike, but there is more Mike,
Luke 1:35, And the angel answered and said unto Her, the Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow you: (now notice carefully Mike) therefore also “THAT” holy “THING” shall be (future tense) which shall be born (from where) OF THEE shall be (again future tense)called the Son of GOD. No past association with GOD here Mike,
Nothing in all of this indicates the Jesus was a Past Being of any kind MIKE, now lets be Honest about this Brother. Not so much, as you say a “HINT” of any kind of Past existence at all.
peace and love ………………………………..gene
gene
Quote Mike……..Why shouldn't he share in our humanity after all he was a human being, a human does not share our humanity he lives in it ;sharing mean that he does not need to do it but he did it anyway,
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 27 2012,12:13) Luke 1:31…> and behold thou shall conceive in in thy womb, and shall call “HIS” name Jesus, 32..> He shall (now notice Mike) Be (future tense) called the Son of the Highest……….
Hi Gene,Many times in the OT, Jehovah speaks of bringing the Israelites back from their exile, and He says “………..”and I will be your God” – future tense. Does that mean that Jehovah WASN'T their God while they were in exile?
Mike………According to those Isrealites actions He was not there God or they would have served Him and Obeyed Him, God was talking of a future when they would acknowledge Him in faithfulness as there “TRUE” GOD , even though He was the “ONLY TRUE GOD” anyway, according to Jesus. Mike you argument is with Jesus Not Me. You either truly believe what Jesus and GOd the FATHER said or not that is you privilege afforded you at this time any way. IMO
peace and love……………………………………….gene
No Gene,
My argument is with your inability to understand simple concepts. Jehovah is ALWAYS EVERYONE'S God, Gene. He always has been since He created all things. So how does He then say, “I WILL BE your God”?
Hi there Gene.
You are certainly right that Jesus is not a Morphed Angel. And those 'Will' and 'Shall be' are as you say, future events.
This also applies to downplay the Trinitarian view of the verse that says 'Will be called Son of God' and 'Shall be called Mighty God' (The latter title 'God' here does not mean God Almighty, but One of Might and Power). Why the word 'Mighty' in that term? And if he was already God (in Human form) then why is it only in the future that he will be called by that title. And why only in the future if he is to be called 'Son of God'?The reference to God being the God of the Israelites in the future, is certainly true, but not how you think.
It means that 'If the Israelites continue to hold to the laws of God Almighty, God Almighty will (Continue to) be their God.Toby……….I believe God will be there God in the Future by this process Brother,
Eze 11:19……> And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and al the abominations thereof from thence 19….> And i will give them one heart and (I) will put a “NEW SPIRIT” within you; and (I) will take the stony heart out of their “FLESH” and will give them a Heart of “FLESH” 20…> “THAT” they may walk in my statues, and keep my ordnances,and do them: and they shall be my people and (I) will be their GOD>
I believe GOD must Give us a “NEW SPIRIT” that changes our hearts in order for us walk in accordance to his Laws and statues and Be his true People. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 29 2012,08:39) I believe GOD must Give us a “NEW SPIRIT” that changes our hearts in order for us walk in accordance to his Laws and statues and Be his true People.
And until that time, He's not really our God? Is that it Gene?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 30 2012,00:33) Toby, Did Jesus exist as a sentient being before the creation of the world?
Hi Mikeboll, yes he was.Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 30 2012,01:39) Toby……….I believe God will be there God in the Future by this process Brother, Eze 11:19……> And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and al the abominations thereof from thence 19….> And i will give them one heart and (I) will put a “NEW SPIRIT” within you; and (I) will take the stony heart out of their “FLESH” and will give them a Heart of “FLESH” 20…> “THAT” they may walk in my statues, and keep my ordnances,and do them: and they shall be my people and (I) will be their GOD>
I believe GOD must Give us a “NEW SPIRIT” that changes our hearts in order for us walk in accordance to his Laws and statues and Be his true People. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………gene
Gene, this is certainly true what you say – Scriptural and Spiritual words indeed.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 30 2012,02:17) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 29 2012,08:39) I believe GOD must Give us a “NEW SPIRIT” that changes our hearts in order for us walk in accordance to his Laws and statues and Be his true People.
And until that time, He's not really our God? Is that it Gene?
Mike……….My hope is that he is NOW your GOD, as He certainly is MY GOD . If you have His Spirit (IN) You it is transforming you mind and Heart also. We are a NEW CREATION in CHRIST Jesus. This same spirit will also Quicken (bring to life) your “MORTAL” BODY also, Just like it DID JESUS' “MORTAL” BODY> IMOpeace and love to you and yours Mike……………………………..gene
Hi Mikeboll. I think you know exactly what Gene is saying.
'God is not the God of the dead'
God himself says to the Hebrews: 'If you follow my statutes then I will be your God'.
Does this not imply that – until that time, (and/or as long as they DO NOT continue to follow God's statutes), God is not their God?While I understand that God (Almighty) is God over all, in terms of 'Real Godship', that is not what Gene is referring to.
Therefore, his version of 'Their God' or 'Not their God' and 'Will be their God', is exactly right.I'm sure you can easily find many many examples in Scriptures, to support Gene's view on this single issue.
toby
Quote While I understand that God (Almighty) is God over all, in terms of 'Real Godship', that is not what Gene is referring to.
Therefore, his version of 'Their God' or 'Not their God' and 'Will be their God', is exactly right.sins you understand Gene ;
so can you explain to me WHEN DO WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IS IS NOT God (Almighty) is God over all,BUT THAT IT IS TO BE ;'Their God'AND WEN CAN WE APPLY THAT 'Not their GodOR SHOULD BE 'Will be their God
so please make it clear,wen,how,were,why and to whom.
Pierre
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
