Kerwin and Nick, you can disagree that Jesus Christ came in the flesh all you like, that is your choice.

Hi T8,

I believe what they are saying is that Jesus came in the flesh, then later Christ came in the flesh.
But as T8 has been attempting to point out (Nick, Kerwin, and Gene), that is not what this verse says.

Here is the context…

“Hereby…[Read more]

Kerwin and Nick, you can disagree that Jesus Christ came in the flesh all you like, that is your choice.

Hi T8,

I believe what they are saying is that Jesus came in the flesh, then later Christ came in the flesh.
But as T8 has been attempting to point out (Nick, Kerwin, and Gene), that is not what this verse says.

Here is the context…

“Hereby…[Read more]

Kerwin and Nick, you can disagree that Jesus Christ came in the flesh all you like, that is your choice.

Hi,

I believe what they are saying is that Jesus came in the flesh, then later Christ came in the flesh.
But as T8 has been attempting to point out (Nick, Kerwin, and Gene), that is not what this verse says.

Here is the context…

“Hereby…[Read more]

Still we would be wise to give Ed a change to explain what he meant or to admit he made an error.

Hi Kerwin,

Are you familiar with the term “quote mining”? This term refers to pulling
words out of context, which causes others (which did not read the Author’s completed words)
to misrepresent the Author’s intent. In case you are unfamiliar with…[Read more]

IMHO, (1)someone with as much Biblical understanding as you profess to have, do not understand the nature and Victory of Christ’ sacrifice on the cross. (2)The offering of a spotless victim was necessary for the appeasement of the wrath of God for all of us. (3)It could not possibly been tainted in any way whatsoever. (4)And he was the only h…

[Read more]

IMHO, (1)someone with as much Biblical understanding as you profess to have, do not understand the nature and Victory of Christ’ sacrifice on the cross. (2)The offering of a spotless victim was necessary for the appeasement of the wrath of God for all of us. (3)It could not possibly been tainted in any way whatsoever. (4)And he was the only h…

[Read more]

Mr. Ed.

” The work that Jesus finished was this separation in Himself made between {Lucifer=74} and the , which occurred at His death.”

Which was from your fingers.

Hi Mark,

How white of you to actually quote my words;
instead you have been offering your words,
and pretending that they were my words.

There was NEVER, EVER any evil, sin, error, fault or anything that wasn’t complete and pure holy perfectness and love from Jesus, God, or the Spirit in them. Period.

Hi Mark,

Funny how you keep attempting to put your words in my mouth.
…and it is a pity that you cannot see this.

I counsel thee to: …”anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that t…[Read more]

Ed,

Are you sure you did not make an error and write something you did not intend?

If you are sure you intended what you wrote then please explain what you actually meant.

After all it is offered up to you as:

1) a learning moment
2) a teaching moment.

Hi Kerwin

If you want, I will email you a copy of HolyCityBibleCode (in PDF),
in there I…[Read more]

In calling him the Christ the angel of God merely demonstrated he was the foreordained to be the Christ. This idea may disturb some free will doctrinalists that think predestination in contrary to there teaching but it is not contrary to Scripture.

Hi Kerwin,

You are apparently are ignoring Micah 5:2 as well.
If you are willing to address…[Read more]

In calling him the Christ the angel of God merely demonstrated he was the foreordained to be the Christ. This idea may disturb some free will doctrinalists that think predestination in contrary to there teaching but it is not contrary to Scripture.

Hi Kerwin,

You are apparently are ignoring Micah 5:2 as well.
If you are willing to address…[Read more]

Yes Nick, I already know what you believe. But you are
not addressing Micah 5:2, which clearly disproves your theory.

Your belief is the spirit of Christ came from everlasting to JORDAN,
———————-but that is NOT what Micah 5:2 states———————–
Micah 5:2 states the spirit of Christ came from everlasting to…[Read more]

Yes Nick, I already know what you believe. But you are
not addressing Micah 5:2, which clearly disproves your theory.

Your belief is the spirit of Christ came from everlasting to JORDAN,
———————-but that is NOT what Micah 5:2 states———————–
Micah 5:2 states the spirit of Christ came from everlasting to…[Read more]

Yes Nick, I already know what you believe. But you are
not addressing Micah 5:2, which clearly disproves your theory.

Your belief is the spirit of Christ came from everlasting to JORDAN,
———————-but that is NOT what Micah 5:2 states————————
Micah 5:2 states the spirit of Christ came from everlasting to…[Read more]

Yes Nick, I already know what you believe. But you are
not addressing Micah 5:2, which clearly disproves your theory.

Your belief is the spirit of Christ came from everlasting to JORDAN,
———————–but that is NOT what Micah 5:2 states————————–
Micah 5:2 states the spirit of Christ came from everlasting to…[Read more]

Yes Nick, I already know what you believe. But you are
not addressing Micah 5:2, which clearly disproves your theory.

Your belief is the spirit of Christ came from everlasting to JORDAN,
——————–but that is NOT what Micah 5:2 states———————–
Micah 5:2 states the spirit of Christ came from everlasting to…[Read more]

Yes Nick, I already know what you believe. But you are
not addressing Micah 5:2, which clearly disproves your theory.

Your belief is the spirit of Christ came from everlasting to JORDAN,
—————but that is NOT what Micah 5:2 states——————
Micah 5:2 states the spirit of Christ came from everlasting to BETHLEHEM.

This verse…[Read more]

Hi Miiia,

I say to you now what I said to Mark: “bearing false witness is a sin”

Ed, you did.

No, I didn’t!

No Miia,

You are blaming me for YOUR WORDS, AKA ‘spin’

spin

transitive verb
3b : to evolve, express, or fabricate by processes of mind or imagination …(Link)