Hey, Walter. A thought just hit me. How do you define, "the love of God"? Maybe that is where we are missing each other. What is your definition of the term?

I am God's Love.

I Honestly Don't know what you guys are going on about. I thought I'd wait, wait till you were done with all this Malarkey.


What is the purpose of the Bible? It is to make men and women wise unto salvation. It’s not a book about astronomy. It’s not a scientific textbook. It’s a book that has been written to make us wise for salvation. So we should be very, very careful, then, about trying to extrapolate scientific terminology and deductions from a book that does not have that as its express purpose.

Ultimately, the Bible can only be interpreted for us by the Holy Spirit. Because true understanding is not natural to us. And if you listened carefully to the psalmist, you would realize that Milne is right when he says, “What we understand of [God’s] truth is related less to the capacity of our brains than to the extent of our obedience.” “What we learn of God’s truth is related less to the capacity of our brains than to the extent of our obedience.”

What the Bible says is that God has breathed out the holy Scriptures and that it is this which provides Scripture with its reliability and with its authority—that God has spoken, revealing truth and at the same time preserving the human authors from error, and doing so in such a way so as not to violate their personalities.

I am God's Love.Not following you on that one. Are you saying that when the Bible refers to God's love, it is specifically referring to Waltero?

Glad to see you back!

I think this was your best paragraph. "What the Bible says is that God has breathed out the holy Scriptures and that it is this which provides Scripture with its reliability and with its authority—that God has spoken, revealing truth and at the same time preserving the human authors from error, and doing so in such a way so as not to violate their personalities."

Glad to see you back! Thanks.


Not following you on that one. Are you saying that when the Bible refers to God's love, it is specifically referring to Waltero?
Yes...it takes God's love to love God.


"What the Bible says is that God has breathed out the holy Scriptures and that it is this which provides Scripture with its reliability and with its authority—that God has spoken, revealing truth and at the same time preserving the human authors from error, and doing so in such a way so as not to violate their personalities."It’s in 2 Peter 1:21. And there, speaking of the work of God in Scripture, says in verse 21, “For prophesy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

What God has to say to us is much more important than what we have to say to him. And indeed, we have nothing to say to him until first, we have heard from him.

"What God has to say to us is much more important than what we have to say to him.
What does God have to say to us? Where or how?

And indeed, we have nothing to say to him until first, we have heard from him.
We cannot reach out to Him first?

You said, "I am God's love." I replied, "Are you saying that when the Bible refers to God's love, it is specifically referring to Waltero?" That would seem to be the logical conclusion of you saying, "I (Waltero) am God's love." So how does this reply of yours answer the question? "Yes...it takes God's love to love God."


"We cannot reach out to Him first?" Not according to the Bible.

"We cannot reach out to Him first?"
Not according to the Bible.

Yes, we can -- according to the Bible.

Prov. 8:17: I love those who love me, and those who seek me find me.

Acts17:27: God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.

Heb. 11:6: And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

James 4:8: Come near to God and he will come near to you.

None of those say that we can come to God without Him first calling us. However, these passages ALL say that no one can come to God unless God first reaches out to that person. The first three come from Christ Himself. It is hard to imagine how He could have put it much clearer.

John 6:44. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

John 6:65. And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

John 3:3. Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

1 Corinthians 2:14. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

John 16:7 But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the [c (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+16&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-26734c)]Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8 And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; 11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

My verses are much more explicit. God wants us to seek Him and will respond.

Your verses are explicit about what they are speaking of. They do not, however, say that man can come to God without God first calling Him.

But you can reject the words of Jesus if you want. Your choice.

Your verses are explicit about what they are speaking of. They do not, however, say that man can come to God without God first calling Him.
Again --
Prov. 8:17: I love those who love me, and those who seek me find me.

Acts17:27: God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.

Heb. 11:6: And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

James 4:8: Come near to God and he will come near to you.

But you can reject the words of Jesus if you want. Your choice.
No, I'm not rejecting anything. You are twisting His words.

Clear, plain text. They are simply there for you to accept or reject.

John 6:44. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

John 6:65. And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

John 3:3. Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Now tell me, why do Bible verses contradict each other?

They don't.

They don't.
Um, see examples above.

I did. They don't. Besides, you claimed I was twisting the words of Christ because, I suppose, He does not agree with your opinion. Well, if you still hold to that position, then there is no contradiction.

I did. They don't. Besides, you claimed I was twisting the words of Christ because, I suppose, He does not agree with your opinion. Well, if you still hold to that position, then there is no contradiction.

I did. They don't. Besides, you claimed I was twisting the words of Christ
Why are you saying (twice???) that the verses I cherry-picked (NOT my opinion) don't support the opposite of what you claim, that my quoted verses are not inspired scripture, are not the words of Christ?

don't support the opposite of what you claimThey certainly do not support your argument.


, that my quoted verses are not inspired scripture,They are inspired.


are not the words of Christ?
They were not the words of Christ. They are the word of God, however.

Your passages are not, in my view, cherry-picked. They simply don't support the idea that man can come to God without being drawn of God. They don't say that at all.

They certainly do not support your argument.
Of course, they do! As well as yours do.

They are inspired.
Yes, I agree, the verses I posted are inspired. (Reading and comprehension problems again?)

They were not the words of Christ. They are the word of God, however.
You want Jesus' words? Like this?

Matt. 7:7-8 -- Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

Reading comp is not the problem. You asked if I was questioning the inspiration of your quoted scriptures, or if I considered them not to be the words of Christ. I simply stated they were inspired (correct) and they were NOT the words of Christ (also correct).

You have posted five scriptures. Which one explicitly states that a person can come to God without first being drawn by God? Bear in mind that my passages DID explicitly state that no man could come to Christ without being first drawn to Him by God.

my passages DID explicitly state that no man could come to Christ without being first drawn to Him by God.
So if God's not interested in drawing someone to Him, that person is s*** out of luck?

the words of Christ. I simply stated they were inspired (correct) and they were NOT the words of Christ (also correct).

Why do they have to be the words of Christ?

So if God's not interested in drawing someone to Him, that person is s*** out of luck?


Why do you always get mad when the Bible does not agree with you?


Why do they have to be the words of Christ?
Who said they did?

Why do you always get mad when the Bible does not agree with you?



Huh? You didn't get my sarcasm toward your (not God's) comments?
2. Who said they did?You did. (Inspired scriptures aren't good enough....)

You did. (Inspired scriptures aren't good enough....)Total lie. I never said that.


"...that person is s*** out of luck?"Anger. Always happens when you find the Bible does not support your views.

Total lie. I never said that.
Not in so many words.


Anger. Always happens when you find the Bible does not support your views.
Even you agree the verses I posted are from the Bible and were inspired. And they do say someone can come to God without God coming to him first.

Not in any words. Total lie. You could have simply said you were mistaken, but now you can't even use that.


And they do say someone can come to God without God coming to him first.
Post just one. None of them said the underlined part.

Not in any words. Total lie. You could have simply said you were mistaken, but now you can't even use that.
Post #257: You said, "None of those say that we can come to God without Him first calling us. However, these passages ALL say that no one can come to God unless God first reaches out to that person. The first three come from Christ Himself. It is hard to imagine how He could have put it much clearer."

You claimed I said, "Inspired scriptures aren't good enough...." Neither those words nor that idea are anywhere to be found in the post you copied. The idea of inspiration is not even discussed. The post was clearly about the plain message of the various texts. I even said later that your passages are inspired, but they don't say what you claim they do.

Shame on you. Is it that hard to simply say you were wrong? Good grief. It all seems to come down to your frustration over not being able to find support for your views. You might as well just admit it. It is painfully apparent and difficult to watch.

It is painfully apparent.

What is painfully apparent is this from WG

Post #257: You said, "None of those say that we can come to God without Him first calling us. However, these passages ALL say that no one can come to God unless God first reaches out to that person. The first three come from Christ Himself. It is hard to imagine how He could have put it much clearer."


Where is waltero when we need him?

Again --
Prov. 8:17: I love those who love me, and those who seek me find me.

Acts17:27: God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.

Heb. 11:6: And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

James 4:8: Come near to God and he will come near to you.

You want Jesus' words? Like this?

Matt. 7:7-8 -- Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

I congratulate you. You have now posted, for the third time, several passages which do NOT say that we can come to God without Him calling us. They certainly encourage us to come to God, but do not mention who moves first, us or God. So yes, I must give you credit for being persistent. Persistently wrong, sadly, but persistent nonetheless.

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him." There is the answer. It does not contradict your passages, but adds the information yours do not directly address. All of God, all inspired, and all true.

The issue is settled. All that is left is for you to simply accept what the Bible plainly says. Alas, I am not hopeful in that regard, but I do pray you surprise me.

The issue is settled. All that is left is for you to simply accept what the Bible plainly says. Alas, I am not hopeful in that regard, but I do pray you surprise me.
You're wrong. The Bible has many, many passages similar to the ones I posted. Give up, Charlie.

Charlene, I'm certain you can find many passages similar to the ones you posted. I'm speaking, of course, of passages which do not support your belief, as your complete inability to find even one which tells us that man can come to God without God calling him shows. Since Jesus is not good enough for you, I'll let you sort it out. Either He's wrong, or you're wrong.

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him." And bear in mind He said it TWICE, and not just once, and perhaps for your very benefit??

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him." And bear in mind He said it TWICE, and not just once, and perhaps for your very benefit??
So Jesus thereby negates all those other inspired passages.

This has been explained to you in 281. Be intentionally obtuse if you want to. I'm done. Find a passage that clearly says man can move to God without God first moving to man and we can move on.

This has been explained to you in 281. Be intentionally obtuse if you want to. I'm done. Find a passage that clearly says man can move to God without God first moving to man and we can move on.
Prov. 8:17: I love those who love me, and those who seek me find me.

Acts 17:27: God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.

Heb. 11:6: And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

James 4:8: Come near to God and he will come near to you.

Matt. 7:7-8 -- Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

Hebrews 11.

Not being stupid, you are simply being nutty. Find a passage that clearly says man can move to God without God first moving to man and we can move on. In other words, the opposite of the one that clearly says man CANNOT move to God without God first bidding him. "No man comes to me unless the Father draws him."

Do you understand now? Is that clear enough for you???

Not being stupid, you are simply being nutty. Find a passage that clearly says man can move to God without God first moving to man and we can move on.
Do you speak and read English?

Yes and yes. It's why your nonsense won't work here.

Yes and yes. It's why your nonsense won't work here.
And your narrow-minded fundamentalism doesn't wash here.

Hey, Walter. A thought just hit me. How do you define, "the love of God"? Maybe that is where we are missing each other. What is your definition of the term?


I am God's Love.



You said, "I am God's love." I replied, "Are you saying that when the Bible refers to God's love, it is specifically referring to Waltero?" That would seem to be the logical conclusion of you saying, "I (Waltero) am God's love." So how does this reply of yours answer the question? "Yes...it takes God's love to love God."

It can't be explained. All I know is; I am God's Love...knowing, God needs me!


"We cannot reach out to Him first?"Revelation 3:20 - Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone should hear My voice and open the door, then I will come in...

I would say that everybody hears Him knocking. Only until you hear his voice will you open the door to Salvation.

It can't be explained. All I know is; I am God's Love...knowing, God needs me!Where in the Bible do you find that God needs you? Just asking.

Dear Walter, you are disgracing yourself. John 3:16 clearly says that "God so loved the world". Who? "The world."
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Main Points For/so : These are link words expanding or explaining something that was said earlier. Context : We need to look at the preceeding verses 14 and 15. “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.” This refers to an event in Numbers 21:4-9. God was angry with the Israelites because of their sin of ingratitude. So God sent poisonous snakes which killed many of them. So they cried out to God. God refused to take the snakes away but told Moses to erect a bronze snake on a pole so that when the people who had been bitten looked at the snake they would not die. God provided a way of escape. Thus, in the same way . . . . . . v 16. Loved : past tense. (Not “loves”) Agape love – a love of action, that responds to a need.



Where in the Bible do you find that God needs you? Just asking.

God created all that exists...Created Darkness/Sin.
God had to separate himself (Darkness) from his creation in order for free will?
God "needed" to conquer Sin...who would God need in order to conquer Sin?
God Added to himself???

God/Jesus, doesn't need friends ;-)
God doesn't need Angels?
God doesn't need Humanity?
God Doesnt need Jesus (Body)?


I tried to keep it short and simple.

I asked where the Bible says that God needs you, and of course really meaning man in general. A series of rhetorical questions does not answer that.

Truth is, the Bible never says God "needs" anything or anyone. He is completely self-sufficient. He desires us, but does not need us.

Exodus 3:14. God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”


John 5:26. For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;


Acts 17:24. The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;


Revelation 1:8. “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Okay, bro, God doesn't need you...what are you gonna do now?I spoke with God and he told me he needed me, I have a purpose now.
God needs me, not in the way you think he needs me.

John 5:26. For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;You God it! Jesus is 100% man (Body, aka flesh). It's the life that is From God. Same with all of humanity.
It's not about Walter, it has nothing to do with me. I have died to self and water no longer is... it's the "Life" that lives in Walter's body now...that same life that comes from GOD/Jesus.

Okay, bro, God doesn't need you...what are you gonna do now? I spoke with God and he told me he needed me, I have a purpose now.
God needs me, not in the way you think he needs me.

John 5:26. For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;You God it! Jesus is 100% man (Body, aka flesh). It's the life that is From God. Same with all of humanity.
It's not about Walter, it has nothing to do with me. I have died to self and water no longer is... it's the "Life" that lives in Walter's body now...that same life that comes from GOD/Jesus.

Just because you feel God doesn't need you doesn't mean he doesn't need anybody.

I really hate this site!!!!!! I have to log in every 2 minutes, why???

Not able to edit!

Later

Just because you feel God doesn't need youHas nothing to do with feelings. "Need" does not equate to "love".

I simply asked if you could point to a place in the Bible where it says God "needs" you or anything else.

I'm not trying to mess with your faith. The love of God is amazing. It satisfies our needs on a deep level and is far beyond amazing. I just take issue with the idea that God needs us. He managed to make it without us over all of the ages of eternity, so that would sure seem to say that He does not need us. He is completely self-sufficient. Israel might have thought God needed them, but He was completely prepared to wipe them out and start over with Moses in Exodus 32:10.

Perhaps I am not understanding your meaning when you say God "needs" you.

Also not sure what you mean in saying that Jesus is 100% man. Are you saying He is not God but man only?

Perhaps I am not understanding your meaning when you say God "needs" you.When I say; "God needs me." It is not in the way we think "God needs us, per se." You are not to understand the need God has for "me" in as much as you might want to try and understand the need God has for (in) you?

If you don't understand God has a need for you, there is no way you will understand his need that lives in me.
I need not try to explain any further.

When I say; "I am God's love"? I believe that I am to be filled with the life of Christ and express God's love. Christ is God's love - is he not?
We are the Body of Christ??


Acts 17:24 - The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands
And: Exodus 25:8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them...

Exodus 25:2 - Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me (God doesn't need?) an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart...To build the temple that God will dwell among them.


Also not sure what you mean in saying that Jesus is 100% man.
Are you saying He is not God but a man only?Typical response.
Why should you assume that? I guarantee, anybody who says "Jesus is God," will never get a reaction, such as - Are you saying God is not a man?

Believing that Jesus is God and man somewhat alleviates the Man factor. When I say Jesus is 100% man, I'm saying he is just like you and me!
Yes, including the SIn!!! Jesus took on our Sin. The Body was the Body of man the life is the life of God.


John 5:26. For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so, He gave to the Son (Mortal body) also to have life in Himself; And Jesus gave us that same life in our Mortal bodies.

Can we stick to one topic?


Dear Walter, you are disgracing yourself. John 3:16 clearly says that "God so loved the world". Who? "The world."
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Main Points For/so : These are link words expanding or explaining something that was said earlier. Context : We need to look at the preceeding verses 14 and 15. “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.” This refers to an event in Numbers 21:4-9. God was angry with the Israelites because of their sin of ingratitude. So God sent poisonous snakes which killed many of them. So they cried out to God. God refused to take the snakes away but told Moses to erect a bronze snake on a pole so that when the people who had been bitten looked at the snake they would not die. God provided a way of escape. Thus, in the same way . . . . . . v 16. Loved : past tense. (Not “loves”) Agape love – a love of action, that responds to a need.

When I say; "God needs me." It is not in the way we think "God needs us, per se." You are not to understand the need God has for "me" in as much as you might want to try and understand the need God has for (in) you?

If you don't understand God has a need for you, there is no way you will understand his need that lives in me.
I need not try to explain any further.I simply asked for any place in the Bible that supports your belief there. Such scripture evidently does not exist.


When I say; "I am God's love"? I believe that I am to be filled with the life of Christ and express God's love. Christ is God's love - is he not?
We are the Body of Christ??I certainly agree with that.


Typical response.
Why should you assume that? I guarantee, anybody who says "Jesus is God," will never get a reaction, such as - Are you saying God is not a man?

Believing that Jesus is God and man somewhat alleviates the Man factor. When I say Jesus is 100% man, I'm saying he is just like you and me!
Yes, including the SIn!!! Jesus took on our Sin. The Body was the Body of man the life is the life of God.It seems you are saying that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. If so, then that's a good reply. As to his humanity, I wouldn't say He is JUST like us. We were born sinners. He was not. He took our sins upon the cross, but He did not commit sin Himself.

I wouldn't say He is JUST like us.
Would you say he might have been just like Adam (the second Adam) before the fall?
He is Humanity. He is Just like us. Not minus the Sin...he became sin, He conquered Sin, so now Sin/Darkness is irrelevant...it lost its power. You and I and all Christians Took on that same Sin.

It is imperative that we understand that God became Man. God is one and the same as you and I. We are to become one with Christ, in Christ just as A Husband and Wife, is one...One body.

If you can understand, there is no you, there is no me, at the end there is only one...only one life and that is Christ Jesus himself...only one.

Would you say he might have been just like Adam before the fall?No. Adam was not divine, and Adam was capable of sinning.

He is Humanity. He is Just like us. Not minus the Sin...he became sin, He conquered Sin, so now Sin/Darkness is irrelevant...it lost it's power.He became sin on the cross, but He was not a sinner. He had no sin nature and He committed no sins.

Okay, have it your way.
Jesus isn't the second Adam. Jesus wasn't tempted. Jesus didn't feel or go through all human emotions.

He had no sin nature
Flesh. Took our Sin. Died. Justified.

God took on Sin...our Darkness has turned into light...it wasn't made light.

Okay, have it your way.
Jesus isn't the second Adam. Jesus wasn't tempted. Jesus didn't feel or go through all human emotions.
I never said those things. I said Jesus never sinned and He had no sin nature as we do. "Which of you convinces me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?”


Flesh. Took our Sin. Died. Justified.

God took on Sin...our Darkness has turned into light...it wasn't made light.All good points.

God needs me!
I agree.

God needs me to tell others about His love --
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Matt. 28:19 (KJV)

God needs me to show His love to others --

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another as I have loved you. John 13:34 (KJV)

We are needed in one sense. Yes, it is needful for us to tell people the Gospel message and to love others. However, we are certainly not needed in the sense that God could not get along without us. He managed without us through all the ages of eternity. "Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Matthew 3:9"

Still waiting to see the scripture that says God "needs" us.

Still waiting to see the scripture that says God "needs" us.
I posted two so far.

You have posted scriptures where we are told to go and do things. You've posted nothing about God needing us.

You have posted scriptures where we are told to go and do things. You've posted nothing about God needing us.
How will God spread His Word and His love without us?

That's fine and good as far as it goes. But when you start thinking that God cannot get by without you, then you've gone too far. As it was said to Esther, “Do not imagine that you are safe in the king’s palace, you alone of all the Jews. 14 Even if you now remain silent, relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from another source;[b (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Esther%204&version=NABRE#fen-NABRE-13364b)] but you and your father’s house will perish. Who knows—perhaps it was for a time like this that you became queen?” So God "needed" Esther in His plan, but she, like us, was entirely replaceable.

That's fine and good as far as it goes. But when you start thinking that God cannot get by without you
I'm not starting to think that.

How will God spread His Word and His love without us?

If we refuse, He will find others. Doesn't the Esther passage make that abundantly clear? Didn't the Exodus passage make that very plain?

You really think God views that as a problem?

How will God spread His Word and His love without us?
How will God spread His Word and His love without us?

If we refuse, He will find others. Doesn't the Esther passage make that abundantly clear? Didn't the Exodus passage make that very plain?

You really think God views that as a problem?

How will God spread His Word and His love without us? Us is all who believe and love in His name. How did we come into belief and are able to love? Through others who were brought into the faith by others who were brought into the faith by others who were brought into....

If we refuse, He will find others. Doesn't the Esther passage make that abundantly clear? Didn't the Exodus passage make that very plain?

You really think God views that as a problem?

"Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Matthew 3:9"

You and I aren't in the same rowboat. I'm done here.

Fair enough.

God needs me to tell others about His loveNO, NO, NO! NO!!!


How will God spread His Word and His love without us?A lot easier.

God needs me to show His love to others.It's not for show. Life is not a stage. If life were a stage, then you'd be just another actress!

You're missing it Girl. It has absolutely nothing to do with us! You are not in it, I am not in it.
It's the LIfe!!! The Life that is in you...provided you have that life...Baptism isn't what you're looking for either.

Adam was not divine, and Adam was capable of sinning.
Why, why did Adam Sin? Why did Jesus take on Sin?


Still waiting to see the scripture that says God "needs" us.The Bible is not a textbook.

WG: God needs me to tell others about His love

NO, NO, NO! NO!!!
Yes, He does. He says so in the Bible. It's a command. "Go ye therefore and teach...."

It's not for show. Life is not a stage. If life were a stage, then you'd be just another actress!
There are several definitions for the word "show". You are looking at the wrong one.

You're missing it Girl. It has absolutely nothing to do with us!
It has EVERYTHING to do with us!

Still waiting to see the scripture that says God "needs" us.


The Bible is not a textbook.Yes, it is. It is many things, but it is certainly our source of objective truth about God, so if you make a claim about God, you should find it clearly in the Bible.

WG, there is an enormous difference between God giving us a command versus God needing us.

There is no "us," there is no "you," there is no "Me" in Jesus!!! 
So what is in Jesus? It is the life of the Father that is in Jesus. Jesus was born a man, an empty shell if I may.
He received the Life...the life of his Father(GOD).

Same as you and I. Born a Man/Woman. We received the life of Sin (oops!), that's all we know...that's all we will ever know.
Those who claim to be Christians (taking on the life of God) need to "die" to Sin. There is only ONE life...the life Of Jesus! Jesus lived that life here on earth, he lived it as a human. We can not live that life. We receive his life and go from there. Anything else is going to be self.  You can not be a friend of the World and have the Life live in you...you just can't. 


Yes, it is. It is many things, but it is certainly our source of objective truth about God, so if you make a claim about God, you should find it clearly in the Bible.You do understand that some things can't be taught?
For one: you keep referring to us? Did I say anything referring to us?
I said, "I am the Love of God." And God Needs "me."

so if you make a claim about God, you should find it clearly in the Bible. I did. I found it in that life...the living Word. SO you ask where does it say that God needs us? He doesn't need us (never said us), not in the way that we/you think.

SO you ask where does it say that God needs us? He doesn't need us (never said us), not in the way that we/you think.
Please tell me how I think.

Please tell me how I think.
You think therefore you are.

Don't think! There lies your problem, you think too much.

Look at Matthew 9:14

When you say: "it has everything to do with us." I know you are off.
I spend the better part of my life trying to die to self. I am convinced I will be spending the rest of (my) life-denying Self in order to be reborn into his likeness, aka life.

When you say that you love God with all your heart, body, soul, strength, I know that is false...It is impossible!


Those who claim to be Christians (taking on the life of God) need to "die" to Sin. You don't just gain the life, and start operating by what the Bible says!

I gots to go. I'll let the two of you Hash it out.

P.S. @Wondergirl; Being on this site and vocalizing your wisdom, how can we not know what you think?
You have it all figured out. And like many others, you have spent "your life" doing what you know is right and will not surrender one inch...believing it would render your life wasted and worthless...what does "your life" have to do with anything? You Don't Have to do anything but believe. It's not up to you to do anything at all! Jesus has already done it for us...believe that!


dwashbur
I frankly find this offensive to my life's work. Speaks volumes.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Main Points For/so: These are link words expanding or explaining something that was said earlier. Context: We need to look at the preceeding verses 14 and 15. “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.” This refers to an event in Numbers 21:4-9. God was angry with the Israelites because of their sin of ingratitude. So God sent poisonous snakes which killed many of them. So they cried out to God. God refused to take the snakes away but told Moses to erect a bronze snake on a pole so that when the people who had been bitten looked at the snake they would not die. God provided a way of escape. Thus, in the same way . . . . . . v 16. Loved: past tense. (Not “loves”) Agape love – a love of action, that responds to a need.

Nobody has commented on this? I assume we all agree. Glad to know we can agree on some things.

waltero, God loves me. His love reflects off me onto others. I love and care about others because He loves me.

Agape love – a love of action, that responds to a need.
Yes, agape – a love that becomes action, that responds to a need.

...what does "your life" have to do with anything? You Don't Have to do anything but believe. It's not up to you to do anything at all! Jesus has already done it for us...believe that!
My (too often imperfect) love for and caring about others is not work righteousness. It is God's perfect love reflecting off me, shining through me, enveloping and serving others.

You do understand that some things can't be taught?Such as?

For one: you keep referring to us? Did I say anything referring to us?
I said, "I am the Love of God." And God Needs "me."I simply asked for Biblical support for either position. You have provided nothing.


so if you make a claim about God, you should find it clearly in the Bible.



I did. I found it in that life...the living Word. SO you ask where does it say that God needs us? He doesn't need us (never said us), not in the way that we/you think.You have provided nothing. If you want to believe that, or if you want to say that you believe it because God said those things to you, then that's fine. I'm simply pointing out that those ideas are not found in the Bible.


Don't think! There lies your problem, you think too much. Look at Matthew 9:14Don't think? Where on earth does the Bible teach you that? The Matthew passage says, "14 Then the disciples of John *came to Him, asking, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?”" How does that relate to not thinking? Why did Paul tell Timothy, "7 Think over these things I am saying , for the Lord will grant you full insight and understanding in everything," or God tell Joshua, "This Book of the Law shall not depart out of your mouth, but [U]you shall meditate on it day and night?"

Its more Than a reflection. Its more than a textbook. Its a life.

Some things can't be taught...like the Bible! It is only revealed to those who don't have a life...by the spirit.

Mathew 9:14-17
Talks about something new...look not to your own understanding...the old way of thinking will not coinside with the new.
At the end of time when all is done away with, there will only be one life...one person, that person would be king Jesus. You, Me, him, her, them, us will no longer exist. Example: So I'm going to go love this person because Jesus told me that's what we do? Its not what we do that counts. If it is then just go on doing what it is "you think" you should do.

If God told me to go hug a tree, your first responds would be to ask; where in the Bible does God say we are to hug tree's?
I put stuff out there (God needs me) knowing it is not meant for anybody but me alone. God wants to get personal with you.
Not everything, in fact most things are not to be repeated. Once you repeat something God has told you,it will most lokely be short lived.
Others will tell you -that's not the way it is, that's not what it means! If you wish to have Gods life living inside you, you must give up everything, including your life.

Some things can't be taught...like the Bible! It is only revealed to those who don't have a life...by the spirit.So you never listen to a Christian teacher or preacher? Why did Paul tell this to Timothy? "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." Now it is the Spirit who reveals and gives life for sure, but even that is a form of teaching.


At the end of time when all is done away with, there will only be one life...one person, that person would be king Jesus. You, Me, him, her, them, us will no longer existSorry, but that is just unbiblical nonsense. Read the end of Revelation about the marriage supper of the Lamb and the presence in heaven of the redeemed people of God. Perhaps I completely misread your meaning???


If it is then just go on doing what it is "you" think you should do.But Walter, YOU are the one doing that. You have listed a train of beliefs that you cannot find in the Bible and that you have nothing more to say about than, "Do not think," "Go hug a tree," and, "Some things cannot be taught."

What is it to you if a person wants to hug a tree? Hey, that's not in the Bible...get that blasphemer!
JL, lets stick with the here and now. God is still creating, he's not finished...even though the finished work is done.

Do you understand the two become one? We are all in the body of Christ. We are to gain that life. What life?that same life that is in the body of Christ. Your body is of no consequence In this life...it might be in the afterlife. It is only the life of Jesus (spirit) that has anything to do with anything...our body and the life that it comes with is dead and will not beget life.

If I tell you that God needs me, why is it you have a problem with that? Is it jealously? Your going g to tell me: nope, not true!
Maybe you'd like to know that God needs you too? You've quoted some scripture earlier, none of which contradicted.my statement.
God needed to conquer Sin. God needed a body. God apparently needed a bride for hos Son???

Besides, I stated God needs me, not that God needed me...big difference. God changes his mind, he doesnt change hos mind like we do, he doesn't change his mind in the way we think he changes his mind, but yet he does change his mind. God needs me, not in the way you might think God needs a person. Did God need Pharaoh (bad example) ? God didn't need Pharaoh??? Why did God raise Pharaohs up "For this reason?"

I've been taking a hard look at my life and how it is dependent on this World. Its hard to give up everything and to put our trust in God. But if he owns it all anyway, why should we bother with trying to purchase or own any of it? Give it All up and die to self and it'll certainly come back to us tenfold.

No, no but wait! Okay if I get a million dollars I'll give it all away...how does that even work? Why does our minds think like that??? Its So stupid!

Good.nite you two. Everything we do or say should be noted first and foremost as - In Christ. Never us, we, or you and me and me...we are in Christ and it is all him Baby! People have to see that, they have to understand that, we must speak that and believe and then maybe even we might come to a true understanding of it ourselves.

I have simply asked you to support your beliefs in the Bible. You don't seem able to do so, but as I've said, you are free to believe as you will.

It is more than A belief, More than a love.
It is a life, and there is only one life in all eternity.

Keep searching my friend, You will find it.

I have the life that can only be found in Christ. That was never the issue.

I've been taking a hard look at my life and how it is dependent on this World.

No, no but wait! Okay if I get a million dollars I'll give it all away...how does that even work? Why does our minds think like that??? Its So stupid!

God is still creating, he's not finished...even though the finished work is done.
As I understand your posts, you have no interest in other people. It's only you and God. And if you get a million dollars, you would keep all of it for yourself?

You said, God is not finished creating but the finished work is done.

I don't understand

I don't understandWe find something we agree on. I have a hard time following Walter.

You said, God is not finished creating but the finished work is done. For at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord.
Has to do with - Darkness being "turned" into light (Ezekiel).
Our Darkness is not changed into light but is turned into light...Is God still creating in you?


As I understand your posts, you have no interest in other people. It's only you and God.
Yes, That is true. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Love your neighbor as yourself. Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. I will give all my love, all my heart, all my strength to God, and God alone. Any (residual) other Love that I can express comes from Jesus, by way of his Word that lives in me.


And if you get a million dollars, you would keep all of it for yourself?
Yes, that would be a given... Christian that would pray for $$$...




What ancient source do you appeal to in order to support the authorship of the Gospels?”

I am a Christian, and you are Christians or profess to be so, and there is never any necessity for Christians to make a point of bringing forth infidel arguments in order to answer them.

Hosea 8:12: I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing.

This is no common book. This Book is God's handwriting, these words are God's.
Those of you who dislike certain portions of the Holy Bible...your dislike is the very reason why God wrote it. You have no right to be pleased. God wrote what you do not like; He wrote the Truth.

Consider the Merciful nature of God in having written us a Bible at all.
He has written this book himself and he has given you the key to understand it, if you have the Holy Spirit...let us thank God for this Bible...the living Word.

There is only one life in all eternity...You, we, I, them don't exist! Life is in Christ Jesus alone!

If you had wanted to, you could have cited Papias, Ireneaus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Peter of Alexandria, Eusebius, Justin Martyr, and Origen, just to mention a few. Additionally, every surviving manuscript of the Gospels ALWAYS attribute them to the four traditional authors. As one author notes, "And all of these manuscripts (without exception!) contain superscriptions at the beginning with the traditional authors’ names (e.g. KATA MATTHAION, KATA MARKON, etc.)."

Another interesting insight was this. "Under the critical view, the original manuscripts were anonymous, and spread across the Roman Empire for a full century. These copies spread from Jerusalem to Rome to Africa, as scribes copied and recopied the four gospels. Then, after reaching the four corners of the empire, all of these separate scribes just so happened to assign the exact same names to these manuscripts." He continues, "How could these scribes all synchronize such a massive conspiracy, and why can’t we find a single anonymous or pseudonymous copy of a gospel? A good comparison to this phenomenon is the letter to the Hebrews which is truly anonymous. And yet, our manuscript evidence demonstrates various titles throughout time—far different from the constancy and consistency of the four gospels." It certainly seems completely implausible.

Now here is the list of all the early church fathers who disputed the traditional authorship of the Gospels. (crickets)



https://cyberpenance.wordpress.com/2017/01/05/what-did-the-early-church-fathers-say-about-the-gospels/

https://www.evidenceunseen.com/theology/scripture/historicity-of-the-nt/who-wrote-the-four-gospels/

The traditional assignments in the manuscripts are based on Eusebius' account.

All the manuscripts that have the superscriptions post-date Eusebius.

Mystery solved.

Not too sure about that.

"All early sources mentioning Gospel authorship (namely: Papias, the Muratorian fragment, and Irenaeus) attribute them to the traditional authors Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John."

Your explanation does not solve a mystery. There was no mystery to begin with. There would seem to be no genuinely compelling reason to doubt the traditional authors attributed to the Gospels, so you are solving a mystery which never truly existed. Consider that: 1. No copy of an anonymous Gospel has ever been discovered. 2. All early church fathers who comment on the subject support the traditional authorship. 3. It would have been utterly impossible for Eusebius to have undertaken a massive campaign to assign fantasy names to all the existing Gospel copies ranging from Africa to much of Europe. 4. Such an undertaking would have involved a number of people and become widely known and commented on, and very likely resisted in many quarters as it amounted to nothing less than a massive fraud and explicit lying by Eusebius. 5. It is impossible to imagine why Mark and Luke would have been chosen. They did not approach the status of the Apostles, and Mark in particular did not. 6. Every existing copy of the Gospels attribute them to the traditional authors. 7. If you accept that Luke wrote Acts, and there is every reason to do so, then it becomes quite difficult not to accept his authorship of Luke.

I don't think you have solved a mystery. Rather, it seems you have created one.

1. No copy of an anonymous Gospel has ever been discovered.

Did you miss the part where I said all the mss that have author supercscriptions post-date Eusebius?

We don't have Papias' writings, we have fragmentary quotes by later authors.

The papyri are anonymous where the beginning of a gospel has been preserved. Your source is flawed.

I personally have no problem with the traditional authorships. But if I'm in a discussion with another scholar I'm not about to go to the wall for them. I also don't buy the two-document hypothesis, I don't buy that Q ever existed. I advocate for Matthean priority.

Although sometimes if someone gets too hung up on Matthean priority, I'll argue for Mark and Q just to be a snot. I must be true to my nature.

Did you miss the part where I said all the mss that have author supercscriptions post-date Eusebius?You seem to be assuming that Eusebius oversaw a massive effort to post superscripts to ALL of the Gospel accounts falsely attributing authorship to Matthew, et al. Doesn't that sound fantastic to you? To have propagated such a lie over parts of three continents would have been an incredible undertaking. And yet he managed to do it while not leaving a hint of it behind. And then to have chosen Mark? Matthew and John would make sense. Luke much less so, and Mark?


We don't have Papias' writings, we have fragmentary quotes by later authors.True. I never said otherwise.


The papyri are anonymous where the beginning of a gospel has been preserved. Your source is flawed.Which ones?

What is your view of the claims of Patheos concerning the traditional authorship of the Gospels?


Although sometimes if someone gets too hung up on Matthean priority, I'll argue for Mark and Q just to be a snot. I must be true to my nature.That one made me laugh. I must confess I have not found you to be a "snot".

Did you miss the part where I said all the mss that have author supercscriptions post-date Eusebius?

The papyri are anonymous where the beginning of a gospel has been preserved.I assume your second statement is only referring to very early manuscripts?

I assume your second statement is only referring to very early manuscripts?

That's what the papyri are. They're the earliest ones we have, and most are fairly fragmentary. Egypt continued to use papyrus for writing for some time after everybody else started using parchment, which is good for us because the dry climate of Egypt helped preserve what we have. Most are a single book, they pretty well predate the establishment of the New Testament canon.

I have no problem with the traditional gospel authors, and for the most part I accept Eusebius' explanations. The only one I have a problem with is Matthew being written in "Hebrew", i.e. Aramaic, and then everybody and his dog translated it. The Greek of Matthew gives no hints of being a translation, and there are things like Jesus' little Peter/rock pun that are only possible in Greek.

The usual story is that Matthew wrote for the Jews. But considering the apostles got scattered to the four winds when the Romans clamped down on Judea, it's not unreasonable to assume he wrote it in Greek for Jews of the diaspora.

There are those who question whether Mark wrote down Peter's recollections, since he was technically a companion of Paul. Except he wasn't, contention over him was what caused the split between Paul and Barnabas. Paul's next mention of him is in 2 Timothy, where he indicates that Mark isn't with him. Nobody bothered to tell us what Mark was doing in the interim, so it's not beyond reason to conclude that he attached himself to Peter and became his companion and amanuensis.

The thing is, none of this is evidence enough to convince a critical scholar. That's why I don't press authorship. I press date. Most critical scholarship denies traditional authorship because, or perhaps in order to, late date the gospels to a time after they could have been eyewitness accounts. That's why when I get into it with one of them, I say "Never mind who. Tell me when, and how you know." We have a lot stronger evidence for dating the synoptics well before the fall of Jerusalem, than we have for determining who wrote them. That means when they were published there were still plenty of people around who could validate their stories.

I've been giving you the critical answer to things such as you've brought up. I suggest you shift your focus and join me in solidifying their dates. Authorship isn't a big loss, most of the Old Testament is anonymous, and so is the book of Hebrews. All four gospels bear the hallmarks of an account by someone who was there, and they were written well within the lifetimes of the people who were there.

That's good enough for me.

I've been giving you the critical answer to things such as you've brought up. I suggest you shift your focus and join me in solidifying their dates. Authorship isn't a big loss, most of the Old Testament is anonymous, and so is the book of Hebrews. All four gospels bear the hallmarks of an account by someone who was there, and they were written well within the lifetimes of the people who were there.I've enjoyed your insights. My concern about authorship revolves around the idea of taking four Gospels that were either anonymous or written, perhaps, by lessor individuals, and then going through the incredibly difficult process of changing ALL of them to Matthew and so forth. It would have amounted to monstrous lying. Even worse, it must have been done with no one noticing it since it is never talked about. It's such a preposterous idea that I can't imagine anyone supporting it,

Still, your comments are enlightening and I do enjoy reading them. Perhaps Matthew did not write IN Hebrew as much as he wrote TO Hebrews?

Have a great day.