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. 

Quote:

---

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."

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltero

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.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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

---

Speaks volumes.

Quote:

---

“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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltero

...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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Such as?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Don't think! There lies your problem, you think too much. Look at Matthew 9:14

---

Don'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 [understand them and grasp their application], 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 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Sorry, 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???

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltero

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

Quote:

---

I don't understand

---

We find something we agree on. I have a hard time following Walter.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 $$$...

Quote:

---

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/2...t-the-gospels/

https://www.evidenceunseen.com/theol...-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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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

---

True. I never said otherwise.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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".

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.