Why Should Jesus Love Me?

[Rider on the Storm]

Red Apples wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, there it is. The real Lawest exposed for all to see.
What's next, are you going to tell her she should be wearing a burqa and that she doesn't have the right to vote.
You're right back to where you were when you told Judy that she was living in sin because she was married to her second husband.
You're a real piece of work Lawest. I guess we all knew it was just a matter of time till the real you would surface again.
You're doing your father of lies satan proud Lawest.

Said one mysoginist to the next..........

[Doctor REALITY]

Grace Walker wrote:

<quoted text>
Nah..You are still hammering nails into His hands with your non-beleif in Him. You claim to believe Him and then turn around and say it is still up to YOU to finish the job that Jesus already finished.

Hello,Mrs.Grace. You doin' o.k. today??

[Doctor REALITY]

I LIKE talkin' to 'invisible mutes'!:)

[Skombolis]

Edit Grace...responding here for space. I dont know where you get the warped idea that maintaining that we must follow the teachings of Christ and that we have to obey Christ is putting the focus on myself? And how is someone who claims the teachings of Christ dont apply to us putting the focus on Christ? Jesus said we have to obey him. You think he was talking to someone else and that doesnt apply to you. I will leave it at that if you answer one question. I know you ignore scripture and respond with commentaries but I want YOUR answer on this. If the teachings of Christ dont apply to us then why did Jesus say the Holy Spirit is given to us in part to remind us what he taught? Quite frankly imo you are proving why the reminder is necessary but please answer that one question. Why remind us of teachings that never applied to us and no longer apply at all?

[Drew H]

G_O_D wrote:

"1.Even though it is very hard to date the Gospels with precision, most scholars agree on the basic range of dates, for a variety of reasons ....
2.I can say with relative certainty — from his own letters and from Acts — that Paul was writing during the fifties of the common era ....
3.[H]e gives in his own writings absolutely no evidence of knowing about or ever having heard of the existence of any Gospels. From this it can be inferred that the Gospels probably were written after Paul’s day.
4.It also appears that the Gospel writers know about certain later historical events, such as the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 ce ... That implies that these Gospels were probably written after 70.
5.There are reasons for thinking Mark was written first, so maybe he wrote around the time of the war with Rome, 70 ce.
6.If Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source, they must have been composed after Mark’s Gospel circulated for a time outside its own originating community — say, ten or fifteen years later, in 80 to 85 ce.
7.John seems to be the most theologically developed Gospel, and so it was probably written later still, nearer the end of the first century, around 90 to 95 ce.
8.These are rough guesses, but most scholars agree on them." - Bart Ehrman’s Jesus, Interrupted, pp. 144-145
http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/how-th...
Bart Ehrman:
Bart D. Ehrman (born 1955) is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Point ^^.

Counter point: http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/advance...

[Doctor REALITY]

G_O_D wrote:

The use of the destruction of the Temple as an indicarot od date of quthorship is only useful by its presence not absence.
For example using the absense of mention criteria one must believe that Abraham Lincoln wrote before the American Revolution because he never mentions the destruction of the White House by the British in the War of 1812.
Now the presense of the destruction of the Temple proves that the documents were written after 70 AD.
The inclusion of alleged prophecies concerning the "future destruction of the Temple" in the view of rational and unbiased historians is more likely to be proof os ex postfacto "prophecies" and that there inclusion shows that they were were written AFTER 70 AD. Until said "prophecies" are proven to be a fact they are useless for dating purposes.

There came a day,January 2,2013,when many of the children of God came to 'WSJLM?' to present themselves before the Lord. And,UNFORTUNATELY,because Topix forums are open to the public,the children of Satan were also among them.

[Rider on the Storm]

Doctor REALITY wrote:

<quoted text>There came a day,January 2,2013,when many of the children of God came to 'WSJLM?' to present themselves before the Lord. And,UNFORTUNATELY,because Topix forums are open to the public,the children of Satan were also among them.

Dang Satans gotta spoil everything dont he..........

[Skombolis]

Red Apples wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, there it is. The real Lawest exposed for all to see.
What's next, are you going to tell her she should be wearing a burqa and that she doesn't have the riou told Judy that she was living in sin because she was married to her second husba

I am saddened i read that part. Just because Paul would not allow a woman to teach in his church doesnt mean woman cant teach period. I saw a disturbing verse Paul wrote about how he felt only men were upright in God and another that said basically women were the problem as eve tempted Adam. This is why I say man was inspired to write the Bible but had some autonomy and still Paul taught that In Christ there is no male or female, no Jew or Gentile, it is all the same. Mary was blessed among women and Lydia used to hold services in her home and at every crucial junction from the birth to the crucifIxtion to finding the empty grave, women were present and played an important role.(T) PEACE

[Wloclawek Warrior]

G_O_D wrote:

Deity:
A deity is a being; natural, supernatural or preternatural, with superhuman powers or qualities.
Christians have tons of them.
Bsides their three favorites there is the evil one, Satan. They also have Angels, Demons, Saints, The Madonna and others. All are deities.
More on deities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity

Your remarks are a "no brainer" It is a matter of spiritual fact that the war in Heaven, Lucifer, who was the closest to GOD, tried to overthrow him and was relegated to the lowest of the worlds, the material, his footstool, in which we live and breathe, for a short time. The ultimate Heaven and Hell thing was made in the first Nice convention. GOD has everything under control. He does not give you more than you can handle and if you do manage to transcend the "Peter Principle" for the time, you will be relegated back to your level. Only beware, GOD is not mocked and woe be it to the preacher who games on his flock, there is a special place in Hell for them. Watch the TV. See the show, The delusional preachers out for material gain will have theirs, If you are indeed the child of the LIVING GOD, He will give you as your needs be, maybe not what you want, but what you can safely handle, Just don't let the praying knees get weak, we are all sinners, for none has not sinned, Repent while the time is at hand, do not think you can live a demonic life and then draw your final breath and finally say,"I believe in you." Factually speaking, you had lived your whole life in sin and then in the last moment look to him. Look to the God you had worshiped all the years you were as you were. The only safe bet is JESUS< the son, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. I and my colleagues know if you are saved within the first words out of your mouth, even if you spout religiosity. JESUS SAVES.

[LAWEST100]

Drew H wrote:

<quoted text>
She's already there, Scott. And remarks like this one ^^ are truly not the work of Christ.

Sorry Drew, but the things that she has posted in her many posts is proof that she has not even gotten started yet, let alone "already there".

[Drew H]

Rider on the Storm wrote:

<quoted text>
Just out of curiosity Drew, are remarks like the following the works of Christ? I'm trying to understand how this works..........
<quoted text>
<quoted text>

The way I see it, Larry, is that Scott seems to be saying that he's doing what he has been instructed to by God and that is being totally obedient, and from what I can gather, remarks like his and the ones you cited are definitely not being obedient.

My contention is that no one can be completely and totally obedient on all points without fail.

It's classic, you can't lose salvation vs. you can lose salvation. It's been going on for centuries. I've been down that road before and all it leads to is futility. And that, my friend, is frustrating.

Furthermore, there is not a single person who has ever posted on this thread who is completely correct on all points, and there comes a point in time when all parties need to agree to disagree and move on to the next topic.

Happy New Year to you.

[Drew H]

Rider on the Storm wrote:

<quoted text>
By the way drew.......Check out that fancy 'y' surounded by parenthesis that Grace is dawning in that post..........
What do you suppose that is?

I have no earthly idea what the parenthetical "y" means.

[Skombolis]

LAWEST100 wrote:

<quoted text> 2 Corinthians 13:)
5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

Indeed.Also I responded to a post RA made in response to your post and I should have just posted you direct. Although I will just say plese consider some of the things I posted in that response brother. I know you are frustrated right now and dont blame you but dont let that get under your skin to the point where we are saying things we dont mean. Woman have a lot of offer, the one you and I are currently dealing with I dont agree with at all but i dont think that proves women cant teach..just that not everyone is a good teacher (T) PEACE

[Doctor REALITY]

Red Apples wrote:

<quoted text>

You're a real piece of work Lawest.

Well,you ALMOST got it right...

[LAWEST100]

Red Apples wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, there it is. The real Lawest exposed for all to see.
What's next, are you going to tell her she should be wearing a burqa and that she doesn't have the right to vote.
You're right back to where you were when you told Judy that she was living in sin because she was married to her second husband.
You're a real piece of work Lawest. I guess we all knew it was just a matter of time till the real you would surface again.
You're doing your father of lies satan proud Lawest.

No Apples, you keep making a fool out of yourself everytime you post, constantly showing your ignorance of the very scriptures that you claim to be saved by, everything that I have ever professed to believe is Bible based while you believe on things that have no Bible substantial proofs.

You are blind my friend and are full of the devil, something that you like to accuse others of who don't agree with you.

[Doctor REALITY]

Rider on the Storm wrote:

<quoted text>
Dang Satans gotta spoil everything dont he..........

Well,you're one of his children,so,I guess you know yo' daddy.

[Rider on the Storm]

Drew H wrote:

<quoted text>
The way I see it, Larry, is that Scott seems to be saying that he's doing what he has been instructed to by God and that is being totally obedient, and from what I can gather, remarks like his and the ones you cited are definitely not being obedient.
My contention is that no one can be completely and totally obedient on all points without fail.
It's classic, you can't lose salvation vs. you can lose salvation. It's been going on for centuries. I've been down that road before and all it leads to is futility. And that, my friend, is frustrating.
Furthermore, there is not a single person who has ever posted on this thread who is completely correct on all points, and there comes a point in time when all parties need to agree to disagree and move on to the next topic.
Happy New Year to you.

Thanks Drew,

I just think exactly what you said. We all play the game and I dont think its right to just look at one side of it. I just wanted to point that out because I'm sure those who agree with those two were missing it..........

Funny how blind we can be to the truth sometimes......

Happy New Year..........

[Rider on the Storm]

Drew H wrote:

<quoted text>
I have no earthly idea what the parenthetical "y" means.

LOL, I dont either, but I can tell you what it looks like to me and it aint anything a good christian woman should be doing on topix..........

PS Thanks I was wondering how to say it......

Parenthetical. Learnt somthin new today..........

[Rider on the Storm]

Doctor REALITY wrote:

<quoted text>Well,you're one of his children,so,I guess you know yo' daddy.

Ya, thats what you guys tell me..........

[Drew H]

G_O_D wrote:

"While virtually all scholars maintain that all of the gospels were written in the first century, within liberal scholarship it is conventionally thought that all four gospels were written post-70AD"
http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/...

"within liberal scholarship it is conventionally thought" says it all.

So it goes without saying that within conservative scholarship it is conventionally thought that not all four gospels were written post 70-AD.