Why Should Jesus Love Me?

“~ Prince of Peace~”

Since: Apr 08

~ And the greatest is LOVE~

#629384 Jul 14, 2014
Good

Monday

Morning....

“When adversity strikes,
that’s when you have to be the most calm.
Take a step back, stay strong, stay grounded
and press on.”

~ LL Cool J

Thought for the day

“~ Prince of Peace~”

Since: Apr 08

~ And the greatest is LOVE~

#629385 Jul 14, 2014
Today's Prayer

Dear Father, let me never be an angry person who stirs up strife or a furious person who abounds in transgression. I pray that I will not be so filled with pride that I think of myself above others or mistakenly put myself upon a pedestal. Instead, let me be humble and honorable. May I be careful of those I partner with, that I am not brought down with those who steal and curse and do contrary to your Word. May I not fear humankind, but place my trust in you for my safety and my guidance. You are my God and my judge. You are the one I seek to please and honor. May I remain upright in my ways and turn away from anything wicked. My strength is in you. Thank you. In the name of my Savior I pray, amen.(based on Proverbs 29:22-27)

Prime time with God

“~ Prince of Peace~”

Since: Apr 08

~ And the greatest is LOVE~

#629386 Jul 14, 2014
Encouraging Words.....

For you have been called to live in freedom, my brothers and sisters. But don't use your freedom to satisfy your sinful nature. Instead, use your freedom to serve one another in love.

Galatians 5:13

K-Love

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#629388 Jul 14, 2014
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text> You not understand because you writing pure rubbish. The Nicea Councils decided what books should be in the Canon and there are no books of the bible that was written by any Roman Emperor. So no Roman Ruler have anything to do with any "truth".
The Bible was a product of Constantine's intervention, subjugation, and approval as the only legal Christian literature allowed in the Roman Empire. The RCC is a product of that Imperial Decree and all other forms of Christianity and their texts were wiped out (except in Arabia and East Central Africa).

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#629389 Jul 14, 2014
The Council of Nicaea did NOT establish the Bible. It established the doctrines of the Christianity within the Roman Empire. AKA the Nicean Creed.

While Constantine had 50 Bibles printed to be distributed to important Churches in the Empire, the Bible was not officially adopted by the RCC until the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 390 AD following Bishop Athanasius' decree to burn all Christian texts not contained in Constantine's approved Bible in 367 AD.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#629390 Jul 14, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. Oh u expect me to be offended.
no - i expect you to be impressed and titillated;-)

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#629391 Jul 14, 2014
Nicene Creed:

"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

If you believe most of this then you believe the Catholic Church is the only authority on Jesus and God.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#629392 Jul 14, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You assume everything is about homosexuality. You're quite taken by the idea.
yes - you and Rosa in my hot tub @ 5?;-)

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#629393 Jul 14, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
My brutal honesty is often taken by the ignorant as being arrogant and obnoxious.
I am far from pious.
lol! it's more like your brutal pretentiousness is mistaken as intelligence by the arrogant and ignorant, but this is why we love you here!:-)

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#629394 Jul 14, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
They are forgiven. love their lives and eventually return from whence they came..
you are SO close, but yet so far away until you can confess that God came in the flesh as Jesus The Christ!:-)

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#629395 Jul 14, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
It is bewildering to me why so many Christians are so fixated on homosexuality.
"Me thinks the lady doth protest too much." - The Bard
until you can turn this around and say "it is bewildering to me why so many homosexuals are blaphemous and antichrist" you are blind and yet in your sins....

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#629396 Jul 14, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
hahaha, totally.
Waaasssuuup spends sooooooooooooo much of his time worrying about homosexuality.
yes - i do spend a lot of time loving my homosexual friends by being an interventionist rather than a dumb enabler!:-)

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#629397 Jul 14, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
More from the gay theist.
Keep flying your flag, big boy.
I'm proud of you.
yes - i'm loud and i'm proud and i'm in your face.... with interventionist love:-)

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#629398 Jul 14, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Still haven't read the Bible, eh ?
1. Love God
2. Love your neighbor
3. Love your enemies
you're missing the New Covenant piece to the puzzle:

"we love God because He first loved us"

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#629399 Jul 14, 2014
remnant144000 wrote:
<quoted text>
this is not sound
this is fact,
we holy assembly pray always for vermits,cockroaches and morally fallen earthly dung,
any participation with skunks like you can make us dirty and fallen, less holy and prayers could be not accepted,
you doesn't deserve life,how you can deserve together with saint enter Mercy Room of God and open your filthy blasphemous face before God?
shame shame shame,
I pity you you little uneducated poor miserable dead wrecked spiritual criminal dead corpse?
the best experiment for you is to only sniff farts of humble dr Shrink?
You could have just said - "No." - and I would have been fine with it.

But here, instead of a simple response, you begin to divert, admonish and then insult.

Where did you learn all of these bad actions? Surely they didn't come from Jesus' teachings.

I doubt you are a so-called "Christian". You may call yourself one, but clearly - if what you post defines this, there is a disconnect.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#629400 Jul 14, 2014
Truths wrote:
<quoted text>
The church which I attend -counts very heavily on the gospels of Matt,Mark,Luke and John-
Why do you think your church limits the teachings by Jesus to just these gospels?
Truths wrote:
<quoted text>As I understand it---- the works in the bible are there for teaching us...

And what about the works outside the Bible - do you disregard them and consider them worthless - even if they came from Jesus?
Truths wrote:
<quoted text>I am no scholar so I count heavily on being Spirit led and Spirit fed--- the right info at THE right time...directed By God, in order to raise me up to the tasks which He has set for me before time began.
Can you provide anything that confirms you are "Spirit led/fed" - or am I just to take your word for it - like so many others do with their conviction?

Even "Paul" called himself an Apostle, when we know for a fact he wasn't one of the 13 chosen as Apostles. In other words - just because one claims such, doesn't mean it is true.
Truths wrote:
<quoted text>I can not correct behavior of Christians who muck up the plan...nor fix the thinking of the closed minded... The Spiritual world is available to everyone who is willing.....ONLY then can the answers be found my friend. Only then.
Of course you can't correct another's behavior - only the person can. It would be egotistical and arrogant to think you can......but to correct you......you seem to know how to correct all of those individuals who don't "muck up the plan".

How does that work?

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#629401 Jul 14, 2014
trifecta1 wrote:
Well you see, you writing like the average unbeliever. the unbeliever always bring up so called " forged additions, multiple alterations, complete fabrications , mistranslations, etc" be specific. Find in the bible where these so called "known" issues take place and then we can address them.
And you're wrong. Some of the Gospels were written by the author who not only met Yeshua but was a disciple of Yeshua....

New Age writes:
Better yet - why don't you show the forum where "God" specifically states which texts are of "His inspiration" and which are not, so individuals will better understand which were written by "God" and which were written by men?

You can do this, right? I hope so, because I've yet to have someone give me this specific text.

BTW - Bart Ehrman discussed four different instances in the Bible that clearly shows the text was changed to fit a certain theology in his book "Misquoting Jesus"
http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-...

In addition to that book, one could also put the claim in that Mark 16:9-20 were changes to a theology as well, considering the two earliest Bibles that are known to exist - both being 4th C.- DO NOT have the longer ending as it is in modern texts.

What is your reason for believing in the latter editions and not with the earlier ones?

A Commentary on the Holy Bible, edited by J.R. Dummelow (New York: MacMillan, 1927), pages 732-33.

9-20. Conclusion of the Gospel. One uncial manuscript gives a second termination to the Gospel as follows:'And they reported all the things that had been commanded them briefly (or immediately) to the companions of Peter. And after this Jesus himself also sent forth by them from the East even unto the West the holy and incorruptible preaching of eternal salvation.'
Internal evidence points definitely to the conclusion that the last twelve verses are not by St. Mark. For,(1) the true conclusion certainly contained a Galilean appearance (Mark 16:7, cp. 14:28), and this does not.(2) The style is that of a bare catalogue of facts, and quite unlike St. Mark's usual wealth of graphic detail.(3) The section contains numerous words and expressions never used by St. Mark.(4) Mark 16:9 makes an abrupt fresh start, and is not continuous with the preceding narrative.(5) Mary Magdalene is spoken of (16:9) as if she had not been mentioned before, although she has just been alluded to twice (15:47, 16:1).(6) The section seems to represent not a primary tradition, such as Peter's, but quite a secondary one, and in particular to be dependent upon the conclusion of St. Matthew, and upon Luke 24:23f.
On the other hand, the section is no casual or unauthorised addition to the Gospel. From the second century onwards, in nearly all manuscripts, versions, and other authorities, it forms an integral part of the Gospel, and it can be shown to have existed, if not in the apostolic, at least in the sub-apostolic age. A certain amount of evidence against it there is (though very little can be shown to be independent of Eusebius the Church historian, 265-340 A.D.), but certainly not enough to justify its rejection, were it not that internal evidence clearly demonstrates that it cannot have proceeded from the hand of St. Mark.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html
Holy dr Shrink

Baltimore, MD

#629402 Jul 14, 2014
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
You could have just said - "No." - and I would have been fine with it.
But here, instead of a simple response, you begin to divert, admonish and then insult.
Where did you learn all of these bad actions? Sureliy they didn't come from Jesus' teachings.
I doubt you are a so-called "Christian". You may call yourself one, but clearly - if what you post defines this, there is a disconnect.
what would you ,this is only your problem, but for sure you are not invited among circle of Saints who pray for you and spit on your sins and godless wicked behavior

questions from you yo can only direct to the bowl toilet and flush them,,
whre from I came, also is not your concern, child of cockroaches seed doesn't have to worry if I come from Jesus Teachings or Yehova divine wisdom?

your doubts and your worries if I am Christian or not ,also are worth only speck of stinking s,,, after cleaning colon on the toilet?

why you play "big s.." questions others, or worry who is who?
you f...... dead faceless hell knows who you are, for me you are brainless mutt cyber idiot, and godless little cockroach look like human image?

so?maybe you understood simple truth what and who you are?

your posts are like pile of fertilizer thrown under cucumber seeds?f..you
Holy dr Shrink

Baltimore, MD

#629403 Jul 14, 2014
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
trifecta1 wrote:
Well you see, you writing like the average unbeliever. the unbeliever always bring up so called " forged additions, multiple alterations, complete fabrications , mistranslations, etc" be specific. Find in the bible where these so called "known" issues take place and then we can address them.
And you're wrong. Some of the Gospels were written by the author who not only met Yeshua but was a disciple of Yeshua....
New Age writes:
Better yet - why don't you show the forum where "God" specifically states which texts are of "His inspiration" and which are not, so individuals will better understand which were written by "God" and which were written by men?
You can do this, right? I hope so, because I've yet to have someone give me this specific text.
BTW - Bart Ehrman discussed four different instances in the Bible that clearly shows the text was changed to fit a certain theology in his book "Misquoting Jesus"
http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-...
In addition to that book, one could also put the claim in that Mark 16:9-20 were changes to a theology as well, considering the two earliest Bibles that are known to exist - both being 4th C.- DO NOT have the longer ending as it is in modern texts.
What is your reason for believing in the latter editions and not with the earlier ones?
A Commentary on the Holy Bible, edited by J.R. Dummelow (New York: MacMillan, 1927), pages 732-33.
9-20. Conclusion of the Gospel. One uncial manuscript gives a second termination to the Gospel as follows:'And they reported all the things that had been commanded them briefly (or immediately) to the companions of Peter. And after this Jesus himself also sent forth by them from the East even unto the West the holy and incorruptible preaching of eternal salvation.'
Internal evidence points definitely to the conclusion that the last twelve verses are not by St. Mark. For,(1) the true conclusion certainly contained a Galilean appearance (Mark 16:7, cp. 14:28), and this does not.(2) The style is that of a bare catalogue of facts, and quite unlike St. Mark's usual wealth of graphic detail.(3) The section contains numerous words and expressions never used by St. Mark.(4) Mark 16:9 makes an abrupt fresh start, and is not continuous with the preceding narrative.(5) Mary Magdalene is spoken of (16:9) as if she had not been mentioned before, although she has just been alluded to twice (15:47, 16:1).(6) The section seems to represent not a primary tradition, such as Peter's, but quite a secondary one, and in particular to be dependent upon the conclusion of St. Matthew, and upon Luke 24:23f.
On the other hand, the section is no casual or unauthorised addition to the Gospel. From the second century onwards, in nearly all manuscripts, versions, and other authorities, it forms an integral part of the Gospel, and it can be shown to have existed, if not in the apostolic, at least in the sub-apostolic age. A certain amount of evidence against it there is (though very little can be shown to be independent of Eusebius the Church historian, 265-340 A.D.), but certainly not enough to justify its rejection, were it not that internal evidence clearly demonstrates that it cannot have proceeded from the hand of St. Mark.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html
you stinking idiot,
we doesn't need your Freacking BS taken from Internet links,
they are written by half d.. heads like you

anyway you got nothing inside of your brain with 1/4 rabbit feces and cow urines mix with RCC holy water?

why?you enter here and spread worthless crap?

“I.Spirit.Son.God”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#629404 Jul 14, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible was a product of Constantine's intervention, subjugation, and approval as the only legal Christian literature allowed in the Roman Empire. The RCC is a product of that Imperial Decree and all other forms of Christianity and their texts were wiped out (except in Arabia and East Central Africa).

The Council of Nicaea did NOT establish the Bible. It established the doctrines of the Christianity within the Roman Empire. AKA the Nicean Creed.

While Constantine had 50 Bibles printed to be distributed to important Churches in the Empire, the Bible was not officially adopted by the RCC until the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 390 AD following Bishop Athanasius' decree to burn all Christian texts not contained in Constantine's approved Bible in 367 AD.
says who?

you? ROFLMBO.

I disagree.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 min Aura Mytha 26,567
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 19 min Aerobatty 985,714
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 20 min Halle Berry Sister 4,292
Why it's time for Donald Trump to RESIGN...in d... 25 min MOGA 41
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Just Think 685,835
Why some in the south tower got what they had c... 6 hr Doctor REALITY 2
Glorious ECLIPSE coming TODAY @10:45 am in Arka... 8 hr Doctor REALITY 1
More from around the web