That's a clear point. But how they were keeping them was wrong, often enough, Jesus said. And Paul was authorized to show us how God really wants His commandments kept. Now it's a matter of how we understand words, and if we are honest enough to do what God really means. My experience is that Jesus means we keep the commandments by how we love. And love can have us doing better than the literal meaning that ones have held themselves to. I gave the example of the Sabbath, above. Another example > Thou shalt not kill > not only do we not kill people, but we help protect and give a life to the unborn. How do you feel about this, by the way, Gundee? Do you feel an unborn is a personI offer, simply, that Jesus had various personal communications with Paul. I'm believing this, intuitively, you might say, by what I get through Galatians 1:11-17. Also, we have how "the Lord" spoke to Paul after Paul had been dealing with that "thorn in the flesh" > 2 Corinthians 12:1-15. I'm simply offering that Jesus was not skimpy about communicating with Paul. Ones have been representing God as being distant, not willing to communicate personally and regularly with His own children. Ones have it seem like to have God speak to you, even once, is claiming such a status symbol, that any claim to hear from God is to be "severly " questioned (o: But God is not the one who is conceited, so picky and choosy about who is good enough for him to talk to. Jesus even talked with the devil. But I'm finding His Spirit and love and voice is quiet and gentle. I need to be humble and gentle and loving enough so I can be on His wavelength, and honest enough to heed what He is saying. (17 hrs ago | post #712)
Well enough . . . better than I myself would have things, without God through Jesus. I've been busy writing with people in other Internet places and private e-mail, plus I'm more involved with people right where I live, which is good, I thinkFirst a point > Paul addressed the *law* as an issue. He did not ever handle the prophets as even being an issue . . . as I recall. So . . . about the law > yes, Jesus said He came to fulfill the law. Ones feel this means we all must now do all the things the law says. This law includes various religious items to be worn and used by the priesthood, animal sacrifices, and the death penalty prescriptions. The law of Moses includes capital punishment for > * adultery > Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22 * raping another man's fiancée > Deuteronomy 22:25 * lying by saying you are a virgin, in order to fool a guy into marrying you > Deuteronomy 22:13-21 * blasphemy > Leviticus 20:14 * falsely accusing someone of a capital offense, with the intent of getting that person executed for what the person did not do > Deuteronomy 19:15-21 To my knowledge, NO one keeps the whole law. Even present-day Torah-claiming Jews do not do the sacrifices and capital punishments. And Paul clearly says, "For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh." (Galatians 6:13) But ones find ways to get around items of the law that they decide they don't want to do . . . while they tell others to practice the whole law. Practicing and fulfilling can be very different things, I consider. Jesus fulfilled the law, not by doing the practical items, but Jesus has done more and better than what we have for commandments in the law > the way humans have been understanding and representing it, this is. "Obviously ", it says to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself > THIS certainly is not to be left undone. But fulfilling the law as Jesus did has brought BETTER than the law can bring. And this is what Paul is saying, I offer. The law was meant to bring us to Jesus (Galatians 3:24), and Jesus has been bringing us to better than the law can bring. Example of what I mean > keeping the Sabbath is commanded. But this means resting from work. Jesus gives us better rest . . . for 24/7, not just one day of the week > "'Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.'" (Matthew 11:28) Jesus is in Heaven, now, where there are no days of the week. Spiritually, we are with Him, in this rest for our souls. But this has us living better than we can just by keeping track of days of the week . . . virtually living by the relative position of the sun and the earth > instead, by living by how we are relating personally with God. Enough for now . . . (17 hrs ago | post #711)
"Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good; Blessed is the man who trusts in Him!" (Psalm 34:8) If God wants us to TASTE Him, He is not conceited (o: This is about being so intimate . . . more than superficial contact . . . we are more intimate with the food we eat, that goes all through our body, than we are with ones we just touch and kiss and hug. The "LORD" wants us to "taste" Him, we find in the earlier scripture, then Jesus says to feed on Him. So, I see a connection, here, between Jesus and "the LORD" in the earlier scripture . . . indicating again that Jesus is more than a man. But, again as I offer, He's more about us knowing HOW God is . . . showing how much God who is love wants to be in such intimacy with us, that we taste and feed on Him, so He is through and through us as our life energy and even structural integrity. This is very intimate and so very dependent. God desires to share with us this much (o: God bless you with this, more and more, by growing in this (o: (Sunday Oct 12 | post #85)
Hi, there (o: I've been elsewhere, thought I'd stop by and see if you're still here. I guess I was asking myself a "stupid question" (oOh, yes, one of the items we have been discussing in the mix with other things (o: Well . . . gundee . . . I personally find that what Paul says and what Jesus did and said are a match. And I understand that Jesus gave Paul what Jesus wanted Paul to write to us . . . however . . . how we understand Paul can contradict how we understand JesusIf I don't like a command of Paul, it's because it goes against how I am wrong ! ! ! And it matches what Jesus has commanded and taught, in some way, I am finding. For example, Paul says, "But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts." (Romans 13:14) This matches with how Jesus in so many words, I understand, said not to lust for women. And this goes against how I can still fail; so I don't like this. But this is MY fault (oWell, I'd say Jesus held a woman in high regard, IF she obeyed God. And I consider Mary "who also sat at Jesus' feet and heard His word." (in Luke 10:39) Jesus stood up for her > we can see in the next verses. But He did NOT stand up for her sister, Martha. So, His regard for a woman was conditional on if she obeys God. And we can see where Paul speaks very hghly of certain women who labor for the Gospel. Now, about what I'd say you are talking about . . . that Eve being the one deceived, and Paul saying for a woman to be "silent" > yeah, this is a tricky one. But Paul did in certain places speak very highly of obedient women who labored for the Gospel. But if people are looking for contradictions, they can interpret words so they can find contradictions. I have done this. Also, any of us can interpret words so we can justify our beliefs > surely I can do this, also, now, out of insecurity or whatever. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 says, "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence." Silence can mean different things. In any case, I can see Paul means for a lady to be quiet when it is time for her to learn something. And if her husband is telling her what she needs to hear . . . *he* needed to first be silent so *he* could learn what he passes on to her; so she's not the only one who needs to keep it quiet while learning (o: And I notice how it says a lady must not teach or have authority "over" a guy. "Over", here, is a key word, for me, Gundee. If she shares something with her man, that can help him learn something, Paul is saying do this as his companion, NOT "over" him, lording "over". And Paul says the man is the "head" of his lady (Ephesians 5:23); but also elsewhere he says, "The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." (1 Corinthians 7:4) So, here, I find we have an example of MUTUAL authority over one another. (Sunday Oct 12 | post #708)
Well, I've thought about this, Divine Alien. I'd say Jesus did not directly say the words, "I am God." But if He did, we know how people can have their different ways of understanding and representing God. So, with us all having our own perceptions with our misrepresentations . . . what would it tell us to be told Jesus is God? So, I can see "why" Jesus didn't bother to give Himself some label (o: Instead, He got right to what He came here to do > to show us WHO God is and HOW God is. "He who has seen Me has seen the Father," we have in John 14:9. And, of course, ones can word-play this to mean different things, which makes the point of how words alone are not enough, and so just saying He is "God" would not do the job. Jesus concentrated on showing WHO and HOW God is. And there's a "reason" why Jesus had no problem doing this, being God in human form (o: And Jesus said, "I am the bread of life." (John 6:48) Now, how can anyone but God, Himself, be the bread of life? (Sunday Oct 12 | post #83)
What Divides Catholics and Protestants?
Rose, I got your message . . . thanks . . . "dimples and simple" http://www.ecards- gallery.com/ecards /0/0/0/179958/6986 959/1/ "bubble trouble" http://www.ecards- gallery.com/ecards /0/0/0/179828/6986 497/1/ "the place of our rest" http://www.ecards- gallery.com/ecards /0/0/0/179954/6986 925/1/ (Sunday Oct 12 | post #27482)
What Divides Catholics and Protestants?
Well, she was appointed by somebody, and somebody made the choice to keep her wherever she was legally appointed and promoted. And those overseeing her were also responsible, then, I'd considerWell, you may not have any idea what his beliefs really are, but I suppose he has made statements and has a voting record which would indicate his attitude toward Israel. I personally don't consider Israel to be in a postition to require support by Christians since the Jews are outrightly refusing their Messiah. But this does not mean for us to oppose Israel. I just don't think they now are guaranteed God's support or His requiring support. For that matter . . . if they trust in men, by depending on the U.S., this can bring them a curse and misery (Jeremiah 17:5) . . . like you see happening there, now. The U.S. is NOT exactly a country who is of God. So, depending on the kinds of people we have here in government could be NOT good for the Jews. It says "vain is the help of man", in Psalm 60:11Sounds like something that would come through Internet invented information. But I would not deny this. My personal bet about Barack is he is an American, like others, and now he's in a position to become President. And he will play politics, in office. So, the powers that be will muchly influence what he does and what he doesn't. And we are to pray FOR whoever is in authority. I don't believe in him, basically, not any other candidate. Ones can show one thing we like and be exactly opposite, deep inside themselves. They've all been in the system and have not proven themselves very much so before now they have taken leadership by merit . . . merely by politickingAnd powers that be could stop him. President Clinton was going to make gay OK in the military. But once he got in, he backed down because of the flack, I understand, he got from military leadership. And I'm considering there are other ways to be anti-life . . . like by neglecting people in the Katrina disaster, or killing over a hundred thousand Iraqi noncombatants. ANY candidate not of God is very potentially dangerous. But I would not vote for Barack because of that postition, Rosesz. But I would not assume a "moral" claim or two by other candidates makes them ones to vote for, in which case I would not pick one wrong person over another. Ones were so saying President Bush was "born again" . . . now it looks like they're not saying that. "Christians " can put out the posturing that suits their political purpose, and be wishful, but not make sure with God. So, number one is pray and obey. (Thursday Oct 9 | post #27477)
What Divides Catholics and Protestants?
hi . . . (oI find your understanding to be clear and simple and sweet and kind and helpful . . . certainly not confused or confusing (o: God blss you more in thisIt "could" be Robert is deliberately not giving a plain clear statement of what he believes, "in certain areas". In my opinion, Robert is choosing not to put his feelings and ideas, of certain sorts, where anybody and everybody can just attack him and trample all over what he holds to. Jesus did say not to cast your pearls before swine, lest they tear you. Well, if you were to throw a handful of hard pearls into the piggies' slop . . . they might not be happy about biting down on those pearls and grinding their teeth on them . . . yicko (o: But . . . as for the slop . . . yucko (o: So, Robert might think some of our stuff is slop (o: And he's not going to throw in his pearls (o: Now, I don't KNOW this . . . just an opinion, not to be pining about too much (o: I have my own personal beliefs that I do not put out in the open. If you have read Romans chapter 9 . . . quite an interesting selection of items, here . . . like including how God is our Potter and we are made "from the same lump". Ones don't like this to mean God is in absolute control of what becomes of us. And I don't like people blaspheming God as being dictatorial and unfair, though I do believe this means just what it looks like; so I go easy on this with people. But ego has to go, with its say-so and claiming to be in control. And we are to treat people as if they have free wills, even if God is really fully in control. So, in loving, yes, there is free will . . . but the freedom each one has is a gift of God . . . as MUCH as each DOES have freedom . . . which is NOT exactly very much, for a number of folks, especially in sin. "For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." (Romans 8:6) People who are in "dead" mindedness are NOT free . . . a truly free will is ALIVE in LOVE . . . in God's "life and peace". We need for God FIRST to renew us so we are enough to choose what is good, I offer. (Thursday Oct 9 | post #27476)
What Divides Catholics and Protestants?
In answer to my sharing on page 1344Very simple and I agree (o: AlsoI'd say Paul made it very clear, that in Jesus we are no longer under the law. Jesus is in Heaven, and He is not under the law; so neither are we; but we do BETTER than what Jews are trying to do with their law. Jesus is way superior to the Jews, and He is able to have us fulfilling the law way better than how humans can try to do it. God has us doing more and BETTER. The rest, for example, is not only on one Sabbath day per week, but 24/7. "'Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (Matthew 11:29) But there are Jews who are Christians and they observe things of the law. But how a Christian does law things is going to be different . . . in any case, not depending on this to suppose we are pleasing God because it's in the law. And Ananias who ordained Paul was a well reputed Jew who was "a devout man according to the law", we see Paul saying in Acts 22:12. Now, it doesn't say Ananias *kept* the law. Keeping the law would include all the animal blood sacrificing, and upholding all the capital punishments, I'd consider. And Paul says, "For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh." (Galatians 6:13) Today, I'd say, Jews do not keep all the animal sacrifices for their sins. Etc. Not the execution orders. They do NOT keep the whole law. But Paul became "all things to all men" > see 1 Corinthians 9:19-27. With Jews, Paul would be like a Jew, I understand to reach them at their level, while also Paul could be as a Gentile > "to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law;" (verse 21) so Paul, a Jewish Christian, did not keep the law. (Thursday Oct 9 | post #27475)
What Divides Catholics and Protestants?
Oh, booger ! > that scripture reference above should be 1 Timothy 2:1-4, about how we are directed to pray FOR those who are "in authority". All our candidates are in authority. Though they may be running for office, they also are in authority, and God wants us to support ALL of them with prayer of hope FOR them > love "hopes all things", we have in 1 corinthians 13:7. And am *I* that great about this? DUH . . . yes, you "might" include me, in prayer for me to get right with God so I am much better at this, also. God bless you (o: "fruity" http://www.ecards- gallery.com/ecards /0/0/0/179363/6984 708/1/ "busy but safe" http://www.ecards- gallery.com/ecards /0/0/0/179112/6983 894/1/ "shaking the waves" http://www.ecards- gallery.com/ecards /0/0/0/179267/6984 422/1/ (Sunday Oct 5 | post #27379)
What Divides Catholics and Protestants?
After observing for a while, this is my take on this > Although I suspect I prefer John and Sarah, instead of Barack Obama . . . if Al Qaeda attacks after a softer president gets in, this can alienate the liberals into taking much stricter measures and uniting more with republicans against Al Qaeda. So, I consider that your "FBI report" is a hoax or it is by FBI people who want McCain to be elected. And I don't need bogus reasons to vote for McCain, if I do. Your "report" appears bogus, or at least not necessarily credible, even if official FBI profilers put it out. I consider that the terrorists may not be so superficial in how they evaluate American psychology. Another thing > Condoleezza Rice on TV reported how the intel community actually had enough info to stop 9/11, but they were dysfunctional interpersonally, and so they failed to share their puzzle pieces of info so they could get the picture. And President Clinton would have been responsible for having competent people in place to detect and correct how intel people's infighting and power game playing was such a threat to American security. But . . . wait a minute > wasn't Congress in the control of the Republicans, then? So, THEY would have been in postion of responsibility, ALSO, to monitor intel and put a stop to how intel was such a danger to this country. But what WERE these two parties BOTH doing, a little before 9/11, just BEFORE the end of President Clinton's time in office? Giving all that time and attention and money and human resources to . . . looking into or covering up Bill's under-desk activities. And the media was very involved in making money on advertising, by helping America's attention stay with this fiasco . . . rather than using investigative reporting to keep the spotlight on how intel had become a major national security risk. And so, I'd say, by keeping attention AWAY from intel's troubles and threat to this country, this helped assure Al Qaeda would go undetected and succeed on 9/11. So, I can see that BOTH parties were in on that. Where were Barack, John, and Mr. Biden, during that time? Who was responsible for overseeing intel ? Who was responsible for selecting who kept an eye on intel? I'd say this country is now under the dictatorship of selfish character in both parties. And you can't change this with votes. But we can obey God and pray with hope for how *You* are able to take care of things. "Vote", by learning how to obey God and have hope for whoever gets in office > 1 Timothy 3:1-4. God bless you (o: And I offer you might notice how that sex scandal fiasco helped *decoy* attention away from doing what could have stopped 9/11. Al Qaeda did not operate that decoying of so many people's attention away from critical priorities. May this help you understand, how you need to identify what in your personal life can *decoy* your attention away from God and all that really matters. Be careful how this election could be used by Satan to pervert and abort your attention from what you can help with God (o: (Sunday Oct 5 | post #27378)
What Divides Catholics and Protestants?
At the top of this page, I think, (page 1336Well, if I remember correctly, in my Catholic upbringing I was told baptism takes away the penalty of "original sin", but when I come to age of reason I must maintain living a right life so the penalty stays away . . . something like this. Then I decided to think baptism should take away not only the penalty but also the original sin that makes us able to sin. And this addition distorted things, I guess. I have noticed that still I have sin witch is able to mess me up and have me doing wrong stuff, even though I have been infant baptized, and have given myself to Jesus to become "born again"; and Paul does talk about how "all things have become new", in 2 Corinthians 5:17; and yet, in my case, still NOT everything is exactly new, but there is sinning, too. So, I've kind of had the impression I've added a little distortion or two to what Catholic baptism is claimed to be able to do . . . so I'd have more that I could say it DIDn't do . . . contriving this for critical effect. But you're right, that is wrong of meYou're right, it doesn't say thatWhile I had priests, all I did was confess however I understood that I had sinned. I can't say we ever talked about why. We didn't get into a whole lot of explaining, except maybe the teachers in Sunday School might have said . . . because we are not perfect and need to pray more and other remedial activities. Now I understand, that in me there is stuff that is still not like Jesus, and so it is available to Satan and his spirit (Ephesians 2:2). And his evil spirit can take advantage of any leftover weakness to get me into narcissistic criticizing in order for me to feel superior to others, and into immoral feelings and thoughts for seeking pleasure to try to feel something nicer than his nasty nonsense. But Jesus gives me rest for my soul in perfect pleasantness of love if and while I really submit to Him. What's *your* understanding and experience on why we still sin, JohnConsidering how I know I was as a Catholic, that's a very generously nice way of putting itYup . . . I'd say I distorted what they claimed so I could do some overkill wth my criticism of Catholicism, including beliefs about baptism, by representing they claim more they they do. I think, now I recall > it is the *penalty* of the original sin they say it takes away, NOT the original sin, itself. I think our ability to still sin is rather evident. Good points, John. (Tuesday Sep 30 | post #27215)
What Divides Catholics and Protestants?
The more I read about historical Catholicism and the "Reformation " leaders . . . one thing > certain ones who left the Catholic church might have wanted to keep the Holy Eucharist. There are what I think are called "high" Episcopalians who believe something like that their communion is Jesus' body and blood. But they wanted to get away from the papal taking of England's money, and there were other items NOT very related to seeking first the kingdom of God (Matthew 6:33). So, they were Catholic wannabees who didn't wannabe bossed and exploited by Roman dictatorship. So, what I'm getting at is ones may have left Catholicism, but NOT desiring to leave the religion, itself. Ones kept Mary devotion and honoring and remembering saints, among other things more appealing than having their money and control taken. So, ones like this didn't really become Christians, possibly, but merely changed their CULTURE. And we see, now, how ones camouflaged in their religious CULTURE are discovering how predators can also use their same camouflage to get to these people . . . not only in Catholic culture but also in various "Protestant " groups who have superficial standards they judge by and which any psychopath can easily imitate. But Jesus' "sheep", even (not just His leaders), can tell the difference between a real pastor of God's love, versus some wolf in fancy religious clothing and/or putting on a great guy act. Sheep can *smell* the difference (o: "And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment." (Philippians 1:9) In God's love, we have God's senses. And it seems certain other ones who left Catholicism would drop the ritual stuff, but adopt only some one part of the scripture message. Example > it seems Martin held to "sola grace" (my term), to where he wanted to dump our epistle of James with our so-important message about the need for works > chapter two > "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (James 2:24) NOT religious copy-cat acting, but works of compassion in God's love, and in personal communication and fellowship with Jesus . . . like how Abraham first was directed personally by God to do what he did, then was able to hear and obey God's change of orders > James 2:19-24, with Genesis 22:1-18. These works, being in God's love and personal directing, get us closer to Him, more compatible with our Groom Jesus so we can spend all eternity together with Him and each other. And if John was pretty much all about us being destined, then he was taking just one item out of scripture and using this out of balance. And it seems he might have been very political, bossing with laws of religion with severe punishments ? This sounds like lording over, versus, "nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3) Law cannot make people love. So, that would indeed be just a re-*forming* of *culture* of beliefs and actions, not necessarily real deeper changing of the heart. So, they were sibling rivals of the same kingdom, if all their religion was indeed superficial > some very fancy, others very scanty (o: (Tuesday Sep 30 | post #27201)
What Divides Catholics and Protestants?
I was infant baptized a Catholic. That did NOT wash my original sin away, to say the least. I grew up with the full accouterments (equipment) of selfish ways and their built-in conceit and gullibility of believing to be true whatsoever fit with what I wished for. And no one seemed to know the difference. Being conceited, I welcomed being in THE religion better than all the rest. This is a narcissistic basic, how one associates oneself with those having prestige, power, position, possession, so that one can be superior by association. Of course, the disciples tried to be so great, by their association with Jesus (o: Then I asked Jesus into my life, in an off-base servicemen's outreach independent Baptist mission chapel. And I got baptized and went after everyone to get them "saved"; then I lost my faith and felt like the big fool, in front of everybody I had been criticizing (o: So, I got perplexed about what was the real way of salvation. Into a Jesus name church I went, to find out I had to be buried in water, with the name of Jesus Christ called over my baptism, instead of the titles of Father and Son and Holy Ghost. But they had no water in the tub, when I was ready to go down in Jesus' name. So, they put in maybe a foot and a half of water, dunked me, got me speaking what wasn't English, then back to my place I went. Then I realized the water had been shallow enough so my *knees* might not have gone under when they bent for me to go under. If my knees had stuck up, then the burial was not complete. I was terror stricken, knowing I might not have been saved, yet, if my "burial" was not complete (o: So, I phoned the baptiser in the night, so we could go right back to the church to make sure I got totally "buried" . I suspect they put their phone under their pillow (o: Finally, I realized how the "thief on the cross" had not been baptized but on that cross discovered who Jesus is and all he knew was he needed Jesus, and so he gave himself to Jesus and Jesus took care of what became of him, after that. So, I just offered myself to Jesus on the cross, trusting Him to do with me what He knew would be the baptism and all else He really wanted. Then I got led, one night in Boston, to a neighborhood where I had been told I'd get shot dead if I ever went there. I was footstep-guided there, without even knowing how to get there, got robbed, then confessed Jesus to a young girl who saw the robbery, told her Jesus wants us to love everyone and not be afraid of dying and God will be in control of if we die or not while we do what He wants. Then I was walked through places I did not know, then right to the church I attended, where I asked to be baptized > that night, in a cold time of the year, in a store front church where the water had not been warming, to say the least. The water was so cold, my mouth popped open and I gulped some in > I thought of how we need water IN us, not only ON us (o: (Tuesday Sep 30 | post #27197)
What Divides Catholics and Protestants?
I agree. I see that someone sweet and sensitive in love can be wiser than ones with intellectual scholarship and claiming "authority ". "And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment." (Philippians 1:9) Jesus said that if I look the wrong way at a woman, to lust for her, that I have already committed adultery with her, in my heart (Matthew 5:27-28). So > it's not our act, but the fact of what's going on in our heart, that has God's attention. When in our heart we look to Jesus and desire Him and in our heart decide to do all He pleases, this is when we are saved > when we repent like this from our selfish and so self-dependent ways. "Let him deny himself," Jesus said (in Matthew 16:24). When we are "baptized into His death" (Romans 6:3), so we have died to self . . . NOT merely when somebody dunks us in water or sprinkles us > the true baptism of salvation is the baptism into Jesus Christ's death, this coming with all God renews (Titus 3:5) us to do in our hearts. Physical water is not able to do this. But "the washing of water by the word" (Ephesians 5:26) . . . yes, THIS water saves. But ones will say I'm giving you intellectual acrobatics of scripture, and you need to perform their aquabatics. I don't think so (o: Jesus says we need to be born of "water and the Spirit" > to be born of God . . . of His living water of the Holy Spirit, NOT merely of physcal creature water, I offer. We are not born of what is created, but of His eternal Spirit's living and loving waters (John 7:37-38). (Tuesday Sep 30 | post #27192)
Like what you see?
Create your own Topix Profile
