How can the scripture describe something that had never existed before?   The word church was not in existance.  There must have been another hebrew word used that was translated into "church".  A word that doesn't necessarily mean church, but has been translated into it in order to give the infant CC the authority it needed.  For many years after Jesus's death the only rememberance of his life was celebrated in the homes of indiviudals and in the communities where there was a commonality in belief and thought and those that led the others in rememberance and prayer were for the most part not men, but women.  No organized church Lulapilgrim.  That came later.  There is also no evidence that Peter himself founded the CC other than the word of the CC.   Since the CC doesn't have such a great track record at telling the truth the word of the church regarding it's founder and it's beginnings is dubious at best. 

Authority?  Now that's an interesting concept.  You say that Jesus gave authority only to his apostles, and to their lawful successors.  Yet most catholics when they speak of scripture like yourself constantly quote St. Paul.  A man that was never an apostle.  Yes I do know that St. Paul persecuted Jesus's followers, and all of a sudden had a vision that no one but himself saw or heard, causing a drastic change of heart so he says.  Anything can be faked, and what better way to subvert the word of Jesus than to give oneself the authority over his followers.  A change of behaviour is no indication of a change of heart.  It can be simply a change of tactics.  In other words if you can't beat them join them and then beat them from within.

I don't see any evidence that Jesus started the CC, nor is there any.  The CC was started long after his death.

Who says that only the CC has the authority besides the CC?  Jesus never said any such thing.

How can the scripture describe something that had never existed before?   The word church was not in existance.  There must have been another hebrew word used that was translated into "church".  A word that doesn't necessarily mean church, but has been translated into it in order to give the infant CC the authority it needed.  For many years after Jesus's death the only rememberance of his life was celebrated in the homes of indiviudals and in the communities where there was a commonality in belief and thought and those that led the others in rememberance and prayer were for the most part not men, but women.  No organized church Lulapilgrim.  That came later.  There is also no evidence that Peter himself founded the CC other than the word of the CC.   Since the CC doesn't have such a great track record at telling the truth the word of the church regarding it's founder and it's beginnings is dubious at best. 

Authority?  Now that's an interesting concept.  You say that Jesus gave authority only to his apostles, and to their lawful successors.  Yet most catholics when they speak of scripture like yourself constantly quote St. Paul.  A man that was never an apostle.  Yes I do know that St. Paul persecuted Jesus's followers, and all of a sudden had a vision that no one but himself saw or heard, causing a drastic change of heart so he says.  Anything can be faked, and what better way to subvert the word of Jesus than to give oneself the authority over his followers.  A change of behaviour is no indication of a change of heart.  It can be simply a change of tactics.  In other words if you can't beat them join them and then beat them from within.

So sorry, I don't know why this posted twice, and the edit button is not working or I'd have erased the other.

"Priestcraft"

Religious people believe that God and Satan are in an eternal battle for people's souls, and that the reason the battle is so intense and long is that God and Satan are equal. But Satan is an angel. How can an angel be equal with God?

Not quite Infidel but almost. 

God and Satan are in a spiritual battle for men's souls.  Yes.  But not because of any equality.  You can see that all thru scripture.  Satan is allowed by God to roam the earth to do his work but God has put limits on Satan.  Remember Job?  Also in the beginning of Genesis and in the end book of Revelation we see the final demise of Satan.  That's why those two books in particular are the most attacked.  Satan would love us not to be in them. 

Satan was created as an angel but now has become the Prince of Demons.  He's not even close to becoming equal with God.   

interesting word...never heard that one before

When the cat's away, the mice will play or so it's said...

I just got back after being gone for over a week and am disappointed that Lula decided to turn my site into a proselytization for the RCC but I will refrain from either deleting them (as I've threatened before)  or commenting on them. 

just like the Holocaust never existed?  Besides what Lula said in her answer, the whole world turned upside down as a result of this one man.  There's more written about him than any other figure in history in any country. His book continues to this day to be a best seller of all time.   Even our calendar changed as a result of his birth, life and death among us.

this is a legalistic approach.  We are NOT under the law anymore Lula.  We are under grace.   Remember what it said in John 1:17? 

"For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." 

The law was given to the Jews, not the Gentiles.  The law showed us God's desire; his heart but mercy trumps judgment.  Read Acts 15.  Read what the requirements were for the Gentiles to come into the faith.  Nothing about the law was mentioned.  That's what the whole book of Galatians is about.  We are NOT under the law but under grace.  We are no longer servants but sons of God.  A servant is treated differently than a heir. 

this is very insightful and I agree that it's all part of the plan from the get go. 

When the scriptures describe good works it's doing good in the name of God.  Anything that glorifies God is considered a good work.  Out of the abundance of our heart for what the good Lord has done for us, we work.  We work for him by being his hands and feet. 

the key is motivation.  Why are you doing what you're doing?  Are you doing it for God or for yourself?  If for God it's good, if for yourself it's evil.  Is it God centered or me centered?  That's the question you ask yourself. 

No, not relativisim is involved.  God is all about truth, not relativisim.  What I said above to Infidel transcends any religion or culture.  Jesus said two commands sum up the entire OT and that is to love God with your whole heart, soul and mind and to love your neighbor as yourself.  Our good works stem from those two commands. 

The word church is used twice in scripture to describe the followers of Christ.  The first church was founded in Antioch under Paul, not Peter.  Before the word church was used the English word from the Hebrew  in the OT was "assembly." 

One of the strongest indications of salvation is a changed heart.  Paul wasn't a fake given he gave his life for the cause of Christ not to mention the many beatings and jailings he endured in the process.    Those who are faking usually stop at the point where their life could be at stake. Their mask usually does fall off especially when the times get tough for them.  That's why Christ said "those who endure to the end will be saved."  He was saying that's proof of who the genuine ones are.  Paul endured great persecution for the salvation of others even saying that if he could ensure the salvation of the Jews he would gladly trade his life for theirs.    That's exactly what Christ did and Paul had the mind of Christ. 

I do agree tho that this tactic you mentioned is used and I believe it was used by the RCC.  But  Paul should not be put into that same category. 

AMEN!    

There's scripture right in the gospels that I believe he put there on purpose knowing that the RCC would make such claims.  These scriptures deny what they are telling the people.  That's why I say the RCC contradicts scripture.   Both can't be right.

Then it doesn't really matter what we do. Whatever we do is ok with God because that's what he wants us to do. Each individual.

not necessarily.  God can take our bad and turn it into good for his glory but we will ultimately be accountable for our actions unlike what we are being taught these days. 

It's all good because it fulfills his plan.

ultimately...yes! 

Then why...

Because God is a God of justice. 

The end result has no bearing on us being accountable for our actions. 

You've gotta love circular reasoning...you still didn't answer the question in a solid way. Anyone can say, "Well it's X because Y says so." I, for one,  would like to see some sort of basis, factual, for this.

"Our," as in Christian. You really can't say the same for any of the countless indigenous cultures whose moral beliefs either state different things or are from different (a) God(s)s/sources. Though I'm sure the same culture would say close to what you are saying when it comes to their culture. Everyone is naturally ethno/culturally centric. Theirs is the best, right, and only way.

'Tis life.

~Alderic

of course I did. What I didn't do is go on and on and on with it.  I stated it simply and truthfully.   God is the judge.  We will all stand in his court some day.  We will either be guilty and worthy of spiritual death or innocent and worthy of eternal life.  Our good deeds have nothing to do with that but we still will be held accountable for everything we do in this life as we stand before him in another. 

For those who believe they can do whatever they please, go ahead.  Just be prepared for the consequences.  

No, you didn't. So I'll rephrase. Why would God punish people for doing what he wanted them to do? Even those who don't repent. They still did what he wanted. It doesn't make sense. Unless he's a cruel bastard.

now that's another question...not the same as you presented before.  Who says God is punishing people for what he wanted them to do?  That makes no sense.  Doing what God wants us to do brings blessings not cursings. 

Example:

Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers.  God blessed and watched over Joseph while in jail and because of his 17 years incarcerated he was later able to help his whole family when famine hit the land.  By that time he was out of jail, recognized for his abilities and made second in command over the land of Egypt.  God didn't want the brothers to do what they did, but as a result God used the opportunity to make something good out of something evil. 

Those brothers would still be held accountable for their actions.  Just like we all will be. 

and that's really in your heart of hearts what you want him to be isn't it?  Truthfully?  By saying so, you can justify your own actions by doing what you want to do. 

There's a saying that says..."you see what you look for." 

God prepares for you to do wrong.  Example:  Jesus died for my sins almost 2000 years before I ever sinned.  Also, see KFC's example, where Joseph had a life in Egypt prepared for him even though his brothers did wrong to him.  Just because God turned sin into good, doesn't mean it's not sin or that we shouldn't be held accountable.

no, I'm just reading what Jesus said.  Pascal has nothing to do with it. 

Jythier

Boy am I glad to see you.  Where have you been? 

"just like the Holocaust never existed?  Besides what Lula said in her answer, the whole world turned upside down as a result of this one man.  There's more written about him than any other figure in history in any country. His book continues to this day to be a best seller of all time.   Even our calendar changed as a result of his birth, life and death among us."

The whole world turned upside down............hardly.  This world is pretty much as it has always been.  Filled with the truly selfish and self centered.  People still bear false witness against their neighbor, and still kill and maim out of self interests.   There is simply just another new religion on the block claiming to hold the truth of things without truly knowing anything.  Clement, just to mention one, had an inkling to the truth, but he was far too concerned with what others would think of him to speak out.  More's the pity.

However the remark of "proof" was made because of a remark about historical proof, of which there is none.  There is historical proof of the holocaust. 

"Paul endured great persecution for the salvation of others even saying that if he could ensure the salvation of the Jews he would gladly trade his life for theirs.    That's exactly what Christ did and Paul had the mind of Christ. "

Saying and doing are two different things.  Example:  Jesus went out into the desert to be tempted, to test his resolve more or less.  He did not labor for his survival but instead put his survival into the hands of God.  Paul also went out into the desert.........and made tents for a living.  Hardly a reliance upon God.  Paul obviously trusted his life to no one but Paul. Something that Jesus specifically went out his way to address as is shown in St. Luke chapter 22 verses 22-31. 

Yet another example is that Paul also declared his Roman citizenship in order to save his own life so that he could not be tried by the sanhedrin and put to death.  Not a fine example of trusting ones life to God.

Obviously there are glaring differences between Jesus and Paul.

Not you nor anyone else has an idea as to who's mind Paul had.  Appearances can be deceptive, the proof is always in the pudding.  This pudding is rotten.

Peter knew the truth of Paul, and objected to him, but caved under pressure from others.  He'd have done much better if he'd followed his own truer instincts.  For to follow the truth of what Jesus taught one had to experience it for oneself by being taught by Jesus himself.  Paul did not.  His experiences were of his own making, with no collaboration from others as to their truth.  But before you argue this point with me let me remind you of something that you should know.  Jesus never prophesized Paul.  He never gave the keys to the kingdom to Paul.  They were in fact given to Peter and Peter only.

No matter how many times you read in the NT the word church, the fact still remains.........there was no word for "church" something that never existed before and would of course have no word for it.  The word "church" is simply a translation of another word that meant who knows what, but was conveniently translated and used by those that would seek power and control for themselves.

Prostelizing for the cc?  Why do you care, if your religion holds the truth?  Can it not stand up to the competition?  Or is it a matter of possession and control?  Your forum, your rules?

"No, the only way we can have the peace and joy and assurance is to believe Christ when he said those that come to him can have eternal life.  When we come to him, he says, we can have life more abundantly."

Tell me, how are you going to "go to Christ" if he is not dead and you are?   Or are you planning to join him while you still live?  Or do you expect to be reborn after death?  Which sounds a bit like reincarnation if you expect a body that is.  Or are you talking about be reborn in spirit?   Which sounds a bit strange considering that he is in possession of a body as is evidenced in the NT.

Any explanation?

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  And what was the proof?  Paul gave his life.  That's pretty good  proof and pretty tasty pudding.  Not rotten at all.  He was beheaded for the faith by Nero.  He was jailed, beaten, stoned and left for dead for what?  Giving out the gospel.  That's where the chaff and the wheat separate.  Paul proved beyond a shadow of a doubt he loved Christ.  Enough to give his life for him not to mention take the countless beatings and imprisonments one lasting at least two years.  I think it's YOU who has no idea who Paul was.   The whole NT practically was written by Paul.   He was a giant in the faith. 

Paul said he had the mind of Christ and I believe him because he, as Christ did, gave his life for the sake of others coming to salvation.  "Not I, but Christ," permeated his very being. 

Go back and check his writings:  Notice this:

In about 55 AD he wrote this in 1 Cor 15:9: 

"For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle because I persecuted the church of God." 

Then about 62 AD he wrote this in Eph 3:8:

"Unto me who am less than the least of all saints is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ." 

Then about 64 AD just before his death he wrote this in 1 Tim 1:15...while imprisioned for the faith:

"This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acception, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am chief." 

Notice the progression?  The closer he got to God, the more he humbled himself in God's sight.  He couldn't get low enough. 

Maybe you'd rather have the boastful arrogant preachers of today who live in comfort and prosperity?   Paul was anything but that laboring strenuously for the faith putting everything but the cause of Christ aside.  All he asked for near death were his books and his coat while imprisioned not caring for the comforts of this life. 

Never?  Jesus did prophesize Paul when he said to Ananias "..he (Paul) is a CHOSEN vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings and the children of Israel;  For I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake."  Acts 9. 

And that's exactly what Paul ended up doing later.  Exactly as Christ prophesized he'd do.   Paul spoke before Kings, Gentiles and Jews.  Are you a Paul hater?  That's how you're coming across.  Peter and Paul were on the same page btw.  Peter elevated Paul's writings with the OT scriptures when he said this in 2 Peter 3:15-16:

" And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given to him has written to you.  As also in all his (Paul's) epistles speaking in them of these things in which are some things hard to be understood which they are unlearned and unstable wrest as they do also the other scriptures unto their own destruction." 

So Peter most assuredly backed Paul and his writings up even commenting on the wisdom of Paul given to him by God. 

Now; keys?  Go to Rev 1 and you'll see it's Jesus holding the keys, not Peter.   What you're referring to is the fact that Christ gave authority to his church to bind and loose on earth and it will be so in heaven.  He gave that command to the church; not Peter alone.  Peter  only stood up as the spokeman for the 12 here in Matt 16.  To check me out go to 18:17-18 and you'll see him give the church this same order.    Go over to John 20:23 and you'll see after the resurrection Jesus gave the Apostles the same instruction by breathing on "them" not just Peter.   The RCC took a scripture from Matt 16 and ran with it.  They made a theology out of one sentence and declared Peter their first pope when that was never the intent of Christ to begin with.   Christ is the rock; not Peter. 

So I would have to say Paul also was given the "keys" in the fact that he was the disciple to the Gentiles.  God not only opened Paul's eyes on that road to Damascus but he opened doors to him as well all over Asia because Christ holds the keys (Rev 1)   I never understood why the RCC didn't claim Paul as their first Pope instead of Peter because Peter was the apostle to the Jews while Paul the Gentiles.  It was Paul who wrote the heart of the NT to the Romans, not Peter. 

Not only did Christ rebuke Peter and call him Satan, later Paul had to rebuke him as well for being influenced by the Judiazers later on. 

yes there is a word for it.  It's "ecclesia" meaning "called out ones."  Now, if you mean church building when you say "church", then I'm in agreement with you.   Jesus even said he would build his "church" in Matthew 16.  Church is people not building or denomination. 

Why do I care?  Because we've been over and over the same stuff and it's time to move on.  Maybe you haven't been privy but I've asked her  (many times) not to turn many of my blogs into one about the RCC.  I don't wish to argue these things over and over and over again. 

She has a forum, her own blog.  If she wants to continually quote the pope or tell us that Peter was the first Pope and that the RCC is the only correct church, go ahead...on her own site.  To do so while I'm gone, knowing I'm gone is, in my opinion, taking advantage.  That's what I saw when I got back.  I wasn't  around to comment on what I believe to be untruths in the matter and she knew it. 

It's not fair to compare anyone to Christ.  He was God afterall.  Paul was not.  Jesus came to die.  That was his whole purpose of coming here.  Paul had another purpose.   You can't compare the two.  But Paul had the mind of Christ and Christ was in Paul.  When his work was finished he was taken out.  Just like the rest of us.  We are all here for a purpose and when our job is done, we too will be taken out. 

Paul understood this.  While he was willing to die and be with Christ he also wished to do the work which he was called to.  He said to die was gain and to live was to live for Christ.  He was between the two wanting both.  His declaring his citizenship was of God to begin with so he was in full rights to claim it.  By doing so he was able to establish the church even further by bringing many others into the faith. 

This is nonesense about Paul not trusting Christ.  If that was the case, we wouldn't be reading about Paul today.   He was a Pharisee among Pharisees, well known in the community as educated by the best and prosperous.  He gave it all up to follow Christ.  Yes, he did tent making on the side so as not to overburden the churches with his compensation. Peter may have done some fishing on the side as well.  We know Luke was a physician.   Nothing wrong with that.   But I don't get your reference as to what you're trying to say with it. 

Are you trying to say that Paul was saying he is the greatest?  If so, I hope I showed you by my last posting that can't be it.