Lost people can't find their way. Other people search for the lost ones. So if someone is spiritually lost, Jesus should find them. Christianity is backwards.

Yes, joining him while still alive.  Reborn in spirit.   That's what "alive in Christ" is all about.  Christ is in us. 

 Christ's conversations with Nicodemus and the Woman at the well (John 3 & 4) show that when we come to him we are "born again" meaning we are born a second time.  This time, it's not physical but spiritual.  The water he had to give the woman at the well was spiritual even though she kept asking about this physical water so she wouldn't have to thirst or draw from the well again.  When she finally got it...her eyes were opened (spiritually) she even left her waterpot behind to tell the men of the town what just happened to her.  She was "born again."  So yes, when this happens to us we are born alive spiritually so we join him by being baptized into this spirit while still being physically alive. 

That's why Christ said "man should not live by bread alone."  and  when asked if he had anything to eat he said. "my meat is to do the will of him that sent me and to finish his work."  It's not supposed to be about the physical but all about the spiritual. 

Both Nicodemus and this woman had a hard time understanding this in the flesh.  Paul wrote that the natural man can't understand spiritual things.  None can until we are reborn.  Then it all falls into place.  We are dead spiritually until he breathes his spirit into us so until then we don't have eyes to see nor ears to hear. 

That's why Paul said: 

"..there is a natural body and there is a spiritual body.  And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam (Christ) was made a quickening spirit. ...the first man is of the earth; the second man is the Lord from heaven.  ....flesh and blood canot inherit the kingdom of God; neither does corruption inherit incorruption.   1 Cor 15

Jesus said:

"God is a Spirit; and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. " John 4:24. 

Notice the word "must."  This is not desirous but is the only way. 

This is true.  Christianity isn't backwards tho.  Jesus does go and get them.   Remember John 10?   "I am the good shepherd." 

The whole NT was written about Jesus, the only true teacher.  If you think it was about Paul, then you obviously do not follow in his footsteps.   Who is your master, the man Paul who was never an apostle, or the man Jesus who gave proof to the world that death can be overcome, and passed this knowledge down to his chosen apostles so that they could spread the good word?

A show of humility means nothing other than show.  I must say that indeed Paul does speak of his own humility a great deal.  Wonder who he was trying to convince.  For the man that promotes his own humility is indeed not "humble".

The men that accompanied Paul on the road to Damascus were his partners in crime.  They would surely back up anything that Paul might say regarding Jesus speaking to him there.  They heard the voice but didn't see anything.  Not as hard to disprove the hearing of a voice as it is to disprove the seeing of Jesus, that would require a description.  I find it most peculiar that Jesus would ask Paul why he was persecuting him, when in truth he was persecuting his apostles and followers.  Jesus is and was well beyond any persecution by anyone of this world.  Also consider the parable of the fruit tree.  A good tree bears only good fruit.  An evil tree will bear only bad fruit.  It is a Jesus himself said: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.  By their fruits you shall know them.  Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?  Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.  A good tree can not bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.  Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.  therefore, by their fruits you will know them"  Pauls fruits are indeed questionable at best. 

The passage also says that "the Lord" spoke to Ananias, not Jesus.  (by the way Ananias persecuted Jesus himself when he was alive, and don't tell me that it was a different Ananias, you have no proof of that.)  The lord has been referred to in the OT and the NT many times, long before Jesus was born.  One can not simply substitute what one wishes something said for what it does say.  It is Ananias that calls the "Lord" Jesus.  How peculiar that he doesn't refer to the "Lord" as Jesus when the "Lord" is speaking to him.   And how peculiar that Jesus should choose a man that persecuted him to deliver his message about Paul.

Anyone can speak the truth, it is not anyone's personal property, and naturally Peter would have acknowledged that Paul spoke the truth when he did.  However did you read the parts that you didn't underline?  "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."    And do you understand it?

Am I a Paul hater?  Not at all, I am a Jesus lover.  What you describe as hate, is being able to see through the facade and the willingness to question instead of just accepting what one is told.  I have often wondered why Paul followers have not the common sense to question the blatantly obvious that is deserving of questioning.

Jesus did not call Peter "satan", but the idea of self preservation that Peter suggested to him.  Self is the satan, the gods that mankind puts before God.   As Jesus said "you must hate your life to follow me".  Self preservation shows a love of this life and an unwillingness to put God first.  A theme by the way that has been repeatedly pointed to through out the bible.

Where is your proof that Jesus was "God"?  Where did Jesus ever say such a thing about himself?

We all come to die KFC.  There is nothing unique in that.  What was unique about his death was that he gave his life up willingly in accordance with God's wishes, and his death and resurrection that was the ultimate lesson for mankind.  Death can be overcome, and Jesus proved it.  but rather than learn from this precious lesson, man turned Jesus into a god, not only a god but "THE GOD".  In order to follow Jesus one has to walk in his footsteps, no detours, no compensation.  Trust in the Lord is all one needs.  Jesus said such and Paul did not do such.  There are important lessons that are learned on this path jesus pointed out, and one can not take shortcuts.

Something I read/learned today that I found interesting:

A person's so-claimed divine experience leads to their use of metaphors to describe what they do not know, cannot explain due to the limits of their knoweledge, and perception of both. This leads them the desire to put this into practice, and form - hence, dogma and the belief that what they saw and believe is The Truth. Such experiences, dogma and beliefs are given validity through the combination of the subjective vividness of an experience, strengthened by the continuity and duration of that experience, and the consensus of others.

Can truth that which is claimed beyond our understanding? It is even mentioned in the bible that we will not know all.It cannot because no matter how much evidence you have, your knowledge will always be incomplete.

Be well, ~Alderic

Where did I say that the NT was written about Paul?  Sounds like you're doing some mighty twisting of words here.  You may want to go back and read what I said. 

You obviously have an ax to grind with Paul.  Why do you accept the chosen 12 but not him?  What about the Prophets in the OT?  Were they chosen by God?  Why not Paul?  It's quite obvious that the other Apostles accepted Paul.  Why shouldn't we?  Was Paul gifted?  Did he have a changed life?  Did he die a martyr's death like the other Apostles?  Luke wrote an eyewittness account in the book of Acts for our benefit.  Do you think he was fooled by Paul's charade (as you believe)? 

how can you know the motivation of a man?  And who says it's a show?   So when Jesus humbled himself by going to the cross was that also a show?   Do you know any humble people around you?  How can you be humble and not show it?  Being humble means putting others first.  My husband is a humble man.  Whenver we have church dinners he's always the last in line sometimes not getting anything.  After a while this does get noticed.   Does that mean it's only a show because it's been noticed? 

because you don't understand what it means to be "born again."  Jesus is the head of the church.  We, who are His are his body.  We are his hands and feet.  when we hurt, he hurts and vice versa.  Paul didn't understand either.  He thought he was doing a good thing.  He was religious to his fingertips.  He had no idea the God he thought he was protecting he was instead persecuting by doing harm to the body of believers. 

You're bound and determined to discredit Paul aren't you?  So now you're spread it to not only Paul being dishonest but those traveling with him are?  Keep in mind that while men are willing to live a lie not many are willing to die for one.  Paul proved himself when he died a martyr's death. 

What proof do you have that this Ananias persecuted Jesus?  And you're quite wrong that this "Lord" mentioned here isn't Jesus because it's quite clear it is.  Look at 9:17:

"And Ananias went his way and entered into the house and putting his hands on him said Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared to thee in the way as you came has sent me that you mightest receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. "

and just to cement this go to 22:7-8 where you read this:  "And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, Saul Saul why do you persecute me?  And I answered, Who are you Lord?  And he said to me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you persecutest." 

so there you have it.  Jesus, as Lord,  not only appeared to Saul but also spoke to Ananias. 

Yes, and your point? 

While I agree with most of this...are you saying Satan isn't a real person? 

Yes, many times.  Jesus said in John 8:58 "Before Abraham was I AM."  He's the I AM of the OT.  To the woman at the well he bluntly told her he was the Messiah the Jews and Samaritans had been waiting for.  You can see that in John 4:26.  It's a clear afirmation from Jesus himself that He is the Messiah.  Later when Thomas finally "got it" he knelt and said "my Lord and MY GOD."  We see other instances in scripture where this was done; that is when men knelt down in front of angels and other men and were told to get up.  Not this time.  Jesus accepted the worship of Thomas.  Also in the first chapter of John we read that the WORD became flesh and dwelt among us. 

Are you a JW?  Just curious.  You speak like one.  Jesus is God in the flesh.  God is spirit.  Without Jesus coming in the flesh our human minds could not comprehend God.  He came so that we can know and understand God as much as He was willing to reveal that is. 

we all die, but that wasn't how it was supposed to be.  We die as a result of sin.  We were not made to die nor were we created to die in the first place.  Jesus, on the other hand, as God and sinless did come to die in our place. 

Why should I not chose to listen to those that sat at the feet of the master over one that did not?

Paul could have said anyone including Jesus spoke to him, and there would have been no one to contradict him.  He was after all hunting "christians" and it's quite obvious to anyone that he would have been traveling with like minded people.  It's not a great leap of imagination to understand that when attacking something from the outside isn't working a change of tactic is in order.  Have you never heard of "subversion"?  It's not a 20th century invention.

Why not Paul?  Once again the parable of the fruit tree.  Yes God has chosen many to speak to his people, but never has God chosen a murderer.  It's rather like you telling me that Nero had a change of heart and while God may forgive his past sins,  it is unlikely that God would choose him to spread his word.  Highly, highly unlikely.

Paul died a martys death?  That is strictly a matter of opinion.  As far as I am concerned Pauls luck simply ran out.  He'd dodged the bullet many times through his own efforts.  A bit peculiar for someone who wished to leave this world behind.  As Jesus said, "You must hate your life to follow me", Paul did not hate his life, he coveted it, and tried with all his might to save it.  When one hates their life they embrace death, it is no longer an unknown and something to be feared, but becomes a release and is hungered for.

Yes Paul said it was Jesus.............where's the proof?  Where's the corroboration by a reliable source?  There isn't any.  Any more than there is reliable corroboration for the words of Ananias.

Yes before Jesus was the "I Am", but there is no proof that Jesus is the "I AM".  However when Jesus prays in the Garden he prays this not once but three times:

"My Father, if this cup cannot pass away unless I drink it, thy will be done".

Strange words for the man that has claimed that he is "The I Am" is it not?  Apparently Jesus is not aware of the fact that he is the "I AM".

Later before the sanhedrin he states when asked by the high priest when he said to him "I adjure thee by the living God that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God".   Jesus replies "Thou has said it.  Nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you shall see the son of man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming upon the clouds of heaven".  Odd words for a man that is supposedly the "I AM" which is the "Power" of which he speaks of sitting at the right hand of.  He also answers an arguement between two of his disciples as to whom shall sti at his right hand by stating that it is not his decision to make.

"Of my cup you shall indeed drink; but as for sitting at my right hand and at my left, that is not mine to give you, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father."

Apparently once more Jesus doesn't not know or acknowledge that he is the "I AM".  If Jesus does not know or acknowledge this what makes you think that he is, other than the fact that Thomas calls him his lord and his god?  At that particulair moment in time he is in fact lord and god to Thomas, because he is his teacher and master, but that doesn't mean nor indicate that he is "THE I AM".  The admitting of being the "Christ" who is the enlightened one is not the same as admitting that one is the "I AM".  Nor is the word of God becoming flesh and dwelling with us meaning that Jesus is the "I AM" but simply the word and promise by God that man shall move past this life into the next being fulfilled by a man capable of doing so.

I am assuming you are asking me if I am a Jehovhas Witness.  I am not.  If anything at all I could be called an agnostic, but even that is not an accurate description.  If I were to describe what I am all I could say is that I am an active seeker of the truth.

Jesus did not come to die for you or anyone else.  Jesus came in answer to a promise, the promise that man shall move past this life to the next.  It was his mission to show that God keeps his word, and to show that such a thing is possible.  If it were not Jesus would never have made the statement "in order to follow me", and "in "my fathers" house there are many mansions and I go to prepare a place for you." 

We were not created to die, that's quite true, but we do because we are now of the physical and we are of the physical because we are self aware.  It was only because of self awareness that Adam noticed that he was naked.  We don't die because of sin however.  We die because the spirit of God can't dwell within the physicallity of man for longer than 120 years.  Everything that is physical dies whether it is in 120 years, 2 minutes or millions of years. 

Was Jesus sinless?  That is a matter of opinion.  However if Jesus died for you why are you still dying?  And why does Jesus say that "Elijah has already come in John"?  How could Elijah escape the death before Jesus was born and died for us, if in fact we no longer die because Jesus died for us?  Apparently there is a flaw in that reasoning. Or are you telling me that Elijah is also "THE I AM"?

Being "born again" does not mean in spirit after one dies or even before one dies.  It means exactly what it says..........born again.  The exact same thing that Jesus did, what some call the "resurrection".  The leaving behind of the physical body for a body made of finer stuff that is just as real as the physical body is.  A transference that takes place I might add without a loss of self awareness.

Yes, Paul did write most of the OT, and for a good reason.  In order to explain, for the simple reason that when one gives an explanation it is highly unlikely that others will go looking for themselves for the answers.  If that doesn't happen then one is unlikely to find the truth.  The reason for "faith" (believing that this is the truth) having to be followed up by "acts" (actually making the effort to discover the truth for oneself).  One is no good without the other.

I don't care what any Christian says. That sucks.

Why do you think that it sucks?  If one holds onto this life how can one move onto the next existance?  This world is not a paradise, and the next one won't be either other than it will at first appear to be so since so much of what happens to us here will not happen to us there ( like sorrow tears, pain, grief, the death. etc.), but the alternative is what really sucks.  The alternative is the death.  A total loss of everything, including self awareness.

That is the next.

Some places are.

Sounds like a fairy tale to me.

When Jesus came to earth he took on the limitations of humanity.  While he was fully God and fully man he still was limited; weighed down, if you will, by his cloak of flesh.  He stepped out of time and into ours for this limited time period to do what he needed to do then he went back to sit on his throne which is high and lifted up. 

The whole book of John describes his deity both in word and action.  It's known as the book of I AM's.   Sounds like to me by reading you these last few passages that you fit the pattern of wanting the kingdom but not the king.  Sorry but it doesn't work that way.   Jesus asked "who do you say that I am?  So I ask you that question.  Who is Jesus? 

well that's good but you're gleaning some really bad untruths along the way.  While you say you're seeking the truth, you're denying it at the same time.   Your theology is not cohesive. 

where in the world are you getting this from?  Genesis where God spoke about the flood and Noah?  You're way off on this one.  GOD CAN'T???  Since when can God "can't" do anything?  How small is your god?  Jesus said the comfortor would come and indwell believers.  Go over to Eph Chapter 1 and circle how many times in that one chapter the word "in" is used; as "in" Christ; "in" Him, "in" God etc. 

so many questions and they don't connect.  Yes Jesus was sinless and it's not opinion but truth.  We're dying physically because sin still reins in our mortal physical body.  There's a battle going on between flesh and spirit.  Elijah is coming back.  John denied he was Elijah.  Christ said that if the Jews had accepted (they did not) Elijah would have come in the spirit of John.  If you compare John and Elijah you'd see the similarities right down to the clothing and diet.  Elijah is still coming when the fullness of time is right.  We see him coming in Revelation and will be here before the second coming.  This time the Jews will believe and will accept because their eyes will have been opened.  Of course they will be in their own nation and it will all make sense then.  Remember they are still awaiting the Messiah and in Malachi it was foretold that before the Messiah comes, Elijah has to first come.  This will happen. 

Are you saying that the "resurrection" is what it means to be "born again?"  where are you getting this from?  Not the bible.  Paul was born again on the road to Damascus.  Lydia was born again when her heart was opened to the gospel.  Jesus made it clear in John 3 that to be born again was totally supernatural and involved the Holy Spirit of God.  To be born again, demands a new life.  We see the change in Nicodemus from meeting Christ under the cover of darkness to later coming out in the daylight to help bury his body.  That's a changed life.  That's what born again means. 

Some say that this world is the only heaven unbelievers will experience and the only hell believers will ever know.  I tend to agree with that.  Where do you get that those who don't go to heaven will lose their self awareness?  That's not biblical.  Check Luke 16 for one thing. 

Jesus will rule.  To me that is paradise.  No more politians.  No more prideful arrogant leaders but one that will lead with mercy, love and genuine justice. 

Really?  Well you may want to brush up on your bible literacy.  Read the story of David (a murderer) and Moses (also a murderer) and get back to me.  He also chose a prostitute (Rahab) and another  lady of the evening (Tamar) both included in the lineage of Jesus.  Also go and read the first chapter of 1 Corinthians which says:

"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise.  God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.  He chose the lowely things of this world and the despised things and the things that are not to nullify the things that are so that no one may boast before him..  It is because of him that you are IN Christ Jesus (born again)..."  1 Cor 1:27-30

again, you don't know the bible.  You say you want the truth, yet you spread these untruths.  Go to Galatians 1 and you'll read this:

"But when God who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles I did not consult any man nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.  After three years I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him 15 days.   I saw none of the other apostles only James, the Lord's brother.  I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.  Later I went to Syria and Cilicia.  I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.  They only heard the report; The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.  And they praised God because of me." 

You mention the 12 who sat at the feet of Christ for 3 1/2 and yes they did.   But Paul also took himself away for three years into the desert and met with God alone to learn of him.  He then went directly to Peter and then James who was the leader of the Jerusalem Council. 

this is all true but we can see Paul was genuine by his works and his life.  That was the evidence.   He was a completely changed man as a result of something happening to him.  I would agree with you if his fruit didn't match his professed root.  But his fruit was a result of his rooting in Christ.  Like I said, many will live for a lie, but there isn't any that would die for one.  That's why Judas quickly disengaged from the group.  He was willing to pretend while he thought Jesus would be the zealot he thought but when he smelled death on the horizon he quickly jumped ship.  Judas would be a better example for your thesis of subversion.   We also see this in Simeon in the 8th chapter of Acts.  He looked like a Christian, he went thru the motions even getting baptized, but his walk and his talk gave him away so much so that Peter saw right thru him. 

Why didn't Peter say that about Paul? 

You think that's what Adam and Eve thought?  Given the choice do you think they would have taken back their decision to follow themselves instead of God? 

You know, "throne" means "toilet."

Probably not unless they already knew the consequences.

No place is.  No matter who one is or what cirumstances one finds themselves in there are still those things that I mentioned above that enter into all lives.  This life is, to be sure, is sprinkled with moments of joy and happiness, but those moments are brief, they are strong enough to command our attention however.  In doing so when we recall the times of our lives what we will recall more than anything else are those good things, those enjoyable things.  It only makes it sound and seem as if there were a perfect life out there somewhere.

I agree that is our end, except there is an escape hatch of sorts, and Jesus showed mankind the path on which one must tread to find it.  Unfortunately religion took that away, by making Jesus perfect without sin, the "only" son of God, and to go one step further to actually be the  "I AM".  Who can ever or will ever compare to that?  With this criteria in place who would dare to think that this is possible for them?  Yet it is.  And by the time that that path is fully tread they will be just as Jesus is and in the same place that he is.

Why does it sound like a fairy tale?  Is it simply because it doesn't exist here, here being all that we know, and because of that fact it simply seems not possible?

No, because it's happily ever after.

Maybe our definitions of paradise are different. I'm not talking about Heaven or the Garden of Eden.

Oh my, where did you ever get all this KFC?  Jesus stepped out of time.  When did Jesus ever say that or imply such?  I think that it is you who's reading what they wish to see.

Who is Jesus?  He is the fulfillment of a promise.  He is the son of man (his words not mine), he was a man.  He was not a deity stepped out of time.  A deity who defeated the death means little to an ordinary man.  An ordinary man would never believe that he had such power, after all he's not a deity.  An all knowing and loving God would know this.  It was for the benefit of mankind that Jesus came, not for his detriment.  Not to hold up before him an impossiblility that he could never attain, but the possibility that he is capable of attaining even though he is not perfect, and just a man. 

The book of John doesn't proclaim Jesus a deity.  It does relate Jesus's actions as being the actions of the I AM, because when gives up the will of self it blends and becomes one with the I AM.  In a very real sense ones own will becomes the will of God.

I can see that you have no idea of what a seeker of truth is.  You seem to be of the mind that a seeker is a reader and a simple believer.  It is not.  For a seeker it is a matter of knowing and not a matter of believing.  Anyone can know, it doesn't take a church or a religion to help one to find the truth.  It is a Jesus said, "knock and the door shall be opened, ask and you shall be given."  He doesn't say that you must read a book, or take the word of another, not even his own.  For he said "if you can not believe in me, then believe in my acts."  (by the way it's an odd statement for the I AM don't you think?)

You see no cohesion because what I say flies in the face of what you believe, and what you've been told to believe and not beause i am contradicting myself.   I am not denying the truth, and as for Jesus reigning as king, I'm all for it.  Did I not tell you that I was a Jesus lover?  For in truth what I am saying makes far more sense than what you are saying.  And what I am saying is that Jesus was a man, who was sent by God in fulfillment of a promise.   That promise being that mankind no longer has to lose to death, that there are specific steps that will allow one to overcome death.  Jesus walked that path of his own free will, died publically and was resurrected so that all men could see that God's promise was fulfilled and that it was fulfilled by a man. 

Genesis 7 3  "And God said:  My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh; and his days shall be a hundred and twnety years."  Can't or shall not it's still for that reason that we die.

David was the annointed one, a king not a prophet.  He was chosen to lead a nation and before he took a life with the intent to do so.  (by the way there is nothing that says David intended to kill Goliath just to win the battle and end the war)   Murder is defined by the intent to kill.  Neither was Moses a prophet, he was indeed one who was chosen to be a leader that would help to take his people out of bondage in Egypt.  However in Moses case he did kill but it was not with malice of intent. With Paul there was definate malice of intent on his part. 

Yes, that's what Paul says.  Would you expect him to say anything else?  I would not. 

So he spoke to no man and went into Arabia and returned to Damascus and he went into the desert to dwell for 3 years to commune with God (so you? , he? or the church? says), while he made tents for a living and then returned to Jerusalem to dwell with Peter for 15 days and see John.  So what..........what does this mean?  Absolutely nothing.  That is no indication of anything except that he'd had long enough to aquire the necessary knowledge in order to fool Peter and John.  So tell me, why didn't he go directly to Peter to begin with?  Why didn't he proclaim his change of heart and his encounter with Jesus right off the get go?  Why go away and hide, why leave at all?  Could it be that if he had Peter would have been able to see directly through him?   I say yes.

His works are surely evident to those that question and seek to know.  And let me remind you of something once more "a good tree will not bear bad fruit."  Paul bore bad fruit, and because he appeared to bear good fruit after his so called change of heart does not negate or change the fact that "good trees will not bear bad fruit".  Roots be damned.

I am not either Infidel.  I do not consider a place without all these things to be a paradise nor to be happily ever after, just different.  Paradise as far as I am concerned would be to be one with the "I AM".  The next life is not that, and the next life will end not in the death, but an ending never the less.

of course you automatically think this because like I said before, you have an ax to grind.  Could it also be that Paul wanted to be alone with God after being taught by the best teachers around?  Could it be that Paul wanted NOT to be influenced by man but be with God alone?  Peter was just a man.  He wasn't God.  Peter was a fisherman with little to no book learning.  Paul was educated to his fingertips by the best men teachers in the province.  Most likely he took the scriptures and went away to be alone with God. 

This is a mealy mouth answer.  You said God would NEVER...let me quote you directly.  You said:

When I give you two examples you pussy foot around with some foolish nonesense. I wasn't talking about David killing Goliath.  How about Uriah?  Ever hear of him?  David had him killed and as a result God said because of the blood on David's hands he would not be allowed to build the temple.  There was definitely malice and intent there.  David wanted Uriah's wife.  David was a man of war.     BTW Moses was a prophet and well known as a prophet.  That's not even debated.  The Jews were looking for a prophet that would come that would be like Moses (a deliverer).  You may want to read Deut 18:15. 

I can see having a diff of opinion here and there but you're denying simple reliable facts that have never been debated as they have been widely accepted over the centuries...like Moses being a prophet and David not only being a murderer but also an adulterer.   Yet, he was called a man after God's own heart. 

Basically you know enough scripture to be dangerous.  This is where and why so many cults have cropped up over the years.  You take and choose what you want not expositing scripture the way it should be making up your own rules and interpretation as you go.  There is no consistency.  If you really wanted the truth, you'd stop talking and pick up the book and read the whole thing from front to cover making notations as you go. 

here's another example of your being dangerous.  This has NOTHING to do with the Holy Spirit IN man.  That wasn't to be UNTIL AFTER Christ died.  This had to do (in context) with the flood.  God would give man 120 years before the judgment of the Flood.  Not anything like what you're saying...because you're taking scripture (again) out of context.  BTW..it's 6:3 not 7:3.

The reason you have a distaste for Paul even though I've revealed your error is because you wish to have your ears tickled.  Paul was no ear tickler.  He was blunt and straight up.  He didn't mince words.  You want a fluffy gospel with no accountability.  You say you want truth, but sorry I'm not seeing it. 

You say you're a Jesus lover yet you deny His words and those he chose to spread it. 

you conveniently pick and choose what you believe from the scriptures.  Jesus also said "when you see me, you see the Father."  "The father and I are one."  He also called himself the son of God as well as the son of man. He called God his father and the closeness of the two was very evident by his speech.  You may want to read John 17:1 for good measure.  The son of man title was his favorite because it linked him to his mission here on earth. 

interesting answer, but I'm afraid that's not the answer Jesus was looking for.  You might want to re-test.  I suggest you go back and re-read the book. 

"of course you automatically think this because like I said before, you have an ax to grind.  Could it also be that Paul wanted to be alone with God after being taught by the best teachers around?  Could it be that Paul wanted NOT to be influenced by man but be with God alone?  Peter was just a man.  He wasn't God.  Peter was a fisherman with little to no book learning.  Paul was educated to his fingertips by the best men teachers in the province.  Most likely he took the scriptures and went away to be alone with God. "

I would automatically have an axe to grind because I point out the discrepancies concerning Paul based on that which Jesus said?  You must be kidding.  Is Paul so high up and so untouchable that his motives can't be questioned?  I think not, but apparently you do.  Since as you pointed out, Paul was educated down to his fingertips and Peter was simply an ignorant nobody.  Funny how Jesus didn't consider Peter's lack of education a detriment or a disability in his choosing of him as an apostle.  If he had, and if it had been as important as you think it was, perhaps Jesus would have chosen Paul instead...... but he didn't.  Apparently Jesus knew something that you obviously do not.  Wonder what it was?  Could it have been heart, open mindedness, or innocence, or that he was spiritually ready for Jesus's teachings, or perhaps it was that very ignorance that you seem to so disdain?  Or maybe it was all of the above.  I'd say yes, but I'm sure that you will disagree with it., seeing how you are so impressed with education and so unimpressed with the lack of it.  Too bad that Peter wasn't educated by the best teachers available like Paul, he only had Jesus to educate him. 

"When I give you two examples you pussy foot around with some foolish nonesense. I wasn't talking about David killing Goliath.  How about Uriah?  Ever hear of him?  David had him killed and as a result God said because of the blood on David's hands he would not be allowed to build the temple.  There was definitely malice and intent there.  David wanted Uriah's wife.  David was a man of war.     BTW Moses was a prophet and well known as a prophet.  That's not even debated.  The Jews were looking for a prophet that would come that would be like Moses (a deliverer).  You may want to read Deut 18:15."

I assumed that you would understand that I was speaking about Davids annointing and becoming King, which by the way happened long before Bathsheba and Uriah came into the picture.  I was wrong to assume that you would.  However if David is a prophet, please quote to me from scripture where he prophesied anything.  I'm willing to learn if you are a capable teacher.  While you are at it, quote scripture about Moses as well.  I agree that Moses was the "deliverer" but that is no indication that he was a prophet.  And dont' give me "it's been debated and accepted over hundreds of years either for a reason or proof, it simply isn't acceptable as either.

"Basically you know enough scripture to be dangerous.  This is where and why so many cults have cropped up over the years.  You take and choose what you want not expositing scripture the way it should be making up your own rules and interpretation as you go.  There is no consistency.  If you really wanted the truth, you'd stop talking and pick up the book and read the whole thing from front to cover making notations as you go."

I know enough scripture to be dangerous, and this is why so many cults have cropped up over the years?  Are you speaking of those "cults" that at one time the cc considered dangerous, those cults called the Methodists, the Lutherans, the Prebyterians, the Episcopalians, or the born agains, the cult that you seem to belong to?  Strange words from one who doesn't follow what was and still is considered by many the accepted and only true church through out hundreds of years.

However why don't you explain to me what is so dangerous about what I am saying, and what is so very dangerous about me?  I mean other than the danger it poses to your point of view?  In my opinion the same thing could very well be said about you, although I won't stoop so low.

Your adivce to me is to read the bible cover to cover and take notes.  My advice to you is to live the life that Jesus did, walk in his path, learn and find out, minus the opinions of others, what the truth is.  Of course it would demand more of you than just reading the bible in the comfort of your home, and you would have to give up the material comforts of your life, but so what?  Isn't it worth it?  Or are you like Paul, can't give up hthe personal control over your own life, and trust to God to care for you?

Tell me how would you know what Jesus had in mind for an answer?

In answer to your post about John the Baptist.  I don't find it at all peculiar that John did not admit to being Elijah, why would he admit to something that he couldn't recall?  Jesus said that he was Elijah as evidenced in Matthew chapter 17 9-13:

"And as they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus cautioned them, saying, "Tell the vision to no one, till the Son of Man has risen from the dead."  And the disciples asked him, saying, "Why then do the Scribes say that Elijah must come first?"  But he answered and said, ""Elijah is indeed to come and will restore allthings.  But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they wished.  So they shall the Son of Man suffer at their hands."  Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist."

Jesus said John was Elijah, or are you telling me that Jesus did not know what he was speaking of?

kfc posts:

whisper2 posts:

Good questions. 

KFC posts:

Regarding the Catholic Church, I was simply responding to comments and questions as truthfully as I can. I'd respond the same way whether you were here or not and you know it.

kfc posts:

It's comments like this against the CC that in turn bring mine in defense. 

Truth is both Scripture and the Catholic Chruch teachings in faith and morals are right to the point of infallible.  Both are in complete agreement.

The Bible teaches that the true Chruch of Christ began with Christ over 2,000 years ago...Not with men and women 15 to 19 centuries later who came up with the Bible only rule of faith. There is only one true Church as described in St.Matt. 16:18-19 that has been in existence since its establishement in 30-33 AD and will be until the end of time..

Yes, KFC, you are correct. The one true Church is not about buildings...it's people, the New Isreal, which means it's not about  just any people...as per Scripture, the origin of Christ's Chruch was founded on Christ's words as spoken in St. Matt. 16 and again in 28:18-20. 

History  proves that the religions founded after 1517 can't be the one true faith or be Christ's one true Church. Furthermore, "Church" can't be strictly defined as "people" because that idea comes from those people who founded religions that espoused that "the Bible only"  is the sole way of getting the whole of Christ's teachings. Scripture itself refutes that and you know it.

Yes, authority is an interesting concept and a Biblical one as well. All man's rightful authority comes from God. Our Lord Jesus Christ reminded Pilate of this as He stood before him at His trial.

As far as the authority of Christ's Chruch, Scripture itself teaches that the rulers of the Chruch have authority which must be obeyed in matters of faith and morals (in other words, in CHrist's religion--Christianity.).

Read Hebrews 13:17, and St.Luke 10:16, "He that heareth you (meaning "the Church" built upon the rock of St.Peter), heareth Me, and he that despitheth Me despiseth Me....

How can KFC's definition of "the Church" as "people" with this passage and have it mean anything? And the same question with

St.Matt. 18:17, "And if he neglect to hear them, tell it to the church, and if he neglect to hear the Chruch, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican".

or with St.Matt. 16:19, that part that that says whatsoever (st.Peter) shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, ....."?

So whether you like it or not, believe it or not, Christ ascended into Heaven but before He did, He left His authority to teach in matters of faith and morals with His apostles and their rightful successors. He said He would send the Holy Spirit and He kept all His promises. 

The Apostles repeatedly claimed this authority in Gal. 1:8, St.John 1:10, Acts 15, 23 and 28. The Laws and precepts and teachings of the CC are founded upon the same authority as the Commandments of Almighty God, and Scripture tells us clearly that the Chruch has authority to act in His Precious name.