The True Religion? - Page 6

Possibly the Great Apostasy will not come but is already here, we are living in it.

Ah, the spirit of knnowledge gives voice to wisdom!
Patr, one thing they did teach is that Jesus nailed the old Law to the Cross.
Do they teach the Truth?
So when I hear those putting forth justifications of the Old Law,
I take stance upon the Rock?
--------------------------------------
When Paul compared the Christian life to a race,
did he compare 100 yd dash or a marathon?
I never ran such a race. Do they so because they have a desire to finish 1st.
To compete in the race or to complete the race?
------------------------------
If Jesus is God then does not that discredit His Witness of God?
Only God can live the life of Christ therefore GOD knows we can't live like that?
Jesus the Christ having arisen into heaven is God then
when we enter into heaven, we become GOD?
Is man => God or Is man a separate being from GOD?
Jesus told the Pharasees that all though they did all that the Law of Moses required giving alms of oils, herbs, etc. as good but not neglect giving compassionate love (the to-be's).
Did Christ come to teach us to become Gods or to teach us to live a life acceptable to God?

quote:

---

Ah, the spirit of knnowledge gives voice to wisdom!
Patr, one thing they did teach is that Jesus nailed the old Law to the Cross.
Do they teach the Truth?
So when I hear those putting forth justifications of the Old Law,
I take stance upon the Rock?

---

He took our place....ct, and he changed the laws...but God can still destroy a city if he chooses.

Jesus said NO rock will left unturned.

Look for the signs we now face...are we in the end times?

There is so much confusion now and people follow this way and that....and they read things they feel are gospel truth....

See, the deceptions are all over, but who can make sense to it all?
I have faith in The Roman Catholic Chruch....founded immediately after the Lord rose from the dead.
And set upon the ROCK of Peter.

I do not feel we ahve time to sit and decipher every man's given theological view to discern what is true.
The church of Jesus has not changed in many ways...but the power of Satan pushes against the doors, but shall not prevail, as we know....Jesus wont let happen.

Ever notice how many people hate the Catholics...?
Ever notice how many temptations the priests are under...?
Ever notice the love the media has for putting the folks involved in the church in the spotlight?
And mostly in a bad light....
Ever notice how many lukewarm Catholics exist, and are easily misled?
Ever notice how few really understand their doctrines?
Ever see how all that is Catholic is challenged....but not one person can change the fact it is THE CHURCH CHRIST gave to man.

Yes, we equate the power it obtained to evil, and the Reformation as good....but since this time....the churches still stand.
And yes, even the ones inside who are tempted to disobey the bishops, and the Pope.....are part the churches being under the temptation.

I will keep all I know of my faith, lock it up inside, and peresevere....without chnage for what is surely going to come...because the fact satan exists....there will that time...as we are under the greatest temptation of our time...NOW!

Although the Papacy is a fine institution today, it has in the past been an incredibly corrupt and selfish organisation.
The 30 years war (17th century) was essentially a massive rebellion against the Pope's authority and blind faith in him (instead of God), the war involved virtually the entire christian world.

The issue of the Papacy was very complex back then and it remains so for West Christians today.
Though its worth noting that I frankly don't think catholics are the oppressed minority in America (the legendary JFK was catholic).

I'm quoting Jonathan Kirsch "....the dark side of monotheism is not it's only side. The blessings of Judaism, Christianity and Islam far outweigh, and we hope will outlast, the curse of religious fanaticism."

He is referring to the history of religious intolerance which all three of the major monotheistic religions have engaged on each other, themselves and anyone else who supports a different view.

Patrish, 'ever notice' that "Orthodox" religion is alive and well? Do you have a clue how it, and Catholicism came to be? The terms were first used in the time of Constantine the Great during the Donatist schism. You see, nobody knew how to interpret who Jesus was. Ever hear of the mystery of the Trinity (Father, Son and the Holy Ghost)? Were they the same, similar, or made of the same stuff? Early Christians could not agree on this. Wars of words and blood followed.

So you see Patrish, the Roman Catholic Church was not "founded". It rose out of intolerance, the power plays which the monotheists performed on each other in the 4 century, long after Jesus "rose from the dead."

By the way, if it weren't for Paul there would be no Jesus. You should honor Paul you ungrateful schismatic.

The historian who led the tour claimed that one of the roman ceasors converted to christianity and created the roman catholic church, being its first pope. The roman church however teaches that Peter was the first Pope. Many teachers however do not believe that Peter was ever in Rome.

OK, I believe the Ceaser you're referring to was Constantine. He was the first to "convert", although it's still debated just how sincere his faith really was. He was more of an opportunist than anything else.

If you're interested check out the book 'When Jesus Became God'. Or simply find any book (try the seculars first) and check out the history of 3rd and 4th century Rome. You'd be amazed of the crap that went down.

quote:

---

By the way, if it weren't for Paul there would be no Jesus.

---

I am not sure what you meant by this passage? Although Paul was instrumental in proporgation of the Church, I fail to see what Paul has to do with Jesus as the Christ?
Saul, was converted as Paul of Tarsus. Saul has bought his Roman citizenship. Paul having been captured by zealotous Jews & seeing a Roman guard used his Roman citizenship as a ploy to be handed over to the Roman authorities.
When arriving in Rome, he was accepted into the folds of the existing Christian community.
The Roman Empire encomposed the land where the various Churches formed. Jewish zealots hounded Christians when they found them teaching Jesus as the Christ, driving them out. These Christians continually moved on as opposition to their teachings became to great.

[I am not sure what you meant by this passage?]

Are we talking about the same person? Was Paul not instrumental in spreading the message of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire?

Paul died in 64 A.D. roughly 30 years after Jesus. After his disagreements, to put it lightly, with the Jewish 'authorities' he traveled to Greece, and eventually to Rome. In Acts 17:23-24, Paul has traveled to Athens where is visits a pagan alter.

It is not known if anyone else at that time accomplished what the Greek speaking Paul had. According to secular writings of the time, Paul was seemingly everywhere. Again, if it weren't for Paul, the life and legend of Jesus might well have been but a footnote.

I'm in to caves, sorry for the distraction by the statement you made I assumed you meant 'if it weren't for Paul the Church of Rome might never have been.
Yes, I agree that Paul serves to the Churches was beyond compare (except for Jesus). His affluence & therefore his standing among the educated & the lay people was a significant factor giving credence to Christianity.
Note those who taught me about Christianity taught that Jesus's play on words ( Peter=>Rock) was an allusion as well to the corner stone rejected=>Christ.

quote:

---

So when I hear those putting forth justifications of the Old Law, I take stance upon the Rock?

---

Is an allusion to the teachings of Christ.

Paul, although a GOOD man, gave merit to his untiring zealous work to the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus.

If Jesus had not struck him blind, and poured forth His Spirit...Paul would have been as any other.

He was GIVEN a job more than the others, because he was in his years of teaching, given a duty to fulfill in his short time doing it. Plus because the rapture and state he was in, He had zeal, and was carried with God's Spirit to know, and do the work of God.


Did you know, in a rapturous state, you feel no burdens...?

Did you know, if the Spirit is within, you suffer nothing...because the Spirit carries you, and makes your burdens light?

Rapture, is the epitome of LOVE and zeal.

But, still Paul came after Christ was Crucified, and Peter, for Chirst's own reasoning, was HIS head of the church on earth....

And whomsoever came after would take the same state...as head.

You can deny the papacy, but it is with concordance to Peter and instructions of Peter, that it exists.

IF the Church was false, it would not have survived 2000 years of torture, and temptation, and still be the BRIDE OF CHRIST.

If it were NOT for Jesus, Paul would NOT have had a JOB...
If it were not for Jesus, ..Peter would not have been appointed.

quote:

---

By the way, if it weren't for Paul there would be no Jesus. You should honor Paul you ungrateful schismatic

---

Now that is rich, considering Orthodox broke off the Catholic church...Nice dude...
BTW, schism is when the division is present when christians should be united...so who here makes the divisive comments?

Ahhh, yes, Caveman, it is but you.

[But, still Paul came after Christ was Crucified, and Peter, for Chirst's own reasoning, was HIS head of the church on earth....]

Yes, you are correct. Both Peter and Paul were important for the advancment of Christianity. However, Paul was the main missionary outside of Palestine. And, correct again sir, if it weren't for Jesus, Peter and Paul would have remained Jews.

[Now that is rich, considering Orthodox broke off the Catholic church...]

They broke it off? Did it hurt? Just kidding!
Seriously though, what do you mean? One was in the eastern part of the Empire, the other in the west. The 'division' didn't actually occur until the Arian heresy in the 4th century AD. (Read my reply on page 5). Why would you blame Orthodox rather than Catholic for the division?

I can't remeber why I called you a schismatic, must've been something you said. Cturtle, no problem, your point is well taken.

Paul was the apostle to the gentiles while Peter was the apostle to the Jews. It's in the bible, they made an agreement and split up. So you had two churches. One under the law (jewish) and one under grace (gentile). This is why many teachers do not believe that Peter was ever in Rome.

For the sake of arguement. (I'm sorry I had to bring it up.) Jesus chose 12 apostles. The number is obviously important, because they had to replace Judas (and they did). Later on here comes Paul who is now the 13th apostle? Seems kinda fishy to me.