The True Religion? - Page 7

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.

OK, I am surrounded by men, so naturally you mistake my femaleness for male. That's ok, been told I have a strong mind, and supposedly that is a masculine trait.

Now, will you respect me in the morning?

Ok, Okcity, beg to understand your 13th apostle...

Because Paul was the one who took the place of Judas, or so I have always heard....

Than again, maybe I was BOY WATCHING in class. j/k j/k

So, who was the 12th b4 Paul??

If I am not mistaken, Matthew was also one who preached to the Jews...as per why his scriptures are more mild.....

Luke spoke also to the gentiles....and so Paul, and Peter were certainly not alone in their works,....just they wrote more.

Actually, the Orthodox church broke off the Universal church.
They remained almost in constancy, but the Orthodox church had emperors for leaders...in addition to bishops.

Where as leaders such as emperors were opposed to the Papacy. The Papacy, however, is the leader as per Christ of His church on earth, so ya have to believe that although one followed the east, the other the west, that the break off, tho unfortunate, occured because of leadership disagreements. Go figure.

quote:

---

So you had two churches. One under the law (jewish) and one under grace (gentile).

---

The confusion is that you might believe there were 2 seperate forms of religion. Although again, several churches, but all following the one church....
The styles of preaching were different.
They had full intent to convert the jews, because they were the choosen ones, and they were supposed to preach to them 1st, and then the gentiles...etc etc

quote:

---

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.

---

Nice point OkCity:
During His earthly walk,Jesus had to take the disciples aside to explain what He was doing or saying. they didn't comprehend!
Likewise we read the Acts & Epistles (sp) that having access to the Holy Spirit did not exclude them from error. These letters were written to give instructions about errors in the way (misconceptions).
As pointed out the remaining apostles felt that they should choose a replacement by chance of the draw. Lack of faith that GOD knowing of the Fall of Judas would make provisions?
As Jesus spent some 40 days upon the earth after His Resurrection, He never spoke to them assigning a replacement?
All things come in their fullness of time.
Saul happen to be present at stoning of Christian believers, which fuels his zeolous nature to persecute them. Doing this had an effect upon him, softening his hardheartedness. His blindness was an ordeal, his self-righteousness dissolved being dependent upon the mercies of others. Lo, along comes one of those whom he persecuted, knowing who he was yet gave him comfort, even rebuking him as sloughful.
The same zealotness which he used aginst the Church, was given at least in service to the Church.

Where they drew lots to decide who would replace Judas - I will agree that they had made a mistake and possibly Paul should have been that replacement.

I think if I remember right, mathew was the one who had the dream about clean and unclean things that made him believe, and so he convinced the other apostles that they must go to the gentiles. Then later on Paul comes and they have a dissagreement. To keep the peace, two churches were created. One under law and one under grace.

There was division in that (Peter) Church of Jerusalem was prodomiently Jewish & still maintained those traditions. As new churches formed with greater Gentile proportions were being subjected to Hebrew Tradition of Circumcision. Which Paul did not concede. (my be wrong as working from memories of past lessons?)

The ONE True Religion is that Man is God. Science has proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Your only obstacle is your ego and your incapacity to correctly understand that YOU ARE GOD.

EOTW -> Wrong. Man is no God and such mentality is dangerous.

The division of the Catholic and the Orthodox church from the the start of the XIth century came about from the CHRISTIAN church. There was the Christian church (or religion) that splintered into ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY and CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY.

There was no catholicism before orthodoxism. There was just Christianity. The reasons as to why the schism happened... a lot of reason on all plains. Financial, power, political, religious, etc.
Who cares?

My personal take on religion is that no religion is good or bad in itself. Any religion that makes you want to be a better individual according to the decent universal moral code of conduct, and forces you to have Conscience, is the good religion for you. This means that even if you do NOT respect all commandments from a religion or only follow it partially... as long as that religion provides you with a moral compass that encourages civility instead of brutality, it is a good one.

In general, history shows that organized religions are a fallacy. Jesus (who wasn't a jew, but a judean) revolted against the corrupt jewish religion of that time. The high clergy of the jewish faith ruled great wealth and power from inside their temples, influencing roman politics in the region and judean politics in the region.

Judean is the race of people who lived in the area of Israel 2000years ago. This comes from Judeea.

Jew was back then a religious doctrine only. Jews became a racial construct aside from a religious one in the XIXth century with reformed judaism and most jews are reformed jews, whether they know it or not.

Christianity, that came along with Jesus (who was a judean) divided the Judeans into Christians and jews.

We can discuss this further if things aren't clear. We can discuss talmudic judaism, biblical judaism, etc.