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. 

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.