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.