Again, you don't know me at all or you would never have accused me of this.  Paul had the same teacher as Peter.  Didn't I show you that...by his going into the desert to be alone with God and his word?  Besides all that, again, you twist my words.  I never said Paul was better than Peter because he was more educated.  That wasn't my point. 

That's just it...I keep telling you...there is no discrepancies.  You just wish not to believe it. You're seeing what you wish to see.   You're getting some really bad information somewhere.  It's not from scripture.  Not only Peter but ALL the new church at that time accepted Paul as one of them because they could see he was a changed man.  I recommend you read the book of Acts.   

That's just it...it's NEVER been debated.. it has ALWAYS been accepted...but here you are trying to deny it just as well.  I told you..go to Deut 18:15.  How about Deut 34:10? 

"And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face." 

Now...do you really want to learn or is this just a facade? 

I never said David was a prophet.  There you go again.  Twisting words.  You said "God would never choose a murderer."  I showed you where you were in error.  You are changing the rules of your game by inserting the word "prophet" here. 

ohhhh so you're a RC in disguise now?  You said earlier you were an agnostic.  You also said you don't believe Jesus is God.  Well that's not the position of the RCC.  See, you are all over the place.  You have no roots.  ONLY the RCC makes the claim you cite here about being the one true church.   So?  Others make the same claim.  No one group has a handle on Christ. 

When the Muslim extremists hijacked our planes and flew into the towers, did that make the planes theirs now because they were in possession of it?  When the RCC hijacked Christianity and took possession of it, did that mean they owned it? 

because you're mixing truth with error.  You come across as knowledgable but you're not.  You are an agnostic attacking the word of God while you're trying to tell me you love Jesus at the same time. You make no sense.   You're a false teacher and by teaching this way you could lead others astray from the truth.  You either take the whole counsel of God or you don't.  Don't pick it apart making up your own theology along the way. 

Who says I'm not?  There you go...assuming again.  Besides all that,  if you knew anything about me you'd know I'm not about following opinions.  They're a dime a dozen.  You're doing exactly what you're preaching against.  You know nothing about me, yet you have your own opinion...based on what?  What kind of comforts do I have?  What do I do or not do for others in my life?  Do I minister to those around me?  How so?    You're saying here that I don't walk the talk?  Are you sure? 

Just a note:  your reading comprehension isn't very good.  Unless that is, you are purposely taking my words and twisting them to make me say what I'm not.  I would like to ask if you comment again, that you take the time to really read what I'm saying before you make your comment because I feel like I am repeating myself for no other reason than you are just not reading what I'm saying. 

No that's not what I'm saying.    Go back and read that again, only read verses 1-6 and you'd see that Elijah was on the Mountain with them along with Moses in the transformation.  

 Side note:  Notice anything?  Both were prophets. 

So having just seen Elijah on the mountain with them a natural question arises from the disciples.  (v10)  They are referring to Malachi 4:5-6 saying that Elijah would be the forerunner of the Messiah.   Now they're thinking...if you're the Messiah why did Elijah not appear before you as you began your ministry? 

The Elijah prophesied by Malachi was not going to be a reincarnation of the prophet.  The Lord told John's father regarding his son, John the Baptist,  would come "in the spirit and power of Elijah"  Luke 1:17. 

John would not be the ancient prophet come back to earth but would minister in much the same style and power as had Elijah. 

John denied being Elijah when asked (john 1:21) because he realized the question was about a literal reincarnated Elijah which he was not. 

The priests and Levites (leaders) were not interested in learning the truth but of finding a way to discredit John (just like you are with Paul).   These leaders did not recognize John as the prophesied Elijah (in spirit) so they imprisoned and had him beheaded.  They rejected him because they hated John and their hearts were opposed to God and His truth. 

Those who reject God inevitably reject his messengers. 

Whisper2,

True, Christ was the fulfillment of a promise.....God's promise made to Adam and Eve in Gen.3:15. He would send a Redeemer for fallen mankind.

True, Christ was begotten of God as a true man, so it's more like God humbled Himself became Man, albeit a Divine Man, and stepped into time...for around 33 years to be more exact.

At the same time Jesus was true man, He was also God. He said it Himself..."I and the Father are one." His proclaiming that He was God is what got Him the death penalty by the Jewish chief priests and Sanhedrin.

And when Thomas doubted that He was indeed the Risen Christ, Christ told him to put his fingers in His wounds and then in belief, Thomas knelt before Him and proclaimed the Christ God saying "My Lord and My God". And Christ allowed Thomas to say this.

Only the word of Paul says that he had the same teacher, not so with Peter.  Who Peter's teacher was is well corroborated by others.  No you didn't say that Paul was better, you implied it in your tirade about Paul having been educated by the best men available, and Peter simply being an uneducated fishterman.  Trust me, it wasn't such a leap to figure it out. And if it wasn't your point just what was your point?  It wasn't obvious from your post.

I just wish to believe it?  I'd say that you are the one that just wishes to believe it.  You've not been able to refute the words of Jesus with any other words from Jesus that would change or modify what he said. Instead you quote gallatians, and corinthians and of course Paul.

I will concede to Moses being a prophet, but not to his being a murderer.   I will not concede to Paul, whom this conversation of "choosing" was all about to begin with.  As to David, once more I will tell you that he was chosen long before Bathsheba and Uriah entered the picture. You can't change the order of events no matter how much you might wish to.  When he was chosen he had not committed murder.  Fact, like it or not!  Paul on the other hand was a murderer before he was, according to you and him and of course Ananias, chosen.

Oh so I am now a follower of the RCC?  You are quite funny, not to mention blind to yourself as well.  It was you who brought up the argument that it's always been accepted though out hundreds of years, so it should be accepted now for that one particular reason.  So was the RCC, as I pointed out, accepted though out hundreds of years as the true and only church.  It's quite alright for you to question and fly in the face of acceptance when it suits you, but not alright for others.  How truly narrow of you. 

You act as if the RCC was the enemy, and anyone that points out the fallacy of your statement of acceptance, by pointing out to you the fact that the RCC was also accepted through out hundreds of years, becomes a supporter and a member of the RCC.  I'd say that you have a real agenda going on there.  The RCC is not the enemy, anymore than the born agains are.  Both are rife with corruption.  I said that I leaned toward the agnostic teachings I did not however say that I was an agnostic since that didn't quite describe what I was and that the best description of what I was was that I was a seeker.  You seem to have short term memory problems in more ways than one.

No one has a handle on Christ or the whole truth, not even you, or me.  The roots that you claim I do not have come not from the teachings of man nor athe following of any one religion, but from following the path that Christ showed, that and a little common sense thrown in.  Both of which I highly recommend to anyone and everyone.  It is not a path for everyone however and it is a matter of choice. You chose the bible and the written word, and I chose experience, you are entitled to your opinions and choices and I to mine.  I don't try to belittle you nor do I claim that your opinons are dangerous (strange way to deal with someone who disagrees with you about the accepted through out hundreds of years opinions, but not at all unusual tactic that many employ to win a disagreement, and discount the opinions of others), can you say the same? No you can't. I did not say that the RCC had exclusive rights to the church any more than anyone else in my post (speaking of reading comprehension), but unlike yourself, I don't consider it as having hijacked christianity either since it was the first organized church to speak of the teachings of Jesus.

Technically speaking, yes, the Muslims did own those planes, considering posession is nine tenths of the law and they were in posession of them at that particular moment in time, that and the fact that they did precisely what they wished to do with them.  However that is splitting hairs.  Legally speaking they didn't own them but took them.

Tell me do you have a problem with the Muslims as well?  It sure sounds like it, it was a strange statement to make in order to prove a point of simple posession.  Just asking, so don't think that I am saying that you do.

Who is to say that I am in error, you, or the accepted through out hundreds of years opinons?  And I should care about your opinion and theirs..................why?  Nothing that I have said by pointing out the discrepancies in Pauls story would cause others to leave God, unless you are equating Paul to God and Jesus, in that to not believe what he said is the same as not believing either or both of them.  Or is that it that I prefer the word of Jesus over Paul, or prefer to listen to his apostles over Paul, or perhaps it's the fact that I said one should walk the path of Jesus and live his life and learn for oneself, not taking the opinions of others as being truth?  Your idea of dangerous seems to be only dangerous to you, the threat of losing your own personal power of being a self proclaimed expert, and your views.  No one can lead anyone away from God, unless they choose to be led.  

I appear to be knowledgable, but I'm not, according to who............you?  The best that you can do when it comes to what Jesus said about the fruit tree is to try to bend and twist the words to support your own views of Paul.  I'd say that it is you who appears to be knowledgable and is not.  Oh you do know your bible, I'll give you that, you can cite chapter and verse, and you probably read it on a daily basis, but being able to do both is nothing, anyone with a photographic memory and the ability to read can do the same.  Nor does reading it bestow an understanding or meaning of the words behind it, anymore than taking the opinions of others as to what it means does.

Telling you to live the life, and follow in Jesus footsteps instead of telling someone else (me more specifically) to read the bible and take notes is not saying that you don't.  What an assumption you are making.  I don't know what you do, or what comforts you do or do not have, nor did I say that I did.  I make no assumptions about you, can you say the same?  No you can't. You've been making leaps of assumption about me from the get go.  Don't lecture me on something that you have been doing yourself all along, it's not impressive to cry foul when what you've been doing to another is done to you.  It's rather hypocritical to say the least.

Yes, I will read your posts more carefully in the future, and I suggest that you do the same, also work on that short term memory problem you seem to have.  You are only repeating yourself, not because I am not listening, but because you think that by doing so you force me to see it your way.  Stop repeating yourself it does no good, and start quoting Jesus if you wish to change my view of Paul.      

Why Lulapilgrim does it follow that because God sired a son, a mortal man, that that man is now God incarnate?  No child begotten by a mortal man is their father incarnate.  Please expain this reasoning if you would.

I do agree that Jesus and God were one, but not one in the same.  It's been my experience that when one gives over their free will to God, that ones will blends with Gods, and in that they can be called one since their purpose is now the same purpose.  I am of the opinion that the meaning behind what Jesus said about God and Him being one has been quite misunderstood.  As was Thomas's explanation of calling Jesus "my lord and god."  Jesus was indeed his lord, his teacher, his master, and since the will of Jesus and God had become one in the same it would naturally follow that Jesus would now be equal to God, so of course Jesus would allow him to say this.

Yes Elijah was on the mountain with Jesus, however John the Baptist had already been dispatched by Herod.  So I think that you are wrong in your explanation of Elijah and John the Baptist.  Or is this simply one of those "always accepted for hundreds of years" explanations of yours?   For it does read that ""But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they wished."  If indeed Elijah had already returned but not as John the Baptist, who was he when he returned again and they did not know him? I personally take the word of Jesus at face value, I don't try to second guess what he means by what he says.

Returning in the spirit of Elijah means that John simply ministered in his manner?  Interesting thought, but where's your proof of scripture stating specifically that it wasn't Elijah in fact but simply a ministering in his manner?  Why does not Jesus say this specific thing to his apostles, so that there would be no confustion on their part.  No where does it  say that they knew Jesus was speaking of Elijahs way of ministering, but that they knew he was speaking of John the Baptist.

Looks?  You have a picture of both Elijah and John the Bapist?  Where? 

Please KFC stop equating rejecting Paul as a messenger of Jesus's with not accepting any of God's messengers.  It is not the same.  If I am indeed simply looking for a way to discredit Paul, quote me the scripture of Jesus's that shows me why I shouldn't.  If you can't, then quit harping on it.   You're simply beating a dead horse.

*sigh* I already told you.  John 1:21 and Luke 1:17.  He was NOT Elijah.  He was John.  His name was John. 

Listen Whisper, I don't wish to argue scripture with you.  If I thought you had an interest I'd be more than willing to discuss these things but I can see that no matter where I go or what I say, you have an agenda here.   You're taking scripture and discarding other scripture to make your case.   I'm more than willing to teach and help others when I think they really want to learn but I'm not seeing that with you.  You come across as very argumentative and I don't think that brings glory to God to get caught up in that.  Sorry. 

 I'm  really am not interested in giving scripture out to an unbeliever who only wishes to trample upon the word of God.   I have nothing to prove and neither do I think this is going anywhere. 

whisper2 posts:

Christ Jesus was God Incarnate from all eternity.  The transcendent mystery of the Incarnation is the most unique and marvelous union of the Divine Nature and the Human Nature in the one Person of the Word Made Flesh, Christ Jesus. Who can really understand this? No one for it could never be discovered by the unaided reason. Reason, however can prove that Christ claimed equality with God and that He confirmed that claim by miracles St.John 10:25.

Reason can illustrate the Incarnation..and I think it may have been St.Augustine who spoke of the concept as "the Incarnation satisfies God's desire to give Himself to us, and man's insatiable longing for the Infinite."

It's true that Scripture doesn't contain this precise theological formula of God giving Himself to us in the Human Nature of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, however, it does express its meaning.

The same Jesus Christ is Son of man and Son of God, begotten of the Father from all eternity, and born of the BLessed Virgin Mary in time. St.John states this in his Gospel, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us."

then how do you explain what Our Lord Himslef saying, "I and the Father are one." Admittedly that Jesus is the Christ ie the Messias, the descendent and antitype of David, the Expectation and the Hope of Isreal is read on every page of the Gospels, however there are plenty of passages that point to His Divine Personality. 

Take the Sermon on the Mount for example where Christ identifies Himself as God. He spoke not like the prophets, but as God Himself saying, "I say to you"...As God, Christ declares Himself Lord of the Sabbath, the Judge of all men, the Pardoner of men's sins, the Eternal Being "who dwelt from everlasting with His Father" and on and on.

The Gospels stand on its own and presents a world of difficulties to the unbelievers and naysayers who attempt to rewrite Christ's life as though He was only a mere man. Again, Christ Himself claimed to be God. Christ demanded and obtained absolute obedience from the Apostles and insists upon love and service even unto persecution and death. Father, mother, children, land, monies ---all are to be set at nothing when He calls. He that loveth his father and mother more than Me, is not worthy of Me....He that findeth His life shall lose it and he that shall lose his life for Me shall find it."

Only God could make such absolute demands upon our hearts and minds.

St. Paul also teaches that Christ is God and Man at the same time. "In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally"; "Christ Jesus who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men". Rom. 1:3; 8:3; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:6-7.

If Jesus started the CC, it must have lost its way somewhere. I don't think he would want it to be rich, full of pomp and circumstance and for its leader to be so inaccessible to followers.

Whisper2 posts:

First, I'll admit I've been so busy packing for this move that I've not read every comment concerning St.Paul. However, from what I have read,  you are going way overboard and should stop discrediting him.

Here's why you shouldn't....everything that St.Paul wrote that was made part of the NT canon is God inspired and cannot be in error or a lie. So consider what St. Paul wrote to the Galations where he bears witness that he learned from Divine Revelation...Jesus Himself. "I give you to understand...that the Gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it; but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

St.Paul's testimony is remarkable in that before his conversion on the road to Damascus, he deemed it his duty to destroy the work and denounce the name of Jesus whose Divinity he would afterward boldly proclaim and eventually he would die executed by Nero in 64AD.

He began his public preaching within 10 years after the Passion and Death of Christ and wrote his first epistles 12 years later. Now this was at a time when Christians were being persecuted "for the fear of the Jews" who were not happy that Christianity was taking place in Jerusalem and Rome.

And what we find was St.Paul teaching Jewish monothesim in the light of Christian revelation. He protested against the pagan deification of kings and emperors, 1Cor. 8:4-6, saying, "There is no God, but One...One God, the Father, and ONe Lord Jesus Christ." St.Paul was giving Christ the name and attributes of God.

According to St.Paul, Christ is in Corinthians "the only Lord" identical with the God of the Jews....in Titus, "Our great God and Savior"..in Corinthians and Collosians, "the Image of the invisible Father".

St.Paul's task was to unify the early Church communities throughout Asia Minor and Greece. He did it by spreading the news of Christ, by instructing the early Christians on Christian living and by explaining points of doctrine. He made sure the communities didn't become an entity onto itself and becasue of his efforts the universality (Catholicity) of the Chruch was guaranteed. His greatest challenge was easing the tension between the Jewish and Greek Christians. For the Chruch began as a strictly Jewish but after Pentecost, this changed as pagans and Gentiles were welcomed to be baptized into Christ's Church...and they did, by the thousands.

St. Paul also played a big part in the first Council of the Church at Jerusalem in 49AD when he and the Apostles settled the matter that foreever more Gentiles need not be required to obey Jewish laws and customs in order to become Christians.

Catholics know that the Church is really the House of God where Jesus Christ is really present. If men of the world build beautiful houses for their wives and families, shouldn't the Catholic people through their donations over time build beautiful dwelling places for Christ, our Lord and King?

Have you ever read the Old Testament which tells that God told the Isrealites how to build the Temple? The Jews in the Old Law were certainly lavish with their gold and precious stones for the adorning of the Temple of Solomon which was merely a figure of the Chruch of the New Law.

And as far as the Pope and Bishops being inaccessible..you are wrong. 

No.

The pope is.

Lula posts

KFC POSTS #407

Call it what you will, but the Ten Commandments of God still stand and are meant for every Christian (at least Catholic Christians) to obey to the letter,  for not to obey them would be sinning against God. 

Is it not a sin to worship false gods..to blaspheme...to disobey one's parents...to kill, to commit adultery, etc.?

KFC posts:

Quoting St.John here doesn't make your case. Oh yes, we are under God's moral laws and we must obey them and commit grevious sin by disobeying or violating them. 

Before the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Isreaites had 3 kinds of laws...civil laws for the government of their nation..just as we have our civil laws for the people of the USA...They had ceremonial laws for their services in the Temple much like Catholics have ceremonies for the Chruch under the New and Eternal Covenant of Christ. And thirdly, they had the moral laws such as the Ten Commandments..teaching them what they must do to save their souls. 

Their civil laws were done away with when they ceased to be God's chosen nation when the Chief priests of the OLd Law told Pilate "We have no king but Ceasar."There ceremonial laws were done away with over time when our Lord came and established His Chruch...1, because their ceremonies and sacrifices in the temple were only figures of ours in the CC and 2, completely thrown out in 70AD when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus' army.

Their moral laws remained and Our Lord explained them and made them more perfect (by grace and truth). Therefore, we keep the Commandments and all the moral laws.

True, these two commandments sum up the whole law of God. Of the ten Commandments, the first 3 refer to Almighty God and the other 7 to our neighbor.

Oh, but the moral law was given to both the Jews and later to the Gentiles..Christ taught the Ten Commandments and summed them up in His law of love.

Where do you get that God's mercy trumps His judgment? It does no such thing. You only claim that becasue it's obvious from this discussion your theology doesn't give the occasion of sin much credence. And what is sin but the disobeying of God's commands...sin is also called evil works.

KFC, it's important to remember that "the wages of sin is death". If any one dies with sin upon his soul, then God's judgment will prevail against His mercy, for Scripture teaches that "nothing defiled will enter into Heaven nor anyone who practices abomination or falsehood". In the same chapter of the Book of the Apocalypse 21:8, it says, "but as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars there lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur..."

Upon reading this, we know for sure that should any so called "born again" believer die with any of these sins on his soul, then his eternal fate has been told. 

Have you ever watched the cable channel EWTN? It shows the Pope nearly everyday giving audience to tens even hundreds of thousands of people who go to the Holy See and celebrate the Holy Mass. When he travels he makes himself available as much as is humanly possible given safety considerations, etc. He's even online and has an email address. 

And besides that, his sermons, writings, etc. are all available. 

His terms, not theirs.

I know that in Timothy we learn that "the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth". That definition of Church doesn't match with yours as the Church being the followers of Christ.

Actually, the first Church was the Church of Jerusalem, where the first council was held in 49AD.

"In the same chapter of the Book of the Apocalypse 21:8, it says, "but as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars there lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur...""

This Lulapilgrim I find most interesting.

You tell me that I should stop trying to discredit Paul, I'm not trying to discredit him so much as I'm trying to get to the truth and heart of the matter.  KFC says that Paul's heart changed and that makes everything that he did in his past null and void.  Wiped the slate clean so to speak.  Yet I am of the knowledge that no sin goes unnoticed.  Jesus said that a good tree bears only good fruit, and a bad tree only bad.  That a good tree can not bear bad fruit and a bad tree can not bear good fruit.  he doesn't mention anything about any tree good or bad bearing any kind of fruit other than what fruit is after it's self, nor did he mention "changes of heart".  If it is possible to have such then why was it never mentioned by him?  Why did he not cover this stipulation that would refer to Paul specifically?  I find it hard to think that Jesus would overlook anything.  And if it's true that Jesus did indeed appear to Paul and make him a disciple why didn't he cover this in his description of false prophets?  Surely he would have known about Paul when he spoke these words, if as you say, he's God incarnate, wouldn't he?  All this he spoke of in relation to false prophets and how one could know them.

It is my understanding that a prophet is one who relates to the people the word of God that has been specifically received by them directly from God, along with warnings of bad behavior and the consequences of such.  In this Paul does fall into this category.

How do you reconcile all this with Paul? And how do you reconcile what you said above about the punishment of murderers when it comes to  Paul?  I can not.  There's something that bugs me about this.  I've heard you and KFC say quite often that something is implied.  Is it implied or are others simply thinking that it's implied?  I personally think that it's dead wrong to add or subtract anything to the word of Jesus or God.  I don't think that Jesus implied anything, I think he was most specific about what he said, and I think it's most wrong to change or modify anything he said or even to second guess what he was saying.  What he said, in my point of view, stands as it is.

As for John, Elijah he was, not in the spirit of Elijah's ministery, but Elijah himself.  Just as Jesus will return, and return he will and not just someone else in the "spirit of Jesus", so it was with Elijah.  Jesus said it, and he didn't say in the spirit of his ministry either.  With this he was most specific, as he always is.  While KFC mentions this one and that one that came before as speaking of the spirit of Elijah's ministery returning, I am reminded that Jesus knew far more about this subject than anyone who came before him.

You are not the first critic of St.Paul and won't be the last. Even the Apostles at first were so suspicious about him that St. Barnabus had to introduce him to them and assure them of the authenticity of Saul's conversion.

We certainly can all relate in wanting to get to the truth and heart of the matter most especially on this topic.

For me, it's quite simple...as long as it's on the pages of my Douay Rheims Bible, then it's absolute truth directly from God through the Holy Spirit and therefore without error. That said doesn't mean the Holy Bible is easy to understand...for it is not and that's why the Church is the official interpreter...I don't go by my own private interpretation.

I agree with KFC on this point, however, a conversion is much more than just a change of heart. After all, someone may have a change of heart about smoking. A conversion at least to me, goes to the heart, mind and soul of a person. It amounts to completely new life. Mainly the soul for that is where St.Paul's sins against God. Now through the merits of Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross, we have God's grace given in the Sacrament of Confession for the forgiveness sins with the condition of course that one wants to acknowledge his sins, repent of them and promise to do his best to sin no more.

I've packed my Bible so cannot cite the passage but there is one that teaches that once we acknowledge our sins, repent of them with the firm intention of sinning no more, then they are forgiven, and God remembers them no more. AND THAT IS ABSOLUTELY SO MERCIFUL OF ALMIGHTY GOD THAT IT IS UNFATHOMABLE TO ME. Scripture teaches are sins are no more and as far away as the east is from the west. Once sins are forgiven, our souls become white as the snow.

Absolutely agree for God is All-knowing of our heart, mind and soul..our every thought, word and action. We will ALL be judged on how we know, love and serve God and our neighbor for His sake. 

God is our Judge and we will pay for our sins down "to the last farthing".

This idea of "eternal security" i e that a "born again" believer can know for sure that he will go to heaven is sheer nonsense...false assurety and dangerous thinking.

I'm not going to be able to join in with the discussion much after this as my computer is being readied for the move.

Be assured Jesus is God-Man and didn't overlook anything. It's just that the Holy Bible is not the complete and sole source of Truth and furthermore, consider what St.John wrote in the last passage of his Gospel, 

"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself coould not contain the books that would be written." st.John 21:25.

Thanks for your quick reply to all my questions Lulapilgrim.  Good luck with your move, and I do hope that you return soon.  I have a million and one questions and am eager to hear your response to them. 

Isn't that what every individual is supposed to do? Isn't religion supposed to be personal and subjective? Aren't you supposed to keep it to yourself?

Once again, I call Priestcraft.

You keep saying this; repeating yourself but don't give any scripture showing your POV.  Show me where it says ANYWHERE in scripture that we CAN'T know.   You disagree with Peter, Jesus and Paul.  Here's just a sampling from each. 

Peter said:

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy has begotten us again  (born again) unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.  To an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fades not away, reserved in heaven for you.  Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." 

Jesus  said:

"And this is the Father's will which has sent me that of all which he has given me I should lose nothing but should raise it up again at the last day."  John 6:39

Paul said: 

"But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord because God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth."  2 Thess 2:13 

Why are we given these promises Lula if we can't claim them?  Notice Jesus said "all?"   If God has chosen us as he says here, he will make sure we will spend eternity with him.  Peter is saying that we are kept by the power of God.  If it were left to us, then I would have to agree with you, but since it falls on God and his name he will do what he says he will do.  Jesus said in John 14 he was going to prepare a place for us.  He's not going to tell us that and then yank it away because we fall down once in a while which we all do.  Like I keep saying, Noah fell down in the boat but never fell out of the boat.  He was protected by the arms of God. Even tho we are not always faithful God is faithful still.  We are humans and live in the flesh.  We will make mistakes and sin.  We sin because we were born sinners. 

one more for good measure from John:

"These things have I written to you that believe on the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life and that you may believe on the name of the Son of God."  1 John 5:13

The Greek word for "know" here is "oida" and means "totally sure; no doubt."  There's other words for know but it's interesting this word "oida" is used.  John is saying he's writing to let us know that WE CAN KNOW. 

So there you have it.  John, Jesus, Paul and Peter are contradicting you Lula. 

I agree Lula but it starts with a changed heart. 

This morning I was teaching a bible study and we are on John 4; the woman at the well.  Remeber her?  When we started with her we see that she was at the well at noontime to avoid people.  She was immoral, an outcast,  having had five husbands and living with one that wasn't her husband. 

Normally the women would go to the well together in the cool of the day but here this immoral woman showed up (alone) at high noon during the absolute heat of the day.  Here we see a woman by herself because she was most likely shunned.  After meeting Christ face to face and confronting her sin she recognized Christ as Savior and ran into town to tell the people.

The first thing she did was give her testimony and she was so believeable and bold the men came to the well to see for themselves.  What we saw with this woman was her changed heart.  She was so excited she left her waterpot behind (represents the old order) and took of the living water that Christ offered her.  This boldness and testimony about her life (she wasn't willing to confess at first she was living in sin to Jesus)   was the evidence of a changed heart that we all have when we first meet him. 

I'm not sure about religion but what Jesus told us is that while  our relationship with him  is personal it should be objective as well.   His truth is outside of ourselves.  Whether we wish to believe it or not, He is truth.  Our belief or lack therof  about Him has no bearing on the matter.

We are NOT supposed to keep it to ourself but to go out and tell others.  He wanted us to go out and spread the gospel.  It's likened to seed.  He said the harvest is plentiful but the laborors are few.  We are to be busy sowing and reaping  as we are given the opportunity to do so. 

Again, you're only taking what you want.  I gave you Luke 1:17.  All of scripture is the word of God.  All of it.  Not just the words in red.  You have to take all the scriptures, lay them out and look at them as a whole.  It's like putting a puzzle together.  So as far as Elijah vs John is concerned take all the scriptures starting with Malachi and piece it all together. 

Jesus also said that there wasn't a greater man born of woman than John.  Yet John was clear in John 1:21.  He wasn't Elijah.  Was he lying?  It's kind of odd to make such a statement about one who was totally wrong or lying.  Wouldn't John know if he were Elijah or not? 

 His name was John, not Elijah.  But he was alot like Elijah in that he came in his spirit and dressed and spoke with authority.  He was also a forerunner to Jesus, but another will come before the second coming of Christ which many believe will be the genuine Elijah.  You can see that in Revelation 11:3-7. 

Even tho Jesus came the first time for the Jews, he knew they would reject him.  So John wasn't the Elijah that will come for the second coming.  John was a type of Elijah but he wasn't Elijah.  Just like Jesus is a type of Moses, but isn't Moses. 

well you can pay for yours, but I know that Christ paid for mine...:)  I know I'm way too bankrupt to pay for my sins.  The coffers don't run that deep.  He's not talking about his own Lula. 

First off you SHOULD NEVER pack your bible.  It should be on the front seat with you on the trip..

It's Psalm 103:12 "As far as the east is from the west so far has he removed our transgressions from us." 

Also in Isaiah 43:25 he says "I, even I, am he that blots out your transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember your sins." 

Notice for whose sake?