Why does a good God allow pain and suffering to exist in this world?

Neogaia777 · Jul 29, 2024

I really like that they use to just simply call it "The Way", etc.

Because it means so very much more than just a "religion", but specifies "a way", a "way" that we are supposed to be, or be like, etc. So I really like that they used to just simply call themselves followers of "The Way", etc.

Valletta · Jul 29, 2024

Neogaia777 said:
@Valletta

First use of the word of term Catholic

The term "Catholic Church" was first used in writing by Saint Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans around 110 AD. The letter was written in about 107 AD while Ignatius was being escorted to Rome for execution for his Christian faith.

That's the first surviving recorded usage. Saint Ignatius was confident enough at that time to use the word knowing that the Smyrnaeans would understand the meaning. We DON'T know how many years since the actual first usage.

Joseph101 · Jul 29, 2024

Hello. In the Bible we see a preeminence of Peter. Christ distinguished the apostle Saint Peter from the beginning, changing his name from Simon to Cephas, meaning "rock", indicating his fundamental role in the Church. Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and is recognized as "the first." Along with James and John, he witnessed key events in the life of Christ. After confessing the messiahship of Jesus, he was promised the primacy, with the responsibility of building the Church and administering the kingdom of God, symbolized by the "keys" and the power to "bind and loose." This power is not limited to teaching, but encompasses jurisdiction. After the resurrection, Jesus reaffirmed his primacy by commissioning him to shepherd his followers. Peter exercised his leadership in the early community, being the first to announce the message of Christ and to welcome the Gentiles into the Church.

Yes, there was authority and it was transmitted through the laying on of hands.

How could the Church have been corrupted if Christ said he would be with her until the end of the world?

God Bless.

Neogaia777 · Jul 29, 2024

Valletta said:
The Church had bishops from the very beginning, and roles have various degrees of authority.

Responsibility maybe, but not any kind of different rank, or authority.

No one was the boss of anyone else, or was superior to anybody.

If authority did need to be exercised, then they would meet, and exercise it as a unified group collectively, etc.

Valletta said:
Your theory that the Way people were not corrupt and then "since that time, they have all been corrupt" is not supported by the Bible.

It's easily supported by the Bible when you look at how the churches were during the time of the Apostles, and compare it to what they became sometime later on, or after that, or what they eventually became, and most especially what they are today, etc. That began at "sometime somehow somewhere", etc. Though I probably can't tell you exactly how or when or where exactly, etc. But there is a very clear contrast, etc.

Valletta said:
To the contrary, we know there were some incredibly holy saints since that time.

There are always individuals that regardless of whatever kind of belief system they are in, greatly, greatly excell at truly following Jesus Christ in true Spirit, and in true Truth, very much greatly. Far, far above and beyond any of their constituents, etc. And I am very grateful for these, etc.

Valletta said:
Also, don't confuse the position or role someone is given with their holiness.

Oh, I don't. Because most of the time they are a lot less holy the higher position they have, or are in, or see themselves as being in, etc. And that's part of the problem really, etc. The position they are seeing themselves in is, etc. They'd have a lot less of a problem and/or problems, if they would stop doing that, etc.

Valletta said:
A person may do a good job or a bad job in their position in life, and Jesus is our judge.

I hope they all do a very, very good job, and I am not out to judge anyone individually, etc.

God Bless.

Neogaia777 · Jul 29, 2024

Valletta said:
That's the first surviving recorded usage. Saint Ignatius was confident enough at that time to use the word knowing that the Smyrnaeans would understand the meaning. We know how many years since the actual first usage.

He used it to mean "universal", but by the time others adopted it, it no longer meant that anymore soon, but the word got changed/corrupted from it's original meaning, etc.

Neogaia777 · Jul 29, 2024

Joseph101 said:
How could the Church have been corrupted if Christ said he would be with her until the end of the world?

I never said He still wouldn't use it/her, etc.

He knew it would happen, the church is not immune from the condition that still exists in all sinful fallen humanity, so He still used it/her, and still has a plan for her anyway, etc.

And in that way, He never ever truly ever left her really, etc.

God Bless.

Joseph101 · Jul 29, 2024

Neogaia777 said:
@Valletta

Does the Bible say that Peter was the first Pope?

Chat GPT

No, the Bible does not say that Peter was the first pope. In fact, scripture does not indicate that Peter was in authority over the other apostles or the church, and it doesn't explicitly mention Peter ever being in Rome.

Wikipedia

Primacy of Peter - Wikipedia

There is no biblical or historical evidence for the claims of the Roman Catholic church that Peter was the first Pope.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Peter was the first pope because they believe Jesus chose him to build his church on. However, some say that Peter was not the first pope for a number of reasons, including:
Peter was not the head of the church: The Bible only refers to Christ as the head of the church.
Peter is not the foundation of the church: In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Paul says that Christ is the foundation of the church, not Peter.
Peter was not the head apostle: All the apostles were equal in authority.
Other reasons that some say Peter was not the first pope include:
Scripture doesn't state that the apostles' authority was passed on to those they ordained to keep the church from error.
The word "rock" (petra) in the Bible grammatically refers to a small part of a ledge, not a boulder.

There is no biblical or historical evidence for the claims of the Roman Catholic church that Peter was the first pope.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia › wiki › P...
Primacy of Peter -

In Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus speaks to Peter calling him a "stone" (Petros) and says that on this rock he would build his Church. The use of the term "epi tautee tee petra" (on this rock) indicates that Jesus is referring specifically to Peter and not to a different rock. In Greek, "Petros" and "Petra" are used to designate a rock or stone, but "Petros" is used exclusively as the name of Peter. The distinction between "Petros" (stone) and "lithos" (small stone) reinforces that Jesus refers to Peter as the rock on which the Church will be built.

The Catholic Church recognizes Peter as a fundamental stone in the Church, but does not replace the authority of Christ, who remains the main stone.

Neogaia777 · Jul 29, 2024

Joseph101 said:
In Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus speaks to Peter calling him a "stone" (Petros) and says that on this rock he would build his Church. The use of the term "epi tautee tee petra" (on this rock) indicates that Jesus is referring specifically to Peter and not to a different rock. In Greek, "Petros" and "Petra" are used to designate a rock or stone, but "Petros" is used exclusively as the name of Peter. The distinction between "Petros" (stone) and "lithos" (small stone) reinforces that Jesus refers to Peter as the rock on which the Church will be built.

The Catholic Church recognizes Peter as a fundamental stone in the Church, but does not replace the authority of Christ, who remains the main stone.

See my post #257 about that. It's on the last page back.

And even regardless if there was ever a such thing as apostolic succession, or somehow directly inheriting Peter's direct power and authority and what not, or whatever, which I still don't fully believe in fully, etc, but even if it were true, etc, many didn't wield that power and authority the way Peter did, which to me, makes me think they wouldn't be "entrusted" with the exact same level of power and/or authority that Peter had, etc.

If God can't trust you, then He's more than likely going to put limits on you, until He knows He can with more, etc.

And seeing yourself higher than and/or greater than/above others/not equal to others, is not a good place to start with that, etc.

God is against the proud, but gives greater grace to the humble, etc.

God Bless.

Valletta · Jul 29, 2024

Joseph101 said:
In Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus speaks to Peter calling him a "stone" (Petros) and says that on this rock he would build his Church. The use of the term "epi tautee tee petra" (on this rock) indicates that Jesus is referring specifically to Peter and not to a different rock. In Greek, "Petros" and "Petra" are used to designate a rock or stone, but "Petros" is used exclusively as the name of Peter. The distinction between "Petros" (stone) and "lithos" (small stone) reinforces that Jesus refers to Peter as the rock on which the Church will be built.

The Catholic Church recognizes Peter as a fundamental stone in the Church, but does not replace the authority of Christ, who remains the main stone.

Actually the Aramaic name that Jesus gave to Simon, "Kepha," is preserved within the mostly Koine Greek text of the NT. "Kepha" means ROCK in Aramaic.

Valletta · Jul 29, 2024

Neogaia777 said:
So the RCC succeeded in removing the scriptures from the common folk eventually, which is when they started to become very, very corrupt after that.

Remember the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible in a process that spanned centuries, preached the Gospel to the world, and so many times over the centuries tirelessly translated Biblical text into the common language of the people. The Catholic Church did not "remove" the scriptures from people, the vast majority of the population was illiterate! It would be extremely rare for a private individual to possess Holy Scripture. Catholics memorized large portions of Biblical text and then went out to preach the Gospel to the people. After Latin surpassed Greek as the common language of the people in Europe, the Latin Vulgate, translated under the direction of Saint Jerome, became by far the standard Bible. "Vulgate" comes from "vulgar" or "common," meaning the common language of the people. At that time in Europe, essentially if you were in the tiny percentage that could read and write--you spoke Latin. Eventually Latin morphed into various languages such as Italian, Spanish, and French, and then came more translations by Catholics. There were Catholic translations of Biblical text in French, Bohemian, Danish, Polish, Hungarian, and Norwegian as well. There were numerous English translations of Biblical text long before Tyndale. To mention some, Venerable Bede, a Catholic monk, is perhaps the best known for his translation in the 700s. King Alfred the Great had not finished his translation of Psalms before he died, that would have been in the 800s. Now a lot of Biblical texts by Catholics have been destroyed, remember Protestants in England seized Catholic monasteries and gave the land to wealthy Protestants and much that was Catholic was sold off or destroyed. But some do exist, you can find some of Alfred’s translations in a manuscript dated as around 1050. These are in the English of the Saxons: The Illustrated Psalms of Alfred the Great: The Old English Paris Psalter When the Normans took over the English changed, the paraphrase of Orm is dated around 1150 and is an example of a Catholic translation into Middle English. Eventually a Catholic named Gutenberg introduced the printing press, and, of course, the first book he printed was the Bible in 1455. By the way, much of the NT of the King James Bible came from a hurried Greek translation by a Catholic priest, Desiderius Erasmus in 1516. Catholics had to flee England at one time in order to publish an English version (the Douay Rheims) of the Bible (the New Testament was first published in 1582, reprinted in 1600, 1621, and 1633, and a number of times in later centuries), they did so in France and suffered severe consequences for trying to smuggle English Bibles to the people of England.

Neogaia777 · Jul 29, 2024

Valletta said:
Remember the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible in a process that spanned centuries, preached the Gospel to the world, and so many times over the centuries tirelessly translated Biblical text into the common language of the people. The Catholic Church did not "remove" the scriptures from people, the vast majority of the population was illiterate! It would be extremely rare for a private individual to possess Holy Scripture. Catholics memorized large portions of Biblical text and then went out to preach the Gospel to the people. After Latin surpassed Greek as the common language of the people in Europe, the Latin Vulgate, translated under the direction of Saint Jerome, became by far the standard Bible. "Vulgate" comes from "vulgar" or "common," meaning the common language of the people. At that time in Europe, essentially if you were in the tiny percentage that could read and write--you spoke Latin. Eventually Latin morphed into various languages such as Italian, Spanish, and French, and then came more translations by Catholics. There were Catholic translations of Biblical text in French, Bohemian, Danish, Polish, Hungarian, and Norwegian as well. There were numerous English translations of Biblical text long before Tyndale. To mention some, Venerable Bede, a Catholic monk, is perhaps the best known for his translation in the 700s. King Alfred the Great had not finished his translation of Psalms before he died, that would have been in the 800s. Now a lot of Biblical texts by Catholics have been destroyed, remember Protestants in England seized Catholic monasteries and gave the land to wealthy Protestants and much that was Catholic was sold off or destroyed. But some do exist, you can find some of Alfred’s translations in a manuscript dated as around 1050. These are in the English of the Saxons: The Illustrated Psalms of Alfred the Great: The Old English Paris Psalter When the Normans took over the English changed, the paraphrase of Orm is dated around 1150 and is an example of a Catholic translation into Middle English. Eventually a Catholic named Gutenberg introduced the printing press, and, of course, the first book he printed was the Bible in 1455. By the way, much of the NT of the King James Bible came from a hurried Greek translation by a Catholic priest, Desiderius Erasmus in 1516. Catholics had to flee England at one time in order to publish an English version (the Douay Rheims) of the Bible (the New Testament was first published in 1582, reprinted in 1600, 1621, and 1633, and a number of times in later centuries), they did so in France and suffered severe consequences for trying to smuggle English Bibles to the people of England.

Ok, so can we agree that there is good and bad in every group then maybe?

Thank you for the rest of the information, I will look into it further and check it out.

But probably later though. It's getting late for me.

God Bless.

Valletta · Jul 30, 2024

Neogaia777 said:
Ok, so can we agree that there is good and bad in every group then maybe?

Thank you for the rest of the information, I will look into it further and check it out.

But probably later though. It's getting late for me.

God Bless.

Matthew 13:24-30 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

The Parable of Weeds among the Wheat

24 Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants[a] of the householder came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants[b] said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29 But he said, ‘No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”

Neogaia777 · Jul 30, 2024

Valletta said:
Matthew 13:24-30 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
The Parable of Weeds among the Wheat
24 Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants[a] of the householder came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants[b] said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29 But he said, ‘No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”

Revelation 5:9 NIV

And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.

God Bless.

Neogaia777 · Jul 30, 2024

Neogaia777 said:
Revelation 5:9 NIV

And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.

God Bless.

How Jesus will separate those individually of each and every single kind of group or kind, having both good and bad in each one, when he returns or comes back.

Matthew 25:31-46

Matthew 25:31–46 (NKJV): 31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.

33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’

46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Notice the good ones were not even consciously aware that they had even did any of these things.

God Bless.

Valletta · Aug 1, 2024

Neogaia777 said:
Before the Roman Catholic Church, the word Catholic was never used to apply to any of followers of Jesus Christ, or Christians. But they were simply known as Christians, or followers of Jesus Christ, or followers of "The Way".

"Christian" was not initially used to apply to any followers of Jesus Christ. That first usage of the pagan word is documented in the Bible and that pagan-originated word is used to this day. We are not sure of the exact time when the word "Catholic" was first used (we know the oldest document that uses that word) to describe the followers of Christ, it is well accepted that the usage was to distinguish the Catholic Church from various heretical groups.

Neogaia777 · Aug 1, 2024

Valletta said:
"Christian" was not initially used to apply to any followers of Jesus Christ. That first usage of the pagan word is documented in the Bible and that pagan-originated word is used to this day. We are not sure of the exact time when the word "Catholic" was first used (we know the oldest document that uses that word) to describe the followers of Christ, it is well accepted that the usage was to distinguish the Catholic Church from various heretical groups.

I don't know if Christian is pagan? I know it was initially ascribed to all followers of Jesus Christ as a derogatory term by all of those who were trying to stamp all of them out before the Roman Catholic Church came about, and I guess it just stuck, etc.

And we know the word Catholic used to mean universal before other Catholics started using it later on and changed it's original meaning by becoming later on "divided", etc.

But there was not a pagan Church and a non-pagan or quote/unquote "Catholic Church" before the RCC, etc, but there were just maybe some small groups that were maybe just a little bit "off", or were getting a few things wrong, etc. Or were at least getting some things wrong according to the RCC later on, etc. Gnostics, and a few others, etc.

But before the RCC, they were all called Christians by all of those who were trying to stamp them all out before that, and they were all being persecuted the same, etc.

Most of this persecution was by/coming from Rome before that ironically, etc.

None of them were "rich" churches full of what all they are all full of now, back at that time, etc.

But were just commoners mostly, etc.

And people from all groups sometimes all each equally gave their lives for the cause of Christ, etc.

God Bless.

Neogaia777 · Aug 1, 2024

Valletta said:
"Christian" was not initially used to apply to any followers of Jesus Christ. That first usage of the pagan word is documented in the Bible and that pagan-originated word is used to this day. We are not sure of the exact time when the word "Catholic" was first used (we know the oldest document that uses that word) to describe the followers of Christ, it is well accepted that the usage was to distinguish the Catholic Church from various heretical groups.

Most Catholicism in the west derives from Roman Catholicism in the west, and all Catholics everywhere are very far removed now from what any kind of theoretical Catholicism used to be from before that.

God Bless.

Valletta · Aug 2, 2024

Neogaia777 said:
Most Catholicism in the west derives from Roman Catholicism in the west, and all Catholics everywhere are very far removed now from what any kind of theoretical Catholicism used to be from before that.

God Bless.

I suggest you first check out the information I provided you about the history of the Catholic Church and the Bible, the facts so contradict the story you relayed. It would not surprise me if your comments about how far removed Catholics supposedly are from "theoretical Catholicism" are from the same flawed source.

Neogaia777 · Aug 2, 2024

Valletta said:
I suggest you first check out the information I provided you about the history of the Catholic Church and the Bible, the facts so contradict the story you relayed. It would not surprise me if your comments about how far removed Catholics supposedly are from "theoretical Catholicism" are from the same flawed source.

I don't think I've said anything recently that has been in error?

Valletta · Aug 2, 2024

Neogaia777 said:
The problem during the first, second, and third centuries, is that this new religion of the common folk was spreading like a wildfire, etc, and Rome tried very, very hard to eliminate it during the first, second, and third centuries, but eventually saw that they couldn't do it eventually, etc.

So the Roman emperor Constantine eventually decided to incorporate it into Rome as the religion of Rome eventually during the fourth century, and so the RCC was born or was created/made during that time eventually, etc.

If you want to give a flawed story of your own religion then fine, but please quit putting out false information about Catholicism. I corrected you on the Bible, explaining about how Catholics made translations into various common languages such as with the Vulgate, and you just launch into more attacks. A common tactic of staunch anti-Catholics is to launch into more false accusations each time they are corrected. Constantine did not make Catholicism the religion of Rome--Constantine was not even a Catholic. Let's get back to the subject of the thread please.

Why does a good God allow pain and suffering to exist in this world?

Old Soul

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Old Soul

Old Soul

Old Soul

Active Member

Old Soul

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Old Soul

Well-Known Member

Matthew 13:24-30 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition​

The Parable of Weeds among the Wheat​

Old Soul

Matthew 13:24-30 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition​

The Parable of Weeds among the Wheat​

Old Soul

Well-Known Member

Old Soul

Old Soul

Well-Known Member

Old Soul

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Matthew 13:24-30 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

The Parable of Weeds among the Wheat

Matthew 13:24-30 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

The Parable of Weeds among the Wheat