So why did God allow Christians to be lead astray for so long?

[JayJayDee]

It's not cannibalism as Jesus is a superior being, God/man. If you ate a chicken last night, it's not cannibalism as it is an inferior being. The same goes for Jesus, a superior being. It's not cannibalism. God's law on consuming blood refers to blood used in atonement.

I did eat chicken last night as a matter of fact.....it was properly bled according to the laws of God. I have God's permission to eat the flesh of animals, but I do not have his permission to drink their blood.

Consuming the blood of 'any sort of flesh" on ANY occasion is against the law of God.
Hence the eating and drinking of the bread and wine are symbolic, not literal. Jesus would never ask his disciples to break the laws of God....EVER.

 

[Wharton]

You seem to forget about the wheat and the weeds of Jesus parable. The wheat were always there, even though the weeds sown by the devil almost choked them out of existence. The gates of hades (the common grave of mankind) did not prevail against Christ's brothers for the simple reason that Jesus returned to resurrect them, just as he had promised. Death did not eliminate his brothers from existence nor did the Catholic church....in spite of the fact that she burned at the stake anyone who disagreed with her apostate teachings.

Tell us where they, the wheat, were. You can't and never will be able to. Where were these brothers? Can you link your church to these brothers so that Jesus is not a liar? Nope. You have an 1800 year gap that you can not fill.

 

[Wharton]

I did eat chicken last night as a matter of fact.....it was properly bled according to the laws of God. I have God's permission to eat the flesh of animals, but I do not have his permission to drink their blood.

Consuming the blood of 'any sort of flesh" on ANY occasion is against the law of God.
Hence the eating and drinking of the bread and wine are symbolic, not literal. Jesus would never ask his disciples to break the laws of God....EVER.

So why did Jesus say that the wine was the chalice of his blood? Was he mocking the Law of God? Why infer that the content of the chalice was his blood and give it to his apostles to drink? Was Jesus promoting pagan theology? Or maybe just a Jewish comedian telling a joke to his friends before he died?

 

[AllanV]

I read in Isiah and Jeremiah what is to happen to established church leaders and even the congregations who are worshiping their own Gods and denying the true.
People deceive them selves with their own minds and imagination.
It is impossible to find God in own mind. There is a transformation and renewal of mind that must occur and the way into the full experience unfolds as steps are taken and the old mind is let go. It is a little frightening because it is unknown territory. The nature of Jesus is more gentle than can be understood and the Love in it is energized by God.

It is all very simple and does not need a lot of intellectualizing just enough to read the appropriate scriptures for safety. Once one arrives in the new nature the truth of it is very obvious. Even if it isn't maintained.
The doctrine of the church has deceived every one from the beginning.
I think it is done this way to train those who are able to get through and stay and everyone else who are not chosen will have an opportunity in a resurrection and be judged.
All those who have set out to deceive will be struck out.

If a person is able to believe in Jesus and in Him who sent Him he has immortality with no judgement. John5:24 It is matter of believing strongly enough to break inwardly deeply to bring a crossing over into the kingdom of God and complete escape from Satan.

These will rule with Jesus at the head.

 

[JayJayDee]

Tell us where they, the wheat, were. You can't and never will be able to.

Well, let me put it this way.....I can categorically assure you that none of them were Catholic. Not one single person who followed the Pope of Rome is part of the wheat. The wheat were the ones murdered and tortured by the Catholic church for heresy. The heresy, however was in the Church. She had the power to be as unchristian as she pleased. The power is what corrupted her even more.

Where were these brothers?

Bravely defending the truth in spite of the repercussions. These were the true martyrs. Ever Googled the torture implements of the Catholic Inquisition? Such good Christians.....

Can you link your church to these brothers so that Jesus is not a liar? Nope. You have an 1800 year gap that you can not fill.

Yes I can. Jesus said that the wheat would grow along with the weeds until the harvest, so they have always been there, but they were not in the majority and certainly not in the mother church nor in any of her equally errant daughters.

 

[JayJayDee]

So why did Jesus say that the wine was the chalice of his blood? Was he mocking the Law of God? Why infer that the content of the chalice was his blood and give it to his apostles to drink? Was Jesus promoting pagan theology? Or maybe just a Jewish comedian telling a joke to his friends before he died?

"Jesus still had his fleshly body when offering the bread. This body, whole and entire, was to be offered as a perfect, unblemished sacrifice for sins the next afternoon (of the same day of the Hebrew calendar, Nisan 14). He also retained all his blood for that perfect sacrifice. “He poured out his soul [which is in the blood] to the very death.” (Isa 53:12; Le 17:11) Consequently, during the evening meal he did not perform a miracle of transubstantiation, changing the bread into his literal flesh and the wine into his literal blood. For the same reasons, it cannot be truly said that he miraculously caused his flesh and his blood to be present or combined with the bread and wine, as is claimed by those who adhere to the doctrine of consubstantiation.
This is not contradicted by Jesus’ words at John 6:51-57. Jesus was not there discussing the Lord’s Evening Meal; such an arrangement was not instituted until a year later. The ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ mentioned in this account are done in a figurative sense by exercising faith in Jesus Christ, as is indicated by verses 35 and 40. (Insight Volumes WTBTS)

 

[Nimblewill]

So I guess if you are Catholic...this question might not apply to you. It applies more to Protestants.

Anyway though....when I read the writtings of the early Church Fathers Clement of Rome (Pope), Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna, it is clear they were not Protestant when you look at their views of Church tradition, Church hierarchy, how to worship, their belief about the Eucharist being the Body and blood of Christ, and the centrality of the Eucharist in worship services, and they were not solascriptura.

Not just that though, but, all of the influential Christian writers that were leading and sheperding the people and that Christians were relying on to preach the faith and guide them from heresy were mislead for so many centuries, if indeed you think the Catholic faith is mislead.

I am no longer Catholic and barely even Christian after about a nine month period of being agnostic. But, when I try to place my trust in God, I have to wonder how trustworthy he is and how to reconcile the fact that if Catholicism is false, God allowed those who seek him and the entire body of Christ to be mislead for more than 1500 years.

So, how am I or you so important that we think he is going to guide us and bring us to the truth but not all those countless other generations of Christians before us? Not to mention, still by far the largest body of Christians is still Catholic.

It's just hard for me to trust God when I look at the history of Christianity. Those who are often leading people astray are the very ones who have dedicated their life to seeking God and pray incessantly and place God first in their lives.

It's a bit discouraging for someone like myself who is just barely holding onto faith and for a while had no faith at all.

Thanks for any help you may be.

For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Romans 11:32

 

[allfoak]

For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Romans 11:32

For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Romans 11:32

Paul was not a fire and brimstone preacher i guess?

 

[Wharton]

Well, let me put it this way.....I can categorically assure you that none of them were Catholic. Not one single person who followed the Pope of Rome is part of the wheat. The wheat were the ones murdered and tortured by the Catholic church for heresy. The heresy, however was in the Church. She had the power to be as unchristian as she pleased. The power is what corrupted her even more.


Bravely defending the truth in spite of the repercussions. These were the true martyrs. Ever Googled the torture implements of the Catholic Inquisition? Such good Christians.....


Yes I can. Jesus said that the wheat would grow along with the weeds until the harvest, so they have always been there, but they were not in the majority and certainly not in the mother church nor in any of her equally errant daughters.

So you can't name them. They're just shadow figures and so the gates of hell prevailed against Christ's Church.

 

[Wharton]

"Jesus still had his fleshly body when offering the bread. This body, whole and entire, was to be offered as a perfect, unblemished sacrifice for sins the next afternoon (of the same day of the Hebrew calendar, Nisan 14). He also retained all his blood for that perfect sacrifice. “He poured out his soul [which is in the blood] to the very death.” (Isa 53:12; Le 17:11) Consequently, during the evening meal he did not perform a miracle of transubstantiation, changing the bread into his literal flesh and the wine into his literal blood. For the same reasons, it cannot be truly said that he miraculously caused his flesh and his blood to be present or combined with the bread and wine, as is claimed by those who adhere to the doctrine of consubstantiation.
This is not contradicted by Jesus’ words at John 6:51-57. Jesus was not there discussing the Lord’s Evening Meal; such an arrangement was not instituted until a year later. The ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ mentioned in this account are done in a figurative sense by exercising faith in Jesus Christ, as is indicated by verses 35 and 40. (Insight Volumes WTBTS)

So tell me, what exactly was Jesus doing at the Last Supper? What religious ceremony was he performing?

 

[JayJayDee]

So you can't name them. They're just shadow figures and so the gates of hell prevailed against Christ's Church.

LOL...nifty response.

What are "the gates of hell"?

 

[JayJayDee]

So tell me, what exactly was Jesus doing at the Last Supper? What religious ceremony was he performing?

He was instituting a covenant and using bread and wine (customary for the occasion) as symbols to illustrate the value of his upcoming sacrifice.

When he instituted the covenant, he was not dead so the wine and the bread were just wine and bread. They had not turned into his flesh and blood.....nor would they ever.

 

[Wharton]

LOL...nifty response.

What are "the gates of hell"?

Can't tell us who they were, huh? I thought so. So Jesus is a liar and a sinner. Sad.

 

[Wharton]

He was instituting a covenant and using bread and wine (customary for the occasion) as symbols to illustrate the value of his upcoming sacrifice.

When he instituted the covenant, he was not dead so the wine and the bread were just wine and bread. They had not turned into his flesh and blood.....nor would they ever.

What is the occasion? That's what I want to know.

 

[JayJayDee]

Can't tell us who they were, huh?

Nor can you. The weeds of counterfeit Christianity were sown before the apostles passed off the earthly scene. Once they were gone, the apostasy just took over...what emerged out of that apostasy was Roman Catholicism.....the beginning of the greatest hoax in the history of man.... claiming to be Christ's Church, but doing the devil's work.

So Jesus is a liar and a sinner.

In your church maybe, but not in the brotherhood of true Christians who aren't blood spillers with a history of currying favor with the world, torturing and murdering any who dared to question their teachings or self-imposed authority and concealing pedophilia and extreme physical abuse in corrupt institutions all over the world.

Come down to earth and deal with reality mate.....your ivory tower is a little tarnished.

 

[Wharton]

Nor can you. The weeds of counterfeit Christianity were sown before the apostles passed off the earthly scene. Once they were gone, the apostasy just took over...what emerged out of that apostasy was Roman Catholicism.....the beginning of the greatest hoax in the history of man.... claiming to be Christ's Church, but doing the devil's work.



In your church maybe, but not in the brotherhood of true Christians who aren't blood spillers with a history of currying favor with the world, torturing and murdering any who dared to question their teachings or self-imposed authority and concealing pedophilia and extreme physical abuse in corrupt institutions all over the world.

Come down to earth and deal with reality mate.....your ivory tower is a little tarnished.

Well, let me put it this way.....I can categorically assure you that none of them were Catholic. Not one single person who followed the Pope of Rome is part of the wheat. The wheat were the ones murdered and tortured by the Catholic church for heresy. The heresy, however was in the Church. She had the power to be as unchristian as she pleased. The power is what corrupted her even more.


Bravely defending the truth in spite of the repercussions. These were the true martyrs. Ever Googled the torture implements of the Catholic Inquisition? Such good Christians.....


Yes I can. Jesus said that the wheat would grow along with the weeds until the harvest, so they have always been there, but they were not in the majority and certainly not in the mother church nor in any of her equally errant daughters.

So as soon as the apostles passed from the scene, the apostacy took over? There you go. Jesus was a liar. There was no truth to be found in any church. Jesus did say church, did he not? And you still can't point me to where this supposed "wheat/church" was located that has the same beliefs as you. Smoke in the air, blowing through. Come on. Give me a location. A Church of ??? Where was it located and how does it offer continuity down to you? Face it. You can't do it.

BTW, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Need me to post some info from Silent Lambs to keep you quiet?

As far as what was done to heretics back then, well that is what they did back then. I think you could use the crucifixion of Jesus as an example of what was done in past history. So if Jesus came when your organization was started, he never would have been crucified. All nice and well since you've only been around as an organization for 150 years or so and under different cultural mores.

Now as far as who Jesus chose as Apostles, let's take a look at them. They're more Fpostles than Apostles. Peter was the worst of the bunch. And you expect their successors to be better? It's in the message preached. Not in the individual preaching the message.

And as far as the Inquisition, let's see. Spain was at war with Islam for 700 years. Yep, 700 years. Patience was running thin. And they had supposed Muslim and Jewish converts working in government positions attempting to help the Muslims conquer Spain. What would your organization have done if requested to insure that converts to the faith were really and truly converts to your faith as they had previously professed? Wouldn't your organization be more expert in determining if one was a true member rather than a government official?

 

[Nimblewill]

For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Romans 11:32

Paul was not a fire and brimstone preacher i guess?

I'd say not, since he never mentions hell, well Hades once, Gehenna, Tartarus or Sheol.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

and

55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave (HADES), where is thy victory?

 

[bretzter]

Free-will

 

[JayJayDee]

So as soon as the apostles passed from the scene, the apostacy took over? There you go. Jesus was a liar. There was no truth to be found in any church. Jesus did say church, did he not?

The fact that the weeds were sown proves that Jesus wasn't a liar. He didn't say that they would form their own church...did he?

The apostles were acting as a restraint to full blown apostasy, but once the last apostle John passed away at the end of the first century, that is when the weeds began to multiply.

The apostle Paul wrote......"that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.....Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way." (2 Thessalonians 2:2-3, 6-7 NASB)

By the fourth century apostate Christians were ripe for pickings and Constantine faced no opposition when he became the spiritual head of the Roman Catholic Church. He bore the title of "Pontifex Maximus" which was a pagan Roman title carried by the Pope to this day.
Once the restraining influence of the apostles was gone.....nothing would stop the lawlessness that followed. History testifies to the rest.

And you still can't point me to where this supposed "wheat/church" was located that has the same beliefs as you. Smoke in the air, blowing through. Come on. Give me a location. A Church of ??? Where was it located and how does it offer continuity down to you? Face it. You can't do it.

It wasn't a church. It was 'wheat among the weeds', growing together as Jesus said. It was not until the "harvest" time or "the time of the end" that a separation was going to be made. It happened, just as Jesus said it would.

The Jews put great store in their lineage and ancestry too...it counted for nothing in the end. Even having God's temple didn't mean God's blessing or protection for them.

BTW, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Need me to post some info from Silent Lambs to keep you quiet?

I doubt there is an organization on earth that is immune to pedophiles, but no one comes close to the Catholic Church on this one. Sexual and physical abuse was an institutional norm for hundreds of years in countries all over the world. The priesthood became a safe haven for homosexuals and deviates of every description. No child was safe.

As far as what was done to heretics back then, well that is what they did back then. I think you could use the crucifixion of Jesus as an example of what was done in past history. So if Jesus came when your organization was started, he never would have been crucified. All nice and well since you've only been around as an organization for 150 years or so and under different cultural mores.

"As far as what was done to heretics back then"?.....the perpetrators were supposed to be Christians, not bloodthirsty barbarians! Where did Jesus set the example that they followed by torturing confessions out of people? You have got to be joking !

Now as far as who Jesus chose as Apostles, let's take a look at them. They're more Fpostles than Apostles. Peter was the worst of the bunch. And you expect their successors to be better? It's in the message preached. Not in the individual preaching the message.

Jesus expected his disciples to follow his example. Peter was impulsive it is true. He caved in to fear of man, but that was before he received the holy spirit at Pentecost. After his resurrection, Jesus demonstrated to him that he would regain his footing and become the bold preacher he needed to be. By no means perfect, but a wonderful asset to the work assigned to him.
He was used actively to preach to both Jews and Gentiles. It was Peter who oversaw the first gentile, Cornelius' baptism and bestowed the blessing of the holy spirit.

And as far as the Inquisition, let's see. Spain was at war with Islam for 700 years. Yep, 700 years. Patience was running thin. And they had supposed Muslim and Jewish converts working in government positions attempting to help the Muslims conquer Spain. What would your organization have done if requested to insure that converts to the faith were really and truly converts to your faith as they had previously professed? Wouldn't your organization be more expert in determining if one was a true member rather than a government official?

Christians were told by Jesus to be "no part of the world" which includes its governments and its conflicts, so your point is moot.
Conversion at the point of a sword or confession under torture is hardly what Jesus taught.

It is Christ who is the judge of who is a true Christian and who is a false one. The wheat has been separated from the weeds already, so the coming day of The Lord is not far away.

Are you ready? Has your church a good record of preaching the kingdom or is its record for things not becoming to a Christian. History tells us, so you decide.

 

[Wharton]

The fact that the weeds were sown proves that Jesus wasn't a liar. He didn't say that they would form their own church...did he?

Jesus DID say he would form a church. Where was that church located until yours came into existence? It appears that no one held what you believe to be true which necessitated the formation of your organization 1800 years later. Face it. None of the wheat held what you believed until the 1800's. So there is an 1800 year gap when churches were apostate, not preaching the truth. The gates of hell prevailed for 1800 years making Jesus a liar and a sinner.