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

[Faybull]

O Asherah!

 

[ebgebg]

So, by cross referencing Titus 1:4: ....Christ Jesus our savior, and 1Tim 1:1 ....God our Savior, the indirect evidence is that God the father and God the Son are the same, if given Isaiah 45:11: I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no savior, correct? Or is Titus 1:4 wrong in stating Christ Jesus our Saviour if Isaiah 45:11:1 states...I am the Lord, besides me there is no savior?

Are you saying also the Roman catholic Church is a Pagan religion because they have the title of Pope? And that there is no evidence in Roman Catholic doctrine for the existance of Peter being in Rome? Why then the Vatican?

Your point about the cross is well taken, crucifiction was also around well before Jesus came to earth. But, what do crosses and crucifiction mean now after the death of Jesus?

 

[Pegg]

OH...of course I see Catholics being lead astray. But for a Catholic, they can look back at the teachings and practices of Christianity and the traditions and say...yep...those are correct.

What is correct about them? They teach many things which are not even in the bible...so im not sure what teachings you are refering to.

For example, praying to idols and even having idols is 100% against Gods law to Isreal, yet the catholic church is full of idols. They teach that Mary is Gods mother and pray to her. They teach that Jesus is God. They teach that people go down to hell to be tormented forever if they sin. They teach that priests are to be called 'holy father' in direct opposition to Jesus instructions "you must call no one on earth your father for One is your Father, the heavenly one" . They believe the bread and wine turn into Jesus blood and flesh when they eat it (ewww) They say the Pope is Gods representative on earth and is infallible....they wear flamboyant clothing and build elaborate temples in opposition to what Christ told them to do. They forbid their priests from marrying which the bible says the antichrist would do - Wow....so much is against Christs teaching its not even funny.

Where a protestant believes in doing away with so much of what Christians believed and how Christians worshipped and what christian leaders taught for more than 1500 years. THat was my point.

The people that dedicated their life to prayer and the service of God were lead astray preaching what is false while the whole time believing sincerely that they were serving God by doing so and that it was God's will.

Every Christian that had a strong influential voice for so many centuries was Catholic or after the schisms Orthodox which is almost identical save for the lack of the papacy and rejection of the later Church councils.

Christian leaders 1500 years ago were as corrupt as they are today. They are just as reprehensible for the wrongs committed as any other religion. The protestant and catholics are as bad as each other, they both have false teachings and unchristian practices and they have all supported the wars of the nations and perpetuated the conflicts in the world. They are all bloodguilty.

 

[Kolibri]

What im saying is....he should guide us to the truth. Not let those who diligently seek him fall into errors (of the devil) and propogate falsehood while believing whole heartedly that God is inspiring them to do it.

If God is trustworthy, id say the least a person should expect from him, is to lead them to the truth and to do his will. Especially if they have dedicated their life to him. If we can't count on him to give a genuine seeker the truth.....I can see why so few people have the trust and faith of a child these days.

While Jesus and much of the Christian Greek Scriptures foretell and document an apostization trying to grow within the first 70 years after Jesus died, the situation was not to remain hopeless. Mt 28:19,20 indicated that there would always be a representative of those looked upon with favor throughout the wait for the 'conclusion of the system of things.'

Dan 12:4 even goes as far to say that in "the time of the end,""Many will rove about, (or "examine it [that is, the book] thoroughly.") and the true knowledge will become abundant."

Truth may have been obscured for a time, but this passage will become a personal reality to those that find that knowledge:
"But the path of the righteous is like the bright morning light That grows brighter and brighter until full daylight." - Pr 4:18

I haven't read the whole thing yet but so far this is the best answer. I got to the part where you said that he lead the entire nation of Israel into a REligious system that in the end lead to them rejecting their messiah while believing whole heartedly that it was God's will that they do so.

THis is a good point. But extremely depressing as well. It means that Satan has great success at leading astray the most sincere seekers of God and truth.

Jesus stated why they were led astray. It had nothing to do with sincerity not being enough. Simply put these ones were concerned about getting honor/respect from other men more so than in finding the truth and living by it.

"How can you believe, when you are accepting glory from one another and you are not seeking the glory that is from the only God?" - Joh 5:44

Nowadays, if you do not have some sort of document approved by men anything scriptural is suspect

 

[ebgebg]

They believe the bread and wine turn into Jesus blood and flesh when they eat it (ewww)

Well, not really..reference the Lord's prayer..."Give us this day our daily bread...then reference what Jesus said to the devil when he was tempted "...man does not live by bread alone, but by the every word of God." reference that jesus is also called the "word"...so if bread is subtance, then the bread in communion represents our commintment to the word of God as given through the Bible.

same with the wine...it represents the spirit of Life....reference Jesus at the well telling the Samerian woman that no one will "thirst" if they followed him. Wine in communion represents our faith in Jesus as the resureection of eternal life.

 

[JayJayDee]

Well, not really..reference the Lord's prayer..."Give us this day our daily bread...then reference what Jesus said to the devil when he was tempted "...man does not live by bread alone, but by the every word of God." reference that jesus is also called the "word"...so if bread is subtance, then the bread in communion represents our commintment to the word of God as given through the Bible.

same with the wine...it represents the spirit of Life....reference Jesus at the well telling the Samerian woman that no one will "thirst" if they followed him. Wine in communion represents our faith in Jesus as the resureection of eternal life.

Are you a s a Catholic now trying to wriggle out of belief in transubstantiation? The bread and wine becomes the flesh and blood of Jesus in Catholic teaching. Have they altered this or are you just trying to cover up?

I have noticed that many Catholics do not always take wine at Communion.....with the celebration of the Mass, the priest certainly does.

 

[ebgebg]

Are you a s a Catholic now trying to wriggle out of belief in transubstantiation? The bread and wine becomes the flesh and blood of Jesus in Catholic teaching. Have they altered this or are you just trying to cover up?

I have noticed that many Catholics do not always take wine at Communion.....with the celebration of the Mass, the priest certainly does.

I'm a Methodist, but I guess you got me...boy, did I try to fool a fast one on you...but of course your knowledge of Biblical scripture is too well known. Talk about close minds

 

[melk]

I'm a Methodist, but I guess you got me...boy, did I try to fool a fast one on you...but of course your knowledge of Biblical scripture is too well known. Talk about close minds

Maybe JW are not opened for different beliefs. As for this forum, however, they do a lot, in terms of contribution, to enlarge our views.

 

[Desert Snake]

I have noticed that many Catholics do not always take wine at Communion.....with the celebration of the Mass, the priest certainly does.

Afaik if you don't 'take wine' at the communion, it isn't communion.

 

[Desert Snake]

Or to put it another way, the catholic church has changed over time. Not the same 'issues' from say Luthers time, or place.

 

[Pegg]

Well, not really..reference the Lord's prayer..."Give us this day our daily bread...then reference what Jesus said to the devil when he was tempted "...man does not live by bread alone, but by the every word of God." reference that jesus is also called the "word"...so if bread is subtance, then the bread in communion represents our commintment to the word of God as given through the Bible.

same with the wine...it represents the spirit of Life....reference Jesus at the well telling the Samerian woman that no one will "thirst" if they followed him. Wine in communion represents our faith in Jesus as the resureection of eternal life.

the doctrine called transubstantiation says that the wine and brad miraculously transform into the real flesh and blood of Christ.

The bread and wine should certainly be partaken of, but it should be done according to how the scriptures direct... especially if we are committed to the word of God as given through the bible.

Edgebg, if you take the communion, why do you take it?

 

[Spiderman]

Belief that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ is the most Biblical belief about Holy Communion that exists. Now...far fetched...and difficult to believe...I admit...but extremely Biblical.

In John 4:31-34 and Mt 16:5-12 which describe Jesus speaking about food in a symbolic or figurative way. The disciples interpret him to mean real food. Note how Jesus shows them in plain , unmistakable language that He is only speaking figuratively.
Compare this with Jn 6:51 Jesus says we must eat his flesh in order to have life. In Jn 6:52, the Jews interpret him literally. Jesus then repeats again in the clearest possible language that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have eternal life. "My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink", is not the language of symbolism. Jesus tells us precisely what he meant by bread, he tells us he means by telling us clearly that the bread is his own flesh (verse 52), which we must eat in order to have eternal life. Jesus says, "my flesh" when discussing the Eucharist, he says "the flesh" when referring to the carnal man. This is the only time recorded in the New Testament that any of Jesus' disciples left him because they found a doctrine of his too hard to accept.

The First time Christ loses followers it is because they question him about what he means about people eating his flesh and drinking his blood. He says to them exactly what he means. It is a despicable teaching to them so they abandon him. He never once calls them back to explain to them that he meant something different. He let them go!
St. Paul in 1 Cor 11:27 "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord". In all four Last Supper accounts, Jesus tells us plainly that "this is my body" and "this is my blood". Never is there a hint that he is speaking symbolically. Until the Protestant reformation, Christians accepted the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The famous Fathers and writers of the early Church such as St. Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD), St. Justin Martyr(150AD), St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons and pupil of St. Polycarp (195AD), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (350 AD), and many others have spoken about the Doctrine of the real prescence of Christ in the Eucharist. Christians have believed in the Eucharist for 2,000 years.

Diary -

 

[JayJayDee]

Belief that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ is the most Biblical belief about Holy Communion that exists. Now...far fetched...and difficult to believe...I admit...but extremely Biblical.

I guess it depends on what we have been taught to believe.
Bread and wine "representing" the flesh and blood of Jesus is a little different to these emblems "becoming" literal flesh and blood.

In John 4:31-34 and Mt 16:5-12 which describe Jesus speaking about food in a symbolic or figurative way. The disciples interpret him to mean real food. Note how Jesus shows them in plain , unmistakable language that He is only speaking figuratively.

Exactly. There is no reason to believe that Jesus' brothers need to become cannibals or to break God's law on consuming blood.

This is the only time recorded in the New Testament that any of Jesus' disciples left him because they found a doctrine of his too hard to accept.

The First time Christ loses followers it is because they question him about what he means about people eating his flesh and drinking his blood. He says to them exactly what he means. It is a despicable teaching to them so they abandon him. He never once calls them back to explain to them that he meant something different. He let them go!

Yes, but the apostles stayed even though they too were stumbled. When Jesus asked if they were going to go too, Peter responded.....

"Because of this, many of his disciples went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with him. So Jesus said to the Twelve: “You do not want to go also, do you?” Simon Peter answered him: “Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life. We have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

There is a lesson in this for us......do not ever take things at a surface value. Look deeper and don't be quick to be offended. The apostles often waited for an explanation....they never assumed that Jesus was trying to lead them astray.

 

[Spiderman]

Yes...precisely....he gave them an explanation. He explained what he meant. In every last supper account he confirmed what he meant. The early Christians held this belief as well as you can see it clearly in the epistles of Paul and later in the writtings of every influential Father of the early Christian Church.

 

[ebgebg]

Belief that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ is the most Biblical belief about Holy Communion that exists. Now...far fetched...and difficult to believe...I admit...but extremely Biblical.

In John 4:31-34 and Mt 16:5-12 which describe Jesus speaking about food in a symbolic or figurative way. The disciples interpret him to mean real food. Note how Jesus shows them in plain , unmistakable language that He is only speaking figuratively.
Compare this with Jn 6:51 Jesus says we must eat his flesh in order to have life. In Jn 6:52, the Jews interpret him literally. Jesus then repeats again in the clearest possible language that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have eternal life. "My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink", is not the language of symbolism. Jesus tells us precisely what he meant by bread, he tells us he means by telling us clearly that the bread is his own flesh (verse 52), which we must eat in order to have eternal life. Jesus says, "my flesh" when discussing the Eucharist, he says "the flesh" when referring to the carnal man. This is the only time recorded in the New Testament that any of Jesus' disciples left him because they found a doctrine of his too hard to accept.

The First time Christ loses followers it is because they question him about what he means about people eating his flesh and drinking his blood. He says to them exactly what he means. It is a despicable teaching to them so they abandon him. He never once calls them back to explain to them that he meant something different. He let them go!
St. Paul in 1 Cor 11:27 "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord". In all four Last Supper accounts, Jesus tells us plainly that "this is my body" and "this is my blood". Never is there a hint that he is speaking symbolically. Until the Protestant reformation, Christians accepted the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The famous Fathers and writers of the early Church such as St. Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD), St. Justin Martyr(150AD), St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons and pupil of St. Polycarp (195AD), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (350 AD), and many others have spoken about the Doctrine of the real prescence of Christ in the Eucharist. Christians have believed in the Eucharist for 2,000 years.

Diary -

Then what would be the point of "scripture defining scripture". Or, paraboles? When Jesus says " I am the light"...are we only to interprete it "like a flashlight"? Or I am the Word..Or We to Think of him as a Big letter "J" walking around?

 

[Johnlove]

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.

It is not for us to question why God does what he does.

But as to you wondering why the Christian Church does not teach what the Early Christian Church taught, read my understanding.

The Christian Church stopped teaching and living God’s Word, and no longer allowed the Holy Spirit to direct it.

Jerusalem Bible

(Galatians 1:7-8) “Not that there can be more than one Good News; it is merely that some troublemakers among you want to change the Good News of Christ; and let me warn you that if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one you have already heard, he is to be condemned.”

(Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.”

 

[Wharton]

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.

Your thought is correct. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against his church. According to Protestants, JW's, etc., Satan prevailed against the Church of Christ for 1500 to 1800 years, thus making Jesus a liar and a sinner.

 

[Wharton]

For example, praying to idols and even having idols is 100% against Gods law to Isreal, yet the catholic church is full of idols. They teach that Mary is Gods mother and pray to her. They teach that Jesus is God. They teach that people go down to hell to be tormented forever if they sin. They teach that priests are to be called 'holy father' in direct opposition to Jesus instructions "you must call no one on earth your father for One is your Father, the heavenly one" . They believe the bread and wine turn into Jesus blood and flesh when they eat it (ewww) They say the Pope is Gods representative on earth and is infallible....they wear flamboyant clothing and build elaborate temples in opposition to what Christ told them to do. They forbid their priests from marrying which the bible says the antichrist would do - Wow....so much is against Christs teaching its not even funny.

I see you need some help with Church history. No one prays to idols in the church. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Jesus gets his entire human nature from her. If a person believes Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. People send themselves to hell or whatever you want to call it, as they choose not to be with God. When Jesus spoke of 'fathers' there were no Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic priests in the audience so Jesus was speaking about some one else, not them. I'll let you figure that one out on your own. BTW, Jesus is called the eternal father in scripture so is he fibbing when he makes that statement. As far as the bread and wine issue turning into his body and blood, Jesus said it, and Jews don't eat symbols, they eat the actual sacrifice not a symbol or an emblem. The clothing (vestments) is not flamboyant. It's purpose is to prevent eye candy. Only the face and hands are visible of Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, etc priests. There is no dogma that states that priests can't marry in the Catholic Church. Eastern rite Catholic priests can be married. That is their discipline. Western/Latin/Roman rite discipline is that priests do not marry. If you want to be a married priest then you go Eastern rite and still are in communion with Rome. If you don't want to be married, then you go Western/Latin/Roman rite. To each his own.

BTW, don't you have a memorial service every year at Passover in honor of a mere man where the emblems are passed around? Holding a memorial worship service to a mere man (Jesus) would be idolatry and blasphemy.

 

[Wharton]

Exactly. There is no reason to believe that Jesus' brothers need to become cannibals or to break God's law on consuming blood.

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.

 

[JayJayDee]

Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against his church. According to Protestants, JW's, etc., Satan prevailed against the Church of Christ for 1500 to 1800 years, thus making Jesus a liar and a sinner.

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.