Featured I just want to get this off my chest, concerning hypocrisy in the church

Jesus said "A house divided against itself will fall", and that's exactly what's going on in the RCC. So why should anyone stick around? If they are saved and are not getting fed then they should find a place to be fed. Obviously when they do it's not in the Catholic Church. Remember, it's not the people it's the organization called the RCC.

 

Jesus said we can only serve one master, we either love one or hate the other, and I just cat be a part of this Hypocrisy called religion. JEsus is worth more than mens religions/

 

He didn't say the house he said a house and you obviously didn't get his point. The Catholic church is divided and fragmented and has been for quite some time. It was 45 years ago when I left it and I'm sure it's getting worse day by day. You obviously don't understand Matthew 16:18 either otherwise you would believe that there are actually gates to Hades. It's best that you actually learn what the Bible says first before you comment on it.
The church is not been entrusted to humans, the leader of the Church of Jesus Christ. When one is saved in accept him as their savior and begins a personal relationship with him and the Holy Spirit it is that relationship that teaches them to know of him. It is not done buy an organization it is done by God. I would give you the scriptures to support that but it is very apparent that you don't understand scripture and refuse to see it anyhow.
Jesus didn't promise the RCC that he would never leave them, he promised Believers that he would never leave them, and He hasn't, it is the so-called believers, such as yourself, who leave and then return but with the same old problems. Apparently your backsliding didn't help you to learn anything because you returned with the same mindset.

 

Jesus didn't establish a religion, he established the church, his body, the kingdom of heaven. That's basic Christianity 101 and the fact that you don't get it tells a lot

 

From what I see, it looks a whole lot as if we Christians have spent the last 2000 years chopping the Body of Christ up into over 30,000 little pieces...
And then we have the nerve to congratulate ourselves on finding the "right" piece.

Oh, what fools these mortals be....

 

I understand your point but the majority of Protestant denominations don't lift themselves up as the only denomination. Most recognize that they have differences but don't use them as a divisive instrument within the body. The same cannot really be said of the RCC. Their members continually push the idea that they are the one and only true church. With that type of attitude it is a wonder that they even try any kind of reconciliation with the other Orthodox denominations.

 

When Jesus said, "Upon this rock I will build my church," He wasn't talking about the Roman Catholic Church. He was talking about a body of believers made up of all the born again Christians, and that happens to include some people that are a part of the RCC. Jesus' Church transcends the Roman Catholic Church and every other protestant denomination. The RCC, Baptists, Methodists, or whatever, can fall apart, but the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church, which includes members of all of those others.

 

He's been told this a few times but apparently Protestants don't have the right to tell Roman Catholics what the Bible means?

 

Is it wise to look at one's religion or "form of worship" (James 1:27), for it determines whether or not a person has God's favor ? For example, how many really understand where the Roman Catholic church came from ? Or where did the Protestant array of religions arise ? Or the whole host of other "Christian" religions that all profess to be Jesus disciples ? Or the rest of religions that have originated over the last four millennia ?


The word "catholic" means "universal". Why ? Because Roman Emperor Constantine (274-337 C.E.) gave this name to the religion that he created, combining elements from pagan Rome with so-called Christianity of his day so that there was the "universal" or "Catholic" religion that satisfied everyone, like a "one size fits all" religion.


It was Constantine who presided over the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., because his kingdom or empire was being seriously divided or threatened by differing religious thought among so-called Christians, and he wanted to keep it from continuing to fracture. The controversy concerning the nature of Jesus that arose in the previous century now took center stage and became a critical dividing point within his kingdom.


Arius, an Alexandrian priest, argued that Jesus is inferior to the Father and refused to use the term homoousios (being of one substance). The Council of Nicaea rejected his view, ruling that Jesus is indeed "of the same substance as the Father".


In 461 C.E., the Council of Chalcedon stated that Christ is God incarnate. The Babylonian-Egyptian-Grecian concept of of a triune God had now crowded out Christ's teaching that he and the Father are two separate individuals and in no way equal.(see Mark 13:32 and John 14:28; the Babylonians had their trinity of Sin (moon-god), Shamash (sun-god) and Ishtar (fertility goddess), while the Egyptians had Osiris, Isis and Horus, father-mother-son trinity and the Greeks trinity of thought that came from Plato; the pagan Romans believed in a trinity of gods such as Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva).


So, in order to keep his empire intact, Constantine mixed together Roman paganism with so-called Christianity, and in which historian Will Durant (1885-1981) explains what eventually happened: “The Church took over some religious customs and forms common in pre-Christian [pagan] Rome—the stole and other vestments of pagan priests, the use of incense and holy water in purifications, the burning of candles and an everlasting light before the altar, the worship of the saints, the architecture of the basilica, the law of Rome as a basis for canon law, the title of Pontifex Maximus for the Supreme Pontiff (or pope), and, in the fourth century, the Latin language . . . Soon the bishops, rather than the Roman prefects, would be the source of order and the seat of power in the cities; the metropolitans, or archbishops, would support, if not supplant, the provincial governors; and the synod of bishops would succeed the provincial assembly. The Roman Church (or Catholic church) followed in the footsteps of the Roman state.”—The Story of Civilization: Part III—Caesar and Christ.(pub. in 1980)


So, we arrive back at the question if it is wise to examine one's religion and the answer is a definite yes, for Jesus said to those listening to him: "Why, then, do you call me ' Lord ! Lord ! ' but do not do the things I say ?"(Luke 6:46)


And some of what he said is that "I do not do a single thing of my own initiative. Just as I hear (from the Father), I judge, and my judgment is righteous because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him that sent me (the Father, Jehovah God)."(John 5:30) Jesus stated to the Samaritan woman that he worships the Father as did other Jews and that only the Father is to be worshipped.(John 4:22-24; see also Matt 4:10)


Hence, is the Trinity a Scriptural teaching ? The short answer is no. At Revelation 17, there is seen a "prostitute", an immoral "woman" named Babylon the Great, that is "the mother of the prostitutes (smaller false religions under her care) and of the disgusting things of the earth".(Rev 17:1, 5)


Babylon the Great is the world wide empire of false religion that has its "daughters", differing false religions around the earth that combine to form this composite empire. Any who are part of this false religious empire has to abandon it if they want God's favor.(Rev 18:4; see also Amos 5:4)


The apostle Paul, quoting from Joel 2:32, wrote that "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved".(Rom 10:13) This coincides with Isaiah 2 (as well as Micah 4:1-3), that says that true worshippers of God go "the mountain of the house of Jehovah" in order to be instructed by him in "the truth".(Isa 2:2-4; John 8:31, 32)

 

Although you used some facts here, your conclusions are a tad off. See the following;


http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-meaning-definition.html

 

Martin Luther didn't "stick around"

Now the Church is divided, Protestant against Catholic.

So much for Christian unity.. brotherly love. There has been more bloodshed in the world since Luther ditched the Church than at any other time in history. Just look at all the wars that have happened since the Church was divided? Just because there are problems in the Church doesn't mean you should toss it aside like so much trash. Now there are thousands and thousands of "churches" all bickering with ea other and claiming they alone know the truth about Christ. I've read up on Luther. He had deep psych problems--and took it out on the Church. Yes, there was corruption in the Church, always has been, always will be. Are noncatholic churches perfect? Well, maybe you think so. Some of us aren't so sure


:wacko:

 

Well Martin Luther can't be blamed for it all there were many others who left the RCC. Jean Cauvin was one of them as well.
However, Christian Unity doesn't mean you have to stick with a denomination that is totally out to lunch. Christian Unity has to do with recognizing the truth and being unanimous in that truth. Many people did not recognize truth in the RCC and that's why they left. There is no perfection in any Protestant church either, trust me. When I refer to the church in any thread on CB, I refer to the True Body of Christ which encompasses any and all believers and any and all denominations including the RCC. I just don't have much time for those who are inculcated in the RCC or in any other denomination for that matter.

 

Am I a "tad off " ? Not at all. The dictionary defines "catholic" as "all-embracing: interested in or sympathetic to a wide range of things".(Microsoft Encarta Dictionary) And that is just what the Catholic church became, an "all-embracing" religion that allowed both so-called Christianity to combine with pagan teachings and practices.


For example, of Christmas, the 2005 Microsoft Reference Library says that though it is supposed to be "based on the story of Jesus birth as described in the Gospel of Matthew.....and the Gospel according to Luke.....Roman Catholics first celebrated Christmas......as early as 336 AD. The word Christmas entered the English language sometime around 1050 as the Old English phrase Christes maesse, meaning "festival of Christ".


It then adds: "Most scholars believe that Christmas originated in the 4th century as a Christian substitute for pagan celebrations of the winter solstice. Before the introduction of Christmas, each year beginning on December 17 Romans honored Saturn, the ancient god of agriculture, in a festival called Saturnalia.......(that) included the winter solstice, which usually occurred around December 25. During Saturnalia the Romans feasted, postponed all business and warfare, exchanged gifts, and temporarily freed their slaves"


It continued saying: "Although the Gospels describe Jesus' birth in detail, they never mention the date.....The Roman Catholic Church chose December 25 as the day for the Feast of the Nativity to give Christian meaning to existing pagan rituals. For example, the Church replaced festivities honoring the birth of Mithra, (ancient Persian) god of light, with festivities to commemorate the birth of Jesus.......The Catholic Church hoped to draw pagans into its religion by allowing them to continue their revelry while simultaneously honoring the birth of Jesus."


"Over the next 1000 years, the observance of Christmas followed the expansion of Christianity into the rest of Europe and into Egypt. Along the way, Christian beliefs combined with existing pagan feasts and winter rituals to create the many long-standing traditions of Christmas celebrations. For example, ancient (pagan) Europeans believed that the mistletoe plant held magic powers to bestow life and fertility.....Northern Europeans associated the plant with the Norse goddess of love, Freya, and developed the custom of kissing underneath mistletoe branches. Christians incorporated this custom into their Christmas celebrations, and kissing under a mistletoe branch eventually became part of secular Christian tradition."


What about the cross that is supposed to be the English rendering of the Greek stauros ? Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible says of stau·ros: "a stake or pole (as set upright)" as it's first meaning. W. E. Vine (1873-1949), English Biblical scholar, theologian and writer, says on this subject: “STAUROS (σταυρός) denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors (or wrongdoers) were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross.”


Vine then goes on to say: “By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1981, Vol. 1, p. 256)


And this is just the beginning of unmasking what the Roman Catholic church consists of. So, the word "catholic" is definitely "all-embracing", embracing pagan beliefs and traditions left and right.

 

Are you infallible?

I will listen to a 2000 year old Church before I will listen to you. You are not infallible. The Church is