Why do people act religious?

[Jesus is my Superhero]

This just magnifies what He said. Respect their authority, but don't do as they do. I fail to see a conflict here. They taught the law, but through their actions they caused many to stumble.

 

[Jesus is my Superhero]

Jesus was making a distinction between the teaching of the Law with the Pharisees having the authority of Moses, which is to be respected, and the burdens they added to the Law, while all the time having no intention of fulfilling their own requirements demanded of others.

 

[Dave-W]

I believe what the Bible says about the Pharisees. Is your source better than Scripture?

Scripture is not wrong, but is very limited.

 

[BlessedCreator]

We were warned of by God that "false apostles", "ministers of unrighteousness" and "grievous wolves" would enter the Church "not sparing the flock". How true this is in these end times for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

 

[pescador]

Scripture is not wrong, but is very limited.

Scripture is very limited? Really? What is there about the Bible that you think is limited, and what are you replacing it with?

 

[Zao is life]

Jesus, the Son of God, was a poor, homeless carpenter. He and his followers were ordinary people; he taught on hillsides and in the synagogues. He was not a Sadducee or a Pharisee, the most religious groups of His time. The famous verse, Isaiah 53:2, says, "He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him."

So, why do we behave as though He was somebody different? We create ornate churches, we have a priesthood which often dresses in the garb of the Roman empire, we read Bibles written in archaic English, we celebrate communion in a ceremony that is nothing like the original Passover supper that Jesus ate and drank with His disciples, etc.

IMHO many churches have regressed toward the elaborate rituals and priesthood of the Old Covenant. Why?

Why can't we be free in our worship and devotion to God? We Christians are a nation of priests, so why do we have a hierarchical priesthood like that of the Old Testament? Jesus and his followers, as well as most of the people of the region, spoke Aramaic, a language of the common people, so why do we have lofty language in bibles such as the King James?

It is time to examine why we have deviated so far from what the New Testament teaches us and regressed into behavior that resembles the Old Covenant?

According to the book titled "A history of Christianity" (not "The history" but "A history), written by Paul Johnson, the priestly hierarchy only developed after the time of the apostles. In the book he goes into great detail regarding the stages of this development. The same goes for the robes etc - it was the nobility who began aquring office and position and the schism between the clergy and the laity did not exist at first. Part Three in this book is titled, "Mitred Lords and Crowned Ikons" (450-1054).

The book contains a wealth of information and includes all the Patristic names etc.

You can see the Empire changing the church when you read this book. I'm going to make a statement now which is going to anger many: Reading this book you will see how the Roman world (the empire) Romanized Christianity rather than Christianity Christianizing in the Roman world.

Christianity, once clothed in Roman garments, became the natural replacement for the ancient pagan religions of the Roman world. Almost all Protestants can see this the moment they believe in Jesus, without reading any books - but that book is packed with solid historical information and is a great read to discover just how much the humanity of the Romans and the Roman mind crept into the simplicity of the faith, and changed things. It also talks about the claims to apostolic succession.

It happened gradually, not all at once. This is one of the reasons (only one of the reasons) why Protestants like myself, without wanting to disparage Catholics (definitely not wanting to disparage Catholics), will never acknowledge the Roman Church's claims to apostolic succession or the be "the Church".

However, one thing I've noticed also, is that every time I listen to a Roman Catholic speaker, they always seem totally sane in their approach to any subject (unlike many of us Protestants and especially some Protestant leaders/"Teachers" in certain Christian movements) - but the exception to that is when it comes to attitudes to Israel and the Jews - I've noticed that many Catholics and Orthodox Christians don't approach the subject without betraying a strong emotional anger motivating the things they say (which are often just false accusations).

 

[pescador]

According to the book titled "A history of Christianity" (not "The history" but "A history), written by Paul Johnson, the priestly hierarchy only developed after the time of the apostles. In the book he goes into great detail regarding the stages of this development. The same goes for the robes etc - it was the nobility who began aquring office and position and the schism between the clergy and the laity did not exist at first. Part Three in this book is titled, "Mitred Lords and Crowned Ikons" (450-1054).

The book contains a wealth of information and includes all the Patristic names etc.

You can see the Empire changing the church when you read this book. I'm going to make a statement now which is going to anger many: Reading this book you will see how the Roman world (the empire) Romanized Christianity rather than Christianity Christianizing in the Roman world.

Christianity, once clothed in Roman garments, became the natural replacement for the ancient pagan religions of the Roman world. Almost all Protestants can see this the moment they believe in Jesus, without reading any books - but that book is packed with solid historical information and is a great read to discover just how much the humanity of the Romans and the Roman mind crept into the simplicity of the faith, and changed things. It also talks about the claims to apostolic succession.

It happened gradually, not all at once. This is one of the reasons (only one of the reasons) why Protestants like myself, without wanting to disparage Catholics (definitely not wanting to disparage Catholics), will never acknowledge the Roman Church's claims to apostolic succession or the be "the Church".

However, one thing I've noticed also, is that every time I listen to a Roman Catholic speaker, they always seem totally sane in their approach to any subject (unlike many of us Protestants and especially some Protestant leaders/"Teachers" in certain Christian movements) - but the exception to that is when it comes to attitudes to Israel and the Jews - I've noticed that many Catholics and Orthodox Christians don't approach the subject without betraying a strong emotional anger motivating the things they say (which are often just false accusations).

A History of Christianity is 578 pages! Maybe sometime but not now. I've got too many books in the queue.

 

[seeking.IAM]

A History of Christianity is 578 pages! Maybe sometime but not now. I've got too many books in the queue.

I hope you make time for it. I thought it was a very good book.

 

[pescador]

I hope you make time for it. I thought it was a very good book.

I just bought it to read on my Kindle. So far it seems excellent; I'm sure it will continue to be that way. As long as I'm staying at home I have a lot of opportunity to read.