Nothing Is Unbelievable Anymore.
News0 min ago
Christianity
22 Answers
What does it mean to be Catholic, Episcopalian, Protestant, Anglican, Seventh Day Adventist etc. I've never known or understood. Isn't everybody just Christian? And if I am interested in christianity how do I choose which one to go into?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Silindile. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A Roman Catholic monk, Martin Luther, declared his intolerance for the Roman Church�s corruption on Halloween in 1517, by nailing his 95 Theses of Contention to the Wittenberg Church door. As important as his action was in being the primary starting point of the Protestant Reformation, in my opinion, a phrase he used repeatedly came to be the fundamental motto of (no pun intended) disagreement with the Roman Church, that beingSola Scriptura... Scritpure Only. For centuries, the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many of the actions and policies of the church (some still in evidence today) such as transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences and papal authority.
This brief introduction serves to point up the many differences in various denominations even today. However, I believe that most of them fall under the umbrella of majoring on the minors. Most are in agreement about the essentials... salvation by grace, belief that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God and that his death, burial and resurrection are actual, historically secure events and that by His actions is able to reconcile God with mankind, eliminating the barrier of man's sin nature by simply believing in and on Yeshua. This is an absolutely free gift, but man, being man has a tough time accepting that he, man, can do nothing in additon. I beleive this need to add personal atonement is the basis for nearly all of the denominational dogma observed.
Contd.
This brief introduction serves to point up the many differences in various denominations even today. However, I believe that most of them fall under the umbrella of majoring on the minors. Most are in agreement about the essentials... salvation by grace, belief that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God and that his death, burial and resurrection are actual, historically secure events and that by His actions is able to reconcile God with mankind, eliminating the barrier of man's sin nature by simply believing in and on Yeshua. This is an absolutely free gift, but man, being man has a tough time accepting that he, man, can do nothing in additon. I beleive this need to add personal atonement is the basis for nearly all of the denominational dogma observed.
Contd.
Contd.
By the way, the all encompassing term Protestant includes all of your examples save the Catholic church.
When reduced to the most simple of explanations, Christianity rests upon faith in Jesus... a faith that rests on His ability to do what He said. Paul's Letter to the Romans says in Chapter 1, Verse 17 "... The just shall live by faith..." which is echoed from the Old Testament Prophet, Habakkuk in 2:4.
So... my personal advice is to find a good Bible believing and teaching body of believers and avoid those that emphasize dogma over a realtionship with Jesus... Others will have differing views, I'm sure... Best wishes for the journey!
By the way, the all encompassing term Protestant includes all of your examples save the Catholic church.
When reduced to the most simple of explanations, Christianity rests upon faith in Jesus... a faith that rests on His ability to do what He said. Paul's Letter to the Romans says in Chapter 1, Verse 17 "... The just shall live by faith..." which is echoed from the Old Testament Prophet, Habakkuk in 2:4.
So... my personal advice is to find a good Bible believing and teaching body of believers and avoid those that emphasize dogma over a realtionship with Jesus... Others will have differing views, I'm sure... Best wishes for the journey!
What a complete and useful explanation. Clanad, Are you Lutheran by any chance? (I am). I ask b/c most people are unfamilar with Luther and feel he 'started' his own church, when in essence he was excommunicated for daring to question the RC Church.
Silindile, Clanad's advice is very good. A scripture based churcxh is a good way to go. Visit a lot of churches and ask questions. Some are more folksy and homey, while others are more rigid and routine. This can even vary within one denomination. There are different branches of some denominations too. For ex. in the U.S. there are 2 main types of Lutherans.
Good Luck if you are embarking on a spiritual quest.
Silindile, Clanad's advice is very good. A scripture based churcxh is a good way to go. Visit a lot of churches and ask questions. Some are more folksy and homey, while others are more rigid and routine. This can even vary within one denomination. There are different branches of some denominations too. For ex. in the U.S. there are 2 main types of Lutherans.
Good Luck if you are embarking on a spiritual quest.
Clanad makes the point very well, that Christianity is a relationship with Jesus Christ and is based on 'sola scriptura,' only the scriptures.
The R.C.'s, J.W.'s, Mormons, and other cults, include an, "and," in their teachings.
The, "and," is the additional authority of something else, like tradition, or the writings of their founders, and these are given equal or even more authority than the scriptures.
The R.C.'s, J.W.'s, Mormons, and other cults, include an, "and," in their teachings.
The, "and," is the additional authority of something else, like tradition, or the writings of their founders, and these are given equal or even more authority than the scriptures.
Now Theland if you only followed the Gospels I think you'd have a point.
But what about all Paul's writings in the New Testament?
If that doesn't count as "writings of the founders" I don't know what does!
And it was the church fathers that decided what would be in and what would be out of the scripture of the New Testament in the first place!
But what about all Paul's writings in the New Testament?
If that doesn't count as "writings of the founders" I don't know what does!
And it was the church fathers that decided what would be in and what would be out of the scripture of the New Testament in the first place!
Who accepted them? - oh yes the church founders.
As I recall Paul didn't even meet Jesus and yet you accept his authority because it's written in the Bible that you use while you dismiss others as cults because they follow the teachings of their early founders.
Given the discovery over recent years of the Gospels of Thomas, Mary and all the others the stance of Sola Scriptura places an increasing weight on the shoulders of those who decided what was to be included and what was to be excluded of the Bible 400 years after Christ.
As I recall Paul didn't even meet Jesus and yet you accept his authority because it's written in the Bible that you use while you dismiss others as cults because they follow the teachings of their early founders.
Given the discovery over recent years of the Gospels of Thomas, Mary and all the others the stance of Sola Scriptura places an increasing weight on the shoulders of those who decided what was to be included and what was to be excluded of the Bible 400 years after Christ.
-- answer removed --
Yes, of course I know what you're getting at - and that answer tells me you find it difficult to give an open and honest answer. Let's consider. Did they all see a ghost - the whole hoard of them - all at once - and not once, but several times? Do you mean you don't really believe it, Octavius? Come on now, tell the truth.
So, in the hope we can maintain some semblance of mutual respect anent opposing positions, let me offer this, leading with a query; Exactly to what/when do the various posters refer when they proclaim the 'founders' or in the case of jtp, 'fathers' of the church decided what was to be included in the Bible?
I suspect the reference(s) may be to the meeting in 325 AD at the Council of Nicea hosted by the Roman Emperor Constantine I. This is usually the council alluded to by adherents of The Da Vinci Code. The facts indicate, however, the Roman Catholic Church of today did not exist until 55 years after the Council of Nicea. More importantly, extensive written records exist detailing the proceedings of the 325 AD Counsil. These clearly indicate the subject of editing the Bible, never came up at that council. Ironically, the Arian Heresy debate, which was central to the Council, was over whether or not to add A SINGLE WORD to the Creed, not the Bible. Further the debate rose to pre-immence precisley because the word did not exist in the New Testament. (Source: When Jesus Became God by Richard E. Rubenstein, Harcourt, Brace & Company, NY, 1999). Everyone agreed on every single word in the New Testament.
We also know that earlier canon lists and manuscripts clearly indicate the Bible in use before the Council had not experienced change since their inception (Reference: The New Testament ManuscriptsReuben Swanson, et al).
Contd.
I suspect the reference(s) may be to the meeting in 325 AD at the Council of Nicea hosted by the Roman Emperor Constantine I. This is usually the council alluded to by adherents of The Da Vinci Code. The facts indicate, however, the Roman Catholic Church of today did not exist until 55 years after the Council of Nicea. More importantly, extensive written records exist detailing the proceedings of the 325 AD Counsil. These clearly indicate the subject of editing the Bible, never came up at that council. Ironically, the Arian Heresy debate, which was central to the Council, was over whether or not to add A SINGLE WORD to the Creed, not the Bible. Further the debate rose to pre-immence precisley because the word did not exist in the New Testament. (Source: When Jesus Became God by Richard E. Rubenstein, Harcourt, Brace & Company, NY, 1999). Everyone agreed on every single word in the New Testament.
We also know that earlier canon lists and manuscripts clearly indicate the Bible in use before the Council had not experienced change since their inception (Reference: The New Testament ManuscriptsReuben Swanson, et al).
Contd.
Contd.
Did such editing occur at any council before or after Nicea? Hardly. While it is true that spurious texts such as The Shepherd of Hermas, The Apocalypse of Peter, and others were read, hardly anyone thought they were part of Apostolic New Testament. They simply were not viewed as having any weight equal to the texts that had been in circulation from within several years following Pentecost.
Indeed irony reigns when considering the book central to the theme of Da Vinci Code. Even the Gnostics at Nag Hammadi did not place the Gospel of Thomas within the New Testament. A book of the same name (we can't tell if it's the Nag Hammadi script) was mentioned by some early Church leaders, but not as authoritative. In fact, the earliest fragment of 'Thomas' cannot be verified before the middle of the 4th century.
Finally, it must be mentioned that an ongoing investigation by a Jesuit Spanish biblical scholar named Jose O'Callaghan into small scroll fragment known as 7Q5 found in the Dead Sea Scrolls which, if verified further indicate the authorship of the Gospel of Mark as near the year AD 35. Other Dead Sea Scroll evidence supports the finding, so much so that The New York Times reported, "If O'Callaghan's theory is accepted, it would prove that at least one of the Gospels, that of St. Mark, was written only a few years after the death of Jesus." We'll see...
Did such editing occur at any council before or after Nicea? Hardly. While it is true that spurious texts such as The Shepherd of Hermas, The Apocalypse of Peter, and others were read, hardly anyone thought they were part of Apostolic New Testament. They simply were not viewed as having any weight equal to the texts that had been in circulation from within several years following Pentecost.
Indeed irony reigns when considering the book central to the theme of Da Vinci Code. Even the Gnostics at Nag Hammadi did not place the Gospel of Thomas within the New Testament. A book of the same name (we can't tell if it's the Nag Hammadi script) was mentioned by some early Church leaders, but not as authoritative. In fact, the earliest fragment of 'Thomas' cannot be verified before the middle of the 4th century.
Finally, it must be mentioned that an ongoing investigation by a Jesuit Spanish biblical scholar named Jose O'Callaghan into small scroll fragment known as 7Q5 found in the Dead Sea Scrolls which, if verified further indicate the authorship of the Gospel of Mark as near the year AD 35. Other Dead Sea Scroll evidence supports the finding, so much so that The New York Times reported, "If O'Callaghan's theory is accepted, it would prove that at least one of the Gospels, that of St. Mark, was written only a few years after the death of Jesus." We'll see...
Naomi, what are you asking?
On one hand, that the collators of ancient script were NOT inspired by God, yet all post-BC wars (crusades etc) and other atrocities WERE inspired by God?
Or are you saying that man acts upon his own political greed and ambition to create something for his own ends and uses it to control the masses?
It seems with many atheists or agnostics, or disparaging parties, that when it is a bad thing, it is in the name of (or an act of) God, but when it is good it is the kind-hearted nature of man or nature itself.
On one hand, that the collators of ancient script were NOT inspired by God, yet all post-BC wars (crusades etc) and other atrocities WERE inspired by God?
Or are you saying that man acts upon his own political greed and ambition to create something for his own ends and uses it to control the masses?
It seems with many atheists or agnostics, or disparaging parties, that when it is a bad thing, it is in the name of (or an act of) God, but when it is good it is the kind-hearted nature of man or nature itself.
No not essentially, it was a council of men who set about to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. They set about to unify beliefs and unite Christendom. I do not particularly believe that they were all inspired by God, since it is almost certain that many at the council had political ambition and were not altogether altruistic. Some of them may well have been so inspired since many had felt the calling.
Constantine convoked the council by recommendations from Hosius who was the author of the Nicene Creed. Perhaps he believed he was inspired by deity. It is certainly one of the most significant events in global history.
Constantine convoked the council by recommendations from Hosius who was the author of the Nicene Creed. Perhaps he believed he was inspired by deity. It is certainly one of the most significant events in global history.
Latest Posts
Reform Gaining Huge Numbers Of Votes...
News2 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
What If The Labour Party Got Rid Of...
Politics16 mins ago
Have You Got Led Strip Lights?
Home & Garden17 mins ago
Classic Books Off The Gcse List But Only...
News20 mins ago
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|