Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 5:18 pm

do they help Christianity..

by Original Quill Tue Apr 01, 2014 6:05 pm

GOD: Francis, I have decided to do away with all these different denominations. I am ready to declare the one, true, pure, absolute Church.

POPE: Oh God...blessed art thou...what a wonderful thing you have done. All the bickering of the past five centuries, resolved. It's so wonderful. The Bishops have congregated and we all pray our thanks to you for clearing this all up.

GOD: Thank you, Francis. We are pleased up here in Heaven as well.

POPE: Everyone is most anxious to hear it from you God, and you alone. Will you make the announcement yourself so The Council of Cardinals may all exalt you and the new holy order of the Church?

GOD: Yes, Francis. Meet me on Saturday in Salt Lake City.

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 6:09 pm

Original Quill wrote:GOD: Francis, I have decided to do away with all these different denominations. I am ready to declare the one, true, pure, absolute Church.

POPE: Oh God...blessed art thou...what a wonderful thing you have done. All the bickering of the past five centuries, resolved. It's so wonderful. The Bishops have congregated and we all pray our thanks to you for clearing this all up.

GOD: Thank you, Francis. We are pleased up here in Heaven as well.

POPE: Everyone is most anxious to hear it from you God, and you alone God. Will you make the announcement yourself so The Council of Cardinals may all exalt you and the new holy order of the Church?

GOD: Yes, Francis. Meet me on Saturday in Salt Lake City.

by Eilzel Tue Apr 01, 2014 6:30 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:do they help Christianity..

No of course they don't. If the Christian faith had stuck to its original form then it would have held onto power longer than it did and may still have held authority and legitimacy over people today.

Now we have too many, and too many disagreements. Had there not been splinter sects; schisms; reformations; radicals etc it wouldn't have been anywhere near as possible for secularism and the enlightenment to take off as it did.

Of course if it hadn't then the western world almost certainly wouldn't have developed as fast as it did in the 17th-19th Centuries. So while the multiple branches of Christianity have done little more than fundamentally damage the legitimacy of Christianity; it has done wonders for the world, science and liberalism Smile

EDIT: I shouldn't really say 'original form' since I mean Catholicism, which wasn't even the original 'version' of Christianity- but if they'd stopped there, the world would be a drastically different place today Twisted Evil

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:08 pm

i like the mormons they amuse me ... Smile

but they are not Christians neither are jw's...

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:10 pm

the various denominations suit different personalities to a certain degree, my biggest problem with the different denominations is that they tend to magnify certain parts of the bible or decide to totally ignore other parts...

by Eilzel Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:15 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:the various denominations suit different personalities to a certain degree, my biggest problem with the different denominations is that they tend to magnify certain parts of the bible or decide to totally ignore other parts...

Exactly, the 'suit' personalities. Meaning they just taylor to the whims of the current beliefs of society.

Protestants of all variety- Baptists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Unitarians etc- they are just doing what fits for them- don't think I'm going easy on the Orthodox or Catholic churches though- they are power institutions which don't even always follow the book.

All of the above pick and choose one way or another- and all those I missed Wink

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:18 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:the various denominations suit different personalities to a certain degree, my biggest problem with the different denominations is that they tend to magnify certain parts of the bible or decide to totally ignore other parts...

Exactly, the 'suit' personalities. Meaning they just taylor to the whims of the current beliefs of society.

Protestants of all variety- Baptists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Unitarians etc- they are just doing what fits for them- don't think I'm going easy on the Orthodox or Catholic churches though- they are power institutions which don't even always follow the book.

All of the above pick and choose one way or another- and all those I missed

a lot in that list are not Christians ...

suit personalities as in some people who are quite reserved would feel happier in perhaps a methodist...

as long as they preach and teach the whole bible I don't mind what they call themselves but as I said they do often magnify parts of the bible or ignore other parts which i feel is wrong...

by Eilzel Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:22 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

Exactly, the 'suit' personalities. Meaning they just taylor to the whims of the current beliefs of society.

Protestants of all variety- Baptists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Unitarians etc- they are just doing what fits for them- don't think I'm going easy on the Orthodox or Catholic churches though- they are power institutions which don't even always follow the book.

All of the above pick and choose one way or another- and all those I missed

a lot in that list are not Christians ...

suit personalities as in some people who are quite reserved would feel happier in perhaps a methodist...

as long as they preach and teach the whole bible I don't mind what they call themselves but as I said they do often magnify parts of the bible or ignore other parts which i feel is wrong...

Well this is interesting from someone who 'claims' to be religious. Which in that list are not Christians?

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:24 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

a lot in that list are not Christians ...

suit personalities as in some people who are quite reserved would feel happier in perhaps a methodist...

as long as they preach and teach the whole bible I don't mind what they call themselves but as I said they do often magnify parts of the bible or ignore other parts which i feel is wrong...

Well this is interesting from someone who 'claims' to be religious. Which in that list are not Christians?

I have never claimed to be religious...

the mormons and Jw's are not Christians at all...

by Eilzel Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:27 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

Well this is interesting from someone who 'claims' to be religious. Which in that list are not Christians?

I have never claimed to be religious...

the mormons and Jw's are not Christians at all...

The Mormons and JWs both believe in Jesus (it is explicitly part of the title of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) so are both 'Christ'ians.

From wikipedia:

Mormons are a religious and cultural group related to Mormonism, the principal branch of the Latter Day Saint movement of Restorationist Christianity, which began with the visions of Joseph Smith in upstate New York during the 1820s.

Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian restorationist Christian denomination with nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity.

You don't even know what a Christian is, how can anyone take you seriously?

by Original Quill Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:31 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:i like the mormons they amuse me ...

but they are not Christians neither are jw's...

Jews predated Christians, of course. Their part of the Bible is most intriguing because it is just folk tales. Maybe normative...maybe not.

The Mormons are not Christians because they do not believe in the Trinity. Without the Trinity, there is no redemption. Without redemption, what is the point? The Mormons can put "Jesus" on the door as much as they want; without the Trinity they have no common ground with Christianity.

The Christian religion was hijacked by the Pauline Church...with the heavy hand of Constantine, more interested in politics than religion. The original Christianity--the Gnostic Sect--was the first Church of Jerusalem. The Gospel of Thomas is the most pure book in the holistic Bible, because it is purely the sayings of Jesus.

"You see, the end will be where the beginning is."

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:34 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

I have never claimed to be religious...

the mormons and Jw's are not Christians at all...

The Mormons and JWs both believe in Jesus (it is explicitly part of the title of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) so are both 'Christ'ians.

From wikipedia:

Mormons are a religious and cultural group related to Mormonism, the principal branch of the Latter Day Saint movement of Restorationist Christianity, which began with the visions of Joseph Smith in upstate New York during the 1820s.

Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian restorationist Christian denomination with nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity.

You don't even know what a Christian is, how can anyone take you seriously?

both have re written the bible yo suit their needs and doctrines, you should really look further than wiki unless you like looking stupid... Smile

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:36 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:i like the mormons they amuse me ...

but they are not Christians neither are jw's...

Jews predated Christians, of course. Their part of the Bible is most intriguing because it is just folk tales. Maybe normative...maybe not.

The Mormons are not Christians because they do not believe in the Trinity. Without the Trinity, there is no redemption. Without redemption, what is the point? The Mormons can put "Jesus" on the door as much as they want; without the Trinity they have no common ground with Christianity.

The Christian religion was hijacked by the Pauline Church...with the heavy hand of Constantine, more interested in politics than religion. The original Christianity--the Gnostic Sect--was the first Church of Jerusalem. The Gospel of Thomas is the most pure book in the holistic Bible, because it is purely the sayings of Jesus.

"You see, the end will be where the beginning is."

the mormons are by far further from the bible than the jw's and some of their doctrines and beliefs are nothing more than a bad joke...

by Original Quill Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:49 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Jews predated Christians, of course. Their part of the Bible is most intriguing because it is just folk tales. Maybe normative...maybe not.

The Mormons are not Christians because they do not believe in the Trinity. Without the Trinity, there is no redemption. Without redemption, what is the point? The Mormons can put "Jesus" on the door as much as they want; without the Trinity they have no common ground with Christianity.

The Christian religion was hijacked by the Pauline Church...with the heavy hand of Constantine, more interested in politics than religion. The original Christianity--the Gnostic Sect--was the first Church of Jerusalem. The Gospel of Thomas is the most pure book in the holistic Bible, because it is purely the sayings of Jesus.

"You see, the end will be where the beginning is."

the mormons are by far further from the bible than the jw's and some of their doctrines and beliefs are nothing more than a bad joke...

Agreed, re the Mormons.

The bible is originally a Jewish text; what you call the Bible is actually a political treatise wildly edited by the Council of Nicea. It is now known as the New Testament.

The Council of Nicea took place in AD 325 by order of the Roman Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine. Nicea was located in Asia Minor, east of Constantinople. At the Council of Nicea, Emperor Constantine presided over a group of church bishops and other leaders with the purpose of defining the nature of God for all of Christianity and eliminating confusion, controversy, and contention within the church. The Council of Nicea overwhelmingly affirmed the deity and eternality of Jesus Christ and defined the relationship between the Father and the Son as “of one substance.” It also affirmed the Trinity—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were listed as three co-equal and co-eternal Persons.

Constantine, who claimed conversion to Christianity, called for a meeting of bishops to be held in Nicea to resolve some escalating controversies among the church leadership. The issues being debated included the nature of Jesus Christ, the proper date to celebrate Easter, and other matters. The failing Roman Empire, now under Constantine’s rule, could not withstand the division caused by years of hard-fought, “out of hand” arguing over doctrinal differences. The emperor saw the quarrels within the church not only as a threat to Christianity but as a threat to society as well. Therefore, at the Council of Nicea, Constantine encouraged the church leaders to settle their internal disagreements and become Christlike agents who could bring new life to a troubled empire. Constantine felt “called” to use his authority to help bring about unity, peace, and love within the church.

The main theological issue had always been about Christ. Since the end of the apostolic age, Christians had begun debating these questions: Who is the Christ? Is He more divine than human or more human than divine? Was Jesus created or begotten? Being the Son of God, is He co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, or is He lower in status than the Father? Is the Father the one true God, or are the Father, Son, and Spirit the one true God?

* * * *

The New Testament teaches that Jesus the Messiah should be worshipped, which is to say He is co-equal with God. The New Testament forbids the worship of angels (Colossians 2:18; Revelation 22:8, 9) but commands worship of Jesus. The apostle Paul tells us that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9; 1:19). Paul declares Jesus as Lord and the One to whom a person must pray for salvation (Romans 10:9-13; cf. Joel 2:32). “Jesus is God overall” (Romans 9:5) and our God and Savior (Titus 2:13). Faith in Jesus’ deity is basic to Paul’s theology.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/council-of-Nicea.html#ixzz2xf5qWEhV

by Eilzel Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:50 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

The Mormons and JWs both believe in Jesus (it is explicitly part of the title of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) so are both 'Christ'ians.

From wikipedia:

Mormons are a religious and cultural group related to Mormonism, the principal branch of the Latter Day Saint movement of Restorationist Christianity, which began with the visions of Joseph Smith in upstate New York during the 1820s.

Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian restorationist Christian denomination with nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity.

You don't even know what a Christian is, how can anyone take you seriously?

both have re written the bible yo suit their needs and doctrines, you should really look further than wiki unless you like looking stupid...

I don't disagree about their needs; I'd apply that to ALL those I mentioned above.

And I don't know they are Christians from wiki, I know it from years of interest in matters of religion and reading about them. I simply used wiki as a quick reference, I could give you more but I dare say I'd be wasting my time.

They both believe in Christ however, and that is the core factor in determining Christianity.

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:53 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

both have re written the bible yo suit their needs and doctrines, you should really look further than wiki unless you like looking stupid...

I don't disagree about their needs; I'd apply that to ALL those I mentioned above.

And I don't know they are Christians from wiki, I know it from years of interest in matters of religion and reading about them. I simply used wiki as a quick reference, I could give you more but I dare say I'd be wasting my time.

They both believe in Christ however, and that is the core factor in determining Christianity.

many groups use the name Jesus, even Islam uses Jesus and i'm pretty sure muslims would not claim or want to claim to be Christians...

neither the Jw's or mormons put their faith in Jesus for their salvation they add more to it than that..

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:56 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

the mormons are by far further from the bible than the jw's and some of their doctrines and beliefs are nothing more than a bad joke...

Agreed, re the Mormons.

The bible is originally a Jewish text; what you call the Bible is actually a political treatise wildly edited by the Council of Nicea. It is now known as the New Testament.

The Council of Nicea took place in AD 325 by order of the Roman Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine. Nicea was located in Asia Minor, east of Constantinople. At the Council of Nicea, Emperor Constantine presided over a group of church bishops and other leaders with the purpose of defining the nature of God for all of Christianity and eliminating confusion, controversy, and contention within the church. The Council of Nicea overwhelmingly affirmed the deity and eternality of Jesus Christ and defined the relationship between the Father and the Son as “of one substance.” It also affirmed the Trinity—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were listed as three co-equal and co-eternal Persons.

Constantine, who claimed conversion to Christianity, called for a meeting of bishops to be held in Nicea to resolve some escalating controversies among the church leadership. The issues being debated included the nature of Jesus Christ, the proper date to celebrate Easter, and other matters. The failing Roman Empire, now under Constantine’s rule, could not withstand the division caused by years of hard-fought, “out of hand” arguing over doctrinal differences. The emperor saw the quarrels within the church not only as a threat to Christianity but as a threat to society as well. Therefore, at the Council of Nicea, Constantine encouraged the church leaders to settle their internal disagreements and become Christlike agents who could bring new life to a troubled empire. Constantine felt “called” to use his authority to help bring about unity, peace, and love within the church.

The main theological issue had always been about Christ. Since the end of the apostolic age, Christians had begun debating these questions: Who is the Christ? Is He more divine than human or more human than divine? Was Jesus created or begotten? Being the Son of God, is He co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, or is He lower in status than the Father? Is the Father the one true God, or are the Father, Son, and Spirit the one true God?

* * * *

The New Testament teaches that Jesus the Messiah should be worshipped, which is to say He is co-equal with God. The New Testament forbids the worship of angels (Colossians 2:18; Revelation 22:8, 9) but commands worship of Jesus. The apostle Paul tells us that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9; 1:19). Paul declares Jesus as Lord and the One to whom a person must pray for salvation (Romans 10:9-13; cf. Joel 2:32). “Jesus is God overall” (Romans 9:5) and our God and Savior (Titus 2:13). Faith in Jesus’ deity is basic to Paul’s theology.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/council-of-Nicea.html#ixzz2xf5qWEhV

even the OT speaks in terms of who the messiah is and will be so i don't see any real deviation in the NT..

as for any council of man, I believe what God intends to be revealed in his word will be ...

by Ben Reilly Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:02 pm

It would be pointless to try to do away with multiple denominations, as people have always had their interpretations of what the Bible does or does not mean.

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:04 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:It would be pointless to try to do away with multiple denominations, as people have always had their interpretations of what the Bible does or does not mean.

that is true but some interpretations are more credible than others...

by Original Quill Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:05 pm

I am quite sure the New Testament does not reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. As I say, the Gospel of Thomas best does that.

The New Testament is a political treatise, aimed at creating conformity within the Roman Empire at the time. For example, the RC (Pauline) religion teaches hierarchy, while Jesus taught gnostic principles. The RC religion is more of a political entity, than a religion. The New Testament--being an organ of propaganda, for the church--is of questionable use as a source of the religion of Jesus.

by Original Quill Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:19 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:even the OT speaks in terms of who the messiah is and will be so i don't see any real deviation in the NT..

as for any council of man, I believe what God intends to be revealed in his word will be ...

There is a huge difference between the OT and the NT. The former is an unorganized reflection of a people. The latter is a political treatise, written to rid the world of dissension and replace it with conformity. It is an highly edited piece of propaganda, and not at all to be trusted either as history or as metaphysical doctrine.

The OT speaks prospectively and generally of a messiah, and does not at all mention Jesus specifically. So, there is no such connection. Some have even suggested that Jesus simply borrowed the metaphysics of the OT in order to further his claim as King.

The more you study the reality of the life of Jesus, the more you realize how much the RC church used him for mind-control of the masses.

by Ben Reilly Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:20 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:It would be pointless to try to do away with multiple denominations, as people have always had their interpretations of what the Bible does or does not mean.

that is true but some interpretations are more credible than others...

But to those who follow the interpretations you find less credible, your interpretation is less credible. You're just not going to get agreement about it.

Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons are just as convinced they're right as you're convinced you're right.

If you'd been born in Saudi Arabia, GIG, you'd probably be convinced Islam was the one true religion -- you know that, right?

by Eilzel Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:38 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

I don't disagree about their needs; I'd apply that to ALL those I mentioned above.

And I don't know they are Christians from wiki, I know it from years of interest in matters of religion and reading about them. I simply used wiki as a quick reference, I could give you more but I dare say I'd be wasting my time.

They both believe in Christ however, and that is the core factor in determining Christianity.

many groups use the name Jesus, even Islam uses Jesus and i'm pretty sure muslims would not claim or want to claim to be Christians...

neither the Jw's or mormons put their faith in Jesus for their salvation they add more to it than that..

They both believe Jesus is the son of God, try again.

The Catholics also add more to it- the whole Papal spiritual dictatorship is added to it- no denomination is more or less credible to anyone but an adherent to one or another.

by veya_victaous Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:29 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

Exactly, the 'suit' personalities. Meaning they just taylor to the whims of the current beliefs of society.

Protestants of all variety- Baptists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Unitarians etc- they are just doing what fits for them- don't think I'm going easy on the Orthodox or Catholic churches though- they are power institutions which don't even always follow the book.

All of the above pick and choose one way or another- and all those I missed

a lot in that list are not Christians ...

suit personalities as in some people who are quite reserved would feel happier in perhaps a methodist...

as long as they preach and teach the whole bible I don't mind what they call themselves but as I said they do often magnify parts of the bible or ignore other parts which i feel is wrong...

NO they are Christians They might not be the same as you but they are Definitely Christians. I am pretty sure your born again and the crap about forgiveness means you are a Evangelical Wink

And you do the same thing Suspect

a couple a lines about gays and you are all against it, there are more lines about not eating shellfish Suspect

by veya_victaous Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:32 pm

More to the point is it weakening to the monotheist that Christians don't move forward and get on to the reading the last book in the trilogy ::D::

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:35 pm

I was thinking that rather that wrapping Jesus, in swatherling clothes and putting in a manger, they should have smothered the ----, then there would be a bit less religion in this world.

by Ben Reilly Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:48 pm

Catman wrote:I was thinking that rather that wrapping Jesus, in swatherling clothes and putting in a manger, they should have smothered the ----, then there would be a bit less religion in this world.

The problem with that, though, is that historians record that there were hundreds of street preachers in Judea during the time of Jesus, many of whom had followings, many of whom were called the Messiah, etc. It was a product of the times, the occupation of their country and subjugation of their people, that caused many to look for a hero. They came up with Hanina ben Dosa, who was supposed to have produced several miracles; Honi Ha-Ma'agel, another miracle worker (these guys were particularly good at praying for rain), and Simon of Peraea, who was executed a few years before Jesus, claimed to be the Messiah, and whose followers said he rose in three days. There were many others as well.

Only back then, they didn't have radioactive spiders Smile

Otherwise:

Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/ Sqb6

by Lone Wolf Wed Apr 02, 2014 8:13 am

Heavenly is correct on this one single point, at least = the Mormon's and the Jehovah's Witnesses are not, strictly speaking, considered to be normal mainline "Christian" churches...

Nor are the Seventh Day Adventists, the "Christian Scientists" or the Salvation Army, if people care to take a closer look at their history..

ALL of these are basically "personality-led" cults that were established by their own 18th and 19th Century prophets presenting their own spins and takes on the Christian scriptures ~ and then bringing out their own "Holy Books" that supercedes the Bible within their own revised faiths. ::kiltbanan::

by veya_victaous Wed Apr 02, 2014 10:10 am

Lone Wolf wrote:
Heavenly is correct on this one single point, at least = the Mormon's and the Jehovah's Witnesses are not, strictly speaking, considered to be normal mainline "Christian" churches...

Nor are the Seventh Day Adventists, the "Christian Scientists" or the Salvation Army, if people care to take a closer look at their history..

ALL of these are basically "personality-led" cults that were established by their own 18th and 19th Century prophets presenting their own spins and takes on the Christian scriptures ~ and then bringing out their own "Holy Books" that supercedes the Bible within their own revised faiths. ::kiltbanan::

But Orthodox Christians and Coptic Christians don't follow the bible either and none claim that the newer profit superseded Jesus. thus they are still General Christians but I do accept that they are not main line ::kiltbanan::

by Eilzel Wed Apr 02, 2014 11:48 am

Exactly veya, saying those sects are not 'strictly' Christians is kind of like saying that Stalin wasn't 'strictly' a communist Smile

by Guest Wed Apr 02, 2014 11:54 am

Eilzel wrote:Exactly veya, saying those sects are not 'strictly' Christians is kind of like saying that Stalin wasn't 'strictly' a communist

lol...if they replace Jesus, or stand someone above Jesus. I think it is quite obvious they are not Christians... Smile

by Eilzel Wed Apr 02, 2014 11:57 am

They don't stand that person above Jesus though, they simply incorporate 'yet another' prophet to preach his words. Muslims don't actually put Mohammad above Allah, but he is a most important prophet.

by Guest Wed Apr 02, 2014 12:00 pm

In response to the OP - different denominations have come about because people want to be believers in their own way - they don't want it to interfere with their lives and that goes for all religions - the Muslims who like to drink and smoke, the Catholics who don't want to go to church on Sunday but "live their lives as Christians" - load of old borrocks.

Good luck to them.

by Guest Wed Apr 02, 2014 12:16 pm

Eilzel wrote:They don't stand that person above Jesus though, they simply incorporate 'yet another' prophet to preach his words. Muslims don't actually put Mohammad above Allah, but he is a most important prophet.

mohammed is considered by the moslems to be a greater prophet the Jesus..

to the mormons joseph smith decides ultimately who will be in the top tier of heaven..

Jw's preach that Jesus is the arch angel michael..

none of those are biblical precepts, they are not Christians... Smile

by Original Quill Wed Apr 02, 2014 8:14 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Exactly veya, saying those sects are not 'strictly' Christians is kind of like saying that Stalin wasn't 'strictly' a communist

lol...if they replace Jesus, or stand someone above Jesus. I think it is quite obvious they are not Christians...

It's confusing to follow y'all, cause you use different languages.

1) Jesus was a christian. That is settled.

2) Jesus was a gnostic, and other gnostic writers have recently surfaced. The gnostic writings were suppressed by the more powerful Roman church.

3) Paul and the RC church borrowed Jesus as a character in their NT, which is a work of partial truth and partial fiction, the thesis of which was not the thesis of Jesus.

4) Paul never met Jesus and was an apostle, not a disciple (a messenger, but not a student who learned from the man). Paul visited and wrote a lot to off-islanders.

5) The main theses of the NT are written by four men, Matthew, Marc, Luke and John. None of these individuals lived during the life of Jesus. Marc was the closest, believed to have lived some 70-years after Jesus died.

6) Jews designated Jesus as a prophet.

7) The true religion of Jesus was the first Church of Jerusalem, originally a gnostic sect within the Jewish faith, eventually evolving into early Christianity.

Don't treat the RC church, or its text, the NT, as if it was the original, or root, just because they were the most powerful. They were also the most ruthless, which explains most of why they got around and got heard.

Probably Catharism, in France, represents the closest form to that which Jesus believed, modernly. The Cathars are believed to have been the ministry of the Magdalen, after she migrated to France. Of course, they were suppressed and murdered by the RC church and Philip the Fair of France, due largely to their disagreements with Rome.

by Guest Wed Apr 02, 2014 8:21 pm

All correct Quill accept the majority of the Jews for the time saw Jesus as a heretic and a false messiah, not a prophet.

Also some of the apostles Peter included saw Jesus as the son of God and yes there was disagreements with the Jerusalem Church with Paul, but not so much with Peter.

Mark's Gospels seem as the earliest, could be as early as 50AD, making it well within the time frame though we know the ending has been added later, though contested with the Gospel of Thomas, seen by some as the actual Gospel of Jesus himself

by Original Quill Wed Apr 02, 2014 8:37 pm

Agreed as to the Jews.

The aggrandizement of the myth of Jesus grew and grew in the centuries following the life of Jesus. One thesis says that Jesus' real goal was to achieve the role of king, David's successor.

As you earlier mentioned, Jesus spread some mystic claims about himself as a part of establishing his cred in the neighborhood. Most claimants had similar claims. One of these was the claim of the son of god, which the RC refined into the trinity: For god so loved the world he gave his one and only Son; that whoever believes in him, but he be dead, yet shall he live. John 3:16. This was picked up on by some of the disciples.

Thomas wrote the most truthful account of Jesus. He wrote down only quotes taken from Jesus directly.

by Guest Wed Apr 02, 2014 8:46 pm

Original Quill wrote:Agreed as to the Jews.

The aggrandizement of the myth of Jesus grew and grew in the centuries following the life of Jesus. One thesis says that Jesus' real goal was to achieve the role of king, David's successor.

As you earlier mentioned, Jesus spread some mystic claims about himself as a part of establishing his cred in the neighborhood. Most claimants had similar claims. One of these was the claim of the son of god, which the RC refined into the trinity: For god so loved the world he gave his one and only Son; that whoever believes in him, but he be dead, yet shall he live. John 3:16. This was picked up on by some of the disciples.

Thomas wrote the most truthful account of Jesus. He wrote down only quotes taken from Jesus directly.

Agree 100% and think the Gospel of Thomas by far gives the most accurate being as it is quotes from Jesus and it astounds me why this was not included to be honest Quill.

Today Paul concepts and views holds the monopoly on Christian teaching for today, though would this have been the case if not the Jerusalem Church had of perished when the Romans sacked the city 70AD?
Lets face it they were practicing Jews, who's only real difference was seeing Jesus as the messiah..

by Ben Reilly Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:22 pm

I can't believe they cut the story where Baby Jesus kills dragons, that was bad-ass.

by Guest Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:25 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Agreed as to the Jews.

The aggrandizement of the myth of Jesus grew and grew in the centuries following the life of Jesus. One thesis says that Jesus' real goal was to achieve the role of king, David's successor.

As you earlier mentioned, Jesus spread some mystic claims about himself as a part of establishing his cred in the neighborhood. Most claimants had similar claims. One of these was the claim of the son of god, which the RC refined into the trinity: For god so loved the world he gave his one and only Son; that whoever believes in him, but he be dead, yet shall he live. John 3:16. This was picked up on by some of the disciples.

Thomas wrote the most truthful account of Jesus. He wrote down only quotes taken from Jesus directly.

Agree 100% and think the Gospel of Thomas by far gives the most accurate being as it is quotes from Jesus and it astounds me why this was not included to be honest Quill.

Today Paul concepts and views holds the monopoly on Christian teaching for today, though would this have been the case if not the Jerusalem Church had of perished when the Romans sacked the city 70AD?
Lets face it they were practicing Jews, who's only real difference was seeing Jesus as the messiah..

paul was teaching salvation through Grace... Smile

by groomsy Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:26 pm

Jews dont claim to be christians, Jesus was Jewish and he wasnt a christian lol!

by Ben Reilly Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:27 pm

groomsy wrote:Jews dont claim to be christians, Jesus was Jewish and he wasnt a christian

That one killed me too, it's like saying Buddha was a Buddhist Smile

by Guest Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:28 pm

groomsy wrote:Jews dont claim to be christians, Jesus was Jewish and he wasnt a christian

you do get messianic jews... Smile

by Guest Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:31 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Didge wrote:

Agree 100% and think the Gospel of Thomas by far gives the most accurate being as it is quotes from Jesus and it astounds me why this was not included to be honest Quill.

Today Paul concepts and views holds the monopoly on Christian teaching for today, though would this have been the case if not the Jerusalem Church had of perished when the Romans sacked the city 70AD?
Lets face it they were practicing Jews, who's only real difference was seeing Jesus as the messiah..

paul was teaching salvation through Grace...

Did he, that was nice for him

by Guest Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:33 pm

Didge wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

paul was teaching salvation through Grace...

Did he, that was nice for him

actually it's nice for all believers in Jesus... Smile

by Guest Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:36 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Didge wrote:

Did he, that was nice for him

actually it's nice for all believers in Jesus...

All?

Really?

by Guest Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:39 pm

Didge wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

actually it's nice for all believers in Jesus...

All?

Really?

yeah its all about Jesus now not your own works how good is that... Smile

by Guest Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:42 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Didge wrote:

All?

Really?

yeah its all about Jesus now not your own works how good is that...

Oh my, your own works, that is funny seen as many Christians are at odds with your views

DOH

by Guest Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:44 pm

Didge wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

yeah its all about Jesus now not your own works how good is that...

Oh my, your own works, that is funny seen as many Christians are at odds with your views

DOH

that's because they are hearing religion, Grace is all through the bible.... Smile

by Sponsored content