Christian: Denominations?

[rrosskopf]

That quote is considered by NT scholars to be an unauthentic quote, and out of character for Jesus. The apostles weren't "centralized." In fact, they were divided over several points of doctrine, and separated by distance.

The alleged appearance doesn't at all give Mormons a "better claim," since it was uncoroborrated by a third party, and since the historic and apostolic faith is connected both by time and by supporting documents and cultural acknowledgement of apostolic authority since the beginning. Apparitions do not supplant cultural documentation.

I disagree. Many people doubt whether Jesus even existed, but no one doubts that Joseph Smith existed. 1st hand eye witness testimony from modern witnesses beats traditions that have been recopied too many times and scholars who like to guess.

The restoration of the apostolic authority didn't happen in a vacuum, but as part of a tapestry of events, witnessed by hundreds of people. At least 15 people testified to seeing the angel Moroni and the gold plates. Eight people testified that they held the gold plates and thumbed through their pages. Three or four people acted as scribes and watched and participated in the translation of the Book of Mormon. Many people witnessed the miracles at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. Hundreds witnessed the miracles at Zions Camp. At least two other people saw a vision of Jesus Christ while in the company of Joseph Smith.

Oliver Cowdery was incensed when he was called before a church court to answer allegations of wrong doing, and refused to attend. He was immediately excommunicated. His feelings were extremely bitter after that, both towards the church and towards Joseph Smith. Yet he continued to testify, when asked, of those things which he had actually witnessed, and knew to be true. He could have been a rich man; 10,000 dollars was offered to any witness who would recant, but neither he nor any other witness ever did.

 

[savagewind]

There can be and are, no denominations in Christianity.


There can be no variation. The gate is strait and the way narrow. There is simply one correct message. Only by knowing and living according to, this one absolutely correct message that one can be Christian.

The fact that denominations have, even slight variation in their beliefs system means that they are seriously jeopardized. This means that most of them do not have it right (especially if they are big in numbers and size). That is they do not know scriptures. Therefore they err and are not chosen. They do not make it.

It is clearly stated that few will find it. This means that only a few will know the absolutely correct message so as not to err and be 'chosen'. This means that those big denomination are gravely jeopardized. They are simply too big to be the 'chosen few' who have it right.

Please stay very far from them.

I think there is a difference between the few who are chosen and the many who believe in the son of God. The few who are chosen become Christ's bride. Every believer is not Christ's bride imo.
Ephesians 1:5 1 Peter 2:9

I think it is one thing the Jehovah's Witnesses s got right. There are those who will rule as kings and priests and there are those who are subject to The Lord.

 

[sojourner]

I disagree. Many people doubt whether Jesus even existed, but no one doubts that Joseph Smith existed. 1st hand eye witness testimony from modern witnesses beats traditions that have been recopied too many times and scholars who like to guess.

The restoration of the apostolic authority didn't happen in a vacuum, but as part of a tapestry of events, witnessed by hundreds of people. At least 15 people testified to seeing the angel Moroni and the gold plates. Eight people testified that they held the gold plates and thumbed through their pages. Three or four people acted as scribes and watched and participated in the translation of the Book of Mormon. Many people witnessed the miracles at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. Hundreds witnessed the miracles at Zions Camp. At least two other people saw a vision of Jesus Christ while in the company of Joseph Smith.

Oliver Cowdery was incensed when he was called before a church court to answer allegations of wrong doing, and refused to attend. He was immediately excommunicated. His feelings were extremely bitter after that, both towards the church and towards Joseph Smith. Yet he continued to testify, when asked, of those things which he had actually witnessed, and knew to be true. He could have been a rich man; 10,000 dollars was offered to any witness who would recant, but neither he nor any other witness ever did.

Ardent belief and fidelity are no substitute for historic and existential fact. Lots of people insist they've seen Bigfoot, too, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[rrosskopf]

Ardent belief and fidelity are no substitute for historic and existential fact.

So then... you are agreeing with me? Your ardent beliefs are no substitute for the historic facts? Historic facts are judged by the quality of the first hand eye witness testimony, of which we have in abundance in the case of Joseph Smith. That is why no one questions that there was a Joseph Smith. People question whether there was a Jesus Christ, because of the lack of credible eye witness testimony. Personally, I do find the Bible credible, despite the vagarities of who wrote what and when. That is a spiritual conviction, and not based on a wealth of historical evidence. Those who lack that spiritual conviction have many doubts.

 

[sojourner]

So then... you are agreeing with me? Your ardent beliefs are no substitute for the historic facts? Historic facts are judged by the quality of the first hand eye witness testimony, of which we have in abundance in the case of Joseph Smith. That is why no one questions that there was a Joseph Smith.

Ha! That's funny. I actually studied church history, so what I'm stating isn't a matter of "ardent belief." there is no "abundant first-hand eyewitness testimony," because nothing happened that produced any indisputable, factual evidence to be observed, in the case of Joseph Smith. No one questions that Patterson existed, either, but there's no indisputable, factual evidence that what he filmed was, indeed, an existential Bigfoot. But lots of people ardently believe that such exists, anyway.

That is a spiritual conviction, and not based on a wealth of historical evidence. Those who lack that spiritual conviction have many doubts.

Doubt is a normal and healthy part of spiritual development. "Spiritual conviction" is often either a conscious or unconscious attempt to deny healthy doubt.

 

[rrosskopf]

there is no "abundant first-hand eyewitness testimony," because nothing happened that produced any indisputable, factual evidence to be observed, in the case of Joseph Smith.

All factual evidence can be disputed. Some people can stare at the sun and pretend it is nighttime. Some people stare at a gnat and swallow a camel. Some people won't believe something no matter how many people testify that it is true. To those who held the plates and thumbed through the pages, skeptics say, "well, they could have been faked", and for those who testify that they saw an angel skeptics say that they imagined it. So here we have the best of both worlds - testimony to the physical and testimony to the spiritual, and some people will still not believe. Each person judges the truth based on the light that is in them. If their light becomes darkness, then they will perceive darkness as light. What was once beautiful becomes ugly to them.

 

[sojourner]

All factual evidence can be disputed. Some people can stare at the sun and pretend it is nighttime. Some people stare at a gnat and swallow a camel. Some people won't believe something no matter how many people testify that it is true. To those who held the plates and thumbed through the pages, skeptics say, "well, they could have been faked", and for those who testify that they saw an angel skeptics say that they imagined it. So here we have the best of both worlds - testimony to the physical and testimony to the spiritual, and some people will still not believe. Each person judges the truth based on the light that is in them. If their light becomes darkness, then they will perceive darkness as light. What was once beautiful becomes ugly to them.

The fact, is, though, not that "several people handled the plates." the fact is that we have preserved many very ancient manuscripts written upon very perishable materials. Why? Because they are important. If these alleged plates are so darned important, why weren't they preserved? Angels "taking them away" isn't good enough, because the rest of holy writ wasn't divinely-produced such that the sources would have to be taken away. Why should the BoM be any different from the bible? No, with all due respect to your beliefs, they are just that: beliefs. No evidence, nothing factual. Just stories of people who also held beliefs. You're most welcome to believe as you wish, but you don't get to rewrite church history based on those beliefs.

 

[Jane.Doe]

The fact, is, though, not that "several people handled the plates." the fact is that we have preserved many very ancient manuscripts written upon very perishable materials. Why? Because they are important. If these alleged plates are so darned important, why weren't they preserved? Angels "taking them away" isn't good enough, because the rest of holy writ wasn't divinely-produced such that the sources would have to be taken away. Why should the BoM be any different from the bible? No, with all due respect to your beliefs, they are just that: beliefs. No evidence, nothing factual. Just stories of people who also held beliefs. You're most welcome to believe as you wish, but you don't get to rewrite church history based on those beliefs.

Doubting Thomas and you have a lot in common.....

All beliefs, religious or even scientific, require some belief in things unseen and even with some uncertainty.

 

[sojourner]

Doubting Thomas and you have a lot in common.....

All beliefs, religious or even scientific, require some belief in things unseen and even with some uncertainty.

I'll take that as a compliment, since Thomas was bold enough to touch the suffering, was astute enough to recognize Jesus' Divinity, intrepid enough to traipse off to India to take the gospel there, and inspired enough to foster the community that wrote the Gospel of Thomas.

"All beliefs ... require some belief..." Do you hear yourself??

"Belief" centers around the mythic -- not around the allegedly historic actions of existent human beings. Unless, of course, the human being is elevated to the position of the mythic. Like Joseph Smith. Either the plates are existentially real, or they're mythic. I have no problem with either one, but let's not confuse the two.

 

[atpollard]

That's the problem, isn't it? Every sect says God says theirs is the true one.

Lutheran
Methodist
Presbyterian
Roman Catholic
Church of God
Evangelical Free
Southern Baptist
Pentecostal

I have worshiped at churches that would self-describe using one of these labels.
None of them with the possible exception of 'Roman Catholic' would claim that theirs is the only true 'Church' and the only denomination going to heaven.
... and to be fair to my Roman Catholic friends, their concern is probably not that other churches are 'evil/bad/wrong'. Most of them would be concerned that Jesus SAID authority rested with Peter and to reject 'Peter' is to contend with God. They would probably fear that other denominations were in rebellion against what God commands. That is hardly something to be viewed as sinister. I simply, and respectfully, disagree with my Catholic brothers and sisters (many of whom I expect to see in Heaven).

Christian Denominations disagree on details, and each believes that they have the details correct. The right balance of faith and works. The correct view on baptism and dedication and children. End time chronology.
Most Churches differ on a far more superficial level ... large or small community, formal mass or casual service, old hymns or contemporary songs.
For me, the deity of Jesus is one of the few points worth really 'fighting' (or leaving) over. I also look for evidence of real Christian faith - love, joy, hope ... a willingness to serve others - in any church that I attend. Not perfection (I would mess up any perfect place), but honesty ... a place where I can serve without needing to constantly check my mask. I am what I am ... a work in progress ... who loves Jesus and seeks out similar spirits.

I have found this 'one true sect' of which you speak to be the exception rather than the rule.
I have served and worshiped and made friends in all of the 'denominations' listed at the top of this post.
In Doctrine, they are all over the board. None has rejected me, and all seem to love and worship the same Jesus Christ that I love and worship. When we meet Him, we will be more alike, than different.

 

[Mr. Beebe]

Lutheran
Methodist
Presbyterian
Roman Catholic
Church of God
Evangelical Free
Southern Baptist
Pentecostal

The one thing all the denominations that you listed have in common, is: Sunday Observance

But you won't find it in the Bible, nowhere. It is the Church of Rome (Papacy) that Mandated the observance of Sunday. She is the Mother, and those Protestant Churches that Observe Sunday are her estranged Daughters.

The Last day Christian will have 2 attributes: he will keep the Commandments of God and have the Testimony of Jesus Christ.

 

[Jane.Doe]

"Belief" centers around the mythic -- not around the allegedly historic actions of existent human beings. Unless, of course, the human being is elevated to the position of the mythic. Like Joseph Smith. Either the plates are existentially real, or they're mythic. I have no problem with either one, but let's not confuse the two.

I'm confused at this part of your post (I'm sure what you mean). The "belief" comes in "do you believe XYZ" really happened, since we seldom can 100% prove events one way or another. I do believe that the plates were real, but respect that other people come to other conclusions.

 

[sojourner]

The one thing all the denominations that you listed have in common, is: Sunday Observance

But you won't find it in the Bible, nowhere. It is the Church of Rome (Papacy) that Mandated the observance of Sunday.

They all have in common the worship of Jesus. They all have in common the gathering into ekklesia. They all practice the biblical acts of diakonia, leiturgia, kerygma, didache, and euangelion. They all observe the biblical commandments of baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Christian worship had been transferred to Sunday as a celebration of the Resurrection long before the RCC was a recognizable denomination. At that time, there was only the Church, with authority divided equally between various geographical points, and not particularly settled in Rome.

 

[sojourner]

I'm confused at this part of your post (I'm sure what you mean). The "belief" comes in "do you believe XYZ" really happened, since we seldom can 100% prove events one way or another. I do believe that the plates were real, but respect that other people come to other conclusions.

Example: The best historic evidence we have was that a man named Jesus probably existed, that he was likely crucified, and that his body was likely fed to the dogs. That's it. That's the best that evidence and probability will give us. All the rest is mythic, and we don't conflate it with the historic. There is no historic evidence that the plates exited, in fact, it's more historically probable that they didn't exist. Their "existence" is, therefore, likely mythic and not likely literal.

 

[Jane.Doe]

Lutheran
Methodist
Presbyterian
Roman Catholic
Church of God
Evangelical Free
Southern Baptist
Pentecostal

I have worshiped at churches that would self-describe using one of these labels.
None of them with the possible exception of 'Roman Catholic' would claim that theirs is the only true 'Church' and the only denomination going to heaven.
... and to be fair to my Roman Catholic friends, their concern is probably not that other churches are 'evil/bad/wrong'. Most of them would be concerned that Jesus SAID authority rested with Peter and to reject 'Peter' is to contend with God. They would probably fear that other denominations were in rebellion against what God commands. That is hardly something to be viewed as sinister. I simply, and respectfully, disagree with my Catholic brothers and sisters (many of whom I expect to see in Heaven).

Christian Denominations disagree on details, and each believes that they have the details correct. The right balance of faith and works. The correct view on baptism and dedication and children. End time chronology.
Most Churches differ on a far more superficial level ... large or small community, formal mass or casual service, old hymns or contemporary songs.
For me, the deity of Jesus is one of the few points worth really 'fighting' (or leaving) over. I also look for evidence of real Christian faith - love, joy, hope ... a willingness to serve others - in any church that I attend. Not perfection (I would mess up any perfect place), but honesty ... a place where I can serve without needing to constantly check my mask. I am what I am ... a work in progress ... who loves Jesus and seeks out similar spirits.

I have found this 'one true sect' of which you speak to be the exception rather than the rule.
I have served and worshiped and made friends in all of the 'denominations' listed at the top of this post.
In Doctrine, they are all over the board. None has rejected me, and all seem to love and worship the same Jesus Christ that I love and worship. When we meet Him, we will be more alike, than different.

With the exception of RCC, the churches you listed all stem from Calvin/Wellsleyian thought, so you're not wandering very far. There ARE differences between these sects and to treat it all as "same difference" is... honestly it strikes me a watering down doctrine. And many of the differences aren't trivial music taste, but major "what is necessary for salvation" type topics.

Ideally, I'd like to see people in all these congregations taught to a sufficient depth that these differences do come up and are acknowledged. If people then agree-to-disagree, that's cool, but let's not pretend the differences don't exist... such is robbing ourselves of such beauty.

 

[Jane.Doe]

Example: The best historic evidence we have was that a man named Jesus probably existed, that he was likely crucified, and that his body was likely fed to the dogs. That's it. That's the best that evidence and probability will give us. All the rest is mythic, and we don't conflate it with the historic. There is no historic evidence that the plates exited, in fact, it's more historically probable that they didn't exist. Their "existence" is, therefore, likely mythic and not likely literal.

Are you trying to use archeology to prove spirituality? That's a sketchy path to trod, my friend...

 

[Mr. Beebe]

Christian worship had been transferred to Sunday as a celebration of the Resurrection

Where is your Biblical evidence that God changed His 7th day Sabbath to Sunday the 1st day of the week because of the resurrection?

 

[atpollard]

With the exception of RCC, the churches you listed all stem from Calvin/Wellsleyian thought, so you're not wandering very far. There ARE differences between these sects and to treat it all as "same difference" is... honestly it strikes me a watering down doctrine. And many of the differences aren't trivial music taste, but major "what is necessary for salvation" type topics.

Ideally, I'd like to see people in all these congregations taught to a sufficient depth that these differences do come up and are acknowledged. If people then agree-to-disagree, that's cool, but let's not pretend the differences don't exist... such is robbing ourselves of such beauty.

I agree to a point.
I am aware of the differences and, being a 5 point Calvinist, recognize that I hold a view often in the minority.
However, I always try to remember that these people do not answer to me. ... I am not their god.
God has more than enough 'mean Christians' defending doctrine at the expense of lives and souls.
... a lesson from the Pentecostals, who get so much doctrine wrong, but got this part right: "whenever possible, speak life into someone."

As a good Calvinist, my God is big enough to get them over the finish line.
My job is to speak the truth in love.

 

[sojourner]

With the exception of RCC, the churches you listed all stem from Calvin/Wellsleyian thought, so you're not wandering very far. There ARE differences between these sects and to treat it all as "same difference" is... honestly it strikes me a watering down doctrine. And many of the differences aren't trivial music taste, but major "what is necessary for salvation" type topics.

Ideally, I'd like to see people in all these congregations taught to a sufficient depth that these differences do come up and are acknowledged. If people then agree-to-disagree, that's cool, but let's not pretend the differences don't exist... such is robbing ourselves of such beauty.

Most sects do stem from Calvinist/Weslyan/Lutheran thought, because those were the major Protestant theologians (there are others, of course). None of it is "wandering very far," which is a good thing, since it usually means a difference of interpretation, without wandering into heresy. It isn't "watering down," so much as it is "celebrating differences that make Christianity more broadly applicable to a diverse humanity."

 

[sojourner]

Are you trying to use archeology to prove spirituality? That's a sketchy path to trod, my friend...

No, I'm stating that there's a vast difference between archeological evidence and belief, and that we shouldn't try to conflate the two. Because to do that is is a sketchy path to tread.