Question about Christianity please!

jerthunter

Active Member
I think it might be best if we do not turn this thread into a debate over which faith's are 'valid'. I am not here to defend any religious group or sect however I think it is important for people not to dismiss a group of people as being 'not really Christians' because you do not agree with something you have heard about them.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
I think it might be best if we do not turn this thread into a debate over which faith's are 'valid'. I am not here to defend any religious group or sect however I think it is important for people not to dismiss a group of people as being 'not really Christians' because you do not agree with something you have heard about them.
I don't think anyone is doing that.
The original poster, however, seems to be fairly confused. Some clarification is in order. "Christian" denominations (Catholic and Protestant) use the Bible as their base of theology. The Mormon church uses the Bible along with four other religious books. Those religious books contradict much of what the Bible teaches.
I'm not arguing one belief is more valid than the other, but I did want to make it clear to the OT that there is a difference. As the Bible defines what being a Christian means, only those denominations that follow it's teachings can properly be called a "Christian" denomination.
Again, I'm not arguing which religion or belief is more valid. Just answering the OT's question.
 

jerthunter

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
I don't think anyone is doing that.
The original poster, however, seems to be fairly confused. Some clarification is in order. "Christian" denominations (Catholic and Protestant) use the Bible as their base of theology. The Mormon church uses the Bible along with four other religious books. Those religious books contradict much of what the Bible teaches.
I'm not arguing one belief is more valid than the other, but I did want to make it clear to the OT that there is a difference. As the Bible defines what being a Christian means, only those denominations that follow it's teachings can properly be called a "Christian" denomination.
Again, I'm not arguing which religion or belief is more valid. Just answering the OT's question.
I have no problem with expessing the differences, since that is what the question was about. However, it appears as if the replies have been basically saying, 'Well Mormons shouldn't even be on the list." I can understand saying that the Mormon faith has more differences between it and other Christian faith than most other faith have between them, however I do not believe it is fair to just say, "Oh, they're not Christians." Whether they are or are not 'Christian' depends on your definition. As I have stated before, based on your definition that a Christian is a follower of the teachings of Christ, all the Mormons that I know of would be considered Christian.
It is true that the Mormon faith has additional religious writings compared to the standard 'Christian canon' however I think it would only be fair to acknowledge that the current 'Christian canon' has at times in the past included different texts that were later removed, and many people still see contradictions even in the Christian canon in its present form.
 

chano

Member
IMHO it is not fair to say anyone who belives in christ and follows what they hold in their heart to not be "christian enough" to be on the list. I mean honestly challanging someones faith is at best subjective because nobody really knows who is "right" in what they belive as compared to others. One could bring up that the origonal religious trinity was Isis, Osiris, and Horus stolen by constintine in an effort to further his belifes. Many people would not agree and some may get offended but thats basically what people are doing to mormons on this thread. I am not mormon but i don't belive it is ok to discredit peoples belifes because they differ from your own.
 

dogstar

Active Member
Originally Posted by Chano
IMHO it is not fair to say anyone who belives in christ and follows what they hold in their heart to not be "christian enough" to be on the list.

" ...as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's. "
All are Christ's....I will let Him judge....
There has been debate about the right things to practice and beleive from the beginning...all the Apostles didnt even agree on things..most of the epistles were written because they were argueing among themselfs...there are contriditions in the NT by them and its clear that each feel theirs are right.....Dont be concerned about the differences unless you feel in your own heart what your being told is wrong....listen to God and Christ and the Spirit that YOU receive from THEM...ask THEM to have your eyes and ears opened by THEM...not man. Not me.
 

mike22cha

Active Member
The whole debate of which religion or denomination is just out of whack. There is a line in a Christian song I like to think of when this debate comes along:"Jesus paid too great of price, for us to chose who should come" I believe that quote is from the song "If We Are The Body". My 2 cents.
I'm a Seventh Day Adventist which is a Christian Denomination, but has completely different views than most denominations (but most of our different views are not that big of deal).
 

nvmycj

Member
Originally Posted by Darknes
Basically, all Christian religions have the same beliefs in Jesus and the trinity (there might be some wacko ones I don't know of, lol). All believe Jesus was the Son of God, died for our Sins, and was Resurrected.
As far as differences, they mainly lie in the rites and traditions rather than in beliefs. I'm Catholic, and don't know all the details of other Christian religions, but I can give you a list of things Catholics do/believe that other religions disagree with:
Catholics follow the pope, cardinals, bishops, and priests.
Priests lead a life of celibacy and are not allowed to marry.
Only men can be priests or bishops.
Catholics follow both the Bible and tradition (this is where many Christian religions are different)
We believe in the Sacraments - Communion, Reconciliation, etc.
Mortal sins must be confessed during Reconciliation in front of a priest.
We believe in praying to Mary and the other Saints in Heaven (we don't worship them, but ask for them to intercede and pray for us).
We believe that during Mass, the bread and wine become Jesus' body and blood (every Mass is a miracle).
We don't necessarily take the Bible literally as many fundamentalists do.
We believe in the infallibility of the Pope.
We also don't believe salvation comes from faith alone, but from faith AND acts of good will (this is probably the biggest difference).
We also believe in a difference between venial and mortal sins, which many Protestants do not.
We believe in Purgatory as a place everyone goes after death before Heaven.

As a former Catholic for most of my life, now turned Baptist, I've always had a hard time believing in the Catholic mentality. I respect your beliefs as a Catholic, but I had some issues, and still do, with my parents and extended family. Issues that made me leave Catholicism. (sp?)
1. Baptism as a child.
As a child, I had no choice in acceptance of the Holy Spirit. My parents had a priest pour some water over my head and I was "baptised." I did not accept the Holy Spirit as an infant. I was not fully immersed. Recently, I followed the example of Jesus, and was fully immersed, and I made a cognitive decision to accept the Holy Spirit into my life.
2. Sacraments.
Who made up the Catholic sacraments? Are they in the bible anywhere? Bapatism, Confirmation, Marriage, ....etc., etc.,. Why are the a must have? What gives priests, bishops, cardinals or the pope, whom are mortal men, the power of turning wine and bread into the body and blood of Christ? What gives them the authority (or business for that matter) to forgive me of my sins? My confession is to Jesus Christ, my savior. HE will forgive my of my sins. Not a mortal man.
3. Why are priests not allowed to be married?
They are men, and therefore, human. Humans with needs and simply put, desires. Allowing them to marry, might have prevented the inevitable.
4. Recited prayers.
These prayers are not from the heart. I was told what to pray, what to say, and when to say it. I was told went to sit, stand and kneel. A priest friend of mine called it "Catholic calistenics." (sp?)
ies/bigg.gif" border="0" alt="" title="big grin" class="inlineimg" />
5. Catholics follow both the Bible and tradition.
Big issue here. Catholics follow more the tradition of their parents and grandparents, than the teachings of the Bible. How so...well I was Baptized as an infant, like my parents were, and had a confirmation as a teen, like my parents did, and their parents before them.
6.Catholics follow the pope, cardinals, bishops, and priests.
They do this without any question or hesitation. Their word, instead of the Bible, is what is expected of the followers.
I'm sorry if I've upset you. But again, I respect your and my families beliefs. I just do not like being told how or what to believe. Tradition may work for turkey dinners on Thanksgiving, and presents for birthdays, but when it comes to the salvation of my soul..........the Bible is my souls owner manual.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by MiaHeatLvr
Keeping the belief in Jesus as a centerpiece, can anybody tell me the difference, summarized the best as possible, with all due respect of course! The difference between,
Catholic
Christian
Epenicostal
Born-Again Christian
Lutheran
Mormon
Orthodox
Protestant
Chirst the King
Latterday Saints
and any other I might have left out.
Kind Regards!

On a more practical level, there are smaller books discussing different religions, sadly most are not very objective but they are avaliable.
In a nutshell, most denominations accepting the normal cannon are very simular. The agreed upon ideology being the "saved by grace". (I'm assuming some backround knowledge.) And the infallibility of the Bible. Then you get some discussion on "healing", "Baptism of the Holy Spirit", "Pre-destination". Basically some interpretations of the "Holy Bible". These different denominations include, Bapists, Church of Christ, Assemblies of God, Non-Denominational, Methodists, (I think). And some others.
Then you get others that do not agree on the saved by grace. But they have to work for it. Doing various stuff, religious practices catholics for example. Or the Church of Latter Days saints and there guys in white shirts and on bikes.
Then you get others that have written totally different scriptures, taking on additional deities.
The second grouping of differences is historical. The first state run Catholics, then after a while groups split from them, including Luther (the Lutherans) When he actually read the Bible (assuming infallibility) saw what he thought were not scriptural practices such as indulgences (payments to the priest for forgiveness of sins) and other things. And well there is 2000 years of history that is way to difficult to summarize. These can be general headings like the Protestant where some of these offshoots come like Baptists ect. Or their own Group like the Lutherans, Episcopal Church.
But it is a big mess.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Chano
IMHO it is not fair to say anyone who belives in christ and follows what they hold in their heart to not be "christian enough" to be on the list. I mean honestly challanging someones faith is at best subjective because nobody really knows who is "right" in what they belive as compared to others. One could bring up that the origonal religious trinity was Isis, Osiris, and Horus stolen by constintine in an effort to further his belifes. Many people would not agree and some may get offended but thats basically what people are doing to mormons on this thread. I am not mormon but i don't belive it is ok to discredit peoples belifes because they differ from your own.
I think my earlier point needs to be restated; I'm not arguing which religion is more "right".
The term "Christian" comes from the Bible. If you have a denomination that claims to be Christian then the Bible should be the standard for the definition of the word to apply.
Research the Mormon Church and beliefs. They DO NOT conform to the Biblical definition of what a "Christian" is. I'm not saying They are wrong, and I'm not saying any other belief is right. i'm just saying they are very different.
As for your Constantine comment, that is not accurate in the least. The Doctrine of the Trinity was well established in the first century church.
 

jerthunter

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
I think my earlier point needs to be restated; I'm not arguing which religion is more "right".
The term "Christian" comes from the Bible. If you have a denomination that claims to be Christian then the Bible should be the standard for the definition of the word to apply.
Research the Mormon Church and beliefs. They DO NOT conform to the Biblical definition of what a "Christian" is. I'm not saying They are wrong, and I'm not saying any other belief is right. i'm just saying they are very different.
As for your Constantine comment, that is not accurate in the least. The Doctrine of the Trinity was well established in the first century church.
I find it odd to claim that the term "Christian" comes from the Bible. Out of the very few references to "Christians" in the Bible that I know of, the closest I found of a "definition" comes from Acts 11 verse 26
"and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch."
Perhaps I am missing a better verse, if so please let me know. But based on the very limited references to "Christians" in the Bible I think it would be a rather large stretch to claim that the Bible gives us any definiton of Christians by which we can measure what faith's are Christians.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
I find it odd to claim that the term "Christian" comes from the Bible. Out of the very few references to "Christians" in the Bible that I know of, the closest I found of a "definition" comes from Acts 11 verse 26
"and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch."
Perhaps I am missing a better verse, if so please let me know. But based on the very limited references to "Christians" in the Bible I think it would be a rather large stretch to claim that the Bible gives us any definiton of Christians by which we can measure what faith's are Christians.
Nope, that is where the term comes from.
The word "Christian" means "Follower of Christ". The teachings of Christ were written in the NT books during the first century. That's when the "church" first appeared. Where else would we get the definition of the word?
Why would this be odd? If you read the "Illiad" you see the folks of Troy were "Trojans". Woudl you argue the fact if someone from London said they were "Trojans"?
The Bible very clearly lays out what it means to be a "follower of Christ". As the Bible is the source of the word, and the Bible lays out the requirements for "being a Christian", and the Bible is the oldest written document outlining the church and "christianity" it by defaults defines what being a Christian is.
 

jerthunter

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Nope, that is where the term comes from.
The word "Christian" means "Follower of Christ". The teachings of Christ were written in the NT books during the first century. That's when the "church" first appeared. Where else would we get the definition of the word?
Why would this be odd? If you read the "Illiad" you see the folks of Troy were "Trojans". Woudl you argue the fact if someone from London said they were "Trojans"?
The Bible very clearly lays out what it means to be a "follower of Christ". As the Bible is the source of the word, and the Bible lays out the requirements for "being a Christian", and the Bible is the oldest written document outlining the church and "christianity" it by defaults defines what being a Christian is.
I have no arguement that the word Christian is used in the Bible. I counted 3 times but none of them serve as a definition. Like I said the best reference to the word "Christian" was in Act 11:26 where it tells us, "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch."
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
I have no arguement that the word Christian is used in the Bible. I counted 3 times but none of them serve as a definition. Like I said the best reference to the word "Christian" was in Act 11:26 where it tells us, "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch."
But then you could argue, that the rest of the NT defines what the Antiochs were refering to as christians.
 

gnorman

Active Member
well i read the first 20 or so posts and got the the part where someone wanted a mormon to chip in, so, here i am, i am a member of the chruch of Jesus Christ of latter day saints ( mormon ) i am 18 years old and am currently attending BYU idaho. i am also getting ready to serve a full time mission ( 2 years ).... i usually tend to stay away from these thread b.c it turns into bible bashing but what i have read so far i like. people are being respected and so are their religions which i admire.
someone said that they dont know much about the Mormon faint but they do know that Joseph Smith was lynched. let me try to help ( its ok you thought he was lynched- some other religions teach their members our so called doctrines which tend to be not true and far from the truth) Jospeh smith was murdered ( shot ) by a mob while being help in carthage jail in illinois or missouri.( sorry im not sure of what one exactly, if u want i can go find out but i am away of all of my scriptures and notes as of this moment )
we believe that Joesph smith restored the lords gospel on the earth. as most of u know there was an apostasy. and when that happened, we believe the priesthood power was taken from the earth b.c all the lords apostles were killed or died and there was then no line of priesthood authority. thus, the apostasy. we believe that Joseph smith saw Heavenly Father and his Son Jesus Christ as two separate beings. which goes against the trinity. we believe that they are as one; meaning the lord cannot do anything heavenly father cant do and what the lord does is thy fathers will. but they are 2 distinctive beings. they have body's of flesh and bones, and heavenly father gave his only begotten son for us. the holy ghost is a spirt, and because so, is able to be everywhere as well as being able to dwell within us. Joseph Smith restored the lords Church to the earth. we believe that the Book of Mormon is to be the word of God. we believe that it is a record of the people of the Amercias who came from Jerusalem and is the fullness of the Lords Gospel. we believe that all other chruches are good, and some of their teachings are true. we believe that because we have the Book of Morman as well as other teachings, that we have the fullness of the gospel. and thats why we send men that are 19 years old out away from their familys to other parts of the world, to give those the opportunity to hear the fullness of the Lords gospel
 

darknes

Active Member
Interesting, and thanks for posting GNorman. I know many people (myself included) know very little about your church.
Is your missionary a requirement or only recommended? Do you have to be 19 to do it, or are you allowed to do it at a later time in life (such as if you wanted to finish school)?
How do you view Joseph Smith? Is he considered a very holy person, a prophet, or just an average person?
 

gnorman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darknes
Interesting, and thanks for posting GNorman. I know many people (myself included) know very little about your church.
Is your missionary a requirement or only recommended? Do you have to be 19 to do it, or are you allowed to do it at a later time in life (such as if you wanted to finish school)?
How do you view Joseph Smith? Is he considered a very holy person, a prophet, or just an average person?
about a mission- our prophet, Gordan B Hinckley, stated that
" every young man who reaches the age of 19 and is worthy to serve a mission should." ( i dont know if the quote is exactly what he said but basically thats what he said) other prophets have also said that its our duty to serve a full time and honorable mission when we become of age. the age that we go serve is when we are 19 years old. the latest we can go out is either 25 or 26 ( somewhere around there ). if u are not worthy, you will not have the opportunity to serve. we are taught that if we are worthy, we should go when we turn 19 or when we are able to mentally and physically handle a mission. we shouldn't let all of our schooling get in the way ( meaning complete college then serve ) but, i know of people that get a whole year in before they go and they end up leaving when they are near the age of 20 or so. some big reasons for leaving when were 19- it helps us become more mature and understanding for what the future has in store for us.its gets us more prepared for the next stages of our lives. most missionaries mature greatly while on their mission. they learn what true charity is all about
we believe that Joseph Smith restored the Lords church upon the Earth. we believe that he was a prophet of God ( just like the prophets of old in the new and old testament). in any way shape or form we do not worship Joseph Smith. we believe that he was also not a perfect being. he had trials and was tested just like all other men. personally, i love Joseph Smith, im thankful for his faith that he had when doing the lords work.
sorry to go on but i want to say one more thing about the Bible ( we read and follow the King James version ) and Book of Mormon. we believe that they are both the word of God, and we believe that they go hand in hand. let me explain- in Ezekiel 37:16 it reads " moreover thou son of man, take thee one stick and write upon it, for Judah and for the children of Israel his companions. and take another stick and write upon it for Joseph the Stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions. (17) and join them one to another into one stick and they shall become one in thine hand. we believe that the stick of Judah is the bible and the Stick of Ephraim is the Book of Mormon. which are now bound together as our scriptures.
in John 10:16 it reads- and other sheep i have which are not of this fold, them also i must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. we believe that the other sheep that are not of this fold were the people in the Americas.
 

elfdoctors

Active Member
Part of the reason why so many different religious traditions all use the bible is that there are many different versions of the bible.
Besides being viewed as important to Catholics, the books of the apocrypha are accepted as very important in the Jewish faith - the rationale behind the feast of Hanukkah is related to a story told in one of the books of the apocrypha. As far as I can deduce, the biggest reason the apocrypha was deleted from most Protestant versions of the bible is that the Protestant versions wanted the Old Testament to end with the prophecy for a messiah. This allows a more seamless segue into the New Testament.
There are many other religious books which were thought to be very important in ancient times which are no longer considered sacred writings. There is even a good rationale which proves that many of the epistles acclaimed to Paul were not written by him. Even the four Gospels were probably not written by the stated evangelists. (Who would expect that poor peasant fisherman would be able to speak (much less write) in Greek.) Here's a link to a course which discusses many of these lesser known books. http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursede...93&pc=Religion The most important one of these is the Gospel of Thomas (which is a collection of over 100 sayings of Jesus - and is very difficult to interpret if you don't understand the general premises behind gnosticism). This book may have even been the "Q" document which Matthew Mark and Luke had read before expounding further in their own gospels.
The entire Nicene creed has statements to debunk more popular versions of Christianity (particularly gnosticism). The only region of the ancient world which believed in this creed was centered around Rome. Which version of Christianity would you expect would have been imposed on the rest of the world when the Emporer of Rome converted to Christianity?
Perhaps the truth is that there are many different belief systems which give different paths to the same truth.
 

fishycpa

Member
John 14:6 ~ Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
 
Top