The Episcopalians, but that's personal preference :P
- No, it's the Mormons :p
I would say either Presbyterian or Reformed Baptist. I belong to a non-denominational church and Reformed Baptist is everything I believe. The only thing I disagree with about Presbyterians is infant baptism. I could never baptize my child for any reasons.
I tend to be distrustful about denominations in general, but I tend to go with the Southern Baptists or the Methodists. MountainDew 20:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
- Is that what you believe? Or would say, Ethiopian Orthodox be closer to what was taught in old times? Alternatively, are you suggesting that the central teachings of Christianity have changed through time? I am fairly sure it is trivial to show that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has not changed its teachings for at least a few hundred (if not a thousand or more) years - long before North America was a scribble on a map. And thus I ask, how can the Baptist church be closer to the central teachings of Christianity? And even more to the point - what are those central teachings? --Mtur 20:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I foresee a hornet's nest here, especially seeing as one of our best editors is a Mormon and has already come under fire for that on this site. MountainDew 20:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
The Bible tells us what the true remnant church will be like in the last days. It will be a world-wide movement, will teach exactly what the Bible says, will obey the doctrines of the Bible rather than those of man. Start with the 10 commandments. Which church still keeps the Sabbath? has no idols? has a worldwide mission statement? Study Revelation with a sincere desire to understand and ask for the guidance of the holy spirit. You will find your answer.--InHisImage
The answer to this question: Whatever denomination the answerer belongs to, probably. MountainDew 20:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Crocoite is openly Mormon. MountainDew 20:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Hijole (ee ho lay), seems like the Catholics are the furthest while the original Protestants were the closest. Either way, i think God is the best judge of that one. Dfairlyxed13
- I suppose this might be true if Christianity became static upon the Ascension (or maybe upon the death of the last original Apostle). However, Christianity is not static, it changes (I wouldn't want to use the term evolves on Conservapedia...). To whom did Christ say 'You are the Rock upon whom I found my Church'? Wasn't it Peter, the first Bishop of Rome (and therefore the first Pope). And didn't Christ say to Peter and the Apostles 'Let what you bind be bound, and what you loose be loosed'? And didn't Peter and the other Apostles, given this and other privileges, create a hierarchical Church and establish the Apostalic Succession? And who chose the books of the Bible that Protestants take as the only guiding light in their religion? Why don't Protestants add other books into the Bible that the much-maligned Catholic Church deemed not to be Sacred Scripture? Was there not a single other document that Protestants could be reconciled with but not Catholics, perhaps regarding differing opinions on the Trinity. And what if Thomas had written a very moving, beautiful letter through Divine Inspiration outlining the Church's doctrine on the Divine Mother? Would you accept that? If the Church's Catechism directly contradicted the Scriptures, there might be issues. However, the Catechism and the Bible are extraordinarily well reconciled--nearly two thousand years of scholastic endeavor have assured that. Indeed, Catholicism is probably the most self-consistent Christian religion. Nevertheless, the original question asks about most true to the 'central teachings' of Christianity. Well, if you take those teachings to be Christ's or Peter's, then Catholicism probably stands near the top. If you take Paul to be the spokeman for 'central teachings' then some other denominations become more competitive. However, I don't think that many of Christ's teachings would be well received on a Conservapedia.
- The thing is that Catholic mass has become a empty ritual. Christ didn't ask for religion, he asked for a intimate relationship. How are you supposed to have a relationship with the Christ when you go around praying to humans. God is the only one anyone should pray too. Not a human who died. Jesus died and came back and is alive. That's the main reason why the Catholics are not close at all. Dfairlyxed13
I would have to say Church of Scotland or United Reformed Church (pretty similar to Congregationalist or Presbytarian I think). I say that because these seem to be the only Churches which focus on love rather than hate, ie no one is excluded from worship whether they are gay or female or even a murderer. I believe that acceptance is the most difficult thing in the world to have, but it is also the most important thing, along with love. We should be happy that so many people wish to worship with us and we should not tell them how to live their lives or look down on them because they are different. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ, so the murderer and the judge are equal and the conservative and the gay should worship together because none of us are good enough to judge others or decide G-d's judgement. The B-ble is a mythological story, beautifully written, but not G-d's exact words. Each person must give it their own interpretation and no one's interpretation can be deemed wrong or worse than anyone elses.
However, I do think that this is a bit of a redundant question, since each person has their own unique relationship with G-d and no one's can be considered further away than anyone elses. Ululator 13:11, 5 May 2009 (EDT)
If you are following people who require you to follow their teachings in order for your salvation, it's a good bet that you no longer adhere to the original disciples of the Son of God. Read the Bible and study it. It is spiritual manna. No human that places their teachings between you and the bible should be trusted before it. I only benefit from those that only teach the Bible without inserting their own liberal interpretations. Just about all that I know of have denominated their own words in addition to His word.--Roopilots6 13:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
- Is it OK with you if they insert their own conservative interpretations? Reading the Bible is going to demand interpretations, some trivial, some of much more serious import. Even the selection of a specific version demands a selection of interpretations. Boomcoach 13:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
- You should be able to go back to the original Hebrew text. Get a Concordance and get a good study Bible that hasn't been reinterpreted into something that's merely politically correct or denominational. Study history, language, anthropology, etc. Biblical truths don't change because of different translations. The only interpretation you should be looking for is the original one when it was written. Looking for the truth wasn't meant to be easy, was it?--Roopilots6 17:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
- For the NT, it would be the original Greek or Aramaic, and AFAIK, these are not available. There is a whole field of study devoted to trying to figure out what the original text said. Much is known, but much is still conjecture. A "good study Bible that hasn't been reinterpreted into something that's merely politically correct or denominational" is simply choosing one that matches your own preconceptions. In the end, any reading of the Bible is an interpretation, and the vast majority of people do not have the ability or the time to find the most original texts, learn a couple ancient languages, then create their own interpretation.
- By definition, any translation changes from the original, so anyone's translation becomes an interpretation. The vast majority of people have little choice but to select a denomination that most closely matches their own preconceptions. Boomcoach 10:56, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
When choosing to denominate yourself to someone elses you have accepted their interpretation. You accept their conjecture. You will be required to accept the extra traits they have added to original scripture. Be wary of following others interpretations. Seek the truth from the original writer. Reject the preconceptions of people that have prejudiced themselves with their own traditions. There is only one Christian Church. Do not let others divide you amongst each other. This is the divide to weaken tact used to keep Christians in easily controllable groups. Don't fall for that trap. You belong to the Son of God and not any man-made denomination.--Roopilots6 19:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Not a simple question
I submit that the only true and central teachings of Christianity are what came directly from the mouth of Jesus Christ. After that, the moment the very first organized denomination established itself, there came into existence points of divergence, by the sheer fundemental nature of such a concept of a denomination. If different denominations all practiced and preached nothing but the central teachings of their shared faith, there would in effect be no actual denominations at all. As we all know, this is not so. Jros83 21:29, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
The variations within a denomination are often greater than the differences among denominations. Any denomination (or church within a denomination) that acknowledges the trinity and the sacrifice and free love gift of Jesus for the sins of mankind qualifies. Anything else breaking down into which is the 'most true' just seeks to divide. I draw a parallel to James and John wanting to sit on Jesus' right hand and left in heaven. Trying to determine who will be sitting on the right and left hand misses the point. The important thing is to be there. Learn together 14:45, 15 February 2008 (EST)
Definitely. --Evelyn 12:50, 3 December 2009 (EST)
Either Catholic, Orthodox, or Messianic Judaism
I would say that any one of these religions are probably closest to the teachings of Christianity. If you read the Bible, the early Church was rather diverse, and still is to this day. It was also centralized, though not as centralized as modern Catholicism is today. It was not as decentralized as Eastern Orthodoxy, and definitely not as decentralized as Messianic Judaism. Because of differing cultures and different perspectives, these three are probably the closest to early Christian thought. While not a Christian denomination, Messianic Jews can be considered one of the closest to the teachings of Christ, since many of Christ's early followers did not agree with St. Paul's teachings. No offense, but I don't consider any form of Protestantism in any way close to the early Church. The early Church was never about following the Bible - they wrote parts of the Bible, since the focus was on Christ, and living a Christian life, not on "following the Bible." (Living a Christian life also includes having what the Fundamentalists call "a personal relationship with Christ," and every follower of every religion should have that.) And as for "interpreting the Bible," key figures such as Calvin and Darby interpreted it in such a liberal way, that they might as well have rewritten it. Some examples of this are predestination, dispensationalism, and prohibitionary attitudes towards such things as drinking and gambling (which in themselves aren't wrong). I'm a Catholic, BTW. -danq 17:26, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Catholic, or Orthodox
As a catholic i would have to argue that although corruption may have ruined the reputation and credibility of the church, overall the central teachings of the church have not changed over the years. Unlike in the protestant denominations, the significance of the bible texts are decided by hundreds of different men who come to a general consensus on what the text means in accordance with doctrine unlike other denominations in which each preacher interprets the texts according to his own personal beliefs. Also in the catholic bible the texts have not been altered as they have in many prostestant translations. If one takes into consideration that the catholic bible has been translated multiple times by monks experienced in latin, where as the King James Version serves as the sole translation of the bible for many protestant denominations. Furthermore, the focus of the Catholic faith remains in christ, and the personal aspect of our own spirituality as opposed to the outward displays of the holy spirit in the protestant faiths were the focus can sometimes seem lost in the cinematics. Overall, all of us worship the same god and the same christ, if one chooses a more extreme form or less extreme form it all remains the same overall belief. However if arguement must be made the Catholic Church is the most true to the central teachings of christianity for several simple points:
- The Catholic church is a united entity working toward the same goals encompassing peoples of all races and cultures across the world and has existed for over 2000 years despite prosecution and corruption - The Catholic church has over the past 50 years dedicated much of its efforts to creating better relations with all of god's children, even those of different religions, especially under Pope John Paul II - The Catholic Church has not altered the word of christ nearly as much as other denominations for in order for protestants and fundementalists to make more "true" interptretations of the bible and the word they had to change the texts that had been considered for centuries to be the original texts
For these reasons as well as others, it is apparent that the Catholic Church has remained most true to the central teachings of Christ.
Final note: The Catholic Church has donated more money and resources worldwide than any other charity or orginazation in the world.
I think they hit the nail on the bloody head. Its like reconciling Western Christianity with the Torah.
Just wanted to toss that in, someone can put more infor if they want.