Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jros83 (Talk | contribs) at 01:29, 23 June 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

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[1][2] 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)

Well, I don't really have a horse in this race, but I'll go for a long shot with Mormons.--PalMDtalk 20:05, 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)

Another reason this whole page should be AFD'd. What a ridiculous question, prima facie.--PalMDtalk 20:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The answer to this question: Whatever denomination the answerer belongs to, probably. MountainDew 20:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Not for me...i picked the one I just thought sounded cool. The one you pick is most closely related to the one your parents picked.--PalMDtalk 20:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey, BTW, which one is the Mormon??? JK. I don't think anyone should be forced to reveal their personal beliefs to the world at large unless they wish to.--PalMDtalk 20:09, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Crocoite is openly Mormon. MountainDew 20:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

NP. Some of my best friends....--PalMDtalk 20:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The whole question strikes me as "Richard-ish"PalMDtalk 20:12, 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


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 tha, 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 preach 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)