Is Christianity really the religion of the prophets and apostles?

Started by chickenlover985 pages

is it just me....or does okie start really bad threads?

Originally posted by chickenlover98
is it just me....or does okie start really bad threads?

Every leap year somebody starts a good thread. For the most part, threads tend to be pointless.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Every leap year somebody starts a good thread. For the most part, threads tend to be pointless.

ok let me rephrase: is it just me or does okie start exceptionally bad threads?

Originally posted by chickenlover98
ok let me rephrase: is it just me or does okie start exceptionally bad threads?

I don't think it would be politically correct for me to answer that one 😆

Originally posted by Quark_666
I don't think it would be politically correct for me to answer that one 😆
😆

cl98

My post are only bad for Chistians who have no answers.

Okie

Originally posted by AOR
I personally believe they'd belong to Catholicism. Given the history of the church and how everything branched from said church.

Not really. Orthodoxy was the original Church, and therefore older than Catholicism. If anything, Catholicism branched off from Mainstream Christianity.

Originally posted by Okieshowedem
My post are only bad for Chistians who have no answers.

Don't push me or I'll give you answers.

Originally posted by Mindship
Jesus was a devout Jew who had no intention of starting a new faith (that was Saul's doing, who went to the Gentiles because the Jews rejected his claim of Jesus as Messiah).

The Old Testament contains hundreds of prophecies concerning the coming Messiah, and Jesus fills the void (like hand in glove); Jesus came as the "living" Word of God--to teach the truth--and bear the sins of mankind. For further consideration, read Isaiah 53:1-12, written 7 centuries before Jesus we born.

Originally posted by Mindship
Jesus rallied against the ossification of his faith, just like many rally against organized religion today. That Christianity is "something more" than Judaism is ethnocentric thinking, the kind responsible for Christianity's MGIBTYG mindset and its bloody convert-or-die history.

Jesus--God incarnate--had a mission to redeem mankind; period. Jesus did not have faith in the manner in which you propose. Jesus always spoke in "His" Father's name. Jesus is the ultimate revelation of truth. Jesus also spoke on His own authority and proved He was the Son of God by means of resurrection.

Originally posted by Mindship
Further, Jesus=God was Constantine's proclamation, once he adopted the faith.

This completely underminds the "origins" of the Christian Church; if the resurrection had not occurred, the Christian Church would be non-existent, not to mentin vain. And keep in mind, specifically about the passage below, the book of Corinthians was written (about) 3 centuries before Constantine was in power.

"And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (1 Corinthians 15:14).

Originally posted by ushomefree
The Old Testament contains hundreds of prophecies concerning the coming Messiah, and Jesus fills the void (like hand in glove); Jesus came as the "living" Word of God--to teach the truth--and bear the sins of mankind. For further consideration, read Isaiah 53:1-12, written 7 centuries before Jesus we born.

Jesus--God incarnate--had a mission to redeem mankind; period. Jesus did not have faith in the manner in which you propose. Jesus always spoke in "His" Father's name. Jesus is the ultimate revelation of truth. Jesus also spoke on His own authority and proved He was the Son of God by means of resurrection.

This completely underminds the "origins" of the Christian Church; if the resurrection had not occurred, the Christian Church would be non-existent, not to mentin vain. And keep in mind, specifically about the passage below, the book of Corinthians was written (about) 3 centuries before Constantine was in power.

"And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (1 Corinthians 15:14).

Chuck Norris >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>jesus

EDIT: know what i challenge you to disprove chuck norris being the only god.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
Chuck Norris >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>jesus

EDIT: know what i challenge you to disprove chuck norris being the only god.

ya thats right run from my challenge like the coward you are 😛

Originally posted by chickenlover98
ya thats right run from my challenge like the coward you are 😛

Talking to yourself again? 😂

There can be little doubt the Apostles and Prophets would identify with the Christian religion today. Many of them gave their lives in honor of their Messiah.

The more pointed question might be: Who's branch of Christianity would they join, if any?

Would they be Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant? If Protestant, then which denomination? Would they choose one of the more fundamental groups, or liberal, or somewhere in between? Would they choose a more evangelical group, or a more charismatic variety, or found a new group of their own? Would they infiltrate any number of different groups and go about setting them straight?

I'm not sure I can answer this question with objective accuracy; each Christian sect dogmatically claims the Apostles and Prophets as their own. But suffice it to say, a great many of us might be surprised.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Not really. Orthodoxy was the original Church, and therefore older than Catholicism. If anything, Catholicism branched off from Mainstream Christianity.

I've heard catholics say the same about the Orthodox. I know it's related to the two popes, any reason in particular you say it is the catholics who split?

No way that a Hebrew Messiah would allow anyone to call Him a Christian.

Every brand of this religion rejects the teaching of the prophets and the TRUE MESSIAH'S apostles.
Read 1 John then ask yourself as a Christian do I do these things?
If you tell the turh you will say NO!

Okieshowedem

The obvious answer is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints because we believe in the same appointments tp priesthood offices as Jesus' appointments.

In fact, Joseph Smith was given the priesthood by Peter, James, John and John the Baptist.

All Mormon doctrine aside, it would seem they would affiliate with the church that best personified Jesus Christ's teachings. One could review all of the doctrine's specific to Christ's teachings and compare that to a modern religion and conclude which one best fits the bill. This would probably have to be done by an objective third party, like atheist or Muslim scholars of religion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The obvious answer is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints because we believe in the same appointments tp priesthood offices as Jesus' appointments.

In fact, Joseph Smith was given the priesthood by Peter, James, John and John the Baptist.

All Mormon doctrine aside, it would seem they would affiliate with the church that best personified Jesus Christ's teachings. One could review all of the doctrine's specific to Christ's teachings and compare that to a modern religion and conclude which one best fits the bill. This would probably have to be done by an objective third party, like atheist or Muslim scholars of religion.

😱
What makes you think Atheists and Muslims are objective?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
😱
What makes you think Atheists and Muslims are objective?

Because they don't favor one Christian sect above another.

Originally posted by dadudemon
All Mormon doctrine aside, it would seem they would affiliate with the church that best personified Jesus Christ's teachings.

How does that make sense, particularly from a mormon?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Not really. Orthodoxy was the original Church, and therefore older than Catholicism. If anything, Catholicism branched off from Mainstream Christianity.

Your argument is inherently flawed, since Catholicism was and is the only church that Jesus Christ founded; therefore your argument that Catholicism is a branch of mainstream Christianity is absurd. In fact, the Church was re-named the Catholic Church in order to differentiate itself from heretical and schismatic sects (such as Eastern Orthodox). The reason that the Eastern Orthodox cannot possibly be the true Church (and the same applies with all other protestant denominations) is that they break from apostolic succession (every member of the Catholic Clergy can trace his ordination to Peter being ordained as the first pope of the Church, "And so I say to you, upon this rock I shall build my Church" (Matthew 16:18). Christ at this point is talking to Peter, and furthermore Peter as a name literally translates to "The Rock", so by using logical reasoning, it can be deduced that Peter was the first "Head" of the Church. From there he went around ordaining bishops and priests and now all priests and Catholic clergy can trace back to Peter. This is what gives them the true communion. The Eastern Orthodox broke from that succession when they schismed from the Church and instead of following the apostolic line, committed excommunicable heresy in ordaining bishops out of the line of apostolic succession through the Emperor and his officials; therefore they are one of the first "protestant" break-offs of Catholicism, not the other way around.