Do differences in practices of faith mean we follow the same Jesus Christ?

[uss_bigd]

No, not everything. Not even His life, per se, but the whole book focuses on Him and His gospel.

Mentioned, yes. Hundreds of times, starting with prophesies of His coming (on page 2) and ending with a declaration that He is the Savior of the world (on page 531, the last page of the book).

The Book of Mormon is a firsthand account of His ministry to the inhabitants of the ancient Americas following his resurrection, written by the people He ministered to.

(Look, it was not my intention to derail your thread. I merely answered your question. I can absolutely, positively guarantee that if you pursue this topic here and now, your thread will never get back on track. If you want to ask more questions, I would suggest you start a new thread in the LDS DIR forum.)

no harm done, i just have to research exactly how jesus was depicted in your book.

 

[Katzpur]

no harm done, i just have to research exactly how jesus was depicted in your book.

FYI, in case you're interested: The Book of Mormon. Once you're there, do a search on "Jesus Christ," "Savior," "Redeemer," or "Messiah."

 

[blackout]

I think Jesus fully understood the idea of looking inward to find the answers we search for and to eventually become a Christ as he was. We all have the ability to be a 'Son of God' something that has been taught and understood for centuries.
Let me ask you . . . when you say 'faith' are you strictly speaking of the Christian faith?

This would be my own personal understanding as well.

Most christians would say this is not christian at all.

So I think the answer to the question is no.

Then again I gave up on trying to hold up a christian construct for myself.
It was clumsy, weighty, hazardously protruding
and came with the most confounded confusing manUal you ever did see!

 

[blackout]

Probably.

There is only one Christ, but many reconstructions of him. We enjoy creating Christ in our own image, whether it's a friendly politically correct hippie or the figment of a fundamentalist's imagination. None of them are faithful to Scripture, because there is no one Jesus, but four in the Gospels, at least two in Paul, and possibly another in Hebrews, not to mention the scores of others in the apocrypha.

Choose one that makes you feel warm and fuzzy and may God have mercy on your soul.

I liked your answer angellous.
It was honest, and realistic, and even warm and fuzzy! :rainbow1:

 

[Orontes]

Hello,

If I understand the idea, it is whether different practices mean the object of faith for those practices (i.e. Christ) must then be different. Is this correct? If so, then the question is whether those who practice baptism by immersion and those who baptize by anointing on the head and those who reject any necessity of baptism all have different Christs.




The above is not correct either historically or theologically. Christianity predates any canon and its respective belief sets extend beyond the same.

where else besides the bible can you find the life and teachings of christ?

Well, there isn't simply one Bible. The Bible of Protestantism is not the same as the Bible of Catholicism which again is different from say the Bible of Ethiopic Christianity. More to your question: there is a vast array of material concerning Christ and His teachings. This would include the Nag Hammadi material, Marcionite amended religious texts, texts that were included in various canonical versions of the Jesus Movement, but were later removed i.e. 'The Shepherd of Hermas'. Then there is the large amount pseudepigraphic material from the Period. The volume is truly vast.

The other issue is that Christianity by definition predates any Christian canon as there must be Christians to determine what is the holy writ for their faith. The standard New Testament canon is the product of the late Fourth Century. Unless one wants to argue Christianity didn't exist until the Fourth Century then there is an extended and rather critical period of Christian history that precedes it.

Was I correct in understanding your question on different faith practices equaling different Christs?

 

[uss_bigd]

Well, there isn't simply one Bible. The Bible of Protestantism is not the same as the Bible of Catholicism which again is different from say the Bible of Ethiopic Christianity. More to your question: there is a vast array of material concerning Christ and His teachings. This would include the Nag Hammadi material, Marcionite amended religious texts, texts that were included in various canonical versions of the Jesus Movement, but were later removed i.e. 'The Shepherd of Hermas'. Then there is the large amount pseudepigraphic material from the Period. The volume is truly vast.

The other issue is that Christianity by definition predates any Christian canon as there must be Christians to determine what is the holy writ for their faith. The standard New Testament canon is the product of the late Fourth Century. Unless one wants to argue Christianity didn't exist until the Fourth Century then there is an extended and rather critical period of Christian history that precedes it.

Was I correct in understanding your question on different faith practices equaling different Christs?

there is only one bible, the old and new testament books are consistent in all versions, the deuterocanonicals were jsut added at a later time.

the bible's report came from people whi lived with christ, no other book has that type of account.

again. the authenticity of the bible should fall in a different thread.

 

[sojourner]

there is only one Christ, the one whose life and teachings are in the Bible....so the question "what do you mean by the same Jesus Christ is retarded"

if you found another reference please let me know. thanks!

Au contraire, Pierre! There's the purely historical Jesus, as postulated by the Jesus Seminar and others. There's the historical Jesus, as written about by Josephus. There's the mythological Jesus of scripture and tradition. There's Jesus-the-Prophet, as he is seen by the Muslims. There's Jesus-the-human, as some people see him. There's Jesus-a-person-of-the-Trinity, as others see him. There's Jesus-the-Son-of-God-but-not-God, as still others see him. There's Jesus-that-lives-in-my-heart. There's Jesus-the Church. There's Jesus-in-all-persons. Etc.

Jesus is (and was!) known outside of Christian scripture. In fact, Jesus was known by tradition only for years following the crucifixion. Therefore, do we really want to miniaturize Jesus and sqeeze him into that box? Or is it both spiritually and scholastically desireable to address Jesus in the multiplicity with which we all understand him, and in which he is made known to us?

Not such a "retarded question" ... if you take time to actually think about it.:foot:
So, once again, back to my erudite and well-thought-out question, if you please.

 

[Orontes]

there is only one bible, the old and new testament books are consistent in all versions, the deuterocanonicals were jsut added at a later time.

the bible's report came from people whi lived with christ, no other book has that type of account.

again. the authenticity of the bible should fall in a different thread.

Sorry, I didn't note the reply until today.

To the above: this is not correct. There is not simply one Bible if the word Bible refers to the canonized texts contained within it. The various versions that exist are not consistent. The Codex Sinaiticus is a simple illustration. It contains both the Epistle of Barnabus and the Shepherd of Hermas. The Ethiopic Bible is another simple example which contains the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees. Moreover, there is a wide swath of material of the era that makes claims to holy writ. The Nag Hammadi texts are one example. Therefore, the base claims to what is and is not the word of the Lord is perspectival.

Per the deuterocanonicals: such was always a part of the Christian Tradition in one form or another. The deuterocanonicals date back at the least to the Septuagint (3rd Century B.C. E.) and thus predate the rise of the Jesus Movement. The traditional rejection of the deuterocanonicals comes from Jewish quarters at the Council of Jamnia (90 C.E.) not Christianity. They were included in St. Jerome's Vulgate, Luther's Translation as well as the King James Version: not to mention affirmed as canonical by several Western Councils in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries. It was in the 19th Century that Protestant omission become fashionable.

To your thread topic itself, I posted: "If I understand the idea, it is whether different practices mean the object of faith for those practices (i.e. Christ) must then be different. Is this correct? If so, then the question is whether those who practice baptism by immersion and those who baptize by anointing on the head and those who reject any necessity of baptism all have different Christs."

 

[uss_bigd]

Sorry, I didn't note the reply until today.

To the above: this is not correct. There is not simply one Bible if the word Bible refers to the canonized texts contained within it. The various versions that exist are not consistent. The Codex Sinaiticus is a simple illustration. It contains both the Epistle of Barnabus and the Shepherd of Hermas. The Ethiopic Bible is another simple example which contains the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees. Moreover, there is a wide swath of material of the era that makes claims to holy writ. The Nag Hammadi texts are one example. Therefore, the base claims to what is and is not the word of the Lord is perspectival.

Per the deuterocanonicals: such was always a part of the Christian Tradition in one form or another. The deuterocanonicals date back at the least to the Septuagint (3rd Century B.C. E.) and thus predate the rise of the Jesus Movement. The traditional rejection of the deuterocanonicals comes from Jewish quarters at the Council of Jamnia (90 C.E.) not Christianity. They were included in St. Jerome's Vulgate, Luther's Translation as well as the King James Version: not to mention affirmed as canonical by several Western Councils in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries. It was in the 19th Century that Protestant omission become fashionable.
."

again, this falls on a different thread, if you wish you start one, feel free

To your thread topic itself, I posted: "If I understand the idea, it is whether different practices mean the object of faith for those practices (i.e. Christ) must then be different. Is this correct? If so, then the question is whether those who practice baptism by immersion and those who baptize by anointing on the head and those who reject any necessity of baptism all have different Christs."

you are correct, but the metohd of baptism may not be the only difference.
the simple logic of my stance is, "no contradicting things can be both true"

 

[Katzpur]

the simple logic of my stance is, "no contradicting things can be both true"

I can assure you that Orontes would agree with this statement. What I don't get, Marc, is how you figure it's okay for you to make a statement like, "there is only one bible, the old and new testament books are consistent in all versions, the deuterocanonicals were just added at a later time," but it's not okay for someone else to respond to that statement. If Orontes' response is off-topic, so was the statement you made to which he was responding.

 

[uss_bigd]

I can assure you that Orontes would agree with this statement. What I don't get, Marc, is how you figure it's okay for you to make a statement like, "there is only one bible, the old and new testament books are consistent in all versions, the deuterocanonicals were just added at a later time," but it's not okay for someone else to respond to that statement. If Orontes' response is off-topic, so was the statement you made to which he was responding.

I understand...

let us just put it this way, for the sake of argment and consistency of basis. let us refer to the new and old testaments of the bible. which is pretty much the common denominator for all bibles.

 

[Orontes]

again, this falls on a different thread, if you wish you start one, feel free

I have to agree with Katzpur. It seems a little untoward to make claims and state corrections to those assertions are off topic. I have introduced no subject matter. I have simply responded to comments from yourself.

you are correct, but the metohd of baptism may not be the only difference.
the simple logic of my stance is, "no contradicting things can be both true"

If that is your stance, then you must admit that within Christendom different Christs are truly legion: as many as there are different sects.

 

[uss_bigd]

I have to agree with Katzpur. It seems a little untoward to make claims and state corrections to those assertions are off topic. I have introduced no subject matter. I have simply responded to comments from yourself.




If that is your stance, then you must admit that within Christendom different Christs are truly legion: as many as there are different sects.

That is exactly the point of the thread. glad we are on the same page sir...

 

[Orontes]

I understand...

let us just put it this way, for the sake of argment and consistency of basis. let us refer to the new and old testaments of the bible. which is pretty much the common denominator for all bibles.

Hmm, we posted past each other. It's fine to defer to one Bible or element of the Bible, but that still does not allow statements like: "Again, the Jesus Christ came from the bible, not from any other reference material. Hence, in this thread, the authenticity of the bible is not questioned, because it is the only reference where the life and teachings of Christ can be found." which I pointed out is both historically and theologically incorrect.

 

[uss_bigd]

Hmm, we posted past each other. It's fine to defer to one Bible or element of the Bible, but that still does not allow statements like: "Again, the Jesus Christ came from the bible, not from any other reference material. Hence, in this thread, the authenticity of the bible is not questioned, because it is the only reference where the life and teachings of Christ can be found." which I pointed out is both historically and theologically incorrect.

I already started a thread about that. its under biblical debates.

In this thread, for the sake of argument and consistency of basis, let us base arguments on the bible. specifically the OT and the NT.

why? I wish to limit the parameters in so that we can come to very clear conclusion.
something, like " based on the bible alone Christian denominations do not follow the same Christ depicted in the bible"

This way, it will prevent athiest from blowing the discussions out of proportion. i hope you get my point.

 

[Orontes]

I already started a thread about that. its under biblical debates.

In this thread, for the sake of argument and consistency of basis, let us base arguments on the bible. specifically the OT and the NT.

why? I wish to limit the parameters in so that we can come to very clear conclusion.
something, like " based on the bible alone Christian denominations do not follow the same Christ depicted in the bible"

This way, it will prevent athiest from blowing the discussions out of proportion. i hope you get my point.

I see. One thing you may want to consider is why different faith/devotional practices thereby mean the object of faith must thereby be different. Many would make distinction between ritual proper and the metaphysics of any object of devotion unless the ritual actually informs that object of devotion i.e. transubstantiation.

 

[Charity]

I already started a thread about that. its under biblical debates.

In this thread, for the sake of argument and consistency of basis, let us base arguments on the bible. specifically the OT and the NT.

why? I wish to limit the parameters in so that we can come to very clear conclusion.
something, like " based on the bible alone Christian denominations do not follow the same Christ depicted in the bible"

This way, it will prevent athiest from blowing the discussions out of proportion. i hope you get my point.

I think you have a logical point here...we have many different versions and interpretations of who Jesus is. In some churches he is a saint, some see him as just being a prophet. They hold him in high regard but do not hold him as a deity. They don't see him as Saviour or as The mediator between us and God,the Father. Some Christians do not understand the Trinity and how Jesus fits this position. We have some churches that believe in Jesus only and leave out God the father, and the Holy Ghost. ( Holy Spirit) It seems so hard to express to someone who is not a believer because of all the different opinions and conclusions of the Christians. Young converts get so confused that they don't know what to believe and end up, giving up. I hope I am on the right track here with what you want in your forum. So I cannot conclude that we all are serving Jesus effectively because of lack of knowledge, lack of understanding, and lack of study. Study to shew thyself approved.

no all Christian demonitations do not follow the same Jesus as depicted in the Bible. You have to follow the Whole Jesus not just part. :highfive:

 

[Katzpur]

no all Christian demonitations do not follow the same Jesus as depicted in the Bible. You have to follow the Whole Jesus not just part. :highfive:

I think, though, that it would be safe to say that most Christians believe that they are, in fact, following the Jesus who was depicted in the Bible. The problem is that we all interpret what the Bible has to say about Jesus in slightly different ways. Personally, I would never feel justified in telling another Christian that he believed in the "wrong Jesus," a "different Jesus," or a "counterfeit Jesus" -- as many a Christian has said to me.

 

[uss_bigd]

I think, though, that it would be safe to say that most Christians believe that they are, in fact, following the Jesus who was depicted in the Bible. The problem is that we all interpret what the Bible has to say about Jesus in slightly different ways. Personally, I would never feel justified in telling another Christian that he believed in the "wrong Jesus," a "different Jesus," or a "counterfeit Jesus" -- as many a Christian has said to me.

Just a thought "two contradicting concepts cannot be both true"

I wouldn't feel justified if i wouldnt tell another christian that he is mislead if i know he is, biblically speaking ofcourse.:angel2:

 

[Katzpur]

Just a thought "two contradicting concepts cannot be both true"

I couldn't agree more.

I wouldn't feel justified if i wouldnt tell another christian that he is mislead if i know he is, biblically speaking ofcourse.:angel2:

You would probably tell me that I'm misled, but I would have to disagree. :yes: