How many Christian Churches are there?

[jubilee131]

The "Church Universal" has many Paths to God.
we are not going to be tested on the details of a belief or the format of the services we attended. Or that we believe that the Bible is inerrant.
We shall be Judged " If that is what God does" In how closely Our lives have fulfilled the path laid down for us by Jesus in his teachings. and our love for God, his creation,and our fellow man.
God is not a reward for being good, or completing a task like a child earns sweeties.
We love God as he loves us. Reward or not.

What is this Church Universal You keep referring to? There is only one way to the Father that at I am aware of and that is through Jesus. We have His teachings. The Bible is the road map and all we have to do is follow it.

 

[Katzpur]

I believe it does.

And by what name is it known?

 

[JacobEzra.]

Sorry but I don't recognize the Catholic Catechism as scripture. As far as tracing the Holy Roman Catholic Church back to Peter, all I can say is where are your Apostles today? It isn't the same church.

Did you not understand that I mentioned posting of the Catechism in regards to what I believe pertaining to the universal church concept?

What do the Apostles have to do with anything? They ordained people. Then again I can understand how Apostolic Sucession is a concept most have never herd of

No church is the same exact church of the 1 century.

 

[ChristineES]

Why would you feel that way? I would expect everyone to do exactly that unless you pick a church for social, business, or convenience reasons. I would expect people to go with a church that teaches the truth. When you find a church with the truth I would expect you to join it not walk away from it. You describe yourself as "Follower of Yeshua" yet you would accept a church that changed His teachings? In Galatians 1:6-8: someone who changes the Gospel is called accursed. That is very strong language, but think Jesus is OK with that? That isn't how I read the verse, or the entire Bible.

I think you are offended because it implies you are not a follower of Yeshua. I am more concerned with offending Yeshua than you.

That's silly because I am not offended at all. I try to please God and not people. I have come across people like this before. I have read the Bible and I can understand it just as well as you can. You don't even know me and you make judgments that I am not a true Christian. You don't even know what I believe or what denomination I belong to- so why on earth would it bother me in the slightest?
I really do feel a bit suspicious of anyone who says "My group and I are the only true denominations"- The Jehovah's Witnesses say that, and so do other denominations.

Just remember that Jesus also said this:Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, Do not forbid him. For there is no one who shall do a work of power in My name who can lightly speak evil of Me.
Mar 9:40 For he who is not against us is for us. (MKJV)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What is this Church Universal You keep referring to? There is only one way to the Father that at I am aware of and that is through Jesus. We have His teachings. The Bible is the road map and all we have to do is follow it.

The Church Universal was originally a Roman Catholic Term, used to describe all Christians living and dead in communion with Rome or not. in other words all of Christendom.

Of course "Catholic" also means Universal... But the Roman Catholics are not the only church using that term. so to distinguish between all the community of Christians, from just those calling them selves Catholic, a new term was coined. It has since been understood by all churches as "the Church Universal."

It recognises the Christianity of all Churches, though they may not necessarily subscribe to the theology and practise requirements of any particular other church.

As such it recognises fellow Christians with out necessarily admitting them into full Communion with them selves. or believing them to be Heretic or heterodox.

Such a belief in the "Church Universal", is the first step in working toward Christian Ecumenism.

Unfortunately there are still some Churches, So blinded by their narrow and inward looking beliefs, that they are as yet unable to let themselves join Gods wider community in Christian Faith.

 

[work in progress]

Strange, that this thread starts by asking the question:"how many Christian churches are there? and then proceeds to claim again that there is only ONE church, and all of the other thousands who think that they are Christians are wrong, and apparently antichrists as well! If Jesus started one church, as the OP claims, it didn't stay one church for long.

Since I am not a Christian and don't have a need to fly any flag here, I'll go with the sources that the editors of World Christian Encyclopedia used to identify over 34,000 different Christian groups in the world today.

Should anyone be surprised that there are so many different versions of the Christian religion today? According to serious historians and textual scholars, there were Gnostic Christians, Jewish Christians, and Pauline Christians even back in the early years, and later attempts by the State Church to create and then enforce an orthodoxy did not stop further splintering into separate Christian sects. How many wars, inquisitions, genocides, and other persecutions have had a root source in past attempts to stamp out heresy and enforce some form of orthodoxy?

 

[jubilee131]

That's silly because I am not offended at all. I try to please God and not people. I have come across people like this before. I have read the Bible and I can understand it just as well as you can. You don't even know me and you make judgments that I am not a true Christian. You don't even know what I believe or what denomination I belong to- so why on earth would it bother me in the slightest?
I really do feel a bit suspicious of anyone who says "My group and I are the only true denominations"- The Jehovah's Witnesses say that, and so do other denominations.

Just remember that Jesus also said this:Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, Do not forbid him. For there is no one who shall do a work of power in My name who can lightly speak evil of Me.
Mar 9:40 For he who is not against us is for us. (MKJV)

Your response is interesting because I said nothing about you. What I said was expressing a one true church IMPLIES you do not follow Jesus. On the other hand earlier you implied I was quoting out of context. My original question is about churches not people I have never talked about people, only churches. As far as your denomination, it is irrelevant. You accept churches who have changed the gospel as christian. So you accept accursed churches as christian. You draw your own conclusion, I know you don't care what I think.

 

[jubilee131]

And by what name is it known?

I'd rather not say, that isn't the point of the thread. I am trying to understand the justification of calling "another gospel" Christian. I have searched the scriptures for what Jesus taught and didn't teach. Things like Baptism by immersion is required, works are necessary but don't save, the law is still in effect, Revelation exists, there is one true church etc. I have found one church that fits. I'm sure many would disagree but that adds to my confidence. To each his own.

 

[jubilee131]

Strange, that this thread starts by asking the question:"how many Christian churches are there? and then proceeds to claim again that there is only ONE church, and all of the other thousands who think that they are Christians are wrong, and apparently antichrists as well! If Jesus started one church, as the OP claims, it didn't stay one church for long.

Since I am not a Christian and don't have a need to fly any flag here, I'll go with the sources that the editors of World Christian Encyclopedia used to identify over 34,000 different Christian groups in the world today.

Should anyone be surprised that there are so many different versions of the Christian religion today? According to serious historians and textual scholars, there were Gnostic Christians, Jewish Christians, and Pauline Christians even back in the early years, and later attempts by the State Church to create and then enforce an orthodoxy did not stop further splintering into separate Christian sects. How many wars, inquisitions, genocides, and other persecutions have had a root source in past attempts to stamp out heresy and enforce some form of orthodoxy?

I guess a definition of Christian is called for. I believe it to be a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Logically speaking if someone modified or changed the teachings of Jesus they would no longer be His teachings but the teachings of someone else and if you espoused those teachings you would be following whoever made the change. Then by definition they would not be Christian would they? There can be only one Christian church. If more than one church followed Jesus' teachings to the letter it would still be one church because they are the same, but if they differed on the slightest point one of them would not be Christian.

How hard is that to understand? Just because a church declares itself Christian doesn't make it so.

 

[not nom]

I guess a definition of Christian is called for. I believe it to be a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

so? that doesn't mean anything unless you define what those are. which often touches on interpretation. they're inseparable.

how do you follow the cursing of a fig tree? what's your take on that "teaching"?

and where are the christians that do what jesus did and more (as he said they would), which I guess would at least include healing the sick, resurrecting the dead, walking on water, and turning water into wine?

and what about jesus rebuking the dude so proud of doing it all right? how does *that* fit into your little theory?

 

[javajo]

A lady asked a pastor to tell the children to stop chewing gum in the sanctuary. He said, "Lady, they ARE the sanctuary."

The church isn't a building, its the believers.

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, 1Peter 2:5a

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, 1 Cor. 12:13a

 

[work in progress]

I guess a definition of Christian is called for. I believe it to be a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Logically speaking if someone modified or changed the teachings of Jesus they would no longer be His teachings but the teachings of someone else and if you espoused those teachings you would be following whoever made the change. Then by definition they would not be Christian would they? There can be only one Christian church. If more than one church followed Jesus' teachings to the letter it would still be one church because they are the same, but if they differed on the slightest point one of them would not be Christian.

How hard is that to understand? Just because a church declares itself Christian doesn't make it so.

Personally, I am far less concerned with what particular metaphysical beliefs people have as how they act on those beliefs! There are lots of people that I share a lot of common beliefs, but whom I wouldn't want to hang out with.

Now when it comes to finding the real Jesus and what his real words are, you have a big problem that you apparently aren't even aware of yet. And that is the record of Biblical scriptural texts have been altered and varied through generations of copyist errors, additions, omissions -- deliberate and accidental. This occurred because, prior to the Guttenberg press, books had to be copied by hand. Some of the errors are as simple as scribes adding margin notes from previous scribes to the body of the text. This is one of the more common copyist errors noted by Bart Ehrman in his surprisingly popular book on Biblical textual scholarship: "Misquoting Jesus."
Ehrman's book covers topics that have been known by theologians and textual scholars for decades, but are only discussed and written usually within the realm of academia, and certainly never mentioned in popular religion books intended for the general audience.

The big problem for Christians who want their religion based solely on the written word, is that there are no original Bible manuscripts in existence today. The earliest fragments of New Testament verses , like P52, only go back to the middle of 2nd century CE. -- about the year 150. P46 - the oldest collection of Pauline letters, is dated around the year 200 CE.

Some important additions to the Bible that are not included in earlier manuscripts include the story of Jesus Forgiving the Adulteress and stopping the mob from stoning her in John ch.8. This story played a pivotal role in the development of Christian ethics and philosophy, but it was likely added to the original Gospel of John to serve as further repudiation of the Mosaic Law, rather than its later interpretation as a basis for salvation. Seriously, if Jesus had wayed in and stopped the mob from carrying out the Biblical mandated punishment for adultery demanded in the Law, he would have been dragged off before the Sanhedrin there and then!

Other verses that even most fundamentalists now have given up on, include 1 John 5:7, used as the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity, which can't be traced to any early Greek manuscripts before the writing of the Latin Vulgate.

And then we have the entire ending of the Gospel of Mark after 16 v.8. None of this "speaking in tongues" and snake handling appears in the Greek manuscripts of Mark. The Gospel of Mark is so sparse, compared to Matthew and Luke, which used the chronology of events of Mark, and embellished their accounts with sayings and miracles, that someone didn't like the abrupt ending of ch.16 and decided to add v. 9 through 20 to give the book a better conclusion.

 

[javajo]

"yea, hath God said?"

First lie
Garden of Eden
Serpent to Eve

Let God be true and every man a liar.

 

[not nom]

Let God be true and every man a liar.

or so a man wrote, and so men repeat... never seeming to actually mean "every man", just "most", huh.

 

[not nom]

"yea, hath God said?"

First lie
Garden of Eden
Serpent to Eve

Let God be true and every man a liar.

that's not lies, that's paying attention.

 

[Katzpur]

If more than one church followed Jesus' teachings to the letter it would still be one church because they are the same, but if they differed on the slightest point one of them would not be Christian.

I disagree. I believe it's possible for people who have different understandings of Christian doctrine to all be Christians. In Luke 9:49-50, we read of a brief conversation between Jesus Christ and His apostle, John. John seemed to be of pretty much the same mindset you are. He said: "Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us." Jesus had to remind him: "Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."

How hard is that to understand? Just because a church declares itself Christian doesn't make it so.

And just because you declare all churches but the one you personally align with to be "non-Christian," doesn't make it so either. How presumptuous!

 

[javajo]

not nom and work in progress, this is a SAME FAITH debate. Just so ya know. (don't worry I'm not reporting it or anything, just a heads up)

 

[javajo]

I believe it's possible for people who have different understandings of Christian doctrine to all be Christians.

I agree. I said earlier, I think some people trust Christ and are saved in spite of some of the teachings of their particular group. I also think the lesser doctrines can be disagreed upon among brothers and sisters in Christ. Beyond that, even in places where pagan gods are worshiped with terrible practices, missionaries have still found people who did not follow their ungodly ways and who believed in God and asked his forgiveness and tried to do right. Kinda like Cornelius. They followed the Creation showing forth a Creator and listened to their conscience, God's word written in the heart of everyone. Many others are in bondage to sin and evil spirits and are very thankful to hear the gospel, which is far better. Having said that, I do have some concern with some groups who deviate from what I would consider 'core' doctrines but I do believe some people are saved in spite of that. I hope so anyway.

 

[jubilee131]

Personally, I am far less concerned with what particular metaphysical beliefs people have as how they act on those beliefs! There are lots of people that I share a lot of common beliefs, but whom I wouldn't want to hang out with.

Now when it comes to finding the real Jesus and what his real words are, you have a big problem that you apparently aren't even aware of yet. And that is the record of Biblical scriptural texts have been altered and varied through generations of copyist errors, additions, omissions -- deliberate and accidental. This occurred because, prior to the Guttenberg press, books had to be copied by hand. Some of the errors are as simple as scribes adding margin notes from previous scribes to the body of the text. This is one of the more common copyist errors noted by Bart Ehrman in his surprisingly popular book on Biblical textual scholarship: "Misquoting Jesus."
Ehrman's book covers topics that have been known by theologians and textual scholars for decades, but are only discussed and written usually within the realm of academia, and certainly never mentioned in popular religion books intended for the general audience.

The big problem for Christians who want their religion based solely on the written word, is that there are no original Bible manuscripts in existence today. The earliest fragments of New Testament verses , like P52, only go back to the middle of 2nd century CE. -- about the year 150. P46 - the oldest collection of Pauline letters, is dated around the year 200 CE.

Some important additions to the Bible that are not included in earlier manuscripts include the story of Jesus Forgiving the Adulteress and stopping the mob from stoning her in John ch.8. This story played a pivotal role in the development of Christian ethics and philosophy, but it was likely added to the original Gospel of John to serve as further repudiation of the Mosaic Law, rather than its later interpretation as a basis for salvation. Seriously, if Jesus had wayed in and stopped the mob from carrying out the Biblical mandated punishment for adultery demanded in the Law, he would have been dragged off before the Sanhedrin there and then!

Other verses that even most fundamentalists now have given up on, include 1 John 5:7, used as the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity, which can't be traced to any early Greek manuscripts before the writing of the Latin Vulgate.

And then we have the entire ending of the Gospel of Mark after 16 v.8. None of this "speaking in tongues" and snake handling appears in the Greek manuscripts of Mark. The Gospel of Mark is so sparse, compared to Matthew and Luke, which used the chronology of events of Mark, and embellished their accounts with sayings and miracles, that someone didn't like the abrupt ending of ch.16 and decided to add v. 9 through 20 to give the book a better conclusion.

I have not identified any churches as to true or false. I only pointed out that if two churches differ on any one point at least one of them is non-Christian. Everyone here seems to disagree with that statement. If two or more churches differ on the same point someone isn't following Jesus' teachings. Here is an example. Church "A" says baptism is not necessary. Church "B" says baptism is necessary. One of those churches is not Christian. Yet in real life, baptism isn't considered an important issue so both churches are considered Christian.

The key here isn't which doctrine is correct, it is the disagreement that makes at least one of them non-Christian. The doctrinal issue is unimportant, the fact is at least one of them is not a Christian church and no one seems concerned about that and considers them Christian anyway.

I don't get it!

 

[not nom]

not nom and work in progress, this is a SAME FAITH debate. Just so ya know. (don't worry I'm not reporting it or anything, just a heads up)

ooops, sorry ^^