What's the one, true, correct, Christian denomination?

[nobspeople]

As the saying goes, "You can't throw a rock without hitting a [insert item here]". While that's not literally true for Christianity, we do see a lot - a lot - of Christian based faiths.
Can they all be true if they're different, even by a little?

Christian belief A
Christian belief B
Both are 99.9% identical in their beliefs. But that's not 100%. So they're not the same. Assuming one of these two are right, that means, since they're not identical, one is wrong - even if it's by the tiniest of margins.

Seven Day Adventists
Mormons
Methodists
Nazarenes
JWs
Roman Catholics
Byzantine Catholic
Syrian Catholic
Baptists
Southern Baptists
Lutheran
Amish
Mennonite

The list is almost endless.

Which one of these denominations (or one not listed) is the correct one?
And why?

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm Lutheran.

Hi Lutheran, I'm Dad

I'm sorry, I couldn't help it, and I'll go sit in a corner for an hour.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #11]

An interesting topic, thanks. I believe it warrants careful treatment, given that this forum has a specific rule against accusing people of being ‘not a true Christian’.

I’ve never really learned much about, or understood early Christian development. Specifically, how it evolved from Judaism. Operating on the principle that ‘the original Christianity is the most authentic’, I would put forward a claim that whichever modern denomination most closely resembles that branch of Christianity that split from Judaism has the greatest claim to being ‘true’. In essence, “being true to its roots”.

Do we have any biblical scholars who would care to expand on that (for or against)? As a starting point, I went to Wikipedia, so the link below may suggest some lines for fruitful debate:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple_Judaism

[nobspeople]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #11]

An interesting topic, thanks. I believe it warrants careful treatment, given that this forum has a specific rule against accusing people of being ‘not a true Christian’.

I’ve never really learned much about, or understood early Christian development. Specifically, how it evolved from Judaism. Operating on the principle that ‘the original Christianity is the most authentic’, I would put forward a claim that whichever modern denomination most closely resembles that branch of Christianity that split from Judaism has the greatest claim to being ‘true’. In essence, “being true to its roots”.

Do we have any biblical scholars who would care to expand on that (for or against)? As a starting point, I went to Wikipedia, so the link below may suggest some lines for fruitful debate:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple_Judaism

How can we, today, make the determination of which specific branch most closely resembles the branch of Christianity that split from Judaism?
Or can we?
A generally posed question, not directed at you specifically.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #11]

An interesting topic, thanks. I believe it warrants careful treatment, given that this forum has a specific rule against accusing people of being ‘not a true Christian’.

I’ve never really learned much about, or understood early Christian development. Specifically, how it evolved from Judaism. Operating on the principle that ‘the original Christianity is the most authentic’, I would put forward a claim that whichever modern denomination most closely resembles that branch of Christianity that split from Judaism has the greatest claim to being ‘true’. In essence, “being true to its roots”.

Do we have any biblical scholars who would care to expand on that (for or against)? As a starting point, I went to Wikipedia, so the link below may suggest some lines for fruitful debate:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple_Judaism

How can we, today, make the determination of which specific branch most closely resembles the branch of Christianity that split from Judaism?
Or can we?
A generally posed question, not directed at you specifically.

I say we go around asking their policy on the wearing of britches made out of mixed fabrics.

[Tcg]

How can we, today, make the determination of which specific branch most closely resembles the branch of Christianity that split from Judaism?
Or can we?
A generally posed question, not directed at you specifically.

If we are to accept the book of Acts, the earliest Christians lived a communal lifestyle. The Jesus People USA live that way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_People_USA. This may be more a result of a number of their members former hippie way of living than a desire to follow Acts. I also suspect that so called orthodox Christianity wouldn't be comfortable with this approach to Christianity.


Tcg

[nobspeople]

How can we, today, make the determination of which specific branch most closely resembles the branch of Christianity that split from Judaism?
Or can we?
A generally posed question, not directed at you specifically.

If we are to accept the book of Acts, the earliest Christians lived a communal lifestyle. The Jesus People USA live that way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_People_USA. This may be more a result of a number of their members former hippie way of living than a desire to follow Acts. I also suspect that so called orthodox Christianity wouldn't be comfortable with this approach to Christianity.


Tcg

I'm going to Chicago next week - maybe I'll 'look them up' while I'm there...

A lawsuit was filed in January 2014 against JPUSA and its parent denomination, the Evangelical Covenant Church claiming that children were sexually abused by members of JPUSA and its leadership covered it up for years.[10]

Well, looks like another attempted cover up of a sex scandal 'in the name of Jesus'!
Guess I'll not visit them now. Dang. Sounded interesting up until then.

[Tcg]

How can we, today, make the determination of which specific branch most closely resembles the branch of Christianity that split from Judaism?
Or can we?
A generally posed question, not directed at you specifically.

If we are to accept the book of Acts, the earliest Christians lived a communal lifestyle. The Jesus People USA live that way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_People_USA. This may be more a result of a number of their members former hippie way of living than a desire to follow Acts. I also suspect that so called orthodox Christianity wouldn't be comfortable with this approach to Christianity.


Tcg

I'm going to Chicago next week - maybe I'll 'look them up' while I'm there...

A lawsuit was filed in January 2014 against JPUSA and its parent denomination, the Evangelical Covenant Church claiming that children were sexually abused by members of JPUSA and its leadership covered it up for years.[10]

Well, looks like another attempted cover up of a sex scandal 'in the name of Jesus'!
Guess I'll not visit them now. Dang. Sounded interesting up until then.

Sadly, that seems to be a common theme with many Christian groups. Can't help but wonder if it wasn't much different in the beginning.


Tcg

[nobspeople]

How can we, today, make the determination of which specific branch most closely resembles the branch of Christianity that split from Judaism?
Or can we?
A generally posed question, not directed at you specifically.

If we are to accept the book of Acts, the earliest Christians lived a communal lifestyle. The Jesus People USA live that way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_People_USA. This may be more a result of a number of their members former hippie way of living than a desire to follow Acts. I also suspect that so called orthodox Christianity wouldn't be comfortable with this approach to Christianity.


Tcg

I'm going to Chicago next week - maybe I'll 'look them up' while I'm there...

A lawsuit was filed in January 2014 against JPUSA and its parent denomination, the Evangelical Covenant Church claiming that children were sexually abused by members of JPUSA and its leadership covered it up for years.[10]

Well, looks like another attempted cover up of a sex scandal 'in the name of Jesus'!
Guess I'll not visit them now. Dang. Sounded interesting up until then.

Sadly, that seems to be a common theme with many Christian groups. Can't help but wonder if it wasn't much different in the beginning.


Tcg

I think it happens all over the place, it just seems so prevalent in Christian groups because it's made to seem that way by how it's handled publicly, though I'm in no way discounting it happening!
That said, it is worse when it happens in any place that one would consider safe from it, which is probably why it seems so bad within Christianity.

To your point about about if it wasn't much different from the beginning:
I think people tend to see those 'Christian pioneers' (my term) as somehow 'above all that' - especially the ones that were said to be close to Jesus. But people are people (jerks are jerks, good folks are good folks, etc) no matter what. So I wonder how much 'political and social-economic' strife was ripe in Jesus's inner circle?

[brunumb]

Sadly, that seems to be a common theme with many Christian groups. Can't help but wonder if it wasn't much different in the beginning.

It's a great place for pedophiles and sexual predators to hide. People put so much trust in the clergy in particular and are more accepting of their word over that of alleged victims of abuse.

[Diagoras]

I’ve followed a few related links from the Wikipedia article I linked to upthread, and it’s reinforced my impression of a rather complex ‘birth’ of Christianity.

The destruction of the Second Temple in 70AD seems to have been a catalyst for some groups of Jewish Christians (prior to this date, most scholars agree the two religions were still co-mingled) to see the event as punishment for rejecting Jesus, rather than for neglecting the Torah. That former group of early Christians then gradually gained more influence, with Pauline Christianity in particular (emphasising inclusion of Gentiles into God’s New Covenant) being more palatable to Rome. Critics claim Paul distorted the ‘original true faith’ and led the church to break from the Ebionites - who retained what some claim were the ‘authentic’ teachings of Jesus.

Since little is known of the Ebionites, it’s quite likely that the principle of ‘might equals right’ was at work during this period: the more inclusive, popular message that was looked most favourably on by Rome eventually won out, with Constantine accepting Christianity as the state religion.

Who knows? If the Second Temple hadn’t been destroyed, the ensuing theological difference may never have occurred and all ‘Christians’ would still be orthodox Jews today.