After knowing what happened at the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century, how can anyone remain a Christian?
415060
Because they ignore the facts on what actually did happen at that time . . . \n\nPlus, not all christians today believe what the Council decreed . . . some denominations are trying to weed out the dogma and other teachings to try to get at the truth.  Unfortunately, there is no truth in religion  . . . because there is no God.
830959
I think you can. First century Christianity is nothing like the overbloated monster that has become "Churchianity" as we know it today. To have a relationship with the Christ without the extra baggage would be very personal and probably a heck of a lot more fulfilling than joining the fan club.
1068774
oh the one thing that you can be sure of is the Bible!\n\nif ur a believer of Christ, you are called a Christian.. But the concept of Religion enters when a person decides for his/her religious practices...\n\nChrist did not established religion. he didnt indicate if His church is catholic/baptist etc.\n\nand i can say that Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church...  it is because its doctrines are corrupted...\nchristianity is for real but not until Constantine made Christianity as a state religion for the byzantine empire...\n\nas you know, romans have different gods. They are pagan! when Christianity came, people dont know the nature of Christianity, its doctrines etc. They just know that Christ was the Messiah.... so that means people did not leave their sinful nature (idolatry, worshipping gods). So that is why we have Catholic Church, full of idol worship..\n\nÜ The Bible, the only thing that has not been changed even before Creation, will set you free... Coz the truth will set you free. God bless you!
135943
Nope they are not when you consider that a christian is simply a follower/disciple of Jesus Christ. Also, the Bible does not mention anything about denominations. To be sure, membership of a denomination does not qualify one as a christian or for heaven.\n\nBut then, so many people have varied ideas/concepts about what it really means to follow Christ - Like the Anglican church approving homosexuality, catholics believing in Saint/Mary worship, Moonies encouraging adultery, etc to mention a few. So denominations began to form and grow depending on which one finds more convenient to follow. And sadly, people are being classified by the denominations they attend.\n\nHOWEVER, THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTH AND ONE GOSPEL - despite the many interpretations about this Truth/gospel. How do you then know which is which? Simply follow these steps:\n\n1. Get a good Bible - I suggest King James version\n2. Prayerfully tell God to reveal His son Jesus to you and what His will for you is. Let Him know of your inadequacies in finding out all by yourself and ask for HIS help sincerely\n3. Start a daily Bible study - at least 3 chapters a day beginning from either the old  or new testament.\n4. Attend a Bible believing Church regularly; where you are not sure, continue in your local church until The Holy Spirit will, as necessary, direct your footsteps.\n5. Promise God and seek His help to walk as He directs - even when it appears such an obedience will not be convenient.\n\nSummarily, being of a particular denomination DOES not make ANYBODY a christian. Attitudes, customs, practices, beliefs, denominations, fashions - all may (and do) change, but a real (born again)christian will hold unto and stand on the UNCHANGING STANDARD of God.\n\nGod bless you good
1035838
Okay, back in the day when the first set of pagans under Constantine converted to Christianity, a group of clergies and etc...got together and collected all the books every written by those who lived in that era of Jesus.  They sat in a council and decided which books they wanted to include in the bible and which ones they would throw out.  The people who wrote the current books of the bible read many of the ones who were not included, thus leaving us with a half written story of the bible.
849155
Two of the most meticulous record keepers of Ancient Times were the Romans and the Jews, and as you rightly point out, the events recorded in the Bible somehow seemed to escape their notice.  Pontius Pilate's court records still exist, and there is no mention of the trial of Jesus or of the supposed custom of allowing the crowd to free a prisoner.  It is a tradition among the Egyptian Coptic's that their Church was founded by the Apostle Mark, in 42 ad, certainly the first major Christian Chatecal School was in Alexandria, but not until 190, so there could have been several generations worth of revisions.  Hadn't heard that one about about the Sun metaphor, Jesus didn't even get a nimbus in religious art until the 5th century, and then it was part of political deal the Emperor was cutting, The three main religions in Rome at the time were Christianity, the scribes and record keepers, Mithra ism, the army, and Sol Invites (the Unconquerable Sun), the wealthy landowners.  He couldn't afford to make any of them mad, so he declared Mithra and Jesus were two names for the same being, and that YHWH was another name for Sol Invictus.  That is why the rays of the Sun became a Christian symbol of holiness.  The Bible, in it's current form, only dates back to the Vulgate, which was completed in 405.  Personally, I think we should go back to traditional values, this new fangled Christianity stuff just ain't working out.
903037
Good question.\nThe Christians should stick to THEIR Bible-- the new testament.
1040923
Before Christ there no Christians. The people were Jews, pagans and various Abrahamic based religions
359784
Countires cannot be Christian, individual poeple are Christians.
713635
That’s just what the original christians (the gnostics) believed (and still do). To them it was Jesus’ life and teaching which “saves”, not his suffering and death. All this god-men and miracles and eveyone’s-a-sinner and virgin births and crucified saviours of the world business was added by the Romans. Do some research, it’s all there.
402782
The first Christians was Messianic Jews, a very small jewish cult.  it wasn't until several decades later that the messianic jews started to call themselves Christian.\nMessianic Jews still exist today and they worship Christ but follow the old Jewish ways.  Christians don't follow the old jewish ways!
1056402
A great question.  I suspect tha answers have a lot to do with the evolution of Christian doctrine, because I don't believe Jesus viewed his message that way - Jesus focused on love and forgiveness, and on enjoying the gift of God we call life.\n\nCertainly the earliest Christians followed Jewish traditions, which were not necessarily negative.  The Apostle Paul focused on what he considered the abundant grace of God, particularly in allowing the Gentiles (non-Jews) into the Kingdom of God.  For Paul, born and raised a strict jew, this was an amazing thing.\n\nThe Jews were known in Roman times to oppose the licentiousness of many Romans (you recall how we got our word "orgy" from the Romans?), so it's easy to see how the early Christians maintained this opposition to much of the sexual immorality of the times.  Rome also had a barbaric streak in it - we only have to consider the gladiator fights to the death in the name of entertainment to see how Christians would be opposed to much of the prevailing world order.\n\nAs Christianity became the state religion in 325, under Emperor Constantine, the church began to assert their power.  Theology now mixed with politics, and the threat of damnation became more real, using excommunication to intimidate believers into following the established orthodoxy.  Excommunication later became Inquisition after the Crusades, and the Catholic Church taught heavily that nonconformists risked damnation.  Of course, this was as much to maintain their power as it was about theological and moral purity.\n\nToday, there are many Christians who see God as loving and forgiving, and some don't even believe in hell at all.  A Christian is not someone who subscribes to a certain set of doctrines; a Christian is someone who has placed their faith and trust in God as revealed in Jesus, who Christians follow as their savior.  Christianity is not a monolithic group of people who hold to the same beliefs - the Reformation changed all of that, and today Christianity continues to evolve and mature as a faith.\n\nI wonder what motivates your question - do you believe in a loving God, or do you question whether you are lovable, just as you are?  Christians believe God loves us, not because we are good at obeying God (none of us really are, if we're at all honest), but because He created us, and wants to have a spiritual relationship with us.  The heart of the Gospel, the good news, is that God loves us just as we are, and forgives each and every wrong we have ever committed or will commit.  Our trust in God and His son Jesus is sufficient for our forgiveness.\n\nFor those who do not believe in Jesus, I am not their judge.  The same loving God who forgives me and judges me will also judge them, and He loves them no less than He loves me.  I trust His judgment for them as well.\n\nI hope this helps!  If you want, feel free to drop me an email for more info - I'm a Sunday School teacher, and love to help others learn more about the faith.\n\nBlessings and peace to you!
769854
Hi captain, I have got some thing for you which goes down to early history.\n\n" Charles only spared the lives of those Saracens[Muslims] who consented to be baptised, the rest he put to the sword."--[History of Charles the Great and Orlando, by Turpin, Vol-I, ch-ii, pg-5]\n\n"....460 years later, when the Holy land reverted to the Christian rule of crusading knight of Europe, the oriental Christians regretted the tolerating Govt. of the Arabian Khalifs."--[Rise and Fall of Roman Empire- GIBBON]\n\n"....A bloody sacrifies was offered by mistaken votaries to the God of the Christian resistance might provoke, but neither sage nor sex could mollify, thier implacable rage, they indulged themselves 3 days in a promisenous massacre. After 70,000 muslims had been put to the sword and the harmless JEWS had been burned in thier Synogogue, they could still reserve a multitude of captives whom interest or lassitude persauded them to spare."--[Rise and Fall of Roman Empire- GIBBON]\n\nThe critical Gibbon coclusively proves that, "...to his Christian subjects, Mohammad readily granted security of thier persons, the freedom of thier trade, the property of thier goods and the toleration of thier worship. This profitable principle of toleration was observed with more or less strictness, not only by all the immediate successors of the Prophet, but over the whole period of Arabic ascendency."--[Rise and Fall of Roman Empire- GIBBON] \n\nOn the other hand..........\n\n"....when Jerusalem capitulated to Khalif Omer, the inhabitants of the vanquished city were left in possesion of thier worldly goods, and allowed the freedom of worship. A special quarter of the city was allotted for the residence of Christian population with thier Patriarch and his clergy."--\n[Rise and Fall of Roman Empire- GIBBON]\n\n"....And Islam was tolerant not simply to the Jews but also to the Christians. The Christian church in muslim Spain was given large lands and considerable revenues, christian envoys were recieved with courtesy and allowed to take away relics of christian saints and martyrs from the muslim territory. GIBBON says in his Decline and Fall [of Roman Empire], that muslim rulers even transcribed an Arabic version of the canons of the councils of Spain for the use of BISHOPS in the Moorish kingdom. Haroon al-Rashid, the hero of the "Arabian Nights", planted in his kingdom a large number of schools, the head of these schools, his Director of Education, was a chritian named John."--[ The Spirit and Struggle of Islam by Prof. T.L.Vaswani, Ganesh & Co., Madras-1921]\n\nYou can judge it yourself as to whether muslims inflicted more violence or the Christians ? \n\nAnd you know about modern history and who is responsible for killing lacs of people in Hiroshoma and Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan..
718028
Catholics are merley one of the many christian denominations.  actually the first one. And with the Orthodox church the only ones for 1500 years.
657692
Eastern Orthodox Christians understand that the essential purpose of Christianity is to seek union with God through Christ. This is the purpose of the Church and its sacrament. They differ significantly from other Christians groups over issues such as their understanding of original sin and the trinity. However, their beliefs are the traditional beliefs of the ancient church. I'd be happy to discuss it further with you. I am Eastern Orthodox so I'll do my best to explain what you want to know.
571465
Probably the one you're wanting is the the Council of Trent, (1545–1563.  It's number 19 below:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Councils#List_of_ecumenical_councils\n\n1. First Council of Nicaea, (325); repudiated Arianism, adopted the Nicene Creed. This and all subsequent councils are not recognized by nontrinitarian churches—Arians, Unitarians, and Jehovah's Witnesses—at all. \n2. First Council of Constantinople, (381); revised the Nicene Creed into present form used in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches and prohibited any further alteration of the Creed without the assent of an Ecumenical Council. \n3. Council of Ephesus, (431); repudiated Nestorianism, proclaimed the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God (Greek, Η Θεοτόκος). This and all following councils are not recognized by Assyrian Church. \n4. Council of Chalcedon, (451); repudiated the Eutychian doctrine of monophysitism, described and delineated the two natures of Christ, human and divine; adopted the Chalcedonian Creed. This and all following councils are not recognized by Oriental Orthodox Communion. \n5. Second Council of Constantinople, (553); reaffirmed decisions and doctrines explicated by previous Councils, condemned new Arian, Nestorian, and Monophysite writings. \n6. Third Council of Constantinople, (680–681); repudiated Monothelitism, affirmed that Christ had both human and Divine wills. \nQuinisext Council (= Fifth and Sixth) or Council in Trullo, (692); mostly an administrative council that raised some local canons to ecumenical status and established principles of clerical discipline. It is not considered to be a full-fledged council in its own right because it did not determine matters of doctrine. This council is accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church as a part of VI ecumenical council, but that is rejected by Roman Catholics. \n7. Second Council of Nicaea, (787); restoration of the veneration of Icons and end of the first Iconoclasm (Rejected by many Protestant denominations, who instead prefer the Council of Constantinople of 754, which condemned the veneration of icons.) \n[edit]\nCouncils #8 and #9\n[edit]\n#8 and #9 for Roman Catholics\n8 (rc). Fourth Council of Constantinople, (869–870); deposed Patriarch Photios of Constantinople (who was later made a saint by the Orthodox Church) because of certain irregularities involved in his assumption of the patriarchal throne, such as the fact that his predecessor St. Ignatius had not been validly deposed. This deposition was not accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church at the time, but was within a few years. In any case, after the death of St. Ignatius, Photios was reinstated as Patriarch and reconciled with the Papacy. \nCouncil of Sutri, (1046); resolved dispute over papacy. \n9 (rc) First Lateran Council, (1123); dealt with one of the pressing issues of the time, the question of the rights of the Catholic Church and those of the Holy Roman Emperors with respect to the investment of bishops. \n[edit]\n#8 and #9 for some Eastern Orthodox\nThe next two are regarded as ecumenical by some in the Orthodox Church but not by other Eastern Orthodox Christians, who instead consider them to be important local councils. They have nevertheless received universal acceptance by all Orthodox Churches even where their ecumenicity is not recognized.\n\n8 (eo). Fourth Council of Constantinople, (879–880); restored St. Photius to his See in Constantinople and anathematized any who altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. \n9 (eo). Fifth Council of Constantinople, (1341–1351); affirmed hesychastic theology according to St. Gregory Palamas and condemned the Westernized philosopher Barlaam of Calabria. \nSynod of Jerusalem, (1672); defined Orthodoxy relative to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, defined Greek Orthodox canon. \n[edit]\nCouncils #10 to #21 for Roman Catholics\n10. Second Council of the Lateran, (1139); mostly repeated First Council of the Lateran. Clerical
900495
The answer to your question is actually pretty involved, and would take semesters of study to truly understand.  I'm not an expert, but I can try to sum it up briefly.\n\nBasically, what all these churches differ about is who has the authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ and what the true teachings of Jesus Christ are.\n\nJesus Christ is the son of God and He came to be a sacrifice for the sins of the world, and to teach people the way to return to our Father in Heaven.  When Jesus Christ organized His church approximately 2000 years ago, He called 12 apostles, who were responsible for the workings of the church.  When Jesus Christ was resurrected and ascended into heaven, Peter, the head apostle, became the earthly head of the church of Jesus Christ.  Shortly after that time, however, the members of the church were persecuted and many were forced into hiding.  Also, geographical differences between the congregations of the church meant that many followers of Christ started teaching doctrines that were not correct.  While the early apostles tried to correct the incorrect teachings that were taking place, the early church basically fragmented and went into a period of darkness because the true teachings of Jesus Christ were not being taught in their fulness.  Part of what Jesus Christ gave to his true followers was a power called "priesthood", which basically means the authority to administer sacred ceremonies with the permission of Jesus Christ.  As the church of Jesus Christ fragmented and incorrect teachings were established, the priesthood was not properly passed along in the church.  So, relatively soon after the ascension of Jesus Christ, there were many sects, each of which taught some true doctrines of Jesus Christ, but none of which had the complete doctrine, nor the authority from Jesus Christ necessary to administer His church.\n\nDuring this period of darkness, for quite a long time, the Catholic church was the main church over the Roman empire and, later, Europe.  After Constantine took over, there was a split between the Catholic church and the Orthodox churches.  Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin recognized that the teachings of the Catholic church were not completely in keeping with the true doctrine of Jesus Christ that they had learned from the Bible, and so they tried to form new churches that were closer to the things they read about in the Bible.  That was the beginning of Protestant churches.  Of the ones that you've listed, the Protestant churches are: Episcopalian/Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Seventh-Day Adventist, Amish, and Jehovah's Witnesses.  None of these churches, though, had the authority or direction of people with priesthood authority from Jesus Christ.  And these branches of churches have continued to split to today.\n\nThe good news is that that is not the end of the story.  The world is no longer in darkness and no longer lacking the authority from Jesus Christ.  In the year 1820, God the Father and Jesus Christ personally appeared to Joseph Smith, a young farm boy who lived in New York State.  As a result of this experience and other experiences,  Joseph Smith became a prophet of God, and he was called to reorganize the Church of Jesus Christ.  He received the authority to administer the Church of Jesus Christ directly from John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John, people who had the authority in Jesus Christ's day.  The church organized by Joseph Smith is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and members of this church are sometimes known as Mormons.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is completely separate from other Christian sects because it is a restoration of the original church of Jesus Christ, not a reaction to any other church.  (We use the term latter-day simply because we are talking about the church of Jesus Christ that has been organized in this time period, the last days, but it is the s