What would a religion be like that was ONLY based on quotes attributed to Jesus?
475764
The book to read about it would be called the Bible...and it would be how Christians are truly suppose to walk...according to Jesus.\nSome of the "pet peeves" of today are man made...not made by God.\nTrue Christianity= Christ like.
739305
One based on experience rather than dogma which is the only kind of religion that has any worth. If it doesn't make you a better person here and now it isn't worth believing in.
342001
The same one he practiced while on earth the first time.  He is not a "man" and therefore would not change religion to suit his own needs as man has done throughout the centuries.  The "religion" of Jesus is this, Love God and Love each other.
769298
Any religion based on Christs teachings is considered Christianity.
483246
There would be no preachers. The tenets of peace, tolerance, and nonviolence would be written in the sand at low tide. Anyone expressing an interest in becoming an advocate of the "faith" would be banned for life. There would be no buildings, politics, or symbols.\n\nI would keep the wine and biscuits though! Lol!
465580
"Are you saying you can choose what you like from the bible and disregard what you don't like."\n\nThat is the basis of Christianity.
1013324
What would Jesus say?
364722
yes, but you must understand that these weren't original thoughts of jesus\n\nthese thoughts were the prevailing winds in the ancient eastern world for centuries before christ arrived on the scene\n\nbuddhism, hiduism and some of the other nature worshipping religions had already come up with pacifcism, forgiveness, and so on\n\njesus was late to the table
753166
there are some stunning truths they generally would agree on:\nthe Athenasian  trinity,  God is one in essense but three in persons\nthe incarnation of Jesus  as God with us,  the Messiah\nthe death and physical resurection of Jesus\nthe visible return of Jesus\nthe hypostatic union,  Jesus having two natures, Jesus being fully God and fully man\nsame 10 commendmants numbered slightly different\nthey both generally appreciate  writers like Toliken (Catholic)  and CS Lewis (protestant)  who themselves were friends\n\nsome disagreements:\nProtestants consider themselves catholic (note the little c,  part of the church universal in time and space)\nProtetants believe in double imputation:  Jesus took their sins and creditted them His righteous act of dying on the cross\nProtestants believe in salvation by faith alone\nProtestants do not bleiev you become a Christian because you are baptized as a baby, even when they baptize babies its more of a dedication\nProtestants are less likely to use pictures or sttues in worship or pray to someone other than God the Father, Son or Spirit\nProtestants honor Mary as an example  but as a sinner saved by grace\nProtestants (usually) use the same books of the Bibles as Jewish people would,  Catholics add some apocrophal books never quoted in the new testament  but the Bibles are almost the same\n\n  Protestants and Catholics and Eastern Orthodox people may or may not be Christians,  it depends on whether they have saving faith  Catholics may be surprized to find the Greek orthodox people trace their bishops back to the Bishop of Jerusalem and therefor to Peter.  Protestants emphasise getting back to original teachings of the apostles,  Catholics emphasize an unbroken  chain of authoirty back to the apostles.
243740
You'll never find one spirit, one unity, one like-mind, one accord.\n\nThe Bible, being highly subjective, is a guideline for living.  Not everyone lives OR THINKS the same way, therefore, you will have "sects," as you call them, breaking off just slightly from the overall teaching of the Word.\n\n*yawn* what an absolutely boring world it would be if everyone believed the same way, talked the same way, acted the same way, and taught "religion" the same way.\n\nYou are NEVER going to find a satisfying answer because you are asking a question that has many different answers.  Since none of them has satisfied you yet, you'll search until, one day you die.  After death, however, God has promised that all our questions will be answered.
690895
You would probably have to see exactly what each religion says about Saints. It isn't a term that belongs just to Christianity. If you are really interested in what other religions consider Saints.
995083
It would actually be the other way around.  The new testament is where Christianity draws its teachings from. The old testament is escentially a good place to draw lessons from, but for the most part it is agreed upon that it shouldn't be taken literally.
1048740
What would Jesus say......
1002325
Are you speaking of Jesus Christ? I don't remember anywhere in the New Testament where He made a statement that was similar to that one... where did you see that?
593482
Christians would be pretty much those people that believe in Jesus "Christ". So yes they would be "christ"ian.
411471
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE "TRINITY"\n\n1st of all Jesus said: He pointed to God as the Source of his life, saying, “I live because of the Father.” According to the context, this meant that his life resulted from or was caused by his Father, even as the gaining of life by dying men would result from their faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice.—Joh 6:56, 57.\n\nJesus’ being called the “only-begotten Son” (Joh 1:14; 3:16, 18) does not mean that the other spirit creatures produced were not God’s sons, for they are called sons as well. (Ge 6:2, 4; Job 1:6) However, by virtue of his being the sole direct creation of his Father, the firstborn Son was unique, different from all others of God’s sons, all of whom were created or begotten by Jehovah through that firstborn Son. So “the Word” was Jehovah’s “only-begotten Son” in a particular sense,\n\nJesus is also “Mighty God” and “Eternal Father.” This does not mean that he usurps the authority and position of Jehovah, who is “God our Father.” (2 Corinthians 1:2) “He [Jesus] . . . gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” (Philippians 2:6) He is called Mighty God, not Almighty God. Jesus never thought of himself as God Almighty, for he spoke of his Father as “the only true God,” that is, the only God who should be worshiped. (John 17:3;\n\nDoes the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning?\n\nRev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him .  Why did God have to give Jesus the revelation, if Jesus is God?\n\nDoes the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty? Mark 13:32, RS: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)\n\nJohn 14:28, RS: “[Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”\n\n1 Cor. 11:3, RS: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. \n\nA person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. He wants to know what God’s Word itself says. He may find some texts that he feels can be read in more than one way, but when these are compared with other Biblical statements on the same subject their meaning will become clear. It should be noted at the outset that most of the texts used as “proof” of the Trinity actually mention only two persons, not three; so even if the Trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity.\n\nI COULD GO ON & ON WITH SCRIPTURES & EXPLANATIONS, BUT I THINK THIS ALREADY TO LONG FOR SOME PEOPLE.
598789
It is not unnatural to suppose that a religion which filled the whole world, should have been copied at least in some details by another religion which was quite popular during the third century. Moreover the resemblances pointed out are superficial and external. Similarity in words and names is nothing; it is the sense that matters. During these centuries Christianity was coining its own technical terms, and naturally took names, terms, and expressions current in that day; and so did Mithraism. But under identical terms each system thought its own thoughts. Mithra is called a mediator; and so is Christ; but Mithra originally only in a cosmogonic or astronomical sense; Christ, being God and man, is by nature the Mediator between God and man. And so in similar instances. Mithraism had a Eucharist, but the idea of a sacred banquet is as old as the human race and existed at all ages and amongst all peoples. Mithra saved the world by sacrificing a bull; Christ by sacrificing Himself. It is hardly possible to conceive a more radical difference than that between Mithra taurochtonos and Christ crucified. Christ was born of a Virgin; there is nothing to prove that the same was believed of Mithra born from the rock. Christ was born in a cave; and Mithraists worshipped in a cave, but Mithra was born under a tree near a river. Much as been made of the presence of adoring shepherds; but their existence on sculptures has not been proven, and considering that man had not yet appeared, it is an anachronism to suppose their presence. (3) Christ was an historical personage, recently born in a well known town of Judea, and crucified under a Roman governor, whose name figured in the ordinary official lists. Mithra was an abstraction, a personification not even of the sun but of the diffused daylight; his incarnation, if such it may be called, was supposed to have happened before the creation of the human race, before all history. The small Mithraic congregations were like masonic lodges for a few and for men only and even those mostly of one class, the military; a religion that excludes the half of the human race bears no comparison to the religion of Christ. Mithraism was all comprehensive and tolerant of every other cult, the Pater Patrum himself was an adept in a number of other religions; Christianity was essential exclusive, condemning every other religion in the world, alone and unique in its majesty ....sorry its such a cut and paste job..i still have not fully researched it yet, i will get back to you