Lets pretend Christianity doesnt exist:what religion would u be

[oldcatholicguy]

Buddhist. Peaceful and accepting; however, I am positive that the Gospels would find their way into this world somehow!

Peaceful and accepting aren’t the same as true. Buddhism at its heart is atheistic.

 

[seanman611]

That’s a tough one. I was raised Jehovah’s Witness, became atheist/agnostic in my late teens/early 20s, moved into deism, and finally Christianity. Since I am convinced by the truths of Christianity, I would say that if it didn’t exist I would be either deist, some sort of spiritualism, or atheist/agnostic.

 

[benotagoat]

Peaceful and accepting aren’t the same as true. Buddhism at its heart is atheistic.

Not so peaceful ,nor accepting .That is a bit of a myth .

Apparently according to the Vedic religion ,which was monotheist, in order to keep the atheists from causing problems ,as they were incapable of connecting into the Divine ,
God sent buddha, to give them a path to follow to keep them from causing problems in society .
As I said ,not so peaceful .

 

[rcwitness]

I’d personally be a jew.they share(at least a part) a holy book with us

Didnt you have to be born a Jew, or were there converts?

I suppose I would be what my parents were. Hopefully I would see God’s grace wherever I was.

 

[CB_Catholic]

I can’t answer that because if that were so, I would have no knowledge of any religion other than what my ancestors practiced, which would be some form of paganism–either Roman, or Germanic.

 

[John_Lazarus]

As my entire ancestry seems to be traced back to the inhabitants of the British Isles, I imagine I would have inherited some form of British paganism.

Just as well I’m Christian, then. I’m allergic to woad.

 

[Izdaari]

I would probably be what I was before I was a Christian: a Zen/Tao/Vedanta Eastern syncretist. Even as a Christian, there’s still a little bit of that in me.

 

[dolphinlove]

So, why is the book of Revelation in the Bible then?

Because its part of the bible, your point being?

 

[dolphinlove]

Id be Jew since they share our book, except in ww2, I pray for those who die then though

 

[Matthew_Light]

Because its part of the bible, your point being?

Because the book of Revelation was revealed by a vision to a prophet who called himself John of Patmos, who wrote it down and it was included in the New Testament.

So that presents a pretty big problem if all prophets after Christ are false, which you stated.

 

[SteveVH]

Because the book of Revelation was revealed by a vision to a prophet who called himself John of Patmos, who wrote it down and it was included in the New Testament.

So that presents a pretty big problem if all prophets after Christ are false, which you stated.

More precisely, there is to be no further revelation. Jesus is the fulfillment of all revelation. As far as prophets, the definition can be pretty broad. But all of John’s revelation was centered on the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last - Jesus Christ. It is another witness to the one, final revelation of Jesus Christ. Any so-called “prophecy” that would claim to supersede or replace or improve upon the revelation of Jesus Christ must, from the Christian view, be false. God came to us and revealed himself. What more could we want or need?

I think we have prophets in the Church today. I think Pope Francis is a prophet. But he turns our gaze completely to Christ, both in his words and in his deeds. A prophet reveals something of God to the rest of us. He always leads us back to the Truth when we stray. And, for the last 2000 years we have known that this Truth is Jesus. The prize has been found, we need no further clues as to its whereabouts.

Peace.

Steve

 

[Catholic_farmer]

If Christianity didn’t exist, than Christ has not yet come, so I suppose I would be Jewish.

 

[Matthew_Light]

More precisely, there is to be no further revelation.

Except the Book of Revelation, right?

It seems to me that John of Patmos was indeed a prophet after Christ, who brought further revelation about the Return of Christ that was not revealed by Jesus Himself directly, but only through John’s vision.

I should note that there was some controversy about whether or not to accept the Book of Revelation in the Canon or not - even today some Nestorian churches reject it.

 

[SteveVH]

Except the Book of Revelation, right?

And what “new” revelation did John bring? He was not revealing anything other than Jesus.

It seems to me that John of Patmos was indeed a prophet after Christ, who brought further revelation about the Return of Christ that was not revealed by Jesus Himself directly, but only through John’s vision.

Well, I don’t go along with the position that there are no longer any prophets. What I am saying is that all these modern day prophets point us to Jesus, the final revelation. There is no further revelation.

I should note that there was some controversy about whether or not to accept the Book of Revelation in the Canon or not - even today some Nestorian churches reject it.

We don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what heretical groups think of the canon. They have no authority to change anything.

 

[Matthew_Light]

Steve,

Out of curiosity, it sounds like you would be open to the possibility of a “Book of Revelation II” revealing more about the Parousia, as long as it was recognized and accepted by the Magisterium.

Would that be an accurate assumption?

 

[Matthew_Light]

Well, I don’t go along with the position that there are no longer any prophets.

Thanks, because dolphinlove stated that there could be no true prophets after Christ. It sounds like you state that there are, including John of Patmos.

You believe that the scope of prophethood is strictly limited after the Revelation of Christ, but that there could be and were genuine prophets subsequent to Jesus.

I appreciate your clarifications very much.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve,

Out of curiosity, it sounds like you would be open to the possibility of a “Book of Revelation II” revealing more about the Parousia, as long as it was recognized and accepted by the Magisterium.

Would that be an accurate assumption?

If it was recognized and accepted by the magisterium and proposed as a belief to which all members of the Church must adhere, then yes. But it could never happen. We will never add to Sacred Scripture.

 

[rcwitness]

Any so-called “prophecy” that would claim to supersede or replace or improve upon the revelation of Jesus Christ must, from the Christian view, be false. God came to us and revealed himself. What more could we want or need?

Peace.

Steve

You mean like the Rosary and consecrations to her?

 

[dolphinlove]

Thanks, because dolphinlove stated that there could be no true prophets after Christ. It sounds like you state that there are, including John of Patmos.

You believe that the scope of prophethood is strictly limited after the Revelation of Christ, but that there could be and were genuine prophets subsequent to Jesus.

I appreciate your clarifications very much.

Well the bible says this, I dont go for my own brand of Catholicism

Luke 16:16 'Up to the time of John it was the Law and the Prophets; from then onwards, the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it.

 

[quies]

Zoroastrianism.

I would be a Zoro-asterisk because Zoro was my favorite childhood hero on the teevee and he got to dress up in all black and wear a lone ranger mask and whack a big ol’ graffito Z on everything including gordo Sgt. Garcia’s trowsures with a sword.

Thank you.