What separates Christianity's branches over other religions?

[Ben_Sinner]

One common argument us Catholics make is “We have a singular Magesterium with a singular, true, teaching. The other religions don’t have a singular, true, belief. They are composed of different schools that sometimes contradict each other.”

But someone on the outside will see all the different Christian denominations and will think that there is not one, singular, true Christian branch…accusing us of the same thing we accuse the other religions of.

So how do we make the distinction that our religion just wasn’t one that broke up into different branches and the other religions vice versa?

 

[joeybaggz]

So how do we make the distinction that our religion just wasn’t one that broke up into different branches and the other religions vice versa?

Suggest you get a good source book and study the history of the Catholic Church. The church founded on Peter by Christ did not in any way break up into different branches. That occurred as various “reformers” (i.e. Martin Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, and others) in the sixteenth century chose to deny the teachings of Rome and break off into different sects (denominations if you prefer) Those denominations reject the authority of Rome and follow their own course. Rome has one leader, the pope, every church in every denomination has its own leader (its own pope). It is estimated that in the U.S. there are over thirty five thousand “popes” if you follow that reasoning.

One thing to mention. The church in Constantinople, we know as the Greek Orthodox Church, separated from the Roman church in the eleventh century. This separation was primarily over the authority of the Pope and not on any dogmatic basis. It was political in effect. The various Christian denominations in the U.S and other nations disagree with Rome on most, if not all, dogmas and Traditions held by Rome.

Again, the Roman Catholic Church, in and of itself,never broke up into different branches.

Shalom

 

[Jesus_Is_God_1]

Christianity is the only religion that believes its leader to have died and resurrected. No other religion has this. Buddha died. Muhammad died. Joseph Smith died. Jesus died and came back and then ascended into heaven.

 

[Polycarp1]

Christ is the only person who claimed to be God.

 

[EricF]

To me, and I may be way off base, Christianity is the only one of the world’s religions that claims God actually chose to become one of us.

 

[Estevao]

“Where Peter is, there is the Church” - St. Ambrose

 

[ComplineSanFran]

To me, and I may be way off base, Christianity is the only one of the world’s religions that claims God actually chose to become one of us.

Hinduism also. There are traditionally ten incarnations (or avatars) of the god Vishnu. Some of the texts say more and some less, but the general agreement is ten.

If you look beyond the major contemporary World Religions, of course there were many cultures that believed in the divinity of specific humans, most often their rulers. The Pharaohs of ancient Egypt, and many of the Greco-Roman gods became incarnate. Also remember that Japanese currently believe that their emperors are divine, incarnate from the Sun-god.

So, as much as Christians like to think that we are unique, the belief that God/gods taking on human form to live among us has been around a very long time.

 

[arthra]

One common argument us Catholics make is “We have a singular Magesterium with a singular, true, teaching. The other religions don’t have a singular, true, belief. They are composed of different schools that sometimes contradict each other.”
…

As a Baha’i I’d have to say that we have pretty much a singular administration and belief. True a few broke away but they are very few in number.

Baha’is have some beliefs in common with Catholics:

“With regard to your question concerning the Virgin Birth of Jesus; on this point, as on several others, the Bahá’í Teachings are in full agreement with the doctrines of the Catholic Church. In the ‘Kitáb-i-Íqán’ (Book of Certitude) p. 56, and in a few other Tablets still unpublished, Bahá’u’lláh confirms, however, indirectly, the Catholic conception of the Virgin Birth. Also 'Abdu’l-Bahá in the ‘Some 490 Answered Questions’, Chap. XII, p.73, explicitly states that ‘Christ found existence through the Spirit of God’ which statement necessarily implies, when viewed in the light of the text, that Jesus was not the son of Joseph.”

(From a letter dated October 14, 1945 written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 489)

 

[peter26]

Hinduism also. There are traditionally ten incarnations (or avatars) of the god Vishnu. Some of the texts say more and some less, but the general agreement is ten.

If you look beyond the major contemporary World Religions, of course there were many cultures that believed in the divinity of specific humans, most often their rulers. The Pharaohs of ancient Egypt, and many of the Greco-Roman gods became incarnate. Also remember that Japanese currently believe that their emperors are divine, incarnate from the Sun-god.

So, as much as Christians like to think that we are unique, the belief that God/gods taking on human form to live among us has been around a very long time.

Odin in Norse tradition also took human form.

However, Christianity is the only religion that teaches not only that God became incarnate but that he died for our sins.

 

[reagent6]

There is a difference between taking human form or taking on an avatar and what Catholics and most Christians believe about Jesus. Christ did not take on humanity as if it were a mask or a costume that he shed at the crucifixion. Jesus became fully human in the womb of his mother while remaining fully divine. As a human he walked the earth at the same time remaining God. Jesus remains fully human in heaven now and of course divine.

This belief in the incarnation is so far as I know unique to Christianity.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Hinduism also. There are traditionally ten incarnations (or avatars) of the god Vishnu. Some of the texts say more and some less, but the general agreement is ten.

If you look beyond the major contemporary World Religions, of course there were many cultures that believed in the divinity of specific humans, most often their rulers. The Pharaohs of ancient Egypt, and many of the Greco-Roman gods became incarnate. Also remember that Japanese currently believe that their emperors are divine, incarnate from the Sun-god.

So, as much as Christians like to think that we are unique, the belief that God/gods taking on human form to live among us has been around a very long time.

No historical evidence for Vishnu. As well, the powers it is deemed to hold are more similar to Greek mythology than true human form.

Christ is a singular man claiming to be God. That is unique.

As for the other denominations, they are what they are. We can pray for unity.

 

[Kliska]

One common argument us Catholics make is “We have a singular Magesterium with a singular, true, teaching. The other religions don’t have a singular, true, belief. They are composed of different schools that sometimes contradict each other.”

But someone on the outside will see all the different Christian denominations and will think that there is not one, singular, true Christian branch…accusing us of the same thing we accuse the other religions of.

So how do we make the distinction that our religion just wasn’t one that broke up into different branches and the other religions vice versa?

I don’t know if I’m understanding the exact question, but according to the Catholic Church, baptism would be what unites the branches of Christianity. By extension the teaching of the Trinity, and the creed. If you are asking how Catholics can claim to actually be the original Church, then it would boil down to history, leadership, and the timeline/progression of teachings. Just like you can trace a river backwards as it branches. The evidence either bears that out or it does not.

 

[rossum]

Christianity is the only religion that believes its leader to have died and resurrected.

The Buddha died and was reborn many times in his earlier lives before he died for the last time. To a Buddhist, coming back after dying is a mark of one’s failure to attain enlightenment. The enlightened do not come back. The unenlightened get to come back and try again and again and again.

Every religion has its unique features. Picking on one particular unique feature is not likely to be convincing to followers of other religions. For example, Buddhism is unique in its denial of a soul:

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:7

rossum

 

[Jesus_Is_God_1]

The Buddha died and was reborn many times in his earlier lives before he died for the last time. To a Buddhist, coming back after dying is a mark of one’s failure to attain enlightenment. The enlightened do not come back. The unenlightened get to come back and try again and again and again.

You are referring to a concept similar to reincarnation, this is not the same as resurrection. Resurrection is when someone who has physically died is once again physically raised to life.This is what happened to Jesus. Jesus was crucified, died, and then three days later his personage reentered his body and he rose from the dead.

To a Christian, death is the enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26). God intended humans to live forever, free of sin. He endowed us with a supernatural grace that allowed this. But man sinned and disobeyed God, and so death entered into us. Christ came to atone for us. His death allows for the forgiveness of sin. His resurrection assures us of the hope that one day we too will be resurrected from the death and live on earth forever in glory.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Ecclesiology and Theology seems to separate us all the most.

Without a proper Ecclesiology we don’t know what it is to be a Church and without a proper Theology (of salvation, of who God is, of who Christ is, a correct moral life) we don’t know what it is that makes the body of Christ anything special.

I think criticising a religion because there are different groups within that category of religion is a bad move and not a legitimate criticism unless the person is denying that it even happened.

 

[TMC]

One common argument us Catholics make is “We have a singular Magesterium with a singular, true, teaching. The other religions don’t have a singular, true, belief. They are composed of different schools that sometimes contradict each other.”

But someone on the outside will see all the different Christian denominations and will think that there is not one, singular, true Christian branch…accusing us of the same thing we accuse the other religions of.

So how do we make the distinction that our religion just wasn’t one that broke up into different branches and the other religions vice versa?

I have never found this argument in favor of Catholicism to be very persuasive. Frankly, the criticism of the argument is correct - Christianity and even Catholicism are not markedly more uniform in belief or practice than other faiths. Even if you look only at the Catholic faith, the Church is itself fairly broad, with a lot of room for varying interpretations even within Catholicism. Just go to any thread on this forum about biblical interpretation, or justification, and you can see how diverse opinions are within the Church.

More importantly, I don’t see how homogeneity is a good proxy for correctness. Lots of movements with very strong centrally controlled belief systems turn out to be very wrong. The strength of the Church is in its universal nature - hence the name - and that very nature leads to differences in belief and practice. That diversity is a strength, not a weakness.

 

[Peter_J]

I have never found this argument in favor of Catholicism to be very persuasive. Frankly, the criticism of the argument is correct - Christianity and even Catholicism are not markedly more uniform in belief or practice than other faiths. Even if you look only at the Catholic faith, the Church is itself fairly broad, with a lot of room for varying interpretations even within Catholicism. Just go to any thread on this forum about biblical interpretation, or justification, and you can see how diverse opinions are within the Church.

More importantly, I don’t see how homogeneity is a good proxy for correctness. Lots of movements with very strong centrally controlled belief systems turn out to be very wrong. The strength of the Church is in its universal nature - hence the name - and that very nature leads to differences in belief and practice. That diversity is a strength, not a weakness.

I disagree, to some extent: I think the unity that can be found in the Catholic Church is evidence. But I also agree with you, inasmuch as people often argue that point poorly.

For example, if someone says “Protestantism is wrong because there are 70,000 Protestant denominations” or whatever, then someone could likewise argue that Christianity is wrong because there are 70,001 Christian denominations.

 

[rossum]

I disagree, to some extent: I think the unity that can be found in the Catholic Church is evidence. But I also agree with you, inasmuch as people often argue that point poorly.

For example, if someone says “Protestantism is wrong because there are 70,000 Protestant denominations” or whatever, then someone could likewise argue that Christianity is wrong because there are 70,001 Christian denominations.

… and rossumism is right because there is only one denomination of rossumism.

Of course, rossumism only has one adherent…

rossum

 

[Wannano]

You are referring to a concept similar to reincarnation, this is not the same as resurrection. Resurrection is when someone who has physically died is once again physically raised to life.This is what happened to Jesus. Jesus was crucified, died, and then three days later his personage reentered his body and he rose from the dead.

To a Christian, death is the enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26). God intended humans to live forever, free of sin. He endowed us with a supernatural grace that allowed this. But man sinned and disobeyed God, and so death entered into us. Christ came to atone for us. His death allows for the forgiveness of sin. His resurrection assures us of the hope that one day we too will be resurrected from the death and live on earth forever in glory.

I don’t understand the op question but I want to respond to your post here. Your last paragraph to me beautifully capusulizes the Christian faith as taught by Jesus and the Apostles. “It is finished.”

 

[Peter_J]

… and rossumism is right because there is only one denomination of rossumism.

Of course, rossumism only has one adherent…

rossum

Of the race of Augra, I Augra am the first and the last.