There are a multiplicity of contemporary claims regarding Jesus made by folks who refer to themselves as Christian. 1) Jesus was and is both God and man. 2) Jesus was and is only man 3) Jesus was an angel, became a man, and is an angel again. (Or was and is both.) 4) Jesus was a man and now is God. These are, perhaps, not all of the options and certainly not all of the nuances. What I have not come across is a contemporary claim that Jesus was God only and not really man at all. Docetism is one form of the sort of thing I am referring to but I am unaware if Docetism is still alive under the umbrella of claimed Christianity: > In the history of Christianity, docetism (from the Koinē Greek: δοκεῖν/δόκησις dokeĩn "to seem", dókēsis "apparition, phantom"1 ) was the doctrine that the phenomenon of Jesus, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality.[3] Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion. - Wikipedia I have seen articles describing "docetic christianity " wherein the importance of being led of the Spirit becomes so magnified that human responsibility to any sort of biblical hermeneutic disappears: > On this view, it becomes unimportant whether Jesus lived or died according to the Gospel records. What matters is the ethical and existential message of the stories about him; how the story affects my understanding of myself. This begins to sound like what I have seen described as Christian Atheism in practice, but theologically cannot be since Christian Atheism denies the existence of God: Are there any contemporary denominations who claim to be Christian and whose theology holds that Jesus was God only and not really human?

I've been thinking recently, there are a number of famous theologians and apologists who, despite belonging to some particular denomination or another, are recognized widely by Christians of other denominations as good thinkers or teachers. For instance, Tim Keller (Presbyterian), Karl Barth (Swiss Reformed), C.S. Lewis (Anglican), Blaise Pascal (Catholic), and many others. **I am wondering if there are any Seventh Day Adventist thinkers who have a positive reputation as theologians or apologists outside of their own denomination.** I would not be surprised if the answer were "no" given that Seventh Day Adventist Church is relatively new and usually regarded as on the fringes of orthodoxy by other Christian churches. However, if there are any examples, I would love to learn about them for the sake of improving my relationships with friends in the SDA.

Are there any Christian denominations that believe certain scientific knowledge is leading humanity away from the truth of God? Especially where that piece of technology has been used for evil exploitation?

[Christian atheism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism) is the practice of following the teaching of the Christian bible, or Jesus, without believing in the existance of God or that Jesus is the son of God. Do Christian atheists have denominations, and if so, what are those denominations? I will accept *either* actual denominations of Christian atheists, or denominations of Christians who believe in God but who nevertheless have members who identify as Christian atheists, however, I am primarily interested in the former.

So I'm curious if there exist any Christian sects which deny the physical birth of Jesus, i.e. that Jesus was born from Mary. Perhaps such a sect would say that Jesus simply appeared from the Heavens and didn't need anyone to bring him into the world.

Or, in mathematical terminology, is the relationship of full communion a transitive relation ? I can easily imagine a scenario where church A is stricter in their rules for full communion than church B, but not so strict as to exclude B from full communion on those grounds. However, since B is more lenient, they have full communion with C, which is outside the bounds for church A. While that's easily imaginable, I don't know of any example of three church institutions where this is the case. Do any exist? Does communing with C create any tension in the relationship between B and A?

I received a letter from someone in the UK which, twice, used this expression and I wonder what it was meant to convey, especially the word 'alone'. Is this a saying of a particular group of self-identifying Christians ? If so, what are they communicating by the 'alone' ? Are they implying that no other matters can be included as a ground of gathering ? And why is the title 'Christ' not mentioned, or 'Son of God' ?

We have on Wikipedia, a tabular statement of the numbering systems adopted in regard to the Ten Commandments, by different traditions. One can see a telling difference in the numbering pattern. For instance, the Commandment against adultery appears at No.6 in the Augustinian division followed by Roman Catholics, Lutherans, etc. whereas it appears at No.7 in the Septuagint version followed by Eastern Orthodox and Reformed Christians. With more communication and dialogue taking place not only between various denominations , but between Christianity and other religions in the modern era, it is expedient to draw up a unified numbering of the Commandments. Has anyone ever attempted a unified numbering of Ten Commandments, applicable to all traditions and denominations?

I'm looking for reputable books for a thorough summation (and/or defense) of beliefs for the Methodist, Pentecostal, Baptist, and Presbyterian (or, more broadly, reformed) denominations. Any suggestions?

How can there be so many denominations of Christianity? Christianity is solely based on the Bible, so how can multiple faiths come from it?

Well, I know this question sounds a bit provoking, but I want to collect reasons to refute that Christians can be Nazis as well. I recently had a debate with someone who noted that the German population was overwhelmingly Christian at the time, concluding that the Nazi ideology could likely be seen to be Christian or at least compatible with Christianity. While that statistic might be true on paper, the question here is whether the conclusion that Christians could also be Nazis can actually be made? => *Were the Nazis "real" Christians?* If the answer is no, does that mean that the statistics used in the Wiki article paint an inaccurate picture of what a Christian is? How so? One of the most intuitive arguments will probably be that Christians at the time that also were part of the Nazi ideology, were not "true" Christians. A possible counter to that is the No Scotsman Fallacy . *Can, and if so, how can the No Scotsman Fallacy be refuted in this case?* Since there is already a related question regarding the catholic perspective I am interested in the protestant perspective. Although I don't mind other or more general viewpoints. **Edit** Since the definition of "real Christian" has been expected: For the scope of this Question, a real Christian is someone who: - practices the teachings of the Bible to the best of his ability - does not practice Christianity out of mere tradition, habit, or cultural peer pressure. - Does not apply syncretism to his belief (Considering the discussion in the comments, I probably need to add, that culture and traditions that are generally viewed as Christian but have a pagan origin are not counted, as most people have forgotten that origin and still celebrate something like Christmas as a Christian tradition. Syncretism in this case is focused on beliefs and direct consequences in action from that foreign belief. E.g. the need to go into battle to get into Valhalla because Norse Gods exist, while also compassionately helping a person that was robbed and hurt, because that is how God said you should show love towards your neighbor. So for all intents and purposes, let's say "obvious syncretism" that mixes beliefs that are either almost or directly antithetical to each other.) ***In the scope*** of ***this question*** this is **not** a Christian: - A person that has *faith* (because that is difficult if not impossible to find out) - A person that is saved (because only God ultimately knows that for each specific individual) - A person who rewrites the Bible to fit his belief - A person who kills Christians for the reason that they are Christian - A person that **only** has a Church Membership Just to make sure: The question is about whether we can call people that officially were Christian during the nazi era really Christian, given the atrocities committed by the Germans at the time. Since those people are now mostly dead, it is difficult/impossible to verify if a person had faith, meaning a relationship with God including receiving the Holy Spirit, etc. Therefore we have to make our conclusions from the actions taken by those people because those are recorded and recordable.

All my life, I've been massively confused about how there exists separate, seemingly incompatible and separate, "branches" of Christianity. I know about "protestant", "catholic" and then there's something else in the "main three" which I probably "should know" by heart but I simply don't. And then there's also things like Mormons ("Latter Day Saints") and many other minor "variants". I find Wikipedia and all other websites to be utterly exhausting to try to browse. They seem to always assume that you know most of what you're reading about, instead of having basically no knowledge and wanting to hear the most important elements of each "flavour" and preferably a short summary of why they are separate in the first place. It would be much simpler if there were just "Christians", "Muslims", "Jews", etc., but it's apparently not enough to be "Christian", because all the different groups of Christians will not approve of you unless you use their "variant". At least that's how I perceive things and how they must logically be if they are different branches. I mean, why would they exist if they all agreed to the same stuff anyway? Some (a lot, in fact) even say that Jesus was a Jew and thus Christianity in itself is branched out from Judaism? That seems like an important fact if true. It makes Christianity as a whole just some kind of "expansion pack" to the "main software product", to speak in computer jargon. I'm really just trying to get an overview by asking this question. If such a thing can be had. I find that the more basic my questions are, the more vague are the answers. In fact, I have never heard of any Christians who refer to the "protestant Bible" or "catholic Bible" -- it's always just "the Bible" (by which they mean the old and the new testaments combined, I assume) or "the good book" or "the holy word". Does the Bible in itself talk about and name these branches, or were they created much later, long after the Bible had been finished and spread? I also know that the Mormons have another "testament" added to the first two, but that's just about it. And I know there's a stereotype about Catholics making a lot of children, but that also seems to be a common cliché for Mormons as well. That's just about all I know, amazingly. (It's why I ask.)

Of course many (if not most) denominations believe that what they teach and believe as doctrine critical to salvation is, in fact, critical to salvation. Most denominations also teach and believe many doctrines that they will admit as being 'secondary' and debatable or uncertain. Often a doctrine critical in one denomination is secondary in another. In my experience most official members of particular denominations, while not asserting that only they are completely correct, would be comfortable as classifying their denomination as 'the most correct'. Most folks would not assert that *only* their denomination can attain salvation however, since theirs is *most correct*, they would be comfortable asserting that, when all come to face to face with God, they will all come 'round to that *most correct* view. My question is: Are there denominations that officially teach that God will have respect toward one denomination over another such that one denomination gets a 'blanket pass' based upon membership whereas others might undergo individual evaluation?

What are the receptions and reputations of Olivet Assembly in these countries? - US - South Korea - China (Is it also called Young Disciples of Jesus (耶稣青年会)?) From limited search results, it looks like it was founded in South Korea. There are also some articles about it on American and Chinese websites, with different attitudes. Is it legal and well accepted by the governments or societies in the three countries? Thanks.

We all are familiar with several of the largest denominations of Christianity: the Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, etc. Several sources claim that there are approximately 45,000 denominations in Christianity, 200 denominations in the U.S. alone. Do a quick Google search and you'll see what I mean. If this is true, this is certainly astonishing and quite worrying as a Christian. Jesus sincerely desired to unite all believers as one body under God. As you read about His prayer at the Garden of Gethsemane, you could tell that Jesus wouldn't be quite pleased with the massive number of denominations we have today. >**John 17:20-23 (NKJV)** > >20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; **that they also may be one in Us**, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, **that they may be one just as We are one**: 23 I in them, and You in Me; **that they may be made perfect in one**, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. Every denomination differs in terms of doctrine, rituals, eschatology, style of music for worship, Bible translation -- if they are all given the same Bible passage, every one of them will give a different interpretation. Is the Christian community truly so fragmented?

Some underground church in mainland China said that they are a branch of a Christian denomination called "福音派", which also exists in US and other places in the world. But they were not able to name it in English, except that one member mentioned the word of "assembly", despite not being able to confirm whether it is "Assembly of God". By searching on the censored Internet (the one only available in China), "福音派" seems to be a translation of "evangelical", while "派" means denomination. If I am correct, "evangelical" isn't just a denomination, but a group of conservative denominations, at least in US. Also, I am not sure if there is any mainline denomination in mainland China. It seems to make sense to think of the church as evangelical, since it constantly gives out a conservative feeling, both biblical and political. (The preacher keeps saying that gays are promiscuous and will go to hell, by citing the bible, and claims that the American churches accepting the LGBTQ movement betray the bible. He also keeps requesting every one to keep the church's location a secret, while denying their religious freedom having been infringed at all, and furthermore feeling grateful to the government for not having found it out and/or not having shut it down.) Is there a way to find out which denomination the church (or a church calling themselves "福音派") belongs to? Is there more than one evangelical denominations whose names include "assembly"? Does "福音派" in China mostly likely refer to one particular denomination?

Is it frowned upon to alternate between churches? Especially churches of different denominations? The intention is to explore the differences and find a better fit.

What was the denomination of Bishop Heahmund from? If he is a Catholic bishop how did priestly celibacy work in that era? *(The Vikings TV series shows him with multiple relationships)*

Are there denominations that emphasize apologetic sermons?

I want to know what Evangelical Christians (ECs) believe regarding ecumenism and how they practice it. A very practical example is when a person converts interdenominationally. How do ECs make the convert feel like his/her conversion to EC does not imply that his/her entire faith journey up to that point was invalid since they used to believe different to what they now do? Another practical example is where an EC wishes to not make Christians from other denominations feel like they are belittling their faith because they, as an EC, hold to their views while fellowshipping with them.