Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity are the closest to what Jesus actually taught.
All forms of Protestantism are watered down, and wayward, to various degrees.
Discussion
The Reformers would like a word
Please elaborate.
Luther's original intent was not to cause a schism, but over time he and other reformers saw themselves as course correcting. We commonly see the Protestants as being the ones to split away, but they saw the Roman Church as doing so.
Also worth noting: prior to the Reformation, average congregants could not read the Scriptures for themselves and neither did many understand the Mass because the commoner did not know Latin. The reformers were so effective partially through their shrewd use of technology. Luther bypassed the gatekeepers and wrote directly to the common German, in his own tongue, leveraging the printing press in a way no one had done before. Other reformers did the same. In fact, without the Reformation, there would not be mass literacy. Anyone being able to learn to read the Scriptures for himself comes with the risk of various interpretations and divisions. But I would argue for all the complications this has wrought, it was worth it.
What I would like to know is which version of the bible is uncensored and unedited in regards to not omitting anything for the sake of secular politics?
Does such a version of the bible truly exist which is the actual original copy of every book written?
I believe this is important, because with every translation and alteration. Leaving entire books out. How do we know if what we are reading was actually the true teachings?
If such a book does not exist then would not all christian denominations be teaching incomplete, or totally different lessons from the original authors intentions?
Would the entire foundation of all christian faiths then be called into question?
What if the original collective works of the bible read like absolutely nothing like what we are all taught in church?
These questions plague my mind.
#bible
We have the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic manuscripts, as well as the Vulgate, early Reformer translations, and the KJV.
There are numerous modern translations, some of which are garbage, most of which have strengths and weaknesses based on translation philosophy.
What versions are you referring to that are censored, edited, and omitting things due to secular politics?
You’ll have to look into a few core ideas of Catholicism for the answer, the early church fathers, what they taught in regards to tradition, the liturgy and the Mass, the early Church and community, being guided by the Holy Spirit, all of which predate the Bible, the 73 book Bible canon didn’t official exist until 382 Council of Rome. - it’s a Catholic (and Orthodox since they were the same thing then) book.
Said in another way, with out a deep history of all the intertwined teachings and traditions and writings that continue without break after the death of the death of the apostles you’ll struggle with most things related to the faith, because it’s all one unbroken apostolic teaching guided by the Holy Spirit, in the Church. Finally looking into the magisterium would be the last key.
Section 6 of Chapter 2 of Calvin's Institutes is relevant for this discussion
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes/institutes.vi.iii.html
Yes. Protestantism played a pivotal role. Martin Luther was a hero for calling out The Church wrt indulgences and other abuses, paving the way to much needed reform. And Protestants are right to recommend reading the Bible oneself rather than deferring to the interpretations and beliefs of others.
To me it seems that Protestantism has simply gone too far, and has lost the way of tradition in favor of the way of modernity and secularism. Most Protestant churches I’ve seen lately have rainbow flags or blm or vaccine posters or whatever is currently in vogue. And they lack mysticism, feeling more like a city council meeting than a unification with the divine. Catholic and Orthodox are closer to following the church that St. Peter founded.
Much of the Church is in a bad way right now for sure, but what you are describing sounds like mostly mainline churches which went astray long ago and are mostly hollowed out. I really don't consider them churches or really a true or meaningful part of Protestantism.
There are still faithful spiritual enclaves of Protestantism you'll find among the PCA, OPC, Lutherans, CREC, Reformed Baptists, etc.
One note regarding the earlier discussion of the crusades and a lot of Christendom past—much of the Protestant Church, even the solid churches and denoms, do often make the mistake of ignoring the first 1500 years of church history at best, denigrating a lot of it at worst. This is something I would like to see change, and am indeed seeing a slow change. We ought not be so quick to disdain and disavow our fathers.
The 'church' is a business. The 'congregation' is Christ's Body. There is a difference, and the Word of God makes that very clear, for anyone who seeks it.
Where do you see the Scriptures making a distinction between Christ's body the church?
I am suggesting that there is a (church business) man of lawlessness and rebellion who operates in secret, sending misleading doctrine forth. We should be on the watch, and not be condoning these teachings. -2Thesalonians
Admittedly I'm not sure how you see 2 Thessalonians making any such point about the church. Nor do I see any division between church and congregation in the NT or any condemnation of the institution of the Church as a business.
I do think many modern churches *function* too much like businesses (overly focused on marketing campaigns, brandong, and numbers of congregants, corporate leadership structure rather than biblically modeled elder board, etc) but that's not the same as saying the institution of the Church or any local church *is* a business.
Correct me if I have misunderstood what you are saying.
I was compelled to post with the hope that people would ponder these things, to see if they are so. I think each congregation does the best they can, but the church business leadership drive the bus so to speak, and there comes a time when the congregation has have to flee. Acts17:11, Isaiah42:18, Mark11:15, Matt23:1-5, Matt7:15-16, Matt10:16-23, 2Thesalonians
Why didn't Alan Watts join the Catholic church?
Since he grew up in a Protestant household and community, he became an Episcopal priest.
Once he incorporated Zen Buddhism into his Christian philosophy, he decided to go his own way, following what he called ‘the religion of no religion.’
He has criticized Protestantism for lacking mysticism and Catholicism for having too much dogma, but later in life came to view the mystical side as the most essential element.
definitely agree (from my limited, but expanding knowledge) with this basic idea. overall, i would calling it a family-distro might be a better way to look at it; that is christianity will likely lead you down a better path. 'the right one' seems to always come down to individual parishes and experiences (pray about it) but otherwise the nitty-gritty details between them outside the overall 'jesus is the way, truth, and life' seems less important for the underlying idea of salvation given both catholics and orthodox generally state that the big man and the son have the final say anyway. so the which distro where it's mostly choices made along the way (the way has been a hot 2 thousand years). similar to bsd, maybe, still a unified structure but specific choices per distro. linux is to disparate of choices for the system, but christianity is a monolith being a monarchic system. if you make too many changes it ceases being that initial thing;and there are quite a few christianities that have done just that, but not most of the three listed albeit protestants likely have more watered down versions that cross that line more often.