I have done a fair amount of research but am still very confused about the difference between the two, the Churches of Christ and the Congregational Churches. I know of the United Church and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but that is not what I am referring to with the Churches of Christ. Are they the same thing? Are they different? In what way are they different? If anyone has any knowledge regarding this, please share. Thank you very much!

I’ve attended numerous churches in both RCA and UCC denominations in which RCA had a very literal take on the crucifixion and resurrection where the UCC church has a very allegorical approach. Excluding talking about this specific instance I’m asking about why there is a difference in how it was taught. ** Why is the RCA church more literal in scripture where the UCC church is allegorical?** I’ve noticed during switching denominations specifically RCA reformed church of America and UCC united church of Christ, RCA seems to have a more literal translation of scriptures to which is applied to daily life. UCC on the other hand has taken a more allegorical and symbolic approach. *I edited the question to exclude asking about specific events in the Bible and focused it more on the observed differences in how Christianity is taught*

Rabbi Yosef Massas (1892–1974) writes in responsa *Mayim Chaim* vol. 2 (*Yoreh Deah* §108:2) that he spoke to a Christian (possibly Catholic) priest who claimed that they only worship the One God and that when they say that Jesus was a son of *Elohim* this means "angel" not "God". Accordingly, this sect believed that Jesus was a son of an angel, not son of God. Does anybody know of a Christian denomination/sect which fits this description? (Rabbi Massas lived in Morocco and in Algeria if that helps)

Background = Out of pure curiosity, I wanted to know if, somewhere, there is an authoritative chart of core beliefs/tenets held in common, and opposing beliefs, of the largest (by professed believer count) Christian [denominations](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination) . I am not sure if this is the best forum to ask this in. If so let me know and preferably point me to a better forum. However, this was the first forum that came to mind for me. My intention is that of fact finding and research. Question = Is there a resource that accurately and succinctly describes the differences and similarities between the majority of Christian denominations? Note: Unless it is significant, I am not asking about the granularity of different [rites](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_particular_churches_and_liturgical_rites)

Are there denominations that emphasize apologetic sermons?

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?

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.

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

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?

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 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' ?

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.

[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.

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?

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.

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.

Many denominations may believe they are right. Likewise multiple religions sincerely believe they are right. But does God require one to join a denomination? Or does he emphasize the importance of Christlike living and the study of his word?

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?

From my reading of the Bible, I have come to understand that unity among Christians is a good thing. 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 > Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? Psalm 133:1 > Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity! These, and other passages of scripture, seem to emphasize the importance of Christian unity and love while de-emphasizing the importance of distinctions. In light of these passages, how do Christians justify separating themselves into so many different denominations? Are there any Biblical justifications given for why having such division is preferred over unity?

The Second Commandment warns against making “graven images” or likenesses of anything in heaven, on earth, or in the waters below. Some Christians apply this very strictly to artwork, icons, and statues. With modern technology, it’s now possible to create humanoid robots, androids, or AI-powered machines that imitate human appearance or behavior. **Do any Christian denominations or traditions teach that creating such human-like robots violates the commandment not to make graven images?** If so, what is their reasoning or theological basis? If not, how do theologians distinguish robots from prohibited “images” in Exodus 20:4?