Unsure which christian denomination to convert to

[Misfit]

Anyone got any ideas? I'm seriously considering catholic, but I'm not sure. Not sure how that would fit in with my turkish identity, as I'm pretty sure most christian turks are orthodox, but orthodox doesnt sound too bad either. Not sure how I would fit in culturally though. Not sure why that is, maybe the se Polr while seeing some of these eastern european guys and things I'm not familiar with. I know catholic, I know protestant, growing up in the states, but I don't know much about orthodox christianity.
EDIT: Meanwhile I've been getting my knowledge on christianity from a combination of christian (including catholic) sites, varied youtube videos, and impact video ministries, which is an evangelical right wing youtube channel, and I find the whole speaking in tongues thing weird.

[loopyclouds]

The primary source to learn about “Christianity” would be the Bible. I don’t think you have to decide on a particular denomination at this point, before you feel out and get a deeper understanding of the Bible and what it might mean for you and your life. Personally, I’m Protestant, and even then there are a lot of denominations within that.

[FreelancePoliceman]

The primary source to learn about “Christianity” would be the Bible. I don’t think you have to decide on a particular denomination at this point, before you feel out and get a deeper understanding of the Bible and what it might mean for you and your life. Personally, I’m Protestant, and even then there are a lot of denominations within that.

Psalm 146:3 -- "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no salvation."

[loopyclouds]

Psalm 146:3 -- "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no salvation."

Yes?

[FreelancePoliceman]

Yes?

If you go the sola scriptura route, the psalmist is telling people not to believe in people calling themselves the "son of man." Obviously this would include Jesus.

The Bible isn't some tidy document that fits together neatly. Almost every so-called heresy and doctrinal dispute out there comes about from people reading various passages against each other, and each side usually is reading the passages they prefer correctly. There's no "Christianity" without an established church interpretation that reads interpretations into the text, harmonizes contradictions, and ignores what it doesn't like. Besides, if you allow everyone to interpret as he likes, he may start questioning why he should accept the entire Bible in the first place. Jesus and James on the one hand, and Paul on the other, clearly disagree on whether faith alone saves. Shouldn't Jesus' words be valued over Paul's? And hey, didn't Jesus say not to listen to anyone who claimed to have a vision of him in the wilderness, and that false prophets would come and possibly deceive the elect? Didn't Jesus in Revelation praise the capital city of Asia for rejecting false apostles after Paul complained that he'd been excommunicated by the entirety of Asia? Aren't there three mutually contradictory accounts of Paul's conversion recorded in Acts, two of which come from Paul's mouth and the third by the narrator? Didn't a demon voluntarily go about publicly endorsing Paul's message of salvation? You can quickly go down routes like this.

[loopyclouds]

If you go the sola scriptura route, the psalmist is telling people not to believe in people calling themselves the "son of man." Obviously this would include Jesus.

I don’t know why you would say “obviously” as it clearly does not refer to Jesus. You can refer to many translations/versions and it is clear that it is referring to mankind, and not Jesus, the Son of God. The other points you made I take, and I guess that’s the problem with pluralism.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

And if anyone will ask you how you chose your denomination you’ll say you asked people on the internet? Why don’t you look up the difference between orthodoxy and Catholicism? I bet you’ll come across the Filioque stuff within the first minute of doing so. Apparently Filioque (Catholicism) says that the Son is inferior to the Father, so there is a strict hierarchy whereas orthodoxy says the son and the spirit are inferior to the father but somehow the spirit and the son are on the same level and hierarchy/dogma is overall kinda watered down? Regardless of what you end up choosing, consider joining their choir.

[loopyclouds]

If you go the sola scriptura route, the psalmist is telling people not to believe in people calling themselves the "son of man." Obviously this would include Jesus

I found a quick summary on Wikipedia which elaborates on the meaning “son of man” as it was used in those times.

1. As generally interpreted by Jews, "son of man" denotes mankind generally in contrast to deity or godhead, with special reference to the human weakness and frailty (Job 25:6; Psalms 8:4; Psalms 144:3; Psalms 146:3; Isaiah 51:12, etc.)^[2]
2. The term "ben adam" is but a formal substitute for the personal pronoun or maybe a title given to the prophet Ezekiel, probably to remind him of his human weakness.^[2]

"Son of man" in Job 25 and Psalm 146 is ben adam (Hebrew: בן־אדם), and "son of man" in Psalms 144 is ben enosh (Hebrew: בן־אנוש).

Among Jews the term "son of man" was not used as the specific title of the Messiah. The New Testament expression ὅ ὑιὸς τοῦ ἀνθρόπου is a translation of the Aramaic "bar nasha," and as such could have been understood only as the substitute for a personal pronoun, or as emphasizing the human qualities of those to whom it is applied. That the term does not appear in any of the epistles ascribed to Paul is significant. In the [Christian] Gospels the title occurs eighty-one times. Most (..) have come to the conclusion that Jesus, speaking Aramaic, could never have designated himself as the "son of man" in a Messianic, mystic sense, because the Aramaic term never implied this meaning.^[2]