WHEN WAS YOUR RELIGION FOUNDED?

[secretman]

WHEN WAS YOUR RELIGION FOUNDED?

U can also go to:

Who started your church

Do you have any idea when your religion was founded, by whom, and how many members it has? We found the following interesting.

In the beginning, GOD - (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) created Man and Woman in the Garden of Eden. This religion of Adam and Eve and their descendants did not have a name, but they clearly worshiped the one all-powerful God.

The Jewish religion was founded when Abraham listened to God about 4,000 years ago. The modern Jewish faith has many factions. Such as, Hasidic, Orthodox, Modern Orthodox, Reformed, and Conservative . 13 Million

If you are a Hindu, your religion developed in India around 1500 B.C.. Hinduism has so many different sects it is not worth listing them. 751 Million

Buddhism split from Hinduism, and was founded by Buddha, Prince Siddhartha Gautama of India about 500 B.C.. Buddhism is also plagued with division. Examples: Theravada, Mahayana, Mantrayana, and Zen. 334 Million

If you are a Roman Catholic, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, began your Church in the year 33 A.D. 1 Billion

Islam was started by Mohammed around 600 A.D. in what is now Saudi Arabia. Islam is divided into many different sects such as, the Sunni, Shiah, Wahhabis, and Ismaili Khoja. 1.1 Billion

The Eastern Orthodox religion separated from Roman Catholicism in the year 1054. 175 Million

If you are a Protestant your sect was started by a human being. The belief of private interpretation of the Bible has been the hallmark and down fall of Protestantism. This is quite evident in the squabbling over the true meaning of the Bible which has created over 25,000 different Protestant sects. 382 Million

Lutheran - Martin Luther in 1521.
Mennonites - Menno Simons in 1525.
Anglicans - King Henry VIII in 1533.
Presbyterians - John Calvin in 1550.
Baptist - John Smyth in 1609.
Methodist -John and Charles Wesley in 1729.
Episcopalians - Samuel Seaburyin 1789.
Church of Christ - Thomas Campbell in 1807.
Seventh Day Adventists - Ellen White in 1860.
Salvation Army - William Booth in 1865.
Pentecostal - Charles Fox in 1901.
Fundamentalism - Milton and Lyman Steward in 1910.

If you are a Jehovah's Witnesses your religion was started by Charles Russell in 1872. Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians. They believe Jesus is really Michael the archangel not the Son of God. 4 Million

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints better known as the Mormons was started by Joseph Smith in 1830. Mormons masquerade as Christians, but in fact believe in many gods. This is contrary to the Christian faith. Mormons also believe that god was once a mortal man and that a faithful Mormon can become his own god after his death. Strange but true. 7 Million

[Seeker]

Hello all,

I hope there is a fellow Christian who can respond to SECRETMAN's thread starter.  SECRETMAN made some good points that to me are evidence that Catholicism is the Church that Christ founded.  I will attempt to present some of the counterpoints that I have heard.  I don't  exactly believe these, or even believe them to be valid, but in the interest of discussion, I want to present them.  Due to my biases, I can't do proper justice to these, but here goes:

Some fellow Christians may state that "true" Christians were taught by the Apostles until the death of John.  The point Catholics call the end of divine revelation.  They then say that Christians were taught New Testament by word of mouth and through the Epistles (which weren't officially formed into what we call the New testament yet) until they were put together and declared Scripture.  At some point, they believe that apostasy crept in to the church.  I haven't seen agreement on this as to exactly when, but they believe that all Christians were Bible believers until the Catholic Church grew as some form of apostasy that persecuted Bible-believers throughout history.  Some of them look at the Roman Emperor Constantine making Christianity legal as the starting point of this.  They even say that this is when the Roman Catholic Church began.  To them, Roman Catholicism is just another denomination.  They look at the Reformers and the church founders you listed as people chosen by God to return Christ's church to its original foundations (i.e., the Bible) and destroy the apostate Catholic Church.  Some of them go so far as to say that all these Protestant denominations are the same body of "believers" and that they just vary in "disciplines" and what they emphasize. For instance, what we may think of the difference betwen the Latin and Byzantine Rites in the Church. The bottom line is that they would argue that their church can be traced to Jesus since they are simply following the Bible as all Christrians did and should do since Christ ascended into Heaven.  This is how I think they might answer this post.  If anyone can present these arguments better than me, please do.  I admit ignorance and a poor understanding of these points.

I see many things that are wrong with these points, but I think doing proper justice to the "other side" helps us to better understand why the Catholic Church has the fullness of the Truth and how to answer these arguments when we come across them as Catholics defending or explaining our Faith.  

[DavidFilmer]

Church history has always been problematic to protestants. I have read the writings of MANY protestant apologists. Most devote very little consideration to pre-reformation history. I have NEVER read an account of pre-reformation history that is even remotely supportive of protestantism.

For protestants, the problem with history is that it's rather cut-and-dried. It's not very easy to interpret historical events through pre-existing biases. A protestant might read a line of Scripture and interpret it according to his bias, even though the plain sense of the text doesn't support his viewpoint. But you can't do that so easily with the dates and places of historical records.

Of the few protestant writers that discuss history, nearly all agree that the “apostasy” of the Church happened as a result of the Edict of Milan (in 313), in which Constantine (and Licinius) agreed to tolerate all religions equally. The edict did NOT establish Catholicism as the State religion, as it is often claimed, but Constantine himself regarded himself as a Christian (though he was not baptized until his deathbed), so this gave the Church a large measure of credibility, and She grew rapidly.

According to the protestants, this is where all the problems started. The Church was overwhelmed by the large influx of pagan converts, who brought their pagan ideas with them and began to integrate these pagan ideas with “authentic” Christianity.

So, before 313, all the Christians were getting together and having Bible studies hearing  three-hour sermons about Sola Fide. Shortly after 313, they started with Sacraments and Popes and all of that “Catholic” stuff. A few faithful protestant Christians managed to go underground and preserve the authentic protestant faith until such time as it could rise up and reestablish itself (ie, the Sixteenth Century).

The problem with this version is, of course, it's totally fictional. It won't stand up to the slightest historical scrutiny. These aren't theological points - you can look up the relevant dates and facts in any encyclopedia or history book.

The biggest outright problem is the Bible itself. In 313 (Edict of Milan), there was no consensus of what constituted sacred “New Testament” writing. There were numerous New Testament canons floating around, and it wasn't until the Council of Hippo (in Latin Africa) in 393 that the 27 writings that we know as the “New Testament” was first enumerated to the Faithful. This council was regional in scope, so its decrees had no impact beyond that archdiocese. But, in 397, the proceedings of Hippo were read into the record of the Council of Carthage, which was endorsed by the Pope, which gave the New Testament Canon Magisterial authority (although Carthage was not an Ecumenical Council, so the declaration did not have force of infallability and could have changed; it was not until Trent that the Canon was infallabily defined).

It wasn't until nearly the Fifth Century that there was such a thing as an authoritative definition of what the “New Testament” should consist of. If someone were to talk about the New Testament to a pre-Constantine Christian, he would have NO IDEA what the term meant. He might have lots of different ideas on what constituted inspired Christian writing.

It would be much more convenient for protestants if the Canon of Scripture had been defined MUCH earlier, but it simply wasn't, and this fact is a matter of historical record, and can be easily checked and verified. The Church had conducted two full-blown Ecumenical Councils (gasp) long before the New Testament Canon was defined.

The other major problem for protestants is that we have LOTS of early Christian writing which pre-dates Constantine, and which is solidly Catholic (Sacraments, Popes, and everything else). There's no evidence of ANY specific protestant doctrines in pre-Constantine Christian writing.

Another problem is that there is absolutely no historical record of this underground movement to preserve “authentic” protestant theology throughout the twelve centuries between Constantine and Luther. A protestant might say, “well, they were underground and persecuted – of course there aren't any records.” But the Christian Church before Constantine was also underground and persecuted and we have PLENTY of evidence of their existence.

And there's another significant problem. Protestants will sometimes try to bolster their claim of influence by pagan converts by  (correctly) pointing out that it was Constantine, not the Pope, who called the first Ecumenical Council, Nicaea1 in 325, and the Emperor participated in the debates (he did, though he had no vote). But they don't give many details. Why? Simply because that Council was called to consider the question of Arianism (which denied the diviniy of Christ; Arianism was a HUGELY widespread and disruptive heresy). But Constantine (like many of the pagan converts) was largely pro-Arian. But the Council - called by a pro-Arian emperor, condemned Arianism right to his face! The Church had no trouble fending off the influence of the Arian pagan converts, even when the emperor himself was promoting their viewpoint.

History is one area in which protestant have absolutely no credible viewpoint to present. It's good to understand the viewpoints of others, but in this case, there's nothing to understand – protestants can propose absolutely no reasonable or credible account of pre-reformation history which is favorable to them. Thus, the topic is simply minimized or ignored by most protestant theologians.

[Seeker]

Hi David,

Thanks for filling in the details.  I only had a vague understanding of the fictional history some Protestants came up with.  I'm glad you took the time to explain it.  That certainly clears things up.  

If I wanted to check out some of the better arguments Protestants use, where would you recommend I begin?  Understanding Catholicism is almost too easy to refute because it contains outright lies.  The more challenging ones to reply to are those that take on Catholicism without misrepresenting it.

I'm but a novice, but from what I've found, it seems that Catholic Apologetics can be divided into two main areas:

• Explaining the truth of what Catholics believe in contrast to anti-Catholics like Chick Jones who use lies and half-truths to seduce Catholics away from the faith.
• Defending the truth of Catholicism from Protestant and other intellectuals who actually take the time to understand what Catholics really believe so they can "prove it wrong."

[DavidFilmer]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of protestant apologists fall into your first category (those who use lies & distortions). They are generally well intentioned, but fall into two broad sub-categories:

• Intellectually dishonest - willing to use reasoning they know is false in order to help prove a point they think is true - the end (promoting thier viewpoint) justifies the means (being dishonest in the process)
• Lazy - not willing to take the time to check out the veracity of their claims.

It's hard to reach people like this.

It is much more satisfying (and productive) to discuss issues with your second category of apologists (intellectually honest people who actually take the time and effort to understand their own faith and that of the Catholic Church). However, there aren't many of those around - they tend to convert to Catholicism before too long.

I was one of those open-minded, intellectually honest protestants. But, not for long...

[Rev. Eric]

Hello All,

In the spirit of ecumenism my seminary occasionally invites Protestant ministers to come speak to us.  We once had a Methodist pastor who openly admitted that when he attended Methodist seminary, classes in church history covered the Acts of the Apostles and then skipped 1500 years to the Reformation.

It is much more satisfying (and productive) to discuss issues with your second category of apologists (intellectually honest people who actually take the time and effort to understand their own faith and that of the Catholic Church). However, there aren't many of those around - they tend to convert to Catholicism before too long.

A splendid example of this is found in the case of Alex Jones, who also recently spoke at my seminary.  He was a Protestant pastor whose congregation asked him to research the way early Christians worshipped in community.  The idea was for Jone's church to then have an "apostolic worship service."  He did the research by reading Scripture and the Fathers of the Church.  His "apostolic worship service" ended up being, in essence, the Catholic Mass.  Never having seen a Catholic Mass, he did not know this until other people started asking him if he was becoming Catholic.  He would say, "No, I'm just being apostolic."  But the more he engaged in honest research, the more he came to see Catholicism as the true apostolic church, as founded by Christ.  He converted and helped many members of his congregation and family to convert as well.  His conversion story is now available on DVD (there is a version out there with his story plus Dr. Scott Hahn's conversion story - good deal!) and the following link is to a story on him ran by the National Catholic Register:

http://www.ncregister.com/Register_News/Roberts-Jones.htm

God bless,
-Rev. Eric

[Seeker]

I have A LOT of respect Alex Jones and others who find the truth and have the conviction to convert despite the persecution from family and close friends.  His story is truly edifying.