Skip to comments.How Old Is Your Church?
Posted on 06/27/2009 10:01:54 AM PDT by Salvation
How Old Is Your Church?
If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.
If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.
If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.
If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.
If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.
If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.
If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.
If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.
If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.
If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.
If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.
If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.
If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel." "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.
If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.
This was previously posted within another thread. I think it deserves its own thread.
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.
When I made the decision to convert, this was one of my prime reasons. It is THE Church of Christ.
“If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.”
Ummm...you DO realize that only Roman Catholics accept that last statement as true?
It is not accurate. All Christian churches trace their founding to 33AD.
How old is the Jewish religion?
When I converted from Southern Baptist to Catholic, it was because I found a home there. I go to Church to be renewed not beaten down. I felt God there.
I also found this statement on another website:
If you are Jewish, Abraham became the first Jew when God promised him: “I will make you a great nation...”. Your religion was founded by God in the Jewish calendar year 2049 (1711 BC), over 3700 years ago. God revealed Himself to the Jews through the Prophets and promised to send a Messiah. Jesus Christ, a Jew from the House of David, came to this world as His only begotten Son in fulfilment of the scriptures.
Baptists are much older. Baptists organized in England around that time, but to say that is when they started is simply historically inaccurate.
While some quotes purporting to support the above statement may not be supportable, there are other quotes that indicate adult baptizers (because Baptists are distinctive in requiring people first be BELIEVERS before they are baptized) existed to the days of the apostles.
Look at the facts. These are REAL dates. Founders of other denominations changed things from the original Catholic Church.
The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I'm a Methodist, but John Wesley didn't die for my sins. Christ did.
I am part Jewish which is about 2.5 times older than Christianity..so your point here? If we are going to make a ridiculous arguments about age of faith systems and validity, well the pagans have it all over any of the monotheistic religions about 60 centuries old. Islam is what 1300 years old? This thread is retarded and sad that some Catholic apologists have to resort to specious and vapid sophomoric arguments.
Find the dates.....this is a fact thread!
My religion is better than your religion Thread Ping!
I think I covered your thoughts.
Did you see this post?
All true. Time to read “Trail of Blood” again.
Glad to know my salvation is based on my relationship with Christ, not membership in a particular church.
And what is the Eastern Orthodox Church which was founded at least contemporaneously, if not earlier, than the Roman Church ?
There will not be “Catholics”, “Methodist” or “Baptists” in heaven. Only Christians.
It is of little importance how old “your” church is. It is important that “the” church is.
someone looking for a religious fight. yipeeeee. whatever Jesus actually founded, I’m sure he did not intend it to look like the monstrosity that is the RCC today with all its false doctrines, salvation for sale, and open hypocrisy. I mean really, I can be just as shallow as the next guy when discussing such things.
The Catholic Church isn’t any different or any better then any of the other sects of the church.
We could always ask how many people were burned at the stake by Baptists vs Catholics, lowest number wins.
You can’t possibly say with a straight face the Catholic Church has not changed since 33 AD
Hey, I was asked to post it. This is not a fight. Just a look at the facts.
Actually, that is not exactly true. Catholics count Peter as the first Pope, based on a misinterpretation of gospel where Christ asked his disciples a momentous question: “Whom do men say that I am?” (Matt. 16: 13). The disciples reported what others said as to Jesus identity (vs. 14). However, Jesus placed the focus on them, “But whom say ye that I am? (vs. 15). Peter then confidently answered: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (vs. 16). Jesus then commends Peter and confirms Peters answer (vs. 17). Jesus then enunciated: “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (vs. 18).
Some contend Peter was the rock upon “which” Jesus would build his church. The word “Peter” (petros) does mean stone. Peter was a mere man. Peter stood in the way of Jesus sacrificial offering, denied the Lord, and sinned publicly (Matt. 16: 21-23, 26: 69-75, Gal. 2: 11-14). Does the church rest on Peter, a man? Back to “upon this rock.” When Jesus said, “upon this rock I will build my church ,” he used a different word in the original (”rock” here is petra).
“Upon this rock,” identifies Jesus as the foundation of the church, not Peter. Jesus is also the head of the church and the savior of the body (Eph. 5: 23).
I don’t think any body that has been responsible for the death and persecution of thousands of dissenters and collaborated with Mussolini and Hitler during WWII should claim to be the “true church”.
This isn’t a rap on individual Catholics, including the one I married.
Really persuasive, aren’t they?
Evangelism by taunting. Good luck with that.
Too bad we don’t have any Coptics here to take up that challenge. People so convinced of their righteousness tend to find each other intolerable.
“Find the dates.....this is a fact thread!”
More like an infantile opinion thread. Please show me where Jesus taught about indulgences, or said his mother was born sinless, and lived that way.
Not where your sect teaches it, but where Jesus said it.
i’ve said it before and will say it again — you guys who join The Church not as cradle Catholics are a gift from God. You enrich The Church and bring God and all of us joy. Thank you!!
That last phrase should be amended to “If you are Apostolic....” as The Church consists of Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental and Assyrian branches.
You neglect to mention ‘the keys’ in the following verse, but it is not like your mind isn’t already made up so I won’t waste time pointing out the holes in your interpetations.
Not really, the Methodists trace their founding to the Wesley brothers and their “revival”
This is a cute slogan, but it is factually not true. I’ve seen the same slogan on Eastern Orthodox bumper stickers. I can’t think of a single church historian, Catholic or Protestant, that would say that the Roman Catholic Church today is the same as in 33 A.D. First of all, there wasn’t any Roman Catholic Churches in 33 A.D.
I’m sure this will start another discussion upon which denomination is the true denomination. It will be another pissing contest. FR is not an appropriate forum for discussions on theological matters such as these. No one is going to be convinced or persuaded that they are wrong and the other is right. It is simply a forum for people to beat their on chests about why they are what they are.
There was a lot of debate about infant baptism in The Church — it raised a lot of questions about what happened to infants who died before being baptised (before modern medicine, many kids didn’t last to see their 5th birthdays). The early Church answered that pretty well..
What about those of us who leave and come back? ;) I have never been more excited about religious study in my life.
And the fact is that the the history of the RCC is also filled with numerous corrupt immoral episodes and popes who were greedy and anything but Christian. While Christ is the head of the church, man-created organizations like the RCC run by falable men and no one church has a monopoly on the truth.
Those are the facts.
The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental and Assyrian Churchs are one with the Catholic Church as part of the ONE Apostolic Church.
That is the fundamental point. We don't worship a church, we worship a risen Savior. Unfortunately that point is often lost with the "high church" types...
Not really. We Lutherans hold that we believe, teach, and confess the true catholic faith, which the Roman church had gotten away from.
Thanks for your post Salvation.
I hope you have your fire suit ready!
My former church the so-called “Church of Christ” got around this by saying there was a hidden underground church since the time of Christ.
I don’t know how those idiots in the public Church came up with the right books to include in the bible however.
And since the Church never had the authority to make decisions, what about the “Gospel of Judas”?
I should ask that when I see my former church pastor.
The Church isn’t a sect — the sects are the small cults outside The Church. And these don’t really last — if you see the first gasp of Protestants like the lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists, they’re dying out. The second gasp like Unitarians, Presbyterians are dying out faster. The third gasp includes Christian Scientists, Baptists etc. The fourth being the most virulent strain are Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses etc....
Actually there will be at least one Jew in Heaven and that Jew is Jesus Christ. He lived as a Jew and died as a Jew.
I gave you facts. The fact that the RCC burned all the literature doesn’t now give the RCC the right to claim that they weren’t there. Stanislaus Hosius may or may not have said we were around for 1200 years, but he did equate the early Donatists to being Anabaptists and put anabaptists around Augustine’s era.
Anabaptists were not a unified grouping (just as Catholics aren’t today as you have strict latin rite Catholics, charismatic Catholics, liberal Catholics etc.,). But there were those whose beliefs were like Modern Baptists in groups such as the Waldensians, Donatists, Paulicians etc. We may not always have had the name, but we have been in existence since the beginning and the Apostles were in fact baptizers of adult believers.
36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
And so there was. Who the heck do you think the Catholics were burning at the stake? Read Foxes Book of Martyrs.
Baptists answer it better.
#1, there is NO BIBLICAL EVIDENCE for infant Baptism - period. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Saying “and his house” is going beyond what Scripture actually says. Inadmissible because that isn’t evidence, that is eisegesis.
#2, Baptism is not a prerequisite for Salvation. It is a picture of what Christ did for you and a testimony of your faith in Him to the world AFTER you are saved. David’s baby immediately went to heaven which is where all babies go. No need for theological nuancing. Just go with what Scripture says and you are fine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.