How old is your church?

Question

How many people know how old is their church? here's a list:


Church/Year Established/ Founder

Catholic 33 Jesus Christ

Orthodox 1054 Schismatic CatholicBishops

Lutheran 1517 Martin Luther

Anglican 1534 Henry VII

Calvinist 1555 John Calvin

Presbyterian 1560 John Knox

Baptist 1609 John Smyth

Congregationalist 1648 Pilgrims and Puritans

Methodist 1739 John & CharlesWesley

Episcopalian 1789 Samuel Seabury

Mormon1830 Joseph Smith

Seventh Day Adventist 1844 Ellen Whit

Jehovah's Witnesses 1874 Charles Taze Russelle

Pentecostal 1901 Charles F. Parkham

Calvary Chapel 1965 Chuck Smith

Born-again 1970s Various religious bodies

Non-denominational 1990s various

Is this informative?

My list is for the true religion, Christianity.

Answer 1

This so-called "question" is bigotry and nonsense. Worst of all, it distorts the Scriptural definition of "Christian".

Trinitarians repeatedly pretend that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian. Trinitarians use an artificial, trinity-specific definition of the term "Christian" which excludes anyone who does not believe that Jesus is God Himself, rather than the Son of God. Interestingly, pagans in the first century pretended that Christ's followers were Atheists(!) because the Christians had a somewhat different idea from the pagans about the nature of God.

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that no salvation occurs without Christ, that accepting Christ's sacrifice is a requirement for true worship, that every prayer must acknowledge Christ, that Christ is the King of God's Kingdom, that Christ is the head of the Christian congregation, that Christ is immortal and above every creature, even that Christ was the 'master worker' in creating the universe! Both secular dictionaries and disinterested theologians acknowledge that Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian religion.

The Trinitarian arguments are intended to insult and demean Jehovah's Witnesses, rather than to give a Scripturally accurate understanding of the term "Christian".

In fact, the bible most closely associates being "Christian" with preaching about Christ and Christ's teachings. Review all three times the bible uses the term "Christian" and note that the context connects the term with:
"declaring the good news"
'teaching quite a crowd'
'open eyes, turn from dark to light'
"uttering sayings of truth"
"persuade"
"keep on glorifying"

(Acts 11:20-26) [The early disciples of Jesus] began talking to the Greek-speaking people, declaring the good news of the Lord Jesus... and taught quite a crowd, and it was first in Antioch that the disciples were by divine providence called Christians.

(Acts 26:17-28) [Jesus said to Paul] I am sending you, to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light and from the authority of Satan to God... Paul said: “I am not going mad, Your Excellency Festus, but I am uttering sayings of truth and of soundness of mind. ...Do you, King Agrippa, believe the Prophets? I know you believe.” But Agrippa said to Paul: “In a short time you would persuade me to become a Christian.”

(1 Peter 4:14-16) If you are being reproached for the name of Christ, you are happy... But if he suffers as a Christian, let him not feel shame, but let him keep on glorifying God in this name


So why do anti-Witnesses try to hijack the term "Christian" and hide its Scriptural implications? Because anti-Witnesses recognize that it is the preaching work that makes it clear that the relatively small religion of Jehovah's Witnesses are by far the most prominent followers of Christ:

(Matthew 28:19,20) Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded


Learn more!
http://watchtower.org
http://watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm

Answer 2

No.

Actually, each of these groups makes a claim to represent the original teachings of Christianity, from which all other groups are apostate.

The first glaring inaccuracy is your assignment of 1054 as the 'origin' of Eastern Orthodoxy. From their perspective, 1054 was when the Papacy decisively severed itself from the Church, and they have an excellent case, if you'd care to drop your preconceptions and investigate it.

Likewise, all the reformers would present themselves as the renovators of apostolic Christianity, which had fallen under the bondage of the Papist antichrist. And you know what -- when you look at the medieval Catholic Church, they had a point.

So no, your little Catholic tirade is not informative, except that it informs me about your ignorance and anti-ecumenical bigotry. I suggest you acquaint yourself with Jaroslav Pelikan's five-volume history of Christianity.

Answer 3

Peter nor Jesus had anything to do with the catholic church.

The catholic church started coming together around 450, but was not official until after 600.

Born again started at Pentecost 33.

Some of your info is correct. It is obvious you believe some denominational hogwash.

Answer 4

Not many people are willing to accept the fact the timeline its actually accurate! Thus making Catholicism the Church Jesus founded.

Answer 5

No the Catholic church isn't the oldest church interior the international and it is not the only christian church interior the international. the 1st church that replaced into formed replaced into with the help of the with the help of the Apostles 50 days after Jesus rose to the heavens on the day of Pentecost which replaced into The Orthodox Church with it is unique language of Greek and Latin replaced into based in 33 advert. The Schism of the Roman Catholic Church from the jap Orthodox church occurred in 1054 it is while the Roman Catholic church replaced into based many some years after the orthodox church. The church of Christianity based with the help of the Apostles of Jesus Christ replaced into the Orthodox Church. the rationalization for the chop up replaced into via fact the Roman Bishop believed that the Bishop of Constantinople now Istanbul should not be equivalent to him, for this reason the chop up. the two churches have self belief interior the comparable factor for the main section, however the Orthodox Church holds greater heavily to church custom and gospel than does the Catholic church. One potential that the Church is one via fact God is one. “there is one physique and one spirit…one wish…one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.” Holy, the Church is holy via fact our Lord made her so. ‘Christ additionally enjoyed the Church, and gave Himself for it; that He could sanctify and cleanse it with the showering of the water with the help of the be conscious, that He could present it to Himself an excellent church, no longer having spot or wrinkle or certainly one of these factor yet that it may be holy devoid of blemish.’ Catholic, the Church is Catholic or regularly occurring, via fact the wholeness of the religion of Christ has preserved that which has been exceeded down from Christ to the Apostles. ‘faith, which replaced into as quickly as extra to the Saints. ultimately, the Church is Apostolic because it teaches what the Apostles taught and it strains her existence directly to the Apostles.. additionally the 4 corner stones of the Orthodox Church are; One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. in an attempt to reply to each ones question, the Orthodox Church replaced into and could continually be the 1st church on the earth.

Answer 6

just thought that i should maybe pose an alternate to Peter being the Pope...

At Matthew 16:18, Jesus said to the Apostle Peter: "And Itell you, you are Peter (Petros in Greek), and on this rock (Greek - Petra) I will build my church, and the powers of death will not prevail against it." RS

Based on this, the Catholic Church claims that Jesus built his church on Peter, who, they say, was the first of an unbroken line of bishops of Rome, and Peter's successors.

Who, though, was the rock that Jesus indicated at Matthew 16:18, Peter or Jesus? The context shows that the point of the discussion was the identification of of Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God," as Peter himself confessed. (Matthew 16:18) Logically, therefore, Jesus himself would be that solid rock foundation of the church, not Peter, who would later deny Jesus 3 times. - Matthew 26:33-35, 69-75

How do we know that Christ is the foundation stone? By Peter's own testimony, when he wrote, "Coming to him as to a living stone, rejected, it is true, by men, but chosen, precious, with God... For it is contained in scripture: 'Look! I am laying in Zion a stone, chosen, a foundation cornerstone, precious; and no one exercising faith in it will by any means come to disappointment.'" Paul also stated, "And you have built up upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone." 1 Peter 2:4-8; Ephesians 2:20

There is no evidence in scripture or history that Peter was regarded as having primacy among his peers. He makes no mention of it in his own letters, and the other three gosples - including Mark's (apparently related by Peter to Mark) - do not even mention Jesus' statement to Peter. Luke 22:24-26; Acts 15:6-22; Galatians 2:11-14

Indeed, Jesus often had to discipline the disciples when they kept bickering who was the greatest.

There is not even any absolute proof that Peter was ever in Rome. (1 Peter 5:13) When Paul visted Jerusalem, "James and Cephas (Peter) and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars," gave him support. So at that time Peter was one of at least three pillars in the congregation. He was not a pope, nor was he known as a primate "bishop" in Jerusalem. Galatians 2:7-9; Acts 28:16,30,31

Aside from this issue, you have to question whether the Catholic faith really is the true one when you look at its history. As it was in its formative years it took on doctrines like 'heaven and hell,' 'trinity' etc. which have absolutley no grounding in the bible, it was doctrines that people like pagans round about that had these beliefs, and were absorbed into the churchs doctrine to gain the masses. The allowance of homosexuality and the abuse of young children being covered by the church, along with women preists, are modern examples of the church washing down its basis on the bible to gain favour. This can be attested to by bible scholars who have researched the bible, who have realised that these beliefs aren't included in the bible. Often they have no particular faith, but they can easily see that these beliefs aren't in the bible, man's only authority from God.

Galatians 1:7-9 and Collosians 1:22,23, along with 1 Corinthians 1:22,23 all counsel about not being misled by "men's philosophy" and "empty deception," things which are not "according to Christ." Clearly, the Catholic Church and it's leaders have failed in listening to this as they absorb un-Christian and non-bible based beliefs into their system of belief.

Answer 7

Yes this is informative. However the name for the "Mormon" church should be listed as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Mormon is a nickname.

Answer 8

My church is as old as I am. One can not show love to divinity without loving the Self first.

Answer 9

Worship of Isis 4,225 BC

Answer 10

My church is as old as the earth and the seasons that change.