S
studychristian
Guest
That religion started in 1500’s when Luther posted his 95 points? I heard someone say this and have thought of it all day…
- Status
1
1ke
Guest
No, it is not fair to say that because it isn’t true.
L
LilyM
Guest
What a bizarre notion.
Firstly there was Judaism, which as a religion has existed since the time of Abraham.
Even if we confine ourselves to the Christian religion, I’m sure even Luther would agree that his religion started either at Christ’s birth circa 1 AD or shortly after his death circa 33 AD.
May I ask where you got the notion that Luther started religion? And what prompted you to give a moment’s thought to the idea that such a thing might be ‘fair to say’?
Firstly there was Judaism, which as a religion has existed since the time of Abraham.
Even if we confine ourselves to the Christian religion, I’m sure even Luther would agree that his religion started either at Christ’s birth circa 1 AD or shortly after his death circa 33 AD.
May I ask where you got the notion that Luther started religion? And what prompted you to give a moment’s thought to the idea that such a thing might be ‘fair to say’?
T
The_Scott
Guest
Considering there’s been some form of religion (or, at least, religious ritual of burial) as far back as 223,000 BC, I’d say that that is quite wrong.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion
B
Bartolome_Casas
Guest
I agree. That was the start of religious “denominations.” Before that, there was just the One Church.
S
Son_of_Jonah
Guest
From the Christian perspective, I can sort of see the TC’s point, and it has something to do with that fine distinction that so many Protestants try to make between “religion” and “relationship/spirituality/etc.” Ironically, most of them would try to argue that their hero Luther abolished religion (religion: which, for reasons completely beyond me, they seem to think is a terrible thing) by acting out against the Catholic Church.
But as many have said already, religion as anthropologically defined as existed for millennia. And religion in its most true context has existed at least since Judaism.
But as many have said already, religion as anthropologically defined as existed for millennia. And religion in its most true context has existed at least since Judaism.
M
MHT32
Guest
It doesnt make sense to say religion started out of response to religion.
F
followingtheway
Guest
No, Protestantism started in 1500’s when Luther posted his 95 points. Religion goes way back. Unless you made a typo or was speaking figuratively, and I’m jerk for posting this.
J
JRKH
Guest
Might it be fair to say that “Denominationalism” started in the 1500’s?
This sounds more reasonable than “religion” started in the 1500’s.
Peace
James
This sounds more reasonable than “religion” started in the 1500’s.
Peace
James
A
Allegra
Guest
I don’t see how anyone could make such an argument.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Nope…not at all. Look here. (Emphasis mine)
James 1:21] Therefore put away all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.
22] But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.
23] For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror;
24] for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like.
25] But he who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing.
**[26] If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man’s religion is vain.
****27] Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. **
James 1:21] Therefore put away all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.
22] But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.
23] For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror;
24] for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like.
25] But he who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing.
**[26] If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man’s religion is vain.
****27] Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. **
po18guy
Well-known member
I think that it is fair to consider that 1517 was the beginning of a parallel religion. One that rejected the Church that was founded by Christ. One that rejected five of the seven Sacraments. One that rejected the mass. One that rejected the ministerial priesthood. One that placed the individual ego in charge of a personal religion, interpreting God’s word as one sees fit - yet still claiming the Name of the Lord Jesus. I see protestantism as a parallel, derivative religion. The Church sees it as an imperfect communion. Many converts see it as a stepping stone to full communion, and remain ever thankful for the good that is in protestantism.
T
TEPO
Guest
Yes, it is fair. For Christians prior to the 1500’s, the Church was more than just a religion, it was a complete way of life. People would have based their whole entire lives around Jesus and His Church.
Today, the Church has been reduced to religion, which seems like more of an aspect of a persons life as opposed to the backbone of all the thoughts and decisions a person makes.
Of course modern culture enjoys reducing religion to a form of something below mere Faith… As if mere faith without action is better than “religion” because it fits better within the parameters that modern society has adopted… A society that is becoming more and more Godless as time moves on.
T
TimothyH
Guest
Judaism certainly had many sects, if not denominations, with a wide variety of beliefs and intepretations of scripture.
The Sadduces used only the first five books of the Scriptures and ignored the writings of the prophets. The Pharisees are the classic example of a Jewish sect. There were also the Essenes who were quite strict in their practices of ascetism and poverty.
The high priesthood in Judaism was taken away from one family and given to another at certain times, and this was often a catalyst for forming a “Denomination” with some Jews following the old priest and others following the new priest.
I belive that Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17 is in part, his reaction to the realities of disunity among the Jews of his day. Paul was certainly a master of using this disunity to his own advantage.
Maybe Patrick will stick his head in the door and discuss it further, but I think it is fair to say that man has always had sufficient pride to think that he knew better than those whom God has appointed, even if those appointed were not the greatest leaders in the world.
-Tim-
- Status