When/Who Founded Each Religion

[Mike700]

Does anyone know of a website that has a list of when a typical religion was established and who founded each religion? I’ve done a few searches here and several on Google but can’t find anything. (maybe I’m using the wrong search words). I’m hoping someone here can help. Thanks in advance.

 

[fri]

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/howold.htm

 

[wolfgang]

Hi Mike - Here’s a simple timeline chart I found on the web. (I hope it’s accurate and I hope it’s what you needed).

timeline chart

 

[fish90]

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb4.htm

This was found under “The Church Christ Established,” then “How Old is Your Church” from catholicscomehome.org/answers-resources.php

Hope this helps.

Best,
fish90

 

[Mike700]

WOW! You guys/ladies are awesome. I have what I need to continue my discussion with my Baptist friend. Thank you fri, wolfgang, and fish90.

 

[Bluegoat]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ChristianityBranches.svg

Notice on the time-lines though, that new branches are just that - not new trees. Don’t make the mistake of trying to argue that your friend’s church appeared out of thin air as a new thing, because it didn’t. Before such fractures, the history was united. Remember that whoever made the chart gets to decide how it looks - in an Orthodox version, the Catholic Church would be a branch! But that doesn’t show that the Orthodox are correct, only that they think they are.

Just to give an example - one chart says the Methodist were founded by Wesley. Well, Wesley considered himself Church of England. It says the Church of England was founded by Henry VIII. Well, he considered himself a Catholic, and that his Church was founded by Christ.

Such charts really don’t prove anything, every Church has dates where political events happened, or structures change. If you allow for development of doctrine, than it is theoretically possible that any branch is just such a development, and almost all see themselves this way.

And other types of Christians are not other religions. Another religion is Hinduism, or Shinto, etc.

 

[Cojuanco]

I have a tract from the Redemptorists on this very topic, though I seem to have lost it…

 

[Mike700]

Very good advice. Thanks Bluegoat.

 

[Spencerian]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ChristianityBranches.svg

Notice on the time-lines though, that new branches are just that - not new trees. Don’t make the mistake of trying to argue that your friend’s church appeared out of thin air as a new thing, because it didn’t. Before such fractures, the history was united. Remember that whoever made the chart gets to decide how it looks - in an Orthodox version, the Catholic Church would be a branch! But that doesn’t show that the Orthodox are correct, only that they think they are.

Just to give an example - one chart says the Methodist were founded by Wesley. Well, Wesley considered himself Church of England. It says the Church of England was founded by Henry VIII. Well, he considered himself a Catholic, and that his Church was founded by Christ.

Such charts really don’t prove anything, every Church has dates where political events happened, or structures change. If you allow for development of doctrine, than it is theoretically possible that any branch is just such a development, and almost all see themselves this way.

And other types of Christians are not other religions. Another religion is Hinduism, or Shinto, etc.

Bluegoat,

By your statements, are you saying that the charts and their histories don’t prove anything? Isn’t that being a bit disingenuous to the original poster’s question?

The EWTN summary, to take one of the links, is based on history, on fact. Not dogma or doctrine. You said that the Orthodox Church would see Catholics as the branch. That may be true, but Catholics also see the Orthodox (and vice versa) as having valid priests and bishops and sacraments because each maintain the core of Christian traditions and rites.

I would submit that both Catholic and Orthodox would see everyone else as the split–and based on history, we would be correct, for these sibling splits were a single whole until 1054–a single Church, long before Methodists and Presbyterians and Anglican traditions existed. If you do not see this as factual, I ask for your historical sourcing on the matter.

King Henry VIII created a political schism to get what he wanted, a point quite documented in history. Martin Luther considered himself always Catholic as much as Wesley considered himself Anglican. Neither of their personal beliefs change the result of their actions, which formed a yet another new Christian faith tradition.

It is Christ, not us, who defines history through what was given and developed by His appointed leaders through Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. The existence of Peter, a point documented well in Scripture and histories and eyewitness testimonies, as well as a documented list of all of his successors, give support to the history. Opinion does not come into this at all. History is history, unless there is another valid historical source that can be offered.

 

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat,

The EWTN summary, to take one of the links, is based on history, on fact. Not dogma or doctrine. You said that the Orthodox Church would see Catholics as the branch. That may be true, but Catholics also see the Orthodox (and vice versa) as having valid priests and bishops and sacraments because each maintain the core of Christian traditions and rites.
/QUOTE]

No, this isn’t the case. In general, the Orthodox do not think that the Catholic Church has valid sacraments and priests. In many cases they would see Catholics as much a branch as Catholics see Protestants. But clearly that does not somehow prove that what we today call the CC did not exist in any way before the Great Schism.