What's wrong with this history?

[DQuixote]

It confuses Roman Catholicism with authentic Christianity. The Crusaders were Catholic, not authentic Christians. Spain took Catholicism, not authentic Christianity, to Mexico, Central and South America.

Color the Roman Catholicism regions grey and you get the picture.

The authentic Christian faith is represented only in the beginning of this history, and in portions of the light blue nations thereafter. Redo the presentation. Color authentic Christianity navy blue. Anyone out there who knows how to do that?

http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/Religion.swf

 

[Chessic]

Interesting. And yes, more detail in the sub-groups would be helpful. This would be better if slowed down a bit to make room for more historical detail, imo.

 

[Zenas]

It confuses Roman Catholicism with authentic Christianity.

So you would exclude Roman Catholics from the ranks of Christendom. I assume you also exclude Mormans, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and Unitarians. I'm curious, who would you include? Give us a list of the most prominent 15 or 20 groups you would include as true Christians. And thanks for the link to the map. It's very interesting.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Please.

Until the 1500's, the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church was the only game in town.

 

[Chemnitz]

I love it when people tilt at windmills.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Please.

Until the 1500's, the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church was the only game in town.

No, no TP. You know there were all these small sub-groups that were really Baptists. They weren't called Baptists per se back then, but these folks were the ones who were the REAL Christians. You know the drill.

 

[Matt Black]

Ah, yesss! Nasssty cruel Catholicses! We hates 'em, we hates 'em forever! Trail of Blood, my Preciousss!

Yep, we know the drill

 

[Zenas]

OK, guys. You're in a minority on this board, and guests at that, so be nice. Maybe I can posit another question that will let us excrcise our minds and examine our faiths a little more. I'm sure it has been on this board, but I'm relatively new and haven't seen it. (1) What are the minimum requirements to be a Christian? (2) What beliefs or practices would be so antithetical to Christianity as to exclude a person from the Kingdom, even if he held to the fundamental beliefs? I'll give it a shot:

(1) Necessary fundamentals:

Belief in the one triune God--Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Baptisim by water in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

A willingness to follow the teachings of Holy Scripture as the infallible Word of God.

(2) Beliefs and practices that would exclude one from the Kingdom even if he held to the the fundamental beliefs:

None.

 

[Eliyahu]

The map seems to be drawn by Hinduists who are ignorant of the Judaeo-Christianity, and they may not know the current world map of religion either.

 

[Matt Black]

OK, guys. You're in a minority on this board, and guests at that, so be nice.

I will if others will. I just get weary of the same old tired Catholic-bashing that goes on here, so forgive me if I launch a pre-emptive strike occasionally.

Maybe I can posit another question that will let us excrcise our minds and examine our faiths a little more. I'm sure it has been on this board, but I'm relatively new and haven't seen it. (1) What are the minimum requirements to be a Christian? (2) What beliefs or practices would be so antithetical to Christianity as to exclude a person from the Kingdom, even if he held to the fundamental beliefs? I'll give it a shot:

(1) Necessary fundamentals:

Belief in the one triune God--Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Baptisim by water in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

A willingness to follow the teachings of Holy Scripture as the infallible Word of God.

(2) Beliefs and practices that would exclude one from the Kingdom even if he held to the the fundamental beliefs:

None.

I would say, in addition to the above and with a slight nuance on your last requirement, being 'in Christ' (define as you will!) and in particular to follow His teachings.

 

[tragic_pizza]

The map seems to be drawn by Hinduists

Why, because the Hindus are noted as coming first?

...they may not know the current world map of religion either.

Enlighten us.

 

[Eliyahu]

Why, because the Hindus are noted as coming first?
Enlighten us.

I thought you know quite a lot about the history though you disagreed with me many times.

The map ignored the fact about the Noah's time who is the ancestor for all nations but believed in God named Jehovah.
It ignores the Christianity outside the Roman Empire such as Paulicians in Armenia, Nestorian in Assyria, Paulician-Nestorian in Central Asia during 3-11 century AD, Mongolian Empire which had many Nestorian Christians, Early Christians in China before Nestorian since 86AD ( latest. Even earlier), Rayao Kingom in Manchuria during 10-11 century, Early Christians in Korea around 2-3 century, Nestorian Christians in Japan around 6-9 century, Nestorian Christians in China during Tang Dynasty ( Emperor Taijoong himself was a born again Christian) during 6-9 century, SSoong Dynasty of China ( 11-12 c AD), Mongolian Empire (11-14 c AD: Emperor Kubilai was told to be Christian- Nestorian), Apostle Thomas established churches in India, especially in Malayalam ( South India) : even today there are many Christians there.
During Tang Dynasty in China ( 6-10 c AD) Christianity was No 2 religion, Taoism was No 1 religion.

The knowledge level of the person who drew that map may be that of high school students.
It was my guess that the map might have been drawn by Hinduists, because it showed a certain emphasis on the Hinduism_BUddhism.

In China, the number one religion of the people is Taoism, I am sure, even though there are lot of controversy about whether Taoism can be a religion or a philosophy, which is the same with Buddhism as it doesn't have the future life except the Nirvanah. Buddhism in Asia is not very strong except in Japan which has a kind of modified Buddhism called Shinto. Both South and North Korea are rather dominated by Christians over Buddhism. Philippine is overwhelmed by Catholics. Indonesia and Maalysia are Islam countries.

I thought this is quite a common sense for the history.


http://www.aina.org/books/mokk/mokk.htm#c1

http://www.edessa.com/history/monument.htm

http://www.nestorian.org/

Here are some forum as well
http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16436&goto=nextoldest

If you can read Japanese, this is a very good site:
http://keikyo.com/

For India,
http://www.kerala.com/cristian.htm

It seems that Apostle Thomas preached the Gospel to Armenia, Babylonia, India, and he was very much successful in India, then went to China, maybe even to Korea, then returned back to India, where he was pierced thru by an Indian with a spear.

The map exaggerated the Buddhism in China, and Chrishuna as the earliest head of religion, it was my quess. If you can, please check the source.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

I will if others will. I just get weary of the same old tired Catholic-bashing that goes on here, so forgive me if I launch a pre-emptive strike occasionally.

I agree. But it's not just the Catholic-bashing (though there's plenty); it's the "nobody but us are REALLY Christians" thinking that seems to pervade some threads. At best, it's just insulting.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

So you would exclude Roman Catholics from the ranks of Christendom. I assume you also exclude Mormans, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and Unitarians. I'm curious, who would you include? Give us a list of the most prominent 15 or 20 groups you would include as true Christians. And thanks for the link to the map. It's very interesting.

GE:

May I say what I think? I'll say it in any case.

Of those 'groups' mentioned, you should exclude the SDAs, because they believe in and accept Jesus, God and Saviour. They are not 'unitarians' who deny Christ's divinity and deity. I am not a SDA, nevertheless have great respect for their couraguous stand for the truth of God's Sabbath Day. They through their very faith of the Sabbath, are made partakers in the sufferings of Christ, which few admit to today! That must be said to their credit, despite their ironic Christ-less motivation for believing and keeping of God's Sabbath Day. They only have -like the Jews- the Law and not Jesus in His resurrection from the dead (which Sunday-keepers falsely claim), for the Sabbath's observance.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Friend of Spurgeon,
how can you talk of 'Roman Catholic-bashing' and call yourself 'Friend of Spurgeon'?

 

[FundamentalOnly!]

No, no TP. You know there were all these small sub-groups that were really Baptists. They weren't called Baptists per se back then, but these folks were the ones who were the REAL Christians. You know the drill.

I believe in the Reformation and am a solid Southern Baptist, but I have talked to people who believe your theory and "trail of Blood" theories about, but I have yet to find one of these types of churches that date back to say the 1200s that is acutally standing today like many Orthodox/Catholic Churches.

 

[Eliyahu]

Friend of Spurgeon,
how can you talk of 'Roman Catholic-bashing' and call yourself 'Friend of Spurgeon'?

I could hardly accept his belief unless I can imagine there is a lot of Hypocrisy in the title.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I agree. But it's not just the Catholic-bashing (though there's plenty); it's the "nobody but us are REALLY Christians" thinking that seems to pervade some threads. At best, it's just insulting.

And the "us" excludes anyone who commits certain sins, don't forget.

 

[Hope of Glory]

GE:

May I say what I think? I'll say it in any case.

Of those 'groups' mentioned, you should exclude the SDAs, because they believe in and accept Jesus, God and Saviour. They are not 'unitarians' who deny Christ's divinity and deity. I am not a SDA, nevertheless have great respect for their couraguous stand for the truth of God's Sabbath Day. They through their very faith of the Sabbath, are made partakers in the sufferings of Christ, which few admit to today! That must be said to their credit, despite their ironic Christ-less motivation for believing and keeping of God's Sabbath Day. They only have -like the Jews- the Law and not Jesus in His resurrection from the dead (which Sunday-keepers falsely claim), for the Sabbath's observance.​

Some of the best resources that I have on the feasts and the Sabbath come from SDA or closely related sources. Of course, it makes sense, due to the extreme emphasis that they place upon them.
​

 

[Eliyahu]

Some of the best resources that I have on the feasts and the Sabbath come from SDA or closely related sources. Of course, it makes sense, due to the extreme emphasis that they place upon them.​

[/center]

Extreme Emphasis is the problem, and that makes people miss the good points of SDA. I admit there can be the salvation in SDA, but they always lead the issues to Sabbath, and they are very much obssessed with it.