There are three branches of the Christian church: Catholicism, Greek Orthodox, and Protestantism. Catholicism and Greek Orthodox are the oldest. I am not a Church historian in any way. But I believe that these two branches came out of the original Church, or evolved, seperately. They did not split from each other. Greek Orthodoxy is not as prominent in North America as it is in other parts of the world, and is the smallest of the three branches. I assume when you say "Christian religions" you are referring to Protestant denominations like Southern Bapist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, etc. In that case, yes: All Protestant denominations have Martin Luther to thank for their existence. It should be noted that most, if not all, Protestant denominations do not consider Jehovah's Witnesses or the Churth of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) to be Protestant, or Christian, according to orthodox Christian doctrine. There are numerous other lesser known religions that may be derivative from the teachings of Jesus, and thought to be Christian by the general public, but are not considered to be Christian according to the orthodox teachings of the Church (The Church as a whole encompasses all three branches.).

Yes. The Catholic Church is the only Christian church that is apostolic, meaning the bishops can be traced directly back to the 12 apostles (it's just as easy to find a list of all 265 popes of the Catholic Church as it is to find a list of all 43 presidents). Of any person alive only Pope John Paul II can say that he is a direct successor from Peter, Jesus himself chose Peter to be the leader of the Church. Of the 12 apostles, 1 (Peter) was the first pope, 1 (Judas Iscariot) committed suicide shortly after Jesus' death, and the rest were bishops under Peter. Until around 1000AD Catholics were the only Christians, then there was the Great Schizm where the orthodox religion was established. To say that ALL Protestant religions stemmed from Martin Luther is erroneous. Around 1500 Martin Luther (a Catholic monk) broke of from the Church due to differences of several issues(the Catholic at a time condoned prostitution for example). Now King Henry VIII formed the Church of England (Anglakins) because the pope did not allow him to divorce again(Henry VIII was allowed a divorce by the pope once). That's why Queen Mary (AKA Bloody Mary) was Catholic and Queen Elizabeth was Protesant. If you disagree with this answer, it is on a basis your individual faith. I, myself, attended Catholic school for over a decade, and this is what the nuns taught me. AND!!! We don't worship statues or Mary or the Saints, we worship only God. Any practicing Catholic would take offense to the suggestion otherwise.

By "church," I assume the reference is to the church presented in the New Testament. It is always a treat for me to talk about Jesus' church, because the church reveals the "manifold wisdom of God" (Eph. 3: 10). The importance of the church is seen in such verses as I Timothy 3: 15, where we learn that the church is "the pillar and ground of the truth." The beginning of the church. Jesus promised to build his church (Matt. 16: 18, 19, Jesus gave his life for the church, Acts 20: 28). The church became a reality in Acts 2, in Jerusalem, as was prophesied (ca. AD 30, Isa, 2: 2, 3). The Book of Acts records the first 30 years of the history and progress of the church. Within just a few years, there were thousands of members of the church in Jerusalem and local churches were established in many cities (Acts 4: 4, 5: 14, 6: 1, 14: 1, 21: 20). The falling away and restoration. The scriptures prophesied that there would be an apostasy from the truth and the true church (2 Thes. 2: 1-12, I Tim. 4: 1-3). The falling away was influenced by the very leaders (elders) who were appointed to oversee the local churches (Acts 20: 28-31). It is apparent that the original apostasy was realized in Catholicism. The Lord's church is historically obscure from about AD 600 until the 1800s. Men such as Martin Luther attempted to reform the corrupt Catholic Church (The Reformation, AD 1517 through 1784). Men then realized reformation was not the proper goal and turned their attention to restoring the First Century church (The Restoration, AD 1809 continuing). Men such as Thomas Campbell urged all to speak only the Bible (I Pet. 4: 11). As a result of the Restoration Movement, the early church was historically re-introduced on a noticeable scale. You can now, in most cities, find a local church that is scriptural in designation, work, and worship. There will continue to be, though, cycles of fidelity and apostasy (I Cor. 11: 19).

No. There are many obscure churches in the Middle East that have evolved seperately. Mormons don't consider themselves to be descended from Catholicism in any meaningful sense, although the views of others may differ. Orthodox Christians would argue that Catholicism broke off from them in 1056, an event called the "Great Schism" -- Catholics, of course, assert the opposite. Both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches held themselves to have apostolic succession and certain parishes of both traditions accept the other as apostolic. Both the Orthodox and Catholic traditions are continuations of the early Christian faith, although both have clearly evolved and came out of different regions of the world.

It would be more correct to recognize perhaps four main "branches" of Christianity depending on how you want to group them. The first would be Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox. Some like to group these two together as a single group of related religions. I will call them separate. The next group includes the Protestant churches. These would be those denominations that split away from other churches in protest of things that they saw as wrong in those other religions. Though these churches do have various points on which they disagree, they also tend to have many similar doctrines and practices that come from there related origins. The Lutheran, Methodist, and Anglican churches would be examples of Protestant religions. The next group I will call the Restorationist churches. Unlike the Protestant religions, these churches did not break away from other churches. Nor do they necessarily share a significant body of beliefs beyond the absolute most basic of Christian doctrines. The only thing that relates them is that they all claim that the traditional Christian religions had all gone astray and therefore, did not have the authority act in Gods name. Therefore, the only solution was for God to call a new prophet or prophets with whom He could directly communicate and restore truths lost, correct error that that had crept into Christianity, and/or restore his authority. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Seventh-day Adventists are examples of members of this group. Finally, I will add the Baptists. Personally, I am inclined to call them another Protestant denomination. However, jomorgan, in his response to Lil China Boot, claims that they are not. I will take him at his word on this and Baptists as a group unto themselves since they obviously don’t belong in any of the other groups. So, depending on just how you want to group them, we have 3 to 5 major divisions of Christianity. Only the Protestants can really be said to trace their origins back to the Roman Catholic Church. The rest claim to have origins that are independent of any connection to the Catholic Church. In response to FrJeff and arlene hawkins: I respect your right to believe what you choose. However, we are discussing matters of faith here and there is a large part of Christianity that disagrees with you on the issue as to which religion is true successor to the one established by Jesus and His Apostles. I happen to belong to a different religion that also claims to be the only true church. The fact of the matter is that each of our religions are branches of the larger group of religions that are collectively know as Christianity. Which one of us is the trunk, the one and only true religion, is a matter that we can debate ad nausium. However, that is outside of the scope of the question and in no way invalidates my answer.

Absolutely not! I am part of an international church (The Revival Fellowship) that definitely did not branch off from Catholicism. Just remember, broad is the way that leads to destruction and many there be which go there (Matthew 7:13). So many of the churches that are opposed to Catholicism may be small, but certainly doing the right thing by God!

Short answer: No. Longer answer: I have mostly just commented on answers up to this point, but I want to address some things said in other answers/comments. I defy any Catholic to show where in the Bible authority is established for the Catholic church and for Peter as the first Pope without using Matthew 16:15-18. A typical Catholic reading of that passage mixes two Greek words to create a false church structure. Christ told Peter that He would establish His church on the rock of Peter's confession of Him as Christ, not on Peter himself. Peter is "petros", a maculine noun meaning "stone". Jesus told "petros" (actually, since "Peter" is the direct object of that sentence, the accusative form of this masculine noun would read "petron") that He would build his church on this "petra", a femine noun meaning "large rock, cliff, or ledge". The words are completely different genders in the original text. This passage does not make Peter a pope. He was, instead, an elder in a congregation of the 1st century church as a reading of the letters he wrote will show. Even a quick reading of 1st century practices during the assembly in Acts, 1 Corinthians, etc... and of the organizational structure of the church as discussed in Timothy and Titus reveal that Catholicism is a drastic departure from this example and Biblical standard. The Catholic church is not the original church. It is an apostate branch of the church as described in scripture that developed over time as an abandonment of congregational autonomy and the introduction of traditions that carried the weight of scripture took hold. Numerous Christian movements today are trying to return to the New Testament example of God's church (the church of Christ where I attend is an example), and some are having more success than others as millenia old Catholic (and even Protestant) traditions and social sensitivities cloud an effort to return to pure Bible teaching. I challenge any reader to prove through scripture alone that the Catholic church is the one church established by God. I will append this answer as necessary to respond. I'm not sure I understand his answer. However my argument continues to rest on scripture. The passage in Matthew has been incorrectly interpreted by Catholics to justify their view of Peter as the first Pope. Scylla failed to point out my error. He just criticized it. Also, it seems that Scylla takes the view of many Catholics that scripture cannot stand on its own in terms of defining the Lord's church. He is right that scripture does not contain all of the historical background, but it does contain a description of the 1st century church and its practices as established (and commanded) by Jesus and his apostles. Catholic practice and organization have deviated from that original establishment, as Scylla correctly infers, if one looks at history since the time documented in scripture. I read catholic.com per Ignatius' recommendation. The Catholics assert that the gender difference in Matthew is purely stylistic. Interesting twisting of Greek grammar, but it is both inaccurate and inconsistent with other scripture. However, I would agree that those saying Peter was never in Rome are barking up the wrong tree. Whether he was or wasn't isn't the issue. They also assert that the Bible is not sufficient for faith or salvation but that one must also follow the oral traditions passed through the church. However, when tradition supercedes scripture, as it often does in Catholicism, they force a choice between the credibility of scripture or the credibility of the teachings of men. I go with scripture. Lastly, I agree with the Catholic assertion that many of the passages (2 Tim. 3:16 for instance) that christians use to show the inviolability of scripture are often taken out of context. However, with the passing of the apostles, it was necessary that their inspired writings become the documentation of their inspired oral teachings. Therefore, 2 Timothy and other passages do point us to what was to become scripture as well as what Timothy had as scripture. One more example of how God's Word transcends time and culture to maintain its relevence and truthfulness.

Time for some historical facts and some truth instead of all that anti-Catholic rhetoric. The C of C, SDA, etc all have an ignoble history of bashing the Catholic Church and most of their rhetoric is so far from any semblance of truth that most of us don't even try to do more than offer the historical facts. see Catholic Answers for the truth: http://www.catholic.com/ How Old Is Your Church? ( http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb4.htm ) 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. These are simple historical facts that all the rhetoric in the world cannot change. I challenge any adherent to any listed denomination to prove from history that their particular church has an origin other than the one listed. It can't be done. Furthermore, the first recorded use of the name Catholic Church dates to 110 AD and was writen by Ignatius of Antioch who was a close friend and disciple of St. John the apostle as well as a martyr (Thrown to wild animals in Rome). St. Ignatius was the bishop of the church at Antioch, which is found in scripture in Acts 11:26. The fact that he used the name in writing to another church at that early date shows that the name was already recognized and in use by that time. This was only about 14 years after the book of Revelation was written and about 10 years after the death of St. John himself. "CHAP. VIII.--LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP. See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." http://catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchfathers/volume01/ignatius06.cfm Get the facts. Decide for yourself!,

[Tambourine] It sounds like you are stating that Truth is relative??... This statment is self contradictory. A Christain is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus given to us in God's Word. Whether I or you believe this to be true is not what matters. God's Word matters... it is the Truth... and the statement I made below is based on God's Word. It seems that in order to answer this question, we need to first determine what denominations are Christian and those that are not: What determines whether or not a denomination is Christian? Well, I guess the easy answer is, those denominations that are made up of Christians? I guess it really boils down to What is a Christian? By answering this question, we can determine what denominations are Christian. Just a simple comparison of beliefs. How do we determine what a Christian is? Do we use Webster's? What about a web search and pick those most frequently used definitions? How about we use the Bible. The word Christian appears only 3 times in the New Testament. Acts 17:28: "Then Agrippa said to Paul, 'Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?'" (NIV). 1 Peter 4:16: "However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name" (NIV). Acts 11:27: "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch" (NIV). In all 3 verses (read them in context), Christians are "tagged" to be followers of Christ. They believe in Him as their Savior and redeemer. Throughout the New Testament, Christ is said to have died for all of our sins. It says that those who (Christians) believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, will be saved. All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. Thanks be to God that he gave His only Son to die for us that whoever (Christian) believes in Him shall be saved and have everlasting life. We (Christians) are saved by Grace through Faith. (Eph 2:8) We know that Christ forgives sin. We know that Christ was in the beginning, and that He was with God and that He was God. (John 1:1) We know that there is only one God from: Isaiah 43:10: (KJV) 10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. Isaiah 44:6-8: (KJV) 6Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. 7And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. 8Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. So, I guess we can say that a Christian: * is a Follower of Christ * believes that Christ forgives sin * believes they are saved by God's grace through faith in Christ's death on the cross. * believes there is only ONE God. * believes that Christ is God along with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. From my own experience, this definition would rule out The Jehovah Witnesses (Do not believe Jesus is God) and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (believe that there are multiple Gods and have a works based salvation). All those Denominations that believe the definition is true, would be considered a Christian Church. Those Christian denominations that are protestant can trace their roots to the Catholic Church but this fact does not make them Christian.

Although there may have been some obscure churches before the Great Schisim in 1054, the Catholic Church was originally ment to be the "universal" church. Note: Cahtolic means universal. However, due to the Great Schism it was split into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Then in the 1500's the Protestant reformation started. There eventually ended up being no less-keep in mind there are quite possibly much more world-wide- Protestant "sub denominations". The Protestant reformation was ment to reform the Catholic Church thus, Protestant denominations were derived from the Catholic Church. However, later came Moromonism which was started by Joseph Smith around 1823. Then there are the non-denominational group, which does not consider themselves either Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, or any of the above. So in short, no not every single denomination branched off from Catholicism. Here are my sources (both books): Relgions of the world by Ronald J. Wilkins and the Book of Mormon-(Introduction) Edit: If a sub denomination comes from a denomination that was derived from Catholiscim then it was indirectly derived from Catholicism.

I've actually previously answered this question. Although there may have been some obscure churches before the Great Schisim in 1054, the Catholic Church was originally ment to be the "universal" church. Note: Cahtolic means universal. However, due to the Great Schism it was split into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Then in the 1500's the Protestant reformation started. There eventually ended up being no less-keep in mind there are quite possibly much more world-wide- Protestant "sub denominations". The Protestant reformation was ment to reform the Catholic Church thus, Protestant denominations were derived from the Catholic Church. However, later came Moromonism which was started by Joseph Smith around 1823. Then there are the non-denominational group, which does not consider themselves either Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, or any of the above. So in short, no not every single denomination branched off from Catholicism. Here are my sources (both books): Relgions of the world by Ronald J. Wilkins and the Book of Mormon-(Introduction)

Catholoc originally just meant general or all Christians, it was a term hijacked by Catholocism but was not what was originally meant by early Christians. The easy answer is no. The anabaptists were around for some 1300 years before the Reformation and protestants came around, they are now known by the shortened name of Baptists. As Isaac Newton said, "the Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome." They were persecuted and tortured for "heresies" like claiming the Bible as their only rule of faith, preaching faith alone instead of works (as per Eph. 2:8-10), practicing baptism by immersion, and refusing to fight back. I could say a lot more, but I think I'll just leave you with some quotes from this page, including the Isaac Newton one and others: http://web.mountain.net/morton/baptist.htm ======================================================================================================== The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome. - Sir Isaac Newton Were it not for the fact that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past 1200 years, they would swarm greater than all the reformers. If the truth of religion were to be judged by the readiness and boldness of which a man or any sect shows in suffering, then the opinions and persuasions of no sect can be truer and surer than those of the Anabaptist, since there have been none for the 1200 years past that have been more generally punished or that have been more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone, and have offered themselves to the most cruel sort of punishment than these people - Catholic Cardinal Hosius, President of the Council of Trent from 1545 to 1564. History has hitherto been written by our enemies, who never would have kept a single fact about us upon the record if they could have helped it, and yet it leaks out every now and then that certain poor people called Anabaptists (Anabaptist was the name given to Baptists before the 16th century. "Ana" means "again," but the entire name, Anabaptist, was applied to those who believed and practiced what Bible-believing, separatist Baptists do today) were brought up for condemnation. From the days of Henry VIII to those of Elizabeth, we hear of certain unhappy heretics who were hated of all men for the truth's sake that was in them. We read of poor men and women, with their garments cut short, turned out into the fields to perish in the cold, and anon of others who were burnt at Newington for the crime of Anabaptism. Long before your Protestants were known of, those horrible Anabaptists, as they were unjustly called, were protesting for the "one Lord, one faith, and one baptism." No sooner did the visible church begin to depart from the Gospel than these men arose to keep fast by the good old way. The priests and monks wished for peace and slumber, but there was always a Baptist or a Lollard tickling men's ears with Holy Scriptures, and calling their attention to the errors of the times. They were a poor persecuted tribe. The halter was thought to be too good for them. At times, ill-written history would have us think that they died out, so well had the wolf done his work on the sheep. Yet here we are, blessed and multiplied, and Newington sees other scenes from Sunday to Sunday. As I think of the multitudes of your numbers and efforts, I can only say in wonder, "What a growth!" As I think of the multitudes of our brethren in America, I can only say, "What hath God wrought!" Our history forbids discouragements. - Spurgeon We shall afterward show that the rise of the Anabaptists took place prior to the Reformation of the Church of England, and there are also reasons for believing that on the continent of Europe, small hidden Christian societies, who have held many of the opinions of the Anabaptists, have existed from the times of the apostles. In the sense of the direct transmission of divine truth, and the true nature of spiritual religion, it seems probable that these churches have a lineage or succession more ancient than that of the Roman Church. - Robert Barclay (very famous historian) I should not readily admit that there was a Baptist church as far back as 100 A.D., although without doubt there were Baptist churches then, as all Christians were then Baptists. - John Clark Ridpath (very famous historian) The institution of the Anabaptists is no novelty, but for 1300 years has caused great trouble in the church. -Zwingli Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe, persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of the modem Dutch Baptists... the origin of Baptists is lost in the remote depths of antiquity... the first century was a history of Baptists. - Mosheim (famous historian) Of the Baptists it may be said that they are not reformers. These people. comprising bodies of Christian believers known under various names in different countries, are entirely distinct and independent of the Roman and Greek churches, and have an unbroken continuity of existence from apostolic days down through the centuries. Throughout this long period they were bitterly persecuted for heresy, driven from country to country, disfranchised, deprived of their property, imprisoned, tortured and slain by the thousands; and yet they swerved not from their New Testament faith, doctrine, and adherence. - "Crossing the Centuries", edited by William C. King

Yes. The Catholic Church considers that all other Christian denomonations have branched off from it. But very few other people think so.

So sad to see God's family broken on these answers! All He wanted was peace on earth, here we broke His heart into pieces first with division as Hindus, Muslims, Buddhist, Christains and then further to Catholics, orthodox, protestants, baptist and many more. He only wanted one family for us as complete human race to sit and pray in harmony. Our little difference could not be reconciled by His eternal love. He is still in pain, the pain He born for our sake, He still bleeds every time His children fighting over Him, He still dies a death everyday when He cannot see us together as one. I do not know the answer to your question nor I want to know because it hurts to know it to see my Father in heaven in pain. So sad, very sad. PS: I had to post this as my comment wherever I saw there is disagreement on the issue. Forgive me, but all I want to say: We all pray to Him, we all worship Him, we all adore Him, then can we not let the mistake of past let go, and now become His united family? Can we not pray together in one house to Him? Can we not love each other as He loved us? Can we not forgive and hug each other as He did? Please understand, please.

John, This is a great answer and absolutely correct. It takes much more than calling yourself a Christian to be one, I could say I am a black man, but I'm not. There is a whole bunch of wanna be black men today, just as there are a bunch of wanna be Christians. They want the rewards of Christianity without the work, or the persecution that comes with it, and just like being a black man and rap superstar is cool, so is being a counterfeit Christian. Keep telling the truth my friend, and let the wanna be's howl, maybe they will be stimulated to study the Bible and get conviction of their sins, Amen?

The Short answer, yes. The three major pillers of monothesim, can trace thier roots to Abraham. I can come up with 300 Biblical Evidences for favoring The Catholic Church. That being said, and with conclusions from my own research, in 312 A.D. Emperor Constantine, converted to the Christian Religion, and in 325 , Convened The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, to unite the various Christian Churches, and to prevent exactly what is happening today, with the various divisions that have followed. I'll put it this way, I am a surveyor, so if I can't prove it, I can't legally put it on paper. Along with being a surveyor, comes the responsibility of interpreting various deeds, and maps. So you have to know history, which seems to be sorely lacking in this subject. I believe that I am Roman Catholic, because I can prove it, I can put my hands on it. But I DO NOT BELIEVE IN CONDEMING SOMEONE BECAUSE THIER BELIEFS DIFFER FROM MINE. I believe that your religious beliefs are your own, and that no one has the right to render judgement on this earth, lets leave that up to God. Oh and by the way, the crack on the Trinity, take a look at School House Rocks " Three is the Magic Number." "Three is a magic number, Yes it is, it's a magic number. Somewhere in the ancient, mystic trinity You get three as a magic number. The past and the present and the future. Faith and Hope and Charity, The heart and the brain and the body Give you three as a magic number. It takes three legs to make a tri-pod Or to make a table stand. It takes three wheels to make a ve-hicle Called a tricycle. Every triangle has three corners, Every triangle has three sides, No more, no less. You don't have to guess. When it's three you can see It's a magic number. A man and a woman had a little baby, Yes, they did. They had three in the family, And that's a magic number. " The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit... Anyway, do what you feel The Creator is calling you to do. Worship The Creator how you feel he should be worshipped. Be kind to your fellow human beings, and appreciate the life you have. If you don't like your life change it, and remember, use that big area of grey matter in your head to think for yourself. Quit worrying about everyone else and begin with yourself first. "Do unto Others, as you would have them do unto you." The Golden Rule, it's named after gold for a reason.

SHort answer... NO. The Eastern Orthodox Church has been around longer.

"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." Who are you kidding? The first community of believers was Jewish and lead under Bishop James, brother of Our Lord, and then after that by Simon bin Cleopis (the cousin of Our Lord). Innovations began to occur in the mid 2nd century AD and were solidified by the 4th. Catholic Shmatholic... The original movement no longer exists and Islam comes closer to it than modern Christendom

Not all denominations consider themselves branches off of Roman Catholicism. I drifted in to this post while doing a web search on another topic. After having read all the posts, I can begin to see why so many people who call themselves Christians have become churchless over recent years. (When I say churchless, I mean outside of a denomination with a nice building to go to, not in the sense that the entire body of followers of Jesus are actually what make up the church.) When all we can do is spend our time arguing over symantics and manmade dogmas and cultural traditions within our faith, instead of focusing on what Jesus taught us in the Golden Rule and the great commandment, it is no wonder others in the world look on Christians with such disdain. The shame is on all of us, and it's very sad.