What proof is there that Christ started the Catholic Church?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I took the "scavi tour" at the Vatican twice, as it is archeologically interesting. It has to be applied for some time in advance as it takes you on a tour of the necropolis ruins under St Peter's. The climax of that tour (for some people anyway) is a glimpse through a little hole in the wall where a spotlight about 30 feet beyond points to a spot where supposedly the bones of St Peter were found. In point of fact there were bones of indeterminate provenance and the RCC likes to take the standard "well you can't prove it's NOT what we claim it is" approach because anything that burnishes their claim of an unbroken chain of Papal succession directly back to Peter himself, is to their advantage. Most high church types find that sort of claim, and the ritual and pageantry and so forth surrounding it, as very comforting and it is part of what more than one former Catholic has told me they miss about their faith ... that sense of connection to the past, which I guess lends reality to the gospel narratives and such.
I will admit that growing up evangelical I did not have nearly the sense of church history and its patina of ancientness to add to its gravitas, that Catholic and Orthodox believers have. But I didn't feel deprived either; we were taught to think of that as a longstanding corruption that Luther corrected and that we had progressively been rekindling the primitive and true faith.
They are one and the same, of course. There is not 2 different Gospels. There were just 2 groups that it was preached to.
And, of course, the RCC claims that Peter, as the first pope, was head over it all.
No they were not. These were distinct, rival groups, each claiming that they represented the true legacy of Jesus. I do not see how you could possibly confuse them as "one in the same" when one group argued that Jesus was establishing an entirely new religion and the other was arguing that Jesus was validating and completing the Judaic faith.
Among the reasons as to why Paul was successful and Peter failed, was that in order to join Peter's version of Christianity, you were required to become Jewish first, which meant that you had to be circumcised. This was not an idea which was wildly popular with adult converts, thus Peter's following was limited to trying to convert Jews who were already circumcised. Paul, targeting the gentiles with his doctrine of an entirely new faith which transcended Judaism, had a much easier time of it, no mutilation of the genitals was required.
Christianity began as a bottom to top process, catching on in its infancy with the people within the Roman Empire who were most receptive to a message which told them that soon they would be on top and in glory, while their Roman oppressors would be suffering. These were the Roman slaves, one third of the population of the entire empire. They had little or no hope of improving their stations in life, so they were happy to embrace a faith which promised them top status in the afterlife.
The Roman slaves of course were overwhelmingly composed of gentiles and they formed the base of what eventually was to become the Catholic following.
All flowing from Paul's missionary work, not Peter's.
No they were not. These were distinct, rival groups, each claiming that they represented the true legacy of Jesus. I do not see how you could possibly confuse them as "one in the same" when one group argued that Jesus was establishing an entirely new religion and the other was arguing that Jesus was validating and completing the Judaic faith.
It was the same Gospel-- that Jesus had died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins. Read Romans sometime. Both Jews and Gentiles are children of Abraham by faith.
Of course, as you point out, there were much more converts among the Gentiles. But the Gospel was the same. It had the power to save both Jews and Gentiles alike. Yes, I realize Peter did make mistakes in application of it.
That's not even possible as none of the books of the Gospel were even written for decades after the supposed Jesus died.
it's more than "possible". it's the truth. what my post said is a documented fact.
Early Christianity didn't rely on the written word. Writing was not as quick and easy
as it is today, it was a rather difficult and expensive process, and those were
tumultuous times with many early writings lost forever. Being said, the gospels
we have are not the earliest, the earliest canonical Christian letters we have are Paul's
epistles such as Thessalonians which is from the 40's.
Why do Catholics think this? Is there any truth to this? Was there a Christian church before the Catholic Church? What actually started the Catholic Church?
You, like most, confuse the teaching of Lord Jesus and religion, loosely based on it. HE never even told anyone to go to church. He said to go to the darkest room of your house (dwelling, or where the true YOU resides, or INNER self), shut the door close (remove your-Self from the world, any temptations, physical) and pray THERE. That's the one and only "church", along with one and only prayer HE provided, available from HIS words.
The rest is from humans and of humane.
Are those Peter's bones under St. Peter's Basilica?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
