Acts to Constantine

  • Thread starter Thread starter JED8643
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JED8643

Guest
I have a Baptist friend who believes the Catholic Church was basically “invented” after Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 AD.

His contention is that Paul’s letter to the Romans wasn’t addressed to the “church at Rome” in the same way Paul’s other letters were addressed. (to the Church at Corinth).

He says there couldn’t have been an organized Church in Rome because of the Roman persecution.

That to him “proves” the Catholic Church wasn’t founded on Peter or that a papacy ever existed before Constantine.

I have done some research and it is obvious there was an organized Church in Rome from the writings of some of the Church fathers.

Problem is my friend rejects anything extra biblical and doubts any evdence to the contrary is reliable.

He is very anti- catholic and is hard to reason with.

Is there any historical evidence for an organized church in Rome from Acts to Constantine that Protestants generally accept as reliable?

Jed
 
JED8643 said:
I have a Baptist friend who believes the Catholic Church was basically “invented” after Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 AD.

His contention is that Paul’s letter to the Romans wasn’t addressed to the “church at Rome” in the same way Paul’s other letters were addressed. (to the Church at Corinth).

He says there couldn’t have been an organized Church in Rome because of the Roman persecution.

That to him “proves” the Catholic Church wasn’t founded on Peter or that a papacy ever existed before Constantine.

I have done some research and it is obvious there was an organized Church in Rome from the writings of some of the Church fathers.

Problem is my friend rejects anything extra biblical and doubts any evdence to the contrary is reliable.

He is very anti- catholic and is hard to reason with.

Is there any historical evidence for an organized church in Rome from Acts to Constantine that Protestants generally accept as reliable?

Jed
Click to expand...
my first question would be who precisely were the Romans persecuting and putting to death in Rome if there was no organization of Christians?
 
And my second question would be, there clearly is a Church in Jerusalem. But the Jews were persecuting the Jewish Christians. So how can there be a Church in Jerusalem when they were persecuted there?
 
JED8643 said:
I have a Baptist friend who believes the Catholic Church was basically “invented” after Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 AD.

His contention is that Paul’s letter to the Romans wasn’t addressed to the “church at Rome” in the same way Paul’s other letters were addressed. (to the Church at Corinth).

He says there couldn’t have been an organized Church in Rome because of the Roman persecution.

That to him “proves” the Catholic Church wasn’t founded on Peter or that a papacy ever existed before Constantine.

I have done some research and it is obvious there was an organized Church in Rome from the writings of some of the Church fathers.

Problem is my friend rejects anything extra biblical and doubts any evdence to the contrary is reliable.

He is very anti- catholic and is hard to reason with.

Is there any historical evidence for an organized church in Rome from Acts to Constantine that Protestants generally accept as reliable?
Click to expand...
JED, your Baptist friend is probably an adherent of the “Trail of Blood” theory held by Fundamentalist Baptists. This article might help you in your discussions with him:

catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/TrailOfBlood.pdf
 
JED8643 said:
I have a Baptist friend who believes the Catholic Church was basically “invented” after Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 AD.

His contention is that Paul’s letter to the Romans wasn’t addressed to the “church at Rome” in the same way Paul’s other letters were addressed. (to the Church at Corinth).

He says there couldn’t have been an organized Church in Rome because of the Roman persecution.

That to him “proves” the Catholic Church wasn’t founded on Peter or that a papacy ever existed before Constantine.

I have done some research and it is obvious there was an organized Church in Rome from the writings of some of the Church fathers.

Problem is my friend rejects anything extra biblical and doubts any evdence to the contrary is reliable.

He is very anti- catholic and is hard to reason with.

Is there any historical evidence for an organized church in Rome from Acts to Constantine that Protestants generally accept as reliable?

Jed
Click to expand...
Jed, then ask him how St. Ignatius of Antioch was writing about the Catholic Church in 110 A.D., in such a manner, not as if he were coining the term “Catholic,” but as if he expected everyone to understand of that which he spoke?

Here’s the quote from 110A.D.:

"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains . Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
 
JED8643 said:
I have a Baptist friend who believes the Catholic Church was basically “invented” after Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 AD.

His contention is that Paul’s letter to the Romans wasn’t addressed to the “church at Rome” in the same way Paul’s other letters were addressed. (to the Church at Corinth).

He says there couldn’t have been an organized Church in Rome because of the Roman persecution.

That to him “proves” the Catholic Church wasn’t founded on Peter or that a papacy ever existed before Constantine.
Click to expand...
Goody. Now he’s free to divorce, contracept, and depending on the particulars of his Baptistness, even abort.
 
Does he use the King James Bible? If so, tell him that the KJV was written 1600 years after Jesus’ crucifixion.
 
Just be prepared for the possibility (or probability) that you’re not going to be able to prove anything to him. Some people are just will not let themselves be confused by the facts. Show him the truth, but don’t be too disappointed if he ignores it.
 
Great comments from everyone so far.

He is a King James onlyist and a believer in the “trail of blood” version of Christian history.

Apollos,

Your comment;
Hmm … Constantine ain’t in my Bible. Anything about it in his?
Click to expand...
really exposed a fundamental flaw in his position. He accepts extra biblical tradition to tell him what he does know about Constantine and his influence on Christianity. But when it comes to other historical sources that clearly show an organized church in Rome he ignores them. (Eusebius, Origen, Tertullian)

Can’t have it both ways.

Does anyone have any idea why Paul didn’t address his epistle to the church at Rome as opposed to just “the Romans”?

He seems to be caught up on that point.(although it only proves something in his mind)

Plus,

Is there any online historical sources, not from Catholic websites, that I can show him evidence of an organized church at Rome?

Jed
 
JED8643 said:
Is there any online historical sources, not from Catholic websites, that I can show him evidence of an organized church at Rome?
Click to expand...
According to Romans 16, they were organized enough to have a house church at Prisca and Aquila’s.
 
JED8643 said:
His contention is that Paul’s letter to the Romans wasn’t addressed to the “church at Rome” in the same way Paul’s other letters were addressed. (to the Church at Corinth).
Click to expand...
Possible deniability. Since there were persecutions in Rome at that time, if anyone is caught with the letter it will not give away their location or the fact that there is a Church in Rome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top