Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?

[rev_kevin]

Do you give any validity to anything the early Church fathers wrote?

Dionysius of Corinth

Irenaeus

Depends.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Why give fast google searchs a instant stamp of approval, and totally ignore Historical writtings which date to the 1st and 2nd century?

You already seen above just how bad fast search sights are with information about ancient babylon. I fail to see why you would constantly go that route when you get caught out with it constantly. It begins to look like an effort to say “anything” as long as it disagree with Catholics? What is that about?

 

[lax16]

Because the question of Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church revolve around Peter who is believed to be the one Jesus started his church by.

I understand - however, I still do not understand the importance of Peter’s whereabouts.
I have read Protestant scholars who have come to the conclusion (and there were quite a few) that Peter is/was the Rock.

So, if Jesus called him to lead His Church and be the cornerstone, obviously it was Jesus who was The Builder. He then asked Peter to carry on, be the foundation, lead the flock.

How about the writings of Eusebius confirming that Peter was in Rome?

 

[Nicea325]

This discussion in not about salvation. Its about, and I quote, “Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?”

There was a qiuote by someone here about Scripture not saying where any of the 11 traveled to (or something to that affect) So I pointed out Paul.

Because if the church was started there by him it would be important to know he was actually there.

Exactly! Then why are you asking about Peter,when the issue is Jesus and the Catholic Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Depends.

I noticed the post you copied and pasted used the writings of Flavius Josephus to make a point. Why would you discount what the early Church fathers wrote, who were clearly Christians, and accept writings from the Jewish general, who was known not to be a Christian?

I have to say this has appearances of ‘picking and choosing’ in order to disagree with anything Catholic. I certainly hope I am wrong.

 

[benedictus2]

Jesus did not Start the Catholic Church Jesus IS the CATHOLIC CHURCH.

That is wrong. Jesus is NOT the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is indeed the Mystical Body of Christ but the Body is not Person of Christ.

We can’t go around saying these things because this is doctrinally erroneous.

If the Church is Jesus then the Church is God and the Church has existed from all eternity, which is not the case.

 

[benedictus2]

*You make a good point Benedictus. If we achieve being “Poor in Spirit” it is when we realise that we can do nothing without God.

Having said that, rev kevin’s words could also mean that we, in turn, can co-operate with God. When we respond to God’s commands and his love, we are giving to God. We can offer our sufferings to God… So there is something we can “do for God”

God Bless all
*

At the risk of derailing my own thread, what I wanted to bring out with my post as well is that so many people work for God rather than do God’s will and there is a big difference there that people do not see.

I think of the religious who work in Africa and demand that the church allow contraception. I classify that as working for God rather than doing God’s will.

Discernment is very important.

 

[benedictus2]

What can we do for God?
We can bring people to Him.
We can feed the hungry.
We can help the needy.
We can be good Christian modles to others.
We can strive not to si.
We can be Good Samaritans.
And the list goes on and on.

I don’t classify that as doing “for God” for without Him can’t do any of these things.

But we can do His will, ie. follow Him, and the above would be classified as following Him provided we have the right discernent. Even the above can be a case of working for God rather than doing His will.

For example, a wife and mother who is very active in charity work feeding the hungry, clothing the naked etc and is always out of the house doing these things that she neglects her own family. That is working for God.

But anyway I won’t reply again to any response on this point as this is truly derailing my thread which is my own fault. Two raps on the knuckles for me.

 

[benedictus2]

The same old arguement to counter the arguement “where is it in the Scripture” to “where does Scripture say Peter did not go to Rome.” Come up with a better responce than that.
As far as the other 11. Well Scripture says that Paul went to Rome,found in Acts 27-28. It also says in verse30 that “For the next 2 years, Paul lived in his own rented house.” This house is in Rome. So Scripture actually does say where at least one of them went, now don’t it?

Hi Rev Kevin,

I gave you a link regarding Peter’s presence in Rome. Did you get a chance to read that? I think before you post further on this matter you need to read that first.

catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp

If you want me to copy and paste the entire article here let me know.

Peace!

cory

 

[benedictus2]

That would probably be here. (Not the first time Rev Kevin has copied/pasted without attribution, by the way.)

Clearly, Rev Kevin hasn’t read Was Peter in Rome? Some of the pertinent points are as follows:What the Bible Says
v
v
v
v
…In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome…

Hey, Thanks for copying and pasting that. I gave that link twice to Rev Kevin to read but he never bothered.

 

[benedictus2]

This discussion in not about salvation. Its about, and I quote, “Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?”

There was a qiuote by someone here about Scripture not saying where any of the 11 traveled to (or something to that affect) So I pointed out Paul.

Because if the church was started there by him it would be important to know he was actually there.

Hi Rev,

I am still waiting for your reply to my posts on page 3.

Erich also pasted a summary at the bottom of page 5, of the link I gave you

Thanks,
Cory

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Rev Kevin seems to habitually ignore those things he can’t explain away. I have seen it in several threads. Bottom line I think the secular evidence for Peter being in Rome should be a stronger case for his presence. I don’t think it matters insofar as Peter just as easily could have stayed in Jerusalem after Christ died…then it would be the home of the earthly aspect of Jesus’ church.

 

[benedictus2]

Rev Kevin seems to habitually ignore those things he can’t explain away. I have seen it in several threads. Bottom line I think the secular evidence for Peter being in Rome should be a stronger case for his presence. I don’t think it matters insofar as Peter just as easily could have stayed in Jerusalem after Christ died…then it would be the home of the earthly aspect of Jesus’ church.

The question then is does he have enough intellectual honesty to really go for the truth or is this more a case of “I believe this to be so therefore it is so.”

You are right, he has this habit of writing the same thing over and over again even when you have shown him conclusively that it is not so.

It is like there is a desperate need to cling to this lie. I really wonder why that is. There must something else going on underneath that.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

I say that Christ did found the Universal Church. However, I reject that Rome is the only body that exists as that church. I respect that all of Orthodoxy and Rome are part of that Church.

 

[benedictus2]

I say that Christ did found the Universal Church. However, I reject that Rome is the only body that exists as that church. I respect that all of Orthodoxy and Rome are part of that Church.

Then may I ask why you’re not in either of them?

 

[rinnie]

That is wrong. Jesus is NOT the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is indeed the Mystical Body of Christ but the Body is not Person of Christ.

We can’t go around saying these things because this is doctrinally erroneous.

If the Church is Jesus then the Church is God and the Church has existed from all eternity, which is not the case.

As my kids used to say yeah huh. The Church did exist from all eternity, because the Church is Jesus, and the Church is God, and Jesus and God and the Church are all part of the Trinity. The Church is the last Part of the Trinity the Holy Spirit.

And the Church is the Person of Christ. There is the Father which was revealed in the word, the Son which was revealed in Jesus, and the Holy Spirit which was and is still revealed in the Catholic Church.

 

[dzheremi]

Whaaaaat? The Church is part of the Holy Trinity? Um…no. No it isn’t.

 

[rinnie]

I say that Christ did found the Universal Church. However, I reject that Rome is the only body that exists as that church. I respect that all of Orthodoxy and Rome are part of that Church.

Hey at least you admit it exists of the Body of that Church, so thats a good thing

 

[benedictus2]

As my kids used to say yeah huh. The Church did exist from all eternity, because the Church is Jesus, and the Church is God, and Jesus and God and the Church are all part of the Trinity. The Church is the last Part of the Trinity the Holy Spirit.

And the Church is the Person of Christ. There is the Father which was revealed in the word, the Son which was revealed in Jesus, and the Holy Spirit which was and is still revealed in the Catholic Church.

Oh Rinnie, this is so doctrinally erroneous. Heresy.

The Church IS NOT Jesus. You will not find that in any teaching of the Church.

We get enough flack from Protestant for “seemingly erroneous” doctrines without adding this to their ammunition.

This is majorly wrong. I hope the Protestants reading this do not think that the Church teaches this.

If the Church is the Person of Christ then the Church is the Second Person of the Trinity. This is downright wrong.

If you are teaching your children this you are teaching them error.

 

[rinnie]

Whaaaaat? The Church is part of the Holy Trinity? Um…no. No it isn’t.

Then if it is not part of the Holy Trinity then how could Jesus say he is sending the Advocate the Holy Spirit to lead you to all truth.

And Jesus said Saul was persecuting HIM, who was Saul persecuting Jesus or the Church? Do you deny that Saul was persecuting the Church or do you deny that Jesus was correct when he said he was the Church? What are you in conflict with here?

And how can the Trinity be God made up of 3 Person if you reject that Jesus is the Church? And how can Jesus not be part of the Trinity? And how can the Holy Spriit not be part of the Trinity?