Why Should I Become A Catholic.

[guanophore]

I would like everyone to keep in mind the the Church theology between the years 50-100 AD was significantly different than the Church’s theology and structure after the year 100 AD. I consider the early Church to be the community before 100AD so please keep that answer in mind while answering questions. For an excellent overview on the changes between the 1st and 2nd Centuries I suggest Catholic historian Paul Johnson’s “A History of Christianity” with emphasis on the first several chapters. Thanks.

It is good you are reading. However, the doctrine committed to the Church founded by Christ cannot be allowed to change in any century. Our theology, or efforts to understand it may change. Our practices and disciplines may change, but the doctrine cannot. As I already have a critical stack of books, I will not get to these anytime soon. Perhaps you will be willing to summarize what “changes” you think occurred?

 

[sean1i0]

I do agree with you that the change was necessary. I also believe that the “catholic” church was present in the earliest years and was especially visible starting around the year 70 AD but I also believe there were many different varieties at that time as well. I also believe that there were some changes in theology in that time, but one could argue that it was more of a clarification than a change. I dont necessarily believe that the Apostles (ie the Twelve) were needed to spread the true Gospel of Christ. Paul, who was not one of the Twelve, probably had the most impact in creating a foundation for the early church than even the “Apostles”. (Though he was an apostle ie sent directly from the risen Lord). To me none of that matters because Truth is still Truth if noone believes it and False is still False if everyone believes it. Not that using the Apostles as evidence is bad I just think it should stand on its own without necessarily needing them./QUOTE]

Ok, well, I would ask you to think about this: Even in the book of Acts we have an example of a time when the Church was unsure of what to do. So, in response the Church called a council of its leaders. That is why I would say that the Church (meaning its structure) is necessary and why the Lord instituted it. If there had been no leaders of the Church in Acts there would have been no answer for the Church then just like if there would have not been a Church structure with Church leaders after that there would not have been a way for the faithful of the Lord to know answers to questions later on, like is Jesus just God? Or just man? Etc., etc. That would be the main thing that I would argue concerning the necessity of the Catholic Church. The Lord only is one Truth as you have also said and it just seems to make sense that He would want to leave us a structure to guide the faithful when they have times of uncertainty concerning His Truth.

 

[awantz]

Why shouldn’t you become Catholic?
How can you understand how awesome chocolate ice cream is with hot fudge on it, without tasting it?

As for me,
Answer to Question 1, Because that is not where God is leading me.
Answer to Question 2, Because I have tasted it.

 

[John_Martin]

“The Kingdom established from Heaven is here; Come, follow me”

“I don’t believe Peter is really necessary and certainly is not your “prime minister”, and I don’t believe your Kingdom is all the people whom Peter and the others baptized (the real Kingdom in my thinking is only those who truly accept you, which Peter cannot know, so he has no power to make someone a member of your body), nor do I believe that the bread and wine you gave them is actually anything more than a metaphor, so I will read about you and say prayers; then you will have to hear from Heaven and do what you do. There we have it Lord, that is how your truth shall be and how I will follow you.”

“Go, and have your ideas, and when you are done, turn around and come to my friend Rock, on whom I built my Church, my Kingdom on earth as it is in Heaven, in the world but not established by the world. Rock (Peter, or his successors if you wait that long) will show you all that I commanded him, feed you with the food and drink I commanded him to give.”

 

[guanophore]

But the point being that

1. The fact the Orthodox Roman Catholic Church was founded by Christ has not been proven by this statement - Please do so for me.

The task would be to demonstrate when the Catholic Church founded by Christ as written about in the NT stopped being that Church. When did Roman Catholism separate from the One Church founded by Christ?

The NT called themselves “Catholic” and believe they are the same church today as that one in the NT. Can you show where this stopped being the case.

2) Christ wanted there to be a Structure- Argueable but irrelavant

On what basis do you find this irrelevant? Since Jesus and the Apostles believed that it was to be a visible structure, and taught this to their disciples, one would have to show at what point it was supposed to become “invisible”.

1. Theology is based in Scripture - Scripture is based on the Catholic Churchs descision… its a circular argument.=

It would be if indeed it were true, but both Scripture and the Apostolic Teaching (Sacred Tradition) are from God. The Church did not create herself, He created her. THe doctrine was not extracted from scripture, but given to the Church by Jesus through the Apostles.

Why is it Catholic? because its true, why is it true? because its Catholic… Not saying its wrong, just that so far it has been poorly justified

I agree with you. If God did not create the Church and reveal the Truth to her, then it is just a useless and circular arguement.

1. That the Changes have been because there has been a better knowledge has also not been proven. For example differences between Augustine and Aquinas are largely due to whether they have a Neo-Platonic or Aristotilean mindset not any “better” interpretation.

I see your point, but mankind’s understanding of himself, as well as God, has been growing since the time of our creation. I am not sure what “Changes” you are referencing here. The Catholic Church teaches that the public revelation of Christ closed with the death of the last Apostle. As such, the doctrines of the Church, of necessity, are contained within the once for all deposit of faith that occurred at that time. We cannot add or subtract anything.

 

[Curious_Seed]

I seem to remember you saying something similar on another thread and not replying to the Catholic Answers to these claims. Catholicism is the whole true flavor of Christianity.
Catholicism is NOT a denomination. Catholicism is the original, the rest denominated from the Truth. And again, you have not tried to back up your history comments on this other thread.

I believe that I did respond to you; but, I don’t believe you followed up.

I am interested in your answer.

 

[guanophore]

Is 100 AD arbitrary… Answer Yest
Why then did I choose 100 AD. Answer… The reason which i choose 100 AD is that it is a nice round number which roughtly correlates to the changes of the Catholic Church during the decades affer the death of the first generation of Christianity. It also is fairly close to the Rise of St Ignasious which is the, in my opinion, the start of a new wave of Christianity. It is the start of the 2nd Century which would include Tertullian, and Justin Martyr and coincides with the increase in the office of Bishop which can be evidenced by 1 Timothy (writted ca 100-120 AD). It is also the centruy in which the orthodox began.

This is absurd.

The Orthodox were united to Catholicism until 1054. They did not separate in the second century.

The office of the Bishop evidenced in 1Tim and elsewhere is part of the Apostolic Teaching that continues to be shared by the Catholics and Orthodox to this day!

How do you account for the fact that Ignatius thought he was part of the Church founded by Christ, and no one disputed this fact with Him?

I can see why you would need to create such a myth, however, since Iggy is clearly Catholic, as are Justin Martyr and Tertullian.

As for Theology coming from Christ himself…

"Though [the Canonical Gospels] are presented as historical narratives, their origins are complex and their reliability variable…then,in the decades of the sixties, with the progressive elimination of the first generation of Christians… provided an urgent incentive to record Jesus’s teachings in imperishable shape.
Mark, from the circle of Peter, first created the Gospel as a literary form… his problems were not only those of an unpracticed writer but also those of an amateur theologian trying to transmit a complex message which he recieved from the far from lucid Peter. Hence he often does not try to solve the problem of comprehensibility.

What he is basically saying is that God failed to preserve His Word both in the Church and in writing. The Gospels cannot be inspired and inerrant, since they were written by fallible men.

This is not consistent with what the Catholic Church teaches and believes.

Do you think finding a “Roman Catholic historian” who does not believe in the Catholic faith changes anything? This author’s opinion that God is unable to preserve His Word does not change the fact that Jesus gave the Truth to His One Body, the Church.

Matthew and Luke,quite independently, produced their own narratives… Each had Mark to work from, though probably in carelessly copied form; and also had anouther source …Q

You might want to look into this “other source”.

John has no demonstrable connection to the synoptics… It is, however, more of a theological treatise than a historical narrative…there is evidence of tampering in the earliest manuscripts

This is an excellent example of horse hockey.

None of this would matter much if the central doctrine and teaching of Jesus emerged strongly, consistently and coherently form all the canonical sources… yet even in [the Passion] there are major obscurities an apparent contrdictions…

Again, the fact that they are synoptic does NOT equate to “major obscurities” or contradictions. The fact that eyewitnesses see and remember things differently, especially traumatic events, does not invalidate the different accounts.

It is thus misleading to speak of apostolic age and equally misleading to speak of a primative pentacostal Church and Faith. The last point is important because it implies Jesus left a Norm, in terms of doctrine, message, and organization, from which the Church subsequently departed. There was never a norm… If the famous Petrine text in Matthew is genuine and means what it is alleged to mean Peter was a very unsteady rock on which to found a Church. He did not exercise powers of leadership and seems to have allowed himself to be disposed by James an other members of Jesus’s family, who had played no part in the origional mission."
“A History of Christianity” - Roman Catholic Historian Paul Johnson pg 24-33

What can I say? The man has fallen from the faith, if indeed he ever had any. I suggest that you start with the original doctuments, Mberg, and what the Church says about herself, rather than the prattling of a person who no longer espouses the faith.

If you are going to use an apostate Catholic to justify your position, then you are in very poor shape spiritually.

The point is that there was no unified organized Church in the years before roughly 100 AD and the Catholic Church cannot claim to be the pure distillation of truth unless it proves that it was so dictated by Christ.

Such a statement is contradicted by the NT itself, which invalidates it immediately. Even your apostate “Catholic historian” is in agreement that the NT documents represent 1st century reality.

I want proof before 100 AD, before the Church claimed to be the source of truth to justify that it could make that claim

Like I said, it would behoove you to start with the NT. Reading it, you will find that what your “historian” says is false.

 

[guanophore]

My response was to agree that 100AD is arbitrary, but I thought it was a good standard because of historically documented changes that occured throughout the Church ca. 70-120 CE

Maybe you have already answered this, and I have not read the rest of the thread, so please excuse me if that is the case, I will come to it.

So far, you have only produced the driveling prattle of a so called “Catholic historian” to support your assertion that there was no first century standard. Even so, if there was no documented standard, how can you assert that changes in it took place?

You also have not shown historically that any changes occurred (I am assuming you are taking here about doctrinal changes, but maybe you are not?)

The Chruch in 100 AD, and 1000 AD and 2000 AD are all the same Church.

My response was to present to you an acclaimed Catholic Author and Historian who seemed to disagree with you. My friend, you were the one who never refuted me. I responded to you not in my own words but in the words of one who has much more knowledge of the subject. If my presentation of his material is unfair, I gave you the book and the cited page numbers to read for yourself.

I am sorry, but this author and historian has no “acclaim” that I can tell. I am sure you are using him because he does “seem to disagree” with the Catholic position, but the Truth is not defined by those who depart from it.

Just the small passage you printed here makes it clear that he certainly DOES NOT have “more knowledge on the subject”. His writing is easily refuted by all the early documents of the Church.

I am sure you have presented his material fairly. It seems quite clear that he is trying to pull reasons out of somewhere the sun does not shine to justify abandoning the Church founded by Christ.

This is not a forum to discuss the merit of the Historical Critical methods.

It most certainly is. Especially when the author you have chosen is not using any.

I see that you are not a big fan, but that does not defeat the purpose of my original point- to show that there is no consensus on the things which you so boldly claim as truth.

Of course there is no consensus outside of the faith that the faith is valid.

This is like saying that what Jesus taught is not true, since Judas did not believe it, and that the rest of the Apostles who did not betray His teachings "had no consenseus’.

If you are going to claim it I just ask you use more than tear down my source. Please present you side so I may respond in kind. We are here to discuss not to convert.
God Bless

Mberg, if you espouse this “historian’s” point of view, then that means you reject the NT as inspired and inerrant, and you reject the power of God to build and grow His Church. If this is the case, then there is no point trying to have this debate with you. I will unsuscribe to the thread, since writing these posts is not a good use of my time.

 

[guanophore]

Very noble words if is say so myself

This reflects a lot about your mindset.

I do not say for better or worse, but the assertion that the holy Church remained relatively unstable since 33 CE is quite false. It gained stability by the beginning of the 2nd Century which is why I used that for my date. I do not assert that any one point is more "true" than the other, but I do assert that there are differences you must acknowledge. Christianity and the structure of the 2nd Century was representative of most Christian Churches of that time with several exceptions such as Montanism. I do not think that it was the norm in the years 50-70 roughly, but the significance of that can be debated. I am a History major so historical analysis is what I do. We may disagree on HC method, but let us respectfully disagree or do not comment any more. I would rather use this time in other ways.

God Bless

Such an approach must reject the entire NT as a collection of historical docuements.

 

[Curious_Seed]

Ok, well those are all fair points. Let me ask you this then, do you agree then that the Catholic Church is the church that emerges from the teaching of the apostles? Believe it or not, I do believe that the Church changed from A.D. 33, but only because it had to change. There were a lot more people in the Church in the decades after the death and resurrection of Christ, so the structure had to change. I would say that the Catholic Church, which is so present, is the divinely approved structure that Christ wanted to emerge as more people joined the Church.

Do I believe that the Catholic Church is the church that emerged from the teaching of the apostles?

Well, the definite article tells me no, and history supports a no.

Is it one of the churches [denominations] that emerged?

To that, yes, of course.

Is it the most significant denomination of Christ’s Church?

Clearly, yes.

Is it exclusively Christ’s Church?

Clearly, no.

 

[guanophore]

As for me,
Answer to Question 1, Because that is not where God is leading me.
Answer to Question 2, Because I have tasted it.

Can you tell us about your taste test?

Can you tell us how you determine where God is leading you?

 

[guanophore]

Do I believe that the Catholic Church is the church that emerged from the teaching of the apostles?

Well, the definite article tells me no, and history supports a no.

Is it one of the churches [denominations] that emerged?

To that, yes, of course.

Is it the most significant denomination of Christ’s Church?

Clearly, yes.

Is it exclusively Christ’s Church?

Clearly, no.

What brings you here to CAF, Curious? You are on a thread about why you should not become Catholic. Why is that?

 

[Mberg3]

I do agree with you that the change was necessary. I also believe that the “catholic” church was present in the earliest years and was especially visible starting around the year 70 AD but I also believe there were many different varieties at that time as well. I also believe that there were some changes in theology in that time, but one could argue that it was more of a clarification than a change. I dont necessarily believe that the Apostles (ie the Twelve) were needed to spread the true Gospel of Christ. Paul, who was not one of the Twelve, probably had the most impact in creating a foundation for the early church than even the “Apostles”. (Though he was an apostle ie sent directly from the risen Lord). To me none of that matters because Truth is still Truth if noone believes it and False is still False if everyone believes it. Not that using the Apostles as evidence is bad I just think it should stand on its own without necessarily needing them./QUOTE]

 

[ESMDHokie77]

I believe that I did respond to you; but, I don’t believe you followed up.

I am interested in your answer.

Okay, I’ll re-engage on the other thread. But let it be noted that others did engage you the subject of your posts seems better fitted to that thread than this one.

 

[rikkk1958]

Hello all, I am a younger man who is in a Denominational Crisis in the Christian Faith. I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian household who was very anti-Catholic and preached against the Church consistently. Now, however, I am at a point in my life where I am engaged to a Catholic girl and would love to share a single faith as we now look toward the future.

I am currently attending a more traditional and Liturgical protestant Church and have fallen in love with the beautiful and ancient Church ritual that was lacking in my youth. I am much more informed about the Church than I once was, but my protestant roots are pulling hard against any ideas about converting over. There are a lot of points of differences between me and the Roman Church and I feel like it would be to big of a gulf to fill so I am trying to interact with those people who can better explain the differences and explain to my why they are the correct choices. I will ask questions based on any statements I receive.

I know that many people on here are convinced and on fire to support the validity of the Catholic Church, and I have no problem with that. However, I have noticed that this forum has sometimes refered to other Christians as outsiders or not truely in the Faith. While I understand that this is an easy assumption to make I hope that I may be treated with the respect and dignity of someone who feels as thought they are truely a part of the fullness of Christ. Christian civility is all I ask.

Further more I ask that in stating your points and premises that you do not state the reality as stated as the Church. I understand most of the Church’s positions on theological issues, but do not understand the reasoning behind them. Whenever possible then it would be nice to provide as many quotes and supporting evidence as possible that I may understand more fully.

Finally if I refute anyone, or state that I believe them to be in error, I will try to state as best as I can the reasons why I differ. I do not mean to attack anyone’s beliefs, but instead want to clarify my own and think about things more fully.

I thank you for you time and appreciate your position as to why the Catholic Church should be the right Church for any Christian.

Thanks

If we have to be honest with you, we can tell you that the Church believes you can not be save outside the Catholic Church. However, being a fellow human being we are bound by the commandment of God to Love One Another. This commandment will prohibit us to discriminate you because we are all as God’s creation and loves us. Every person have different level of reasons and this makes some of us hostile, however, it can also be either way. This type of emotions are normal because no two person are the same.

The position of the Catholics is very simple and it carries me everyday on how to understand it. Being the follower of Jesus Christ, we mean exactly the obedience to His Word. Everything He said has to be obeyed. Going back to the time of Jesus, down to the Apostles and the Disciples, it is very clear who we are. Our faith comes from His teachings down to the people He trusted to proclaim and teach these teachings. What more can be trustworthy than the teachings that were passed from the Source and the people who associated with the Source. We are warned regarding false prophets who may teach heresies that does not come from the core of the teachings of the Church. These heresies can be deceiving because of the value of their understanding but, their teachings are not in sync with the Source therefore can not be accepted.

 

[guanophore]

The Council of Jerusalem was over the mission to the Gentiles. The participants were the disciples who had been the witnesses to Christ in his lifetime and were seen as the “Pillars” of the Church.

The mission to the Gentiles certainly triggered the need for the council, but the issues were doctrinal. Did the Gentile converts need to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses?

Yes, the participants were the disciples and the “pillars”, but this congregation represents the Magesterium, or the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ. This is how the church has always resolved doctrinal issues - in Council with the successors of the Apostles (the Teaching Authoirty appointed by Christ).

When the successor of Peter makes a proclamation, it is done on behalf of the whole church (not just himself), such as JP II’s statement on the ordination of women.

However, Paul was teaching without their approval,

This is not true. Paul was ordained and catechized by successors of the Apostles. The fact that he received his formation outside of Jerusalem makes it no less authoritative.

and even after the Council he seems to be distrustfull of a single head to the Church other than Christ

where are you getting this?

Besides, this is a false dichotomy. Jesus is Head of the Church. The Vicar does not REPLACE the head of the household/Kingdom. He functions in the appointment as chief steward in the physical absence of the King. It is not “other than Christ” .

and at one point cautions against putting Cephus (Peter) as the definative voice of doctrine in the Church.

Can you please cite a source for this? I can’t imagine what you might be referencing here.

As for foundation, the point I am getting at is that Paul was authority through most of Greek, and his communities were the ones that perpetuated Christianity, not the Jerusalem community.

You are creating a false dichotomy. There is no separation between the two.

Why is it important for you to do this?

 

[John_Martin]

I am finding all of this quite interesting - 10 pages of persuasions of why to choose the Catholic Church.

Up until 1 1/2 years ago I would have held my own against all the arguments, having graduated from a Lutheran seminary. None of the Catholic reasons would have been good enough to match my Lutheran counterpoints.

But a year ago I entered the Catholic Church with no reasons needed - I wanted it more than anything - it was a treasure buried in a field and I sold everything to buy that field.

Why, if not from reasons?
Because one day I caught myself imagining that I was St. John walking with Jesus and his disciples as I was reading, and I called to mind what a Jew of that time would be waiting for (the Messiah, the Son of Man from Daniel’s description, the “Son of God” from the Psalms, etc.). Then, walking and talking with them and listening to Jesus, I hear him say to Simon(not to me, not to my brother James, not to Andrew or Matthew) “You are Cephas and on Cephas I will build my Church”, and “I give you the keys to my Kingdom” - and I knew what that meant, as a Jew, from my understanding of history - my King was giving executive authority, judicial authority, legislative authority to Simon. Nothing figurative in this; he was our awaited King, we all backed away a few feet from Simon in respect.

Suddenly, back in my understanding of myself as myself rather than as St. John, I realized that Jesus brought something better than doctrines to us; he brought a real Kingdom from Heaven, with himself as King. It was suddenly tangible. It is just as real as the United States is real. And here was legitimate historical creation of the way to participate in that Kingdom with Jesus as King. Peter (plus the rest of the disciples) was charged with guarding that Kingdom on the Earth, and granting citizenship to all who saw it as a treasure or a priceless pearl. I wanted the Church then, wanted to walk and talk with that band who wanders the world in countries in which we live, having citizenship with them in this better Nation.

The writings of the Bible are inextricably bound to the original recipients apart from some legitimate means of “being an original recipient” - that legitimate means is that they were written “to the church” to the citizens of Jesus’ Kingdom. There alone is participation in the Bible rather than reading it and trying to interpret it from afar.
So, I want to be one with the Church, and nothing else. My social security card is just a “green card” to live and work in the United States; my true nationality and citizenship are “Catholic”.

John Martin

 

[bethanysamuel]

Hello all, I am a younger man who is in a Denominational Crisis in the Christian Faith. I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian household who was very anti-Catholic and preached against the Church consistently. Now, however, I am at a point in my life where I am engaged to a Catholic girl and would love to share a single faith as we now look toward the future.

I am currently attending a more traditional and Liturgical protestant Church and have fallen in love with the beautiful and ancient Church ritual that was lacking in my youth. I am much more informed about the Church than I once was, but my protestant roots are pulling hard against any ideas about converting over. There are a lot of points of differences between me and the Roman Church and I feel like it would be to big of a gulf to fill so I am trying to interact with those people who can better explain the differences and explain to my why they are the correct choices. I will ask questions based on any statements I receive.

I know that many people on here are convinced and on fire to support the validity of the Catholic Church, and I have no problem with that. However, I have noticed that this forum has sometimes refered to other Christians as outsiders or not truely in the Faith. While I understand that this is an easy assumption to make I hope that I may be treated with the respect and dignity of someone who feels as thought they are truely a part of the fullness of Christ. Christian civility is all I ask.

Further more I ask that in stating your points and premises that you do not state the reality as stated as the Church. I understand most of the Church’s positions on theological issues, but do not understand the reasoning behind them. Whenever possible then it would be nice to provide as many quotes and supporting evidence as possible that I may understand more fully.

Finally if I refute anyone, or state that I believe them to be in error, I will try to state as best as I can the reasons why I differ. I do not mean to attack anyone’s beliefs, but instead want to clarify my own and think about things more fully.

I thank you for you time and appreciate your position as to why the Catholic Church should be the right Church for any Christian.

Thanks

 

[bethanysamuel]

Hello all, I am a younger man who is in a Denominational Crisis in the Christian Faith. I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian household who was very anti-Catholic and preached against the Church consistently. Now, however, I am at a point in my life where I am engaged to a Catholic girl and would love to share a single faith as we now look toward the future.

I am currently attending a more traditional and Liturgical protestant Church and have fallen in love with the beautiful and ancient Church ritual that was lacking in my youth. I am much more informed about the Church than I once was, but my protestant roots are pulling hard against any ideas about converting over. There are a lot of points of differences between me and the Roman Church and I feel like it would be to big of a gulf to fill so I am trying to interact with those people who can better explain the differences and explain to my why they are the correct choices. I will ask questions based on any statements I receive.

I know that many people on here are convinced and on fire to support the validity of the Catholic Church, and I have no problem with that. However, I have noticed that this forum has sometimes refered to other Christians as outsiders or not truely in the Faith. While I understand that this is an easy assumption to make I hope that I may be treated with the respect and dignity of someone who feels as thought they are truely a part of the fullness of Christ. Christian civility is all I ask.

Further more I ask that in stating your points and premises that you do not state the reality as stated as the Church. I understand most of the Church’s positions on theological issues, but do not understand the reasoning behind them. Whenever possible then it would be nice to provide as many quotes and supporting evidence as possible that I may understand more fully.

Finally if I refute anyone, or state that I believe them to be in error, I will try to state as best as I can the reasons why I differ. I do not mean to attack anyone’s beliefs, but instead want to clarify my own and think about things more fully.

I thank you for you time and appreciate your position as to why the Catholic Church should be the right Church for any Christian.

Thanks

Can i ask you, are you really turning to Catholicism for the right reasons? you can’t really be coaxed into a faith, or pushed or nudged, it has to be a free choice. please correct me if i’m wrong but i get the impression that you’re only doing this because you’re engaged to a Catholic girl. that’s not quite enough. there will always be arguments for and against Catholicism and these debates will probably continue until the Second Coming. i just feel that you want this, but more so that your relationship with this girl can work, rather than your relationship with God. please do correct me if i’m being out of line. i hope you do settle into your faith and enjoy the unending magnificence of the working of the Holy Spirit.

 

[pablope]

sean1i0;7833553:

The Council of Jerusalem was over the mission to the Gentiles. The participants were the disciples who had been the witnesses to Christ in his lifetime and were seen as the “Pillars” of the Church. However, Paul was teaching without their approval, and even after the Council he seems to be distrustfull of a single head to the Church other than Christ and at one point cautions against putting Cephus (Peter) as the definative voice of doctrine in the Church. As for foundation, the point I am getting at is that Paul was authority through most of Greek, and his communities were the ones that perpetuated Christianity, not the Jerusalem community.

Just some points for you to consider upon…

Paul, after his conversion at Damascus, spends years in places, learning about Christ and his teachings. He goes to Jerusalem (as recounted in Galatians) and confers with Peter to ascertain that what he is going to teach is not in vain.

Also, from Acts 13, prior to going on his first mission, he is ordained, laid hands on, by elders at Antioch. He submits to authority, gets ordained and is sent. He does not go out on his own.