Selene
New Member
The Old Testament is a written record that existed before Christ was born. If one can record the Old Testament books, one can also record the names of the Bishop of Rome starting from the Apostle Peter to the present day.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
As I say so often, that is the crux of the matter. This is the claim the church makes for itself, which I do not find to be historical. Even the supposed succession of popes is questionable even among Catholics. What is clear is that the Catholic Church that we know today emerged in the fourth century. There is nothing that convinces me that the church of the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd centuries was the Roman Catholic Church. For that, one must place one's faith in the Sacred Traditions of the church. Even NewAdvent.com says of Clement I that he is "the first of the successorsof St. Peter of whom anything definite is known." Between Peter and Clement the lists are fuzzy, and nothing is known about the various men on the various differing lists.
Again, I understand the Catholic doctrines and teachings very well. I've discussed them at length with numerous Catholic friends. I do not find them convincing, and God has not led me to put my faith in those teachings. I don't try to convince Catholics not to be Catholics, but I do present the good reasons non-Catholics have for not accepting the claims of the church that violate what we believe God's truths teach us.
They are not convincing and the historical evidence points to around the 4th century for the start of the Catholic Church. None of their major doctrinal language and terms is even in the NT let alone their different hierarchical offices (except Bishop).
Axehead
They are not convincing and the historical evidence points to around the 4th century for the start of the Catholic Church. None of their major doctrinal language and terms is even in the NT let alone their different hierarchical offices (except Bishop).
Axehead
Protestants often say that the Catholic Church started in the fourth century but never seem to be able to produce evidence to back up that claim.
It's just part of Protestant mythology.
The evidence is there, however you only take Catholic historical evidence as authoritative.
So, here we are on the treadwheel. :wacko:
Axehead
Protestants often say that the Catholic Church started in the fourth century but never seem to be able to produce evidence to back up that claim.
It's just part of Protestant mythology.
Scripture well attests the leadership and primacy of Peter. I can go through it all if you like. It’s overwhelming.Looking at the historical evidence, that is where it leads. There are even conflicting lists of the names of the early supposed popes. And it is a Catholic website, NewAdvent.com, not me that says we know nothing definite about the first few popes after Peter. If nothing definite is known about them, how do we know they were popes?
When Christianity began to mix with the temporal power of Rome the Catholic church as we know it emerges. Before that, there is no organizational bureaucracy that resembles anything like what we've seen since the 4th century. History books are full of this evidence you claim doesn't exist. Try reading "The Story of Christianity" by Justo L. Gonzalez, for example.
The biblical account of the Jerusalem council does not even depict Peter, the supposed pope, as being in charge of the proceedings since it was James who announced what he called "my decision". If James was in charge, the entire papacy comes crashing down.
What about Holy Moses ? he was a type of Pope one could say maybe.The Old Testament is a written record that existed before Christ was born. If one can record the Old Testament books, one can also record the names of the Bishop of Rome starting from the Apostle Peter to the present day.