The origins of the RC Denomination?

Your OP is from a very bias source. Proving it wrong would be almost like proving that the earth is a sphere to someone who believes that the earth is flat.
No it is from a non RC source that does not make it bias. If it is not the truth you should be able to prove it wrong? Yes we know RCs supported the flat earth theory for a long time and the earth as the centre of the solar system. They still follow the lies that their institution teaches them about their history and ignore the truth about their history.
 
The poster posted the truth and it has a load of support, it can be found in non RC history books. The history is normally written by the winners and the RCc squashed all those who opposed them in past centuries, trying to silence them and their histories. It has failed and their voices prove the revisionist history of the RCC.
It is not done with scholarly historical research. It is very biased.
 
Have you checked the accuracy of this article. The reason I am a Catholic is that when I hear and read articles like this and check out they are not accurate.
Yep of course because you check them out and use bias RC sources. The truth is too hard for RCs to swallow. It is like they wash their hands of the inquisiton which their institution gave full approval to and the inquisitors were monks and priests.
 
From Got Questions:

The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately AD 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church?
Yes.

On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles.
That is a matter of interpretation.

In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary...
The lack of mention of these things is not evidence that they are not true.

..or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture.
The role of Tradition (as distinct from mere practice) is not as something in conflict with Scripture but as something complementary to Scripture, so that taken together with Revelation they reveal the fullness of truth.

So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?
It is not a question of either/or but of both.

For the first 280 years of Christian history...
...which includes the time of Popes Linus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Telesphorus, Pius, Victor, Zephyrinus, Fabian, Cornelius, and others, which shows that the institution of the Church was well-established and visible to the world well before the year 253 AD, which was the last year of the pontificate of Pope Cornelius, which shows the Church already had its origin long before Constantine.

Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted.
...which is exactly what is recorded in Catholic history.

This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity.
The main issue of the Council of Nicea being to declare Arianism (the belief that Christ was inferior to God) to be a heresy, which was very important to the unity of Christianity, to be sure.

....While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.
That is a matter of opinion. What is true is that many of pagan practices were modified and adopted, just as the gentile practices off not observing Jewish circumcision and dietary law was adopted to make Christianity more universal.

Constantine found that, with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse, not everyone would agree to forsake his or her religious beliefs to embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs.
To the extent that pagan practices (not beliefs) were adopted, Constantine had limited power. He would be opposed, if necessary. The Church existed before without the good will of the secular leaders and she would do so again in times to come.

Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities.
Total interpretive speculation.

Some clear examples of this are as follows:


(1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary.
The similarities are accidental and imperfect.


Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and theotokos (“God-bearer”) were attached to Mary.
This was from Tradition of belief, and not from convenient adaptation as this suggests.

Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace.
Pure speculation of motive that Got Questions would have no way of knowing, only assuming.

Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary.
Repurposing of structures by new religions is common, as we see in the various used of Hagia Sophia over the years.

The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria,..
Not true. Irenaeous wrote "The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God” when Origen was only 4 years old. Hippolytus wrote "Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth" in 217.

(2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries AD. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman Empire, it was the de facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (this is known as theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore.
These are coincidences and nothing more. The literal interpretation of the last supper predated Constantine.

Church leaders after Constantine found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in the concept of the Lord’s Supper/Christian communion.
More speculation of motive.

Even before Constantine, some early Christians had begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood.
The two views are not in opposition.


The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass/Eucharist, complete.
More speculation as the origins of Catholic practices.

(3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primarily on one particular god or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints.
False. The saints were never viewed as comparable to God like the Roman gods were comparable to each other. This explanation from Got Questions has just jumped the shark.
 
The first century Christians of "the Way" did continuously become the Catholic Church. There is no recorded wide-spread rejection of the Catholic Church by the Christians of the the Way. If Christians of the Way were truly rejecting the Catholic Church as it emerged, there would be a lot more written evidence of that rejection by historians.
No because the RC did what others have done waited to they were strong enough to wipe out those they saw as enemies. Then they destroyed the written evidence where they could of the existence of others. Your institution shows by its false teachings and practices that it is not associated with the way.
 
No because the RC did what others have done waited to they were strong enough to wipe out those they saw as enemies. Then they destroyed the written evidence where they could of the existence of others.
It is laughable to assume the Catholic Church ever had the power to wipe out all written record of the supposedly "real Christians" who were there all along. At what year do you think the Church was powerful enough to conduct such a purge of information?
 
Yes.


That is a matter of interpretation.


The lack of mention of these things is not evidence that they are not true.


The role of Tradition (as distinct from mere practice) is not as something in conflict with Scripture but as something complementary to Scripture, so that taken together with Revelation they reveal the fullness of truth.


It is not a question of either/or but of both.


...which includes the time of Popes Linus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Telesphorus, Pius, Victor, Zephyrinus, Fabian, Cornelius, and others, which shows that the institution of the Church was well-established and visible to the world well before the year 253 AD, which was the last year of the pontificate of Pope Cornelius, which shows the Church already had its origin long before Constantine.


...which is exactly what is recorded in Catholic history.


The main issue of the Council of Nicea being to declare Arianism (the belief that Christ was inferior to God) to be a heresy, which was very important to the unity of Christianity, to be sure.


That is a matter of opinion. What is true is that many of pagan practices were modified and adopted, just as the gentile practices off not observing Jewish circumcision and dietary law was adopted to make Christianity more universal.


To the extent that pagan practices (not beliefs) were adopted, Constantine had limited power. He would be opposed, if necessary. The Church existed before without the good will of the secular leaders and she would do so again in times to come.


Total interpretive speculation.


The similarities are accidental and imperfect.



This was from Tradition of belief, and not from convenient adaptation as this suggests.


Pure speculation of motive that Got Questions would have no way of knowing, only assuming.


Repurposing of structures by new religions is common, as we see in the various used of Hagia Sophia over the years.


Not true. Irenaeous wrote "The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God” when Origen was only 4 years old. Hippolytus wrote "Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth" in 217.


These are coincidences and nothing more. The literal interpretation of the last supper predated Constantine.


More speculation of motive.


The two views are not in opposition.



More speculation as the origins of Catholic practices.


False. The saints were never viewed as comparable to God like the Roman gods were comparable to each other. This explanation from Got Questions has just jumped the shark.
You have provided nothing at all that supports the RCC's view of history and you have not debunked the post. I suggest you read post 40 and post 23. The St Thomas Christians are evidence of the RCs and how they destroyed other Christian religions. The Conversos are evidence of forced conversions and the evil of the RCC.

The apostles never once prayed to the dead, please provide some evidence for such. The lack of mention of things in scripture does not make it true either. There is no evidence to support your false practices.

Yep it is easy to make out things are speculation when you don't like what they say. It is typical RC justification of their false history, teachings and practices. Saying something is speculation is not evidence. By the way then we can also say and defend the true history by using your words - The lack of mention of these things is not evidence that they are not true.
 
It is laughable to assume the Catholic Church ever had the power to wipe out all written record of the supposedly "real Christians" who were there all along. At what year do you think the Church was powerful enough to conduct such a purge of information?
It is not laughable at all and it is what it did. So you are denying the evidence of the control and political power of the RCC. Really. I mean one pope had a king stand in the snow for 3 days. All winners had such power and that is an historical fact. That is where the saying history is written by the winners comes from.
 
Yep of course because you check them out and use bias RC sources. The truth is too hard for RCs to swallow. It is like they wash their hands of the inquisiton which their institution gave full approval to and the inquisitors were monks and priests.
Christianity has existed since the time of Jesus and the apostles. Scripture says:

Ephesians 1:17-23, "I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation as you come to know him, so that, with the eyes of your heart enlightened, you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance among the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power for us who believe, according to the working of his great power. God put this power to work in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come. And he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

It is hard to believe, when we read what Paul wrote here, that the church would be so easily overpowered by the forces of evil. The nCCs here have yet to give us an alterative history that shows the Christian faith dating back to the time of Jesus and the apostles. The nCCs have not history. They cannot give us the names, places, events.....from around the 4th century to the 15th century. There is a 1000 years were there is no history of Christianity. That cannot be.
 
Christianity has existed since the time of Jesus and the apostles. Scripture says:

Ephesians 1:17-23, "I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation as you come to know him, so that, with the eyes of your heart enlightened, you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance among the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power for us who believe, according to the working of his great power. God put this power to work in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come. And he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

It is hard to believe, when we read what Paul wrote here, that the church would be so easily overpowered by the forces of evil. The nCCs here have yet to give us an alterative history that shows the Christian faith dating back to the time of Jesus and the apostles. The nCCs have not history. They cannot give us the names, places, events.....from around the 4th century to the 15th century. There is a 1000 years were there is no history of Christianity. That cannot be.
Yep and we could debate whether you bad tree is Christian. Christian means follower of Jesus and your institution has failed to follow Jesus and His teachings.

Christian means you do not cover up evil, you do not turn your eyes and ears away from children's screams. Being Christian means you do not turn away from the screams of nuns being raped. Christian means you do not ignore sexual immorality. Christian means if you do turn away from those types of things you have become part of that sin. RCs have failed to give us evidence that their institution was ever known as the way. Those names and events have been given which prove that throughout the centuries your institution shows it has followed the Roman Emperors and lusted for power, every kind of power. Jesus had real power and never craved false human power.

Jesus would never destroy others which your institution has done throughout the centuries.

Jesus would have nothing to do with the bad tree which your institution's fruit clearly shows it is.

Why do RCs ignore verses like:

James 4:17 If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.

This verse is clear expose sin, if you do not do what is right and expose the sin then you have become part of that sin.

1 Cor 5:11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[a] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

This verse is clearly ignored by RCs when it comes to their leaders. Their leaders who have harmed the sheep and their leaders who covered up the sin.

1 Tim 3:1+

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? ...

Titus 1:7

For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain

These are the scriptural requirements for leaders and your leaders fail them. Please note the requirement that leaders must be above reproach, they must have self control. Things that are missing from RC leadership and it has been revealed by their cover ups.

There are so many verse that the RCC ignores eg the one to not communicate with the dead, do not bow before images these are just a few examples of verses ignored by RCs.

Amos 5:21 “I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me

Is a clear warning to all that God wants more than outward appearances, it is the heart that counts. The RCC heart has become contaminated throughout the centuries by its bad fruit. Rot contaminates the whole eventually, yeast contaminates the whole loaf.
 
Last edited:
Yes.


That is a matter of interpretation.


The lack of mention of these things is not evidence that they are not true.


The role of Tradition (as distinct from mere practice) is not as something in conflict with Scripture but as something complementary to Scripture, so that taken together with Revelation they reveal the fullness of truth.


It is not a question of either/or but of both.


...which includes the time of Popes Linus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Telesphorus, Pius, Victor, Zephyrinus, Fabian, Cornelius, and others, which shows that the institution of the Church was well-established and visible to the world well before the year 253 AD, which was the last year of the pontificate of Pope Cornelius, which shows the Church already had its origin long before Constantine.


...which is exactly what is recorded in Catholic history.


The main issue of the Council of Nicea being to declare Arianism (the belief that Christ was inferior to God) to be a heresy, which was very important to the unity of Christianity, to be sure.


That is a matter of opinion. What is true is that many of pagan practices were modified and adopted, just as the gentile practices off not observing Jewish circumcision and dietary law was adopted to make Christianity more universal.


To the extent that pagan practices (not beliefs) were adopted, Constantine had limited power. He would be opposed, if necessary. The Church existed before without the good will of the secular leaders and she would do so again in times to come.


Total interpretive speculation.


The similarities are accidental and imperfect.



This was from Tradition of belief, and not from convenient adaptation as this suggests.


Pure speculation of motive that Got Questions would have no way of knowing, only assuming.


Repurposing of structures by new religions is common, as we see in the various used of Hagia Sophia over the years.


Not true. Irenaeous wrote "The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God” when Origen was only 4 years old. Hippolytus wrote "Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth" in 217.


These are coincidences and nothing more. The literal interpretation of the last supper predated Constantine.


More speculation of motive.


The two views are not in opposition.



More speculation as the origins of Catholic practices.


False. The saints were never viewed as comparable to God like the Roman gods were comparable to each other. This explanation from Got Questions has just jumped the shark.
If that's it, you have just cemented for me what was written in the article.
 
Yep and we could debate whether you bad tree is Christian. Christian means follower of Jesus and your institution has failed to follow Jesus and His teachings.

Christian means you do not cover up evil, you do not turn your eyes and ears away from children's screams. Being Christian means you do not turn away from the screams of nuns being raped. Christian means you do not ignore sexual immorality. Christian means if you do turn away from those types of things you have become part of that sin. RCs have failed to give us evidence that their institution was ever known as the way. Those names and events have been given which prove that throughout the centuries your institution shows it has followed the Roman Emperors and lusted for power, every kind of power. Jesus had real power and never craved false human power.

Jesus would never destroy others which your institution has done throughout the centuries.

Jesus would have nothing to do with the bad tree which your institution's fruit clearly shows it is.

The only Christian institution that has stood the test of time and has endured from the very beginning until now, the only one that has a history is the Catholic church. If it were as evil as you make it out to be it would not have endured.
 
The thread is what we expect from nCCs.
Good. Because you do know this is the Roman thread? Where the rc denomination's belief's/practices/ doctrines etc. are challenged and discussed right?
Again, no refutation of the article posted in the thread. Hits to close to home? I know how you feel when the falsehoods taught by the rc's are exposed. I fought the truth for a long time too.
 
Good. Because you do know this is the Roman thread? Where the rc denomination's belief's/practices/ doctrines etc. are challenged and discussed right?
Again, no refutation of the article posted in the thread. Hits to close to home? I know how you feel when the falsehoods taught by the rc's are exposed. I fought the truth for a long time too.
No, it does not hit close to home. It is a joke to read those histories knowing that they are false.
 
The only Christian institution that has stood the test of time and has endured from the very beginning
That's what this thread is about. The origin of the rc denomination. You still have not refuted the article.
until now, the only one that has a history is the Catholic church.
Which the article proves is a corrupt denomination.
If it were as evil as you make it out to be it would not have endured.
Lots of things evil things have endured since the 'very beginning'. As the article shows, evil crept is the rc denomination from the beginning.

The Body of Christ, the Church (filled with true believers) has endured from the 'very beginning' as God said it would.
 
Back
Top