• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus, The Flavians and the Church that was born in Rome

Vee

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Some people think that Jesus was the founder of the Catholic Church, Peter was the first pope and that popes are God’s representatives on earth. The Bible, however, tells a different story.

To prove that the church was founded by Peter, Catholics have long pointed to Jesus’ words in Matt 16:18 “You are Peter, and on this rock-mass I will build my congregation.” Peter later identified Jesus as the figurative “stone”, rejected by men but “chosen, precious, with God” and as the “foundation cornerstone” on which a person could rest his faith (1 Pet. 2 4-6).

The apostle Peter features prominently in the Gospels. That doesn’t mean Jesus created the church and named Peter the leader. Although Peter was given great responsibility, nowhere in the Bible do we find him claiming to be the head of the congregation and making decisions for the disciples as a group. In his letter, he called himself “an apostle” and “an older man”—nothing more (1 Peter 1:1, 5:1).

Paul did warn that from within the congregation, men would rise who would “speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.” (Acts 20:30).

Shortly after the last of the apostles died, the official face of “Christianity” started to change, just as the Bible foretold (Matt. 13: 24-30, 37-43). Individuals began to gain more prominence. The Cambridge History of Christianity says: “Probably there was no single ‘monarchical’ bishop in Rome before the middle of the second century.”

Even if Peter did preach in Rome, there is no proof that he was head of the congregation there. Paul spent a long time preaching in Rome and he never once mentioned Peter in the 6 letters he wrote from the city. Around 30 years after Paul wrote his letters, the apostle John wrote three letters and the book of Revelation. Nowhere in these writings did John mention that the congregation in Rome was the most prominent one, nor did he refer to a leader of the church who held the supreme office of an alleged successor of Peter.

So, if the Catholic Church wasn’t founded by Jesus and led by Peter, where did it come from?

During his time on earth Jesus told his followers to “Go, … and make disciples of people of all the nations” (Matt. 28: 19,20). That’s what they did after his death: devote their lives to teach others, carrying the message of Christ throughout the earth (Matt. 24:14 reads “And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the earth for a witness to all the nations”).

From the beginning, groups of people started heading out to Syria, various parts of Palestine and then Europe and other places.

Back in Judea, there was already plenty of conflict between the ideas the followers of Christ were teaching and the local Jewish leaders, who never accepted Jesus as the messiah and refused to follow his teachings, holding on to the old traditions.
Despite the controversy, Christians kept preaching and the word continued spreading throughout the Roman Empire.

Now, let’s go back to Rome for a moment.

In 54 CE when Nero came to power, the empire was in bad shape and the Jews in Judea were staging a huge rebellion against the Roman oppression. The region of Judea, today’s Palestine (a place of conflict as far as history can tell) was under the ruling of the Herods, a family that implemented Roman orders and collected taxes for themselves and Rome. Besides being heavily taxed and being under the orders of a non-Jewish family, the Jews were further enraged by an order that a statue of the Caesar should be placed for worship in every temple. Polytheism was not accepted by the Jewish religion and they didn’t view the emperor as a god.

The people rebelled against Rome and the movement was able to defeat Rome militarily and set up a nation-state directly in the Roman Empire.

The Romans didn’t like being defeated. It wasn’t just a problem of ego. There was a real danger that this rebellion could spread to other parts of the empire. So they called their best military men to give a hand: the Flavians – the same guys who destroyed the druids in what is today’s Britain.

Nero asked general Vespasian and his son Titus to go to Judea with the roman army and crush the rebellion. They did a very thorough job that ended up with the complete destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

While the mission of destroying the rebellion was going on, in 68 AD the senate deposed Nero and he committed suicide. That left the coveted position of emperor available and Vespasian returned to the city and claimed the throne with the help of the army.

The Flavians thus became the imperial family but the empire was marked by power struggles, a bankrupt economy, religious conflicts and endless wars (any similarity with today’s situation might not be a coincidence).

Although the Romans had successfully ended the rebellion in Judea, another rebellion broke loose in Alexandria and the Christians were still preaching despite vicious persecution so things weren't going that well. The Flavians had to legitimate their dynasty and at the same time, find a way to counter the rebellions.

When Vespasian died, Titus was able to convince the senate to deify him – give him the title of god. This imperial cult, set up to worship Caesar as a god, was the perfect basis for the structure of what later became the Catholic Church. But how?

When the Christians started preaching in Rome they were not well received since their beliefs conflicted with local traditions and polytheism. As roman society became aware of this new religion, there was a lot of anxiety and rumors started spreading: Christians were accused of cannibalism, incest, eating babies, etc. They were also accused by the roman authorities of being atheists – meaning that they didn’t worship the same gods as the Romans - and hating the human race because they didn’t participate in the roman pagan celebrations.

For years, Christians were arrested, tortured and murdered in horrific ways. Ironically, the roman strategy only seemed to strengthen the Christians, that faithfully continued to spread the word of Jesus and that started to bear fruits since many people, attracted by the message of hope, started to convert.

In the third century there was a turning point. In 313, emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in the Roman Empire and gave legal privileges and immunity from military duty and taxes to the Christian clergy. (Constantine the Great and Christianity - Wikipedia)

Constantine believed that Christianity could solidify his empire and unite it under one religion. Thanks to his pro-Christian policies, many believers of the polytheistic religions streamed into the church. This tightened Constantine’s grip and at the same time eased the conflict and violence without further military intervention.

Those who had been polytheists looked as if they had converted, but it wasn’t easy for them to get rid of the religious rites and worshiping the sun, the moon, the stars and various gods and goddesses. The adaptation to a new culture was difficult and brought a new set of problems, so a number of adjustments were made.

The men that led the original bishop positions in the church in the early times were previous members of the pagan roman aristocracy. They went from being a priest of a pagan religion to being priest in the roman church. The title of the pagan chief of Rome, Pontiflex Maximus, became the title of the pope (Pontifex Maximus - New World Encyclopedia).

Many of the rituals, paraphernalia and rituals of the roman paganism were transferred to the church. Even the Basilica of St. Peter in the Vatican was built on top of a necropolis and in the area directly under the high altar, below the grottoes, the excavators found a structure resembling a temple that they named the aedicula (meaning little temple). (Christianized sites - Wikipedia) .

The encyclopedia Great Ages of Man states that because of this Church-State marriage, “by A.D. 385, only 80 years after the last great wave of persecution of Christians, the Church itself was beginning to execute heretics, and its clerics were wielding power almost equivalent to that of the emperors.” Thus began an era wherein the sword eclipsed persuasion as the means of conversion, and the titled, power-grasping clergy replaced the humble preachers of the first century.

I will follow this post with another one, about what happened the following centuries.


For more information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Catholic_Church
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/uk_1.shtml
https://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html
https://www.cambridge.org/core/series/cambridge-history-of-christianity/7B03B6D6CA1680C8B5624BE561EDEBCA
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011571?q=history+of+christianity&p=par
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavian_dynasty
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
You might appreciate the BAR article ...


... particularly:

Interestingly, the Bible says nothing about Peter ever traveling to Rome. When the gospels end, Peter is in Jerusalem. It’s the same in the Book of Acts. The apostle Paul, in his letters, also talks about meeting Peter in the eastern Mediterranean. After Jesus’ death, Paul says that Jesus’ brother, James, and Peter are the co-leaders of the “church,” or assembly, of Jesus-followers in Jerusalem. In short, there is no early textual evidence for Peter in Rome, so for some people, it’s very hard to believe that he ever traveled there. Not only is it a very long way, according to the New Testament, Peter was a fisherman who was not very educated and who spoke only Aramaic; he was not the type of person that might travel widely across the Roman Empire to a large city where Latin and Greek were the dominant languages. The absence of connection between Peter and Rome in the New Testament, the lack of references to him in our earliest Roman Christian literature, and what we know of Peter’s background and character all combine to make it unlikely, to my mind, that he ever went to Rome.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vee

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The absence of connection between Peter and Rome in the New Testament, the lack of references to him in our earliest Roman Christian literature, and what we know of Peter’s background and character all combine to make it unlikely, to my mind, that he ever went to Rome.
In the Greek N.T., in one of Peter's epistles, it has him saying that he was in "Babylonia", namely the feminine form of "Babylon". Why that may give the indication that he was there is that "Babylon the Great" was a cloaked reference to the Roman Empire whereas "Babylonia" would be a reference to the city of Rome.

Anyhow, the early church believed he was in Rome (it shows up in one of Clement's letters at the very beginning of the 2nd century) upon his death, and even many, if not most, Protestant theologians tend to agree with that being probable.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
It is certainy possible that Peter did end up in Rome. But there is no evidence that he ever lead the Church there.
He might have been a reveared elder and figure head by that time, rather than one capable of leading anything.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
To prove that the church was founded by Peter, Catholics have long pointed to Jesus’ words in Matt 16:18 “You are Peter, and on this rock-mass I will build my congregation.”
Jesus changed Peter's name from "Simon" to "Peter", right? There a semantics problem though because Greek is not gender-neutral, so the text above shows up as "Petros" and "petra", which look different but in reality aren't. Since Jesus and the others spoke Aramaic, the word for both is exactly the same: "cephas" (the "ch" is pronounced in the back of the throat, so one may see it as "kephas").

Although Peter was given great responsibility, nowhere in the Bible do we find him claiming to be the head of the congregation and making decisions for the disciples as a group.
It was done in retrospect, much like Moses was declared a prophet in retrospect.

Also, in the N.T., when you see multiple apostles being named, Peter's name is almost always first, and sometimes it just says "Peter and the others". Also, it was Jesus who privately told Peter to "feed my sheep".

Even if Peter did preach in Rome, there is no proof that he was head of the congregation there.
In Ignatius' letter to Clement, he said that the church of Rome had a special designation as being the place of the martyrdom of Paul and Peter.

Despite the controversy, Christians kept preaching and the word continued spreading throughout the Roman Empire.
And which "Christians" were these? Source please? And which church chose the canon you use?

If you want to pursue this further, let's agree upon a neutral source, ok, and Wikipedia is one of them I'd recommend. With that, let me link you to this and let's see what you think: Apostolic succession - Wikipedia
 

Vee

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If you want to pursue this further, let's agree upon a neutral source, ok, and Wikipedia is one of them I'd recommend. With that, let me link you to this and let's see what you think: Apostolic succession - Wikipedia


I like wikipedia and use it frequently but I couldn't find proof that Peter founded the catholic church, other than what the church says, which I have no good reason to believe. I couldn't even find enough to know for sure if Peter was ever in Rome or not.

A lot of religions claim apostolic succession and they are entitled to claim whatever they want, but when I look at how they behaved throughout history, I see very little of Christ's qualities in their teachings and specially their behavior. In John 13: 34,35 Jesus identifies true Christians like this: “I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” Unfortunately those so called christian religions don't even like each other, as we well know from historical records. So much for following Jesus...
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I like wikipedia and use it frequently but I couldn't find proof that Peter founded the catholic church, other than what the church says, which I have no good reason to believe.
Peter was the "spiritual" head of the early church after Jesus and God, of course, and I showed you where that's found.

I couldn't even find enough to know for sure if Peter was ever in Rome or not.
That also was explained to you, and it's found in one of Peter's letters. You might want to check this out: Saint Peter - Wikipedia

A lot of religions claim apostolic succession and they are entitled to claim whatever they want, but when I look at how they behaved throughout history, I see very little of Christ's qualities in their teachings and specially their behavior.
That's a smokescreen as no person nor any religious body has any monopoly on honesty and truth, and that not only includes the CC but also the JW's. Nor did it include even the apostles themselves. So, please stick to the topic instead of going off on a tangent.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Some people think that Jesus was the founder of the Catholic Church, Peter was the first pope and that popes are God’s representatives on earth. The Bible, however, tells a different story.

To prove that the church was founded by Peter, Catholics have long pointed to Jesus’ words in Matt 16:18 “You are Peter, and on this rock-mass I will build my congregation.” Peter later identified Jesus as the figurative “stone”, rejected by men but “chosen, precious, with God” and as the “foundation cornerstone” on which a person could rest his faith (1 Pet. 2 4-6).

The apostle Peter features prominently in the Gospels. That doesn’t mean Jesus created the church and named Peter the leader. Although Peter was given great responsibility, nowhere in the Bible do we find him claiming to be the head of the congregation and making decisions for the disciples as a group. In his letter, he called himself “an apostle” and “an older man”—nothing more (1 Peter 1:1, 5:1).

Paul did warn that from within the congregation, men would rise who would “speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.” (Acts 20:30).

Shortly after the last of the apostles died, the official face of “Christianity” started to change, just as the Bible foretold (Matt. 13: 24-30, 37-43). Individuals began to gain more prominence. The Cambridge History of Christianity says: “Probably there was no single ‘monarchical’ bishop in Rome before the middle of the second century.”

Even if Peter did preach in Rome, there is no proof that he was head of the congregation there. Paul spent a long time preaching in Rome and he never once mentioned Peter in the 6 letters he wrote from the city. Around 30 years after Paul wrote his letters, the apostle John wrote three letters and the book of Revelation. Nowhere in these writings did John mention that the congregation in Rome was the most prominent one, nor did he refer to a leader of the church who held the supreme office of an alleged successor of Peter.

So, if the Catholic Church wasn’t founded by Jesus and led by Peter, where did it come from?

During his time on earth Jesus told his followers to “Go, … and make disciples of people of all the nations” (Matt. 28: 19,20). That’s what they did after his death: devote their lives to teach others, carrying the message of Christ throughout the earth (Matt. 24:14 reads “And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the earth for a witness to all the nations”).

From the beginning, groups of people started heading out to Syria, various parts of Palestine and then Europe and other places.

Back in Judea, there was already plenty of conflict between the ideas the followers of Christ were teaching and the local Jewish leaders, who never accepted Jesus as the messiah and refused to follow his teachings, holding on to the old traditions. Despite the controversy, Christians kept preaching and the word continued spreading throughout the Roman Empire.

Now, let’s go back to Rome for a moment.

In 54 CE when Nero came to power, the empire was in bad shape and the Jews in Judea were staging a huge rebellion against the Roman oppression. The region of Judea, today’s Palestine (a place of conflict as far as history can tell) was under the ruling of the Herods, a family that implemented Roman orders and collected taxes for themselves and Rome. Besides being heavily taxed and being under the orders of a non-Jewish family, the Jews were further enraged by an order that a statue of the Caesar should be placed for worship in every temple. Polytheism was not accepted by the Jewish religion and they didn’t view the emperor as a god.

The people rebelled against Rome and the movement was able to defeat Rome militarily and set up a nation-state directly in the Roman Empire.

The Romans didn’t like being defeated. It wasn’t just a problem of ego. There was a real danger that this rebellion could spread to other parts of the empire. So they called their best military men to give a hand: the Flavians – the same guys who destroyed the druids in what is today’s Britain.

Nero asked general Vespasian and his son Titus to go to Judea with the roman army and crush the rebellion. They did a very thorough job that ended up with the complete destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

While the mission of destroying the rebellion was going on, in 68 AD the senate deposed Nero and he committed suicide. That left the coveted position of emperor available and Vespasian returned to the city and claimed the throne with the help of the army.

The Flavians thus became the imperial family but the empire was marked by power struggles, a bankrupt economy, religious conflicts and endless wars (any similarity with today’s situation might not be a coincidence).

Although the Romans had successfully ended the rebellion in Judea, another rebellion broke loose in Alexandria and the Christians were still preaching despite vicious persecution so things weren't going that well. The Flavians had to legitimate their dynasty and at the same time, find a way to counter the rebellions.

When Vespasian died, Titus was able to convince the senate to deify him – give him the title of god. This imperial cult, set up to worship Caesar as a god, was the perfect basis for the structure of what later became the Catholic Church. But how?

When the Christians started preaching in Rome they were not well received since their beliefs conflicted with local traditions and polytheism. As roman society became aware of this new religion, there was a lot of anxiety and rumors started spreading: Christians were accused of cannibalism, incest, eating babies, etc. They were also accused by the roman authorities of being atheists – meaning that they didn’t worship the same gods as the Romans - and hating the human race because they didn’t participate in the roman pagan celebrations.

For years, Christians were arrested, tortured and murdered in horrific ways. Ironically, the roman strategy only seemed to strengthen the Christians, that faithfully continued to spread the word of Jesus and that started to bear fruits since many people, attracted by the message of hope, started to convert.

In the third century there was a turning point. In 313, emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in the Roman Empire and gave legal privileges and immunity from military duty and taxes to the Christian clergy. (Constantine the Great and Christianity - Wikipedia)

Constantine believed that Christianity could solidify his empire and unite it under one religion. Thanks to his pro-Christian policies, many believers of the polytheistic religions streamed into the church. This tightened Constantine’s grip and at the same time eased the conflict and violence without further military intervention.

Those who had been polytheists looked as if they had converted, but it wasn’t easy for them to get rid of the religious rites and worshiping the sun, the moon, the stars and various gods and goddesses. The adaptation to a new culture was difficult and brought a new set of problems, so a number of adjustments were made.

The men that led the original bishop positions in the church in the early times were previous members of the pagan roman aristocracy. They went from being a priest of a pagan religion to being priest in the roman church. The title of the pagan chief of Rome, Pontiflex Maximus, became the title of the pope (Pontifex Maximus - New World Encyclopedia).

Many of the rituals, paraphernalia and rituals of the roman paganism were transferred to the church. Even the Basilica of St. Peter in the Vatican was built on top of a necropolis and in the area directly under the high altar, below the grottoes, the excavators found a structure resembling a temple that they named the aedicula (meaning little temple). (Christianized sites - Wikipedia) .

The encyclopedia Great Ages of Man states that because of this Church-State marriage, “by A.D. 385, only 80 years after the last great wave of persecution of Christians, the Church itself was beginning to execute heretics, and its clerics were wielding power almost equivalent to that of the emperors.” Thus began an era wherein the sword eclipsed persuasion as the means of conversion, and the titled, power-grasping clergy replaced the humble preachers of the first century.

I will follow this post with another one, about what happened the following centuries.


For more information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Catholic_Church
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/uk_1.shtml
https://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html
https://www.cambridge.org/core/series/cambridge-history-of-christianity/7B03B6D6CA1680C8B5624BE561EDEBCA
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011571?q=history+of+christianity&p=par
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavian_dynasty

To me this is just funny.

If the ancient Roman Catholic Church is not the first church of Jesus, - then it, and ALL the churches that later broke from it, are not churches of Jesus.

Which would then correctly leave us with Jesus' religion - which was Judaism. One God, - no trinity, no virgin birth, etc.

*
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
If the ancient Roman Catholic Church is not the first church of Jesus,
First of all, it wasn't the "Roman Catholic Church" back then, nor even the "Catholic Church". The closest to a label was "the Way". However, other labels were attached to it during the 2nd century, such as "Christian" and "Catholic", with the latter being more prominently used in the latter part of that century. "Roman Catholic Church" was not used until much later in time whereas the distant churches in Asia and sub-Sahara Africa chose to reunite with the CC but were allowed to keep many of their own rites.

and ALL the churches that later broke from it, are not churches of Jesus.
Some Protestants might disagree with that.

Which would then correctly leave us with Jesus' religion - which was Judaism.
Except it wasn't even called "Judaism" back then, but there's no doubt that Jesus was working from that general paradigm at first, but then was made to feel quite unwelcome because of not adhering to all of Jewish Law. Once gentiles gradually became the majority after 70 c.e., the church pretty much developed its own "personality" to a large extent.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
First of all, it wasn't the "Roman Catholic Church" back then, nor even the "Catholic Church". The closest to a label was "the Way". However, other labels were attached to it during the 2nd century, such as "Christian" and "Catholic", with the latter being more prominently used in the latter part of that century. "Roman Catholic Church" was not used until much later in time whereas the distant churches in Asia and sub-Sahara Africa chose to reunite with the CC but were allowed to keep many of their own rites.

You are being ingenuous here. You know what is meant. The Catholic is the oldest Christian church that we can trace. ALL of the other Christian churches broke off from it.

Some Protestants might disagree with that.

You are going to try and tell us the Protestants did not break from the Catholic church?

"Protestantism originated from work of several theologians starting in the 12th century, although there could have been earlier cases of which there is no surviving evidence.

Any dissent was a subject to persecution by the Roman Catholic Church, and thus attempts to change anything in the Catholic Church were kept isolated or effectively eradicated up to the 16th century. One of the early Protestant Reformers was John Wycliffe, an English theologian and early proponent of reform in the 14th century." History of Protestantism - Wikipedia

Wycliffe was a Catholic theologian.

Except it wasn't even called "Judaism" back then, but there's no doubt that Jesus was working from that general paradigm at first, but then was made to feel quite unwelcome because of not adhering to all of Jewish Law. Once gentiles gradually became the majority after 70 c.e., the church pretty much developed its own "personality" to a large extent.

You know perfectly well that Jesus was a Jewish, and taught Tanakh. He taught ONE God - not trinity. The church that formed after his death is not his religion.

"The Hebrews and Israelites were already referred to as "Jews" in later books of the Tanakh such as the Book of Esther, with the term Jews replacing the title "Children of Israel".[19] Judaism - Wikipedia

Around the 4th century BCE. And of course it's source is Yehudah, "Judah," Judaism.

So, it was called such way before Jesus' time.

*
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
You are being ingenuous here. You know what is meant. The Catholic is the oldest Christian church that we can trace. ALL of the other Christian churches broke off from it.



You are going to try and tell us the Protestants did not break from the Catholic church?

"Protestantism originated from work of several theologians starting in the 12th century, although there could have been earlier cases of which there is no surviving evidence.

Any dissent was a subject to persecution by the Roman Catholic Church, and thus attempts to change anything in the Catholic Church were kept isolated or effectively eradicated up to the 16th century. One of the early Protestant Reformers was John Wycliffe, an English theologian and early proponent of reform in the 14th century." History of Protestantism - Wikipedia

Wycliffe was a Catholic theologian.



You know perfectly well that Jesus was a Jewish, and taught Tanakh. He taught ONE God - not trinity. The church that formed after his death is not his religion.

"The Hebrews and Israelites were already referred to as "Jews" in later books of the Tanakh such as the Book of Esther, with the term Jews replacing the title "Children of Israel".[19] Judaism - Wikipedia

Around the 4th century BCE. And of course it's source is Yehudah, "Judah," Judaism.

So, it was called such way before Jesus' time.

*
Since you are not interpreting what I wrote even close to being correctly done, I'm not even going to respond to the above. Maybe read what I wrote c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y next time. You have me saying or imply things that I didn't say or imply.
 
Top