English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

There were solid churches all over the empire and beyond. So even if there was a Pope and center of Christianity (neither of which is taught in New Testament anywhere) why this particular geographical location.

Peter preached to the Jews in Palestine.
Paul did not come there until 60 A.D. and only then under arrest.
The Jewish Elders of the city in 60 A.D. had not heard the whole story about Christianity - which proves by itself that Peter was never there before 60 A.D. and certainly did not preach and perform miracles there for 25 years.

The other churches were older, larger, and had Apostles coming and going in them.

Emperor Constantine did not convene the official first meeting of his Catholic Church in Rome.
The Roman Bishop did not attend in 325 A.D.
He is not referred to or deferred to in any documents from that time whatsoever.

By the way, what was the Eastern Empire Emperor doing presiding a meeting if the Pope's office existed and was acknowledged?

2007-11-29 13:29:07 · 11 answers · asked by realchurchhistorian 4 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

11 answers

Quite simple actually.

Rome was the leader of the world back then. Constantine (Roman emperor in the 4th century) felt a need to be somewhat religious, so he took christianity, and mingled it with some of his pagan beliefs, and voilà! The roman catholic church!

Prior to that, there was rampant religious persecution, mainly at the hands of the Romans.

2007-11-29 23:25:29 · answer #1 · answered by timbers 5 · 10 0

I have been researching some of these points recently, and while not fully prepared to answer, I do have a comment. As Jesus said, "You are Peter meaning "the rock" and upon this I will found my Church". However this has been misinterpreted to mean the Church was founded on Peter the man, when it was really Peter's solid-as-a-rock FAITH it was founded upon. With this misinterpretation, the Papacy was started and because Rome was a larger city with more people and political power, it and they, had the upper hand and control. There was a force working to bring in the Western world to become even bigger. The Eastern worlds (cities) would not conform to the new Rule and changes that brought about heresy and corruption and therefore maintained their Orthodox worship by remaining separate. Since the beginnings, it seems the Church has been increasingly going down in more heresy and corruption while Orthodoxy has remained unchanged and faithful to the Divine Liturgy as handed down by Jesus and the Apostles. By declaring Rome a more important and holy city because of the "size", it really is not a spiritual decision/reason as though I could be more religious or holy because I live in a house and my neighbor is less holy because they live in an apartment - haha!!

2007-11-29 15:02:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Rebecca W, Peter wasn't even buried in Rome. Even the vatican knows this but still denies it.

Constantine is the first pope of mama. The rest were made up as a cover up. Constantine saw the fall of Rome and made up mama to take over where Rome failed. Constantine tried to mix worshiping baal and Christ into one religion.

In 1963, "Peter's tomb recently discovered in Jerusalem " P3 published by F. Paul Peterson, Ft Wayne IN. I don't know if the book is in print anymore. Where an article on this can be found at; nor do I know if the publishier still even exist.

The only catch to this is, you can't take the Bible and prove it. On the other hand, other than the vatican, no one else claims Peter was buried in Rome. Yet, most people agree, Peter was not buried in Rome.

2007-11-29 14:57:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Peter was not a pope. You are correct in saying the bible does not teach about popes. Study church history and you find the first pope did not appear until in the 600's sometime. BB

2007-11-29 13:40:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

i think you should start reading ur bible. No where in the bible says peter was a pope, as far as i know he was Jesus's disciple. you're only referring to roman catholic history.

2007-11-29 17:47:34 · answer #5 · answered by imacircle 2 · 0 0

Peter, Jesus' disciple, was not a pope~ Somebody needs to get their head out of the clouds~

2007-11-29 14:46:40 · answer #6 · answered by Jesus Loves Connie 3 · 1 0

I am not quite familiar with that part of history, but I think in ancient Europe, religions had a lot of things to do with political power. Religions were used as a weapen to rule the people and attack neighboring countries.

2007-11-29 13:35:22 · answer #7 · answered by Gone 4 · 1 1

Rome was powerful and those that wanted to spread Christianity used Rome's power and reach across the known world to spread the word.

2007-11-29 13:33:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

I'm not Catholic, but I was told that they picked Rome because that is where Peter was buried.

2007-11-29 13:34:15 · answer #9 · answered by SFECU12 5 · 0 3

Amen!

2007-11-29 13:56:02 · answer #10 · answered by Halfadan 4 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers