Can you prove from history that the Catholic Church did not exist until the 4th century?

Question

The book of Acts and the entire writings of the Church fathers attest to the veracity of the Catholic Church. Now is your chance to prove the Bible and fathers wrong.

Be carefull - I am a early Church historian and former professor who learned history from Protestant Seminaries and study. I am not easily fooled by fanciful historical nonsense that is so common by those hating Christ's Church. I will give a best answer to anyone that can prove from history that the Catholic Church today is not the same Church as the Church of Acts and tell me who that Church was that Jesus said would endure until the Parousia. If there was no such Church then He must have lied. Prove that He did.

Nacsez,

No, the Catholic Church was founded at Pentecost by the apostles after being instructed to do so by Christ. Constantine only made the Church legal in the Roman empire and stopped the persecution by the state of Christians.

Oh, one other thing Nacsez, the Canon of Scriptures were not canonized until after the African Synods in the late fourth and early fifth centuries.

Forever S- So you believe that His Church is man made. You are correct and His name is Jesus, the founder of the Catholic Church.

Blessing,

Really, you missed the part in Scriptures about the Council of Jerusalem. the Churches you speak of were different congregations of the one true Church the Catholic church. Prove that they were not from history.

Edge,
You know that I respect you but I am not asking for opinions but for proof that there was any other Church but the Catholic Church created by Jesus and the apostles.

Tricia R,

I believe that my PhD in religious studies is as legitimate as any and comes from Duke University. Your version of history is the nonsense I spoke of, I am asking for a specific time in history, the first century. Was there any other Church created by Christ other than the Catholic Church? If your contention is that He did not create a Church simply prove it. With your legitimate MA that should be easy. Prove that you are not as ignorant as you appear.

Bible Believer,

Sure but the real question is can you and what do they have to do with the question asked? Want to take a shot at proving there is another Church created by Jesus and the disciples.

Edge,

Thanks, but if the Church that was started by Christ is not the same Church where is the enduring Church that Christ promised? I want to worship there and be in God's will. After all He prayed in the garden that we all be one. How can we be in His will if we do not even know where this Church is located.

Sgt. Slaughter,

All you have to do is back up your opinion with facts in history.

Isolde,

So you are admitting that the Catholic Church is the Church created by Christ and the apostles but that it fell into apostasy in the fourth century. Does that not make Christ a liar and in the least incompetent in not creating the Church that He said would not fall into apostasy. Remember He said that the gates of hell would NOT prevail against His Church but you believe it did.

Tcjstn,

Thank you for your response. So we can say that you can find no proof that Jesus and the apostles founded any church other than the Catholic Church. I found it interesting that you justify not worshiping in His Church by changing the meaning of the biblical Church to just any body of believers. I can agree to a point that any church or ecclesiastical group who professes Christ has some truth but that they do not belong to the one, holy, apostolic and Catholic Church spoken about in Christ's promises and who can claim to be the "bulwark and ground of the truth".

Lone Ranger,

Since you took time out to attack Christ's Church , perhaps you could take a little time to address the question being asked. But, I think you already have by your silence, there is no proof because the Catholic Church is Christ's Church.

Tricia R,

No , I did not miss my classes in early Church history. It is interesting that you mention UNC, I taught early Church history at their Charlotte campus for two years. It is a fairly good school for one with a secular agenda. I also taught at the University of the Philippines in the seminary for about 8 years.

Answer 1

I admire your patience as well as your scholarship, Fr. Joseph.

No, I can't prove that the Church wasn't in existence through the first 29 papacies to get us from Pentecost to the 4th century. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Those who attack the only Church that can demonstrate historical continuity with the Apostles seem to know very little Bible and almost no history. For example, they have trouble distinguishing Constantine, a Roman emperor who did not even become a Catholic until on his deathbed, from a Church leader in apostolic succession.

Many, like Edge. will try to resolve the issue by imagining the Church to be all Christians, even though all Christians do not accept the leaders, membership requirements, doctrines, or sacraments of the Church.

The Church is an actual human organization, the oldest such organization on the planet. There is a CEO, a hierarchy of leaders, a body of Church law, a rich history of scholars and saints, and sacraments for baptism, confirmation, forgiving sin, receiving the body and blood of Christ, matrimony, holy orders, and anointing of the sick.

Many Christians do not belong to the Church. Given their recency as a religious congregation, their poverty in sacraments, and their limited knowledge of the faith, you have to feel a bit sorry for them.

If they continue to take your good instruction in Y!A, Fr. Joseph, they will learn more. But if they denigrate the truth like the boys who mocked Elijah, they may be eaten by the bears, like many Episcopalians of late.

Cheers,
Bruce

Answer 2

You cant,the Catholic Church is directly descended from the Apostle Peter.Their were many offshoots so to speak,as traditions in each place of worship after Christs death,and Resurrection,Thats where the letters of Paul to the Corinthians,and Smyrna and elsewhere came into play as to bring the different traditions back into the fold,in the beginning to bring the Church,back to one idea and tradition.Back to the teachings of Christ through Peter,the Rock of Jesus' Church.

Answer 3

Actually I would agree totally that the universal church has existed since the day of Pentecost. I tend to mark this as the beginning of the church age. This universal church is the church that all Christians belong to. It is made up of Christians from every denomination. However where you and I diverge is that I do not believe that this church is the Roman Catholic Church. I believe the Christians in the RCC are members of the universal church the same as all Christians are. This universal church will always endure. However as much as you would like it to be this universal church to be the RCC I believe you are wrong. I am a Pentecostal and I am just as much a member of this universal church as you are. It is clear that all Christians make up the church and that this church is not a denomination.

EDIT: Yes I am giving some opinion but I am also agreeing with you. Jesus created a catholic (universal) church. However that church is not the RCC. As much as you would like to believe it many of the beliefs of the RCC did not exist then. There was no such thing as a pope and thus no idea of papal infallibility. There was no assumption of Mary. Communion was not the big religious ceremony it is today. It was coming together and breaking bread and remembering Jesus. There was no rule stating that the leaders in the church could not marry. Peter was married. I really truly believe if you showed one of the apostles the RCC he would not know where many of the ideas come from.

Answer 4

Whats the use of debating you? You will accept no history except that which has been approved by the Catholic Church, you have a closed mind to the truth, and since you as a Catholic will not accept scriptures as proof of the true identity of the Catholic Church, there is really no way that I see you will accept an answer not based on your own dogma. Who really cares how "Piled Higher and Deeper " your education in Catholic history is? You are still decieved. There is no way the Catholic Church fits the description in scripture of the True Chrurch of God, indeed it is clearly identified by the Bible as the anti-christ church........OH! I'm sorry,again, I forgot you Catholics do not accept scripture as proof of anything! But, because of your attitude and with your garbage in boasting about how "learned" you are, I will post just a few of the scriptures for others to decide for themselves.

Go ahead, report me. It is what I would expect from you.

1 John 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a LIAR, and the truth is not in him.

The Catholic Church is the orignator of the doctrine that the Commandments of God were not as important as the tradition of men. The Cathoic Church, by it's own authority, has changed the Biblical 7th Day Sabbath ordained by God to the pagan sun-worship day of Sunday. Don't take my word for it, here is the plain truth from a Catholic: http://www.cbcg.org/franklin/romes_challenge.pdf

And that was just the beginning of the Catholic assult on the Church of God!
The book of Daniel clearly warns of the apostate religion:

Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High (Think how many people the Catholic church has killed trying to force conversion on them!) , and think to change times and laws: (Sabbath to Sunday, Christmas and Easter {Saturnalia and Astarte worship} for the Biblical Holy Days of Passover, Days of Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, Feast of Trumpets, Feast of Tabernacles, and the Last Great Day....Holy Days the Messiah clearly kept in the scriptures.) and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

How about you showing how the Catholic Church fits the following description of the True Church of God at the end of this age? And do it from SCRIPTURE, without falling back on the old Catholic crutch that "Peter was the first pope" (Which is another falsehood that you preach).

Revelations 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Revelations 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Revelations 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

To learn the real truth behind Roman Catholicism, fo all who really care:

http://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/default.htm

Answer 5

So here's the deal. I see allot of responses, and some of them are true, and some of them are false. This is what the Bible says about the Church of the Living God.

First: Romans says let God be true and everyman a liar. So when we are worshiping in spirit and in truth as the Bible says, we know that we are relying on God to provide us with the Truth. In that light IF a church, ANY church is not worshiping and working according to what the Bible says to do, it is NOT a Church of the Living God.
To sum it up: Church must be Biblical.
Secondly- The name Catholic is just a term. In fact, every term out there for a denomination is just a further fractioning of the already fractured Church today. It makes it much harder for the true Church to function when you have so many differing views of doctrine. So, at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, to end the suffering of the Church and the persecutions of Christians, the doctrine established in Acts was changed under careful control of Constantine. The Council was politically motivated then, and the Catholic Church has been politically motivated since. Remember, the Catholic Church is just a denomination of Christians as a whole.
To sum it up: The "Catholic" Church changed doctrine, and therefore is not worshiping in spirit and truth.
Third and final-Paul says that the true Church is the compilation of believers, or the Body of Christ. So whether or not the catholic, presbyterian, methodist, Assemblies of God, Christian Church, protestant and the many other denominations of the Faith exist, it all matters whether or not they are doing one thing-are they worshiping and following the commandments of the Bible, in spirit and in truth?
As we all know, the Catholic Church has done some terrible things, and proclaimed many things that are not biblical. So has many other denominations. I can prove that the Church started on the day of Pentecost, in the upper room. Anyone who has followed the Apostles Doctrine since then is part of the Body of Christ, and the True Church. Just because they don't put the title of Catholic (man made term) over their heads does not mean they are not part of the true Church. It isn't buildings. It's the people.

EDIT: So is your point that you want to name the Church Catholic? I'll agree with you, but I won't agree with what the Catholic Church has done with it's power in the past. While I can prove that Peter was not the Bishop of Roms, James was, and I can prove that Catholic was not coined until the 3rd Century and is NOT in the Bible, I cannot prove what the Church was named at the day of Pentacost. What I do know is that Paul stated very clearly that the Body of Christ is the Church, and that Body is fitly framed together. While I have never seen, even in the Apocrypha the Catholic Church mentioned, I will concede that it is a possibility that Peter and the Apostles came up with this term while having a meeting one day. The Bible says that it is never the title or faction of one man or woman that makes him part of the Church or Body of Christ-that's proven in Acts 19. They were baptized in John's baptism. Paul re baptized them. Why? They were not of Christ. They were not following the Apostles doctrine, as laid down by Christ. I don't care if you have a direct phone line to God Himself. You are NOT a Church if you do not worship in spirit and Truth of the Word of God. If the Catholic Church has not corrected their breaking of Apostolic Doctrine, they are NOT the Church of the Living God. I don't care about history, neither does God. He cares about His Children, and whether or not they are following Him out of love and respect, not fear as the Catholic breed quite often. It has to be truth of the Word, not the title of the Church.

Answer 6

Catholic mean universal. There was in the beginning one universal church. The Bishop of Rome was one of many bishops of the early church. His status was higher because of the size and influence of the city.

The first clear instance of the church in Rome asserting its primacy was around 180 AD.

After the imperial capital was moved to Constantinople in AD 330 the eastern churches, especially the Bishop of Constantinople, started to assert pre-eminence by virtue of its imperial status.

The First Council of Constantinople (AD 381) suggested strongly that Roman primacy was already asserted. Because of the controversy over this claim, the pope did not personally attend this ecumenical council, which was held in the eastern capital of the Roman empire, rather than at Rome.

It was not until 440 that Leo the Great more clearly articulated the extension of papal authority as doctrine, promulgating in edicts and in councils his right to exercise "the full range of apostolic powers that Jesus had first bestowed on the apostle Peter". It was at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 that Leo I stated that he was "speaking with the voice of Peter". At this same council, the Bishop of Constantinople was given a primacy of honour equal to that of the Bishop of Rome, because "Constantinople is the New Rome."

The apostasy of the church from the teachings of Christ may be traced its immergence as a political political organization.

Answer 7

As an early church historian you already know that catholic means universal and that the Romans had, for centuries prior to the time of Christ, always sanctioned a state religion that was the Roman Catholic Church, or hagia in Greek. Each incarnation blended elements from strong religious movements prevalent at the time. As such, it is a political expedient, rather than a valid spiritual force.

You should also know that there were several expressions of the teachings of Jesus in the 1st and 2nd centuries incorporated in the early churches. Perhaps a reading of James is in order here.

After the 2nd century the Pauline manifestation was dominant, but by no means embraced by all. There is a warning about his false views in The Revelation. As you know from your studies, the author, writing in error ridden Greek, reveals himself to be a probable native speaker of Aramaic or Hebrew. Numerology is a constant Biblical theme and should be applied in a proper Hebrew context in dealing with the famous 666 passage. As you know from your studies of Hebrew, there are no vowels and w is the letter that stands in for vowels when needed, like at the end of words that end in vowels. You also already know that each letter in the Hebrew alphabet has a corresponding number equivalent.

Now, the passage says that 666 stands for a man, and that wise persons should be able to figure out who. 666 would be constructed as 400 + 200 + 60 + 6 in Hebrew. Substituting the corresponding letters you get T R S W. The first vowel is unneccessary, and the W would stand in for O, so the word is TARSO, a name in use still as a variant of TARSUS. So the man referred to is Paul of Tarsus, and none other.

So one has to delete the nonsense that fills most of the NT, as it was written by Paul or his functionaries, including Luke,author of Acts, who did not know Jesus but was the son of Simon, the apostle. Acts, thus, cannot be cited as a support for your claim. That leaves us with only Mathew as a guide to the church that Jesus envisioned. It's very different from any Christian Church now in existance.

Some say that such a church would be Jewish, but with the precedent of the woman at the well and his directive to the apostles to carry his message to the nations of the Earth, the meaning of Jesus' is made available to all. Paul and his minions like Luke are irrelevant.

I have been reviled by "Christians" for making these rather inconvenient points but so far none has been able to refute it except on emotional or "personal faith" grounds, or by citing biblical passages attributable, directly or indirectly to Paul, rather than with the words of Jesus. I think we should go by what Jesus said in the flesh, as reported by an eye witness, and dismiss the rest as heresy, don't you?

As proof, I offer the response of tcj.. below, who even finds it necessary to resort to name calling. Nero is the most often cited reference for the 666 designation but if anyone has ever tried to track down why, they find a very convoluted argument involving multiple ancient calendars and little to no internal biblical reference. God did keep his word intact by keeping the 666 reference to Paul intact as a way of telling those "with the ears to hear and the eyes to see" to heed Jesus and Jesus alone, not another. There is no Biblical statement anywhere that asserts that the Bible is exactly as God intended it, and it has undergone many, many revisions, especially in the early christian years.

Answer 8

The Jerusalem church was the first church. Quite probably there were churches in Samaria, Syria and Egypt before in Rome, due to those (likely) coming into contact with evangelists earlier. Peter probably was leader of the Rome church when he finally undertook missions outside Judeae, but that wasn't until the 50s, I think. Paul did not submit his doctrine to Rome for approval, he got it from the Holy Spirit !

Answer 9

I don't have to be careful. I have a legitimate MA in Religious Studies. Your early Church historian and former professor who leaned history from Protestant Seminaries and study - are pathetic.

Did you not or did your valued professor not go back into time from the early cultures of Samaria and Egypt? Did he not go into the ages prior to those cultures? You are so wrong you should hang your head in shame. JC never started any churches or any movements. It is dubious that he actually had followers who were anything more than illiterate if he had any at all. Most of the writings have been proven to be spurious at best if not forged by scribes who themselves were illiterate Monks.

You best get yourself back into a school that teaches the truth not some zealot ignorant so called professor. I hang my head in shame for you.

I will say it again. JC DID NOT create the Catholic Church. Not in the first century not in the second century. Men created the church. Re do your PhD my friend. You do not have clear facts. Chapel Hill has some very good course work on the Bible. You might also want to try taking some courses in Ancient Mesopotamia and the History of Early Christianity. Apparently you must have missed them. You also might want to read some philosophy in the West.

Answer 10

I'm not so sure that you can, because the Catholic Church is the original. No, its not perfect, its got people running things down here on earth, but it could always be much, much worse.