Was the Church of Rome really the first Church?

[Universalist Catholic]

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

1 Timothy 3:15
15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Matthew 16:19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Catholics use this passage to claim that Peter was the first Pope of Rome.  But according to the scriptures, there is no mention of Peter in Rome.  Is there?

So the Catholic Church believes that they are free from error, and that the condemnation of UR in the 500's I believe? was correct.


Then the protestant Churches seemed to follow in that same model, with different customs.

[WhiteWings]

Constatine I was converted to Christianity in the year 312.
Shortly after he turned it into a state religion.
Surely there were church leaders before that but they were not Roman Catholic.

The reason is simple: the whole doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church rests in the belief that the Pope speaks for Christ, so to disobey him is to disobey Christ. If on the other hand, Peter was not the first Pope then Christians could make the legitimate claim that the Pope has usurped the authority of Christ and has claimed more authority than warranted.

I find it interesting that the Catholic Church claims headquarters in Rome with Peter's chair there when in fact the early church's original headquarters was in Jerusalem with James as the leader.

There is no scriptural proof that Peter was the founding bishop in Rome. When Paul writes to Rome, he never greets Peter in the letter, which proves conclusively that Peter was not in Rome so he could not be the founding Bishop.

I think the burden of proof is on the Catholic Church to prove otherwise, and there is no scriptural proof that Peter was the first Pope. On the contrary, there is plenty of scriptural proof that Peter was not the first Pope.

http://www.tbm.org/was_peter_the_first_pope.htm

[noname]

the first church was not in Rome, but in Jerusalem...with Jesus' brother James the elected head

Acts 12
Peter's Miraculous Escape From Prison

1It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. 2He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword.

when Peter was captured but miraculously saved by the Lord whilst awaiting execution in  jail, he also sent a message to "James and the brothers"...

"Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had brought him out of prison. "Tell James and the brothers about this," he said, and then he left for another place.


it is said in manuscripts about the early church that all Jews reckoned James to be a righteous man, even those who were not followers of Jesus as James spent everyday in the temple on his knees to plead for the forgiveness of the nation's sins.
many Jews also thought that God punished Jerusalem in 70AD with its destruction because Herod and the Sanhedrin took James' head with the sword.

further in the NT, we also see that Paul went to see James and the elders:

Acts21
Paul's Arrival at Jerusalem
17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

From the above it is thus evident that James was the first leader of the church of Jerusalem...before Peter even went to Rome to establish a church there and that Paul also reported to the authority of James as the leader of the church of Jerusalem

[peacemaker]

There is only One True Church, those filled with His SPIRIT for there is no other name under heaven.
And in the winds of change, we find our true direction.

peacemaker

[Universalist Catholic]

Supposedly, claims are being made that History really does claim that Peter really was at Rome, because of some statements made by some Early Church leaders.  But I question
whether the documents were translated correctly, a legend got out, or are a forgery.
Someone on this message board made the claim that The history Channel is anti-Catholic.  But I find that the History Channel is one of the most non-bias sources, and does not make inaccurate historical reports that are popular. 

but heres the link:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp

[Beloved Servant]

Amen peacemaker.
All else is in image, a false god, an idol, a prideful creation of man.
Usually, a fruit of Adam's fall.
Gird your loins saints!
For what you create can rule you!

[Pierac]

Your question... is your ... obvious answer!  :thumbsup:

I would find it hard to believe the first Church was actually established well over 200 hundred or closer to 300 years after Jesus rose from the dead!  :pointlaugh:

Your bypassing Jesus' roots...  :hihat:  And making them to something completely different...  :hithere:!

See the different in the hats! Yep! it that big of a difference!  :thumbsup:

Paul

[Jerm]

Like so many other things, the position of Pope developed over time.  The bishops in the Early Church did have equal authority yet there seemed to be more weight given to the bishops of major cities such as Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Rome and yes, it does appear that among that inner circle, Rome seemed to hold even more weight.  This actually reflects Jesus' relationship with the Apostles: There were twelve Apostles, yet Jesus had an inner circle consisting of Peter, James, and John and among that inner circle, Peter seemed to hold more weight.  In every list of the Apostles, Peter is named first.  It was Peter who oversaw the election of Matthias as Judas' replacement and it was Peter who gave the first sermon at Pentecost.  Peter may not have technically been "The First Pope" but his leadership in the Early Church cannot be denied and it is from that leadership that the office of Pope developed.  Tradition does tell us that Peter spent his final years overseeing (Episkopos = Bishop) the Church at Rome.  This would explain why Paul makes no reference to him in his Letter to the Romans because Peter had yet to come to Rome.  As far as James' position in Jerusalem is concerned, if James was the overseer (Bishop) of Jerusalem at that time, then it would make sense that Peter would allow him to run things there.  But nevertheless, both Scripture and history shows that Peter held a great deal of authority in the Early Church. 

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: When the Word is referring to the "church" at Jerusalem or wherever, it is speaking of the collection of believers in that city that were born of the Spirit and not of the flesh only, ie. the true "church", which is not a building of wood and bricks, but of living stones of which Jesus Christ is the cornerstone.

They had no church buildings in the early "church" days; they met in secret usually, in one another's homes, or in some synagogues if they were allowed to.

So for this reason, Peter may have been over the REAL church body at Rome, but not by any stretch of the imagination did he have anything to do with the formation of the Catholic church organization, whose teachings for the most part, bear no witness whatsoever to the Word or the Tabernacle pattern that witnesses that Word. Neither was he a pope. My  :2c: Blessings.... 

[thinktank]

I don't see why Peter is called the first pope, one could argue he is the first methodist!

I think the church officially started on the day of pentecoast, but technically started when Jesus breathed the holy ghost upon the disciples after he raised from the dead and appeared to them.

[Beloved Servant]

huh?

I suppose that would depend on one's definition of the word: church.

Adam and Eve are the first to whom God spoke.

[jabcat]

Church = ecclesia, "the called out ones".  I'd think they/we need to be "called out" from something, and then to Something (SomeOne?)...I've read that a part of being called out also means 'set aside for a purpose'.  

So, I'd think the first church was whoever God first called out... :2c:

[Beloved Servant]

Adam?   Where are you? 

[thinktank]

Church = ecclesia, "the called out ones".  I'd think they/we need to be "called out" from something, and then to Something (SomeOne?)...I've read that a part of being called out also means 'set aside for a purpose'.  

So, I'd think the first church was whoever God first called out... :2c:

Called out from the world and it's carnality, to become the adopted sons of God.

[Cardinal]

I don't see why Peter is called the first pope, one could argue he is the first methodist! 

:cloud9: Particularly since the dates of the start of Catholicism and Peter's life and death, don't jive, from my understanding of the facts. Blessings....

[Molly]

Of course, all of this is irrelevant, unless the Pope claims to be Jesus Christ, because of this--

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: True, but I have found over the years, that they somehow have been "talked" around this obstacle, but the dates of Peter's death and the beginning of the Catholic church, "seem" to get the wheels turning a little, since it's unlikely they elected a dead man to be their first pope.  :laughing7:  

:Chinscratch: Then again.... :icon_jokercolor:

[WhiteWings]

Was the Church of Rome really the first Church?

Nope. the first Church was founded in Britain by Joseph of Arimathea. Little after 37AD


The Roman Church, of course, has long been embarrassed by this and has worked hard to hide the facts proving this. The British Church was not subject to Rome for many centuries, and thus the later Roman Church did not recognize them as being Christian until they came under Rome 's headship over six centuries after Pentecost. Yet, as Rev. W. Morgan tells us,

"The British Church was represented during his [Constantine 's] reign by native bishops at the Councils of Arles, A.D. 308, and Nice, A.D. 325." (St. Paul in Britain, p. 111)

How could there be no British Church until the seventh century, when British bishops were represented at Church Councils in the fourth century? The main fact is that in the fourth century, those British bishops were recognized by Rome as Christians, simply because Rome had not yet demanded submission of all Churches in exchange for the right to be called Christian.

In fact, it is well known by all historians that Constantine himself was a British general, though he was part of Rome 's army. Rome had many generals from other nations, for their armies were full of foreign soldiers. Constantine was favorably disposed toward Christianity from the influence of his mother, Helena (Helen of York), who was also a famous early Christian song writer. As Sozomen tells us in his Eccl. Hist.. lib. i. c. v., " It is well known that great Constantine received his Christian education in Britain." He also came into contact with the Roman-Christian teacher, Lactantius, while living in Nicomedia during the reign of Diocletian, for we read in Hans von Campenhausen's book, The Fathers of the Latin Church, p. 79,

"Before the outbreak of the great persecution [303 A.D.], Constantine certainly stayed for some time at the palace of Diocletian in Nicomedia as a kind of hostage for his father. It is a likely guess that the young foreign prince had at least already met the equally foreign rhetorician of distinction."

When the Diocletian persecution broke out, Lactantius was allowed to retire peacefully. However, the same author tells us that when Constantine later became emperor, he appointed Lactantius to be the tutor of his oldest son, Crispus, in Gaul at the palace in Treves.

In 596 A.D. when Britain was "evangelized" by the Roman missionary, Augustine (not the bishop of Hippo by the same name who lived two centuries earlier), his mission was not to convert the British to Christ, but to convert Christians to the Roman Church. Augustine was rebuffed. Morgan quotes Bacon's Government of England as follows:

"The Britons told Augustine they would not be subject to him, nor let him pervert the ancient laws of their Church. This was their resolution, and they were as good as their word, for they maintained the liberty of their Church five hundred years after his time, and were the last of all the Churches of Europe that gave up their power to the Roman Beast. (p. 101)

"The soldier who interrogated Augustine at the oak of Conference seems, in like manner, to treat the question between them as one quite apart from doctrine.

" 'Does Rome possess all the truth?'

" 'All.'

" 'And you say we do--our usages only differ. Now of two men, if both have all their limbs and senses complete, both are equal. Because the Romans have noses, and we have noses, must we either cut off our noses to be Romans? Must all who have noses be subject to the Romans? Why, then, should all who hold the faith be subject to Rome because she holds the faith'?" (Morgan, St. Paul in Britain, p. 102)

Morgan quotes many ancient sources to show that the British Church had long been established and was in full strength by the time Augustine arrived there to subject them to Rome's headship. On page 105 he quotes the Jesuit, Robert Parsons, in his book,  Three Conversions of England, vol. 1, page 26,

"The Christian religion began in Britain within fifty years of Christ's ascension."

He quotes also Polydore Vergil, lib. ii,

" Britain, partly through Joseph of Arimathea, partly through Fugatus and Damianus, was of all kingdoms the first that received the Gospel."

He quotes Sir Henry Spelman's Concilia, vol., p. 1,

"We have abundant evidence that this Britain of ours received the faith, and that from the disciples of Christ Himself, soon after the crucifixion of Christ."

Alford's Regia Fides, Vol. 1, p. 19 is quoted as well,

"The faith which was adopted by the nation of the Britons in the year of our Lord 165, was preserved inviolate, and in the enjoyment of peace, to the time of the Emperor Diocletian."

This referred to King Lucius, who had proclaimed Britain to be a Christian Nation, he says, in 165 A.D., while the Church in Rome was still suffering under the Roman Emperors. At the same time, Lucius was baptized by his 83 year old relative, Timothy, in 139. This Timothy was the son of Pudens and Claudia. Linus was the grandson of Cyllinus, the brother of Linus and Claudia. [See Appendix 2.]

Morgan cites other ancient sources:

"In A.D. 600, Venantius Fortunatus, in his Christian hymns, speaks of Britain as having been evangelized by St. Paul.

"In the year A.D. 408 Augustine of Hippo asks, 'How many churches are there not erected in the British isles which lie in the ocean?' And about the same time Arnobius writes, 'So swiftly runs the word of God that though in several thousand years God was not known except among the Jews, now, within the space of a few years, His word is concealed neither from the Indians in the East nor from the Britons in the West'."

Morgan likewise provides us with quotations from Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, in 402 A.D., Jerome (378), and Eusebius (320), all referencing the strength of the Church in Britain. Since the Roman Church claims these writers as their own, it is plain that they are being disingenuous in their claim that Britain was evangelized only in the seventh century. It is clear that there were many churches in Britain in earlier centuries. Only when Rome demanded submission in later centuries, denying Christian status to any Church that did not comply, was Britain suddenly denied Christian status until long after the failed Augustinian mission.

The question, then, is not whether or not there existed a British Church in the earliest days of the Church. The question is whether or not a Church must submit to Rome to be Christian. By Rome 's definition, no Church calling itself Protestant, Evangelical, Pentecostal, etc. is really Christian. They have a right to their opinion, of course, but they should not use that opinion to deny the existence of a non-Roman Church.

And so the Church of Rome in later years has attempted to suppress the near unanimous consent of its own early historians as to the early evangelization of Britain. For example, The Catholic Encyclopedia writes under "Joseph of Arimathea,"

"Likewise fabulous is the legend which tells of his coming to Gaul A.D. 63, and thence to Great Britain, where he is supposed to have founded the earliest Christian oratory at Glastonbury."

No proof is given to sustain their disdain, and in a single sentence, they dismiss what virtually all of the Catholic Church historians have affirmed for many centuries. In fact, Morgan tells us on pages 63 and 64, that the antiquity of the British Church was unsuccessfully challenged in the fifteenth century at Church Councils, where the seating arrangement of the representatives were established according to the antiquity of their Church:

"This priority of antiquity was only once questioned, and that on political grounds, by the ambassadors of France and Spain, at the Council of Pisa, A.D. 1417. The Council, however, affirmed it. The ambassadors appealed to the Council of Constance, A.D. 1419, which confirmed that the decision of that of Pisa, which was a third time confirmed by the Council of Sena, and then acquiesced in. This decision laid down that the Churches of France and Spain were bound to give way in the points of antiquity and precedency to the Church of Britain, which was founded by Joseph of Arimathea 'immediately after the passion of Christ'."

(The Catholic Encyclopedia gives the date for the Council of Pisa as 1403, and the Council of Constance as 1414-1418.)

Another great fabrication of history thrusts Britain outside the boundaries of civilization just because they were outside the boundaries of the Roman Empire. From the perspective of the Roman government, any people outside of its borders were "barbarians." Yet Britain had many centers of higher learning which were so rigorous that it took twenty years to master their courses in philosophy, astronomy, geometry, and many other subjects which, in that day, were accepted everywhere as the mark of civilization.

In the sixth century, Gildas writes of Britain:

"These islands received the beams of light—that is, the holy precepts of Christ—the true Sun, as we know, at the latter part of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, in whose time this religion was propagated without impediment and death threatened to those who interfered with its professors." (J. W. Taylor, The Coming of the Saints, p. 141)

Gildas no doubt was referring to the writing of the Roman Christian lawyer, Tertullian, around 200 A.D. who had written in his Apology, V,

"Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinions, threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians."

Tiberius Caesar died in 37 A.D., thus fixing the time of the arrival of Joseph of Arimathea and his companions around that time.

[Molly]

That seals it for me that the British Isles are the lost tribes.

ww does that come from a website?

[Molly]

To the West--
Glastonbury: The First Christian Church


Where did the Christian Church begin, after Jerusalem?
Locate the first Christian church built above ground.
What country first nationalized Christianity?
To whom was the book of Romans written?
Who founded the Christian Church of England?
Answers


England
England
England
The Royal family of England
Joseph of Arimathea, Jesus' uncle.

http://www.asis.com/users/stag/glastonb.html


To the East--

The First Christian Nation On Earth { ARMENIANS }

Armenians have had a presence in the Armenian Highland for over four thousand years, since the time when " HAIK - Հայկ " the legendary patriarch and founder of the first Armenian nation, led them to victory over Bel of Babylon.
Christianity began to spread in Armenia soon after Christ's death, due to the efforts of two of his apostles, St. Thaddeus and St. Bartholomew In the early 3rd century (301 AD),  Armenia (Arshakuni Dynasty) became the first nation to adopt Christianity as a state religion. Most Armenians adhere to the Armenian Apostolic Church, a Non-Chalcedonian church. 

http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-First-Christian-Nation-On-Earth-ARMENIANS-/217313362368

[WhiteWings]

That seals it for me that the British Isles are the lost tribes.

Not just the British. Half of Europe. Maybe even (some) Indian tribes of the USA

ww does that come from a website?

Everything I post and is without all sorts of spelling errors comes from a site.

BTW Royalty takes it even further by claiming being direct decendants of Jesus.

[WhiteWings]

In 596 A.D. when Britain was "evangelized" by the Roman missionary, Augustine (not the bishop of Hippo by the same name who lived two centuries earlier), his mission was not to convert the British to Christ, but to convert Christians to the Roman Church. Augustine was rebuffed. Morgan quotes Bacon's Government of England as follows:

"The Britons told Augustine they would not be subject to him, nor let him pervert the ancient laws of their Church.

Note that the red bit clearly states that they considered Catholicism as a perversion.
I really wonder what the perversion of the RCC was. Or more to the point what the British church taught.
UR?

[Molly]

Notice the following teachings of early Christianity--all of which are accepted by the true Church of God (often called Nazarenes in the first four or five centuries) and only a relatively few of which are practiced/taught/still accepted by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, or Protestants (though early leaders considered as "saints" by the Catholics also held them):

Baptism was by immersion and did not include infants.
The complete Bible with the proper Old Testament and New Testament was relied on by the true Church in Asia Minor.
A Binitarian view, that acknowledged the Holy Spirit, was held by the apostolic and post-apostolic true Christian leaders.
Birthdays were not celebrated by early Christians.
Born-Again meant being born at the resurrection, not at the time of conversion.
Celibacy for Bishops/Presbyters/Elders was not a requirement.
Church Governance was hierarchical.
Christmas was not observed by any professing Christ prior to the third century, or ever by those holding to early teachings.
Deification of Christians was taught by the early leaders of the Church.
Duties of Elders/Pastors were pastoral and theological, not predominantly sacramental--nor did they dress as many now do.
Easter per se was not observed by the apostolic church.
The Fall Holy Days were observed by true early Christians.
The Father was considered to be God by all early professing Christians.
Holy Spirit was not referred to as God or as a person by any early true Christians.
Hymns were mainly psalms, not praises to Christ.
Idols were taught against, including adoration of the cross.
Immortality of the soul or humans was not taught.
Jesus was considered to be God by the true Christians.
The Kingdom of God was preached.
Leavened Bread was removed from the homes of early Christians when the Jews did the same.
Lent was not observed by the primitive church.
Limbo was not taught by the original church.
Military Service was not allowed for true early Christians.
Millenarianism (a literal thousand year reign of Christ on Earth, often called the millennium) was taught by the early Christians.
Monasticism was unheard of in the early Christian church.
Passover was kept on the 14th of Nisan by apostolic and second century Christians in Asia Minor.
Pentecost was kept on the same day that the Jews observed it by all professing Christians.
Purgatory was not taught by the original apostolic church.
The Resurrection of the dead was taught by all early Christians
The Sabbath was observed on Saturday by the apostolic and post-apostolic Church.
Salvation was believed to be offered to the chosen now by the early Church, with others being called later, though not all that taught that (or other doctrines) practiced "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).
God's Six Thousand Year Plan for humankind to rule itself was believed by early professors of Christ.
Sunday was not observed by the apostolic and original post-apostolic Christians.
The Ten Commandments were observed by the apostolic and true post-apostolic Christians--and in the order that the Living Church of God claims they are in.
Tradition had some impact on the second century Christians, but was never supposed to supercede the Bible.
The Trinity was not a word used to describe the Godhead by the apostolic or second century Christians, though a certain threeness was acknowledged.
Unclean Meats were eaten by the early allegorists, but not by true Christians.
The Virgin Birth was acknowledged by all true ante-Nicene Christians.

http://www.cogwriter.com/earlychristianity.htm

[WhiteWings]

Notice the following teachings of early Christianity--all of which are accepted by the true Church of God (often called Nazarenes in the first four or five centuries) and only a relatively few of which are practiced/taught/still accepted by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, or Protestants (though early leaders considered as "saints" by the Catholics also held them):

Baptism was by immersion and did not include infants.

Jesus was baptized at "about 30"
If that was His first baptizm we can learn from it.
Jesus was obviously no heretic so if it was His first baptism I would dare to conclude that child baptism isn'gt required.
I would even go as far that baptism before 30 isn't required.
On orthodox sites I often read "What would Jesus do?"
He would wait 'till the age of 30 :winkgrin:

The complete Bible with the proper Old Testament and New Testament was relied on by the true Church in Asia Minor.

I thought about that. There is an Eastern and Western Church.
Eastern people have  a different mindset. Different culture that (possible) much closer to the ancient Jewish way.
Hebrew is a symbolical language. Western language are much more literal.

A Binitarian view, that acknowledged the Holy Spirit, was held by the apostolic and post-apostolic true Christian leaders.

Are there Christian churches that do not ack the HS?

The Fall Holy Days were observed by true early Christians.

By that you mean Tabernacles and RosH Hasana I assume.
BTW did you know that Russia switched to teh Gregorian calendar at a very late date. Their year started in September. Almost teh same date as 1 Tishri

Hymns were mainly psalms, not praises to Christ.

Not odd if you consider Jesus never asked to worship Him.
Makes you wonder about T3

Jesus was considered to be God by the true Christians.

And that conflicts the above...?

Leavened Bread was removed from the homes of early Christians when the Jews did the same.
Lent was not observed by the primitive church.

I think the early Christians where no Christians but more like: Jew-v2, Jew+.
Lot of Jewishness with added NT and a few things like offerings removed

Unclean Meats were eaten by the early allegorists, but not by true Christians.

I think that's wrong?

[Molly]

A Binitarian view, that acknowledged the Holy Spirit, was held by the apostolic and post-apostolic true Christian leaders.

Are there Christian churches that do not ack the HS?

I think what he's saying here is that the early church believed in the divinity of Christ, that they were Binatarian, meaning Father and Son, rather than Trinitarian, although they of course acknowledged the Holy Spirit, but not as a Person.

He also says that the apostolic succession went to the Jews, which of course we see in the Bible, until that was changed at some point to avoid persecution by the Romans--I think he said it was changed after the second destruction of Jerusalem [130ad?]--after that, the Gentiles started becoming apostles and they were the ones who stripped the remaining Jewishness from the church--although we see that Paul himself was starting to do this and Peter eventually went along.

This is why, he says, the early church kept the Sabbath on saturday, and the various feast days from the OT--as well as the law.

He also says the early church believed in universal salvation [of most people] and that the true church would be a little flock in this age with the majority of people being saved in the age to come.