Featured When was the RCC founded?

Good post

 

It’s full of misunderstandings.

Mary is Queen of Heaven because you can see it in Revelation.

She is the mother of the one who rules the nations with an Iron sceptre.

Crowned by stars and standing on the moon.

 

It was in the link provided. I was just responding to that, sorry.

But the timeline is not accurate either, The Catholic Church is Apostolic, it was actually persecuted by the Roman pagans not created by them.

 

Where in Revelation do you extrapolate Mary? Is it Revelation 12:1-6?

"And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days."

Nowhere in this text is Mary ever mentioned. The apocalyptic, allegorical, understanding of this passage is that the woman is the Israel of God (the church). God's promised one was born of Israel and God kept Satan from killing the Promised, Anointed, King of Israel. Jesus, the King, ascended to heaven while the Israel of God, the Church, was protected in the wilderness and in fact grew from a mustard seed to a giant tree while people from every nation tribe and tongue become a part of that seed, which is the Israel of God.

So, nowhere is Mary even alluded to in Revelation 12:1-6.
Does the Pope and his theologians misunderstand this passage by reading Mary into the verses?

 

Based upon the fact that Paul wrote a letter to the Church at Rome in the 50s AD, one must acknowledge the Church at Rome was established only a few decades after Jesus ascended. However, the church at Rome has been consumed by the harlot of Babylon and now serves an idol of it's own manmade traditions.

 

Well who is who is the one who rules the nations with an Iron Sceptre?

 

It seems this should be a new topic. I will create it.

 

This is just assertions without evidence?

 

Go to the other thread I created since it's a different topic.

 

I am talking about the timeline people assert the Catholic Church began at. People are making up a story and show no evidence.

 

The lack of evidence is in regard to Peter starting the church at Rome. The lack of evidence is Roman traditions coming from the Apostles. The traditions asserted by Rome are often not supported by the text of scripture.

 

You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth.” Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

“As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.” Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

“It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: ‘But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.'” Gaius, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).

“[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:5 (inter A.D. 207-212).

‘We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising blood. Then is Peter girt by another (an allusion to John 21:18), when he is made fast to the cross.” Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15:3 (A.D. 212).

“Peter…at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way.” Origen, Third Commentary on Genesis, (A.D. 232).

The early Christians and Father’s gave the evidence of Peter and Paul in Rome.

Plenty of evidence.

 

Do you notice that these quotes are all, at least 100 years after the actual events? Also, how early is the extant document that you are pointing at, and how many documents confirm the claim? Certainly the extant documents are hundreds of years after the "church father" actually, supposedly, said what you quote. You are desperately looking for a connection to elevate Peter when neither Peter nor Paul was the person who was the first to preach in Rome. Again, you fall on a tradition that is outside of the Bible and therefore errant, not inerrant

 

Notice you aren’t quoting any document nearly as contemporaneous as to be within a hundred years to support your assertions.
Do you trust baptist historical documents written by eminent Baptist scholars and leaders of at least 100 years ago?

Irenaeous was a Bishop, Origen and Tertullian were scholars, all of them highly educated for their day.

You are desperate to ignore Church history.

“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110)

Baptist traditions and historical writings are not recorded in the Bible either, but I see Baptist’s quote them authoritatively all the time. There’s a whole section on the forum for it, you should check it out.

 

Are the Baptist writings extant or are they supposedly copies of the original that are over 100 years afterward?

The textual criticism of the Bible makes it the most reliable text in antiquity. If one cannot believe the accuracy of the Bible, one cannot believe anything in antiquity is accurate since the distance in extant writings from the original is so large.

I am not desperate to ignore these documents you provided.
I will not, however, place them as equal with the Bible. Indeed, Origen, based on his writings, is likely an unredeemed scholar who has no part in the Kingdom of God. So, I do not lift up the writings you quoted as being of anymore value than your own opinion on a matter. It may be an interesting opinion, but it is still just an opinion. The Bible, on the other hand, is the Holy Word of God. It takes full precedence over all human comments. This is why we study the Bible to show ourselves approved, not the catechisms or early church writers.

 

Eusebius, since you quote him said the first bishop of Rome was Linus, and was installed by Peter and Paul.

 

Were not the Montanists considered heretics by Rome? The church insisted on rebaptising Monranists who returned, just as Montanists Baptised the who joined them.

 

From National Geographic:

On July 16, 1054, Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius was excommunicated, starting the “Great Schism” that created the two largest denominations in Christianity—the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths.​

… so I say “The RCC was founded July 16, 1054”.