What came first, christianity or catholosism?

Peter was not the rock on which the church was built. Jesus Christ did not say that in Mathew.

Matthew 16:18 - And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

You have no credibility…

Do your research and you will know that the rock always meant Jesus Christ and Peter means stone and not a rock.

Wrong, when jesus called simon peter, he did so because peter translates to the word rock.

But don’t believe what I say. Do your own research.

I do do my own research. And if I don’t believe you it is because you are wrong so often.

There is no discussing anything with you. First find out what the bible means when it says ‘Christians’, ‘Church’ etc. Then we will discuss further.

I have, and it does not jive with what you say. You won’t discuss it because you can’t.

What about from the time of Christ to the time of Constantine? Are you saying that for 400 years there were no followers of Christ?

No, I never said that. If you can’t keep up with the discussion, don’t butt in. Our friend eternallymisinfomred here keeps suggesting that the catholic church is not really a christrian church, and denies that all modern day christian churches have their origins in the catholic church.

And it says in Mathew that peter is the rock that the church will be built on. So the only thing you are showing is that the bible contridicts itself.

Peter was not the rock on which the church was built. Jesus Christ did not say that in Mathew. Do your research and you will know that the rock always meant Jesus Christ and Peter means stone and not a rock. But don’t believe what I say. Do your own research.

If you make a claim, you are the one that has to prove it. I say it is not in there. How am I supposed to prove its not there? You say it is there, then you should be able to give the book chapter and verse.

There is no discussing anything with you. First find out what the bible means when it says ‘Christians’, ‘Church’ etc. Then we will discuss further.

And at the time, there was no other chirstian faith except catholicism untill the great schism.

Please get your history right.

No, I never said that. If you can’t keep up with the discussion, don’t butt in.

Okay. It was just a question for my clarification. I apologize for butting in.

denies that all modern day christian churches have their origins in the catholic church.

I have to agree that not ALL do.

Butting out now.

Rome was the center of christianity from the time of constantine until the great schism.

So yes the Catholic church was formed in the beginning of the fourth century.

And at the time, there was no other chirstian faith except catholicism untill the great schism

What about from the time of Christ to the time of Constantine? Are you saying that for 400 years there were no followers of Christ?

Do a little and you will find out.

Do a little what and I will find out? You are the one saying it is misinterpreted. How could I possibly know how you think it is misinterpreted unless you tell me?

You did not read me right. I said it is in acts. The fact is plain and needs no interpretation.

And it says in Mathew that peter is the rock that the church will be built on. So the only thing you are showing is that the bible contridicts itself.

It is there in the Bible read it.

If you make a claim, you are the one that has to prove it. I say it is not in there. How am I supposed to prove its not there? You say it is there, then you should be able to give the book chapter and verse.

So yes the Catholic church was formed in the beginning of the fourth century.

And at the time, there was no other chirstian faith except catholicism untill the great schism.

How?

Do a little and you will find out.

As you can see, not everyone necessialy agrees. It is all open to interpretation. But there is no doubt that the new testament refers to Paul and Peter going to rome and founding the church.

You did not read me right. I said it is in acts. The fact is plain and needs no interpretation.

How do you know? Where is your source for this?

It is there in the Bible read it.

Do you ever actually confirm what you write? It was the beginning of the fourth century that constantine ruled.

I agree that I had made a mistake here. I meant the end of third century and ended up typing the the end of second century. So yes the Catholic church was formed in the beginning of the fourth century.

okay as a church teacher I can offer this : CHRISTIANITY CAME FIRST, IT WASNT UNTIL AFTER CHRIST THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CAME. hope this clears up this delima ;)

You seem to be a very knowledgeable person but there just one place I disagree with you. Catholicism was not started by Jesus Christ.

At it again, eh eternallymisinformed. Your lack of knowledge almost matches your hatred of catholics. Remember when you claimed catholics weren’t even christians?

As ty said, the first followers of Jesus considered themselves Jewish though the term Christian was in use in the New Testament.

Catholics do claim that the church was created by Jesus, “upon this rock I build my church Peter” with Peter being the first in a long line of popes. This does remind me of the story of Abe Lincoln’s axe. The farmer noted that while it was Lincoln’s axe that the handle had been replaced several times and the head replaced once. While the axe may have a lineage going back to the one Abe Lincoln swung no part of it was the same as the original.

Wayke: don’t forget the Eastern Orthodox churches that split off from the Catholic church long before the Protestant Reformation. While discussions about hot-button topics like religion, politics, and sports often have a poor signal to noise ratio often a lot of interesting perspectives are shared.

I see your name is “religionisbad” and your pic is a crossed out cross…So why the religious question? If you obviously think religion is bad, then why sound so interested in it?

I personally think religion is a bad subject to talk about on the internet, as is politics. it brings nothing but ignorance, anger, and sides. (mormon is better than catholic, catholic is better than christian, christian is better than everything, are examples of stupid fights).

If you really want to find out that answer, without a huge fight going on in this, I’d say just google it. Not trying to be mean, but google does wonders. In fact I’ll look it up for you…sec…

Heres some info:

They are one in the same.Until the rebellion against the Church in the 1600’s there was only the Church founded by Christ and the apostles. The Reformation began with the introduction of man-made ecclesiastical groups calling themselves Christian and following their man-made doctrines. God bless—end

No difference between the two. All were known as Christians till the bifurcation (the break away Protestants). Hence, the term Catholics and Protestants

The Catholics were always there. St. Peter was the first Pope of Christians. That traditions still continues.

The Protestants broke away and came into existence much later.—end

Here is a list perhaps it will help.

IF YOU ARE a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

IF YOU belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534, because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to re-marry.

IF YOU ARE a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

IF YOU ARE a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

IF YOU ARE a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.

IF YOU ARE of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

IF YOU ARE a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

IF YOU ARE a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

IF YOU ARE a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

IF YOU ARE a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

IF YOU worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

IF YOU ARE a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

IF YOU belong to one of the religious organizations known as “Church of the Nazarene,” “Pentecostal Gospel,” “Holiness Church,” “Pilgrim Holiness Church,” “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past one hundred and thirty years.

If YOU ARE “non denominational” your Church was founded in the last 70 years.

IF YOU ARE Roman Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

BY THE WAY…I didn’t write these, I just took them off of google, so no credit goes to me towards this…However, looking it up for you and giving you a few answers to your questions, I guess you can credit me for that ;P

Anyway, if that still doesn’t answer your Q, look it up yourself because my best bet is a lot of people will either flock to this expecting a fight, or completely ignore your question

Christianity started when Christ came on Eartth.. Thats where it got got its name. if you read the gospels you would see that the first Christians did not have a church becasue they were persecuted. so christiany was initialy spread from house to house, people to people. teh church got structured by the Romans but they changed a lot of their fundamental beliefs to accomodate Pagans example teh sabbath. when the people who wanted to remain true to what the bible taught objected. they were persecuted. A detailed book of the evolution of Chrisianity is The Great Controversy. it perfectly matches with historical and biblical acounts.

wayke

You seem to be a very knowledgeable person but there just one place I disagree with you. Catholicism was not started by Jesus Christ.

ha I’ve actually been waiting for someone to give me shit about those things. thank you for your answer and im aware I coulve gotten the answere off google but I thought that was kinda the point of this site, ask questions get answeres. anyway thanks.

Originally, Christianity was a hodgepodge of loosely related Greek Jewish messianic cults. Over time, 3 similar dominant churches arrose, the Roman Catholic church, the Greek Orthodox church, and the Egyptian Coptic church. By the time of the 4th century when the New Testament canon was finally established, these were effectively the only 3 Christian churches, though smaller variants still existed.

All the Protestant churches of today originate in the Roman Catholic church and are heavily influenced by that tradition in spite of all the silly “it’s not a religion it’s a relationship” rhetoric. Christianity does not have its origin in the Bible. The Bible has its origin in Christianity.

It was both. They both had almost the same beliefs and once was invented the other one was. because once they saw the cotholisim they went and said that can also be called cristinnisim

That’s a difficult question… Christianity in its roots was not christianity as it is today, remember the first Christians were Jews. As it grew, and the Romans spread it around, you get to see the beginning roots of Catholicism as it is today (pope in Rome, Rome being the central power etc…). Of course Catholicism has evolved over time and many of the rituals and practices are new, as have all religions (quite ironic when you consider none of them believe in evolution, but any how)

…it is still the same Church.

Nope.

Saints, etc, didn’t happen until later. Praying to Mary? Again, not till later.

Various interpretations of the bible (excuses for slavery, etc) …again, much later.

So it’s not the same church, in fact, there isn’t a single church that, today, follows exactly the teachings of Christ, as many interpretations of the bible “get it wrong”, translating is hard work :)

Great answer though.

Eternallymisinformed, you are clueless. Why is your interpretation any more valid than the catholic churches.

1. The verse in Matthew where Jesus Christ calls Peter a rock has been misinterpreted.

How?

2. Peter was not the Church leader as can be seen in acts. The leader was James the brother of Jesus Christ.

As you can see, not everyone necessialy agrees. It is all open to interpretation. But there is no doubt that the new testament refers to Paul and Peter going to rome and founding the church.

3. Church referred to a group of believers or Christians. It did not refer to an institution.

How do you know? Where is your source for this?

There were the churches in Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, Thessalonica, and many other places. So special importance was given to the Church in Rome.

Rome was the center of christianity from the time of constantine until the great schism. Ephesus was roman city from before christ and remained a major city in the empire. It is said to be the place where John the Apostle took Mary to live out her life. (I was just there this past summer). Any church’s there were part of Rome. Corinth and Thessalonica were greek cities where Paul went to preach. There was no separate churches there either.

4. There is no evidence that Peter ever established a Church in Rome.

Other than the fact that it is there that it was centered, and ALL Christians believed that until the protestant reformation. You are not one to talk about the validity of evidence.

5. Jerusalem was the place where the Church elders were. The Most important people in the Church were Peter, James (Brother of Jesus), and John.

Jerusalem was the center in the first century, but soon expanded when Peter and Paul traveled to Rome and established the church there.

The Catholic Church was formed by uniting many churches to gather and mixing the pagan culture into it.

You almost got it right. They were more like sects than actual churches.

That was done by emperor Constantine who lived in end of the second century AD.

Do you ever actually confirm what you write? It was the beginning of the fourth century that constantine ruled.

The rituals and practices existed in the Catholic church at the very beginning itself.

Some did, most didn’t.

No hurt meant to the the Catholics but this is the truth.

The only hurt you are doing is confirming your complete ignorance of the facts and origins of your own faith.

Wow! I came back to read this question, and my answer was spot on I think. “Religion starts fights, so it’s best not to bring it up” I come back to two pages of people bickering about what came first the chicken or the egg…Sad.

Anyway, to the person who said “I’m knowledgeable blah blah but you disagree on one thing I said” Well, technically, your not disagreeing with me, your disagreeing with the person who wrote that quote. I looked that stuff up on google, for the one who asked the question, I didn’t write those quotes lol. Let me be clear on that. I GOOGLED IT :P

@religionisbad, sorry I didn’t mean to come off as rude, I know the sites for asking questions, and with this site at your fingertips, it’s always nice to get peoples personal opinions on things, but as I said, Questions like this…Ew! hehe. I didn’t google it to piss you off, show off at how “knowledgeable” I am, or whatever, I simply wanted to answer your question, and not trying to brag or anything, but looking at most of these peoples ignorant name calling remarks, I think I did a pretty good job for at least trying to answer it, or give you some idea :) I google EVERYTHING. I google it until I find the correct answer, lots and lots of research for the things that I search everyday. So I guess you could say I am a bit knowledgeable but that’s not because I’m a smarty pants who rubs it in, it’s because I took the time to learn from other smart people the stuff I learn and say.

I know your not the one who called me out on it, I’m just saying : ) Good luck though :D

I think. Religion starts fights, so it’s best not to bring it up I come back to two pages of people bickering about what came first the chicken or the egg…Sad. ‘

It is called a healthy and open debate. No one is forcing you to read it. Should we all just live in holes in the ground and not express opinions on certain subjects simply because it might offend someone.

You have no credibility…

Wrong, when jesus called simon peter, he did so because peter translates to the word rock.

Why are you so quick to judge? You did not read my post carefully which is what you do most of the time. I said Jesus did not say that Peter is a rock. Nor did you do your research. The word ‘Peter’ does not mean a rock. Please find out what it means.

No, I never said that. If you can’t keep up with the discussion, don’t butt in.

Why are you rude? This is a site where everyone can discuss. Why do you want to put down someone who asks?

By the way bro_tony has a good question there. Here is what you stated, “Rome was the center of christianity from the time of constantine…”
We know that Constantine reigned in the beginning of the 4th century AD. History tells us that Constantine unified all churches (or tried to) and form the Catholic church. (“Catholic” comes from the Greek word “Katolikos” meaning “Universal”). So what about the period before this? Were there no Christians?

Okay. It was just a question for my clarification. I apologize for butting in.

I am disappointed with you bro_tony for saying this. You are entitled to your opinion and you can participate in this discussion. That was a good question. You need not apologizes.

You are right. I am sorry bro_tony. That was uncalled for.

Apology accepted.

That is one interpretation. Certainly not the most popular one.

Keep in mind that the most popular interpretations are not always the correct ones.

The name “Peter” does in fact mean “rock”.

Upon further review, I see that eternallife was correct.

The name “Peter” and the word “rock”, though similar, do not mean the same thing in the original language.

I apologize for my mistake.

Keep in mind that the most popular interpretations are not always the correct ones.

Bro_tony, since I don’t believe this conversation actually ever happened, niether of them are correct to me.

No I am not. I am saying the same thing still. In that sentence Peter does not mean a rock. You have not done research still to find out the meaning of the words used there. I do believe that bro_tony has made a mistake in his clarification. In fact if you know the real meaning of that verse you will understand that it does not need any interpretations.

Say it as many times as you want, yours is but one interpretation, and not the one most widely accepted. I am not sure where you are getting your information but the greek word petros does mean rock or stone. Some say that petra really means rock, but petra is a feminine term, and would have been inapropriate for jesus to have called peter that. Further more, there is no disticition in the aramaic word, which is what was actually spoken at the time, is kepha. so what he would have said is ‘Thou are kepha, and on this kepha’.

Your opinion that the rock was jesus doesn’t even make sense. ‘That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ If he meant himself as the rock instead of peter, that it would sound like this: ‘That thou art Peter, and upon myself I will build my church’. Grammatically it doesn’t make sensem and if that were what he meant, why would he start it with, ‘That thou art Peter’.

The bottom line is, it is open to interpretation, and that can be clearly seen by the number of different interpretations there are. Which was my point from the beginning.

Things were in fact a bit different than what you have learnt.

Yes, things were quite different from what I ‘learnt’. What I LEARNED on my own, was that most of what I was taught as a child was not true.

First of all not all Christians were Jews.

Never said that. What I said were the earliest christians were jews. Since jesus was a jew, and his ministry was directed at jews, that would make perfect sense.

There was a large number of gentiles also who were also Christians.

Not at first.

Secondly Paul did not come into the scene when there were conflicts.

Are you really trying to say that Paul was not involed in the conflicts over converting gentiles? It was decided at the council of jerusalem that genitles would be also converted.

On the contrary the conflicts started when Paul started to preach to the gentiles and they started becoming Christians.

Not conflicts within the church. That was what I was refering to.

The Jews could not tolerate the gentiles (or the uncircumcised) becoming Christians. They insisted that Gentiles become Jews by being circumcised. Paul stood against this and that is when conflicts started.

Some jews couldn’t. Obviously most did tolerate them, since the at the council of jerusalem (attended by only non-gentiles) they decided to let Paul become the missionary to the gentiles.

So tell me enternallymisinformed, are you not only anti-catholic, are also an anti-semite? Seems like you have a lot of anger there.

And bro_tony. You made no mistake, other than to listen to eternallymisinformed.

Bro_tony, since I don’t believe this conversation actually ever happened, niether of them are correct to me.

Then why are arguing so fervently?

Also, since you are being so critical of eternallife’s typo (learnt vs. LEARNED)…

Niether is spelled NEITHER.

I read it very clearly. Now You are backtracking.

No I am not. I am saying the same thing still. In that sentence Peter does not mean a rock. You have not done research still to find out the meaning of the words used there. I do believe that bro_tony has made a mistake in his clarification. In fact if you know the real meaning of that verse you will understand that it does not need any interpretations.

The earliest christians were jews. There was supposedly a lot of conflict over whether gentiles would be accpeted into the new religion. That is when paul came on the scene as the missonary to the gentiles.

Things were in fact a bit different than what you have learnt. First of all not all Christians were Jews. There was a large number of gentiles also who were also Christians. Secondly Paul did not come into the scene when there were conflicts. On the contrary the conflicts started when Paul started to preach to the gentiles and they started becoming Christians. The Jews could not tolerate the gentiles (or the uncircumcised) becoming Christians. They insisted that Gentiles become Jews by being circumcised. Paul stood against this and that is when conflicts started.

You don’t know our friend eternally misinformed here.

I’ll give you that one, I thought “she” was a man! LOL

(No offense Eternallife)

You did not read my post carefully which is what you do most of the time. I said Jesus did not say that Peter is a rock.

I read it very clearly. Now You are backtracking. What I initially said was that it was open to interpretation. You told me to ‘Do your research and you will know that the rock always meant Jesus Christ and Peter means stone and not a rock.’ You told me I would KNOW it. I did do some research and found conflicting interpretations. Which is what I said initially.

Why are you rude?

You are right. I am sorry bro_tony. That was uncalled for.

We know that Constantine reigned in the beginning of the 4th century AD. History tells us that Constantine unified all churches (or tried to) and form the Catholic church. (Catholic comes from the Greek word Katolikos meaning Universal). So what about the period before this? Were there no Christians?

I never said that. Of course there were. The earliest christians were jews. There was supposedly a lot of conflict over whether gentiles would be accpeted into the new religion. That is when paul came on the scene as the missonary to the gentiles. As christianity grew, many sects popped up. Some fairly large. After almost 300 years, it was pretty fractured. Then constantine united them under one church, the catholic church.

The name “Peter” does in fact mean “rock”.

bro_tony, thanks for the clarification.

However, Jesus was not saying that He would build his Church upon Peter. He was saying that He would build His Church upon Peter’s statement, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). The statement is the rock. Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter because of the statement he made. Apart from Peter’s statement, there is no other reason for Jesus to change his name.

That is one interpretation. Certainly not the most popular one.

Your opinion that the rock was jesus doesn’t even make sense.

I wouldn’t be suprised… Jesus even calls himself ‘’Luficer’’ in Revelation…

Christianity in its roots was not christianity as it is today, remember the first Christians were Jews.

A clear understanding is necessary here. “Christian” was the name given to the disciples (followers) of Jesus Christ. Jews are people who follow Judaism. God created man and man sinned. So as a part God’s plan of salvation he chose the Israel people and lead them. He would later come to the earth as the messiah among the Israel people. In due time He came and prepared a way of salvation for us. Now in the middle of all this the people named their beliefs “Judaism”. After the Lord came many people recognized Him as the messiah and followed. Now people called them Christians.

Catholics do claim that the church was created by Jesus, upon this rock I build my church Peter with Peter being the first in a long line of popes.

Of course Catholicism has evolved over time and many of the rituals and practices

That Catholicism was instituted by Jesus Christ and that Peter was the first pope is a lie that the Catholic church has invented to authenticate itself. I do not say this as a result of any hatred. I am just stating the truth. The study of the scriptures will show the following truth:

1. The verse in Matthew where Jesus Christ calls Peter a rock has been misinterpreted.
2. Peter was not the Church leader as can be seen in acts. The leader was James the brother of Jesus Christ.
3. Church referred to a group of believers or Christians. It did not refer to an institution. There were the churches in Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, Thessalonica, and many other places. So special importance was given to the Church in Rome.
4. There is no evidence that Peter ever established a Church in Rome.
5. Jerusalem was the place where the Church elders were. The Most important people in the Church were Peter, James (Brother of Jesus), and John.

The Catholic Church was formed by uniting many churches to gather and mixing the pagan culture into it. That was done by emperor Constantine who lived in end of the second century AD. The rituals and practices existed in the Catholic church at the very beginning itself.

No hurt meant to the the Catholics but this is the truth.

jimahl

The common language used at that time was Greek. Aramic was also used. The Scriptures that they used were in Greek. Jesus said on the cross “Eli Eli Lama Sabachtani”. That was Hebrew. The langue spoken largely was Aramic. But the News Testament was written in Greek. Study show that Jesus did use two different words in that verse. Also a Bible study on the word rock is needed which you have not done. This evident from your knowledge of Acts.

There is no point us prolonging this discussion anymore. Since you think you have already learnt you cannot learn anymore. All I can say is please get some correct information.

All I can say is please get some correct information.

…hilarious… it gets funnier every time I see YOU tell that to OTHER people.

Eternallymisinformed, Aramaic was the language spoken by the jews of palestine at the time of jesus, so he would not have been talking in greek. Ever see the Gibson’s passion of the christ? Yes the original new testament was written in greek, but that is the point. The translation of the word rock from aramaic to greek is the result of your confusion. I have already explained it to you. You seem to be completely unable to comprehend this very simple concept.