History of the Roman Catholic Church
 
The History of the Catholic Church covers a period of just under two thousand years, making the Church one of the oldest continuously existing religious institutions in history. As the oldest branch of Christianity[1], the history of the Catholic Church plays an integral part of the History of Christianity as a whole. In simple terms, the Catholic Church as it is used in this article refers specifically to the Church founded in Jerusalem by Jesus of Nazareth (c. AD 33) and led by an unbroken apostolic succession through St. Peter the Apostle, ruled by the Bishop of Rome as successor of St. Peter, now commonly known as the Pope.
Over time, schisms have disrupted the unity of Christianity. The major divisions occurred in 318 with Arianism, in 1054 with the East-West Schism with the Eastern Orthodox Church and in 1517 with the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Church has been the moving force in some of the major events of world history including the evangelization of Europe and Latin America, the spreading of literacy and the foundation of the Universities, hospitals, monasticism, the development of Art, Music and Architecture, the Inquisition, the Crusades, an analytical philosophical method, and the downfall of Communism in Eastern Europe in the late 20th century.
Ministry of Jesus and the Founding of the Church

Jesus as Christ pantocrator
The Catholic Church's institutional basis is the person and teachings of Jesus Christ (b. 6-4 B.C. Bethlehem, d. AD 33 Jerusalem) as described in the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These describe Jesus as an observant Jewish carpenter from the region of Galilee, who was both the promised Messiah or anointed one (Christos in Greek, giving rise to the title Jesus Christ) and son of God, in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Catholicism thus considers itself a successor religion to Judaism with the Christian God and the God of the Jews seen as one and the same.
According to the four Gospels, when Jesus was about thirty years of age (Luke 3:23), he left the town of Nazareth and began a ministry of preaching and miraculous healing. In his preaching, he called for repentance (Mark 1:15), presenting God as a loving Father always ready to forgive. He also called on people to imitate the goodness and love of God towards all. He gained a following of people who saw him as a Rabbi and in some cases wondered if he could be the Messiah; but he aroused opposition from the religious leadership, who saw his teaching as contrary to traditional doctrine and practice, and felt that his hints about his own personal identity were blasphemous.
The Gospels give a detailed account of Jesus' final days, when, probably in his mid-thirties, Jesus was arrested by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem and charged with blasphemy. To the Sanhedrin he declared himself the Messiah, and they persuaded the authorities of the Roman Empire, who ruled the region as Iudaea Province, to sentence him to death, after which he was scourged, beaten, and crucified. The Passion of Christ, thus recounted in the Gospels, tells of the events of Good Friday (beginning on what would now be considered the evening of the day before), which led up to Easter, when, according to the New Testament account, Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples. By its own reckoning, the Church began on the first Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles and disciples in the Upper Room.
To Simon Peter, Jesus had earlier stated that he would entrust to him the keys to Heaven and that upon the "rock" (Latin Petrus, Greek Petros, and Aramaic Cepha actually meaning "Stone") of Peter he would found his Church. The Catholic Church believes the Pope as the successor of Saint Peter and the singular leader of the whole Church on earth. The doctrines of Papal authority and Primacy of the Roman Pontiff continue to be sources of controversy between the Catholic Church and other Christian Churches.
 

Thank god you cleared that up.
 
D

Hi Grandpa 13
 
I don't believe that the Cathlic church wrote or put together the Bible as one the Jews put and still read the "old testmont". Second Peter did not establish the Cathlic church. The Cathlic church arrive many years later after Peters death and Peter would not be a man to be swade by others to change the Sabbath or standards or take way education from the people forming the dark ages because only a few could be allowed to read the holy word and tell everyone else that they couldn't have a relationship with God and that Sunday was more important Then What God said that it was Saturday.(You have seen those quotes right form the Cathlics themselves) How does the Bible describe the AntiChrist?? One who believes they can change time and laws!!!????
 
This is the head and they took away education for if the people had education there wouldn't have been the dark ages or the many crusaes killing that were not needed.
 
Lets see the Cathlic church supported Hitler and his action. The KKK, and many other murders groups that are kept secret. Yet so many put them up on a pedastall above the Bible for we have to go to man for confession forgetting that Jesus took our place on the cross giving us direct access to the Father through Him (Jesus).
 
Up on that Friday the last sacrifes was given and the drap between the holy and the most holy was ripped without hand from the top to the bottom. This is totally impossible for a man to do from the construction of the temple. So why was a man placed where Jesus is for us today pleading for a relationship?
 
Cathlics didn't write the Bible - Peter isn't the starting place for the Cathlic Church. Study some more and not just what people want you to know.
 
IBIJ2

Replying to this post by grandpa13:
 
> History of the Roman Catholic Church
> ---
> To Simon Peter, Jesus had earlier stated that he would entrust to him
> the keys to Heaven and that upon the "rock" (Latin Petrus,
> Greek Petros, and Aramaic Cepha actually meaning "Stone")
 
grandpa13,
 
Pronto! I believe that the Aramaic word "kepha" or "cephas" is = "rock".
 
But the masculine form of the Greek word "petra" (rock) is "petros" (meaning - stone sometimes and rock sometimes)
 
Wikipedia says:
 
Gospel of Matthew: Jesus tells Peter: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." In the original Greek the word translated as "Peter" is (Petros) and that translated as "rock" is (petra), two words that, while not identical, give an impression of a play on words. Furthermore, since Jesus presumably spoke to Peter in their native Aramaic language, he would have used kepha in both instances. The Peshitta Text and the Old Syriac text use the word "kepha" for both "Peter" and "rock" in Matthew
---
The traditional Catholic interpretation has therefore been that Jesus told Peter (Rock) that he would build his Church on this Peter (Rock).

Hi GP
 
Well, there you have it; and not from my lips either. Both sides are speaking doctrine, it's just one side is basing there doctrine on what the Bible says while the other is basing their doctrine on what they want the Bible to say.
 
I'd like to emphasize just one point that IBIJ2 made, that being Peter's place as outlined in Scripture.
 
GOD's WORD:
Matthew 16
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
 
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
 
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
 
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[b] the Son of the living God."
 
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
 
MY RESPONSE:
Above you find Jesus teaching His disciples who exactly He is. Peter is the first to respond...
 
(16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[b] the Son of the living God.")
 
Jesus then commends Peter for His answer and says...
 
(Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.)
 
Which virtually means that Peter is correct. Then Jesus establishes Peter's position in Christ.
 
(you that you are Peter)
 
Then Christ continues, which is quite often the reason that commas are used in our common language today.
 
(and on this rock I will build my church)
 
The question then becomes what does "this rock" refer to?
 
EITHER:
Peter who was still to deny Christ and turn His back on everything related to Him.
 
OR:
This rock means Christ Himself, which means that Christianity would be built upon the Rock of Ages. Which makes sense to you?
 
GOD's WORD:
Daniel 2:34
While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them.
 
MY RESPONSE:
Above Jesus is referred to as the rock. This is why studying prophecy to understand what it is teaching is so vital. And no, I'm not picking one Scripture out of a chapter. The entire chapter focus on this rock which is Christ. I chose the most specific verse to make for ease of reading on your part.
 
Oh, before I go, how could Peter have the keys to the kingdom if Jesus has them? Are the Bible writers somehow confused?
 
GOD's WORD:
Revelation 1:18
I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
 
Cheers
IBIJ

IBIJ
 
I have relatives that are Adventist; I am familiar with your church, your agenda and your doctrine. I am aware that you are extremely anti- Catholic. And your response to my post is exactly as I anticipated.
 
The world is full of conflict, everyone wants to be right, my dad can whip your dad, my church is right and yours is wrong and etc. And that is good; it doesn't leave any room for false prophets. They will be exposed through the process of the natural order of things as the world progresses.
 
Every person that walks the face of the earth maybe a sinner, but he also has the potential to do good. He can have a personal relationship with God even if he never heard of religion or the Bible. He won't be bothered with worrying about how the world is going to end.
 
As you say
Cheers
Grandpa13

Hey GP
 
You do realize you have two people answering rather than just one, yes?
 
Anyways, I'm not at all surprised by your answer too.
 
Question...
 
If end times prophecies are not important then why are entire books of the Bible devoted to exactly that topic?
 
Further, what makes more sense to you, building a house without a blue print or building one with a blue print? The Bible is our blue print, it is up to each one of us as to whether we will follow it or not. Those that never had a chance to study God's Word for themselves will certainly not be held accountable for not having done so. However, those that have had the availability of God's Word and have chosen to follow man's path instead will certainly not be in that same boat. God wants to know what we will do with what we have available to us, not what we will do with what we don't have available to us.
 
Cheers
IBIJ

I have provided you with this scripture before but you have not done anything with it, so I shall cast it back into the fray once more!
Romans 1:18-25 pretty much refutes your claims that anyone who does not receive written or verbal knowledge of God's existence will not be condemned. Verse 20 lays it out, refute that.
 
~JEBUS

IBIJ
 
Question???
 
You answer it, you got all the answers. I told you, I am not going to waste my time debating you. I am quite happy with my world as it is. I accept people, places, and things just as they are. I am quite sure God has his world under control, and I don't have the power to change it. He may use me, but he doesn't need me, I am sure of that.
 
grandpa13

I have provided you with this scripture before but you have not done anything with it, so I shall cast it back into the fray once more!
Romans 1:18-25 pretty much refutes your claims that anyone who does not receive written or verbal knowledge of God's existence will not be condemned. Verse 20 lays it out, refute that.
 
 
Hi Jebus
 
Long time no talk, errrr well maybe not but itâ019s good to see you back here on Caissaâ019s MISC BB. What was it, less than a week ago that you took oath not to speak to me on this board any longer? No worries, Iâ019ll glad to speak with friends especially as it relates to Godâ019s Holy Word.
 
GODâ019s WORD:
Romans 1:18-25
 
YOU SAID:
pretty much refutes your claims that anyone who does not receive written or verbal knowledge of God's existence will not be condemned.
 
GODâ019s WORD:
Romans 1:18-25
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesâ014his eternal power and divine natureâ014have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorâ014who is forever praised. Amen.
 
MY RESPONSE:
Wait a minute. When did I ever say that they would not be condemned? If a building is condemned it is torn down and is no more unless major reconstruction is done upon the structure. Those who choose to refuse Godâ019s free gift of grace and continue in their sins will indeed be condemned. My point is not that they will not be condemned, but like the building spoken of a couple of moments ago they will be no more. Does the building that was condemned cease to be condemned simply because it no longer exists? That building will never see the light of day again and thus it could be said that it is eternally condemned into non-existence. Such is the case with the temples (body and soul) that refuse to embrace the free gift that Christ offers each and every one.
 
Let me ask you a counter question, given the very Scriptures referenced above can you demonstrate literally the essence of man burning forever and always in an eternal torment? If not, shouldnâ019t you consider wisely that which is indeed written in the Word of God?
 
GODâ019s WORD:
John 5:24
"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.
 
MY RESPONSE:
Notice the difference here? â01CEternal lifeâ01D verse â01Ccondemnedâ01D and consider the fate of the building spoken of above.
 
YOU SAID:
refute that.
 
MY RESPONSE:
As you should know by now, I am not in the practice of â01Crefutingâ01D Godâ019s Word. Rather I choose to embrace what it says while following itâ019s teachings literally. How can you not see that as a good idea?
 
Cheers
IBIJ

Hi GP
 
YOU SAID:
Question???
 
MY RESPONSE:
Yes?
 
YOU SAID:
You answer it, you got all the answers.
 
MY RESPONSE:
Most certainly not true. Godâ019s Word has all the answers, all I have is a voice or in this case typing skills.
 
YOU SAID:
I told you, I am not going to waste my time debating you. I am quite happy with my world as it is. I accept people, places, and things just as they are. I am quite sure God has his world under control, and I don't have the power to change it. He may use me, but he doesn't need me, I am sure of that.
 
MY RESPONSE:
You are quite correct that God does not need you, or me for that matter. Yet for those who are willing to yield to His directions He certainly wonâ019t fail to use a single one.
 
My observations thus far as they relate to you in our dialogâ019s is that you are more than willing to ask tough questions but somehow resent the thought of an answer somehow being made available. Not sure why that is, less of course you would rather believe you than the Bible.
 
Errrrrâ026 didnâ019t you start this post withâ026
 
YOU SAID:
Question???
 
MY RESPONSE:
I may be mistaken but the above looks much more like a comment than a question. Though it does lead to a question from me for you. If you are so satisfied and comfortable in your position why is it that you find a need to continiously refute mine? Especially since your statement above says â01CI accept people, places, and things just as they areâ01D. Am I not to be defined as a person? Or is it that my teachings so disrupt your world that you must find a way to refute them thus being free to not believe them?
 
Cheers
IBIJ

IBIJ
 
Thats right, I accept you as you are. Thats why I am not wasting my time arguing with you. I don't need that type of bias and prejudice in my life.
 
grandpa13

The real question is are we to follow Peter a man or is it not Jesus that is the Rock that we should be standing on?
 
The other question is "this" where was Jesus pointing and what was he refuring to?
 
Third Paul was the one that would be the closest linked to Catholic Church not Peter. So where how is Peter Connected?
 
 
 
IBIJ2

Grandpa 13
 
I have friends that are catholic and have gone to mass and a catholic wedding. So no we are not down on cathlic but we are also not blind to the fact that they don't follow the word of God and create danger for many people past present and futher.
 
Oh there is planty of room for false prophets they are all round.
 
There is yet to be found a culture that doesn't have the story of the flood and there is one other story that was prophecied that is also in every culture.
 
How would you explain the tribe that never have seen the outside world believing the bases of the adventist church when they where met by the outside world? They kept Sabbath as in Saturday. I don't find this happening with the Catholic church. I find them in many ways taking on the culture, relition of the local people. Their beliefs and standards changes from location to location. Would this not be a consern. If you believe in something should it not be the same - stable instead of conforming to what is around them?
 
I love the catholic people and have no problem with them.
 
Here is some information that you might like to know about the Cathlic Church as in """"
 
Catholics trace the beginnings of their church to Palestine. There, according to the Bible, Christ told the apostles to preach the gospel to all peoples. The first Christians were Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Savior expected by the Jews though this was not a universal belief of the Jews. However the church accepted the Jewish Scriptures as sacred. Paul became the most predominant person to take the gospel to the gentiles (non-Jews). The gentile churches under Paul's leadership and the help of the Holy Spirit began to expand rapidly. He died about A.D. 67. By about 140 the center of Christianity had spread from Jerusalem to Syria, Egypt and Rome. In spite of Roman persecution, the church grew steadily. The Romans believed that loyalty to the political government, the emporer and their gods superceded loyalty to God. They regarded Christians who refused to give such honor as traitors and atheists. To bring them into line, the Romans resorted to persecution and martyrdom for the Christians. But paganism and idol worship was also making significant encroachment upon the political security of the Roman gove rnment. To keep the nation from splintering, the Roman ruler Constantine, in 313, became a Christian. They also, according to Bible prophecy hundreds of years prior, attempted to change the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday for which there is no Biblical support (see Dan. 7:25). For a short time this aided the Christian church to prosper. After 200 more years transpired and the Roman government was being invaded by the barbarian tribes (Vandals, Heruli and Ostrogoths), Justinian the ruler in 538 chose to move the capital of government from Rome to Constantinople, in Turkey. He left the Roman capital in the hands of the pagan Roman church which was eager to become a religio-political power, and did so, to rule the western section of Rome. Justinian gave the "seat of his power and throne" (Rev. 13:2) to what has since become known as the papal Roman Catholic church. Shortly thereafter they (the church) began to introduce elements into their worship for economic reasons (though claimed to be for religious purposes). Among many, these included infant baptism, payment of money and prayer for the dead to get out of purgatory or hell, penance, confirmation, Eucharist or the mass, etc. When these teachings were resisted by the Christians, they were soon persecuted and martyred. Estimates place the number conservat ively at 50 million.
 
IBIJ2

Hi JEBUS
 
I can refute that as it doesn't state that if you don't know the written word and have the access to you that you will not be condem for it really states the reviece of it. Infact the Bible says because you did not listen and choose your own ways that they were left to their sin and to the animals sences and this is part of the reason for the gay commuinty that and abuse. Read it carefully we are responcible to learn.
 
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesïFFD014his eternal power and divine natureïFFD014have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
 
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the CreatorïFFD014who is forever praised. Amen.
 
 
IBIJ2

Grandpa 13
 
OH He needs you!! That is for sure or He Wouldn't have created you. You are here for a special reason it is your choose to except that or do your own thing.
 
People can discute and learn and it doesn't have the be a debate.
 
IBIJ2

Grandpa 13
 
My question is who is being prejudice?
 
IBIJ2

Just so that I understand what you said.
 
YOU SAID:
I accept you as you are.
 
YOU SAID:
I don't need that type of bias and prejudice in my life.
 
MY RESPONSE:
Given that these two statements are made within the same paragraph, isn't there a distinctly uncohesive disconnect between the two sentences? Completely apart from any sort of "debate"; if someone told me that they accepted me as I was I wouldn't then expect them to tell me that I am both prejudice and bias.
 
Cheers
IBIJ

I also accept you as you are : egotistical, ignorant,prejudiced,intolorant,Blind,Weak scared little man. You could be fat and ugly too.
 
 
D
 
P.S. I know that when i post i open myself up to critisism and abuse as does IBIJ2 . So Beware.

We are both willing to take whatevery you have to dish out. But accepting someone as they are is not done by calling them names. At least not in my world.
 
Cheers
IBIJ