Replies

It’s interesting to me anytime the councils are studied. I often wonder, if so many Protestant scholars acknowledge not only that they existed, but also that they were Catholic councils, why is it so difficult to believe the Council that met at Jerusalem in Acts was also a Catholic council? Simply because the word “Catholic” wasn’t used specifically to describe it? To me, that sounds like the lame argument, “Since the word Trinity isn’t in the Bible, it can’t be true”.

The word monotheism isn’t in the Bible either, does that mean “monotheism” isn’t true?

Anyway, it’s interesting to me. A point of curiosity. I’ve never heard anyone explain where the Catholic Church came from (other than some shadowy, if not outright flimsy, connection to Constantine) if one also concedes that the councils throughout history were Catholic. Seems to me it’s not much of a stretch to believe during the time of Christian persecution via Rome, most evidence of Catholicity has been destroyed, as that was just a given fact at the time, and thus not as important to preserve as the Scriptures themselves.

I guess Constantine is as good a scapegoat as any though; even though he had little to do with Catholicism, practically speaking; I’ve never seen any evidence that shows he did at least. So we have this Catholic Church/Roman Empire conglomerate just popping out of no where in the 4th Century, even though there’s scant historical evidence for that other than, perhaps, the most ironic twist of historical fact of all time: the legalization of Christianity by Constantine. How that “proves” that the Church was started by him is beyond me though.