Replies

“If necessary, to prop up the system, you would say that the Roman Catholic Church was in Britain in 300 B.C.”

Well I daresay that’s rather a strawman. All I have simply argued is that Christianity was present in Britain prior to the establishment of Catholicism (the term used by Theodosius, btw) Which, if you know anything about the period in question isn’t a stretch, because that is the area of the Empire which Constantine’s father governed. Catholicism was quite prevalent in Britain in the 3rd and 4th century AD. Those that were Christians considered themselves to be Romans first and foremost, to the point of importing Roman culture into Britain.

But then you already knew all this.

“We already realize that you absolutely must revise all history to prop up the false notion that Jesus was creating a papacy in Matthew 16, and that a church as you want to believe exists there, actually exists there.”

All the historical evidence we have shows that the Bishop of Rome was founded with St. Peter and that the office of the Pope has gradually came to greater understanding over time. Rome has always been prominent, even in the earliest times, as evidenced by Paul’s own letter to the church in Rome. Given as it was the centre of the Empire, it would hardly make sense that the bishop of Rome would not have similar authority over the Church.

That being said, what we see in Matthew is that Peter is given Primacy over the other Apostles, and that the Apostles as a whole are given the power to bind and loose, to forgive sins. We are also told that Christ is building His Church for which the Apostles will be the head, and that their mission is to preach the Gospel to all nations.

You cannot handwave Matthew for the parts which are inconvenient to your theology.

“We are not concerned what they CALLED themselves.”

You are not. I am. That’s the point I’m trying to drive home to you. You may not care what they called themselves, but I do. Call them munchkin fairy queens if you want, that has equivalent veracity to calling the early church ‘Biblicists’, when they possessed neither a canon nor a bible as we understand it today.

“only what the Vatican says is truth”

A piss poor argument to direct at a convert.

“We write firmly so that others will realize that the whole world need not succumb to the same mental traps.”

Doesn’t matter what you write, or how hard you try to drive it home when the chisel slips, and you crack your own rock. There is simply no evidence besides wishful revisionism for the scenario you set out. Write a book for the fiction section, I’m sure you’ll garner an audience.