Origin of Catholic Church

[whbae]

Many years ago, I read an article in a book(do not remember the title of book any more) stating the origination of the Catholic Church.   Acts 8: 9 ------- mentions that what Philip was doing.  When he came to one place and performing miracles and preaching influenced by the Holy Spirit, a man called Simone who also was doing some wonderful things for the people came to Philip telling him what a wonderful things he was doing and offered him to sell the power.  Philip told him off saying that the Holy Spirit is not for sale.  Simone got upset and went away and established his own church.  This is how the Catholic Church started. 

Does anyone read the same story somewhere or heard about it?

Won

[Gregory Matthews]

Catholics would say that the Catholic Church began with a commission that Christ gave to Peter-- Matthew 16:18 & 19. 

As a Protestant, I do not agree with that understanding.   However, your passage in Acts (Acts 8:19) is totally without support of the position that you suggest.  Nothing in that passage suggests the founding of a Church.

Your suggestion is pure and simple an example of eisegesis.  It is totally without merit.

  

[Gustave]

55 minutes ago, whbae said:

Many years ago, I read an article in a book(do not remember the title of book any more) stating the origination of the Catholic Church.   Acts 8: 9 ------- mentions that what Philip was doing.  When he came to one place and performing miracles and preaching influenced by the Holy Spirit, a man called Simone who also was doing some wonderful things for the people came to Philip telling him what a wonderful things he was doing and offered him to sell the power.  Philip told him off saying that the Holy Spirit is not for sale.  Simone got upset and went away and established his own church.  This is how the Catholic Church started. 

Does anyone read the same story somewhere or heard about it?

Won

I've heard many conspiracy theories as to how the Church was started, have to say I've never heard this one. I would agree with Gregory that your interpretation of Acts 8 fails to hold water or even moisture. 

[JoeMo]

2 hours ago, whbae said:

Does anyone read the same story somewhere or heard about it?

I was raised Catholic and never heard this story.  Constantine started the Catholic Church when He named Christianity to state religion and named the Bishop of Rome as the head of the church in the 4th Century - long after Simon.

[whbae]

"Fails to hold even moisture"  How interesting!  So as many other theories.

Jesus did not build any church on Peter, either.  Jesus called Peter a pebble not rock.

Also, I am not saying that statement in Acts is the correct origination of the Catholic church.  You do not have to be offended.  I was just asking your opinion about Acts.

[Gregory Matthews]

I do not believe that anyone who responded was offended.  You asked for an opinion and several gave theirs.

 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, whbae said:

"Fails to hold even moisture"  How interesting!  So as many other theories.

Jesus did not build any church on Peter, either.  Jesus called Peter a pebble not rock.

Also, I am not saying that statement in Acts is the correct origination of the Catholic church.  You do not have to be offended.  I was just asking your opinion about Acts.

I wasn't offended at all by your premise. 

The fact of the matter is Acts 15 dispels your argument.

"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things."

You can bet your bottom dollar that the men who had no authority to teach that Christians had to become circumcised & keep the Law of Moses for Salvation wished with every cell in their body that they could have made an "authoritative statement" like that but the fact are that they lacked such authority. 

Hierarchal structure is the only way statements found in Acts 15,28, 1 John 2,19 & Matthew 23,2 & others work. Sure, you have the spiritual decedents of Korah thumb their nose at religious authority but this is just rebellion against God, old hat. 

[whbae]

I found some unexpected information for you.  Please, google "Simone Magus and the Origins of Catholic Church". It is a lengthy article but worth to spend some time to read them.

I am not too far off.

Won 

[phkrause]

6 hours ago, whbae said:

I found some unexpected information for you.  Please, google "Simone Magus and the Origins of Catholic Church". It is a lengthy article but worth to spend some time to read them.

I am not too far off.

Won 

So Won, that was very interesting reading!! Thank you for that link.

[Gregory Matthews]

O.K.  I have looked into your reference to Simone Magus and the origin of the Catholic Church:

*  Certainly not an article that shows scholarly merit.

*  Seems to credit Alfred von Harnack (1851 - 1930) for crediting Simon Magus with the Catholic faith. 

*  Harnack calls Simon Magus the Father of Gnosticism.  Gnosticism has been rejected by the Catholic Church. lt is beyond belief to call the Father of Gnosticism the founder of the Catholic Church.

*  Harnack totally denied that Christ could have performed any miracles--none at all.  I do not consider such to be an authority on the beginning of the Christian faith.

*  As I see it, the bottom line is that the idea that Simon Magus was a founder of the Catholic faith is totally without foundation and mere speculation based upon an assembly of isolated and somewhat unrelated facts.

*  If we  want to criticize the Catholic faith we must do much better than this.  This defies logic.

 

  

[whbae]

The claim that Jesus established a church on Peter and  he became the first pope is not in the Bible.

[phkrause]

17 hours ago, whbae said:

The claim that Jesus established a church on Peter and  he became the first pope is not in the Bible.

We all know that Won! And as far as I can tell no one said that!!

[Gustave]

17 hours ago, whbae said:

The claim that Jesus established a church on Peter and  he became the first pope is not in the Bible.

Korah used a similar argument against Moses - do you also believe that God didn't establish Moses and the Priesthood to be the religious authority for Judaism? 

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, phkrause said:

We all know that Won! And as far as I can tell no one said that!!

Do you deny that there was a Bishop of Rome from the Apostolic era through to 400 A.D.? 

[phkrause]

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

Do you deny that there was a Bishop of Rome from the Apostolic era through to 400 A.D.? 

Why would I deny there was a Bishop? It wasn't Peter that's for sure!!

[Gustave]

55 minutes ago, phkrause said:

Why would I deny there was a Bishop? It wasn't Peter that's for sure!!

By what means have you determined for sure that Peter wasn't? 

[whbae]

*  As I see it, the bottom line is that the idea that Simon Magus was a founder o the Catholic faith is totally without foundation and mere speculation based upon an assembly of isolated and somewhat unrelated facts.

I am responding to Gregory's statement above.  Where is the fact that Catholic church's claim the Jesus established church  on Peter which became the catholic church except their own claim?

[Gregory Matthews]

Whbae:  My statement has no relationship to the question that you have asked me.

[phkrause]

21 hours ago, Gustave said:

By what means have you determined for sure that Peter wasn't? 

The Bible!!

[Gustave]

14 hours ago, phkrause said:

The Bible!!

Where does the Bible say Peter wasn't in Rome or that Peter had to be in Rome for Apostolic Succession to work? 

[phkrause]

6 hours ago, Gustave said:

Where does the Bible say Peter wasn't in Rome or that Peter had to be in Rome for Apostolic Succession to work? 

Where does it say that Jesus made Peter the head of the church?????

[Gustave]

16 hours ago, phkrause said:

Where does it say that Jesus made Peter the head of the church?????

 

1st,

Thanks for the question.

I'd say that Peter was given the Keys and the power to "bind and loose" independently of the other Apostles( Matthew 16, 19).

Peter was singled out by Jesus to tend to the other Apostles ( Luke 22, 32 ).

Prior to claiming that those Scriptures don't mean what I'm saying they do  - read:

Isaiah, 22, 15-25

&

2 King's 15,5 & Genesis 41, 39-40.

 

 

[phkrause]

Well I read it all and still can't agree!! I believe if Jesus actually wanted Peter to be the leader of the church he would've said right out "Peter I'm going to make you the head of the new church." Sorry don't buy it!!

[Gustave]

On 1/21/2021 at 5:03 PM, phkrause said:

Well I read it all and still can't agree!! I believe if Jesus actually wanted Peter to be the leader of the church he would've said right out "Peter I'm going to make you the head of the new church." Sorry don't buy it!!

Had you been a Jew living at the time of Christ when He said what He did to Peter there would be no doubt in your mind. 

More on this soon, I'm too tired to share what little I know at this time. 

[stinsonmarri]

On 1/10/2021 at 3:17 PM, Gustave said:

I wasn't offended at all by your premise. 

The fact of the matter is Acts 15 dispels your argument.

"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things."

You can bet your bottom dollar that the men who had no authority to teach that Christians had to become circumcised & keep the Law of Moses for Salvation wished with every cell in their body that they could have made an "authoritative statement" like that but the fact are that they lacked such authority. 

Hierarchal structure is the only way statements found in Acts 15,28, 1 John 2,19 & Matthew 23,2 & others work. Sure, you have the spiritual decedents of Korah thumb their nose at religious authority but this is just rebellion against God, old hat. 

You need to explain what you mean. This is very vague.