The RCC evolved over time as error after error was incorporated.
No pugatory in the NT.
no "Mary mother of God" in the NT
no prayers to the dead in the NT.
No "confecting the body and divinity of Christ" in the NT.
No indulgences in the NT.
No exterminating heretics in the NT. Doctrine of Discovery proclaiming "convert or die"
No Pope Peter in the NT - as we see in Acts 15 - James is the leader.
No infant baptism in the NT
No order of priests in the NT
And without all of that - do you really have the RCC in the NT?
No.
hint - even Catholic sources themselves admit that the RCC doctrines "evolved over time" see "A Concise history of the Catholic Church" and "Catholic Digest" as they research the history of infant baptism and priests.
==========================
And of course the never-answered-question for this thread ...."And without all of that before 100 AD - do you really have the RCC in the NT until 313?"
Islam, Catholicism, Mormons and many other denominations "make a lot of claims" - but the idea was to provide some objective basis for evaluating the 33AD vs 313AD discussion.
Few people question whether a Christian church existed prior to 100 AD. or whether one existed in some form in Rome.
What is questioned is whether it was really the RCC -- given that the RCC does not exist without its doctrines.
Whether Peter stayed in Rome beyond being a prisoner there does not help unless you can show that Peter believed and taught RCC doctrine.
Which seems to be the problem.
Were those doctrines ever taught in the dark ages? yes --
Just not in the first 100 years.
Just not in the actual NT.
Just not by the actual Apostles.
Which is the sticking point being avoided.
[/quote]
Very well then, according to your best judgment, and taking account of all relevant matters, when did the RCC start?
Easy - find those doctrines as early as you can -- all in place.
Or pick the ones that the RCC can "do without" and find the rest.
Hint: It won't be in the first century text of scripture.
=========================================
So it's an academic question, sorta like the show last night on Smithsonian about "What was Stonehenge?" All pure conjecture on the part of those outside of the Catholic Church.
No need to be defensive - just answer the point. Either tell us which of those doctrines are optional - flawed - unneeded -- or else show us where they are taught in the NT text to make your claim that the RCC and its much-needed-doctrines existed in 33 A.D.
That answer is simple. None.
If none of the doctrines are needed -- then ALL Christian denominations can make whatever claim they wish to the first century - for their doctrines are to be found in it.
But who says it must be in Scripture to be a valid belief???
You are getting a bit defensive and sidetracked. The point is that if you want to claim the RCC existed in 33 A.D. you have to show that the doctrines that define the RCC existed or else toss 'em all out the window.
If you toss them out - then any Christian denomination can claim first century status.
It is as simple - and obvious as that.
in Christ,
Bob
