Is it a coincidence that Rome became the seat of the RCC? I have my doubts.

M

Medicine*Woman

Jesus: Mythstory--Not History!
Valued Senior Member
*************
M*W: I just had a thought. Why did the first church of christianity claim Rome as its home? Okay, we all know the 'story.' Peter and Paul were allegedly there, and the rest is history (as it were). My question is why? Jesus lived far from there, and supposedly never went to Rome. Peter and Paul allegedly died there.

It makes sense to me that the Romans had something to do with the foundation and legacy of the RCC for it to end up in Rome. Wouldn't it be more likely that the church founded by Peter and/or Paul be in the natural location where Jesus lived?

Aside from that, I still think Peter, Paul and Jesus didn't exist outside the story of it all. However, the Roman emperors did exist, or so history pretty much confirms for us. But why was the originial church in Rome and not Judaea?
 
There could be several reasons...

First of all, much of Israel rejected the followers of Jesus, arresting them, stoning them, and eventually banning them from all jewish synagogues and the Temple... especially since the Christians didnt help the Jews in their revolt against Rome...

Secondly, they may have chose Rome because Rome was the sign of Power at the time.

Thirdly, they may have chose Rome to appeal to the gentiles, instead of Israel. Supposedly more gentiles converted to Christianity in those times than jews did... so if u want converts, makes sense.

I doubt Romans wanted the RCC to be founded considering they wanted the new revolution of these "christ worshippers" to be crushed and destroyed before it came out of hand (they sure failed at that) ... they killed Jesus (supposedly) because they were affraid of revolt ... same reason they killed Christians.
 
The Roman Catholic Church was fathered by Rome, that's why. Emperor Constantine sought council from bishops from across the empire at Nicea in 325 to unify Catholicism under a creed and a church that would be upheld by Rome. It is the Roman Catholic Church because it was the state religion, and naturally its seat was at the seat of the empire.
 
I understand that the second Pope St. Linus was chosen by Peter, who happened to be the leader of the Christian community in Rome at the time. So it makes sense that the linage of vatican rule would be established there by tradition.
 
Rome was the center of the Roman Empire, and thus the center of the ancient world. It's a symbolic foundation, placing thier religion in the center of the world, so that it would radiate outwards and infect the rest of the world with its stupidity.
 
Firstly, it was not the first church, as each city and local that had believers gathered together in
"churches"

Israel was destroyed more or less in 70 AD, and by 120 AD was reduced to an agricultural/
herding community with out any major cities.

The RCC was not the only major religious center of Christianity in the first 250 years and other
regions recognized other authorities.

If one follows the teaching of the early church- and one can see this in the new testament too,
Israel and the Jews( as a majority) would reject Jesus and be scattered but some time in the
future the jews would return to the land and that God had some plan that involved them outside
of the church. Though this topic is complex and there are and have been many views.

The idea that the RCC is the original church is more a self appointed title than a historical fact.
It can trace its history back to the Peter but like a river one can not look at its end and say “this is
the river” and understand how it got there and see all the branches that feed into it. If one were to
go back to the first or second century it would be hard to find the current RCC represented asits
teaching and practices have evolved much over time.
 
Any respect I may have had for the knowledge, debating skills, or perspecitve of Medicine Woman completely evaporated with this thread. For one claiming an understanding of the early Christian Church to ask such a naive question quite astounded me. Baumgarten has neatly summarised facts I would have expected to have been known to a neophyte, and certainly to someone of MW's claimed expertise in this area.

In the past I have reserved the Ignore function for arrogant fools. As a time saving measure I plan to extend that to simpletons, starting with MW.
 
Medicine Woman said:
It makes sense to me that the Romans had something to do with the foundation and legacy of the RCC for it to end up in Rome.
Click to expand...

And you didn't like it when I said your approach to the history of Christianity amounts to a conspiracy theory? Now we got it, fully exposed.

why was the originial church in Rome and not Judaea?
Click to expand...

Apart from what the others already said, Christianity as an organized religion actually originated in Greece. That is a historical fact, easily attested by the fact that the ordinary of the Catholic Mass, until not long ago, started with the words "Kyrie eleison", Greek for "Lord have mercy". So if it was all a conspiracy, it actually started in Greece, not Rome.
 
Confutatis said:
And you didn't like it when I said your approach to the history of Christianity amounts to a conspiracy theory? Now we got it, fully exposed.

Apart from what the others already said, Christianity as an organized religion actually originated in Greece. That is a historical fact, easily attested by the fact that the ordinary of the Catholic Mass, until not long ago, started with the words "Kyrie eleison", Greek for "Lord have mercy". So if it was all a conspiracy, it actually started in Greece, not Rome.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: I fail to see how the history of Christianity is a "conspiracy theory." It's based on a series of lies about people who didn't even exist. A conspiracy theory would need a web of people carrying out the conspiracy. Lies are lies, but a conspiracy lies do not necessarily make.

I asked the question why Rome was the seat of christianity when Jesus didn't live there. There is also some doubt that Peter and Paul were never in Rome. I'm trying to connect the two. If P&P were never in Rome, it's possible that Peter was not the first pope. It's also possible that P&P didn't exist, which brings about the theory that the Roman Emperors wrote the NT to control its masses.

However, as a former Catholic and visitor to the dungeon under Nero's Circus where P&P were supposedly murdered, I want to learn all I can about their non-existence.

You bring up a good point, however, about christianity starting in Greece. I am confused as to why the NT was written in Greek when the characters in the NT spoke Aramaic (like Jesus did). The only conclusion I can come to (with every simple question I might ask), is that none of these people existed. Therefore, there is no "conspiracy theory," just adequate writing of mysteries, but I do not believe in "mysteries" either, except that they are a fun read.
 
What a silly conclusion: Since Shakespeare wrote Julius Caesar in English, none of the characters in that play could have existed.
 
Medicine Woman said:
You bring up a good point, however, about christianity starting in Greece. I am confused as to why the NT was written in Greek when the characters in the NT spoke Aramaic (like Jesus did).
Click to expand...
I doubt that Jesus spoke only Aramaic and nothing else. He had a knowledge of Hebrew scripture and he would also have to speak some Greek as that was the official language of the decapolis. If you want to look at the closest translation from Aramaic I would suggest the Lamsa Bible, which is a direct english translation of the Syriac gospels (google it) - Syriac is a close dialect of ancient Aramaic.
 
Is it possible that Medicine Woman simply has some kind of axe to sharpen?

Perhaps she has read a book by a certain Acharya S?

Just a thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top