Jesus was from the Holy Land. Peter was too. Why is Rome the capitol of Catholicism, and not Jerusalem?
469992
As above-- the Bishop of Rome became the head of the Church when the emperor converted to Christianity.\n\nHowever, the Roman Empire DID NOT become the Holy Roman Empire. The HRE came into existence in the 10th century (around 963, I think-- too lazy to look it up) and was not an Empire so much as a loose association of independent states. Or as Voltaire said, it was neither Holy, Roman, nor an Empire.\n\nThe Western Roman Empire collapsed with the sack of Rome in 476, but the Eastern Roman Empire, with the capitol in Byzantium, lasted until it fell in 1453 to the Turks.\n\nBut I digress.
505567
No.  Peter was NEVER the leader of any church, that is just another RC lie.  Peter was NEVER in Rome, and in any case Peter was the apostle to the Jews NOT the Gentiles.\nIf you really are looking, read the Bible which is the authority in all things, and keep away from the teaching of men in particular the RC church.\nPeter was NEVER a pope, nowhere in the Bible does it ever say that Peter was a pope.  popes exhault them selves, Peter was far to humble a person to ever be caried higher than other, or allow himself to be worshipped the way the popes do.  They love worship!
373608
Well, that depends on who you ask and what qualifies as "start." :)\n\nJesus told Peter he was to be "the rock" on which he (Jesus) would build his church. Catholics take that to refer to Peter as the head of the church - then they see Peter as the Bishop of the Church in Rome, which would make him the first Pope. They see each successive Bishop of Rome as being Pope, as well, in a line of succession from Peter. \n\nSo, you could point to Pentecost (when the Holy Spirit comes down on the Apostles in Acts), as the start of the church itself. Or, you could see it, in a way, as being when Jesus named Peter.\n\nAs to the history, we know Bishops of Rome were pretty powerful at least as early as the 2nd century, but we really don't have evidence of them being considered the universal head of the church (ie-the Pope) until the 3rd or 4th century.
866497
Catholics read the Bible for 1,200 years before Protestants existed. Why wouldn't we? The Bible belongs to the Catholic Church. It was compiled by Catholic bishops, and approved by a Catholic Pope, for the sole purpose of use within the Catholic Church. Those who have borrowed the book from the Catholic Church have consistently demonstrated their inability to interpret it correctly. When I read the Holy Bible I see a Church that is ONE, even as Jesus and His heavenly Father are ONE, a church united in teaching, united in beliefs, united in worship, not a manmade tradition fragmented into thousands of conflicting denominations.  I'll continue to read the Bible as Catholics have always done, and I'll continue to look to God's holy Church, the biblical pillar and foundation of truth, for correct and authoritative interpretation. Leave God's Church for the doctrinal chaos of manmade denominational religion?  No. I don't think so.
727557
Jesus was both Jewish AND Israeli.
1109014
Man, I understand where your coming from.  I've studied other religions and looked into this Jesus and I've asked the same question and many more.  Jesus is special for a number of reasons.  Yes, there were many people who crucified as saviors before and after Jesus.  We still get people popping up claiming divinity.  The real question isn't so much as is Jesus the savior because he got a few books written about him, its why were there books written about him in the first place.  The most basic point anyone can show you is this...its not that Jesus died, its that he rose after his death.  And there is more evidence that he did actually rise 3 days later and not just Biblical evidence.  First off, the fact that the Roman leaders and armies wanted him gone, because it was the time of Pass Over which is the celebration of Jews getting out of Egypt, and at this time of year, the Jewish community gets a little out of hand, for the are now under the Roman rule.  So when Jesus comes in, and he's claiming to be their savior...the crowd thinks he's going to be a king and run the Romans out.  So, if Jesus didn't rise again, why did the Romans say nothing?  Why did the Jewish Pharaseas (please excuse my spelling) who pushed to have him killed, not stand up and say..."he's still dead!"?  What was it that gave Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John the confedance to step out of their hidding, for fear they were going to be crucified, and boldly speak of a living God, Jesus...and welcome their death?  These questions may seem weak, but if you really think about them and look at the history and try to get in the minds of all these people...only one thing makes since...Jesus is not dead...he rose, becoming a savior that no one expected, but a savior from ourselves.  Thats why Jesus is special, the others were saviors...they were fanatics.  There are a lot of other reasons why Jesus is special, but I honestly have the feeling that if this thought doesn't at least make you rethink the history, then anything else I say, will truly be pointless.
269762
The previous poster is incorrect.  Christ was and is perfect.  If He weren't then He couldn't have died for anyone's sins, thus negating Christianity altogether.\n\nTo answer your question, let's get a few things straight.  Inciting a riot means that you're trying to get others to engage in violence along with you.  There's no evidence of that in this story.\n\nAlso, you imply that the Romans had set up shops in the Temple.  There's no reason to believe that.  It's much more likely that these were Jewish merchants selling to Jews.  Therefore there would be no central authority to negotiate with.\n\nThere is such a thing as righteous anger.  Christ entered the temple and saw how it had been so cheapened that commerce was going on within its walls, dishonoring God.  He became appropriately angry and wouldn't tolerate it for a moment longer.  The Temple was a place to worship God, not profit on His name.\n\nI don't think it's at all comparable to the suicide bombers and such you see in the Middle East.  Jesus didn't harm anybody physically.  His anger was directly aimed at those who were dishonoring God.  He wasn't trying to create terror, He was forcefully demonstrating how objectionable this practice was to God.\n\nPeace doesn't mean passively accepting an unacceptable situation.
618378
Jesus was really more about spiritual things than economic. He wanted to help sinners and so forth, not political parties per se. Neither democrats nor republicans have any monopoly on claims to preference from Jesus. There were no political parties then, just factions that were mostly secular in ROME but religious in Israel. In Israel people did not vote. They obeyed their religious laws and leaders and then, after being invaded by Rome, they obeyed Roman law. Jesus was famous for loving everybody, not just the poor. If he was just another goodie-two-shoes helping the poor, he would not be special. The thing that made his tecahing special was that he said to "love thine enemies" Most so-called Christain groups or factions today forget all about that and spread hate. They are disgraces to Jesus' memory.\nThe jews were threatened by his teachings more than the Romans so they framed him with the law and got him killed\nThe jewish factions that hated jesus were collaborators with the occupiers, like the Vichi French in WWII( traitors to their people)\n\nThe Romans were occupiers, like America in IRAQ today, and they just wanted peace so they could exploit the region and not have to settle disputes or fight revolutionary battles with insurgents. So they backed the old Jews to get rid of Jesus to buy their continued cooperation.
663941
Jerusalem should be like the Vatican, a nation unto itself, it is too important to the western religions and the world to belong to anyone
67742
The Roman government at the time tried to maintain a grudging tolerance for native religious beliefs in areas under its control.  Since the Jews already had an earthly 'king' in the form of Herod, Pilate would have naturally assumed he was the official 'King of the Jews'.  There had already been dozens of religious zealots who claimed to be the Messiah or the rightful Jewish King, so it would be logical for Pilate to consider Jesus just another deluded rabble rouser.\n\nIt is therefore highly possible that Pilate ordered the INRI sign placed as a mockery, as well as a warning to others in the crowd who might have similar designs against Roman rule.
933440
Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics separated from one another in 1054. There are very few theological differences. \n\nThe main difference is that the Eastern Orthodox Churches (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11329a.htm) use the Byzantine Rite (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04312d.htm) and the Roman Catholic Church use the Roman or Latin Rite.\n\nPope John Paul II said of the Eastern Orthodox Churches in Orientale Lumen, "A particularly close link already binds us. We have almost everything in common." (see http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_02051995_orientale-lumen_en.html)\n\nWith love in Christ.
277172
It's not a weird notion.  There is no evidence of a lot of things that transpired during the times of Christ.   Sure the Bible talks about it and is the ONLY accepted history of that time.   I'm inclined to think that the apostles did run with their interpretation of Christ's teachings.   I'm not so sure it was to create an alternate Jewish religion, but an alternate politically correct on of the time.   Jesus didn't come to Earth to have people worship him as God.  That was furthest from his teachings.  His teachings were to show people the way to the Father through his teachings.  Even the perverstion of "The only way to heaven is through Christ."   It simply means that to get to heaven is to be like Christ and follow his teachings.   It does not mean to worship him as God.   Never has, never did, never will.
787029
we know jesus existed because the romans wrote the history of that time. they were the dominant power and were not fans of jesus or the jews, or any other sub-group of that era. you'll recall that they were the ones who actually crucified him at the jews request. also they persecuted the jews and other religious minorities after the death of christ. rome would be a pagan government for quite some time after the death of christ. your concern is over whether or not jesus was a divine being. did he do the things that are written? was he who he claimed to be? not did he exist. the victors of that period wrote their historys and acknowledged jesus.
259819
It was the official position of the Church of Rome for some time that the Jews crucified Christ, but under Vatican 2 that paradigm was removed.  Christ was killed by Rome, by the Roman Governor of Judea.  In part because he was a sort of rebel, and going against the grain.  Rome had essentially a policy for putting down anyone that represented a threat to their rule.  The Sadducces (the Hebrew ruling class) and Phraises (essentially the middle class) were not unhappy to see Him go as he often clashed with their values too.  Advocating for change and better treatment of the poor and disenfranchised typically doesn't win you many friends with the establishment!\n   You will need to do a lot more research, I've included a site below to help get you started, good luck with your project and Shalom. :)
134721
Rome is the capitol city of Italy.\nGreece is a different country.\n\nYour question is rather like, 'What's the difference between Washington and Canada?'\n\nAre you asking about the civilisations in these areas about 2000 years ago? Rome (and Romans) had a different meaning then because Italy was not a unified country and did not exist as it does today.\n\nIf you are interested in the ancient civilizations, have a look here:
45606
To correct one of the people answering this question: The Vatican IS a country.\n\nVatican City — formally State of the Vatican City, or Vatican City State (Italian: Stato della Città del Vaticano, Latin: Status Civitatis Vaticanae) — is a tiny sovereign state whose territory consists of a landlocked enclave within the city of Rome, Italy. Since it is governed by the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, its government can be described as ecclesiastical and the highest state functionaries are in fact clerics. The modern-day home of the popes, it is the smallest independent nation state in the world in terms of area and population (that is if that of the Knights Hospitaller is not counted as a country). It is the territorial seat of the Holy See, the institutional entity represented by the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, and hence the principal ecclesiastical seat of the Catholic Church of both East and West.
768379
That's a lot of questions!  Here's my take on it.  The Temple (Jewish) in the old days had an inner Sanctuary, but only the priests where allowed to offer sacrafices to God and 'worship' there. Over the centures that changed, and people began (Jesus helped with this) to believe anyone could access God and worship, and began to claim their own Sanctuaries (including Jews, the history is really complicated here, so this is not very detailed) for worship.  Any place where worship takes place is a 'Sanctuary' and that includes the Sanctuary of our bodies (the Temple of the holy Spirit).  which makes us 'holy' when we cooperate with that Spirit.  As for the second two questions, I'm not sure where to go with them, I'm not sure there is a difference,  we, those who are working in unity w/the divine, Saints, and we attempt to persevere - keep working toward, that holiness, that perfect unity, with God's presence in us.