Archaeologists unearthed in Jordan what they believe to be the world’s first church, according to a report Monday.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Mohammad abu Ghosh)Ruins of Saint Georgeous Church in Rihab, Mafraq, Jordan (70 km to the east of Amman) are seen on Wednesday June 11, 2008. Archaeologists in Jordan have discovered a cave underneath Saint Georgeous Church, one of the world's oldest churches, and say it may have been an even more ancient site of Christian worship. But outside experts expressed caution about the claim.
"We have uncovered what we believe to be the first church in the world, dating from 33 AD to 70 AD," said Abdul Qader al-Hussan, the head of Jordan's Rihab Center for Archaeological Studies, to The Jordan Times.
He added that the discovery was “amazing.”
The nearly 2,000-year-old church was discovered underneath Saint Georgeous Church in Rihab, Mafraq, in northern Jordan near the Syrian border. St. Georgeous dates back to 230 A.D., and is considered the oldest “proper” church in the world.
Hussan said his team has evidence to believe “this church sheltered the early Christians – the 70 disciples of Jesus Christ.”
These 70 early Christians are said to have fled persecution in Jerusalem, particularly to Rihab, and founded churches in northern Jordan. Historical sources, according to Hussan, suggest the 70 Christians lived and practiced their faith in the underground church and only left when Christianity was embraced by Roman rulers.
“It was then when St. Georgeous was built,” said Hussan noted.
The underground church has been described as a cave with several stone seats believed to have been for the clergy and a circular shaped area, thought to be the apse – an area which usually contains the altar.
“A wall with an entrance is the only partition separating the altar from the living area,” Hussan reported.
There is also a deep tunnel in the cave thought to have led to a water source, he noted.
Bishop Deputy of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Archimandrite Nektarious described the discovery as an “important milestone for Christians all around the world.”
"The only other cave in the world similar in shape and purpose is in Thessalonika, Greece," the bishop said, according to The Jordan Times.
Officials at the Jordanian Ministry of Tourism said they plan to use the discovery to promote tourism in the area in the near future.
Some 30 churches have been discovered in Rihab, according to Hussan, and Jesus and Mary are believed to have passed through the area.
RSS
Comments
Popes are not infallible in their interpretation of the scriptures. Otherwise, every Pope that has ever been would have agreed 100% with each other. As history has proven otherwise.
Peter, an apostle (1Pe 1:1), an elder (1Pe 5:1), and a servant (2Pe 1:1).
The above is a far cry from what we see below:
Pope
Patriarch of the West
Primate of Italy
Metropolitan of the Province of Rome
Sovereign Pontiff
Our Holy Father
Your Holiness
Most Blessed Father
Servant of the Servants of God
Bishop of Rome
Vicar of Jesus Christ
Successor of the Prince of the Apostles
Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church
Patriarch of the West
Primate of Italy
Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province
Sovereign of the State of Vatican City
Such things happen when we stray from the word of God and start digging in unbiblical soil.
Sources: The Externals of the Catholic Church, The Externals of the Catholic Church Completely Revised A Handbook of Catholic Usage.
msnchris,
You may have gotten off your high horse, but there are many other Catholics (a lot on CP) that like to boast and brag on the RCC and belittle and demean Protestants. I don't have a problem with a Catholic telling me that I am wrong, as long as he/she shows scripture to back it. I do the same with Catholics. But it is another when a catholic resorts to mudslinging because he is losing the argument. I know that not all Catholics are that way. Most of them that I know personally are really cool and fun to be with. They know my beliefs about the RCC and I know their beliefs about Protestants.
And also, the way I am on here is completely different than in person. I think of this site as a controlled (or at least I like to think it is) arena to debate theology and doctrines. Most of the Catholics that I rub raw on here, if they met me on the street and had no idea who I was...we'd probably hit it off.
The problem with your thinking is that I have access to the same grace and santicfication as the Catholics do. Why would God give more grace to the Catholics and not his own son? That is a really bad doctrine you speak. Unscriptural.
And I hope you don't tell other catholics that Peter wasn't a Pope. They all listen to the "Church" in that respect. And they'll excommunitcate you for that blasphemous statement. I have yet to know a Catholic that doesn't believe that Peter was the first Pope.
And I have more than a bacic understanding of who Christ is, the Scriptures, the Trinity, and much other Truth presented in the Bible.
The Word of God has presidence over the Catholic Church, not the other way around. And the Word of God says that "All scripture is and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousnes...
So, the Scripture, not "oral traditions" (which Jesus condemned) is profitable for correction and instruction.
Prophet,
A Protestant can be saved just as much as a Catholic. We got off our high horse years ago. Don't let theological language of true church or only church from understanding there is a huge difference in saying that and what a Christian is. Some Christian groups have a valid and biblically set up hiearchy, some do not. Those that do are formally real Churches. Those that do not are informally called Churches. That does not mean their congregants are any less Christian, it just means there are less points of Grace the further you get away from the Church that Christ founded through His Apostles is all we are saying.
The Closer to the source, the more elements of Grace and Sanctification are available to you. You can be saved and sanctified outside the Catholic Church with no problem. However, you must accept some basic understanding on who Christ is, the Trinity, atonement and being baptized into this body to be a Christian.
We Catholics do not, and I repeat do not look down upon Protestants at all. We love our fellow Christians very much and pray for you as I hope you pray for us that we can bring Christ to everyone.
While you and I might disagree on some doctrines that are rather important, nothing you or I believe negates the core tenants of the Christian faith and how were are saved by Grace through faith.
Pope only means Father, Prophet. They were only called Pope in the 2nd century, which helped designate the ultimate father of all the spiritual fathers. The Coptics have had a Bishop named Pope too. He is the head of the Coptics.
Papal Supremacy was not official, as was very little official in the beginnings of the Church. However, only the Bishop of Rome exercised universal authority because of his position within all the Bishops. Only the Bishop of Rome disciplined other dioceses, because although unofficial in the beggining he had every right too because he held the "Keys" from Peter and everyone knew this See had primacy.
Peter was never called Pope, but he was called a fellow presbyter and Bishop. Peter, like Paul, was referred to as a Father in Christ and calling your Bishops "Father" became common place in the late 100's, but started with Paul and many others using the term "Spiritual Father" in Christ. Timothy would call Paul his father in Christ and this is where it all started. Stephen even called the Jewish authorities Fathers in faith and Abraham a Father to many peoples. The spiritual term Father is an accepted term and name for a clergy person.
We are all the Church of Christ, some more specifically than others based on doctrine, but all in the Body. Whether you are called a BAptist, Methodist or Catholic as your descriptive name you are the Church of Christ.
The first doctrines were decided and created by Peter and we have historical proof that without the Bishop of Rome's agreement on doctrine you could not make doctrine. This is why the Orthodox have not made a doctrine in 1000 years, because they need the Bishop of Rome for validation.
Prophet
You have brought out some very important truths about the RCC and the Popes. This is something I think the RCC hides from its people.
Peter was, at best, a bishop of a church in Rome.
The "primacy" of the Catholic church was not asserted until 189 AD. There is no historical evidence to show that such a claim was ever accepted by the eastern churches. (Meaning that the Roman Catholic primacy is self-imposed and not agreed upon by all the "catholics" at that time.)
The power of the Bishop of Rome increased as the imperial power of the Emperor declined. Edicts of the Emperor Theodosius II and of Valentinian III proclaimed the Roman bishop "as Rector of the whole Church. So we see that it was a government who promoted the idea of a Pope, not the church.
The office of Pope, didn't appear until the 3rd or 4th century.
The "Church" of the first century was nothing close to what the Catholic church is today.
The Catholic Church has spent most of it's history in trying to control government. Though it was pretty much created and controled by the government.
The "Assumption of Mary" became a tenet in the 1950's. (If the Popes were indeed "infallible" in their interpretation of the scriptures, this would have been taught from day one, but as we see...they are not infallible.)
In all actuallity, the Catholic Church isn't the true church...the Jewish Christian church is. Catholics aren't Jewish.
mi corazon,
That is true about the Protestant faith, but you are wrong in your presumption that we "blame all of the problems of Christianity on it [The Catholic Church]" Nowhere have I said that the problems of Christianity were the RCC's fault. I hope it's not your habit of assuming. I only said that the RCC teaches inaccurate doctrines.
Now, as far as your speculation that the Catholic faith is the only true church is strange. Since I am saved, blessed by God, anointed of God, used of God, basically I have all the same priveleges, blessings, future and hope as the catholics do. And I'm not even Catholic. And nor do I profess that the church I attend is "the" church. But I am still part of the Body of Christ. I am a son of God (which I'd rather be a son of God than a Catholic, Protestant, SDA, etc because there's a lot more power and blessings in being a son of God than there is in any of these man-made institutions). That is a Truth that cannot be changed. So if the Catholics would get off their self-righteous camels and learn that they're not the only church or way or path, and that Protestants are just as saved, blessed, used, called, etc, etc as they are...50% of our arguments would cease.
"And if Popes are the final authority on the scriptures, God must be schizophrenic. Because I am fairly certain (around 100% certain) that ALL the Popes did not believe the same thing. And means every dot and tittle. God never changes, but Popes do. The scripture never changes, but each Pope's interpretation do. "
That could be said about some Protestant leaders and televangelists as well. The truth is that every denomination has had some level of corruption so it is not fair to point fingers at the Catholic Church and blame all of the problems of Christianity on it. It is quite unfortunate that many Protestants have many misconceptions and errors of the Catholic Church and the Pope causing a lot of slander to their Catholic bretheren.
Even though I am not Catholic I admit the fact that it is only the Catholic, Coptic, and Orthodox Churches that can in all honesty claim to be the original Churches founded by Jesus Christ himself when he gave his authority to his 12 disciples. It is possible to look at the list of those who have held the office of Bishop in the oldest and most ancient Sees of Christianity and go from the current Bishop today down the list to one of the Apostles, the best example being the Bishop of Rome.
Apostolic succession in these communities is a real fact that cannot be changed although many Protestants seem to ignore it.
Someday I hope this changes and I hope that someday all those Protestants that have not fallen by the wayside to immorality, homosexuality, and theologicle perversion will someday be united again to the actual successor to the Apostle Peter. I wish the same for my fellow Pentecostals and the Evangelicles.
I flagged myself for typos.
And if Popes are the final authority on the scriptures, God must be schizophrenic. Because I am fairly certain (around 100% certain) that ALL the Popes did not believe the same thing. And means every dot and tittle. God never changes, but Popes do. The scripture never changes, but each Pope's interpretation do.
In 1947, the Vatican made changes regarding 74 popes. It removed "the little man who never was." Poor "pope" Donus had been listed as a pope in 973. But in 1947 the Vatican dropped him from its "unbroken line" - its glorious "Title Deed." Why? Because they found he had never even existed! In addition, the Vatican dropped six "popes," and removed the "sainthood" of four others!
The Jan. 18, 1947 news report from the Vatican states that "Pope Donus" was found to be "a person who never existed!" In addition, designation of sainthood was removed from Felix II, Liberius, Anastasio, Stephen III, Stephen V! And poor, unsuspecting Roman Catholic people had been praying to these non-existent "saints" for centuries with the official approval of the same Roman Catholic Church that now says it was all a mistake!
A copy of the Jan. 18, 1947 news article from Vatican City can be obtained from any Public Library. It was carried on the front page of the Phila. Inquirer, and in the New York Times. It was titled, "VATICAN DROPS 6 NAMES FROM LIST OF POPES."
Hmmm. . . . so much for an “unbroken line” of papal leaders.
CONCLUSION:
The RCC claim that it is the only church, and the the Pope has final say in what the scriptures mean is anti-God and anti-scriptural.
Jesus never talked about a Pope as part of His church. The apostles (includining Peter) never talk about the Pope, nor a "one person being head and dictate over the "Church". But they do talk a lot about Jesus as the head of the Church and Body. Interesting.
We see that Peter may have started the church, but it was more than just the Roman church that was started. It spread throughout the world. The church encompasses the whole world.
The church bears no name other than the name of Jesus Christ. Any other claim is of an antichrist spirit.
Papal supremacy didn't come into existence until approx A.D. 381 (over 100 years after the term "pope" came into existence) at the Council of Constantinople. But "it should be noted that, because of the controversy of this claim, the Pope did not personally attend this ecumencial council...."
"It was not until 440 that Leo the Great more clearly articulated the extension of papal authority as doctrine, promulgating in edicts and in councils his right to exert "the full range of apostolic powers that Jesus had first bestowed on the apostle Peter". Why did Leo the Great call Peter "the apostle Peter"....and not "Pope Peter"? Afterall, he claimed papal authority as doctrine. Maybe because he knew something that msnchris doesn't. That Peter wasn't a pope.