Then you think Jews in positions of power in Rome built a church by retro-fitting the pagan systems of Rome to take in the Christians and control them that way?
I mean, it is an interesting theory. But how does it explain the rest of history?
It seems difficult to explain the cohesive endurance of an unbroken Catholic magisterium for two millennia if the Jews had established stewardship over their Christian enemies from the very start.
It's almost as if you are saying the Jews used Christianity like a golem to subsequently manipulate all of European history.
This is full of intrigue and would make a great fiction novel, no doubt.
But I am going to burst this bubble right away for the sake of truth.
The first four Popes were martyred, meaning the first century-worth of Popes were all executed by Romans for being Christians. Peter, Linus, Anacletus and Clement I. Peter was crucified. Clement was drowned by being tied to an anchor. These men went willingly to their deaths, rather than renounce the faith.
You say they were all Jewish paper-Christians eh?
As I said before, the first Pope was a Jew by ethnicity. Of course he was. He was a direct disciple of Jesus Christ, so quite naturally he came from a Jewish background. But when Christ established the Church and the succession which was to begin with Peter, Judaism in Christianity stops there, at precisely the moment a Jew confirms Christ as Lord, he is not a Jew.
You will find that there are legends throughout history about Jewish Popes who kind of 'infiltrated' the Church. Invariably, these all appear in Jewish publications.
Easter is another of my pet hates .. Jesus was nailed up on the day of the Jewish Passover which occurs at the time of the first new moon after the vernal equinox, as well we know a total eclipse was underway as he died on the cross confirming the date / time .. yet Christian Easter which allegedly commemorates his demise is held at the time of the full moon, make me puke.
Your rapid segues make me think you aren't here to discuss, but to just throw volleys of Protestant-style arguments at Catholicism. There is no consensus at all that Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday at Passover; this is an argument often hurled by Baptists.
Most concur that Christ was crucified on the Friday after Passover.
You are also wrong about Jewish Passover. It happens on a full moon, not a new moon.
Also, it has nothing to do with the vernal equinox, which is a solar relationship to the planet earth. The Jews tracked time by a lunar calendar.
Passover for them occurred on the 15th day of a lunar month called Nissan, so that it always came on a full moon. This month was decided by the chief rabbis based on the weather. They'd spontaneously add a lunar cycle to their year if the weather was not Spring-like enough to justify having their Spring celebration, pushing Nissan back another cycle.
The solar calendar is more accurate and more closely tethers our time keeping with what is relevant, our relationship to the sun and not the moon.
Christians celebrate Easter on the first Sunday after the full moon on or proceeding the vernal equinox, a solar date.
This causes it to no longer be coupled perfectly to Passover, but it is actually a better choice. That is because the Jewish calendar drifts more than the Gregorian one. It just isn't possible to set a date of the year to have a celebration that would perfectly match the literal day of Christ's crucifixion because every year is a little different than the last because of small wobbles in earth's orbit.
But since the Gregorian calendar is more accurate than the Jewish lunar months, the Christian tradition of celebrating Easter is almost certainly more authentic to the springtime localization of Christ's death and resurrection than Passover is.
Christian Easter is not held on a full moon. It is held on a Sunday after the full moon closest to the vernal equinox.
If you are thinking practically and accounting for the significance of (a) Passover and (b) setting a date which is more reliable with respect to the true timekeeper for earth (the sun), then our date for Easter is perfectly rational. You can imagine that it closely approximates the time of the year corresponding to Christ's death and resurrection, which combined with its fixed nature, makes it an appropriate date for celebration.
Most concur that Christ was crucified on the Friday after Passover.
Scripture says the Magdalene found the empty tomb on Sunday morning (John 20:1 (biblegateway.com)) and that Christ was crucified on the day before the Sabbath ("parasceve") (John 19:31 (biblegateway.com)). All other relevant verses, like the "three days and three nights" idiom, must be interpreted in accordance with these verses (and in accordance with verses that refer to Christ rising on the third day (1 Cor 15:4 (biblegateway.com)), which could not be the case if a literal interpretation of three days and three nights is applied).
But since the Gregorian calendar is more accurate than the Jewish lunar months, the Christian tradition of celebrating Easter is almost certainly more authentic to the springtime localization of Christ's death and resurrection than Passover is.
I also find it relevant that a solar calendar is more befitting a Church that has become universal as a result of the New Covenant, whereas a lunar calendar is more acceptable to a single people localized in one area of the world, as was the case under the Old Covenant.
(post is archived)