Talk:History of the Catholic Church

Begin with partisan statements and sources

I find it problematic that the article begins with partisan statements from a partisan source, i.e. the Catholic opinion based on declarations from the Catholic Church. I believe the first sentence should be as neutral as possible. History of Protestantism does not start with something like "According to Protestants, Protestantism is the religion of the Early Christian Church and can be traced back to Jesus Christ's teaching." I believe the summary of this "History of the Catholic Church" article must be changed to put something more neutral as a first paragraph. The current information can stay, but it should be put as second or third paragraph. What do you say? Veverve (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
@Richard Keatinge: @Finnusertop: @Elizium23: pinging you since you recently showed interest in the subject. Veverve (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Veverve, who do others say that the Catholic Church is? Do you have sources in mind? Elizium23 (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I have no source in mind, and all results of books about Catholic history on Google are written by Catholics. Veverve (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Veverve, do you know the purpose of the lede section? It would seem to me that we need to rewrite the lede section to properly summarize the body. The main glaring error I notice is that half of the article, sections 5, 6, 7, and 8, are given short shrift, in favor of lots of early Church and medieval info that could be tightened up.

Non-Catholics write about the history of the Catholic Church. What about the Great Apostasy, what about the Catholic Church coming into being in the 4th century when created by Constantine the Great? What about black legends of the Inquisition and Crusades? Non-Catholics at this point are writing more about Catholics than Catholics are.

The problem is that none of this is in the body and none of it belongs in the body. We have a separate article, Criticism of the Catholic Church which can be linked from here (I guess it is already.) If you want alternative viewpoints about the history of the Church, then write them into the body, and we will summarize them in the lede. Do not rewrite the lede just to introduce novel items not covered in the body. Elizium23 (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: thank you for your suggestions. I have added the theory that the Church was created by Constantine. However, I from what I understand, the Great Apostasy narrative does not claim that the origin of the Catholic Church is an apostasy, but that "although the Catholic Church started out correctly enough and remained true to its divine commission for several centuries, it later fell into evil ways, with adulterated doctrines and un-Christian practices." (source). Veverve (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

According to the LDS, the apostles fell right into apostasy and there was no church on Earth for 1800 years, until Joseph Smith restored it with his golden tablets.

Regarding this and the Constantine theory, WP:FRINGE may apply. I see you have wisely applied WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. That is the best that can be hoped for. Elizium23 (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Constantine Creating the Catholic Church WP:Fringe

According to prof. Paul V.M. Flesher, the Christian Church was created by Constantine the Great who convoked the First Council of Nicaea in 325. This council "laid the foundation of orthodox theology (Catholic theology) and declared several differing theologies heresies."

The Cited webpage says nothing regarding Constantine creating the Catholic Church. This is considered ahistoric by most excepting a few fringes groups. Such statements push POV considered fringe by historians. DeusImperator (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@DeusImperator: The title of the source is "How Constantine Created the Christian Church". Apart from the 4th-century Christian apologist Eusebius, do you have other historians saying this theory is considered as fringe (i.e. not simply marginal, but also considered as untenable)? Veverve (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: Rabbi Tovia Singer, in one of his talks on YT called this a conspiracy theory. Sites generally not so friendly to Catholicism debunk this https://genevapush.com/blogs/xian_reflections/constantine-christianity-conspiracy-amazing-how-little-evidence-there-reall/ which is a Calvinist Reformed site and also https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/ancient-medieval/christianity/a/roman-culture DeusImperator (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, there are documents such as the Ignatian Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (107 AD), the Muratorian Fragment which is a manuscript from 165 AD or thereabout, Cyprian's "On the Unity of the Church" 250 or thereabout According to Das Apostolische Symbol by Ferdinand Kattenbusch Catholic Church is a mia mone, for the one church which existed in 107 DeusImperator (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, there is not one single primary source contemporary to the Council of Nicaea which indicates that Constantine created any church or religion. The fact is that Constantine petitioned Silvester 1 who then appointed Hosius of Cordoba as the presiding bishop of the council. What many do not know is that Constantine came out on the losing side of the council and imposed the death penalty on Alexander of Constantinople if he did not permit Arius back into the church as Arius was excommunicated by the council as a heretic. The only thing that saved Alexander's life was because Arius drowned on his way to Constantinople. Constantine was perhaps not a Christian as many claim, as for most of his life he was very likely an Arian. DeusImperator (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Jewish authors such as Richard Gottheil and Hermann Vogelstein consider the First Council of Jerusalem as a council held by the Catholic Church which was held sometime between 30 AD - 40 AD. DeusImperator (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Paul V.M. Flesher's blurb does not take into account that Gnostics (Manicheans and such) were not Christians, Donatists were, but they did not disagree on doctrine per se, but on sacramental and liturgical discipline. The fact that the early writers prior to Nicaea were writing against those considered heretics and the only sources regarding these heresies are these writers is decent evidence that there was a mainstream view of acceptable belief and "there was little agreement about Christianity’s beliefs and teachings, the nature of Jesus and God, what writings were sacred, or even how to worship". He also engages in anachronisms as some of those heresies he mentions such as Nestorianism occur well after Constantine's death. It is a poorly researched opinion piece. DeusImperator (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@DeusImperator: Tovia Singer is not a historian so I don't see why his Youtube videos should be given any due weight. Please cite modern (i.e. not outdated 2nd century stuff) scholarship (i.e. not Christian blogs) that support your claims. Bennv123 (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@DeusImperator: To clarify, I'm asking for specific sources. Not just claims that so-and-so author once said this or your interpretation of primary sources etc. Bennv123 (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bennv123: So, are we now to say that Christianity did not exist before Constantine? That is absolute silliness. The fact that there are anti-Nicene Christian writers, buries that claim. 2nd century stuff(?) is outdated? Outdated? Our history is based on those primary sources! Unlike subjects science, technology which is building on previous knowledge to further knowledge, history is based on ancient writings and archeology. What are the historians' writings when done properly based on? It based on those ancient primary sources. Everything else is speculation and opinion. Much that is written on Wikipedia is an interpretation of what is written unless something is written verbatim.

The Martyrdom of Polycarp (165 AD), a primary source begins in the preamble, "The Church of God which sojourns at Smyrna, to the Church of God sojourning in Philomelium, and to all the congregations of the Holy and Catholic Church in every place: Mercy, peace, and love from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, be multiplied."Ἡ Ἐκκλησία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ παροικοῦσα Σμύρναν τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῇ παροικούσῃ ἐν Φιλομηλίῳ καὶ πάσαις ταῖς κατὰ πάντα τόπον τῆς ἁγίας καὶ Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας παροικίαις· ἔλεος, εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη Θεοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ πληθυνθείη. http://www.embarl.force9.co.uk/Other/Martyrdom_Text.pdf

That is a word for word translation of the Greek text.

Furthermore, what sources does Paul V.M. Flesher base his claim on? What is his qualification in the area of anti-Nicene Christian history that one ought to give him and due weight? It would appear that his speculations regarding "Constantine inventing/creating Christianity" is perhaps an exercise in Ultracrepidarianism. That scanty blurb does not qualify as scholarship. This is the reason why "According to prof. Paul V.M. Flesher, the Christian Church was created by Constantine the Great who convoked the First Council of Nicaea in 325. This council "laid the foundation of orthodox theology (Catholic theology) and declared several differing theologies heresies" is not worthy of mention in the article. DeusImperator (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@DeusImperator: "So, are we now to say that Christianity did not exist before Constantine?" Huh? Aren't we talking about the Catholic Church? Yes history is based on primary sources, but the issue here is your original interpretation of them. Again, please cite modern scholarship, not your own interpretation of these 2nd century sources. Paul V.M. Flesher is a scholar in religious studies and has a PhD in Judaism history. I don't know if he is an authoritative source on this matter, but he's certainly more credible than some random Wikipedia editor, Youtube videos or blogs. Bennv123 (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

And fyi, I agree that that newsletter by Paul V.M. Flesher does not qualify as peer-reviewed mainstream scholarship either, which is why I did not revert the part of your edit that removed it. Bennv123 (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@DeusImperator: "Much that is written on Wikipedia is an interpretation of what is written unless something is written verbatim." Yes, but it's not just any random person's interpretation, it's only the interpretation of primary sources by reliable secondary sources that Wikipedia wants to rely on. Hence why I keep asking you to cite modern mainstream scholarship, because that's what Wikipedia deems as reliable. I'm not saying your interpretation/opinion is wrong, I just want you to point me in the direction of modern mainstream scholarship so that I can verify your claims. Bennv123 (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@DeusImperator: same remarks as Bennv123. Primary sources are interpreted in numerous was by believers; we are not to say who is right as Wikipedia contributors, simply to state what the current state of the field of study is. Veverve (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: My point is that the paragraph makes somewhat of an extraordinary claim, that Constantine created Catholicism/Christianity. The source for such claims which appear to defy the common historic narrative ought to be a scholarly source, an academically peer-reviewed paper or a thesis at an accredited academic institute. That blurb does not qualify as one, and therefore should not be included in the article. Not everything an academic says is to be considered scholarly, it can be just an opinion or speculation. DeusImperator (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bennv123: Paul V.M. Flesher is a scholar in religious studies and has a PhD in Judaism history. And? What is his expertise in Christian history? Aren't we talking about Catholic Church history and not Jewish history? Just because he a Jewish historian does not mean that he is a Christian historian.

I just want you to point me in the direction of modern mainstream scholarship so that I can verify Perhaps you did not get it the first time - I am the one seeking to verify the claim made by talk and I submit that Paul V.M. Flesher is not reliable authority concerning this matter. What are his sources? I don't see any. I suggest it is merely speculation outside the scope of his expertise. Just because I might be a physicist does not make me an authority on string theory as that might not be my field of study. This is the point I was trying to make. DeusImperator (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@DeusImperator: Paul V.M. Flesher isn't even cited in the article anymore. I am seeking to verify the claim you made in this edit. Does modern mainstream scholarship still uphold this view by a 3rd/4th century historian? Bennv123 (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bennv123: @DeusImperator: I thought Paul V.M. Flesher was published in a special part of the website of the University of Wyoming, I had not seen it was a newsletter. Since it is a newletter, it is quite difficult to defend it as an Academic RS. I was trying to include more nuance concerning the origin of the Catholic Church as I explained above. I believe the "The origin of the Catholic Church is debated." part should thus be removed.

DeusImperator, I am still waiting for you to show the historical consensus that the Catholic Church is the direct descendent of the apostles, by giving modern, reliable sources, not interpretation of writings of saints. Veverve (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: I do not think that this is a venue for a religious debate. However each of the apostolic churches can show evidence of direct descendent from the apostles, through what is known as apostolic succession. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Churches of the East have this succession and each accepts the other's claims to this succession. The Anglican Communion claims apostolic succession but all four apostolic churches dismiss the Anglican claim. The fact is these churches were founded in Classical Antiquity and have a tradition based on these ancient writings. "Modern scholarship"' places a premium on critical methodology. You cannot have a consensus in this area. It is not a science and one ought not to reduce history to a science. What is new is not necessarily better outside the sciences and technology. DeusImperator (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bennv123: Yes,there is quite a bit in this regard. Protestants scholars will deny the claim that Peter founded a church that exists to this day. Catholics will claim otherwise. Each have their view of the dataset. If you are seeking consensus, you will never have one today, there was general concensus in the past. Does modern mainstream scholarship still uphold this view by a 2nd/3rd century historian? There is scholarship along generally sectarian lines. It depends on what side you are on. However, the water is clearer closer to the source. One of the issues is language and diction used for translation. Just as an example Episkopos (Greek) > episcopus (Latin) > biscop (West Saxon) > bisceop (Old English) > bisshop (Middle English) > bishop (Early Modern English) there is a direct etymology lineage between Greek and English. How do modern day bibles translate επίσκοπος (episkopos)? Overseer. However, this word never appeared in Attic or Ionic Greek, no one knew Koine Greek. It was one of the 500 Koine Greek words which were unknown until the latter 19th century. So the modern scholarship is based on treating it as a composite word and breaking up the word and divine the meaning of each part and many settled on overseer as the best guess. The four apostolic churches (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Catholic and Churches of the East) and Anglicans will choose to render the word επίσκοπος as bishop while most other Protestants choose overseer instead. The issue is in part word diction and partly on whether or not the particular denomination accepts a hierarchal polity. Modern scholarship which is largely dominated by the Germanic language is in this case based on speculation. An overreliance on modern scholarship does not necessarily get you to the correct answer. That said, as to the main point, notice haven't reverted it. My objection was to the rather extraordinary claim which appeared, and that has since been removed. DeusImperator (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@DeusImperator: I'm not going to waste any more of my time with your constant unsourced original research. If mainstream scholarship (which is what Wikipedia relies on because it has deemed such sources to be reliable) supports your claim, then just cite the sources (e.g. book title, author(s), publisher, year, isbn etc), instead of all these rambling walls of text. And if mainstream scholarship doesn't support your claim, then don't add fringe views to the article in the future, and let's leave it at that. Bennv123 (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bennv123: Please address the issue of the topic title. Please bother to read the heading before blathering. This topic specifically was created to address the once issue. If you want to discuss another create another. Keep to the topic, if you want t to discuss another start a new topic. How is the claim that Christ founded the church on Peter fringe? 15% of the population of this world hold that belief. Even many protestant scholars accept that view. And please keep to the topic being discussed next time. This topic addressed the issue of Constantine creating the Catholic Church, if you forgot to read the topic title. DeusImperator (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@DeusImperator: Whether a view is fringe or not depends on mainstream scholarship, not the general public. If mainstream scholarship says the earth is not flat, then flat earth theory would still be a fringe view no matter how large a percentage of the general public believes it is flat. Very well, I'll create a separate topic. Bennv123 (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Where WP:FRINGE is abused[edit]

@Bennv123: Perhaps you should brushup on [WP:FRINGE|fringe]] is not. Perhaps you might want to brush up one what is and what is not fringe next time. Read what is it. "The purpose of this project is not to determine truth, but to accurately cover the worldwide view with appropriate weight given to notable viewpoints." 15% of the population holding a viewpoint does not make it fringe as it is NOTABLE VIEWPOINT. DeusImperator (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@DeusImperator: Nope. "Notable viewpoints" here refers to the notable viewpoints of reliable sources aka mainstream scholarship, not the general public. From WP:FRINGE: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." From WP:MAINSTREAM: "...writers and editors on Wikipedia should strive for articles that would be appreciated as being of the highest quality by a consensus of experts in any field of science or scholarship." Bennv123 (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention, the article does already cover the beliefs of Catholics. The "Origins" section starts off with "According to Catholic tradition, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ." Per WP:FRINGE, we cannot claim this to be historical fact unless the consensus of mainstream scholarship says that it is. Bennv123 (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bennv123: Nope "Notable viewpoints" here refers to "accurately cover the worldwide view, if you bothered reading on. You seem to be missing the point and seem to be happy blathering on it merely read "ACCORDING TO ESIEBIUS" who is the preeminent ecclesiastical historian. Did you miss the according to part, or are you content to jabber on and on, when there was no judgment made to his claim and merely the claim he makes? It is not different from claiming that According to Catholic Tradition. Eusebius is one of the persons making this claim in antiquity. FURTHERMORE, you reverted it and I choose not to contest that revert, as I did not care about it. But you are here blathering on and on attempting to argue a non-issue, that I frankly do not give a rat's behind about. But you seem to what to keep wagging your tongue endlessly over what I consider is minutia. Eusebius' writings are part of the Catholic Tradition. Instead of saying catholic tradition, it was one source of this catholic tradition, a specific name of a person as a reference to that tradition would be helpful. DeusImperator (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@DeusImperator: Where does it say that in WP:FRINGE? Your edit was to add "According to historians such as Eusebius of Caesarea" not just "According to Eusebius of Caesarea". Priority should be given to the consensus of mainstream scholarship, and the view of one 3rd/4th century scholar should not be given such weight so as to imply that this is the view of historians. Anyway, if you continue to be unnecessarily rude and combative, then I'm not going to participate in this discussion any more. You can continue to post here all you want, as long as you do not WP:EDITWAR to add that fringe view back in. Regards. Bennv123 (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"Where does it say that in WP:FRINGE?" Actually, please don't even bother answering this. I have no desire to continue this unpleasant discussion with you. All I wanted were citations to reliable references, since it's clear none will be provided, there's no more point to this. Bennv123 (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bennv123: I have not been rude to you, but you seem to want to drag this issue on and on. Eusebius is given weight because he is a primary source on Ecclestical history which modern scholars cite in their own works. He IS a historian an ancient source, no different from citing Tacitus concerning Roman History or Josephus about Jewish History. You seem to want to take issue that "According to historians such as Eusebius of Caesarea" is a major departue from "According to Eusebius of Caesarea". Just to let you know, Eusebius was a historian if that did not dawn on your already. Somehow addition of "historians such as" seems to have you not sat quite right with you for some reason that you feel the need to keep spilling ink on this non-issue which has been resolved. Yet you blather on. DeusImperator (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Stop pinging me. I have made it clear I do not want to continue these discussions with you. If you keep this up, I will report you for WP:HARASSMENT. Bennv123 (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you stop pinging me as you were the first to engage in a topic that belongs elsewhere. As I suggested you need to be brushing up on what is NOT CONSIDERED WP:FRINGE. Take some time and read about it before throwing about terms you do not seem to understand seemingly only denigrate a viewpoint as you have had ample time to familiarize yourself with the document before calling such a view fringe. You are showing bad faith by repeating this and we may have to exgage the sysops to help you understand fringe. DeusImperator (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@DeusImperator: I did not ask for the unprovable claim of apostolic succession or chain of transmission. Please give me a reliable, modern source which is not primary, or abandon this debate. Veverve (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: Regard what exactly? Did you notice the topic? "According to prof. Paul V.M. Flesher, the Christian Church was created by Constantine the Great who convoked the First Council of Nicaea in 325. This council "laid the foundation of orthodox theology (Catholic theology) and declared several differing theologies heresies." It is a WP:fringe view. I put up the topic, in an act in good faith to give you an opportunity to respond to it if you wish. If you want a religious debate, I suggest strongly that you find a venue or forum more consonant with that aim. Apostolic succession has nothing to do with this topic. This topic addresses your addition of Constantine creating the Catholic Church. Address the issue, if you wish or move on. If you do not understand we can ping an admin to help you. If you want to discuss something else not germane to this topic, please feel free to start a topic of your own, and don't bother to ping me, as I am not here to debate whatever else you may have in mind. Thank you, and have a good day. DeusImperator (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@DeusImperator: First, V.M. Flesher's claim has been removed, and I wrote: I thought Paul V.M. Flesher was published in a special part of the website of the University of Wyoming, I had not seen it was a newsletter. Since it is a newletter, it is quite difficult to defend it as an Academic RS. Second, you are the one who brought up the apostolic succession dogma out of the blue: I do not think that this is a venue for a religious debate. However each of the apostolic churches can show evidence of direct descendent from the apostles, through what is known as apostolic succession.

I clearly see you are not here to debate anything and, like Bennv123 did before, I will stop this discussion, because you clearly are not willing to discuss in good faith. I will still revert you if you try to add that historians believe the Catholic Church directly comes from the Apostles without giving any reliable source. Feel free to ping any admin if you need it. Veverve (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: Out of the blue??? That was a reply to your question (which was not germane to the topic, to begin with) which read I am still waiting for you to show the historical consensus that the Catholic Church is the direct descendent of the apostles, by giving modern, reliable sources, not interpretation of writings of saints WHAT HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH ANYTHING??? direct descendent of the apostles IS WHAT IS APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION IS! You brought it up, not me. Furthermore, why would I want to show the historical consensus that the Catholic Church is the direct descendent of the apostles, by giving modern, reliable sources, not interpretation of writings of saints when it is not germane to the topic being discussed??? You want to go on a tangent perhaps because you could not defend inserting that WP:fringe claim that Constantine created the Catholic Church, which I removed. You are correct, I have no interest in debating your tangental issues you want to carry on about. GOOD DAY SIR! DeusImperator (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

References

"According to historians such as Eusebius of Caesarea"

@DeusImperator: Per the above discussion, I am seeking to verify the claim you made in this edit. Does modern mainstream scholarship still uphold this view by a 3rd/4th century historian? Please cite references to support your claim. Bennv123 (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bennv123: What do you seem to be unable to understand??? I am not contesting the reversion. I am uncertain as to what bee descended into a bonnet in regard to this, and going so far as to call it WP:FRINGE. The original read According to Catholic tradition which I edited to According to historians such as Eusebius of Caesarea which you reverted which I did not choose to contest. But you have wanted to make this an issue of some sort, demanding that modern scholars uphold this view. As I explained to you lengthly you will not get consensus among modern scholars on such issues as whether or not scholars agree that Christ founded the Catholic Church. This is not a science as I explained to you earlier. Yet, you seem to want to keep dragging this non-issue. If you want you can get an admin or sysops to mediate between you and yourself as I don't really care about how it reads. There is enough scholarship on this issue in either direction. Just a few suggestions which support the viewpoint by academics The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church by John Meyendorff, Heirs of the Fisherman: Behind the Scenes of Primacy of Peter by Veselin Kesich, Papal Death and Succession by J.P. Pham, and Upon This Rock - The Popes and their Changing Roles by Paul Collins all support the viewpoint that the church was founded by Peter. DeusImperator (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

McMullen

There are five references to McMullen, but I see no book title. Can you please provide the source written by McCullen so I can reference it as well? Thank you! 209.94.151.125 (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Under the Bibliography section there’s this source: MacMullen, Ramsay (1984). Christianizing the Roman Empire: (A.D. 100–400). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-585-38120-6.. That must be what the “McMullen” references are referring to. Bennv123 (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The Cathlic church was not the first church Jesus started the Chritian church

CHRISTIAN CHURCH Jesus started 2607:FB91:3E07:82F3:AC39:3BD1:6867:1CB1 (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)