Replies

You're forcing-in a point that is simultaneously self-evident and non-applicable. It's self-evident, in that, of course there were local churches somewhere in the world that pre-date the two you cite. Who denies this? No one claims the "first church" was in Rome! Actually, the "real" First Church was the Upper Room in Jerusalem.

Your point is also non-applicable to the issue at hand, insofar as this church (if, in fact, it turns-out to have been a church at all) proves nothing one way or the other regarding issues of primacy. It would have been a "local church" where Christians gathered, nothing more. And, at any rate, this church would only be capable of forcing a "tie" for the oldest church building: there were doubtless several "churches" (ie: buildings where the Christians gathered) scattered around the Middle East in the first few years after the Church was established at Pentecost in AD 33. This one happens to have been found, there are certainly others just as old.

""It would have been a "local church" where Christians gathered, nothing more. ""

From the article: "We have evidence to believe this church sheltered the early Christians -- the 70 disciples of Jesus Christ,"

If the seventy disciples were there this would be more than just a 'local' church.

I am not going to get into the argument of primacy, but you might note that the seventy are all considered clergy in the ecclesiastical hierchy of the RCC and are only below that of the eleven apostles and the One (Jesus). I use eleven apostles because Matthias was one of the seventy and later became an apostle.

Viewed from the perspective that this church housed the earliest clergy of the Church I would think that Catholics would be less inclined to trivalize this find.