Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe Church was organized in the 1st Century AD at the height of the Roman Empire. That in and of itself would elevate Rome to the most important status in the early Church. Moreover, the fact that St. Peter went to Rome, preached and taught there and was eventually martyred there, give additional weight to the Bishop of Rome. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm
Actually the pope was initially just the bishop of Rome, one of five important bishops (pentarchs) in early organized Christianity. There's nothing really that would elevate Rome in particular to any (more) important status in this early organized Church, it just so happens that because of political reasons the Western branch split off from the Eastern ...[text shortened]... r than the Protestant or Reformed branches, but certainly not the oldest branch of Christianity.
Biblical passages show that Jesus established a specific church with a specific person as its head. Those who schism from it are no longer in Jesus' church.
Originally posted by no1marauderSince organized Christianity dates back to the 4th Century AD, neither the RCC, nor the Orthodox Church, nor the Coptic church, nor any other old church, can solidly establish any lineage to a historical Jesus or his designated successor. Christianity as it was practiced in the first Century AD is no longer practiced today.
The Church was organized in the 1st Century AD at the height of the Roman Empire. That in and of itself would elevate Rome to the most important status in the early Church. Moreover, the fact that St. Peter went to Rome, preached and taught there and was eventually martyred there, give additional weight to the Bishop of Rome. http://www.newadvent.org/cat ...[text shortened]... rch with a specific person as its head. Those who schism from it are no longer in Jesus' church.
In any case, the RCC "schismed" from the much larger (at the time) main organized Christian branch (today the Orthodox church), so by your logic the RCC is not "Jesus' church."
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe cite I already provided disagrees with your claim that the Church wasn't organized until after Constantine. It also shows that the nexus of the Church was in Rome.
Since organized Christianity dates back to the 4th Century AD, neither the RCC, nor the Orthodox Church, nor the Coptic church, nor any other old church, can solidly establish any lineage to a historical Jesus or his designated successor. Christianity as it was practiced in the first Century AD is no longer practiced today.
In any case, the RCC "schi ...[text shortened]... d Christian branch (today the Orthodox church), so by your logic the RCC is not "Jesus' church."
Originally posted by no1marauderI have not checked your "cite" (sic) yet.
The cite I already provided disagrees with your claim that the Church wasn't organized until after Constantine. It also shows that the nexus of the Church was in Rome.
Read any serious account of the Council of Nicea, 325 CE, and the role played by the emperor Constantine in demanding that Christianity be defined, in order to escape from the seething cauldron of competing versions of Christianity who not only disagreed with each other but were actually violently (physically, murderously) opposed to each other. Prior to that council it is not possible to define what Christians believed. Obviously, they had a lot of beliefs in common, which you might think was sufficient, though they would not have agreed with you, but they also had significant differences. One thing that Nicea defined for the first time was the nature of Jesus as Son of God and his relationship to the Father. If that is not fundamental, then what is?
Originally posted by finneganI'm aware of early Church history.
Read any serious account of the Council of Nicea, 325 CE, and the role played by the emperor Constantine in demanding that Christianity be defined, in order to escape from the seething cauldron of competing versions of Christianity who not only disagreed with each other but were actually violently (physically, murderously) opposed to each other. Prior to t ...[text shortened]... esus as Son of God and his relationship to the Father. If that is not fundamental, then what is?
Nothing in it contradicts the Biblical claim that Jesus established a Church that Peter was to be the head of and that that Church still exists today.
Originally posted by no1marauderBefore 325 AD there was obviously some degree of "organization" but not at a central level encompassing all of Christianity. The Bishop of Rome never managed to assert authority over all of Christendom, nor was that institution granted that status by Constantine.
The cite I already provided disagrees with your claim that the Church wasn't organized until after Constantine. It also shows that the nexus of the Church was in Rome.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe bishop of Rome ranked with Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch for a long time.
Before 325 AD there was obviously some degree of "organization" but not at a central level encompassing all of Christianity. The Bishop of Rome never managed to assert authority over all of Christendom, nor was that institution granted that status by Constantine.
Originally posted by finneganWas Constantine a Christian?
The bishop of Rome ranked with Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch for a long time.
The tale is not only romantic, but probably true. The year is 306. A young man arises in the dead of a late spring night in the imperial palace at Nicomedia in Asia Minor. He slips down to the emperor's stables and commandeers the palace horses. He is thirty-two years old, and by all reports quite handsome. He has been a hostage. Now he is making his escape and seeking to delay pursuit.
His escape would change history, for his name was Constantine. He would become the first ruler in the western world to base the laws of the state upon the teachings of Jesus Christ. But he had to decide how far such efforts could go in a largely non-Christian society. For centuries to come, this baffling question would confront emperors, kings, prime ministers, heads of state right down to President George W. Bush, who faces precisely the same issue today. And many ask if Constantine himself was truly a Christian? Or was he merely an opportunist, using the Christian faith for purely political ends? Historians would debate this question down through the centuries.
However, many facts about this man are well established. The son of Constantius Chlorus, Roman emperor in the West, Constantine was fleeing Galerius, emperor in the East. For ten years, he was held at the eastern court as a captive guest. If Constantius Chlorus should ever try to become sole ruler of the empire, the life of his son would be forfeit.
When Galerius became emperor in 305, Constantius Chlorus formally requested that his son be allowed to join him. Galerius outwardly consented, but connived to make it impossible for Constantine to leave. Thus Constantine's decision to escape and embark on the longest continuous horseback ride recorded in the ancient world--more than sixteen hundred miles across Europe to the northeast coast of France. His biographer, Lactantius, comments that this was typical of Constantine's intelligence, ambition and decisiveness. He engineered his flight on the very night before he was to be hauled before Galerius to become a more explicit kind of prisoner. When Galerius awoke at noon the next day, and learned that Constantine was long gone, he burst into tears.
Conquest of the Empire
The eastern emperor had reason for fear. When Constantius Chlorus died, Constantine knew he must act quickly. He must seize power over the entire empire, East and West, or perish ignominiously like so many of the pathetic series of soldier-emperors who preceded him. He faced stiff opposition from six other claimants for the imperial throne, each fully aware that he could rule safely only by destroying the other five.
The most formidable was Maxentius, ensconced in the city of Rome and stoutly supported by its Senate. Maxentius's standing troops and cavalry outnumbered Constantine's forces by nearly two to one. Moreover, the city was fortified by a twenty-foot, twelve-mile wall, built against possible barbarian attacks. Then, while marching on Rome, something happened to Constantine, something so vital, so shattering, that it would fundamentally change him, the world and even Christianity. Eusebius, another biographer and a man who knew Constantine well, tells it this way:
Constantine called on God with earnest prayer and supplications that he would reveal to him who he was, and stretch forth his right hand to help him in his present difficulties. And while he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvelous sign appeared to him from heaven...He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, 'Conquer by this.' At this sight, he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle. And while he continued to ponder and reason on its meaning, night suddenly came on; then in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.
In This Sign Conquer
This experience, whatever it was, had a remarkable effect upon the would-be emperor. After this incident, two new terms figure prominently in his thought, language and policies. One is God and the other is Jesus Christ. Perhaps even then Constantine saw, however faintly, that such wars as men fought, wars that he too had spent most of his life waging, are mere shadows of the real war: the war between good and evil that rages unseen within every soul. This was the war the Christians had always understood--the war Constantine himself would better understand in the violent personal struggles that lay ahead of him.
The scene must have been extraordinary as thousands of grizzled warriors strove to reproduce the curious sign Constantine ordered painted on their shields. It is known as "the Labarum of Constantine." A labarum was a Roman standard carried into battle, but here a Christian monogram replaced the traditional pagan symbols. It was centered around X and P, the first two letters in the Greek word for Christ. Though his troops revered Constantine, all Christian symbols, particularly the cross, were distasteful to them. In fact, most worshipped the god Mithras, and Christians constituted barely ten percent of the population. Indeed, many Christians themselves still shrank from using the cross in religious art. Although Jesus had died on one, the cross remained a punishment for slaves and a source of gallows humor--not something to be borne proudly into battle.
But orders were orders. On the morning of October 28 in the year 312, as Constantine's troops stood ready to assault Rome, this symbol of Jesus Christ could be seen throughout their ranks, painted brightly upon shields or hoisted high as standards. They slaughtered Maxentius' army at Rome's Milvian Bridge, and the next day they marched triumphantly through the city's open gates. The Roman Senate declared Constantine to be Augustus, emperor of the West, and in a succession of victories thereafter made him sole ruler of the Roman Empire.
The Birth of Christendom
One of his first acts was to draft a proclamation that ended official persecution of Christians. Called the Edict of Milan, it placed Christianity on a par with the other faiths that enjoyed freedom under Rome, in order "that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion." For the first time since the year 64, when the emperor Nero declared war on the Christians of Rome, and burned them as human torches in his garden, they had reason for hope.
The full notion of Christendom--a political world entirely dominated by Christianity--was slow to take shape, however. Not until after 380, under the emperors Theodosius I in the East and Gratian in the West, would pagan temples be forcibly closed, and all Roman subjects required to become Christian. Nonetheless, Constantine gradually infused his empire's legal structure with significant Christian values. He made Sunday an official day of rest. New laws forbade the practice of divination and other magic. Confiscated Christian properties were restored. Magnificent churches rose in all major cities. He moved the imperial capital from pagan Rome to a new site, specifically built as a Christian city and named Constantinople (today, Istanbul). Christian clergy administered an imperial welfare program. In time, the emperor ceased paying the traditional homage to Jupiter on Rome's Capitoline Hill. Coins no longer bore images of pagan deities.
Meanwhile, state and church were inescapably fusing. Constantine held the title Pontifex Maximus, highest priest, with the duty of overseeing religion in the empire. After 313, he promoted Christianity as the favored faith of the empire. Although he was unbaptized and had little patience with theological wrangling, he assumed the authority to arbitrate church disputes. Thus he presided over the crucial council at Nicea that formally declared the divinity of Jesus Christ.
The Conundrum
Why then do historians question his genuine Christian commitment? Could it be his actions toward his family? When informed that his beloved eldest son Crispus was plotting against him, Constantine flew into a towering rage and had the young man executed. He later discovered that the "evidence" was completely fabricated. Soon after, he had his second wife, Fausta, put to death. Such conduct may be fine for pagan emperors, his detractors note, but hardly for a Christian.
The twentieth-century Christian essayist Dorothy L. Sayers offers a fascinating explanation for this puzzling emperor. Piecing the clues together in her play, Constantine, she theorizes that Fausta, seeking to secure the succession for her own son, had convincingly framed Crispus. She was then exposed, and summarily executed. The play depicts a despairing Constantine writhing with guilt on his own deathbed. The wrongful execution of his cherished and loyal Crispus was the ultimate evil, he mourns. Nothing and no one could possibly atone for such a sin.
Suddenly the light dawns. This, he realizes, is what those theologians at Nicea had been arguing about! It was true enough--no man could atone for him. But God his creator, God become man in the person of Jesus Christ, could indeed do so. At last, Constantine fully grasps the meaning of that Christian term, "the Gospel." This indeed is "the Good News!" With that, he is baptized. He dies a few days later.
My guess is that Constantine merely adopted the fledging Christian faith, he had not interest in converting into it. Why not adopt Christianity as your own, it has survived the wrath of Nero and he himself was running for his life. For political reasons, why not incorporate it? Christianity seemed to flourish more while being persecuted.
Constantine continued to worship other gods after his supposed conversion. In fact, if he was really a Christian, why wait till your death bed to be baptized?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThose statements are true to an extent but not really dispositive. It is certainly a part of the historical record that certain areas and their bishops resisted control from Rome. Some still do. But the biblical argument for the primacy of one head of the Church designated by Jesus remains strong.
Before 325 AD there was obviously some degree of "organization" but not at a central level encompassing all of Christianity. The Bishop of Rome never managed to assert authority over all of Christendom, nor was that institution granted that status by Constantine.
AN interesting fact about the Council of Nicea is that it had hardly any representation from the Western Churches:
Around 220 bishops attended, mostly from the eastern churches. Only around eight officials came from western churches - Rome sent only two presbyters.
http://www.churchhistory101.com/century4-p7.php
The article is an interesting one debunking a few common claims about the Council.
Originally posted by no1marauderIf you bother to even pick up a Bible, you will note that Jesus himself attacked the religious leaders of his day. In fact, he was not nice about it either. The only vitriol he spewed was towards these individuals.
I'm aware of early Church history.
Nothing in it contradicts the Biblical claim that Jesus established a Church that Peter was to be the head of and that that Church still exists today.
Now did this mean Jesus wanted the Temple destroyed and organized religion disbanded? If so, why did he drive out the money changers in the temple? Just because organized religion goes off the rails and surrenders its focus and calling for self serving purposes does not mean God did not start it, nor does it mean he wants it completely disbanded.
Having said that, if Jesus was willing to go to the mat for calling out the religious leaders as hypocrites, what do you reckon Jesus would have to say about pedophiles in the Catholic church today?
We all know the history of the Catholic church. It is full of corruption and abuse of those whom are seen as enemies of the Catholic church. Anti-Semitism is rampant in their history, and as such, beckons the question as to why they did not stand up to the Nazi onslaught of the Jewish persecution. Of course, we all know the reason, don't we? The Catholic church did not wish to endure the wrath of Hitler and probably still had anti-Semitic feelings themselves.
Likewise, when the world global system comes about as spoken of in Revelation, should we expect any more from them? My guess is that the Catholic church will be nothing more than a mouth piece for the new coming world order, much like they were for Hitler. Through sermons about the need for government to redistribute wealth and seize wealth in the name of environmental protection, they will continue to be afforded such rights as the right to abuse little children with impunity around the world.
Who knows, maybe they will lift the ban on abortion and gay marriage, not that Catholics seem to much care about these bans as they are now.
Originally posted by whodeyThe article has numerous errors. For one:
Was Constantine a Christian?
The tale is not only romantic, but probably true. The year is 306. A young man arises in the dead of a late spring night in the imperial palace at Nicomedia in Asia Minor. He slips down to the emperor's stables and commandeers the palace horses. He is thirty-two years old, and by all reports quite handsome. He has been a hostag ...[text shortened]... he Gospel." This indeed is "the Good News!" With that, he is baptized. He dies a few days later.
For the next 250 years the Christian church endured periods of persecution at the hands of the Roman empire. It is important to realize that Roman persecution of Christians came in waves, tended to be regional in nature, and typically did not last more than a couple of years.
http://www.churchhistory101.com/century2.php
As to your ceaseless claims that Constantine wasn't a Christian:
Considering these facts, perhaps it is less striking that Constantine continued to use the Sun on his coins and other imperial emblems. It was very clear, however, from his various letters that he considered himself a Christian and the imperial leader of the Church. It is true that Constantine was not baptized until he lay on his death bed, but this was not uncommon due to the issues of second repentance.
The Christian writers (Eusebius and Lactantius) of the day believed Constantine was a genuine Christian, pagan writers attacked him for neglecting pagan worship and we have several of his letters that clearly speak and sound like a person of genuine faith. Could he have been playing the hypocrite? Yes, but if you study his family and his entire life, it is more likely that he is a genuine, yet flawed Christian.
http://www.churchhistory101.com/century4-p6.php
Was There a Cover-up?Even though Dan Brown has so many facts wrong, and even though his theories are speculative at best and heresy at worst, he might just be onto something. We can clearly see the rise of Roman power in history as fallible men declared themselves gods and sought to replace the authority of the Bible with the traditions and pagan rituals of men. The facts indicate that there has indeed been a cover-up, one that Dan Brown missed: Constantine and the bishops of Rome did conspire in one of the greatest secrets of all history. Who Was Constantine?Constantine the Great was a Roman emperor who reigned from A.D. 306 to 337. Tradition has it that on his way to an important battle in A.D. 312, a vision of a flaming cross appeared to him with the inscription, "In this sign conquer." He therefore authorized his mostly pagan soldiers to place a cross on their shields, and went on to win the battle. Believing the Christian God to be his secret to military success and the key to uniting his empire, Constantine adopted Christianity as the official religion of Rome in A.D. 324. His life continued to be marred by bloodshed and political intrigue until his death, but through his influence the bishops of Rome gained rapid ascendancy to political and temporal power. Sun WorshipThe real secret of Constantine and the bishops of Rome is their cunning introduction of sun worship and paganism into Christianity. It was done so shrewdly that, incredibly, it has been veiled within the faith for centuries. Through Constantine, paganism and Christianity joined hands in the Roman Empire. History readily records that Constantine was a sun-worshiper. In one decree he declared, "On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed" (March 7, 321). He made this decree in honor of the sun after his supposed conversion to Christianity! Constantine, even after his "conversion," remained a pagan. Constantine sought to unite his kingdom’s pagan and Christian worshipers, in order to promote stability and ensure that his empire lasted. The easiest way to bring harmony would be to blend sun worship and Christianity. History shows that the Church of Rome did not object; indeed, it had been engaging in the practice for nearly two centuries! The bishops at Rome also claimed Peter as the head of the church, instead of Christ (Ephesians 4:15). Developing a non-biblical doctrine of "apostolic succession," they claimed that the authority conferred on Peter was transferred to themselves. The "Saint Peter" that was created was actually a combination of pagan idolatry and Christian veneration. Even today, the statue in St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome includes a solar disk above his head. Tradition has it that this was actually a statue of Jupiter taken from a pagan temple and simply renamed "St. Peter"! Sun worship, which appears in nearly every pagan religion in the world, soon appeared in Christian art, imagery, and theology. The halo often seen on Christ and Mary is actually a symbol of sun worship. Madonna ("Mary"😉 was depicted holding sun disks.
One of the earliest entrances of sun worship into the church was through the spring pagan festival. The festival was celebrated in honor of Eostre (according to the eighth century cleric Bede). The festival often honored a goddess (such as Ishtar), and one of the more popular tales of this time concerned the god Attis, who was said to be resurrected each year during the month of March. According to one tradition, the festival of Attis began as "a day of blood on a black Friday and culminated after three days in a day of rejoicing over a resurrection."3 These spring festivals eventually became the Christian festival of Easter, complete with eggs and rabbits, both ancient pagan symbols of fertility. At the Council of Nicaea, Constantine also persuaded those in attendance that only one Easter "Resurrection" day should be kept. "Our Savior has left us only one festal day … and he desired to establish only one Catholic Church," he argued. Then he added this significant statement. "You should consider … that we should have nothing in common with the Jews."4 Constantine felt that the Jews were "murderers of the Lord," and therefore desired to blot out any links between Christianity and Judaism. For this reason he persuaded the Christian church to drop the ancient biblical Sabbath, given at Creation, and replace it with Sunday worship. "The Church made a sacred day of Sunday … largely because it was the weekly festival of the sun; for it was a definite Christian policy to take over the pagan festivals endeared to the people by tradition, and to give them a Christian significance."5 Pope Sylvester I (314–335) finally made Christian Sundaykeeping official by decreeing that "the rest of the Sabbath should be transferred to the Lord’s day [Sunday]."6 Perhaps this was Constantine and Rome’s crowning conspiratorial victory—sneaking sun worship into Christianity by exchanging the true Christian day of worship for the day dedicated to ancient sun worship. So Dan Brown was partly right after all. There has been a conspiracy. Constantine and Rome did change history. What Mr. Brown does not seem to realize is that the very things he has attacked are the only things that have kept truth alive. Believing in Jesus as Lord and in the Bible as His infallible Word are the only ways to safely combat error and ground ourselves in truth. Through the Dark Ages these facts were lost sight of, and paganism took over the church. Thank God that today we have ready access to the Bible, the ultimate resource, and to the throne of grace. God’s truth will always prove stronger than the world’s fiction. - See more at: http://www.marytruth.com/home/the-silent-conspiracy#sthash.nxr3Y7by.dpuf
Originally posted by whodey🙄🙄🙄
Was There a Cover-up?Even though Dan Brown has so many facts wrong, and even though his theories are speculative at best and heresy at worst, he might just be onto something. We can clearly see the rise of Roman power in history as fallible men declared themselves gods and sought to replace the authority of the Bible with the traditions and pagan rituals of m ...[text shortened]... fiction. - See more at: http://www.marytruth.com/home/the-silent-conspiracy#sthash.nxr3Y7by.dpuf
If you had bothered to read the link I provided regarding Constantine rather than running out and finding a crazy cut and paste you'd see all these claims are debunked by historical records.
Originally posted by no1marauderNot sure what your article thinks it is debunking. The key phrase to my mind is this one: "It is clear in retrospect that Constantine was more concerned with attaining peace and unity in the Church than he was with theology or doctrine." Well, that is certainly correct. Constantine was not a Christian and Christianity was not the state religion. What Constantine had decreed was that Christianity should be tolerated and not persecuted. Part of the deal was that Christians (or their bishops) enjoyed significant material benefits (e.g. state funding for churches) in exchange for a role in social control. Unfortunately, competing groups came forward claiming the right to these benefits and responsibilities and their behaviour towards each other was frequently disorderly, utterly contrary to the needs of the empire. Constantine wanted to establish clearly who would be entitled to the status as recognised leaders of Christianity and to ensure that they had the necessary authority over believers to meet their responsibilities to the empire. While his intellectual curiosity need not be doubted it is strange to overlook the obvious - this was part of his role as emperor in defining a realistic and effective matter of policy.
Those statements are true to an extent but not really dispositive. It is certainly a part of the historical record that certain areas and their bishops resisted control from Rome. Some still do. But the biblical argument for the primacy of one head of the Church designated by Jesus remains strong.
AN interesting fact about the Council of Nicea is that ...[text shortened]... ry4-p7.php
The article is an interesting one debunking a few common claims about the Council.
The impact on Christian history is a byproduct. The theologians who got most from the exercise were those who were both politically astute and frankly ruthless. The absence of representatives from the West, including Rome, would have furrowed few brows at that time. Nothing much was happening there.