"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."
We can trace the centuries of Anti-Semitic rage in Europe, that naturally climaxed with the Holocaust, directly on the shoulders of Constantine.
This, a man who murdered his son and wife was a Christian?
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
That's an interesting theory except for the inconvenient fact that Christians had been observing the Sabbath on Sunday for about 200 years BEFORE Constantine. http://www.churchhistory101.com/feedback/sunday-worship.php
Originally posted by whodey "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."
We can trace the centuries of Anti-Semitic rage in Europe, that naturally ...[text shortened]... n who murdered his son and wife was a Christian?
Hitler even claimed to be a Christian. LOL.
As does a hateful little fanatic like you.
All men sin. Where do you get off saying that the sins of a man disqualify him from being a Christian?
EDIT: As already pointed out, your cut and paste as it wrong regarding Christian observance of the Sabbath.
Originally posted by finnegan Not 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. Wha ...[text shortened]... t, including Rome, would have furrowed few brows at that time. Nothing much was happening there.
You must not have even read the article. Try doing so and use the links above it for the "3rd and 4th Century". The story you are telling is historical rubbish.
Originally posted by no1marauder You must not have even read the article. Try doing so and use the links above it for the "3rd and 4th Century". The story you are telling is historical rubbish.
Well as I quoted your source that indicates that I may indeed have referred to it.
The rubbish in my account can be attributed to the rubbish I read so much of, such as (only for example)
Christian Beginnings: From Nazareth to Nicaea, AD 30–325 by Géza Vermès
and
The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason by Charles Freeman.
In reality I have read a lot more besides and of course my post was written in my own words without external references, not a cut and paste which you so often complain about.
If you read a book like The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages, 400-1000 by Chris Wickham for example (again) you would be disappointed to find how limited and unimportant was the role of the Bishop of Rome in that period, presiding over a collection of relics in a depopulated and decaying city of no political significance whatever, unable to prevent the theft of relics to invigorate rival centres of religious authority around Western Europe. The papacy started to matter when, rather accidentally, the newly emerging mediaeval kingdoms found a role for the Pope as a court of appeal on legal matters and it was in the context of political, not specifically religious authority that Rome at last began to attract serious attention.
Originally posted by finnegan If you read a book like The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages, 400-1000 by Chris Wickham for example (again) you would be disappointed to find how limited and unimportant was the role of the Bishop of Rome in that period, presiding over a collection of relics in a depopulated and decaying city of no political significance whatever, unable to p ...[text shortened]... ical, not specifically religious authority that Rome at last began to attract serious attention.
Originally posted by finnegan If you read a book like The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages, 400-1000 by Chris Wickham for example (again) you would be disappointed to find how limited and unimportant was the role of the Bishop of Rome in that period, presiding over a collection of relics in a depopulated and decaying city of no political significance whatever, unable to p ...[text shortened]... ical, not specifically religious authority that Rome at last began to attract serious attention.
Whatever the temporal power of the Popes during that period and recognizing that various kings and emperors regularly interfered with papal selection and succession, the question is whether the ascendancy of the Pope in the Church hierarchy had been established by that time. The answer seems to be an unequivocal "yes".
I have more Christianity in my little pinky than the Pope does his entire body.[/b]
This just might be the dumbest thing I have every heard; its at least a good candidate for the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
By the bye, I've not considered myself a Christian for forty years.
But the ignorance here is breathe-taking
Originally posted by stevemcc This just might be the dumbest thing I have every heard; its at least a good candidate for the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
By the bye, I've not considered myself a Christian for forty years.
But the ignorance here is breathe-taking
Anyone who advocates or overlooks pedophiles running rampant in the Catholic church does not deserve to be called Christian
Originally posted by no1marauder 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.
Other major churches such as the Orthodox and Coptic churches claim similar descent from Jesus and/or the apostles. Since very little is known about the historical Jesus such claims should be regarded as religious dogma and not historical fact. My point is merely that your position of other churches having branched off from the Catholic church is inaccurate. The Catholic church is simply one of many offshoots of the early Christianity of the 1st Century AD, which is no longer practiced today by anyone.
Originally posted by finnegan 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.[/b]
Being ruthless is what being in power is all about. It is what helped get them there.
That is why Jesus unequivocally said that his kingdom was not of this world, and why he distanced himself from attaining political power.
As we have seen from the past, theocracies produce some of the most oppressive governments in human history. We see it in Christianity in the past and we are seeing it today in Islam.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Other major churches such as the Orthodox and Coptic churches claim similar descent from Jesus and/or the apostles. Since very little is known about the historical Jesus such claims should be regarded as religious dogma and not historical fact. My point is merely that your position of other churches having branched off from the Catholic church is inaccu ...[text shortened]... s of the early Christianity of the 1st Century AD, which is no longer practiced today by anyone.
But didn't you read Marauders article? It has the historical truthiness about pretty much everything. 😵
"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."
Sounds a lot like Constantine.
Incidentally, can anyone here show me a quote from Constantine where he claimed to be a Christian?
The Pope tees off on NeoLibs
15 Jul '15 20:145 edits
YouTube
Back to Top