Replies

This article is crap. Can anyone here actually provide any evidence, any evidence at all,
and by that I mean actual documented cause and effect, that shows pagans entering the Church
(which would mean they became Christians!) changed a single Church teaching?

I have heard this claim before, and not surprisingly it always seems to come from Protestants
(wishful thinking) or rationalists (hoping against hope) just as with the two "scholars" mentioned
in this article. But where's thr proof? Why isn't there a single document anywhere in the world
which says something along the lines of,
"Ever since we started letting those pagans, gee, they've changed the Church's teachings"?

19 posted on 07/08/2006 10:12:52 AM MDT by vladimir998

The Council of Nicea was summoned, and presided over, by the Emperor Constantine.
Constantine, Pontifex Maximus of the Roman state religion.
He called all the bishops of the eastern and western churches to attend.
The bishop of Rome was invited to attend but he chose not to attend.
One of the titles of the Roman Emperor was Pontifix Maximus,
a title given to the Roman Emperor by the king of Ephesus
who had inherited the title from Babylon
This title goes all the way back to Babylon and the beginnings of the mother-child
cult under Nimrod of Genesis 10 and his wife Sumerimus. Later,
Julius Caesar was elected Pontifex Maximus and when he became Emperor,
he became the supreme civil and religious ruler and head of Rome
politically and religiously with all the power and functions of the Babylonian pontiff.
Here was the magnificent temple of Esculapius, a pagan god
whose idol was in the form of a serpent.
The inhabitants were known as the chief temple keepers of Asia.
When the Babylonian cult of the Magians was driven out of Babylon,
they found a haven in Pergamum.
The title of the Magian high priest of Babylon was "Chief Bridge Builder"
meaning the one who spans the gap between mortals and Satan and his hosts.
In Latin this title was written "Pontifex Maximus,"

Y'shua spoke to the church at Pergamus when he said:
Revelation 2:12 "And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write:
The One who has the sharp two-edged sword says this:
Revelation 2:13 'I know where you dwell, where Satan's throne is;
and you hold fast My name, and did not deny My faith
even in the days of Antipas, My witness, My faithful one,
who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.
Revelation 2:14 'But I have a few things against you, because you
have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam,
who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block
before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed
to idols and to commit {acts of} immorality.
Revelation 2:15 'So you also have some who in the same way
hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans.

b'shem Y'shua

You wrote:

"The Council of Nicea was summoned, and presided over, by the Emperor Constantine."

Irrelevant. That is not proof, nor have you documented it, of a pagan intrusion into Christianity.

“Constantine, Pontifex Maximus of the Roman state religion.”

Again, irrelevant. Constantine was emperor. All emperors were in charge of the state religion in pagan times. That is not proof, nor have you documented it, of a pagan intrusion into Christianity.

“He called all the bishops of the eastern and western churches to attend.”

Again, irrelevant. A Christian emperor, and in belief Constantine made it clear he was Christian at that time, had the right to call together any assemblage of citizens he wanted. That is not proof, nor have you documented it, of a pagan intrusion into Christianity.

“The bishop of Rome was invited to attend but he chose not to attend.”

He did not have to attend. He sent delegates. That is not proof, nor have you documented it, of a pagan intrusion into Christianity.

“One of the titles of the Roman Emperor was Pontifix Maximus,
a title given to the Roman Emperor by the king of Ephesus
who had inherited the title from Babylon “

Wrong. It is an exclusively Roman title and some from Rome alone. There was a PM before Ephesus was a kingdom! Read Françoise Van Haeperen, Le collège pontifical (3ème s. a. C. - 4ème s. p. C.) in series Études de Philologie, d'Archéologie et d'Histoire Anciennes, no. 39.) and you’ll avoid making this “Hislopian” mistake. And in any case, that is not proof, nor have you documented it, of a pagan intrusion into Christianity.

“This title goes all the way back to Babylon and the beginnings of the mother-child
cult under Nimrod of Genesis 10 and his wife Sumerimus. Later,
Julius Caesar was elected Pontifex Maximus and when he became Emperor,
he became the supreme civil and religious ruler and head of Rome
politically and religiously with all the power and functions of the Babylonian pontiff. “

Uh, Hislop was wrong. You do realize that don’t you? You see, those of us who actually are Church Historians know that to be true. Even Ralph Woodrow, a former Hislop adherent figured that out. And no information about Caesar is proof, nor have you documented it, of a pagan intrusion into Christianity.

Look, when you actually want to talk about REAL Church history and not Hislop let me know. No reputable Church historian alive today takes Hislop seriously. There’s a reason why. He was wrong.