Posted on 10/25/2009 5:47:50 AM PDT by NYer
Please read post 452 slowly for comprehension.shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Let's see: the Emperor Augustus was the first to inherit the title of pontifex maximus, waaay back during the Principate. The Emperor Gratian (367-383) renounced the title of pontifex maximus during his rule, becoming, as my source states, "the first emperor in almost four centuries to refuse the office that brought with it control of the ROMAN STATE RELIGION." (H. A. Drake, _Constantine and the Bishops_, p.403).
Augustus' rule ended in AD 14. Constantine reigned from AD 306 to 337. Gratian, once again, ruled from AD 367 to 383. Since the Imperial office of Pontifex Maximus was assumed with Augustus and abandoned with Gratian, and Constantine ruled between the two, then Constantine was Pontifex Maximus of the Roman State Religion. QED.
And, wagglebee, what WAS the Roman State Religion in AD 325, when Constantino il Grande summoned the Council of Nicea?
I'm not quite sure about the point that UriÂ’el-2012 was making about Easter, but on this matter of fact he's right. You -- and others -- owe him an apology.
Wow, what a brazenly inappropriate display of condescension.
Nevertheless, here is what you wrote:
Specifically "ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA"
Now, it is YOUR job to prove your claim. YOU need to prove that this is contained in a Catholic translation of the New Testament of the Holy Bible. It IS NOT my job to prove a negative; if you are uncertain why it's not my job to prove a negative, I suggest you find an introduction to logic textbook.
In case I'm not clear, the ONLY thing I am interested in is the name of a Catholic translation that contains portions of the New Testament that you dismiss as apocryphal. Passages from Scripture, be they in English, Hebrew, Latin, Greek or any other language ARE NOT answers.
I will await your response.
Which is to say the phrase "Roman Catholic Apocrypha of the NT" is confusing. As far as I know there is not a specifically RC Apocrypha of the NT.
There is some apocryphal NT literature. It's not associated with any church of which I am aware. I was reading the so-called Apocryphal NT when I was in Episcopal seminary -- for amusement, mostly, and idle curiosity.
Thank you for the reference.
It reads, “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
FWIW, I believe this teaches the Eternalness and Infinite Nature of God.
If God is eternal - even if IN time - then a thousand years would be as one day. It is hard for us to imagine living a thousand years, let alone all eternity. This was first brought to my mind by my youngest daughter, who at 8 read The Lord of the Rings...along with the appendixes. She objected to a marriage between Arwen and Aragorn, because the elf was 1800 years old and ‘what would she see in any human’? A somewhat freaky question from an 8 year old reading the appendixes to the Lord of the Rings...
But if God is Eternal, then a thousand years might be better described as a minute, or a second.
And think about an Infinite God. If you divide infinity by any number, however large, you still have infinity. No matter how many people are in the world, or how many worlds, when you divide it all into God’s Infinity, you have...infinity. I had a chance to teach a young adults class, and I told them to imagine being given 20 years where all you did at work was study a single postage stamp. At the end of 20 years, you will know less about that postage stamp than God does, because there is no limit to his attention.
So a day IS like a thousand years, and more, to God. There is no trouble or concern we can bring Him that is too trivial, since His Infinite nature means He has limitless attention to pay to it. I find this to be a great comfort in my life - “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.” - Matt 10
I’ve read that there are roughly 100,000 hairs on a human head, and 50-100 fall out each day - and God has them numbered! He knows if today’s loss on Mr Rogers is 28 or 92...and at my age, a higher number may be correct! But God knows if it is 99,983 or 101,213 today for Mr Rogers!
Anyways, that is MOPIOS, as some Catholic Apologists would put it. Take it for what it is worth, or not worth. But that is why I don’t believe that verse indicates God is outside of time.
In our Sunday School class, we are working our way through a Systematic Theology text. Sometime in the next week or two, we’ll hit the part where Grudem says God is outside of time. I suspect the teacher will want to throw the book - all 1000+ pages of it - at me before the end of THAT class!
Not even remotely.
The fact that Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire DID NOT make him head of the Church. You can find well-documented lists of Catholic popes on the internet, NONE of them will ever list Constantine as a pope. In 325, His Holiness Sylvester I was pope.
I'm not quite sure about the point that UriÂ’el-2012 was making about Easter,
Keep digging, you'll figure it out.
you forgot the other books of the Apocrypha:shal-om b;SHEM And hiach (*Gorblessyou*)
The Protozoa of Cornelius
The Gospel of Brian
The Book of Sonny concerning the jumping up to reach Cher
Guys — Uriel is the new avatar of XeniaST. Come on — weren’t the bashem, hashem etc. very reminiscent of old XST?
“ ...And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, "O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade that with it Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits, in Thy mercy." And the Lord did grin and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats and ... And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceedest on to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."
Yeah, I figured that out a long time ago.
And I’m assuming that 2012 is some sort of homage shown to the Mayans.
2013 is going to be a big year for back-tracking and webscrubbing. LOL
They will do what the Millerites did in the 1830s and just keep pushing back the date.
You're correct, as far as it goes. However, the fact that Constantine DID inherit the title of Pontifex Maximus DID make him head of the Roman state religion at the time. And the Roman state religion in 325 was Christianity.
>>> You can find well-documented lists of Catholic popes on the internet, NONE of them will ever list Constantine as a pope. In 325, His Holiness Sylvester I was pope. <<<
What you meant to say was that Sylvester I was the Bishop of Rome in 325, and that one of the titles used at the time to designate A leader of A Christian community was "papa" or "pope." So, of course Constantine the Great wouldn't be in a list of the bishops of Rome...but then, we're discussing the history and use of the title "P.F.", not the bishops of Rome and not the title "papa."
Pontifex Maximus wasn't adopted as a title by the Bishop of Rome until AFTER Gratian abandoned it in the fourth century. "Pontifex" and its variations weren't used to refer to the Bishop of Rome (and other bishops, by the way) until the sixth century.
My point still stands. You're being anachronistic.
Yawn...
Constantine was NEVER pope of the Catholic Church.
What you meant to say was that Sylvester I was the Bishop of Rome in 325, and that one of the titles used at the time to designate A leader of A Christian community was "papa" or "pope." So, of course Constantine the Great wouldn't be in a list of the bishops of Rome...but then, we're discussing the history and use of the title "P.F.", not the bishops of Rome and not the title "papa."
No, what I meant to say is that His Holiness Sylvester I was pope of the Catholic Church in 325. If I want your opinion of what you think I mean to say I will ask you for it.
Pontifex Maximus wasn't adopted as a title by the Bishop of Rome until AFTER Gratian abandoned it in the fourth century. "Pontifex" and its variations weren't used to refer to the Bishop of Rome (and other bishops, by the way) until the sixth century.
The papacy proceeded the title and Saint Peter's journey to Rome.
The Gospel of Brian is apocryphal?
I wonder if the store will take this DVD back.
bump
Are you really XeniaST rerun?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.