Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
But His body wasn't in the heart of the earth on the evening of the last supper, it was the next evening.
The RC's build a doctrine on the word "grace", and you think we're being picky when we believe that when Jesus said 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth, He meant exactly that.
The fact Jesus body laid for 3 days and nights and the next day it would have been decaying, as was Lazarus on the 4th day, and you fluff it off as a non-important event?
Jesus also understood how many hours were in a day,
John 11:9-10 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.
You really don't see anything wrong with ignoring this scripture and setting up your own version of the truth do you?
Your RC ship has become so big and cumbersome, it can't be directed, or guided any longer can it.
JH
JH
A lot of Churches that aren't even Sabbath keeping Churches, are beginning to keep Nisan the 14th which was on a Wednesday this year, as the crucifixion day, and no longer promoting Easter (Estar) birthday, or acknowledging Friday as anything other then the second day Jesus was in the grave.
This year the Jewish holy days of Passover and UB, worked out exactly as it was in time of Christ.
That may have started some to thinking.
JH :-)
Thank you Douglas. I just enjoy history told by the facts as opposed to fiction created that is based on the facts. They are two entirely seperate things. And if I've learned nothing else in 15 years with regard to religious history, it's that it is far more political and imaginative than it is factual. What you believe is largely a matter of who told it rather than what the facts say. And that is a travesty. One has to wonder how one can ever interpret Licinius as acting on behalf of Constantine when they were in fact enemies. One further has to wonder how it can be said that constantine wiped out the Donatists when they survived him. One further wonders how it can then be construed as a holy quest to put down heresy when the record shows it was merely a political persecution in attempt to quell unrest. That, as it happens, failed. But history also shows that Constantine took pleasure in letting the Donatists flourish because they were a thorn in the side of Licinius. Where is that in the official Catholic apologetics? Any one of these things poses a problem to the official propaganda. But all in sum render that propaganda for what it is - a lie. And i'm so sick of being lied to that I could spit lies and crap lightning. It was infuriating when I learned that editors of School text books didn't have the respect for me to tell the truth. It's more infuriating yet when philosophers presuming to be christians do it in every other statement. Have they no shame, no fear of God? Anyway, glad to contribute something. And glad I'm not the only one.
Yes, I'm aware of what you mean by "reputable" historians. It means they have a degree and agree with your group. It doesn't necessarily mean that Their findings match the facts - unfortuneatly. Else you could reconcile the facts with the Catholic propaganda. Alas, that is impossible. When the facts say one thing and your story says the exact opposite, there is no possibility for reconciliation. Black cannot be simultaneously white - save for in fantasy realms in which these storys get cooked up apparently.
But to speak to the point, the notion that catholicism and orthodoxy are the creation of Constantine is simplistic
I did not say that Constantine created Catholicism, I stated that the end of his meddlings was the coelessance of the institution of Catholicism. That is not at all either simple or simplistic. It is quite complex and politically intriguing. A clue that might have saved you from jumping to conclusions is that I said it was punctuated by Theodosius. You might check your history and find out when Theodosius made his proclaimation giving the institution a name. Hint, this happened some time after the death of Constantine whome the Donatists outlived. In essence - Donatism had a name before Catholicism - as did Christianity. Perhaps not something you can really appreciate. Again, I've not appraised the full impact of that yet. I'm still involved in how deep the rabbit hole goes re Constantine. A full appraisal cannot yet happen till I've learned all I can.
W.H.C. Frend proposes--and Gibbon certainly doesn't disagree with this-- that after the time of the Emperor Marcus to the Emperor Valerian, Christians became a power in the empire, provoking several pagan persecutions, esp under Maximin, Decian and Valerian.
This is not inconsistant with what I've said. Christians had an impact. That is not in dispute. Christians became a power; but, there were all sort of sects that are generally regarded as christian - just as in modern times. History speaks to this as a manner of a religious following and not as the effect of a single sect. And there were multiple factors driving it. Four are prominant - 1) people lost confidence in their pagan gods and turned to Christianity seeking the truth of the message of Christ 2) Forceable conversion 3) Conversion for political and socio-economic purposes and the ever popular conversion due to popularity as the growth reached critical mass. It is no secret that many people occupy church pews because their friends are there or because it seems to them a good place to be though they themselves are not christian. Constantine seized on this and used it as a political means of uniting a dying empire. It was a brilliant error from a secular standpoint. From a Christian standpoint, it was bittersweet and ultimately scandalous and destructive.
Finally, the only thing I've "simply" dismissed is your contention that I've "simply" dismissed anything. Consideration is taken to that which is relevant, factual and authoritative. If it can't meet those benchmarks, then inclusion is error. You're no stranger to inclusion of error based on appearance and have shown a reluctance to accept any fact that opposed your views. I reject stories that oppose facts. And I prefer my methods as they do not lead me off into believing false information. I guess I'm just too simplistic and naive to understand why people spread lies and then are angered or outraged when facts are unveiled that dash their lies to bits. I expect people to tell the truth - especially christians. Seems my expectations are too high or your church isn't christian. I do have an opinion on the matter but I prefer to let the facts speak.
One last thing. The notion that the Church was a conglomeration of sects is not new. The first century Christians were a collection of churches dotting the landscape moving outward from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. And their approaches to things are shown in the council of Jerusalem Overseen by James. There is nothing to show that there was any change in this arrangement till the time of Constantine. There is arguably no need for a human "leader" of all churches - nor is there any evidence that one was controlling things in the time of Constantine. The fact that no one was doing so was the reason that Constantine obligated himself to act in the case of the Donatists and the Arians. That and the fact that he was directly brought into it. The Donatists appealed to constantine stating that the issue was a disagreement between them and the other bishops of Africa and they appealed for a judge to be appointed from Gaul to hear the issue. There was no appeal to a leader of any church and no mention of an organized body policing the church. One can look far and wide in the factual record and everywhere find absence to any mention of any organized hierarchy beyond the Bishops. There is none. Moreover, Constantine didn't bother to discuss this with any church leader which he would have been to some extent obliged to at least consider - there was no such consideration till he'd had his fill. And when He'd had his fill, he called all the Bishops together and demanded that they settle their differences and that they may not leave until such settlement was reached. In all this time, there is no homage paid to a leader, no mention of a leader, no diplomatic pouches to a leader, no consideration of a leader's opinions, thoughts or influence in these matters and finally no collaboration with any leader to resolve the issue. From starting point to ending point the only existing authorities were Constantine and the Bishops of the individual churches.
The impact of the above is dramatic. Constantine was seizing upon the Christians as a political move. Slighting them by doing an endrun around the highest form of leadership in their body would be a fatal miscalculation. It is therefore no real wonder that no mention of any organized leadership beyond the Bishops themselves does'nt exist until long after Constantine is dead and buried and at a time when it was siezed upon for political gain to forge Constantine and abuse his name for a power grab over both empire and church. A great deal of history was fabricated at that time and was never ferreted out because it threatens power structures that now exist that would have to be obliterated - to mention nothing of the deep betrayal that would be felt by millions and the massive response that would inevitably follow. Some value their necks and their standing far more than the truth. And that is nothing new. Donatus was preaching against those that valued their necks and standing more than truth in Constantine's time. And history records that this is the reason he was so dispised. One wonders now what he would have to say about the paganization of the Church that came as time passed after him. I'm sure he'd have been put to death again at the wishes of those in error and convicted by his preaching.
Yeah, I've been in trouble for that before too. But now I have more to go with it than a notation of the absence of any factual notation of the name prior to Constantine and actually, prior to Theodosius. It's taken a long time to get to the bottom of things; but, it's coming together. The name came with theodosius. And by studying Constantine, it is possible to see the stage being set for Catholicism to be possible. All of the elements are right there to explain all the things we all note and complain about but can't understand - ie the vast error and where it was all rooted combined with a notion of a centralized human authority. It's all right there in the history and always has been.
As for my absence - I've just been following politics and settling into my new home. Not to mention working on finding a future mrs. havoc. LOL. It's a tall order.
It seems that you insist upon dismissing as "propoganda" what does not comport with your views. In place of counter evidence. however, you offer only speculation. What I am complaining about now is your ignoring of the simple fact that in the 3rd century orthodox Christians dominated the scene because they were organized and to a considerable extent centralized. Otherwise, why should the offical persecution aimed at decapitation rather than extermination?
The weakening of the state created a vacuum, psychological, spiritual, social, and as usual the Church attracted people by offering them roles parallel to those found in traditional society. And just as in a democratic society organizations like democratic forms, so in authoritarian states, they follow authoritarian forms.
Episcopacy offered many advantages over the original traveling missionary form. It of course built on the older Jewish forms, but as Christianity and Judaism developed differently after the expulsion of Christians from the synagogues, a bishop early on was a very different office from that of rabbi. Whereas a rabbi was primarily a teacher and retained little priestly authority, a bishop was both teacher and priest. As the Christian clergy assimilated into Roman society--that is, as the notion of Christian and Roman became less antithetical--the bishop also became more like a public figure,so that Cyprian's authroity was a bit like Cardinal Spellman's was in the 1950s. The process was completed in the 5th as the bishop became in effect a prelate, offical exercising both the secular and religious authority. A confederation of bishops--for that was what the Church was in the 3rd century--must be very different from a confederation of Baptist pastors. It is/was marked by both rivalry and collegiality. But there is always an advantage in size, and so a united front appeared despite personal differences. One can see this tendency today even in the SBC toward orthodoxy and "Catholicism,"which so scandalized many Texas Baptists. In Roman society, with no democratic tendencies,hierarchy early on became the dominate fact of church government. In this enviroment, the sects were been marginalized. Groups like the Marcionites and the Manicheans were centralized like the Catholics, not small and scattered secrs, although there were many of them.
Decapitation rather than extermination - indeed. Persecution in the first century was toward the end of both just as in the third. In the first century, the apostles were at the head of the church - teaching and overseeing. In the third it was the Bishops who filled the self same roles that the apostles had. You are in essence arguing a difference that doesn't exist. But this was different because it wasn't different, right.
The weakening of the state created a vacuum, psychological, spiritual, social, and as usual the Church attracted people by offering them roles parallel to those found in traditional society. And just as in a democratic society organizations like democratic forms, so in authoritarian states, they follow authoritarian forms.
The first part I agree with. The second I'm trying to grasp the relevance of. So let's go on and see if it finds grounding in the rest of your dissertation here..
Episcopacy offered many advantages over the original traveling missionary form. It of course built on the older Jewish forms, but as Christianity and Judaism developed differently after the expulsion of Christians from the synagogues, a bishop early on was a very different office from that of rabbi. Whereas a rabbi was primarily a teacher and retained little priestly authority, a bishop was both teacher and priest.
On this point we'll have to disagree. Christ became the chief priest and the apostles so pointed out that he made us all "kings and priests". Ministers did not and do not uniquely hold this role and thus it is irrelevant to which you speak unless it is considered that some sects didn't understand this any more than they understood the rest of christianity and thus grounded this as a point from which to begin doing what they chose instead of what Christ's message had afore dictated. It fits the overall picture as it existed then and now.
As the Christian clergy assimilated into Roman society--that is, as the notion of Christian and Roman became less antithetical--the bishop also became more like a public figure,so that Cyprian's authroity was a bit like Cardinal Spellman's was in the 1950s. The process was completed in the 5th as the bishop became in effect a prelate, offical exercising both the secular and religious authority.
The office of Bishop in Constantine's time was no more than it was in the time of the apostles. This is seen clearly in the Request by Donatus to Constantine for the intervention of judges from Gaul in the matters of the Church as regards their standing. The simple fact is that their authority extended no further than their congregational meeting places and did not extend to civil authority.
A confederation of bishops--for that was what the Church was in the 3rd century--must be very different from a confederation of Baptist pastors. It is/was marked by both rivalry and collegiality. But there is always an advantage in size, and so a united front appeared despite personal differences.
IE, we're on the same page to an extent. All these sects were viewed as Christian. The only reason the Donatist sect came to prominance is that they posed a political problem of major noteworthiness. To the other sects, it was a small matter to make offerings to the pagan gods to pacify Roman law. Donatus preached against this and that was the sticking point. This is what the historians report. So in essence the majority of the sects of Africa were involved in a blatent and major sin, yet it is Donatus who is reviled - and for pointing out the error of the others. The majority was in error. And with the majority having the advantage the error prevailed. They are for now, sects to be referred to after the names of their bishops as is the practice for naming outlaw sects otherwise. For the Gospel and the OT either in concert or seperately condemn the practices to which those bishops and their congregations because of them subscribed. But you are arguing nearly the same thing I have stated as though it were a difference. You're just failing to put context to it and draw the conclusions.
One can see this tendency today even in the SBC toward orthodoxy and "Catholicism,"which so scandalized many Texas Baptists. In Roman society, with no democratic tendencies,hierarchy early on became the dominate fact of church government. In this enviroment, the sects were been marginalized. Groups like the Marcionites and the Manicheans were centralized like the Catholics, not small and scattered secrs, although there were many of them.
Early on is a relative term when it didn't happen till over 300 years after Christ. Considering that through the time of Constantine the same structure existed unchanged from the 1st century, I'm not sure what you are trying to establish. The simple fact is that there is no central figure up to the time of Constantine - period. No primary bishop to whome all answered. If there had been, it would be a part of the historical record in Constantine's dealings with the church. It is not there. And this is not a matter of Constantine being in town overnight and failing to pay respects. This is a matter of him paying no attention for all the years of his riegn to any self styled ruler of Christian faith. You've as much as admitted this already. Stunning as that might be, you are fighting to tell me that there were few sects. That is not the case. The nature of a sect is that it is led by a single major leader and has some sort of seperate name - usually. There is no brand name "Catholic" in this period pre-Theodosian. It just isn't there. But there are numerous Bishops allowing their congregations to pay homage to pagan gods as though it's nothing. Every one of those bishops represents a sect seperate from christianity at that point as one cannot serve two masters.
As soon as the choice is made to serve another, they belong to that other god. This is exemplified by the treatment of Adam and eve by God. As soon as they made the choice to serve Satan by rejecting God's authority, they by default belonged to Satan whome they'd chosen as master by submitting to his authority. This is a very simple spiritual truth not to brushed aside for it's import. It proves what I say by default because of the spiritual truth involved. Whether the sects have names that we can pin to them or not, they still exist in the historical record. If Donatus had not been spurned by them for pointing out their error and attempting to correct it, their existance would not be known and this would all be elementary. It would also not be so clear the extent to which Revisionism has been applied to cover the truth. But then the truth doesn't paint Catholicism in a good light since they take credit for putting Donatus down as a heretic now does it. The mere act of taking credit identifies the Catholicism as holding to the same beliefs as those in Africa who were in error. But those in Rome were holding to the same erroneous practices. That does not equate to large scale unity - this is debunked by the proceedings of the debate over Arius. That means we are yet dealing with an unorganized loose group of Bishops operating largely independantly - again equating to individual sects - not a large centralized agreeable and single church. At this point the only thing I can find that they agreed upon and not unanimously was that Donatus had to go. His hard line teaching against sin just could not be allowed to stand.
If you need, I can post the letter written by Donatus to Constantine. I've already posted what is known with regard to what Donatus was preaching as a historical matter. The propaganda is quite different. I can further offer Grant's notation on the fact that Donatus' movement outlived Constantine. The historians didn't just make up these political issues of Licinius being an enemy of Constantine, nor of Constantine dragging his feet on the Donatist issue because Donatus drove Licinius nuts. Licinius according to the historians hastened his own end by persecuting the Donatists and was put down, I believe, officially, for persecuting Christians with specific reference to Donatus implied as that's the only group he went after. Interesting that; but, that's another discussion. If you want speculation, I'll give you some. I'd say the sects who were disagreeable with the Donatists were playing Licinius and Constantine and when Constantine decided to cut the Donatists a break, Licinius became the willing puppet in order to try and gain support from the dominant Christians against Constantine. I haven't gotten that far into Licinius; but, it would explain how the popular myth about him came into being after Constantine's death. And after Constantine, anyone wishing to set on the throne would need the nod of the Christians to rule peacefully. This is a juxtaposition that had not before existed for Christians; but, as noted above, the dominant collection of sects leaned into error. Thus whatever seeming power belonged to "christians" it was being weilded largely by those in error. And with Donatus out of the way, There would be no one to check them spiritually who would be able to stand.
Now, lets inject the rest of what we know. Eusebius is a known fraud. For it to be known now, it had to be known then. And the group that ended up becoming modern catholicism subscribed to his errors and outright forgeries. But the nature of the error is what is important. It is designed for a purpose in a time when the emperor needed Christians as much as they needed him. The balance if anything was tilted more to the Christians. As without them, domestic restlessness would have been through the roof and the empire would fall. In the midst of this mess and with the aid of Constantine and Theodosius, the Catholic name came into being along with the groundwork for Catholicism to later steal the throne through politicing, lies, a fabricated history, etc. Let us not forget - the frauds of Eusebius were not the only ones that came out of this period. And the number of them from here on continued to mount and all in favor of granting great powers and authority to the Church. It is not money that corrupts, it is the love of it. So too with power. And to that end, I would correct a popular postulation 'absolute power' does not corrupt. It is the thirst for absolute power that corrupts because it is impossible for absolute power to be attained. That thirst took a group that was already spiritually corrupt to depths that no Christian would dare descend to - then attempted to put a 'holy' face on it by blaming their actions on the apostles, Christ, and God himself. And none of it would have been possible save for the times and the happenstance of a disintegrating empire. As it happens, it plays right along with prophesy. Who'd have thunk it.
Says who? This is a man made requirement not a scriptural one.
No. I am saying that any saved person is a saint.
And everyone needs to read their Bible more,
Definitly yes:)
but what's the difference?
I don't understand what you mean by this.
There was a hell, and no heaven, am I right?
I was explaing that alot of people mix heaven and hell up with Abrahams Bosom and the Lake of Fire. Hell is where the unsaved go after death now and during the OT times. Paradise is where the OT saved people went because Jesus had not died for their sins yet so they could not go in the presence of God. The Lake of Fire is where the unsavd go after the The Great White Thorne judgement which takes place after the 1000 yr reign When Jesus defeats Satan at armegeddon. Heaven is God's home and only those trusting in Jesus Christ ONLY for their salvation go there.
Becky
LOL! Yes have you heard his definition of grace. It's just sad. I liken it to a battery that gets changed by good works and discharged by naughties. You never know if you have enough voltage to be saved. Hence their weak and useless Jesus.
I eat kosher to the extent possible, but for obvious reasons cannot keep a kosher kitchen. My efforts to avoid leavening are therefore pretty much along the lines of what Douglas described for himself. I see no scriptural reason to go to extremes.
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.