God made 7 days, you trying to Trump the Boss, making another day? 
-
1
- Show all
The Father Of Roman Catholicism, Emperor Constatine The Great
- Thread starter Truth7t7
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
What day is a male child circumcised?
Constantine I is definitely a pivotal figure in church history but he did not establish christianity as the state religion. That was done under Theodosius I some 60 years later. Constantine's theology was shall we say, more tied to political realities than any personal conviction. It is my opinion that Constantine was surprised by the rulings at Nicaea as he did little to enforce its findings. At least while Arians were in the political ascendancy. Much of the idea of Constantine being a defender or Orthodoxy comes from Eusebius who was a bit of a fanboy.
All this aside, I think even in the fourth century we are still a couple centuries from what would have been recognized as Roman Catholic.
All this aside, I think even in the fourth century we are still a couple centuries from what would have been recognized as Roman Catholic.
-
1
- Show all
Eusebius was the propaganda minister of Constantine, he lived in the Emperors palace, he was Arian and persecuted those that opposed him and the Arians, Athanasius was heavily persecuted by Eusebius
Constantine maintained control through Eusebius, and yes it's my opinion on my study it was a State Church, and Constantine used it to control the masses
Constantine maintained control through Eusebius, and yes it's my opinion on my study it was a State Church, and Constantine used it to control the masses
-
1
- Show all
Luther never removed the Apocrypha from the bible. It was printed in the appendix of his editions of the German Bible. Luther, like Jerome who translated the Vulgate did not believe they were inspired. Useful to read yes, but not to be counted as scripture. Why? Because they were never accepted by the Jews in their canon either. They were never laid up in the Temple, nor did the make the hands ceremonially unclean. Luther also had contemporaries loyal to Rome that agreed with him such as Cardinal Carajtan. They also teach false doctrine, get basic historical facts wrong and also deny in their text in places that they are inspired.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Luther did not want to remove these books. He was recounting that there were several books, (Hebrews, James, Revelation, Jude, 2 and 3 John and 2 Peter) that were spoken against (Antilegomena). Some christians in the early church did not believe these books were scripture at first. Luther wore of James in the introduction to his 1522 edition of the German Bible that it was an epistle of straw. Meaning that it was useful and functional but not on the same level as the other books. His later editions of the Bible do not contain this comment. All of Luther's editions of the German Bible contain these books.
-
1
- Show all
There was no such office in the Roman Empire or anything like it. You are referring to Eusebius of Nicomedia, not the Eusebius the Historian, or Eusebius of Caesarea. These are two different people.
Except there was no state church. That would not happen until 380 long after Constantine died. But yes, Constantine let his ally Eusebius of Nicomedia run amuck and had Athanasius exiled for standing against the Arian heretics.
Except there was no state church. That would not happen until 380 long after Constantine died. But yes, Constantine let his ally Eusebius of Nicomedia run amuck and had Athanasius exiled for standing against the Arian heretics.
-
1
- Show all
Eusebius of Caesarea was also in the pocket, just as Eusebius of Nicomedia was, both were Arians and were counselors to Constantine, who was also and Arian
Constantine donated the land and built the Basilica's, he was working on the inside with many leaders in what was called the Church
Eusebius 1 & 2 both persecuted the church fathers, and Constantine carried out the punishment through his civil authority.
It was a State Church in actions long before 380AD, we will disagree
There is a reason why only 318 bishops out of 1800 invited attended the Nicene Council, they were well aware of the inside workings, those that opposed the Arians were persecuted, and they wanted nothing to do with Constantine and his puppets
Wikipedia: Eusebius of Caesarea (/juːˈsiːbiəs/; Greek: Εὐσέβιος τῆς Καισαρείας, Eusébios tés Kaisareías; AD 260/265 – 339/340), also known as Eusebius Pamphili
Eusebius succeeded Agapius as Bishop of Caesarea soon after 313 and was called on by Arius who had been excommunicated by his bishop Alexander of Alexandria. An episcopal council in Caesarea pronounced Arius blameless.[33] Eusebius enjoyed the favor of the Emperor Constantine. Because of this he was called upon to present the creed of his own church to the 318 attendees of the Council of Nicaea in 325.[34] However, the anti-Arian creed from Palestine prevailed, becoming the basis for the Nicene Creed.[35]
The theological views of Arius, that taught the subordination of the Son to the Father, continued to be controversial. Eustathius of Antioch strongly opposed the growing influence of Origen's theology, as the root of Arianism. Eusebius, an admirer of Origen, was reproached by Eustathius for deviating from the Nicene faith. Eusebius prevailed and Eustathius was deposed at a synod in Antioch.[citation needed]
However, Athanasius of Alexandria became a more powerful opponent and in 334 he was summoned before a synod in Caesarea (which he refused to attend). In the following year, he was again summoned before a synod in Tyre at which Eusebius of Caesarea presided. Athanasius, foreseeing the result, went to Constantinople to bring his cause before the Emperor. Constantine called the bishops to his court, among them Eusebius. Athanasius was condemned and exiled at the end of 335. Eusebius remained in the Emperor's favour throughout this time and more than once was exonerated with the explicit approval of the Emperor Constantine.[citation needed] After the Emperor's death (c. 337), Eusebius wrote the Life of Constantine, an important historical work because of eyewitness accounts and the use of primary sources.[36]
Constantine donated the land and built the Basilica's, he was working on the inside with many leaders in what was called the Church
Eusebius 1 & 2 both persecuted the church fathers, and Constantine carried out the punishment through his civil authority.
It was a State Church in actions long before 380AD, we will disagree
There is a reason why only 318 bishops out of 1800 invited attended the Nicene Council, they were well aware of the inside workings, those that opposed the Arians were persecuted, and they wanted nothing to do with Constantine and his puppets
Wikipedia: Eusebius of Caesarea (/juːˈsiːbiəs/; Greek: Εὐσέβιος τῆς Καισαρείας, Eusébios tés Kaisareías; AD 260/265 – 339/340), also known as Eusebius Pamphili
Eusebius succeeded Agapius as Bishop of Caesarea soon after 313 and was called on by Arius who had been excommunicated by his bishop Alexander of Alexandria. An episcopal council in Caesarea pronounced Arius blameless.[33] Eusebius enjoyed the favor of the Emperor Constantine. Because of this he was called upon to present the creed of his own church to the 318 attendees of the Council of Nicaea in 325.[34] However, the anti-Arian creed from Palestine prevailed, becoming the basis for the Nicene Creed.[35]
The theological views of Arius, that taught the subordination of the Son to the Father, continued to be controversial. Eustathius of Antioch strongly opposed the growing influence of Origen's theology, as the root of Arianism. Eusebius, an admirer of Origen, was reproached by Eustathius for deviating from the Nicene faith. Eusebius prevailed and Eustathius was deposed at a synod in Antioch.[citation needed]
However, Athanasius of Alexandria became a more powerful opponent and in 334 he was summoned before a synod in Caesarea (which he refused to attend). In the following year, he was again summoned before a synod in Tyre at which Eusebius of Caesarea presided. Athanasius, foreseeing the result, went to Constantinople to bring his cause before the Emperor. Constantine called the bishops to his court, among them Eusebius. Athanasius was condemned and exiled at the end of 335. Eusebius remained in the Emperor's favour throughout this time and more than once was exonerated with the explicit approval of the Emperor Constantine.[citation needed] After the Emperor's death (c. 337), Eusebius wrote the Life of Constantine, an important historical work because of eyewitness accounts and the use of primary sources.[36]
-
1
-
1
- Show all
This is from Jimmy Akin’s book “The Fathers Know Best”
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA IN PALESTINE
Born around 263; died 340. Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine (now Caesarea Maritima, Israel). He tried to steer a middle course between Arianism and Trinitarianism, though he did eventually subscribe to the creed produced at the Council of Nicaea I, which he attended. He was close to Constantine I, whose life he wrote. Known as the father of Church history for his major work Ecclesiastical History.
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA IN PALESTINE
Born around 263; died 340. Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine (now Caesarea Maritima, Israel). He tried to steer a middle course between Arianism and Trinitarianism, though he did eventually subscribe to the creed produced at the Council of Nicaea I, which he attended. He was close to Constantine I, whose life he wrote. Known as the father of Church history for his major work Ecclesiastical History.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Save your breath on trying to silence my opinion
I've spent hours and hours reading Constantine's letters and the laws he made. I've searched reports of the Nicene Council. There are hours of prayerful thought in my remarks, and they are to express those hours, and most certainly not with a goal of wanting to suppress your right to express yourself. We learn by listening and considering what others say.
-
1
- Show all
In my research in understanding the Early and ante-Nicaean church I agree that Constantine is a mixed bag at best. Eusebius of Caesarea is not what I call an Arian, but was far too willing to compromise the faith with the compromise creed. This is in part due to the influence of Origen in his theology. Ultimately Eusebius signed the Nicaea Creed. As for Constantine he was at beat trying to hedge his bets when it came to religion. He was still dedicating Pagan Temples and sites even after the edict of Milan. That seems to be the best analysis of Constantine’s reign.
Constantine is the pivot point where the catholic (not Roman yet) begins to rely on the machinations of the state and this became hugely problematic to say the least. Yet the church and the pope are still not one in the same for several more centuries. This is the problem with using dates in the development of what becomes RCC. There still needs to develop the patriarchates and the investing of authority in bishops which is beginning to happen in the fourth century. This process isn’t complete until the 8th century in the West. Recall that Gregory the Great who was arguably the last of the Early Church fathers and the last of the good popes (according to the reformers) is still 250 years away. After Gregory we can see the additions to the faith begin to really take shape.
in short, history is messy and simply assigning a date doesn’t work. If you are up to it and want a really good treatment of the time period read Jaroslav Pelikan’s “the Christian tradition vol 1, the catholic tradition 33-800”. I think that is one of the best layman level histories out there in the subject.
A.
Constantine is the pivot point where the catholic (not Roman yet) begins to rely on the machinations of the state and this became hugely problematic to say the least. Yet the church and the pope are still not one in the same for several more centuries. This is the problem with using dates in the development of what becomes RCC. There still needs to develop the patriarchates and the investing of authority in bishops which is beginning to happen in the fourth century. This process isn’t complete until the 8th century in the West. Recall that Gregory the Great who was arguably the last of the Early Church fathers and the last of the good popes (according to the reformers) is still 250 years away. After Gregory we can see the additions to the faith begin to really take shape.
in short, history is messy and simply assigning a date doesn’t work. If you are up to it and want a really good treatment of the time period read Jaroslav Pelikan’s “the Christian tradition vol 1, the catholic tradition 33-800”. I think that is one of the best layman level histories out there in the subject.
A.
-
1
- Show all
reformation was for reforming church and state, meaning improving church and state.
The anabaptists were for separation of church and state and so they perhaps followed that themself, but actual seperation of church from state happened first at the formation of the colony of Rhode Island.
The Massachusetts bay colony, ran by the puritans was a theocracy.
This is my understanding:
The Reformation was/is the reforming or improving of the universal catholic church.
The Radical Reformation was/is the leaving/separation from the universal catholic church.
The Southern Baptists claim their heritage is a mixture of the two (one foot in and one foot out I suppose).
Which is correct?
The anabaptists were for separation of church and state and so they perhaps followed that themself, but actual seperation of church from state happened first at the formation of the colony of Rhode Island.
The Massachusetts bay colony, ran by the puritans was a theocracy.
This is my understanding:
The Reformation was/is the reforming or improving of the universal catholic church.
The Radical Reformation was/is the leaving/separation from the universal catholic church.
The Southern Baptists claim their heritage is a mixture of the two (one foot in and one foot out I suppose).
Which is correct?
-
1
- Show all