The Father Of Roman Catholicism, Emperor Constatine The Great

God made 7 days, you trying to Trump the Boss, making another day?

You seem a little mad or something. Since Genesis, the Sabbath was always the day given to the lord. The apostles changed it to Sunday according to the Didache to reflect the fact that Christ rose on Sunday. I have no idea what your talking about regarding an 8th day.

You seem a little mad or something. Since Genesis, the Sabbath was always the day given to the lord. The apostles changed it to Sunday according to the Didache to reflect the fact that Christ rose on Sunday. I have no idea what your talking about regarding an 8th day.

The apostles and those who were taught by them never called Sunday "sabbath"
They called it "the Lord's day" and "the 8th day"

Historical fact.

Of course I'm upset by people purporting to be Christian who teach lies, like you are on this topic.

Join The Crowd

Constantine used "Religion" to control his empire, he established the (State Church) where civil government ran and enforced religious decision making

Wikipedia: Constantine The Great
The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the emperor to have great influence and authority in the early Christian councils, most notably the dispute over Arianism. Constantine disliked the risks to societal stability that religious disputes and controversies brought with them, preferring to establish an orthodoxy. [237] His influence over the Church councils was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity; the Church's role was to determine proper worship, doctrines, and dogma.[238

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.

Wasn't it Luther who removed 7 books from the Bible?

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

Luther wanted to remove some Holy Books from the Bible (Hebrews, James, Revelations, Jude). This raises some questions about Luther, no doubt, and maybe even about the Protestant movement.

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

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.

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.

Save your breath on trying to silence my opinion

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]

what does Rhode Island have to do with papal influence over the Roman empire?

why not point to Martin Luther's 'two kingdoms' doctrine, dating from 1523 (('On Temporal Authority'))?
you know Anabaptists after him - in the actual lands that Rome had great influence over - for hundreds of years were preaching that Christians should not involve themselves with politics at all, and politics should not involve itself with the church?
and several wars in Europe in the 16th-18th century were fought over ridding secular government from Catholic church control & manipulation?

so why Rhode Island? wasn't the reformation kinda significant?
i can't see any reason other than trying to fit the number 1260 into something.

reformation was for reforming church and state, meaning improving church and state. R
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.

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.

Switzerland, 1529

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.