13th apostle...Founder of Catholicism

When somebody hyjacks an aircraft through corrupt motives, such an act doesn't suggest no aircraft existed. It only means that the aircraft was taken off of its designated flight plan. A hyjacking cannot take place without an aircraft. Same with Constantine. He could not hyjack Christianity without it first existing outside his control. And Israel's form of Christianity existed prior to Constantine. Hyjacking is my counterclaim. Not erasing.

So. If my hunch is correct, then I should be able to show that the form of Christianity in Israel was different than the form Constantine created after he hyjacked it. I should further be able to show any differences were instituted by Constantine himself. Is there such evidence? Consider.

Chapter IX, Book I, "THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, BY SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS"
gives this account of Nicaea.
The Emperor's Letter.

The first Church in Israel celebrated Israel's traditional Passover. So did the apostles. But above is testimony from Constantine that Rome has always from the beginning rejected Israel's traditional understandings and was bitterly in the process of separating itself from Israel's form of Christianity. Did Rome act upon Constantine's urging? Consider:

Acts 15 shows where the early Jewish church gave grace to the new gentile membership not to have to obey the Law. The early Jewish believers kept it, but were led by the Spirit not to force it onto gentile converts. As the gentile church became dominant, however, it lacked such grace in return. On converting to Catholicism, Jews were required to make a declaration concerning their renunciation of everything Jewish. The following (655 CE, from Visigoth Spain) is typical of such declarations; “I do here and now renounce every rite and observance of the Jewish religion, detesting all its most solemn ceremonies and tenets that in former days I kept and held. In the future I will practice no rite or celebration connected with it, nor any custom of my past error, promising neither to seek it out or perform it ... I
promise that I will never return to the vomit of Jewish superstition ... I will shun all intercourse with other Jews and have the circle of my friends only among other Christians”. J. Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue (New York:
Hermon Press, 1974) 395.

This is one very clear proof that Rome created "another way" from the way Jesus founded in Israel. And we know this from Constantine's own testimony.

Now I have proven two forms existed. I have further proven that Constantine hyjacked Israel's form of Christianity to serve a Roman design. You must refute my historical evidence and demolish my counter by offering superior historical information. If you cannot, then you must entertain the very real possibility that my counter is true.

Jim

 

It is common knowledge Catholic ECF's accepted Alexandrian ideas as to what was considered Scriptures. Alexandrian Scriptures contained more books than what God gave Israel. Consider:

The Catholic Encyclopedia says, “It is pertinent to ask the motives which impelled the Hellenist Jew to thus, virtually at least, canonize this considerable section of literature, some of it very recent, and depart so radically from the Palestinian tradition.” (see: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

This same document goes further. It says, “On their human side these innovations are to be accounted for by the free spirit of the Hellenist Jews. Under the influence of Greek thought, they had conceived a Broader view of Divine inspiration than that of their Palestinian brethren, and refused to restrict the literary manifestations of the Holy Ghost to a certain terminus of time and the Hebrew form of language.”

So Constantine's religion considered absolute truth was vested with Alexandrian Jews and only partial truth vested within Israel. but the Alexandrian's admit "they made a radical departure". This is yet another clear historical proof a very real difference existed between the Church God created in Israel and the religion Constantine created in Rome.

Jim

 

Brother Ed,

These false brethren...these ravenous wolves you point out...what fruits will they display that will show them to be false?

Tell me. I will believe you.

Jim

 

Not quite my claim. Catholic claim is that it is the pillar of truth and as such is infallible. My counter claim to this is Constantine and Eusebius conspired to found Catholicism replacing God's foundation he laid in Israel with Rome's. That Constantine hyjacked Israel's form of Christianity and took it on a different course than God originally planned.

Proof of my counter can be found in one extremely incriminating piece of history that you failed to mention. That fact is all things Catholic come directly through Constantine, Eusebius or one of his contemporaries. Everything. They are a narrow bottle neck in history through which everything original was lost and then passed on in another form. From this point on no originals can be found or are relied upon. Only the word of Eusebius which is backed up by the sword of Rome.

This situation forces us to ask whether Constantine and Eusebius had good character or otherwise. A fair question under these circumstances. I believe I have shown there can be no doubt corruption existed.

Then we need to assertain motives. Why would the Emperor even bother hyjacking Israel's Christianity anyway? What benefit would he or his country get? Two things. The Emperor himself would be able to maintain his position as "Pontifex Maximus" (God on earth over all religions) including absolute control in that area... and Rome would not be any longer torn between two gods. Israel's and Rome's Emperor. By assimilating Israel's Form of Christianity with Rome's religious system under the Emperor's sword, Roman order and control could be maintained preserving what was left of the empire.

Israel's Christianity almost destroyed Rome. The more the Emperors persecuted the faithful, the more roman citizens converted by accepting Israel's God as THE only God. When Constantine had taken the throne, he was well aware of these events and knew something had to be done if Rome as he knew it were to survive. This is the motive for him calling Nicaea. This is why no Jewish brothers from Israel were invited. This is the reason a distinction was made between Rome's version and what God laid in Israel. This is why Constantine placed his casket in the center. This is why heresy against Catholicism was made heresy against Rome. This is why from this time on all believing Jews were labeled "judaizers". This is why all Jews could no longer be associated with their heritage but had to completely forsake it on pains of death.

Constantine had the power, the will, the motive and the intellectual capability to do this. Murder was not foreign to him. Even his own family was killed at his command when they did not comply with his wishes. Such a man both could and would found Catholicism to serve a Roman design.

Jim

 

Ron,

Grand claims? Catholic institution "claims" to be the pillar of truth and thereby is infallible. This is a lofty claim. My counterclaim is not so lofty. Constantine founded Catholicism by hyjacking Israel's form of Christianity to serve a Roman design.

That is my claim. What have you presented historically to refute it?

Jim

 

Gentlemen,

Do more than tell me it wasn't the case. Show me in history anything to back up your personally held beliefs.

Tell you about the Israeli Church? Sure. Did you know that any Jew who accepted the Gospel is a heretic even though he believes fully in the Gospel? The ramifications of such a position means the apostles were heretics without any hope of being correct. Why? Because they were Jews. Consider:

This is outrageous double talk. Catholic Encyclopedia first says Gentiles err more than the Jews. Fine. Then it states Jews are farther removed from true faith. How so? And who says? How can the Jews be more correct but further from the truth? This is double talk that can only be explained through the dynamics that Constantine's Catholicism desired to institute "another way". Then it all makes sense. The final statement is more unbelievable in its hatred of anything Jewish by claiming all Jews have corrupted the Gospel even those who have adopted and professed it. This statement clearly puts the apostles of Jesus who were Jews that adopted and professed Jesus' Gospel a corrupting influence. Why? Because they were Jewish. This means the entire foundation of the Church that was built in Israel is corrupted even though they all adopted and professed Jesus' Gospel. Ultimately even Jesus himself is corrupted because he himself was and is a Jew. A condition God chose for a reason. A form we are all being transformed into if we are being changed into his image and are part of His body.

Just think about it. Constantine created a religion that he claims he had freedom to "another way". Freedom to change Passover, Sabbath and all other truths God vested in Israel during times past. One must ask on what authority he did these things? And why would God oppose himself by correcting what he wove into Israel? Since God is the same yesterday, today and forever, that has to mean what God created in Israel was meant to continue for all time. Otherwise God would have instituted from the beginning what Catholic's claim they had "freedom" to change.

Constantine legalized and protected only those who accepted his form of Christianity. A form that completely cut off any possibility for believing Jews to participate in. A form that denied what God founded in Israel. Confirmation of this being the fact that heresy against this newly founded Catholicism was made heresy against the state. Consider.

So if a person did not accept Constantine's new substitution for Passover, he suffered. If he was Jewish at all, even though he believed the Gospel vested with Israel, he suffered. Only if a man completely surrendered and submitted to Constatine's religious ideas would he be unharmed.

More clear and uncontrovertible facts that must be dealt with if Catholic claim is really true.

Jim

 

Catholic Encyclopedia offers Constantine continued fierce persecutions against all "irreconcilables and extremists". No doubt from Constantine's perspective Arius was an example. But I believe he was a minor issue used to cover his real intentions. The true irreconcilables were those Jewish believers who would not bow to Constantine's form of Christianity. They would not forsake their heritage. They would not bow to him as a divinity. They would not cease Passover or Sabbath. They continued in the Gospel as preached from their elder brothers...Israel's prophets, Jesus and his eyewitness apostles. Any such believing Jew from Israel found himself in Constantine's crosshairs. The foundation of God's Church laid in Israel was forcibly dug up and moved to Rome.

A modern example might be United States Civil war. The South desired to build on different ideas than the North. Both sides came from the same founding fathers. But the South desired to amend, change and start a tradition of their own. They desired to build something new upon the old foundation that would allow for what they personally had become comfortable with.

War resulted. Let's say Israel's form of Christianity represents the North who desired to maintain precisely what the founding fathers instituted. Catholicism the South. But let's say Rome represents the U.N. having all civil power in the world. Let's further say that Jefferson Davis is the Secretary General of the U.N.. And let's further say that the U.N. made a proclamation stating heresy against the South would be taken as heresy against the U.N.. Clearly intervention of this sort by the only super power in the world would add strength to the South's efforts. And equally clearly no such intervention would be enacted unless it could serve some political design. But nobody would believe Davis represented the original founding fathers due to his loyalties, implementations and affiliations. Just too much room for corruption let alone his mission statement was not in accord with original founders. It wouldn't matter who he said was infallible. Davis was in direct conflict to the founding fathers and desired to establish his own kingdom under his own rules. And how would it change things if Davis were Secretary General of U.N. as well as founder of the South?

This exactly demonstrates the dynamic's between Israel's Christianity, Constantine's Catholicism and Constantine's Empire. If the North had been allowed to continue without such a global intervention, the South as it had come to exist, would have been destroyed forever.

Jim

 

The question you need to ask is what did the first believers practice outwardly in their service to God. What was their religious practice? It was Christianity founded in Judaism less the legal priestly requirements that tied them to Jerusalem's Temple. In other words, they celebrated Passover...and rightly so. They celebrated Sabbath...again, rightly so. They celebrated feast of weeks and other holy days. This was the practice of the very first Church vested in Israel. They also added baptism and breaking of bread according to Jesus' instruction. This was the foundation. This was the original mindset. This is what all others would be joined to. So let's consider exactly what heresy is and who first used it to divide the Church of God.

Consider Catholic Encyclopedia:

(par IV) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

Remember this. Heresy is revolting against God's authority. A rejection of what God has instituted. Very important you keep this in mind as we consider more about Constantine's creation.

Again, Catholic Encyclopedia says:

Notice if Constantine were truly a follower of the Way from Israel, then he would not have "thought" of a new way regarding Passover and the other holy days. It is his thinking and his rejection of all Jews and their traditional understandings that is the source of his heresy. He was free to think but all others under him did not have such freedom. He was free to rebel but terrible suffering was the consequence rebellion to his command. Even though his command was literally heresy against what God instituted in Israel.

Catholic Encyclopedia continues:

The Spread of Heresy:

Who but Constantine possessed this quality?

Again, Constatine is the only figure in his day strong enough to hyjack Israel's form of Christianity. And we know he was well in touch with his generation and the needs of Rome.

This is not true. Arianism is the first issue used to promote Constantine's heresy. Arianism was simply a tool in the Emperor's hand. It provided a means to unify his newly formed religion against a common enemy. He succeeded in part by calling good "evil" and evil "good". As Catholicism continues to do this very day. All things were redefined. Everything Jewish was evil. Everything Rome was good.

Consider:

On the Keeping of Easter.
From the Letter of the Emperor to all those not present at the Council.

(Found in Eusebius, Vita Const., Lib. iii., 18-20.)

The following (655 CE, from Visigoth Spain) is typical of such declarations; “I do here and now renounce every rite and observance of the Jewish religion, detesting all its most solemn ceremonies and tenets that in former days I kept and held. In the future I will practice no rite or celebration connected with it, nor any custom of my past error, promising neither to seek it out or perform it ... I promise that I will never return to the vomit of Jewish superstition ... I will shun all intercourse with other Jews and have the circle of my friends only among other Christians”. J. Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue (New York:
Hermon Press, 1974) 395.

In such declarations, the Catholic church opposed the teaching of the New Testament, both regarding love and that keeping Jewish festivals is no where spoken against, but is indeed practiced.

Conclusion. Constantine is the first man to commit heresy against the true Church of God...the God of Israel. We need to rediscover our Jewish heritage and its impact on Christianity. We need to cast off all Catholic heresy and return home.

Jim

 

Oh how the silence tells a story. There is so much Catholic history that tells a different story than Catholic institution would like told.

Don't be shy. Domolish my countercliam through superior historical information. I look forward to it.

Jim

 

Is that it? You Catholic's give up? If you don't respond soon, we all will be forced to accept the fact that Catholicism is the biggest deception ever forced onto mankind.

It this is the case, then we all need to ponder how Catholicism has affected true Christianity. And what, if any, personal changes do we need to make.

Jim

 

Ron,

My feeling exactly concerning Catholicism's claims of itself. Far to grand for the evidence.

You are discouraged because to more you hold to Catholic deception, the more I continue to bring what seems like an endless procession of historical information casting doubt upon Catholic claims.

Either remove my counterclaim through superior historical information or begin reconsidering what you believe.

Jim

 

No Ron,

Catholicism simply makes unwarranted and unsupported leaps to conclusions. It claims to be the pillar of truth and thereby is somehow infallible. Yet you cannot show historically anything even remotely supporting that idea. And infallibility requires the highest standards of proof by reason of ramifications such will have on all men. I have introduced historical information seemingly supporting the idea Catholicism was invented by Constantine to serve a Roman design. You have not offered any historical rebuttal but have continually only offered your own personal loyalties and assertions. Though you may be comfortable with your own ideas, they are not historically rooted enough to remove my counter. Therefore, doubt remains against Catholic claim and if not dealt with will cause all readers here to assume Catholicism is the biggest deception ever forced onto mankind.

Better get busy, Ron.

Jim