13th apostle...Founder of Catholicism

[jimraboin]

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.

"There also the question having been considered relative to the most holy day of Easter, it was determined by common consent that it should be proper that all should celebrate it on one and the same day everywhere. For what can be more appropriate, or what more solemn, than that this feast from which we have received the hope of immortality, should be invariably kept in one order, and for an obvious reason among all? And in the first place, it seemed very unworthy of this most sacred feast, that we should keep it following the custom of the Jews; a people who having imbrued their hands in a most heinous outrage, have thus polluted their souls, and are deservedly blind. Having then cast aside their usage, we are free to see to it that the celebration of this observance should occur in future in the more correct order which we have kept from the first day of the Passion until the present time. Therefore have nothing in common with that most hostile people the Jews. We have received from the Saviour another way; for there is set before us both a legitimate and accurate course in our holy religion: unanimously pursuing this, let us, most honored brethren, withdraw ourselves from that detestable association. For it is truly absurd for them to boast that we are incapable of rightly observing these things without their instruction. For on what subject will they be competent to form a correct judgment, who after that murder of their Lord, having been bereft of their senses, are led not by any rational motive, but by an ungovernable impulse, wherever their innate fury may drive them? Thence it is therefore, that even in this particular they do not perceive the truth, so that they constantly erring in the utmost degree, instead of making a suitable correction, celebrate the Feast of Passover a second time in the same year.(74) Why then should we follow the example of those who are acknowledged to be infected with grievous error? Surely we should never suffer Easter to be kept twice in one and the same year! But even if these considerations were not laid before you, it became your prudence at all times to take heed, both by diligence and prayer, that the purity of your soul should in nothing have communion, or seem to do so with the customs of men so utterly depraved. Moreover this should also be considered, that in a matter so important and of such religious significance, the slightest disagreement is most irreverent. For our Saviour left us but one day to be observed in commemoration of our deliverance, that is the day of his most holy Passion: he also wished his Catholic Church to be one; the members of which, however much they may be scattered in various places, are notwithstanding cherished by one Spirit, that is by the will of God."
(http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-02/Npnf2-02-06.htm#P175_39588)

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

 

[jimraboin]

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

 

[CatholicConvert]

*sigh* What a waste of time. You will have some smarmy answer to anything I post anyway, so I wonder why I bother?

15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

Our Lord makes the statement to his disciples that not everyone who comes in the name of Christ Jesus is to be believed. Of course, the next and most obvious question is this: so HOW will we know them?

16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.

Christ tells us that we will be able to see what kind of works these people are bearing and thus be able to make judgment upon them. This applies not only to the doing of works of charity, but to doctrinal abberations which would come along later, such as set forth by the Arians, Donatists, Montanists, Monothellites, etc. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit. Bad doctrine is bad fruit. Bad living is bad fruit.

19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Really? I thought that just having "faith alone" was sufficient to get us to Heaven forever. Seems that our Lord is looking for more than just a verbal profession of faith, doesn't it?

20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

While this was said to the disciples to warn them of the wolves who would try to enter the Church and lead astray those of weak understanding, it is also applicable to us today.

21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

Uh oh. What is this "does" in Jesus words? I thought that "faith alone" is the criteria by which we will be judged. No, quite the contrary, Jesus takes issue with those who have "faith alone" and call Him "Lord, Lord" and yet are workers of iniquity.

I am wont to think here of Rev. Fred Phelps who while appearing to have holy rage against homosexuals, was secretly beating his wife and kids with an axe handle. Is Jesus going to judge Rev. Phelps on whether or not he "accepted Jesus" or what he did to his family? According to Jesus, not his words, but his WORKS will be the standard of judgement

John 10

1 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. 2 But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers."

Notice that it is Jesus that we follow. We do not follow the teachings of some man, whether it be John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Wesley, or any other founder of any denomination. Jesus sheep listen for and hear His voice.

Those therefore, who do not hear His voice are either in need of healing of their hearing, or they are simply not His sheep. There is most assuredly this teaching in Catholicism also, that there is an elective and predestinative purpose of God which is being carried out in the world. Those who hear Him have been predestined by the mysterious councils of God to hear Him.

1 Corinthians 10:14

Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

No Orthodox or Catholic believer practices idolatry. Idolatry is the bowing down to a carved representation of God and called that unintelligible thing "god".

Clint uses the first two sections he posts to describe the false teachers who will come, and then, by large extension, uses St. Paul's admonition to flee idolatry as a supposed admontion to flee the Church if it turns to idolatry.

This ignores both the promise that the Church will never fall into such error (the gates of hell shall not prevail against it) and it also takes an admonition to us as INDIVIDUALS to watch our own conduct and tries to make it an order to leave the Church.

Brother Ed

[ November 19, 2002, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]

 

[jimraboin]

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

 

[jimraboin]

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

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jimraboin:
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.

Jim, what in the world are you talking about?

"all things Catholic come directly through Constantine" What does this mean?

"They are a narrow bottle neck in history through which everything original was lost" So we have no historical documents prior to Constantine?

"then passed on in another form." We can't find any post Constantine beliefs in the writings of the Church Fathers existant prior to Constantine?

And what other form?

"From this point on no originals can be found or are relied upon" No originals of what?

Are you saying that you don't have a reliable copy of Scripture?

No offense, Jim, but you write these long posts that really don't say anything that I can make out, and then you make grand claims of irrefutable conclusion. What's the point anyway other than you reject the Catholic Church?

Ron

 

[jimraboin]

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

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jimraboin:
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?

You are making this claim.

It is incumbent upon you to offer evidence for it.

You have not done so.

Statements like "Constantine had the motive." Constantine had the power." "Constantine was cunning." are not historical proof.

I suggest that you build your case first before expecting someone to refute it.

I am sorry, but as far as I can see, you have offered no proof yet. If I missed it, please point it out.

Ron

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
Jim, what in the world are you talking about?

"all things Catholic come directly through Constantine" What does this mean?

"They are a narrow bottle neck in history through which everything original was lost" So we have no historical documents prior to Constantine?

"then passed on in another form." We can't find any post Constantine beliefs in the writings of the Church Fathers existant prior to Constantine?

And what other form?

"From this point on no originals can be found or are relied upon" No originals of what?

Are you saying that you don't have a reliable copy of Scripture?

No offense, Jim, but you write these long posts that really don't say anything that I can make out, and then you make grand claims of irrefutable conclusion. What's the point anyway other than you reject the Catholic Church?

Ron[/QB]

Jim, you failed to address my other questions.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jimraboin:
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[/QB]

Jim, there actually is a simple way of discounting your claim. If writers of the Church before the time of Constantine wrote of beliefs that are "Catholic" rather than "Isreal's form of Christianity" would that suffice as historical proof that Constantine did not "hyjack Isreal's form of Christianity"?

Regenerational Baptism, the bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of Christ, and oral confession to a priest come to mind. Would evidence of that sort satisfy you?

Ron

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
Jim, there actually is a simple way of discounting your claim. If writers of the Church before the time of Constantine wrote of beliefs that are "Catholic" rather than "Isreal's form of Christianity" would that suffice as historical proof that Constantine did not "hyjack Isreal's form of Christianity"?

Regenerational Baptism, the bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of Christ, and oral confession to a priest come to mind. Would evidence of that sort satisfy you?

Ron

This is not sufficient as proof. Think of the Mormons, Oneness Pentacostals and others. Just because the OPs believe that Jesus is God does not mean they did not 'hyjack' mainstream christianity and add/change it to suit their purposes. It simply means they had some similiar beliefs as well.

In short, this would not serve as sufficient proof if you were to go ahead and persue it.

Though, in this argument, you need only defend as Jim is the one who made the contention. Jim has to produce the data for his idea and you have to refute that.

In Christ,
jason

 

[jimraboin]

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:

"Although the Gentiles err in more things than the Jews, and although the Jews are farther removed from true faith than heretics, yet the unbelief of the Jews is a more grievous sin than that of the Gentiles, because they corrupt the Gospel itself after having adopted and professed the same. . . http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

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.

When Constantine had taken upon himself the office of lay bishop, episcopus externus, and put the secular arm at the service of the Church, the laws against heretics became more and more rigorous. Under the purely ecclesiastical discipline no temporal punishment could be inflicted on the obstinate heretic, except the damage which might arise to his personal dignity through being deprived of all intercourse with his former brethren. But under the Christian emperors rigorous measures were enforced against the goods and persons of heretics. From the time of Constantine to Theodosius and Valentinian III (313-424) various penal laws were enacted by the Christian emperors against heretics as being guilty of crime against the State. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

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

 

[jimraboin]

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

 

[jimraboin]

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:

Heresy is a sin because of its nature it is destructive of the virtue of Christian faith.

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

The guilt of heresy is measured not so much by its subject-matter as by its formal principle, which is the same in all heresies: revolt against a Divinely constituted authority. (par IV) (same address.)

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:

Freedom of thought extending to the essential beliefs of a Church is in itself a contradiction; for, by accepting membership, the members accept the essential beliefs and renounce their freedom of thought so far as these are concerned. (par VII) same address.

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:

Philosophies, religious ideals and aspirations, social and economic conditions, are brought into contact with revealed truth, and from the impact result both new affirmations and new negations of the traditional doctrine. The first requisite for success is a forceful man, not necessarily of great intellect and learning, but of strong will and daring action... same address.

Who but Constantine possessed this quality?

The second requisite is accommodation of the new doctrine to the contemporary mentality, to social and political conditions. The last, but by no means the least, is the support of secular rulers. A strong man in touch with his time, and supported by material force, may deform the existing religion and build up a new heretical sect. (same address.)

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.

Arianism is the first heresy that gained a strong footing in the Church and seriously endangered its very nature and existence. (same address.)

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:

When Constantine had taken upon himself the office of lay bishop, episcopus externus, and put the secular arm at the service of the Church, the laws against heretics became more and more rigorous. Under the purely ecclesiastical discipline no temporal punishment could be inflicted on the obstinate heretic, except the damage which might arise to his personal dignity through being deprived of all intercourse with his former brethren. But under the Christian emperors rigorous measures were enforced against the goods and persons of heretics. From the time of Constantine to Theodosius and Valentinian III (313-424) various penal laws were enacted by the Christian emperors against heretics as being guilty of crime against the State. (same address)

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.)

When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable, than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same manner? It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom, we may transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter, which we have observed from the time of the Saviour's Passion to the present day [according to the day of the week]. We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and more convenient course (the order of the days of the week); and consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such wicked people [the Jews]. Besides, consider well, that in such an important matter, and on a subject of such great solemnity, there ought not to be any division. Our Saviour has left us only one festal day of our redemption, that is to say, of his holy passion, and he desired [to establish] only one Catholic Church. Think, then, how unseemly it is, that on the same day some should be fasting whilstothers are seated at a banquet; and that after Easter, some should be rejoicing at feasts, whilst others are still observing a strict fast. For this reason, a Divine Providence wills that this custom should be rectified and regulated in a uniform way; and everyone, I hope, will agree upon this point. As, on the one hand, it is our duty not to have anything in common with the murderers of our Lord; and as, on the other, the custom now followed by the Churches of the West, of the South, and of the North, and by some of those of the East, is the most acceptable, it has appeared good to all; and I have been guarantee for your consent, that you would accept it with joy, as it is followed at Rome, in Africa, in all Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, in all Achaia, and in the dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and Cilicia. You should consider not only that the number of churches in these provinces make a majority, but also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we should have nothing in common with the Jews. To sum up in few words: By the unanimous judgment of all, it has been decided that the most holy festival of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one and the same day, and it is not seemly that in so holy a thing there should be any division. As this is the state of the case, accept joyfully the divine favour, and this truly divine command; for all which takes place in assemblies of the bishops ought to be regarded as proceeding from the will of God. Make known to your brethren what has been decreed, keep this most holy day according to the prescribed mode; we can thus celebrate this holy Easter day at the same time, if it is granted me, as I desire, to unite myself with you; we can rejoice together, seeing that the divine power has made use of our instrumentality for destroying the evil designs of the devil, and thus causing faith, peace, and unity to flourish amongst us. May God graciously protect you, my beloved brethren.

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

 

[jimraboin]

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

 

[jimraboin]

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

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jimraboin:
Is that it? You Catholic's give up?

I confess that I do, but not for reasons that you think. It is just to difficult for me to make sense of what you write. Your conclusions are far to grand for your evidence.

Ron

[ November 25, 2002, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[jimraboin]

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

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jimraboin:
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, Jim, you simply make unwarranted and unsupported leaps to conclusions.

You do not answer direct questions. (Would you like me to repeat the same list of questions for you for about the 20th time?)

Ron

[ November 25, 2002, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[jimraboin]

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