Trail of Blood? Truth or Fiction?

[DHK]

Actually its easy for him to list the bishops of Antioch and Rome. Have you read Eusibius?

The word "bishop" is an Old English word that has lost its meaning, or better put its meaning has been perverted. There were no bishops in the time of the Apostles or in the early church as defined by the RCC or Orthodox. The Greek word is episkopos. It means "overseer" as every pastor is--the overseer of his own local church. There were no hierarchies in the early churches.

Read 1Tim.3:1-5, where Paul writes to Timothy as the pastor of the church at Ephesus and delineates for him what the qualifications of a pastor of a local church ought to be:

1 Timothy 3:1-5 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

That is the KJV. The WEB, Darby, Youngs, and many others translate the word "bishop" as overseer. The overseer of a church...

1 Timothy 3:1 The word is faithful: if any one aspires to exercise oversight, he desires a good work. (Darby)

There is no lineage of bishops. There never were. There were only pastors to begin with. When popes, bishops, archbishops, etc. were introduced, apostasy and unbelief was introduced. These offices are foreign to the Word of God. The word "office" isn't even in the Greek. Darby's translation stays faithful to the Greek. There is no office. It isn't in the Greek. It is a position of service.

 

[Matt Black]

Were you to be correct, you would have to demonstrate a clear discontinuity between the first century meaning of 'episkopos' and its present meaning. Ask any Orthodox Christian and s/he will assure you there is no such discontinuity. A cursory glance at church history would confirm that.

We know that the churches at Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Thesallonica, etc. existed. There in the Bible. That is our primary source. It is our final and authoritative source. It is inspired of God. No source can ever be greater than the Scriptures. Here are some other churches mentioned:

Acts 14:21-23 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Outside of the Bible can you provide the "primary sources" for these churches? I didn't think so. You have none.
Paul started over one hundred churches on just three mission journeys.
How much primary source material can you come up with?
I have the Bible. What do you have?

I'm quite happy with the Bible as a primary historical source and have never said I'm not so I'm not quite sure what the relevance of the above is. However, the NT is a first century document and the Cathars existed from the 11th to 14th centuries and I'm asking you for primary source documents from that era

Do you call the Bible a false premise?

No, certainly not! Your interpretation of it may well be, however. In any event, see above: I'm not what its relevance is to whether or not a medieval group of people were or were not Christians.

It is not opinion when one can prove beyond any doubt that its doctrines are contrary to Biblical doctrine and therefore could not be the bearer of the gospel message. A gospel of works sends people to Hell not heaven. The RCC preaches a gospel of works. What does the Bible say:

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
--Both the Orthodox and the RCC preach another gospel.
- the possibility at least of #1 being a false premise must be admitted for the opinion to be taken seriously.

All of this is your opinion; other Christians argue differently based on the same Bible. Who's to say that your interpretation is correct?

Again, to deny the Bible as primary source material is quite a serious accusation.

Again, show me where I have done this. It is a serious accusation, and a false one, so I would be grateful if you would withdraw it.

 

[DHK]

Were you to be correct, you would have to demonstrate a clear discontinuity between the first century meaning of 'episkopos' and its present meaning. Ask any Orthodox Christian and s/he will assure you there is no such discontinuity. A cursory glance at church history would confirm that.

I'm quite happy with the Bible as a primary historical source and have never said I'm not so I'm not quite sure what the relevance of the above is. However, the NT is a first century document and the Cathars existed from the 11th to 14th centuries and I'm asking you for primary source documents from that era

The problem is Matt: that if you deny that the Cathars existed as Bible believing Christians, as others claim that they do; and continue to support the idea of the RCC as the bearer of the gospel throughout all ages, then you have a corrupt organization that doesn't have a clue what the gospel is as the bearer of God's good news to man as God's messenger. This organization has destroyed the Bible (see Wycliffe), persecuted believers (the Albigenese), massacred them (especially under Innocent III), and have the blood of thousands of believers on their hands. Their torture of Christians through various Inquistions is more horrible than Hitler's treatment of the Jews in the holocaust. And yet you claim that they are the ones that have preserved the message of God's Word faithfully throughout the centuries. This theory is absurd. The Orthodox Church is no better. Their message of salvation is no different than that of the Catholic Church.

Now we can look at history from two different ways, and both involve the Bible as our primary source. First we must define the word "bishop" to see what we are speaking about.

The KJV says:
1 Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

Now the WEB (World English Bible) :
1 Timothy 3:1 This is a faithful saying: if a man seeks the office of an overseer he desires a good work.

A couple of others:
1 Timothy 3:1 Stedfast is the word: If any one the oversight doth long for, a right work he desireth; (Young's)

1 Timothy 3:1 The word is faithful: if any one aspires to exercise oversight, he desires a good work. (Darby)

--Notice in the last two translations (Young's and Darby's), the word "office" is not even present, nor is it present in the Greek. The word "overseer" is a better and more accurate translation, especially considering all the religious/political baggage that the word "bishop" carries with it.
--The current term "bishop" as defined by denominational organizations such as Orthodox and the RCC never existed in NT times. There was no hierarchial organization in the first century. One cannot find such a concept in the Bible.
Take a look at Acts 20:17,28

Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
--Note that elders, overseers (episkopos or bishop), "feed the flock" (work of the shepherd) or "pastor" are all descriptive of the same office, the same position, the same man, just different aspects of his ministry.

Now one can look at history from two ways: from the present to the first century, or from the first century to the twentieth.
Going back in history, we as independent Baptists, simply pattern our churches after the churches in the NT. Above is the description of the office of a bishop or pastor. More information of the polity of the local church is given in the pastoral epistles, and yet more on its doctrine in the rest of the epistles. We have models in the book of Acts, as Paul went on three different missionary journeys, establishing about one hundred local churches, but never a denomination. There is no such thing as a denomination in the NT. All of these churches were independent one of another. There was no pope. No bishops in the modern sense of the word, no priests, etc. There was no hierarchies in the NT.

We pattern our churches after the NT. We believe the Bible to be our final source of authority in all matters of faith and practice (not tradition or any other source). Having so said, we also believe that there are and have been others that have beleived the same throughout all generations since the apostles that also have patterened their churches after the NT. This goes contrary to the RCC and Orthodox. It leaves at least 1500 years of history with no churches at all. This is an amazing and absurd claim to make. Independent Biblical churches did not just suddenly pop out of the air some time around the Reformation period. This is an absurd claim. They existed throughout all ages ever since the Apostolic Age.

Now working from the NT to our present day.
Acts 14:21-23 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Note where these churches were located: Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, Antioch.
These towns were not exactly close to each other for the common person of that time. Communication wasn't common or easy. The churches were independent of each other. That is why Paul went to a place like Corinth and spent a year and a half there--time to establish the church so that it could operate on its own before he left.
Here there is no trace of the RCC or the Orthodox, or even any hint of such an organization like theirs. Neither can their doctrines be substantiated from the Bible. It is the Bible that is our authority, not tradition. The Bible is our source material here. Start here and then trace the history of these churches up to our time, if possibe. Try to connect them to the RCC or Orthodox. It can't be done. The sources that Agnus gave are not credible nor are the RCC. Both of them contradict each other. The RCC's claim that Peter was pope at Rome for 25 years is absurd, impossible, and defies all historical evidence. Claims made by either the Orthodox or the RCC are simply claims and nothing more.
The RCC did not originate until the fourth century with the advent of Constantine, and the Orthodox was well after that.

 

[Matt Black]

The problem is Matt: that if you deny that the Cathars existed as Bible believing Christians, as others claim that they do; and continue to support the idea of the RCC as the bearer of the gospel throughout all ages, then you have a corrupt organization that doesn't have a clue what the gospel is as the bearer of God's good news to man as God's messenger.

It's not quite as polarised as that; not quite as 'either/or' as you would perhaps like it to be. Problems like the Inquisition only really started after the Great Schism of 1054. See below for more detail.

This organization has destroyed the Bible (see Wycliffe),

It didn't destroy the Bible; I do accept it restricted access to it, but I would question the impact of that as most people couldn't read at that time in any event

persecuted believers (the Albigenese),

The Albigenses definitely believed in something, but they weren't Christian believers

massacred them (especially under Innocent III),

Agreed.

and have the blood of thousands of believers on their hands.

Very probably, yes. Some Baptists have been mebers of the KKK and lynched black people. Does that make Baptist churches evil organisations? Of course not!

And yet you claim that they are the ones that have preserved the message of God's Word faithfully throughout the centuries.

Not entirely, no. But they are far more theologically correct that the Cathars ever were!

This theory is absurd. The Orthodox Church is no better. Their message of salvation is no different than that of the Catholic Church.

Not quite concerning the latter statement and re the first - really? Consider the following quotes, then:

Faith alone justifies

- Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers (300-368), Canon on Matthew, ch 9

This is a perfect and whole rejoicing in God, when a man advances not himself for his own righteousness but acknowledges himself to lack true justice and righteousness and to be justified only by faith in Christ

- Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea (330-379)

This is the ordinance of God, that they who believe in Christ shall be saved without works, by faith only, freely receiving remission of their sins.

- Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (340-397)

Now, all of the above statements fit very well with evangelical soteriology, do they not? And yet they were all made by post-Constantinian Bishops of the Catholic-Orthodox Church. I find it very odd that an organisation which you state is apostate can come up with such statements by its hierarchy...

Now we can look at history from two different ways, and both involve the Bible as our primary source. First we must define the word "bishop" to see what we are speaking about.

The KJV says:
1 Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

Now the WEB (World English Bible) :
1 Timothy 3:1 This is a faithful saying: if a man seeks the office of an overseer he desires a good work.

A couple of others:
1 Timothy 3:1 Stedfast is the word: If any one the oversight doth long for, a right work he desireth; (Young's)

1 Timothy 3:1 The word is faithful: if any one aspires to exercise oversight, he desires a good work. (Darby)

--Notice in the last two translations (Young's and Darby's), the word "office" is not even present, nor is it present in the Greek. The word "overseer" is a better and more accurate translation, especially considering all the religious/political baggage that the word "bishop" carries with it.
--The current term "bishop" as defined by denominational organizations such as Orthodox and the RCC never existed in NT times. There was no hierarchial organization in the first century. One cannot find such a concept in the Bible.

But as early as the first decade of the second century AD, in Ignatius' (Bishop of Antioch) writings, you have that concept - way way way before Constantine.

Take a look at Acts 20:17,28

Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
--Note that elders, overseers (episkopos or bishop), "feed the flock" (work of the shepherd) or "pastor" are all descriptive of the same office, the same position, the same man, just different aspects of his ministry.

Early Pauline - v- later Pauline.

Now one can look at history from two ways: from the present to the first century, or from the first century to the twentieth.
Going back in history, we as independent Baptists, simply pattern our churches after the churches in the NT. Above is the description of the office of a bishop or pastor. More information of the polity of the local church is given in the pastoral epistles, and yet more on its doctrine in the rest of the epistles. We have models in the book of Acts, as Paul went on three different missionary journeys, establishing about one hundred local churches, but never a denomination. There is no such thing as a denomination in the NT. All of these churches were independent one of another. There was no pope. No bishops in the modern sense of the word, no priests, etc. There was no hierarchies in the NT.

See my early Pauline -v- later Pauline above; if you want to argue that the earlier model is 'better', then why not go the whole hog right back to the primitive Jerusalem church just after Pentecost and have an exclusively Jewish polity? Plus, why then does Paul refer to 'the Church' (eg: Col 1:18)? How many 'bodies' does Christ have?

We pattern our churches after the NT.

Correction: you pattern your churches after your interpretation of the NT. Big difference. Has it ever occurred to you that your interpetation might be wrong?

We believe the Bible to be our final source of authority in all matters of faith and practice (not tradition or any other source).

Well, apart from human interpretation of said Bible, obviously.

Having so said, we also believe that there are and have been others that have beleived the same throughout all generations since the apostles that also have patterened their churches after the NT. This goes contrary to the RCC and Orthodox. It leaves at least 1500 years of history with no churches at all. This is an amazing and absurd claim to make.

Indeed it is - which means, as there is no reliable evidence of so-called 'independent Biblical churches' existing during the first millenium or so of church history (I'm willing to grant you the Waldenses, Lollards and Hussites as proto-reformers but there is no evidence that these groups saw themselves as anything other than reforming Catholics).

Independent Biblical churches did not just suddenly pop out of the air some time around the Reformation period. This is an absurd claim.

Um...yes they did - the Anabaptists arose from the Swiss Reformation who felt that Zwingli wasn't going far enough

They existed throughout all ages ever since the Apostolic Age.

No - I'm afraid that that is the absurd part.

Now working from the NT to our present day.
Acts 14:21-23 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Note where these churches were located: Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, Antioch.
These towns were not exactly close to each other for the common person of that time. Communication wasn't common or easy. The churches were independent of each other. That is why Paul went to a place like Corinth and spent a year and a half there--time to establish the church so that it could operate on its own before he left.

Then why does Clement, Bishop of Rome, write to the Corinthian congregation is the mid-80s AD to sort out yet more problems they were having if it was operating so well "on its own"?

Here there is no trace of the RCC or the Orthodox, or even any hint of such an organization like theirs.

How odd, then, that Ignatius (q.v.) refers to 'The Catholic Church' as early as 107AD?

Neither can their doctrines be substantiated from the Bible.

Au contraire, both are steeped in Scripture. They just disagree with your interpretation of it.

It is the Bible that is our authority, not tradition. The Bible is our source material here. Start here and then trace the history of these churches up to our time, if possibe. Try to connect them to the RCC or Orthodox. It can't be done. The sources that Agnus gave are not credible nor are the RCC.

You really don't get this whole 'church history' thing, do you?

The RCC did not originate until the fourth century with the advent of Constantine, and the Orthodox was well after that.

Sorry, but :laugh:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Matt - :thumbs:

 

[DHK]

It's not quite as polarised as that; not quite as 'either/or' as you would perhaps like it to be. Problems like the Inquisition only really started after the Great Schism of 1054. See below for more detail.

So? Peter, Paul, and the rest of the Apostles did not belong to the Orthodox Church (neither the RCC) Neither did the churches they started. All the epistles written by Paul were written to a local church or to a pastor of a local church, and not one of them to the Orthodox or the RCC. All the churches started by Paul on his missionary journeys mentioned in the Book of Acts were not part of the Orthodox or the RCC. In fact there is good evidence from Catholic historians (like Hosius) that the Waldenses existed right back to the Apostles. But you still conclude that for over a thousand years there was no Bible-believing local churches for this period time. For, as you say, the Orthodox did not start until 1054. Have you not read of the great persecutions of Christians under Nero, Diocletian, and the other Roman Emperors. The RCC and the Roman emperors worked hand in hand with each other. There was much collusion there. Not that the RCC was in existence at the time of Nero, it came along later at the time of Constantine. Then there was some rest. But persecution started again shortly thereafter. The Inquistion was only the height of the ugliest sort of persecution that the RCC was capable of. It doesn't mean that they hadn't been doing it all along, and that they still don't do it today, though in a bit more civilized manner.

It didn't destroy the Bible; I do accept it restricted access to it, but I would question the impact of that as most people couldn't read at that time in any event

That is a false statement, and somewhat ignorant if I may say.
Tyndale said to one of the religious leaders of his day, in 1522:
"If God spare my lyfe, ere many yeares I wyl cause a boye that dryveth the plough shall know more of the scripture than the doest."
--Illiteracy was not a problem. To say that most could not read is a false and ignorant statement. Most could not read Greek, Hebrew, or even Latin. The Bible was not written in English. They did not have the Bible in the language of the people, and therefore could not read it. By the time of Wycliffe's death, his challenge and prophetic words had come true.

At his new home Tyndale settled to continue his translation from the Greek to the English tongue. From this one objective he hardly swerved at all. He was fully qualified and competent enough for such a task: Tyndale was a linguist, having a sure command of several languages, namely, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, German, Dutch, Italian, and Spanish. He was so proficient in them that anybody who heard him would think it to be his native tongue, according as it was reported of him both by friend and foe alike....
This is simply one instance of the historic stand of Rome against the open dissemination of the Gospel in its printed form. The church of Rome exposed itself to the same criticism of the Roman emperors who fought with might and main against the early church, attempting to deprive it of its indispensable possession, the Holy Scripture. The popes became the successors of pagan emperors in their resistance to Scripture!
It was on the 11th of February, 1526, that the great burning of the Testament took place in public. Cardinal Wolsey went to St. Paul’s attended by thirty-six bishops, abbots and priors. John Fisher (canonized by the pope in 1935) preached on the occasion and fully approved of this burning. Thomas More was of the same opinion.
The charge against Tyndale was that his work was inaccurate, but time has proved that such a charge was absurd. It was their beliefs, as weighed against Tyndale’s New Testament, that were inaccurate.
Considering the materials at his disposal and the conditions under which he laboured, Tyndale must be classed as an excellent translator. Indeed a greater and more talented translator is not to be found, at least as far as the English translation is concerned. During his short lifetime many fresh editions followed the first and the brave translator now turned his attention to the Old Testament. He translated the earlier books from the Hebrew, but never lived to see the work brought to a fitting close.


http://www.tecmalta.org/tft344.htm

 

[Matt Black]

So? Peter, Paul, and the rest of the Apostles did not belong to the Orthodox Church (neither the RCC)

Only according to your version of church history. I note for example that tellingly you've failed to address Ignatius' reference to 'the Catholic Church'.

Neither did the churches they started. All the epistles written by Paul were written to a local church or to a pastor of a local church, and not one of them to the Orthodox or the RCC. All the churches started by Paul on his missionary journeys mentioned in the Book of Acts were not part of the Orthodox or the RCC.

See above

In fact there is good evidence from Catholic historians (like Hosius) that the Waldenses existed right back to the Apostles.

Right.

But you still conclude that for over a thousand years there was no Bible-believing local churches for this period time.

No. I believe that there were 'Bible-believing' congregations; I just disagree with your definition of that term.

For, as you say, the Orthodox did not start until 1054.

Not quite correct: the Eastern (Orthodox) Church formally separated from the Western (Latin or Roman Catholic) Church in 1054; both had been in existence as the Body of Christ since the day of Pentecost.

Have you not read of the great persecutions of Christians under Nero, Diocletian, and the other Roman Emperors.

Yes of course. But what has that got to do with the Inquisition?

The RCC and the Roman emperors worked hand in hand with each other. There was much collusion there.

Hang on a minute?! Nero and Diocletian worked hand in hand with the Catholic Church?! Be serious!

Not that the RCC was in existence at the time of Nero, it came along later at the time of Constantine.

How? Prove it. How did Constantine 'create' or 'invent' the RCC?

Then there was some rest. But persecution started again shortly thereafter. The Inquistion was only the height of the ugliest sort of persecution that the RCC was capable of. It doesn't mean that they hadn't been doing it all along, and that they still don't do it today, though in a bit more civilized manner.

The Inquisition was only instituted in 1215, long after the Great Schism. Yes, there was some anathematising of heretics in the meantime - the Manichees, Arians, Nestorians and Monophysites for example - but surely you're not suggesting that these groups were The True Christian Churches (TM)??

That is a false statement, and somewhat ignorant if I may say.

No, you may not accuse me of making a 'false statement'; as by doing so you are accusing me of lying. You may retract that word, if you want us to continue having this conversation.

 

[DHK]

Only according to your version of church history. I note for example that tellingly you've failed to address Ignatius' reference to 'the Catholic Church'.

You have failed to document Ignatius' work. Where was the quote found. Though I have access to some of his works, I am not about to wade through it all to find what you say that he allegedly said. I want to see the context for myself.

See above

I did see the above; perhaps you didn't.

Right.

The information was right. It was posted by others on this board, and you have yet to refute it.

No. I believe that there were 'Bible-believing' congregations; I just disagree with your definition of that term.

Then give a Biblical definition of a Bible-believing church. Remember this--there are no denominations in the Bible.

Not quite correct: the Eastern (Orthodox) Church formally separated from the Western (Latin or Roman Catholic) Church in 1054; both had been in existence as the Body of Christ since the day of Pentecost.

You will have a hard time proving that. You scoff at the Landmarkists on the board. It is no wonder they scoff at you. Where do you find even the words "Roman Catholic Church" or "Orthodox Church" in the Bible? Of course you don't.
Yes of course. But what has that got to do with the Inquisition? [/quote]
Much. There was plenty of persecution by the RCC far before the Inquistion ever started.

Hang on a minute?! Nero and Diocletian worked hand in hand with the Catholic Church?! Be serious!

Not as far back as Nero and Diocletan. The RCC did not come into existence until Constantine. But the Roman emperors after the time of Constantine worked hand in hand with the RCC.

How? Prove it. How did Constantine 'create' or 'invent' the RCC?

Constantine paganized "Christianity." He made it a "state-church" for his own political gains. True Biblical Christianity was never a part of this. This state religion was the origin of the RCC. Look around you. Many nations have or have had in the past the RCC as their state religion, just as Islam is the state religion of many nations today. The Church of England (Anglican) is still the state-religion of England, though it does not wield as much power as it did in former days. In the days of Mary Tudor (Bloody Mary), a zealous Catholic, she (with the blessing of the pope) killed all who were not Catholic--or at least attempted to. Catholicsim was the state-religion. For years the state religion of England switched back and forth from Anglican to Catholic. It all started with Constantine.

The Inquisition was only instituted in 1215, long after the Great Schism. Yes, there was some anathematising of heretics in the meantime - the Manichees, Arians, Nestorians and Monophysites for example - but surely you're not suggesting that these groups were The True Christian Churches (TM)??

No, neither am I suggesting that there should be such ignorance in history that there were only the RCC, the Orthodox, and heretics. What an absurd position to take. Christ promised that he would always have a witness for himself, and it was in none of the above.

No, you may not accuse me of making a 'false statement'; as by doing so you are accusing me of lying. You may retract that word, if you want us to continue having this conversation.

I stand by my statement. It you refuse to admit that there were educated people in the time of Tyndale you are badly misinformed. What do you think Tyndale meant when he said to the church leaders of his day:

"If God spare my lyfe, ere many yeares I wyl cause a boye that dryveth the plough shall know more of the scripture than thee doest."

Obviously the common man, the farmer, was educated in his own language, in English. He was just not educated enough to read Jerome's Vulgate. Wycliffe promised those church leaders that even the common man, right down to those that plow the fields, would know more of the Bible than they would. Britain was not an illiterate nation, filled with a bunch of illiterates. That is an apalling statement to make. If you are that misinformed I feel sorry for you.
The RCC burned the Bibles of Wycliffe so that the people would remain in ignorance of the Word of God. In fact the RCC purchased the Tyndale's translations so that they could burn them. They wanted the people to be kept in ignorance of the Word of God, and so it is to this day. "Only the priest has the 'correct' interpretation of the Bible," to this day. Sad.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You have failed to document Ignatius' work. Where was the quote found. Though I have access to some of his works, I am not about to wade through it all to find what you say that he allegedly said. I want to see the context for myself.

Ignatius letter to the Smyrneans 8th chapter

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution10271027 Or, “command.” of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper10281028 Or, “firm.” Eucharist, which is [administered] either 90 by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and v

 

[Thinkingstuff]

But the Roman emperors after the time of Constantine worked hand in hand with the RCC.

Not entirely true; Gaius Valerius Galerius Maximinus didn't like the edict of Milan since he renewed the persecution of Christians after Constantine had died. I think your history needs a little work. BTW Constantine did not Paganize Christianity. His edict in Milan (Milano if your italian) provided for Christian tolerance. The whole empire did not at that time convert to Christianity. Many did and some did to support the Emperor. However, Constantine supported Arius in the debate and council of 325 AD the assembled Christian leaders voted overwhelmingly against Arius. Constantine could have used his imperial powers to force the decision in favor of Arius but did not. Why? He let the leaders settle the dispute and thus we have a picture of the divinity of Christ that Arius was against. The emperor before he died was baptised by a follower of Arius. So Constantine allowed the Church leadership at the time lead the church. He didn't paganize it as you suppose.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Constantine paganized "Christianity." He made it a "state-church" for his own political gains. True Biblical Christianity was never a part of this. This state religion was the origin of the RCC. Look around you. Many nations have or have had in the past the RCC as their state religion, just as Islam is the state religion of many nations today. The Church of England (Anglican) is still the state-religion of England, though it does not wield as much power as it did in former days. In the days of Mary Tudor (Bloody Mary), a zealous Catholic, she (with the blessing of the pope) killed all who were not Catholic--or at least attempted to. Catholicsim was the state-religion. For years the state religion of England switched back and forth from Anglican to Catholic.

Thats a big jump! 325 AD to the 1500's. Different cultures different languages. Jumping from clergy and teaching to Political moves by politicians. Out of the two Mary Tudor did kill 300 protestants. Elizabeth also killed Catholics though the total number is uncertain anywhere from 30-300. Depending on what time frame you're looking at. Still the Tudors have nothing to do with Constantine.

 

[DHK]

Thats a big jump! 325 AD to the 1500's. Different cultures different languages. Jumping from clergy and teaching to Political moves by politicians. Out of the two Mary Tudor did kill 300 protestants. Elizabeth also killed Catholics though the total number is uncertain anywhere from 30-300. Depending on what time frame you're looking at. Still the Tudors have nothing to do with Constantine.

Are we talking about history or not? The history of the Catholic Church from 325 to the present has been a history of idolatry, paganism, bowing down to idols, praying to the dead, the worship of Mary, and many practices borrowed straight from paganism right from the time of Constantine. Persecution of Bible-believing Christians continued from Constantine and still does at the present time. It has never stopped. This is history. There is not "big jump." It is a continuous line.
Mary Tudor was a zealous Catholic.
Elizabeth was an Anglican (nothing to do with Baptists), the daughter of King Henry VIII. We all know why he broke away from the RCC and started the Anglican Church. One wife was not enough for him.
In case you didn't read, I plainly said that the state-church of the Anglican Church and Catholic went back and forth in English power throughout their history. What has that to do with Constantine? Constantine established so-called Christianity as a "state-church," and thus began the RCC. History is a time-line. It continues through time, and not necessarily through blood. The only blood that is common here is the blood of the martyrs that it has shed.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Are we talking about history or not? The history of the Catholic Church from 325 to the present has been a history of idolatry, paganism, bowing down to idols, praying to the dead, the worship of Mary, and many practices borrowed straight from paganism right from the time of Constantine. Persecution of Bible-believing Christians continued from Constantine and still does at the present time. It has never stopped. This is history. There is not "big jump." It is a continuous line.
Mary Tudor was a zealous Catholic.
Elizabeth was an Anglican (nothing to do with Baptists), the daughter of King Henry VIII. We all know why he broke away from the RCC and started the Anglican Church. One wife was not enough for him.
In case you didn't read, I plainly said that the state-church of the Anglican Church and Catholic went back and forth in English power throughout their history. What has that to do with Constantine? Constantine established so-called Christianity as a "state-church," and thus began the RCC. History is a time-line. It continues through time, and not necessarily through blood. The only blood that is common here is the blood of the martyrs that it has shed.

First of all you missed my post 229 and 230. And yes we are speaking of history. And the continuous line your mentioning is being misrepresented by you of course. If you read my previous post you will see your statments are up against facts. Constantine did not create the RCC. So Anglicanism has nothing to do with Constantine. Christianity became a "state church" after Constantine. The people you should take that up with is Otto, or Charlegmange or Pepin. Not Constantine. And I know how history works. I just like using facts which differs it seems from others.

 

[DHK]

Please take time to read the three page thread in the Baptist History forum called "Rope of Sand," started in December of 2003.

http://baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=7903

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Please take time to read the three page thread in the Baptist History forum called "Rope of Sand," started in December of 2003.

http://baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=7903

Ok I read the thread. It give a pretty good statement on how baptist have worked together loosely. it doesn't explain history of Christianity. Nor does it provide evidence that "baptist" type of churches were succeeding the apostles in the years quickly followning Jesus death and ressurection and assention into heaven.

 

[DHK]

Constantine did not create the RCC. So Anglicanism has nothing to do with Constantine. Christianity became a "state church" after Constantine.

Let's look at some basic information about Constantine. All you need to do is google Constantine + Christianity. This is really basic information. I'll give you two sources: one very elementary, and the other, quite a bit more scholastic.

[FONT=&quot]In 312 AD, the Great Persecution was still going on in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire (though not really in the West). But then Constantine became a Roman Emperor. He had had a vision which made him convert to Christianity. As soon as he won the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, Constantine seems to have thought of himself as a Christian. That same winter, Constantine was already writing letters to Christian bishops about church controversies and had bishops with him at court to advise him about Christian issues. One of the first controversies that Constantine heard about was the Donatist controversy.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]By 313 AD, Constantine and his co-emperor Licinius issued the Edict of Milan, which specifically guaranteed religious freedom to Christians throughout the Roman Empire. The Edict of Milan states that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"we should let both the Christians and all others follow whatever religion they wanted to, so that whatever God there is in heaven may be happy and pleased with us and with all our subjects."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is what Constantine's Christianity was all about. He was mainly not interested in religion but in politics. If the Christian god was going to help him win battles, then he was going to worship the Christian god. Whatever worked.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Constantine got a lot of Christian advisors at his court to tell him what the Christian God wanted, so he could be sure to keep God on his side. His advisors told him that God wanted Constantine to give a lot of money and land to the Church, and that God wanted the Church not to have to pay taxes, and Constantine did all those things.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/religion/christians/constantine.htm

http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/religion/christians/constantine.htm[/FONT]


Here is additional information:

[FONT=&quot]The Romans tried to beat down Christianity but failed. By the fourth century Christianity becomes the state religion and by the end of the fourth century it is illegal to do any form of public worship other than Christianity in the entire Roman Empire. There is a great mystery in how this happened -- how such an extraordinary reversal, that begins with Jesus who is executed by the Romans as a public criminal, as a threat to the social order, and somehow we wind up three centuries later with Jesus being hailed as a God, as part of the one, true God who is the God of the new Christian Roman Empire. There is a remarkable progress, a remarkable development in the course of three centuries. ... It's hard to understand exactly how it happened or why it happened, but it is important to realize that we have a progression and a set of developments, and that Christianity by the fourth century is not the same as the Christianity that we see in the first or even the second.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]One of the first things Constantine does, as emperor, is start persecuting other Christians. The Gnostic Christians are targeted...and other dualist Christians. Christians who don't have the Old Testament as part of their canon are targeted. The list of enemies goes on and on. There's a kind of internal purge of the church as one emperor ruling one empire tries to have this single church as part of the religious musculature of his vision of a renewed Rome. And it's with this theological vision in mind that Constantine not only helps the bishops to iron out a unitary policy of what a true Christian believes, but he also, interestingly, turns his attention to Jerusalem, and rebuilds Jerusalem just as a righteous king should do. But what Constantine does is take the city, which was something of a backwater, and he begins to build beautiful basilicas and architecturally ambitious projects in the city itself. The sacred space of the Temple Mount he abandons. It's not reclaimable. And what he does is [to] religiously relocate the center of gravity of the city around the places where Christ had suffered, where he had been buried, or where he [had] been raised. So that in the great basilicas that he built, Constantine has a new Jerusalem, that's splendid and beautiful and... his reputation as an imperial architect resonates with great figures in biblical history like David and Solomon. In a sense, Constantine is a non-apocalyptic Messiah for the church. ...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html

[/FONT]


Constantine never converted to Christianity. It was a false profession. He used Christianity purely for his own political means. The edict of Milan shows this quite clearly. Certainly it gave religious tolerance. But in his mind he could tolerate the Christian god, and worship his pagan god at the same time.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Let's look at some basic information about Constantine. All you need to do is google Constantine + Christianity. This is really basic information. I'll give you two sources: one very elementary, and the other, quite a bit more scholastic.
[/URL][/FONT]


Here is additional information:
[/FONT]


Constantine never converted to Christianity. It was a false profession. He used Christianity purely for his own political means. The edict of Milan shows this quite clearly. Certainly it gave religious tolerance. But in his mind he could tolerate the Christian god, and worship his pagan god at the same time.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

DHK your own quotes tell you the truth of things though you fail to connect the dots. Your own highlighted area states again

"we should let both the Christians and all others follow whatever religion they wanted to, so that whatever God there is in heaven may be happy and pleased with us and with all our subjects."

Constantine chartered the Edict of Milan. Providing for Religous tolerance! He did not create Christianity as the sole religion of the Empire. Nor did he supercede the authority of the bishops with regard to establishing a principle of faith. Certainly, he did not want the Christian in fighting that he knew was happening and wanted to establish peace with in the empire. The best way to do that was to have the bishops hash out the problems and resolve it. The Donatist were causing problems becuase they were serious legalist and would not let christians whose fear of death caused them to hide from the Roman persecutions gain admittance back to participating in Christian rites. But because of Arius' controversy he felt the need to conviene the council of Nicea. Fact Arius was Anathematized at that council. Fact Constantine on his death bed was baptised by a follower of Arius. Fact Ignatius wrote to the Smyrnaeans at the end or the begining of the 1st Century and calls the body of believers Catholic 200 years before Constantine. As far as the rest of it this is what Constantine did

Throughout his rule, Constantine supported the Church financially, built various basilicas, granted privileges (e.g. exemption from certain taxes) to clergy, promoted Christians to high ranking offices, and returned property confiscated during the Great Persecution of Diocletian.[196] His most famous building projects include the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and Old Saint Peter's Basilica.

and note

Constantine didn't give his favouritism exclusively to Christianity. After gaining victory in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, a triumphal arch - the Arch of Constantine - was built to celebrate; the arch is decorated with images of Victoria and sacrifices to gods like Apollo, Diana, or Hercules, but contains no Christian symbolism. The rebuilt Milvian Bridge itself was dedicated in homage to Mithras,[citation needed] and was covered in associated imagery, but nothing Christian. Its inscription carefully avoids the mention of any specific god.

As it is clear to see that Constantine followed an age old tradition of Rome to ensure you don't displease any god that could hurt the empire. Which btw was why Christians were being persecuted in the first place. The empire felt that its citizens not making suplication to the gods were offending the gods which threatened the empires existance. Thus Christians were considered traitors. Still there is no conjoining of all the gods. Each one has its separate honor. As far as intra christian persecution it had more to do with

Constantine himself disliked the risks to societal stability, that religious disputes and controversies brought with them, preferring where possible to establish an orthodoxy

Not an orthodoxy he himself established but one established by the Christian leaders as we see with Nicea. Now you and I may agree Constantine may not have been really a christian. However I do not see him creating the Roman Catholic Church. It seems with a, as you call it, a simple study of Christian history that many of the "Romanish" ideas associated with the Catholic church was already in place long before Constantine. He was just a brilliant Strategist and wanted peace in his empire. He at no time superseded the Christian leadership though we see he has personal differences with them. He built Churches he supported some appointments he donated money but he also did this with pagan gods (except for building churches). There were no combining the two. The PBS statement you quoted is speculative at the nature of the growth of Christianity. It is clear that Christianity had grown even under persecution to no longer be a small minority populace in the empire by Constantine's time. They had significant numbers and thus could threaten the peace of the empire. He allowed for religeous tolleration so what do you think the next step was? More Christian growth! but we see with Flavius Claudius Julianus (355-366) wanted once again to suppress christianity and revert to classical Rome and pagan worship

Julian was the last non-Christian ruler of the Roman Empire and it was his desire to bring the empire back to its ancient Roman values in order to save it from "dissolution".[3] He purged the top-heavy state bureaucracy and attempted to revive traditional Roman religious practices at the cost of Christianity.

. You must ask yourself then. If Christianity was actually subverted by paganism and made into a new religion of Roman Catholicism as you suppose why would Flavius Claudius Julianus have a problem with the wide acceptance of christianity? Why would he want to destroy Roman Catholicism? The only answer is that your supposition is wrong. That they were not a pagan religion created by Constantine but a christian one opposed to paganism.

He blamed Constantine for the state of the administration and for having abandoned the traditions of the past... Since the persecution of Christians by past Roman Emperors had seemingly only strengthened Christianity, many of Julian's actions were designed to harass and undermine the ability of Christians to organize resistance to the re-establishment of paganism in the empire

So as you see a simple view of History is plain. Constantine did not Create the Roman Catholic Church as you suppose. It had already been established in Rome.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

So as you see a simple view of History is plain. Constantine did not Create the Roman Catholic Church as you suppose. It had already been established in Rome.

The problem DHK has is that he starts from the present time and works backwards and stops where he chooses to. IF DHK would start at the beginning, he would plainly see that as Christianity started to grow and spread, Patriarchates were established...Five (5) to be exact...it was in 1054 when the Patriarchate of Rome, excommunicated herself (in my opinion) from the remaining Four (4) Patriarchates...thus the Roman Patriarchate became labeled as "Roman Catholic" and the other Four (4) Patriarchates became labeled as "Eastern Orthodox".

In XC
-

 

[Eric B]

Just because Ignatius addressed the "Catholic Church" doesn't mean it referred to the Roman Catholic Church institution that we knew of later. And the fact that the patriarchates were later "established" as the Church grew shows that the institutionalized body was not what was founded by the Apostles. It was modified as time went on.

 

[DHK]

DHK your own quotes tell you the truth of things though you fail to connect the dots. Your own highlighted area states again Constantine chartered the Edict of Milan. Providing for Religous tolerance! He did not create Christianity as the sole religion of the Empire.

He established Christianity as a "state-religion," thus the origins of the RCC. He became the head of it, and the bishops became subservient to him. That is not how a "church" operates in the New Testament. The Bible teaches that church and state are separate.

Nor did he supercede the authority of the bishops with regard to establishing a principle of faith. Certainly, he did not want the Christian in fighting that he knew was happening and wanted to establish peace with in the empire. The best way to do that was to have the bishops hash out the problems and resolve it.

Yes, as he ordered it, and oversaw it.

The Donatist were causing problems becuase they were serious legalist and would not let christians whose fear of death caused them to hide from the Roman persecutions gain admittance back to participating in Christian rites.

Kill the Donatists--those heretics! That was Constantine's attitude wasn't. He called them heretics. What do you know about the Donatists?

Donatus
Our information about Donatus is remarkably limited for a man who for forty years led a movement that vied for recognition as the legitimate church of North Africa. During his lifetime, he was unchallenged as leader of the Donatist church, and his writings were quoted and his memory revered long after his death. He was exiled in 347 and died in about 355, widely regarded as a martyr. He was accorded the epithet ‘Donatus the Great’ and his significance in Africa has been compared to that of Athanasius in Egypt. Unlike Athanasius, however, he was not on the side which eventually emerged triumphant, so his name has been associated with schism. He was widely acknowledged as a vigorous leader, a man of learning, intelligence, integrity, wisdom, passion and oratory. His extensive writings were destroyed by his opponents, but even his adversary, Augustine, acknowledged their brilliance, referring to him as a ‘precious jewel’ in the church and ‘the man who reformed the church in Africa.’

http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/donatists

But because of Arius' controversy he felt the need to conviene the council of Nicea. Fact Arius was Anathematized at that council. Fact Constantine on his death bed was baptised by a follower of Arius. Fact Ignatius wrote to the Smyrnaeans at the end or the begining of the 1st Century and calls the body of believers Catholic 200 years before Constantine.

Did Ignatius write in the King's English? I think not. It is obvious that whatever you read of Ignatius has been translated, probably from Greek, and probably by a Catholic. Nevertheless the word "catholic" simply means "universal." "Calls the body of believers "universal" 200 years before Constantine." And so?
[quot] As far as the rest of it this is what Constantine did and note As it is clear to see that Constantine followed an age old tradition of Rome to ensure you don't displease any god that could hurt the empire.[/quote]
Right, and that is why he introduced those "gods," images, idols, and all different sorts of paganism into the church, the RCC, which we still have to this day. We don't want to offend the pagans do we. Be sure that there is an idol of a woman holding a baby--an icon common in both paganism and in the RCC.
The Christ I worship is risen from the dead; an infant no longer.

Which btw was why Christians were being persecuted in the first place. The empire felt that its citizens not making suplication to the gods were offending the gods which threatened the empires existance.

Anything that threatened the empire's existence would have been persecuted. Thus true Bible-believing Christians would have been persecuted, such as the Donatists as described above. But the "Christianity" that Constantine created: he had no need to persecute them; they had become "paganized" already.

Thus Christians were considered traitors. Still there is no conjoining of all the gods. Each one has its separate honor. As far as intra christian persecution it had more to do with Not an orthodoxy he himself established but one established by the Christian leaders as we see with Nicea. Now you and I may agree Constantine may not have been really a christian. However I do not see him creating the Roman Catholic Church.

He created a state-church out of so-called Christianity. In that he created the origins of the RCC.

It seems with a, as you call it, a simple study of Christian history that many of the "Romanish" ideas associated with the Catholic church was already in place long before Constantine.

True, but it was Constantine who put it all together.

He was just a brilliant Strategist and wanted peace in his empire. He at no time superseded the Christian leadership though we see he has personal differences with them. He built Churches he supported some appointments he donated money but he also did this with pagan gods (except for building churches). There were no combining the two.

He made a false profession of faith for his own political gains. Yes he was a brilliant strategist, and for the sake of peace created a monster of a Christ that perhaps will one day become the beast of Rev.13. Today it is the RCC. We have Constantine to credit for that.

The PBS statement you quoted is speculative at the nature of the growth of Christianity. It is clear that Christianity had grown even under persecution to no longer be a small minority populace in the empire by Constantine's time.

The Bible teaches that true Biblical Christianity thrives best under persecution.

They had significant numbers and thus could threaten the peace of the empire. He allowed for religeous tolleration so what do you think the next step was?

His religious tolerance was akin to our ecumenism. Neither one is a good thing. They both invite evil.

More Christian growth! but we see with Flavius Claudius Julianus (355-366) wanted once again to suppress christianity and revert to classical Rome and pagan worship . You must ask yourself then. If Christianity was actually subverted by paganism and made into a new religion of Roman Catholicism as you suppose why would Flavius Claudius Julianus have a problem with the wide acceptance of christianity? Why would he want to destroy Roman Catholicism? The only answer is that your supposition is wrong. That they were not a pagan religion created by Constantine but a christian one opposed to paganism. So as you see a simple view of History is plain. Constantine did not Create the Roman Catholic Church as you suppose. It had already been established in Rome.

The pagans cannot discern between the real and the false. They often persecute both. If you go to an Islamic nation, the Muslim will persecute all "Christians" which simply means all who are not Muslim. They don't differentiate between Protestant and Catholic when it comes to Christianity. (I am speaking of those who live in Islamic nations, not those who live in the U.S. or in Canada.)
Thus it was with pagan leaders of that time. He would not stop to consider whether or not that "Christendom" that he was observing had been perverted or not. He would persecute it all.