It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Dr_Suess
Again you will have to show me wear the church tried to be the government itself and not just a major influencing part. The verse used in the OP was proposed as meaning to subject oneself to the government not the church. What about the first three centuries of the christian church before the government of rome was christianized?
I need proof that this is what the church taught to its members. Otherwise you and the OP are making baseless assertions which show very little thought or time even given to the subject at hand.
Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,
Originally posted by Flakey
The New Testament was altered in Nicaea.
*Sigh*
No, it was NOT!
The Council of Nicea had NOTHING to do with choosing the books of the bible - it's a common urban legend that is endlessly repeated on this web site.
But it's completely FALSE.
Please go read up on it.
K.
Through to the mid-fourth century AD, there were twice as many sacred writings in circulation in Christendom as were ultimately canonized for the New Testament. Not until AD 367, forty-two years after the famous Council of Nicea, would Saint Athanasius begin sorting through and determining which works should be granted special status. Prior to that time, Christians had recognized only the Hebrew Bible as scripture, all other works being seen as expressions rather than as sources of faith. Out of political necessity, and for the sake of unity and order in the church, canonization was harshly imposed on the churches.
The Church and the Empire were one in the same that's the assertion. Why would one give away the other? That's the point of my premise. Rome authored Christianity.
If you read through the thread you would see that this was brought up by another poster:
Although not my find, I expect that is the way dissension was handled and thus none or scant little written evidence to be researched.
Originally posted by Hemisphere
Originally posted by Dr_Suess
Again you will have to show me wear the church tried to be the government itself and not just a major influencing part. The verse used in the OP was proposed as meaning to subject oneself to the government not the church. What about the first three centuries of the christian church before the government of rome was christianized?
I need proof that this is what the church taught to its members. Otherwise you and the OP are making baseless assertions which show very little thought or time even given to the subject at hand.
You're suggesting we chase our tails. No thanks. The verse used was proposed as meaning to submit earthly things to the force of the government so as not to lose your soul. If you killed the taxman, it might be a just kill but you will suffer for that earthly justice in the next life. That's not how a good Christian will deal with that situation. Just submit, it's only money. That's what the Romans wanted. No resistance.
The Church was never the government, only a tool of the government. That that relationship evolved over time due to changes in Emperors and Popes, that's just politics. Jewish priests served kings, priests served pharaohs, this was continuation of a very familiar, time honored relationship. It was meant to be comfortable. Thus the tie ins with the Pagan celebrations in the early church. The Jesus cults were if not invented by the Romans outright, they were incorporated too into as another poster coined, Judaism-Lite. All the control of Judaism without the revolutionary tribal nastiness.
Everyone was welcome, everyone was made comfortable, everyone was made to submit, get in line, one set of rules. And willingly if at all possible. They were devious.
. Remember, Caesar was believed to be a god-man. To actually distinguish Caesar and 'God' as two separate entities, like Jesus did in this passage, was blasphemy that could get one killed.
Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by AshleyD
. Remember, Caesar was believed to be a god-man. To actually distinguish Caesar and 'God' as two separate entities, like Jesus did in this passage, was blasphemy that could get one killed.
The irony of it, one god man succeeding another with the sheeple terrorized with blasphemy laws, if anything this seems to strengthen the OPs argument.
Originally posted by Hemisphere
reply to post by Kapyong
Your bit mate:
Constantine writes to all the cities ordering the destruction of the works of Arius and his followers, and the penalty of death for any who refused to destroy them.
Originally posted by Hemisphere
Did you read your own post?
Originally posted by Hemisphere
Death penalty for words. Seems a little harsh.
Those must have been some powerful words.
And no one stood up to Constantine? Surprise!
Nothing to see here, move along.
Originally posted by Hemisphere
VIVIVI (Roman for 666)
I am in great anxiety. I write these things to you, that when you have heard them you may be grieved for me. For as my daughter Herodias, who is dear to me, was playing upon a pool of water that had ice upon it, it broke under her and all her body went down, and her head was cut off and remained on the surface of the ice. And behold, her mother is holding her head upon her knees in her lap, and my whole house is in great sorrow.
2. For I, when I heard of the man Jesus, wished to come to you, that I might see him alone and hear his word, whether it was like that of the sons of men.
3. And it is certain that because of the many evil things which were done by me to John the Baptist, and because I mocked the Christ, behold I receive the reward of unrighteousness, for I have shed much blood of others' children upon the earth. Therefore the judgments of God are righteous, for every man receives according to his thought. But since you were worthy to see that God-man, therefore it is appropriate for you to pray for me.
1. Know and see, that in the day when you delivered Jesus to me, I took pity on myself and testified by washing my hands that I was innocent concerning him who rose from the grave after three days, and had performed your pleasure in him, for you wanted me to be associated with you in his crucifixion.
2. But I now learn from the executioners and from the soldiers who watched his sepulchre that he rose from the dead. And I have especially confirmed what was told me: that he appeared bodily in Galilee, in the same form, and with the same voice, and with the same doctrine, and with the same disciples, not having changed in anything, but preaching with boldness his resurrection and an everlasting kingdom.
Originally posted by oliveoil
I didn't say that.
Originally posted by oliveoil
I said that Matthew (who's account was indeed first hand)
Originally posted by oliveoil
And Mark (john mark, associate of peter) Authored his book.
Originally posted by ralphellis2
You are right.
Luke, Acts, and the Epistles, were all written by Saul (and he edited the others too). And also, Saul was Josephus Flavius.
But Saul-Josephus was a Jewish quisling (traitor) working for the Romans. Judaism had fomented many revolts, and its people were very divisive and separatist - they were not good Romans. So what Rome wanted was a Rome-friendly Judaism - Judaism Lite, or Simple Judaism as I call it.
Saul-Josephus created that new form of Judaism for Emperor Vespasian, and it was promoted by these Emperors (with Vespasian's cousin becoming
the third Pope). The persecutions we all hear about, were of the Nazarene - the original Church of Jesus. Rome wanted Judaism Lite, not a cult that promoted castration (Tossers of Testicles, as they were known).
Originally posted by Deny Arrogance
Yes, technically it was 40 years after but still of the era,
Originally posted by Deny Arrogance
that is why scholars delineate between pre-nicene and post-nicene version of the bible.
Originally posted by Deny Arrogance
But you would rather focus on your "gotcha" argument than contemplate the true implications of the bible being selectively edited to serve the Roman empire's agenda.
Through to the mid-fourth century AD, there were twice as many sacred writings in circulation in Christendom as were ultimately canonized for the New Testament. Not until AD 367, forty-two years after the famous Council of Nicea, would Saint Athanasius begin sorting through and determining which works should be granted special status. Prior to that time, Christians had recognized only the Hebrew Bible as scripture, all other works being seen as expressions rather than as sources of faith. Out of political necessity, and for the sake of unity and order in the church, canonization was harshly imposed on the churches.
Originally posted by Deny Arrogance
www.amazon.com...
Originally posted by Jordan River
www.orthodox.cn...
Originally posted by Jordan River
Originally posted by Kapyong
No official saying unto who have wrote matthew