Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Christianity in the hands of the ancient Romans.

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 



No Rome didn't make laws for all christians everywhere. Antioch was around for quite a while and even after Antioch disappeared orthodox christianity remained and it is that root where protestant christianity was born from.


Rome didn't make laws for christians everywhere, but what they did was Romanize Christianity.
Then their version of Christianity over ran everything else.... quantity over quality...pure strength in numbers. Over a few generations, even the descendants of the original Chrisrians were absorbed into the "christianity" which was spread by Rome.


The result was that Roman "Chrisitanity" with all its corruptions and became THE christianity. and from it, emerged the various types of Christianity. So they are still an offshoot from Romanized Christianity.

Ask yourself.... what happened to the 7 churches that are mentioned in revelations? What were they calling themselves? And where are they now? Sometimes entire religions become extinct...and sometimes elements of a religion becomes absorbed into another. Which is exactly what happened between Christianity and the Romans. What you end up with, is a cocktail of various religious concepts. There is some truth in there, but its all been tainted by other beliefs.

edit on 10-10-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
I have yet to read this but it is a sequel that follows the reign of Constantine.

www.amazon.com...

Jesus Wars reveals how official, orthodox teaching about Jesus was the product of political maneuvers by a handful of key characters in the fifth century. Jenkins argues that were it not for these controversies, the papacy as we know it would never have come into existence and that today's church could be teaching some-thing very different about Jesus. It is only an accident of history that one group of Roman emperors and militia-wielding bishops defeated another faction.

Christianity claims that Jesus was, somehow, both human and divine. But the Bible is anything but clear about Jesus's true identity. In fact, a wide range of opinions and beliefs about Jesus circulated in the church for four hundred years until allied factions of Roman royalty and church leaders burned cities and killed thousands of people in an unprecedented effort to stamp out heresy.

Jenkins recounts the fascinating, violent story of the church's fifth-century battles over "right belief" that had a far greater impact on the future of Christianity and the world than the much-touted Council of Nicea convened by Constantine a century before.


Regards
DL



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 





Ask yourself.... what happened to the 7 churches that are mentioned in revelations? What were they calling themselves? And where are they now? Sometimes entire religions become extinct...and sometimes elements of a religion becomes absorbed into another. Which is exactly what happened between Christianity and the Romans. What you end up with, is a cocktail of various religious concepts. There is some truth in there, but its all been tainted by other beliefs.


The 7 churches have always been present, their physical locations are now destroyed but the churches themselves have always been present within the Church and these are the 7 types of believers within christianity. You have 7 types of people in accordance to the spirits in each church. The 7 churches also represent 7 church ages, of which the time we live in now is the church age of Laodicea. Each church age was one of the 7 seals in accordance to Revelation, we are living in the period of the last Seal to be broken.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 




The 7 churches have always been present, their physical locations are now destroyed but the churches themselves have always been present within the Church and these are the 7 types of believers within christianity. You have 7 types of people in accordance to the spirits in each church. The 7 churches also represent 7 church ages, of which the time we live in now is the church age of Laodicea. Each church age was one of the 7 seals in accordance to Revelation, we are living in the period of the last Seal to be broken.


Most importantly, the 7 churches were actual churches with actual practising members.

Who knows the exact details of what they actually believed, before the corrupted Roman Christianity spread all over. The original christians descendants, over a few generations, would have taken on Romanized Christianity as it spread.

edit on 11-10-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Who knows the exact details of what they actually believed, before the corrupted Roman Christianity spread all over.


What "corrupted Roman Christianity"? You still haven't made a case that this even exists, while we've demonstrated that what you take to be "Roman Christianity" is the orthodox teachings that began with the Apostles.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 




What "corrupted Roman Christianity"? You still haven't made a case that this even exists, while we've demonstrated that what you take to be "Roman Christianity" is the orthodox teachings that began with the Apostles.


You seem to believe that the Romans, a European peoples....simply adopted a semitic religion just like that. Serious question....do you seriously think they abandoned their millenia old culture of idolatry and polytheism.... to adopt a semitic religion that taught against idolatry and polytheism?

"orthodox teachings that began with the Apostles."?
Did the Apostles ever teach that its ok to make paintings depicting God and the angels, even if those images are not meant to be worshipped? Did they teach the concept of confessing sins to a man? hmmmm?
There's your first set of signs that something is way off with the Roman version of Christianity.

The Christianity you have in your hands today has been tampered by the Romans who became THE authority on a religion they got from elsewhere. "Christian doctrine" was decided by some 300 unnamed "bishops" who convened at the council of Nicea.... under the command of an emperor, who you yourself say wasn't a Christian.... who just wanted a decision made for the sake of "unity". With so much power, whats your guarantee that they didn't tamper with the original text, to sneak in what felt "right" to them? Considering they were generally predisposed to mash together various religious concepts?



edit on 11-10-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Serious question....do you seriously think they abandoned their millenia old culture of idolatry and polytheism.... to adopt a semitic religion that taught against idolatry and polytheism?

Of course I do. The evidence is right there. Do you seriously think that they DIDN'T abandon idolatry and polytheism?


Did the Apostles ever teach that its ok to make paintings depicting God and the angels, even if those images are not meant to be worshipped?

I see no reason to believe that they taught that it wasn't okay, and there is early Christian art depicting the cross and ichthus, so I don't think you're correct in concluding that the Apostles would have said it was wrong.


Did they teach the concept of confessing sins to a man? hmmmm?



Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective. (James 5:16 NIV)



Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. (Matthew 3:6 NIV)



If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven. (John 20:23 NIV)


Hmmm, indeed.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 




Of course I do. The evidence is right there. Do you seriously think that they DIDN'T abandon idolatry and polytheism?


Given their religious practises... no.

How do you trust some Europeans with a polytheistic and idolatrous past to willingly discard their beliefs and accept something that taught the opposite?

Considering how they, as fresh converts to Christianity, felt free to start painting images of God, I don't think they did....they could NOT have been serious about Christianity.

Also, why is it that so many Christians, your own kind.... accuse Catholics (products of Romanized Christianity) of idolatry. Can you answer that for me?




Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective. (James 5:16 NIV)


Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. (Matthew 3:6 NIV)


If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven. (John 20:23 NIV)


James 5:16... wow, I didn't know that the one who confesses also prays for the one listening to his confessions.

Matthew 3:16.... Involves John the Baptist...

John 20:23.... Jesus was speaking to his disciples....

But obviously I am wrong.... so, nevermind.



What about the question I had asked earlier, which you left out when you posted your reply...

Did the Apostles ever teach that its ok to make paintings depicting God and the angels, even if those images are not meant to be worshipped?



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Also, why is it that so many Christians, your own kind.... accuse Catholics (products of Romanized Christianity) of idolatry. Can you answer that for me?


Because people like to argue and think that they're right?


Actually, I am Catholic, so it wouldn't be "my own kind", however, it comes down to what we discussed earlier -- most Protestants don't understand what veneration of icons is, wrongly assume that it means worshipping an image, and rightly say that is wrong. It's much like how some don't understand that "praying to Mary or a saint and asking them to pray for you" (intercessory prayer) doesn't mean that you're praying to them like you pray to God.


What about the question I had asked earlier, which you left out when you posted your reply...

Did the Apostles ever teach that its ok to make paintings depicting God and the angels, even if those images are not meant to be worshipped?


Actually, I did reply to that and said that I don't know, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume that they said not to do that. They laid out what the rules were for Gentiles, and there wasn't anything in there about making paintings.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n


Considering how they, as fresh converts to Christianity, felt free to start painting images of God, I don't think they did....they could NOT have been serious about Christianity.

Also, why is it that so many Christians, your own kind.... accuse Catholics (products of Romanized Christianity) of idolatry. Can you answer that for me?


Did the Apostles ever teach that its ok to make paintings depicting God and the angels, even if those images are not meant to be worshipped?


Church Tradition holds that the first iconographer was St. Luke the Apostle. He 'wrote' icons of the Virgin Mary, Christ, and Sts. Peter and Paul. A part of the Church in India claims to still have one of the icons that St. Luke wrote, which was brought to them by St. Thomas.

The answer to why some Christians accuse others of idolatry is due to the influence of Islam on Christian lands during the periods of the Byzantine iconoclasm controversy. Also, anyone who studies Christianity in Rome MUST be aware that the Christians destroyed many pagan temples, images, and sculptures that represented the polytheistic beliefs of the Roman state.

Also- regarding confession: We confess directly to God in the presence of a priest.
edit on 11-10-2012 by LeSigh because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by LeSigh
 


Luke was an apostle?

Thats news to me...


1. Simon, surnamed Peter

2. Andrew

3. James, son of Zebedee

4. John the brother of James

5. Philip

6. Bartholomew

7. Thomas

8. Matthew

9. James, son of Alphaeus

10. Thaddeus

11. Simon the Cananaean

12. Judas Iscariot


Were there 13?




posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


He's officially referred to as being a Holy Apostle and Evangelist. He was one of the Seventy Apostles (as they're referred to) of Luke 10:1-24.

edit on 11-10-2012 by LeSigh because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeSigh
reply to post by Akragon
 


He's officially referred to as being a Holy Apostle and Evangelist. He was one of the Seventy Apostles (as they're referred to) of Luke 10:1-24.

edit on 11-10-2012 by LeSigh because: (no reason given)


That is a stretch...

Considering he was a follower of Paul... who never met Jesus...

This is of course aside from the fact that Luke admits to not being a witness to the events within his gospel in the first chapter...




posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by LeSigh
(Re]


If Jesus was God, show the scriptures that say that God can die.

If Jesus was God, how could he sacrifice himself to himself?

How can he have accepted his own ransom to himself?
There could not be a loss or gain and therefore no sacrifice to cover sin.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL


You do not understand who and what the Son of God is. He is the physical personification and incarnation of God and before he came as a man he had another form, the form of Yahweh the Almighty. The Father is all Spirit, the Son is his physical self manifested, but where as the Son could be killed in the form of corrupted man, the Father cannot die. The Son is the extension of the Father. The Father cannot be seen by men, only the Son.

Jesus comes right out and says this in John 5:31-47.

John 5:31-47

31 “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. 32 There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true. 33 You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. 34 Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved. 35 He was the burning and shining lamp, and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light. 36 But I have a greater witness than John’s; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. 37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. 38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

[verse 37 Jesus is saying, none of Israel had ever seen the Father nor heard his voice at any time, in verse 40 he is saying the scriptures, which at the time he spoke this only the Torah and Tenach existed, are speaking about him the Savior, who is God himself, this also means that the one who stood on Mt. Sinai with Moses and put him in the cleft and showed him his back was the Son of God.]

41 “I do not receive honor from men. 42 But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. 43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. 44 How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? 45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

[Verse 46 Jesus is saying Moses wrote about him. Moses wrote the Torah, and he only wrote about the Savior, who is God]

Isaiah 44:6-8

6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
‘I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God.
7 And who can proclaim as I do?
Then let him declare it and set it in order for Me,
Since I appointed the ancient people.
And the things that are coming and shall come,
Let them show these to them.
8 Do not fear, nor be afraid;
Have I not told you from that time, and declared it?
You are My witnesses.
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.’”

Isaiah 44:24-25

24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer,
And He who formed you from the womb:
“I am the Lord, who makes all things,
Who stretches out the heavens all alone,
Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;
25 Who frustrates the signs of the babblers,
And drives diviners mad;
Who turns wise men backward,
And makes their knowledge foolishness;

Here Isaiah tells you who the Lord (Yeshua/Jesus) is. So yes, he did sacrifice himself. He sacrificed his human self and reclaimed his Godhood as the Almighty.
edit on 12-10-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 

. . . before he came as a man he had another form, the form of Yahweh the Almighty.

None of those verses you quote say anything like that.
You present situations then say it could be understood a certain way.
It can also be understood another way that actually conforms with the teaching of the New Testament, and also the old, that Moses spoke with angels who were the representatives of God's authority.

Jesus took that role upon himself as a better representative of God, and the title, the I Am, which the angel of Sinai used to identify by what authority he spoke.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
[

You do not understand who and what the Son of God is.]


My focus is morals so perhaps we should clear the air first with a couple of questions.

You think Jesus died for you. Does that mean that your ticket to heaven was purchased with innocent blood?
Is that moral?

You also say that Jesus is God's son. Was God a good role model as scriptures would have us believe?
Also.
Did God pay child support or was he a deadbeat dad?

Regards
DL



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Also.
Did God pay child support or was he a deadbeat dad?

What are you, twelve years old?

As much time as you waste on ATS, I don't think I've ever seen you contribute to any thread in any meaningful way, just pointless jabs like this, which apparently you think are insightful.


David St. Hubbins: It's such a fine line between stupid, and uh...
Nigel Tufnel: Clever.
David St. Hubbins: Yeah, and clever.





posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

The issue was too hard for your small mind I see.

Regards
DL



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
[

You do not understand who and what the Son of God is.]


My focus is morals so perhaps we should clear the air first with a couple of questions.

You think Jesus died for you. Does that mean that your ticket to heaven was purchased with innocent blood?
Is that moral?

You also say that Jesus is God's son. Was God a good role model as scriptures would have us believe?
Also.
Regards
DL


I'm not the one who establishes what morality is but if it means i can get to heaven, i'll take whatever bone he throws my way. A good dog is grateful for whatever his master decides to do for him.

You think in humans terms when it comes to being "Son", i know i am asking alot here but try to raise the bar some and think outside your box.


Did God pay child support or was he a deadbeat dad?


:shk: not even going to bother to try.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

The issue was too hard for your small mind I see.


You don't discuss ideas, you make juvenile insults and think yourself clever. You're a hateful, vile person, who contributes nothing but vapid statements and negativity. That you think them insightful and clever just speaks to your own insecurities, not the depth of your mind.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join