Constantine: Friend or Foe of Christianity? [Archive]

Jezz

October 12th 2004, 05:18 AM

"Institutionalisation" is not a good word for it. The Church was already "institutionalised", holding synods and electing bishops, etc.

What Constantine did was first to grant tolerance to it (up until his time it was an illegal religion), and later to adopt it as the official religion. This had both positive and negative effects on the Church - the positive was that persecution ended. The negative was that persecution ended. :smile: With the end of persecution, Christians became "soft" and as a result their commitment to the Faith grew weaker (witness our current situation inthe West). It also brought about a flood of lukewarm converts. Monasticism in large part rose up as a reaction to this softness.

As for Constantine as a man: he is called "the Great", and that I think with good reason. Some claim that he only adopted Christianity for political expediency. However, this is an unlikely explanation - given that at the time he adopted it it was still a minority religion by far. Adopting Christianity was not the politically expedient thing to do. Undoubtedly he probably did some nasty things as emporer (so did King David!) and was at times ecclesiastically naive (eg, during the Arian controversy), but I think he was a genuine believer.

Amazing Rando

October 12th 2004, 09:27 PM

:teeth: This is a pretty hot topic for Christians- thanks for the thoughts Jezz. I've got my own opinions on the matter.

"Institutionalisation" is not a good word for it. The Church was already "institutionalised", holding synods and electing bishops, etc.

What I meant by "institutionalized" was that he paved the way for his successors to make Christianity the official religion of the Empire, which led to a dramatic role-reversal. Christians were no longer the persecuted minority, but later in the 4th Century became the persecuting majority. Outlawing all non-Christian religions was not the right way to go IMO.

What Constantine did was first to grant tolerance to it (up until his time it was an illegal religion), and later to adopt it as the official religion. This had both positive and negative effects on the Church - the positive was that persecution ended. The negative was that persecution ended. :smile: With the end of persecution, Christians became "soft" and as a result their commitment to the Faith grew weaker (witness our current situation inthe West). It also brought about a flood of lukewarm converts. Monasticism in large part rose up as a reaction to this softness.

Yes, that's my understanding of it as well. We just did COnstantine today in Christian History class. Anabaptists are very critical of Constantine for his melding of church and state into one entity. They're glad he ended the persecution, but not so relieved that the catechumenate became sooo watered down in the wake of Constantine's hurried deathbed baptism.

As for Constantine as a man: he is called "the Great", and that I think with good reason.

Maybe perhaps for his warrior abilities?

Some claim that he only adopted Christianity for political expediency. However, this is an unlikely explanation - given that at the time he adopted it it was still a minority religion by far. Adopting Christianity was not the politically expedient thing to do.

My one professor suggested that he saw Christianity as the "glue" that could hold his empire together, the idea of a "Christendom" where everybody was Christian whether they liked it or not was only a generation away as far as I can tell.

Undoubtedly he probably did some nasty things as emporer (so did King David!) and was at times ecclesiastically naive (eg, during the Arian controversy), but I think he was a genuine believer.

If he was a genuine believer, I don't think his real submission to the Lord and repentence came until he knew he was dying and he finally began the process of catechesis (albeit a very abbreviated version of it!). I'd be willing to bet that his repentance was indeed genuine toward the end there... but had he done so and submitted to the church after his vision of 312, I bet the world would be a very different place had he not waited 25 years to be catechized.

Jawa Man

October 12th 2004, 09:42 PM

What I meant by "institutionalized" was that he paved the way for his successors to make Christianity the official religion of the Empire, which led to a dramatic role-reversal. Christians were no longer the persecuted minority, but later in the 4th Century became the persecuting majority. Outlawing all non-Christian religions was not the right way to go IMO.
Are you sure that was Constantine who outlawed other religions? I believe all he did was make Christianity legal. He, like every Roman Emperor before him, persecuted witches, but not just any old Pagan beliefs. I think he was actually a pretty tolerant guy.

Maybe perhaps for his warrior abilities?
He definitely was a cool warrior guy with fly shades (and yes, I did steal that imagery) but I think that title probably comes from his roles as Emperor as opposed to warrior. I think legalizing Christianity was a great thing to do.

My one professor suggested that he saw Christianity as the "glue" that could hold his empire together, the idea of a "Christendom" where everybody was Christian whether they liked it or not was only a generation away as far as I can tell.
I've heard different things about the percentage of Christians around those days. One that I heard was the East was 50% Christian and the West 10%, another one was that they were a REALLY small minority until Constantine. But I don't know how we can tell if they were only a short time from converting the masses.

One Bad Pig

October 12th 2004, 09:42 PM

What I meant by "institutionalized" was that he paved the way for his successors to make Christianity the official religion of the Empire, which led to a dramatic role-reversal. Christians were no longer the persecuted minority, but later in the 4th Century became the persecuting majority. Outlawing all non-Christian religions was not the right way to go IMO. ...Anabaptists are very critical of Constantine for his melding of church and state into one entity. They're glad he ended the persecution, but not so relieved that the catechumenate became sooo watered down in the wake of Constantine's hurried deathbed baptism.
I agree. Christianity has never done well as a state religion. How could it? It's not, at its core, based on a set of rules and regulations but on a relationship that must be voluntarily entered into. If you look at a history of the church, it's always grown best and stayed most true to its principles under persecution.

Maybe perhaps for his warrior abilities? My one professor suggested that he saw Christianity as the "glue" that could hold his empire together, the idea of a "Christendom" where everybody was Christian whether they liked it or not was only a generation away as far as I can tell.
IMO, he is considered 'great' because he did something radical (conversion to Christianity, changing the official religion) and managed to, at the least, temporarily halt the decline of the Roman Empire.

If he was a genuine believer, I don't think his real submission to the Lord and repentence came until he knew he was dying and he finally began the process of catechesis (albeit a very abbreviated version of it!). I'd be willing to bet that his repentance was indeed genuine toward the end there... but had he done so and submitted to the church after his vision of 312, I bet the world would be a very different place had he not waited 25 years to be catechized.
The approach of death can be very persuasive. :uneasy:

Amazing Rando

October 12th 2004, 10:23 PM

Are you sure that was Constantine who outlawed other religions? I believe all he did was make Christianity legal. He, like every Roman Emperor before him, persecuted witches, but not just any old Pagan beliefs. I think he was actually a pretty tolerant guy.

Yes, this is correct. But his successors only a generation later did outlaw non-Christian religions in the Empire.

He definitely was a cool warrior guy with fly shades (and yes, I did steal that imagery) but I think that title probably comes from his roles as Emperor as opposed to warrior. I think legalizing Christianity was a great thing to do.

Me too! But was it such a great thing to merge church and state to the extent that he did?

I've heard different things about the percentage of Christians around those days. One that I heard was the East was 50% Christian and the West 10%, another one was that they were a REALLY small minority until Constantine. But I don't know how we can tell if they were only a short time from converting the masses.

Sociologist Rodney Stark has argued that before Constantine's conversion, the population of the Empire was 10% Christian, but that only a century later, it was nearly 100% Christian- in name at least. On the surface this might look like a good thing, but one of the results of this was that the faith was dramatically "watered down," so to speak. The entire society was ostensibly "Christian" due to the increase in infant baptisms, but just how many of them actually practiced Christianity with any sincerity is anybody's guess.

kofh2u

October 13th 2004, 12:42 AM

The conversion of Constantine and the institutionalization of the church during the fourth century was a watershed event in the history of the Christian church. The question is- was this a good thing, or a bad thing?

How do you view Constantine the man? Positively, negatively, or in a mixed light?

He is a saint of the true Church.

1) He championed the Christians just a few years following the 10 reign of martrydom that had murdered them.

2) He faced down the pagan adversaries who were denigrating Jesus because they said he was ONLY a son of God. (They proclaimed the God of Rome was/ought be a spiritual entity among the Gods themselves.)

3) He was called by God to fulfill the prophecy of God, as was Cyrus.
(Cyrus was called by a God he knew not, but Conny deserves sainthood because he well knew about Christ.)

4) Proof?
Conny sided with the Homooiusians. Christ WAS God, a Trinity of equality between three members of one Godhead. (That answered back the pagan argument.)

5) See, Rev 3:12 was written 240 years before Conny was to change YHVH's name to Christ:

Rev. 3:12 ... and I will write upon him my new name, (Christ, Homoousiosian Sapiens).

kofh2u

October 13th 2004, 12:54 AM

Sociologist Rodney Stark has argued that before Constantine's conversion, the population of the Empire was 10% Christian, but that only a century later, it was nearly 100% Christian- in name at least. On the surface this might look like a good thing, but one of the results of this was that the faith was dramatically "watered down," so to speak. The entire society was ostensibly "Christian" due to the increase in infant baptisms, but just how many of them actually practiced Christianity with any sincerity is anybody's guess.

Hahahahaaaaaa.....
LOL

..." how many of them actually practiced Christianity"...

THEY ALL DID FOR 1000 yars!

Zech. 13:3 And it shall come to pass (for 1000 years), that when any shall yet prophesy, then his (Catholic) father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.

sylas

October 13th 2004, 01:14 AM

5) See, Rev 3:12 was written 240 years before Conny was to change YHVH's name to Christ:

Rev. 3:12 ... and I will write upon him my new name, (Christ, Homoousiosian Sapiens).

You've done it again. Your argument here is not based on the bible, and your quote is not from the bible. It is from the Freudian bible.

This is not an argument; it is merely assertion. The identification of the name as "Christ, Homoousiosian Sapiens" is your own private addition. You give no argument for this, but simply present it, as if it was the bible itself.

For what it is worth; "Christ" is not a name. It is a title.

But the fundamental problem is not the errors, but that you consistently refuse to acknowledge this Freudian bible as your own text. Whether your interpretation is right, or wrong, is beside the point. The issue is whether you understand that your words need some justification, and that elementary integrity requires you to acknowledge that you are asserting your own text; not quoting an authority.

If you want to participate in debate with integrity, you need to acknowledge that you are the author of the Freudian bible, and recognize that you need to actually have some justification for the additions you make to the biblical text.

Cheers -- Sylas

kofh2u

October 13th 2004, 01:24 PM

sylas:
This is just an assertion of the name as "Christ, Homoousiosian Sapiens"

KOFHY:
True.
It is an assertion that God would have a new name, Jesus.

I have searched all the old ideas written centuries ago. Those guys, in their generstion, just as here we, in our generation and time, assert a lot of stuff that doesn't answer this amazing verse in Rev 3:12.

So, this assertion, that "the new name of God" is Jesus, the Christ is pretty good IMO.

Especially, since it obviously worked out that way.

sylas:
The identification of the name as "Christ, Homoousiosian Sapiens" is your own private addition. You give no argument for this, but simply present it, as if it was the bible itself.

KOFHY:
Then you disagree with the means and the ends both? Your complaint is about form? Or, is it format and context?

Well, the brackets seem clearly to separate scripture from the in text interpretation. People do that all the time on Tweb.

sylas:
For what it is worth; "Christ" is not a name. It is a title.

KOFHY:
See.
You are able to respond clearly to the thread subject matter.

Therefore, I take it that you are unconvinced that Constantine was lead by the Holy Spirit in settling this matter of Homoiousios and homooiusios?

sylas:
But the fundamental problem is not the errors, but that you consistently refuse to acknowledge this Freudian bible as your own text.

KOFHY:
I am in good company, indeed.

Matt. 27:14 And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.

sylas:
Whether your interpretation is right, or wrong, is beside the point. The issue is whether you understand that your words need some justification, ...

KOFHY:
How so?
Some points speak for themselves.
This is one, indeed.
Constantine DID choose to write a new name for God into his mandate at Nicea, and it was propecy he should do so.

sylas:
...and that elementary integrity requires you to acknowledge that you are asserting your own text; not quoting an authority.

KOFHY:
That is exactly what brackets do.

Saul, I do not pretend to lecture you, but Christians await a king. This king will open the book sealed with seven seals. He will be the first and only one able to do so.

He will, therefore, quote no authority as you require.

You are not ready for him, yet. However misleading you may find these quotes from the Freudian Bible Interpretation, every Christian ought have enough oil in hid lamp to read this exact same complaint from the pharisees of a time past.

John 8:14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself,...

... yet my record is true:

sylas:
If you want to participate in debate with integrity, you need to acknowledge that you are the author of the Freudian bible, and recognize that you need to actually have some justification for the additions you make to the biblical text.

KOFHY:
If you have integrity you would respond to the message and be less concerned with the name of messengers.

nomad

October 13th 2004, 05:27 PM

Me too! But was it such a great thing to merge church and state to the extent that he did?

It received much lamentation even at the time when it happened, if i recall. Some of the first monks were driven to the desert, fearing what would come. This isn't a modern realization. Once the church gained secular power, it became attractive not only to the holy, but also to the power-hungry. Which also had other negative side-effects: disputes over theology got much more dangerous (there are many stories, afaik, of things like an empress having the pope assassinated and replaced with someone of her choosing, because he refused to recognize her arianism).

Sociologist Rodney Stark has argued that before Constantine's conversion, the population of the Empire was 10% Christian, but that only a century later, it was nearly 100% Christian- in name at least. On the surface this might look like a good thing, but one of the results of this was that the faith was dramatically "watered down," so to speak. The entire society was ostensibly "Christian" due to the increase in infant baptisms, but just how many of them actually practiced Christianity with any sincerity is anybody's guess.

Do you have a source for this? I have a different book by Stark, _The Rise of Christianity_, in which he seems to assert that Christianity is likely to have been nearly a majority by the time of Constantine. I am not sure I agree with all this theories, but they are interesting nonetheless. I just want to know which book this is, since it's obviously different from the one I have, and covers a later time.

Amazing Rando

October 13th 2004, 06:01 PM

Hahahahaaaaaa.....
LOL

..." how many of them actually practiced Christianity"...

THEY ALL DID FOR 1000 yars!

Zech. 13:3 And it shall come to pass (for 1000 years), that when any shall yet prophesy, then his (Catholic) father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.

Kof, no offense but your posts rarely make any sense to me. :smile:

Amazing Rando

October 13th 2004, 06:05 PM

It received much lamentation even at the time when it happened, if i recall. Some of the first monks were driven to the desert, fearing what would come. This isn't a modern realization. Once the church gained secular power, it became attractive not only to the holy, but also to the power-hungry. Which also had other negative side-effects: disputes over theology got much more dangerous (there are many stories, afaik, of things like an empress having the pope assassinated and replaced with someone of her choosing, because he refused to recognize her arianism).

You betcha! But you gotta remember- church historians like Eusebius were dazzled by Constantine. Eusebius (who was a contemporary of Constantine) has nary a negative thing to say about him or his policies if I remember right. There were many who viewed the end of the persecution and the advent of the Christian state (i.e. "Christendom") as a fulfillment of prophecy and God's implicit will. Eusebius was one of them I believe.

Do you have a source for this? I have a different book by Stark, _The Rise of Christianity_, in which he seems to assert that Christianity is likely to have been nearly a majority by the time of Constantine. I am not sure I agree with all this theories, but they are interesting nonetheless. I just want to know which book this is, since it's obviously different from the one I have, and covers a later time.

Hmm. I'll need to ask my professor on that one- either I'm misquoting him, or he's misread Stark. :nsm:

sylas

October 13th 2004, 06:13 PM

Saul, I do not pretend to lecture you, but Christians await a king. This king will open the book sealed with seven seals. He will be the first and only one able to do so.

He will, therefore, quote no authority as you require.

For interested readers, the "Freudian Bible Interpretation" names the one to open the seven seals, and the name is "David Judah Layb".

(link)
We know the two messiah concept is correct because we even know the name of the coming and expected messiah:

Rev. 5:5 And one of the twenty-four elders (the twelve sons of Jacob and twelve apostles to Christ), saith unto me (in my mind), Weep not: behold, the Lion of Judah, the root of David, (one whose name is called by this hearldry, David Judah Layb), hath prevailed to open the book (of Sacred Hebrew Scriptures), and to loose (the mystery of) the seven seals thereof.

Mr Layb is a contributor here at TheoWeb: he used to sign his own name to posts frequently. Sample posts here, here, here, here, and here.

There is a thread on this new messiah. See Is David Judah Layb the coming messiah?; David has not commented on it as yet.

Since this king scorns to give any justification or defence of his claim... and indeed persistently refuses to acknowledge his own writing!... the rest of us have no choice but to exercise our responsibility to discern the spirits.

I vote megalomaniacal crank.

Cheers -- Sylas

PS. Sorry to go off topic here. Some folks here at TheoWeb have been confused at what this Freudian Bible is all about. When it is introduced into discussion without justification or identification, as if it was the bible itself, then I consider it appropriate to provide some background information. Since David does not want to give any defence, I shall not pursue this any further in this thread.

Amazing Rando

October 13th 2004, 06:20 PM

For interested readers, the "Freudian Bible Interpretation" names the one to open the seven seals, and the name is "David Judah Layb".

Mr Layb is a contributor here at TheoWeb: he used to sign his own name to posts frequently. Sample posts here, here, here, here, and here.

There is a thread on this new messiah. See Is David Judah Layb the coming messiah?; David has not commented on it as yet.

Since this king scorns to give any justification or defence of his claim... and indeed persistently refuses to acknowledge his own writing!... the rest of us have no choice but to exercise our responsibility to discern the spirits.

I vote megalomaniacal crank.

Cheers -- Sylas

PS. Sorry to go off topic here. Some folks here at TheoWeb have been confused at what this Freudian Bible is all about. When it is introduced into discussion without justification or identification, as if it was the bible itself, then I consider it appropriate to provide some background information. Since David does not want to give any defence, I shall not pursue this any further in this thread.

Thank you sylas, that was very helpful! It helps explain why the heck I can never make any sense of his posts. :dizzy:

Anyway, back to Constantine and his legacy...

nomad

October 13th 2004, 07:47 PM

You betcha! But you gotta remember- church historians like Eusebius were dazzled by Constantine. Eusebius (who was a contemporary of Constantine) has nary a negative thing to say about him or his policies if I remember right. There were many who viewed the end of the persecution and the advent of the Christian state (i.e. "Christendom") as a fulfillment of prophecy and God's implicit will. Eusebius was one of them I believe.

i don't know as much about this period as i would like, but i don't ascribe any malice on the part of constantine. Whether Constantine's actions turned out to be good for the church or not, I think he probably meant well. So, I would not be surprised if those who knew him personally might be favorably inclined towards him.

That doesn't mean that i think it was necessarily a good thing for the church to be institutionalized, though.

Hmm. I'll need to ask my professor on that one- either I'm misquoting him, or he's misread Stark.

i'm thinking it might be either an earlier or later work. I don't have the book with me, but i will try to post a small section tonight if it's interesting. I am not sure if this one was presented as fact, more of a possibility scenario; as we all know, sociology isn't a Real Science (tm) but his Guesses On Human Nature certainly seemed reasonable, and he has measured growth rates in the Mormon church to back up the possibility that could happen that fast... so i'm wondering if maybe he found new historical data later on...

kofh2u

October 13th 2004, 09:21 PM

KOFHY:
Sorry to go off topic here, also.

But sal has apparently insisted that he and I edify the Christian community with a tid-bit of information which has probably never been discussed even over these 2000 years.

For sure, only my humility has held back and refrained from passing on to you the info that sal has insisted be set down in the middle of this interesting discussion.

He is absolutely right about the name of the messiah we await.

He is perhaps a little premature in his ready identification of a particular David Loeb. I, myself, know of more than one person with this name. It is a common Jewish name.

sylas:

For interested readers, the "Freudian Bible Interpretation" names the one to open the seven seals, and the name is "David Judah Layb".

KOFHY:
Now sal has done no homework on this, mind you.

So, I can understand how he could be totally right in his statement of fact,...
... while with ready attitude to scoff and scourge with words, heep ridicule and verbal abuse in his ignorance.

Its forgivable and understandable. Who, I remind all, has, in 2000 years realized that the Bible specifically calls our messiah by his Jewish name.
As best I can make out of it, it is a "Cyrus the Great" thingee.

Only a real Christian would even think to entertain the thought: The messiah is to be called, as he is identified in Rev 5:5,... David Judah Layb!

Well, here is the 21st century breaking news.

I am sure no more than 144,000 Christians from the present world Christian community of 2 billion will think positively about this.

Let the distractors begin their debates, but here is the fact you can all research as you see fit:

FACT:
The Book of Jewish Heraldry:

During the diaspora, Jews finding themselves uprooted and foreigners in Europe found various ways to take names that still retained their given Hebrew heraldry.

A way for inventing Jewish names called into play the skill in casuistry, which Jews had developed in study of the Talmud. In the Bible certain names are found in association with certain terms. For example, Judah is called gar aryeh, a lion.

For instance, a Jew called David Loeb, ("lion," in German), would therefore adopt as his Hebrew name Judah or Aryeh; this gave him as his full name David Judah Layb (David, the "lion" of Judah, in Yiddish) or David Aryeh Layb.

sylas:
...the one to open the seven seals, and the name is "David Judah Layb"...

KOFHY:
Yes, the Freudian Bible Tranlation and Interpretation says this in regard to Rev 5:5 (note the interpretation is separated by brackets for the convenience of the reader):

Rev 5:5... Weep not: behold, (David Judah Layb), the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book and to loose the seven seals thereof.

Isa. 45:4 For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have
even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

kofh2u

October 14th 2004, 10:17 PM

Kof, no offense but your posts rarely make any sense to me. :smile:

I take no offense.

Perhaps if you would ask me to explain what it is that has been said as it relates to your confusion.

Fof instance, you quote me above, you say it leaves you unable to make sense of my meaning, but your complaint is naked.

I have no idea what confuses you, because to me, it makes perfect sense.

You said:
..." how many of them actually practiced Christianity"...

I REPLIED:

THEY ALL DID FOR 1000 years!

Isn't it a fact?
Universal Catholicism reigned over the remains of Roman Empire from the first Pope, @600AD, until the Protestant break with Martin Luther @ 1600AD.

During that 1000 years no other religion was "practiced" and EVERYONE in Western Europe practiced the only Christianity available to them.

Now, you may belatedly protest that this singularity of our religion was not the real mccoy, but even today the twelve denominations available to us can not point unanimoudly to which of them is the "real thing," can they?

I also read Zechariah 13 as very complementary to my opinion on the history.

Mandatory religion ot not, it was Christianity according to our history books. And, Zechariah seems to suggest that the public supported this Chridtianity and that it was not imposed by some autocratic priesthood.

Zech. 13:3 And it shall come to pass (for 1000 years), that when any shall yet prophesy, then his (Catholic) father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.

rogero

October 16th 2004, 12:23 AM

For all those confused about Kofh2u's mysterious posts, click here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39912) for a thread discussing his "Freudian Bible."

Amazing Rando

October 16th 2004, 12:59 AM

I take no offense.

Perhaps if you would ask me to explain what it is that has been said as it relates to your confusion.

Fof instance, you quote me above, you say it leaves you unable to make sense of my meaning, but your complaint is naked.

I have no idea what confuses you, because to me, it makes perfect sense.

You said:
..." how many of them actually practiced Christianity"...

I REPLIED:

THEY ALL DID FOR 1000 years!

Isn't it a fact?
Universal Catholicism reigned over the remains of Roman Empire from the first Pope, @600AD, until the Protestant break with Martin Luther @ 1600AD.

You seem to have misunderstood me. What I was trying to ask was, yes, everybody was nominally Christian, but how many of them actually exhibited a living faith in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord?

During that 1000 years no other religion was "practiced" and EVERYONE in Western Europe practiced the only Christianity available to them.

Now, you may belatedly protest that this singularity of our religion was not the real mccoy, but even today the twelve denominations available to us can not point unanimoudly to which of them is the "real thing," can they?

I also read Zechariah 13 as very complementary to my opinion on the history.

Mandatory religion ot not, it was Christianity according to our history books.

Yes, this is true. But the main thrust of my question, was as I stated above- how many of them were just nominally Christian, and how many truly lived the Christian life?

And, Zechariah seems to suggest that the public supported this Chridtianity and that it was not imposed by some autocratic priesthood.

Zech. 13:3 And it shall come to pass (for 1000 years), that when any shall yet prophesy, then his (Catholic) father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.

I don't understand why you inserted "for 1000 years" and "Catholic" into your verse. They're not there in the original.

And I have no idea where you came up with the name of the Messiah you're expecting. You don't have to wait any longer- he's already come, and his name is Jesus of Nazareth.

kofh2u

October 16th 2004, 12:04 PM

Amazing Rando:
You seem to have misunderstood me. What I was trying to ask was, yes, everybody was nominally Christian, but how many of them actually exhibited a living faith in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord?

KOFHY:
How many today?
But, my point was that unlike today, with Big Satan loose in America, for instance, we can see who does not practice Christianity.

Further, though still in the dark on judgement calls among the present day confessing Christians, we are asked not to judge this in order to avoid like judgement upon ourself.

So, in Christian charity, refraining from raca against fellow Christians especially, your question in itself better answerednas "all of them" (as far as we know).

Amazing Rando:
Yes, this is true. But the main thrust of my question, was as I stated above- how many of them were just nominally Christian, and how many truly lived the Christian life?

KOFHY:
I woukd go with 1/10,000 according to Proverbs. I also think with 2 billion Christians today, (2billion/10,000), we can estimate around 144,000 true Christians now.

Amazing Rando:
I don't understand why you inserted "for 1000 years" and "Catholic" into your verse. They're not there in the original.

KOFHY:
The brackets cut to the chase as regards how IMO the verse is given meaning.
This is not so unique. Others on Tweb have do so in the name of explaining their perspective with the same economy.

Example:

barryrob:

Daniel 7:13-14 son of man [Jesus] happened to be coming;

KOFHY:
32AD, right?

barryrob:
...and to the Ancient of Days [Jehovah] he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One.

Amazing Rando:
And I have no idea where you came up with the name of the Messiah you're expecting.

KOFHY:
Messiah?
I never said that as far ad I can remember. The name implied in Rev 5:5 as regards he who opens the sealed book with sevenseals is what I have been offering references on. Here, I post the connection again between Rev 5:5 and the name...

The Book of Jewish Heraldry:

"For instance, a Jew called David Loeb, ("lion," in German), would therefore adopt as his Hebrew name Judah or Aryeh; this gave him as his full name David Judah Layb (David, the "lion" of Judah, in Yiddish) or David Aryeh Layb."

And, of course, the genetic roots back to King David imply that this King of the Jews will be from the vine of inheritance.

(See Rev 5:5...
Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book and to loose the seven seals thereof.)

Amazing Rando:
You don't have to wait any longer- he's already come, and his name is Jesus of Nazareth.

KOFHY:
He never left!
He is God, one with the Father.

But, Revelation 5:5 still proclaims a David Judah Layb will open the seven seals,... true?

Amazing Rando

October 16th 2004, 12:41 PM

But, Revelation 5:5 still proclaims a David Judah Layb will open the seven seals,... true?

See, I don't think so- no name is given in that verse. Lion is a metaphorical title, Judah is the tribe he is to come from, "Root of David" should just be taken to mean he's a descendant of David.

All three of those are best understood to refer to Jesus of Nazareth, who according to his genealogy of Matthew chapter 1, is a descendant of David, and a member of the tribe of Judah.

kofh2u

October 16th 2004, 01:13 PM

See, I don't think so- no name is given in that verse. Lion is a metaphorical title, Judah is the tribe he is to come from, "Root of David" should just be taken to mean he's a descendant of David.

All three of those are best understood to refer to Jesus of Nazareth, who according to his genealogy of Matthew chapter 1, is a descendant of David, and a member of the tribe of Judah.

Well, at least we agree on a number of points.

1) "Lion is a metaphorical title" taken directly from the Banner of Judah which was the lead tribe for a marching Nation of Israell in the desert of Sinia.

2) Agreed: "Judah is the tribe he is to come from."

3) Again, genetically, ""Root of David" should just be taken to mean he's a descendant of David"

4) We seem only to disagree on tge yiddish, " David Judah Layb = David, the "lion" of Judah, in Yiddish", Book of Jewish Hearldry.

barryrob

October 16th 2004, 07:28 PM

Amazing Rando

October 16th 2004, 11:20 PM

AS A SATANIC ENEMY OF CHRIST!

Barryrob

:lmbo: Well at least you've got your feelings worked out, Barry! :lol: Can you tell me some of the reasons you don't like Constantine? There's quite a few reasons I disapprove of him to, but surely he did a good thing in ending the persecutions, right? :huh:

barryrob

October 18th 2004, 08:08 PM

:lmbo: Well at least you've got your feelings worked out, Barry! :lol: Can you tell me some of the reasons you don't like Constantine? There's quite a few reasons I disapprove of him to, but surely he did a good thing in ending the persecutions, right? :huh:

An interesting comment on Constantine:-

"The subject of this book is politics and religion, the relationship between Constantine and Christianity. Sometimes happened in the reign of the emperor Constantine which transformed both politics and the religion in Europe, and anyone who seeks to understand modern Christianity must analyse this transformation and its consequences. The reign of Constantine is remembered as the victory of Christianity over the Roman Empire; the sub-title of this book indicates a more ominous assessment: 'the triumph of ideology'.

Through a careful analysis of the sources, Dr Kee argues that Constantine was not in fact a Christian and that the sign in which he conquered was not the cross of Christ but a political symbol of his own making. However, that is only the beginning of the story. For Constantine, religion was part of an imperial strategy, and second part of this book shows just what that strategy was. Here is the development which by using Christianity for his own ends, Constantine transformed it into something completely different.

Constantine, Dr Kee argues, along with his biographer and panegyrist Eusebius, succeeded in replacing the norms of Christ and the early church by the norms of imperial ideology. Why it has been previously thought that Constantine was a Christian is not because what he believed was Christian, but because what he believed came to be called Christian. And that represents 'the triumph of ideology'.-'Constantine Verses Christ' 'The Triumph of Ideology by Alister Kee (Senior Lecturer in Religious Studies in the University of Glasgow) Back outside cover

Constantine did nothing more that prostitute the Church to his own personal political ends and made HIS Christianity nothing more that a political tool for his own personal aggrandisement and to solidify his power base thus making Christianity a tool of the power mad Kings that followed him. His style:-

What was this so-called Christian emperor like as a ruler? Did he follow the scriptural commands to show Love to others to prove his Christianity, quite the persist is proven by history as the following quote is one example:-

"Constantine ruled as a despot, surrounded by Oriental pomp. He admitted bishops to his council, and his laws concerning the treatment of slaves and prisoners show the influence of Christian teachings. However, he put to death his oldest son, Crispus, and his second wife, Fausta. Before his death he divided the empire among his three remaining sons."-Excerpted from Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia.

To say in power he was a murder; some 'Christian' more like an Antichtist.

Barryrob

Constantine

March 6th 2005, 06:54 PM

Aw shucks, you guys made a thread just for me!

But seriously I chose the screen name of Constantine because, despite his mistakes, Constantine did a good thing for the Church. He stopped the persecution of Christians and he gave back all that was stolen from the Church, setting it up to over take the Empire itself.

Constantine wasn't perfect, and he did have his son and wife killed. But that needs some context.

His wife bore false witness against his son, framing him for some immorality that he did not commit. Thus he was executed. Then when Constantine found out that he killed his own son because his wife lied to him, he had her killed.

So it wasn't on a whim and atleast when he killed them it was out of a twisted sense of justice. Compare that to King David's murder for lust and he isn't that bad of a guy.

Constantine also set many laws down protecting children, women, and the poor.

Constantine was good and bad. But he was more good than bad and in the end did a great service to Christianity. BTW the two Greek letters of Chi and Rho in my avatar is the sign Constantine says he saw in the sky and placed on his shields. They are the letters representing Christ in the Greek alphabet.

You can find more info than you will want to know about Constantine at this link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm

Amazing Rando

March 9th 2005, 11:48 AM

Constantine

March 9th 2005, 01:22 PM

Anabaptists like myself perceive Constantine as only using the faith to cement his own political power- witness the delaying of baptism until his death bed, for example.

Being Catholic I of course percieve it differently.

Constantine delayed his baptism until his death bed because he believed that because Baptism removes all sin that he could do the nasty things emperors like him had to do and then have it all washed away with the Baptism at the end of his life. Or that is a possibility anyway.

Amazing Rando

March 9th 2005, 07:28 PM

Being Catholic I of course percieve it differently.

Constantine delayed his baptism until his death bed because he believed that because Baptism removes all sin that he could do the nasty things emperors like him had to do and then have it all washed away with the Baptism at the end of his life. Or that is a possibility anyway.

:yes: I can understand that. I don't mean to impugn on your namesake or anything. Certainly the Edict of Milan ending the persecutions was an awesome thing- and Eusebius certainly saw it as the culmination of God's action in history (I did a term paper on that last semester!), but I've got quite the list of grievances drawn up against Constantine. I could name a few if you were interested, or we could just let this old thread die. :teeth: