Pride spirit Devil, used Constantine to lower Christians

[stephen goswami]

Pride spirit Devil, used Emperor Constantine to lower Christians to his level.
Obviously they did not protest against his sacrilege of using Christ’s name upon his weapons. May be protests were there by real Christ followers but the compromising and security loving church hierarchy silenced them and erased records. From then on churches became the stooge of the kings and emperors. They maintained a Christian form of worship without the spirit of Christ.
To save souls Christians must be more aggressive than the world is in its process of soul-destruction. Their weapons are all spiritual against which the world can do nothing (Cor6; 4-10). Those yielding worldly weapons can’t get spiritual weapons.
There were soldiers who had the audacity to call themselves Christian in Constantine army and other armies. But that is not Christian occupation. Since Christ mixed with soldiers and all type of sinners we must not claim that he tolerated their sins.
But after Constantine‘s victory Christians and others wrongly thought that it was due to Christ slaying Constantine’s enemies. Why Christ allowed that? The root of this permissiveness of Christ is because he gives us freedom to go against him to learn by practical example that it is best to obey him.
Now humanity should know better that those, who take the sword are killed by the spirituality of the sword, after seeing two world wars and impending prospect of the third one.
Devil used Constantine to draw numerous worldly gain motivated unworthy people to Christian religion to pull it down,. Before that persecutions kept the best spiritual people in the church who were constantly purified and Holy Spirit fed. Persecution gone, impurity gained and spirit departed from the defiled. To run the unspiritual religious department, organizations sprang up in the model of the empire. Bishops became the lords.
The transition from spiritual to worldly form was facilitated by the O.T and revelation which projected a despot warlord God. Though Christ cancelled it, humanity’s nature being nearer O.T. they clung to it tenaciously. So Gandhi and Indian sages forbade reading O.T. Hell sending revelation God is worse than O.T. god. It is the root of Islam’s hell tormenting Allah.
Idol minded ‘Christians’ has made idols of scriptures instead of clinging to living talking Christ. But I have risen by Christ-following from these idols. So I have to deplore the laxity of our predecessors to make myself clean from it.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

what are you talking about? what records were erased? I'm sure you're aware of the ongoing written discussions we still have between the orthodox, the Arians and the semi-Arians during the fourth century.

[One Bad Pig]

Meh. Anyone who rejects the Old Testament isn't fit to be taken seriously.

[coolplace]

What a load of clap-trap!

[stephen goswami]

what are you talking about? what records were erased? I'm sure you're aware of the ongoing written discussions we still have between the orthodox, the Arians and the semi-Arians during the fourth century.

Really i am unaware of their protest against church's capitulation to Constantine though i am aware about doctrinal differences discussions.

[stephen goswami]

Meh. Anyone who rejects the Old Testament isn't fit to be taken seriously.

Call me whatever you will but I had to reject O.T., the root of Islam, to efectivly elevate them to Christ's New Commands of LOVE through these 40 years. My down to earth experience caused it. you cant judge it from your ivory towers.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Call me whatever you will but I had to reject O.T., the root of Islam, to efectivly elevate them to Christ's New Commands of LOVE through these 40 years. My down to earth experience caused it. you cant judge it from your ivory towers.

That's absurd. The Qu'ran's version of many OT stories is radically different. So, if you admit you know about doctrinal discussions between various factions in the fourth century, why are you complaining these were destroyed? (the discussions were written, yes? you claimed records were erased)

i.e. if you want to be taken seriously about the devil having some say in Constantine's life, one must also be truthful / consistent in other related areas.

[One Bad Pig]

Call me whatever you will but I had to reject O.T., the root of Islam, to efectivly elevate them to Christ's New Commands of LOVE through these 40 years. My down to earth experience caused it. you cant judge it from your ivory towers.

No, the Old Testament is the root of Christianity. Read Justin Martyr sometime. For that matter, read Hebrews. If you cut off the root of your religion, you're not likely to stay true to it.

The root of Islam is the pronouncements of an Arabian salt merchant who was validated by a heretical Christian monk.

[Crow]

Call me whatever you will but I had to reject O.T., the root of Islam, to efectivly elevate them to Christ's New Commands of LOVE through these 40 years. My down to earth experience caused it. you cant judge it from your ivory towers.

Excuse me?

And on what basis are you judging OBP to be on a ivory tower?

Because he doesn't come to this board and whine about how persecuted he is?

Because he doesn't agree with your view of the value of the OT?--a view not shared by Christ Himself.

Because he doesn't come to this board telling about how much he does for others? How much better he serves his Maker than the rest? That's not much of an accomplishment. Pharisees pulled that off quite nicely.

If you're going to start up with excremental exegesis or critiques of how deficient other Christians are, don't do it in Church History. That is not what this forum is for. Start your thread somewhere else.

[TyRockwell]

Call me whatever you will but I had to reject O.T., the root of Islam, to efectivly elevate them to Christ's New Commands of LOVE through these 40 years. My down to earth experience caused it. you cant judge it from your ivory towers.

I think what goswami is saying is that the legalism of the O.T. has infected the liberty we should have in Christ.

Many Christians are saved based upon the gospels and epistles only, and have fruitful lives.

Catholics won't like this, but...

When Constantine codified Christianity into Roman governance, he outlawed Christianity that was not subject to the state. He saw as a threat to his mix of state and religion the practices of Christians who believed that each believer had their own relationship with God, apart from submitting to priests and bishops.

Constantine called those Christian's beliefs "gnostic heresies." It was a way to remove the spiritual knowledge and miraculous powers of the Holy Spirit which makes believers free from religious legalism imposed by the state.

Judaisers had gained control in the church, and thus established a legalistic hierarchy, (the doctrine of the Nicolaitans), inserting the priesthood that was a prime factor in Constantine's consolidation of power.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Ty, are you really saying Arianism was Christian?

we don't actually know what the doctrine of the Nicolaitans was, as far as I know. unless you can show me where you're getting your idea from?

[TyRockwell]

Ty, are you really saying Arianism was Christian?

I'm not sure what you mean by Arianism.

we don't actually know what the doctrine of the Nicolaitans was, as far as I know. unless you can show me where you're getting your idea from?

But Nicolas was a proselyte to Judaism who became a Christian, and later a deacon, (Acts 6:5) but wanted a Judaic-like priesthood as a hierarchy. This led to deacons operating as a 'board of directors' in churches. (only a slight jest)

I can't cite a source at this time.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Arianism was the main heresy the church battled against in the 4th century, the focus of the Nicene creed (contra the view that Jesus was a created being.)

[TyRockwell]

we don't actually know what the doctrine of the Nicolaitans was, as far as I know. unless you can show me where you're getting your idea from?

I found this very quickly:

Unfortunately, it is in the context of syncretism that Nicolas is last mentioned in the post-biblical, historical record. Both Irenaeus (Against Heresies 1.26.3; 3.10.6) and Clement of Alexandria (Miscellanies, 3.4.25f) consider Nicolas of Antioch to be the founder of the Gnostic sect known as the Nicolaitans. Another early writer, Hippolytus, adds that Nicolas "departed from sound doctrine, and was in the habit of inculcating indifferency of both life and food" (Refutation of All Heresies, 7.24), meaning he taught the Gnostic belief of the irrelevance of physical things. This reinforces Clement's claim that Nicolas became an ascetic and that his followers later perverted his teachings to encompass idolatry and immorality (2.20.12), becoming what we know as Nicolaitans.

It is an excerpt from this:

http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuse...76/Nicolas.htm

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

thanks, but that doesn't really fit a first century dating of Revelation. Besides, Eusebius calls Nicolas a moral man on the same site. Why then would Christ hate his / his group's teaching?