- Aug 21, 2003
- 28,582
- 6,065
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
You are the one who has not done the research. You keep demonstrating all you do is search for anything that seems to support your assumptions/presuppositions. Were any of the stuff you quoted from direct eye witnesses? No, they weren't I quoted the only eye witness Eusebius and he said Constantine designed his standard after the cross. It had the Chi Rho but the standard was in the form of a cross.Thanks for posting the picture. It supports my argument. You have obviously done very little research on this subject.
Here are a few more sources for you:
Dr. Bullinger, in the Companion Bible, appx. 162, states,
"crosses were used as symbols of the Babylonian Sun-god (Tammuz)... It should be stated that Constantine was a Sun-god worshipper ... The evidence is thus complete, that Yahusha was put to death upon an upright stake, and not on two pieces of timber placed at any angle."
Rev. Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, pp. 197-205,
frankly calls the cross "this Pagan symbol ... the Tau, the sign of the cross, the indisputable sign of Tammuz, the false Messiah ... the mystic Tau of the Cladeans (Babylonians) and Egyptians - the true original form of the letter T the initial of the name of Tammuz ... the Babylonian cross was the recognized emblem of Tammuz."
In the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition, vol. 14, p. 273,
"In the Egyption churches the cross was a pagan symbol of life borrowed by the pagan-Christians and interpreted in the pagan manner." Jacob Grimm, in his Deutsche Mythologie, says that the Teutonic (Germanic) tribes had their idol Thor, symbolized by a hammer, while the Roman Pagans had their crux (cross). It was thus somewhat easier for the Teutons to accept the Roman Cross.
Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1
The smooth generalisation, which so many historians are content to repeat, that Constantine "embraced the Christian religion" and subsequently granted "official toleration", is "contrary to historical fact" and should be erased from our literature forever (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. iii, p. 299, passim).
I don't want to take this thread down a bunny hole on this point. I could go on posting evidence all day long. If you would like to discuss this further; I'll accept your invitation to a thread on the subject. This subject is least of my concerns.
No you can't post evidence all you can post is stuff that supports your assumptions/presuppositions as you have been doing.
Here is a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia.What you "quoted" is not there. How do you explain that amigo?
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Constantine the Great
And for your information Alexander Hislop had been exposed as a fraud. A former follower of his tried to research the sources he quoted and found that they either did not exist or did not say what Hislop claimed they did.
The Two Babylons - Christian Research Institute
I have a quick question for you do you know what historical evidence is? Something written at or near the times in question by a direct eye witness. Anything written by a scholar 2000 years later without historical evidence is worthless.
Upvote
0