.

[2Timothy2:15]

More biblical than modern DIY neo-Protestantism? Yes, says the Lutheran.



My guess is that it's that you don't know much if anything about Lutheranism or the Reformation.



False.

Roman Catholicism as a distinct ecclesiological entity under the primacy of the bishop of Rome arose due to the Great Schism of 1054, though differences between the Western and Eastern Churches began earlier.

The term "Roman" here refers to the city of Rome, not the Roman empire. It can refer to the Roman liturgical rite (as opposed to other traditional Western rites as well as Eastern rites), but most often speaks of the the role of the bishop of Rome within [Roman] Catholicism. Wheras the other four of the historic Patriarches are in the East (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem) Rome was the only historic Patriarchate in the West, and so Roman liturgical forms would come to dominate the Western Churches in the years following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the dwindling relations with the Eastern Churches with the political conflicts between barbarian powers in the West and the Roman Empire in the East, the crowning of the Frankish king Charles as "emperor of the Romans", and the Photian Schism.

These things coming to a breaking point in the 11th century with the Great Schism, and only intensifying because of further broken relations with the Eastern Churches over the Fourth Crusade and the Council of Florence; solidifying the breach between the Western and Eastern Churches: Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy respectively.

Constantine's role historically while not insignificant in the history of the Christian Church shouldn't be transformed into conspiracy theory and fantasy. Constantine's historic significance can be described as follows:

1) Constantine attributed his victory over Maximian to the Christian God, and so with Constantine gaining possession of the Roman Empire in the west without rival, he sought to give patronage to the Christian religion. This he did in several ways, first he worked with his co-emperor Licinius in the East to order the Edict of Toleration which formally ended the persecutions against Christians. This was no small matter as this was shortly after the greatest persecution against Christians ever brought upon them by the Roman Empire--under Diocletian--had happened, giving official toleration to the Christian religion was celebrated by Christians throughout the empire. Further Constantine gave favorable support to Christians, sponsoring the building of churches, giving Christian clergy the same abstention from military duty afforded to pagan priests under Roman law.

2) Constantine consolidated his power over the Empire by defeating his co-emperor Licinius in battle, thus becoming the sole reigning emperor. With this Constantine inherited the theological controversy then raging in the East, namely the one begun by Arius a former presbyter from Alexandria. To that end Constantine, in the year 325, invited bishops from all across the Roman empire to meet at the city of Nicea to address the issue and reach a conclusion. The council bishops composed a creed which was decidedly against Arius by stating that the Son's relationship with the Father was homoousios--the Son was of the same substance or being as the Father, "God of God", the council also pronounced several anathemas against Arianism. This, didn't, however resolve the issue and a number of councils met afterward favoring Arianism--and ultimately Constantine himself through the influence Arians such as Eusebius of Nicomedia and the semi-Arian Eusebius of Caesarea would become himself embroiled in the controversy, taking sides with the Arians against the Nicene party. Following Constantine's death his successors would continue to be embroiled in the controversy without resolution for another fifty years.

3) As an important patron of the Christian religion Constantine, having moved the imperial capital from Rome to Byzantium (renamed Constantinople) chose to make the new capital an example for the rest of the empire--to that end he supported the building of fifty churches and the copying of fifty Bibles to be put into those churches. By no means a small deal, it is likely that some of our earliest biblical codices such as Codex Sinaiticus exist because of the need for copies of the Scriptures--something that not only was legal now but in fact actively supported by the emperor.

And now we should turn to things which Constantine never did, but which I routinely hear attributed to him:

1) Constantine did not come up with the doctrine of the Trinity.
2) Constantine did not choose which books belonged in the Bible.
3) Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.
4) Constantine was not the first pope, nor did he invent the papacy, or elect the first pope.
5) Constantine was never head of the Christian church, or of any church.
6) Constantine did not change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.
7) Constantine did not paganize Christianity by inventing Easter and Christmas.
8) Constantine wasn't an alien from the planet Jargabble-X (okay, this one I've never heard anyone claim, but it has the same weight of credibility as the rest).

So no. Constantine did not come up with or start the Roman Catholic Church. That's not historical. And I'm not saying this because I'm some secret Vatican spy who infiltrated a local Lutheran church in order to fool the twelve people who attend, but because I've actually bothered to put some time and effort into reading a history book or two. And no, not "Roman Catholic history books", just regular history books. Want to know two of them? Try Church History in Plain Language by Dr. Bruce Shelley (an Evangelical) and The Story of Christianity by Justo L. Gonzales (a Methodist).

-CryptoLutheran

"My guess is that it's that you don't know much if anything about Lutheranism or the Reformation"

First off, I do not care about denominations. I care about what GOD has said, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. And now you prove your own hypocrisy by accusing me of false accusations of not knowing anything about the reformation....I think you know I know better but you are trying to goad into some carnal fleshly response.

Again you ramble about the RCC.....quack like a duck, walk like a duck...must be a duck. You are just confirming my suspicions about who is trolling this "christianforum".

One of the earliest entrances of sun worship into the church was through the spring pagan festival. The festival was celebrated in honor of Eostre (according to the eighth century cleric Bede). The festival often honored a goddess (such as Ishtar), and one of the more popular tales of this time concerned the god Attis, who was said to be resurrected each year during the month of March. According to one tradition, the festival of Attis began as "a day of blood on a black Friday and culminated after three days in a day of rejoicing over a resurrection."3 These spring festivals eventually became the Christian festival of Easter, complete with eggs and rabbits, both ancient pagan symbols of fertility.

At the Council of Nicaea, Constantine also persuaded those in attendance that only one Easter "Resurrection" day should be kept. "Our Savior has left us only one festal day … and he desired to establish only one Catholic Church," he argued. Then he added this significant statement. "You should consider … that we should have nothing in common with the Jews."4

Constantine felt that the Jews were "murderers of the Lord," and therefore desired to blot out any links between Christianity and Judaism. For this reason he persuaded the Christian church to drop the ancient biblical Sabbath, given at Creation, and replace it with Sunday worship. "The Church made a sacred day of Sunday … largely because it was the weekly festival of the sun; for it was a definite Christian policy to take over the pagan festivals endeared to the people by tradition, and to give them a Christian significance."5 Pope Sylvester I (314–335) finally made Christian Sundaykeeping official by decreeing that "the rest of the Sabbath should be transferred to the Lord’s day [Sunday]."6 Perhaps this was Constantine and Rome’s crowning conspiratorial victory—sneaking sun worship into Christianity by exchanging the true Christian day of worship for the day dedicated to ancient sun worship.

So Dan Brown was partly right after all. There has been a conspiracy. Constantine and Rome did change history. What Mr. Brown does not seem to realize is that the very things he has attacked are the only things that have kept truth alive. Believing in Jesus as Lord and in the Bible as His infallible Word are the only ways to safely combat error and ground ourselves in truth. Through the Dark Ages these facts were lost sight of, and paganism took over the church. Thank God that today we have ready access to the Bible, the ultimate resource, and to the throne of grace. God’s truth will always prove stronger than the world’s fiction.

http://www.marytruth.com/home/the-silent-conspiracy

It is you my friend who are ignorant to facts or are a willing participant in deception. Which is it? Are you looking for truth or do you have an agenda? Are you too knowledgeable to evaluate what you think is truth against the mirror of scripture?

2 Timothy 3:7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.

2 Corinthians 13:5-7King James Version (KJV)
5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

 

[2Timothy2:15]

What part of "I will build My church" is confusing here?

οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν

"I will build, found, establish, construct my church"



It seems to me that the problem is that you have arrived at false conclusions based on false premises because you haven't bothered to learn about the subject matter.

I mentioned two books on church history in my previous post, I highly recommend you do some homework here.

-CryptoLutheran

Again you ramble. Build his church is a spiritual thing. I am not arguing that. The topic on this thread is does the Christian have to attend "church". The very implication of that is that the church is a place....is the stronghold on your mind that intense?

"It seems to me that the problem is that you have arrived at false conclusions based on false premises because you haven't bothered to learn about the subject matter. "

Obviously I am studied on this subject, yet again you attempt to illicit some carnal response through petty insults....

 

[2Timothy2:15]

What part of "I will build My church" is confusing here?

οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν

"I will build, found, establish, construct my church"



It seems to me that the problem is that you have arrived at false conclusions based on false premises because you haven't bothered to learn about the subject matter.

I mentioned two books on church history in my previous post, I highly recommend you do some homework here.

-CryptoLutheran

By the way your Greek is not correct.

What is actually in scripture
οἰκοδομέω oikodomeō
strongs g3450
μου mou
strongs g1577

You put τὴν, which does not appear in scripture.
You put Original Word: ἐγώ
Part of Speech: Personal Pronoun
Transliteration: egó
Phonetic Spelling: (eg-o')
Short Definition: I
Definition: I, the first-person pronoun.

Wrong
I, me, my, of me
μου

 

[ViaCrucis]

"My guess is that it's that you don't know much if anything about Lutheranism or the Reformation"

First off, I do not care about denominations. I care about what GOD has said, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. And now you prove your own hypocrisy by accusing me of false accusations of not knowing anything about the reformation....I think you know I know better but you are trying to goad into some carnal fleshly response.

Nope. Just observing the fact that if you understood Lutheranism and what the Reformation was about then you wouldn't be talking as though I'm some secret Roman Catholic spy.

One of the earliest entrances of sun worship into the church was through the spring pagan festival. The festival was celebrated in honor of Eostre (according to the eighth century cleric Bede). The festival often honored a goddess (such as Ishtar), and one of the more popular tales of this time concerned the god Attis, who was said to be resurrected each year during the month of March. According to one tradition, the festival of Attis began as "a day of blood on a black Friday and culminated after three days in a day of rejoicing over a resurrection."3 These spring festivals eventually became the Christian festival of Easter, complete with eggs and rabbits, both ancient pagan symbols of fertility.

Complete and unadulterated nonsense.

First of all Eostre was an Anglo-Saxon goddess and Bede says absolutely nothing about her being related to the sun. In Bede's relevant work, De Temporum Ratione (The Reckoning of Time), Bede lists the names of the Anglo-Saxon months, the month which corresponds with Roman April was named Eosturmonath, named after the goddess Eostre. Quite literally that is the only thing Bede tells us about this Anglo-Saxon goddess.

"Nor is it irrelevant if we take the trouble to translate the names of the
other months. The months of Giuli derive their name from the day
when the Sun turns back [and begins] to increase, because one of [these
months] precedes [this day] and the other follows. Solmonath can be
called ‘‘month of cakes’’, which they offered to their gods in that month.
Hrethmonath is named for their goddess Hretha, to whom they sacri-
ficed at this time. Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated
‘‘Paschal month’’, and which was once called after a goddess of theirs
named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month.
Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of
the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance. Thrimilchi
was so called because in that month the cattle were milked three
times a day; such, at one time, was the fertility of Britain or Germany,
from whence the English nation came to Britain. Litha means ‘‘gentle’’
or ‘‘navigable’’, because in both these months the calm breezes are
gentle, ..." - Bede, De Temporum Ratione, tr. Faith Wallis, Liverpool University Press, p. 54

This is the only thing we know about this Anglo-Saxon goddess.

At the Council of Nicaea, Constantine also persuaded those in attendance that only one Easter "Resurrection" day should be kept. "Our Savior has left us only one festal day … and he desired to establish only one Catholic Church," he argued. Then he added this significant statement. "You should consider … that we should have nothing in common with the Jews."4

Quoting an article from a website without crediting it is plagiarism by the way. Though I did manage to find your source here.

With that I was able to find the sources listed, in this case the source comes from a letter composed by the emperor as found in Eusebius' Vita, the contents of the entire letter as contained in Eusebius' work can be found in book III, chapters 17-20, rather than quoting it in its entirety, I'll simply link to it here.

Of note, however, is that Constantine is not the one responsible for the calculation of the Paschal Feast, that was the work of the Council--Constantine refers back to the decision of the council and defends their decision,

"At this meeting the question concerning the most holy day of Easter was discussed, and it was resolved by the united judgment of all present, that this feast ought to be kept by all and in every place on one and the same day. For what can be more becoming or honorable to us than that this feast from which we date our hopes of immortality, should be observed unfailingly by all alike, according to one ascertained order and arrangement?" - ch. 18 of the aforementioned work

By "this meeting" the emperor refers to the Council of Nicea where the Paschal Feast was discussed, and how the Council determined to standardize the Church's liturgical calculation of the Feast. This is well known, as the Council itself set forth a letter to the Church of Alexandria and the rest of the Egyptian churches expressing how it determined that the method of calculating the Paschal Feast in use there was to be the standard throughout the rest of the churches (the letter from the Council fathers to the Church in Alexandria here).

Relevant material:

"We further proclaim to you the good news of the agreement concerning the holy Easter, that this particular also has through your prayers been rightly settled; so that all our brethren in the East who formerly followed the custom of the Jews are henceforth to celebrate the said most sacred feast of Easter at the same time with the Romans and yourselves and all those who have observed Easter from the beginning."

By "the custom of the Jews" refers to Quartodecimanism, some of the churches in the East observed a tradition that the Paschal Feast ought to fall on the 14th of Nisan, corresponding with the Jewish Passover. A position well known in antiquity and which became a point of contention between Sts. Anicetus of Rome and Polycarp of Smyrna who, in their meeting, could not convince the other that their Paschal traditions were right--and so they agreed to disagree.

"And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him." - Irenaeus quoted in Eusebius' Church History, Book V.24

I need to go run an errand, but I'll happily address the rest later.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Nope. Just observing the fact that if you understood Lutheranism and what the Reformation was about then you wouldn't be talking as though I'm some secret Roman Catholic spy.



Complete and unadulterated nonsense.

First of all Eostre was an Anglo-Saxon goddess and Bede says absolutely nothing about her being related to the sun. In Bede's relevant work, De Temporum Ratione (The Reckoning of Time), Bede lists the names of the Anglo-Saxon months, the month which corresponds with Roman April was named Eosturmonath, named after the goddess Eostre. Quite literally that is the only thing Bede tells us about this Anglo-Saxon goddess.

"Nor is it irrelevant if we take the trouble to translate the names of the
other months. The months of Giuli derive their name from the day
when the Sun turns back [and begins] to increase, because one of [these
months] precedes [this day] and the other follows. Solmonath can be
called ‘‘month of cakes’’, which they offered to their gods in that month.
Hrethmonath is named for their goddess Hretha, to whom they sacri-
ficed at this time. Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated
‘‘Paschal month’’, and which was once called after a goddess of theirs
named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month.
Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of
the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance. Thrimilchi
was so called because in that month the cattle were milked three
times a day; such, at one time, was the fertility of Britain or Germany,
from whence the English nation came to Britain. Litha means ‘‘gentle’’
or ‘‘navigable’’, because in both these months the calm breezes are
gentle, ..." - Bede, De Temporum Ratione, tr. Faith Wallis, Liverpool University Press, p. 54

This is the only thing we know about this Anglo-Saxon goddess.



Quoting an article from a website without crediting it is plagiarism by the way. Though I did manage to find your source here.

With that I was able to find the sources listed, in this case the source comes from a letter composed by the emperor as found in Eusebius' Vita, the contents of the entire letter as contained in Eusebius' work can be found in book III, chapters 17-20, rather than quoting it in its entirety, I'll simply link to it here.

Of note, however, is that Constantine is not the one responsible for the calculation of the Paschal Feast, that was the work of the Council--Constantine refers back to the decision of the council and defends their decision,

"At this meeting the question concerning the most holy day of Easter was discussed, and it was resolved by the united judgment of all present, that this feast ought to be kept by all and in every place on one and the same day. For what can be more becoming or honorable to us than that this feast from which we date our hopes of immortality, should be observed unfailingly by all alike, according to one ascertained order and arrangement?" - ch. 18 of the aforementioned work

By "this meeting" the emperor refers to the Council of Nicea where the Paschal Feast was discussed, and how the Council determined to standardize the Church's liturgical calculation of the Feast. This is well known, as the Council itself set forth a letter to the Church of Alexandria and the rest of the Egyptian churches expressing how it determined that the method of calculating the Paschal Feast in use there was to be the standard throughout the rest of the churches (the letter from the Council fathers to the Church in Alexandria here).

Relevant material:

"We further proclaim to you the good news of the agreement concerning the holy Easter, that this particular also has through your prayers been rightly settled; so that all our brethren in the East who formerly followed the custom of the Jews are henceforth to celebrate the said most sacred feast of Easter at the same time with the Romans and yourselves and all those who have observed Easter from the beginning."

By "the custom of the Jews" refers to Quartodecimanism, some of the churches in the East observed a tradition that the Paschal Feast ought to fall on the 14th of Nisan, corresponding with the Jewish Passover. A position well known in antiquity and which became a point of contention between Sts. Anicetus of Rome and Polycarp of Smyrna who, in their meeting, could not convince the other that their Paschal traditions were right--and so they agreed to disagree.

"And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him." - Irenaeus quoted in Eusebius' Church History, Book V.24

I need to go run an errand, but I'll happily address the rest later.

-CryptoLutheran

Just curious, are you a pastor? What is your qualifications?

 

[ViaCrucis]

By the way your Greek is not correct.

What is actually in scripture
οἰκοδομέω oikodomeō
strongs g3450
μου mou
strongs g1577

You put τὴν, which does not appear in scripture.
You put Original Word: ἐγώ
Part of Speech: Personal Pronoun
Transliteration: egó
Phonetic Spelling: (eg-o')
Short Definition: I
Definition: I, the first-person pronoun.

Wrong
I, me, my, of me
μου

The TR has
οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν

The GNT Morph has
οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν

Westcott-Hort has
οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν

What critical text are you using? All that I can find have the same.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Just curious, are you a pastor?

Nope.

What is your qualifications?

None. High school drop out with a GED who happens to be a huge history nerd.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

"Constantine felt that the Jews were "murderers of the Lord," and therefore desired to blot out any links between Christianity and Judaism. For this reason he persuaded the Christian church to drop the ancient biblical Sabbath, given at Creation, and replace it with Sunday worship. "The Church made a sacred day of Sunday … largely because it was the weekly festival of the sun; for it was a definite Christian policy to take over the pagan festivals endeared to the people by tradition, and to give them a Christian significance."5 Pope Sylvester I (314–335) finally made Christian Sundaykeeping official by decreeing that "the rest of the Sabbath should be transferred to the Lord’s day [Sunday]."6 Perhaps this was Constantine and Rome’s crowning conspiratorial victory—sneaking sun worship into Christianity by exchanging the true Christian day of worship for the day dedicated to ancient sun worship.

The copied article refers to a work by Arthur Weigall, "The Paganism in Our Christianity" published in 1928. A work which ties virtually every aspect of the Christian religion to Paganism. As such it has proven a favorite for pushers of the ridiculous Zeitgeist film. Let's consider another of Weigall's claims,

"There is evidence, it is suggested, of the cult of a sun-god called Joshua or Jesus in primitive times, whose, twelve disciples were the twelve signs of the Zodiac and just as Jesus Christ with His twelve apostles came to Jerusalem to eat the Paschal lamb, so Joshua crossed the Jordan with his twelve helpers and offered that jamb on the other side, and so the Greek Jason -an identical name- with his twelve retainers went in search of the golden fleece of the lamb. It is pointed out that there are no contemporary or nearly contemporary references to Jesus in history, with the exception of those in the genuine Epistles of Paul and Peter, where, however, His life on earth is hardly mentioned at all, nor anything which really establishes Him as a historic personage" - The Paganism in Our Christianity, p. 25

Weigall was a product of a time where Christ Mythicism was largely accepted in the academic world, and for which many academics attempted to make connections with every aspect of the Christian religious tradition to an older Pagan one. Christianity and the New Testament weren't the only things attached to pagan origins, the Old Testament and Jewish beliefs and practices were all attached to some older pagan origin.

Works such as Weigall's have continued to be put into use by modern Christ Mythicists, but have also been selectively read by heterodox groups as well in order to find potential fodder against mainstream Christianity. Jehovah's Witnesses use Weigall's work by selectively quoting him to dismiss the idea of the Trinity as pagan. Sabbatarians selectively quote him, as your copied article has done, in regard to Sunday.

Another work is Robert L. Odom's Sabbath and Sunday in Early Christianity, or rather the medieval Rabanus Maurus quoted in said work. A little digging I was able to find a scan of the relevant pages from Odom's work (PDF link here), with the relevant material provided as follows:

"Rabanus Maurus (776-856), abbot of Fulda and later archbishop of Mainz, Germany, was rated one of the greatest theologians of his age and probably the most cultured man of his time, and exceptionally learned in patristics. Besides, he was a zealous defender of the papacy and its teachings. In one of his works, he says,

'Pope Sylvester instructed the clergy to keep the feriae. And indeed, from an old custom he called the first day [of the week] the "Lord's [day]," on which the light was made in the beginning and also the resurrection of Christ is celebrated.'*

Rabanus Maurus does not mean to say that Sylvester was the first man who referred to the days of the week as feriae or who first started the observance of Sunday among Christians. He means that, according to the testimony of Roman Catholic writers, Sylvester confirmed those practices and made them official insofar as his church was concerned. Hence Rabanus says elsewhere in his writings:

'Pope Sylvester first among the Romans ordered that the names of the days [of the week], which they previously called after the name of their gods, that is, [the day] of the Sun, [the day] of the Moon, [the day] of Mars, [the day] of Mercury, [the day] of Jupiter, [the day] of Venus, [the day] of Saturn, they should be called feriae thereafter, that is, the first feria, the second feria, the third feria, the fourth feria, the fifth feria, the sixth feria, because that in the beginning of Genesis it is written that God said concerning each day: on the first, "Let there be light"; on the second, "Let there be a firmament"; ... But he [Sylvester] ordered [them] to call the Sabbath by the ancient term of the law, [to call] the first feria the "Lord's day," because on it the Lord rose [from the dead]. Moreover, the same pope decreed that the rest of the Sabbath should be transferred rather to the Lord's day [Sunday], in order that on that day we should rest from worldly works for the praise of God.'**" - Sabbath and Sunday in Early Christianity, Robert L. Odom, pp. 247-248

(* Rabanus Maurus, Liber de Computo
** ibid.)

This is problematic if one is trying to argue that Christians decided to change the Christian day of worship from the Sabbath to Sunday.

For one, that isn't what the work is saying, and in fact says quite otherwise.

For another, St. Sylvester episcopal edict was only relevant for the Church in Rome, there was no papacy yet and so nobody else in the Church had to do something simply because Sylvester thought it should be so.

And finally, the record is clear that Christians had been worshiping on the first day of the week for hundreds of years before Sylvester was around, for example in St. Justin's First Apology, written around 150 AD, he's rather clear that Christians gather on the first day of the week, on the day of the sun (First Apology, ch. 67 -- link here)

So Dan Brown was partly right after all. There has been a conspiracy. Constantine and Rome did change history. What Mr. Brown does not seem to realize is that the very things he has attacked are the only things that have kept truth alive. Believing in Jesus as Lord and in the Bible as His infallible Word are the only ways to safely combat error and ground ourselves in truth. Through the Dark Ages these facts were lost sight of, and paganism took over the church. Thank God that today we have ready access to the Bible, the ultimate resource, and to the throne of grace. God’s truth will always prove stronger than the world’s fiction.

With that we have a rather implicit acceptance of a work of ahistorical fiction by someone who plagiarized an earlier work of fiction as somehow of valid historical merit. There is sufficient material elsewhere to address the fundamental historical problems of Brown's novel, including his plagiarism of the Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[2Timothy2:15]

The copied article refers to a work by Arthur Weigall, "The Paganism in Our Christianity" published in 1928. A work which ties virtually every aspect of the Christian religion to Paganism. As such it has proven a favorite for pushers of the ridiculous Zeitgeist film. Let's consider another of Weigall's claims,

"There is evidence, it is suggested, of the cult of a sun-god called Joshua or Jesus in primitive times, whose, twelve disciples were the twelve signs of the Zodiac and just as Jesus Christ with His twelve apostles came to Jerusalem to eat the Paschal lamb, so Joshua crossed the Jordan with his twelve helpers and offered that jamb on the other side, and so the Greek Jason -an identical name- with his twelve retainers went in search of the golden fleece of the lamb. It is pointed out that there are no contemporary or nearly contemporary references to Jesus in history, with the exception of those in the genuine Epistles of Paul and Peter, where, however, His life on earth is hardly mentioned at all, nor anything which really establishes Him as a historic personage" - The Paganism in Our Christianity, p. 25

Weigall was a product of a time where Christ Mythicism was largely accepted in the academic world, and for which many academics attempted to make connections with every aspect of the Christian religious tradition to an older Pagan one. Christianity and the New Testament weren't the only things attached to pagan origins, the Old Testament and Jewish beliefs and practices were all attached to some older pagan origin.

Works such as Weigall's have continued to be put into use by modern Christ Mythicists, but have also been selectively read by heterodox groups as well in order to find potential fodder against mainstream Christianity. Jehovah's Witnesses use Weigall's work by selectively quoting him to dismiss the idea of the Trinity as pagan. Sabbatarians selectively quote him, as your copied article has done, in regard to Sunday.

Another work is Robert L. Odom's Sabbath and Sunday in Early Christianity, or rather the medieval Rabanus Maurus quoted in said work. A little digging I was able to find a scan of the relevant pages from Odom's work (PDF link here), with the relevant material provided as follows:

"Rabanus Maurus (776-856), abbot of Fulda and later archbishop of Mainz, Germany, was rated one of the greatest theologians of his age and probably the most cultured man of his time, and exceptionally learned in patristics. Besides, he was a zealous defender of the papacy and its teachings. In one of his works, he says,

'Pope Sylvester instructed the clergy to keep the feriae. And indeed, from an old custom he called the first day [of the week] the "Lord's [day]," on which the light was made in the beginning and also the resurrection of Christ is celebrated.'*

Rabanus Maurus does not mean to say that Sylvester was the first man who referred to the days of the week as feriae or who first started the observance of Sunday among Christians. He means that, according to the testimony of Roman Catholic writers, Sylvester confirmed those practices and made them official insofar as his church was concerned. Hence Rabanus says elsewhere in his writings:

'Pope Sylvester first among the Romans ordered that the names of the days [of the week], which they previously called after the name of their gods, that is, [the day] of the Sun, [the day] of the Moon, [the day] of Mars, [the day] of Mercury, [the day] of Jupiter, [the day] of Venus, [the day] of Saturn, they should be called feriae thereafter, that is, the first feria, the second feria, the third feria, the fourth feria, the fifth feria, the sixth feria, because that in the beginning of Genesis it is written that God said concerning each day: on the first, "Let there be light"; on the second, "Let there be a firmament"; ... But he [Sylvester] ordered [them] to call the Sabbath by the ancient term of the law, [to call] the first feria the "Lord's day," because on it the Lord rose [from the dead]. Moreover, the same pope decreed that the rest of the Sabbath should be transferred rather to the Lord's day [Sunday], in order that on that day we should rest from worldly works for the praise of God.'**" - Sabbath and Sunday in Early Christianity, Robert L. Odom, pp. 247-248

(* Rabanus Maurus, Liber de Computo
** ibid.)

This is problematic if one is trying to argue that Christians decided to change the Christian day of worship from the Sabbath to Sunday.

For one, that isn't what the work is saying, and in fact says quite otherwise.

For another, St. Sylvester episcopal edict was only relevant for the Church in Rome, there was no papacy yet and so nobody else in the Church had to do something simply because Sylvester thought it should be so.

And finally, the record is clear that Christians had been worshiping on the first day of the week for hundreds of years before Sylvester was around, for example in St. Justin's First Apology, written around 150 AD, he's rather clear that Christians gather on the first day of the week, on the day of the sun (First Apology, ch. 67 -- link here)



With that we have a rather implicit acceptance of a work of ahistorical fiction by someone who plagiarized an earlier work of fiction as somehow of valid historical merit. There is sufficient material elsewhere to address the fundamental historical problems of Brown's novel, including his plagiarism of the Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

-CryptoLutheran

"This is problematic if one is trying to argue that Christians decided to change the Christian day of worship from the Sabbath to Sunday."

You are assuming they are Christians....you are a history nerd but do not know that history of the RCC was fabricated by the RCC. Being a history nerd you should know that those who write history tend to change it to fit their agenda. Simply, put the bible up against what you see, it doesn't match.

 

[ViaCrucis]

"This is problematic if one is trying to argue that Christians decided to change the Christian day of worship from the Sabbath to Sunday."

You are assuming they are Christians....you are a history nerd but do not know that history of the RCC was fabricated by the RCC. Being a history nerd you should know that those who write history tend to change it to fit their agenda. Simply, put the bible up against what you see, it doesn't match.

I figured it was probably a matter of time before your argument became "you can't trust any of the history, the mean ol Catholic Church made it all up!"

In which case any historical analysis is probably meaningless. You don't have anything to back up your claims, and anything provided to counter act your claims will be met with wholesale dismissal because it doesn't conform with what you want to believe.

You've decided that the earth is flat and it can never be round.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[2Timothy2:15]

I figured it was probably a matter of time before your argument became "you can't trust any of the history, the mean ol Catholic Church made it all up!"

In which case any historical analysis is probably meaningless. You don't have anything to back up your claims, and anything provided to counter act your claims will be met with wholesale dismissal because it doesn't conform with what you want to believe.

You've decided that the earth is flat and it can never be round.

-CryptoLutheran

No I stuck to bible, you derailed it with your institutionalized nonsense. There is a mound of evidence about the false history of the RCC. The RCC is found nowhere in the bible, neither is the pope. But this is your effort to derail the entire discussion anyhow. You give yourself far too much credit....

I already backed up my claims, with the bible, apparently you do not read. If you do not see the RCC for what it is you should look a bit closer and start with the bible. Never the less I digress, your definition of the "church" is not biblical and that was the topic at hand.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No I stuck to bible, you derailed it with your institutionalized nonsense. There is a mound of evidence about the false history of the RCC. The RCC is found nowhere in the bible, neither is the pope. But this is your effort to derail the entire discussion anyhow. You give yourself far too much credit....

I already backed up my claims, with the bible, apparently you do not read. If you do not see the RCC for what it is you should look a bit closer and start with the bible. Never the less I digress, your definition of the "church" is not biblical and that was the topic at hand.

I seem to recall you were taking people to task for not providing a proper "dictionary" definition nor a proper "biblical" definition of the church. That's when I interjected by offering both.

You responded that my response lacked Scripture, so I provided Scripture to back up what I was saying.

You then stated that it looked "Catholic" and I gave an explanation as to why you might think so.

Then when you made false and non-historical claims, I responded to those as well; I've even either quoted or linked to or otherwise provided means of checking that my responses are factually and historically accurate.

To which you then dismissed them claiming that the Roman Catholic Church has written all the history, seemingly to mean that the historical record can't be trusted.

And now you are accusing me of derailing the thread for having responded to your queries, objections, and claims; and now are returning back to the "it's not biblical" argument. To which I would have to again go back to my initial post directed to you in this thread.

I suspect we'll find ourselves aimless going back in circles. If you need to believe I'm blind or evil, or some sort of Vatican ninja, well, that's fine by me. But should you ever decide you want to have an honest conversation on these topics, I'll be more than willing to participate again.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jimmyjimmy]

No I stuck to bible, you derailed it with your institutionalized nonsense. There is a mound of evidence about the false history of the RCC. The RCC is found nowhere in the bible, neither is the pope. But this is your effort to derail the entire discussion anyhow. You give yourself far too much credit....

I already backed up my claims, with the bible, apparently you do not read. If you do not see the RCC for what it is you should look a bit closer and start with the bible. Never the less I digress, your definition of the "church" is not biblical and that was the topic at hand.

Your definition of church is both unbiblical and irrational. On top of that, you've made absolutely no argument for your church-less position. Furthermore, you've and been obnoxious and rude to people who do have biblically-based arguments for what church is, its necessity, and every Christian's obligation to be members of.

If anyone is derailing this thread - "you are the man".

 

[2Timothy2:15]

I seem to recall you were taking people to task for not providing a proper "dictionary" definition nor a proper "biblical" definition of the church. That's when I interjected by offering both.

You responded that my response lacked Scripture, so I provided Scripture to back up what I was saying.

You then stated that it looked "Catholic" and I gave an explanation as to why you might think so.

Then when you made false and non-historical claims, I responded to those as well; I've even either quoted or linked to or otherwise provided means of checking that my responses are factually and historically accurate.

To which you then dismissed them claiming that the Roman Catholic Church has written all the history, seemingly to mean that the historical record can't be trusted.

And now you are accusing me of derailing the thread for having responded to your queries, objections, and claims; and now are returning back to the "it's not biblical" argument. To which I would have to again go back to my initial post directed to you in this thread.

I suspect we'll find ourselves aimless going back in circles. If you need to believe I'm blind or evil, or some sort of Vatican ninja, well, that's fine by me. But should you ever decide you want to have an honest conversation on these topics, I'll be more than willing to participate again.

-CryptoLutheran

Everything you are saying is incorrect. Clearly the church is the spiritual body of Christ. That was my point all along. You interjected the RCC, to which needed to be addressed. I think you should study a bit more and ask the Lord to open your eyes. The church is not a place you go to, it is something you are part of, that is if you are indeed saved and Jesus is truly your Lord and Savior. You attempted to bully me with some pseudo intellectual stance.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Your definition of church is both unbiblical and irrational. On top of that, you've made absolutely no argument for your church-less position. Furthermore, you've and been obnoxious and rude to people who do have biblically-based arguments for what church is, its necessity, and every Christian's obligation to be members of.

If anyone is derailing this thread - "you are the man".

No my definition of church is biblical and I even started with the basic definition of the word. You came here with an agenda, that is clear. Anyhow the fact you think I am talking about a church less Christianity just indicates everything I said either one, you did not read or two, it went over your head because I was never making the case for a church less Christianity. It is the indoctrinated view you hold that has a stronghold over your mind which is why you assumed that. Either way that is not my fault.

Lastly, I was never rude, I was not going to be bullied which is what you and the other guy were trying to do. Funny, they accused Jesus of being the same sort of things eh, the religious Pharisees of his day had the same sort of false accusations.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Your definition of church is both unbiblical and irrational. On top of that, you've made absolutely no argument for your church-less position. Furthermore, you've and been obnoxious and rude to people who do have biblically-based arguments for what church is, its necessity, and every Christian's obligation to be members of.

If anyone is derailing this thread - "you are the man".

Two questions for you:

One, you believe tithing is for the Christian today?

Two, are you a Pastor or leader in any capacity in any "church"?

 

[Extraneous]

I figured it was probably a matter of time before your argument became "you can't trust any of the history, the mean ol Catholic Church made it all up!"

In which case any historical analysis is probably meaningless. You don't have anything to back up your claims, and anything provided to counter act your claims will be met with wholesale dismissal because it doesn't conform with what you want to believe.

You've decided that the earth is flat and it can never be round.

-CryptoLutheran

Historical analysis is useless. All history is tainted by propaganda. History is good story telling, and good for entertainment, and i like history, but i surely don't trust any of it with my soul. The scriptures alone i trust. In God i trust, not America, or historians.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Historical analysis is useless. All history is tainted by propaganda. History is good story telling, and good for entertainment, and i like history, but i surely don't trust any of it with my soul. The scriptures alone i trust. In God i trust, not America, or historians.

amen

 

[Extraneous]

Your definition of church is both unbiblical and irrational. On top of that, you've made absolutely no argument for your church-less position. Furthermore, you've and been obnoxious and rude to people who do have biblically-based arguments for what church is, its necessity, and every Christian's obligation to be members of.

If anyone is derailing this thread - "you are the man".

The Church are those who are called out of darkness into the light. Christ said he would never leave nor forsake us.You seem to put Gods Church in a box, gift wrapped and addressed to you and those who belong to your denominations. However, Christ resides not in buildings made by human hands, but in the hearts and minds of anyone who puts trust in him, and built by God Himself. If you wanted to build a Church then why would you tear down people instead of building them up in knowledge of Christ? Preach the Word, not denominations. Perhaps its you who are using an unbiblical definition?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Historical analysis is useless.

Then feel free to throw out your Bible.

-CryptoLutheran