Was the Pre-Nicene Church Orthodox?

[Alonso_Castillo]

You make some good observations. The early church was converted to Christ, but Christ really hadn't settled various questions people had - how He was begotten became a question. The eastern church came to mostly believe that men could follow Christ, and literally be like Him, although how this could be done was a question of debate. You are also right that there were various sects with various ideas on the subject - monarchism, etc. While eventually, a static trinitarian view began to take hold, it seemed a definite minority at first. The Hellenistic idea of an immutable God began to take hold. But Christ was anything but immutable. His righteousness didn't change, like God, but the scriptures are full of the idea that He became the Son by the oath of His Father, and was God's inheritor, would inherit the government, would be called the everlasting Father, etc. Orthodoxy totally lost these scriptural ideas and/or depresses them, and covers up the fact that the earliest church leaders didn't really teach a trinity - even Tertullian, the one who coined "trinity" said there was a time when the Son was not the Son. By the time of Constantine, Arius was probably the most outspoken of the prior camp, but I think the bishops were eager to have Christianity accepted by the empire, and were willing to try to reach some agreement in order to make this possible. Further, I believe Constantine was feared. After all, those who opposed him had a way of disappearing - including his own brother-in-law, nephew, and wife.... Constantine painted himself as the 13th apostle in the churches he built, but still put up statues of the Roman gods in his new city of Constantinople, and still had the Roman sun god, sol invictus, on his coinage, etc. He also accepted the office of the chief roman pagan priest, Pontifex Maximus, and delegated over the Nicene Council as such rather than as a baptized Christian - being unbaptized til near his death.
Further, the Nicene creed became forced on the people by Roman law under subsequent emperors, and had to be read in the churches - hence the custom that survives til today in the churches. I think reading scriptures would be more profitable.
Peace

¿Do you have references of all this You are saying?

¿Are those references reliable?

 

[Phantasman]

Part of the issue here is what constitutes a tribe. Sometimes several different names were given the same people by the Romans. Unfortunately, the Teutonic/Germanic tribes left us no or virtually no written history of themselves. Most of our history is given through Roman eyes, and they sometimes had multiple names for the same peoples due to geographic reasons, etc. My research indicated to me that the Angles and Jutes were Suebian tribes - that is essentially the same as the Seuvi, and from the same area of N. Germany. They in turn were a confederate tribe with the Alamanni or also the Alans. The Alani basically merged into the other tribes at the time of Attila the Hun. They all attacked the Roman kingdom as one in the area of S Gaul and Hispania. This group were and acted as one people or tribe and carved out an area in central and N. Spain and Portugal. Their descendants still live there.
The Rugii did settle a small area in the very N edge of the Roman empire, named Rugiland, but were defeated by the Heruli at the time of the fall of Rome, and therefore did not take part in the fall of the Roman Empire to fulfill the prophecy.
The other tribes you mentioned were, as you note, "native" tribes. That is, they were native peoples living under Roman rule who simply were able to re-establish their independence and were not conquerors. For instance the Moors had lived in the tip of Africa at the time they came under Roman rule, and simply reestablished their own kingdom when Rome began to crumble. However, the Vandals did defeat the Moors.

Are you speaking of the book of Revelations?

 

[RevelationTestament]

Originally Posted by NumberOneSon
Hi RT. I don’t believe there is any historical evidence showing that the Bishop of Rome assumed the Pontifex Maximus title in 538AD

I didn't say that. Indeed Leo I (c. 400 – 10 November 461) was the first to adopt the office/title of the Pontifex Maximus. This was concurrent with the fall of the last Roman emperor in Rome. Clearly, while the emperors held that office, it wouldn't have been available to the bishop of Rome.

nor is there any reason to believe he took possession of Rome in that year. A decade later the Ostrogoths took possession of Rome again in 549AD. In 538AD, Emperor Justinian was the one in possession of Rome, and that happened in 536AD when General Belisarius took the city.

538 is the year the Catholic priests in Rome gained a measure of political power over the Arians. Emperor Justinian ecclesiastically united his empire with Rome. Justinian "restored the Catholic succession (538-539) in the person of the Abbot Paul. Unfortunately, the new patriarch gave some grievous offence to the Emperor, whereupon he was deposed, and Zoilus succeeded him in 541."

The bishop of Rome was made a "spiritual duchy" to the official church of the empire, and from that point his political power and persuasion grew - probably not a point of history the church likes to emphasize.

Dan 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Are you speaking of the book of Revelations?

A combination of Daniel 2 & 7 as well as Revelation, yes. The little horn of Daniel takes over the kingdom of the beast.

Rev 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

 

[RevelationTestament]

¿Do you have references of all this You are saying?

¿Are those references reliable?

I do have references to what I say except where I am giving a conjecture or opinion, yes. If I say "I think" that means I am giving my opinion. And some of those references are Catholic sources.

If you list what facts or history you want a source for, I will do my best to oblige - you must understand, that there are many different sources for much of this history, and it may take a little bit to compile them.

 

[RevelationTestament]

What treaty are you referring to? Are you talking about the feodorati? The Alans were feodorati.

First. Let me thank you for your considered questions. I'm not a professional historian, and it took me some time to study all the varied history of the Roman Empire, and the church history, Holy Roman Empire, etc.
So I appreciate your bearing with me, as it has been some years since I looked at all this history in detail.

Yes, basically I am talking about the approx 41 yr (1 hour) time the Teutonic tribes served militarily with the Roman empire.
The Vandals and Suevi were the first to sign a treaty in 411 A.D., by which they became foederati of the empire. In 416 the Visigoths were hired to reclaim Spain from the Vandals and the Suevi. Most of the Goths were converted to the Arian faith of Christianity by Ulfilas (Wulfila) who translated the Bible into Gothic (Runic forms) for them, and it was called the Codex Argenteus.[6] By 450 A.D. the situation in the western empire had vastly changed. The pagan Franks were in the north (Gaul/France), the Arian Bergundians in the east (may have become Arian under Gundobad about 470), and the Arian Goths/Visigoths in southwest Europe or Spain. The Visigoths had been hired by Rome to boot the Vandals and Suevi out of Spain, although the Suevi held onto northwest Spain/Portugal for awhile. North Africa, excluding Egypt, had been conquered by the remaining Arian Vandals under their king, Gaiseric (Genseric). Britain was lost to the Saxons who apparently left Saxony in such great numbers that the Thuringii were able to move in. Much of Spain still belonged to the Suevi, who eventually were overcome by the Visigothic kingdom and intermarried with the Alemanni, a federation of Suevian tribes which had largely stayed in their Germanic homeland, although some invaded with the Franks.[7] The Visigoths eventually settled in the area of Segovia in Old Castile, which is now the center of Gothic Spain. According to the Roman historian, Gibbon, the Roman alliance grew until it included Rugii, Heruli, Thuringians, Franks, Bergundians, Gepidae, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, and Alani. The Alani were a non-Germanic race of Tartars who were either captured by the Huns, or fleeing the Huns, became Germanized. Some joined the Vandals after Alaric invaded Spain. Some of the Gothic tribes, especially the Ostrogoths and Gepidae, were temporarily also subjugated to Attila and his Huns.

When Attila, king of the Huns, attacked, the Roman alliance repelled him at Chalons in 451 A.D., in one of the greatest single battles of all time with perhaps more than a million men on the field of battle. Apparently some Teutons were serving both sides in the battle. Attila was apparently only turned away from sacking Rome by the convincing of the bishop of Rome, Leo I. This was not a Catholic miracle, but probably mainly the result of offering princess Honoria as a dowry.[8] Attila died within a year or two with his new wife in bed, and the Teutons in his camp defected under Adaric to join the free Teutons. This was the end of the alliance with the tribes, which had lasted about 41 years(1 hour, see 2 Peter 3:8).

After what? When historians refer to the “Fall of Rome”, they’re usually referring to the division of the Western Empire by the barbarian kingdoms and the loss of Roman culture that was punctuated when the germanic troops serving the empire deposed Emperor Romulus Augustus and installed Odoacer in his place. The previous division of Roman territory by the Alans, Moors, Britons, etc. led to Rome’s “fall”. I’m not sure what you mean by “they just came in after the fact”…the spoilation of the Roman Empire by the Teutonic tribes precipitated the fall of Rome.

I think you said it yourself. The spoilation of Rome by the Teutonic tribes is what precipitated the fall of Rome. The tribes already there didn't "share power one hour with the beast" and weren't any of the ten crowns who had "no kingdom as of yet" within the geographic area of the beast per Revelation.

None of the 5th or 6th Century Barbarian kingdoms comprise the present nations of Europe. At most, you could make an argument for France, but that’s about it.

The gothic culture is definitely still in Europe. Although their monarch governments didn't last, the people did, and are still there.

How in the world is modern Spain the equivalent of the Visigothic kingdom? You do realize the Visigothic kingdom was destroyed by the Moors in the 8th Century, and the Visigoths themselves disappeared from history after that time, right?

Yes and no. The Visigothic government disappeared, but the gothic people remained. For instance, although Spain has a mix of peoples, the Castille region definitely is populated by Teutonic peoples - many with fair hair or blue eyes, etc.

All of the barbarian kingdoms (besides France) have been plucked up by the roots and have disappeared, and I doubt you would be able to connect any modern day Frenchman back to the Frankish bloodline. The Visigoths, Sueves, Ostrogoths, Lombards, Burgundians…all of those kingdoms were destroyed a long time ago.

See above. Those peoples still exist, and many of them formed the Protestant churches of today. Nevertheless, they were not "plucked up" by the little horn. Their governments were just overrun in various periods of Europe's history. But the peoples themselves, for instance, WASPs(white anglo-saxon Protestants), are still around.

Really? Then provide examples of this pope encouraging Justinian to uproot the three tribes and providing information to facilitate those attacks. Which pope, by the way? I look forward to seeing your evidence.

I will find what I can. I admit the evidence is scant, and it is not on that order. It is just evidence of communication between them, which infers co-operation. But then you seem to know that.

BTW are you a historian?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Not meaningless. Unnecessary for spiritual edification. A physical action showing concern. Jesus walked a lot. I'm sure baby oil would feel good on tired feet.

So again - Go and Baptize had no spiritual edification but none the less somehow important to tell them to do that.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Only the spiritual acceptance, not the water.

I would ask if you think water is holy, but I think I know the answer.

Only if it has been properly blessed is a Supernatural Grace applied. So no, not all water is Holy. And in the same manner many things can be consecrated as Holy

Just as not all people are holy, but we can be Holy just as He said we can be - if a Supernatural Grace is applied. If it were not possible, then He would not have told us to "be that" which we cannot be.

 

[Phantasman]

So again - Go and Baptize had no spiritual edification but none the less somehow important to tell them to do that.

The water baptism was a physical sign you repented. The fire baptism (Chrism) is what the word Christ came from. And what the disciples did. It is the "understanding" from the Father. Water doesn't do anything spiritually.

Matthew 3
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

 

[Phantasman]

Only if it has been properly blessed is a Supernatural Grace applied. So no, not all water is Holy. And in the same manner many things can be consecrated as Holy

Just as not all people are holy, but we can be Holy just as He said we can be - if a Supernatural Grace is applied. If it were not possible, then He would not have told us to "be that" which we cannot be.

I see nowhere in the scriptures where inanimate things are "blessed". Blessed are things in favor towards the Fathers will. People are blessed. If you are referring to Jesus blessing bread as his body, and wine as his blood, the blessing was for his body and blood (Word, Holy Spirit), not the yeast and the grapes. They did nothing but sated the carnal flesh.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I see nowhere in the scriptures where inanimate things are "blessed". Blessed are things in favor towards the Fathers will. People are blessed. If you are referring to Jesus blessing bread as his body, and wine as his blood, the blessing was for his body and blood (Word, Holy Spirit), not the yeast and the grapes. They did nothing but sated the carnal flesh.

John 6 contains the longest continuous discourse recorded of our God and Savior. And He directly ties what He did in physically feeding a physical need (hunger) with PHYSICALLY feeding a spiritual need. Am not sure what one makes of that discourse if one says it means nothing physically.

 

[Phantasman]

John 6 contains the longest continuous discourse recorded of our God and Savior. And He directly ties what He did in physically feeding a physical need (hunger) with PHYSICALLY feeding a spiritual need. Am not sure what one makes of that discourse if one says it means nothing physically.

One may see it as Jesus feeding many for that reason. But the reason for the miracle is summed up in:

14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.

His "works" was for a spiritual edification. Not a physical one.

Had it been, he would have physically fed all poor while he was here.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

And that totally ignores the connection between what He said in that act and what He said in John 6, which was my point - but I see it is rather pointless to point that out.

 

[RevelationTestament]

One may see it as Jesus feeding many for that reason. But the reason for the miracle is summed up in:

14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.

His "works" was for a spiritual edification. Not a physical one.

Had it been, he would have physically fed all poor while he was here.

I am going to add to what both of you have said.
IMHO Jesus performed the miracle of the fishes for mainly spiritual reasons. The physical need of the people prompted a need for the miracle, so that He was not performing a miracle as a sign. The purpose of the miracle wasn't just to reveal Himself as our Lord. Notice He uses the miracle as a teaching moment for His apostles. So yes, if our basic needs aren't met, it is hard for us to focus on spiritual things, so we must see to not only our physical needs but our spiritual ones. But I believe the main reason for the miracle was as a teaching moment - for the spiritual edification of His apostles.

Here He squarely dispels a purely physical reason for the miracle:
" 26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed."

He quickly left the people exactly because they suddenly viewed Him as a means to fill their physical needs and would make Him king. Filling their physical needs was obviously not the reason He performed the miracle - but neither was it so He could declare Himself as Lord.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Again, this ignores the point of the connection - physically feeding to feed a physical need - like manna from Heaven - vs physically feeding to fill a SPIRITUAL need (to supernatural and eternal benefit) - and the obvious parallels between the two drawn in John 6.

 

[Phantasman]

And that totally ignores the connection between what He said in that act and what He said in John 6, which was my point - but I see it is rather pointless to point that out.

I guess when Jesus said "feed my sheep" the meaning should be with physical food.

 

[Phantasman]

Again, this ignores the point of the connection - physically feeding to feed a physical need - like manna from Heaven - vs physically feeding to fill a SPIRITUAL need (to supernatural and eternal benefit) - and the obvious parallels between the two drawn in John 6.

Physical feeding for a spiritual need?

If I need Christs wisdom, how does the physical bread (or fishes) give that to me? I'm not ignoring the point. I'm just not understanding your point.

According to Christ, spiritual bread is accomplished even easier if we "don't eat", (fasting) to clear the mind.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Physical feeding for a spiritual need?

If I need Christs wisdom, how does the physical bread (or fishes) give that to me? I'm not ignoring the point. I'm just not understanding your point.

According to Christ, spiritual bread is accomplished even easier if we "don't eat", (fasting) to clear the mind.

fishes would not, His Body would and that the point of John 6.

Fasting does clear the mind, but that is simply a biological fact - more blood flow available to the brain when the digestive system is inactive. Also why we should fast before eating this spiritual food - helps us reflect better on it.

 

[he-man]

Again, this ignores the point of the connection - physically feeding to feed a physical need - like manna from Heaven - vs physically feeding to fill a SPIRITUAL need (to supernatural and eternal benefit) - and the obvious parallels between the two drawn in John 6.

Rev 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in mid-heaven, Come, gather yourselves to the great supper of God,

Rev 19:18 that ye may eat flesh of kings, and flesh of chiliarchs, and flesh of strong men, and flesh of horses and of those that sit upon them, and flesh of all, both free and bond, and small and great.
Joh 6:58 This is the bread which has come down out of heaven. Not as the fathers ate and died: he that eats this bread shall live for ever.

Mat 6:18 so that thou mayest not appear fasting unto men, but to thy Father who is in secret; and thy Father who sees in secret shall render it to thee.
How many mock God by saying what they will give up during what they call lent? Fast means to deprive yourself of ALL food, not just whatever you choose to make yourselves hypocrites!

 

[Phantasman]

fishes would not, His Body would and that the point of John 6.

Fasting does clear the mind, but that is simply a biological fact - more blood flow available to the brain when the digestive system is inactive. Also why we should fast before eating this spiritual food - helps us reflect better on it.

I don't get where you're going. You had seemed to think the physical food was of some great importance.

"John 6 contains the longest continuous discourse recorded of our God and Savior. And He directly ties what He did in physically feeding a physical need (hunger) with PHYSICALLY (this word should be SPIRITUAL, IMO) feeding a spiritual need. Am not sure what one makes of that discourse if one says it means nothing physically."


26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.


And




32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.


The whole of John 6 is to understand that "bread" or "feeding" or "meat" that Christ spoke of is spiritual, and in no way physical.