Is Catholicism the Oldest Christian Faith?

[Truth7t7]

The bit I was objecting to is the expenses paid on the invitation, I've never seen such a claim and it doesn't seem likely. Inviting all the bishops shows Constantine had exactly the intent he stated with the council, which is to get a unified statement on the Arian controversy. The number that showed up is because of the danger and expense of travelling, but the diversity from which they came speaks to the universal voice of the church in the matter.

Though the more interesting question you left unanswered.

Constantine certainly reshaped the church and is one marker along the way to the modern state, but the boogeyman that critics make him is often well beyond the influence he actually did have.

All Expenses Were Paid, Only 318 out of 1800 Bishops showed up, the true lineage of Christianity wanted nothing to do with Pagan Constatine and his new (State Church)

Wikipedia: First Council Of Nicaea

Constantine had invited all 1,800 bishops of the Christian church within the Roman Empire (about 1,000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted more than 250,[22] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[11] and Eustathius of Antioch estimated "about 270"[23] (all three were present at the Council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,[24] and Evagrius,[25] Hilary of Poitiers,[26] Jerome,[27] Dionysius Exiguus,[28] and Rufinus[29] recorded 318. This number 318 is preserved in the liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox Church[30] and the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria.[citation needed]
Delegates came from every region of the Roman Empire, including Britain, and from the Christian churches extant within the Sassanid Empire.[31] The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the Council, as well as lodging.

 

[Benadam]

Just for kicks, can you show a single source prior to Leo's Sermon 3 that makes that argument? Seems rather strange that not a single Christian mentioned the papacy or Peter's succession for 440 years if it is such an integral doctrine so you shouldn't have any trouble if it's true.

Also,☺ these things weren't proclaimed as doctrine until there was a reason. Peter didn't claim the place that Jesus set Him. He didn't know either. Over time though as events occurred, like the first councils. When the Bishops gathered, like at Jerusalem. The charism given by Our Father in heaven, to Peter is revealed. When the Bishop of Rome spoke on the matter it was settled and they could all go home. Even after noticing the work of the Holy Spirit in the Roman See there is no urge among them to declare it to the world.

We teach what we see yet you reject it....lol

 

[Bbrdrd]

All Expenses Were Paid, Only 318 out of 1800 Bishops showed up, the true lineage of Christianity wanted nothing to do with Pagan Constatine and his new (State Church)

Wikipedia: First Council Of Nicaea

Constantine had invited all 1,800 bishops of the Christian church within the Roman Empire (about 1,000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted more than 250,[22] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[11] and Eustathius of Antioch estimated "about 270"[23] (all three were present at the Council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,[24] and Evagrius,[25] Hilary of Poitiers,[26] Jerome,[27] Dionysius Exiguus,[28] and Rufinus[29] recorded 318. This number 318 is preserved in the liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox Church[30] and the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria.[citation needed]
Delegates came from every region of the Roman Empire, including Britain, and from the Christian churches extant within the Sassanid Empire.[31] The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the Council, as well as lodging.

"Free travel" is not all expenses paid, it means they were allowed to move back and forth without asking permission. When in Nicea they were given lodging. Constantine went to considerable lengths to make sure as many bishops were represented, and a lot of episcopal sees organized geographically so that they were represented even if their bishop wasn't present. That you're trying to make getting the opinion of the whole church into something nefarious is a little sad, especially when the question and response of Nicea is what it is. What exactly is your objection to settling the Arian controversy through such a council?

 

[garee]

and yet the letter it self is teaching so is that Paul contradicting himself or humans misunderstanding.

Obviusly we all need teaching or we would not have Epistles written to us to explain how to live.

But each to their own beleif. Enough scriptures to back every doctrine ever created.
But i tend to belevie that Paul and the other Apostles knew we needed teaching until we are no longer here

Especially when Paul writes in Eph 4:11 onwards about the need for Apostles. Prophets, Evangelists and Pastors , Teachers , UNTIL we are made Perfect in One ness. We not there yet so we still need teaching

Apostle sent one with no other meaning added.

Yes we are not there. All die not receiving the propmised new incorruptible body. We walk by faith (Christ's) the unseen until we do arrive.

Yes they knew it just as us who do abide in Him not seen. The one propmised teacher, comforter and guide who also does bring to our memory the things he has taught us. He is the hard drive. He whose name is Jealous will not share the teaching authority with men seen.

Those who say a man must teach us.They are the ones doing the seducing that we are warned of. It is the MO of antichrists'.

One is our teacher in heaven, one is our Holy Father. We are to call no man either word Teacher, Rabbi or Father on earth

Apostles are sent with the teaching of Christ .They can preach and plant the incorruptible born again seed and water it with the gospel but any growth must come to Him who we are to seek the approval of, as lovingly commanded (.Not just a good suggestion)

2 Timothy 2:15-16 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Also,☺ these things weren't proclaimed as doctrine until there was a reason. Peter didn't claim the place that Jesus set Him. He didn't know either. Over time though as events occurred, like the first councils. When the Bishops gathered, like at Jerusalem. The charism given by Our Father in heaven, to Peter is revealed. When the Bishop of Rome spoke on the matter it was settled and they could all go home. Even after noticing the work of the Holy Spirit in the Roman See there is no urge among them to declare it to the world.

That's some pretty fancy post-hoc if I've ever seen it.

Much simpler that no such decree existed but through a combination of ecumenicacy and good-old-fashioned authority seeking Roman bishops took advantage and expanded their power.

Which one of the 3 "popes" in the 1500s was the real pope and which were the "antipopes"? How did Peter's ascendancy continue unbroken during the "babylonian captivity"? The pontiff theory simply falls apart under any historical scrutiny.

 

[Truth7t7]

"Free travel" is not all expenses paid, it means they were allowed to move back and forth without asking permission. When in Nicea they were given lodging. Constantine went to considerable lengths to make sure as many bishops were represented, and a lot of episcopal sees organized geographically so that they were represented even if their bishop wasn't present. That you're trying to make getting the opinion of the whole church into something nefarious is a little sad, especially when the question and response of Nicea is what it is. What exactly is your objection to settling the Arian controversy through such a council?

Constatine Was The Ruler Of The Church Identified Below, The 1482 out of 1800 Bishop's That Didn't Attend the Niceaean Council, they wanted nothing to do with that described below.

The State Dosent Run, Participate In, Or Enforce Church Affairs.

Constatine Donated The Land That Is Now Vatican City And Built St. Peters Basilica, He Is The (Father) Of Roman Catholicism The (State Church)

Wikipedia: Constatine The Great
The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the emperor to have great influence and authority in the early Christian councils, most notably the dispute over Arianism. Constantine disliked the risks to societal stability that religious disputes and controversies brought with them, preferring to establish an orthodoxy.[229] His influence over the Church councils was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity; the Church's role was to determine proper worship, doctrines, and dogma.[230]

 

[Bbrdrd]

Constatine Was The Ruler Of The Church Identified Below, The 1482/1800 Bishop's That Didn't Attend wanted nothing to do with that described below.

The State Dosent Run, Participate In, Or Enforce Church Affairs.

Constatine Donated The Land That Is Now Vatican City And Built St. Peters Basilica, He Is The (Father) Of Roman Catholicism The (State Church)

Wikipedia: Constatine The Great
The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the emperor to have great influence and authority in the early Christian councils, most notably the dispute over Arianism. Constantine disliked the risks to societal stability that religious disputes and controversies brought with them, preferring to establish an orthodoxy.[229] His influence over the Church councils was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity; the Church's role was to determine proper worship, doctrines, and dogma.[230]

Do you have their objections, or are you speculating purely on their lack of attendance?

Constantine certainly added some negative threads to the church, especially creating a conflict between the church's role in temporal matters and how temporal powers influence the church. But failing to address Arianism would have been far more damaging than establishing an orthodox postion on the topic of the deity of Christ. The removal of the orthodoxy has allowed heretical groups like the JWs and Mormons to flourish and proliferate. Even among "evangelicals" the deity of Christ is being undermined because such views are not being properly addressed. So should the church have simply vanished, or wrestle with issues of what it means to be the official religion of the state and how to operate in such a world?

 

[Truth7t7]

"Free travel" is not all expenses paid, it means they were allowed to move back and forth without asking permission. When in Nicea they were given lodging. Constantine went to considerable lengths to make sure as many bishops were represented, and a lot of episcopal sees organized geographically so that they were represented even if their bishop wasn't present. That you're trying to make getting the opinion of the whole church into something nefarious is a little sad, especially when the question and response of Nicea is what it is. What exactly is your objection to settling the Arian controversy through such a council?

Wikipedia: Lateran Palace

Constantinian era

Main article: Constantine I and the bishops of Rome
The Domus Laterani came into the possession of the emperor when Constantine I married his second wife Fausta, sister of Maxentius. Around 312, Constantine had razed the imperial horse-guards barracks adjoining the palace, which was known as Domus Faustae or "House of Fausta" by this time; the equites singulares Augusti had supported Maxentius against Constantine. He commissioned the construction of the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano on the site.[2] The Domus was eventually given to the Bishop of Rome by Constantine. The actual date of the gift is unknown but scholars believe it had to have been during the pontificate of Pope Miltiades, in time to host a synod of bishops in 313 that was convened to challenge the Donatists.[1]

 

[garee]

Do you deny that Peter is the only Apostle that had their name changed by God? No reason for that? What about Peter receiving Divine Revelation straight from the Father. There are many other ways the Gospels singles out Peter. That was for no reason? Wasted moves?

All prophets receive Divine Revelation straight from the Father .Its how we do today as it is written in the law and the prophets. Peter is merely one of the multitude .

Yes throughout the new testament he represents the serial denier . Again and again . He could not keep his eyes of the goal of faith .

On one occasion right after being reinstated of his blasphemy against the Son of Man, Jesus . He had a jealous eye on the Apostle John and decided to go to town with a oral tradition of man, a law of the fathers, and spoke a lie . Saying the apostle John would never die.. . as usual glorying in the flesh seen.Yet Jesus did not say that .

Then Jesus informs us if every time he performed the work of dispelling the lies of the laws of the fathers and they were written down .We would need a bigger earth to hold the volumes . One warning is enough to those who dare not add their own tradition oral traditions. Peter should of minded his own business and walked faith the eternal not seen

John 21: 1 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Catholisicim teaches the opposite uses that portion to justify the oral tradition of the fathers as commandments of men

 

[Bbrdrd]

Wikipedia: Lateran Palace

Constantinian era

Main article: Constantine I and the bishops of Rome
The Domus Laterani came into the possession of the emperor when Constantine I married his second wife Fausta, sister of Maxentius. Around 312, Constantine had razed the imperial horse-guards barracks adjoining the palace, which was known as Domus Faustae or "House of Fausta" by this time; the equites singulares Augusti had supported Maxentius against Constantine. He commissioned the construction of the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano on the site.[2] The Domus was eventually given to the Bishop of Rome by Constantine. The actual date of the gift is unknown but scholars believe it had to have been during the pontificate of Pope Miltiades, in time to host a synod of bishops in 313 that was convened to challenge the Donatists.[1]

Ok, so I've been silent on this up until now but I can't let this go longer. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Other than that, your quote of it seems to be unrelated to anything I've said so I'm not sure your point.

 

[Truth7t7]

Ok, so I've been silent on this up until now but I can't let this go longer. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Other than that, your quote of it seems to be unrelated to anything I've said so I'm not sure your point.

Constatine is the founder and father of what is now Vatican City (Roman Catholicism), he donated the land, built the Basilicas, and policed and enforced religious activities.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Constatine is the founder and father of what is now Vatican City (Roman Catholicism), he donated the land, built the Basilicas, and policed and enforced religious activities.

While the land donation is certainly true, Constantine's church was vastly different from the Roman Catholic church especially as Constantine viewed himself as the head of the church not the bishop of Rome. The successor to Constantine's church was the Greek church under Justinian and the other emperors which devolved into the modern Eastern rites.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Constatine is the founder and father of what is now Vatican City (Roman Catholicism), he donated the land, built the Basilicas, and policed and enforced religious activities.

If you're looking to lay blame for the Roman church there are a couple people that could fit the bill. Leo I and Gregory I were both instrumental in defining the office of the pope as prime, Gregory VI and VII established papal supremacy even over councils (based on some fraudulent documents), and Innocent IX is the one who came up with papal infallibility. Realistically, though, the error is one that's been compounded over time in a series of small growths rather than a single villain.

 

[Truth7t7]

Do you have their objections, or are you speculating purely on their lack of attendance?

Constantine certainly added some negative threads to the church, especially creating a conflict between the church's role in temporal matters and how temporal powers influence the church. But failing to address Arianism would have been far more damaging than establishing an orthodox postion on the topic of the deity of Christ. The removal of the orthodoxy has allowed heretical groups like the JWs and Mormons to flourish and proliferate. Even among "evangelicals" the deity of Christ is being undermined because such views are not being properly addressed. So should the church have simply vanished, or wrestle with issues of what it means to be the official religion of the state and how to operate in such a world?

Once again the State has no part in religious affairs, doctrine, orthodoxy, enforcement etc

Your views are distant from biblical teaching that gives direct instruction on church order, and it dosent include a (Roman Emperor)

Constatine Is the father and foundation.of what Roman Catholicism is today, he donated the land Vatican City, built the Basilicas, and participated in biblical matters as a pagan (Roman Emperor)

Render unto Caesar what is Caesars, and to God what is God's

Ya get it

 

[Truth7t7]

While the land donation is certainly true, Constantine's church was vastly different from the Roman Catholic church especially as Constantine viewed himself as the head of the church not the bishop of Rome. The successor to Constantine's church was the Greek church under Justinian and the other emperors which devolved into the modern Eastern rites.

Constatine Donated the land Vatican City, built the Basilicas that is now the seat of Roman Catholicism's and the Pope

Constatine ran the Roman Catholic Church That He Built And Established, he gave the pope his seat and crown, he enforced with State powers religious laws in this church, who you kidding.

I'm out, it's all yours

 

[Bbrdrd]

Once again the State has no part in religious affairs, doctrine, orthodoxy, enforcement etc

Your views are distant from biblical teaching that gives direct instruction on church order, and it dosent include a (Roman Emperor)

Constatine Is the father and foundation.of what Roman Catholicism is today, he donated the land Vatican City, built the Basilicas, and participated in biblical matters as a pagan (Roman Emperor)

Render unto Caesar what is Caesars, and to God what is God's

Ya get it

My interest is not in defending Constantine or his positions, but accuracy of information.

Discussions of state/church relations on both the corporate and the individual level are another animal and a thicket I'd rather simply follow God's leading for my own life than try to establish doctrine.

Church history is what it is and understanding how we got from the nascent church to the modern situation is much better examined than judged. The decisions made and the tensions that created the situations are things of the past which can't be changed and the only way to learn from it is by presenting it accurately.

 

[Truth7t7]

Constatine Donated the land Vatican City, built the Basilicas that is now the seat of Roman Catholicism's and the Pope

Constatine ran the Roman Catholic Church That He Built And Established, he gave the pope his seat and crown, he enforced with State powers religious laws in this church, who you kidding.

I'm glad to see you have been educated in the past couple hours, you had no clue of the basic knowledge of Constatine involvent in land donations and building.

I'm out, it's all yours

 

[garee]

An example would be Catholic soteriology. The catechisms actually fall within Biblical revelation as far as wholly attributing the effective portion of salvation to Christ and the cross. Yet the way they do this can lead to misconceptions among both clergy and laity alike towards the economy of salvation. Instead of recognizing the essential truth of salvation by grace through faith, many clergy teach that it is the sacraments that are efficacious for salvation in themselves. This is not in accord with central catechisms, but it is within orthodox Catholic teachings as it gets presented without causing an uproar.

The catechisms actually makes the grace of Christ without effect. They teach that this entity they call Mary as queen of heaven alone received the "fulness of Christ's grace". While every other person has received a "unknow remnant" that is never filled They wonder not coming to a conclusion as the end of faith it causes them to wonder, wonder wonder or surfer suffer, suffer, as a lying wonder. . God sends the strong delusion in a hope they will trust the power of the gospel. . the fulness of Christ's faith.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

In that way we are instructed there must be denominations or sects call heresies among us. But those that deny Christ saving us from the moment we believe they can be judged. Those shown as in a dark place they need the light of the gospel. . the fulness of grace.

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies (sects) among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

2 Peter 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Constatine Donated the land Vatican City, built the Basilicas that is now the seat of Roman Catholicism's and the Pope

Constatine ran the Roman Catholic Church That He Built And Established, he gave the pope his seat and crown, he enforced with State powers religious laws in this church, who you kidding.

I'm out, it's all yours

Just a marker on the way. The earliest glimmer of what has become of the Roman seat came when Paul of Samasotta wouldn't return the church grounds in antioch after being deposed and the official decree that came down from the lawsuit was that the group in communion with Rome was the proper heir to the church property.

There is far more to the RCC than a single founder, to lay it on Constantine is giving him too much credit.

 

[Truth7t7]

Just a marker on the way. The earliest glimmer of what has become of the Roman seat came when Paul of Samasotta wouldn't return the church grounds in antioch after being deposed and the official decree that came down from the lawsuit was that the group in communion with Rome was the proper heir to the church property.

There is far more to the RCC than a single founder, to lay it on Constantine is giving him too much credit.

You came to the conversation not having a clue that Constatine Donated the land for Vatican City, and built the Basilicas, and your now the authority, (Big Smiles)