Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Theodosius removed and put in place Bishops, Hardly a humbling. That was on the part of the Bishops who simply said Yes Sir and let him set the standards. History. Oh, he did it in the East and the next Emperor in the West did the same thing. Lots of people look humble and do humble things in public for approval (Look at current politicians) , but in private ... Theodosius ruled the church.
I think this is hilarious. Over a thousand years before separation of church and state was even a dream gleam in someones eye and this guy is getting all self-righteous and feeling entitled over it. I always find this kind of temporal arrogance to be quite amusing.
for anyone interested "Wikipedia" has an interesting article on the "holy name of Jesus" which among other things states that the name "Jesus" (Yeshua/Joshua/Jehoshua) "was COMMON among the Israelites at the time of (His) birth" and means "Yahweh saves" (not inappropriate for one claiming to be or regarded as the Messiah of God, one might say). in fact one of the "wisdom" books of the Bible commonly known as "ecclesiasticus" or" the book of Sirach" is sometimes known as "the wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach"---aka "Joshua ben Sira".
further information on this topic can be found in Wikipedia under "names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament" and "Jesus, (name)" with various discussions of the derivations, etymology, and theological import of the name (and several other related articles if one wants to follow all the other "see also" suggestions on the several pages already mentioned.
FWIW, and depending on just how much (or how little) you want to trust the scholarship and integrity of Wikipedia the names "Zeus" and "Krishna" (both "Indo-Aryan"---Greek and Sanskrit---type names I believe) are NOT mentioned or referred to as having any close connections with the Semitic (Hebrew) language derived names associated with Jesus.
Theodosius removed and put in place Bishops, Hardly a humbling. That was on the part of the Bishops who simply said Yes Sir and let him set the standards. History. Oh, he did it in the East and the next Emperor in the West did the same thing. Lots of people look humble and do humble things in public for approval (Look at current politicians) , but in private ... Theodosius ruled the church.
do you deny that he did submit to the judgment of the Church and Bishop (St.) Ambrose of Milan by doing penance for the massacre in Thessalonica? since "Church" and "State" had much different relationships then than now since the Roman state was officially "Christian" the current idea of a "separation" of Church and State was somewhat of a moot point then. OTOH, the "Queen"---actually the Prime Minister of whatever party is in power -- STILL by law has the power to appoint and confirm all bishops to the Protestant Church of England). because of such a situation the "appointment" or "deposal" of bishops by an Emperor or King was probably not the big deal we think it is nowadays. Nevertheless,(unless you deny the event happened in the first place) he apparently did NOT depose or remove Ambrose after he publically defied him about his crimes . but there would indeed eventually be a long-term and intense struggle between the Christian Church and the "Christian" State over just how much control each could exert in society.
Last edited by georgeinbandonoregon; 08-03-2016 at 06:33 PM..
This response to Mike's "Put up or shut up" actually belongs over here:
RESPONSE:
As a matter of fact I had a link on the original post on the Constantine thread to back up my assertions. But in the spirit of goodwill I will provide more evidence:
You can actually see the name transforming right before your eyes, Mike if you'll just open them and your mind to the possibility it could be true. But as usual I know you will say, "No, I don't see a thing, I don't see a thing."
Reference source: Dictionary of Christian Lore and Legend, J.C.J. Melford, 1983, p. 126.
And more:
And here's what emerged If you're brave enough to read the entire article with references here it is:
Thrillobyte, that article is full of false claims. For instance, the author makes the following claim and then cites Eusebius' History of the Church as his source.
At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity, but had balloted down to a short list of five prospects: Caesar, Crishna [Krishna], Mithra, Horus, and Zeus [Roman Jupiter].
Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325.
Have you ever read Eusebius' History of the Church? Here it is, all ten books of it (it doesn't take long to read).
There's nothing even remotely saying what the author claims. Constantine is briefly mentioned at the bottom of Book VIII, and is mentioned in Books IX and X.
The claim is then made in that article that Christianity didn't exist until Constantine united his empire.
The Birth of Christianity
Shockingly, the birth of what is known today as CHRISTIANITY did not exist until Constantine united his empire under the name of his newly fabricated god “Jesus Christ.†Thus, Constantine presented the man-made god, Jesus Christ, to be worshiped the world over, and it was this fictitious name that was clandestinely applied to the very pages of Scripture replacing truth for error. Who said the Scriptures remain pure and undefiled? Should we not be wise to discern what else has been changed, manipulated, or removed? The discovery of this grand deception should cause all to study deeper into the mines of truth as for buried treasure that we may find lustrous gold— pure, precious, and undefiled.
That's another false claim. Have you ever read the Book of Acts? It was written in the first century A.D. and covers the first thirty years of the church. The followers of the way were first called Christians at Antioch.
Acts 11:26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Acts 26:28 Agrippa replied to Paul, "In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian."
1 Peter 4:16 but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.
Those are the three verses in the NT in which the word Christian is used to describe followers of Jesus Christ. And in 1 Peter 4:16, it is Peter himself who uses the word 'Christian.'
The word 'Christian' was used to describe followers of Jesus, followers of 'the way' which refers to Christianity within the first thirty years of the beginning of the church.
Now, whether we call Him by the name 'Jesus' or by the name 'Yahshua,' in what way did Constantine make the Person of Jesus an entirely new god for his empire?
Jesus is referred to as God in the New Testament. Manuscript P66 which is dated to c. A.D. 175, which is long before the time of Constantine contains a good portion of the Gospel of John, including John 1:1.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
And we all know who the Word refers to.
As New Testament textual scholar Dan Wallace states, ''If Constantine had invented the deity of Christ he would have been about 180 years old at the counsel of Nicea.''
Here. You can listen to Dr. Wallace yourself. Beginning at 38:26 minutes through 40:35 is where he talks about manuscript P66 and makes the statement about Constantine.
And by the way, at 38:26 minutes into the video he also mentions that Dan Brown, the author of the DaVinci Code also pushes this nonsense about Constantine inventing the deity of Jesus.
Constantine did not invent the deity of Christ at the counsel of Nicea. He did not create a new 'god.' He did not invent Christianity. What Constantine did at the counsel of Nicea was to address the issue of the Arian conflict and attempt to bring about a decision by the church on the nature of Jesus.
And it simply doesn't matter whether the Person of Christ is called 'Jesus' or 'Yeshua.'
Mike GOOD post (as always, LOL)!!!! to the best of my knowledge on the subject while Constantine may have officially convened the council of Nicaea, he apparently did so after being asked by representatives of the Church first and not on his own intiative. the council was presided by a Bishop (Hosius of Cordoba "in communion with the Pope" according to the Wikipedia article) and the decisions of that council on articles of faith were then made by the various Churchmen there---don't think he proposed or directed anything but instead provided a forum for the important discussions needed for the Church (NOT the emperor) to decide. (again) the Wikipedia article on "first council of Nicaea" has lots of info that may be of help.
Last edited by georgeinbandonoregon; 08-03-2016 at 09:05 PM..
The problem was that without a consensus agreement of the leaders of the church from all over the empire, people were inventing their own ideas and standards about what it meant to be Christian which basically chopped it down into something smaller without the full spectrum of Christian experience in all of Christendom. As Christianity grew in popularity this left people vulnerable to cultist con men and charlatans seeking to use this popularity for their own benefit.
The problem was that without a consensus agreement of the leaders of the church from all over the empire, people were inventing their own ideas and standards about what it meant to be Christian which basically chopped it down into something smaller without the full spectrum of Christian experience in all of Christendom. As Christianity grew in popularity this left people vulnerable to cultist con men and charlatans seeking to use this popularity for their own benefit.
and what the Council of Nicaea (and subsequent "ecumenical" Councils) in the years after did---was to address those "invented" standards and ideas on a whole range of doctrinal issues, reach a consensus (hopefully inspired by the Holy Spirit) on what was true/"orthodox" (like what is the true nature of Christ and His precise relationship to God for example) and put them forth so (hopefully) all Christians would cease the divisions, discussions, and flat out battles and become peacefully united in faith and practice. they were not always successful getting their decisions accepted (even with Imperial support sometimes) and with every council there were dissenters (some of which persist even today in various forms)---but that's what makes the history of Christianity and it's search individually and collectively for both truth and unity both interesting, inspiring, tragic, and frustrating and ultimately somehow hopeful that Christians still try to become "one" as Jesus prayed that his disciples would be .
an interesting book with an interesting sometimes skeptical "take" on the theological battles (figurative and literal) of the first few councils (Nicaea I and II, and Chalcedon) is "the Jesus wars" by Philip Jenkins.
Last edited by georgeinbandonoregon; 08-03-2016 at 11:02 PM..
Mike GOOD post (as always, LOL)!!!! to the best of my knowledge on the subject while Constantine may have officially convened the council of Nicaea, he apparently did so after being asked by representatives of the Church first and not on his own intiative. the council was presided by a Bishop (Hosius of Cordoba "in communion with the Pope" according to the Wikipedia article) and the decisions of that council on articles of faith were then made by the various Churchmen there---don't think he proposed or directed anything but instead provided a forum for the important discussions needed for the Church (NOT the emperor) to decide. (again) the Wikipedia article on "first council of Nicaea" has lots of info that may be of help.
Thanks George.
My Church History book, appropriately enough titled, 'Church History' by Everett Ferguson, states much the same thing in that the dispute between the Arians and those who opposed them ''came to the ears of Constantine, who sent his chief ecclesiastical advisor, Hosius of Cordova, to look into the situation.''
While Ferguson doesn't mention whether Hosius of Cordova made a recommendation to hold the council, he does say that the meeting was to have taken place at Ancyra to hear the recantation of Eusebius, but that Constantine saw the opportunity to combine the meeting with a celebration of his recent victory over Licinius and the approaching twentieth anniversary of his acclamation as emperor, and so he invited the bishops to come to the royal palace at Nicaea instead. And of course, the vast majority of the bishops did not agree with Arius. I find this to be an interesting subject to study.
and what the Council of Nicaea (and subsequent "ecumenical" Councils) in the years after did---was to address those "invented" standards and ideas on a whole range of doctrinal issues, reach a consensus (hopefully inspired by the Holy Spirit) on what was true/"orthodox" (like what is the true nature of Christ and His precise relationship to God for example) and put them forth so (hopefully) all Christians would cease the divisions, discussions, and flat out battles and become peacefully united in faith and practice. they were not always successful getting their decisions accepted (even with Imperial support sometimes) and with every council there were dissenters (some of which persist even today in various forms)---but that's what makes the history of Christianity and it's search individually and collectively for both truth and unity both interesting, inspiring, tragic, and frustrating and ultimately somehow hopeful that Christians still try to become "one" as Jesus prayed that his disciples would be .
While the first councils were about preserving the full breadth of the Christian experience, this gradually changed to doing the opposite of cutting Christianity down to something smaller. Soon different groups had "ecumenical" councils for their own organization only which means there was very little that was ecumenical about them. Thus I would say that the first council defines the largest and oldest consensus on what it means to be Christian and the later ones are more about the branches which Christianity broke up into.
While the first councils were about preserving the full breadth of the Christian experience, this gradually changed to doing the opposite of cutting Christianity down to something smaller. Soon different groups had "ecumenical" councils for their own organization only which means there was very little that was ecumenical about them. Thus I would say that the first council defines the largest and oldest consensus on what it means to be Christian and the later ones are more about the branches which Christianity broke up into.
perhaps. certainly the east/west schism of 1054, the isolation and subjugation of the eastern Church by the Turks and then the "reformation" in western Christendom fragmented and set at odds Christians all over. nevertheless, one could make the point that the various councils ("ecumenical" or otherwise) were still about finding, defining, protecting, showing forth the "truth"---at least as the various sides who held them believed. eastern Christianity did not have to deal much with a reformation, or an "enlightenment", or increasing nationalism and secularism in the way the western Church did (of course it had it's own concerns simply surviving) and so a case could be made that councils of whatever type were more necessary in the west than in the east?
nevertheless, I think most all Christians hope for a healing of the sad divisions that separate them from other Christians so that some day (by God's grace) all may be united in charity confessing "one Lord, one faith, one baptism..." (Ephesians 4:5).
in the peace of Christ.
Last edited by georgeinbandonoregon; 08-04-2016 at 09:50 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
