What is the one true Church?

[Taken]

He is BOTH, Einstein . . .

Wasn’t asking you, Goofy.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
FAQ: From whence did baby Jesus obtain a Y chromosome for his male
gender?

REPLY: In the beginning, Eve's entire body-- inside and out, front to back,
top to bottom, and side to side --was constructed with material taken from
Adam's body. (Gen 2:21-22) So if God could construct an entire woman
from material taken from a man's body, then it shouldn't be too difficult for
Him to construct a teensy little chromosome from a woman's body.

Seeing as how Eve is the mother of all women (Gen 3:20 & Acts 17:26) then
any material taken from Mary's body to construct a Y chromosome for baby
Jesus would be owed to Eve's body; and by construction: Adam's body.

The beauty of it is that a Y chromosome constructed with material taken
from Mary's body wouldn't be an alien substance created ex nihilo; but
would be 100% natural, and easily traceable all the way back to Eve, and
from thence to the very dust that was used to construct Adam's body.

I sincerely believe that what I suggest herein actually took place when the
power of the Most High overshadowed Jesus' mom per Luke 1:35; and if my
suggestion is true, then little Jesus was thoroughly a Jew-- biologically
descended not only from David and Abraham as all other Jews, but also from
the Man that God created in the book of Genesis.

● Heb 2:17 . . He had to be made like his brethren in every way
_

 

[Grailhunter]

They were first called "Christians" in Antioch- according to Acts 11:25.
A full chapter earlier, however, we see the convesion of the pagab Gentile Cornelius and his household.

True about Antioch
And was Cornelius a one time event due to circumstances or is this a hint to Christ's ministry in the background....I am on the side of He was running a secret ministry.....Some Christians do not like secrets.....But Christ was not concerned with them.....He would heal people and tell them not to tell anyone.....that is a secret.

At the Councul of Jerusalem (Acts 15), the Apostles made ut crystal-clear that the Jewish Law was NOT binding on anybody. Thos wasn't about the Jewish christians "dying off" anbd leaving Gentiles in their wake. It was a natural progression because there are far more Genbtiles in the world than Jews.

I do not agree. The harassments that Paul's ministry was getting from the Judaizers was about not keeping the Law and that is what the meeting was to settle.

And the Jewish-Christians did die off and Jewish interest in Christianity did die off....it was not about numbers. There were plenty of Jews to keep them involved in Christianity. After the destruction of the Temple the Jews that did have interest in Christianity were blamed by the Jews for invoking God's wrath. Since the Christians were saying Yeshua was a God the Jews considered it idolatry. Then the Christians were blaming the Jews for betraying Christ......Crucify Him! Crucify Him! Let his blood be on us and our children! It is hard to recover from that. Christians and then the Roman Catholics persecuted, tortured, and killed Jews for centuries, pretty much treated them as witches. They were part of the victims of the inquisitions. And do not argue history with me....if you do not believe me go and look it up.

I am not disputing that Rome was important....its Rome! In the Roman Empire. But if you are saying that Christians were very active in Rome that would have only feed the Roman persecutions and the atrocities of the arenas. It was dangerous to be in Rome as Paul and Peter found out. The true Christian focus on Rome as a religious capital did on occur until after the Edit of Milan in 313 by Emperor Constantine. From there we can look at the history of the "Pope" To begin with Church and state were together, Constantine was the leader of the Church.

And as far as Peter being popular and loved.....this is true. But can we find an early Christian writings from a church or churches that nominates or declarers Peter as the official leader of all Christianity? The reason that most Christians would not have done that is that they would consider it an insult to Christ or an attempt to demote Him. Placing Peter as the leader of all Christianity. And this is part of the issues the Protestants have with the Catholics thinking the Catholics have placed the Pope as an equal to or a replacement of Christ as He speaks for Christ......As far as "the chair of Peter" well after his death....we probably need to look at that topic closer.

 

[Taken]

.
FAQ: From whence did baby Jesus obtain a Y chromosome for his male
gender?

That is a secular question regarding a divine entity.

Jesus IS the Christ, who IS the Seed of God.

Gods SEED does not IMPREGNATE a human as a human male impregnates a human female, fertilizing the females Seed.

Christ IS the Seed of God that BIRTHS an individuals spirit, NOT Reproduce offspring.

Mary’s spirit along with the Disciples/Apostles and others followers (disciples), all received Gods SEED (Christ), AFTER Jesus returned to Heaven.

The SEED of God is PLANTED in a mans HEART, to effect their BIRTH of that individuals spirit (which is the TRUTH in a mans HEART), changing that mans spirit FROM NATURAL TRUTH, to Gods Spiritual Truth....ie called Born Again.

I sincerely believe that what I suggest herein actually took place when thepower of the Most High overshadowed Jesus' mom per Luke 1:35; and if my
suggestion is true, then little Jesus was thoroughly a Jew-- biologically
descended not only from David and Abraham as all other Jews, but also from
the Man that God created in the book of Genesis.

When the POWER (who IS Christ) overpowered Mary...He ENTERED her womb. Her SEED was irrelevant. Her Virgin Womb was being USED. She was USED by God for an express Purpose....as Was Moses, Abraham, David and others, who served God in unique ways, as does Every Person who Serves God in unique ways to Glorify God.

Jesus was a man, NOT A HUMAN MAN.
Celestial Angels that APPEARED as MEN, were called MEN, because they LOOKED like human men, BUT WERE NOT HUMAN MEN, they were spirit celestial angels, in the LOOKS AS a man....
SAME applied to Jesus.

● Heb 2:17 . . He had to be made like his brethren in every way
_

Yes “His BRETHREN” <—->JEWS,
Not ALL Jews, not Hebrews, nor other Tribesmen, not Gentiles.

His “BRETHREN” were FAITHFUL (TO God) JEWS.

Later you should have learned...
Jesus’ “BRETHREN”...
(Regardless of RACE....Hebrew, Jews, Tribesmen, ISRAEL, Gentiles...)
ARE...any individual WHO Heartfully BELIEVES, in God, in Jesus, has bodily died, (including crucified with Jesus), is soul saved, has received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.....which IS WHEN a individual receives THE SEED OF GOD.

Every individual, (regardless of race), WHO receives the SEED of God, IS thereafter a SON OF ABRAHAM, ISSAC, JACOB, DAVID... (NOT only by STOCK meaning sperm, NOT only by blood, meaning Tribal descent, but by DECLARATION they are a “son of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, David).

The IMPORTANCE of being a SON of Abraham...He and his faithful descendants RECEIVE the Promised LAND inheritance.

The IMPORTANCE of being a SON of ISSAC..(the Promised son).He and his faithful descendants RECEIVE the inheritance of Abraham’s LAND.

The IMPORTANCE of being a SON of DAVID...is the ONE entitled To SIT in king Davids everlasting throne, SHALL BE THE KING over the PEOPLE occupying the Promised LAND.

The Promised LAND....SHALL be Christ Jesus’ earthly millennial Kingdom.
King David’s Throne....SHALL be Christ Jesus’ earthly millennial Throne.
The Occupants (citizens) of Christ Jesus’ Kingdom SHALL BE those whose soul is saved and spirit quickened..WITH Jesus ...BEFORE Gods last days Great Tribulation.

When the Son of Man (Jesus) returns...His Son of man Body, is seen by Earthly men.

He comes WITH (clouds) ie (the Raptured whom earthly eyes can not see.)

He come WITH (power) Who IS Christ, and was Revealed He is the Christ, (before His Ascended and Returned to Heaven).


Spiritual Understanding of Spiritual things, IS Spiritual.
You show your Understanding of Spiritual things, IS Carnal, Natural, (no Jesus is not a Human man, He APPEARED AS a (human faithful Jewish man)...for Human Eyes to SEE Him.
No, a human (Mary) was a Servant, not a procreator of Jesus.
Jesus is Gods Word, came forth out of Gods Mouth, was SENT to Earth in a Body God Prepared. <—> ALL SCRIPTURAL teaching.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

Do you believe Jesus is a human?

The answer to your inquiry is located back in No. 410

Do you believe Jesus is God?

When the Word of John 1:1 came into the world as the flesh of John 1:14
he came as a Jewish man instead of a divine man. (Phil 2:6-7)

In time God endowed the man with divinity as compensation for his unselfish
devotion to a matter of grave importance. (Phil 2:8-11). In other words:
Jesus obtained the rank of God by means of a special promotion.

There's a parallel to this in the story of Joseph wherein Pharaoh promoted
our guy to a rank of royalty essentially equal to his own. Especially
important is Pharaoh's signet with which Joseph could sign documents in
Pharaoh's name instead of his own name.

● Phil 2:9 . . God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name
that is above every name

"the highest place" is the throne of God and "the name above every name"
is of course Jehovah, a.k.a. the Almighty. (Rev 1:8)
_

 

[BreadOfLife]

Soooooooo (lol) Why bother telling me what I do, When you do not know what I do?

How do you know what I study?

I guarantee it.
Because I KNOW you don't study from a full 72-Book Catholic Bible.

With YOUE limited knowlkedge - I doubt you stucy at ALL . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

True about Antioch
And was Cornelius a one time event due to circumstances or is this a hint to Christ's ministry in the background....I am on the side of He was running a secret ministry.....Some Christians do not like secrets.....But Christ was not concerned with them.....He would heal people and tell them not to tell anyone.....that is a secret.

I do not agree. The harassments that Paul's ministry was getting from the Judaizers was about not keeping the Law and that is what the meeting was to settle.

And the Jewish-Christians did die off and Jewish interest in Christianity did die off....it was not about numbers. There were plenty of Jews to keep them involved in Christianity. After the destruction of the Temple the Jews that did have interest in Christianity were blamed by the Jews for invoking God's wrath. Since the Christians were saying Yeshua was a God the Jews considered it idolatry. Then the Christians were blaming the Jews for betraying Christ......Crucify Him! Crucify Him! Let his blood be on us and our children! It is hard to recover from that. Christians and then the Roman Catholics persecuted, tortured, and killed Jews for centuries, pretty much treated them as witches. They were part of the victims of the inquisitions. And do not argue history with me....if you do not believe me go and look it up.

I am not disputing that Rome was important....its Rome! In the Roman Empire. But if you are saying that Christians were very active in Rome that would have only feed the Roman persecutions and the atrocities of the arenas. It was dangerous to be in Rome as Paul and Peter found out. The true Christian focus on Rome as a religious capital did on occur until after the Edit of Milan in 313 by Emperor Constantine. From there we can look at the history of the "Pope" To begin with Church and state were together, Constantine was the leader of the Church.

And as far as Peter being popular and loved.....this is true. But can we find an early Christian writings from a church or churches that nominates or declarers Peter as the official leader of all Christianity? The reason that most Christians would not have done that is that they would consider it an insult to Christ or an attempt to demote Him. Placing Peter as the leader of all Christianity. And this is part of the issues the Protestants have with the Catholics thinking the Catholics have placed the Pope as an equal to or a replacement of Christ as He speaks for Christ......As far as "the chair of Peter" well after his death....we probably need to look at that topic closer.

Sorry, but you obviously don't knoe your history and have instead chosen to go down the foolish road of revisionist Anti-Catholicism.

FIRST o all - the history of th Pope does NOT start in the 4th century. Eveb anti-Catholics who know theyir history have had to admit that there is 2nd and 3rd century evidence for the Papacy. In the 2nd century - Irenaeus's, Against Heresies lists ALL of the Popes from his own time all the way back to Peter.

Tertullian's 3rd century screed, Di Pudicitia, calls out Pope Callistus I and refers to him as "Pontifex Maximus".

As for Constantine being the "leader" of the Church - this is nonsense. He was a pagan Emperor who later converted to Christianity with the help of his mother, St. Helena. This is yet another moronic anti-Catholiuc fairy tale that is beneath you.

YOUR statement that the Chriustian focus in Rome did NOT occiur until 313 AD is false. I gave you testimonites fron the Early Chiurch Fathers from the 2nd and 3rd centuries already referring to the Shurch ius Roms as the "Preeminent Church" and the "Superior" Church.

Finally - YOUR issues with the Chair of Peter are just that - YOUR issues. As I amply showed - he Early Church did NOT hae a problem with naming Peter as the first earthly leader of the church - where untity has its source.
The Church has NEVER placed Peter or ANY other Pope before Christ.

Finally - as for the Council of Jerusalem - the fact that the Apostles had to deal with the problem of the Judaizers answers your question about whether or not the Jewish Christians (Apostle-based) still required adherence to the Law. They did NOT. It was a matter of CULTURE for them - not requirement (2 Col. 16-17).

 

[BreadOfLife]

Wasn’t asking you, Goofy.

Truth is truth, son - no matter WHO speaks it . . .

 

[amigo de christo]

Flee the dark chambers of the harlot and let all follow and learn Christ .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Flee the dark chambers of the harlot and let all follow and learn Christ .

Another cowardly hit-and-run post . . .
Why is it that you never provide actual evicence with you "warnings"?

 

[Grailhunter]

Sorry, but you obviously don't knoe your history and have instead chosen to go down the foolish road of revisionist Anti-Catholicism.

LOL You are so funny.

FIRST o all - the history of th Pope does NOT start in the 4th century. Eveb anti-Catholics who know theyir history have had to admit that there is 2nd and 3rd century evidence for the Papacy. In the 2nd century - Irenaeus's, Against Heresies lists ALL of the Popes from his own time all the way back to Peter.

I understand how important it is to the Catholics to see Peter as the first official Pope.....Pope Peter. Sorry the term nor the office existed during Peter's life. Pope as a religious office does not occur until the 4th century. Pope Siricius being the first to occupy that office.

Peter was popular and what people called him...who knows. Reinventing history....this is something that happens a lot. People in the 4th century looking back at Peter may have defined him as a Pope....but nothing like that during his lifetime. Papa, father, Pope....terms of endearment....Christian reflection on past history.

As for Constantine being the "leader" of the Church - this is nonsense. He was a pagan Emperor who later converted to Christianity with the help of his mother, St. Helena. This is yet another moronic anti-Catholiuc fairy tale that is beneath you.

Like I said Constantine was the leader of the Church and saying that he converted later is misleading. He had a vision just before The Battle of the Milvian Bridge 312...Which lead to the Edict of Milan 313......Then he commanded the Christian leadership to the Council of Nicaea. 325 From there several councils occurred after that, but no important decision or doctrine was approved or put in to effect with out his approval. (Emperor at the time} Church and state were one. For one, some of these doctrines were enforced by law and by pain of death. The Christian Bishops of the Catholic Church did not ride out and kill people. The Cathers were not exterminated by Bishops on horseback. The Councils made doctrines and the Roman Empire was the enforcer.

As far as Emperor Constantine being a Pagan.... Constantine was a believer in Christ since the vision and the Battle of the Milvian Bridge....getting baptized on his death bed was a known practice....thinking that way you went to Judgment with fewer sins.

OUR statement that the Chriustian focus in Rome did NOT occiur until 313 AD is false. I gave you testimonites fron the Early Chiurch Fathers from the 2nd and 3rd centuries already referring to the Shurch ius Roms as the "Preeminent Church" and the "Superior" Church.

I have already answered this.....Rome is persecuting and torturing and killing tens of thousands of Christians for sport in Rome. Sure Christians could go there but it was not a safe place for Christians as I said Paul and Peter found that out.

Finally - YOUR issues with the Chair of Peter are just that - YOUR issues. As I amply showed - he Early Church did NOT hae a problem with naming Peter as the first earthly leader of the church - where untity has its source.
The Church has NEVER placed Peter or ANY other Pope before Christ.

Again most of this is reinventing history and wishful thinking. Issues with the Chair of Peter? You so funny....you need to look that up.

Finally - as for the Council of Jerusalem - the fact that the Apostles had to deal with the problem of the Judaizers answers your question about whether or not the Jewish Christians (Apostle-based) still required adherence to the Law. They did NOT. It was a matter of CULTURE for them - not requirement (2 Col. 16-17).

Your understanding of this is incorrect.....The leader of the Jewish-Christians was James.....He was requiring that the Jewish Saturday Sabbath be observed but the Lord's Day on Sunday took time to be established.....and the Jewish Christians observed the 613 Mosaic Laws?? Now did all of the them observe them....it is hard to tell. Again as a I said the Council in Jerusalem
1. Indicated in a letter that the Gentile Christians did not have to observe the 613 Mosaic Laws.
2. Effectively defined them as a separate group
3 Made it official that the Judaizers should stop harassing Paul and the Gentile Christians.

We can see that the Jewish-Christian Apostles never stopped referencing the Law and the Ten Commandments.
Where as Paul made it clear that the Law did not pertain to Christians and you could lose your saved status by observing it.

 

[Taken]

I guarantee it.
Because I KNOW you don't study from a full 72-Book Catholic Bible.

With YOUE limited knowlkedge - I doubt you stucy at ALL . . .

Your doubts are irrelevant.

 

[Taken]

Truth is truth, son - no matter WHO speaks it . . .

Your opinions and Your truths and Your snarky reflection is all over this forum.
I was not addressing you for a repeat from you.

 

[Taken]

.


The answer to your inquiry is located back in No. 410

Yes or No would have been sufficient.

When the Word of John 1:1 came into the world as the flesh of John 1:14
he came as a Jewish man instead of a divine man. (Phil 2:6-7)

Agree, Jesus was sent AS a Jewish man...humbled, without “His reputation”.

In time God endowed the man with divinity as compensation for his unselfish
devotion to a matter of grave importance. (Phil 2:8-11). In other words:
Jesus obtained the rank of God by means of a special promotion.

Disagree.
Jesus was not “promoted”. Jesus’ reputation was “REVEALED”...
His “IS” the Christ. (Aka “THE” Messiah the Jews had been waiting for)

Phil 2:
[7] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
[8] And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Jesus took UPON himself the form of a SERVANT....aka A mans form....that human MEN Could SEE.
What was UNDER that FORM...inside, that men could NOT SEE...is that He IS the Christ, the Power, the Wisdom, the Seed of God.

There's a parallel to this in the story of Joseph wherein Pharaoh promoted
our guy to a rank of royalty essentially equal to his own. Especially
important is Pharaoh's signet with which Joseph could sign documents in
Pharaoh's name instead of his own name.

● Phil 2:9 . . God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name
that is above every name

"the highest place" is the throne of God and "the name above every name"
is of course Jehovah, a.k.a. the Almighty. (Rev 1:8)
_

The Name above every Name is .... JESUS...(English spelling).

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Illuminator]

LOL You are so funny.


I understand how important it is to the Catholics to see Peter as the first official Pope.....Pope Peter. Sorry the term nor the office existed during Peter's life. Pope as a religious office does not occur until the 4th century. Pope Siricius being the first to occupy that office.

You assert so many false histories I don't know where to begin. Pope Siricius was the 38th pope, before him all the popes were killed by pagan Romans.

You don't back up your theories with any primary or secondary sources, just regurgitate the same post-enlightenment era nonsense. If you are going to cite historical facts, try using reputable Protestant sources after 1960. You don't do that, instead you rely on outdated world views that Protestant Bible colleges no longer teach.

Peter was popular and what people called him...who knows. Reinventing history....this is something that happens a lot. People in the 4th century looking back at Peter may have defined him as a Pope....but nothing like that during his lifetime. Papa, father, Pope....terms of endearment....Christian reflection on past history.

Yea, right. The SDA and the JW's say the same thing as you.

Like I said Constantine was the leader of the Church and saying that he converted later is misleading.

Constantine was a secular emperor, never leader of the Church. He was present at the Council as a temporal leader and made no contributions to any of the canons. But again, you don't support this crap with any scholarly documentation.

 

[Illuminator]

He had a vision just before The Battle of the Milvian Bridge 312...Which lead to the Edict of Milan 313......Then he commanded the Christian leadership to the Council of Nicaea. 325 From there several councils occurred after that, but no important decision or doctrine was approved or put in to effect with out his approval. (Emperor at the time} Church and state were one.

Wrong. It is IMPOSSIBLE to convene a council without the Pope.
13 Logical Problems with the Constantine Founder Myth:

1. If Constantine started the Catholic Church, then it would, therefore, seem to follow that Constantine himself was a Catholic Christian. This was not the case. Constantine (possibly) was not be baptized into the faith until he was on his deathbed on May 22, 337 A.D. (SEE ALSO: Was Constantine Baptized an Arian).
2. For Christianity to become the official religion of the Roman Empire, would require an Edict. The Edict of Milan, which was issued by Constantine and Licinius (as noted above) only put Christians on equal footing with all the other recognized religions in the Roman Empire; granting the same religious freedom that was already being extended to the pagans and Jews. It would not be until 392 A.D. when Emperor Theodosius removed government support from the old Roman pagan religions and established the Christian Faith (Catholicism) as the sole religion of the empire.
3. If by virtue of Constantine calling a general council of all the bishops of the Church to meet with him at Nicaea (a resort town in the hills of Asia Minor just south of Constantinople), a Church was created, it then, therefore, follows that: (a) the Church that existed prior to the Council from which all the bishops were called merged themselves into the new church of Constantine; (b) we should see no continuity between the preexisting church and the new Church; (c) we should see no continuity between the pre-Nicaea Church and modern day Catholic Church. I’ll dismiss these non-sequitur arguments below.
4. If by virtue of Constantine issuing an edict of religious freedom for Christians and calling together the First Council of Nicaea means that he started the Catholic Church, it would, therefore, mean that anytime a Roman Emperor granted religious freedom to any religion or stepped into resolve their controversies that they had become the founder of that pagan or Jewish religion. We don’t see such a claim by Protestants about the Emperor of Rome in any other circumstance than with the Catholic Church. In addition, this assumption also fails to recognize that the Roman Emperor thought himself to be in charge of all things in his empire. Therefore, it would have been natural and welcomed for the Emperor to extend his leverage and protection to assemble together all of the Catholic bishops of the Roman Empire.
5. The reason why Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea was to resolve the controversy over Arius’ teaching that Christ Jesus was not consubstantial with God the Father. Therefore, it then follows that for there to have been a heresy or even an counter belief to create a controversy, there must have been prior to Arianism a well-established belief about the nature Jesus Christ in a Church community that all agreed with this understanding. Otherwise, the teachings of Arius would not have caused such a controversy.
6. That Constantine assembled together all of the bishops of the Roman Empire proves that there were well-organized dioceses and churches prior the First Council of Nicaea who were in agreement with each other. Further research into this area will demonstrate the precise areas in which they agreed, such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, about many of the books which were thought to be inspired Scripture, and the Bishop of Rome being the successor of Peter and the head of the universal Church.
7. 218 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, appointed by Saint Peter, wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans in which he used the word ‘Catholic’ to denote the Church established by Jesus Christ:

“Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people also be: as Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

1. In that same letter Saint Ignatius gave a teaching about the Holy Eucharist that continues to be taught only by the Catholic Church today:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from the public offices; because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ; which suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness, raised again from the dead. And for this cause contradicting the gift of God, they die in their disputes: but much better would it be for them to receive it, that they might one day rise through it.”

1. 170 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Justin Martyr wrote in First Apology (a letter to pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161 A.D.) explaining what Christians did at Mass):
2. 136 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, and a disciple of Saint Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John, proclaimed that all churches must be in unity with the Church of Rome, which was established by Peter and Paul:

“But since it would be long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether, through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assembled other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.”

1. It is true. If Emperor Constantine started the Catholic Church, then there should be no way to trace the continuity of every Bishop of Rome, from Peter to Francis today. To the contrary, there is only one Church on the face of this earth that can verifiably point to the Church in Rome, established by Peter and Paul, and by continuity in leadership, doctrine, and tradition show a seamless continuity from the first century until today, and that Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
2. Prior to the Council of Nicaea there had been many local councils where local bishops, priests, and deacons gathered to issue canons to the faithful; such as the Councils of Carthage, where Saint Cyprian presided at the Seventh Council in 256 A.D. where a canon was issued stating, “. . . heretics, who are called antichrists and adversaries of Christ, when they come to the Church, must be baptized with the one Baptism of the Church, so that friends may be made of adversaries, and Christians of antichrists.” Another example of the Council of Elvira, Spain in 300 A.D. where 19 bishops and 26 priests and deacons gathered together to issue 81 canons. Canon 16 stated, “Heretics, if they do not which to come over to the Catholic Church, are not to be given Catholic girls in marriage.” Therefore, how could Constantine have started the Catholic Church in 325 A.D. if it already existed in Spain in 300 A.D.?
3. The Romans were aficionados when it came to documenting the legal affairs and history of the Empire. If it had been the case that Constantine established his own state religion or established a new state Church, we would have been able to find it documented somewhere in history that such an event happened, but when we examine the history and legal documents from ancient Rome, we find no traces that the myth that Constantine was "leader" of the Catholic Church is true.

Moreover, if Constantine did found the Catholic Church at the First Council of Nicaea then we should be able to find at least some once reference to the Roman Emperor in the creed and canons of the Council, but in the Creed of Nicaea and in its Twenty Canons nothing was mentioned about the Roman Emperor. Nothing at all.

 

[Illuminator]

To the contrary, what all the canons are dealing with is membership of those who had rejected the faith during the persecution, fallen lapse, or who had been excommunicated, primacy of Churches, and the administration of the Sacraments. Altogether the canons are concerned with establishing a solidarity and uniformity of administration and liturgy in the Catholic Church. There is no concern whatsoever in these canons for the Roman Empire or the Roman Emperor in the Canons of the Council of Nicaea.

In regards to the Nicene Creed, it was dealing with more fully proclaiming the Apostle’s Creed, which the Church already affirmed in manner that resolved the Arian heresy. We find nothing in the Creed of this Council that supports the Myth of Constantine being "leader" of the Catholic Church:

 

[Illuminator]

Those who posit that Constantine was "leader" of the Catholic Church either with the Edict of Milan or by calling together the First Council of Nicaea are unable prove their claim. There is no documentation from that time, either explicit or implicit by historian or theologian that even hints that such an event transpired or was the intention of Constantine or the bishops of the Catholic Church to transpire.

This story, most famously told by Jehovah Witnesses and Fundamentalist Protestants, came out of their necessity to support their lie that there was an apostasy in the early Church. It is their way to explain how their reform and late arrival is justifiable. The myth is that because the Church of the Apostles fell in to apostasy, a remnant of the true and orthodox believers of Jesus remained hidden from and often persecuted by the Catholic Church until THEY brought the reform and true faith back. Prior the rise of Protestantism, no one ever dared to tell this lie. Only in the space of the unintelligent, uncurious, and hostile can such a myth and lie bear fruit.

Again, none of which can be proved or supported by the documented facts that the Churches we read about in the Bible started calling themselves Catholics by the early Second Century, and the unique teachings of that Church founded by the Apostles are only present in the Catholic Church today that is in union with See of Rome where the successor of Peter presides.

Anti-Catholic Myths and Lies: #1 Emperor Constantine Founded the Catholic Church | Living Bread Radio Network

 

[Illuminator]

LOL You are so funny.

I understand how important it is to the Catholics to see Peter as the first official Pope.....Pope Peter. Sorry the term nor the office existed during Peter's life. Pope as a religious office does not occur until the 4th century. Pope Siricius being the first to occupy that office.

The term ‘pope’ is from the Greek word ‘pappas’ which means ‘Father.’ In the first three centuries it was used of any bishop, and eventually the term was used for the Bishop of Alexandria, and finally by the sixth century it was used exclusively for the Bishop of Rome. Therefore it is an open question who was the first ‘pope’ as such.

The critics of the Catholic Church aren’t really worried about when the term ‘pope’ was first used. What they mean when they say that Leo the Great (440-461) was the first pope is that this is when the papacy began to assume worldly power. This is, therefore, simply a problem in definition of terms. By ‘pope’ the Evangelical means what I thought of as ‘pope’ after my Evangelical childhood. By ‘pope’ they mean ‘corrupt earthly ruler’. In that respect Leo the Great might be termed the ‘first pope’ because he was the one, (in the face of the disintegrating Roman Empire) who stepped up and got involved in temporal power without apology.

However, seeing the pope as merely a temporal ruler and disapproving is to be too simplistic. Catholics understand the pope’s power to be spiritual. While certain popes did assume temporal power, they often did so reluctantly, and did not always wield that power in a corrupt way. Whether popes should have assumed worldly wealth and power is arguable, but at the heart of their ministry, like the Lord they served, they should have known that their kingdom was not of this world. Their rule was to be hierarchical and monarchical in the sense that they were serving the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It was not first and foremost to be hierarchical and monarchical in the worldly sense.

The Protestant idea that the papacy was a fourth or fifth century invention relies on a false understanding of the papacy itself. After the establishment of the church at Constantine’s conversion the church hierarchy did indeed become more influential in the kingdoms of this world, but that is not the essence of the papacy. The essence of the papacy lies in Jesus’ ordination of Peter as his royal steward, and his commission to assume the role of Good Shepherd in Christ’s absence. The idea, therefore, that Leo the Great or Pope Siricius was the first ‘pope’ is a red herring based on a misunderstanding of the pope’s true role.

The Early Church Today

From the Reformation onward, Protestant Christians have fallen into the trap of Restorationism. This is the idea that the existing church has become corrupt and departed from the true gospel and that a new church that is faithful to the New Testament can be created. These sincere Christians then attempt to ‘restore’ the church by creating a new church. The problem is, each new group of restorationists invariably create a church of their own liking determined by their contemporary cultural assumptions. They then imagine that the early church was like the one they have invented.

All of the historical documents show that, in essence, the closest thing we have today to the early church is actually the Catholic Church. In these main points the Catholic Church is today what she has always been. Her leadership is unapologetically monarchical and hierarchical. Her teaching authority is centralized and universal, and the pope is what he has always been, the universal pastor of Christ’s Church, the steward of Christ’s kingdom and the Rock on which Christ builds his Church.

The Early Papacy - 3 - Fr. Dwight Longenecker

As we have seen, the idea of a monarchical papacy was there from the beginning in Jesus’ identity as the Great scion of David the King with Peter as his

www.patheos.com

 

[Grailhunter]

Wrong. It is IMPOSSIBLE to convene a council without the Pope.
13 Logical Problems with the Constantine Founder Myth:

1. If Constantine started the Catholic Church, then it would, therefore, seem to follow that Constantine himself was a Catholic Christian. This was not the case. Constantine (possibly) was not be baptized into the faith until he was on his deathbed on May 22, 337 A.D. (SEE ALSO: Was Constantine Baptized an Arian).
2. For Christianity to become the official religion of the Roman Empire, would require an Edict. The Edict of Milan, which was issued by Constantine and Licinius (as noted above) only put Christians on equal footing with all the other recognized religions in the Roman Empire; granting the same religious freedom that was already being extended to the pagans and Jews. It would not be until 392 A.D. when Emperor Theodosius removed government support from the old Roman pagan religions and established the Christian Faith (Catholicism) as the sole religion of the empire.
3. If by virtue of Constantine calling a general council of all the bishops of the Church to meet with him at Nicaea (a resort town in the hills of Asia Minor just south of Constantinople), a Church was created, it then, therefore, follows that: (a) the Church that existed prior to the Council from which all the bishops were called merged themselves into the new church of Constantine; (b) we should see no continuity between the preexisting church and the new Church; (c) we should see no continuity between the pre-Nicaea Church and modern day Catholic Church. I’ll dismiss these non-sequitur arguments below.
4. If by virtue of Constantine issuing an edict of religious freedom for Christians and calling together the First Council of Nicaea means that he started the Catholic Church, it would, therefore, mean that anytime a Roman Emperor granted religious freedom to any religion or stepped into resolve their controversies that they had become the founder of that pagan or Jewish religion. We don’t see such a claim by Protestants about the Emperor of Rome in any other circumstance than with the Catholic Church. In addition, this assumption also fails to recognize that the Roman Emperor thought himself to be in charge of all things in his empire. Therefore, it would have been natural and welcomed for the Emperor to extend his leverage and protection to assemble together all of the Catholic bishops of the Roman Empire.
5. The reason why Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea was to resolve the controversy over Arius’ teaching that Christ Jesus was not consubstantial with God the Father. Therefore, it then follows that for there to have been a heresy or even an counter belief to create a controversy, there must have been prior to Arianism a well-established belief about the nature Jesus Christ in a Church community that all agreed with this understanding. Otherwise, the teachings of Arius would not have caused such a controversy.
6. That Constantine assembled together all of the bishops of the Roman Empire proves that there were well-organized dioceses and churches prior the First Council of Nicaea who were in agreement with each other. Further research into this area will demonstrate the precise areas in which they agreed, such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, about many of the books which were thought to be inspired Scripture, and the Bishop of Rome being the successor of Peter and the head of the universal Church.
7. 218 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, appointed by Saint Peter, wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans in which he used the word ‘Catholic’ to denote the Church established by Jesus Christ:

“Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people also be: as Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

1. In that same letter Saint Ignatius gave a teaching about the Holy Eucharist that continues to be taught only by the Catholic Church today:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from the public offices; because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ; which suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness, raised again from the dead. And for this cause contradicting the gift of God, they die in their disputes: but much better would it be for them to receive it, that they might one day rise through it.”

1. 170 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Justin Martyr wrote in First Apology (a letter to pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161 A.D.) explaining what Christians did at Mass):
2. 136 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, and a disciple of Saint Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John, proclaimed that all churches must be in unity with the Church of Rome, which was established by Peter and Paul:

“But since it would be long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether, through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assembled other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.”

1. It is true. If Emperor Constantine started the Catholic Church, then there should be no way to trace the continuity of every Bishop of Rome, from Peter to Francis today. To the contrary, there is only one Church on the face of this earth that can verifiably point to the Church in Rome, established by Peter and Paul, and by continuity in leadership, doctrine, and tradition show a seamless continuity from the first century until today, and that Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
2. Prior to the Council of Nicaea there had been many local councils where local bishops, priests, and deacons gathered to issue canons to the faithful; such as the Councils of Carthage, where Saint Cyprian presided at the Seventh Council in 256 A.D. where a canon was issued stating, “. . . heretics, who are called antichrists and adversaries of Christ, when they come to the Church, must be baptized with the one Baptism of the Church, so that friends may be made of adversaries, and Christians of antichrists.” Another example of the Council of Elvira, Spain in 300 A.D. where 19 bishops and 26 priests and deacons gathered together to issue 81 canons. Canon 16 stated, “Heretics, if they do not which to come over to the Catholic Church, are not to be given Catholic girls in marriage.” Therefore, how could Constantine have started the Catholic Church in 325 A.D. if it already existed in Spain in 300 A.D.?
3. The Romans were aficionados when it came to documenting the legal affairs and history of the Empire. If it had been the case that Constantine established his own state religion or established a new state Church, we would have been able to find it documented somewhere in history that such an event happened, but when we examine the history and legal documents from ancient Rome, we find no traces that the myth that Constantine was "leader" of the Catholic Church is true.

Moreover, if Constantine did found the Catholic Church at the First Council of Nicaea then we should be able to find at least some once reference to the Roman Emperor in the creed and canons of the Council, but in the Creed of Nicaea and in its Twenty Canons nothing was mentioned about the Roman Emperor. Nothing at all.

I guess I disagree with most of what you have written
The Roman Catholic Church....Gee what does that mean? LOL

Its present canon law requires that an ecumenical council be convoked and presided over, either personally or through a delegate, by the Pope, who is also to decide the agenda; but the church makes no claim that all past ecumenical councils observed these present rules, declaring only that the Pope's confirmation or at ...

Many of the earlier Councils were not subject to the rules currently in force, but were accepted as ecumenical by the practice of the time. Today an ecumenical council can be convoked only by the Pope, but the first eight councils (from the 4th to the 9th century) were convoked by the Christian Roman Emperor.

The reason why Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea was to standardize the Christian religion. Arius was only one of the issues at hand.