Early Deceivers?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

This one's for Budge...if you consider the early Church fathers to be "early deceivers," then who are the early faithful?

[mortify]

If the Fathers were deceivers then the Faith is doomed, not even the bible can be considered reliable since the "deceivers" were responsible for its preservation.

Protism is self defeating.

[prose]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1266761' date='May 7 2007, 10:00 AM']This one's for Budge...if you consider the early Church fathers to be "early deceivers," then who are the early faithful?[/quote]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='mortify' post='1266889' date='May 7 2007, 12:38 PM']If the Fathers were deceivers then the Faith is doomed, not even the bible can be considered reliable since the "deceivers" were responsible for its preservation.

Protism is self defeating.[/quote]
Thanks. Now if the person the thread is addressed to could just answer the question.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Budge?

[Budge]

I hve to go now but will back with more of an answer.

Anyone hooked to Constantine and Eusebius and the Alexandrian school are early deceivers.

I will add more later.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1267419' date='May 7 2007, 06:36 PM']I hve to go now but will back with more of an answer.

Anyone hooked to Constantine and Eusebius and the Alexandrian school are early deceivers.

I will add more later.[/quote]
Please answer the question, Budge. I asked who the early faithful were.

[catholicinsd]

What happened to my stuff?

[Aloysius]

it was off topic

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=67856&st=0&p=1267429&#entry1267429"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...p;#entry1267429[/url]

[Budge]

The early faithful now in heaven were not religious celebs.

The world loves those who are against Christ, the majority of REAL CHRISTIANS died unknown and uncelebrated by the world.

Here are my posts on early deceivers so I dont have to rewrite everything I believe here.

I used to go far more in depth on this stuff years ago, Edict of Milan ect...

past posts on them of mine...

[quote] The Apostles--the real ones, warned of VERY EARLY DECEIVERS. I believe all of Romes Early Church fathers are deceivers.

Instead of following the teachings of the REAL church fathers of Christianity the APOSTLES, Rome goes after its deceivers, failed experts, rejecters of Gods Word, following after "vain philosophies".



Origen was more into Greek Philsophy more then Christianity. The man was prolific writing up to 2,000 books.

He Didnt believe in Old Testament miracles, didnt believe the Holy Spirit was eternal, and was one of the first to add the Apocrypha to scripture.

Origen also castrated himself. He brought in much error.

Eusebius Ive read some of his writings at Fordham University, when I used to do posts on Constantine. Basically a boot-licker for Constantine. His true "god" seemed to be Constantine rather then God. He promoted Origen's writings who lived about 100 years earlier.

Augustine was the one who came up with the ultimate scoffers dream--Amillenialism.

In his writings City of God one of the first writers coming up with Replacement Theology.

Advanced Roman Catholicism.

Quote:
"These miserable wretches, refusing to acknowledge the Rock as Peter, and to believe that the Church has received the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, have lost these very keys from their own hands." (Augustine, Christian Combat, in J. P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina, 40:289), in Michael Malone, ed., The Apostolic Digest, (Irving, TX: Sacred Heart, 1987), 246.[/quote]****************************


[quote]
[i] Quote: Budge,

"No one is disputing that Constantine started it and other emperors CONTINUED it."

Started what? FOJ has been trying to say that Constantine made Christianity "official" -- that's not true.[/i]



Constantine started the corruption of Christianity. After all it was the Council of Nicea that he presided over that granted increased power to the Roman bishop!


[i] Quote:
"Constantine didnt establish Christianity, he opened the door for Pagan Rome to be married to Christianity and to distort it."

No. He legalized Christianity. He granted some favors to Christians. He aided the Church against heresy. He formed no doctrine. He did not control the Church. He did not force paganism on the Church either.[/i]



Youre trying to tell me Constantine who presided over the Council of Nicea and who gave the Roman bishop the Lateran Palace was a hands-off fellow.

Somehow I find that really hard to believe!

Daniel 7:19

Dan 7:19 Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth [were of] iron, and his nails [of] brass; [which] devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet;

Constantine when he "legalized" Subjected it to the state.

[i] Quote:


Because pictures of secular and religious things tell us nothing when one is only looking at the superficial resemblance. All scholars know this. Why don't you? [/i]



The resemblance isnt superficial, in fact when the same name for something is used like Pontifex Maximus, it isnt superficial.[/quote]


**********************************

Tron why do you accept the Catholic Church version of history so readily? All this talks of creeds and defending their version of history, it makes one wonder. It seems some Reformed churches was to lay claim to something the Catholic Church believes it holds the monopoly on, with many of the same errors within. Still makes me think of Luther why he got many things right he still retained the Catholic historical errors and more.

[quote][i]Constantine can rightfully claim the title of Great, for he turned the history of the world into a new course and made Christianity, which until then had suffered bloody persecution , the religion of the State[[/i]/quote]

Constantine changed history sure, but he did not make a new course for ACTUAL Christianity he skewed it. He was not GREAT.

Constantine proves one thing though the historical link between Popes and Roman Emperors who went through history LIVING LIKE THEY HAD.

Here are some HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS ABOUT CONSTANTINE. They are from a Catholic university...

The Donation of Constantine==that ever famous FORGED DOCUMENT:

[url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/donatconst.html"]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/donatconst.html[/url]

[quote]This is perhaps the [b]most famous forgery in history[/b]. For centuries, until Lorenzo Valla proved it was forgery during the Renaissance it provied the basis for papal territorial and jurisdictional claims in Italy. Probably at least a first draft of it was made shortly after the middle of the eighth century in order to assist Pope Stephen II in his negotiations with the Frankish Mayor of the Palace, Pepin the Short. The Pope crossed the Alps to anoint the latter as king in 754, thereby enabling, the Carolingian family, to which Pepin belonged, to supplant the old Merovingian royal line which had become decadent and powerless and to become in law as well as in fact rulers of the Franks. In return, Pepin seems to have promised to give to the Pope those lands in Italy which the Lombards had taken from Byzantium. The promise was fulfilled in 756. Constantine's alleged gift made it possible to interpret Pepin's grant not as a benefaction but as a restoration.[/quote]

FROM AN ENCYLOPEDIA.

[url="http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/Constnt1Rom.html"]http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/Constnt1Rom.html[/url]


[quote]Constantine continued to tolerate paganism and even to encourage the imperial cult.[/quote][quote]He seems to have favored compromise with Arianism,[/quote]

[quote]He was an absolute ruler, and his reign saw the culmination of the tendency toward [font size=5]despotic rule[/font], centralized bureaucracy, and separation of military and civil powers evolved by Diocletian.[/quote]

[u]Someone that can murder their son and wife is not a true Christian by any stretch of the imagination:[/u]

[quote]Historians differ greatly in their assessments of Constantine’s motives and the depth of his Christian conviction. Early Christian writers portray him as a devout convert, [b]although they have difficulty explaining his execution in 320 (on adultery charges) of Crispus, his son by his first wife, and Fausta, his wife[/b][/quote]

Constantine was the founder of the beauracratic Catholic Church church and its political power.

[url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/const1-laws2.html"]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/const1-laws2.html[/url]

[quote]No sooner had Constantine I made his decision in favour of the Church than he bagen to regulate it. Many of his laws worked to the advantage of the Church, [font size=5]although they also implied a hitherto unknown state control and interest in interenal Church matters.[/font] Eusebius recorded many of these laws in his Ecclesiastical History.[/quote]

Development of special seperated priesthood of the Catholic Church:

from same document:

[quote]Wherefore it is my will that those within the province entrusted to thee, in the catholic Church, over which Caecilianus presides, who give their services to this holy religion, and who are commonly called clergymen, be entirely exempted from all public duties, that they may not by any error or sacrilegious negligence be drawn away from the service due to the Deity, but may devote themselves without any hindrance to their own law. For it seems that when they show greatest reverence to the Deity, the greatest benefits accrue to the state. Farewell, our most esteemed and beloved Anulinus.[/quote]"

This one is by Galerius but telling about how the Romans formed a new Church and skewed the Christian church:

[url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/edict-milan.html"]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/edict-milan.html[/url]

I used to read the bootlicking stuff {Constantines lapdog} written by Eusebius from Fordham and want to throw up.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Budge, I don't understand your answer about the early faithful. You say that they were obscure, but are you unaware that virtually everyone in the early Church debated Arianism? It was considered a "marketplace heresy" because even the commoners buying and selling in the streets had opinions of it. It was all quite polarized and everyone had something to say about it. We have many Arian texts (although the writings of Arius himself were largely burned up) and many Athanasian texts, but no texts from your alleged faithful Christians. Do you think that they just stayed out of the debate?

[FatherG]

To discard the witness of the Apostolic Fathers is literally to ignore the history of Christianity for its first 300 plus years. It is to ignore the writings of some of those who knew the apostles of Our Lord personally, such as Polycarp. The entire position of rejection of the Apostolic Fathers is one that, as another post noted, is entirely self defeating. These men preserved our Sacred Scriptures, etc.

And I echo the words of the previous poster; why no writings from these secret followers of Christ to preserve this apparent hidden gospel? It all reeks of an orthodoxy of gnosticism to me.

Edited May 8, 2007 by FatherG

[N/A Gone]

Budge does not respect history, she steals from it. She does not understand the appreciation of the development of theology, and the way our fathers (most of them martyrs) understood theology to be the essence of salvation, and not just a mental exercise.

[Budge]

History is a biased field.

Even recent history....

Considering what is left out, and what the official stories are and the real.

History as a foundation of faith, is SINKING SAND.

Development of doctrine--making it up as you go along....

[jeffpugh]

I'm not even going to say anything. I'm tired of seeing such blather. I know that history can be twisted, but you're starting to sound like Dan Browne... It is a sad thing, sister. Very sad...