Dave,
Other than the heresy of JS, you can not historically substantiate ANY of
the following claim, "our religious roots predate that time frame". If you
can, then do so. If you are going to ask me to rely on the claims made by an
occultic treasure hunter, count me out. Your whole faith appears to be based
on believing what JS said, and heartburn. No history. No archeology. No
internal or external consistency. Aberrant translations of the book of the
dead, revelations that favor the revelator and his friends (except for poor
Emma!) and his philandering. And, who is Oliver Granger? (Inquiring minds
want to know.)
Perry
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:07:01 -0800
*All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.*
DAVEH: I think you are a bit off on that comment, DavidM. The RCC and
Protestants not only trace their roots back to the time of Constantine, but
have found themselves huddled beneath the umbrella of doctrines covered
with his fingerprints. I believe that by the time of Constantine, the
apostasy was complete, and hence the authority to act in the Lord's behalf
was lost. That left the field wide open to political figures intervening
in doctrinal theology. That is why we (LDS) do not make that claim. From
our perspective, our religious roots predate that time frame........which
is why Mormonism is not rooted in Catholicism or Protestantism.
David Miller wrote:
CD wrote:
... didn't birth of the RCC have roots that trace back
to Constantine I, The great in 306 ad-337ad as he fought
under the Christian flag and Christianity became a national
movement under the proceding Emperors?
*All Christians can trace their roots back to the time of Constantine.*
The Roman Catholics have no special claim to that period. The truth is
that Roman Catholicism as its own sect, separate from other churches of
Christianity, did not exist back then. At that time when many of the
Christian churches were moving toward a more central earthly government,
there were about 150 bishops, with probably 5 being prominent because of
the large cities they oversaw. The bishop of Rome was considered to have
primacy because Rome was the capital of the Roman empire. However, the
meaning of "primacy" to the bishops of that time is not the same as what
Roman Catholicism attaches to the Pope. In fact, in 381, a canon was
decreed at the Second Ecumenical Council which declared that the bishop of
Constantinople should have primacy of honor above the bishop of Rome.
This was done because the capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome
to Constantinople. In the decades that followed, the Roman empire was
split into two empires with separate capitals, neither one being Rome. A
lot of interesting history if you dig into it deeper. There was even a
short time when there was no pope in Rome, and a time when there were two
popes at once, each claiming to be the rightful heir to the "throne".
The flag that Constantine made was basically a cross he saw in a vision,
and this insignia is better identified with the Eastern Orthodox churches
than with Roman Catholicism. The insignia for the pope, the tiara, bears
no resemblance to Constantine's banner.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you
ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
