Re: [TruthTalk] Perry & Dave: inquiring minds want to know

[Dave Hansen]

Was Constantine the originator of the T doctrine in your eyes? DAVEH:   This may surprise you, Kevin....but, I do not see him as being the author of the TD.  I view him as more the promoter, motivator and facilitator....or perhaps catalyst.  Does that make any sense?     Who do you view as the originator of the TD, Kevin?  And can you nail down an exact time when it was authored? Kevin Deegan wrote: Question DH, Was Constantine the originator of the T doctrine in your eyes?  If not it was originated at this time correct? What was the date of the origination of the T doctrine? >From: Dave Hansen >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 ma ke 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 bis hops, 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.