Constantine Has Been Beaten to Death (by anti-catholics)

As to the earlier synods, they concerned the use of those terms by someone other than Arius. Arius took the discussion into the theological weeds, more or less as Armenius took the Calvinist doctrine of predestination.Which meant that the Synod at Nicaea was dealing with different questions.
If Arius is the “true” biblical view, then the “Catholic Church,” original sin was not associating with Constantine but in declaring that Jesus is the incarnate God. But if he is not, then Christianity quickly becomes no more than what modern Unitarianism became. If you want to see a critique of that just read what Emerson had to say about it.

As to Constantine’s condemnation of Arius, you overlook his later redemption of Arius which was stopped by Arius sudden —and as Catholics would say—providential death and of course the fact that his successor was an Arian.

BroJoeK, great answers and very, very accurate. You’re spot on that it was the Arians who were fighting the less Biblical interpretation of Jesus Christ. Keep in mind that there is also a Satan in the picture. He’s not interested in clarity, but obscurity and division.

I’m always delighted to read the Greek or Hebrew as it is quite enlightening. One of Diabolos’ meanings is one who breaks relationships, not just between God and man, but between man and man - Christian v. ‘Christian’, husbands and wives, parents and children, races, etc.

The other major fault in Biblical analysis is forgetting context. Though the whole Bible is valuable for personal edification, not every verse is written to ‘you’. Many are contextual and written to those people for that purpose. There’s value there, but it makes interpreting by your own mind dangerous.

That’s the other part of the context issue. Every translation of any text, including the Bible, is a transmission. It is a transmission of the translators time, context, beliefs, and understandings, not to mention the powerful influence of the sponsor. Who pays the piper calls the tune is true in translation.

Toss in the eisegesis which naturally occurs in any human endeavor and you can see why there are so many doctrines and disputes. Everyone else is the Pharisee or Sadducee or the Jew. Everyone else says, “Lord, Lord” and doesn’t know Him.

Finally, we see history through our own lens. A bad emperor is one who kills Christians. Whereas a Roman might be delighted at the quality of imperial management.

My personal belief is that God is truth and His followers should pursue truth where it leads, even if it isn’t where they want to go. Christ’s example of growing from grace to grace ending in his experience in the Garden teaches us that it isn’t our will, but God’s we must do.

Very well done, BroJoeK. I don’t come here much because it’s boring and contentious. You’ve made it a delight. Keep me posted and thank you.

So you claim it’s one of the regular feast days? Like they know when those feast days are each year because they are prescribed by God’s law? And you also say that the last trump is on one of those feast days at the end of the tribulation? WELL! Let’s look at that theory.

We know the great tribulation will be three years so once the antichrist has been revealed we know it will be precisely 1260 days till the Lords coming.

Revelation 13:5 5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him * to continue forty and two months. You also claim that “The span between the first resurrection and Yeshua’s bodily return to Earth will exactly match the span from Trumpets to Tabernacles” which is a known span of time. In other words we can know precisely the time of Jesus return since all the feast days are known and the time from the revealing of the antichrist to Christ’s return is known per Revelation 13 and other passages. Am I getting this right so far?

Yet in Matthew 24 we are told that no one knows, not even the son but the Father only.

Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

And you claim I have “strange theology”?

Those on earth will be able to know when the return of Christ will be at the end of the tribulation but no one knows the “day or the hour” of the rapture.

It’s also interesting that you claim that the “3.5 year tribulation is not the wrath of Yehova” yet scripture tells us that it is.

Revelation 16:1 And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.

>>He will carry us through all of it, just as he carried Noah through the flood.<<

Don’t know where you got that idea but it’s not in scripture. The only group protected by God during the tribulation are the 144,000 Jews, twelve thousand from each of the 12 tribes. The “bride of Christ” spends the those seven years with Christ in heaven just as the Jewish newly weds are sequestered for seven days prior to their public appearance together.

You need to do more broad Bible reading, not just a few select verses.

The very purpose of the feast days is so that we can be aware of the events of the kingdom in season. They are the reason why Paul told the thessalonians that they would NOT be in the dark as to his return.

You seem to be saying that you expect to be a part of the first resurrection, yet also be down here on Earth awaiting his triumphal return? That makes no sense at all.

Also you weigh Matthew 24:36 above 1 Thessalonians 5:1-4?

Get the Breslau or English Hebrew Matthew and read it as it was told by Matthew, rather than a 3rd hand Greek translation, and see what Yeshua really was saying.

His feasts are not without purpose, or we would not be commanded to participate.

The timing of the feast of trumpets was not precisely guaranteed at the time that Matthew was written, so it was essentially a correct statement, but now it can be predicted, unless something perturbs Earth’s orbital dynamics just before that day, but only his own even care.

After the resurrection, those left on Earth will not likely be looking for Yeshua’s return, so the timing of the feasts will be nothing to them.

>> It’s also interesting that you claim that the “3.5 year tribulation is not the wrath of Yehova” yet scripture tells us that it is. <<

You gotta give us a scripture for that one! His wrath comes at the end of the trib, at the battle.

Finally, The “Bride of Yeshua” will not spend any 7 years in heaven; there is nothing in scripture that is even faintly close to supporting that idea. A few weeks is all that could be made of it.

>> You need to do more broad Bible reading, not just a few select verses.<<

LOL What was I supposed to do? Post all the scripture that applies rather than representative verses that prove my points? The post would get rather long and tedious. I presume those who are seriously looking for truth can study for themselves. As for your insinuation that I don’t “do more broad Bible reading” It’s precisely the “broad Bible reading” with guidance from the Holy Spirit that helps me understand what it actually teaches.

>> You seem to be saying that you expect to be a part of the first resurrection, yet also be down here on Earth awaiting his triumphal return?<<

I don’t know what gave you that impression. You would have to show me where I said that or implied that. I will be in heaven with Jesus after the rapture. I will be “above the death and destruction just as Noah was.

>> His feasts are not without purpose, or we would not be commanded to participate.<<

Pleas show from scripture that the feast days are for the Gentiles.

>> After the resurrection, those left on Earth will not likely be looking for Yeshua’s return<<

I can’t believe you actually made that statement. Scripture and history clearly show the error of that statement.

>> You gotta give us a scripture for that one!<<

You didn’t read the post? I clearly gave scripture for that one. Here it is again.

Revelation 16:1 And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.

That is clearly speaking of the devestation about to happen on earth before the battle of Armageddon and clearly calls it “the wrath of God”. Go check what the “vials of wrath” entailed.

>> Finally, The “Bride of Yeshua” will not spend any 7 years in heaven; there is nothing in scripture that is even faintly close to supporting that idea.<<

Oh but there is.

John 14:2-3 ‘In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.’

Now should you claim that is after the battle of Armageddon let’s look at where God’s dwelling place is after that battle and the defeat of Satan.

Rev 21:2-4 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

If you study the Jewish wedding customs you may better understand the statement by Jesus “I go and prepare a place for you”. Then you would understand the comparison of the seven days of the wedding feast during which the bride and groom are concealed together after which they would emerge. Compare that to the seven years prophesied in Daniel.

RobbyS: "As to the earlier synods, they concerned the use of those terms by someone other than Arius.
Arius took the discussion into the theological weeds, more or less as Armenius took the Calvinist doctrine of predestination."

One problem with Arius is that we have few of his own words -- only those of anti-Arius polemicists.
To me, that's a little like trying to learn what, oh, say, George W. Bush was all about by listening to the cacklings of Hillary Clinton. ;-)

But the basic problem is that all of these questions are matters of opinion, about which the Bible says almost nothing, meaning it's not important and so our opinions are irrelevant in the great scheme of things.
What matters is: do we obey the commandment** to love one another, even while disagreeing about our "most wonderful" opinions?

**(for Elsie): i.e., John 13:34-35, Romans 12:10, Romans 13:8, 2 Corinthians 13:11, Galatians 5:13, Ephesians 4:2, 1 Thessalonians 4:9, 2 Thessalonians 1:3, Hebrews 10:24, 1 Peter 1:22, 1 Peter 3:8, 1 Peter 5:14, 1 John 3:11, 1 John 3:23, 1 John 4:7, etc.

In other words: while the Bible cares nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- about words like homoousious and hypostasis it cares a lot about love, and all that ancient sturm & drang over iotas' worths of differences in definitions of meaningless terms should never obscure the fact that these were ancients behaving very badly.

RobbyS: "If Arius is the “true” biblical view, then the “Catholic Church,” original sin was not associating with Constantine but in declaring that Jesus is the incarnate God."

I would bet my life that Jesus is very tolerant, understanding and forgiving of our complete and utter stupidities -- in attempting to define the undefinable and know the unknowable.
Jesus cares nothing about such things and will gladly accept whatever doctrines seem important to us, provided that we accept those commandments important to Him.

Of course, I could be wrong, and all will be revealed in due time.
But it just seems to me, that if you can find it spelled out clearly in the Bible, then it matters to God, but if you can't then, not so much.

RobbyS: "But if he is not, then Christianity quickly becomes no more than what modern Unitarianism became.
If you want to see a critique of that just read what Emerson had to say about it."

Important to remember that the Unitarian church of Emmerson's time -- or more importantly of our Founders' time -- was not the same as today.
It has, shall we say, "evolved" from a real Christian denomination to something, well, less so.
But Unitarianism was very important to our Founders, and informed their view of the proper relationship between Church and State.
So, do not lightly dismiss it.

RobbyS: "As to Constantine’s condemnation of Arius, you overlook his later redemption of Arius which was stopped by Arius sudden —and as Catholics would say—providential death and of course the fact that his successor was an Arian."

Yes clearly, Constantine cared little about internecine theological disputes, he just wanted a simple way to distinguish those he protected from those he destroyed.
For Constantine it was all about imposing religious uniformity on his Empire.

So, while Arius' death was alleged by poisoning, he was also under official condemnation, if caught carrying even one document of his own words.

Later emperors also attempted to restore Arianism, but it turned out that in this matter at least, Homoousians proved more powerful than the Emperor himself.

One has to look at the Synod, or Council of Nicaea as a court. They took up Arius’ case and ruled against him. Their judicial opinion took the form of the Credal statement. You do not recognize their authority, of course, and want the Bible to decide the matter. But of course that makes you the Court.

As to the battle royal that followed: Arius may or may not have been assassinated, but Constantius was a member of his party, and so those who held with Athanasius were out of favor. Efforts to reverse Nicaea came to nought. Julian, raised amidst the contentions of a royal court not unlike that Of that moral monster Henry VIII, wanted nothing to do with either side. He hoped to restore the ancient Roman polity, but hardly got the chance. The matter was not decided in favor of Nicaea until 380 and enforced by Theodosius, the first “Catholic” emperor.

As to Unitarianism, my point is that it is an elitist religion. Which is why the German kings who took over in the West were unable to impose it on the people. Likewise the liberal protestantism of Washington, Adams etc. Protestant evangelical became the relgious of the people by 1860. Read Ray Billington’s “the Protestant Crusade.” Of course, the progressives and their social Gospel have in the hands of the elites, changed all that, and in the last part of the 20th Century adopted secularism as their creed.

RobbyS: "One has to look at the Synod, or Council of Nicaea as a court.
They took up Arius’ case and ruled against him.
Their judicial opinion took the form of the Credal statement.
You do not recognize their authority, of course, and want the Bible to decide the matter.
But of course that makes you the Court."

They were Emperor Constantine's Court, and I would recognize their authority to the same degree that I recognize Constantine as my emperor: not so much.

Nor am I the "Court" here, since my opinion is that both sides make reasonable arguments, all of which are only remotely related to what the Bible actually says, and are therefore irrelevant to the Bible's message.
So I make no judgment because no judgment is required in this case.

RobbyS: "The matter was not decided in favor of Nicaea until 380 and enforced by Theodosius, the first “Catholic” emperor."

All of which demonstrates that these issues were far more political than anything concerned with Jesus, his followers and New Testament authors.
So they should be of no concern to us.

RobbyS: "As to Unitarianism, my point is that it is an elitist religion.
Which is why the German kings who took over in the West were unable to impose it on the people.
Likewise the liberal protestantism of Washington, Adams etc.
Protestant evangelical became the relgious of the people by 1860."

So let's see if I understand you correctly: the homoousian creed of Roman Emperor Constantine are not "elitist", but any Unitarian ideas of our Founding Fathers were "elitist"?

So why do you call yourself a conservative?
Do you confuse American conservatives with European statists who go by the label "conservative"?

These were Christian bishops and they functioned as earlier synods did except they had wider -- ecumenical authority because a legate of the Western Patriarch--the bishop of Rome-- attended. You keep saying that the whole thing was Constantine’s diktat. But their judgment went against his views. He kept trying to rehabilitate Arius ,This came close to happening and his successor Constantius was an Arian. As to both sides, Arius had his hearing and a majority of the court decided against him on a theological issue, one involving the interpretation of the Bible.

Constantine’s role was as a politician as a peacemaker trying to get two quarreling religious factions together. A thousand years later, Charles V tried through a serious of meetings to get the Lutherans and the Papists together in Speyer and other places. Unable to get them to agree, it all ended in a civil war. Constantine had just ended such a war and hoped by sponsoring the Christians that he could bring peace to the empire.

RobbyS: "These were Christian bishops...
You keep saying that the whole thing was Constantine’s diktat."

The historical record shows: the term "homoousios" was first condemned at the Synods of Antioch (264 - 268 AD) and then inserted by Constantine himself (according to Eusebius of Caesarea) at his Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.
Does that make it, in your word, a "diktat"?
No, because so far as we know, a majority at Nicaea were perfectly willing to accept "homoousios", despite it's previous condemnation.

But I'd be more inclined to think the majority then, as now, was not very energized by fine points of distinctions in technical terms that nobody really understands anyway.
So they were happy to vote with the stronger side, especially since that was supported by their Emperor.

And besides, Arius himself was a bit of a thorn, a mere presbyter, who had required previous disciplinary actions.
Remember, Arius started with support from just 22 bishops -- around 10% of attendees -- and all but two eventually changed sides to sign the homoousians' Creed.

RobbyS: "...Constantine’s diktat. But their judgment went against his views.
He kept trying to rehabilitate Arius ,
This came close to happening and his successor Constantius was an Arian."

At the time of Nicaea, Constantine first inserted "homoousios" into the Creed, then condemned to death anyone caught with copies of Arius' writings.
So Constantine's views at that time were strong and unequivocal.

Later, Constantine was persuaded that Arian ideas made some sense, and appeared willing to give them another hearing.
Some of Constantine's successors supported Arian ideas, and Arianism was not completely eradicated for many generations.

Indeed, you might even argue that theologically, Islam is simply Arianism revisited.

RobbyS: "As to both sides, Arius had his hearing and a majority of the court decided against him on a theological issue, one involving the interpretation of the Bible."

A politically motivated "court", unduly influenced by the Emperor's secular power, whose edict carried the death penalty in a matter that should have been left to individuals' interpretations (within biblical limits) as the spirit moved them.

In short: there should have been room for both views, and likely would eventually, except for the Emperor's influence.

RobbyS: "Constantine had just ended such a war and hoped by sponsoring the Christians that he could bring peace to the empire."

Christians warring against other Christians over theological issues: never seen before the age of Constantine.
Indeed, Constantine's first concern was to sharply distinguish those he supported from those he intended to physically destroy.

That is Constantine's woeful legacy.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.