|
|
 | | From: | admin | | Subject: | the Greek Text of Westcott & Hort #4 | | Date: | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:42:50 GMT |
|
|
 | The following is a continuing post from the Book "Which Version is the
Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones. Chapter 5, pages 59-74
Which Version is the Bible?
Copyright 1995 · Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc.
All Rights Reserved. This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long
as it is not distributed for any material gain or profit; however, this book
BACK TO CONSTANTINE So when Constantine told his troops that he had seen the
sign of the cross, the Christians thought he was speaking of the "Christian"
cross. The pagans perceived it to be the symbol of Tammuz or Nimrod. It
united them together for the battle.
Actually, there is little reason to consider this vision as authentic,
especially since it has no real historical basis. The only authority from
whom the story has been gathered by historians is Eusebius, who confessedly
was prone to edification and was accused as a "falsifier of history."
Another account, supposedly given by Lactantius - the tutor of Constantine's
son Crispus - speaks only of a dream in which the emperor was directed to
stamp on the shields of his soldiers "the heavenly sign of God" and thus go
forth to battle. That the Lord would command a pagan emperor to make a
military banner with the cross emblazoned upon it and to go forth conquering
and killing under that sign is altogether inconsistent with the general
teaching of the Bible and with the spirit of true Christianity. It is more
the spirit of the Crusades, which was not of the Spirit of God.
Further, the Roman Empire of which Constantine was the head had been
described in the Scriptures by the prophet Daniel as a "Beast" that was so
terrible in the eyes of God that it could not be compared to any earthly
beast (Dan.7:1-8). Are we to believe that the Lord Jesus would become the
leader of this beast system or that He would give a sun-worshipping emperor
a vision, telling him to kill and enter into battle as His representative?
We trow not!
Constantine never believed that Jesus was Deity - that He was God with a
capital "G". The entire time he professed Christianity he was, as emperor,
the high priest or Pontifix Maximus of the mystery cult in Rome. Moreover,
after his supposed conversion, he committed several murders - including
those of his wife and son! Constantine died the high priest of the
worshipers of the sun and at the same time claimed to be the "pope" of the
church of God on this earth! When Constantine dedicated Constantinople
(Istanbul), he used both pagan and Christian rites in the ceremony. His
determination to mix together both paganism and Christianity is also
witnessed on the coins which he had made. He had a cross placed on them
(especially to please the professing Christians) along with representations
of Mars or Apollo (Nimrod). At the same time he continued to believe in
pagan magic formulas for the protection of crops and the healing of disease.
Why then, if he were not truly a Christian, did he show numerous favors
toward the Christian faith? Constantine was a consummate politician. He had
seen that years of severe and brutal persecutions had not destroyed the
Christian faith. His position was being challenged by a rival Emperor
(Maxentius) and as he was in dire need for support from every section of the
populace, he thus turned to the Christians in order to unite his divided
empire. This was fairly easy to do for by this time the majority of the
church leaders were thinking in terms of numbers and popularity, rather than
in terms of spirituality and truth. They were ready to compromise with the
various "mysteries" in order to achieve those ends. This was especially true
at Rome.
By adopting the cross as a symbol on the banners of his army, and having a
transverse letter "X" (a Greek Chi) marked on the shields of his soldiers,
Constantine hoped to establish unity among his troops. The apostate and/or
worldly Christians would think they were fighting for the cross of Christ;
the pagans had already been fighting for years under a standard bearing a
mithraic cross of light. The ploy worked and the battle at Milvian Bridge
was won on 28 October, 312 A.D.
THE COUNCIL OF NICEA In the year 325 A.D., the Nicean Council was called to
put down and settle the Arian heresy. Arius believed that Jesus was not God
come in the flesh - that He was only a created being - and not God with a
capital "G". To him, Jesus was more than a man but not quite God.
Eusebius, a great historian who wrote a history of the early church, was
also an Arian - a unregenerate religious man and a friend of Arius. Under
great pressure from the orthodox Bishops at the Council, Constantine and
Euseibus "took a more conciliatory view" concerning the deity of the Lord
Jesus Christ. In other words, they would no longer go all the way to
Arianism, but they would not completely deny it either. But this simply
cannot be done with Jesus. One cannot take a "conciliatory point of view"
about the deity of Christ. The fundamental issue in whether one is actually
a Christian or not is "Who is Jesus to you?" If a person does not believe
unto the committing of his life that Jesus is God the creator (Jehovah) come
in the flesh, that He died for the sins of the world and was raised from the
dead on the third day to make the final blood atonement for mankind's sins,
that person is not a Christian. That is the Biblical definition of a
Christian. It is not someone who has been merely water baptized, confirmed,
or has his name on the membership roll.
Arius did not relent and was banished. However, two years later Constantine
allowed him to return. Constantine and Eusebius, like Arius, did not hold to
the doctrine of "Consubstantiation" - that Jesus and God the Father were of
one essence. Constantine had become not only the Emperor of the Roman Empire
but, in effect, a Pope. As such, it was his duty and privilege to appoint
all bishops, archbishops, etc., within the Church. From the human
standpoint, the organized church had come completely under the authority of
the Roman government. His son, Constantius II, inherited that power when he
became Emperor. Like his father, Constantius was Arian (his brother Constans
was orthodox) and all the bishops appointed by him were Arian in doctrine.
As a consequence, for the next three hundred years every bishop in the Roman
Catholic Church was Arian.
|
|
| | From: | Roger Pearse | | Subject: | Re: the Greek Text of Westcott & Hort #4 | | Date: | Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:02:42 GMT |
|
|
| "admin" wrote in message news:...
> BACK TO CONSTANTINE So when Constantine told his troops that he had seen the
> sign of the cross, the Christians thought he was speaking of the "Christian"
> cross. The pagans perceived it to be the symbol of Tammuz or Nimrod. It
> united them together for the battle.
A reference to an antique source that says so is required here. None
such exist.
> Actually, there is little reason to consider this vision as authentic,
> especially since it has no real historical basis. The only authority from
> whom the story has been gathered by historians is Eusebius, who confessedly
> was prone to edification and was accused as a "falsifier of history."
This idea is a malicious falsehood circulated by Gibbon, who wished to
ignore his testimony about Christian martyrs, and repeated and
enlarged upon in the 1850's by people who wished to rubbish the idea
of empire. It was dismissed in the recent edition of the Vita
Constantini (Cameron & Hall, Oxford, 1993) as 'prejudice'.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
|
|
| | From: | admin | | Subject: | Re: the Greek Text of Westcott & Hort #4 | | Date: | Thu, 18 Nov 2004 04:35:11 GMT |
|
|
| Roger said:
BACK TO CONSTANTINE So when Constantine told his troops that he had seen
the
>> sign of the cross, the Christians thought he was speaking of the
>> "Christian"
>> cross. The pagans perceived it to be the symbol of Tammuz or Nimrod. It
>> united them together for the battle.
>
A reference to an antique source that says so is required here. None
such exist
Steve's response: I tend to agree with you in this regard. The quote was
from the book by Ralph Woodrow- Babylon Mystery Religion: Ancient and
Modern. The author has since 1997 stopped the printing of this book, and no
longer supports it. He has also criticized a research book that he relied
on- "The Two Babylons:" by Alexander Hislop.
Roger said:
Actually, there is little reason to consider this vision as authentic,
>> especially since it has no real historical basis. The only authority from
>> whom the story has been gathered by historians is Eusebius, who
>> confessedly
>> was prone to edification and was accused as a "falsifier of history."
>
This idea is a malicious falsehood circulated by Gibbon, who wished to
ignore his testimony about Christian martyrs, and repeated and
enlarged upon in the 1850's by people who wished to rubbish the idea
of empire. It was dismissed in the recent edition of the Vita
Constantini (Cameron & Hall, Oxford, 1993) as 'prejudice'.
Steve's response:
I disagree with you on this one. The only person that really knows if
Constantine was really saved is Jesus Christ. In fact, Jesus Christ is the
only person that really knows if I am saved or you are saved . We have all
known believers with all of the right answers, etc., but yet we later see
them stumble and fall- big time- adultery, fornication, etc. etc. etc.
Christ is the only person that can see their heart. He is the one that makes
the final call. He is the one that sees their faith, or lack thereof, He is
the one that sees their belief in the Messiah, in Him, and their belief in
His birth, death and resurrction from the dead. What sin they have committed
is moot, since He died for the sins of the World, especially for those that
believe., In regards to Constantine, hopefully he will be in heaven when
I/we (you and me) get there. If he isn't, then we won't remember who he was
anyway.
When I look at Constantine in my flesh, I see a man who never believed that
Jesus was Deity, that He was God. After being saved he killed his wife and
his son. When he dedicated Constantiniple he used both pagan and Christian
rites in the ceremony, etc.He didn't even get baptized until he was on his
deathbed. Does all of this mean that he was not saved? Of course not. It
means that there was no "fruit of the spirit" visible in his life. I would
tend to think that he was not saved, that he was indeed the consummate
politician.. Christ is the final judge of this matter, not me or Floyd Jones
or you or anyone. But Constantine appears to be, at the very least, a
confused, carnal man that was; perhaps, a Christian.
God bless,
Steve Goltra
"Roger Pearse" wrote in message
news:C7Omd.28777$KJ6.3445@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "admin" wrote in message
> news:...
>> BACK TO CONSTANTINE So when Constantine told his troops that he had seen
>> the
>> sign of the cross, the Christians thought he was speaking of the
>> "Christian"
>> cross. The pagans perceived it to be the symbol of Tammuz or Nimrod. It
>> united them together for the battle.
>
> A reference to an antique source that says so is required here. None
> such exist.
>
>> Actually, there is little reason to consider this vision as authentic,
>> especially since it has no real historical basis. The only authority from
>> whom the story has been gathered by historians is Eusebius, who
>> confessedly
>> was prone to edification and was accused as a "falsifier of history."
>
> This idea is a malicious falsehood circulated by Gibbon, who wished to
> ignore his testimony about Christian martyrs, and repeated and
> enlarged upon in the 1850's by people who wished to rubbish the idea
> of empire. It was dismissed in the recent edition of the Vita
> Constantini (Cameron & Hall, Oxford, 1993) as 'prejudice'.
>
> All the best,
>
> Roger Pearse
>
|
|
| | From: | Roger Pearse | | Subject: | Re: the Greek Text of Westcott & Hort #4 | | Date: | Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:36:55 GMT |
|
|
| "admin" wrote in message news:<3EVmd.29174$KJ6.2902@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> Roger said:
> BACK TO CONSTANTINE So when Constantine told his troops that he had seen
> the
> >> sign of the cross, the Christians thought he was speaking of the
> >> "Christian"
> >> cross. The pagans perceived it to be the symbol of Tammuz or Nimrod. It
> >> united them together for the battle.
> >
> A reference to an antique source that says so is required here. None
> such exist
>
> Steve's response: I tend to agree with you in this regard. The quote was
> from the book by Ralph Woodrow- Babylon Mystery Religion: Ancient and
> Modern. The author has since 1997 stopped the printing of this book, and no
> longer supports it. He has also criticized a research book that he relied
> on- "The Two Babylons:" by Alexander Hislop.
Thanks for the origin of the quote: most interesting. I wish more of
these quotes were attributed. It's hard to tell sometimes whether
someone is making them up, or repeating in good faith something he
read.
> Roger said:
> Actually, there is little reason to consider this vision as authentic,
> >> especially since it has no real historical basis. The only authority from
> >> whom the story has been gathered by historians is Eusebius, who
> >> confessedly
> >> was prone to edification and was accused as a "falsifier of history."
> >
> This idea is a malicious falsehood circulated by Gibbon, who wished to
> ignore his testimony about Christian martyrs, and repeated and
> enlarged upon in the 1850's by people who wished to rubbish the idea
> of empire. It was dismissed in the recent edition of the Vita
> Constantini (Cameron & Hall, Oxford, 1993) as 'prejudice'.
>
> Steve's response:
> I disagree with you on this one. The only person that really knows if
> Constantine was really saved is Jesus Christ. ...
I agree, but I think we're at cross-purposes. The story about
Eusebius was manufactured by Gibbon.
> When I look at Constantine in my flesh, I see a man who never believed that
> Jesus was Deity, that He was God. After being saved he killed his wife and
> his son. When he dedicated Constantiniple he used both pagan and Christian
> rites in the ceremony, etc.He didn't even get baptized until he was on his
> deathbed. Does all of this mean that he was not saved? Of course not. It
> means that there was no "fruit of the spirit" visible in his life. I would
> tend to think that he was not saved, that he was indeed the consummate
> politician.. Christ is the final judge of this matter, not me or Floyd Jones
> or you or anyone. But Constantine appears to be, at the very least, a
> confused, carnal man that was; perhaps, a Christian.
Well, this is indeed rather a matter of opinion each way. Constantine
was a violent and brutal man, as every late emperor was and indeed had
to be. He executed his son for adultery; his wife when he discovered
she had framed his son. I do not know the source for the claim about
Constantinople, but he ruled a state which was officially pagan. But
his legislation was overwhelmingly pro-Christian, and he used to
preach sermons to his court officials which they had to try to think
of excuses to avoid. In boredom there is sincerity, I think!
All the best,
Roger Pearse
|
|
| | From: | Magnus | | Subject: | Saved | | Date: | Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:32:28 GMT |
|
|
| admin wrote:
> In fact, Jesus Christ is the
> only person that really knows if I am saved or you are saved .
If you don't know if you've been saved, then you have not.
I'm surprised to hear this from you Steve. I hear this from others when
I ask them if they are going to heaven. Those who say, "I'm not sure, I
hope so" usually are the ones who believe the "being good" (our mothers
taught us this) and doing good things ("works") earn them salvation.
Magnus
|
|
| | From: | admin | | Subject: | Re: Saved | | Date: | Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:12:04 GMT |
|
|
| Dear Magnus: I truly know that I am saved. What the reference was about was
Constantine. Was he really saved or a lost sinner? Jesus Christ is the only
one that knows. Of course, Constantine would know as well. But since we are
on the outside, looking on, we cannot see what is in the heart. Only Jesus
Christ sees the heart- Hebrews 4:12-16 tells us:12. For the word of God is
quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to
the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and
IS A DISCERNER OF THE THOUGHTS AND INTENTS OF THE HEART.
13. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but
all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to
do.
14. Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the
heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the
feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are,
yet without sin.
16. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may
obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
I apologize for not being clear. What I meant to say is that I cannot be
sure when I see others- are they saved or lost? Christ is the only man that
knows for sure. When it comes to Constantine, I am definitely not sure. But,
since he wanted to be baptized on his deathbed, that is a sign that he was
probably saved at the very end, if he hadn't been saved before. But again, I
am not sure.
God bless,
Steve Goltra
"Magnus" wrote in message
news:wsaod.768$NU3.26@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> admin wrote:
>> In fact, Jesus Christ is the only person that really knows if I am saved
>> or you are saved .
>
> If you don't know if you've been saved, then you have not.
>
> I'm surprised to hear this from you Steve. I hear this from others when I
> ask them if they are going to heaven. Those who say, "I'm not sure, I hope
> so" usually are the ones who believe the "being good" (our mothers taught
> us this) and doing good things ("works") earn them salvation.
>
>
> Magnus
>
|
|
|
