Good point. Plus you have the early church fathers quoting the New Testament in the early second century, and I think the earliest known fragment of the New Testament dates back to 90 AD.Its sad that people think the New Testament was edited by fourth century theologians, and yet they think the Gospel of Judas is totally reliable. But I don't really concern myself with their errors, for I know what I believe and their misconceptions wont deter me.
2006-12-21 16:36:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
It is amazing, considering that Constantine didn't even become baptized in the Faith except at the end of his life. He merely made Christianity legal. He did not endorse the religion or make it any kind of official religion of the Empire. This came much later. The official church scripture canon was argued over for about 250 years or so. To this day, because of all the back and forth arguement, Revelations is never read in any of the Church services.
Many myths exist in Protestantism concerning the early church. Rome was not the head of the Roman Empire anymore, since Constantine made the head Constantinople. To trace the early history through the city of Rome alone...would be only part of the answer. You may learn much more on this website provided below.
2006-12-22 00:49:24
·
answer #2
·
answered by Felicitas 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Baptizing against a persons will violates the Church's most fundamental principle of religious freedom. Ignorant hate mongering bashers never check the facts, they just swallow down whole every lie ever printed agianst the Catholic Church. This is a classic example of how falsehoods are spread.
Dr. Carroll, author of the Baptist church history entitled “The Trail of Blood,” makes the claim that Constantine called a council in 313 AD, the same year he issued the Edict of Milan, and this council first formed the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. This theory breaks down, though, when one begins to read the history books and discovers that no Church council was held in 313.
But the main problem with all of these theories is that, if they were true, one would expect to be able to find all of the doctrines that are specifically “Catholic” coming about only after the “invention” of the Catholic Church. Whatever year one proposes as the beginning of Catholicism, one should expect to see none of these Catholic doctrines before it. Even a cursory reading of the Church Fathers from the first, second, and third centuries shows that this is not the case.
http://www.turrisfortis.com/hierarchy.html
.
2006-12-22 00:49:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by Br. Dymphna S.F.O 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree that taking history from a fiction Novel isn't a good idea, but I've read a couple of history books about Constantine and it corroborated this element of the Da Vinci code. Yes, there was an ecumenical council, the first council of Nicea in 325, where the scriptures were edited and canonized. So, as in all good fictional stories, using bits and pieces of truth to back it up makes them more meaningful.
Do I believe that Opus Dei has albino killer monks trying to protect ancient artifacts- of course not, but it makes for a fun story.
2006-12-22 00:39:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by Morey000 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes and the all say the same thing. Even the Catholics.
Let's put it into perspective. Peter started some ministries in barns and buildings.
Paul and John assiststed, wrote and started more ministries.
These ministries grew.
Constantine, however, turned it into a formal Empire of the Byzantinne and saw to it a formal, offical Bible was created and that dates and rituals were unform and then Constantine gave his blessings and it was thrown upon the masses who never were involved with the Churhes of Peter and Paul and John.
Now, if you would like to present EVIDENCE to the Contrary I'll be happy to forward it to Encylopedia Britanica and the Pope in Rome.
A friend of mine when to Greek Orthodox Church School. It was named CONSTANTINE.
2006-12-22 00:41:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Bible "King James" any version is all you need to be concerned with. The rest is just for your imagination. After much seeking and finding and it comes full circle you will see the "Bible" had all the answers you were looking for in the first place.
Faith is believeing without seeing. Before I was saved there were so many questions I had that never could be answered. I started going to Church with my girlfriend (now my wife) and so many things started to make sence. I would never tell you to stop being you or quit believeing what you believe. That is not me. I believe in loving people for what and who they are. But believeing in a God who will forgive you and accept you as you are if you only believe in Him is great. I don't want to believe this sometimes crappy life is all there is. I want to believe there is a Heaven and I can go there when I die.
Someone put it real simple!
If you believe in God and there is a God you are Good!
If you believe in God and there is No God you are Good!
But if you don't believe in God and there is a God you are in Big trouble.
Good Luck and Merry Christmas!
2006-12-22 00:32:36
·
answer #6
·
answered by Tiger Crane Master 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
It's impossible for Protestants to justify breaking away from the Catholic Church, the one true church that Jesus founded, so they fabricated this cleverly crafted falsehood.
The "myth of Constantine" is totally false, but it is useful, since it's been repeated long enough to SEEM like the truth, at least to those who WANT to believe it..
For the true story of Constantine, from a real historian, go here:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-23.htm#P6389_2704558
2006-12-22 01:04:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Constantine is associated with it because it happened on his watch. I would compare it to King James who didn't write a word of his version on the bible but who gets to claim credit over Tyndale who wrote most of the famous words, albeit for a different translation.
2006-12-22 00:38:13
·
answer #8
·
answered by Dave P 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Somehow people are comfortable with saying that holy people lie all the time and try to veil the truth. Anyway, if that was true, Catholicism would be far easier to prove to "bible alone" Christians.
2006-12-22 00:39:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by BigPappa 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree with you. A lot of people are ignorant of history and will believe any fiction novel that comes around. They believe what they want to believe when they hate the Church that Jesus founded.
2006-12-22 00:29:50
·
answer #10
·
answered by Life 2
·
1⤊
1⤋