|
Please provide some quoutes or data to back up your assertions.
DAVEH: Seems to me that you are the one who needs to show your roots,
Kevin. I've shown you where the Southern Baptists had Protestant
roots. If yours are not Protestant, then to where do you trace your
roots? And...can you detail the linage of those roots, or are you just
assuming that you are somehow connected?
BTW........I do not recall you explaining to which faction of
Christianity you belong. Do you have a denominational affiliation?
And if so, what is it?
Kevin Deegan wrote:
I do not trace my baptist roots back to Constantine, nor to the
Protestants.
I have provided quotes dated before the reformation (thus they
are NOT Protestants)
Those same quotes atribute the baptists back to almost the time
of Christ.
You see no problem with tracing LDS "roots" back to the apostles
without a shred of evidence.
Please provide some quoutes or data to back up your
assertions.
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.& nbsp; 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.
Yahoo!
FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
|
