I was commenting on this one:
Catholicism and the Gospel in Less than 10 minutes!
Chase Jones | 14.XII.2015
Here is a first comment, to the video:
|I am sorry, but your historiography has (at least in the presentation here) holes.
"By the time Constantine died, Roman Catholicism had spread like wildfire in the Roman Empire"
In fact, the Christian Church, though persecuted, was everywhere present in the Roman Empire previous to the Edict of Milan.
So, Constantine's legalising it cannot change it. Matthew 16:18, whichever entity is the rock, the Church is built on it. And the Gates of Hades were not prevailing against it, from first Pentecost in AD 33 on to Doomsday.
Supposing then a new entity sprang up around Constantine's legalising the Church, how did it so prevail as to hide the Church that was already 280 years old in 313? It was not just 280 years old, but also fairly wide spread. Including among upper class people who were taking a risk. It could not disappear overnight.
Also, while it is technically possible a local Church receives too many ill prepared converts and is flooded by people believing things alien to the faith, the prospect of many converts coming at a time was not sth alien to the Church Christ founded. In Matthew 28 He told the eleven (including St Peter) to make disciples out of nations - not just out of individual persons from nations, but of nations - in their entirety or quasi-entirety. The Church was meant to be a demographic, not just a club or sect standing aloof from the general population.
Like its predecessor in the Old Testament, the tribe of Judah, where, yes, you do have a situation in Babylon where they had to stand aloof from general population to remain faithful, but you also have a situation in which they were a general population, like under Josaphat or under the Maccabees.
After 280 years in which Catholics had been needing to stand aloof, there came a time for them to be a general population.
That is the true meaning of Ponte Milvio and Edict of Milan ... and not what you just said.
Then I go to other debate, and try to respond to someone:
On the right, you see where I pasted my response with quotes in quotation marks and marking for italics.
On the left, you see where I failed to paste it in response to Rodriguez.
Here are his words:
The apostles founded the church all around the world at the time. Rome went away from some of the teachings for fear of persecution from the Roman Empire. They just took out Jerusalem and a hate for Jews was now part of its government. So the church had to go away from the original teachings in order not to look Jewish. Switching from Passover to Easter but still trying to glorify Christ. From Sabbath to The SUN day ect... but not all. The rest were persecuted for not compromising their believes. It's not about a denomination. Church means called out one. It's a heart for him that God looks for, and the pursuit of truth no matter where it takes you. Traditions of man can take you away from the word of God. Test your faith to the scriptures.
Here is the text I was trying to respond with:
|"The apostles founded the church all around the world at the time."
Mostly Roman Empire, St Matthew did get to "Ethiopia" (not the civilised part where Philip went, but barbarian parts of black Africa), St Andrew probably saw what is now Kiev, St Thomas did get to India. But it was in the Roman Empire that the Church spread most.
"Rome went away from some of the teachings for fear of persecution from the Roman Empire."
OK, you say Church of Rome did so ... well, what exact other Church remained faithful?
"They just took out Jerusalem"
Jerusalem was "taken out" 70 AD. St Peter who had been there had gone to Antioch and to Rome and sent St Mark to Alexandria.
"and a hate for Jews was now part of its government."
Like in when the Synoptics tell us Jesus said "woe ye Pharisees" or "woe ye Sadducees" or "woe ye Pharisees and Sadducees", while St John tells us Jesus said to the Jews "woe ye"? Like when in Apocalypse of same St John there is a passage "thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." - meaning adherents of what is now called Judaism, or some earlier proto-version of it while it was rejecting Christ. Is that what you were referring to?
"So the church had to go away from the original teachings in order not to look Jewish."
You are not giving any specific "teaching"
"Switching from Passover to Easter but still trying to glorify Christ. From Sabbath to The SUN day ect... but not all."
These are matters of discipline. Also, Easter is the feast of Resurrection, connected to but not in all respects identical to the OT Passover. Christ was out of the grave on Sunday. The Church had through centuries celebrated Pasch on the Sunday following 14th of Nisan, not on 14th of Nisan itself, and condemned those who did not tie Pasch of Resurrection to Sunday.
"The rest were persecuted for not compromising their believes."
What rest? The Ebionites were long gone before Edict of Milan. Some renewed versions of Quartodecimans were going against the original beliefs in the Divinity and Humanity of Christ.
Obviously, it is a dreadful chore to recopy all of above manually to under Rodriguez' comment. Obviously, this technical difficulty is imposed to stop me from effectively debating Rodriguez. In other words, this kind of harrassment is a kind of impediment to my freedom of expression. In France, this is a crime. But if the internet admins who arranged this have a backing, this is not likely to be punished.
This library has some security guards who are Muslims, and obviously Muslims have a preference for Protestantism over Catholicism, since the claim of Luther and Calvin actually backs part of the claim of Mohammed (that the Ummah / Εκκλησία Christ founded had been corrupted, because the Christians were too unstable to stay with the truth).
Yes, Muslims have shown kindness to me physically, but they don't seem to be as kind to my projects of getting independent of them - nor are certain others : Communists, Protestants, Freemasons. And the kind of Novus Ordo Catholic which sides with these by Ecumenism against a Catholic who argues Catholicism as actual truth.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Thursday in Pentecost Octave