Antipope Innocent II

It would be very, very, very naughty. But it still wouldn't be "banning the Baptist Church". It's like saying the Milvian Bridge was in Germany or that the Labarum looks like a sword. Wrong.

mountainman

Constantine referred himself as "King" especially
immediately after his supremacy. For example,
the following letter written after Nicaea:

Constantine the King to
the Bishops and nations everywhere.

Inasmuch as Arius imitates the evil and the wicked,
it is right that, like them, he should be rebuked and rejected.

As therefore Porphyry,
who was an enemy of the fear of God,
and wrote wicked and unlawful writings
against the religion of Christians,
found the reward which befitted him,
that he might be a reproach to all generations after,
because he fully and insatiably used base fame;
so that on this account his writings
were righteously destroyed;

thus also now it seems good that Arius
and the holders of his opinion
should all be called Porphyrians,
that he may be named by the name
of those whose evil ways he imitates:

And not only this, but also
that all the writings of Arius,
wherever they be found,
shall be delivered to be burned with fire,
in order that not only
his wicked and evil doctrine may be destroyed,
but also that the memory of himself
and of his doctrine may be blotted out,
that there may not by any means
remain to him remembrance in the world.

Now this also I ordain,
that if any one shall be found secreting
any writing composed by Arius,
and shall not forthwith deliver up
and burn it with fire,
his punishment shall be death;
for as soon as he is caught in this
he shall suffer capital punishment
by beheading without delay.


(Preserved in Socrates Scholasticus’ Ecclesiastical History 1:9.
A translation of a Syriac translation of this, written in 501,
is in B. H. Cowper’s, Syriac Miscellanies,
Extracts From The Syriac Ms. No. 14528
In The British Museum, Lond. 1861, p. 6–7)


Best wishes


Pete Brown

Joan of Bark

This seems pretty absurd, I'm sure all will agree. The cross would have been recycled by the Romans to crucify other criminals, then, when in too decrepit a state to be used for that purpose anymore, used as building material or as firewood. I can't believe generations of Christians actually kept track of the whereabouts of every splinter. It would be like fans of JFK revering Oswald's bolt-action rifle.

There's a passage in Peter De Rosa's Vicars of Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk) in which the author claims that Constantine actually wrote a law allowing for almost complete religious freedom. I'll try to find it and post it here.

Dogfish

[QUOTE=reniaa;5028458
You've hit the nail on the head [/QUOTE]

Good one!

Jeffrey Gibson

Could we have the Greek text of this please?

Jeffrey

Roger Pearse

Evidence?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

QuestionMark

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constan...ne_and_Judaism

Constantine also enforced the prohibition of the First Council of Nicaea against celebrating Easter on the day before the Jewish Passover (14 Nisan) (see Quartodecimanism and Easter controversy).[110]

Constantine and Judaism

Constantine instituted several legislative measures impacting on Jews. They were forbidden to own Christian slaves or to circumcise their slaves. Conversion of Christians to Judaism was outlawed. Congregations for religious services were restricted, but Jews were allowed to enter Jerusalem on Tisha B'Av, the anniversary of the destruction of the Temple.

Also, since Constantine switched the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, (don't you love what a layperson can do?) and the Jews would not switch from "God's" holy day to a workday, what do you believe was the effect of the Christian population on the Jews?

QM?

Joan of Bark

Okay, here's the passage I was looking for from The Edict of Milan, signed by Constatine and Licinius (from Vicars of Christ, page 36):

"We have long considered that freedom of worship should not be denied. Rather, each man's thoughts and desire should be granted him, thus enabling him to have regard for spiritual things, as he himself may choose. This is why we have given orders that everyone should be allowed to have his own beliefs and worship as he wishes"

Author Peter de Rosa goes on to add: "It is ironic that no document in church history, not even from the Second Vatican Council, is as tolerant, generous or wise as the Edict of Milan, composed by two bloodthirsty warriors."

This doesn't necessarily negate Question Mark's comments, as an edict and its enforcement may be two different things. It should also be pointed out that the church opposed the Edict, feeling it compromised the truth.

QuestionMark

"Author Peter de Rosa goes on to add: [I]"It is ironic that no document in church history, not even from the Second Vatican Council, is as tolerant, generous or wise as the Edict of Milan, composed by two bloodthirsty warriors.""


These bloodthirsty warriors created a new Christianity.

Sunday Sabbath as the prime example.

I find that ironic.

Communist documents equal bullshit as you sit in a Gulag.


QM?

Stumpjumper

If I remember some of what I have read correctly, the sign of the cross was a Jewish symbol well before the time of Jesus.

It was a symbol used in underground cemeteries and has been found on Jewish sarcophagi in Jerusalem dating between the first and third century BC.

One theory was that it was the Hebrew letter tau and a symbol for the "sign" in Ezekiel 9:4...

ETA: One source for that view would be Yigael Yadin Pesher Nahum Reconsidered