Constantine invented Catholicism

[fredystairs]

There were very real concerns he was dealing with concerning keeping the empire together and bickering Christians wouldn’t have helped matters at all.

And I concur with this. See my post at #15 above.

 

[Quaestor]

It’s called linguistic evidence. Seeing as many of the Indo-European peoples didn’t have written languages until very late, even some of the languages that retained some of the more primitive PIE features (like the Balto-Slavic languages). Believe it or not, you can actually use linguistic rules to determined with a reasonable level of accuracy at what point in a language or language family’s history specific words were adopted.

So the Italic peoples, being an Indo-European people, would have had their own version of the PIE pantheon, just as the Celtic peoples, the Greek peoples, Germanic peoples, the Baltic peoples, the Slavic peoples, the Indo-Aryan peoples, and even the Hittites, had versions of this pantheon (though some, like the Hittite pantheon, was more heavily influenced by Eastern tropes).

I am probably, in all likelihood, more than you, knowledgeable on the subject. PBS has long been considered a separate development though Kurgan school (? if I remember correctly) has maintained otherwise. PIE is a hypothesis which has been proposed. However, we know that cultures were present in Europe since neolithic times in western Europe and the balkans etc. Since cultures borrow from each other word in one culture migrate to another, due to trade and conquest mostly.

You take a hypothesis and then claim that the deities too migrated. You are being silly. Cultures which evolved independently have deities representing the same things! Humans tend to create deities in their likeness apart from those which claim to be revealed religions! In mot cultures there are sun deities, moon deities, fertility deities, love deities it does not mean that these deities are acquired syncretically until you examine the underlying mythos!!! Your sillyness is astounding - an armchair amature who knows nothing about the subject but wishes to speculate on a matter he/she knows nothing about.

Absolute silliness. SMH.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

It’s called linguistic evidence. Seeing as many of the Indo-European peoples didn’t have written languages until very late, even some of the languages that retained some of the more primitive PIE features (like the Balto-Slavic languages). Believe it or not, you can actually use linguistic rules to determined with a reasonable level of accuracy at what point in a language or language family’s history specific words were adopted.

So the Italic peoples, being an Indo-European people, would have had their own version of the PIE pantheon, just as the Celtic peoples, the Greek peoples, Germanic peoples, the Baltic peoples, the Slavic peoples, the Indo-Aryan peoples, and even the Hittites, had versions of this pantheon (though some, like the Hittite pantheon, was more heavily influenced by Eastern tropes).

I am probably, in all likelihood, more than you, knowledgeable on the subject. PBS has long been considered a separate development though Kurgan school (? if I remember correctly) has maintained otherwise. PIE is a hypothesis which has been proposed. However, we know that cultures were present in Europe since neolithic times in western Europe and the balkans etc. Since cultures borrow from each other word in one culture migrate to another, due to trade and conquest mostly.

It’s a great deal more than a hypothesis. The number of cognates found in the Indo-European languages are frankly very large, the PIE dictionary is probably the biggest reconstructed dictionary of any language family, and part of that vast list of cognates is a list of deities, and those deities, along with other cultural motifs like a world tree, twin founder heroes, and the like can be found throughout various Indo-European legendariums.

You take a hypothesis and then claim that the deities too migrated. You are being silly. Cultures which evolved independently have deities representing the same things! Humans tend to create deities in their likeness apart from those which claim to be revealed religions! In mot cultures there are sun deities, moon deities, fertility deities, love deities it does not mean that these deities are acquired syncretically until you examine the underlying mythos!!! Your sillyness is astounding - an armchair amature who knows nothing about the subject but wishes to speculate on a matter he/she knows nothing about.

Absolute silliness. SMH.

Only if you basically throw out two centuries of research on Indo-European studies, which I don’t think any sensible person familiar with the topic with do. I think you have grossly overestimated your own knowledge and abilities, and I’ll be blunt, I honestly don’t think you know very much about the topic at all.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

This is why I believe Constantine (and whoever approved and practiced with withholding Baptism) was very wrong. Baptism is very important to believing in Christ and following His commandments. It should not be witheld. It is like witholding our sins!

As some background to the reason why baptism was delayed at this time, the following is a passage from James Hitchcock’s work History of the Catholic Church:

“The power of baptism to remit sins was so great that rigorists held that sins committed after baptism were possibly unforgivable, ant this motivated some people - Constantine but also future saints such Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom - to delay receiving it.”

I’m not making any judgment concerning the rightness or wrongness of this. I’m just saying that that was the understanding at the time.

Thanks. But not Augustine, he was upset for his mother dalaying. And she only did in his adolescence. I would like to see those Saint’s personal explanation.

 

[fredystairs]

You misunderstand the meaning of this vote. The vote of which you speak was confined to Arius’s views and whether or not Arius would be allowed to continue in his position.

We will get to the vote in a bit. First, some background.

About the year 318, one of Alexander’s (bishop of Alexandria, Egypt) priests, Arius, does an exegesis of Proverbs 8: 22 – 31, and concludes that the Logos is a created being and thus could not be God.

The implications of Arius’ teachings were problematic and they had both Trinitarian and Christological implications. Since Arius taught that the Logos, the Son of God, was a creature created by God, he would state that “The Son is not from eternity; he came from nothing.” St. Athanasius, who was at the Council of Nicaea with Bishop Alexander, and succeeded him to that See, argued against Arianism. From J.N.D. Kelly’s book Early Christian Doctrines: “First, he (St. Athanasius) argued that Arianism undermined the Christian doctrine of God by presupposing that the Triad is not eternal and by virtually reintroducing polytheism. Secondly, it made nonsense of the established liturgical customs of baptizing in the Son’s name as well as the Father’s, and of addressing prayers to the Son. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, it undermined the Christian idea of redemption in Christ, since only if the Mediator was Himself divine could man hope to re-establish fellowship with God.” (page 233)

Without the understanding that Christ is divine, there is no salvation; only the Creator of the universe could save man and to do this, He had to be divine and not just a creature. Further, as Hilaire Belloc in his work, The Great Heresies, explains, had Arianism triumphed our civilization would have been vastly different. It would have produced “a gradual social degradation following on the loss of that direct link between human nature and God which is provided by the Incarnation. Human dignity is lessened.” (page 30)

continued

 

[fredystairs]

What the Council Fathers voted on, and had to sign, was what became known as the Nicean Creed. This from http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum01.htm

1. We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance [Gr. ousias, Lat. substantia] of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten [Gr. gennethenta, Lat. natum] not made [Gr. poethenta, Lat. factum], CONSUBSTANTIAL [Gr. homoousion, Lat. unius substantiae (quod Graeci dicunt homousion)] with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the holy Spirit.
2. And those who say “there once was when he was not”, and “before he was begotten he was not”,
   and that
3. he came to be from things that were not, or from another hypostasis [Gr. hypostaseos] or substance [Gr. ousias, Lat. substantia],
   affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration, these the catholic and apostolic church anathematizes.

The vote had both a negative and positive part. The negative part condemned Arianism - that Christ as God had a beginning or that He is of a different substance from the Father. The positive part proclaimed that Jesus was divine. Here the Council Fathers teach that Christ had to be homoousia (Greek meaning “same substance”, or as is stated at Mass “consubstantial”) as the Father. He had to be divine. Without Christ being divine and thus part of the Trinity, there is no valid baptism; there is no salvation.

Blessings

 

[setarcos]

How do you know what Christ set forth for us to follow in order to be saved? Catholics, Calvinists, Baptists, Lutherans, nondenominationals all have different criteria for who is saved.

I understand what your trying to convey to me. My contention is not with the need to come to an “orthodox” understanding of what we need to do to be saved. This is essential and must be discussed and agreed upon as to what the truth is. I agree with some of the criteria set forth by Catholicism, not all but the essentials of the faith. None of the philosophies you listed are essential in understanding salvation nor have been definitively rebutted nor in my opinion can be, dealing with natures that are inherently impossible to understand. Even so, I believe the essential requirements of being saved are universally recognizable and arguable to universal recognition. The fault with institutionalized denominations lies in the unnecessary nuances that they have developed and insist upon as being true and necessary to salvation. That being said I believe Christ takes into account the spirit in which the belief has arisen if the believer has come to his/her conclusions with the sincere intention of knowing the truth even if the truth has not been as yet recognized for various reasons. Those other opinions on the other hand are not essential in understanding for our salvation and should they cause stumbling blocks they should not be insisted upon. Only a prideful individual or institution would insist on such things without being a direct revelation from God and or not provable.

What do you mean by Orthodoxy?

What did you mean by Orthodoxy? My statement was made with the understanding that you used the word to mean only those Christians in full communion with the Catholic Church. I believe this is too narrow of a net but I’m still open to debate on such things.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Only a prideful individual or institution would insist on such things without being a direct revelation from God and or not provable.

I appreciate your response.

Do you think the Eucharist is a direct revelation from God?

 

[lexscripta]

“According to Scripture? Where does Scripture say that one can pick and choose what to believe and still be saved?”

What does that matter? Unless you also are a “Sola Scriptura” adherent.

 

[De_Maria]

“According to Scripture? Where does Scripture say that one can pick and choose what to believe and still be saved?”

What does that matter?

I was just making the point that it isn’t in Scripture.

Unless you also are a “Sola Scriptura” adherent.

No, but you are. And since it isn’t in Scripture, then you must correct your error in so saying.

 

[Quaestor]

It’s a great deal more than a hypothesis. The number of cognates found in the Indo-European languages are frankly very large, the PIE dictionary is probably the biggest reconstructed dictionary of any language family, and part of that vast list of cognates is a list of deities, and those deities, along with other cultural motifs like a world tree, twin founder heroes, and the like can be found throughout various Indo-European legendariums.

IT IS A INFERRED HYPOTHESIS. The number of cognates against Latin to Sanskrit is VERY SMALL. And according to the hypothesis these are closer to PIE. I use these examples because I am familiar with the two. RECONSTRUCTED DICTIONARY??? Are you AWARE THAT IT is a hypothetical reconstructed language which in all likelihood has not been spoken at all? Ok I want to hear this one… Since PIE is the foundation for the Aryan languages which descended for the Scythians Stog peoples on are the most direct descendants of the group Sanskrit, persians etc. so lets see how you do with the proto pantheon deities OK… so go ahead and tell us as to how the vedic deities who would be directly from Aryan’s match with the cognates of the Roman deities… … Show your true worth as a person who knows the subject… I am listening always ready to learn from mavens

 

[niceatheist]

Honestly, you really have no idea what you’re talking about. I’d refer you to Mallory’s work, but it looks to.me like you have decided to reject two centuries of research, including linguistic, archaeological and geneitct evidence. I’m not even sure why.

 

[Quaestor]

NiceAtheist
Answer my question… I posed one to you so go ahead… why are you ducking the question I posed? Edify us on the subject of the cognate between the deities in the vedas (which are close to PET) and the Roman deities… this is what you were going to do and germane to the matter being discussed… So why are you spouting some nonsense instead of answering the question. Go ahead demonstrate between one of the closest civilizations to the PET and Romans…

If you do not have any actual knowledge just say so…

 

[niceatheist]

I refer you to the lexicon in Mallory’s Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the
Proto-Indo-European World. The number of cognates between Sanskrit and Greek are significant, and certainly leave no doubt that the two languages are related

 

[Quaestor]

What was the question, why do you not answer the question posed… As for as the question posed to you, your reply is nonsense. So, do you have the evidence of cognate between Sanskrit and Greek deities for me at least… because this is after all an issues with deities … so what the problem here? Show me that the mythos matches not just a name of a deity sounds like… So Ok not Roman … We can go with Greek instead that is fine… make your case please.

 

[niceatheist]

I have referred you to a definitive introductory working PIE studies. If you do not know of Mallory’s work or of the contents of the book I have provided the name of to you, then you well and truly have no business making declarations on the topic of Indo European studies.

 

[Quaestor]

Why do you not answer the question, after all you claim to have read Mallory’s work GREAT. Now for us mere muggles who are unable to read the book, could you provide a bunch of Sanskrit names of deties and the Greek deities who share the same cognates… Please go ahead and make your case. Instead of finding a way to escape and name dropping for effect, lets see if you read the book…

 

[niceatheist]

I have referred you to the work. I have even given you an example in dyues pater. You clearly have no interest nor any familiarity with the topic. Go to the library, borrow a copy and then we can have an intelligent debate.

 

[niceatheist]

Except I don’t buy that you are. You don’t seem to know who Mallory is. Sorry, I’ve been on the internet a quarter century and seen my share of empty bluster, and you sir are demonstrating it in spades. I have given you probably the best introductory reference, now educate yourself, or not, but know one thing, I see right through your chest thumping

 

[niceatheist]

Oh and “dyues pater” is the reconstructed PIE name. It would have been Iapeter or Jupiter in Latin.