Who is Constantine????? Is he important at all?

[B3Wannabe]

haha...umm, apri fools?  ;)I know my history of the early church.
And again, my problem wasn't so much with the data as it was with the semantics.

I see posts like that all the time...from skeptics.

I was just trying to point out I wouldn't say things quite the way he said them because of how they can be easily twisted.

Ok. So, in other words, you're giving your opinion of how history should look, because you don't agree with it?

[Furious Styles]

As promised I wanted pick up where I left off in regards to fmason's comments. My mistake on calling him freemason is a microcosm of how many in modern christianity see scripture and historical events from a perspective that we choose to see!! Constantine is the political figure who gave authority to the entity that became the mainstream church. Of course this church morphed into the Catholic faith. Witchcraft is defined as people being under the control of satanic forces through disception. The protestant reformation is the forunner of American christianity. Look closely and one would find the word protest. Martin Luther's ideas about spirtuality was consistent with many of the words of Jesus but his words were turned into religious fodder rather than a reformation among individuals. The protestants still recreated an organization fundamentally flawed due to their tendency to form the church in human interpretations of the spirit of God.

It is written that God is a spirit and those who worship him must do so in spirit and truth. Paul taught us that if we walk in the spirit that we would have a better chance to not to fall prey to sins of the flesh. The bible ultimately became the ultimate authority over how many "christians" handled many aspects of their lives. Notice that their isn't a scripture in the bible that will tell us to depend on the bible only. It tells us to be filled with the spirit!! Isn't the spirit greater than what is written? Throughout the canon the truth speaks to us in regards to the spirit of God but like our prodecessors of the faith we tend to seek after the tangible evidence of what we believe God represents. The catholic faith adopted the term father which was usually applied to a priest. Didn't scripture teach not to call any man father in the faith? Modern christians like to refer to their leaders or spiritual mentors as their "spiritual father" which isn't consistent with the teachings of the faith but it is consistent with what catholic leadership drilled into their followers. Many people fear their leaders more than the living GOD!!! It is also rooted in the same deception that many in the early mainstream church became attracted to. The deception was making the "Kingdom" of God out to be a phyisical manifestation through "Godly" Government and conquest. Doesn't this mirror the religious right movement of the past 40 years? (Theocracy) Did Jesus not proclaim that the Kingdom of God was within us the believer? Did he not tell the sons of Zebedee that they weren't wise to ask for such a high rank in his kingdom without knowing the price they would have to pay? Does that question implies that Jesus was talking about a physical manifestatiion of the kingdom? Spiritual people know the answer to this.

I know I know.. Doesn't he pray thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven? Yes but didn't he also say thy kingdom come? Hmmm... Sure sounds like the kingdom ain't here yet. It is within us because he coming back for those who understand the kingdom power that works within them. So witchcraft has a real footprint in the BOC!!! Many of you have noticed the heirachies that have developed among the many denominations. Where do you think the concepts came from? Bishops were appointed by Constantine. The council of Nicea was about how to control the flow of epistles that were being written all over the world about Jesus. Denominations seek to control the very essence of thought among the many churches under their influence.  They all have juridictional leadership that rolls up to one figure head that is called a bishop. The orthodox christians created that model. Once some of the orthodox christians split from what became catholocism many of the catholic churches followed the same model. The pope then assumed leadership of most of the material wealth gained through shady business deals such as war, slavery(also the enslavement of Africans shortly after the dark ages) prostitution and feudalism.

Many churches are consumed with the success of the organization of their denominations or fellowships at the expense of people who support the church. Do your homework and see how much loot the church had in those days compared to the peasants. You'd find who had all of the economic, educational, and societal advantages. This isn't speaking only from a financial aspect. It also speaks to the lack of concern for the deputizing of pew members to be more than just people who pack the church to hear entertaining sermons on Sunday. Our organizations or counterfeit churches are filled with people who aren't empowered to live spirit led lives due to the mind control that hovers over many congregations. All of these things have roots. I will be more than happy to expound on more examples. I did drop some hints in this long post. He who has hears let him hear...

[B3Wannabe]

Dude!

You sure can write an essay!

[Salvador]

Ok. So, in other words, you're giving your opinion of how history should look, because you don't agree with it?

Note that I'm not trying to call anyone out. I'm trying to help him and others out. If I was saying inaccurate things I would want someone to correct me.

Again my problem wasn't with the data (history) although, contrary to what others have said, there were inaccuracies in the post.

So, no I wasn't giving my opinion on history. I was giving advice, one christian to another, on how I would go about phrasing certain aspects of it.

An extreme example I can give is once a young girl compared the oral tradition (a word she probable had never heard) to the telephone game. 
So, if you bring that to a skeptic it's not much of a step for them then to turn around and say "well then that probably means stories were embellished and fabricated!"
And they would probably be right.