Hey i know how Jesus was able to walk on water

[Hedley Lamarr]

 

 

Wait, is there no middle ground between the poor and the emperor?

 

talking about influence.

 

 

You're the one that stated that Christianity only spread among the poor, and not among anyone notable. I corrected and refuted this point with a few examples of very notable people. If the Emperor is your standard, of course your argument is right because everyone is below the Emperor. So which is it, nobody notable adopted Christianity (which is false), or nobody as influential as the emperor did, which is correct but a stupid statement.

 

 

 

 

The 4 people mentioned are really only recognized in the bible aren't they? Pulling things from the bible and stating them as facts and history is a dangerous game.

 

Not exclusively, no. But the interesting thing about a lack of extra-biblical testimonies that corroborate what the Bible claims is that most everyone that started out not believing eventually converted, and thus became a Biblical testimony. All four names I mentioned, as just a small sample and example, started out as non-believers.

 

Wouldn't every single person be considered as starting out a nonbeliever? At some point they didn't believe and then believed. Religion as a whole in declining quite rapidly in our country. Religion serves a purpose for many people to help guide them in their lives. If a person needs a religion to be the best they can be and be as happy as they can be they should pursue it. However if a person doesn't have a need for religion and is the best that they can be without it then they should do that.

 

Is it possible that all religions are praying to the same God that they all happen to be calling different names?

 

I am also really enjoying reading your guys discussion

[knapplc]

Not exclusively, no. But the interesting thing about a lack of extra-biblical testimonies that corroborate what the Bible claims is that most everyone that started out not believing eventually converted, and thus became a Biblical testimony. All four names I mentioned, as just a small sample and example, started out as non-believers.

 

This is a bit misleading. The ones who started out as non-believers who eventually converted are the success stories, promoted by the church as good examples. Like most sales organizations, they don't publicize the ones who don't convert. Using weight-loss advertisements as an example, the phrase "Results may vary" applies here.

 

I would think it's safe to say there were at least an equal number of people who heard The Word, yet did not convert.

[Landlord]

 

 

Wait, is there no middle ground between the poor and the emperor?

 

talking about influence.

 

 

You're the one that stated that Christianity only spread among the poor, and not among anyone notable. I corrected and refuted this point with a few examples of very notable people. If the Emperor is your standard, of course your argument is right because everyone is below the Emperor. So which is it, nobody notable adopted Christianity (which is false), or nobody as influential as the emperor did, which is correct but a stupid statement.

 

 

 

 

The 4 people mentioned are really only recognized in the bible aren't they? Pulling things from the bible and stating them as facts and history is a dangerous game.

 

Not exclusively, no. But the interesting thing about a lack of extra-biblical testimonies that corroborate what the Bible claims is that most everyone that started out not believing eventually converted, and thus became a Biblical testimony. All four names I mentioned, as just a small sample and example, started out as non-believers.

 

Wouldn't every single person be considered as starting out a nonbeliever? At some point they didn't believe and then believed. Religion as a whole in declining quite rapidly in our country. Religion serves a purpose for many people to help guide them in their lives. If a person needs a religion to be the best they can be and be as happy as they can be they should pursue it. However if a person doesn't have a need for religion and is the best that they can be without it then they should do that.

 

Is it possible that all religions are praying to the same God that they all happen to be calling different names?

 

I am also really enjoying reading your guys discussion

 

 

 

It's not possible. The reason being because the different religions only merely disagree on the issues of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God and salvation. People often use a mountain analogy - God is a mountain and we all find different paths to Him, but according to the different faiths we don't even know where this mountain is or if we're climbing it at all. Saying they are all the same also robs any of them of actually being true, because they claim absolute truth. For example, Jesus being the way, the truth and the life flies very much contrary to the idea of people finding their own ways to heaven.

 

As far as the conversions, yeah I guess it was a bit of a stretched point. However, Knapp, I disagree on the numbers being equal. The number of Christians in the Mediterranean jumped from about 25,000 to over 20,000,000 in less than two centuries, and all before Constantine.

[ZRod]

It's not possible. The reason being because the different religions only merely disagree on the issues of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God and salvation. People often use a mountain analogy - God is a mountain and we all find different paths to Him, but according to the different faiths we don't even know where this mountain is or if we're climbing it at all. Saying they are all the same also robs any of them of actually being true, because they claim absolute truth. For example, Jesus being the way, the truth and the life flies very much contrary to the idea of people finding their own ways to heaven.

Don't forget that the three Abrahamic faiths trace their lineage back to the same person. It's entirely possible that they are worshiping the same god, their views may have just been distorted through the millennia by cultural values and what not.

[knapplc]

As far as the conversions, yeah I guess it was a bit of a stretched point. However, Knapp, I disagree on the numbers being equal. The number of Christians in the Mediterranean jumped from about 25,000 to over 20,000,000 in less than two centuries, and all before Constantine.

 

Source?

[husker_99]

 

 

Wait, is there no middle ground between the poor and the emperor?

 

talking about influence.

 

 

You're the one that stated that Christianity only spread among the poor, and not among anyone notable. I corrected and refuted this point with a few examples of very notable people. If the Emperor is your standard, of course your argument is right because everyone is below the Emperor. So which is it, nobody notable adopted Christianity (which is false), or nobody as influential as the emperor did, which is correct but a stupid statement.

 

 

 

 

The 4 people mentioned are really only recognized in the bible aren't they? Pulling things from the bible and stating them as facts and history is a dangerous game.

 

Not exclusively, no. But the interesting thing about a lack of extra-biblical testimonies that corroborate what the Bible claims is that most everyone that started out not believing eventually converted, and thus became a Biblical testimony. All four names I mentioned, as just a small sample and example, started out as non-believers.

 

 

 

 

You're the one that stated that Christianity only spread among the poor, and not among anyone notable. I corrected and refuted this point with a few examples of very notable people. If the Emperor is your standard, of course your argument is right because everyone is below the Emperor. So which is it, nobody notable adopted Christianity (which is false), or nobody as influential as the emperor did, which is correct but a stupid statement.

So you mean to tell me if that if an Emperor who has a large group of people under his will who converted Rome to Christianity is less influental than a guy named Paul?

[Landlord]

As far as the conversions, yeah I guess it was a bit of a stretched point. However, Knapp, I disagree on the numbers being equal. The number of Christians in the Mediterranean jumped from about 25,000 to over 20,000,000 in less than two centuries, and all before Constantine.

 

Source?

 

 

Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways: reactivating the missional church (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006), 18

 

 

 

 

So you mean to tell me if that if an Emperor who has a large group of people under his will who converted Rome to Christianity is less influental than a guy named Paul?

 

 

Holy hell, NO. I never said anything like that. How is this so hard?

[husker_99]

 

 

 

 

 

So you mean to tell me if that if an Emperor who has a large group of people under his will who converted Rome to Christianity is less influental than a guy named Paul?

 

 

Holy hell, NO. I never said anything like that. How is this so hard?

It wasn't for me. You made it sound like that. Now that we got that cleared up we can move on.

[Landlord]

 

 

 

 

 

So you mean to tell me if that if an Emperor who has a large group of people under his will who converted Rome to Christianity is less influental than a guy named Paul?

 

 

Holy hell, NO. I never said anything like that. How is this so hard?

It wasn't for me. You made it sound like that. Now that we got that cleared up we can move on.

 

 

I did no such thing. You said nobody notable adopted Christianity before Constantine, only poor people. I proved otherwise. That's it. I didn't say people were more notable than Constantine, or on the same level, or anything similar to either of those things. Only that notable people did, in fact, convert to Christianity before Constantine did.

[husker_99]

 

 

 

 

 

So you mean to tell me if that if an Emperor who has a large group of people under his will who converted Rome to Christianity is less influental than a guy named Paul?

 

 

Holy hell, NO. I never said anything like that. How is this so hard?

It wasn't for me. You made it sound like that. Now that we got that cleared up we can move on.

 

 

I did no such thing. You said nobody notable adopted Christianity before Constantine, only poor people. I proved otherwise. That's it. I didn't say people were more notable than Constantine, or on the same level, or anything similar to either of those things. Only that notable people did, in fact, convert to Christianity before Constantine did.

 

No I said poor people were the ones who adopted Christianity first and that the current Christian leaders weren't as influential as Constantine. Let me ask you something...Do you honestly believe that without Constantine's conversion that Christianity would have taken over Europe as it did?

[Landlord]

 

 

 

 

 

So you mean to tell me if that if an Emperor who has a large group of people under his will who converted Rome to Christianity is less influental than a guy named Paul?

 

 

Holy hell, NO. I never said anything like that. How is this so hard?

It wasn't for me. You made it sound like that. Now that we got that cleared up we can move on.

 

 

I did no such thing. You said nobody notable adopted Christianity before Constantine, only poor people. I proved otherwise. That's it. I didn't say people were more notable than Constantine, or on the same level, or anything similar to either of those things. Only that notable people did, in fact, convert to Christianity before Constantine did.

 

No I said poor people were the ones who adopted Christianity first and that the current Christian leaders weren't as influential as Constantine. Let me ask you something...Do you honestly believe that without Constantine's conversion that Christianity would have taken over Europe as it did?

 

 

 

Quote me where you said it, because I don't recall you ever saying anything like that.

 

Here's what I consider to be the truth of the matter. Christianity was taking over whether Constantine adopted it or not. If he didn't convert, we can't theorize what would have happened with him in office because he wouldn't have continued as Emperor for much longer at that rate. He hopped on board because as an Emperor you don't get outvoted - that's not how you stay in office. Rodney Stark, an expert in early centuries history, along with plenty of other historians, claim that by 350 A.D. at the latest, around 52% of the Roman Empire was believing and professing Christ as Lord.

[JJ Husker]

As far as the conversions, yeah I guess it was a bit of a stretched point. However, Knapp, I disagree on the numbers being equal. The number of Christians in the Mediterranean jumped from about 25,000 to over 20,000,000 in less than two centuries, and all before Constantine.

 

Source?

 

 

Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways: reactivating the missional church (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006), 18

 

 

Also, it may be quite obvious but I think it bears reminding; that occurred in an era where there was no internet, twitter, tv, radio, or even printing presses. I find it quite remarkable and unequaled by any other movement, before or since. It leads me to think some higher power was at work (pun intended).

[husker_99]

Holy hell, NO. I never said anything like that. How is this so hard?

It wasn't for me. You made it sound like that. Now that we got that cleared up we can move on.

 

 

I did no such thing. You said nobody notable adopted Christianity before Constantine, only poor people. I proved otherwise. That's it. I didn't say people were more notable than Constantine, or on the same level, or anything similar to either of those things. Only that notable people did, in fact, convert to Christianity before Constantine did.

 

No I said poor people were the ones who adopted Christianity first and that the current Christian leaders weren't as influential as Constantine. Let me ask you something...Do you honestly believe that without Constantine's conversion that Christianity would have taken over Europe as it did?

 

 

 

Quote me where you said it, because I don't recall you ever saying anything like that.

 

Here's what I consider to be the truth of the matter. Christianity was taking over whether Constantine adopted it or not. If he didn't convert, we can't theorize what would have happened with him in office because he wouldn't have continued as Emperor for much longer at that rate. He hopped on board because as an Emperor you don't get outvoted - that's not how you stay in office. Rodney Stark, an expert in early centuries history, along with plenty of other historians, claim that by 350 A.D. at the latest, around 52% of the Roman Empire was believing and professing Christ as Lord.

 

"Among the poor it grew but not until anybody with any real power came along. " This is what I said. Early Christianity was fragmented into many groups and if it wasn't solidified by Constantine would have never taken hold as much as it did.

Taken from Wikipedia: The Emperor Constantine I was exposed to Christianity by his mother, Helena.^[41] At the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312, Constantine commanded his troops to adorn their shields with the Christian symbol in accordance with a vision that he had had the night before. After winning the battle, Constantine was able to claim the emperorship in the West^[42]

How much Christianity Constantine adopted at this point is difficult to discern. The Roman coins minted up to eight years subsequent to the battle still bore the images of Roman gods.^[41] Nonetheless, the accession of Constantine was a turning point for the Christian Church. After his victory, Constantine supported the Church financially, built various basilicas, granted privileges (e.g., exemption from certain taxes) to clergy, promoted Christians to some high-ranking offices, and returned property confiscated during the Great Persecution of Diocletian.^[43] Between 324 and 330, Constantine built, virtually from scratch, a new imperial capital that came to be named for him: Constantinople. It had overtly Christian architecture, contained churches within the city walls, and had no pagan temples.^[44] In accordance with a prevailing custom, Constantine was baptised on his deathbed.

 

 

Icon depicting the Emperor Constantine (centre) and the bishops of the First Council of Nicaea (325) holding the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of 381.

Constantine also played an active role in the leadership of the Church. In 316, he acted as a judge in a North African dispute concerning the Donatist controversy. More significantly, in 325 he summoned the Council of Nicaea, the first Ecumenical Council, to deal mostly with the Arian controversy, but which also issued the Nicene Creed, which among other things professed a belief in "One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church." Constantine thus established a precedent for the emperor as responsible to God for the spiritual health of their subjects, and thus with a duty to maintain orthodoxy. The emperor was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity.^[45]

 

[Landlord]

"Among the poor it grew but not until anybody with any real power came along. " This is what I said. Early Christianity was fragmented into many groups and if it wasn't solidified by Constantine would have never taken hold as much as it did.

 

 

 

I hope you understand what you said and what you claimed to say are different and mean different things. Anyways, Constantine was a great and powerful initiator of the growth of the church, but if he wouldn't have converted and adopted and supported Christianity, he would have been replaced by someone that would have. Radical church growth wasn't a response to Constantine's conversion, rather, Constantine's conversion was a response to the growing of the Christian faith all among his people.

[husker_99]

"Among the poor it grew but not until anybody with any real power came along. " This is what I said. Early Christianity was fragmented into many groups and if it wasn't solidified by Constantine would have never taken hold as much as it did.

 

 

 

I hope you understand what you said and what you claimed to say are different and mean different things. Anyways, Constantine was a great and powerful initiator of the growth of the church, but if he wouldn't have converted and adopted and supported Christianity, he would have been replaced by someone that would have. Radical church growth wasn't a response to Constantine's conversion, rather, Constantine's conversion was a response to the growing of the Christian faith all among his people.

 

No it's not. Poor people don't wield power. Even if Constantine hadn't accepted Christianity he would be in no danger from the Christians. The Emporer after Constantine was a pagan and ruled for 5 years and died at the hands of the Persians and he was reverting Christianity's influence. Now he didn't do much because of his death and short rule but acting like Christiany was a superpower religion is not true, yes it had started to attract people but not influence and power it would have once an Emporer was on their side. Yes if Constantine not had gave Christianity a hand it would have happened much slower and not as great as it came to be.