The words in... "RED" ? ...forsaking the Apostles instead ?
Where did this whacked concept some from ?
What kind of mind teaches such things ?
On what foundation was this madness built ?
Where are your charges against The Apostles ?
Anyone believe in this trash ?
Some teach that one should just read the teachings in the scriptures that are in red ink and they belittle the teachings of the Apostles who, among other things, gave their lives for the testimonies they wrote and taught. Given power by Messiah Himself and being sanctioned by Him as well. I'd like to know what idiot thought up the aforementioned crock of crap???!!!
State your case for this insane teaching !!!
^^^ You go 1st Jerami ^^^
You found something crazier than the dribble you post? Congratulations! That is big time!
I don't know exactly what is going on with this . I did state that too many so called Christians?? worship those things that the disciples taught with MUCH more respect than those things that Jesus taught. Are they Christ believers or disciple worshipers? I have heard it said "That even though Jesus said This, it can not be true, You have to change (INTERPRET) to mean this because Paul said that. And look here, Peter said this so what Jesus said cant be true, cause Paul said over here such and such. I still say those words written in red have more authority than what the disciples said. If I am belittling anyone it should be those that HAVE to change the meanings of the words of Jesus to conform to the words of his students
Yip... something like that. Paul writes Luke 14:26. If you do not hate your mother and father... you cannot be my disciple.
Jesus preached, Love your neighbor as yourself.
Jerami, I am sure you honstly believe what you say. But the problem is that the scripture is not contradicting at all but one must learn of original writting and know Hebrew, Aramail and Greek.
Then needed Holy Spirit for revelation because the people do not understand and one cannot judge but teach them. It is rediculous to suggest we have to read only red print.
OK I've had a hard day climbing up and down a 32' ext ladder painting a house. I'm tired but I godda answer this!!
I never said forsake the disciples.
I said if the disciples are the students of Christ.
If they (the students) say something that seems to disagree with the plainly spoken words of Christ (The Professor)
I'm not going to disbelieve Christ (the professor)
If I interpret anyone it will be the student!
I have no charges against the appostles!
My charges are against the unbelievers in Christ that worship the messangers and give Christ ..NO.. credability.
YOU forget who gave the sanctioning!!!!!!
You Quietand trust have twisted and mis stated my message the same way that you every other.
Now to answer the next question reply.
OH,quietnesandtrust; thank you for this oppertunity.
I have to go make a living now so you will be unabated for approx 10 hours. slander my opinions all that you can.... I'll be back later. As a believer in ...JESUS ...
I will always believe in what .. HE .. said, If I have to change the meaning of anything it will always be the Interpretation of the translation of the apostles
As I have stated before... I believe in the God of Abraham.
The father, son and holy Ghost. These things that Jesus said, I hold in high regard. For you to say that the disciples say are more important than those words written in RED is to NOT believe in the God that you profess to believe in.
I said that I believe the words written in red.... Now you cant get off RED??? what is with that?
I would like to add something. The Lord Jesus did minister as a Old Testament prophet. He addressed issues in the frame of Tanakh for Israeli people. The New Covenant was not established yet but of course predicted. Then the apostles became new creation and were in the different frame set. This is why confusion often occurs. We have to rightly divide Word of truth. Of course New Age wants to eliminate some apostles teaching for sure, on purpose.
The words of Jesus Christ >>> than the words of the apostles, BUT, the words of the apostles are not to be ignored. Why? Because, Jesus speaks through His apostles.
You are correct BUT If you feel the need to INTERPRET someone for it to make sense to you, why don't you interpret what the disciple said , changing the meanings of what they said instead of changing the meaning of what Jesus Christ said?
The words of the disciples are not to be ignored, but most of all neither is the WORDS OF CHRIST
I going to sleep in a few ... gotta get up in 4 1/2 hrs. Go to work. so ya got a lot of time to answer , why is does the disciples said out weighs what Jesus said. will look in quickly in the AM. but won't have long for reply till afternoon.
One last statement before I go back to bed go to work and have to take a 16 hr break.
I'm only talking to who ever this applies to.
I think that the disciples would be turning in their graves if they were still there, to see what translation and interpretation has done to their teachings. I have never said anything with the intent to disrespect them or what they said.
Don't disregard what Jesus said in order to keep your false INTERPRETATIONS alive. believe the words written in red then try to understand the disciples.
If you can't understand them you can't understand them . Do not change the meaning of what Jesus said, If you can't believe what Jesus said just admit it.
Jerami, I don't place the words of the apostles above the words of Jesus, but at the same time I take the whole of the Bible as very important.
I am addressing the person that first posted this acquisition and those that are jumping on her? or his bandwagon. They can believe whatever they want to. They should not MISINTERPRET what I have said.
The act of purposeful Misinterpretation has become the norm rather that the exception.
Has anyone ever followed my suggestion of reading Matthew 23 and 24 as if they were playing a role in a play at school? Capturing the emotions that Jesus must felt at the time.
Remembering that these two chapters are one event, one conversation that began in the temple and continued while walking out of the temple and to the temple mount?
I believe the words of Jesus way way above those that were spoken by the disciples
If the students say something that seems to contradict what the professor said should we disregard the Professor's words?
Best example I can think of, you're an amillenialist, while I myself am a post-tribulationist.
You seem to believe "Let's only heed the words of Jesus, and ignore the apostles, especially when the apostles seem to conflict with Jesus."
I think you're trying to use Matthew 23-24 to prove the amillenialist point, but I read it, and it's stating a post-trib view.
Matthew 24: 14-15
14And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
15When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
Even according to Jesus, the end can not come until the gospel of the kingdom is preached in all the world, to all nations. This means ALL the world, not just SOME of the world.
This was not possible until today, with the internet, highspeed connections.
I believe if someone is finding contradictions between what Jesus said and what the apostles said it has to do with the fairly new belief systems, like preterism, pre-trib rapture and dispensationalism.
Both the rapture and dispensationalism were first brought about by John Nelson Darby. Here's quotes about all three belief systems showing they are fairly new.
"The Rapture was first proposed in 1827 by John Nelson Darby as a solution to the expectancy that Jesus could return at any moment, and prophecies that would take a long duration. A second proposed rapture will occur at the end of the tribulation for the Jews who have converted to Christianity during the tribulation."
"As a system dispensationalism is rooted in the writings of John Nelson Darby and the Brethren Movement."
"Proponents of Preterism sometimes argue that this position was the original eschatological understanding of the Early Christian church., a claim contested by Historicists. One Preterist has been said to hold that the view was developed in the 17th century, a view also held by many non-Preterists."
So the contradictions and misinterpretations of the Bible has to do with trying to fit these three fairly new belief systems into the interpretation of the Bible, as well as other new beliefs. It's not who is right, Jesus or the apostles. It's who is right, Jesus and the apostles or the followers of John Nelson Darby and Preterists.
I am not slandering your opinions Jerami. I just do not believe in the Preterists view. Or pre-trib rapture and dispensationalism beliefs either. You know, it's like you are not to believe that 1700 years of Christian theology couldn't figure it out before these fairly new belief systems came about. All three of these fairly new belief systems are rather a slap in the face to the apostles, the Fathers of the Church as well as the Holy Ghost, that Jesus gave us to guide the church. One verse in the Holy Bible comes to mind here, that is Matthew 12:32.
Matthew 12:32 "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."
Jerami I am not referring to you when I mention the above verse, just those that teach these new belief systems.
What do we think that Jesus would have to say about a NEW SYSTEM of understanding the things that Jesus taught?
There have been too many NEW NEW ideas as to how to interpret the word of Christ.
Rev 12:15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman.... v16 and the earth opened up her mouth and swallowed up the flood
The water was lies and interpretations which continue to come out of the mouth of the dragon by NEW systems of interpretations. Not a good thAng.
Hi Mike, From what you wrote above. Jesus was not the Father of the church. In all consideration, the Catholic church was started by Constantine who said he was given the go ahead from to start the church.
I do consider the church that Jesus was talking about being a brotherhood of love and kindness or goodwill towards man as a whole, not a segregated love based on a belief or even the belief a belief in JC as God but the message was love.
Therefore, as I stated to Jerami about the apostle Peter and what Jesus said. It is to my knowledge that if Constantine was a hater, he was indeed a disciple and should not be trusted.
And as history has shown us, Constantine was a hater, a murderer and a liar. Why would anyone trust him?
hope noone quotes me on what you said but I agree with most of it.
I agree... Constantine established the Roman Catholic Church for political reasons. He was the ultimate authority over THE CHURCH and father of it. Politicalness continues still today.
Constantine wasn't really a Christian though, nor was he an apostle. It's pretty blasphemous to state that a pagan is the father of the Christian church, and not Jesus Christ himself.
Obviously you don't understand what I wrote. You probably never will.
ps, Jesus was a Pegan.
i think Jesus is a pretty cool guy. eh resurrect and doesn't afraid of anything.
You are cool guy too, nice meeting you, sir.
No he wasn't, where are you getting this from? There is no place in the gospel where Jesus says, "Worship the different pagan pantheons. It is wise and holy to worship Zeus, and Apollo. It is a great and wonderful thing to worship Inanna, and Nergal." or anything else like that.
Do I understand right or it is misspelling? I suppose you mean Constantine was pagan not Jesus.
By the way on the first place Jesus preached and teach the faith secondly love.
However it is a fact yes it is but not a good thAng.
Constantine was pagan and was baptized only on dead bed. His mother was Christian. In his time there was too many prosperous Christians and from political reason it was not profitable and not possible any more to kill all of them. Constantine was sympathetic to Christians but it is all.
Sandra Sanctus Vesania is right with what he wrote above. No it is not a historical fact Misha. It is believed that Constantine did not become a Christian until his death bed. Constantine's mother, Helena was a Christian, that is why the Romans stopped persecuting Christians during Constantine's reign. There was one Roman Emperor that started persecuting Christians again after Constantine's death.
I did not say Jesus was the Father of the church Sandra. I was referring to the Fathers of the Church, Alexander of Alexandria, Ambrose, Athanasius, Cyprian of Carthage, Ignatius of Antioch and others, many of whom wrote their sermons long before Constantine.
Christianity and the Catholic Church were started by Jesus Christ to not just bring the message of love (or better described as charity) but also to show we are to adore God. This would explain your previous post where you think there is a contradiction. Christianity also shows that Jesus Christ is God.
Sandra your reference above to Luke 14:26 was not written by Paul but Luke. Verse 27 should be added when quoting verse 26 and verse 26 should be quoted in full.
Luke 14:26-27 "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. 27 And whosoever doth not carry his cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple."
Some these days mix love with charity. Charity can never be evil but a person could love evil.
Well history says that Constantain ordered the slaughter...murder of the early christians... later while he was still alive and after naming Byzintine (Constantinople) he converted to Christianity and have the Christian a high rank in his church and then when to Rome and killed people there for their worship to the Sun god amongst other gods that the romans worshiped.
Then later went into Egypt and killed them too. It was Constantine that ordered the killing and it was said he was given a the order through his dreams and to also put Jesus' name on his head gear as well as the cross on their sheilds.
Constantine later made into law (which by the way was prohibited by Christ) politics and the church... the Roman Catholic Church. He incorporated pagan symbolism into the church to win over what was left of the pegans after he had already gone around and destroyed their temples out of jealousy.
Later after he made any heretics a crime against the state RCC and then defined in the Trinity in ??325??? any order against or heretics, thoughts or practices against it, treason and defined the RCC, "a Church without Choice".
Later they moved that the RCC was the "law" today it's what we call the Vatican.
After the death of Constantine, his predecessors made life so unbearable that "suffering" became the slogan for life because there was no mercy unless you worshiped Christ. In that time, was easier to submit then it was to stand up for what you believed or have your head cut off.
Well Sandra Jesus Christ Himself said "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 28:19). I believe it was Tertullian, who was also a Father of the Church that lived between 160 and 220 AD that first used the word Trinity to describe the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. So Sandra some of what you wrote above is a re-write of history.
The Trinity was not part of the message though. The re-write of history then was allowing the Trinity to be inducted as part of Christ teachings when it never was.
Now people are "going therefore..." and teaching all nations something other then Christ message.
What other scripture indicated the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? You cannot use Dogmas to allow for the answers because it was never... as was most of the bible, part of Christ' teachings.
The RCC has disregarded anything written (gnostic or codex) while he was alive and accepted those written after his death and all hearsay.
Mike, I gave up talking to you long ago. You don't hear anybody except your allies.
Diddo back to you Misha. How's your revolution coming along?
The Father is mentioned over 1,000 times in the Bible, just the words Jesus Christ are mentioned 272 times let alone all the other words describing Christ and the Holy Ghost is mentioned 93 times let alone all the other words describing the Holy Ghost in the Bible. So yes the idea of the Trinity was part of the message introduced as part of Christ teachings. Thankfully Jesus Christ sent His Holy Ghost to guide the church. That is how we know that the gnostic writings were not inspired by the Holy Ghost. And it is blasphemous to call Jesus Christ a pagan.
Well, they are still fabrications and used the way the RCC uses them, they are taken out of context and used in a way that instructs political law as the final say.
I have heard your argument before but it doesn't hold any weight because you believe that the Trinity documents and the RCC are the final say in the law, both politically and spiritually.
And Jesus was still a pegan and also gnostic and very much so.
Love is mentioned more then Christ and the Holy Ghost... why isn't love part of the trinity?
Sandra I love you and I respect you. I just wander where you beliefs have support and came from. What are you reading? Who is your authority? My is only Word of God.
I would like to comment, that you cannot love Jesus if you do not believe in Him. Unbelievers do not even hear Him. So, first is Word of God, then faith (comes by hearing Word), then love. To have a love must have at least two persons. If God would be "single", then He would not have anyone to love. When Son Jesus was born He had the Son. If Son was not existing before (which is recorded everywhere He was) then God started to love and then God changed. But Bible said God never changes.
We do not understand Trinity well especially by mind (soul). We can only believe and love in heart (spirit).
See New Ages (I do not know what you are, but I think you are influenced), try to discredit the Bible as much as they can to set their own religion. This is why they put love on the first place. Since faith comes by hearing Word of God then love is on first place. They do not like Bible, only out of context words.
The fist sin was not sin of broken love but broken faith in God's Word. The first man believe Satan's lie. Unbelief in God's Word is deadly sin. Love also comes from the Word.
sanchez I do not perscribe to any body's theory. I believe that the Rapture as it has come to be called ocured exactly wehn Jesus said that it would. Some standing right in front of him shall not taste of death till THEY see the son of man coming in the clouds sitting at the right hand of power!
Apparently not; using Matthew 24 again, Jesus says that "When the gospel of the kingdom is preached in ALL the world, to ALL nations, then shall the end come" and that "the man of lawlessness must stand in the holy place,"
The first, is only now coming into fruitation, and it may be that only 70-80 percent of the world has heard the gospel of the kingdom.
The Lord God created the world. I think that he does not need satellite TV or the interned to fulfill this requirement. He had the disciples and those millions of people that heard the disciples that were traveling all over the world. A great many of these "gathering places that the word was preached were in PORT CITIES. For Gad all things are possible. He dont need no stinking Internet
Yeah 2 Thessalonians 2 mentions the same as Matthew 24 about the man of sin being revealed first and sitting in the temple as if he were God. This has to happen before the second coming of Christ. I think we are closer than 70-80 percent though.
I realy do not want to be pushy but am mearly sudjesting a diffrent "POSSIBLE" truths !
Maybe ?? The man of sin has already sat in it ?? Maybe we will not see the temple be rebuilt because that will not be necessary!!!! the temple that it is said that he is to sit in was the one that was standing right in front of them. The one that was destroyed fourty years after these words were spokie???? How many years AFTER ??? 40 AFTER
No you are not being pushy Jerami.
I added this to my post that you are replying to here after you replied to it, "This has to happen before the second coming of Christ" meaning the man of sin has to sit in the temple as if he were God before the second coming of Christ.
I understand your preterist view Jerami but it's not possible. It's not possible cause three and a half years after the man of sin sits in the temple Jesus Christ will come for the second and last time. That puts you out by over 1900 years, so far. And there are plans to build the third temple. I showed you a long list of Biblical proof about the three and a half years in that discussion we had about a month ago. I'd be happy to show you again.
When Constantine built the ROMAN Catholic Church, this fulfilled the prophesies described in Rev. 13. So I guess that fulfillment of Bible prophesy is a GOOD THANG. Constantine was a good thang.
quietnesandtrust. A apologise for that last statement, I do not want to become cynical and hateful. By posting this thread You twisted things that I have said the same way that you twist scripture.
Got any names?
And who does this here in this forum?
Where do the students “seem to disagree” with The Professor?
Read the forrums and see for your selves, as to who is doing it.
The sudents do not disagree with the professor! it is someones perseption of "INTERPERTATION" that says that they disagree! "THEY" take a smoothly flowing river of understanding and fragment it, shuffle and twist the truth so that no one can understand it.
Are you afraid to name names?...you are the one who said people are doing it.
I'd like to know names if you would be so kind.
I cannot just "go read all the posts" anymore than you could.
If I were a religiousity-ist, I would be glad to give you names. I could hert feelings or stir up a lotta stink, but I'm not that kind of believer. I may have heart a few feelings but I try not to. So if it doesn't tear your world up. I'll keep names to myselfthank you and I will keep you in my prayers
Why do I need to be in your prayers?
I see names mentioned all over the scriptures, were those people wrong?
Or just not afraid?
They were never vague or ambiguous.
Fantastic, here let me change Matthew 24 so it fits with your believe.
"Then when the gospel of the kingdom is preached to SOME of the world, and SOME of the nations, then shall the end come."
By the way, ALL things were created by HIM and FOR HIM. Meaning that even the internet was created by God (the Son) and for God (the Son). So if God (the Son) decided He was going to create the internet for the purpose of having the gospel of the kingdom spread, to ALL nations, then I don't find that illogical at all.
It is also "possible".?.?.?.? that God did not have to wait for internet in order to fill the terms of this prophesy???
Is that possible for God ?????? What "IF" the people traveling through the world heard the word of God while in those port cities and trade routes??????? Maybe God himself through those people, has already spread the word. Maybe? this prophesy was fulfilled when Jesus says that they would be? In a private conversation with his disciples Jesus said that "THIS" generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled
That's too simple to be true ??? lets interpret this and make a game out of it. Who knows how long this game will last. How long ago do we suposed those people that started this ; started it ?
What I find ironic about these fairly new belief systems, like preterism, pre-trib rapture and dispensationalism is that they all require 3 comings of Christ, but that's not Biblical.
That depends how much interpretation is applied !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Or not applied.
Again What IF ??? his coming again in the air according to Matthew has nothing to do with the first resurrection. It does not say anyplace in scripture that they are married. That is an assumption,based upon "want it to be's" ....that many interpretations are born from.
Some assumptions are correct and
some are not. ...that one ????
Hello friend. The word "rapture" is not in the Bible and we cannot use it in religious doctrine. Rapture means escape from the tribulation when for short period of time about 5 billion people will die. There were event that Jesus predicted, like great distress in 70'tis when temple was destroyed and thousand Jews were crucified daily. Only God intervened. But it is about hope of Christians who are here today. We are living in real world and thinks are going worse in some places. God removed from troubles Enoch, Lot, Jonah, Noah, why not Christians? What is so fuss about? There will be 3 "Raptures" again. And why not? Can we stop God just to defend our doctrines? Vladimir.
PS I just today published Rapture in Hubs.
There is a fundamental problem in the very basis of this discussion: the chances that the words in red are actually Jesus' words is rather low. The Gospels, being written (and not so much written as redacted from other sources) years after Jesus' death by those who were not present and never knew him are of questionable accuracy. Similarly, several of Paul's epistles were, in point of fact, written by Paul.
This, my friends, is the elephant in the room and as soon as it starts moving all of your arguments come crashing down.
Good luck with getting the fundies to see the elephant. They are trained not to see anything but their version of a discredited pile of baloney!
Well, I feel sort of obligated to try every once and awhile. Besides, it would be beyond awesome if it ever worked.
We are all happy that with you being a collage student and all that you are willing to share all of your wisdom with us .....as you stated in your profile. Thank you!!
(Note that this reply is written assuming your response to be sarcastic. If it wasn't, please correct me.)
First, my profile says knowledge not wisdom (I would not claim wisdom). Second, that is the reason I write hubs, not the reason I'm on the forums. I write hubs to share knowledge (and some opinion), I'm on the forums because I enjoy argument and debate.
I am aware of this. the words in red are Quotations that Jesus is said to have said. The words of the disciples are in Black are when the disciples are ADLIBING.
I believe the quotations that the disciples wrote about Jesus with higher regard that the ad libbings of the students.
easier to say the way first stated. Thank you
When I first stumbled upon the concept that in 538 BC Gabriel said that the "commandment came forth" (Daniel 9:3) and then he said, "Know therefore and UNDERSTAND FROM THE GOING FORTH OF THE COMMANDMENT....to build the temple) IT SHALL BE 69 unto Messiah the PRINCE. and in 62 weeks they shall kill the Messiah.
What IF we didn't interpret these things that Gabriel, the messenger from GOD said concerning Jesus Christ. WHAT if it meant exactly what it says???
I have been exploring that possibility for almost 10 years trying to prove it incorrect. I have been unable to do so. I would like to see the verses that you mentioned.
I would like to prove myself wrong. Thank you make money
I believe what you are talking about above is the building of the second temple.
Where it mentions the 1260 days or 42 months or 3 and a half years or a time, and times, and half a time in the Bible it is talking about the actual amount of days or months or years of the times of tribulations. It looks like this will begin when the man of sin sits in the temple.
Maybe a little. I do appreciate being informed that Jesus didn't have a red pencil. Thank you with all sincerity.
Now I'll rethink everything.
Red pencil is not the point. The point is that the accuracy of any given statement within the Gospels is highly circumspect. There certainly are pieces which are likely true, but there are just as certainly pieces which are with almost no doubt false. Add to this that the Book of Daniel, a great piece of apocalyptic literature, was written to give hope and solace to the Jews during the Selucid occupation (I believe it was the Selucids in any case). That should give you pause and perhaps make you rethink everything.
I have been speaking to those like myself that say that we believe what is written is scripture. I am suggestion the possibility of there being another view of scripture interpretation of as little as is possible.
If interpretation is necessary I suggest reexamining the possibility of interpreting the disciples before changing the words of God.
Jerami I'm not sure if you are thanking me or Strophios. If you are thanking me then you are truly most welcomed.
Every prophesy concerning the rebuilding of the temple I believe was talking about past projects.
Isiah 44:28 where God says that CYRUS would say unto the city to be built and to the foundation of the temple to be laid.
over a hundred years later the temple was destroyed by Nebeuchadnezer in 586 BC.
Ezra chapter 1 states that Cyrus commanded that the Hebrews were allowed to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the city and a house for the God of heaven ; for God has CHARGED him to do so.
That same year Gabriel came to Daniel and informed him that the command has come forth and from the going forth of the commandment... unto Messiah the prince shall be 69 weeks.
and after 62 weeks they are going to kill the Messiah
What if we are to understand this like little children?
What if the approx 568 years that passed until they killed
Jesus is the same length of time as Gabriel's 62 weeks?
What If this chapter does not need to be interpreted?
What if we left Gods message alone and interpreted Paul's message so that they fit together nicely.
Another possibility ??
I'm not disputing this at all Jerami. In fact it is what Catholics believe too. It's from Daniel 9:24-26. You might be interested in reading the commentary in red for Daniel 9 from this link Jerami. It's near identical to what you are saying.
Daniel 9:24-26 "Seventy weeks are shortened upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, that transgression may be finished, and sin may have an end, and iniquity may be abolished; and everlasting justice may be brought; and vision and prophecy may be fulfilled; and the saint of saints may be anointed. 25 Know thou therefore, and take notice: that from the going forth of the word, to build up Jerusalem again, unto Christ the prince, there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: and the street shall be built again, and the walls in straitness of times. 26 And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: and the people that shall deny him shall not be his. And a people with their leader that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary: and the end thereof shall be waste, and after the end of the war the appointed desolation."
But the second temple was destroyed around 70 AD as Jesus and Daniel said it would be. So if the man of sin has to sit in the temple as if he were God before the second coming of Jesus Christ as mentioned in Matthew 24 and 2 Thessalonians 2 then the temple has to be rebuilt. And there are plans to build the third temple.
some History for you, about His conversion to Christianity
It happend in year 312, after a battle;
The Battle of the Milvian Bridge took place between the Roman Emperors Constantine I and Maxentius on 28 October 312. Constantine won the battle and started on the path that led him to end the Tetrarchy and become the sole ruler of the Roman Empire. Maxentius drowned in the Tiber during the battle.
According to chroniclers such as Eusebius of Caesarea and Lactantius, the battle marked the beginning of Constantine's conversion to Christianity. Lactantius recounts that Constantine and his soldiers had a vision that God promised victory if they daubed the sign of the cross on their shields. The Arch of Constantine, erected in celebration of the victory, certainly attributes Constantine's success to divine intervention; however, the monument does not display any overtly Christian symbolism.
It was reported that on his death bed, to week to resist he took the right of Baptism, in respect of his Mother Helena.
As for father of the Church????
Jon in nashville
More History if it will help;
Further information: Constantine I and Christianity and Constantine I and Judaism
Constantine the Great, mosaic in Hagia Sophia, c. 1000Constantine is perhaps best known for being the first Christian Roman emperor; his reign was certainly a turning point for the Christian Church. In 313 Constantine announced toleration of Christianity in the Edict of Milan, which removed penalties for professing Christianity (under which many had been martyred in previous persecutions of Christians) and returned confiscated Church property. Though a similar edict had been issued in 311 by Galerius, then senior emperor of the Tetrarchy, Galerius' edict granted Christians the right to practice their religion but did not restore any property to them. 
Scholars debate whether Constantine adopted his mother St. Helena's Christianity in his youth, or whether he adopted it gradually over the course of his life.. Constantine would retain the title of pontifex maximus until his death, a title emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood, as would his Christian successors on to Gratian (r. 375–83). According to Christian writers, Constantine was over 40 when he finally declared himself a Christian, writing to Christians to make clear that he believed he owed his successes to the protection of the Christian High God alone. Throughout his rule, Constantine supported the Church financially, built basilicas, granted privileges to clergy (e.g. exemption from certain taxes), promoted Christians to high office, and returned property confiscated during the Diocletianic persecution. His most famous building projects include the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and Old Saint Peter's Basilica.
Constantine did not patronize Christianity alone, however. After gaining victory in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, a triumphal arch—the Arch of Constantine—was built to celebrate; the arch is decorated with images of Victoria and sacrifices to gods like Apollo, Diana, or Hercules, but contains no Christian symbolism. In 321, Constantine instructed that Christians and non-Christians should be united in observing the "venerable day of the sun", referencing the esoteric eastern sun-worship which Aurelian had helped introduce, and his coinage still carried the symbols of the sun-cult until 324. Even after the pagan gods had disappeared from the coinage, Christian symbols appear only as Constantine's personal attributes: the chi rho between his hands or on his labarum, but never on the coin itself. Even when Constantine dedicated the new capital of Constantinople, which became the seat of Byzantine Christianity for a millennium, he did so wearing the Apollonian sun-rayed Diadem.
Constantine burning Arian booksThe reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the emperor in the Christian Church. Constantine himself disliked the risks to societal stability, that religious disputes and controversies brought with them, preferring where possible to establish an orthodoxy. The emperor saw it as his duty to ensure that God was properly worshipped in his empire, and what proper worship consisted of was for the Church to determine. In 316, Constantine acted as a judge in a North African dispute concerning the validity of Donatism. After deciding against the Donatists, Constantine led an army of Christians against the Donatist Christians. After 300 years of pacifism, this was the first intra-Christian persecution. More significantly, in 325 he summoned the Council of Nicaea, effectively the first Ecumenical Council (unless the Council of Jerusalem is so classified), Nicaea was to deal mostly with the heresy of Arianism. 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).
Constantine made new laws regarding the Jews. They were forbidden to own Christian slaves or to circumcise their slaves.
Thank you Jon.
I believe the most important to Christianity part of his biography is the council of Nicaea, that defined the content of bible we have up to the current day.
That is what I was trying to say earlier, saying that he was the founder of Christianity as we know it now.
Vladimir, if I may, while Sandy is away - to the best of my knowledge her authority is her own heart. And I agree to her, it is the highest authority.
Misha, the Bibles said that man’s heart is unstable and one cannot trust. I it was proved all over again.
I don't trust Emperor Constantine, Vladimir. And I am sorry about your experience, that convinced you he was right. My personal experience shows otherwise.
Constantine was the father of the church.
I believe that the Roman Catholic Church was the beast that John saw rising up out of the sea. The Roman empire was divided into 7 districts each having a pope. these districts were divided into three regions. the largest church in that region was given authority over the other churchen in that region. There was a regional POPE. Seven districts(heads) and ten popes (CROWNS) and this beast was given 42 months to blaspheme the Lord.
The Church invented interpretation !!!
the dragon cast out of his mouth...
and the earth swallowed it up ...
by Brenda Durham 5 years ago
"For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward."Taking the surrounding verses into account, please give your interpretation of the passage. And what is the "reward" He...
by Charles James 8 years ago
If I were to accept God and embrace Jesus, which of the many churches on offer should I join?The Roman Catholic Church is the original and longest lasting. It has a clear perspective but it has to be confessed quite a lot of clergy have not lived up to the pedestal they were put on. Frankly, they...
by Demas W Jasper 3 years ago
As a Christian, is there a difference between a testimony of Christ and conversion?To me a testimony of Jesus Christ is a belief that Christ is the son of God, but conversion or being converted means that you have not only been baptized by one having the authority to baptize, but that you have...
by charlie 2 years ago
For Christians only-- What does this scripture from Ephesians mean to you?Eph 4:11This scripture appears two places in scripture, Corinthian and Ephesians. What do you believe it means to us.Eph 4:11-1211 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and...
by Charlie 3 years ago
Can only Christians and those who accept Jesus Christ go to heaven?According to Christianity, only those who have openly accepted Jesus Christ and the Christian faith may go to heaven. If that is the case, what about the African tribe who has never heard of of Jesus? Even if they are good people,...
by Demas W Jasper 2 years ago
When was Simon Peter actually converted to Christianity?Once you have answered this question, take a look at Luke 22:31 & 32. Some distinguish belief from testimony and testimony from conversion. Simon Peter's path to conversion seems to have been a long and tortured one. ...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|