Cataclysm of Rome, Part 1: The Council of Nicaea

This is the hidden history... Wikipedia All sources downplay these events. All sources misdirect. All sources rename peoples and places to cause confusion. Sources do not link related events, etc. This information builds on what we have already studied together. You will have a major advantage if you have studied with me on this channel. But otherwise, you will hear a lot of new things that I hope will cause you to research more for yourself. The fall of the Roman Empire is a centerpiece of modern secular history. But do we really have the full picture of what happened in Rome? Do you know the real history, the real reasons behind the fall of Rome? Or does your understanding of that history rely on Wikipedia and the movie Gladiator, by Ridley Scott? The vast majority of people have very very little knowledge of what actually caused the downfall of the original Roman Empire. And, please understand that the "Holy Roman Empire" of today is a completely different entity than the Roman Empire. Well, you are about to learn of the true causes of the destruction of Rome and the Empire that existed at the time of Christ. By the way, is it not interesting to you that the "fall" of the empire started in the first century, at the time Christ appeared? However, our history books do not attribute the fall of the empire as having anything at all to do with Christ or His followers. But in my study, I have linked the Fall of Rome with the judgments that God pronounced on the nations of the earth, including, and specifically, Rome itself. In the prophecies of Daniel, Rome is represented as Iron and Clay feet of a giant statue. A stone that is "cut without hands" comes from heaven and obliterates the feet and the rest of the statue. The stone is Jesus Christ Himself, the Son of God who came from Heaven, beside His Father, and crushed the nations of the earth. While many scholars do not really know how the "crushing of the nations" came about, I have come to different conclusions based on very exhaustive study of ancient texts both before Christ, and during and after. I believe that "crushing" of the nations was literal, and that we should interpret the fall of Rome as the conquest of the nations by Jesus Himself, set up as the authority by God Himself, as He reigned from Heaven with his saints. We see the apostle John in the book of Revelation, pronouncing judgments against Babylon. At the same time, calling for His people to "come out" of this nation of Babylon. This cannot be Jerusalem, or any other nation on earth at the time, except for Rome, which ruled the known world and oppressed the Jews at the time of Christ, and when John had this vision. The Sibylline Oracles were prophetic Greek writings from 150 years before Christ, and they make it quite clear that Italy and Rome are seen as the new Babylon, and that their destruction was impending. Dead Sea Scrolls They predicted 40 years of spiritual war against Rome. The War Scroll, 1Q33, 1QM, 4Q491-496 Predicts a 40-year holy war between the forces of good and evil. The evil forces, the Kittim, are known to be Rome. The Damascus Document, 4Q266 Column B19, "From the day of the gathering in of the Teacher of the Community until the end of all the men of war who deserted to the Liar, there shall pass about forty years." Commentaries on Psalms, 4Q171 "Its interpretation concerns all the evil at the end of the forty years, for they shall be devoured.." The Coming of Melchizedek, 11Q13 "6 ...And liberty will be proclaimed for them, to free them from the debt of all their iniquities. And this will happen" "7 in the first week of the jubilee which follows the nine jubilees. And the day of atonement is the end of the tenth jubilee" (this is a period of 40 years) Destruction of Rome by Plagues, Disasters, etc You may say that during the 40 years from Christ's ascension to 70 AD Rome that there is no proof that God or Christ was waging any kind of war on Rome. Well, you may not actually be aware of all the disasters that befell Rome during the time of Christ, and throughout the next few centuries, as the empire was torn apart. Keep in mind that Italy is a geographical area that is only 116,000 square miles. In comparison, that is a similar size to the U.S. State of Arizona. Here is what Italy looks like in comparison to Arizona. I will go through these fast, because I want you to see them, but it is the quantity of these events that is the key, not the details of each one. Of natural disasters... 50 BC - Sea turned to blood (year before war between Pompey and Caesar) 47 BC - Blood rain in Alexandria, Egypt, during Battle of the Nile (Rome conquers Egypt, Cassius Dio https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/51*.html) 45 BC - Drops of Blood fell from Heaven, but also Pits and Pools flowed with Blood (Plutarch) 33 BC - Famine in Rome, 30,000 died (Clark) 26 BC - Famine in near east and Levant (Josephus) 22 BC - Famine in Rome (Cassius Dio http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/54*.html#1) 38 - Fire in Rome, part of the Circus is burnt. 41 - Several famines during the reign of Claudius in different parts of the empire (cf. Dion Cassius, LX. 11, Tacitus, Annal. XII. 13, and Eusebius, Chron., year of Abr. 2070) 44 - Mt. Etna erupted, just before the death of Julius Caesar (Livy/Servius) ~45 - great famine throughout all the world, in the reign of Claudius (Acts 11:28, Josephus Ant. XX. 2. 5 and 5. 2, Dion Cassius, Tacitus, Eusebius) 62 - Earthquake severely damages Pompeii and Herculaneum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AD_62_Pompeii_earthquake, Seneca the Younger, Naturales quaestiones, de terrae Motu, Concerning Earthquakes) 64 - Great Fire of Rome 79 - Vesuvius erupts and destroys Pompeii and Herculaneum 80 - Fire in Rome Destroys the Temples of Roman gods (Cassius Dio KXVI 24, https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/66*.html) 99 - Earthquake severe damage to Circello, Benevento 101 - Earthquake, severe damage in San Valentino in Abruzzo Citeriore 115 - Kitos War 115 - Trajan's Parthian War Campaign 115 - Earthquake destroys the cities of Antioch, Daphne and Apamea, killed an estimated 260,000 people, lasts several days and nights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/115_Antioch_earthquake, https://etc.worldhistory.org/education/the-115-ad-earthquake-in-antioch/) 132 - [[22545|Bar Kochba Revolt]] 165 - Antonine Plague of Rome, 2,000 died per day in Rome (Galen, [[22791|Antonine Plague of Rome]]) 249 - [[23144|Plague of Cyprian]], 5,000 died per day in Rome, Alexandria lost ~300,000 (Cyprian, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Cyprian, Eusebius-The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine) 346 - Earthquake, severe damage in Samnium 361 - Earthquake and Tsunami, extreme damage in Sicily/Calabria, drastic population decrease 369 - Earthquake, severe damage in Benevento, thousands killed 370 - Famine in Phrigia 372 - Famine in Edessa 375 - Earthquake, severe damage in Benevento 508 - Earthquake destroys the Colloseum in Rome 526 - Eartquake in Antioch kills 250,000 people (Byzantine, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/526_Antioch_earthquake) 536 - Volcanic Winter in Rome 541 - Plauge of Justinian, afflicted the entire Mediterranean Basin, Europe, and the Near East,killed about a fifth of the population in the imperial capital Of the Wars of the Barbarians against Rome... 248 - Goths war against Roman Empire, in tha Balkans, Thracia, Dacia; emperor Decius killed 235–284 Called the "Crisis of the Third Century" 238 - (east) attacked the Greek towns on the Black Sea, besieged the towns of Moesia and Thrace, led by their kings, Ostrogotha and Kniva 250 - (east) invasion by the Udugundi 253 - (east) Crimean Goths and the Heruli appeared and dared to venture on the seas, ravaging the shores of the Black Sea and the Aegean as well as several Greek towns 259 - (east) Dacia overwhelmed, Valerian captured 260 - (west) Alemanni headed for Italy across the Alpine passes; others attacked Gaul, devastating the entire eastern part of the country, joined the Franks 267 - (east) Athens was taken and plundered despite a strong defense by the historian Dexi ppus 269 - (west) Emperor Postumus (usurper) killed 274 - (west) Gallic Empire falls 372 - Huns invade Roman lands, capture Rome 376 - (east) Gothic War in the east, Adrianople 410 - Visigoths sack/capture/loot Rome 451 - (east) Atilla the Hun invades Italy 455 - Vandals capture/loot Rome 535 - (east) Ostragoths' war against the Byzantine Emperor Justinian 568 - Kingdom of the Lombards rules over Italy (see [[23141|Lombard Kingdom]]) Now, besides just these disasters and wars, there is something amazing that happened in Christianity itself that we need to be aware of. Most people, Christians alike, are very unaware of the first few centuries of Christianity. But there is an interesting story that I think is somewhat left behind, or perhaps skimmed over, in regards to Christianity's growth. Arianism About 311 AD, a controversy arose between bishop Arius, and bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Arius argued against Alexander's teachings of similarity between Christ and the Father. He felt Alexander was teaching a heresy called Sabellianism, or Modalism, which said that Christ was the same as the Father, and the Father was incarnated as Christ on earth. For historical record, Sabellianism originally had come from Rome itself, from a priest named Sabellius from around 215 A.D. And it had already been denounced by the church before. Socrates of Constantinople (380-439 ad), Chapter 5. The Dispute of Arius with Alexander, his Bishop. He (Alexander), in the fearless exercise of his functions for the instruction and government of the Church, attempted one day in the presence of the presbytery and the rest of his clergy, to explain, with perhaps too philosophical minuteness, that great theological mystery— the Unity of the Holy Trinity. A certain one of the presbyters under his jurisdiction, whose name was Arius, possessed of no inconsiderable logical acumen, imagining that the bishop was subtly teaching the same view of this subject as Sabellius the Libyan, from love of controversy took the opposite opinion to that of the Libyan, and as he thought vigorously responded to what was said by the bishop. 'If,' said he, 'the Father begot the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing.' Alexander of Alexandria came to Nicomedia and had Arius expelled from the church. He and other bishops declared the Son con-substantial (Homoöusian) wit hthe Father. (Photius, History of Philostrogius, 1.4) Alexander's letter to the churches... (Socrates, Church Hist. 1.6 ... Know therefore that there have recently arisen in our diocese lawless and anti-christian men, teaching apostasy such as one may justly consider and denominate the forerunner of Antichrist. ... since Eusebius, now in Nicomedia, thinks that the affairs of the Church are under his control because, forsooth, he deserted his charge at Berytus and assumed authority over the Church at Nicomedia with impunity, and has put himself at the head of these apostates, daring even to send commendatory letters in all directions concerning them, if by any means he might inveigle some of the ignorant into this most impious and anti-christian heresy, I felt imperatively called on to be silent no longer ... apostates: Arius, Achillas, Althales, Carpones, another Arius, Sarmates, Euzoïus, Lucius, Julian, Menas, Helladis, and Gaius; with these also must be reckoned Secundus and Theonas, who once were called bishops. ... The dogmas they have invented and assert, contrary to the Scriptures, are these: That God was not always the Father, but that there was a period when he was not the Father; that the Word of God was not from eternity, but was made out of nothing; for that the ever-existing God ('the I AM'— the eternal One) made him who did not previously exist, out of nothing; wherefore there was a time when he did not exist, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a work. ... the Word is alien to and other than the essence of God; and the Father is inexplicable by the Son, and invisible to him, for neither does the Word perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can he distinctly see him. Socrates: Who ever heard such blasphemies? Or what man of any piety is there now hearing them that is not horror-struck, and stops his ears, lest the filth of these expressions should pollute his sense of hearing? Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea, were BOTH prominent supporters of Arianism. Some scholars have suggested that Arianism should actually be called "Eusebianism" Eusebius of Nicomedia and his partisans, with such as favored the sentiments of Arius, demanded by letter that the sentence of excommunication which had been pronounced against him should be rescinded; and that those who had been excluded should be readmitted into the Church, as they held no unsound doctrine. 324 AD, Letter from Emperor Constantine to Alexander and Arius This dispute having thus been excited among you, communion has been denied; and the most holy people being rent into two factions, have departed from the harmony of the common body. And so I now ask you both to show an equal degree of consideration for the other, and to receive the advice which your fellow-servant impartially gives. What then is this advice? It was wrong in the first instance to propose such questions as these, and also wrong to reply to them when they were presented. For those points of discussion are not commanded by the authority of any law, but are rather the product of an argumentative spirit which is encouraged by the idle useless talk of leisure. Restore me then my quiet days, and untroubled nights, that the joy of undimmed light, the delight of a tranquil life, may be my portion from here on. Otherwise I will be forced to mourn with constant tears, and I will not be able to pass the remainder of my days in peace. While the people of God, whose fellow-servant I am, are so divided among themselves by an unreasonable and wicked spirit of contention, how is it possible that I shall be able to maintain a tranquil mind? So open for me by your unity of judgment that road to the regions of the East which your dissensions have closed to me, and permit me speedily to see you and all other peoples rejoicing together. Render due acknowledgment to God in the language of praise and thanksgiving for the restoration of general peace and liberty to all. --------------------break here 3/10/24 Arius Letter of Arius to Alexander of Alexandria "We acknowledge One God, alone Ingenerate, alone Everlasting, alone Unbegun, alone True, alone having Immortality, alone Wise, alone Good, alone Sovereign; Judge, Governor, and Providence of all, unalterable and unchangeable, just and good, God of Law and Prophets and New Testament;" ... "who begat an Only-begotten Son before eternal times, through whom He has made both the ages and the universe; and begat Him, not in semblance, but in truth; and that He made Him subsist at His own will, unalterable and unchangeable; perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of things begotten;" ... nor as Valentinus pronounced that the offspring of the Father was an issue; nor as Manichæus taught that the offspring was a portion of the Father, one in essence; or as Sabellius, dividing the Monad, speaks of a Son-and-Father; nor as Hieracas, of one torch from another, or as a lamp divided into two; nor that He who was before, was afterwards generated or new-created into a Son, ... "but, as we say, at the will of God, created before times and before ages, and gaining life and being from the Father, who gave subsistence to His glories together with Him. For the Father did not, in giving to Him the inheritance of all things, deprive Himself of what He has ingenerately in Himself; for He is the Fountain of all things. Thus there are Three Subsistences. And God, being the cause of all things, is Unbegun and altogether Sole, but the Son being begotten apart from time by the Father, and being created and founded before ages, was not before His generation, but being begotten apart from time before all things, alone was made to subsist by the Father." ... "For He is not eternal or co-eternal or co-unoriginate with the Father, nor has He His being together with the Father, as some speak of relations, introducing two ingenerate beginnings, but God is before all things as being Monad and Beginning of all. Wherefore also He is before the Son; as we have learned also from thy preaching in the midst of the Church." ... (Ahtanasius, De Synodis) "This is a part of what Arius and his fellows vomited from their heretical hearts." c For Arius, any talk about Father and Son as coeternal ignored the hierarchy involved in the very language of Father and Son. Athanasius From De Synodis by Athanasius (he actually had little disagreement with Arians) 41. Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks; those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicæa, and doubt only about the Coessential, must not be treated as enemies; nor do we here attack them as Ario-maniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers , who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word. For, confessing that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and not from other subsistence, and that He is not a creature nor work, but His genuine and natural offspring, and that He is eternally with the Father as being His Word and Wisdom, they are not far from accepting even the phrase, 'Coessential.' Now such is Basil, who wrote from Ancyra concerning the faith. For only to say 'like according to essence,' is very far from signifying 'of the essence,' by which, rather, as they say themselves, the genuineness of the Son to the Father is signified. The schism between the Arians and Niceneans was compounded by the controversies surrounding Quartodecimanism (Socrates) The Quartodeciman controversy arose because Christians in Jerusalem and Asia Minor observed Passover on the 14th of the first month (Nisan), regardless of the day of the week on which it occurred, while the churches in and around Rome celebrated Easter on the Sunday following first Full Moon following the vernal equinox, calling it "the day of the resurrection of our Saviour". Guess where the churches were that tried to keep the church under the practice of Quartodecimanism? The Council of Nicaea 325 AD By 325 AD, it is evident from the first Ecumenical Council (at Nice), that there were three "Metropolitans" that ruled the world as equals, with Rome having first place among equals. These were: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. The 318 local church bishops in attendance, most of which were from the east, confirm the power of these three "Metropolitans". This is the map around the time of the time of the council of Nicaea. Here are the main churches. The red ones are the churches that were holding to the teachings of Arius, that Christ was begotten. Original churches of the apostles like Ephesus, Laodicea, Jerusalem... near the geographic center of the start of Christianity, were standing up for the traditional view of Christ that is presented in the Gospels. The purple churches are the ones that had bishops that were fighting against them with the Trinitarian doctrine. And of course, the church in Rome had the backing of the Roman Emperor Constantine behind it. In the council of Nicaea, the Trinity made dogma. Nicea also declared Easter to be celebrated on a Sunday. (Quartodecimanism) The schism between the Arians and Niceneans was compounded by the controversies surrounding Quartodecimanism (Socrates) Kept Easter on Passover in the Eastern churches. It is interesting that the council of Nicaea was used by the leading bishops to not only put down anti-Trinitarian doctrine, but also Quartodecimanism ... this demonstrates that this was an effort of subjugation. An assertion of the authority of the church in Rome over its counterparts, even those that were founded in the places were the feet of our saviour, Jesus Christ, walked. Nicene Creed Read these lines: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance from the Father... ... But as for those who say, there was when he was not, and, before being born he was not, and he came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the son of God is a different hypostasis or substance, or is subject to change or alteration--these the Catholic* and Apostolic Church anathematizes. Athanasian Creed Read these lines: What the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is boundless, the Son is boundless, and the Holy Spirit is boundless. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal. Nevertheless, there are not three eternal beings, but one eternal being. So there are not three uncreated beings, nor three boundless beings, but one uncreated being and one boundless being. ... Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. However, there are not three gods, but one God. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. However, there are not three lords, but one Lord. ... The Son is not made, nor created, but begotten by the Father alone. ... In this Trinity, there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less. The entire three Persons are coeternal and coequal with one another. So that in all things, as is has been said above, the Unity is to be worshipped in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity. He, therefore, who wishes to be saved, must believe thus about the Trinity. ... He is equal to the Father in His divinity, but inferior to the Father in His humanity. (see 1 Cor 15) Compare to Scripture "The Son is not made, nor created, but begotten by the Father alone." John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Hebrews 1 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? "He is equal to the Father in His divinity, but inferior to the Father in His humanity." 1 Cor 15:23-28 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 1 xrefs 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. Lewis Ayres writes, "The choice of the term homoousios seems to have been motivated in large part because Arius was known to reject it."[32] The meeting knew that the emperor would exile all who refused to sign the Creed and "desired to secure the condemnation of Arius."[33] This Greek word "homoousios" was a contrived word by the Trinitarians. It was used solely to debate the Arians, and was specifically used in the Creed of the Nicene Council by the Trinitarian bishops as a dog-whistle to anger the Arians, and in turn, force their acquiesence to the terms of the Creed. Show Image... Homo - Ousion is a Greek word from the roots "Homo" which means "Same", and "Ousia" which means substance. The idea of Jesus Christ being of the Same Substance of the Father became the crux of the Trtinitarian/Nicaean argument on the nature of Jesus, and the measure by which "true Christianity" would be measured, according to the Nicaean bishops and the Roman state religion. Explusion of bishops Most bishops abided by the will of the Council, and signed onto 2 different things. One, that they accepted the Nicene Creed as the official doctine of the universal/Catholic church. Two, that they denounced the teachings of Arius. Some bishops refused to sign both items. Some were then exiled. Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon and others - fraudulently accepted the Council's decrees. Refused to adhere to the creed and were thus exiled to Illyria, in addition to being excommunicated. Arius Theonas of Nicaea Secundus of Ptolemais Possible: Maris of Chalcedon Zopyrus of Barca Eusebius of Nicomedia was sent into exile after the council, for 3 years until 329 AD Meletius of Antioch was exiled in 361 for his opposition to Homoousianism "Meletian Schism" - Meletius simply took and taught Arianism, against Eustathius. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meletius_of_Antioch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melitians Again, please note the origins of this attack on Christianity. The map shows the apostolic churches. The vast majority of these churches were from original apostolic churches. Rome and Alexandria were driving this, with the help of Emperor Constantine. Constantine writes after the council... (Socrates Scholasticus, in Church History, Book 1, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26011.htm) The emperor having also written other letters of a more oratorical character against Arius and his adherents, caused them to be everywhere published throughout the cities, exposing him to ridicule, and tauntin g him with irony. Moreover, writing to the Nicomedians against Eusebius and Theognis, he censures the misconduct of Eusebius, not only on account of his Arianism, but because also having formerly been well-affected to the ruler, he had traitorously conspired against his affairs. This was published in all the cities of the Christian churches. It was done to ridicule the Arian supporters everywhere. It was propoganda. Constantine was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia (an Arian leader) on his deathbed in 337 AD So yes, Constantine himself seemingly reverted to Arianism not too long after the Council. You should be aware that this fact was hidden by later rulers, for instance... In the 5th century, more propoganda emerged that said that Pope Sylvester I had baptized Constantine, to hide his Arian connections. The Council of Antioch, in 264 A.D., An old version of Wikipedia's page on the Synods of Antioch contains information about other councils, prior to Nicaea, that tackled the topic of Arian-type doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Synods_of_Antioch&oldid=651964463 This council denounced Paul of Samosata, who was Bishop of Antioch from 260 - 268 AD. He taught what is called the "Paulianist Heresy" or Monarchianism, which teaches that God the Father is a single, indivisible being. This is in contrast to the Trinitarian doctrine that within God resides the Father, Son, and Spirit. The Council of Antioch in 341 A.D. Went back on part of the Nicene Creed, removing the term "homoousios", to try to placate the continuing division over the nature of Christ. It was a compromise, because of unrest throughout Christianity. The Arian issue was so much bigger than history gives credit. Second Ecumenical Council (First Council of Constantinople) (381 AD) Modified the Nicene Creed... Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed http://localhost/deeptree/static/storage/niceno_constantinopolitan_creed_1447/comparison%20table.html (show compare image) Talk through the major differences... Council of Ephesus of 431 ad confirmed the original Nicene Creed condemned the teachings of [[23093|Nestorius]] Nestorius - who held that the Virgin Mary may be called the Christotokos, "Christ-bearer" but not the Theotokos, "God-bearer". Council of Chalcedon of 451 ad The council was attended by over 520 bishops or their representatives, making it the largest Eutyches was claimed to have declared that Christ was "a fusion of human and divine elements" So, through the Nicene and subsequent Councils, the dogma of the Trinity was enforced across the churches with the force of the Roman Empire behind it. The history books teach us this was a victory for Nicene Christianity and that all Christianity became Trinitarian in its beliefs, in accordance with the Catholic church. But, when we look deeper into history, something else emerges. Something was happening at this same time and for the next few centuries that would, in the end, tear the Roman Empire into pieces and dissolve it. Conversion of the barbarians Missionaries had been sent to the Northern and Western European lands, I believe, in the second century, A.D. One of the most well known was Ulfilas (or Wulfila), who was a missionary to the Gothic tribes in Northern Europe around 341 A.D. Ulfilas was no lightweight, he even translated the entire Bible into the Gothic language for the people. (Show image of gothic bible from ulfilas) Most of the Germanic peoples including those reached by Ulfilas, notably the Goths and Vandals, adopted Arianism instead of the Trinitarian (a.k.a. Nicene or orthodox) beliefs that were dogmatically defined by the church in the Nicene Creed. Auxentius also credits Ulfilas with "scatter(ing) the sect of the Homoousians (Nicene Christians), because he believed not in confused and concrete persons, but in discrete and distinct ones." Germanics Huns Ostragoths Visigoths Vandals Berbers (Show the Barbarians map) This is where all these "barbarian tribes" were in relation to Italy. Seems that these were actually the places where Christianity was flourishing. REMOVED The Arian Germanic peoples all eventually converted to Nicene Christianity. REMOVED The Visigoths "converted to Nicene Christianity" in Spain under their king Reccared in 587 Creed of Ulfila (The Creed of Ulfila concludes a letter praising him written by his foster son and pupil Auxentius of Durostorum) I, Ulfila, bishop and confessor, have always so believed, and in this, the one true faith, I make the journey to my Lord; I believe in one God the Father, the only unbegotten and invisible, and in his only-begotten son, our Lord and God, the designer and maker of all creation, having none other like him (so that one alone among all beings is God the Father, who is also the God of our God); and in one Holy Spirit, the illuminating and sanctifying power, as Christ said after his resurrection to his apostles: "And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49) and again "But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Ghost is come upon you" (Acts 1:8); being neither God (the Father) nor our God (Christ), but the minister of Christ... subject and obedient in all things to the Son; and the Son, subject and obedient in all things to God who is his Father... (whom) he ordained in the Holy Spirit through his Christ.[36] This was the end of the control of the Catholic Church over Christianity, and the end of the control of the ancient Roman Empire over the western world. This may give you a new understanding of the Germanic peoples. Instead of the barbarian hordes that are portayed in movies like Gladiator. Were they cruel and bloodthirsty animal-like people such as this? (showing clip of battle with the barbarians) Hell-bent on the destruction of western civilization? Or were they Christian nations who were not willing to bow to the power being exerted by the Roman Empire, and its puppet Roman Catholic Church? You must understand that for Rome and for any nation that would come after it, like the Holy Roman Empire, this time period would forever be a searing stain of embarrassment. That God, with Christ reigning on the throne from heaven, guided the nations of the earth to rise up and defeat Rome, the new Babylon, and wipe it from the face of the earth. REMOVED But did this actually happen? If it did, it would be something that Rome and the Catholic Church would want to keep hidden from humanity for all time. As we know, the Timeline of conflict between the Arians and the Catholic Church Remember that the Church had now blended with the State, sanctioned by the Roman Emperor as the state religion. 264 AD - Council of Antioch 325 AD - Council of Nicaea 381 AD - Council of Constantinople 431 AD - Council of Ephesus 451 AD - Council of Chalcedon Timeline of Barbarian Invasion of Rome 248 - Goths war against Roman Empire, in tha Balkans, Thracia, Dacia; emperor Decius killed 235–284 Called the "Crisis of the Third Century" 238 - (east) attacked the Greek towns on the Black Sea, besieged the towns of Moesia and Thrace, led by their kings, Ostrogotha and Kniva 250 - (east) invasion by the Udugundi 253 - (east) Crimean Goths and the Heruli appeared and dared to venture on the seas, ravaging the shores of the Black Sea and the Aegean as well as several Greek townsa 259 - (east) Dacia overwhelmed, Valerian captured 260 - (west) Alemanni headed for Italy across the Alpine passes; others attacked Gaul, devastating the entire eastern part of the country, joined the Franks 267 - (east) Athens was taken and plundered despite a strong defense by the historian Dexippus 269 - (west) Emperor Postumus (usurper) killed 274 - (west) Gallic Empire falls 372 - Huns invade Roman lands, capture Rome 376 - (east) Gothic War in the east, Adrianople 410 - Visigoths capture/loot Rome 451 - (east) Atilla the Hun invades Italy 455 - Vandals capture/loot Rome 535 - (east) Ostragoths' war against the Byzantine Emperor Justinian 568 - Kingdom of the Lombards rules over Italy Show time-lapse video of the invasions of Roman Empire... http://localhost/deeptree/static/storage/invasion_of_the_barbarians_into_rome_22428/Barbarian%20Invasions%20and%20the%20Fall%20of%20the%20Western%20Roman%20Empire.mp4 Why did the Barbarian hordes invade Rome? Could it be because they were Arians who opposed Rome the Roman Catholic Church. Historians generally say that they were overpopulating the Northern European lands, as well as receiving pressure from the attacks of the Huns in the Northeast. "Ostrogoths faced the doctrinal challenges incurred from their Arian Christianity, which both the aristocracy of Byzantium and the papacy strongly opposed—so much that it brought them together." The "Lombard Kingdom" took over Rome and Italy by 568 AD Show map of Lombard Kingdom Read official narrative about Lombards The official narrative is that this was an "unknown people from the germanic lands" But this was, in reality, the same Barbarians that had been invading Rome for the past 400+ years. The Lombards, ... were Arian Christians. Do you see how the Catholic church and the Roman Empire tried to consolidate power to the church of Rome? Do you see how the apostolic churches fought back against the dogmas of anti-Quartodecimanism, the Trinity, and the centralization of power into specific regional churches? Do you then understand that God put down this centralization of power with the invasion of the "barbarian" hordes? Were they actually the TRUE Christians? Who wrote your histories? The revived, Holy Roman Empire... they wrote your history books. What are they hiding? Could the next 400-500 years of history be under the rule of Christian nations in Europe, without the heavy hand of the Roman Catholic Church or the Roman Empire forcing it to come to heel? What do they call this period of history? The Dark Ages. What do they call the time after the Dark Ages? The Rennaissance or Rebirth? Then what? The Enlightenment? Enlightenment from what? From true Christianity. Another amazing thing happened near the end of what they call the Dark Ages... A new religion appeared on earth that had never been seen before... a pagan prophet receives a new vision and starts what would become one of the largest religions in history. Islam. In part 2 of this series, we will examine Islam. How it started. What it accomplished. Who it exterminated. Who was behind it. And by the end of this series, we will stitch all of this history together, and perhaps shed some light on our chronology and why we have a hard time trusting it. Thank you for your attention. Until next time. Stay safe. God bless.