God Would Never Adopt A Pagan Priesthood!

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

precepts

Member
Feb 24, 2008
180
0
16
56
God would never adopt a pagan priesthood as his own. Here are some excerpts from Wikipedia's article on the history of the office of the Pontifex Maximus.

Wikipedia's
The Pontifex Maximus (Latin, literally: "greatest bridge-maker") was the high priest of the College of Pontiffs (Collegium Pontificum) in ancient Rome. This was the most important position in the ancient Roman religion, open only to patricians until 254 BC, when a plebeian first occupied this post. A distinctly religious office under the early Roman Republic, it gradually became politicized until, beginning with Augustus, it was subsumed into the Imperial office. Its last use with reference to the emperors is in inscriptions of Gratian[sup][1][/sup] (reigned 375-383) who, however, then decided to omit the words "pontifex maximus" from his title.[sup][2][/sup][sup][3][/sup]
The word "pontifex" later became a term used for Christian bishops,[sup][4][/sup] including the Bishop of Rome,[sup][5][/sup] and the title of "Pontifex Maximus" was applied within the Roman Catholic Church to the Pope as its chief bishop. It is not included in the Pope's official titles,[sup][6][/sup] but appears on buildings, monuments and coins of popes of Renaissance and modern times.


Origins in the Regal period
The Collegium Pontificum (College of Pontiffs) was the most important priesthood of ancient Rome. The foundation of this sacred college and the office of Pontifex Maximus is attributed to the second king of Rome, Numa Pompilius [sup][7][/sup]. Much of what is known about the Regal period in Roman history is semi-legendary or mythical. The collegium presumably acted as advisers to the rex (king) in religious matters. The collegium was headed by the pontifex maximus, and all the pontifices held their office for life. But the pontifical records of early Rome were most likely destroyed when the city was sacked by the Gauls in 387 BC, and the earliest accounts of Archaic Rome come from the literature of the Republic, most of it from the 1st century BC and later.
According to the Augustan-era historian Livy, Numa, a Sabine, devised Rome's system of religious rites, including the manner and timing of sacrifices, the supervision of religious funds, authority over all public and private religious institutions, instruction of the populace in the celestial and funerary rites including appeasing the dead, and expiation of prodigies. Numa is said to have founded Roman religion after dedicating an altar on the Aventine Hill to Jupiter Elicius and consulting the gods by means of augury.[sup][7][/sup]. Numa wrote down and sealed these religious instructions, and gave them to the first Pontifex Maximus, Numa Marcius.


Roman Republic
In the Roman Republic, the Pontifex Maximus was the highest office in the state religion of ancient Rome and directed the College of Pontiffs. According to Livy, after the overthrow of the monarchy, the Romans created the priesthood of the rex sacrorum, or "king of sacred rites," to carry out certain religious duties and rituals previously performed by the king. The rex sacrorum was explicitly deprived of military and political power, but the pontifices were permitted to hold both magistracies and military commands.[sup][8][/sup]
The official residence of the Pontifex Maximus was the Domus Publica which stood between the House of the Vestal Virgins and the Via Sacra, close to the Regia, in the Roman Forum. His religious duties were carried out from the Regia. Unless the pontifex maximus was also a magistrate at the same time, he was not allowed to wear the toga praetexta, i.e. toga with the purple border. In artistic representations, he can be recognized by his holding an iron knife (secespita)[sup][3][/sup] or the patera,[sup][9][/sup] and the distinctive robes or toga with part of the mantle covering the head (capite velato), in keeping with Roman practice.
The Pontifex was not simply a priest. He had both political and religious authority. It is not clear which of the two came first or had the most importance. In practice, particularly during the late Republic, the office of Pontifex Maximus was generally held by a member of a politically prominent family. It was a coveted position mainly for the great prestige it conferred on the holder; Julius Caesar became pontifex in 73 BC and pontifex maximus in 63 BC.
The major Republican source on the pontiffs would have been the theological writings of Varro, which survive only in fragments preserved by later authors such as Aulus Gellius and Nonius Marcellus. Other sources are Cicero, Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Valerius Maximus, Plutarch's Life of Numa Pompilius, Festus' summaries of Verrius Flaccus, and in later writers, including several of the Church Fathers. Some of these sources present an extensive list of everyday prohibitions for the Pontifex Maximus; it seems difficult to reconcile these lists with evidence that many Pontifices Maximi were prominent members of society who lived normal, non-restricted lives.

Tradition of Sovereign as High Priest
The practice of religious and secular authority united in the sovereign has a long history. In ancient Athens, the Archon basileus was the principal religious dignitary of the state; according to legend, and as indicated in his title of "Basileus" (meaning "king"), he was supposed to inherit the religious functions of the king of Athens in earlier times.[sup][34][/sup]
Eastern traditions, from the ancient Egyptian to the Japanese, carried the concept even further, according their sovereigns demigod status.
With the adoption of Christianity, the Roman emperors took it on themselves to issue decrees on matters regarding the Christian Church. Unlike the Pontifex Maximus, they did not themselves function as priests, but they acted practically as head of the official religion, a tradition that continued with the Byzantine emperors. In line with the theory of Moscow as the Third Rome, the Russian Tsars exercised supreme authority over the Russian Orthodox Church.
With the English Reformation, the sovereign of England became Supreme Governor of the Church of England and insisted on being recognised as such. Only at a later stage was effective separation of church and state introduced. Much the same occurred in other countries affected by the Protestant Reformation.
Even in countries where there was no formal break with the Holy See, various sovereigns assumed similar authority. An example is Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor, whose ecclesiastical policy is described in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on him.
A secular equivalent of the ruler as head of religion is that of the philosopher king, based on a notion in Plato's Republic. Several rulers have been pictured as, at least to some extent, embodying that concept. Some of them are listed in Philosopher king#Historical philosopher-kings.

Incomplete List of Pontifices Maximi
From some indeterminate later date to present, the title "Pontifex Maximus" is applied to the Popes.
 

precepts

Member
Feb 24, 2008
180
0
16
56
Paul's
precepts,
Wikipedia is the last place I would look for truth.
It used to be reliable until I linked Rome's first 11 emperors to bible prophecy. Besides that, other encyclopedias use the same references, word for word, as Wikipedia. Go figure. :)
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
Yes, early Rome was pagan. We all know that. And so were all the other nations in Europe before Christ came to die on the cross, and The Gospel was preached in Europe on a grand scale, with Britain becoming the first nationalized Christian nation..

And in Rome, it eventually became Christinized too, before the office of a "bishop of bishops" ever began. Maybe you should seek that history which is often left out, for even the bishops in Britain refused to recognize a "bishop of bishops" in authority over them (read the KJV translators' Letter to King James and to the reader). That was before the Protestant rebellion too, wth the Culdee Church in Britain.

In Britain, The Church was not originally separate from the state, nor in any other Christian monarchy in Europe. This is why the KJV translators titled King James as Defender of The Faith. That's one of the monarchy's duties. In Britain today, the Queen still has authority.

The Roman Church's claimed authority is with the pope representing Peter's authority by Christ. Lot of history of the western Christian nations shows they have not all agreed with that, especially in Britain.

One of the aims of Christ's enemies has been to try and destroy the monarchs of Europe. They have succeeded in Russia with that, and in France. And so far, they have used the separation of Church and state idea against the remaining monarchs of Europe. Most folks simply don't understand how a monarchy rule is what God ordained. But they will understand it when the false messiah comes that Christ's enemies plan to setup as king of the world, over all nations, including ours, and then Christ Jesus, our True King, comes to destroy that fake king of the world.

So ultimately, we should be able to see how it is Christ's enemies that want to setup a Philosopher/King over all, that is nothing but an attempt to copy the authority and power of the Office of our Lord and King Jesus Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul

precepts

Member
Feb 24, 2008
180
0
16
56
veteran's
Yes, early Rome was pagan. We all know that. And so were all the other nations in Europe before Christ came to die on the cross, and The Gospel was preached in Europe on a grand scale, with Britain becoming the first nationalized Christian nation..
Ethiopia was the 1st nationalized Christian nation thru Philip and the eunuch. Food for thought, Britian is named after the son of the 5th emperor, Britanicca.


veteran's
And in Rome, it eventually became Christinized too, before the office of a "bishop of bishops" ever began. Maybe you should seek that history which is often left out, for even the bishops in Britain refused to recognize a "bishop of bishops" in authority over them (read the KJV translators' Letter to King James and to the reader). That was before the Protestant rebellion too, wth the Culdee Church in Britain.
You're standing too close to the truck! The point is, God will never adopt a pagan priesthood as his. Yes, Irag, Persia, Grecia, and even Romans can be saved but God will never put new wine in an old bottle.


veteran's
In Britain, The Church was not originally separate from the state, nor in any other Christian monarchy in Europe. This is why the KJV translators titled King James as Defender of The Faith. That's one of the monarchy's duties. In Britain today, the Queen still has authority.
The anti-christ system started with the kings of Babel, kings reigning as supreme religious leaders which the Egyptians to Romans mimicked.



veteran's
One of the aims of Christ's enemies has been to try and destroy the monarchs of Europe. They have succeeded in Russia with that, and in France. And so far, they have used the separation of Church and state idea against the remaining monarchs of Europe. Most folks simply don't understand how a monarchy rule is what God ordained. But they will understand it when the false messiah comes that Christ's enemies plan to setup as king of the world, over all nations, including ours, and then Christ Jesus, our True King, comes to destroy that fake king of the world.
As far as I'm concern, they were all crowned by the Catholic church and praised the anti-christ image of Zeus and Apollo, some unknowing but most knowing.



veteran's
So ultimately, we should be able to see how it is Christ's enemies that want to setup a Philosopher/King over all, that is nothing but an attempt to copy the authority and power of the Office of our Lord and King Jesus Christ.
You're trying to water down the facts. The fact remains that God will never adopt a pagan priesthood as his own. The Catholic Church is nothing but a camoflauged original Roman religion. They still have their Vestal Virgins appointed by the Pontifex Maximus, their college of pontiffs, there focus on family hearth, etc... It is the Pope Gregory calendar, the one Julius Ceasar as Pontifex Maximus introduced to Rome from Egypt, that we use today. Why aren't we using the original hebrew genesis calendar if we are christians? That is the question! :blink:
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
First of all, the idea of 'king' began with our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ. HE has always been The True King. The only reason He allowed Israel to have kings was because of their ignorance in wanting to have kings like the pagan nations around them had.

The purpose of pagan kings of history was a working by Satan himself, since Satan himself coveted God's Throne in the beginning.

And no, Europe's kings were not authored or crowned by the Roman Church. They were kings by divine right, it was by God's Hand, for the European royal family is one family. Kings in the Isles were coronated in the manner of Israel's kings, even as Queen Elizabeth II was in 1953.

The word Britannia is Latin for a more ancient word like Briton or Breton (French rendering). When the Saxons invaded later, many of those ancient Celts in Briton moved west to form Wales and south to what's now northwestern France, once called Britanny. The Breton's language was Brythonic of Celtic origin, even as the Welsh language is ancient also. It shows the origin of Brit was from Celtic origin, possibly from bryth, not Roman. Thus your supposed connection of a Latin name like "Britanicca" for ancient B.C. Briton to a pagan Roman priesthood is falsehood.

Britain was the first nationalized Christian nation in 1st century A.D. (Bede). Ethiopia followed Judaism.