Constantine and the Christian Church...

kelly1

Folks, it appears to be a common belief that the Church in Roman times was subverted by Constantine the Great and corrupted with pagan elements/practices.

I'd like to hear peoples views on this and if you do subscribe to this idea, where did you get this information from?

As always, God bless,
Noel.

kelly1

Some starters:

RTDH wrote:

Was it Jesus himself that started the Catholic Church? If I were you I would go back through my history books, It was infact Emperor Constantine and not Jesus that started the Roman Catholic Church and that was well into the 3rd century. Constantine legalised "Christianity" and formed his church mixing up a cocktail of old tradition, Christianity and politics.

Constantine ended the persecution of the Christian Church.

JimiTime wrote:

He didn't corrupt it, he created it. It was corrupted before that. Paul had already told of the corruption coming into the congregations. It wasn't one big happy family. There was division, Constantine united them under one roof and then proceeded to outlaw the naysayers.

Would both of you mind giving evidence of your claims please?

Sapien

kelly1 wrote: »

Folks, it appears to be a common belief that the Church in Roman times was subverted by Constantine the Great and corrupted with pagan elements/practices.

I'd like to hear peoples views on this and if you do subscribe to this idea, where did you get this information from?

As always, God bless,
Noel.

It would be useful to know how much of Christianity you suppose is uniquely Christian, before we set about telling you which parts of it actually aren't. Christmas, for instance. How Christian is that? Virgin birth - innovation or derivation? Resurrection for that matter.

SubjectSean

kelly1 wrote: »

Folks, it appears to be a common belief that the Church in Roman times was subverted by Constantine the Great and corrupted with pagan elements/practices.

I'd like to hear peoples views on this and if you do subscribe to this idea, where did you get this information from?

Noel this is true and is common knowledge. There was nothing so Great about Constantine. He boiled his wife alive in a sauna and had his own son poisoned. Your freind Eusebius reacted to the latter event by editing hm out of his works. Noel these are not nice people to be trusting. Before they came along there were over 40 different kinds of Christianity and all of them were ascetic and pacifist. After Nicea there is just one kind of Christianity and it condones war, the storing up of material wealth and syncretist pagan doctrines. If you look at it from a historical perspective it really doesn't take a genius to figure out what went on there.

BrianCalgary

From what I have studied, Constantine, became Christian and made it a legal entity within Rome and the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Within the Roman way of thinking we had a top down organised regulated efficient entity that now became a part of the political structure of Rome.

Good or bad?

Good in that it set about defining what Christianity is all about, basing those beliefs on the writings of Paul and the rest of the accepted canon of the NT.

Bad in that it became the voice and any disagreement with what the church said became grounds for excommunication politically and potential imprisonment for being a traitor. Hence the institution became the authority and God, through His word, stopped being the authority.

Meanwhile in Ireland we had the monastics who learned scripture and became missionaries to Europe. They had more of a bottom up style, where it was good to study the Bible and learn scripture.

Of course this crowd clashed with the institutionalized Roman church as they usurped the authority of the church. These clashes were regionalised based onm personalities and loyalties.

kelly1

SubjectSean wrote: »

Noel this is true and is common knowledge. There was nothing so Great about Constantine. He boiled his wife alive in a sauna and had his own son poisoned. Your freind Eusebius reacted to the latter event by editing hm out of his works. Noel these are not nice people to be trusting. Before they came along there were over 40 different kinds of Christianity and all of them were ascetic and pacifist. After Nicea there is just one kind of Christianity and it condones war, the storing up of material wealth and syncretist pagan doctrines. If you look at it from a historical perspective it really doesn't take a genius to figure out what went on there.

Sources please.

SubjectSean

kelly1 wrote: »

Sources please.

Try http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/constantine.php for a start

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

Sources please.

I'd say your local library:)

kelly1

SubjectSean wrote: »

Try http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/constantine.php for a start

Thanks. Do you have any (primary) sources which back up these claims:-

Before they came along there were over 40 different kinds of Christianity and all of them were ascetic and pacifist. After Nicea there is just one kind of Christianity and it condones war, the storing up of material wealth and syncretist pagan doctrines.

AFAIK, the main division was over the Arian heresy which the council of Nicea sorted out. So who condoned war and accumulation of wealth? Which pagan doctrines are you referring to?

Run_to_da_hills

Constantine had coins produced long after his conversion to Christianity (I have seen these offered on ebay) many of these contained pagan symbols. http://www.sabbatarian.com/Paganism/Constantine.html
Many of the pre Christian pagan festivities were transformed during Constantines reign from pagan feast days and added with Christian names and themes, ie. Christmas day 25th, Easter and all souls etc. this topic was discussed on several previous threads. http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/emperor-constantine-faq.htm

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

As long as its not run by the church

Constantine had coins produced long after his conversion to "Christianity" (I have seen these offered on ebay) many of these contained pagan symbols. http://www.sabbatarian.com/Paganism/Constantine.html

From the same page:-

Before you read the following, please try to understand, Christianity has always been pagan, and Christians worship a non-existent savior with a Greek name called Jesus (IHSOUS). The Greek Jesus never existed, but the Jewish Messiah, Yahshua, did exist. The anti-Hebrew Greek gentiles invented a Sun god named Jesus based on the writings and true life of Messiah Yahshua. Messiah Yahshua was only a human, but was "Set Apart" by Yahweh as the prophesied Messiah. Therefore, Christianity is nothing more than a (anti-Messiah anti-Hebrew, anti-Semitic) pagan religion and another term for "Universalism" (catholicism)!

Do you really believe this cr*p!??

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Many of the pre Christian pagan festivities were transformed during Constantines reign from pagan feast days and added with Christian names and themes, ie. Christmas day 25th, Easter and all souls etc. this topic was discussed on several previous threads. http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/emperor-constantine-faq.htm

RTDH, please be serious! Could you please quote an historical source not some far-our denomination that "rejects organized religion".

Run_to_da_hills

kelly1 wrote: »

From the same page Do you really believe this cr*p!??"

I just picked that site at random to show you images of the coins used during the reign of Constantine that contained images associated with pagan rome. I was not aware of the full material content of that site.

kelly1 wrote: »

RTDH, please be serious! Could you please quote an historical source not some far-our denomination that "rejects organized religion".

I now give up on this thread for the simple reason that any material on this subject matter is obviously not going to come from a Roman Catholic source. You are only chumming sharks by bringing up this whole topoc up in the first place so what can you expect?

As Jimitime mentioned, just go to your local library and find out for yourself.

SubjectSean

kelly1 wrote: »

Thanks. Do you have any (primary) sources which back up these claims:-

The article I linked you to cites a heap of sources

kelly1 wrote: »

AFAIK, the main division was over the Arian heresy which the council of Nicea sorted out. So who condoned war and accumulation of wealth? Which pagan doctrines are you referring to?

The main division within the 'orthodox' church was over this heresay but there were many more types of Christianity other than orthodox prior to Nicea. After Nicea it was only possible for the 'orthodox' to exist. Before Nicea Christians were forbidden to be soldiers and after they were not, large tracts of lands were rewarded to the bishops, Constantine was very generous.

The pagan doctrines I am referring to are the claim of divinity for Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity. Triune gods and gods descending to walk the Earth are very common motifs in pagan religions. If you maintain that these beliefs were with the followers of Jesus from the outset then you will have to explain to me how these followers, who were supposedly professing such things in the temple at Jerusalem, could possibly ever have avoided being stoned to death for blasphemy.

[EDIT] I forgot about the deification of Mary 'Mother of God', born without sin, Star of the Sea, Queen of Heaven. The last of these was actually a title for the godess Ishtar. It's pretty pagan, they took an ordinary human woman and have elevated her to the level of godess.

Scofflaw

SubjectSean wrote: »

The article I linked you to cites a heap of sources

The main division within the 'orthodox' church was over this heresay but there were many more types of Christianity other than orthodox prior to Nicea. After Nicea it was only possible for the 'orthodox' to exist.

Hmm. Not sure - what Constantine did was impose sentences of exile on dissenters, which set a precedent of using civil punishments for heterodoxy.

SubjectSean wrote: »

Before Nicea Christians were forbidden to be soldiers and after they were not,

Council of Nicaea Canon XII: "As many as were called by grace, and displayed the first zeal, having cast aside their military girdles, but afterwards returned, like dogs, to their own vomit, (so that some spent money and by means of gifts regained their military stations); let these, after they have passed the space of three years as hearers, be for ten years prostrators."

Which is to say that soldiers remained excommunicate, surely?

SubjectSean wrote: »

large tracts of lands were rewarded to the bishops, Constantine was very generous.

Again, certainly Constantine made it possible for the Church to legally inherit land, and gave land to the church, but not, I think, to the bishops as individuals.

SubjectSean wrote: »

The pagan doctrines I am referring to are the claim of divinity for Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity. Triune gods and gods descending to walk the Earth are very common motifs in pagan religions. If you maintain that these beliefs were with the followers of Jesus from the outset then you will have to explain to me how these followers, who were supposedly professing such things in the temple at Jerusalem, could possibly ever have avoided being stoned to death for blasphemy.

[EDIT] I forgot about the deification of Mary 'Mother of God', born without sin, Star of the Sea, Queen of Heaven. The last of these was actually a title for the godess Ishtar. It's pretty pagan, they took an ordinary human woman and have elevated her to the level of godess.

Hmm. The divinity of Jesus, unless that means something other than His eternal coexistence with God, predates the Council, who decided only on the form it took.

It is true that Nicaea broadly approved the Eusebian compromise between Christianity and Roman civil society, and that Constantine started the process of absorbing the episcopate into the ranks of Roman magistracy. However, much that seems to be ascribed to Constantine and Nicaea appears bit by bit over the following couple of centuries - and the strand of Christian thought that rejected accommodation with the world was represented by the eremitic and then monastic traditions from very early on.

It is also certain that if the bishops at Nicaea agreed things that were unacceptable to the body of the faithful - the Christian church in its proper sense - they would not have been accepted on the return of those bishops. One might claim that the bishops could have used their new-found powers to put down such dissent, but that ignores the fact that they had no such new powers, and the very long post-Nicaean history of successful Christian rioting over doctrinal and administrative points.

As, in general, to the point behind this - what Protestant tradition, other than the Anabaptists, does not show such accommodations? Do we lack for Protestant soldiers, administrators, or dogmatists?

cordially,
Scofflaw

condra

The guy was a psychopath from what I've read.

For example, a law he introduced:
"Slave "nurses" or chaperones caught allowing the girls they were responsible for to be seduced were to have molten lead poured down their throats."

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I now give up on this thread for the simple reason that any material on this subject matter is obviously not going to come from a Roman Catholic source. You are only chumming sharks by bringing up this whole topoc up in the first place so what can you expect?

That's a bit too convenient, isn't it.

You began with this accusation and now you won't back it up. This is another lie propagated about the Catholic Church and I have a right to stand up against it.

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

It was infact Emperor Constantine and not Jesus that started the Roman Catholic Church and that was well into the 3rd century. Constantine legalised "Christianity" and formed his church mixing up a cocktail of old tradition, Christianity and politics.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

As Jimitime mentioned, just go to your local library and find out for yourself.

I suggest you do the same and keep away from fundamentalist, anti-Catholic propaganda and stop spreading it!

Try this for a less biased approach:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I_%28emperor%29#Constantine_and_Christianity

God bless,
Noel.

kelly1

SubjectSean wrote: »

The pagan doctrines I am referring to are the claim of divinity for Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity. Triune gods and gods descending to walk the Earth are very common motifs in pagan religions. If you maintain that these beliefs were with the followers of Jesus from the outset then you will have to explain to me how these followers, who were supposedly professing such things in the temple at Jerusalem, could possibly ever have avoided being stoned to death for blasphemy.

I sorry you doubt the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Trinity, but you're not Christian are you? Most Christians in the world accept these doctrines and it has nothing to do with paganism.

SubjectSean wrote:

I forgot about the deification of Mary 'Mother of God', born without sin, Star of the Sea, Queen of Heaven. The last of these was actually a title for the godess Ishtar. It's pretty pagan, they took an ordinary human woman and have elevated her to the level of godess.

This is very sad, not to mention a complete lie. Have you been reading Jack Chick lately or some other anti-catholic bull?

Run_to_da_hills

kelly1 wrote: »

I suggest you do the same and keep away from fundamentalist, anti-Catholic propaganda and stop spreading it!

Perhaps the greatest source of "fundamentalist anti-Catholic propaganda" would be found in your own Bible.

kelly1 wrote: »

This is very sad, not to mention a complete lie. Have you been reading Jack Chick lately or some other anti-catholic bull?

This is anything but Jack Chick material because it is written in your Bible. As a Christian I utterly repudiate Mary being called the "mother of God", "concieved without sin", and being given the blasphemous title as the "Queen of Heaven".

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This is anything but Jack Chick material because it is written in your Bible. As a Christian I utterly repudiate Mary being called the "mother of God", "concieved without sin", and being given the blasphemous title as the "Queen of Heaven".

It's written in my bible??? If it's written in the bible, what's wrong with it?

It's a downright lie to say that Catholics deify Mary. She is venerated, not worshipped but people keep propagating this lie out of ignornance or malice.

Mary is the mother of Jesus and hence God according to the flesh.

Luke 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me [Elizabeth]?

Mary is believe to be crowned queen as described in Revelation:

Apocalypse 12:1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:

It's all too easy to make connections between paganism and aspects of Christianity as Jack Chick is so fond of doing.

Run_to_da_hills

kelly1 wrote: »

It's written in my bible??? If it's written in the bible, what's wrong with it?

It's a downright lie to say that Catholics deify Mary. She is venerated, not worshipped but people keep propagating this lie out of ignornance or malice.

The Catholic Church has created a total monster out of Mary, she is elevated to a platform way above that of Christ. Contrary to what you state, the Catholic Church is doing absolutely nothing about correcting this error, in fact the Church is thriving by promoting Mary worship by setting up its own charter airline company and cashing in on flying its church members to Marian shrines such as Lourdes, Medjugorje and Fatima. One cannot walk into a Catholic Church, school or town in Ireland without tripping over statues of Mary.

Mary is the mother of Jesus (Man) and not “God the Father” nor the “Holy Ghost”. The Spirit of Jesus (God) was in existence since before time began. Every time you repeat the "Hail Mary" in the rosary you are blatantly spitting at Christ in the face by calling Mary the "Mother of God". Mary was a sinner like everyone else on this planet. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23 The only person ever on this planet without a blemish of sin was Christ himself.

In John 14:6 Jesus said, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." It is only through Jesus Christ that we can have a relationship with God definitely not through Mary.

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The Catholic Church has created a total monster out of Mary, she is elevated to a platform way above that of Christ.

Seriously, get a grip. Whatever gave you the idea that the Church promoted Mary above Jesus? Mary is not the mother of Christ's divinity. That would be nonsensical and blasphemous.

A quote from the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

Mary's Divine motherhood is based on the teaching of the Gospels, on the writings of the Fathers, and on the express definition of the Church. St. Matthew (1:25) testifies that Mary "brought forth her first-born son" and that He was called Jesus. According to St. John (1:15) Jesus is the Word made flesh, the Word Who assumed human nature in the womb of Mary. As Mary was truly the mother of Jesus, and as Jesus was truly God from the first moment of His conception, Mary is truly the mother of God. Even the earliest Fathers did not hesitate to draw this conclusion as may be seen in the writings of St. Ignatius [72], St. Irenaeus [73], and Tertullian [74]. The contention of Nestorius denying to Mary the title "Mother of God" [75] was followed by the teaching of the Council of Ephesus proclaiming Mary to be Theotokos in the true sense of the word. [76]

Taken from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

Other links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_of_God
http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp

SubjectSean

kelly1 wrote: »

I sorry you doubt the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Trinity, but you're not Christian are you? Most Christians in the world accept these doctrines and it has nothing to do with paganism.

I am a follower of the Way I would say. I know that today most Christians in the world accept these doctrines but that was not always the case. Noel I don't think you are taking account of my reasons for rejecting these claims. How could the earliest followers of Jesus profess these doctrines in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem without being stoned to death for blasphemy? Quite clearly in Acts they were meeting and preaching in the Temple, it is ridiculous to suggest that the sanhendrin would tolerate such blasphemous doctrines. Is there any way of explaining this anomaly other than by concluding that the Twelve were not esposing doctines that would have been unpalatable to their other Jewish brethren. These two doctrines are found time and again throughout history, in pagan religions, how can you possibly maintain that they aren't pagan.[/QUOTE]

kelly1 wrote: »

This is very sad, not to mention a complete lie. Have you been reading Jack Chick lately or some other anti-catholic bull?

Noel I wrote that "I forgot about the deification of Mary 'Mother of God', born without sin, Star of the Sea, Queen of Heaven. The last of these was actually a title for the godess Ishtar. It's pretty pagan, they took an ordinary human woman and have elevated her to the level of godess"

This is not a complete lie, these are all titles that the Church applied to Mary and are easily verifiable. The title Queen of Heaven was originally a title for the Godess Ishtar and she is mentioned by this name in the Old Testement. These are not titles you can easily apply to a mere human, if somebody is claiming to be the Mother of God, that by logic makes them a god. I do not know who Jack Chick is.

kelly1

SubjectSean wrote: »

I am a follower of the Way I would say.

Which Way is that? Theosophy or something along those lines?

I would like this cleared up before we go any further.

Scofflaw

SubjectSean wrote: »

I do not know who Jack Chick is.

Good Lord, you've been missing an education. He's a phenomenon - a man who really gets his hate on.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SubjectSean

kelly1 wrote: »

Which Way is that? Theosophy or something along those lines?

I would like this cleared up before we go any further.

No not theosophy it is "the Way" described in Acts that the men Jesus and John the Baptist showed to people. At Antioch there were the first Christians but in Jerusalem there were only followers of "the Way", not Christians. Having said that though Ghandi was also a follower of "the Way", and he was Hindu, so pretty much anyone can be a follower of the Way.

All the religions Noel are just lattices of a lamp through which the One light shines and whatever differences there are between them come from the hearts and hands of men. If you look to the mystics from every religious tradition you will see they are saying the same things. I guess my beliefs come down to the fact that I would trust the mystics of every religion more than I could trust the scribes and pharisees of even one.

JimiTime

SubjectSean wrote: »

No not theosophy it is "the Way" described in Acts that the men Jesus and John the Baptist showed to people. At Antioch there were the first Christians but in Jerusalem there were only followers of "the Way", not Christians. Having said that though Ghandi was also a follower of "the Way", and he was Hindu, so pretty much anyone can be a follower of the Way.

I'm not quite sure I know what you are describing Do you believe in Yehowah God? Do you believe in the authenticity of Torah etc? What is 'The Way'? I'm confused how you reconsile a hindu with 'the Way' Jesus spoke of

SubjectSean

Scofflaw wrote: »

Good Lord, you've been missing an education. He's a phenomenon - a man who really gets his hate on.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Indeed, brings it to a whole new level with the comic strips I feel. Thanks for the heads up, the next time somebody accuses me of being a Jack Chick disciple I will be able to respond in the appropriate manner

SubjectSean

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not quite sure I know what you are describing Do you believe in Yehowah God?

I believe in the One God, but It does not have any one name

JimiTime wrote: »

Do you believe in the authenticity of Torah etc?

I believe these books were written by men some of whom were inspired by God into their outpourings. This does not mean that God sanctioned these books. Their only sanction is in that they have become what they have become.

JimiTime wrote: »

What is 'The Way'? I'm confused how you reconsile a hindu with 'the Way' Jesus spoke of

You know the Way, Jesus walked it and he said to follow him, Ghandi followed him. Surely you can see the similarity?

kelly1

SubjectSean wrote: »

No not theosophy it is "the Way" described in Acts that the men Jesus and John the Baptist showed to people. At Antioch there were the first Christians but in Jerusalem there were only followers of "the Way", not Christians. Having said that though Ghandi was also a follower of "the Way", and he was Hindu, so pretty much anyone can be a follower of the Way.

Sean, Jesus IS the Way (and the Truth adn the Life). Apart from Jesus there is no true way.

SubjectSean wrote: »

All the religions Noel are just lattices of a lamp through which the One light shines and whatever differences there are between them come from the hearts and hands of men. If you look to the mystics from every religious tradition you will see they are saying the same things. I guess my beliefs come down to the fact that I would trust the mystics of every religion more than I could trust the scribes and pharisees of even one.

In the days when I used to read the works of Krishnamurti and Yogananda etc, I used to believe that all religions eventually lead to God. I guarantee you that all religions are NOT saying the same things (not even if they are in different ways).

Take for example re-incarnation.

The philosophy or reincarnation says that we can achieve our ultimate purpose by self effort. It teaches that we can break free of the cycle of samsara and reach nirvana/samadhi by progressing spiritually in successive lives by destroying karma.

Christianity on the other hand teaches that judgment comes after death and that sin prevents our entry into Heaven and that Christ came to save us from damnation by suffering and dying on the Cross thereby paying the price of our sins in order to satisfy divine justice.

The former teaches that we are saved by our own efforts and the latter that we are saved only by Christ's sacrifice. The difference is worlds apart. Christ died in vain if reincarnation is true.

As I've said many times before, different religions teach different things and they can't all be correct. What's true to God IS the truth because God IS Truth. And this truth was revealed by Jesus Christ to His apostles.

Out of curiosity, what are the beliefs of "The Way" and who is its founder?
Do they have a website?

God bless,
Noel.

Scofflaw

SubjectSean wrote: »

I believe in the One God, but It does not have any one name

I believe these books were written by men some of whom were inspired by God into their outpourings. This does not mean that God sanctioned these books. Their only sanction is in that they have become what they have become.

You know the Way, Jesus walked it and he said to follow him, Ghandi followed him. Surely you can see the similarity?

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

esoterically,
Scofflaw

Run_to_da_hills

kelly1 wrote: »

Seriously, get a grip. Whatever gave you the idea that the Church promoted Mary above Jesus? Mary is not the mother of Christ's divinity. That would be nonsensical and blasphemous.

Praying the Rosary is a grand example of premoting Mary above Jesus. According to the teaching of Fatima, we are all supposed to place our full trust in Mary by praying the Rosary. There is absolutly NO salvation found in Mary and you should know that by now.

Pope John Paul 2nd and Benedict XVI have Both publically premoted this Prayer in recent times, this is what I call nonsensical and blasphemous.

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Praying the Rosary is a grand example of premoting Mary above Jesus. According to the teaching of Fatima, we are all supposed to place our full trust in Mary by praying the Rosary. There is absolutly NO salvation found in Mary and you should know that by now.

Pope John Paul 2nd and Benedict XVI have Both publically premoted this Prayer in recent times, this is what I call nonsensical and blasphemous.

You're right, I never thought about it like that...

Run_to_da_hills

kelly1 wrote: »

You're right, I never thought about it like that...

I was expecting you to go for my juggler! :eek:

SubjectSean

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which is to say that soldiers remained excommunicate, surely?

It certainly sounds that way, I had formed the impression long ago, and from where now I know not, that Christian soldiers were first allowed into the ranks of the Roman army during Constantines reign.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. The divinity of Jesus, unless that means something other than His eternal coexistence with God, predates the Council, who decided only on the form it took.?

It predates it in the orthodox church but there were sects that were not part of the orthodox following to whom Jesus was just a man AFAIK

Scofflaw wrote: »

It is true that Nicaea broadly approved the Eusebian compromise between Christianity and Roman civil society, and that Constantine started the process of absorbing the episcopate into the ranks of Roman magistracy. However, much that seems to be ascribed to Constantine and Nicaea appears bit by bit over the following couple of centuries - and the strand of Christian thought that rejected accommodation with the world was represented by the eremitic and then monastic traditions from very early on.

OK so in that case it would be fairer to say that Constantine and Nicea were the start of the process and that perhaps the 'purity' (for want of a better word) of earlier Christianity lived on with the monks and hermits.

Scofflaw wrote: »

As, in general, to the point behind this - what Protestant tradition, other than the Anabaptists, does not show such accommodations? Do we lack for Protestant soldiers, administrators, or dogmatists?

I suppose maybe the Quaker tradition but other than themselves and the Anabaptists most of the Christian traditions are very far from the roots they claim. Risibly far IMO, from what little I can reliably glean I imagine Yeshua ben Miriam would shake his head some at the carry on

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I was expecting you to go for my juggler! :eek:

Maybe you didn't realize I was joking. I'm not really all that bothered to refute what you said. As far as you are concerned most of us are going to Hell except you and a few others. You really need to stop judging people for your own sake. "Judge not lest ye be judged"!

condra

kelly1 wrote: »

You really need to stop judging people for your own sake. "Judge not lest ye be judged"!

Utter hypocrisy coming from you.

Scofflaw

kelly1 wrote: »

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

I was expecting you to go for my juggler!

Maybe you didn't realize I was joking. I'm not really all that bothered to refute what you said. As far as you are concerned most of us are going to Hell except you and a few others. You really need to stop judging people for your own sake. "Judge not lest ye be judged"!

Maybe even "juggle not, lest ye be judged"? You should have gone for his jugular.

amused,
Scofflaw

kelly1

womoma wrote: »

Utter hypocrisy coming from you.

How so? I never told anyone that they're going to Hell, did I?

kelly1

SubjectSean wrote: »

It certainly sounds that way, I had formed the impression long ago, and from where now I know not, that Christian soldiers were first allowed into the ranks of the Roman army during Constantines reign.

Just to confirm this, Canon 12 of the Council of Nicea states this:

As many as were called by grace, and displayed the first zeal, having cast aside their military girdles, but afterwards returned, like dogs, to their own vomit, (so that some spent money and by means of gifts regained their military stations);

God bless,
Noel.

SubjectSean

kelly1 wrote: »

Sean, Jesus IS the Way (and the Truth adn the Life). Apart from Jesus there is no true way.

I want to avoid getting into metaphysics here if I can because at the end of the day workings unseen are just that and it's very hard for me to have the right words in a small space. If you say there is no true way apart from your graeco-Christian divine logos then I will kind of argree with you.

kelly1 wrote: »

In the days when I used to read the works of Krishnamurti and Yogananda etc, I used to believe that all religions eventually lead to God. I guarantee you that all religions are NOT saying the same things (not even if they are in different ways).

Noel I said that all religions have differences but that whatever differences there are between them come from the hearts and hands of men. They all say love God and love one-another, do good acts, protect the weak, the list goes on but I am lazy

kelly1 wrote: »

The philosophy or reincarnation says that we can achieve our ultimate purpose by self effort. It teaches that we can break free of the cycle of samsara and reach nirvana/samadhi by progressing spiritually in successive lives by destroying karma.

Christianity on the other hand teaches that judgment comes after death and that sin prevents our entry into Heaven and that Christ came to save us from damnation by suffering and dying on the Cross thereby paying the price of our sins in order to satisfy divine justice.)

Here is exactly what I mean. I personally find that both of these notions are lacking in credulity and to me look very much like they have come from the hands of men; yet they both cause those who believe in them to act in a manner that is objectively the same and is, hopefully, for the greater good.

kelly1 wrote: »

As I've said many times before, different religions teach different things and they can't all be correct.

As I keep saying, what is different between them is man made, hence the apparent error.

kelly1 wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what are the beliefs of "The Way" and who is its founder?

Do they have a website?

Jesus revealed the Way. In Acts the community in Jerusalem are called followers of the Way, they were poor and they helped the poor. There isn't a website I'm afraid and following the Way is the prescribed action for ushering in the Kingdom rather than any set of collected dogmas.

kelly1

SubjectSean wrote: »

Here is exactly what I mean. I personally find that both of these notions [reincarnation and redemption] are lacking in credulity and to me look very much like they have come from the hands of men; yet they both cause those who believe in them to act in a manner that is objectively the same and is, hopefully, for the greater good.

Ok, so what do you believe is the truth? Where do we go when we die and how do we get there? If you think reincarnation and redemption are human inventions, what is the alternative?

SubjectSean

kelly1 wrote: »

Ok, so what do you believe is the truth? Where do we go when we die and how do we get there? If you think reincarnation and redemption are human inventions, what is the alternative?

The alternative Noel is what we cannot imagine, it will be that We are just sentient, barely down from the trees, our minds are not capable of knowing. Up until now we have had our stories but now it is time to put away childish things and see they are stories although not without value. I feel I can trust in God to do the right thing without a story.

kelly1

SubjectSean wrote: »

The alternative Noel is what we cannot imagine, it will be that We are just sentient, barely down from the trees, our minds are not capable of knowing. Up until now we have had our stories but now it is time to put away childish things and see they are stories although not without value. I feel I can trust in God to do the right thing without a story.

Our minds are not capable of understanding God but all we need to know about God has been revealed by Jesus.

Anyway, we're going way off track. Has anyone got any decent proof that the Church was corrupted by Constantine? Any proper historical evidence? Or are people just happy to believe hear-say?

SubjectSean

kelly1 wrote: »

Our minds are not capable of understanding God but all we need to know about God has been revealed by Jesus.

But Noel your religion relies on things that have been revealed by Paul and a host of Bishops. Jesus was totally silent on many of the doctrines you espouse. You cannot say they have been revealed by Jesus because that is not true.

kelly1 wrote: »

Anyway, we're going way off track. Has anyone got any decent proof that the Church was corrupted by Constantine? Any proper historical evidence? Or are people just happy to believe hear-say?

The link I gave you to is a respected 'Internet Resource for Studying the Early Church' and is supported by a host of bible colleges and theology institutes. The article itself is from Clemens Petersen, "CONSTANTINE THE GREAT AND HIS SONS," Philip Schaff, ed., A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, 3rd edn., Vol. 1. Toronto, New York & London: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1984. pp.546-547. It cites upwards of 30 references both primary and secondary.

This is not here-say IMO

kelly1

SubjectSean wrote: »

The link I gave you to is a respected 'Internet Resource for Studying the Early Church' and is supported by a host of bible colleges and theology institutes. The article itself is from Clemens Petersen, "CONSTANTINE THE GREAT AND HIS SONS," Philip Schaff, ed., A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, 3rd edn., Vol. 1. Toronto, New York & London: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1984. pp.546-547. It cites upwards of 30 references both primary and secondary.

This is not here-say IMO

Thanks for the info Sean.

I read the article at http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/constantine.php and I don't see anything in it about Constantine altering or paganising Christianity and the doctrines taught by the 318 bishops.

My understand is that Constantine legalized Christianity and thereby ended the Roman persecution of Christians. I don't see any evidence that he altered Christian doctrines. He did of course assist the bishops in stamping out the Arian heresy which arose at the time. There is nothing unusual about the Church fighting against heresy.

God bless,
Noel.

SubjectSean

kelly1 wrote: »

I read the article at http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/constantine.php and I don't see anything in it about Constantine altering or paganising Christianity and the doctrines taught by the 318 bishops.

This is true. However it does show quite admirably that he was a famously unpleasant man and not at all the type to chum around with as various Church Bishops did. I am doing more reading in regard to the paganising of Christianity, Mr Scofflaw kindly pointed out that Constantine is perhaps unfairly blamed for a process he merely started. I shall get back to you on this as soon as I am able to better discern the exact origins of the pagan doctrines and iconography that have become evident in post Nicean Christianity.

kelly1 wrote: »

My understand is that Constantine legalized Christianity and thereby ended the Roman persecution of Christians. I don't see any evidence that he altered Christian doctrines. He did of course assist the bishops in stamping out the Arian heresy which arose at the time.


There is nothing unusual about the Church fighting against heresy.

This is really one of my key points Noel and I'm not sure you are grasping and it's probably because I'm not putting it across very well. Let me try this way. Before Nicea there were many Christian camps. In Acts we can see the start of a split into the "Judiasing" and "Pauline" camps. By the time things had moved along as far as Nicea there were at least 40 different interpretations of the Gospel existing, the followers of each denouncing the others as heretics. Some used the letters and Gospels of what is now called apocrypha for their scripture, others used various versions of the Gospels and letters in the NT. What I do not understand Noel is how you can be sure that the group who were most faithful to the teachings of Jesus were actually the group who Constantine gathered in Nicea basically in order to decide on who were the heretics. It seems natural to assume that Constantine will have called the largest cohesive group of followers possible. However it may very well be that the most faithful followers of Jesus were nowhere near Nicea. To the first followers of Jesus, Rome was 'Babylon', Roman Emporers false gods. I am 100% sure that the first followers of Jesus would not have sat down at the behest of the Roman Empire. Clearly the philosophy of those who did so is not the same. Personally I could never trust such men I think they are like Sadducees and Pharisees

PDN

I am coming late to this thread, but I believe Constantine damaged the witness and vitality of the Christian Church that is only now being repaired by the implosion of Christendom (by that I mean a Church/state alliance that claims temporal power, wealth and political power for the Church).

I don't believe he changed the doctrine of the Church - but he did push the Church leaders into codifying and writing down what was already assumed and understood by most Christians.

He also introduced pagan practices into the Church (celebrating Saturnalia etc) and paved the way for the Church to become a repressive and persecuting institution that tried to use force and coercion instead of love and service to produce converts.

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

He also introduced pagan practices into the Church (celebrating Saturnalia etc) and paved the way for the Church to become a repressive and persecuting institution that tried to use force and coercion instead of love and service to produce converts.

Do you mean to say that the Church began some kind of pagan worship or did they just supplant pagan practices? And when you refer to force and coercion, can you elaborate on this please?

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you mean to say that the Church began some kind of pagan worship or did they just supplant pagan practices? And when you refer to force and coercion, can you elaborate on this please?

The Church basically adopted many pagan practices and tacked Christian names onto them. The most obvious examples were the retention of the pagan high priest title of Pontifex Maximus, celebrating Christ's birth on the day devoted to to the sun God (25th December), and the deepening of the gulf between laity and clergy so as to make clergy a class apart, complete with restrictions on marrying.

Much more serious, in my view, was Constantine's transformation of Christianity into Christendom. This is not, BTW, a Protestant/Catholic thing. Luther and the Reformation did not undo the damage created by Constantine - they simply tried to supplant Catholic Christendom with Protestant Christendom, which was often even more vicious and unChristian.

Here is a summary of how Christendom perverted Christianity:
1. The adoption of Christianity as the official religion of a political power.
2. The assumption that all citizens (except Jews) were Christians by birth.
3. The removal of freedom of religion.
4. The definition of 'orthodoxy' as something everyone believed determined by powerful church leaders with State support.
5. Imposition of Christian morality on the entire society (more often based on the Old Testament than the New Testament).
6. Infant baptism as an obligatory incorporation into Christian society.
7. Legal sanctions to punish heresy, immorality and schism.
8. The division of clergy and laity with laity reduced to a passive role.
9. Sunday as a holiday with church attendance a legal obligation.
10. Obligatory tithes (rather than voluntary contributions) to finance the Church.
11. The abandonment of pacifism, resulting in waging wars against other parts of the world (heathendom) by Christendom.
12. Use of political and military force to impose Christianity, regardless of personal conviction. (St Augustine was the main villain in providing theological justification for this barbaric attitude).

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

The Church basically adopted many pagan practices and tacked Christian names onto them. The most obvious examples were the retention of the pagan high priest title of Pontifex Maximus, celebrating Christ's birth on the day devoted to to the sun God (25th December), and the deepening of the gulf between laity and clergy so as to make clergy a class apart, complete with restrictions on marrying.

My question is was the parctice of the Christian religion paganized by Constantine even if the doctrines weren't?

PDN wrote: »

Here is a summary of how Christendom perverted Christianity:
1. The adoption of Christianity as the official religion of a political power.
2. The assumption that all citizens (except Jews) were Christians by birth.
3. The removal of freedom of religion.
4. The definition of 'orthodoxy' as something everyone believed determined by powerful church leaders with State support.
5. Imposition of Christian morality on the entire society (more often based on the Old Testament than the New Testament).
6. Infant baptism as an obligatory incorporation into Christian society.
7. Legal sanctions to punish heresy, immorality and schism.
8. The division of clergy and laity with laity reduced to a passive role.
9. Sunday as a holiday with church attendance a legal obligation.
10. Obligatory tithes (rather than voluntary contributions) to finance the Church.
11. The abandonment of pacifism, resulting in waging wars against other parts of the world (heathendom) by Christendom.
12. Use of political and military force to impose Christianity, regardless of personal conviction. (St Augustine was the main villain in providing theological justification for this barbaric attitude).

Were these practices adopted by the bishops or were they imposed, do you thing?

BTW, do you have a source for these 12 points? It's not that I doubt you, my knowledge of history was never all that good.

Just on the freedom of religion question, what happened to those who weren't Christian and which era are you referring to? Around 325AD? And how was heresy etc punished?

Thanks,
Noel.

hairyheretic

kelly1 wrote: »

Just on the freedom of religion question, what happened to those who weren't Christian and which era are you referring to? Around 325AD?

Here's one example, from the 15th century, concerning the expulsion of the Jews from Spain.

http://www.mcs.drexel.edu/~gbrandal/Illum_html/Secret.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrano

There is also the economic and other pressure exerted to force Iceland to become officially Christian (Section 4 specifically) in the 11th century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Iceland

And some of the other violence in Scandinavia in general around the same period

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Scandinavia

I know Wikipedia isn't exactly the best source to take information from, but it's the best I can get at short notice. I have come across the same information in assorted other spots, on and offline both.

kelly1 wrote: »

And how was heresy etc punished?

Harshly.

Have a search for the Cathar Heresy in France, around the 1300s or so. If you've ever come across the phrase "Kill them all, God will know his own" or some variant on that, I believe it was attributed to this period. The story I read was that a young knight had asked an Inquisitor how they would tell the cathars from the catholics in the towns bordering the region the cathars lived in. That was the response he received.