Roman Emperor Constantine

[Nick01]

The many history books I have read have all agreed that he made many laws against Jews. That was not so in the first years of his reign, but as years went by they became more severe. He really didn't care what the church fathers decided about church policy, what he cared about was that the church was united as one so anything Jewish would only add differences for they had a different lifestyle.

Great, I'm glad you've read many books. Now, for the sake of an actual evidence based discussion, cite some.

Many different sources I have found have ascribed the profession of faith to Constantine, I haven't found a source that says it wasn't. I know history has to be checked and rechecked to be sure it is authentic and it often isn't. However, when I found a source for letters he wrote, and checked with his legislation, it agreed with the spirit of the man. I wouldn't be surprised that your source is more accurate than my many sources. However, I would be very surprised if all the many different histories and sources I found were all wrong about his intentions.

All the sources I have found are just random websites that basically just post the quote as above, and ascribe it to Constantine, without saying what text it is actually from. The only vaguely reputable source, and the only one that provides an actual citation, is that link to Fordham University, citing a Late Medieval Italian writer. If you have a better source, please provide one.

As for the 'intentions' of Constantine, that is precisely what we are discussing. Again, if you can provide some sources to back up what you are saying, that would be most helpful, otherwise there's no reason to accept any of what you're saying.

Again, I'm not particularly interested in defending Constantine, per se. What I am interested in defending is truth. There's no point having this discussion if we're not going to actually discuss the historical Constantine.

[crossnote]

Red Tent wrote...''Paul had worked with the gentiles, telling them Christ was of the spirit, and rituals weren't necessary at all. Now this was made law.''

Don't you think that is a little incoherent and misleading? Paul clearly taught the two natures of Christ...

Romans 1:3-4 concerning his Son who was a descendant of David with reference to the flesh,
who was appointed the Son-of-God-in-power according to the Holy Spirit by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Philippians 2:5-8 You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had,
who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,
but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature.
He humbled himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross!

...and many other passages.

Your claim that Paul taught that rituals were not necessary had nothing to do with God being spirit. It is actually linked to the change of Priesthood from Aaron to one after the order/similitude of Melchizedek. A change of priesthood necessitated a change in the law.

Hebrews 7:11-12 So if perfection had in fact been possible through the Levitical priesthood – for on that basis the people received the law – what further need would there have been for another priest to arise, said to be in the order of Melchizedek and not in Aaron’s order?
For when the priesthood changes, a change in the law must come as well.

I know this was a little off topic but so was your swipe at Paul.
I'm just tired of these constant digs at Paul's teaching from different quarters. Like them or not they too are God's Word.

[RedTent]

It seems unbelievable to me that ccers would toss out everything I have found on this subject because I didn't make a list of my sources. I bought only one and found it the least helpful "History of the Early Church" by JWC Wand. The rest I downloaded from the public domain or got from the library and made no note of them nor kept on my hard drive. I made many searches on the net, searching for history of the early church, concentrating on the first 500 years. Don't you think it is important enough to make your own search of the development of our church in those early years?

[lookuptoseeJesus]

Websites have been thouroughly cleaned from the pagan pereverts antics.

[RedTent]

Red Tent wrote...''Paul had worked with the gentiles, telling them Christ was of the spirit, and rituals weren't necessary at all. Now this was made law.''

Don't you think that is a little incoherent and misleading? Paul clearly taught the two natures of Christ...

I know this was a little off topic but so was your swipe at Paul.
I'm just tired of these constant digs at Paul's teaching from different quarters. Like them or not they too are God's Word.

Why would saying that Paul, as it says in Acts, wanted to teach only gospel not rituals? Isn't that accurate? Why would that be "taking a swipe at Paul". Paul was only doing what God said to do. I didn't elaborate. It is also true that Paul's teaching was made into a teaching that anything of the Jews was wrong, and this was made into laws by Constantine.

Paul spoke truth. Paul spoke from God. But I don't think that Paul would give us a scripture that says that anything the Jews did must be considered wrong.

[Nick01]

It seems unbelievable to me that ccers would toss out everything I have found on this subject because I didn't make a list of my sources. I bought only one and found it the least helpful "History of the Early Church" by JWC Wand. The rest I downloaded from the public domain or got from the library and made no note of them nor kept on my hard drive. I made many searches on the net, searching for history of the early church, concentrating on the first 500 years. Don't you think it is important enough to make your own search of the development of our church in those early years?

I have, and all I find is unattributed guff or things that are important yet have nothing to do with the actual person of Constantine.

But look, here's how reasonable rational discussion goes. You make an assertion - you prove it. Simple. If you refer to information to support your claim, you refer to someplace where that information can be found by the person you're talking to. Saying 'It's in a lot of books that I read once" or "it's on the internet' does not cut it.

I can find 'proof' that Britney Spears is a Reptilian, I can find proof that Jesus got married and had children, I can find proof that that Jesus is based on Horus, but that doesn't make any of that true. Someone saying something on the internet does not make it true.

You're so intractable in your own stance that I can only suppose that there is some knockdown proof of your position somewhere. I simply can't imagine finding solid evidence for a position that I'm really passionate about, and only remembering the least helpful source of that information. I'm not asking for a lot - just give me one source, even a secondary source that references an actual primary source, that says either Constantine outlawed sabbath observance by Jews, or where he made that specific profession of faith, and I'll change my position. But I have looked, and found NO REPUTABLE OR ACTUAL SOURCE THAT CONSTITUTES ACTUAL EVIDENCE FOR THIS POSITION. Such evidence would include, but not necessarily be limited to - a reference to the Roman legal code at the time of Constantine, something that in a book written by Constantine, something in a book written by an historian reasonably contemporaneous to Constantine. Something written by someone nearly 2000 years after the fact with no other corroborating evidence does not count.

I genuinely have no horse in this race, aside from the fact that I feel unsourced and baseless accusations and arguments are responsible for so much of what is wrong with the church these days. If you give me some decent sourcing, I will happily agree with you. I don't think I'm being unreasonable, or asking for much.

[RedTent]

Websites have been thouroughly cleaned from the pagan pereverts antics.

That is quite the sarcasm. You can also find medicines to buy that will cure most anything.

But turning down them all as never coming from a good source would cancel wonderful things. Ancient Hebrew. Bible Gateway. Most Christian Churches have a website. E-Sword. Harvard Free Courses Online

Checking the source of the information is necessary.

[nathan3]

All your quotes can't all be false, I think , but no one can tell unless they learn for themselves, gos for anyone. That's why you need some sources for people to check out. Then they can determine if they think the information is credible, ideally, through study of the subject their own.

[RedTent]

Great, I'm glad you've read many books. Now, for the sake of an actual evidence based discussion, cite some
.

And I repeat, I didn't make a list of the histories of the early church I have read. That you can find no history of those years, you can find nothing about the man Constantine is unbelievable. Eusebius was his historian, he wrote a history of praise of the man. Historians say he was usually truthful, but also stretched the truth at times. Try this writer, I am sure you will agree with him.

I found the most accurate account was in books on history of the early church. Try reading reports of what was decided at the Nicene Council. They give some actual quotes of Constantine's words. I also found reports of the councils for several hundred years after Constantine helpful, but I read these reports on the computer. Some people say everything loses its facts by being copied to the computer.

[Nick01]

And I repeat, I didn't make a list of the histories of the early church I have read. That you can find no history of those years, you can find nothing about the man Constantine is unbelievable. Eusebius was his historian, he wrote a history of praise of the man. Historians say he was usually truthful, but also stretched the truth at times. Try this writer, I am sure you will agree with him.

I found the most accurate account was in books on history of the early church. Try reading reports of what was decided at the Nicene Council. They give some actual quotes of Constantine's words. I also found reports of the councils for several hundred years after Constantine helpful, but I read these reports on the computer. Some people say everything loses its facts by being copied to the computer.

I have read the Eusebius' Life of Constantine, and have found no reference in it to making Sabbath observance illegal or that confession of faith. Much of it is also Eusebius narrating the life of constantine, interspersed with letters from the Emperor. If you could point me to a particular part of LoC that you are referring to, that would be helpful.

[RedTent]

I have read the Eusebius' Life of Constantine, and have found no reference in it to making Sabbath observance illegal or that confession of faith. Much of it is also Eusebius narrating the life of constantine, interspersed with letters from the Emperor. If you could point me to a particular part of LoC that you are referring to, that would be helpful.

My point is to make the church aware of the way that Constantine's dedication to being sure no Jewish lifestyle was included in the Christians church was wrong and hurt the church, even to hurting the church today. When you read Paul regarding this, you find the balance we are to regard this with. Paul taught pure gospel without the rituals. Paul did not teach us not to follow the lifestyle of the Jews. He taught how to see that lifestyle.

Constantine was a pagan who only understood the secular in our world. Paul spoke only through God. Paul said it wasn't the rituals themselves he wanted to teach, even though Paul understood the spirituals truths the rituals presented. For instance Paul explained spiritual circumcision and physical only circumcision. Constantine had no conception of this. So the thrust of the will of Constantine was to simply eliminate all that was of the Jews.

So my reference isn't to specifics. I am looking at the laws Constantine enacted that history reports that reflects his attempts to get rid of any Jewish ideas. I find this in the laws he asked to be enforced. I have found it in the reports of the development of the early church. I found it in each report of the church councils for hundred's of years after Constantine.

[Nick01]

I am looking at the laws Constantine enacted that history reports that reflects his attempts to get rid of any Jewish ideas.

Certainly Eusebius reports that people should not participate in rituals and Jewish practices that were opposite the Gospel (a la the Judaizers Paul railed against). But again, it's not at all clear to me that he simply banned the Sabbath, or made Jewish ideas of culture illegal. Those are two very different things, and to be clear, it would be helpful if you could be specific.

Let's also be clear - we cannot simply lay any and every fault of the church at the feet of Constantine. Certainly, there are plenty of things that may have begun with him, but it may be too much to lay it at the feet of one person, Emperor or not.

And finally, given you still haven't giving me evidence in support, am I to conclude that you basically retract the statements of yours that said Constantine outlawed Sabbath observance, and that he himself either said or wrote that confession of faith that you posted earlier?

[WomanLovesTX]

constantine - Google Search

The above link is to "Google books online" and history books written about Constantine.

[Nick01]

constantine - Google Search

The above link is to "Google books online" and history books written about Constantine.

Which particular ones would you recommend? I assume you've read some or all of those you have linked to? Paul Stephenson is a pretty noteworthy historian, and I've read some of his other Byzantine stuff, so I might have a squiz at his book on Constantine. A few of those I might give a miss though (for example, the first entry in that list is the comic Constantine, not the emperror). Might not be as useful :P

[Bazman]

Thanks for all your comments. I was really asking the questions to see what people thought about Christmas because although there is proof that Christians worshipped on Sunday and observed the Lord's supper so would suggest memory of the Passion week culminating in Easter would be of course good. What do people really think about Christmas should we celebrate it and if we shouldn't why not? (As the date Dec 25th has pagan roots.)

[crossnote]

Why would saying that Paul, as it says in Acts, wanted to teach only gospel not rituals? Isn't that accurate? Why would that be "taking a swipe at Paul". Paul was only doing what God said to do. I didn't elaborate. It is also true that Paul's teaching was made into a teaching that anything of the Jews was wrong, and this was made into laws by Constantine.

Paul spoke truth. Paul spoke from God. But I don't think that Paul would give us a scripture that says that anything the Jews did must be considered wrong.

''Paul's teaching was made into a teaching that anything of the Jews was wrong, ''
Why not say 'Scripture' instead of Paul?
The continual pointing to 'Paul's teaching' implies that something is askance about his teaching, when in fact it's totally the fault of those who twist Paul.
Substitue 'Scripture' everytime you use the term 'writings of Paul' and see how suspect it sounds.
You do truly believe Paul's writings are Scripture don't you?

[Nick01]

Thanks for all your comments. I was really asking the questions to see what people thought about Christmas because although there is proof that Christians worshipped on Sunday and observed the Lord's supper so would suggest memory of the Passion week culminating in Easter would be of course good. What do people really think about Christmas should we celebrate it and if we shouldn't why not? (As the date Dec 25th has pagan roots.)

The actual celebration of Christmas is what you make of it, IMO. If you want to celebrate another day, or perhaps even no day at all, do so. However, I think there's nothing wrong with continuing to celebrate on December 25, although it could well be a completely different day.

Interestingly, while Christmas itself certainly attempted to redeem pagan festivities, and re-contextualised many pagan practices within a Christian context, there is actually a reasonable argument for why the December 25 date did not actually come from Constantine, or from a particular pagan solstice festival. This is mostly argued on the basis that there is no source text that makes this connection explicit, the earliest references in the literature to placing a date on Christmas come from pre-Constantine, and militate against a borrowing of pagan themes (at the precise moment when Christians were being persecuted by pagan powers). Also, the likes of Tertullian (pre-Constantine) had placed the date of Christ's crucifixion March 25, which also became the Feast of the Annunciation. Nine months after that is, of course, December 25, and Augustine (post-Constantine by less than a century) reflects an understanding that the date of Jesus' conception and crucifixion were linked, and the date of his birth being December 25 on those theological grounds. This linking of the dates of life and death, interestingly, also find precedence in the Talmud, in relation to speculating on birth dates for the Patriarchs, particularly Isaac.

All of what I've described is written about in more detail here, complete with a bibliography consisting mostly of primary writings from the people I mentioned. At the end of the day, I think it's acceptable to celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December, even if it had pagan roots - it's so entrenched in many of our cultures, and is a fantastic opportunity to evangelise and share the gospel with our neighbours in ways that are much harder to achieve every other part of the year!

[LT]

I am so confused as to why people have attacked Redtent for such a well know and common quote by Constantine.
B: PROFESSION OF FAITH, FROM THE CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE
From Assemani, Cod. Lit., 1, p. 105.
As a preliminary to his acceptance as a catechumen, a Jew ' must confess and denounce verbally the whole Hebrew people, and forthwith declare that with a whole heart and sincere faith he desires to be received among the Christians. Then he must renounce openly in the church all Jewish superstition, the priest saying, and he, or his sponsor if he is a child, replying in these words:
'I renounce all customs, rites, legalisms, unleavened breads and sacrifices of lambs of the Hebrews, and all the other feasts of the Hebrews, sacrifices, prayers, aspersions, purifications, sanctifications and propitiations, and fasts, and new moons, and Sabbaths, and superstitions, and hymns and chants and observances and synagogues, and the food and drink of the Hebrews; in one word, I renounce absolutely everything Jewish, every law, rite and custom, and above all I renounce Antichrist, whom all the Jews await in the figure and form of Christ; and I join myself to the true Christ and God.

[LT]

This book was certainly written before the Da Vinci Code... and it thoroughly shows concern for Constantine's actions: meddling with the Church, and twisting the doctrine's expressed in Scripture.
James Parkes: The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism, (New York: JPS, 1934), 394-400

[Nick01]

This book was certainly written before the Da Vinci Code... and it thoroughly shows concern for Constantine's actions: meddling with the Church, and twisting the doctrine's expressed in Scripture.
James Parkes: The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism, (New York: JPS, 1934), 394-400

I still don't understand where this is coming from. You quote an 18th century Italian writer, from within the appendix of some other book written in the 20th century, and the quote is of an unknown provenance, cited only to the 'Church of Constantinople'. There's no explicit mention of Constantine, and I haven't found anye vidence of anything along the lines of making the Sabbath illegal or enshrining in either policy or law forced conversions of Jews at that time period (although I don't doubt that it happened at several stages historically). I certainly have not found that quote ascribed to him in any source vaguely contemporary.

As it happens, I did go looking through Parkes' book, as well as the original Latin copy of Assemani's 18th century work. Assemani's book the Codex Liturgies does indeed contain that passage, but I cannot find a mention of Constantine, or even Constantinople, the closest we get being a mention of the Church of the Greeks (the section of the book seemingly being a catechism for young Christians). Latin isn't my strong suit, so I'm not 100% about the introductions, but the Greek below matches the prayer cited by Red Tent. But again, no link to Constantine, no time period cited (although the time of Assemani in the 18th century might be a fair guess), and the only link to Constantinople seems to be Parke's book.

The stuff on Constantine in Parke's book is interesting, though I'm having trouble following the citations (the formatting on archive.org is terrible!). I'll let you know if I find anything of interest tomorrow.