Should we oppose what Constantine did for the church?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,263
5,620
113
#41
Islamists beheaded more than 50 people in Mozambique last week.
They used a football pitch in a village as an execution ground where they decapitated and chopped bodies after abducting the females.
From France to Austria to Afghanistan to Mozambique- beheadings of those will will not worship a certain god are happening.

Constantine is far from a concern for the church in this day.
 

jb

Senior Member
Feb 27, 2010
4,940
588
113
#42
A history of the Christian Church speaks of church before Constantine and after Constantine. It is agreed that Constantine changed the church, but there is no agreement about what that change was.

I think it is important to read the reports of the Nicene Council, for it established the changes. I think we should ask ourselves if that council followed scripture or followed Constantine. If it is not following scripture as it was at that time, it needs to be corrected.

Many of our doctrines accepted today are as Constantine picked out the doctrines he wanted established as law, and he made secular law into church law.

What do you think about how Constantine change our church of today from the church as our scripture tells us it should be? Is there a difference?
John Wesley writes in his sermon “The More Excellent Way.”

“It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the Church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after the fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian; and, from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian cause thereby, heaped riches and power and honour upon the Christians in general, but in particular upon the Christian Clergy. From this time they almost totally ceased; very few instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not, as has been vulgarly supposed, “Because there was no more occasion for them, because all the world had become Christians.” This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The real cause was 'the love of many,' almost of all Christians, so called, was 'waxed cold.' The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathens; The Son of Man when He came to examine His Church, could hardly 'find faith upon the earth.' This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church; because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form left.”

He also said, “The Church lost as much as its spiritual power as it had gained in its wealth and influence.”
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,685
2,492
113
#43
John Wesley writes in his sermon “The More Excellent Way.”

“It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the Church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after the fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian; and, from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian cause thereby, heaped riches and power and honour upon the Christians in general, but in particular upon the Christian Clergy. From this time they almost totally ceased; very few instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not, as has been vulgarly supposed, “Because there was no more occasion for them, because all the world had become Christians.” This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The real cause was 'the love of many,' almost of all Christians, so called, was 'waxed cold.' The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathens; The Son of Man when He came to examine His Church, could hardly 'find faith upon the earth.' This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church; because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form left.”

He also said, “The Church lost as much as its spiritual power as it had gained in its wealth and influence.”
Pretty much where things are today?
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,424
113
#44
Just a post script. Please, in reading the content of my post understand I am saying there was no such denomination as Judaism until the schism with Messianic believers.

Please demonstrate the existence of Judaism at the time of our Savior. I am interested.
i think there are lots of cases of Judaism, if the definition of that is to perform physical acts as obedience to the laws of the Lord. Circumcision itself is Judaism, it is a physical act that symbolizes the act of belonging to the Lord. The man in sackcloth who was praying in the streets was an extreme act of Judaism.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,685
2,492
113
#45
I am saying there was no such denomination as Judaism until the schism with Messianic believers.

Please demonstrate the existence of Judaism at the time of our Savior. I am interested.
According to the definition of (Judaism) below it isnt a denomination, it was existant before, during, and after the Life of Jesus Christ, and is presently alive today.

Merriam Webster

Definition of Judaism

1: a religion developed among the ancient Hebrews and characterized by belief in one transcendent God who has revealed himself to Abraham, Moses, and the Hebrew prophets and by a religious life in accordance with Scriptures and rabbinic traditions

2: the cultural, social, and religious beliefs and practices of the Jews

3: conformity to Jewish rites, ceremonies, and practices

4: the whole body of Jews : the Jewish people
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,230
6,527
113
#46
Judah was the las of the original Twelve Tribes of Issrael in the ancient or First Issrael.

The nation of Israel had not denominations, no religion per se. They were the nation of God and supposedly headed by God via th e High Priest.

Merriam-Webster may define whatever it may, but what I have posted here is far more acurate.

Today, pardon me M-W, Judaism is just like Christianity, both are umbrella titles for many scts of denominations

Today-s Israel has only one resemblance to the Israel of old, that being its geographical location.

Igt is not headed by a High Priest, nor is it a tru theocracy.

Now, if the accepted definition from your chosen source differs, this is not my problem. What I post here is factual and true.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,230
6,527
113
#47
i think there are lots of cases of Judaism, if the definition of that is to perform physical acts as obedience to the laws of the Lord. Circumcision itself is Judaism, it is a physical act that symbolizes the act of belonging to the Lord. The man in sackcloth who was praying in the streets was an extreme act of Judaism.
Why then is not there a religion called Levitism or Benjaminism, Ephraimism, etc?

I do not believe many can possibly understand the difference betwen the Theocracy that existed up until Jesus, and the birth of denominations after He cem, I mean denominations of the Former ISraelites, not Messianics.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,685
2,492
113
#48
Judah was the las of the original Twelve Tribes of Issrael in the ancient or First Issrael.

The nation of Israel had not denominations, no religion per se. They were the nation of God and supposedly headed by God via th e High Priest.

Merriam-Webster may define whatever it may, but what I have posted here is far more acurate.

Today, pardon me M-W, Judaism is just like Christianity, both are umbrella titles for many scts of denominations

Today-s Israel has only one resemblance to the Israel of old, that being its geographical location.

Igt is not headed by a High Priest, nor is it a tru theocracy.

Now, if the accepted definition from your chosen source differs, this is not my problem. What I post here is factual and true.
Merriam Webster Is Factual And True

Judaism had sects/denominations prior to Christ, Pharisees and Saducees both had different beliefs concerning the resurrection, and both were a part of Judaism.


According to the definition of (Judaism) below it isnt a denomination, it was existant before, during, and after the Life of Jesus Christ, and is presently alive today.

Merriam Webster

Definition of Judaism

1: a religion developed among the ancient Hebrews and characterized by belief in one transcendent God who has revealed himself to Abraham, Moses, and the Hebrew prophets and by a religious life in accordance with Scriptures and rabbinic traditions

2: the cultural, social, and religious beliefs and practices of the Jews

3: conformity to Jewish rites, ceremonies, and practices

4: the whole body of Jews : the Jewish people
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,685
2,492
113
#49
i think there are lots of cases of Judaism, if the definition of that is to perform physical acts as obedience to the laws of the Lord. Circumcision itself is Judaism, it is a physical act that symbolizes the act of belonging to the Lord. The man in sackcloth who was praying in the streets was an extreme act of Judaism.
There were several different sects/denominations of Judaism prior to, during, and after the time of Christ, Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, all were a part of Judaism.
 

GraceAndTruth

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2015
2,031
637
113
#51
The decisions Constantine made changed the church into what it is today, the reason for bringing it up is to look at those changes he made. If you don't want to think about it, then don't.
I won't
 

GraceAndTruth

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2015
2,031
637
113
#52
Your RSV & NASB are founded upon the very Alexandrian Text, you mention

Yes Westcott & Hort, And Kurt Aland in the Nestle Aland used the Vaticanus & Sinaiticus as their foundation

The KJV is based upon the Textus Receptus

Almost all new versions, NIV, NASB,RSV, ESV, etc look to the Alexandrian Text Type
When you go wrong, you just jump right into the deep end.

My NASB is a Lockman, I have no Wescott & Horts in my collection of NKJV, RSV, or Geneva....which are Thomas Nelson. My very old KJV is not only a W&H, it is a Scofield "special" with his dispensationalism all over it with NOTES. Also his pretrib notes are to die laughing at. The NKJV is probably the best along with the Geneva NKJV. They used the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament and the Critical Greek Text for the New Testament.

AND....
1611 AD KJV is a revision of the Bishop’s Bible by 54 scholars using all known copies of oldest manusascripts and later translations. Though the version was based on the Bishops’ Bible, the scholars compared it’s text with other major English bibles; Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale and Geneva. They also followed the Greek text done by Erasmus. It is a literal translation of the Received Text, which some scholars believe to be the most accurate Greek text.

The translators tried to render each word in the Hebrew and Greek texts with an equivalent word in English. Words added for clarification were printed in italics. (that tho the word was not in the original texts, the “sense” was. In Great Britain this bible is called the “Authorized Version”.

NOTE: KJV continued to be the most popular bible for 300 years…but this was also a time of new advances in biblical scholarship, including the discovery of more and ancient Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts and archaeological finds. English and literary style also changed. A convocation was called in 1870 to propose a revision of the KJV. A team of 65 revisers began the work. NT was completed in 1881, the OT completed in 1885. It is called the KING JAMES Bible because it was King James who ordered a new bible be prepared.
 

GraceAndTruth

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2015
2,031
637
113
#53
The decisions Constantine made changed the church into what it is today, the reason for bringing it up is to look at those changes he made. If you don't want to think about it, then don't.
I won't
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#54
If your saying you cant teach Prayer and fasting with a NIV your wrong
He thinks his “English” KJV is perfect.
greek can not be perfectly translated into English, Greek is a far greater language and much deeper. there is no such thing as a perfect English test, it’s impossible, not in a word for word interpretation,
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,780
2,943
113
#55
Much of scripture was first written in Greek, but there were no men who wrote down what God told them who thought in Greek. They all had a root language of Hebrew, and all their school work in learning scripture was in Hebrew.

The Greek language express a different culture and way of thinking than the Hebrew language. Because of this some scholars have translated the Greek language into Hebrew, even though it was first written in Greek, in order to check carefully how the writers were thinking.

The word Passover is transcribed as Easter. Logos is translated as word in John, Torah is translated as law. One language does not readily translate into another.
This is mostly untrue. When Alexander the Great, around 300 BC conquered much of the known world, he began supervising the Hellenization of the world. Hellen is a Greek term that means Greek.
His goal was to make everyone Greeks, including the Hebrews. Everyone learned Greek, and the Jews basically lost their Hebrew. That is why a group of scholars translated the LXX or Septuagint from Hebrew to Greek soon after that. Because everyone understood Greek. Hebrew became a dead language, only used in the synagogue, and taught to the young boys. No one translated the Greek NT into Hebrew, because almost no one spoke the language. Jesus and his disciples quoted the OT 80% of the time from the Greek OT. Although, I will give you that Hebrew is a very different language than Greek. Hebrew is more black and white, and a verbal language, based on the 3 root letters of verbs. Greek is a language for writing. Because of the noun cases and the way verbs are viewed, you can write long paragraph that is one sentence in Greek, which would be a confusing mess in English. Greek can have 20 subordinate clauses in the one long sentence, most languages, except maybe German, cannot do that.

Meanwhile, Aramaic was the common language. Not Hebrew, although there are similarities, such as using the same letters, and some words overlapping. Once the Romans conquered the Middle East, everyone needed to know Greek to trade and work for them. It was considered a superior language, even over Latin. Paul knew Greek well, although he was not as eloquent as Luke. Luke and Acts need a huge Greek vocabulary to understand those books properly.

Greek was the lingua Franca of the world. It was one of the unifying features which made the gospel easier to share, because everyone knew Greek, along with safe roads and seas, under the PAX Romana, or Roman peace. Today, we have almost 6000 extant copies from 4 different families, of the Greek NT. Do you know how many Hebrew manuscripts of the NT have been found? None! Not one, another reason why the NT was not translated in to Hebrew. Because there is not a shred of evidence that there was ever a Hebrew NT.

So Hebrew was very unimportant by the time of Jesus. All of the NT writers wrote in Greek. John found Greek difficult, and he used many "Hebraisms" which were words or phrases translated directly from Hebrew into Greek. They don't work well. Certainly John would have preferred to write in Hebrew or Aramaic, which would have been easier for him, then let someone else translate it into Greek. But he didn't do that, because it would not have reached many people, so he wrote in Greek. I would assume either God told him to write in Greek, or he was smart enough to realize his message was extremely important, and he needed to use Greek so the gospel could be read by the greatest number of people.

Please take your Hebrew roots misinformation nonsense away. You have no real clue about Greek or Hebrew, because you have not formally studied these languages, so you don't understand the basics of why the NT was written in Greek, and how Hebrew basically died long before Jesus lived, until modern day Israel revived the language.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,424
113
#56
This is mostly untrue. When Alexander the Great, around 300 BC conquered much of the known world, he began supervising the Hellenization of the world. Hellen is a Greek term that means Greek.
His goal was to make everyone Greeks, including the Hebrews. Everyone learned Greek, and the Jews basically lost their Hebrew. That is why a group of scholars translated the LXX or Septuagint from Hebrew to Greek soon after that. Because everyone understood Greek. Hebrew became a dead language, only used in the synagogue, and taught to the young boys. No one translated the Greek NT into Hebrew, because almost no one spoke the language. Jesus and his disciples quoted the OT 80% of the time from the Greek OT. Although, I will give you that Hebrew is a very different language than Greek. Hebrew is more black and white, and a verbal language, based on the 3 root letters of verbs. Greek is a language for writing. Because of the noun cases and the way verbs are viewed, you can write long paragraph that is one sentence in Greek, which would be a confusing mess in English. Greek can have 20 subordinate clauses in the one long sentence, most languages, except maybe German, cannot do that.

Meanwhile, Aramaic was the common language. Not Hebrew, although there are similarities, such as using the same letters, and some words overlapping. Once the Romans conquered the Middle East, everyone needed to know Greek to trade and work for them. It was considered a superior language, even over Latin. Paul knew Greek well, although he was not as eloquent as Luke. Luke and Acts need a huge Greek vocabulary to understand those books properly.

Greek was the lingua Franca of the world. It was one of the unifying features which made the gospel easier to share, because everyone knew Greek, along with safe roads and seas, under the PAX Romana, or Roman peace. Today, we have almost 6000 extant copies from 4 different families, of the Greek NT. Do you know how many Hebrew manuscripts of the NT have been found? None! Not one, another reason why the NT was not translated in to Hebrew. Because there is not a shred of evidence that there was ever a Hebrew NT.

So Hebrew was very unimportant by the time of Jesus. All of the NT writers wrote in Greek. John found Greek difficult, and he used many "Hebraisms" which were words or phrases translated directly from Hebrew into Greek. They don't work well. Certainly John would have preferred to write in Hebrew or Aramaic, which would have been easier for him, then let someone else translate it into Greek. But he didn't do that, because it would not have reached many people, so he wrote in Greek. I would assume either God told him to write in Greek, or he was smart enough to realize his message was extremely important, and he needed to use Greek so the gospel could be read by the greatest number of people.

Please take your Hebrew roots misinformation nonsense away. You have no real clue about Greek or Hebrew, because you have not formally studied these languages, so you don't understand the basics of why the NT was written in Greek, and how Hebrew basically died long before Jesus lived, until modern day Israel revived the language.
Thanks Angeleta, I am in awe of all your have learned. I have not studied the languages and you have. I am going by what people who have studied it tells me.

I cannot see that what I have been told is nonsense though, for aren't the scrolls that were studied still in Hebrew? What language did Gamalier use? It was my understanding that these scrolls he used were in Hebrew. I also was under the impression that the Hebrew scholars still used Hebrew. So many words in scripture need Hebrew to fully understand, it seemed to me, like shalom or Torah.
 
B

Blackpowderduelist

Guest
#57
The decisions Constantine made changed the church into what it is today, the reason for bringing it up is to look at those changes he made. If you don't want to think about it, then don't.
The church today is almost nothing like what it was under Constantine.
What we have today is a product of many changes through out the centuries.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,685
2,492
113
#58
The church today is almost nothing like what it was under Constantine.
What we have today is a product of many changes through out the centuries.
Like women behind the pulpits, rainbow flags flying everywhere, and Adultery is accepted, just keep paying your tithe??

Sorta like the bible said it was going to be, just like the days if Noah,and Sodom and Gomorrah?
 
B

Blackpowderduelist

Guest
#59
I can see from the replies on this thread there is a lot of mythology about Constantine and his "influence" on the church and not much fact.


I hope that some of y'all will watch the video
 
B

Blackpowderduelist

Guest
#60
Like women behind the pulpits, rainbow flags flying everywhere, and Adultery is accepted, just keep paying your tithe??

Sorta like the bible said it was going to be, just like the days if Noah,and Sodom and Gomorrah?
That along with the revivalist format, the whole notion of praise and worship song service, and the idea of preachers preaching 45 minutes and only using three verses of scripture.
Along with the liberalism that you speak of.