Should we oppose what Constantine did for the church?

[Blik]

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?

 

[throughfaith]

Yes and Augustine also .

 

[Dino246]

Evidence for these assertions?

 

[Blik]

Evidence for these assertions?

My Assertions? Again!!

Nathan Bingham, After Constantin; W. Robert Godfrey, A survey of Church History; Roger Morris, Before and After Constantine.

 

[Nehemiah6]

It is agreed that Constantine changed the church, but there is no agreement about what that change was.

We should try to avoid making Constantine the scapegoat. He did a lot of damage, no doubt, but there were many issues already in existence before him.

 

[laymen]

We should try to avoid making Constantine the scapegoat. He did a lot of damage, no doubt, but there were many issues already in existence before him.

Well he did take the responsibility of making the change wide spread before then it was just silly doctrine.

 

[Dino246]

My Assertions? Again!!

Nathan Bingham, After Constantin; W. Robert Godfrey, A survey of Church History; Roger Morris, Before and After Constantine.

Thank you for a straight answer.

 

[Blik]

Well he did take the responsibility of making the change wide spread before then it was just silly doctrine.

I don't think "making Constantine a scapegoat" is what we need to think about, but simply think of the church. It is whether and if the church changed and how it did that we need to consider.

We only know what scripture tells us, but scripture speaks of caring for members, of the relationships in the church. There is little of that after the church became a state structure.

 

[GraceAndTruth]

I don't think "making Constantine a scapegoat" is what we need to think about, but simply think of the church. It is whether and if the church changed and how it did that we need to consider.

We only know what scripture tells us, but scripture speaks of caring for members, of the relationships in the church. There is little of that after the church became a state structure.

Then why bring it up???
Constantine wanted to unite all his conquored countries under one religion..........his. He was a sun-god worshipper. Since Christianity was the majority religion at that time he used Christian terminology and created new definitions....added bits of Judaism and plenty of paganism.......and TA_DA! the Roman Catholic church was born......strange history there though. The first Roman church established by the believing Jews after pentecost remained true to the doctrines of grace for many years .... a few hundred...confirmed doctrines at Council of Orange in 520AD....then faded away into the larger established version that left Christianity forever with TRENT. Splits from the original included the Eastern Orthodox. Yet God preserves his remnant to persevere on.

 

[GraceAndTruth]

Just so ya know......the 'scapegoat" bore the sins for the people when sacrificed in the temple...........Constantine does not qualify as a scapegoat.

 

[Truth7t7]

We should try to avoid making Constantine the scapegoat. He did a lot of damage, no doubt, but there were many issues already in existence before him.

I agree, the heresy from (Alexandria Egypt) Arianism

Alexandria being the very foundation of the (Alexandrian Text) that supports modern versions, NIV, ESV, NASB, etc

The church was well aware of the heresy from Alexandria and their text, Constantine and his High priest Eusebius were both supporters of Arianism and the philosophical schools in Alexandria

Eusebius and Constantine persecuted those that opposed Arianism after the council of Nicaea

The fight continues today against the school of Clement, Origen, Arius, from Alexandria Egypt

Constantine and Eusebius were enemies of the church, it was an organized assault, that is now Roman Catholicism

 

[GraceAndTruth]

200 BC Septuagint – OLD testament, supposedly translated by 70 Jewish scholars in Alexandria

I agree, the heresy from (Alexandria Egypt) Arianism

Alexandria being the very foundation of the (Alexandrian Text) that supports modern versions, NIV, ESV, NASB, etc

The church was well aware of the heresy from Alexandria and their text, Constantine and his High priest Eusebius were both supporters of Arianism and the philosophical schools in Alexandria

Eusebius and Constantine persecuted those that opposed Arianism after the council of Nicaea

The fight continues today against the school of Clement, Origen, Arius, from Alexandria Egypt

Constantine and Eusebius were enemies of the church, it was an organized assault, that is now Roman Catholicism

ohhhhhh....you are soooo wrong on this

Eusebius was a bishop not a high priest

Clement of Rome was Paul's fellow servant, mentioned in Phillippians
Clement of Alexander is not the same Clement.

The NASB - Translators used the Critical Greek Text rather than the Received Text, the Nestle Greek text for the NT and the Kittel Bible for the OT NOT Alexandrian.

 

[laymen]

I don't think "making Constantine a scapegoat" is what we need to think about, but simply think of the church. It is whether and if the church changed and how it did that we need to consider.

We only know what scripture tells us, but scripture speaks of caring for members, of the relationships in the church. There is little of that after the church became a state structure.

There is little of that in the church now days.

 

[Truth7t7]

200 BC Septuagint – OLD testament, supposedly translated by 70 Jewish scholars in Alexandria


ohhhhhh....you are soooo wrong on this

Eusebius was a bishop not a high priest

Clement of Rome was Paul's fellow servant, mentioned in Phillippians
Clement of Alexander is not the same Clement.

The NASB - Translators used the Critical Greek Text rather than the Received Text, the Nestle Greek text for the NT and the Kittel Bible for the OT NOT Alexandrian.

I state (Eusebius Nicomedia) being Constatines high priest in (Jest)

Eusebius was Constatines religious control in the Empire, and would be considered the first Pope in the Roman Catholic (State Church) created by Constantine.

I stated (Clement From Alexandria) not Rome

The new versions are based upon the (Nestle Aland Greek Text), this is supported by the (Alexandian Text Type)

Kurt Aland was an adulterer, who divorced his wife and ran off with a girl that he taught as professor in his classroom, Barbara Ehlers

Wikipedia: Eusebius of Nicomedia (died 341) was an Arian priest, the man who baptised Constantine the Great. He was a bishop of Berytus (modern-day Beirut) in Phoenicia. He was later made the bishop of Nicomedia, where the Imperial court resided. He lived finally in Constantinople from 338 up to his death.

 

[GraceAndTruth]

I state (Eusebius Nicomedia) being Constatines high priest in (Jest)

Eusebius was Constatines religious control in the Empire, and would be considered the first Pope in the Roman Catholic (State Church) created by Constantine.

I stated (Clement From Alexandria) not Rome

The new versions are based upon the (Nestle Aland Greek Text), this is supported by the (Alexandian Text Type)

Kurt Aland was an adulterer, who divorced his wife and ran off with a girl that he taught as professor in his classroom, Barbara Ehlers

Wikipedia: Eusebius of Nicomedia (died 341) was an Arian priest, the man who baptised Constantine the Great. He was a bishop of Berytus (modern-day Beirut) in Phoenicia. He was later made the bishop of Nicomedia, where the Imperial court resided. He lived finally in Constantinople from 338 up to his death.

So you aren't going to thank me for the corrections?

I don't have a new version. I have an old KJV, an RSV, an NASB and the Geneva.
I never heard of Kurt. shame on him.
Eusebius's bibles are called VATICANUS (B) and SINAITICUS (Aleph). Both of these versions abound in error and are considered corrupted versions. No bible scholar would use him.

I have faith that God is able to preserve His word to His people.

 

[laymen]

I agree, the heresy from (Alexandria Egypt) Arianism

Alexandria being the very foundation of the (Alexandrian Text) that supports modern versions, NIV, ESV, NASB, etc

The church was well aware of the heresy from Alexandria and their text, Constantine and his High priest Eusebius were both supporters of Arianism and the philosophical schools in Alexandria

Eusebius and Constantine persecuted those that opposed Arianism after the council of Nicaea

The fight continues today against the school of Clement, Origen, Arius, from Alexandria Egypt

Constantine and Eusebius were enemies of the church, it was an organized assault, that is now Roman Catholicism

When I was in ministry full time I did not always have my bible per-say sometimes I woud have to use what was there. With a enough time I was always able to use any bible. Truth was always there just not always the same verse

 

[Nehemiah6]

Constantine does not qualify as a scapegoat

Until you check Merriam-Webster.
"one that bears the blame for others"

 

[Nehemiah6]

As to opposing what Constantine did, nobody is going to change the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is far too late for that. And those who are members of these churches sincerely believe that they are in the one "true church" (even though the two churches differ in many ways). So rather than waste time wrangling with them, Christians are called to simply preach the true Gospel.

 

[Blik]

Then why bring it up???
Constantine wanted to unite all his conquored countries under one religion..........his. He was a sun-god worshipper. Since Christianity was the majority religion at that time he used Christian terminology and created new definitions....added bits of Judaism and plenty of paganism.......and TA_DA! the Roman Catholic church was born......strange history there though. The first Roman church established by the believing Jews after pentecost remained true to the doctrines of grace for many years .... a few hundred...confirmed doctrines at Council of Orange in 520AD....then faded away into the larger established version that left Christianity forever with TRENT. Splits from the original included the Eastern Orthodox. Yet God preserves his remnant to persevere on.

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.

 

[Blik]

As to opposing what Constantine did, nobody is going to change the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is far too late for that. And those who are members of these churches sincerely believe that they are in the one "true church" (even though the two churches differ in many ways). So rather than waste time wrangling with them, Christians are called to simply preach the true Gospel.

And nobody is going to change today's church, it is set. But individuals why love the Lord and put His ways first in their life want to be sure God is first. Some people are not interested in that, but are set in a church run by its own rules and not the rules of the Lord.