Question about new testament? ?

[Jo2016]

Which place in the Bible are you talking about where Paul assigns someone to take his place?

I took a time to find this verse


“And when they had made selection of some to be rulers in every church, and had given themselves to prayer and kept themselves from food, they put them into the care of the Lord in whom they had faith.”
— Acts 14:23 (BBE)

“And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus for the rulers of the church.”
— Acts 20:17 (BBE)

There are more than it but I can't specify it

 

[Sipsey]

I took a time to find this verse


“And when they had made selection of some to be rulers in every church, and had given themselves to prayer and kept themselves from food, they put them into the care of the Lord in whom they had faith.”
— Acts 14:23 (BBE)

“And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus for the rulers of the church.”
— Acts 20:17 (BBE)

There are more than it but I can't specify it

I hope you understand that Paul and the others were choosing leaders in the early churches and not Apostles. Here is an article that explains the pattern of leadership as presented in the early church,

Introduction
After Jesus Christ’s ascension, earthly authority over his church fell first and foremost to the eleven remaining of his closest disciples, Matthias – the replacement chosen for Judas of Iscariot – and James the brother of Jesus who was appointed head of the church at Jerusalem1. Paul, after his dramatic conversion, quickly became a leader of the church as well, and was confirmed by James, Peter, and John as an apostle to the gentiles2. But as the church grew, and news of Christ’s death and resurrection spread far and wide, it was clear that leaders would have to be appointed among the churches of every city to teach, admonish, and care for the needs of those growing congregations. To this aim, the apostles (and doubtless others as well) appointed leaders in the churches, and further delegated the task of appointing such men to others whose faith and character they deemed to be worthy of such trust3. So, by at least the middle of the first century, the basics functions of an episcopal leadership had been established.
Although there were many varied functions carried out by a number of members in the early church*, the basic leadership structure seems to have fallen into three categories: apostles, elders, and deacons.

Apostles
The term “Apostle” (apostolos) literally denotes a messenger or one who is sent by another, but in the early church it took on a new significance – that of one who was sent by Jesus Christ. This term was used to varying levels of exclusivity, at times only denoting the original eleven disciples and Matthias, while others, such as Paul, use the term more broadly to include other preeminent leaders in the church such as James the brother of Jesus4 and himself. As Paul frequently referred to himself as “Apostle” in his writings, there can be little doubt that he was generally included in this elite group.
The Apostles were the preeminent authorities of the early church after Christ. It was the apostles who appointed the first elders, instructed them in doctrine and conduct, and whose writings were paired with scripture5. Even after the Apostles had departed a region – indeed even after the last of the apostles had passed away – the station of apostle remained unique to them, as did the authority of their teachings.

Elders
Several terms were used to denote those men appointed as leaders over the local churches. Although here they will be referred to simply as “Elders,” they were alternately called “overseer” (episkopos), “shepherd” (Poimen), and Elder (presbuteros)+. These terms were used synonymously without any distinction drawn between them. The term “presbuteros” can also be translated simply as “presbyter,” and Poimen (shepherd) has also come to us as “pastor” (from the Latin, Pastorem). Episkopos, through a later etymology, is also rendered “bishop.”
As mentioned before, the Elders were appointed to provide leadership and guidance to the local churches in the absence of the Apostles. As the number of Apostles dwindled and those who remained knew their time was short, they entrusted care of the churches fully in the hands of these Elders, admonishing them to remember the doctrine they had been taught and to hold fast to it in the face of new trials and innovative heresies6.
The duties of elders were undoubtedly many and varied, but the most important of these duties were the instruction of sound doctrine7, exercising oversight over and setting an example to the congregation8, acting as a bulwark against false teachings and dissention9, and praying over those in need among the believers in their charge10.

Deacons
Directly subordinate to the Elders was the “deacon.” (diakonos; a servant who carries out the command of another). The deacons were tasked with assisting the Elders in their duties, which allowed them to provide better care for the flock while focusing on the most important duties of an Elder^.

Qualifications For Elders and Deacons
The position of Elder and deacon alike was a position of great responsibility. As such, much was required of a candidate for these posts.
A candidate for Elder or deacon was to be “above reproach,” a faithful believer for some time, and with a wife and children of similarly high regard. New converts were not eligible for either of these roles11.
Only men could serve as Elders of a church12. It is possible, though not certain, that some women may have served as deaconesses in the church, though the exact nature of this role is not clear13.

The Evolving Episcopate
It is interesting to note that the first elders almost certainly did not hold sole authority over a local church. Rather, it seems the local churches were instead each governed by a college of elders. This can be seen in the Acts of the Apostles, where a council of elders is described in Ephesus and a number of elders was found along with the apostles in Jerusalem14. Similarly, in his letter to the Philippians, Paul refers to multiple overseers at that church15. Indeed, there is no example in the New Testament writings were any church is explicitly said to have only one Elder, rather all seem to have had a plurality.
From the writings of early second century elders such as Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp, this situation seems to have changed drastically from the mid-late first century. Of Ignatius’ 7 letters, only one seems to indicate a city still ruled by a number of Elders**, and Polycarp is said to have been appointed as Elder over the church at Smyrna by John himself at the end of the first century16. Although this evolution should not be viewed as intrinsically negative, it did set the stage for the onset of an Imperial Church in the fourth century, where the humble servitude of the first elders was swallowed by the pomp and glory of a royal court in which richly adorned "bishops" vied for ever growing prestige.

Footnotes
* See 1 Corinthians 12
+ For example, episkopos is used in Titus 1:7, presbuteros in 1 Peter 5:1, and poimen in Ephesians 4:11
^ cf. Acts 6:2-4
** Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans

1. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 2, chapter 1
2. Galatians 2:9
3. Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5
4. Galatians 1:19
5. 2 Peter 3:16
6. Acts 20:17-38
7. Titus 1:9
8. 1 Peter 5:1-4
9. Acts 20, Titus 1
10. James 5:14
11. 1 Timothy 3
12. 1 Timothy 2:12
13. Romans 16:1
14. Acts 15, 20
15. Philippians 1:1
16. Irenaeus, “Agaisnt Heresies” Book III, (cited from Eusebius, Williamson translation, p. 167)

 

[Jo2016]

I hope you understand that Paul and the others were choosing leaders in the early churches and not Apostles. Here is an article that explains the pattern of leadership as presented in the early church,

Introduction
After Jesus Christ’s ascension, earthly authority over his church fell first and foremost to the eleven remaining of his closest disciples, Matthias – the replacement chosen for Judas of Iscariot – and James the brother of Jesus who was appointed head of the church at Jerusalem1. Paul, after his dramatic conversion, quickly became a leader of the church as well, and was confirmed by James, Peter, and John as an apostle to the gentiles2. But as the church grew, and news of Christ’s death and resurrection spread far and wide, it was clear that leaders would have to be appointed among the churches of every city to teach, admonish, and care for the needs of those growing congregations. To this aim, the apostles (and doubtless others as well) appointed leaders in the churches, and further delegated the task of appointing such men to others whose faith and character they deemed to be worthy of such trust3. So, by at least the middle of the first century, the basics functions of an episcopal leadership had been established.
Although there were many varied functions carried out by a number of members in the early church*, the basic leadership structure seems to have fallen into three categories: apostles, elders, and deacons.

Apostles
The term “Apostle” (apostolos) literally denotes a messenger or one who is sent by another, but in the early church it took on a new significance – that of one who was sent by Jesus Christ. This term was used to varying levels of exclusivity, at times only denoting the original eleven disciples and Matthias, while others, such as Paul, use the term more broadly to include other preeminent leaders in the church such as James the brother of Jesus4 and himself. As Paul frequently referred to himself as “Apostle” in his writings, there can be little doubt that he was generally included in this elite group.
The Apostles were the preeminent authorities of the early church after Christ. It was the apostles who appointed the first elders, instructed them in doctrine and conduct, and whose writings were paired with scripture5. Even after the Apostles had departed a region – indeed even after the last of the apostles had passed away – the station of apostle remained unique to them, as did the authority of their teachings.

Elders
Several terms were used to denote those men appointed as leaders over the local churches. Although here they will be referred to simply as “Elders,” they were alternately called “overseer” (episkopos), “shepherd” (Poimen), and Elder (presbuteros)+. These terms were used synonymously without any distinction drawn between them. The term “presbuteros” can also be translated simply as “presbyter,” and Poimen (shepherd) has also come to us as “pastor” (from the Latin, Pastorem). Episkopos, through a later etymology, is also rendered “bishop.”
As mentioned before, the Elders were appointed to provide leadership and guidance to the local churches in the absence of the Apostles. As the number of Apostles dwindled and those who remained knew their time was short, they entrusted care of the churches fully in the hands of these Elders, admonishing them to remember the doctrine they had been taught and to hold fast to it in the face of new trials and innovative heresies6.
The duties of elders were undoubtedly many and varied, but the most important of these duties were the instruction of sound doctrine7, exercising oversight over and setting an example to the congregation8, acting as a bulwark against false teachings and dissention9, and praying over those in need among the believers in their charge10.

Deacons
Directly subordinate to the Elders was the “deacon.” (diakonos; a servant who carries out the command of another). The deacons were tasked with assisting the Elders in their duties, which allowed them to provide better care for the flock while focusing on the most important duties of an Elder^.

Qualifications For Elders and Deacons
The position of Elder and deacon alike was a position of great responsibility. As such, much was required of a candidate for these posts.
A candidate for Elder or deacon was to be “above reproach,” a faithful believer for some time, and with a wife and children of similarly high regard. New converts were not eligible for either of these roles11.
Only men could serve as Elders of a church12. It is possible, though not certain, that some women may have served as deaconesses in the church, though the exact nature of this role is not clear13.

The Evolving Episcopate
It is interesting to note that the first elders almost certainly did not hold sole authority over a local church. Rather, it seems the local churches were instead each governed by a college of elders. This can be seen in the Acts of the Apostles, where a council of elders is described in Ephesus and a number of elders was found along with the apostles in Jerusalem14. Similarly, in his letter to the Philippians, Paul refers to multiple overseers at that church15. Indeed, there is no example in the New Testament writings were any church is explicitly said to have only one Elder, rather all seem to have had a plurality.
From the writings of early second century elders such as Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp, this situation seems to have changed drastically from the mid-late first century. Of Ignatius’ 7 letters, only one seems to indicate a city still ruled by a number of Elders**, and Polycarp is said to have been appointed as Elder over the church at Smyrna by John himself at the end of the first century16. Although this evolution should not be viewed as intrinsically negative, it did set the stage for the onset of an Imperial Church in the fourth century, where the humble servitude of the first elders was swallowed by the pomp and glory of a royal court in which richly adorned "bishops" vied for ever growing prestige.

Footnotes
* See 1 Corinthians 12
+ For example, episkopos is used in Titus 1:7, presbuteros in 1 Peter 5:1, and poimen in Ephesians 4:11
^ cf. Acts 6:2-4
** Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans

1. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 2, chapter 1
2. Galatians 2:9
3. Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5
4. Galatians 1:19
5. 2 Peter 3:16
6. Acts 20:17-38
7. Titus 1:9
8. 1 Peter 5:1-4
9. Acts 20, Titus 1
10. James 5:14
11. 1 Timothy 3
12. 1 Timothy 2:12
13. Romans 16:1
14. Acts 15, 20
15. Philippians 1:1
16. Irenaeus, “Agaisnt Heresies” Book III, (cited from Eusebius, Williamson translation, p. 167)

Thank you for this article

But do you think any church now doing this pattern?

 

[Sipsey]

Thank you for this article

But do you think any church now doing this pattern?

That’s the $64 question. It seems that many denominations have opted for a worldly business model as opposed to the Biblical model. I may be somewhat pessimistic in my view, but good, Biblical church leaders are kinda rare.

 

[Sipsey]

Thank you for this article

But do you think any church now doing this pattern?

I do find hope, though, of the verse that says, ”For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.“ Matt. 18:20

 

[Blik]

The wars between Jews and Rome in 73 and 132 had much to do with the leadership of our churches today and so of our NT. Before that the Jews and Gentiles could worship together. The leadership of the church was Jews, such as James the brother of Jesus. The wars killed so many Jews that gentiles took over the leadership and even though both the Jews and gentiles were Christian, the gentiles had a much different view of Christianity. There were the Ebsonites, Ghostics, and Arianism. All wrote about their religions.

It was not until 325 that a council (Nicene Council) was called by Constantine to unite the Christian church into one. They deliberated for three years. It was after this that the NT scripture was decided on with major adjustments to this in 635. At this later council such as the book of Enoch was eliminated. This council set up church policy that is still in effect today. It defined Christ. Before there were many strange ideas of Christ. The council's purpose was to unite Christianity and to oppose the Jews. The opposition to anything Jewish, or from the OT, set up policies that is still in effect today, such as the elimination of Passover. Most of the anti Jewish policies held true for many centuries.

We have the results of the Nicene Council. Constantine called it and paid all the bills we have him to thank for our church and our NT.

 

[Dino246]

The wars between Jews and Rome in 73 and 132 had much to do with the leadership of our churches today and so of our NT. Before that the Jews and Gentiles could worship together. The leadership of the church was Jews, such as James the brother of Jesus. The wars killed so many Jews that gentiles took over the leadership and even though both the Jews and gentiles were Christian, the gentiles had a much different view of Christianity. There were the Ebsonites, Ghostics, and Arianism. All wrote about their religions.

While it is true that the leaders of the earliest church in Judea were Jews, most of the leaders in other areas probably were not. If they were following the fullness of the gospel as Paul taught it, they would have made no distinction, and would not have chosen ethnic Jews specifically to lead the local assemblies.

Gnostics and Arians aren't Christians, so I'm not sure why you mention them. Your comment, "the gentiles had a much different view of Christianity" needs references to support it. Can you provide any?

 

[DB7]

The wars between Jews and Rome in 73 and 132 had much to do with the leadership of our churches today and so of our NT. Before that the Jews and Gentiles could worship together. The leadership of the church was Jews, such as James the brother of Jesus. The wars killed so many Jews that gentiles took over the leadership and even though both the Jews and gentiles were Christian, the gentiles had a much different view of Christianity. There were the Ebsonites, Ghostics, and Arianism. All wrote about their religions.

It was not until 325 that a council (Nicene Council) was called by Constantine to unite the Christian church into one. They deliberated for three years. It was after this that the NT scripture was decided on with major adjustments to this in 635. At this later council such as the book of Enoch was eliminated. This council set up church policy that is still in effect today. It defined Christ. Before there were many strange ideas of Christ. The council's purpose was to unite Christianity and to oppose the Jews. The opposition to anything Jewish, or from the OT, set up policies that is still in effect today, such as the elimination of Passover. Most of the anti Jewish policies held true for many centuries.

We have the results of the Nicene Council. Constantine called it and paid all the bills we have him to thank for our church and our NT.

Blik, you're joking right? The Jewish wars Masada and Bar Kokhba WERE NOT AMONGST CHRISTIANS, that's why they're called JEWISH WARS???? Their decimation had no impact on the populace of the Church.
Council of Nicaea only lasted 4 - 5 months NOT 3 YRS, and HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CANON, nothing, documented no where, ...except for in the Da Vinci Code (said enough)! AND, NOTHING TO DO WITH THE JEWS, NOTHING, NOWHERE!!!!
As Dino said, gnostics, arians are not christians, there presence did not last long in infiltrating the church (Constantine's sons supported Arianism periodically), and ultimately, in the long run, they affected very little of Christian hierarchy & leadership.
AND, it's typically Athanasius' Festal letter written in 367, that traditionally defined canon (plus a few other post-apostolic writing), NOT 635 with the EXCLUSION OF THE BOOK OF ENOCH, which was mostly disregarded by the 4th century.
Again NICAEA HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CANON, NOR THE JEWS!!!!!

 

[JamOn]

Blik, you're joking right? The Jewish wars Masada and Bar Kokhba WERE NOT AMONGST CHRISTIANS, that's why they're called JEWISH WARS???? Their decimation had no impact on the populace of the Church.
Council of Nicaea only lasted 4 - 5 months NOT 3 YRS, and HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CANON, nothing, documented no where, ...except for in the Da Vinci Code (said enough)! AND, NOTHING TO DO WITH THE JEWS, NOTHING, NOWHERE!!!!
As Dino said, gnostics, arians are not christians, there presence did not last long in infiltrating the church (Constantine's sons supported Arianism periodically), and ultimately, in the long run, they affected very little of Christian hierarchy & leadership.
AND, it's typically Athanasius' Festal letter written in 367, that traditionally defined canon (plus a few other post-apostolic writing), NOT 635 with the EXCLUSION OF THE BOOK OF ENOCH, which was mostly disregarded by the 4th century.
Again NICAEA HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CANON, NOR THE JEWS!!!!!

Hmm interesting thanks for the info, I’ve read yes you are correct the 20 canons of the Nicene Council are not biblical canons but canons of the clergy/bishops sort of does n don’t I think

https://www.christian-history.org/council-of-nicea-canons.html

 

[JamOn]

The wars between Jews and Rome in 73 and 132 had much to do with the leadership of our churches today and so of our NT. Before that the Jews and Gentiles could worship together. The leadership of the church was Jews, such as James the brother of Jesus. The wars killed so many Jews that gentiles took over the leadership and even though both the Jews and gentiles were Christian, the gentiles had a much different view of Christianity. There were the Ebsonites, Ghostics, and Arianism. All wrote about their religions.

It was not until 325 that a council (Nicene Council) was called by Constantine to unite the Christian church into one. They deliberated for three years. It was after this that the NT scripture was decided on with major adjustments to this in 635. At this later council such as the book of Enoch was eliminated. This council set up church policy that is still in effect today. It defined Christ. Before there were many strange ideas of Christ. The council's purpose was to unite Christianity and to oppose the Jews. The opposition to anything Jewish, or from the OT, set up policies that is still in effect today, such as the elimination of Passover. Most of the anti Jewish policies held true for many centuries.

We have the results of the Nicene Council. Constantine called it and paid all the bills we have him to thank for our church and our NT.

This was informative as well, the first part about what was dubbed The council of Jerusalem around 50AD
was a interesting read

 

[JamOn]

That is interesting why did those things stop among Christians Jesus went to every festival

A short read from wiki lol

The Council of Jerusalem or Apostolic Council was held in Jerusalem around AD 50. It is unique among the ancient pre-ecumenical councils in that it is considered by Catholics and Orthodox to be a prototype and forerunner of the later ecumenical councils and a key part of Christian ethics. The council decided that Gentile converts to Christianity were not obligated to keep most of the Law of Moses, including the rules concerning circumcision of males. The Council did, however, retain the prohibitions on eating blood, meat containing blood, and meat of animals not properly slain, and on fornication and idolatry, sometimes referred to as the Apostolic Decree or Jerusalem Quadrilateral.

 

[Blik]

Blik, you're joking right? The Jewish wars Masada and Bar Kokhba WERE NOT AMONGST CHRISTIANS, that's why they're called JEWISH WARS???? Their decimation had no impact on the populace of the Church.
Council of Nicaea only lasted 4 - 5 months NOT 3 YRS, and HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CANON, nothing, documented no where, ...except for in the Da Vinci Code (said enough)! AND, NOTHING TO DO WITH THE JEWS, NOTHING, NOWHERE!!!!
As Dino said, gnostics, arians are not christians, there presence did not last long in infiltrating the church (Constantine's sons supported Arianism periodically), and ultimately, in the long run, they affected very little of Christian hierarchy & leadership.
AND, it's typically Athanasius' Festal letter written in 367, that traditionally defined canon (plus a few other post-apostolic writing), NOT 635 with the EXCLUSION OF THE BOOK OF ENOCH, which was mostly disregarded by the 4th century.
Again NICAEA HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CANON, NOR THE JEWS!!!!!

I'm amazed!! Such conclusions to make you jump down my throat. The idea that cults weren't trying to say they were Christian when they did, and say that I am off base because you decide that I said they discussed the canon at Nicene (I didn't) or that the Nicene had nothing to do with the canon. It was a major influence in establishing our church and the polices of the church. It is the church that decided on our NT. My information said they deliberated three years, yours said it was months.

If you think that Easter wasn't established as church policy at this council you are so very mistaken. It was. And Constantine did make a speech at the council saying they should not follow what Jews did, as one reason for establishing Easter. This policy had much to do with the decisions about the books to accept as scripture.

Instead spouting off at me you need to read church history. I read the reports of the church councils until the 700'th year, it would be well worth your time.

 

[Dino246]

I'm amazed!! Such conclusions to make you jump down my throat. The idea that cults weren't trying to say they were Christian when they did

You misread his statement. He didn't say that cults "weren't trying to say they were Christians". He said they aren't Christians. There is a significant difference.

Instead spouting off at me you need to read church history.

Instead of spouting off at others, you need to read their posts more carefully.

 

[Dan_473]

I took a time to find this verse


“And when they had made selection of some to be rulers in every church, and had given themselves to prayer and kept themselves from food, they put them into the care of the Lord in whom they had faith.”
— Acts 14:23 (BBE)

“And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus for the rulers of the church.”
— Acts 20:17 (BBE)

There are more than it but I can't specify it

Thanks for finding the verses for me!

The word translated as ruler in those two verses can also easily be translated as elder or priest.

I think you'll find two main ways of looking at this whole situation.

The first way to look at it is to believe that God preserved the writings of the apostles and worked on the hearts of church leaders through the centuries to make sure that the New testament we use today is the right one.

The advantage of this way is that you now have a fixed foundation for teaching. And everyone who has a Bible and the ability to read it can be personally led by God's spirit to the truth.

The disadvantages are that each person has to start from the beginning and build a system of ideas of what they believe.
Also, it seems kind of awkward to say that God guided the early church leaders about which books to put in the New testament, but God didn't guide them about their other teachings.

The second way people look at the situation is to say that God has always revealed his truth and guided his church through its leaders. At first it was the 12 apostles, then Paul and Barnabas, then Timothy and Titus and so on. Each generation of leaders laid hands on the one to follow.

the advantage of this way is that each individual Christian doesn't have to be an expert at bible languages and interpretation.

The disadvantage is that there are two main fellowships, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, who both trace their generations of leaders back to Jesus. But they disagree on some points of teaching.

 

[DB7]

I'm amazed!! Such conclusions to make you jump down my throat. The idea that cults weren't trying to say they were Christian when they did, and say that I am off base because you decide that I said they discussed the canon at Nicene (I didn't) or that the Nicene had nothing to do with the canon. It was a major influence in establishing our church and the polices of the church. It is the church that decided on our NT. My information said they deliberated three years, yours said it was months.

If you think that Easter wasn't established as church policy at this council you are so very mistaken. It was. And Constantine did make a speech at the council saying they should not follow what Jews did, as one reason for establishing Easter. This policy had much to do with the decisions about the books to accept as scripture.

Instead spouting off at me you need to read church history. I read the reports of the church councils until the 700'th year, it would be well worth your time.

Alright Blik, all i can say i that i profoundly disagree with all your alleged historical facts. Some are close, but in general a bit radical.
If the council of Nicaea intended to do away with anything Jewish, I'm not sure why your so in accord with that, unless your speaking of Judiazers. Otherwise it sound a little Marcionist?
Plus Constantine was a secular, self-serving, political leader, why so much praise for him? I have yet to read of a historian who believes that he was actually a sincere Christian convert, and that the council wasn't convened only for ulterior motives.

 

[Blik]

Alright Blik, all i can say i that i profoundly disagree with all your alleged historical facts. Some are close, but in general a bit radical.
If the council of Nicaea intended to do away with anything Jewish, I'm not sure why your so in accord with that, unless your speaking of Judiazers. Otherwise it sound a little Marcionist?
Plus Constantine was a secular, self-serving, political leader, why so much praise for him? I have yet to read of a historian who believes that he was actually a sincere Christian convert, and that the council wasn't convened only for ulterior motives.

Alright Blik, all i can say i that i profoundly disagree with all your alleged historical facts. Some are close, but in general a bit radical.
If the council of Nicaea intended to do away with anything Jewish, I'm not sure why your so in accord with that, unless your speaking of Judiazers. Otherwise it sound a little Marcionist?
Plus Constantine was a secular, self-serving, political leader, why so much praise for him? I have yet to read of a historian who believes that he was actually a sincere Christian convert, and that the council wasn't convened only for ulterior motives.

I have read quite a bit of what Constantine did and wrote about and I think you need to search a little deeper. Constantine was an excellent politician and he wanted a unified Christian religion for his people. He felt the Jews couldn't be included, and called them evil people.

When he made the christian religion the state religion it truly did a lot for making it available to us. It seems to me that he was both used by the Lord for good and he did harm to our church so that harm is still with us today. The harm he did was making laws promoting bad attitudes toward any Jews that we see reflected today in an attitude toward "Judiazers". Actually Judiazers is making the fleshly acts of diet and circumcision obedience to God instead of obeying the spirit of the Lord. Some decide it includes any obedience to OT like going to church on Saturday instead of Sunday. It was so extreme in the past that murder of Jews was considered OK, Hitler even said his murdering was only doing as Luther asks. Constantine didn't originate these attitudes, but he made laws encouraging them.