Constantine ruined everything

VanillaSunflowers

Black Lives Don't Matter More Than Any Other Life
Jul 26, 2016
3,741
1,733
DE
✟18,570.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
Not sure why I see it this way. Practically nobody else does.
It seems to me that when Constantine demanded that Christianity be reduced to a written formula (AKA belief-based system) that he changed everything.

Outside of changing feast days and locations of historical events, he created a system where one was a member of the official religion if one believed certain facts and adopted certain practices.

I even suspect that this may have been the person Daniel spoke of. And think...that was a mere 300 and some years after Christ. The following years could very well be the "falling away" or "apostacy" spoken of by Paul.
I have been told for years that the falling away was the rejection of the modern American gospel.
Please remind me of the verses you speak of in Daniel?

I admire your courage to speak of this. :) For some time now I've thought this as well. The fracturing of the words of Jesus in such a way as a creedal formula. And that appears to naturally have fallen into the denominational fracturing as human's have that natural need to personally claim ownership of the creed and its proper interpretation for righteous understanding.

The falling away is easy to see in today's politics transpiring seemingly on a daily basis. And in the talk of world events as well as local and national here at home in the U.S.
But to look at it as having occurred during Constantine's time? That's truly a new take. You've given me something to think about there. Thank you.
 
Upvote 0

Job8

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,634
1,801
✟21,583.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Admittedly, though not good except it is fulfilling prophesy and Jesus return is soon, a lot of former 'protestants' are now 'ecumenical' and have left what they(?as a group or individuals?) may have once had as Scriptural Faith and Integrity in Jesus.Are they still technically protestant ?
You are absolutely correct. The classical meaning of Protestant has been thoroughly degraded and those who are a part of the ecumenical movement have no clue. Indeed, they have abandoned truth for a lie.

All the Protestant denominations succumbed to theological liberalism, so today -- for example -- homosexual clergymen are applauded while those who oppose them are mocked. In Constantine's time it was the virus of paganism that entered into the Christian churches. For example, the title Pontifex Maximus was the title of the chief pagan priest in Rome, but the Pope wears this title today. So one could say that Constantine began the ruination of Christianity, although false doctrine and false practice has already corrupted the churches in the first century (Revelation 1-3).
 
Upvote 0

Job8

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,634
1,801
✟21,583.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Oh yeah, Yesh...

"Technically Protestant"

I WANT AN ICON FOR IT!!!

Gotta have it!!!
There you go.

images
 
Upvote 0
Dec 14, 2010
2,285
218
46
San Juan del Río
✟26,797.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Alonso
I confess that in Junior High football
When we played the school from the hispanic part of town
We charged down the field at the kickoff screaming

REMEMBER THE ALAMO!!

(Coach got onto us about it pretty bad)

But i do not remember burning any Popes in this lifetime...

Nor being burned at the stake myself...

And the Truth will make you Free.

either you embrace truth or embrace sin, Mexican-American war was illegitimate, there was no way that war could be legitimate.

James 4:1-3

4 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?

2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.

3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.



All European immigrants could have been accepted in Méxican territory with only Two conditions, Being Catholics, (even converting to catholicisim) and speak Spanish.

Masonic Government of USA was anti-Catholic and wanted to preserve English as the language of the colonies. Ther was no need for war far from protestants rejecting to Become Catholics, rejecting Confesion of sins and rejecting the sacraments, and Thus The Words of The Sacred Scripture in the Letter of the Apostle James, became true through that war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Root of Jesse
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,578
6,064
EST
✟993,188.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Constantine basically instructed those he chose to 'create a new religion'. What followed was 'not' Christianity as offered through 'scripture'. It used the 'name' Christianity but in essence was nothing other than a 'combination' of the 'previous pagan practices' combined with the concept of Father and Son.
It is perfectly clear that what followed was 'not' true Christianity. Never have 'Christians' been commanded by God or His Son to torture and murder anyone that refuses to follow Them. It was this 'created religion' that the Romans 'called' Christianity that insisted that it was the 'Church' that men pledge their bodies and souls to, not scriptures offered by God. No where in the bible, (scriptures), are we instructed to place our 'faith' in 'a man' like the Pope nor place our faith in 'an organization' created by "MEN". And that is exactly what the 'Christianity' created by Constantine produced.
Blessings,
MEC
Total rubbish. Have you ever read any actual history of Constantine and the Nicaean council. The writings of two historians who lived at the time of Constantine, are available, Eusebius and Lactnatius. Have you ever read their accounts? If Constantine was going to force anything on the church, it would have been Ariansim because he was an Arian.
.....There were 300+ Christian bishops ate the council. All of them had lived through years of persecution being in danger of having all their property seized, being beaten and even killed simply for being Christian. They didn't denounce their faith and beliefs when faced with those dangers so why would they meekly, without a peep, let one emperor force anything unscriptural on the church?
.....One early Christian father Polycarp [A.D. 65-100-155.],who was a student of John, was burned at the stake because he refused to denounce Jesus. He said when he was threatened, "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?"
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
It is perfectly clear that what followed was 'not' true Christianity. Never have 'Christians' been commanded by God or His Son to torture and murder anyone that refuses to follow Them. It was this 'created religion' that the Romans 'called' Christianity that insisted that it was the 'Church' that men pledge their bodies and souls to, not scriptures offered by God. No where in the bible, (scriptures), are we instructed to place our 'faith' in 'a man' like the Pope nor place our faith in 'an organization' created by "MEN". And that is exactly what the 'Christianity' created by Constantine produced.
Amein.
 
Upvote 0

VanillaSunflowers

Black Lives Don't Matter More Than Any Other Life
Jul 26, 2016
3,741
1,733
DE
✟18,570.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
Constantine basically instructed those he chose to 'create a new religion'. What followed was 'not' Christianity as offered through 'scripture'. It used the 'name' Christianity but in essence was nothing other than a 'combination' of the 'previous pagan practices' combined with the concept of Father and Son.

It is perfectly clear that what followed was 'not' true Christianity. Never have 'Christians' been commanded by God or His Son to torture and murder anyone that refuses to follow Them. It was this 'created religion' that the Romans 'called' Christianity that insisted that it was the 'Church' that men pledge their bodies and souls to, not scriptures offered by God. No where in the bible, (scriptures), are we instructed to place our 'faith' in 'a man' like the Pope nor place our faith in 'an organization' created by "MEN". And that is exactly what the 'Christianity' created by Constantine produced.

Blessings,

MEC
It appears this discussion is now entered into by those who wish to bring contention to the church. I'll say that you may be interested in an article you'll find by searching for: Emperor Constantine's 6 Major Changes to Christianity

Read that over and see what you think. This is a great topic. Let us keep ourselves civil shall we? Remembering as we speak to one another we are speaking before the eyes of Abba Father and Jesus Christ.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
It appears this discussion is now entered into by those who wish to bring contention to the church.
Test everything. (by Scripture and in constant prayer with the Creator Himself)
Not everything (by a long shot sometimes) passes.
 
Upvote 0

civilwarbuff

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 28, 2015
14,603
7,108
✟614,057.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Even in USA the Alamo, was a catholic Mission. Destroyed to be used as a military post.
The Alamo had been occupied by Spanish then Mexican soldiers since the early 1800's; it had been decades since it was use as a mission.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,458
26,890
Pacific Northwest
✟732,295.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Not sure why I see it this way. Practically nobody else does.
It seems to me that when Constantine demanded that Christianity be reduced to a written formula (AKA belief-based system) that he changed everything.

Except that it really didn't change anything. Nicea wasn't the first time that the faith had been expressed in the language of a creed, in fact the symbol drawn up at Nicea follows the same outline that the earlier expressions of faith had used, most famously the Old Roman Symbol, itself looking like the symbols of faith already used, for example, in Baptism (c.f. St. Hippolytus baptismal creed) or as a defense of orthodoxy against heresy (c.f. St. Irenaeus' rule of faith).

What makes Nicea interesting and noteworthy is the following:

1. It attempted to address the ongoing theological crisis which was raised by Arius' teachings and actions (Arius, a former presbyter from Alexandria, who insisted that Christ was a secondary God and a creature had his ideas condemned at a local synod of bishops from Egypt; and so he left and started preaching in other parts of the eastern Empire and some accepted his ideas). It did this by insisting that the Arian formula that the Son and Logos was heteroousios (of a different substance) was heretical, and it also rejected the compromising formula of homoiousios (of a similar substance) by utilizing the formula of homoousios--the Son and Logos is of the same substance as the Father. This itself faced some scrutiny because of earlier problems and some ongoing problems with the Sabellians who used the same word in their heretical teaching that Jesus was His own Father--but the framers of the symbol at Nicea were rather clear with other language, such as that the Son is "begotten before all ages" which both denied the Arian claim that the Son was begotten in time, as a creature and also insisted that the Son is to be understood as distinct from the Father.

2. It was, until that time, the single largest gathering of bishops to any council in the history of Christianity. There had of course been many councils in the past, the first recorded council of the Church can be found in the Bible itself, the Council of Jerusalem as recorded in the 15th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. According to Eusebius of Caesarea (himself a semi-Arian and a friend of Arius) a grand total of 318 bishops attended, the majority from the Eastern churches (only five from the Western churches, the bishop of Rome was himself not even able to attend due to his old age).

3. It's symbol provided the groundwork for the Nicene Creed as accepted at the Council of Constantinople, what is known often as the Nicene Creed is perhaps better called the Niceno-Constantinoplian Creed; the only significant difference is that the Creed as put forward by the council fathers at Constantinople expanded on a few points, namely in regard to the Holy Spirit in order to address the heretical teachings of the Pneumatomachoi (aka the Macedonians), and also brought in the language from earlier creedal language such as references to the Church, the resurrection of the dead, etc; likewise it did not retain the specific anti-Arian anathemas which were used in the Nicene symbol itself.

Outside of changing feast days and locations of historical events, he created a system where one was a member of the official religion if one believed certain facts and adopted certain practices.

Constantine didn't do anything like that. However at the Council of Nicea the council fathers did decide to finally establish a universal Paschalion (calculation of when to celebrate the Paschal Feast, more commonly called "Easter" in English); the consensus was two-fold, the Quartodeciman system was already incredibly small and generally only adhered to by a few handfuls of heretics at the time (it had at one time been the common practice of the Churches in Asia and Palestine, most notably the great St. Polycarp bishop of Smyrna had been a Quartodeciman a position which was not condemned because it was not then associated with other heresies and heretical movements); further it detached celebration of the Paschal Feast from the Jewish calendar entirely as the Jewish calendar itself had been modified in the first few centuries of the Common Era, and frequently churches from many different places while generally following the same or a similar method of calculating Pascha ended up observing the Feast at slightly different times. Thus as explained in the letter sent to the Egyptian Churches, the council had found it was in the best interest to adopt the liturgical practice of the Egyptian churches and to establish a common Paschalion for all the churches; one that did not depend on the Jewish calendar which, as noted, had itself undergone changes in recent times.

Further, any cursory reading of the pre-Nicene writings of the Church--the New Testament included--it's pretty obvious that what was of critical importance was a unity of faith shared among the churches; there was after all one faith, one baptism, etc. And so a standardization of some liturgical practices was not exactly some drastic departure from some earlier, primitive, "pristine" form of religion in the past--it was a natural outgrowth of the same Church as Christ had founded doing and being what it ought to have been.

I even suspect that this may have been the person Daniel spoke of. And think...that was a mere 300 and some years after Christ. The following years could very well be the "falling away" or "apostacy" spoken of by Paul.
I have been told for years that the falling away was the rejection of the modern American gospel.

More likely Daniel was speaking of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who fits the bill for what Daniel speaks of--which would be more well known in Protestant circles if Bible publishers hadn't excised the Deuterocanonicals from Protestant English Bibles in the late 19th century. The relevant Maccabean history is easily read about online, and the book of 1 Maccabees is a pretty important read historically here. The king of the north was Antiochus, the king of the south was Ptolemy; the Syrian Wars were a number of conflicts fought between the Seleucids and Ptolemaic Egypt--for most of the post-Alexander period Judea was part of Ptolemaic Egypt, and generally, the Ptolemies were pretty lenient and allowed the Jews freedom of religion and practice--when the Seleucids conquered the area under the rule of Antiochus he systematically took the religious freedoms away from the Jews and attempted a program of forced Hellenization: the Jews were forbidden from circumcising their infants, from observing the Sabbath, celebrating their feast days, or performing their rites in the Temple. But what broke the camel's back was when Antiochus desecrated the Holy Temple by offering a pig as a sacrifice to Zeus in the Holy of Holies--the abomination that causes desolation. In response to these abuses and this outrageous blasphemy the brothers Judas and Jonathan Maccabeus would rise up and lead a revolt against the Seleucids and they managed to even restore sovereign rule to the Jews--and the rise of the Maccabean state allowed for an independent Israel for a time, until the conquests of the Romans, Caesar's general Pompeii conquered the region, and Antipater the Idumaen, the father of Herod the Great, was installed as king and in order to represent Rome's interests in the region. And you know the rest.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,578
6,064
EST
✟993,188.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Actually I once wrote a five thousand word essay on Constantine and Christianity in college and scored an A+. At the 'time' of the Council at Nicaea, Constantine favored Athanasius. Common sense: if Constantine favored Arius, why do you suppose that, he, making the final decision, opposed Arius and allowed him to be excommunicated?
Eusebius, was excommunicated for his Arian beliefs 312 AD, Constantine had him reinstated for Nicaea.
Your offering makes 'no sense' whatsoever. There were 'two sides'. One side had to lose. Constantine sided with what only makes 'sense': the majority. Easier to convert the minority than the majority. Most of the Bishops already 'knew' what the decision was going to be so most that favored Arius' view didn't even show up.
Your unsupported opinion is not evidence! How did any faction “know” what the decision was going to be and where is the evidence that the losing side didn't show up because they “knew” the decision before hand?
And we can clearly see 'today' that Christ, according to the scriptures, is not 'equal to' or of the 'same essence' as God. Christ openly stated this over and over. The Father is 'greater' than the Son. There are 'things' that the Father knows that the Son does 'not'. Christ was 'sent' by the Father. Christ's power came 'from' God. And then there are all the passages that basically 'state' that Christ was 'created' by God. It was this 'newly' formed 'religion' that used the name Christianity that created such absurd phrases as 'eternally begotten' to try and 'make' their ideas 'fit' scripture. When in fact, no sentence int he 'entire Bible' offers any such concept as 'eternally begotten'. In fact, it doesn't even make any sort of 'sense'. So then they insisted that it was 'divinely' revealed to them and those that were so 'ordered' to believe just needed to 'take it on faith' that 'they' understood what it means.
A diatribe with no, none, zero evidence.
Constantine was a 'pagan' Emperor. There is absolutely 'no' indication that he was 'ever' Christian so far as 'faith' is concerned. Every action we can learn from history was that of a 'pagan Emperor'.
According to Eusebius a historian who lived contemporary with Constantine he was a Christian. For your information Christians are not perfect.
His desire when dictating that Christianity would be the 'religion of the Empire' had nothing to 'do' with his personal 'faith'. He simply witnessed men and women willing to 'die' for their faith and thought that it could be the catalyst that might hold his Empire together. Imagine if he could have an Empire of individuals that were willing to 'die' for what they believed. What magnificent soldiers these would make. And we can see that it certainly seemed to 'work' for a while. But not 'because' of 'faith', but because the Emperor used his power of authority to squash anyone that opposed his 'new religion'. It wasn't accepted by the 'people' in the 'form' created by Constantine and his cronies, it was 'forced' upon the Empire through threat of 'death'. Yet the entire time Constantine was still worshiping his 'pagan gods'.
Did Constantine leave a diary, is that how you “know” what he thought, planned etc? What evidence do you have that Constantine was still worshiping pagan gods? I know, you read it online somewhere.
We've been through this 'over and over'. The Catholic Church has created an 'illusion' of Constantine as some sort of Saint when history dictates anything but. He was a 'ruthless' pagan Emperor that 'used' the word Christianity to create a 'new religion' that previously never existed. What the Catholics created and follow to this day is 'not' what is offered in scripture. In fact, much of what they follow and teach is utterly contrary to the 'truth' contained in scripture. And they know it as well as everyone else. Calling a priest 'Father'. Worshiping 'graven images'. Forbidding to wed. Bowing to men, (or a man). The only other organization on the planet that resembles their 'rituals' and 'rites' is the Mafia. Extorting money from their 'followers' in order to live like Kings. And many that were among them like Martin Luther exposed them for what they are throughout history. In other words, Martin Luther was one who could not be 'brainwashed' even though he was 'one of their very own'. But he could clearly see 'the truth' once allowed access to the Bible.
A meaningless polemic with no, zero, none evidence.
Constantine is certainly to be credited with giving 'power' to the Catholic Church. Aiding in it's organization and ability to 'control' the people. But from my understanding they were simply 'using' the name 'Christianity' for what they formed was 'anything but' according to scripture.
There was no Catholic Church with a pope in charge until 1075 when the bishop of Rome unilaterally decreed that the bishop of Rome, himself, had authority over the whole church.
After the Council at Nicaea, Constantine had both his son and wife 'put to death'. Murdered. Now that's a fine way to show one's 'faith' isn't it? Never read in scriptures where those that are followers of Christ have authority to have members of their own families murdered. He never altered the idea that he was 'god' on Earth throughout his entire reign.
All total nonsense copied from some website. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia Here is the truth about Constantine killing his son and wife. “Crispus was executed on the charge of immorality made against him by Constantine's second wife, Fausta. The charge was false, as Constantine learned from his mother, Helena, after the deed was done. In punishment Fausta was suffocated in a superheated bath.”
He altered the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday in honor of his 'true' god:
Constantine decreed (March 7, 321) dies Solis—day of the sun, "Sunday"—as the Roman day of rest (
Codex Justinianus 3.12.2):
On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day is not suitable for grain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost.
[39]
This decree a mere four years previous to the Council at Nicaea. Hmmmm.............. Yet the Catholic Church insists that Constantine was a 'Saint'. The only question is 'Saint of what'? He retained the title: pontifex maximus until he died.
Constantine altered nothing, the church was worshiping on Sunday long before Constantine.
Justin [A.D. 110-165.] First Apology
LXVII And on the day called Sunday,76 all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability,77 and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given,78 and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.
Ignatius [A.D. 30-107.] [student of John] Epistle to the Magnesians.
If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death — whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master — how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead.
So, yes, I have not only heard the 'name' Constantine, I have spent much time studying what is available so far as history is concerned. Not the 'made up' history touted by the Catholic Church and others. But what we actually have so far as information that isn't tainted in order to make him out as being some sort of Saint.
The 'true rubbish' is the 'false illusion' created by those that have tried to make a ruthless Emperor into some sort of 'Christian Saint'.
No, you read the made up history of modern heterodox groups.
 
  • Like
Reactions: civilwarbuff
Upvote 0

VanillaSunflowers

Black Lives Don't Matter More Than Any Other Life
Jul 26, 2016
3,741
1,733
DE
✟18,570.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married


[7.1] CONSTANTINE and THE COUNCIL of NICEA

In other words, Constantine was not aware of any mutual exclusiveness between Christianity and his faith in the Unconquered Sun. The transition from solar monotheism (the most popular form of contemporary paganism) to Christianity was not difficult. In Old Testament prophecy Christ was entitled ‘the sun of righteousness’. Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 200) speaks of Christ driving his chariot across the sky like the Sun-god. A tomb mosaic recently found at Rome, probably made early in the fourth century, depicts Christ as the Sun-god mounting the heavens with his chariot. Tertullian says that many pagans imagined the Christians worshipped the sun because they met on Sundays and prayed towards the East. Moreover, early in the fourth century there begins in the West (where first and by whom is not known) the celebration of 25 December, the birthday of the Sun-god at the winter solstice, as the date for the nativity of Christ. How easy it was for Christianity and solar religion to become entangled at the popular level is strikingly illustrated by a mid-fifth century sermon of Pope Leo the Great, rebuking his over-cautious flock for paying reverence to the Sun on the steps of St Peter’s before turning their back on it to worship inside the westward-facing basilica.[1]

If Constantine’s coins long continued to be engraved with the symbolic representation of the Sun, his letters from 313 onwards leave no doubt that he regarded himself as a Christian whose imperial duty it was to keep a united Church. He was not baptized until he lay dying in 337, but this implies no doubt about his Christian belief. It was common at this time (and continued so until about A.D. 400) to postpone baptism to the end of one’s life, especially if one’s duty as an official included torture and execution of criminals.

Bishops of Rome under Constantine I

....in 325 Constantine convened and presided over the First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council. None of this, however, has particularly much to do with the popes, who did not even attend the Council; in fact, the first bishop of Rome to be contemporaneously referred to as “Pope” (πάππας, or pappas) is Damasus I (366-384).[1]



New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

The List of Popes
  1. St. Peter (32-67)
  2. St. Linus (67-76)
  3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
  4. St. Clement I (88-97)
  5. St. Evaristus (97-105) (list continues)


PART THREE
Sunday - fulfillment of the sabbath


2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:107
 
Upvote 0

samir

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2015
2,274
580
us
✟18,067.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Not sure why I see it this way.

Me neither as nothing changed after Constantine other than Christians stopped being persecuted by the state.

It seems to me that when Constantine demanded that Christianity be reduced to a written formula (AKA belief-based system) that he changed everything.

Christians had creeds long before Constantine. Faith is a firm mental assent to Jesus' teaching. These beliefs were written down and insisted upon by the church from the beginning.

Outside of changing feast days and locations of historical events, he created a system where one was a member of the official religion if one believed certain facts and adopted certain practices.

Also happened long before Constantine. Christians have always been required to believe certain facts and adopt certain practices.

I even suspect that this may have been the person Daniel spoke of. And think...that was a mere 300 and some years after Christ. The following years could very well be the "falling away" or "apostacy" spoken of by Paul.
I have been told for years that the falling away was the rejection of the modern American gospel.

Not likely since the ECFs show the things you mentioned were part of Christianity from the beginning.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,578
6,064
EST
✟993,188.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[7.1] CONSTANTINE and THE COUNCIL of NICEA
Bishops of Rome under Constantine I

....in 325 Constantine convened and presided over the First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council. None of this, however, has particularly much to do with the popes, who did not even attend the Council; in fact, the first bishop of Rome to be contemporaneously referred to as “Pope” (πάππας, or pappas) is Damasus I (366-384).[1]
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia
The List of Popes


PART THREE
Sunday - fulfillment of the sabbath

2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:107

Council of Nicaea, (325), the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea (now İznik, Tur.). It was called by the emperor Constantine I, an unbaptized catechumen, or neophyte, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions. He hoped a general council of the church would solve the problem created in the Eastern church by Arianism, a heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created being. Pope Sylvester I did not attend the council but was represented by legates.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Council-of-Nicaea-Christianity-325
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Razare

God gave me a throne
Nov 20, 2014
1,050
394
✟10,847.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I have been told for years that the falling away was the rejection of the modern American gospel.

The modern American gospel is not exactly what the Bible had in mind. Don't get me wrong, we've discovered back to it, yes. We had the reformation with Martin Luther... it was a step in the right direction, but only a step. The full reformation to remove what state organized religion turned Christianity into... the reformation to ultimately undo this, is to leave the boxes and go preach the gospel to all the world, and make disciples. You can't fulfill the great commission inside a box (church building).

 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums