Constantine ruined everything

[Root of Jesse]

So Job I am naive

I swear in the Air Force, things were simpler
There was one building- THE CHAPEL

Caths usually had the earlier service
Then we Protties went in next
And the more ecumenical of us stayed to collect the CHICK TRACKS that our more
Exuberant brothers left in the pews to "convert Catholics"

Because another cathie service would be following

We turned them into Father Cordoza, who had drawerfuls of them in his office

He showed them to me once, very grave...

I'll say it again- read my lips-
I am not at war with Catholicism

Do you read me?
Or is there some part of this you do not understand?

And my son is now Greek Orthodox

We are discussing a book
THE MOUNTAIN OF SILENCE

Eastern mysticism about the Oneness of God

Personally, you may not be. But Protestantism is at war with Catholicism. Generally speaking. Or do you honestly believe that it doesn't matter what brand of Christian you are...?

 

[Root of Jesse]

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

Patently, just false.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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?

Well, he didn't have the final decision. And just cuz you scored an A in college (probably based on grammar) doesn't mean you got the facts right.

That there were 'true' Christians in Rome or any where else at the time of Constantine 'creating his new religion' doesn't alter the facts. Just like there may well be true Christians in Muslim countries.

What actually happened was that his mother, who was Christian, went to the Holy Land and found the relics of Christ's Passion, brought them back, and converted him. She was an actual Christian.

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.

Revisionist.

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.

So, we see, you are an anti-Trinitarian.

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'. 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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

Blessings,

MEC

tl;dr

 

[Root of Jesse]

There is no truth in the Da Vinci Code, either the book or the movie.

Pretty much Tom Hanks explained the reality of Constantine to the older guy in DA VINCI CODE movie

Its what the majority went with, albeit against a significant minority
Kinda like who our next Prez will be

I think, civilwarbuff, that General Houston caught Santy Anna's men with their pants down, surprising them hung over after a Mexican holiday- creeping thru tall grass til right in their camp- thus Texas won independence

I remember some facts of Texas history
I do NOT remember the dimensions of Moses Austin's cell (which was a test question in 7th grade)

 

[Root of Jesse]

What College?

My study of Constantine began LONG before the internet offered anything I have ever encountered. I spent a multitude of hours in the public and University library reading just about everything they possessed pertaining to Constantine. That was close to thirty years ago now so I certainly can't reference every source I encountered. But I have a pretty good memory and every source I can recall took it as a 'given' that Constantine had both his son and wife executed. Legend? No more, no less than the event at the Milvian Bridge or anything else that is accepted as history pertaining to Constantine. The only 'legendary' part of the history of Constantine having his son and wife executed is the rumor that the two were having an affair and that being the 'reason' for their executions. Who knows 'exactly' why they were executed but it is common knowledge to those that have studied Constantine that he most certainly had them 'put to death'. That, my friend, is not 'legend' but historic fact if anything that exists concerning the history of Constantine can be relied upon. Every source I have ever encountered took it as an historic FACT that Constantine ordered the execution of his son and wife. I have NEVER found any source that stated it to be 'legend'. Actual DATES are offered pertaining to their deaths by his orders. The method of their executions is 'universal knowledge'. The son by poison, the wife was basically 'boiled alive' in her bath.

I offer as evidence every account offered by any and every source pertaining to the history of Constantine. Tell you what, you show evidence that this isn't true other than you 'saying it' and we have something to discuss. But if every source of history that exists openly acknowledges that they events took place, even giving the method and DATES, without you being able to offer any 'evidence' to the contrary, it would appear that it is 'you' that are 'making up' what you want to believe instead of simply accepting the evidence that it presents itself. So show us your evidence. My evidence is ANY source that one chooses that speaks of his son and wife and their deaths.

But one thing that we DO KNOW, Constantine was no 'Christian' nor was he a 'Saint'. He was the Emperor of a 'pagan' nation. A pagan himself. Born and raised a practicing pagan till the time of his death. If he had even 'believed' in Christianity, the evidence would exist. It doesn't. All the evidence points to a pagan Emperor who saw the potential benefits of having a 'religion' of the Empire that people were willing to DIE FOR. Unfortunately he didn't recognize that you can't 'create' a 'different' form of a 'religion' that people will die for because 'you want them to'. True faith doesn't work that way. True Christianity taught love and peace. Constantine was a brutal and savage soldier. One minute claiming to have been influenced by a 'vision' of Christ and the next moment having his enemy decapitated. One minute offering freedom for members of his Empire to worship Christ, the next having his son and wife executed. It doesn't matter 'why'. Who cares 'why'. The fact is that it happened. It is not 'legend' unless the existence of the man himself is to be considered such. But we KNOW that Constantine was a man, pagan Emperor and ruthless soldier. Concerned with ONE thing: ruling his failing Empire. And willing to do whatever imaginable to maintain that rule. But he was certainly 'no Saint'.

Which begs the question: why does the Catholic Church insist upon 'making up' what is needed to make him 'look like' a Saint? Why not just admit that he wasn't? What purpose does it serve 'anyone' to lie about the man? Like most of the lies of the Catholic Church, they are designed to make it appear that they are 'led' by God. And to admit much of what they attempt to sugar coat or deny would clearly reveal that they are anything but an 'institution' of God. They follow man made doctrine and therefore created their 'own God'. For the Bible makes this perfectly clear. They don't REALLY follow the Bible. They simply use parts of it that don't 'get in the way' of their 'own created religion'.

Constantine did NOT introduce Christianity into the Roman Empire. He couldn't stop it. But instead of letting true Christianity invade, he helped those that had hijacked it enforce 'their' created form of Christianity dominate that which was 'true' Christianity. In fact, torture and murder the 'true' Christians and replace them with those designed by themselves. They instituted a 'completely fabricated' new religion and called it 'Christianity'.

Blessings,

MEC

Constantine did not introduce Christianity into the Roman Empire. He legalized it. Big difference. (St. Paul wrote a letter to the Romans, if you'll recall...)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Well, the problem with this is that God has used worse people than Constantine to effectuate His will in the political and religious scheme of the world. Although I agree that Constantine was quite a character by today's standards, I don't think he was the Anti-Christ; in fact, I'd say he was more of a Cyrus type guy than he was a Nebuchadnezzar.

2PhiloVoid

 

[RDKirk]

It's not so much what Constantine did as what Christians did and do--to maintain a stake in earthly government that Christians did not have prior to Constantine.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nope, not 'anti Christ'. He simply didn't know anything 'about Christ'. That is apparent in his 'back and forth' acceptance and denial of Arius.

Blessings,

MEC

Well, at least Constantine was willing to "listen" to both sides of the conversation.

 

[thecolorsblend]

There is no truth in the Da Vinci Code, either the book or the movie.

Haha, no kidding! The art community was out for blood for years after that crap book came out. There is literally not a single word of truth anywhere in that book. Not the religious stuff, not the art stuff, nothing. There's also no good writing anywhere either but I guess that's a different discussion altogether.

 

[Basil the Great]

Well, I would say that Constantine's conversion and his effectively causing the State and the Church to be married, to a great extent anyway, was a double edged sword. It was good that the Church was no longer persecuted. However, I firmly believe that as a result, the Church made concessions to the State in the area of military service and the death penalty. Augustine's Just War Doctrine makes sense in many ways, but I believe it failed on one important respect,. It failed to give the individual Christian the right to decide for himself whether or not a particular war was just or not. As a result of his failure to include such a right in his doctrine, the Church effectively gave the State the right to wage war at will and the right to compel Christians to fight in said wars, even if their consciences tells them that a particular war is wrong.

The second issue that the Church forfeited to the State was the death penalty. The Catholic Encyclopedia itself admits that there was little, if any, support for capital punishment in the Early Church. There is no doubt in my mind that in exchange for the State giving the Church the right to worship freely, without persecution, Church leaders felt it best not to criticize the State for executing criminals. Having said this, I give the RCC much credit for changing it's teaching on capital punishment in the Catechism, thanks to John Paul II. Now if only the conservative Protestant bodies will come out against the death penalty, even in the qualified sense that the RCC has done, then I will be a happy camper....

 

[Zetlander]

no one seems to mention that constantine and the council of nice 325 which he oversea'd changed everything. All the jewish holidays, feasts and sabbath were outlawed under penalty of death, xmas, easter etc introduced in their place, the cross introduced which has nothing to do with 'YHWH or Messiah'...not even in the bible until the vulgate appeared.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

no one seems to mention that constantine and the council of nice 325 which he oversea'd changed everything. All the jewish holidays, feasts and sabbath were outlawed under penalty of death, xmas, easter etc introduced in their place, the cross introduced which has nothing to do with 'YHWH or Messiah'...not even in the bible until the vulgate appeared.

...while I can understand the gripes of those who see the implementation of the cross as a kind of early legal and commercial branding for the Church, it's really a stretch to say that the cross has "nothing" to do with the Messiah.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Der Alte]

no one seems to mention that constantine and the council of nice 325 which he oversea'd changed everything. All the jewish holidays, feasts and sabbath were outlawed under penalty of death, xmas, easter etc introduced in their place, the cross introduced which has nothing to do with 'YHWH or Messiah'...not even in the bible until the vulgate appeared.

Please provide credible, verifiable, historical evidence to support these claims? By that I don't mean copy/pastes from some website. Such evidence would consist of something written at or near the time in question by participants or direct eyewitnesses.

 

[Der Alte]

. . . no one seems to mention that constantine and the council of nice 325 which he oversea'd changed everything. ... the cross introduced which has nothing to do with 'YHWH or Messiah'...not even in the bible until the vulgate appeared. . . .

Tertullian, Against Marcion, CHAP. XIX.
--Prophecies Of The Death Of Christ. (200 a.d.)
"He signed them with that very seal of which Ezekiel spake: "The Lord said unto me, Go through the gate, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set the mark Tau upon the foreheads of the men."(14) Now the Greek letter Tau and our own letter T is the very form of the cross, which He predicted would be the sign on our 341 foreheads in the true universal Jerusalem."
ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library​

According to most reliable sources, see URLs below, the letter "Tau/Taw" in Ancient or Paleo-Hebrew was written as + It is also interesting to note that the Paleo-Hebrew letter "Tayth" is another supposedly pagan form, a cross with a circle around it.
http://phoenicia.org/gifs/siniatic.jpg
http://www.therain.org/know/palheb.html

Ezek 9:4 and the Lord said to him, "Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and והתוית תו/Taw a Taw/"mark a mark" on the foreheads of the men who sigh and cry over all the abominations that are done within it."​

In this passage YHWH commands His angel to go through Jerusalem and mark a + on the foreheads of all the righteous of YHWH not the "followers of the beast"!
The only word in Biblical Greek to describe a + shaped object is, Stauros!

"Strong's 4716 stauros (stow-ros')
from the base of 2476; TDNT - 7:572,1071; n m
AV - cross 28; 28"
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/962780823.html[/URL] ​

The only word in modern Greek to describe a + shaped object is, Stauros!

"cross = stauros, diastaurono, stavros, diastavrono"
Stauros - LEXICON: Greek-English-Greek dictionary​

The only word in ancient, classical Greek, ca. 1200 BC to 300 BC, to describe a + shaped object was, stauros!

Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon of Classical Greek
σταυρος stauros, ho, upright pale or stake, staurous ektos elasse diamperes entha kai entha puknous kai thameas Hom. Od. 14.11, cf. Hom. Il. 24.453, Thuc. 4.90, Xen. Anab. 5.2.21; of piles driven in to serve as a foundation, Hdt. 5.16, Thuc. 7.25.
II. cross, as the instrument of crucifixion, D.S.2.18, Ev.Matt.27.40, Plu.2.554a; epi ton s. apagesthai Luc.Peregr.34; s. lambanein, arai, bastazein, metaph. of voluntary suffering, Ev.Matt.10.38, Ev.Luc.9.23, au=Ev.Luc. 14.27: its form was represented by the Greek letter T, Luc.Jud.Voc.12.
Greek Dictionary Headword Search Results​

The only word in the Greek language to describe a + shaped object is, and has always been, σταυρος/stauros. The word used in the NT to describe the instrument upon which Jesus was crucified is σταυρος/Stauros! Nothing has been changed or added! Why didn’t the N.T. writers say cross? They did, they used σταυρος/stauros the only word in the Greek language, which means a cross, +, shaped object.
According to Roman historians of the period, the Romans used only three types of wooden instrument for executions. A gallows for hanging by the neck, a pointed stake upon which the condemned person was impaled, through their "secret parts," and a + or “T” shaped cross.
The Roman philosopher Seneca, 4 BC- 65AD.

"At the time of Christ, however, there were THREE BASIC MODES of crucifixion referred to by the Roman philosopher Seneca: "I see," he says, "THREE CROSSES, not indeed of one sort, but fashioned in different ways; one sort suspending by the head persons bent toward the earth, others transfixing them through their secret parts [crux simplex], others extending their arms on a PATIBULUM (crux composita)." (Consol. ad Marciam, XX).​

In all the early church leaders writings whenever a stauros/cross is described it is always described as +. Note all these early church leaders wrote between 100 and 300 years before Constantine.

The Epistle of Barnabas, found appended to the Codex Sinaiticus, indicates this type of crucifixion! The Epistle of Barnabas has been dated to the reign of Vespasian (70-79 A.D.)
Chapter 12:
Again, when Israel is made war upon by foreigners [Amalekites], He [God] speaks to Moses; and in order to warn them [the Israelites], by means of this very war, that they had been delivered over because of their sins, the Spirit suggests to Moses that he should make a TYPE OF THE CROSS and of Him who was to suffer. He thus intimates that, unless they hope in Him, they will forever be subject to war. Moses, therefore, placed shield upon shield where the fray was thick; and then, standing where he towered above all the rest, he EXTENDED HIS ARMS.
Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation, edited by Quasten and Plumpe. Verses 2-3.
Cyprian, [a.d. 200-258.] Bishop of Carthage (a.d. 248), which he held until his martyrdom (a.d. 258).
Treatise XII.1 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews.
By this sign of the cross also Amalek was conquered by Jesus through Moses. In Exodus Moses said to Jesus: "Choose thee out men, and go forth, and order yourselves with Amalek until the morrow. Behold, I will stand on the top of the hill, and the rod of God in mine hand. And it came to pass, when Moses lifted up his hands, Israel prevailed; but when Moses had let down his hands, Amalek waxed strong. But the hands of Moses were heavy; and they took a stone, and placed it under him, and he sat upon it and Aaron and Hur held up his hands, on the one side and on the other side; and the hands of Moses were made steady even to the setting of the sun. And Jesus routed Amalek and all his people. That in this sign of the Cross is salvation for all people who are marked on their foreheads. In Ezekiel the Lord says: "Pass through the midst of Jerusalem, and thou shalt mark the sign Tau/+ upon the men's foreheads, who groan and grieve for the iniquities which are done in the midst of them." Also in the same place: "Go and smite, and do not spare your eyes. Have no pity on the old man, and the youth, and the virgin, and slay little children and women, that they may be utterly destroyed. But ye shall not touch any one upon whom the Tau/+ is written, and begin with my holy places themselves."
http://ccel.wheaton.edu/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-122.htm#P7907_2659601
St. Justin Martyr, Christian apologist, born at Flavia Neapolis, about A.D. 100, converted to Christianity about A.D. 130, taught and defended the Christian religion in Asia Minor and at Rome, where he suffered martyrdom about the year 165.
Dialogue of Justin
Chapter LXXXVI.-There are Various Figures in the Old Testament of the Wood of the Cross by Which Christ Reigned.
Chapter LXXXIX.-The Cross Alone is Offensive to Trypho on Account of the Curse, Yet It Proves that Jesus is Christ.
Chapter XC.- The Stretched-Out Hands of Moses Signified Beforehand the Cross.
Chapter XCI.- The Cross Was Foretold in the Blessings of Joseph, and in the Serpent that Was Lifted Up.
Chapter XCVII.-Other Predictions of the Cross of Christ.
Chapter CXXXVIII.-Noah is a Figure of Christ, Who Has Regenerated Us by Water, and Faith, and Wood: [I.e., The Cross.]
"and that lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb,108 which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb."
ANF02. Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
The First Apology Of Justin Chap. Lv.--Symbols Of The Cross.
For consider all the things in the world, whether without this form they could be administered or have any community. For the sea is not traversed except that trophy which is called a sail abide safe in the ship; and the earth is not ploughed without it: diggers and mechanics do not their work, except with tools which have this shape. And the human form differs from that of the irrational animals in nothing else than in its being erect and having the hands extended, and having on the face extending from the forehead what is called the nose, through which there is respiration for the living creature; and this shows no other form than that of the cross. And so it was said by the prophet, "The breath before our face is the Lord Christ."(6) And the power of this form is shown by your own symbols on what are called "vexilla" [banners]
CHAP. LX.--PLATO'S DOCTRINE OF THE CROSS.
And the physiological discussion(1) concerning the Son of God in the Timoeus of Plato, where he says, "He placed him crosswise(2) in the universe," he borrowed in like manner from Moses; for in the writings of Moses it is related how at that time, when the Israelites went out of Egypt and were in the wilderness, they fell in with poisonous beasts, both vipers and asps, and every kind of serpent, which slew the people; and that Moses, by the inspiration and influence of God, took brass, and made it into the figure of a cross, and set it in the holy tabernacle, and said to the people, "If ye look to this figure, and believe, ye shall be saved thereby."(3)
CHAP. XCI.--The Cross Was Foretold In The Blessings Of Joseph, And In The Serpent That Was Lifted Up..
Now, no one could say or prove that the horns of an unicorn represent any other fact or figure than the type which portrays the cross. For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn. And the part which is fixed in the centre, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands out like a horn; and it also looks like a horn conjoined and fixed with the other horns​

Archeological evidence of crosses in 1st Century Jerusalem tombs.
Many falsely argue that the cross did not appear in Christian art or use until the time of Constantine. Evidently the early believers in Jerusalem didn't read Hislop (TTB), Russell (JW), or Armstrong (WWCG), for at this site, "The Jerusalem Christian Review", are more than eight articles describing tombs and burial vaults in 1st century Jerusalem, which were sealed in 41 AD, with inscriptions of crosses. In many of the photos the inscriptions are clearly visible. There are also multiple inscriptions with the names IESOUS in Greek and YESHUA, in ancient Hebrew. Two of the photos clearly show the name YESHUA. These are the sites; Volume 9, Issues 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10 and Volume 10, Issue 2
http://christian.edu/

 

[Root of Jesse]

Irrelevant to the issue of Constantine's influence on Christianity. He didn't 'create trinity'. He just 'approved of it's creation'.

I am not 'anti trinitarian'. Unless you 'must' label me as such. I simply don't accept it as Biblical. If it was as 'important' as those that created it indicate, then it is certainly 'strange' that there is absolutely NO mention of it in the Bible. In fact, what IS offered in the Bible basically refutes any possibility of it being 'possible'.

Blessings,

MEC

As to you being anti-trinitarian, I would agree with you that the doctrine is not Biblical, though the elements of the doctrine are. There's no doctrine in the Bible, FWIW.
Regarding Constantine's influence on Christianity, other than the fact that he legalized it, he had none.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Haha, no kidding! The art community was out for blood for years after that crap book came out. There is literally not a single word of truth anywhere in that book. Not the religious stuff, not the art stuff, nothing. There's also no good writing anywhere either but I guess that's a different discussion altogether.

Maybe a couple of the 'the's and 'and's and 'you's were truth, but that don't matter....I saw last weekend that there's another movie coming out...yikes!

 

[Der Alte]

Maybe a couple of the 'the's and 'and's and 'you's were truth, but that don't matter....I saw last weekend that there's another movie coming out...yikes!

I thought of another one. There is a museum in Paris.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I thought of another one. There is a museum in Paris.

Yeah, and they even got the name right.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Constantine only legalized Christianity. He thought he was going to have some control of it, but thankfully, that never happened.

Often ignored is that Constantine, ultimately, stood in opposition against the orthodox bishops. Almost as soon as the Council at Nicea was over, certain persons of importance who were close to Constantine convinced him that the decision at Nicea against Arius and Arianism shouldn't stand; Athanasius was deposed by the emperor from his see in Alexandria and Arius was put in place--Athanasius spent years in exile. Constantine endorsed several pro-Arian councils after Nicea, Constantine's closest religious advisers and friends were either themselves Arian or sympathetic to Arianism (Eusebius of Nicomedia who performed Constantine's death bed baptism, Eusebius of Caesarea who wrote the Histories and the Life of Constantine, and Lactantius who was the instructor for Constantine's son Crispus).

Constantine legalized Christianity and did show favoritism to Christianity over and against Paganism and Judaism. But this idea that Constantine hijacked Christianity and is the father of orthodoxy Christianity is entirely fictional; the real Constantine ultimately sided with the Arians and, in fact, for much of the 4th century the Arians held much of the political power in the empire. That only changed when Julian became emperor, Julian the last of Constantine's line, had been raised as an Arian but turned away from Christianity completely in favor of a revival and renaissance of Roman Paganism. Julian "the Apostate" as he came to be called died and the Constantian dynasty died with him, and then Jovian became emperor, and after him Theodosius. It was Theodosius who passed the Edict of Thessalonika which made Christianity the official religion of the empire and the Symbol of Nicea-Constantinople (the Nicene Creed) the official confession to be accepted within Rome's borders. Arianism shrank considerably within the Empire, but continued to flourish among the Goths who had been converted by Arian missionaries, most importantly the Visigoths who came to settle the Iberian Peninsula and Gaul and founded a kingdom there that lasted until the Umayyad invasion in the early 8th century.

-CryptoLutheran