Constantine created Christianity

[Dave-W]

Actually, no.

Actually yes. It was the bad decisions of both church and synagogue leaders in the 2nd century that separated church and synagogue.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

We can't deny Constantine's influence but to suggest he created it is a stretch. What Constantine allowed for is Christianisation of Rome itself which then lead to the establishment of independent Christian Kingdoms and the Church having a more direct relationship with the various Kings and Lords of Europe. I don't consider this a good or bad thing since the results were mixed.

Still, why take anything Joe Rogan says about religion seriously? The guy obviously hasn't studied it or knows a thing about it.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Actually yes. It was the bad decisions of both church and synagogue leaders in the 2nd century that separated church and synagogue.

What bad decisions?

 

[Dave-W]

What bad decisions?

To separate Christianity and Judaism.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

To separate Christianity and Judaism.

That was done due to the Jews not accepting Christ no? Also due to Christians insisting on Christ. It was inevitable.

 

[mark kennedy]

When Constintine made the empire Christian about 20% of the enpire was Christian already. The Orthodox never submitted to him and Christianity still exiated independant of his influence. When he moved the caputol to Byzintinia he took a Bishop with him, but Byzintinia already had a Bishop. Constintine gets credit for founding the Roman Catholic Church but even in Rome there was already a church before Constintine even started his reign, centuries before.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

When Constintine made the empire Christian about 20% of the enpire was Christian already. The Orthodox never submitted to him and Christianity still exiated independant of his influence. When he moved the caputol to Byzintinia he took a Bishop with him, but Byzintinia already had a Bishop. Constintine gets credit for founding the Roman Catholic Church but even in Rome there was already a church before Constintine even started his reign, centuries before.

What do you mean by Orthodox? Are you using the term that is used to describe the Church of Nicaea or some other Church? If the latter how do you estimate 20% didn't belong to Constantine's Church? Who were they? What did they believe? Where were they located?

By Constantine's Church I simply mean the Church he belonged to, not as if he owned it or was head. He wasn't.

 

[Radagast]

Actually yes. It was the bad decisions of both church and synagogue leaders in the 2nd century that separated church and synagogue.

No, it was Jews not believing in Jesus that separated church and synagogue.

And, in any case, what goes on in synagogues has nothing to do with Christianity. Judaism is a false religion, because it denies Christ. And all those Jewish rules don't apply to Christians.

 

[Radagast]

When Constintine made the empire Christian about 20% of the enpire was Christian already.

Indeed. In particular, most of his soldiers were Christian. They were happy when he embraced Christianity.

And by making Christianity legal, he allowed Christianity to spread (also, not torturing Christians to death is a good thing).

Constintine gets credit for founding the Roman Catholic Church

Constantine never founded any church. He made Christianity legal, and he built a lot of very nice church buildings.

And there was no "Roman Catholic Church" in those days. Just the one Christian Church.

 

[mark kennedy]

Indeed. In particular, most of his soldiers were Christian. They were happy when he embraced Christianity.

And by making Christianity legal, he allowed Christianity to spread (also, not torturing Christians to death is a good thing).



Constantine never founded any church. He made Christianity legal, and he built a lot of very nice church buildings.

And there was no "Roman Catholic Church" in those days. Just the one Christian Church.

The church in Rome was actually, literally founded at Pentecost by Jews of the dispersion. There is a reason Paul emphasises issues related to the inclusion of the Gentiles, for nearly ten years the church at Rome was exclusively Jewish. Pricilla and Aquilla were from Italy but were expelled by Claudious. They met Paul at Corinth and were the key ministers involved in founding the church at Ephesus and her satalite churches of Asia Minor. Paul even speaks of the brethren in Ceasers family salute you, probably the soilders guarding him. There was a church in Rome from the beginning, active in missions and evangelism. Christian evangelism is to whosoever will so they were making converts amoung so called barbarians as well. During the Pax Romana Christians werent really persecuted much. It was still illegal but during Trajans reign there was a kind of don't ask dont tell policy.

There was a thriving church in Rome for hundreds of years before Constitine even came along.

 

[Mountainmike]

Constantine tried to Christianize some pagan rituals which crept into Catholicism.

Other than that, its a utterly false claim.

So is yours an utterly false claim.
It doesn't stop such as you repeating it.

Now if you read books such as " life of Anthony" anasthasius, whose ministry spanned Constantine ( anasthasius important in outing the Arian heresies) you discover nothing actually changed in doctrine from one end of Constantine to the other. Certainly not in the ways often claimed including yours.

The problem with those who want to change Christianity such as the reformationists , they have to pick a date to claim the " church apostasized" so they can misrepresent their modern manmade tradition of modified doctrines as a " return" to something that never was. Problem is none of the dates stack up , indeed the apostasy never actually happened , even though Constantine gets the blame!

For example - Take basics - You will look in vain for " sola scriptura" in early church up to Constantine, because " sola scriptura" never was! - but the introduction of it as a manmade tradition of the reformation , did then allow all to make up their own version of doctrine from Middle Ages onwards , and that IS the apostasy, by ditching authority, , that launched 1000 more schisms. Once authority is removed, all can claim scripture means what they like.

What Constantine did do is allow a persecuted Christianity to become more open , since it didn't have to hide underground from persecution.

 

[Radagast]

During the Pax Romana Christians werent really persecuted much.

Domitian in particular was responsible for persecution.

There was a thriving church in Rome for hundreds of years before Constitine even came along.

Yes. So?

It wasn't a "Roman Catholic Church," it was part of the universal Christian Church of the time.

 

[timewerx]

I think this mainly means hypocrisy. For me, this is a warning against how I myself can welcome excuses to look down on other people > so, when people do their outward things, I need to not give in to the temptation to look down on them.

I would also think this included the teachings of the Pharisees as well, not just hypocrisy.

Many, if not, most of the Pharisee did not acknowledge Christ as the Messiah. It's a sure sign they either have a different teachings/theology or have misinterpreted the scriptures.

It's ironic, most, if not, all of the warning of Christ failed to be heeded by some of Apostles themselves. It's almost as if the warnings served as prophecies as well. The movement is going to loose its way and only few will ever discover the truth as also said in the Bible.

 

[mark kennedy]

Domitian in particular was responsible for persecution.

Nero persecuted Christians but mostly in Rome in 60 something AD Domithian came along late in the century. Trajan recieved a letter describing two slave girls being put to death for being Christians. He says it sounds like you did the right thing but in the future don't pursue the matter, especially if they are citizens. This led to the Pax Romana and the church grew steadily.

It wasn't a "Roman Catholic Church," it was part of the universal Christian Church of the time.

The western church had long made mention of the universal (catholic) church. Constintine simply Romanized the western church.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The western church had long made mention of the universal (catholic) church. Constintine simply Romanized the western church.

How'd he do that.

 

[Radagast]

Trajan recieved a letter describing two slave girls being put to death for being Christians. He says it sounds like you did the right thing but in the future don't pursue the matter, especially if they are citizens.

That was the famous letter from Pliny Junior. In his reply, Trajan still says to punish people for being Christian:

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

The western church had long made mention of the universal (catholic) church. Constintine simply Romanized the western church.

Romanized? In what way?

 

[mark kennedy]

How'd he do that.

He made it the state religion basically.

 

[mark kennedy]

That was the famous letters from to Pliny Junior. In his reply, Trajan still says to punish people for being Christian:

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

Thanks, I was paraphrasing that from memory.

Romanized? In what way?

I don't think he oversern it but there was a pretty elaborate religious system in place. I mean system here in a general way, it's been a while since I went over the details. I think he was more interested in unifying his empire then anything else.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

He made it the state religion basically.

He made it the favored religion but not the State religion. It was Theodosius who made Christianity the State religion. So I suppose the real question is, to what degree was this Roman acceptance of Christianity a bad thing? If Christian growth was inevitable (as it seemed to be before Constantine) the levers of authority were going to be given over to Christians eventually in the form of independent kingdoms or a new Empire. Constantine is the one who just happened to get the ball rolling and why should this be treated as a bad thing or a force which irredeemably corrupted the Church? It changed things, somethings for the worse and some things for the better.

 

[Concord1968]

So is yours an utterly false claim.
It doesn't stop such as you repeating it.

Now if you read books such as " life of Anthony" anasthasius, whose ministry spanned Constantine ( anasthasius important in outing the Arian heresies) you discover nothing actually changed in doctrine from one end of Constantine to the other. Certainly not in the ways often claimed including yours.

The problem with those who want to change Christianity such as the reformationists , they have to pick a date to claim the " church apostasized" so they can misrepresent their modern manmade tradition of modified doctrines as a " return" to something that never was. Problem is none of the dates stack up , indeed the apostasy never actually happened , even though Constantine gets the blame!

For example - Take basics - You will look in vain for " sola scriptura" in early church up to Constantine, because " sola scriptura" never was! - but the introduction of it as a manmade tradition of the reformation , did then allow all to make up their own version of doctrine from Middle Ages onwards , and that IS the apostasy, by ditching authority, , that launched 1000 more schisms. Once authority is removed, all can claim scripture means what they like.

What Constantine did do is allow a persecuted Christianity to become more open , since it didn't have to hide underground from persecution.

Actually, from what I gather, most confessional Protestants believe in a gradual slide into corruption over centuries rather than a "Great Apostasy" at some fixed point in time.