Constantine created Christianity

[Maria Billingsley]

I hear this claim repeated over and over again from different people that Constantine created Christianity after the council of Nicaea or the Edict of Milan. Joe Rogan makes this claim on his podcast which gets millions of downloads, Gnostics make this claim, etc.

Where does it come from?

Who first made this assertion?

What "proof" do they offer in defence of such a claim?

It's repeated often but I haven't been able to track down a source for such a claim, a claim so easily refuted.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Constantine created the universal version of Christianity. There were sects outside of this system that held true to the teachings of Christ.

 

[Sparagmos]

I hear this claim repeated over and over again from different people that Constantine created Christianity after the council of Nicaea or the Edict of Milan. Joe Rogan makes this claim on his podcast which gets millions of downloads, Gnostics make this claim, etc.

Where does it come from?

Who first made this assertion?

What "proof" do they offer in defence of such a claim?

It's repeated often but I haven't been able to track down a source for such a claim, a claim so easily refuted.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Did you try to research this? I just googled it and got a ton of in depth articles. Have you read any of them?

 

[dms1972]

He founded Orthodoxy, and the idea of Christendom goes back to Constantine, but he did not found Christianity.

 

[JM]

Did you try to research this? I just googled it and got a ton of in depth articles. Have you read any of them?

Yes, I have.

The question is, who invented this conspiracy theory.

 

[Albion]

I cannot answer that question definitively, but it is the easiest way for any modern cult to justify its own lack of continuity with the theology of the historic church, and I do know that followers of a number of such religious societies press one version or another of the story that the kind of Christianity they have separated from is but a perverted form of early Christianity.

 

[NeedyFollower]

I hear this claim repeated over and over again from different people that Constantine created Christianity after the council of Nicaea or the Edict of Milan. Joe Rogan makes this claim on his podcast which gets millions of downloads, Gnostics make this claim, etc.

Where does it come from?

Who first made this assertion?

What "proof" do they offer in defence of such a claim?

It's repeated often but I haven't been able to track down a source for such a claim, a claim so easily refuted.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

I am not a theologian but I am a student of history. Having no computer ( I use a public one ) nor TV , I read . I read a lot . As much as I am able , I try to read varying accounts from respected historians . ( Not wikipedia ) There are many exhaustive studies regarding christianity , the reformation , European history . Constantine . Justinian . The Popes . etc. As far as I am able to tell from history , the truth does not have to be pleasant to be true . And quite frequently if the truth goes against a closely held belief , it will get one crucified .
Before the apostle Paul ( sent to the gentiles by the Lord Jesus ) died , he prophesied that grievous wolves would enter into the flock drawing men after their selves . This happened while John was still alive. ( 1st John addresses gnosticism ..the belief that Jesus did not come in the flesh . ) By the time of Constantine , there were many sects of christian thought . Constantine was a politician and was not baptized until just before his death . As such , it would be unreasonable to believe that he was led by the spirit of God. Constantine desired unity and peace but truth if it divided , would not be tolerated .
Many would deny that there traditions were influenced by Constantine but that goes against most historians when compared against scripture . Constantine " Romanized " Christianity and encouraged pomp, lavish displays and magnificent buildings . Contrast that with the humility and lowliness of Jesus . It is when orthodox thinking became more important than the doctrines of Christ. " Learn of me , I am lowly and meek . " These are the words of Jesus . Watch our for Pomp which is in great contrast to Jesus . The proof is all around you if one has eyes to see .

 

[Albion]

Constantine was a politician and was not baptized until just before his death . As such , it would be unreasonable to believe that he was led by the spirit of God.

Hi, NF. I do not want to take exception to everything in your post, but you are quite mistaken about this point you made. As it seems to be your "proof" of the rest of what you said about Constantine, it deserves a closer look.

In that era, Christians in general believed that baptism removes sin, but only the sins committed up to the moment of baptism. That naturally caused them to think that there was no sure remedy for sins committed afterwards.

As a result, many, perhaps most, converts to Christianity (like Constantine) put off their baptisms until they were near death so as to minimize the chances of sinning thereafter and losing salvation. The church ultimately took up this problem and gave us the perspective most Christians have about baptism today, which is why most do not know how it once was.

In other words, there is nothing in Constantines timing that was unusual in the Christian community or suggests that he was not a believer.

 

[NeedyFollower]

Hi, NF. I do not want to take exception to everything in your post, but you are quite mistaken about this point you made. As it seems to be your "proof" of the rest of what you said about Constantine, it deserves a closer look.

In that era, Christians in general believed that baptism removes sin, but only the sins committed up to the moment of baptism. That naturally caused them to think that there was no sure remedy for sins committed afterwards.

As a result, many, perhaps most, converts to Christianity (like Constantine) put off their baptisms until they were near death so as to minimize the chances of sinning thereafter and losing salvation. The church ultimately took up this problem and gave us the perspective most Christians have about baptism today, which is why most do not know how it once was.

In other words, there is nothing in Constantines timing that was unusual in the Christian community or suggests that he was not a believer.

Well I did not go into the details of Constantines life which was opposed to the spirit of love and Jesus Christ's teachings . Encylopedia Britanica and most every reliable historical publication would attest to the facts of his brutality . I do not doubt that he also believed in Jesus and did not want to perish eternally but it does not mean he was not deceived. ( Not everyone saying Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven ..)
I remember before I was converted that I was flying back from an overseas trip . I distinctly remember thinking , " If this plane should go down , I will repent . " Of course there is a difference in not wanting to go to hell and true repentance . I would have considered myself a christian . I was not . I was more like Constantine .

 

[Albion]

Well I did not go into the details of Constantines life which was opposed to the spirit of love and Jesus Christ's teachings . Encylopedia Britanica and most every reliable historical publication would attest to the facts of his brutality . I do not doubt that he also believed in Jesus and did not want to perish eternally but it does not mean he was not deceived.

Very well, but this is not the same as the conspiracy theory that everyone is familiar with and which this thread is about--the claim that Constantine created Christianity as we know it.

That is quite different IMO from saying that he wasn't the greatest example of what a Christian ought to be like (which can probably be said of most of us too).

 

[mark kennedy]

I am not a theologian but I am a student of history. Having no computer ( I use a public one ) nor TV , I read . I read a lot . As much as I am able , I try to read varying accounts from respected historians . ( Not wikipedia ) There are many exhaustive studies regarding christianity , the reformation , European history . Constantine . Justinian . The Popes . etc. As far as I am able to tell from history , the truth does not have to be pleasant to be true . And quite frequently if the truth goes against a closely held belief , it will get one crucified .
Before the apostle Paul ( sent to the gentiles by the Lord Jesus ) died , he prophesied that grievous wolves would enter into the flock drawing men after their selves . This happened while John was still alive. ( 1st John addresses gnosticism ..the belief that Jesus did not come in the flesh . ) By the time of Constantine , there were many sects of christian thought . Constantine was a politician and was not baptized until just before his death . As such , it would be unreasonable to believe that he was led by the spirit of God. Constantine desired unity and peace but truth if it divided , would not be tolerated .
Many would deny that there traditions were influenced by Constantine but that goes against most historians when compared against scripture . Constantine " Romanized " Christianity and encouraged pomp, lavish displays and magnificent buildings . Contrast that with the humility and lowliness of Jesus . It is when orthodox thinking became more important than the doctrines of Christ. " Learn of me , I am lowly and meek . " These are the words of Jesus . Watch our for Pomp which is in great contrast to Jesus . The proof is all around you if one has eyes to see .

It was not unusual for there to be a king/emperor along with an entourage of clerics including a high priest. The clerical beaurocracy was pretty elaborate, it was renovated when Christianized but pomp was a definate must. The Byzintine monks produce and enourmous number of scrolls and codexes. Churches traditionally have been places people gather, temples were places people made sacrifices and left. Constintine certainly gets some credit for the benifits of what he did, at least for Rome.

 

[NeedyFollower]

Very well, but this is not the same as the conspiracy theory that everyone is familiar with and which this thread is about--the claim that Constantine created Christianity as we know it.

That is quite different IMO from saying that he wasn't the greatest example of what a Christian ought to be like (which can probably be said of most of us too).

Well yes ..I would suggest to the OP maybe , that outside of the internet , there are tons of well researched books by historians regarding Constantine and the origins of Christian belief . I personally like my history without theological spin ...both sides presented with little commentary.
I think it would be disingenuous to not acknowledge that Constantine certainly had an influence on the shape and the accepted ( orthodox ) teachings of what became the established church prior to the reformation . I have not read any conspiracy theories ( as far as I am aware ). But being in America, ( and knowing a bit about history ) it is not difficult to see how often religion has been utilized for political gain . I would not see that as a conspiracy theory as much as " there is nothing new under the sun . "

 

[dms1972]

Constantine was a politician and was not baptized until just before his death . As such , it would be unreasonable to believe that he was led by the spirit of God. Constantine desired unity and peace but truth if it divided , would not be tolerated .

I believe you are correct at this point. Theologian Phillip Hughes says something similar, to quote (from The True Image).

"Not surprisingly, Constantine viewed the Church with a political rather than a theological eye. He saw no justification for ecclesiastical strife over questions of doctrine...Constantine's theological gullibility is apparent from the rapid re-instatement of the Arian bishops who had been condemned and banished, and also from the unusual honor with which he treated them in the mistaken belief that peace and unity would now effectively be established."

 

[Albion]

This whole issue probably needs some more specifics. For example, Constantine was the Emperor, so naturally he wanted a strong Christianity after his conversion. Does that mean he told the Council of Nicaea what to decree? I have heard some of the people who think Constantine totally altered Christianity, made it a warmed-over Paganism, and all of that, say as much.

And if he was not the trickster and manipulator of the Church that some people want to have him be...was he much different in this respect from such figures as Charlemagne, Juan Peron, or even Vladimir Putin, none of whom seem to be accused of literally reinventing the Christian faith.

 

[dms1972]

Very well, but this is not the same as the conspiracy theory that everyone is familiar with and which this thread is about--the claim that Constantine created Christianity as we know it.

That is quite different IMO from saying that he wasn't the greatest example of what a Christian ought to be like (which can probably be said of most of us too).

He could well have been a believer but rather naïve and gullible theologically.

 

[ViaCrucis]

He made it the state religion basically.

He didn't. Theodosius did that.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

He founded Orthodoxy, and the idea of Christendom goes back to Constantine, but he did not found Christianity.

So Constantine, who sided with the Arians against the orthodox, and was baptized by an Arian on his death bed, was the founder of Christian orthodoxy? How's that work exactly?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JM]

So Constantine, who sided with the Arians against the orthodox, and was baptized by an Arian on his death bed, was the founder of Christian orthodoxy? How's that work exactly?

-CryptoLutheran

I like that reply. I'm going to borrow it.

 

[dms1972]

So Constantine, who sided with the Arians against the orthodox, and was baptized by an Arian on his death bed, was the founder of Christian orthodoxy? How's that work exactly?

-CryptoLutheran

He founded the idea of an orthodoxy was my understanding:

It wasn't my understanding that he sided with the Arians, maybe I have misunderstood, my source is Phillip Edgecumbe Hughes

"It is true that Constantine procured the acceptance of the term homoousios - and remarkable in view of the fact that the majority of those present looked on it with disfavour; but the emperor was apparently swayed by the advice of Hosius, bishop of Cordova, who had his ear and stood with Athanasius."

Hughes mentions that some years later Eusebius of Nicomedia managed to persuade him to consent to the return of Arius to Alexandra, giving him the assurance that Arius now wholeheartedly embraced the Nicene Christology.

Are you thinking of Constantius, his son, who was Arian, or semi-arian.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It wasn't my understanding that he sided with the Arians, my source is Phillip Edgecumbe Hughes

"It is true that Constantine procured the acceptance of the term homoousios - and remarkable in view of the fact that the majority of those present looked on it with disfavour; but the emperor was apparently swayed by the advice of Hosius, bishop of Cordova, who had his ear and stood with Athanasius."

If you can show me some sources that he sided with the Arians then I will reconsider the issue.

From the 5th century Christian historian Socrates Scholasticus (Book I).

"The partisans of Eusebius and Theognis having returned from their exile, these latter were reinstated in their churches, having expelled, as we observed, those who had been ordained in their stead. Moreover, they came into great consideration with the emperor, who honored them exceedingly, as those who had returned from error to the orthodox faith. They, however, abused the license thus afforded them, by exciting greater commotions in the world than they had done before; being instigated to this by two causes — on the one hand the Arian heresy with which they had been previously infected, and bitter animosity against Athanasius on the other, because he had so vigorously withstood them in the Synod while the articles of faith were under discussion. And in the first place they objected to the ordination of Athanasius partly as a person unworthy of the prelacy, and partly because he had been elected by disqualified persons.

But when Athanasius had shown himself superior to this calumny (for having assumed control of the church of Alexandria, he ardently contended for the Nicene creed), then Eusebius exerted himself to the utmost insidiously to cause the removal of Athanasius and to bring Arius back to Alexandria; for he thought that thus only he should be able to expunge the doctrine of consubstantiality, and introduce Arianism.

Eusebius therefore wrote to Athanasius, desiring him to re-admit Arius and his adherents into the church. Now the tone of his letter indeed was that of entreaty, but openly he menaced him. And as Athanasius would by no means accede to this, he endeavored to induce the emperor to give Arius an audience, and then permit him to return to Alexandria: and by what means he attained his object, I shall mention in its proper place. Meanwhile before this another commotion was raised in the church. In fact, her own children again disturbed her peace. Eusebius Pamphilus says, that immediately after the Synod, Egypt became agitated by intestine divisions: not assigning, however, the reason for this, so that hence he has won the reputation of disingenuousness, and of avoiding to specify the causes of these dissensions, from a determination on his part not to give his sanction to the proceedings at Nicæa.

Yet as we ourselves have discovered from various letters which the bishops wrote to one another after the Synod, the term homoousios troubled some of them. So that while they occupied themselves in a too minute investigation of its import, they roused the strife against each other; it seemed not unlike a contest in the dark; for neither party appeared to understand distinctly the grounds on which they calumniated one another. Those who objected to the word homoousios, conceived that those who approved it favored the opinion of Sabellius and Montanus; they therefore called them blasphemers, as subverting the existence of the Son of God. And again the advocates of this term, charging their opponents with polytheism, inveighed against them as introducers of heathen superstitions. Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, accuses Eusebius Pamphilus of perverting the Nicene Creed; Eusebius again denies that he violates that exposition of the faith, and recriminates, saying that Eustathius was a defender of the opinion of Sabellius.

In consequence of these misunderstandings, each of them wrote as if contending against adversaries: and although it was admitted on both sides that the Son of God has a distinct person and existence, and all acknowledged that there is one God in three Persons, yet from what cause I am unable to divine, they could not agree among themselves, and therefore could in no way endure to be at peace." - Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, Book I, Ch. 23 early 5th century

Clarification:
Eusebius = Eusebius of Nicomedia, the same who baptized Constantine
Eusebius Pamphilus = Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote the Church History and Life of Constantine

Scholasticus continues concerning the weaseling of the Arians Eusebius and Theognis to bring the emperor over to their side, making it seem as though Arius himself agreed with Nicea, depose Athanasius and establish an Arian bishop on the apostolic seat in Alexandria.

"Arius having thus satisfied the emperor, returned to Alexandria. But his artifice for suppressing the truth did not succeed; for on his arrival at Alexandria, as Athanasius would not receive him, but turned away from him as a pest, he attempted to excite a fresh commotion in that city by disseminating his heresy. Then indeed both Eusebius himself wrote, and prevailed on the emperor also to write, in order that Arius and his partisans might be readmitted into the church. Athanasius nevertheless wholly refused to receive them, and wrote to inform the emperor in reply, that it was impossible for those who had once rejected the faith, and had been anathematized, to be again received into communion on their return. But the emperor, provoked at this answer, menaced Athanasius in these terms:

'Since you have been apprised of my will, afford unhindered access into the church to all those who are desirous of entering it. For if it shall be intimated to me that you have prohibited any of those claiming to be reunited to the church, or have hindered their admission, I will immediately send some one who at my command shall depose you, and drive you into exile.'

The emperor wrote thus from a desire of promoting the public good, and because he did not wish to see the church ruptured; for he labored earnestly to bring them all into harmony. Then indeed the partisans of Eusebius, ill-disposed towards Athanasius, imagining they had found a seasonable opportunity, welcomed the emperor's displeasure as an auxiliary to their own purpose: and on this account they raised a great disturbance, endeavoring to eject him from his bishopric; for they entertained the hope that the Arian doctrine would prevail only upon the removal of Athanasius. The chief conspirators against him were Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicæa, Maris of Chalcedon, Ursacius of Singidnum in Upper Mœsia, and Valens of Mursa in Upper Pannonia. These persons suborn by bribes certain of the Melitian heresy to fabricate various charges against Athanasius;" ibid Ch. 27

"The emperor had ordered a Synod of bishops to be present at the consecration of the church which he had erected at Jerusalem. He therefore directed that, as a secondary matter, they should on their way first assemble at Tyre, to examine into the charges against Athanasius; in order that all cause of contention being removed there, they might the more peacefully perform the inaugural ceremonies in the dedication of the church of God. This was the thirtieth year of Constantine's reign, and sixty bishops were thus convened at Tyre from various places, on the summons of Dionysius the consul. As to Macarius the presbyter, he was conducted from Alexandria in chains, under a military escort; while Athanasius was unwilling to go there, not so much from dread, because he was innocent of the charges made, as because he feared lest any innovations should be made on the decisions of the council at Nicæa; he was, however, constrained to be present by the menacing letters of the emperor. For it had been written him that if he did not come voluntarily, he should be brought by force." ibid. Ch. 28

Constantine fell sick and came to Nicomedia, the see of his friend Eusebius the Arian, and received baptism on his death bed there.

"A year having passed, the Emperor Constantine having just entered the sixty-fifth year of his age, was taken with a sickness; he therefore left Constantinople, and made a voyage to Helenopolis, that he might try the effect of the medicinal hot springs which are found in the vicinity of that city. Perceiving, however, that his illness increased, he deferred the use of the baths; and removing from Helenopolis to Nicomedia, he took up his residence in the suburbs, and there received Christian baptism." - ibid. Ch. 39

-CryptoLuthearn

 

[com7fy8]

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.

Now I remember how Jesus said the Pharisees were lovers of money and the praise of men. This would be bad leaven, and it might have had some influence in religious politics and wars and control measures.