Constantine created Christianity

[dms1972]

.

 

[dms1972]

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.

Thanks for those sources, but they seem to suggest that he simply did not understand the theological issues and was gullible. It was on the assumption that they had accepted orthodoxy that he welcomed them back was it not?

The idea that Constantine sided with Orthodoxy at the Council of Nicea at least, seems to be abroad.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thanks for that source, but I am still not sure how you get that Constantine sided with the Arians? Was it not that he simply did not understand the theological issues was gullible and sought harmony. Being rather gullible he was easily persuaded they had accepted orthodoxy?

The idea that Constantine sided with Orthodoxy at the Council of Nicea at least, seems to be abroad.

No doubt Constantine was no theologian; so we can probably this to his own ignorance and even gullibility. Whether by ignorance or some other reason Constantine had been, at least politically, won over to the Arian cause. Athanasius exiled from Alexandria until after the death of Constantine, and the Arians largely being in power; and the orthodox faith being challenged at the highest level of the empire, which continued during the reign of Constantius, who you mentioned earlier.

To suggest that Constantine founded orthodoxy is simply not a credible argument on the basis of the historical record. Whether Constantine was tricked due to his theological ignorance, or whether Constantine himself fell under the sway of the Arians, one still can't attribute orthodoxy to a man who himself was either ignorant of it or otherwise acted as opponent to it.

Constantine enabled the possibility in which the Council of Nicea could be convened, Constantine did not himself have authority in the council, and Constantine ultimately doesn't even seem to understand what was really being argued and discussed by the council if he could be so easily swayed by high ranking Arians like Eusebius of Nicomedia.

The best argument that can be made is that Constantine made it possible for orthodoxy to be given an authoritative voice in the form of the Synod held at Nicea. But that voice was not Constantine's voice. Constantine founded nothing, established nothing, and when all was said and done was a friend not of the orthodox, but of the Arians.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[mark kennedy]

He didn't. Theodosius did that.

-CryptoLutheran

I get that.

 

[dms1972]

No doubt Constantine was no theologian; so we can probably this to his own ignorance and even gullibility. Whether by ignorance or some other reason Constantine had been, at least politically, won over to the Arian cause. Athanasius exiled from Alexandria until after the death of Constantine, and the Arians largely being in power; and the orthodox faith being challenged at the highest level of the empire, which continued during the reign of Constantius, who you mentioned earlier.

To suggest that Constantine founded orthodoxy is simply not a credible argument on the basis of the historical record. Whether Constantine was tricked due to his theological ignorance, or whether Constantine himself fell under the sway of the Arians, one still can't attribute orthodoxy to a man who himself was either ignorant of it or otherwise acted as opponent to it.

Constantine enabled the possibility in which the Council of Nicea could be convened, Constantine did not himself have authority in the council, and Constantine ultimately doesn't even seem to understand what was really being argued and discussed by the council if he could be so easily swayed by high ranking Arians like Eusebius of Nicomedia.

The best argument that can be made is that Constantine made it possible for orthodoxy to be given an authoritative voice in the form of the Synod held at Nicea. But that voice was not Constantine's voice. Constantine founded nothing, established nothing, and when all was said and done was a friend not of the orthodox, but of the Arians.

-CryptoLutheran

I grant it was perhaps too strong to put it that he founded Orthodoxy, what I meant was the idea of an Orthodoxy arose in connection with him, that was the beginning of there being a definite set of authorised beliefs with which one had to conform to be accepted. It doesn't mean those beliefs will necessarily be completely biblical.

People literally seem to have got into street fights over these issues, and Constantine had peace and harmony in the empire in mind primarily, rather than Biblical Truth. I think he didn't have much comprehension of the significance of the issues. He wrote a letter addressed to both Alexander and Arius and said they were basically arguing over unimportant matters, and rebuked Arius for airing in public concepts he should have kept to himself.

 

[straykat]

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

Joe Rogan is a Jack Chick fan? Who knew...​

 

[timewerx]

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.

Sounds familiar doesn't it? In fact, that behavior you described is very widespread today, sadly, even among Christians.

Case in point whenever Jesus gives a warning, it often serves as a prophecy as well that it will not be heeded by most and most will do the opposite of the warning - embrace false teachings.

If the Pharisees are doing many things wrong, it's obvious that their teachings or beliefs are in error as well and therefore, false. Not only that, some of them bitterly opposed Christ's teachings.

 

[straykat]

When it comes down to it, Constantine was a just a new, albeit powerful, Christian WHO PUT A STOP TO PERSECUTION and TORTURE. Or do you like the sound of Christians burning alive? Do you want the pagan world to dominate society again? What is the actual complaint here?

And being new, he also found something that was alarming: That Christians were embroiled in an argument amongst themselves as well. The Arian controversy had just started. Arius was a priest who basically said Jesus wasn't divine and just a man. It was about to tear the church apart. This so called "corrupt" Constantine decided to use his power as an emperor to call all the bishops in his lands and settle the matter. Like I said, he was new. He didn't know anything himself, but he trusted the leaders of the church and thought this was unseemly. Everyone gathered from Rome to Jerusalem to Egypt. They hashed out the Nicene Creed, amongst other things. Two important things came out of these talks: The canon of the NT that all of you conspiracy theorists use yourself. And the Trinity. Which I hope you believe too. Again, what is the actual complaint here?

About the only people who complain about the NT canon are Gnostics, who prefer their forgeries and elitist mystery cult. Rather than the simple Gospel that's freely given to all, and makes no distinction between persons. YET you would accuse that church leaders the handed down the NT as the elitists or the corrupt.. when they were the ones who saved the church from it.

Perhaps read some actual books on the church and not get the history from cartoons or dudebro shockjocks on YouTube.

 

[Radagast]

They hashed out the Nicene Creed, amongst other things. Two important things came out of these talks: The canon of the NT that all of you conspiracy theorists use yourself. And the Trinity. Which I hope you believe too.

Actually, they didn't discuss the canon of the NT. That's a myth.

 

[prodromos]

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

Where did the hundreds of bishops who attended Nicaea appear from?

 

[Mountainmike]

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.

The three compellling arguments against that are

1/ The lack of actual substantial doctrinal change.

2/ And very important: Our Lord gave a promise to protect his church "the gates of hell would not prevail against it" . So in believing our Lord could not keep his church on the straight and narrow, that our Lord would allow billions to drift, so that A FEW MERE MORTALS were needed to "put right" a millenium later, claiming to put right what our Lord could not keep right, is a fundmental attack on the power of our Lord.

3/ The presumption is an attack on the truth of "tradition" in the proper sense of faith handed down which is a process that has clear reference in scripture "stay true to tradition..etc" says Paul. Yet the fascinating thing is those who repudiate tradition, stating sola scriptura, then replace extant tradition with a confession.which is their own tradition - just different tradition, but without claim to historic support.

Those were some of the (many) arguments that led me back to Rome - from being just such a confessional protestant.

 

[Mountainmike]

Actually, they didn't discuss the canon of the NT. That's a myth.

Anasthasisus was the first to use the word canonical of the books we now regard, believed to be accepted at hippo and by carthage 397 it was accepted closed. So the closing of the canon was in essence lat 4th century and can be tied down to a couple of decades then Alas the records of hippo no longer exist.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Where did the hundreds of bishops who attended Nicaea appear from?

I am sure you already know this....
It was in Antioch that Christ’s followers were first called Christians. They were a group that worshiped in homes and underground. They were heavily persecute by Aurelius, Decius and Diocletian until the time of the Edict of Milan a letter signed by Constantine and Licinius proclaiming religious freedom for Christians. Before that time, Christianity was loosely formed with few Bishops such as Ignatius Bishop of Antioch and Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna who were martyred by the Romans.
Between 313-325 after the Edict, Christianity grew without persecution and thus many Bishops were appointed throughout the Roman Empire. Simultaneously, the Armenian church founded in 301 already had many Bishops so that when the Council of Nicea in 325 formed there were an abundance of Bishops who congregated.

 

[Pethesedzao]

Constantine is a Saint. View attachment 251202

saints alive

 

[prodromos]

I am sure you already know this....
It was in Antioch that Christ’s followers were first called Christians. They were a group that worshiped in homes and underground. They were heavily persecute by Aurelius, Decius and Diocletian until the time of the Edict of Milan a letter signed by Constantine and Licinius proclaiming religious freedom for Christians. Before that time, Christianity was loosely formed with few Bishops such as Ignatius Bishop of Antioch and Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna who were martyred by the Romans.
Between 313-325 after the Edict, Christianity grew without persecution and thus many Bishops were appointed throughout the Roman Empire. Simultaneously, the Armenian church founded in 301 already had many Bishops so that when the Council of Nicea in 325 formed there were an abundance of Bishops who congregated.

You claimed that "Constantine created the universal version of Christianity", yet you now admit that Church we see after Constantine already existed prior.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

You claimed that "Constantine created the universal version of Christianity", yet you now admit that Church we see after Constantine already existed prior.

The Church started on the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended upon all believers and still does today. The universal church started after Constantine. I see them as different branches of Christianity. The Body of Christ, which is the true Church, has members from both branches. Only God knows who is in His Body.
Blessings

 

[prodromos]

The Church started on the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended upon all believers and still does today. The universal church started after Constantine. I see them as different branches of Christianity. The Body of Christ, which is the true Church, has members from both branches. Only God knows who is in His Body.
Blessings

What was different about the Church after Constantine? You make the claim, but you offer nothing to substantiate it.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

What was different about the Church after Constantine? You make the claim, but you offer nothing to substantiate it.

A lot changed. You would need to read the history of the underground Christians that did not join the universal church. They were strictly Bible believing Christians.
Blessings

PS: A good video that covers this subject on the surface.

 

[prodromos]

A lot changed.

Yet you won't, or can't say what exactly changed.

You would need to read the history of the underground Christians that did not join the universal church.

You mean the Arians who believed Christ was created, the Pneumatomachi who believed the Holy Spirit was created, the Gnostics who believed flesh was evil, etc.

The were strictly Bible believing Christians.

Well we can see where that led them...

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Yet you won't, or can't say what exactly changed.

You mean the Arians who believed Christ was created, the Pneumatomachi who believed the Holy Spirit was created, the Gnostics who believed flesh was evil, etc.

Well we can see where that led them...

We will go in circles as I am a Protestant.
Blessings