Constantine created Christianity

[mmksparbud]

The eighth day is a new day, an eternal day not followed by night, which breaks out of the endless cycle of seven days. It was typified by the the Old Testament requirement that all male children be circumcised on the eighth day regardless of whether it happened to be a Sabbath. When Christians are baptised into Christ they participate in His death and resurrection, rising with Him on the eighth day.

That was on the 8th day after their birth--the Jews have no 8th day of the week. There is no 8th day of the week in the bible or in any other calendar.

 

[mmksparbud]

And after resting, He did something new: God the Son became incarnate as Jesus.



Two names for the same thing.

Not according to the calendar, nor the bible. There is no 8th day mentioned in the bible.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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

That is, of course, false.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

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

Hi, I'm also a Protestant. This has nothing to do with being Protestant, Orthodox, or whatever. This is about history and historical evidence. There is no evidence for the claim you made.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Hi, I'm also a Protestant. This has nothing to do with being Protestant, Orthodox, or whatever. This is about history and historical evidence. There is no evidence for the claim you made.

-CryptoLutheran

You do not believe there existed strictly "bible believing Christians" with no added tradition?

 

[ViaCrucis]

You do not believe there existed strictly "bible believing Christians" with no added tradition?

Since that's impossible, as even the Canon of Scripture is tradition, and one that didn't even exist until a Canon could exist in the first place (a process that took literally hundreds of years, with a growing and developing consensus by the Church) then no, they didn't exist--just as they don't exist today. All Christians rely on tradition whether they acknowledge it or not. In the case of "Bible only" Christians, that particular tradition happens to be exceedingly new, much newer than even the Reformation or the first hundred or so years after the Reformation. One that is also self-contradictory.

The idea of some pristine, pure, "Bible-believing" underground "true church" is fantasy and fabrication, and completely disconnected from real history and reality as a whole.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Clarification for my above post:

There is a massive world of difference between the historic Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura and the modernistic idea of "Bible-onlyism". Sola Scriptura is the principle that Scripture alone serves as Norma Normans of Christian faith and practice, that is the "the norm which norms" or "the unruled rule" i.e. Scripture does not depend on an a priori source, but is itself foundational; the Creeds, the Confessions, and other deposits and sources of faith and practice are Norma Normata, "the normed norm"; i.e. these have an a priori source, namely the apostolic faith as borne witness in the Scriptures. The principle of Sola Scriptura states that if our faith and practices lay in conflict with the ancient received and accepted words of Scripture then Scripture comes first.

Sola Scriptura has never been "Bible only", but instead a methodological principle that seeks to emphasize faithful preaching of the Gospel; which is why not a few Lutherans might instead prefer Solum Verbum, "Word Alone", as the three pillars of Grace Alone, Faith Alone, and Word Alone are for the upholding of Christ Alone. Since Christ is the One who is to take center stage, and the whole point of our religion is to be about pointing to Christ and communicating Christ clearly. His holy and precious Gospel being preached clearly. None of this is about tearing down ancient and received practices, traditions, and the historic catholic faith of Christ's Church; it's about upholding these very things and ensuring that all parts of our confession, faith, and practice places Jesus Christ front and center.

"Bible Onlyism" is not only not what Sola Scriptura means, but it is inherently contrary to the principle of Sola Scriptura and the principles of the Reformation that Christ be lifted high above all else. The Scriptures point us to Jesus, not the other way around. As Luther himself said, "We believe the Scriptures for Christ's sake, but we do not believe Christ for the Scripture's sake." Our receiving and acceptance of Scripture as pure word of God which normalizes our faith and practice is NOT about making the Bible the centerpiece of our faith, but instead about confessing Jesus Christ, the Word of God, about whom the Scriptures speak. As Augustine once said, "There is but one Utterance in all of Scripture", that Utterance is Jesus Christ. The Bible points us to Christ, and so the emphasis on Scripture is about Christ.

It's more than "believing the Bible", it's about trusting the Gospel, confessing the Gospel, proclaiming the Gospel. It's about Christ first and last. The Author and Finisher of our faith. Which is why we also confess the faith that has come before us, what has been said in the Creeds, what has been confessed from the beginning. To proclaim our faith in the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" because that is where Christ makes Himself known, the Church is where Word and Sacrament are, because Christ our God said, "Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them all which I have told you" and also to His apostles, "You will be My witnesses, beginning in Jerusalem, in Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth", it is why He said that forgiveness of sins would be preached in His name, that the Gospel should be preached to every living creature, and so on and so forth. Christ has established His Church, commanded her to preach His word, administer His Sacraments, to be His mystical body and through which He would be seen in the world. For indeed, "I am with you always, even unto the end of the age."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Maria Billingsley]

"true church"

First I did not say pristine or pure just bible believing only.

Question...So since you do not believe that a "true church" exists,how do you reconcile all the denominations that do not agree with each other especially the RCC and Lutheran Church? Is there not only one Holy Spirit of truth?

Also, when I say "tradition" I am referring to the biblical
definition known as "traditions of men".

Mark
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

It's more than "believing the Bible", it's about trusting the Gospel, confessing the Gospel, proclaiming the Gospel. It's about Christ first and last.

I agree.
Blessings

 

[ViaCrucis]

First I did not say pristine or pure just bible believing only.

Question...So since you do not believe that a "true church" exists,how do you reconcile all the denominations that do not agree with each other especially the RCC and Lutheran Church? Is there not only one Holy Spirit of truth?

Also, when I say "tradition" I am referring to the biblical
definition known as "traditions of men".

Mark
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

The Church exists, and she is true. She is the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Obviously there are competing claims, Rome says she is that Church, the Orthodox say they are that Church. Lutherans have historically looked to several markers for what the Church is. The condensed version: the Church is where the Word is preached and the Sacraments administered. This Church ordains ministers who retain the office of the Keys, namely the preaching of the Word, proclaiming forgiveness of sin. In other words, from a Lutheran perspective, we can say that Rome is most indeed the Church, but not all of it, just as we can say the Orthodox are the Church, but not all of it. The Church is not some purely spiritual invisible thing, it exists in visible structures: ordained ministers, the preaching of the Word, the administration of the Sacraments, and so forth. So indeed all of the baptized are members of this Church, whether in Rome or Constantinople or Wittenberg or Canterbury. The modern Protestant idea that the "true Church" is purely invisible is a major problem; it denies the visible, tangible, actuality of the Church in the world as the organ of Word and Sacrament. When the Lutheran fathers spoke in ways pointing to a visible and invisible, they spoke in the same language as Augustine who said there are wolves within and sheep without, and there are sheep within and wolves without, and of Christ Himself who spoke of wheat and tares, sheep and goats. But even now the tares and the goats are still members of the Church--the real Church, even if on the last day they are cast out at the Judgment. Because, as has just been said, all the baptized are members of the Church.

Not all things are known to us now, and so we ought be mindful of this. But that does not mean that we can't point to concrete, actual, realities as given to us by God, namely His Word and Sacraments, because we can. Because here where the Gospel is preached, where people are baptized, where forgiveness of sins are declared, and we receive the true flesh and blood of Jesus Christ at His Table, here is true Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The Church is not some purely spiritual invisible thing, it exists in visible structures: ordained ministers, the preaching of the Word, the administration of the Sacraments, and so forth.

This is where we divide. I believe the "Church" , defined as the "Body of Christ" is made up of all who believe and are part of the "Kingdom of God". This "Body" is not visible in structures, ordained minsters, administrations or even sacraments. His Kingdom is not of this world but resides in each and every regenerated Christian.
“The Kingdom of God doesn’t come with observation”; 21 neither will they say, ‘Look, here!’ or, ‘Look, there!’ for behold, the Kingdom of God is within you.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is where we divide. I believe the "Church" , defined as the "Body of Christ" is made up of all who believe and are part of the "Kingdom of God". This "Body" is not visible in structures, ordained minsters, administrations or even sacraments. His Kingdom is not of this world but resides in each and every regenerated Christian.
“The Kingdom of God doesn’t come with observation”; 21 neither will they say, ‘Look, here!’ or, ‘Look, there!’ for behold, the Kingdom of God is within you.

Was the kingdom of God inside those Jesus was talking to? It says Jesus was talking to a group of hostile Pharisees. Which is why, pretty consistently, it is understood that Jesus was directing their focus to Himself, and why many translations render this as "in your midst" rather than "within you". That is, the kingdom was present right before them, in the Person of Jesus Himself. And it continues to be here through the Church, which is why Christ says we must be born again, i.e. born of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom. All who are baptized are members and citizens of God's kingdom, since Christ rules from heaven through His Church--not as a secular king who orders violence and invasion and force, because if we pay attention to what Christ says, He is clear that God's kingdom is not like the kingdoms of this world. The way God is King is through the Cross. We behold what God's kingdom looks like in the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus. It is where the last is first, the least is greatest, where "the greatest among you is your slave", where the poor, the hungry, and the downtrodden are blessed. So when Christ the King reigns through His Church it is not with a sword against nations, it is as the Servant who administers peace to the broken and medicine to the sick.

One day, which only the Father knows, our Lord will return, in glory, as judge of the living and the dead, and the fullness of the kingdom shall come with Him, all things will be given over to the Father, and God will be all in all. And there will be world without end, life everlasting, and the hope of all the ancient prophets fulfilled: a new heavens and a new earth, all the former things are gone, and all is made new.

"They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea." -Isaiah 11:9

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Was the kingdom of God inside those Jesus was talking to? It says Jesus was talking to a group of hostile Pharisees. Which is why, pretty consistently, it is understood that Jesus was directing their focus to Himself, and why many translations render this as "in your midst" rather than "within you". That is, the kingdom was present right before them, in the Person of Jesus Himself. And it continues to be here through the Church, which is why Christ says we must be born again, i.e. born of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom. All who are baptized are members and citizens of God's kingdom, since Christ rules from heaven through His Church--not as a secular king who orders violence and invasion and force, because if we pay attention to what Christ says, He is clear that God's kingdom is not like the kingdoms of this world. The way God is King is through the Cross. We behold what God's kingdom looks like in the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus. It is where the last is first, the least is greatest, where "the greatest among you is your slave", where the poor, the hungry, and the downtrodden are blessed. So when Christ the King reigns through His Church it is not with a sword against nations, it is as the Servant who administers peace to the broken and medicine to the sick.

One day, which only the Father knows, our Lord will return, in glory, as judge of the living and the dead, and the fullness of the kingdom shall come with Him, all things will be given over to the Father, and God will be all in all. And there will be world without end, life everlasting, and the hope of all the ancient prophets fulfilled: a new heavens and a new earth, all the former things are gone, and all is made new.

"They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea." -Isaiah 11:9

-CryptoLutheran

I agree. The Kingdom of God was present before them and they did not recognize it. It is as well present today. It is a Kingdom not made of hands as God does not dwell in structures or earthly places.
Blessings

 

[FEZZILLA]

The idea that Constantine had either created or altered Christianity is a lousy argument to use against Christianity. Unfortunately this argument has root in many Protestant Churches which is way I left Protestantism and became an Anglican Catholic. I wanted to get as far from that miserable witch hunt as possible. The claim that Constantine corrupted the Bible is simply not true and there is no historical basis for such a wild assumption.

 

[JM]

Still...no proof.

 

[eleos1954]

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 was the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity. Although he lived much of his life as a pagan, and later as a catechumen, he joined the Christian faith on his deathbed, being baptised by Eusebius of Nicomedia. He played an influential role in the proclamation of the Edict of Milan in 313, which declared religious tolerance for Christianity in the Roman empire. He called the First Council of Nicaea in 325, which produced the statement of Christian belief known as the Nicene Creed.

Constantine the Great - Wikipedia

 

[lismore]

Where does it come from?

Hello JM. I think some people make the claim that Christianity was turned into a state religion, then or later, which it is claimed changed the beliefs and practices of Christianity in certain ways.

God Bless

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I agree with Albion. Basically a quick google search of the history of Christianity would debunk the claim.

Read Phillip Schaff's History of Christianity the claim is not historical and just plain silly. Those who use it should be embarrassed.

A straight forward refutation of the thinking behind such nonsense is pounced on in The Babylon Connection?: Ralph Woodrow
https://www.amazon.com/Babylon-Connection-Ralph-Woodrow/dp/0916938174

People who use it are often guilty of these:

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a rushed conclusion without considering all of the variables. In statistics, it may involve basing broad conclusions regarding the statistics of a survey from a small sample group that fails to sufficiently represent an entire population.[2] Its opposite fallacy is called slothful induction, or denying a reasonable conclusion of an inductive argument (e.g. "it was just a coincidence").

The invincible ignorance fallacy[1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to either make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing; all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms (see ad lapidem fallacy).

Argumentum ad lapidem (English: "appeal to the stone") is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd, invalid, or incorrect, without giving proof of its absurdity.[1][2][3]

Ad lapidem statements are fallacious because they fail to address the merits of the claim in dispute. The same applies to proof by assertion, where an unproved or disproved claim is asserted as true on no ground other than that of its truth having been asserted.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

calvin wrote, but it does not support the claim in the OP

“There were in Constantine, so to say, two persons,—the Christian and the emperor. If that monarch had not been endowed with a rare intellect, he would have, by confounding these two characters, raised in his way obstacles which he could not overcome. As a Christian, he showed everywhere his contempt for the vain superstitions of the ancient worship, and his enthusiasm for the new ideas. He conferred with the bishops; he assisted standing at their long homilies; he presided at the councils; he deeply meditated the mysteries of Christianity; and he struggled against the heresiarchs with the ardour of a Christian soldier and the grief of a profoundly convinced soul. As emperor, he submitted to the necessities of a difficult position, and conformed, in all grave matters, to the manners and beliefs which he did not feel sufficiently strong openly to shock. On endowing the purple, he became the heir of that long series of emperors who had all remained faithful to the worship of the father-land; and he wrapt himself, so to say, in the ancient traditions and recollections of pagan Rome; for it was an inheritance which he could not renounce, without danger to himself as well as to the empire.

The Project Gutenberg EBook of A Treatise on Relics by John Calvin

 

[Daniel Marsh]

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

Other than that, its a utterly false claim.

The claim that "Constantine tried to Christianize some pagan rituals which crept into Catholicism" is false. It is based on polemics which is refuted in The Babylon Connection?: by Ralph Woodrow