Constatine and Christianity

T2U,
Thank you for posting the above.

 

<<"...grant to the Christians and others full authority to observe that religion which each preferred...">>

What the State grants the State can take away. The Roman Empire under Constantine re-enforced their assumed right of control over the worship of individuals by GRANTing them this so-called freedom.

What developed out of this was the Holy Roman Empire, and a religious bloodbath of intolerance.

HankD

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From the Edict of Milan: We thought it fit to commend these things most fully to your care that you may know that we have given to those Christians free and unrestricted opportunity of religious worship. When you see that this has been granted to them by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made we that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't this exactly the same message our politicians are trying to convey to us by stating that Islam is a peaceful religion, therefore, we should be tolerant toward it?

 

No. It's the same message our founding fathers convey to us in the First Amendment.

 

Was Constantine's conversion to Christianity sincere, or just a consummate stroke of political wisdom? I think the latter.

 

Was Constantine's conversion to Christianity sincere, or just a consummate stroke of political wisdom? I think the latter.

Was YOUR conversion to Christianity sincere, or did it come from some sort of other motive you may not know about? After all, doesn't the Scripture say "The heart is deceitful and wicked above all things and no man may know it" You sure YOU haven't been deceived? (Especially since you keep refusing the truth when it is explained clearly to you and refusing to believe the true Church of our Lord).

Maybe you should worry less about Constantine and concentrate on your own soul. After all, Scripture says that Christ is going to judge your works to see if you inherit eternal life (Rom. 2: 5-10). Better get busy, son.

Cordially in disagreement,

Brother Ed

 

Barnabas,

Could you tell us what you think should be done in American, by Christians, towards the Islamic religion? Are you saying Constantine was wrong to legalize the public practice of Christianity? Or that it was wrong to be tolerant toward all the religions of his time? I'm not quite clear on what point you were making on the Edict of Milan.

To All,
People often refer to Constantine's conversion. There's no doubt he had a vision and that he led his soldiers into battle under the sign of the cross. Most likely he was influenced, too, by his mother who was a devout Christian. But did he really have a conversion experience himself? Was he a practicing Christian?

Those, I think, are good questions. He did build churches, write to St. Anthony the Great, etc. But his life doesn't seem to have shown evidence of conversion. He wasn't baptized until on his death bed, and then, as I understand it, it was by an Arian priest (a heretic).

Despite the fact that he legalized the public practice of Christianity, he was also at times a real problem to the pope and the Church. Like all emperors, he thought he was supreme in power over all, including the Church.

But he certainly did not have the power over the Church that many Protestants think he had. Nor did he determine the doctrines and practices of the Church. And he did not bring pagan practices into Christianity, depsite all the wild tales to the contrary.

Pauline

 

Hey Ed,
Take a valium will ya. I have a right to reply to a post don't I?

Here is some food for thought from Will Durant's "The History of Civilization" part III "Ceasar and Christ"

“After his conversion he (Constantine) seldom conformed to the ceremonial requirements
of Christian worship. His letters to Christian bishops make it clear that he cared little for
the theological differences that agitated Christiandom - though he was willing to supress
dissent in the interest of imperial unity. Throughout his reign he treated his bishops as his
political aides; he summoned them, presided over their councils, and agreed to enforce
whatever opinion their majority should formulate. A real believer would have been a
Christian first and a statesman afterward. With Constantine it was the reverse. Christianity
was to him a means, not an end.
“ Gradually as his power grew more secure he favored Christianity more openly.
After 317 his coins dropped one by one their pagan effigies, until 323 they bore only
neutral inscriptions. A legal text of his reign, questioned but not disproved, gave Christian
bishops the authority of judges in their dioceses; other laws exempted Church realty from
taxation, made Christian associations juridicial persons, allowed them to own land and
recieve bequests. Constantine gave money to needy congregations, built several churches
in Constantinople and elsewhere, forbad the worship of images in the new capital.
Forgetting the “Edict of Milan”[B/] he prohibited the meeting of heretical sects, and finally
ordered the destruction of their conventicles.
“In the interval between the Decian and the Diocletian persecution, the Church had
become the richest religious organization in the Empire, and had moderated its attacks
upon wealth. Cyprian complained that his parishioners were mad about money, Christian
women painted their faces, that bishops held lucrative offices of state made fortunes, lent
money at usurious interest and denied their faith at the first sign of danger. While
Christiananity converted the world, the world converted Christiananity, and displayed the
natural paganism of mankind. (The story of civilization part III Caesar and Christ by Will
Durant p. 655-657)
Sounds like a state religion to me!

 

Will Durant mentions lots of state religions in _The History of Civilization_.

"Calvin was as thorough as any pope in rejecting individualism of belief; this greatest legislator of Protestantism completely repudiated that principle of private judgment with which the new religion had begun. He had seen the fragmentation of the Reformation into a hundred sects, and foresaw more; in Geneva he would have none of them."

"The principle which the Reformation had upheld in the youth of its rebellion - the right of private judgment - was as completely rejected by the Protestant leaders as by the Catholics . . . Toleration was now definitely less after the Reformation than before it."

"Melanchthon asked the state to compel the people to attend Protestant services. Later on, in Saxony (1623), even auricular confession and the Eucharist were made strictly obligatory by law, punishable by banishment. "

"The cities found Protestantism profitable . . . for a slight alteration in their theological garb they escaped from episcopal taxes and courts, and could appropriate pleasant parcels of ecclesiastical property . . . The princes . . . could be spiritual as well as temporal lords, and all the wealth of the Church could be theirs . . . The Lutheran princes suppressed all monasteries in their territory except a few whose inmates had embraced the Protestant faith."

ALL religions, to some extent, are state religions.

 

Dear T2U,

You wrote...

&lt;&lt;Hank, individuals have made the claim that Constantine started the Catholic Church. I have posted relevant parts of the Edict of Milan, which show otherwise.
So far you have added nothing to the discussion.
Why don't you do a little research and test your beliefs in this area against historical evidence? &gt;&gt;

Constantine opened the door to that which eventually became the Roman Catholic Church.

Personally I would date the "Roman Catholic Church" from Charles the Great (Charlemagne). In 800AD, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne the Roman Emperor, thus the Holy Roman Empire or the "unholy" alliance of religious and Imperial Rome.

Shortly thereafter (historically speaking) the slaughtering began with the "Holy Crusades" and later more bloodshed under the Spanish and Latin Inquisitions.
This is the legacy of the Roman Catholic Church.

HankD

 

T2u,
The first 31 popes? The catholic church made up the first 31 popes. Constantine appointed the first one. The first 31 were just bishops of the church at Rome, not the "Godfather" of the whole church. Seems the Roman Catholic Church has its own version of history.

 

Dear T2U,

We are talking semantics. The term "bishop" is KJV designation of the word "episkopos".

KJV Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Bishop : Strong's 1985: episkopos {ep-is'-kop-os}
• 1) an overseer 1a) a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian or superintendent 1b) the superintendent, elder, or overseer of a Christian church.

Baptist don't like the term (at least this one) because of the RCC connection, but it is indeed a biblical word equivalent to "shepherd" or "pastor".

"pastor" is the Baptist word of choice for "episkopos".

Also, the Church of Rome was a real Christian local assembly until (IMO) they shed the blood of the innocent (probably around 800AD).
Having said that, I will also say that the doctrinal error of that local church was becoming more and more corrupt through Pagan syncretism until that time.
The first murder of the first "separatist" was an act of CAIN and the RCC received the mark of CAIN at that moment (IMO).

Under the Law, an issue of blood (apart from the Blood of Christ) defiles and makes unclean all that it touches:

KJV 2 Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

The authorization of pastors is by the baptism of Luke 3:16

Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

Revelation 2:29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

The ordination of a pastor is by other pastors who are able to recognize and affirm the evidence of the spiritual gift of the others which they "ordain".


HankD

 

Pastor, bishop, overseer, elder. all same. Take your pick. I dont have a problem with the word bishop. Just the hierarchy of the catholic church. Pope, cardinal(redhats), archbishop, priest. Unbiblical.

 

HankD,
You sure are ignoring an awful lot of well documented historical fact.

Pauline