Trail of Blood? Truth or Fiction?

[Thinkingstuff]

He established Christianity as a "state-religion," thus the origins of the RCC. He became the head of it, and the bishops became subservient to him. That is not how a "church" operates in the New Testament. The Bible teaches that church and state are separate.

I'm amazed at how much you don't know DHK about Church history or even the basic world history. Constantine never established Christianity as a "state religion" as an on line encyclopedia you like to quote says here:

it neither made paganism illegal nor made Christianity the state religion

A basic fact about the Roman Empire. When they over threw an oppossing nation and assumed their citizens they allowed for application for that nation's gods to be considered "authorized" for worship in the empire. Unless it was authorized by the Senate you could not freely practice of worship of that deity. We see that with Judaism when the Maccabees sent a delegation to Rome and created an alliance against the Selucid Empire that YHWH was authorized by the Senate which is why Jews were free to practice all through out the empire. Christianity did not have this protection and thus were persecuted until Constantine allowed for religeous tollerance and "authorized" Christianity. Constantine did not make a State Religion of Christianity. The second part of your statement quoted above makes me laugh. It actually warms the cockles of my heart that a Canadian holds strongly to an aspect of the American Constitution and a letter by Thomas Jefferson to a baptist minister at Danbury. However, this is what the scriptures teach

Rom 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

I'm sorry to say that there is nothing in scriptures that says there is a

"wall of separation between church and state,"

In fact quite the opposit. Religion plays a very significant role in governing people in the bible. But Cudos to a Canadian that holds to american values. You're no longer the Queen's man I daresay. There is no marriage of paganism and Christianity in Constantines day except in the imagination of those that wish it were true. Which is why Flavius Claudius Julianus attempted to destroy Christianity. He saw no corrilation between paganism and Christianity. Your example shows Muslims killing all types of christianity but your suggesting that the emperor was, to take your example, killing muslims as well as christians. It just wasn't the case. Like I said. If you want to blame someone for the establishment of a nation state religion look at Pepin the Short or Charlemagne or Otto. These men set the precident. Not Constantine. If Constantine had made the decision as to what to believe in Christianity (he did not but if) then Orthodoxy would support Arianism. However, as is clearly seen this is not the Case. Constantine had the bishops decide for themselves. Simple plain. No conspiracy here. No black helicopters, men in black with sunglasses, nothing of the sort. Just actual true history which seems to allude you.

 

[DHK]

Religion plays a very significant role in governing people in the bible

Yes it does. It does because every church has church order--pastors, deacons, etc.
That has nothing to do with a separation of church and state.
The government has no right to dictate what the preacher should preach.
We believe in religious tolerance, or soul liberty. That right, for centuries was taken away from Baptists and others. John Bunyan languished in prison for years because he would not become a licensed state-preacher, preaching what the English state-church wanted him to preach. Every time he got out of prison he preached what God wanted him to preach. Thousands came to hear the Word of God being preached by the power of the Holy Spirit through him. But it never lasted long. He was simply thrown back in jail. It was there that he wrote his famous allegory, "Pilgrims Progress."

A state-church is of the devil. There must be a separation of the church and of the state. The state has no right to run the affairs of the church. That doesn't mean we live in a state of anarchy either. No need to throw in extreme red herrings here. Every Christian is subject to the law as every other man. In other words our buildings that we meet in are subject to building and safety codes just as other buildings are. We follow the laws like speed limits. We do not live in a state of anarchy simply because we are Christians.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

DHK, I'm really trying to support your assertions from verifiable historical facts. As I'm reviewing the time period of Constantine and your assertion that he "created this state church" I'm confronted with these actual facts:

Eddict of Milan only allows for religous tollerance of Christians especially just after a horrid last wave of persecution under Dioclesian. Christianity is not set up by Constantine as a State Religion. It is contrarily tollerated and he doesn't fill all his cabinate possitions with Christians just a couple. Christianity though populas was still a minority religion in the empire.

After Constantine the majority of Christians follow Arius rather than the Nicean Christians so another council is convened in order to deal with what Nicea didn't at Constantinople.

Julian (After Constantine) attempts to revert Rome to its Pagan ancestry and moves against Christians. From Julians time period BTW we have a document from a retired soldier named Ammiann Marcellinus who's attempt to write roman history and is decidedly anti Christian. Note that he tells (what he considers a joke) that a Christian deacon was mixed up in a plot with another man of the same name attempting to kill the emperor. The mistake was made when both men commissioned purple robes (which only royalty did in those days) and the Christian was killed under Julian. Just to point out that the Deacon was commissioning purple possibly as a vestment. Anyway Marcellinus hated Christians as can be seen in his document.

Theodosius I (after both Constantine and Julian) actually makes Christianity the state religion of the Empire. Yet throughout his career unlike your accusation that the emperor became a pegan priest in control of this segment of Christianity. Theodosius is actually bullied by Ambrose of Milan. He wasn't even the Bishop of Rome! Just a prominant bishop from Milan! Theodosius' Mother was a follower of Arius and wanted to set up Arian worship in the Nicean Churches in Milan but Ambrose said no and made the emperor back down. There is not conjoining of the wishes of the emperor (or once again Christianity would be orthodoxly Arian rather than Nicean).

Also note that you claim the Roman Catholic Church was created by Constantine and included paganism. But this is not what is historically evident. Constantine did not create a state church and he only called the Nicean council because there were christians rioting about who to follow and he wanted peace in his empire. He did not impose his will on the council (or we would be arian or JW intoday's theological view) Also note and I find this interesting that Catholics did not make Constantine a saint. Now the Orthodox have and some even go so far as to call him the 13th apostle. If the Roman Catholic Church was created by Constantine don't you think they would have made him a saint? Or called him the 13 th Apostle? No they don't the eastern Christians did. Not the western churches!

I'm sorry the trail of blood and its premise just don't hold up to historical facts.

 

[DHK]

Also note that you claim the Roman Catholic Church was created by Constantine and included paganism. But this is not what is historically evident.

Actually it is. I hope you read some of these links.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html

From the above link, if you read the article carefully, this unsaved professor of Yale University takes a secular view of history and plainly shows how Constantine made a false profession of faith, made Christianity a state-church, persecuted “other churches” to the extent that his brand of “Christianity” was the only one allowed, (for it was the state-church), introduced pagan symbols into his church (in other words paganized Christianity from that time on). From that time Constantine worked hand in hand with the Roman emperors and the RCC was formed. There it had its beginnings. And this is a secular historian.

Was he truly a Christian? Was his Church truly Christian or was it more pagan in nature?
Look here and judge for yourself:
http://www.talley.brandywine.k12.de.us/Turkey/history/christianity.htm

Here is the most accurate portrayal of the type of Christianity that Constantine established that I can find. I hope you read it.

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/Catholicism/ch-state.htm

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Actually it is. I hope you read some of these links.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html

From the above link, if you read the article carefully, this unsaved professor of Yale University takes a secular view of history and plainly shows how Constantine made a false profession of faith, made Christianity a state-church, persecuted “other churches” to the extent that his brand of “Christianity” was the only one allowed, (for it was the state-church), introduced pagan symbols into his church (in other words paganized Christianity from that time on). From that time Constantine worked hand in hand with the Roman emperors and the RCC was formed. There it had its beginnings. And this is a secular historian.

Was he truly a Christian? Was his Church truly Christian or was it more pagan in nature?
Look here and judge for yourself:
http://www.talley.brandywine.k12.de.us/Turkey/history/christianity.htm

Here is the most accurate portrayal of the type of Christianity that Constantine established that I can find. I hope you read it.

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/Catholicism/ch-state.htm

I haven't disagreed with you that Constantine was most likely not a real Christian. I do disagree with you and this Jewish, Brown University Scholar that he created a new form of Christianity. (Not Yale) Interesting Frontline didn't ask for John Dominic Crossans view on this particular article from DePaul University. Frontline tried its best to simplify early Christianity. Just like they made Bush look bad in every decision he made. The facts are still the same Constantine declared the Eddict of Milan with allowed for religious tollerance. Theodocius I made it the "official religion" of the empire. Cohen specializes in Hebraic studies and is an ordained Rabbi. His primary fields are Jewish cultural relativism related to Hellinization of the period during Maccabees. His expertise is not early Christian history. He's reliant off of other sources such as John Dominic Crossan who believes that Jesus is an illerterate Jewish Critic claiming that Jesus was initially a follower of John the Baptist. He denies the factual events surrounding Jesus life He believes the early Christians never believed in an actual physical ressurection (just a spiritual one) and puts equal emphasis on the gnostic gospels as the actual gospels. He is a follower of Kloppenburg who believes in a "lost" text of the Gospel of Q. Now with this many errors in his vast career of studies would you believe him about Constantine? There are sources documents like the one I quoted that show a different picture and they were written at the time. I could show you just as many Scholars who would disagree with these popular liberal theologians. What Constantine did do is allow already existing Christianity to come out in the open which admittedly did change the face of christianity since up until then it was hidden and an underground movement. It allowed it to start a new phase of existance. But it was not and I repeat not the official religion of the Empire and any christian historian will tell you.

 

[DHK]

I only used Frontline to give a balanced perspective. I don't want to be accused of using just "Fundamentalist" sources. Here is a source that backs up what I am saying even though he doesn't even seem to believe in the deity of Christ, and that Christianity as a whole was just a sect or extension of Judaism. Certainly I don't agree with all that he said. The gist of the history that he gave seems to correspond with what I have been trying to say about the history of Constantine, and at odds with what your view is. That is the only reason that I quoted him.
The last link is quite good.

 

[Eric B]

I always understood that Leo I was the one who really made the Church into a state government. So all Constantine did was pave the way for it to rise to power. There may have been a step or two back with those later emperors, but the stage was set.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I always understood that Leo I was the one who really made the Church into a state government. So all Constantine did was pave the way for it to rise to power. There may have been a step or two back with those later emperors, but the stage was set.

This is closer to the truth. Leo the bishop of Rome was the only leader left in the city when Attila the Hun was about to sack the city. Instead of fleeing with all the other wealthy leaders left out of fear. Leo succeded in convincing Attila not to continue with the rest of the invasion. He saved Rome and western civilization for a time. Because of his courage and staying to help the Roman citizens in spite of desaster people began to rely more on clergy and certainly Leo became a civil administrator as well as a religious one. To Say that Constantine Paved the Way is more accurate and I can agree with that. But even there it wasn't until the establishment of the Frankish Kingdoms that we have the serious issues we do in the Middle ages that lead to the Reformation. However, its fantasy to believe that Constantine the first actually created a new "Roman Catholic" religion. He only allowed it to exist above ground. And it wasn't Roman Catholic it was all Christians which at this time were in two camps. Arian and Nicean.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I only used Frontline to give a balanced perspective. I don't want to be accused of using just "Fundamentalist" sources. Here is a source that backs up what I am saying even though he doesn't even seem to believe in the deity of Christ, and that Christianity as a whole was just a sect or extension of Judaism. Certainly I don't agree with all that he said. The gist of the history that he gave seems to correspond with what I have been trying to say about the history of Constantine, and at odds with what your view is. That is the only reason that I quoted him.
The last link is quite good.

Surely the article is interesting but has some serious historical problems. As we can see with the credentials of the people putting it together. I would have appreciated the article if they included acheological finds such as Dura Europa and Meggido. Or included in critings by the Christian critics such as Pliny the younger's letter to Trajan. And the Retired soldier that I've previously mentioned. I would like to have seen a better in depth study rather than rely on this Jesus Seminar group of theologians.