I keep getting these types of information (from atheists, and agnostics especially) that Jesus was simply a chosen pagan revived god which was invented by constantine (in around 300 AD) and thus formed the roman empire (which is supposedly how the catholic church was made according to them). Now, I am deeply confused here and the whole idea of Jesus being a pagan God sounds VERY fishy and disturbing.
Wow. I’ve heard the Constantinian argument from Protestants many times, but the atheist twist is new to me.
Fear not! The answer is as follows:
Constantine did not invent Christianity, he simply ended the persecution of an existing religious group by issuing the Edict of Milan in 313 (
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Milan). When he did so, according to modern skeptics, pagans flocked to the Church in hopes of secular preferment, but the Church could not assimilate so many new members.
It soon compromised its principles and became paganized by adopting pagan beliefs and practices. It developed the doctrines with which the Catholic Church is identified today. Simply put, it apostatized and became the Catholic Church.
The trouble with this history is that there are no historical facts whatsoever to back it up. Distinctively Catholic beliefs—the papacy, priesthood, invocation of saints, sacraments, veneration of Mary, purgatory—were evident long before the fourth century, before Constantine. They were believed by Christians before this supposed “paganization” took place.
Another difficulty is that there are no historical records—none at all—which imply an underground Proto-protestant church existed from the early fourth century to the Reformation. In those years there were many schisms and heresies, most now vanished, but present-day Protestants cannot find among them their missing Protestant church. There were no groups that believed in all or even most, of the doctrines espoused by the Protestant Reformers (e.g. sola scriptura, salvation by “faith alone,” and an invisible church). No wonder Protestant writers dislike discussing Church history!
Since the Christian Church was to exist historically and be like a city set on a mountain for all to see (Matt. 5:14), it had to be visible and easily identifiable. A church that exists only in the hearts of believers is not visible and is more like the candle hidden under the bushel basket (Matt. 5:15). But any visible church would necessarily be an institutional church that would need an earthly head. It would need an authority to which Christians could turn for the final resolution of doctrinal and disciplinary disputes. Christ appointed Peter and his successors to that position.
Christ designated Peter head of the Church when he said, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18). Protestants, desiring to avoid the natural sense of the passage, say “rock” refers not to Peter, but to his profession of faith or to Christ himself. But Peter’s profession of faith is two sentences away and can’t be what is meant. Similarly, the reference can’t be to Christ. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a quite different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4–8) does not mean Peter was not appointed the earthly foundation.
The apostles were also described as foundation stones in a sense (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), meaning that Christ is not the only person the Bible speaks of as being the Church’s foundation. In one sense the foundation was Christ, in another it was the apostles, and in another it was Peter. In Matthew 16:18 Christ has Peter in mind. He himself would be the Church’s invisible foundation since he was returning to heaven, from where he would invisibly rule the Church. He needed to leave behind a visible authority, one people could locate when searching for religious truth.
That visible authority is the papacy.
. I now know that Constantine simply defended rights of christians.