Constantine Invented Christianity Stupid!

[Publisher]

I guess the only fair response I can give is it seems reasonable to believe the church (which grew into the Catholic Church) was fairly unified as early as the second century, with some exceptions. But virtually all protestants today (including those who believe they’re in greater accord with first century Christians as compared to others) wouldn’t agree with the small Christian splinter groups that “actually” existed in the first or second century (such as Gnostics).

Perhaps Quakers are an exception to this, but as far as I know you guys grew out of Wesleyan theology, and while some of your worship rituals or techniques may have unique features, as far as I know you’re hardly Gnostics (however, I’m not well acquainted with the particulars of the Quaker denomination, so if I’m wrong I’m glad to be corrected).

There were a variety of, as the CC describes, “heresies” in the early church. For the most there’s no protestant denomination who has turned back to those long abandoned concepts. The only groups, as I see it, who can find accord with these early Christians, are the few Nestorian churches in Iran, Monophysitism is still kicking (still very much alive in Egyptian and middle eastern Christianity), and Socianism (an offshoot of Arianism) that denies the “lordship” of Jesus (i.e. Jehovah’s Witnesses still adhere to this view, Unitarians also adhered to this view, although its unclear whether they remain “Christian” – or at least by any reasonable definition … since their union with the Universalists they’ve essentially abandoned strict dogma, for instance you’re invited to join if you’re an atheist or Hindu and may expect no compulsion to adopt any particular point of view).

Protestants today are in general accord with most of the doctrines enumerated by the seven Ecumenical Councils (exceptions are the Second Council of Nicea is generally rejected by all protestants, save Anglicans, and many have serious problems with the declaration of Mary as Theotokos, or “God Bearer” by the Council of Ephesus).

No, we’re not part of the Weslyan movement…we’re a tad bit before John Wesley began the Methodist movement.

Early Christianity was fragmented…the Ebionites, Marcionite, Thomas Christians, Johannine believers, Paulinie Christians…with the exception of the Marcionites existed in the first century…we see some of their conflicts hinted at in Paul’s letters as opposed to Acts accounts.

The proto catholic/orthodox group sought to consolidate and define beliefs very early…of which the ECF’s are a part of. I do not ascribe to Acts as actual history…any more than I do the gospels…they are religious writings which were circulated in the late first and early second century which sought to expain the common belief of the people called Christians in the man Jesus of Nazareth…Christianity arose from a sect of Judaism to it’s own separate religion after the fall of Jerusalem. I understand the mythology of conservative Christian history…I just don’t believe it.

I find the writings of Bart Erhman, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, Eilene Pagels, Joan O’Grady to be much more compelling than the fanciful religious history set forth by the existing proto-catholic/orthodox movement.

 

[bridgeforsale]

No, we’re not part of the Weslyan movement…we’re a tad bit before John Wesley began the Methodist movement.

I guess I was way off base, I just looked it up (should have done that b4 I know, apologies). You guys were an offshoot of the English Puritan movement (at least according to Wiki, not the best source … but it works in a pinch). Anyways, interesting article.

Early Christianity was fragmented…the Ebionites, Marcionite, Thomas Christians, Johannine believers, Paulinie Christians…with the exception of the Marcionites existed in the first century…we see some of their conflicts hinted at in Paul’s letters as opposed to Acts accounts.

The proto catholic/orthodox group sought to consolidate and define beliefs very early…of which the ECF’s are a part of. I do not ascribe to Acts as actual history…any more than I do the gospels…they are religious writings which were circulated in the late first and early second century which sought to expain the common belief of the people called Christians in the man Jesus of Nazareth…Christianity arose from a sect of Judaism to it’s own separate religion after the fall of Jerusalem. I understand the mythology of conservative Christian history…I just don’t believe it.

Yes, but I note the problem of trying to trace back to groups like the Ebionites. It’s unclear whether they represented a purer brand of Christianity compared to say Pauline Christians. Nevertheless, I agree that Acts is largely untrue, but I’m sure for much different reasons.

I find the writings of Bart Erhman, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, Eilene Pagels, Joan O’Grady to be much more compelling than the fanciful religious history set forth by the existing proto-catholic/orthodox movement.

Frankly I find the evidence supporting theism (in general) grossly inadequate (but that’s another story I suppose)

 

[Publisher]

I guess I was way off base, I just looked it up (should have done that b4 I know, apologies). You guys were an offshoot of the English Puritan movement (at least according to Wiki, not the best source … but it works in a pinch). Anyways, interesting article.

Yes, but I note the problem of trying to trace back to groups like the Ebionites. It’s unclear whether they represented a purer brand of Christianity compared to say Pauline Christians. Nevertheless, I agree that Acts is largely untrue, but I’m sure for much different reasons.

Frankly I find the evidence supporting theism (in general) grossly inadequate (but that’s another story I suppose)

I find most “faith affirming” histories to be suspect…if one wishes to believe in the “faith affirming” history as set forth by one’s religious institution…I have no problem with it at all.

Just a note…Quakerism arose out of a “mystical” understanding that God is best known experientially…all our doctrines and dogmas seek to mythically explain the Eternal in human words and understandings. Friends refused to embrace “outward forms” of religious rites and sacraments as they believed God is known by experiencing Him directly in our lives without a human intermediary instructing us. “Christ is present among us to teach us Himself” was a Quaker-ism of the day…and still believed by Friends. Quakerism sees itself as a “rediscovery” of true Christianity…God With Us…God Himself Among Us…He is truly Present among His People without need of ritual or sacramental rites…Life is one whole Sacrament and each and every facet of human life is the opportunity for grace bestowed by direct access to God without need of priest or minister mediating such grace by ritual or rites.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Because I find eOxy style of posting unpleasant and provocative I do not fund cutting and rude references to the Orthodox much fun either as by implication it insults a large part of my family who are Orthodox.,

Returning to the main point of the thread, it’s true a few LDS and SDA members and a few others have made comments suggesting Constantine founded the Catholic Church, but you could not with any seriousness claim those groups represented mainstream Protestantism and indeed some Protestant groups would deny either are validly Christian at all.

I meant no harm to my question ( “I asked in Charity, how do you come to making the Baptised at his death bed Roman Emperor Constantine a Saint? Or do you deny in recognizing the Roman Emperor as a Saint”?)

I have always read history make this a fact of faith from the Orthodox but never giving a detailed description of how and why they recognize “Constantine” as a Saint in the Eastern Church. So I asked an Orthodox to clear this up for me from one who practices his faith. From my experience this Constantine Catholic Saint is what brings negative attacks against the Roman Catholic Church in the West from an Eastern belief. I still would like to know from an Orthodox himself why “Constantine” (The Roman emperor) is recognized as a saint.

I believe the question is in order, since the topic of discussion deals with the Roman Emperor Constantine himself.

If I can restate my question with flowers and candy I would, forgive me if my words do not appear in charity. I wil try and improve on those basis.

 

[Robert_Michael]

Awesome post! He didn’t create Christianity or Catholicism. People need to learn history. Have Muslims not read the Church Fathers before Constantine!?

 

[eOxy]

If I can restate my question with flowers and candy I would, forgive me if my words do not appear in charity. I wil try and improve on those basis.

I don’t see anything to forgive, but God forgives and I forgive, you forgive me, a sinner, too.

You asked a straight question and I tried to provide a straight answer. I am a bit puzzled why Jharek Carnelian finds anything there to be uncharitable.

 

[bridgeforsale]

I find most “faith affirming” histories to be suspect…if one wishes to believe in the “faith affirming” history as set forth by one’s religious institution…I have no problem with it at all.

I agree. I’ve seen arguments from some pretty good apologists (i.e. William Lane Craig), who argue on behalf of the historicity of the resurrection (and surrounding events). I think these arguments, which try to postulate a “reasonable faith” are so ridiculous, they can only succeed in building new atheists (not to mention the tenor of these “new apologists” is terrible. These guys seem to have absolutely no graciousness).

Just a note…Quakerism arose out of a “mystical” understanding that God is best known experientially…all our doctrines and dogmas seek to mythically explain the Eternal in human words and understandings. Friends refused to embrace “outward forms” of religious rites and sacraments as they believed God is known by experiencing Him directly in our lives without a human intermediary instructing us. “Christ is present among us to teach us Himself” was a Quaker-ism of the day…and still believed by Friends. Quakerism sees itself as a “rediscovery” of true Christianity…God With Us…God Himself Among Us…He is truly Present among His People without need of ritual or sacramental rites…Life is one whole Sacrament and each and every facet of human life is the opportunity for grace bestowed by direct access to God without need of priest or minister mediating such grace by ritual or rites.

Quakerism is interesting, and certainly has a great history.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The proto catholic/orthodox group sought to consolidate and define beliefs very early…of which the ECF’s are a part of. ** I do not ascribe to Acts as actual history…any more than I do the gospels…**

You accept the writings of men and women as you listed above as “truth” over the writings of the Gospels? You accept mans writings from a far from history than the eyewitnesses who lived out the recorded history such as the Catholic Church, Jewish religion and secular history who records historical events side by side. I can respect your personal views of history, but your personal views nor mine will ever negate the Truth of History and the New Testament Letters of which many souls went willingly to their death’s for the Gospel faith.

I have to be frank here, I always thought Quakers were a myth from man’s ideology to live in a time that is not their own. That shows how much I know about Quakers, so forgive my ignorance in advance of Quaker’s, truth be told here, I cannot comment of your history, because I dont find you in the recorded history of Christianity. Maybe your authors were eyewitnesses to Jesus life on earth since the first century to today? inorder to record such an accuracy account of your views of history? Or are you bias to a commentary of history recorded by men from afar?

I am trying to understand how a Quaker rejects the book of Acts, the Gospel record of Jesus Christ over commentaries written by contemporary historians? Your rejection of the new Testament letters is foreign to me, so in summary can you explain why and how you come to rejecting the historical account of Acts, and the Gospels, and eyewitness historical accounts of Christianity and secularism?

I am very perplexed about your historical views, because the only written historical accounts are Catholic, Jewish, and secular and pagan for the first thousand years. Yet your views conflict with these historical eyewitness accounts?

 

[DeusVult09]

speaking at least for religious skeptics, I don’t know of anyone who seriously contends Constantine invented Christianity (I’ve never heard of any scholar who says this or even holds it out as a reasonable possibility). I imagine this is a very “fringe” view (held by people who could not have studied the history involved here).

yes no scholar i know of takes this idea seriously but it has become quite a popular argument against christianianity amoungst muslims so i thought id refute it here

 

[DeusVult09]

I think this is a fringe view among certain protestants – but I could be wrong (frankly I doubt any serious protestant theologian, who gives a darn about intellectual integrity, would say such a thing).

Italy was a hot bed of Christian activity long before Constantine (and moreover by the fourth century the church was already well established). There might be an argument that certain things changed when the CC became the state church of the Roman Empire (so much should be obvious). But the tenor of these arguments is usually ugly, and results from blind zealotry (and a desire to demean, out of a view that they hold the “one true” proper and pure belief system, inherent in religiosity generally speaking).

I’d think if this bogus claim were remotely possible the first people to raise it & enlighten the world would be skeptics (and I’ve never heard guys like Dawkins or Hitchens advocate this theory).

Nonetheless, it’s not true … the end!

the argument usually goes that the arians were the original christians but that constantine modified christianity inserting pagan ideas the thing is arianism was a 3rdcentury religious movement but we have far earlier evidence for orthodox christian belief s o the argument has no basis

 

[DeusVult09]

I guess the only fair response I can give is it seems reasonable to believe the church (which grew into the Catholic Church) was fairly unified as early as the second century, with some exceptions. But virtually all protestants today (including those who believe they’re in greater accord with first century Christians as compared to others) wouldn’t agree with the small Christian splinter groups that “actually” existed in the first or second century (such as Gnostics).

Perhaps Quakers are an exception to this, but as far as I know you guys grew out of Wesleyan theology, and while some of your worship rituals or techniques may have unique features, as far as I know you’re hardly Gnostics (however, I’m not well acquainted with the particulars of the Quaker denomination, so if I’m wrong I’m glad to be corrected).

There were a variety of, as the CC describes, “heresies” in the early church. For the most there’s no protestant denomination who has turned back to those long abandoned concepts. The only groups, as I see it, who can find accord with these early Christians, are the few Nestorian churches in Iran, Monophysitism is still kicking (still very much alive in Egyptian and middle eastern Christianity), and Socianism (an offshoot of Arianism) that denies the “lordship” of Jesus (i.e. Jehovah’s Witnesses still adhere to this view, Unitarians also adhered to this view, although its unclear whether they remain “Christian” – or at least by any reasonable definition … since their union with the Universalists they’ve essentially abandoned strict dogma, for instance you’re invited to join if you’re an atheist or Hindu and may expect no compulsion to adopt any particular point of view).

Protestants today are in general accord with most of the doctrines enumerated by the seven Ecumenical Councils (exceptions are the Second Council of Nicea is generally rejected by all protestants, save Anglicans, and many have serious problems with the declaration of Mary as Theotokos, or “God Bearer” by the Council of Ephesus).

the evidence is that what wed consider orthodox christianity existed long before gnosticism, nestorianism, arianism etc none of which represent the earliest christian beleifs

 

[DeusVult09]

No, we’re not part of the Weslyan movement…we’re a tad bit before John Wesley began the Methodist movement.

Early Christianity was fragmented…the Ebionites, Marcionite, Thomas Christians, Johannine believers, Paulinie Christians…with the exception of the Marcionites existed in the first century…we see some of their conflicts hinted at in Paul’s letters as opposed to Acts accounts.

The proto catholic/orthodox group sought to consolidate and define beliefs very early…of which the ECF’s are a part of. I do not ascribe to Acts as actual history…any more than I do the gospels…they are religious writings which were circulated in the late first and early second century which sought to expain the common belief of the people called Christians in the man Jesus of Nazareth…Christianity arose from a sect of Judaism to it’s own separate religion after the fall of Jerusalem. I understand the mythology of conservative Christian history…I just don’t believe it.

I find the writings of Bart Erhman, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, Eilene Pagels, Joan O’Grady to be much more compelling than the fanciful religious history set forth by the existing proto-catholic/orthodox movement.

initially early christianity was not fragmented it is not until 70 ad that we get the ebionites and the 2nd century that we get gnostics and marcionists etc. the evidence is that the earliest christians held beleifs that we’d consider to be orthodox today.

marcus borg ? haah i read one of his books basicially he said everything in the bible was metaphorical , bart ehrman is a sensationalist especially when it coems to textual varients and elaine pagels though she has soem itneresting stuff about gnosticism some of the stuff she argues is nonsense like her book about paul being a gnostic , same with dominic crossan and some of his historical jesus scholarship based on utter assumptions and pressupositions

 

[DeusVult09]

You accept the writings of men and women as you listed above as “truth” over the writings of the Gospels? You accept mans writings from a far from history than the eyewitnesses who lived out the recorded history such as the Catholic Church, Jewish religion and secular history who records historical events side by side. I can respect your personal views of history, but your personal views nor mine will ever negate the Truth of History and the New Testament Letters of which many souls went willingly to their death’s for the Gospel faith.

I have to be frank here, I always thought Quakers were a myth from man’s ideology to live in a time that is not their own. That shows how much I know about Quakers, so forgive my ignorance in advance of Quaker’s, truth be told here, I cannot comment of your history, because I dont find you in the recorded history of Christianity. Maybe your authors were eyewitnesses to Jesus life on earth since the first century to today? inorder to record such an accuracy account of your views of history? Or are you bias to a commentary of history recorded by men from afar?

I am trying to understand how a Quaker rejects the book of Acts, the Gospel record of Jesus Christ over commentaries written by contemporary historians? Your rejection of the new Testament letters is foreign to me, so in summary can you explain why and how you come to rejecting the historical account of Acts, and the Gospels, and eyewitness historical accounts of Christianity and secularism?

I am very perplexed about your historical views, because the only written historical accounts are Catholic, Jewish, and secular and pagan for the first thousand years. Yet your views conflict with these historical eyewitness accounts?

I know these writers , I have had some of their books as text books at university. The thing is the historical Jesus movement is flawed and based on a vast array of unproven assumptions. Im familiar with this kind of scholarship as its part of criticism and we get taught it again. This guy rejects the gospels as historically valid based on presupposition not fact. And im pretty sure he doesn’t believe the gospels were written by eyewitnesses something higher criticism because Jesus in the gospels predicts the destruction of the temple the assumption is tha they were written afterwards over a period from 60-90ad by unknown people and given their names were given later. This is why publisher rejects them as being unhistorical but such reasoning is based on the reasoning that Jesus couldn’t prophecy this which is flawed.

 

[firstmode]

Many Protestants seem to believe he invented Catholicism.

Correction, Jehovah’s Witness’s believe this.

 

[bridgeforsale]

the argument usually goes that the arians were the original christians but that constantine modified christianity inserting pagan ideas the thing is arianism was a 3rdcentury religious movement but we have far earlier evidence for orthodox christian belief s o the argument has no basis

I think Publisher is saying either he himself or his religious group relates with the Ebionites (first century Jewish Christians) or something along those lines (there’s some small contemporary groups out there who claim to align with the philosophy of this ancient group, but I’m not exactly sure whether the Quaker group Publisher belongs to has adopted this format). Unfortunately the rituals and beliefs of the Ebionites has been obscured by history (various ancient writers and modern biblical scholars have commented on the group, but few of them agree with one another, so it’s hard to tell exactly what they believed or what their rituals were).

Anyway, still … as you point out, Constantine didn’t invent either Christianity or Catholicism (that’s an absurd view)

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I know these writers , I have had some of their books as text books at university. The thing is the historical Jesus movement is flawed and based on a vast array of unproven assumptions. Im familiar with this kind of scholarship as its part of criticism and we get taught it again. This guy rejects the gospels as historically valid based on presupposition not fact. And im pretty sure he doesn’t believe the gospels were written by eyewitnesses something higher criticism because Jesus in the gospels predicts the destruction of the temple the assumption is tha they were written afterwards over a period from 60-90ad by unknown people and given their names were given later. This is why publisher rejects them as being unhistorical but such reasoning is based on the reasoning that Jesus couldn’t prophecy this which is flawed.

Thank God for Apostolic Tradition which handed down to us the Apostolic Catholic Faith. Long before Constantine was ever born. There is another historical recorded evidence that “university” level scholarship are unable to raise their level of understanding because their learning requires phyisical evidence from the world. That is why Quakers and others take the view of history that is not lived but only what they can see with their eyes, and draw many conclusions that rely on opinion only and never facts of proof.

The secondary historical evidence is the “Faith” and “Religious Practice” by those who lived in these recorded histories. Faith is not recorded, but is lived out in life and handed down. Quakers and others such as non catholics have no attachment to the Apostolic period of history, nor the faith and religious practice. That is why they argue from afar with physical evidence that they cannot understand or accept, because the historical Apostolic Faith is Catholic and in opposition to these new christian sects from Protestantism.

In other words how can a new man made christian faith, make an acutal truthful commentary of Christian history? when their founders never lived in this time nor ever existed during the Apostolic period, and were never successors to the original apostles. These new christian sects no matter what the education, if there members were never eyewitnesses to Christian Apostolic history, cannot draw the Truth of the faith from the Apostles because they never practiced the apostolic faith.

So they can only draw a false claim from the Catholic and secular history and try and make sense of it all by making false conclusions from historical figures and events when only the Christians practiced the Apostolic Catholic faith. When they try and dictate history, they do so without the correct understanding of the Faith from these historical figures, and try to fit their own personal opinions of history and christianity, to support their own new christian man made ideologies.

 

[peary1]

For one thing, the vast majority of Muslims are ignorant of Christian scripture. Those that come into these rooms attempt to argue their case through the Koran. But they are at a loss when confronted with the existence of the Church. This they have absolutely no concept of whatsoever as to origin or formation. They stop arguing with you once they are confronted with the Church.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

For one thing, the vast majority of Muslims are ignorant of Christian scripture. Those that come into these rooms attempt to argue their case through the Koran. But they are at a loss when confronted with the existence of the Church. This they have absolutely no concept of whatsoever as to origin or formation. They stop arguing with you once they are confronted with the Church.

This is true, have you ever heard a Muslim try and interpret the New Testament? One does not know whether to laugh or cry It makes it difficult when non catholics including Muslims try and interpret the New Testament without knowing how the Apostles and their successors practiced and believed their Catholic faith.

 

[peary1]

It was under Constantine that the largest group of the people called Christians consolidated into a single body which actually held some political power…thus supressing all other Christian groups…edicts were given against all competing theological systems even as far as exile and pain of death…the persecuted became the persecutors.

Depends on how you actually view it. Constantine knew what side of his bread was buttered and made a direct overture to the many Christians who lived in the Empire. Yes, true, Christians consolidated into a single unified body which actually held some political power.

Don’t forget that it was Constantine who called the first official ecumenical council of the Church, gathering bishops from all corners of the Empire to decide important theological issues of the day. There were many different theological groups at the time too, but a consensus had to be reached, even to the point of exile or pain of death.

 

[Publisher]

initially early christianity was not fragmented it is not until 70 ad that we get the ebionites and the 2nd century that we get gnostics and marcionists etc. the evidence is that the earliest christians held beleifs that we’d consider to be orthodox today.

marcus borg ? haah i read one of his books basicially he said everything in the bible was metaphorical , bart ehrman is a sensationalist especially when it coems to textual varients and elaine pagels though she has soem itneresting stuff about gnosticism some of the stuff she argues is nonsense like her book about paul being a gnostic , same with dominic crossan and some of his historical jesus scholarship based on utter assumptions and pressupositions

Perhaps like Friends, Marcus Borg see scripture as pointing to the Truth…it is a “sign post” using frail and awkward human words to seek to describe the Eternal in finite terms…but scripture, doctrine, dogma and creeds are not Truth…I like the Buddhist saying which speaks of the human propensity for confusing the “finger pointing to the moon” as the moon itself…

The earliest Christians held many diverse and different beliefs…only in “Christian/faith affirming history” is there the belief of a unified Christian belief…I’m ok with people accepting that “Christian/faith affirming” history…it makes no difference to me…I seek the Truth in what ever vehicle it may come to me…but I don’t confuse the “vehicle” with the Truth it seeks to convey…“eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor entered into the heart of man…”…“we see through a glass darkly”…“which no man can utter”…there is a thread of such things spoken of in scripture…human words and concepts are failing at best.