How do protestants explain history

[spina1953]

If one of my sources is acceptable that means you agree with it, but you didn’t say what you agree with specifically.

The question is more that I think the early Christians (after the Apostles were martyred) fell away from the truth as Paul prophesied would happen:

“For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. And also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciplesafter themselves.” (Acts. 20:29-30)

It was those very grievous wolves (Constantine was probably the most influential) that changed things, the early church having fallen away from Christ and the Apostles.

I am not sure where you are getting your history or what history books you have read but it does not seem to jive with is accepted history of the Roman empire or of early Church history.

 

[dmwessel]

You may not like his answer because it refutes your false history.

What he is telling you is that Constantine did not change the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday because it has already been changed by the Apostles.

This is a misrepresentation as the Apostles did not change the day of worship, Paul merely said that to the mature person Christ, all days are alike. How on earth did you read into that. The Apostles were Jews, and Saturday would have been their Sabbath!!

A point needs to be made the Sabbath Is Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. Not entirely Saturday or Friday.

I stand corrected although it’s straining at gnats - you know perfectly well that I was meaning that the original Sabbath was Friday sunset to Saturday sunset.

The reason that Sunday became the new day of worship because Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday.

There is reason to believe otherwise too. After-all, Constantine had not yet converted to Christianity, he was by all intents still worshiping his Sun God.

I like Wikipedia but I don’t think you can really say it is a valid source nor is a blog. Your source of Ch 101 is very interesting and non supportive of your assertion.

People generally pick and choose their sources depending upon what they want to believe: Wikipedia is considered acceptable by most everyone.

Yes Constantine issued an edict but it was a civil law that confirmed what was already the day of worship. What you have been challenged to provide was that he actually changed it from the Jewish Sabbath to Sunday which none of your sources do.

No, what I said was that Constantine introduced the ‘day of rest’ decree, which was a subtle political maneuver to bring change without causing an uprising.

 

[Darryl_B]

If one of my sources is acceptable that means you agree with it, but you didn’t say what you agree with specifically.

The question is more that I think the early Christians (after the Apostles were martyred) fell away from the truth as Paul prophesied would happen:

“For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. And also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciplesafter themselves.” (Acts. 20:29-30)

It was those very grievous wolves (Constantine was probably the most influential) that changed things, the early church having fallen away from Christ and the Apostles.

Your other source is from wiki and has been correctly addressed by adrift.

Yes Constantine issued an edict but it was a civil law that confirmed what was already the day of worship. What you have been challenged to provide was that he actually changed it from the Jewish Sabbath to Sunday which none of your sources do.

In other words you are reading into the statement of wiki what you desperately want to read into it. Something that is simply not there.

You are really saying Jesus Christ failed in his promise. I was taught that too, but now I find it quite funny how 1800s american protestants twisted history.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

If one of my sources is acceptable that means you agree with it, but you didn’t say what you agree with specifically.

The question is more that I think the early Christians (after the Apostles were martyred) fell away from the truth as Paul prophesied would happen:

“For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. And also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciplesafter themselves.” (Acts. 20:29-30)

It was those very grievous wolves (Constantine was probably the most influential) that changed things, the early church having fallen away from Christ and the Apostles.

How important do you think Christians were in regards to the political, social, and economic power of the Empire at this time? I’m asking because your entire argument seems to hinge on the assumption that the Christians were somehow influential enough that an Emperor who was barely able to keep his power would make very radical changes to the still mostly pagan Empire to favor this historical scapegoat faith and take on the rather epic task of reshaping this faith for his own ends. This assumption is wrong.

 

[Darryl_B]

It was those very grievous wolves (Constantine was probably the most influential) that changed things, the early church having fallen away from Christ and the Apostles.

Have you ever considered Constantine in the context of Constantine’s mother?

 

[dmwessel]

Your other source is from wiki and has been correctly addressed by adrift.

In other words you are reading into the statement of wiki what you desperately want to read into it. Something that is simply not there.

You still refuse to see the political meanderings in all of this - whether directly or indirectly Constantine was the impetus behind the change. Don’t you see, it was political all the way.

Jesus was Jewish (as “King of the Jews” was written above his cross) and not only celebrated the Jewish Sabbath but the Jewish Passover and all things Jewish - if it was good enough for Jesus then why not Constantine and his governing body? Why change things?

Unless of course he was trying to get away from the Jewish aspect of things - in which case the Christian church lost a good deal of important Jewish thought at this time - and according to Paul, had already fallen away from the true gospel.

You are really saying Jesus Christ failed in his promise. I was taught that too, but now I find it quite funny how 1800s american protestants twisted history.

To what promise are you referring??

 

[dmwessel]

Wow:shrug: Changing doctrine with the times is never Christian.

Do you include Pentecostals, Baptists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. too - because they all consider themselves Christian.

 

[dmwessel]

Have you ever considered Constantine in the context of Constantine’s mother?

By the fact that his mother was apparently Christian??

As I said in another post, Paul had prophesied that after he was gone savage wolves would infiltrate the church, and also some among their own people would rise up and lead people astray. Apparently this had already taken place if those Christians (including Constantine’s mother) could so readily accept the changes brought about during Constantine’s time.

And again, it’s well documented that Constantine was only baptized into the Christian faith on or near his death bed - so if prior to that time he was still following his pagan ideas then it appears he had a strange mix of beliefs. Outwardly, and probably for political reasons, he was a Christian but in his personal life he was something else.

 

[andrewstx]

Two of your sources are directly SDA, therefore I don’t find them valid.

The thing that amazes me (I guess a discovery), is that according to anti-Constantines, as soon as Christians were no longer being persecuted, they all gladly adopted all things pagan within one generation by the sheer genius of a devious Constantine who was simply feigning care for those Christians. Fickle bunch those early Christians, one moment willing to die for their beliefs, next minute pagan. Honestly, do you really think genuine people are that gullible?

Constantine has been accused of everything under the Sun by revisionist protestants. The changer of times and seasons even.

The bit about Constantine is lifted from Ellen Whites book of mistruths and historic revisionism called “THE GREAT CONTROVERSY”. That entire book which Ms. White plaguerised is full of innacuracies and lies. The SDA is full of hatred for the Catholic church and phrases like “Whore of Babylon and The Great Beast”.

If it weren’t for SDAs reading the books of Daniel and Revelation as fortune telling, the SDA would not be able to exist. “Profecy” as literal fortune prediction is huge among Seventh Day Adventists.

 

[sennincatholic]

Interesting thread!

 

[Darryl_B]

By the fact that his mother was apparently Christian??

“Apparently”? It must be wonderful to have the power to judge.

 

[adrift]

This is a misrepresentation as the Apostles did not change the day of worship, Paul merely said that to the mature person Christ, all days are alike. How on earth did you read into that. The Apostles were Jews, and Saturday would have been their Sabbath!!

Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Colossians 2:16-17, and Revelation 1:10
They were Jews who followed Jesus and were the first Christians. There are many places in the New Testament that show they no longer followed the Jewish religion as it was the old covenant and they were now under the new covenant.

I stand corrected although it’s straining at gnats - you know perfectly well that I was meaning that the original Sabbath was Friday sunset to Saturday sunset.

I was only clarifying. We don’t count the days as they did and I just wanted to point that out.

There is reason to believe otherwise too. After-all, Constantine had not yet converted to Christianity, he was by all intents still worshiping his Sun God.

Hmmmmm. Nope. Did you read your source?
It said

Did he worship the Sun at some point? Probably.
Having said this, the exact same logic used to call his Christian faith in question could be used against his being a worshipper of the Sun. He was not consistent, therefore it could easily be argued that he was NOT a true Sun worshipper. Worship of the Sun in the Roman world was similar to nominal Christianity in the U.S.A.

People generally pick and choose their sources depending upon what they want to believe: Wikipedia is considered acceptable by most everyone.

Wikipedia is written by anyone. It is not accepted by Academia as a source in fact students are told not to use it in research papers at least at my son’s college. It is an overstatement to say it is acceptable by most everyone.

No, what I said was that Constantine introduced the ‘day of rest’ decree, which was a subtle political maneuver to bring change without causing an uprising.

What you ignore is that you are being challenged that it was a change there was no change. Sunday was already the day of worship for the Christians.
You have been asked to provide evidence and what you have provided is that he declared that Sunday was official not that it was a change. The edict does not show a change only the legalization of what was already being done.
You have provided no sources that show a change. Your sources actually back up that it was a civil order for what already was taking place.

 

[dmwessel]

“Apparently”? It must be wonderful to have the power to judge.

You are so naïve! But you’re right, I didn’t know Drusilla, only that she probably influenced her son’s decisions. She was a woman of power - her ideas would not have been challenged, nor would she ever have had to suffer for her faith. You cannot possibly compare her to the ordinary person that actually had to work for a living and really think about the practicality of what they believed??

 

[dmwessel]

Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Colossians 2:16-17, and Revelation 1:10
They were Jews who followed Jesus and were the first Christians. There are many places in the New Testament that show they no longer followed the Jewish religion as it was the old covenant and they were now under the new covenant.

Actually it says he was the author of a better covenant - but one that would not come into effect until he returns.

I was only clarifying. We don’t count the days as they did and I just wanted to point that out.

and in that respect it was good

Hmmmmm. Nope. Did you read your source?
It said

Wikipedia is written by anyone. It is not accepted by Academia as a source in fact students are told not to use it in research papers at least at my son’s college. It is an overstatement to say it is acceptable by most everyone.

Are you kidding me! Just visit Hypography and other science-based forums - they quote Wiki all the time

What you ignore is that you are being challenged that it was a change there was no change. Sunday was already the day of worship for the Christians.
You have been asked to provide evidence and what you have provided is that he declared that Sunday was official not that it was a change. The edict does not show a change only the legalization of what was already being done.

Do you deny that the Sabbath that Jesus celebrated was Friday midnight to Saturday midnight?

You have provided no sources that show a change. Your sources actually back up that it was a civil order for what already was taking place.

Yes, as I have been saying, political all the way.

 

[dmwessel]

I do not doubt that Constantine was a very good politician - but - as defender of the faith - decidedly, no.

 

[adrift]

“For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. And also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciplesafter themselves.” (Acts. 20:29-30)

It was those very grievous wolves (Constantine was probably the most influential) that changed things, the early church having fallen away from Christ and the Apostles.

Act 20 does not speak of an apostasy or a falling away.

29 I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

Paul was warning them of false prophets as does Mathew 15:7 but nowhere does he say that all Christians will be drawn away. In fact, Jesus says that they won’t be. Mathew 16:18 Mark 13:22. Again you speak of a change, without a foundation to show there was a change. You must show proof that the Christians at the time of Constantine were observing the Jewish Sabbath and not Sunday as their day of Worship. You have not done so as it would be impossible to prove this untruth.

 

[adrift]

You are so naïve! But you’re right, I didn’t know Drusilla, only that she probably influenced her son’s decisions. She was a woman of power - her ideas would not have been challenged, nor would she ever have had to suffer for her faith. You cannot possibly compare her to the ordinary person that actually had to work for a living and really think about the practicality of what they believed??

Drusilla? What son are you speaking about? Drusilla was daughter of Herod Agrippa I and I don’t know if she ever had children.

 

[Darryl_B]

You are so naïve! But you’re right, I didn’t know Drusilla, only that she probably influenced her son’s decisions. She was a woman of power - her ideas would not have been challenged, nor would she ever have had to suffer for her faith. You cannot possibly compare her to the ordinary person that actually had to work for a living and really think about the practicality of what they believed??

I am not sure why I am wasting my time on this nonsense.

So people in high places who don’t work per se are incapable of having an active faith? Sorry King David judgement has been passed.

So Constantine’s mother (emphasis on the relationship) influenced her son’s decision making. Therefore since there is that manifest influence, we can therefore call it positive, not quite the wolf you protray.

The wolves were of course the Gnostics. They didn’t win, the Catholic Church survived scathed but intact. In recent years there was a more heinous heresy, modernism. The gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

You seem to over estimate the significance of the Jewish in all this. You seem to be suggesting that Constantine changed the day of rest to the Sunday to spite the Jews? When in fact he didn’t care about the Jews, his focus was the Christians. If he didn’t know the Christian day of rest, he would easily ask someone instead of making one up. He could do that in the very least for his mother.

 

[PaulDupre1]

Drusilla? What son are you speaking about? Drusilla was daughter of Herod Agrippa I and I don’t know if she ever had children.

Constantine’s mother’s name was Helena.

 

[dmwessel]

How important do you think Christians were in regards to the political, social, and economic power of the Empire at this time? I’m asking because your entire argument seems to hinge on the assumption that the Christians were somehow influential enough that an Emperor who was barely able to keep his power would make very radical changes to the still mostly pagan Empire to favor this historical scapegoat faith and take on the rather epic task of reshaping this faith for his own ends. This assumption is wrong.

You are misquoting me.

Constantine and his government were trying to appease everyone. It had little to do with the faith. I will say it again, it was simply politics and possibly a bit of trying to appease his mother also.

And, the argument I proposed from the beginning was that Constantine was not ‘defender of the Christian faith’ because as I’ve reiterated so many times he did not convert to Christianity until his death bed. How many times must I say this!