How do protestants explain history

[dmwessel]

Constantine’s mother’s name was Helena.

oops

 

[adrift]

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

This is not supported by scripture.

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

That proves little. By the way even Wikipedia does not support your idea that Constantine changed the worship day. It only mentions the edict but there is no mention of a change. I guess it is pointless to discuss if it is a valid source since it doesn’t support, and none of the other sources do either, your statement.

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

Oops! You of course mistyped you did mean sundown of course. Since the change was made because of Jesus’ resurrection it is moot point.

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

What you haven’t provided is a source that said that the Christians observed worship on the Jewish Sabbath and that Constantine changed it to Sunday.

 

[dmwessel]

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.

Do you have any idea how ludicrous you sound?

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.

Obviously you have not been reading the posts carefully enough.

 

[JackieO123]

A Protestant explanation of history…

“I’m right, you’re wrong, no amount of facts will change my mind.”

 

[Deputy_Seraph]

A Protestant explanation of history…

“I’m right, you’re wrong, no amount of facts will change my mind.”

Ouch…

 

[adrift]

, 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!

Constantine was a very sinful man. I would say that he probably broke all of the commandments at one time or another.

The question would be why didn’t he convert until his deathbed.

I have heard various reasons. He himself said that he had planned to be baptized as Jesus was in the Jordon.

I understand that in the fourth and fifth centuries Christians often delayed their baptisms until late in life because all sins were forgiven.

Borrowing from Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese website

History often turns upon certain pivotal events or individuals. Early Christianity faced two significant perils: one external—violent persecution by the Roman government, and one internal—the Arian heresy, which denied Christ’s divinity. In a providential twist of events, God raised up an emperor who would play a key role in confronting each of these perils, becoming one of Christianity’s greatest defenders. Constantine’s rule precipitated an avalanche of events that radically altered the course of the history of Christianity.

An interesting take that they present is

If Protestants accuse Constantine of tampering with the Church, how do they know that Constantine did not tamper with the Bible? The problem with the “fall of the Church” argument is that it opens the possibility of a radical discontinuity between present-day Christianity and the early Church.

 

[adrift]

Do you have any idea how ludicrous you sound?

.

Ad hominem, statement which only supports his post.

 

[dmwessel]

This is not supported by scripture.

“But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.” (Heb. 8:6)

God does not change - ever. He doesn’t need to because he’s perfect and change would mean imperfection - therefore, why would there be need for a new covenant in the first place?

That proves little. By the way even Wikipedia does not support your idea that Constantine changed the worship day. It only mentions the edict but there is no mention of a change. I guess it is pointless to discuss if it is a valid source since it doesn’t support, and none of the other sources do either, your statement.

Now you’re just being silly. Actually Wiki is sourced by academics all the time and academics write most of the posts, as well as most of the Wiki staff are academics themselves.

Wiki supported Constantine’s pagan background and the fact that he only became a Christian on his death bed.

Oops! You of course mistyped you did mean sundown of course. Since the change was made because of Jesus’ resurrection it is moot point.

my God, is it important??

What you haven’t provided is a source that said that the Christians observed worship on the Jewish Sabbath and that Constantine changed it to Sunday.

This is getting ridiculous. I am saying this for the last time because I think you’re just being difficult now: Jesus and the Apostles were Jewish, correct?? Well then they would have celebrated the Sabbath on the Saturday, and the actual Sunday change didn’t come about until Constantine.

And my whole argument was to prove that Constantine was not, as thought, defender of the faith because he did not convert to Christianity until his death bed.

Regarding those not under the law, Paul had this to say:

"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

(Romans 14:5-7)

 

[dmwessel]

Constantine was a very sinful man. I would say that he probably broke all of the commandments at one time or another.

The question would be why didn’t he convert until his deathbed.

I have heard various reasons. He himself said that he had planned to be baptized as Jesus was in the Jordon.

I understand that in the fourth and fifth centuries Christians often delayed their baptisms until late in life because all sins were forgiven.

Borrowing from Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese website

An interesting take that they present is

That is interesting. Still the Christianity of Constantine and that of Jesus and the apostles would have been very different as Paul stated in Romans 14:5-7 that the observance of the (holy) day was to *each individuals * own deciding.

 

[dmwessel]

adrift,

If Protestants accuse Constantine of tampering with the Church, how do they know that Constantine did not tamper with the Bible?

Do you personally follow the Bible? The reason I’m asking is because why would you follow something that you think has been tampered with??

The problem with the “fall of the Church” argument is that it opens the possibility of a radical discontinuity between present-day Christianity and the early Church.

Well dah!!

 

[oldcatholicguy]

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!

-The Romans weren’t well known for appeasing anyone. Especially those who didn’t take up arms against them.
-I’m still waiting for a response as to why you think the Christian minority (politically, economically, and in numbers) held so much power that they needed to be appeased.
-Converting on one’s deathbed wasn’t that uncommon.
-“How many times must I say this!”- I’m sure you aren’t the only one who feels they are endlessly repeating themselves to someone who doesn’t really want to hear the actual truth on this matter.

 

[dmwessel]

-The Romans weren’t well known for appeasing anyone. Especially those who didn’t take up arms against them.
-I’m still waiting for a response as to why you think the Christian minority (politically, economically, and in numbers) held so much power that they needed to be appeased.
-Converting on one’s deathbed wasn’t that uncommon.
-“How many times must I say this!”- I’m sure you aren’t the only one who feels they are endlessly repeating themselves to someone who doesn’t really want to hear the actual truth on this matter.

The Romans were always appeasing the people - Pontius Pilate.

 

[dmwessel]

Just to clarify, I don’t believe the Protestants were/are ‘more right’ than the Catholics were. I am stating that after Paul’s death (as he said would happen) that the church fell away from the true gospel.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Just to clarify, I don’t believe the Protestants were/are ‘more right’ than the Catholics were. I am stating that after Paul’s death (as he said would happen) that the church fell away from the true gospel.

Except that St. Paul didn’t say that the Church would fall away from the “true gospel.”
He said that some people would pull some disciples out of the Church.

Ac 20:29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

If disciples are drawn away, there must be something there to be drawn away from.

That would be the Church.

And that Church had, and has, the promise from Christ that the very gates of hell would not prevail against it.

Your theory makes Jesus’ promise null and void.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

“But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.” (Heb. 8:6)

God does not change - ever. He doesn’t need to because he’s perfect and change would mean imperfection - therefore, why would there be need for a new covenant in the first place?

Why, indeed? You could second-guess God all day long, and it wouldn’t get you anywhere. But there it is, enscripturated.

The real answer is that, while God doesn’t change, we do.
At one time, the lex talionis was the epitome of justice, in order to dissuade us from the law of the jungle.

But Jesus changed that to the law of love, whereby we are commanded to forgive one another.

Did God change?

Read all the “you have heard it said …” and the “but I say …” responses in the Sermon on the Mount.

Jesus and the Apostles were Jewish, correct?? Well then they would have celebrated the Sabbath on the Saturday, and the actual Sunday change didn’t come about until Constantine.

Your repeating this doesn’t make it so.
We have many writings from Church Fathers long before Constantine which say you are wrong. They’ve been posted here. You haven’t addressed them.

As for your question about why the primary day of worship was changed, the reason is that the Sabbath commemorated Creation. Creation was the most important single event in history. Until the Redemption.

Think about it: God created by speaking into the darkness. How much more effort did He expend in the Redemption?

 

[bornagainagain]

hello even in romans saint paul says if you have the Holy Spirit you are part of the body of Christ-- and in 1 Cor-- you are a temple of God if you have the Holy Spirit in you

it is obvious that there are hundreds ,thousands, and millions of people are indeed deciples of Jesus and have the Holy Spirit - and are led by the holy Spirit-

who are non catholics

as most catholics do not function in the 9 gifts of the Holy Spirit – and are as saint paul says
in 1 cor 3

Search Results

1 Corinthians 3 KJV -

And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with.
1 Corinthians 3 (New International Version) - Bible Gateway
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?..1+Corinthians+3‎
BibleGateway.com
The Church and Its Leaders - Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still.

LUKE 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto …

/Luke-11-13/‎
King James Version

“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will {your} heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?”

catholics are tought that they get grace by the ritiual and ceremonies of the sacrements-- and most specifically-- confession of sin and going to sunday mass

and ceretanily you can see the results of this grace system-- and can compare it to non catholic religious systems-- that lay calim to the Holy Spirit and to the covenant with Jesus

“Why call me LORD and you don’t do what i say”

and you shall receive power “after the Holy Spirit comes upon you”

 

[adrift]

“But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.” (Heb. 8:6)

Jeremiah 31:31-34 Hebrews 8:13 9:15 1 Corinthians 11:25Luke 22:20 Hebrews 8:7-8 and Many more

God does not change - ever. He doesn’t need to because he’s perfect and change would mean imperfection - therefore, why would there be need for a new covenant in the first place?

God didn’t change. God has made many covenants with man. The first was with Adam and Eve than with Noah, Abraham, Moses and with us.

Now you’re just being silly.

Another ad hominem?

Actually Wiki is sourced by academics all the time and academics write most of the posts, as well as most of the Wiki staff are academics themselves.

Who writes Wikipedia?
You do! Yes, Anyone can be bold and edit an existing article or create a new one, and volunteers do not need to have any formal training. The people who create and edit articles in Wikipedia come from countries all around the world and have a wide range of ages and backgrounds. Any contributor to this encyclopedia, unregistered and registered alike, is called a “Wikipedian,” or, more formally, an “editor.” When a large group of people work to compile information on a given topic, disputes may arise. A useful feature of Wikipedia is the ability to tag an article, or a section of the article, as subject of a dispute about a neutral point of view. This feature is especially popular for controversial topics, topics subject to changing current events or other topics where divergent opinions exist. To resolve the dispute, the interested editors will share their points of view on the article’s talk page. They will attempt to reach consensus so that all valid perspectives can be fairly represented. This allows Wikipedia to be a place not only of information but of collaboration. Now it’s time to ask yourself- have YOU edited an article on this wiki before??

I have edited some of the articles so I know what you write is not quite true.

Wiki supported Constantine’s pagan background and the fact that he only became a Christian on his death bed.

It doesn’t support there was a change.

This is getting ridiculous. I am saying this for the last time because I think you’re just being difficult now: Jesus and the Apostles were Jewish, correct?? Well then they would have celebrated the Sabbath on the Saturday, and the actual Sunday change didn’t come about until Constantine.

They celebrated the day of worship before Jesus died on the Sabbath the last day of the week after Jesus’ resurrection they worshipped on Sunday.

And my whole argument was to prove that Constantine was not, as thought, defender of the faith because he did not convert to Christianity until his death bed.

But your own source disagree with you.
You have not provided one source that shows that Constantine changed the day of worship not one.

 

[pablope]

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!!

Actually…no. Otherwise, they would never have been executed, starting with the beheading of James.

By this time, Paul was already searching and killing them. If they have still been jewish, they would not have been hunted down.

By this time, the apostles and their followers were being called the followers of The Way.

Acts 9

Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.

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

 

[pablope]

Just to clarify, I don’t believe the Protestants were/are ‘more right’ than the Catholics were. I am stating that after Paul’s death (as he said would happen) that the church fell away from the true gospel.

Very Mormon idea… The Great Apostasy justification.

Do you have actual proof of how the Church has fallen away?

 

[spina1953]

“But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.” (Heb. 8:6)

God does not change - ever. He doesn’t need to because he’s perfect and change would mean imperfection - therefore, why would there be need for a new covenant in the first place?

Now you’re just being silly. Actually Wiki is sourced by academics all the time and academics write most of the posts, as well as most of the Wiki staff are academics themselves.

Wiki supported Constantine’s pagan background and the fact that he only became a Christian on his death bed.

my God, is it important??

This is getting ridiculous. I am saying this for the last time because I think you’re just being difficult now: Jesus and the Apostles were Jewish, correct?? Well then they would have celebrated the Sabbath on the Saturday, and the actual Sunday change didn’t come about until Constantine.

And my whole argument was to prove that Constantine was not, as thought, defender of the faith because he did not convert to Christianity until his death bed.

Regarding those not under the law, Paul had this to say:

"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

(Romans 14:5-7)

God does not need a new covenant but man does and it was Jesus at the Last Supper who made the new and everlasting covenant so that man could once again have the relationship that Adam and Eve lost when they sinned.