What did Constantine actually do?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Matt Black, Jul 12, 2005.

  1. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    I raise this question primarily because there appears to be the theory going round in this forum that he somehow started the Catholic Church. First, I'd like those who hold to this view to expand on the 'somehow' bit eg: how exactly is he supposed to have founded the RCC?

    Secondly, where is the evidence for this contention? All the history books I read tell me that he, far from making Christianity the state religion of the Empire, merely tolerated it (as opposed to persecuting it which his predecessor Diocletian did so vigorously less than a decade before). Please show in particular how the doctrine and practice of the Church changed during his reign so as to result in apostasy. Please also explain what therefore happened to the 'true Christians' and why there were no objections by them to this supposed apostasy; remember, these were the guys who less than a decade before Constantine's Edict of Toleration in 313 were willing to give their lives for their faith and their church - you would have thought that at least one of them would have stood up against a bit of apostasy.

    So, let's have some evidence, please

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Well - lets have one of the RC's OWN historians and best-selling authors address the point.

    Surely THEY can be trusted - even if non-Catholic ones can not - eh?

    Who finally stopped Rome’s persecution of the Christians?

    How much influence did Emperor Constantine have on the RCC “really”. How much of a role in moving it past the point of merely “Not persecuted” ?

     
  3. D28guy

    D28guy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    0
    Point...set...match.

    ...That was quick. :D

    I wonder if this will be the shortest thread in the history of BB?

    Mike
     
  4. D28guy

    D28guy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is some more enlightening information regarding this topic...

    Link...click here

    Interesting reading for sure,

    Mike
     
  5. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    If all the above were true, then what happened to the Christians? What does that make of Jesus' promise that "I will build me Church and the gates of Hell will not overcome it"? I note in addition that the writer whom Mike quotes refers to the churches already having abandoned what he calls the Biblical model; that would suggest that he thinks the alleged 'rot' had set in before Constantine; I find that odd as again we have these Christians who were willing to be martyred for their faith.

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  6. Ben W

    Ben W
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,868
    Likes Received:
    0
  7. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    6
    As expected, Matt, you go a post-full of the typical historically (and very selectively at that!) revisionist, antiCatholic, Constanstanine-paganized-Christianity schtick. For a much more balanced view of the tension that remained between church and state even after Constantine's ascendancy, I recommend Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism by D.H.Williams. (And no one can honestly accuse the author of Roman bias/propoganda, since he is a BAPTIST professor of patristics.)
     
  8. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does anybody know why Pope Liberius (was Pope 352-366)
    was never sanctified? He is the first Pope that
    wasn't sanctified (made a Saint).

    The following data i pulled out of the Reader's Digest 1976
    edition (Love those old year books [​IMG] )
    (starred data is NOT from Reader's Digest)

    From 283 to 323 there were multiple emperors of the
    Roman Empire.

    From 308AD to 313 there were 4 emperors:
    1. Maximian [to 313]
    2. Galerius to 311, Licinius after 311 [to 323]
    3. Maxentius
    4. Constantine

    After 323, Emperor Constatine the Great was
    exclusive Emperor over all the Roman Empire.

    Significant dates during this time:

    *303 - the 10th and last Roman Persecution
    inthe area of Diocletian (mostly Asia Minor)

    313 - The Edict of Milan makes Christianity the
    official religion of the Roman Empire

    325AD - The First Council of Nicaea.

    [ July 13, 2005, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]
     
  9. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    Liberius wasn't declared a saint because he didn't show any backbone when got caught up in the Arian controversy. Emperor Constantius (not to be confused with Constantine) who supported Arianism had Liberius banned to Thracia because the pope did not support that heresy. When overthere he caved in.
     
  10. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    6
    That is correct. As I mentioned above, tension continued to exist between church and "state", particularly when emperors at various times supported the heretical factions (Arianism especially) against the orthodox. As a result of these factors Athanasius, the great defender of Nicene orthodoxy, was exiled on five different occasions.
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    #1. Well we know that we can not simply turn a blind eye to what BOTH Catholic and nonCatholic historians admit - just because we made some wrong assumptions in one of the Gospel texts eh?

    #2. God ALSO made FOREVER promises about His TEACHING WORD and the Spirit of God to the ONE TRUE Nation Church - and yet pronounced THEM as being in doctrinal error (substituting their own tradition for the Word of God) in Mark 7.

    So does this mean that the promise has failed?

    Funny you should ask --

    If it is true of God's ONE TRUE NATION Church -- then it is even MORE true of the Persecuted Church!!

    It is NOT the fleshly "organization" that stands the test - but it is the INDIVIDUALS who are FAITHFUL.

    This means that the 1260 years of the dark ages and persecution of the PURE church that follows the resurrection of Christ (as we see in Rev 12) - is a correct picture of the long centuries of persecution against Christians by both pagan and Papal Rome.

    This means that the church "apostacy" - the "falling away" Paul predicted in 2Thess 2 - actually DID happen inside the church.

    And those who REMAINED faithful and stood firm against error - were persecuted in fact the RCC said they were to be "exterminated" in the Lateran IV council.

    The RCC's OWN histians admit to the permanent pagan influence in the RCC from the very earliest days!

    How can one be sol willing to turn a blind eye to all of this.

    It is one thing not to interpret the future - but not to "get history" even when both RC and non-RC historians "admit to it" to some degree??

    Details - details - please!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter's best selling pro-Catholic work "a concise history of the Catholic church" makes it abundantly clear..

    Ibid -Pg 49 speaks of the change that occurred in the 4th century
     
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    I just can't believe that EVEN RC historians are to be ignored when they admit to some unflattering fact of RC history!!

    Is there no limit??
     
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Catholics of the 20th century publish the connection to paganism for the world to see and understand.

    Pagan prayer methods.

     
  15. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Except there is no record of anyone 'standing firm against error' against this supposed creeping corruption. So where's the evidence, Bob? I find it absolutely astonishing that true believers who had been in the catacombs and seen their brothers and sisters martyred less than a decade before and were willing to stand up for their faith against heresies such as Arianism scarcely a decade after the Edict of Milan would have said NOTHING about the paganism and corruption which you suppose came into the Church contemporaneously. Please produce at least one primary source document from that period to support your contention that anyone other than Arian heretics opposed and propsed an alternative to the Catholic-Orthodox Church in the 4th century

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  16. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    6
    Yes, "primary" is the key word.
    (BTW--Matt, great point you made with the rest of your post. [​IMG] )
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Is your claim "corruption is ok as long a detailed and well preserved record of opposition is not available"????

    IS that a "historical" argument for what Constantine did -- or simply a rabbit trail?

    OR are you claiming that we currently have exhaustive accounts of all history for the past 2000 years??? Did you not "notice the detail" that even in the most successful region of the Roman empire the Christian component was no more than 10 PERCENT at the start of the 4th century???

    Did you fail to read that RC historian account showing that violence and persecution began EARLY in the church of Rome -- with a permanent affect on the RCC???

    OR are you not reading the non-Catholic histories that detail the record of WHY the RCC was calling for "extermination of heretics"???

    OR are you simply trying to find how in the world God COULD have had a PERSECUTED church during the dark ages when the RCC dominated and "exterminated" at her pleasure??

    Is it that the scenario of Rev 12 with the DARK AGES of persecution following the resurrection of Christ - does not seem to "fit history" in your view?

    What is the "real" problem?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  18. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I am saying Bob is that I find the following facts convincing:-

    1. That the persecuted Catholic-Orthodox Church kept records of its opposition to persecution prior to 313 (and indeed during the brief revival of paganism under Julian in 361-363)

    2. That the above persecuted Church kept records of its opposition to heresy prior to 313 (eg: Gnosticism, Montanism, Marcionism, Donatism, Novationism etc)

    3. That the tolerated Church kept record of both its opposition to heresies (eg: Arianism, Pelagianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism) and paganism (eg: Julian) after 313.

    4. That Christians were willing to risk exile and even death for their opposition to all of the above.

    And yet you would have us believe that the 'true Christians' kept no records of their opposition to your alleged paganism and corruption after 313???!!!!

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The 1260 years of persecution predicted in Rev 12 "can not be ignored".

    The CHRISTIAN church was persecuted for FAR more than 1260 literal DAYS by pagan Rome ALONE after the resurrection of Christ. So - it is 1260 YEARS - not days that covers the timeline for the dark ages.

    The RCC slaughter as many or more of ITS OWN during this time -- so it would be hard to accuse OTHERS of inflicting that amount of damage.

    That the RCC was infested with Paganism (at least to some decree WITH EXAMPLES GIVEN) is admitted to in the RC quotes above. Interesting that you choose to ignore that.

    There is no doubt that the RCC had many derogatory terms for all those they claimed to "exterminate" during the dark ages. I have no doubt about that at all.

    I never claimed that the TRUE Christians were WIPED OUT by the RCC as it embraced the paganism IT CLAIMS to have embraced in the quotes above!!

    You are simply going down a rabbit trail - which is surprising since your OP was supposedly about the IMPACT of paganism on the RCC - NOT about the ability of the RCC to squash the RECORDS of her victims.

    Want to see some more "RC" Confessing??

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Catholic Digest 11/1997 pg 100
    The question:
    A Baptist family who lives across the street gave me a book called the “Trail of Blood”, by J.M. Carroll. It attacks Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism, indulgences, purgatory, and so on. But I am writing to learn if there is anything in history that would justify the following quotation:
    The answer from Fr. Ken Ryan:
    In the article above – Fr. Ken Ryan makes the meaning of “extermination” of that group and “many other groups” clear for modern readers.
    Catholic apologists like Catholic Digest’s Fr. Ken Ryan quoted above often argue that the RCC isn't accountable for the Inquisition, since the state carried out the torturing and the executions. It was the RCC who defined these people as "heretics", however, and the RCC handed them over to the state (John 19:11).


    So whether you "like it or not" even the RC sources are ADMITTING to the extermination of fellow Christians!!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     

Share This Page

Loading...