Was the Emperor Constantine TRULY a Christian?

[Philip]

History states that the Roman Emperor Constantine converted from paganism/polytheism to Christianity, that he supposedly adopted the Christian faith of his mother. True? Highly unlikely, given the evidences.

In 313, Constantine developed the Edict of Milan – which stopped Christian persecution and allowed freedom of worship. However, afterward, the Arch of Constantine – built in 315 to honor a great victory – depicted images of the goddess Victoria. At it's dedication, sacrifices to other traditional gods were made. The arch has NO Christian symbolism. Why, if Constantine was truly a Christian, would he so publicly honor other gods, in perpetuity? In 321, Constantine commanded that ALL people should observe the Venerable Day of the Sun – which was all about sun worship. His coinage continued to have images of the sun. When dedicating the capital of Constantinople, he wore the Apollonian, sun-rayed Diadem – with no Christian symbols whatsoever on his attire.

Ever wary of religious disputes threat to Rome and local and regional stabilities, Constantine inserted his authority and influence over, overseeing several trials concerning regional church councils.

Points being, Constantine, while still maintaining and promoting vestiges of pagan beliefs and gods, likely co-opted Christian beliefs for political expediency – establishing control over how things were run within key church groups he had control over. He definitely continued with certain pagan beliefs in the things he honored. He appointed many politicians under his control to offices within the church. These all make me very wary of the supposed sincerity of Constantine's claimed Christianity.

None of this is to say there were not true Christian believers found throughout the church, nor in any way does Constantine explain the massive explosion of Christianity against the backdrop of three terrible centuries of brutal persecution. But it IS to say that secular politics and control most definitely came into influence those in the Roman Christian church through Constantine, within the areas in which he had control. It is not a stretch to see how this political reach into the church eventually morphed into popes, new teachings, schisms, etc.

[EssentialSacrifice]

It is not a stretch to see how this political reach into the church eventually morphed into popes, new teachings, schisms, etc.

haven't read in to all this but here, philip, you, i think, have made a mistake ... there were some 30 or more popes before the reign of Constantine. Constantine did have great influence over some of the properties of Christianity, but his influence began some 300 years after the Christian religion had already begun to "seat" popes.

IDK what new teachings he instituted.
IDK of any schisms created by his influence.

[Philip]

haven't read in to all this but here, philip, you, i think, have made a mistake ... there were some 30 or more popes before the reign of Constantine. Constantine did have great influence over some of the properties of Christianity, but his influence began some 300 years after the Christian religion had already begun to "seat" popes.

Were there not leaders and head Bishops before Constantine - of course. But was there A top dog - a pope - before mid-to-late 2nd century? That is somewhat debatable. Whatever the truth of that - I'm not saying that the popes ORIGINATED with Constantine, I'm saying that he, clearly still most likely a pagan, co-opted the church, and exerted great and lasting negative influences through the political injection of secularists (pagans!) into church offices, causing great corruption under the areas of the church he exerted control. Of this, there can be no doubt! Just don't call him a Christian and don't deny the political and secular influences that he placed upon the areas of churches that he controlled. These are a fact! It just bugs me when someone maintains Constantine became a Christian. And remember how, when Jesus told His disciples that He was soon to leave them, and they began arguing over who would be left in charge - what did He say? did He say those in control were to appoint others to positions of power - or rather something very different - than Constantine's model (see the WORLD'S model)?

[PaulSacramento]

Christianity, because of its jewish roots, adapted the jewish priestly traditions ( along with some pagan ones for converts).
The head priest become the Pope.
There was always a head priest up until the fall of jerusalem in 70 AD and the rise of the rabbis.

[IceMobster]

History states that the Roman Emperor Constantine converted from paganism/polytheism to Christianity, that he supposedly adopted the Christian faith of his mother. True? Highly unlikely, given the evidences.

In 313, Constantine developed the Edict of Milan – which stopped Christian persecution and allowed freedom of worship. However, afterward, the Arch of Constantine – built in 315 to honor a great victory – depicted images of the goddess Victoria. At it's dedication, sacrifices to other traditional gods were made. The arch has NO Christian symbolism. Why, if Constantine was truly a Christian, would he so publicly honor other gods, in perpetuity? In 321, Constantine commanded that ALL people should observe the Venerable Day of the Sun – which was all about sun worship. His coinage continued to have images of the sun. When dedicating the capital of Constantinople, he wore the Apollonian, sun-rayed Diadem – with no Christian symbols whatsoever on his attire.

Ever wary of religious disputes threat to Rome and local and regional stabilities, Constantine inserted his authority and influence over, overseeing several trials concerning regional church councils.

Points being, Constantine, while still maintaining and promoting vestiges of pagan beliefs and gods, likely co-opted Christian beliefs for political expediency – establishing control over how things were run within key church groups he had control over. He definitely continued with certain pagan beliefs in the things he honored. He appointed many politicians under his control to offices within the church. These all make me very wary of the supposed sincerity of Constantine's claimed Christianity.

None of this is to say there were not true Christian believers found throughout the church, nor in any way does Constantine explain the massive explosion of Christianity against the backdrop of three terrible centuries of brutal persecution. But it IS to say that secular politics and control most definitely came into influence those in the Roman Christian church through Constantine, within the areas in which he had control. It is not a stretch to see how this political reach into the church eventually morphed into popes, new teachings, schisms, etc.

Well, he was the first emperor who did not offer a sacrifice to Jupiter upon victorious taking of Rome 28.10.312.
But he thought Christianity will be something that will unite the whole empire.
Of course he wasn't a true Christian, lol. He killed his so-called allies (Licinius I and his son) even his wife and son. Later on his sister, as well... However, he was a key figure in spreading the Christianity.

[EssentialSacrifice]

Were there not leaders and head Bishops before Constantine - of course. But was there A top dog - a pope - before mid-to-late 2nd century? That is somewhat debatable.

http://catholicism.about.com/od/history/a/Popes_One.htm

call him Pete, call him Pope ... leader of the church is the leader of the church.

These are a fact! It just bugs me when someone maintains Constantine became a Christian.

clearly but who would do such a dastardly thing maintains Constantine became a Christian to set this in motion ?

[Philip]

Yes, of COURSE catholic.com considers Peter the first pope. But that is to be found nowhere in the New Testament - which Paul wrote the majority of, who PAUL chastises and corrects Peter siding with the Judaizers, and in which no specifics stating such are to be found in Scripture - unless one wants to get creative with textual interpretation as opposed to what it actually says. Remember, the CC also says Mary remained a virgin - somehow, despite having other children . Etc.

[EssentialSacrifice]

Yes, of COURSE catholic.com considers Peter the first pope.

here you go philip, if the most concise source of Popes is not good enough or unbalanced in your opinion ... here's 3 more that say the exact same thing and are not Catholic in origin.

http://www.thelists.org/list-of-all-popes.html
http://www.christian-history.org/list-of-all-popes.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

Peter the first pope. But that is to be found nowhere in the New Testament

Matthew 16:18 ....

unless one wants to get creative with textual interpretation as opposed to what it actually says.

there are 33,000 Protestant sects world wide, 6000 just in America ... as much as any reason because they can't come together on scriptural interpretation. your preaching to the choir here philip...

and as far as your comments on Mary ...

you've taken a decidedly ugly turn here and if being right about who is and isn't called a pope makes you happy ... you win. it won't effect my salvation at all, and imo you have some hurdles of your own to climb.

[PaulSacramento]

Add to that, that the whole "On this rock I will build my church" probably doesn't refer to Peter at all BUT may refer to MT Hermon where, according to 2nd temple writings, the sons of God came to earth and started all that trouble.

[Philip]

Essential, I was merely referring to the fact that Scripture teaches some key things about how the Church is to be run, and by whom, that does not once state Peter is to be in charge of it. Same with the Mary stuff. It matters not one bit what some list of popes includes - it matters what Scripture teaches about this. The entire point was that secularism moved into the church, and Constantine had a lot to do with it, in his part of the world. Very clearly he was not a Christian. Very clearly he filled the church with "former" pagans. To state that Constantine became a Christian is a distortion. To claim that Rome Christianized just because Christianity was embraced (though conveniently so) by Constantine is also a fabrication. What WAS positive about Constantine is that his pronouncements took a lot of heat off of Christians - as long as they weren't seen as a threat to the state. Which meant, you question Constantine's authority - well, that was a serious issue. Obey God over him?

Church affiliation has not one thing to do as to whether or not one is a Christian. I don't care WHICH church, WHAT denomination - doesn't matter one bit how the organization originally organized, or how far back it's roots go. There is Scripture and there is tradition - following one is not necessarily to follow the other. I'm not anti-Catholic - my wife is an ex-Catholic, her family are still practicing ones. But where Scripture indicates a teaching to the contrary is false - guess what - it's FALSE! The focus on a supposed authority head (the Pope), whom supposedly has the authority on earth to break new Scripture, new commandments. This is unScriptural, completely! Belief in that is very dangerous. The focus on Mary - asserted to have a role beyond what Scripture teaches, to elevate her to some virginal, sinless stature, somehow a helper in salvation (a Co-Redeemtrix) - it's a crock! The focus and faith is to ONLY be on Christ alone! No Pope or Mary is relevant to one's Christianity or faith. Mary had her role, and it was completed once she died. I'm sure her many children mourned her.

Of course, none of the Catholic stuff impacts one's salvation's - that is entirely a matter of faith in Jesus - the Jesus of Scripture.

Note: The word Jesus chose to use for rock, petra, is a feminine noun that refers to a mass of rock. The New Testament uses this word in Matthew 7:24,25 to refer to the bedrock upon which a wise man built his house. Petra is also found later in Matthew’s Gospel with refer­ence to Jesus’ tomb, which workers had carved out of solid rock (Matthew 27:60).

Peter’s name, Petros, on the other hand, is masculine in gender and refers to a boulder or a detached stone. Greek literature also uses it of a small stone that might be picked up and thrown.

As for "upon this Rock, etc": https://www.jashow.org/articles/guests- ... this-rock/

[EssentialSacrifice]

yeah, well the only thing i was responding to was your pope list, which i took care of.

To claim that Rome Christianized just because Christianity was embraced (though conveniently so) by Constantine is also a fabrication.

who's done this ? who do you talk with that proposes this ? who cares ?

The focus on a supposed authority head (the Pope), whom supposedly has the authority on earth to break new Scripture, new commandments. This is unScriptural, completely

OMG philip, are you insane awfully wrong here ? have you no time to at least google this and see how incredibly wrong you are here ... holy crap, this is tantamount to spreading intentional lies ...

Non-Catholics often confuse the pope’s gift of ‘infallibility’ with ‘impeccability’. They think the Catholic Church is claiming her Popes are sinless or that the Pope is claiming inspiration from God for every pronouncement he makes. This is not the case. In fact, infallibility is attached to his office, not his person. It is a protective gift, not a creative one introducing new revelation. Peter Kreeft observes that the Church should not be mistaken for a political body because it is an organic body and no organic body can be a democracy. It must have a head. Christ gave the Church a head.
http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/p ... ility.html

trust my word here ? didn't think so... nor I yours either.

Note: The word Jesus chose to use for rock, petra, is a feminine noun that refers to a mass of rock. The New Testament uses this word in Matthew 7:24,25 to refer to the bedrock upon which a wise man built his house. Petra is also found later in Matthew’s Gospel with refer­ence to Jesus’ tomb, which workers had carved out of solid rock (Matthew 27:60).

Peter’s name, Petros, on the other hand, is masculine in gender and refers to a boulder or a detached stone. Greek literature also uses it of a small stone that might be picked up and thrown.

............................................................... or ........................................................................

On the other hand, no one except God was called specifically "rock," nor was it ever used as a proper name except for God. To give the name "rock" to St. Peter indicates that our Lord entrusted to him a special authority. Some antipapal parties try to play linguistic games with the original Greek Gospel text, where the masculine-gender word "petros," meaning a small, moveable rock, refers to St. Peter while the feminine-gender word "petra," meaning a massive, immoveable rock, refers to the foundation of the Church. However, in the original Aramaic language, which is what Jesus spoke and which is believed to be the original language of St. Matthew's Gospel, the word "Kepha," meaning rock, would be used in both places without gender distinction or difference in meaning. The gender problem arises when translating from Aramaic to Greek and using the proper form to modify the masculine word "Peter" or feminine word "Church." http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/peter.asp

and the rest of your post on Mary ... is a croc.

*edit just because you don't believe it doesn't mean other's don't and your disrespectful tone for another Chrsitian's faith is seriously flawed scripturally ... look somewhere in your bible where Jesus speaks of love ... it's not hard to find ... now treat your fellow man with that love ... rinse and repeat as often as required.

[Philip]

Essential: your disrespectful tone for another Christian's faith is seriously flawed scripturally ...

Um, I sincerely hope you are not using the term's Catholic faith and Christian faith interchangeably. That would also go for Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, whatever. Whenever and wherever people start asserting some church's dogma over the clear teachings of Scripture, they'll have false beliefs. A pope, a post-first conception by Joseph and then STILL-virgin Mary? These are unScriptural. And your appeal to a line of supposed popes, no matter how and who lists them, does not mean Scripture authenticates them. What does the word "infallible" mean to you? Does it matter whether it refers to the office holder or his office? Not one bit! What does it mean when Scripture tells of Jesus' brothers and sisters? Was this made up? A Protestant plot? What? What I'm saying is that you are appealing to tradition and not Scripture, to make your points.

[RickD]

Guys,

I think I'm lost. I was looking for the Constantine thread. But I must've taken a wrong turn, because I think I ended up in the Catholic vs Protestant forum.

Could you point me back to Constantine please?

[Philip]

Could you point me back to Constantine please?

Sure! http://discussions.godandscience.org/po ... =8&t=40791

[EssentialSacrifice]

Um, I sincerely hope you are not using the term's Catholic faith and Christian faith interchangeably.

why wouldn't i, they are and unless you plan on living the balance of your spiritual life exerting energy on "we - they " orbit of apologetics i hope and will pray for your change in heart.

And your appeal to a line of supposed popes, no matter how and who lists them, does not mean Scripture authenticates them

i never had any appeal of any kind... your words philip not mine ... all i did was show the lineage of persons (not supposed persons)who lead the early church pre Constantine ... that's it ... what's wrong with you ? why would you try to sell me as "appealing" for anything ? i gave you the verse Matthew 16:18 that works for me initially after Christ's death ... anything after that wouldn't be found in the scriptures as it all happened after they were written.

What does the word "infallible" mean to you?

i appeal you to actually read my last post this time. my definition of infallible is in there ... no reason to ask again.

What does it mean when Scripture tells of Jesus' brothers and sisters?

http://www.catholic.com/blog/matt-fradd ... d-brothers ... you've got your friends, i have mine ...

Was this made up?

no just scripturally challenged.

A Protestant plot?

see above ...

What I'm saying is that you are appealing to tradition and not Scripture, to make your points.

yes philip, i got that about two posts ago... here's what i believe.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PL.HTM


what do you think philip ? only your brand of Christianity works ? do you ? are you so religiously self absorbed that there's a my way or the highway mentality that is mutually exclusive to only those who believe as you do.
bad news brother, there's 2.1 billion Catholics. i know you don't care, i just want to be sure you understand there can be Christian differences that still will provide the path to God through Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit without all this angst.