The Word of God is the Will of God

[GT]

Well, your first link doesn't go anywhere, so I can't really comment on it.

The Donation of Constantine doesn't really apply to my view of what Constantine is responsible for. I do recall studying it for a bit and the part of it being a forgery sounds familiar, but it really doesn't play into my prior comments.

My comment is based, in its simplest form, that by the 4th century:

1. Christianity had no set standard and beliefs were varied from extreme to extreme.
   
2. The largest division that could possibly group groups into agreement was the subject of the deity of Christ.
   
3. Constantine saw the empire in religious turmoil, not only between Christians and "pagans" but between Christians and Christians.
   
4. Constantine called the council of Nicene, with orders to establish a standard. I believe his words were something to the effect of, "I don't care what you decide, just give me a standard I can enforce."
   
5. The decisions at these councils were not unanimous, but very divided. Voting was along religious affiliations (much like how Congress works today).
   
6. Constantine declared Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, giving it the backing of its military.
   
7. Dissenters of the decisions of Nicene (the first and the following) were rounded up, tortured till they recanted, or murdered.
   
8. Documents the dissenters cherished were ordered to be destroyed, which were done in orderly fashion -- so much so that we did not know most of them until the last 60 years when some that were hidden by a monk in a cave were discovered (the worst destruction being the library at Alexandria, the best accumulation of all knowledge up to that point, burned because it contained some Gnostic texts).
   

Thus my comment on Constantine.

There is ample evidence that Constantine never believed in Christianity. It's been awhile since I studied it so I'm lacking specific examples. But it seems plain to me that the whole process was only politically motivated and used as a weapon.

Whether they picked the right books or not matters not to me. Christianity was a sick joke from its founding, apparently designed to counteract the beliefs of the problematic Sicari. But that's a discussion for another thread -- or maybe not, isn't this thread about the will of Yahweh?

A good book on the subject, which influenced my opinion of the events of the 1st - 4th century to the point of disgust of what people can do to people in the name of God, is God Against the Gods, The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism by Jonathan Kirsch.

[Abigail]

Gee Belle, looks like you struck a nerve with someone, eh? Looks like your being sent to the time-out corner now.

[markomalley]

Thank you for the response. I sincerely do appreciate it.

Sorry about the first link...it is several posts above the thread pointed to in the second link...

I never stated that the Donation of Constantine played into your viewpoint, in particular. However, it accounts for, as far as I can see, the origins of many of the Protestant myths as to Constantine's alleged corruption of the Church through imperial influence.

IMHO (YMMV), the key paragraph in this document is this:

For we wish you to know,, as we have signified through our former imperial decree, that we have gone away, from the worship of idols, from mute and deaf images made by hand, from devilish contrivances and from all the pomps of Satan; and have arrived at the pure faith of the Christians, which is the true light and everlasting life. Believing, according to what he-that same one, our revered supreme father and teacher, the pontiff Sylvester - has taught us, in God the Father, the almighty maker of Heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord God, through whom all things are created; and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and vivifier of the whole creature. We confess these, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in such way that, in the perfect Trinity, there shall also be a fulness of divinity and a unity of power. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and these three are one in Jesus Christ.

This is, in fact, patently false.

The great document that Constantine authored in regard to Christianity was the Edict of Milan. It's a relatively short document, so I'll just post the whole thing here:

When I, Constantine Augustus, as well as I, Licinius Augustus, fortunately met near Mediolanurn (Milan), and were considering everything that pertained to the public welfare and security, we thought, among other things which we saw would be for the good of many, those regulations pertaining to the reverence of the Divinity ought certainly to be made first, so that we might grant to the Christians and others full authority to observe that religion which each preferred; whence any Divinity whatsoever in the seat of the heavens may be propitious and kindly disposed to us and all who are placed under our rule. And thus by this wholesome counsel and most upright provision we thought to arrange that no one whatsoever should be denied the opportunity to give his heart to the observance of the Christian religion, of that religion which he should think best for himself, so that the Supreme Deity, to whose worship we freely yield our hearts) may show in all things His usual favor and benevolence. Therefore, your Worship should know that it has pleased us to remove all conditions whatsoever, which were in the rescripts formerly given to you officially, concerning the Christians and now any one of these who wishes to observe Christian religion may do so freely and openly, without molestation. We thought it fit to commend these things most fully to your care that you may know that we have given to those Christians free and unrestricted opportunity of religious worship. When you see that this has been granted to them by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made we that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion.

Moreover, in the case of the Christians especially we esteemed it best to order that if it happens anyone heretofore has bought from our treasury from anyone whatsoever, those places where they were previously accustomed to assemble, concerning which a certain decree had been made and a letter sent to you officially, the same shall be restored to the Christians without payment or any claim of recompense and without any kind of fraud or deception, Those, moreover, who have obtained the same by gift, are likewise to return them at once to the Christians. Besides, both those who have purchased and those who have secured them by gift, are to appeal to the vicar if they seek any recompense from our bounty, that they may be cared for through our clemency. All this property ought to be delivered at once to the community of the Christians through your intercession, and without delay. And since these Christians are known to have possessed not only those places in which they were accustomed to assemble, but also other property, namely the churches, belonging to them as a corporation and not as individuals, all these things which we have included under the above law, you will order to be restored, without any hesitation or controversy at all, to these Christians, that is to say to the corporations and their conventicles: providing, of course, that the above arrangements be followed so that those who return the same without payment, as we have said, may hope for an indemnity from our bounty. In all these circumstances you ought to tender your most efficacious intervention to the community of the Christians, that our command may be carried into effect as quickly as possible, whereby, moreover, through our clemency, public order may be secured. Let this be done so that, as we have said above, Divine favor towards us, which, under the most important circumstances we have already experienced, may, for all time, preserve and prosper our successes together with the good of the state. Moreover, in order that the statement of this decree of our good will may come to the notice of all, this rescript, published by your decree, shall be announced everywhere and brought to the knowledge of all, so that the decree of this, our benevolence, cannot be concealed.

From reading the actual document, it's apparent that he granted Christians the freedom to worship as they choose (paragraph 1). He also ordered the restoration of confiscated properties (paragraph 2). An interesting thing about Constantine, though. He was baptized about a month before his death. The place he was baptized was Nicomedia. The bishop of that church was Eusebius. Eusebius of Nicomedia was an Arian.

The Arians (the major heresy of the time) were not, in fact, put down until the reign of Theodosius I.

Now, as to your specific summary:

• Christianity had no set standard and beliefs were varied from extreme to extreme.
  I wouldn't concur with that. The apostles actually had a standard doctrine. There were widely divergent heresies going on since apostolic times (in fact, a number of the writings of the apostles specifically dealt with heresies that had cropped up already during their lifetimes)
  
• The largest division that could possibly group groups into agreement was the subject of the deity of Christ.
  At that time, that's true. However, as Danny is wont to point out, Marcion had a major following less than 200 years prior to that point.
  
• Constantine saw the empire in religious turmoil, not only between Christians and "pagans" but between Christians and Christians.
  True (he says really slowly)...
  
• Constantine called the council of Nicene, with orders to establish a standard. I believe his words were something to the effect of, "I don't care what you decide, just give me a standard I can enforce."
  Constantine did want a standard...
  
• The decisions at these councils were not unanimous, but very divided. Voting was along religious affiliations (much like how Congress works today).
  My understanding is also that there were many divisions; however, my understanding is that those divisions were, in the main, resolved during the Council of Nicea...and they cropped up again after its conclusion...
  
• Constantine declared Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, giving it the backing of its military.
  That is patently false, as I mentioned above. Theodosius I declared Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire.
  
• Dissenters of the decisions of Nicene (the first and the following) were rounded up, tortured till they recanted, or murdered.
  I believe that this persecution of Pagans and unrepentent Arians did not happen until the reign of Theodosius II.
  
• Documents the dissenters cherished were ordered to be destroyed, which were done in orderly fashion -- so much so that we did not know most of them until the last 60 years when some that were hidden by a monk in a cave were discovered (the worst destruction being the library at Alexandria, the best accumulation of all knowledge up to that point, burned because it contained some Gnostic texts).
  

Again, Theodosius, through his code, deserves the credit for this. Or shall we say over-zealous supporters of Theodosius:

Towards the end of the fourth century, events took a tragic turn with conflicts growing, again, between the Christian community and the Pagans - the Catechetical School and the Mouseion. In AD 389, the Temple of Serapis at Canopus fell. Sentiments reached a peak during the eventful year of AD 391, when the Roman Emperor

Theodosius issued a decree which authorized the destruction of the Temple of Serapis at Alexandria, the last refuge of the Pagans

and home of the Mouseion. Fourteen years later

(note: this would be 405 AD...)

, the famous female Neo-Platonist mathematician, Hyptaia, the last person known known to have taught at the world-famous Mouseion, was torn apart by an Alexandrian mob in riots marking the end of Paganism in Alexandria. The mob has also been blamed for the destruction of the Great Library, encouraged by Christian monks who loathed its collection of Pagan knowledge.

source

According to this, and most other reasonable sources, there are two key points:

• The library was destroyed at the beginning of the 5th Century. Constantine was long since dead and buried by that time.
  
• The library was destroyed because of Pagan contents, not gnostic contents.
  

Anyway, I do appreciate your response. Much better to engage in reasonable conversation rather than the alternative.

Edited January 25, 2006 by markomalley

[GT]

Long post, will take awhile to respond.

But until then, could you favor me a summary of what the point is?

Is it to conteract Constantine bashing?

[markomalley]

Long post, will take awhile to respond.

But until then, could you favor me a summary of what the point is?

Is it to conteract Constantine bashing?

Summary: yeah.

Point 1. Most of the really bad pagan persecution started under Constantine's grandson, Theodosius I and got codified into law by his son Theodosius II.

Point 2. Constantine was greatly influenced by the Arians, but kept an open mind to it all.

I answered each of your points. the only one to point out in particular was the one about the Library of Alexandria. That was destroyed by mobs acting on an order of Theodosius to destroy the Temple of Serapis.

More compact now?

[lindyhopper]

Wow, so much for rails!

Thanks for the posts, Mark.

To go in another direction real quick...(Belle slap me if you want to)

The way you described the passage:

Peter asserts their authority (from the context mentioning eyewitnesses, its apparent he's referring to the apostles as 'we') as eyewitnesses. He then mentions that they have the certain prophetic word (cf Jn 16:13 -- when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth.) He then says that the prophecy of the scripture is reliable. Then, if you look at 2 Pet 2, you will notice that he immediately warns them about false teachers. If you see the contra-example in 2 Pet 2, the example shown in 2 Pet 1 becomes very clear.

Makes me wonder about a few things. First the timing of these books. When was this written in relation to Pauls epstiles? He stresses being eyewitnesses and the the reliability of the scripture, not Pauls letters or perhaps in contrast to Paul and his letters. Also, the timing in relation to the incident Paul boasts of where he confronts Peter. Then later Paul says that everyone has left him or turned away from him or something to that effect. Yet, the Catholic church says that Peter is the first pope and from there they go on until the present. So, was there a point in which the Catholic church believes Paul went a different direction? Did Paul and the original apostles have a falling out at some point? Could he be among the "false teachers?"

Obviously both the Epsitles (or at least seven of them) were included along with 1 and 2 Peter and the other apostles' writings....so am I way off base?

Of course I could research this myself, but that would require more of an investment of my time than I am willing to put into it. Although, it is a sincere interest.

Maybe this needs its own thread.

Edited January 26, 2006 by lindyhopper

[CM]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%...%22&btnG=Search

lol....

the Lord Jesus Christ does the saving

what is the word of God talking ABOUT!

IS THE QUESTION!

[markomalley]

The way you described the passage:

Makes me wonder about a few things. First the timing of these books. When was this written in relation to Pauls epstiles?

2 Peter: I believe it was written shortly before Peter's death in 67 AD.

1 and 2 Thessalonians were written when Paul was in Corinth, around 48-49 AD

Galatians was written somewhere around 53-54 AD

Romans was written somewhere around 56-57 (from Corinth)

1 Corinthians was written somewhere around 57 AD (from Ephesus)

2 Corinthians was written somewhere around 57 AD (from Macedonia)

Ephesians, Philipeans, Colossians, and Philemon were written during Paul's captivity, around 61-63 AD

1 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Timothy were written from Macedonia 63-66 AD

He stresses being eyewitnesses and the the reliability of the scripture, not Pauls letters or perhaps in contrast to Paul and his letters.

Well, if you think about it, none of the New Testament writings were organized into a Canon as of yet. They were simply letters from another apostle to a church. And he did stress their authority...(the plural was used, remember). However, you forget about the passage 2 Pet 3:15-16:

15 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,

16 speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

So it's apparent that Peter was on speaking terms with Paul (otherwise why would he have written such a thing?)

Also, the timing in relation to the incident Paul boasts of where he confronts Peter. Then later Paul says that everyone has left him or turned away from him or something to that effect.

Totally different incidents.

If you are talking about the incident in Galatians 2, you will note carefully that Peter was doing the right thing until James, et al influenced him (Gal 2:12). If I have the timeline correct, the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to deal with the issue conclusively (Acts 15). Peter made an unambiguous proclamation declaring the doctrine officially (Acts 15:7-11). Paul and Barnabas tell their tale (v 12). Then finally James declares that he will abide with the policy (13-21).

Yet, the Catholic church says that Peter is the first pope and from there they go on until the present. So, was there a point in which the Catholic church believes Paul went a different direction? Did Paul and the original apostles have a falling out at some point? Could he be among the "false teachers?"

Obviously both the Epsitles (or at least seven of them) were included along with 1 and 2 Peter and the other apostles' writings....so am I way off base?

Subject of Peter being the first Pope. That will completely derail the thread. Either PM me or start a new thread. (Matt 16:19)

Subject of Catholic Church believing Paul went in different direction? Nope. In fact, yesterday in the Church was the Feast of the Conversion of Paul. It was celebrated at one of the five main churches in Rome: St. Paul Outside the Walls (the site of Paul's beheading on the Via Ostia)

Paul and other apostles have a falling out? I don't think so.

Look, one thing to keep in mind is that the Acts was written by Luke. Luke was Paul's historian. Therefore, of course, the book will feature Paul's activities, after his conversion.

Each of the Twelve Apostles (+ Paul) had their own missions:

Peter to Rome

John to take care of Mary and then to Asia Minor/Ephesus/Rhodes following Mary's death

James in Jerusalem

Andrew: Greece/ Ukraine

Bartholomew: Arabia

Jude: Mesopotamia/Armenia/Iran

Matthew: Media/Ethiopia

Philip: Phyrgia

Simon: Iran

Thomas: India

James (Zebedee): marytred

Matthias: unknown

Paul: Asia Minor/ Greece/ etc. -- ending up in Rome

So it's not all that surprising that we heard nothing in scripture of what happened to many of them: as they disappeared from the civilized world (although there are local stories about the destiny of most of them, as they established Christian communities that all survived for at least a few hundred years.

Of course I could research this myself, but that would require more of an investment of my time than I am willing to put into it. Although, it is a sincere interest.

Maybe this needs its own thread.

I understand your position. I enjoy Church history, so it's enjoyable to me and I have most of the resources needed to get the job done. The Bible, of course, is a primary resource. But a lot of the stuff is not in the Bible and must be gotten through other histories. But it is all interesting to put together a picture of what happened: and that picture does not line up well with what fundamentalists and folk like Wierwille taught about history. And it re-emphasizes my position on Scripture stated a few posts up.

[CM]

take this forum and give to the first century and see what they think

and i ain't kidding either

those writers knew what they were experiencing and writing about

none of it was written to us, but to who it says it is

these experiences coincide with the unchanging Lord and God

[Belle]

Belle: I ain't playing. You may be, but I'm not. You can believe whatever you want, but it looks like to me that you want to do everything possible to know God's will EXCEPT go directly to God.

I'm not playing, but I'm not looking for sarcastic non-relevant attacks, either. I have serious questions and I do happen to think that one should not limit themselves to the Bible only. I appreciate the people on here who have taken the time to share their points of view and to discuss the topic as adults.

I am thoroughly enjoying watching the conversation and WISH I had more to contribute, but I am definitely learning lots. I read one post and I think, "Yeah! Wow! Okay..." then I read the rebuttle or another viewpoint or question probing further and I think that one sounds right, so I'm still just taking things in and if I never come to a conclusion that's fine with me...after all it's a long, strange trip, is it not? I'll at least have more information on all sides of the topic(s) at hand. :)

So thanks to everyone for contributing here. I really am digging it and learning from it as I'm sure (well, I hope anyway) others are.

[Oakspear]

Christianity had no set standard and beliefs were varied from extreme to extreme.

I wouldn't concur with that. The apostles actually had a standard doctrine. There were widely divergent heresies going on since apostolic times (in fact, a number of the writings of the apostles specifically dealt with heresies that had cropped up already during their lifetimes)

Since most of the apostles didn't write anything down, and some of what is credited to apostles may be pseudonymous, I would say, we really don't know. (Okay, I really don't know!

The only thing that we do know about the apostles is enshrined in writings published by the winning side.

(Just a friendly point, Mark...you and I are on different sides of this...and probably always will be...respectfully disagreeing as always

[markomalley]

Since most of the apostles didn't write anything down, and some of what is credited to apostles may be pseudonymous, I would say, we really don't know. (Okay, I really don't know!

The only thing that we do know about the apostles is enshrined in writings published by the winning side.

(Just a friendly point, Mark...you and I are on different sides of this...and probably always will be...respectfully disagreeing as always

This is a point of respectful disagreement and will likely continue to be so. That's all well and good.

You are quite right that the majority of what was taught by the apostles was not written down immediately. Much of what was taught was recounted at a later time. We can see this through each of the Gospels; in fact two of those Gospel accounts were written down by others based upon their hearing the accounts provided by one of the apostles (Mark was based on the sermons of Peter and Luke was based on the sermons of Paul).

I respectfully do not concur in the characterization of the "winning side" versus the "losing side" as you, and others, have characterized the development of early Christianity. I prefer to characterize it as a struggle to maintain orthodoxy in the face of various threats to that orthodoxy. In truth, I see it as not being very much different than the threats that surface today through the various popular heresies of the past several hundred years (Including one that I fell into for about a decade).

But, again, it depends upon which authors you read...although I have been to a couple of the sites in Asia Minor, I hardly consider myself to be expert enough in archaeology to be able to properly analyze the primary source info for myself.

However, as with anything, YMMV :)

[GT]

Sorry for the delay in responding. Life gets busy sometimes.

I never stated that the Donation of Constantine played into your viewpoint, in particular. However, it accounts for, as far as I can see, the origins of many of the Protestant myths as to Constantine's alleged corruption of the Church through imperial influence.

The Donation of Constantine really has nothing to do with my views on him, and you never stated such. But it keeps coming back. I can see some Protestants pointing to it as an excuse for the rise of Roman Catholicism rather than what they consider to be truth, but I'm not a Protestant (or any other ---ant or ---ian) and I really don't see how it plays into the discussion here.

From reading the actual document, it's apparent that he granted Christians the freedom to worship as they choose (paragraph 1). He also ordered the restoration of confiscated properties (paragraph 2). An interesting thing about Constantine, though. He was baptized about a month before his death. The place he was baptized was Nicomedia. The bishop of that church was Eusebius. Eusebius of Nicomedia was an Arian.

The Arians (the major heresy of the time) were not, in fact, put down until the reign of Theodosius I.

His late baptism can also be used to provide evidence that he was never really a Christian, but only using it for his own political motives.

The Arians being "put down" is a nice way of saying they were tortured and murdered. Since the official religion of Rome was the approved form of Christianity, do you think Theodosius is solely responsible for this? Would he do such a thing without the backing of the religious leaders (were they calling themselves popes by this time yet?).

Christianity had no set standard and beliefs were varied from extreme to extreme.

I wouldn't concur with that. The apostles actually had a standard doctrine. There were widely divergent heresies going on since apostolic times (in fact, a number of the writings of the apostles specifically dealt with heresies that had cropped up already during their lifetimes)

You may want to do a little more historical research outside of official church history. There was never a set official form of Christianity from its beginning. Even Acts shows two forms of it, Paul's and James' (three if you include the followers of John the Baptist). But outside of Acts, beliefs were all over the board. To arrive at your conclusion, one must assume that Paul's version is the only correct one, making everything else heresies. That's too big of an assumption, not only to Paul, but also assuming that most of what it is in the Bible credited to him was actually written by him. It can be shown, without too much effort, that most of the writings with his name on it were not written by him and are in fact much later creations. It also assumes that the entire history of the first century is contained in the New Testament.

The decisions at these councils were not unanimous, but very divided. Voting was along religious affiliations (much like how Congress works today).

My understanding is also that there were many divisions; however, my understanding is that those divisions were, in the main, resolved during the Council of Nicea...and they cropped up again after its conclusion...

I haven't seen anything that suggests disputes were resolved at the Council of Nicea. In fact, quite the opposite. Nothing was resolved. Even the simple topic of dating Easter was left divided along ethnic and regional rivalries and to this day is celebrated on different dates, one by the Roman Catholic Church (and its off-shoots), the other by various churches that constitue Eastern Orthodoxy.

To quote the book I recommended previously:

On the hottest point of all, the Arian heresy, the Council of Nicaea showed its greatest impotence. To be sure, the bishops were coerced into adopting a formal confession of faith, the so-called Nicene Creed, which declared God and Jesus to be

homoousion

rather than

homoiousion

-- "of the

same

essence" rather than "of

similar

essence" -- and thus repudiated the teachings of Arius. But many of the clerics, including one who served as a counselor to Constantine himself, soon renounced their vote and repudiated the Nicene Creed: "We committed an impious act, O Prince," wrote Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia to Constantine, "

by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you.

"

[emphasis mine]

Constantine declared Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, giving it the backing of its military.

That is patently false, as I mentioned above. Theodosius I declared Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire.

You got me on that one. Been awhile since I've studied this and yes, it was Theodosius who made the official declaration. It was inevitable though. What Constantine did was take a "subversive movement that set itself against the power and glory of Rome" and move it to a cult that had "sealed an alliance of throne and altar and the church could be regarded as a branch of the Imperial civil service. The Christian church now functioned as 'the Christian state-within a state'."

According to this, and most other reasonable sources, there are two key points:

• The library was destroyed at the beginning of the 5th Century. Constantine was long since dead and buried by that time.
  
• The library was destroyed because of Pagan contents, not gnostic contents.

I did not intend to infer that Constantine had the library destroyed. I was inferring that since the wonderful act of setting what is approved doctrine and texts placed the unapproved texts in the heretic classification, the library's destruction was a result of it -- because it contained these texts. Just because the mob was encouraged by monks who wanted it destroyed due to its pagen texts, does not change the fact that the mob destroyed it because it contained Gnostic texts. I was also inferring the absolute stupidity of such logic, whether of the monks or the mob.

Summary: yeah.

Point 1. Most of the really bad pagan persecution started under Constantine's grandson, Theodosius I and got codified into law by his son Theodosius II.

Point 2. Constantine was greatly influenced by the Arians, but kept an open mind to it all.

I'm unsure when the "really bad" pagan persecution began, but I am sure that the Nicene Creed was used as a weapon against those who opposed it.

I think Constantine's "open mind" is best summarized by:

Begin now to cast aside the causes of the disunity which has existed among you, for by so doing, you will with one stroke be acting in the manner most pleasing to the Supreme God,

and confer an extraordinary favor on me."

[emphasis mine]

--Constantine to the bishops at the Council of Nicaea

Constantine never fully grasped the finer points of the argument that he was called upon to decide one way or the other -- but he was quick to understand the dangers of dissent against authority, and he knew well how to go about suppressing it. Indeed, his preference for monotheism over polytheism reflected his own ambition to achieve the same absolute power on earth that the Christian god was believed to exercise in heaven. "The division of the Empire into four sections by Diocletian required four divine patrons for the four rulers," explains historian Andrew Alfoldi. "The restoration of the unity of the Empire, on the other hand, led inevitably to the belief that a single divine power must watch over the single earthly ruler."

"Just as there is only one God, and not two or three or more," affirms Eusebius, "so there is only one Emperor."

--

God Against The Gods

, p.169-170

Without Constantine seeing the political advantages that Christianity offered him in securing his authority and him giving the cult the backing of the Roman Empire, it seems to me very plausable that the hotly divided cult would have continued to fight each other and eventually been taken over when Islam came knocking on the door.

Therefore: "Constantine, though only seeing political advantage and control, doesn't get enough credit for Christianity as we know it."

[Cynic]

His late baptism can also be used to provide evidence that he was never really a Christian, but only using it for his own political motives.

A somewhat less speculative explanation I’ve seen for Constantine’s putting off baptism until shortly before death is that the putting off of baptism until one was close to death was not uncommon among the upper classes, and was a strategy that arose in response to dogma averring that one who committed a "mortal sin" after being baptized would not be forgiven for it.

The manner of avoidance-then-embrace with which Constantine and others apparently approached baptism can give rise to questions about the quality of their faith and repentance (my procrastinating and meandering religious life could be taken as grounds for questions about the quality of my faith and repentance), but, in Constantine's case, does not actually "provide evidence" that Constantine’s activity at the Council of Nicea was directed merely by base political motives.

Disclaimer: I am not presently offering any opinion about whether Constantine was genuinely converted to Christ.

Edited January 28, 2006 by Cynic

[TheInvisibleDan]

On the subject of the epistle of II Peter, Bart Ehrman ("The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings", p.421) writes:

"For a variety of reasons, there is less debate about the authorship of 2 Peter than any other pseudepigraphon in the New Testament. The vast majority of critical scholars agree that whoever wrote it, it was not Jesus' disciple Simon Peter...the writing style of the book is so radically different from that of 1 Peter that linguists are virtually unanimous in thinking that if Simon Peter was responsible for the former book, he could not have written this one. Even more to the point, a major portion of this letter has been taken over from the book of Jude and incorporated into chapter 2. If Jude can be dated near the end of the first century, 2 Peter must be somewhat later...There is not a solitary reference to it until around 220 C.E., and it does not appear to have been widely circulated for at least another century after that. It was no doubt included in the canon because the orthodox fathers of the fourth century accepted the claims of its author to be Peter, and because it served their purposes in opposing those who promote false teaching."

Of interest, the work was not included in the earlier copies of the Syriac Pe$*@!ta canon (along with the epistles of 2 & 3 John, Jude, and even Revelation).

Danny

[GarthP2000]

The Arians being "put down" is a nice way of saying they were tortured and murdered.

Ahh but Greasytech, killing off heretics isn't considered murder, doncha know.

Apparently there are those even today that believes that pile of bull.

<_<

[markomalley]

The Donation of Constantine really has nothing to do with my views on him, and you never stated such. But it keeps coming back. I can see some Protestants pointing to it as an excuse for the rise of Roman Catholicism rather than what they consider to be truth, but I'm not a Protestant (or any other ---ant or ---ian) and I really don't see how it plays into the discussion here.

I understand that, from your personal perspective that it means little or nothing to this. However, much of the folk history is based upon a false perception that there was this church-state cabal that happened beginning with him...the Donation (admittedly an invention of a Catholic pope...but one of about 500 years later) was, as far as I can tell, the source.

Look at yourself: Constantine did this...Constantine did that...most of which is documented to be done by other emporers.

His late baptism can also be used to provide evidence that he was never really a Christian, but only using it for his own political motives.

Now why would a baptism a month before his death lead one to believe that it was done for political purposes. Had he wanted to convert for merely political purposes, it would have made sense that he'd be baptized as soon as possible, thereby being able to speak "from the inside." At least IMHO

The Arians being "put down" is a nice way of saying they were tortured and murdered. Since the official religion of Rome was the approved form of Christianity, do you think Theodosius is solely responsible for this? Would he do such a thing without the backing of the religious leaders (were they calling themselves popes by this time yet?).

I believe that the normal injunction was exile. But, I am certain that you are, unfortunately, correct in far too many cases.

Theodosius continued to tolerate the traditional pagan practices and rituals which had enjoyed toleration from successive Christian emperors throughout the fourth century, i.e., almost anything which did not include blood-sacrifice or did not smack of treason against the emperor, until 391 at least. He then issued a series of laws which seemed effectively to prohibit all pagan worship by forbidding visits to pagan sites of worship or even the adornment in any manner of the images of the gods.

This apparent change of policy on his part has often been credited to the increased influence of bishop Ambrose of Milan. For in 390 Ambrose had excommunicated Theodosius because he had ordered the execution of several thousand of the inhabitants of Thessalonica in response to the murder there of his "general" Butherichus.

Theodosius accepted his excommunication and even performed several months of public penance, so it is all too easy too imagine how he might have taken the time to review his other "failings" also, including his continued toleration of paganism. However, the importance of these laws has been greatly exaggerated. They were limited in scope, specific measures in response to various petitions and accusations and tell us less about Theodosius than the private agenda of many of the increasingly militant Christians who could be found throughout his administration. Although he had voiced his support earlier for the preservation of temples or pagan statues as useful public buildings or as works of art, in 391 he officially sanctioned the destruction of the most famous of the temples in the East, the Serapeum at Alexandria.

Bands of monks and Christian officials had long been accustomed to take the law into their own hands and destroy various centres of pagan worship

, but the destruction of the Serapeum seemed to confirm that such actions had often enjoyed the emperor's tacit approval at least, and served to encourage such action in the future also. Again, however, Theodosius had been effectively manipulated into sanctioning the destruction of the Serapeum by local officials who had essentially engineered the crisis there for this very purpose.

From the Roman Emporers site.

I would like you to note the bolded text above. This is largely the influence of the Church hierarchy at that time and, outside of the Papal States, throughout history. They could excommunicate or provide some form of ecclesiastical discipline to the secular rulers. As with the cite I gave you earlier in regard to the destruction of the Alexandria Library, much of the excesses came as the result of a whipped up mob mentality.

You may want to do a little more historical research outside of official church history. There was never a set official form of Christianity from its beginning. Even Acts shows two forms of it, Paul's and James' (three if you include the followers of John the Baptist). But outside of Acts, beliefs were all over the board. To arrive at your conclusion, one must assume that Paul's version is the only correct one, making everything else heresies. That's too big of an assumption, not only to Paul, but also assuming that most of what it is in the Bible credited to him was actually written by him. It can be shown, without too much effort, that most of the writings with his name on it were not written by him and are in fact much later creations. It also assumes that the entire history of the first century is contained in the New Testament.

I have read a number of different sources, both ecclesiastical and secular. Here's an interesting thing that I've noted when dealing with history or any type of social science: the biases of the author can many times influence the conclusions. Let me give an admittedly over-simplified example (that has nothing to do with the discussion but illustrates my point):

Home Ownership Rates
Race	1970	1980	1990	2000
White	45%	48%	65%	73%
Black	25%	27%	48%	65%

If a study was conducted using the above numbers, several conculsions could be drawn:

• Home ownership rates dramatically rise across the board for the last 30 years!
  
• Blacks lag behind whites in home ownership rates!
  
• Blacks make tremendous strides in home ownership rates -- come close to closing gap!
  
• Home Ownership rates rise the most during Republican rule!
  

Any one of the above conclusions is accurate and supported by the facts given. The hypothesis of the researcher (perhaps influenced by his pre-existing biases) would govern the conclusion found. It is a rare social-sciences researcher who will openly admit that either he is wrong or that his biases may have been unsupported by fact.

You are absolutely right...I need to look at a broader cross-section of historical research in order to ensure that I have a balanced viewpoint. But the problem is, like with you, I have a life outside of ancient history, doctrine, and debates on spirituality. Having said that, for me to form a truly educated view, I need to spend time researching the primary source materials, not reading pre-digested pablum put out by any author. I am the first to admit my relative ignorance on the subject. I've always found that it is not only important to know what I know, but to know what I don't know, as well.

I haven't seen anything that suggests disputes were resolved at the Council of Nicea. In fact, quite the opposite. Nothing was resolved. Even the simple topic of dating Easter was left divided along ethnic and regional rivalries and to this day is celebrated on different dates, one by the Roman Catholic Church (and its off-shoots), the other by various churches that constitue Eastern Orthodoxy.

Well, it's interesting to read Socrates' account of the Council. Here is some of how it started:

On the following day all the bishops were assembled together in one place; the emperor arrived soon after and on his entrance stood in their midst, and would not take his place, until the bishops by bowing intimated their desire that he should be seated: such was the respect and reverence which the emperor entertained for these men. When a silence suitable to the occasion had been observed, the emperor from his seat began to address them words of exhortation to harmony and unity, and entreated each to lay aside all private pique. For several of them had brought accusations against one another and many had even presented petitions to the emperor the day before. But he, directing their attention to the matter before them, and on account of which they were assembled, ordered these petitions to be burnt; merely observing that ‘Christ enjoins him who is anxious to obtain forgiveness, to forgive his brother.’ When therefore he had strongly insisted on the maintenance of harmony and peace, he sanctioned again their purpose of more closely investigating the questions at issue.

When they agreed on the terms of the Creed, apparently only five of the bishops (Arius, Theonas, Secundus, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis) did not sign up to it.

Frankly, the dating process for the Feast of the Resurrection (Easter is an anglified German term) is of so little doctrinal interest as to not worth discussing (again, imho). I can't see how that is any more of a 'doctrinal' issue than the use of the Julian versus Gregorian calendars. But if that helps you show division, so be it.

As to the quote of the book you earlier recommended to me, I think that the author has it exactly backwards. According to Eusebius of Caesarea, Socrates, and Sozomen, Eusebius refused to subscribe to the Nicene Creed and was exiled. He later recanted of this:

Not long after the council of Nice, Arius was recalled from exile; but the prohibition to enter Alexandria was unrevoked. It shall be related in the proper place how he strove to obtain permission to return to Egypt. Not long after, Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis, bishop of Nicæa, regained possession of their churches after expelling Amphion and Chrestos who had been ordained in their stead. They owed their restoration to a document which they had presented to the bishops, containing a retractation: “Although we have been condemned without a trial by your piety, we deemed it right to remain silent concerning the judgment passed by your piety. But as it would be absurd to remain longer silent, when silence is regarded as a proof of the truth of the calumniators, we now declare to you that we too agree in this faith, and after a diligent examination of the thought in the word ‘consubstantial,’ we are wholly intent upon preserving peace, and that we never pursued any heresy. Having proposed for the safety of the churches such argument as occurred to us, and having been fully convinced, and fully convincing those who ought to have been persuaded by us, we undersigned the creed; but we did not subscribe to the anathema, not because we impugned the creed, but because we did not believe the accused to be what he was represented to us; the letters we had received from him, and the arguments he had delivered in our presence, fully satisfying us that he was not such an one. Would that the holy Synod were convinced that we are not bent on opposing, but are accordant with the points accurately defined by you, and by this document, we do attest our assent thereto: and this is not because we are wearied of exile, but because we wish to avert all suspicion of heresy; for if you will condescend to admit us now into your presence, you will find us in all points of the same sentiments as yourselves, and obedient to your decisions, and then it shall seem good to your piety to be merciful to him who was accused on these points and to have him recalled. If the party amenable to justice has been recalled and has defended himself from the charge made, it would be absurd, were we by our silence to confirm the reports that calumny had spread against us. We beseech you then, as befits your piety, dear to Christ, that you memorialize our emperor, most beloved of God, and that you hand over our petition, and that you counsel quickly, what is agreeable to you concerning us.” It was by these means that Eusebius and Theognis, after their change of sentiment, were reinstated in their churches.

(Sozomen, Book 2, Chap 16)

Can you please do me a favor: the phrase, by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you, was attributed to Eusebius of Nicomedia in the book you cited. Could you please see if that quote was footnoted. If so, could you please let me know the source?

I tried googling the phrase to see if I could locate its source, but all I got was a bunch of circular references (lots of people quoting the phrase, nobody giving the citation of its origin -- LOL)

You got me on that one. Been awhile since I've studied this and yes, it was Theodosius who made the official declaration. It was inevitable though. What Constantine did was take a "subversive movement that set itself against the power and glory of Rome" and move it to a cult that had "sealed an alliance of throne and altar and the church could be regarded as a branch of the Imperial civil service. The Christian church now functioned as 'the Christian state-within a state'."

I won't argue with that premise. Constantine did provide tremendous credibility for the Church. However, I would hardly make the claim that ascendency was inevitable after Constantine's rule. His son, Constantus, was an Arian. He called the Council of Rimini in 359 AD, where a different Creed (the "Dated Creed") was drawn up, one that gave place to the Arians. Most of the 400 bishops there were persuaded to sign that creed, but, when the Pope refused to accept it, the bulk of those who initially agreed to it recanted this agreement. Emperor Julian described himself as an apostate. He fully intended to restore the empire to Pagan Worship. Although I can't find a definitive "neutral" source to confirm it, it is said that he even attempted to remove his baptism by bathing in bull's blood. Valens was another Arian. The point is that we can hardly say 'inevitable' due to Constantine's conversion, even though his role was important (perhaps invaluable).

I did not intend to infer that Constantine had the library destroyed. I was inferring that since the wonderful act of setting what is approved doctrine and texts placed the unapproved texts in the heretic classification, the library's destruction was a result of it -- because it contained these texts. Just because the mob was encouraged by monks who wanted it destroyed due to its pagen texts, does not change the fact that the mob destroyed it because it contained Gnostic texts. I was also inferring the absolute stupidity of such logic, whether of the monks or the mob.

The citation I provided stated that the mobs destroyed it at the instigation of the monks because it contained Pagan material, not because it contained gnostic material. Of course, there is a difference. I won't argue about the tragedy of the waste.

I think Constantine's "open mind" is best summarized by: (I won't bother repeating the quote)

I see (minus your bolding) nothing offensive in what the author quoted. Here is Eusebius' full account of the speech. I think it's much more powerful that way.

"It was once my chief desire, dearest friends, to enjoy the spectacle of your united presence; and now that this desire is fulfilled, I feel myself bound to render thanks to God the universal King, because, in addition to all his other benefits, he has granted me a blessing higher than all the rest, in permitting me to see you not only all assembled together, but all united in a common harmony of sentiment. I pray therefore that no malignant adversary may henceforth interfere to mar our happy state; I pray that, now the impious hostility of the tyrants has been forever removed by the power of God our Saviour, that spirit who delights in evil may devise no other means for exposing the divine law to blasphemous calumny; for, in my judgment, intestine strife within the Church of God, is far more evil and dangerous than any kind of war or conflict; and these our differences appear to me more grievous than any outward trouble. Accordingly, when, by the will and with the co-operation of God, I had been victorious over my enemies, I thought that nothing more remained but to render thanks to him, and sympathize in the joy of those whom he had restored to freedom through my instrumentality; as soon as I heard that intelligence which I had least expected to receive, I mean the news of your dissension, I judged it to be of no secondary importance, but with the earnest desire that a remedy for this evil also might be found through my means, I immediately sent to require your presence. And now I rejoice in beholding your assembly;

but I feel that my desires will be most completely fulfilled when I can see you all united in one judgment,

that common spirit of peace and concord prevailing amongst you all, which it becomes you, as consecrated to the service of God, to commend to others.

Delay not, then, dear friends: delay not, ye ministers of God, and faithful servants of him who is our common Lord and Saviour: begin from this moment to discard the causes of that disunion which has existed among you, and remove the perplexities of controversy by embracing the principles of peace. For by such conduct you will at the same time be acting in a manner most pleasing to the supreme God, and you will confer an exceeding favor on me who am your fellow-servant."

(bold and underscore mine)

Eusebius, Life of Constantine, Book 3 Chap 12

Without Constantine seeing the political advantages that Christianity offered him in securing his authority and him giving the cult the backing of the Roman Empire, it seems to me very plausable that the hotly divided cult would have continued to fight each other and eventually been taken over when Islam came knocking on the door.

Therefore: "Constantine, though only seeing political advantage and control, doesn't get enough credit for Christianity as we know it."

It is likely that Constantine, seeing the degredation of the Empire, may have recognized that Christianity may have been the only way to save the empire. But otherwise, I'm afraid that I see little evidence that it would advantage him to make his conversion.

[GT]

We could dissect the finer points of Constantine down to minutia, but I think the discussion can be boiled down to a difference of opinion whether authority to establish and enforce religious belief is good or bad -- with state-sponsorship of such authority being an extension outside of that religion.

I suppose if my beliefs were of the same opinion as the majority bishops establishing the official doctrine of Christianity, then what Constantine did would be a godly thing and much appreciated. But since I have no beliefs (at least none that I know of), it is very easy for me to see why Constantine would be attracted to Christianity and thus wanting to promote it. Rather than having many gods, with the people free to choose whom they are pleased to serve, having only one god who by definition claims to be the only god and all others are false gods, with an established doctrine that excludes all others, becomes very appealing -- especially for someone who wants to be ruler of the world. Without a religious filter, the political advantages are rather glaring.

For me, giving anyone the authority to enforce any doctrine is dangerous. Even though it may seem to be good to preserve what is thought to be pure doctrine, such authority will eventually be abused. I'm hard pressed to find an example where it has not -- TWI being only the latest incarnation to repeat its ugly history. Giving the state the authority to establish a religion magnifies the potential for abuse, bringing it outside of the religion's adherents and putting it on the populous of the state.

If it were not for the first amendment, this country would have had an official religion long ago. I'm thankful it never has and hopeful it never will. Can you imagine TWI being the official religion of the United States **shudder**. But what if President Bush was a TWIt? What if he started building TWI new root locals all over the place, every state getting their own root local -- using tax-payer money? What if he consulted with Rosalie on matters pertaining to state? Scary huh? Without agreeing with the resolutions of the Council of Nicea, what's the difference?

The author gave two foot notes for the Eusebius quote:

* Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia is to be distinguished from the church historian Bishop Eusebius of Ceasrea, both of whom were Arians, and a third Eusebius, who served Constantine as chief imperial eunuch.

* Quoted in Smith,

Constantine

, 202.

-- Smith, John Holland.

Constantine the Great.

New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971.

Edited January 29, 2006 by GreasyTech

[markomalley]

We could dissect the finer points of Constantine down to minutia, but I think the discussion can be boiled down to a difference of opinion whether authority to establish and enforce religious belief is good or bad -- with state-sponsorship of such authority being an extension outside of that religion.

And I think that's the bottom line.

Believe it or not, I agree with your position on the issue. But we both know that the truly pluralistic republic had not yet been invented as of yet. That is something we must also keep in mind. The religious belief espoused by the ruler was, as often as not, the mandated religion of the people. Persecutions of competing religions was the norm, not the exception. We really haven't found a solution, even to this day, that allows a government to be truly independent of belief systems.

I am not sure that such a solution is possible: ascribe to no belief system and provide due respect for all belief systems within the form of government. Because everybody, without exception, has a belief system. Some sort of belief system: even if that system is the denial of all beliefs outside of provable scientific fact. That bias is going to exist one way or the other.

I honestly prefer the marketplace approach (as I've said before). Clearly state your ideas and, using logic and intelligence, show where your ideas are superior to competing ideas. Defend your ideas, again using logic and intelligence, against statements made by others. That provides the best possible mechanism, imho. Of course, a state cannot have this...nor would we want it to, either of us. But, a state can attempt to achieve consensus among competing belief systems on issues where consensus is possible, while protecting the rights of the belief system minorities, and remaining silent on areas where there is no consensus.

It's a pity that more folks can't apply that positive approach rather than the negative approach that is so common these days (and that criticism applies to all sides).

As to your nightmare of Bush being a TWIt. I agree ((cringe)) It brings back memories of reading about the Know-Nothings.

[johniam]

quote: I have serious questions and I do happen to think that one should not limit themselves to the Bible only.

So if cops pull you over they should not limit themselves to your driver's license only; they should demand a birth certificate, social security card, cavity search, fingerprints, DNA sample, etc. because you might not be you after all. I'm kinda glad cops keep things simple.

[GT]

If your drivers license is a forgery, better get ready for that cavity search.

[Belle]

John,

I repeat:

I'm not playing, but I'm not looking for sarcastic non-relevant attacks, either.

But as an FYI from someone who was married to police officer, they do access a lot of information while running your license number, so in essence, they are not limiting themselves to that one piece of information. And if said DL brings up something suspicious, they do look into other sources of information - that's why getting a ticket takes so effen long (unless you told the officer you were in a hurry, but that's another topic altogether :D ). Besides that, it's an illogical comparison and one more reason I will not engage you any further.

GT, who's conducting the cavity search? ;)

[dmiller]

Police radio --right here on the table next to the 'Puter.

I listen to it, more than i-tunes, and internet radio.

Main form of Id for vehicular traffic stops ---

they look first and foremost -- at the license plate on your car.

If your personal ID doesn't match up to it,

Bend over and kiss you A$$ goodbye!

You've been BUSTED!!!

[GT]

I don't see how the driver's license example shows that we should only go to "the word" and not outside sources.

A driver's license is proof of who you say you are and proof that you are authorized to operate a vehicle, so a cop doesn't have to believe what you say. He can verify it. If you are going to apply the example to going only to "the word," then the cop should only be asking you who you are and believe what you say.

It goes like this:

Cop: What's your name?

Driver: Jesus Christ

Cop: Where do you live?

Driver: Other side of the universe.

Cop: What are you doing in town?

Driver: Just crusin.

Cop: Are you aware that were going 15 mph over the speed limit?

Driver: Oh no, that's not possible. I was doing the speed limit, I'm sure of it. Believe me.

Cop: OK, must be something wrong with my equipment. Have a good night.

Rather silly.

Where's "the word's" driver's license? I'd like to see it.

[GT]

Belle, ladies can choose whom they want to perform the cavity search.