This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Where Christianity intersects with politics, culture, and entertainment.


constantine

Constantine’s Gift to Christianity

On October 28, 312, Emperor Constantine met Emperor Maxentius in battle just outside the city of Rome at the Milvian Bridge, spanning the Tiber. This battle—occurring exactly 1,700 years ago—is one of the most important events in the history of Christendom, since it was through Constantine’s victory that Christendom began. It is a battle well worth reflecting upon.

As is well known, the previous day Constantine experienced a vision of a cross of light in the sky, with the words “By this sign you shall conquer” (in Greek, not Latin, by the way). That night, so we are told, Constantine had a dream wherein he was told to paint the cross on the shields of his soldiers.

He did. And so it happened, as the vision said.

The next day, October 28, 312, Constantine defeated Maxentius. Interestingly enough, Maxentius could have stayed within the walls of Rome. He was plentifully stocked to endure a siege. Inexplicably, he decided to go out and engage Constantine. His troops were defeated, and Maxentius himself drowned in the Tiber trying to escape.

Continue reading at www.catholicworldreport.com
 
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1098616565 Tony Fagerness

    This is when 'Christendom' began? He altered the way Christ set up the church! Amazing how one man screwed things up so badly.

    • Kalev

      That's how Christianity came to accept pagan traditions and precepts. Christianity became Christendom when Constantine came on the scene. If Yeshua or any of the apostles walked into a Church in America they would be appalled, Yeshua might even take a whip to the people like He did with the money changers in the Temple.

      • Junie3

        Right on, thank you.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

        Well that depends. Are they walking into a Protestant church, an Orthodox church or a Catholic church? Is the pastor faithful to the Apostolic teachings that come from Christ and the Holy Spirit? Is he submissive to his bishop? You would be right to say that they would not recognize Protestant churches, period, and there is a great deal of rebellion amongst Orthodox and Catholic clergy as well.

        • http://missionoutreach.org Ray Downen

          It's not on topic but I want to point out that the apostles do not speak of congregations being led by any authority other than men selected from their own membership who meet qualifications Paul outlines and who are willing to serve. Each congregation has elders, who are also called bishops, and each congregation is free to serve Jesus as best they know how. There are no officers above the congregation if the church is apostolic, that is, if it follows apostolic example and teaching.

          • rebart

            Great post.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

            You can't read the Scriptures and seriously believe that. Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus because they were the monarchical bishops of Ephesus and Crete, respectively. All presbyters and deacons within their jurisdiction answered to them. That is why the instruction to ordain was given to Timothy, and not to the Ephesians.

            For what cause are bishops appointed? Because the Apostles knew they would not live long enough to see the Second Coming, nor could they serve the entire Church by themselves even if they did. Within their own lifetimes, they already had need for many more than 12 of them. To the bishops, successors of the Apostles, is given the solemn duty to preserve sound doctrine, and for this reason they are called bishops, which is translated overseers. Also given unto them is the authority to appoint presbyters and deacons, for one man does not suffice to serve an entire city. Unto them is granted the power to ordain successors, for the episcopacy has no means to propagate itself other than through ordination by one who is already a bishop. Most bishops have never been married, but even if they have been married and begotten sons, their sons do not inherit their office. Unto them is granted the power to consecrate bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and to forgive sins and anoint to seal believers with the Holy Spirit and for the healing of body and soul of the sick, which they also empower presbyters to do (these powers are what set presbyters apart from deacons).

            Why is this so? The multitude of Protestant denominations illustrates exactly why: if individual congregations are to be autonomous and/or democratic, they soon devolve into a multitude of things that are antithetical to the Body of Christ: factionalization, heresy, tolerance of sin, and whatever their itching ears want to hear. Of course, this will also happen if bishops don't do their jobs.

          • http://www.facebook.com/mikepenturningz Michael Schmitt

            Timothy was a student of Paul. Toward the end of Paul's life he passed the torch to Timothy and others to carry on his work. Paul goes into great detail in his epistles about who was qualified to be elders in the church. These early churches were self guided with the help of the Apostles to keep them on track. Timothy simply picked up where Paul left off when he was killed for preaching the Gospel of Jesus. This likely happened sometime around 68 or so AD and well ahead of Constantine. We really need to concentrate more on the Gospel and less on all of this. The Gospel is our most important focus and spreading it. Jesus will sort out the goats and the lambs when he decides to!

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

            Indeed, Timothy and Titus were Paul's students, and since he had no natural sons, he came to regard them as his sons, and he ordained them as bishops to succeed him. They, in turn, were responsible for ordaining Church leaders to serve under them and succeed them.

            That said, Apostolic Succession is no small matter; rather, it restrains the Church from error and anarchy. More importantly, sound doctrine on the Sacraments is the difference between proper worship of God and idolatry and sacrilege (not an exaggeration- improperly conducted Communion results in situations where people worship common bread and wine or eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ while treating Them as common bread and wine; the former is idolatry and the latter is sacrilege). Apostolic Succession is the link that makes sure that Communion is celebrated properly.

      • Bighoss

        If Jesus or his apostles walked into a Mormon Cult gathering, they would surely be repelled by the heretical and blasphemous things taught there among those who have perverted the clear teachings of the Old and New Testaments by creating phony "scriptures" that have been proven over and over to be the shabby creations of human fantasy!

        • http://missionoutreach.org Ray Downen

          I've never attended a gathering of the group who claim to be the church of Jesus Christ (of latter day saints). But I've known several members of that church, and they have never spoken to me of teachings other than those of the Bible, and their lives are exemplary. They care for one another, providing for members in need, and doing many good things in the community. I've looked at some of the books which teach Mormon doctrine, and that's bad as you say, Bighoss. But the lives of the Mormons I know seem to have nothing to do with the bad teachings of those books. Mormon doctrine is bad indeed. Mormon practice outside of Utah is very good as far as I can tell.

          • Mex Seiko

            It may seem the same to you, but the Bible teaches that salvation is not through works (good deeds) but it seemed important to know who Jesus was as He inquired of the disciples and the people "Who do men say that I am?" So, it does seem important to get that one right.

            Mormon teaches that Jesus was conceive through physical intercourse. It also teaches that God was a regular Joe that achieved god status. Also, that Jesus was a polygamist. Salvation is a gift from God. So, if it's not from God, it's not salvation.

          • Vladimir

            You got nothing right in your post, Mex Seiko. Go to http://www.mormon.org and get the facts..

          • Mex Seiko
        • rebart

          Jesus would be happy to see that Mormons don't believe in 3-headed gods who talk to themselves, pray to themselves, plead with themselves, and ask that this be taken from me. Jesus prayed to God in Gethsemane, not himself. Your Protestant religion is built upon a Trinity that does not exist because it was made up by Catholic bishops under threat by Constantine. Your hatred for people that don't understand things exactly as you do is proof enough that your religion is bogus.

          • Mex Seiko

            God is One, but His Name is plural, Elohim. God alone is the creator yet He said "Let us make us we man in our own image. He spoke to Himself from the begi

          • rebart

            My gosh, Mex Seiko, I have a used car to sell you. I believe you would be interested.

          • Mex Seiko

            Some people know exactly what I mean. Other ignorants just don't know what to say, but feel the need to interject anyway. Let me know if you can get serious. I certainly am.

          • Evermyrtle

            It is better to not say anything, than to speak up and prove yourself, a fool. Remember that and be quiet until you have something to say that makes sense.. Another example here of vicious name calling. Any body ridiculing our FATHER GOD OR HIS SON JESUS CHRIST, is something to be very serious about because you "know not what you do!"

          • Mex Seiko

            I think you and I are in agreement, but for some reason you're arguing with me. Sort of friendly fire. You may've misunderstood what I posted. I am a Christian saved by grace through faith. I believe in the Trinity and in Rapturo.

            When I call someone an ignorant, I'm not name calling for the sake of name calling but to describe the obvious lack of knowledge.

            War on, Bro.

          • Evermyrtle

            Spoke to HIMSELF, where do you think JESUS CHRIST was, not born, yet? IF so, who was the "US" that HE was speaking about, when HE said, "Lets us make man in in our image, Gen I:26……………………………??

          • Mex Seiko

            Trinity.

          • Evermyrtle

            One thing many Mormons are very good at, they can be very vindictive, and ridiculing. Is this something from GOD? I don't think so. So where does it come from?

            .The words TRINITY and the word RAPTURE are not mentioned, 'BY NAME" in HIS WORD, but they are both described, while not giving them a name. Christians will all readily agree to that, so what is the problem with this issue? Hatred??

            We, all Christians, do not hate people but we do hate "hypocrisy." It has no place in our Church nor in our lives.

            We do Understand HIS WORD as HE lead us into it. There is no need for us to understand the"additives" that may be in your Bible

        • Vladimir

          I just returned from my Sunday morning Mormon Cult gathering meeting. We actual call them by different names, but I don't want to confuse Bighoss. Great lesson in Sunday School on Jesus Christ with a little Adam and Eve thrown in. Saw a lot of my cultist friends and we talked in hush tones about cultist things between meetings.

          Noticed that a lot of people have the Bible and our secret cultist scriptures on electronic devices now. I might have to do that, too, because it takes me so much longer to get to a passage flipping pages and the teacher usually calls on the first one who finds it to read to the class.

          After the meetings, we dispensed with the usual virgin sacrifice because of Hurricane Sandy, but we'll make up for it with two next Sunday.

          Just can't figure out how Bighoss knows so much about us.

          • Evermyrtle

            A long as the entire BIBLE is recognized and used accordingly, nothing left out and nothing is added to HIS WORD. But, there is stuff that sounds weird, to me, like their own Bible. How does that compare with "GOD'S WORD?" I had one of those Bibles and threw it away, now I wish I had kept so that i could compare it with GOD'S WORD.

    • http://missionoutreach.org Ray Downen

      We accept the reality that the Roman church became a political entity rather than remaining the church of God. But not all were led astray. There have remained remnants through the ages. Some Protestants today seek to be political. Many of us feel the primary duty of the church is to serve and testify about Jesus in the world. But in this free land, each citizen has the responsibility to vote and, if qualified and free to do so, to serve the nation as well as our Savior. The church is individual congregations who meet together and seek together to do what Jesus leads us to do. Those are mistaken who assume our primary duty is to the nation.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

        Who are these so-called remnants of which you speak? What doctrines were corrupted?

    • http://www.facebook.com/frtimothyc Fr. Timothy Cremeens

      Constantine is Saint Constantine! Unfortunately so many of you are spouting off old 18th & 19th century LIBERAL Protestant disinformation about this great man. If you want to know the TRUTH about this Emperor used of God to help spread the Gospel throught out the Roman Empire read "Defending Constantine" by Peter Leithart, an excellent Evangelical scholar who sets the historical record straight. This true Christian leader's conversion to Jesus Christ was instantaneous, however his sanctidication was gradual and the legislation he institute is proof. PLEASE, don't just repeat old out-dated errors, rather have the FACTS before you dishonor a man greatly used of the Lord.

      • http://www.facebook.com/frtimothyc Fr. Timothy Cremeens

        BTW, he had nothing to do with changing the "original" Church, rather on many ocassions he was corrected by the Church and he humbled himself.

      • rebart

        Would that be the same type of Evangelical that dislikes anyone different than they, and the over one million whacko Evangelicals who are going to vote for Jesus in this election rather than vote for Romney because they hate him and his religion. Enough said about Evangelicals. Their behavior belies their so-called religion.

  • jerry cooks on

    Christianity began on Pentecost in Jerusalem in the power of the Holy Spirit.

    • agbjr

      Not Christianity … Christendom, defined as a society or government influenced by the tenants of Christianity. Before Emperor Constantine declared himself a believer Christians were along with Jews and pagans just one of many religious communities within the Roman Empire. By the 300s AD they were a sizable population but without any political strength; that changed with Constantine.

      • Evermyrtle

        It took Christians to make Christendom, I believe you could say.

      • edc

        The disciples were first called Christians in Antioc ( almost 300 years before Costantine ) as a demeaning insult as recorded in the book of Acts. We are more than glad to bear the name.

    • http://missionoutreach.org Ray Downen

      I wanted to say this also, but I see the distinction made by agbjr. Most of us would not separate Christianity from Christendom, feeling that both terms simply describe followers of Jesus Christ. We should not be involved in government if we follow Jesus as Lord. Individual Christians do well to serve their nation or tribe. That's true. But as congregations and other groupings of disciples, we have no business attempting to govern more than our individual groups. We are not called to form governments. We are called to tell others everywhere about the risen Lord Jesus. But each Christian should seek to be a good citizen in the nation of which the disciple is a part, and good citizens may run for office and serve as officers in government. That's different from the church as a church attempting to influence the government, it seems to me.

  • slcraig

    Well, I believe the use of "Christendom" is referring to "State sponsored religion of Christianity" and in that sense the history is correct.

    Recall that the "children of Israel" were sent into many battles in order to secure their homeland, i.e., their "Promised Land".

    You can not ignore the use of "wars" directed by the hand of God and then lay all of the fault on man .
    Nor can you fault God for directing men to wars, unless you are privy to the ends of God's works.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/3D5URBEMLDETROKW532MXRABII William Henry

      They were also sent in because of the extreme wickedness of the nations that were already there. They were told to drive them out and not follow in the ways of the pre-occupiers. Child sacrifice was prevalent. As to Constantine, he separated followers of Christ from their true roots, which was the Hebrew Faith taught in the scriptures of the Old Testament. He also aided in the setting up of a entirely false systematic governmental religion, he "converted" entire populations at the point of the sword.

      • Evermyrtle

        Christendom, the tempest in the teapot!!!

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods

        Constantine did not convert people by the sword. that practice was done by the Germanic tribe chiefs who became the kings of Western Europe. in fact many of the kings "converted" for political reasons and never really believed it. the European kings forbid translating the scripture out of Latin Vulgate. the corruption of the church came as a result of these kings. Christianity did not become the official religion of Rome until Emperor Theodosius declared it in 387 AD.

        • http://www.facebook.com/mikepenturningz Michael Schmitt

          Constantine drove out all of the pagan religions and killed anyone who would not convert! He did just the reverse of Nero who burned and persecuted Christians.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods

            Constantine was followed by two pagan emperor, which proves that pagans were still found in Rome.

      • slcraig

        And still, over time, the "cult" of Christ, born as the human manifestation of the One True God, became acknowledged across the "Old World" as the Perfect Sacrifice for the Salvation of humanity.

        Truly, it would seem to the uninitiated that God works in mysterious ways, at least to those who would have it other than God has willed.

        But in spite of all the horrifics that history might justly lay at the feet of Christianity still, like the U.S. Constitution and the form of Guv'mnt it established, not perfect, being in the hands of men, but there appears to be none better.

        • http://missionoutreach.org Ray Downen

          Followers of Jesus do well to live as He lived. He paid taxes as due. He obeyed the laws of the land. He did not call His followers to rebel against the government. He in no way took up the sword against unjust rulers. The apostles were victims of government but did not call for rebellion against the governors. The Roman church is guilty of many atrocities in the name of Jesus. But Jesus is no part of any "Roman Catholic Church." They are led by a Papa in Rome who does many good and some bad things, but they make no pretense of being simple followers of the Way of Christ. Roman Catholics swear allegiance to the Pope. Protestants have formed many separated denominational entities, with allegiance to their own preferred leaders. But the church of Christ on earth is still simply those individual Christians who love and serve Jesus as best they know how to do.

          • http://www.facebook.com/mikepenturningz Michael Schmitt

            Nicely put Ray!

      • http://missionoutreach.org Ray Downen

        We do well to realize that Old Testament teachings are not Christian teachings. God chose to prepare the way for His Unique Son to come to earth through a political entity, the nation of Israel. What that nation was to do has nothing to do with what followers of Jesus are to do. And the nation now directed by God is His church in every nation. We are to be faithful citizens of our nation. We are not called to serve Jesus by taking up a sword or any weapon other than words and the example of how we live and serve others.

        • http://www.facebook.com/mikepenturningz Michael Schmitt

          Taking up the sword could also be said to mean the Word Of God as the sword! This is the only weapon that we need as we have been shown through the Bible.

    • http://missionoutreach.org Ray Downen

      The Way taught by apostles of Christ was in no way sponsored by or supported by any political entity. We speak of Christendom as simply followers of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. If some want to use the term to refer to a political entity instead, they have that right. But that doesn't mean that everyone has to agree that "Christendom refers to state-sponsored religion." I surely don't agree. When I use the term I'm speaking of individuals who follow Jesus as Lord.

      • http://www.facebook.com/mikepenturningz Michael Schmitt

        It seems to me Ray what you are saying is the collection of Christians from many congregations! The true Body of Christ. We have an unhealthy attachment to our so called "church" when the Church is really all true Christians, we just happen to meet in different places. The church is not where we meet, it is the Christians within the walls so to speak. I know you already know this but I believe others don't understand this!

  • Winston

    Did either of you even read the article for contextual understanding?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods

      many all they do is read the headline and go on rants without actually reading the article. just read the one on Lincoln's letter from God and read the responses. some of the responses declare that they never read the article by what they said.

    • http://missionoutreach.org Ray Downen

      We are all guilty of not re-reading the article before each comment, and instead replying to what a comment said rather than what the article said. Constantine was "converted" and the church soon became totally different than it had been from the beginning. But not ALL disciples went along with the changes made when the church was no longer persecuted by the government. You do well to remind us of the article!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods

    since the "second great awakening" the gains of Christendom has made really started to unravel. since the "second great awakening" cults have risen and heresy has kicked into a new gear in the Christian world. i like how the author left out nothing about martyrdom before Constantine to open Christians' eyes to the true horrors that the early church faced. most Christians had a mere romantic view of crucifixion before Mel Gibson's "The Passion of Christ" as well. it is fairly easy when all you know about it is what is written. it was not until the time of Constantine that Christians would even use the cross in artworks. they feared that if they would not use it then they would forget the great price that was paid for salvation or the sacrifice being a disciple was required.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1815457097 Rhonda Renee Sessions

      Not only that, but the sign of the cross was already on the shields and banners of the Roman soldiers, even before the time of Yeshua's crucifixion.

  • Gordon

    Four hundred years after the birth of the Christian church, Constantine made it the state religion of Rome, polluting it with a lot of greek mythology that persists to this day.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods

      Constantine was died for about half a century before Christianity became the state religion. Theodosius made it the official state religion. Theodosius was also reprimanded by St. Ambros of Milan who played a key role in St. Augustine's conversion.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods

      the church was not quite 400 year old when Rome was sacked by the vandels is 410 AD, almost one hundred years after Constantine legalized Christianity in pagan Rome.

      • rebart

        What church? There was no organized "church" led by Jesus. His "Church" was his followers and their followers. There was no Catholic Church until the most wealthy bishop in Rome developed it, and then it became the state disgrace, I mean "church".

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

          Ignatius of Antioch, bishop and martyr (d. 110 AD, while John the Apostle still lived) would like to dispute that, for he said, "Where the Lord is, there is the Catholic Church." And of course the Pope was the most wealthy bishop in Rome; the Pope was the ONLY bishop in Rome. In fact, your entire premise is ridiculous, for outside the Church, there are no bishops.

          • rebart

            That's the problem with Catholicism and the Protestantism that branches off Catholicism. What the heck does Ignatius of Antioch have to do with anything. I can't find him in the Bible anywhere. Did Jesus appoint him as ambassador for the Catholic Church. You need to read the Bible, not the so-called Church fathers who made things up as they built a Catholic Church that never existed in Biblical times.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods

            first we only read about the church in Antioch. second Ignatius would have been born after the events found in Acts. third we also do not even have all the letters of Paul as evidence in I and II Corinthians referring to letters we do not have. we only have letters from Paul, James, Peter, John, and Jude. Peter and John are only two of eleven faithful disciples. Jesus commanded his disciples to make disciple and the Church Fathers are these disciples. Polycarp was a disciple of John. Mark was a disciple of Peter. Clement was at least a disciple of Paul.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

            Actually, Ignatius was born during the events of Acts, but he wasn't ordained a bishop until much later. Like Polycarp, he was a student of John the Apostle, and died a martyr while John still lived (those rumors that John would live to see the Second Coming were fed by the fact that John lived to be REALLY old: 109 years). So if you ask by what authority Ignatius and Polycarp spoke, it was by the same authority that Timothy and Titus spoke.

    • rebart

      Exactly right!!!!

    • rebart

      I recommend two books on this subject: "How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God" by Richard R. Hopkins, and "The Father is Not the Son" by Ramon D. Smullin.

      For an opposite (and wrong view, imho) read "The Gospel and the Greeks" by Ronald N. Nash.

      All 3 books are available on Amazon.

  • Evermyrtle

    Acts 11:25-26

    25 Then parted Paul to Tarsus, for to seek Paul.

    26. And when he found him he brought him to Antioch. And it came to pass, that whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christian first at Antioch. There are other scripture calling HIS people Christians.

    • Junie3

      Just remember who translated the bible. They were actually known as God Fearers or righteous Gentiles and they stood along side of the Jews in the synagouges, not churches. It was never known as a church, it's is commonly known as assembly. The first assembly given on Mt. Sinai with Moses giving the people the commandments of God, those that he wrote with his own hand, like fire on the tablets. Like the fire at the day of Pentecost where the Torah was written on the hearts of men, tablets of flesh.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

        Not entirely true. While many did attend synagouges on the Sabbath or even daily, they also gathered together every Sunday for Communion, which was forbidden to all unbaptized.

        • Kalev

          Where is "Sunday for Communion" in the Bible?
          It ain't there.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods

            I Corinthians. the modern names for the days of the week did not come until long after Constantine and the fall of Rome in 491 AD. Sun of Righteousness is one of the names for the Messiah found in Malachi. the early Christians only attended synagogue as long as they were allowed to, which was lasted until the antichrist Jews started creating a ruckus in them. Paul at one point declared that he would no longer even go to the synagogues anymore because of the antichrist Jews. Paul did warn us in his letter to Timothy that a time will come when people would rather get their ears tickled than put up with orthodoxy. you sound like one of them.

          • John

            Wesley,

            Are you suggesting that the Jews met on the "first day of the week?" Do you not agree that Jesus was raised on the day after the Jewish Sabbath?

            I am not trying to tickle your ears, just making sure we are reading the same Bible.

            John

          • http://missionoutreach.org Ray Downen

            Jewish Christians no longer observed the sabbath. Their day to get together was the day of the week when Jesus rose from the tomb triumphant over death. But the early church learned to not distinguish between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. They all met on the first day of each week when possible, whether they had been Jewish or not. We call that day Sunday, but that name is not given to the day by apostolic writers, which is what was said correctly.

          • Evermyrtle

            What a tempest in the teapot!!!

          • http://missionoutreach.org Ray Downen

            Kalev merely pointed out the truth that "Sunday for Communion" is entirely foreign to apostolic writings. He is right. Absolutely right. We may suppose what we practice is taught in apostolic writings because we're so familiar with our habits and practices. But that doesn't make it so. Kalev simply tells the truth. That makes him "unorthodox"? No, it makes him correct.

          • Evermyrtle

            While this dissensions are going on, let us see if we can discover the day communion should be taken. We know that THE LORD'S SUPPER WAS NOT ON THE SABBATH. THAT WAS ON THE SAME DAY THAT HE DIED. Now the big question: What day should we have/take Communion? Any day during the week, on the Sabbath (Saturday), on Sunday or determine the day HE died and take communion that day? It certainly was not on Friday! We do know that!

          • http://missionoutreach.org Ray Downen

            Why does anyone think the Lord's Supper can only be done on a particular day of the week? The early Christians in Jerusalem at first met every day and ate together because there were so many out-of-towners in their number. Rules for days and times to celebrate are all man-made.

          • Evermyrtle

            Actually Sunday was not named but we know it was our Sunday because it was described as day after the Sabbath, so how could it be anything but Sunday. The picky things that people come up with to prove our point, make us sound like bratty children.

          • John

            They met on the "first day of the week," The Lord's Day, the Day of Resurrection.

            John

        • http://missionoutreach.org Ray Downen

          Kalev is right that the apostolic writings are silent about both Sunday gatherings and a religious ritual such as we call "communion." It speaks of early Christians gathering on the first day of the week, but it doesn't name the day as Sunday, nor does it say that meetings were only on that day each week. They are said to have met "to break bread," which phrase is most commonly used to refer to a meal and surely not just a religious ceremony. During the meal their bread and wine were used to remind all of the body and blood of Jesus. During their gathering they shared news and views with one another, especially news of one who in any way could be helped by others.They met to encourage one another to serve Jesus.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods

            Paul in I Corinthians deals with communion in the letter when dealing with their love feast abuses. protestants use Paul words from this letter at the beginning of communion ceremony. the New Testament is not as silent on Holy Communion and worship of the first day of the week as people would like to make it seem.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

            A meal yes, but not of earthly food, but rather heavenly food. This Bread and Wine are no mere reminders of the Body and Blood of Christ (always capitalize that, by the way), but the actual Body and Blood of Christ present among us (I use the present tense because it is no artifact of history, but a rite that continues to this day). Forgive me for using modern parlance rather than the terminology appropriate to the Roman Empire. If you don't trust me, then read what Justin Martyr wrote; his apologies give a detailed account of early Christian teaching on Communion as well as dispelling a multitude of myths and blood libels that pagans spread about Christians.

            You are right that Christians did not meet only on the first day of the week. Early Christians met daily for prayers, and were taught to pray seven times a day (what is now known as the Liturgy of the Hours). In time, this transitioned into making the Breaking of Bread (what is now called the Mass or Divine Liturgy) into a daily occurrence, rather than a weekly one. With the exception of the ~48 hour period between the Mass of the Lord's Supper and the Vigil of the Resurrection of the Lord, there is Mass every day of the year, and even then, a surplus of the Bread of Life is kept so that Communion may be given on Good Friday, as well as to anyone who should be near death during the Pasch.

          • http://www.facebook.com/mikepenturningz Michael Schmitt

            Christians gathered together often and did so because it was safer to be in numbers than to be alone. Satan loves it when Christians are alone so he can do his work.

      • http://missionoutreach.org Ray Downen

        Junie3, you mix truth with fiction. Those who wrote the books which were later collected as the "New Testament" writings were either apostles or ones taught by an apostle. What could you mean, "they stood alongside of the Jews in the synagogues–NOT churches"? The New Testament books are not from synagogues of Jews. They are writings of men who sought to win Jews and Gentiles alike to Jesus as Lord. Many in many different cultures and times have translated Bible writings into different languages. It's hard to tell what point you try to make. These collected writings reveal Jesus and His assembly (church) to any reader who seeks truth. And it's well to realize that the Way of Christ is taught as being different from the covenant of law. The gospel tells of grace and love freely offered to all people everywhere.

      • Evermyrtle

        You mean that someone would translate something, anything, just to make it what they think it should be? Even many people who are not Christians are loyal to the job that they profess, who would not ruin their reputation by bogus work. Most people are proud of the accuracy of their work. We may be Christians but falsely accusing people is not a Christian trait. We need to put aside and be true to CHRIST and be fair about all things.

  • Junie3

    I suggest you watch Constantine's Sword. Maybe find a little truth about him. This vision stuff is bunk.

    • rebart

      A link, or other information would have been appreciated.

      • Junie3

        http://www.moviefone.com/movie/constantines-sword/33132/main?flv=1 You can watch it on Netflix

        A Review

        Don't go – unless you're willing to re-evaluate the most stable images in your life. I sat down in a small, dark theater with the expectation that…the movie would be informative; but I found much more than that.. the willingness to question, to change, to rethink stability. The journey Carroll takes as the film unfolds leads the audience to the questions we MUST ask ourselves in order to understand the power associated with religion in the wrong hands… I stood up, shaken, and quietly left the Greenwich Village Theater once the movie had ended, spending the next few hours in silence as I considered the toll this experience had taken on my perspective. Whatever your faith, whatever the issue you passionately advocate, whatever your reason for getting up each morning – you must one day come to terms with the 'why' behind it. Could you live with a dishonest answer? Be informed. Go see this movie.

  • jackie820

    This is NOT WHEN CHRISTENDOM BEGAN…IT BEGAN FROM THE TIME OF CHRIST. Of course they spoke Greek..they also spoke Aramaic. Who wrote this article ? Wow !!

    • http://missionoutreach.org Ray Downen

      The writer is reminding us that he thinks Christendom is not the same as Christianity. Many of us suppose that the two terms both refer to the Way taught by Jesus of Nazareth. But it's used by some to refer to the political-religious mix which became the Roman Catholic church rather than the church built by Jesus through His apostles.

  • John

    With everyone agreeing that it was a major event in the history of the Christian Church, some further reading might be a good idea: For some modern thoughts, try Peter Leithart and of course if you want the real story from those who lived it, try Augustine's City of God.

    In the Lamb,

    John

  • John J Flanagan

    It is too complex to ascertain Constantine's influence on Christianity. In some respects there were negative affects, but in other ways it was positive, allowing for the spread of the gospel. Since God is involved in the affairs of this world, we can not know exactly how His plan worked out in regards to Constantine.

  • simon says

    Why don't you all do yourself a favour and read and study "THE GREAT CONTROVERSY" by Mrs E.G.White. Why that book and not another ? well , as a scholar of History and Theology I say it's the best book on the subject. There you will find the real truth about early Christianity and Constantine…and Pagan Rome and Papal Rome and all their modern world connections up to our time. Happy readings !!

    • Bighoss

      Christian Science alert! Ms. White is the heretic who started that cult.

      • simon says

        Bighoss …from your thoughtless remark , it is obvious to me that you are confusing mrs e.g.white with mary baker eddy. mrs white's science has nothing to do with the so called Christian Science. and further more it is very unlike you, not to deviate from the main subject .

        • Steve03

          Actually, she's a founder of the Seventh Day Adventists, not the Christian Scientists. Her book (of 1911) appears to be a mix of accounts of her "visions" which gave her direct insight into the evils of Constantine and the papacy and large chunks of text lifted without attribution from the works of genuine historians. Try Diarmaid MacCulloch's "Chirstianity: The First Three Thousand Years" or even Edward Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" instead.

          • Kalev

            And Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons" is the best work on the perversion of the "faith once for all delivered".

        • Bighoss

          I stand corrected. I got my heretic women mixed up.

          • http://missionoutreach.org Ray Downen

            I'm glad you realized the error. Good for you. Your comment is still correct that just because a person claims to be revealing God's truth does not mean that the "truth" they reveal is from God or true in any way.

          • simon says

            Yes…the way you are going Bighoss i believe you will keep on being corrected. you have a mouth that speaks without thought most of the time. The word heretic was coined up by the RCC . and it was a term used widely during the Protestant reformation, it was the best that Roman Catholics could do against the the sweeping tide of the God given changes that were to mark the beginning of the great Protestant Reformation that swept Roman Catholicism aside to make way for God's Word and His servants to spread the real gospel of Jesus Christ . (Gal 1:8) Not the Pagan RCC distorted gospel that is leading millions to a Godless grave today. I say thank God for the Reformation and for all those heavenly guided minds like…Luther – Melancthon – Erasmus – Huss – Wesley – Knox – Jerome – Zwingli – Calvin – Tyndale . etc-etc. So if all of these men were heretics , well all i can say is that heaven is theirs already , heretic or not , they lived according to biblical standards. Bighoss here is my encouragement to you , stop wasting your time and God's by denigrating his chosen , instead concentrate on trying your fairly best to be as conscious as these men of old were . Study the Word and be Spiritually guided and you will do well. see James 2:8.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

            How could those men all be heavenly guided when they couldn't even agree with each other?

      • http://missionoutreach.org Ray Downen

        So-called "Christian Science" is not the only false teaching which is often heard in contemporary religion. But we still need to find truth in apostolic teaching rather than in what contemporary "prophets" say. One of the false religions of our day is Mormonism, and it's unfortunate that many support the false religion and assume it's all good because they see the good that it does. Seventh-day Adventism is equally bad in supposing a modern "prophet" is inspired to speak for God with non-apostolic teachings.

    • Kalev

      Read "The Two Babylons" for the best research on the paganism that crept into early Christianity. Leave that heretic apostate E.G. White in the garbage bin.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

        Anyone who denies the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not to be taken seriously as a Church historian, for there are no examples of Christians in ancient Rome who did not believe in the Real Presence, save those that the author would not condemn as heretics himself.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods

          we do know that by the time of Tertullian that the church was begin accused of cannibalism by the pagan. this has to beg the question what made the pagan believe this?

    • http://missionoutreach.org Ray Downen

      Mrs. White surely wrote well. But she didn't know Bible truth and was best known as a false prophet because her prophecies didn't work out as she said. We've had leaders and teachers after the apostles, but only the apostles of Jesus were baptized by Jesus and led into all truth. We do well to seek light in apostolic writings rather than in "latter-day prophets."

      • mallen11

        Can you please show me in the Bible where Jesus baptized his apostles in water. Thank you.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

          The washing of the feet only makes sense if Jesus had already baptized them ("Whoever has bathed needs only to have his feet washed.")

          • mallen11

            I only will believe Biblical proof.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

            1 Peter 3:21 says baptism now saves us. That's quite a ridiculous thing for Peter to say if he was not himself baptized. While the Bible does not explicitly say Jesus baptized the Apostles, to say that He didn't is to render several passages ridiculous. That would mean that Jesus was a respecter of persons, imposing obligations on the general public that didn't apply to the Apostles.

          • mallen11

            Baptism of the Holy Spirit:

            1 Peter 3:18-22 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God
            for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the
            right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and
            powers had been subjected to Him.

            BAPTISM: Identification

            Seven baptisms in the Bible:

            Real – actual identifications

            Ritual – representative identification where water is used

            Baptism rarely refers to water in the Bible.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kennade-Nade/100000351662413 Kennade Nade

    Christians all over the world should be taught "Old World" theology and then compare to today's teachings. History does and will repeat itself over and over again. We have closed our eyes on evil by ignoring it, desensitized by not knowing the past. GOD Bless America.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-B-Severy/557985964 David B Severy

    Constantine was a man. Worship Jesus, he is a man and MORE !!!

    • http://missionoutreach.org Ray Downen

      Yes, disciples of Christ should worship and serve Jesus as Lord over all. And good Christians should surely be good citizens of the land where they live. That's why I choose to speak up about this soon-to-be election. Obama is a Muslim, an enemy of Christians. He is quickly ruining the economy of the U.S.A. and needs to be stopped. We need to accept reality and do our duty as Christians and as citizens in this free land.

      • http://www.facebook.com/mikepenturningz Michael Schmitt

        Muhammad was just another false prophet! I am not sure of Obama's religion but suspect that you are correct! We are taught to treat our enemies with kindness!

        • Evermyrtle

          His religion??Anti-GOD, anti-CHRIST means Muslin Islam, I think.

  • rebart

    The Trinity, as believed by the Catholics and Protestants, is a figment of Middle Age superstition and threats by Constantine to come up with something everyone could believe in, as long as he could believe in in it, too. The bishops went along with this nonsense because they were afraid to be excommunicated, exiled, or executed. The Bible does not teach this drivel. Only one verse in the Bible is seen to support the Catholic Trinity, and that is I John 5:7, an apocryphal verse added by the Catholics after the Council of Nicea (Nicea).

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods

      it is funny how Constantine gets accused of forcing trinitarianism when he before Nicaea favored Arianism. belief in the trinity is found in the first century found in the oldest creed of the faith the Apostles' Creed. you must have been reading too much Dan Brown nonsense. the trinity is found in Jesus' baptism and in the great commission as well.

      • rebart

        Constantine probably wasn't even Christian, as most scholars believe. He used the religion for political purposes. Belief in the Trinity is fine. Believing that God prayed to himself, died on the cross, and is one in the same as Jesus is just plain nonsense.

    • Wordman

      Wrong. For anyone who accepts the Bible as God’s word, the plain words of scripture prove the Trinity beyond any reasonable doubt. While it is true that, except for Mat 28:19, there is no single verse that clearly delineates God’s triune nature in a formulaic manner, the Trinity is the inescapable conclusion when one examines all of the Bible's testimony concerning God.

      Though there are many clues in the OT, the existence of God, the Son was not clearly revealed until the unveiling of Jesus Christ at the advent of the NT eon. Jesus Christ came to earth in supernatural fashion, accepted the worship of others, spoke of Himself in terms that would be blasphemous if He were not Divine (And was marked for death by the Jewish leaders because He did so and they DIDN’T believe Him), and was clearly spoken of in Divine terms by the NT writers in many places. Similarly, the existence of God, the Holy Spirit, though hinted at in the OT, was not clearly revealed until Jesus Christ came and revealed Him. Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit as a Person ("When ‘HE" comes, HE will…") and told us many things concerning His nature and His activities that can not be reasonably understood unless the Holy Spirit is also a divine personage.

      Through the ages the true Church of Jesus Christ has affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity as clearly and as strongly as she has testified of anything. Anyone who denies the Trinity is either thoroughly ignorant what the Bible teaches and what the true Church has affirmed, or they stand outside the pale of historic Christianity. Man-made religions and doctrines are nothing new. But because they stand against God’s word and the witness of the historic Christian church, an unbearable burden of proof is upon them.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Victor-Barney/100000502045724 Victor Barney

        If "Jesus" is our Savior, please translate his name into Hebrew, which is the ONLY spiritually inspired language(Zeph. 3:9, Acts 26:10, 1 Cor. 4:6)? I get "horse," but I don't think so??? Duh! Just saying…

      • rebart

        Well, this comment would fit in nicely with the "God is Dead" movement. God died on the cross and came back to life after talking to himself and praying to himself. You had better read what Jesus did on the Mount of Olives. Did Jesus put a deep sleep on his disciples and then try to talk to them, and then go back to pray to himself and ask himself "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I WILL, but as THOU wilt". (Matt. 26: 39). Seems to me Jesus, in Matthew 6:9 said to pray to the Father, so is he saying pray to himself as the Father? Why would he do that?

        Stand as a witness against the historic Christian church? The Catholic church is as man-made as any other Christian church. Men try to understand the Bible as best they can and follow it's teachings. That's how ALL churches begin. The historic Catholic "fathers" did the same. The Catholics and, to a large extent, the Protestant churches are not different in that respect. They follow the thinking of men, NOT the Bible. The Catholic fathers are NOT the word of God, they are the words of men.

  • Bob Koomans

    Interestingly enough, later on, C.231AD, Constantine fulfilled a prophecy that was given by both Jesus and John in Revelations. It was Constantine who noted the richness of pagans, who refused to join the ancient Christian church, and become Christians. Constantine decided to get permission to give an alternative Day for the pagans to come to a meeting hall in church grounds, hoping to back-door them into change of religion. Unfortunately it was also the beginning of the gradual take-over by the pagans, who were able to assimilate the Christians, without actually accepting the teachings of The Christ. By 700AD the church was completely dominated by the order of pagans, and another Prophecy was fulfilled. Many more prophecies connected to those, until they culminated with the renewed State of Israel in 1948. Marvellous what happens when we bend God's rules to suit ourselves, until we can no longer recognise ourselves as truly Christian. God never changed His Laws, and neither did Jesus: He even warned us of it, and warned the Churches against their infidelity with God. Yet, God asks through Jesus, for us all to "Come OUT of (this – our) Babylon"!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Victor-Barney/100000502045724 Victor Barney

      What about God(GAWD), the Babylonian Deity of Good Luck? Just saying…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Victor-Barney/100000502045724 Victor Barney

    Not for NOTHING, BUT CONSTANTINE IS CHRISTIANITY! He had the DREAM! REMEMBER? Just saying…

  • Vladimir

    Constantine's "gift" to Christianity was a gross distortion of the nature of the Godhead. The Christian world henceforth believed not in the description of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as contained in the New Testament, but in the best description he and hundreds of men could come up with from their understanding of scripture.

    • rebart

      Right on, Vladimir.

  • mallen11

    Doctrine of the Trinity

    1. The word “trinity” is not found in the Bible – it is a Theological word describing a Biblical concept.

    2. It describes One God in Three Persons who are revealed as God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit

    3. While God is one in essence, they are co-equal, co-eternal, and co-existence with identical essence.

    4. The Trinity is three persons in one God-head. Gal 3:20, James 2:19, Col 2:9, Acts 5:3-4, I Cor 3:16

    5. There is only one Divine Nature or Being and this Divine Being is Tri-personal involving distinctions between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

    6. These three persons are joint partakers of the same nature and majesty of God

    7. The same in consistence and continuing in existence.

    8. The Trinity is a true Doctrine but undiscoverable by natural reason. [It is a Spiritual phenomenon]

    9. The Trinity is described as one but they are different in persons. Eph 4:4-6

    10. 2 Cor 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. I Pet 1:2

    11.When the Divine Essence of God is mentioned the Trinity is One, when Divine Persons are mentioned there is distinction between God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

    From a non-Biblical explanation: a woman can be a mother, daughter and sister, hence three in one. A man can be a father, son and brother, hence three in one. They each have different functions; how is the Trinity so hard to understand?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods

      i hate to tell you that your non-biblical explanation is very heretical for it promotes modelism. a true explanation is Adam, Eve, and Able for from Adam came both Eve and Able. another way to explain it can be a father, mother, and child in a family unit. the family is one unit compose of three people. the trinity is the same substance, but has three distinct persons with personalities, will, and minds.

      • mallen11

        Everything was explained above my non-Biblical explanation — it was only an example to help understand — not comparing humans to God. I disgree with your viewpoint.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods

          you were contradicting yourself. my examples are the use by the Eastern Church. you could have used the egg and tree without being heretical. relationship titles and even water are the worst heretical explanations ever thought up.

          • mallen11

            Apparently, you do not know what anthropopathisms are. Also, using a person is clearer to most people and not using nature which is more heretical and extremely anti-God. In fact, just about everything you believe is anti-Biblical.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods

            God is one in substance/nature, but in three distinct persons. the eastern fathers focused on the Trinity by bringing the three person together in unity. God has eternally been three persons but one in substance. whatever make the divine nature is found in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son, but all three are of the same nature equal in power and glory. i really suggest that you would read the Athanasius Creed for Athanasius put in words beautifully how we could understand the trinity.

          • mallen11

            Thank you for your advice but I have been taught for many years by a pastor-teacher who has explained the Trinity many times using scripture and I would rather believe him than a man-made creed no matter who wrote it. We are taught the Bible word by word, verse by verse from the original languages cross checking everything that is taught for proof; not what some man says the Bible says but what THE BIBLE says. Example: it took my Pastor 5 years to teach Ephesians; twice on Sunday, M-F covering every doctrine in every verse. He taught for 53 years in one church and now his son is teaching the same way. We finished 1 Corinthians last year the same way and other books as well in other years. What I am trying to say is that I would rather be taught the pure Word of God than anything man has written to distract from the God Word.

            Heb 4:12For the word of God is alive and powerful sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

            2 Timothy 3:16-17All scripture is God breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

            2 Timothy 2:15 Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Johnson/100000824645514 Stephen Johnson

    "Constantine’s Gift to Christianity"? Is this some type of joke? Only the liberals at Zionica in the Sandy Springs/Atlanta area would believe such a comment.

  • Mex Seiko

    Constantine's gift to Christianity was the soil where the mustard seed grew as a tree.