No, he had a role though in ending the martyrdoms of Christians, and in fact encouraged Christianity throughout the Roman Empire -- possibly, one can argue, that when persecution of Christians ceased, it became easier to be Christian, and that some may have "converted" only externally, not in their heart. But this is not Constantine's fault, is it?
Constantine outlawed Sabbath worship and implemented Sunday worship as a matter of law. This is a violation of the 4th commandment and also foretold in both Daniel (seek to change times and laws of God) and in Ezekiel 8 (sun worship).
If you think the Sabbath is abolished then you need to provide evidence from the Bible. I have also read some of the apocrypha and some of the letters of Ignatius and am also aware of translation controversies in those letters. Controversies that undermine the argument that the earliest churches gave up Sabbath worship for Sunday worship. Try to use something from the Bible.
There is a good evidence the earliest Christians gathered "on the first day of the week" to worship and celebrate the Resurrection (as Catholics would call it, they had mass). <g>
This business of requiring all evidence to come solely out of a Catholic book called the Bible is itself not scriptural -- nothing in the Bible says that it is the sole source of Revelation, and in fact, there are passages which infer an oral source of revelation. This makes perfect sense, given:
a) The apostles (first bishops) were given 24x7 in-person training, by Jesus himself, for the 3 years of his public ministry. And scripture is clear that when Jesus spoke to them privately, he spoke clearly, and explained things, and did not resort to parables as he often did with the crowds. Scripture is also clear that scripture itself does not, and could not, contain even a small fraction of all that Jesus said and did. Yet, there were witnesses who were present for much of what he did and said, and they were given authority in the church as leaders and decision makers.
b) The Bible, specifically the New Testament portions of it, did not exist at the start of the Church (which we might agree was at Pentecost), and in fact there was not an official canon, or list of which books were or were not to be included in the Bible, until the 300's, when this was decided in a council.
c) Given the Church was entrusted with the authority to bind and loose, to forgive sins in Jesus' name, to safeguard and pass on all things taught by Christ that are important for salvation, and clearly had the authority to make important decisions regarding doctrine and the contents of the Bible itself, so also the Church had the authority to designate Sunday as the Lord's Day. That this was so was considered self-evident for most of the last 2,000 years, by virtually all Christians, including most non-Catholics, so I do not think you and I can improve upon that discussion here.
You mention Ignatious -- that's great, there are several others worth reading -- and do not be swayed by translation red-herrings. There are folks who felt the need to downplay the important testimony of these early writers, but it is quite clear they say what they say, and were understood that way, for millenia.
On the Lord's Day/Sabbath issue, there also are non-christian sources, such as Josephus, who mentions that the Christians gathered for worship on the 1st day of the week.
I mean which one(s) you think are owned by the deepstate? Why was John Paul the 1st only pope for 33 days before JP 2nd? And why after JP 2nd died did Benedict step down? He should have died as pope. pope Frances filling in after Benedict being forced out tells me he is someone’s puppet.
I see -- yes, those are fair and good questions. Honestly, I don't have certain answers, to those either -- JP1 may have died of natural causes, or there may have been intrigue and more sinister forces at work. My opinion of what happened with Benedict is that he was forced out by deep church aka satanic pedo mafia types who have infiltrated the church. Whether Benedict legitimately relinquished both the visible and spiritual authority of the Papacy I'm not certain of, and I believe Francis was pushed in through DS/Deep Church forces as well. This is a very scandalous and confusing time for the Church, and for all Christians. But God does expect us to remain faithful to him, humbly ask for his grace and guidance, and lift up those around us. Christ's Church is going through, in a sense, the passion, but which will lead to a glorious resurrection. Pope JP2 continually spoke of a "springtime of evangelization" in coming years, and many, many times, repeated the words "do not be afraid".
Tell us which pope is the first corrupt pope? Who do you think was the first guy to sell out the Vatican? My guess is JPII
Constantine waa pretty early. He had a major hand in bringing paganism into the church.
No, he had a role though in ending the martyrdoms of Christians, and in fact encouraged Christianity throughout the Roman Empire -- possibly, one can argue, that when persecution of Christians ceased, it became easier to be Christian, and that some may have "converted" only externally, not in their heart. But this is not Constantine's fault, is it?
Constantine outlawed Sabbath worship and implemented Sunday worship as a matter of law. This is a violation of the 4th commandment and also foretold in both Daniel (seek to change times and laws of God) and in Ezekiel 8 (sun worship).
If you think the Sabbath is abolished then you need to provide evidence from the Bible. I have also read some of the apocrypha and some of the letters of Ignatius and am also aware of translation controversies in those letters. Controversies that undermine the argument that the earliest churches gave up Sabbath worship for Sunday worship. Try to use something from the Bible.
There is a good evidence the earliest Christians gathered "on the first day of the week" to worship and celebrate the Resurrection (as Catholics would call it, they had mass). <g>
This business of requiring all evidence to come solely out of a Catholic book called the Bible is itself not scriptural -- nothing in the Bible says that it is the sole source of Revelation, and in fact, there are passages which infer an oral source of revelation. This makes perfect sense, given:
a) The apostles (first bishops) were given 24x7 in-person training, by Jesus himself, for the 3 years of his public ministry. And scripture is clear that when Jesus spoke to them privately, he spoke clearly, and explained things, and did not resort to parables as he often did with the crowds. Scripture is also clear that scripture itself does not, and could not, contain even a small fraction of all that Jesus said and did. Yet, there were witnesses who were present for much of what he did and said, and they were given authority in the church as leaders and decision makers.
b) The Bible, specifically the New Testament portions of it, did not exist at the start of the Church (which we might agree was at Pentecost), and in fact there was not an official canon, or list of which books were or were not to be included in the Bible, until the 300's, when this was decided in a council.
c) Given the Church was entrusted with the authority to bind and loose, to forgive sins in Jesus' name, to safeguard and pass on all things taught by Christ that are important for salvation, and clearly had the authority to make important decisions regarding doctrine and the contents of the Bible itself, so also the Church had the authority to designate Sunday as the Lord's Day. That this was so was considered self-evident for most of the last 2,000 years, by virtually all Christians, including most non-Catholics, so I do not think you and I can improve upon that discussion here.
You mention Ignatious -- that's great, there are several others worth reading -- and do not be swayed by translation red-herrings. There are folks who felt the need to downplay the important testimony of these early writers, but it is quite clear they say what they say, and were understood that way, for millenia.
On the Lord's Day/Sabbath issue, there also are non-christian sources, such as Josephus, who mentions that the Christians gathered for worship on the 1st day of the week.
There have been many sinful, and some corrupt, popes, and bishops, and priests -- and, for that matter, laypeople, throughout history.
Christ's church is a church of both saints and sinners.
The very first pope, Peter, denied Christ 3 times. One of the first 12 bishops (Judas) betrayed Christ to his enemies.
Nothing has changed, in that sense, throughout the last 2,000 years.
I mean which one(s) you think are owned by the deepstate? Why was John Paul the 1st only pope for 33 days before JP 2nd? And why after JP 2nd died did Benedict step down? He should have died as pope. pope Frances filling in after Benedict being forced out tells me he is someone’s puppet.
I see -- yes, those are fair and good questions. Honestly, I don't have certain answers, to those either -- JP1 may have died of natural causes, or there may have been intrigue and more sinister forces at work. My opinion of what happened with Benedict is that he was forced out by deep church aka satanic pedo mafia types who have infiltrated the church. Whether Benedict legitimately relinquished both the visible and spiritual authority of the Papacy I'm not certain of, and I believe Francis was pushed in through DS/Deep Church forces as well. This is a very scandalous and confusing time for the Church, and for all Christians. But God does expect us to remain faithful to him, humbly ask for his grace and guidance, and lift up those around us. Christ's Church is going through, in a sense, the passion, but which will lead to a glorious resurrection. Pope JP2 continually spoke of a "springtime of evangelization" in coming years, and many, many times, repeated the words "do not be afraid".