I personally think some of the comments on this site can get pretty ridiculous at times, more importantly, they can utterly obliterate an otherwise important message. However, you know what is said about opinions and how they are like a particular body part (everybody’s got one, and they all stink). The thing I have seen that truly ruins credibility is when atheists/agnostics/whatever pontificate about the Bible, yet they don’t believe in it in the first place.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (193)
sorted by:
Im not talking about early christians, I'm referring to the source you quote for the following assertion:
"However, the idea that Constantine inserted Pagan doctrines into Christianity is a contentious assertion and lacks strong historical evidence."
Ultimately, I think the majority of confusion on this matter arises from the fact that Christianity became the State religion during the time of Constantine, and this presented a major problem for all the Pagan religions at the time. They needed to adjust their religious system to accommodate Christianity or face serious repercussions.
Enter Catholicism...
Catholicism is the main culprit for merging Paganism into Christianity, not Constantine.
Satan basically said, "I can't beat/kill the Christians. Might as well join them!"
Absolutely it did NOT.
Some 50 years after his death, yes.
History: learn it.
Do not be deceived.
Oh, I see.
It appears you are referring to the sources and quotes that were provided in a previous response to support the assertion about Constantine's influence on Christianity. Let's address those sources and quotes in that context:
Eberhard Nestle: Eberhard Nestle is known for his work in the field of New Testament textual criticism. The quote attributed to him suggests that "correctors" were selected to scrutinize sacred texts after the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. While it acknowledges the role of correctors, it does not necessarily imply that Constantine inserted Pagan doctrines into Christianity. The work of correctors primarily focused on textual variations and consistency rather than the introduction of new doctrines.
R. W. Bernard: R. W. Bernard's quote asserts that in 325 AD, a "colossal fraud" occurred at the Council of Nicaea, which aimed to create a new religion acceptable to Emperor Constantine. It's important to note that this view represents a minority perspective and is not supported by mainstream historical scholarship (this phrase will probably make some cringe in here, but in some discussions it matters where one gleans their info from) . The Council of Nicaea primarily addressed theological disputes, particularly the Arian controversy, rather than creating an entirely new religion.
Eusebius: Eusebius was an early Christian historian and bishop. The quote attributed to him mentions Emperor Constantine's preference to disassociate from the Jewish community. While Constantine's views on religious matters were influential during his reign, this quote does not directly support the assertion that Pagan doctrines were inserted into Christianity.
The majority Biblical of scholars do not support the idea that Constantine introduced Pagan doctrines into Christianity, but rather that he played a role in addressing theological disputes and granting religious tolerance to Christians. The quotes provided represent alternative viewpoints, and it's important to evaluate them in the context of broader historical consensus.
Let's simplify and clarify this further, as it's sorely needed in this discussion:
Constantine was the Roman Emperor. He very much thought that he should have been able to know what was going on re: Christian doctrines. He had no desire to shape any of them, and he did not.
He wanted all of Christendom to declare what this thing was. In writing. That's a very Roman thing to do, and it had never been done at that time. Although both the Apostle's Creed and the Didache predate the Nicene Creed possibly by hundreds of years.
Anyone trying to understand ANY of this has to read the Didache, and I have to question how many here have ever even heard of it.
Absolutely nothing new was created at the Council of Nicea. Some disputes were settled, according to the Scriptures. All of the first five ecumenical councils focused on Christology.
Clearly fren you are better versed on this topic than I am. Thank you for the introducing me these sources so I may investigate further. My position is not that 100% the bible has been corrupted. However, knowing how corruptible men are and how power corrupts, I will entertain the idea that it is a possiblity that the Bible/knowledge can be corrupted by a powerful few to further their agenda.
An example would be the historical view of two sexes. Who would have thought in just a decade, our global medical/scientific authorities will state that men can be women and women can be men, etc. Something so innate and natural can even be refuted and proported to be true just through leverage of power via small powerful organizations. Imagine what can be done in religious organizations.
"The majority Biblical of scholars do not support the idea" This reminds me of "the majority of doctors and scientists do not support the idea that the covid vaccines are bad, or covid was developed in a lab, or etc etc". Did these biblical scholars all come to their own conclusion or were they just playing it safe to not be seen as heretical. Again, I'm not saying that is what happened. Just that there is a possibility for corruption. That's all.
Thanks for sharing your ideas fren.
Remember this: God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick.
Godspeed in your research, my fren.
That I have no doubt.
Everything in the Nicene Creed was always believed by the Church, and is based entirely on Scripture.
You can study the Council of Nicest, to learn what it was about. The false ideas on this topic flying around here serve satan.