What are the pros/cons of Constantine's role in Christianity,from a Christians point of view?
460160
The vast majority of Christians are completely unaware of who actually invented what we now call Christianity, so how could they have an opinion?
649599
This is only the point of view of SOME Christians.  I believe a truly good man who lives a life of honour and integrity; who does not harm anyone in body or mind; who respects everybody in the same way that he would like to be respected, and who tries to be the very best that he can be, is much more likely to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than a bigoted Christian.
822823
There are  a lot of people who might try and hurt him if he goes, but the Christians of that area have been under heavy persecution and need some help. Also he can't back out now or some people would claim that Christians were weak and it was a weak and fake religion (remember he represents the entire church.)
43191
This is quite long, I apologize.  According to The Encyclopedia Americana, regional councils instrumental in organizing Catholic churches in Spain, Britain, and elsewhere were “often called and dominated by the secular power.” General councils of religious leaders from the whole Roman empire “were unknown before the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.),” called by Emperor Constantine. British historian H. G. Wells suggested that Constantine brought politics and autocracy into an already deeply divided Christendom. Wells wrote: “Not only was the council of Nicæa assembled by Constantine the Great, but all the great councils, the two at Constantinople (381 and 553), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451) were called together by the imperial power.” But how could God approve of that, since true Christians do not try to mix their religion with politics but, rather, maintain strict neutrality?—John 17:16; James 1:27.\n\n“Later general councils were frequently overshadowed by imperial church politics and the rivalry of the major patriarchal sees [areas controlled by a bishop or an archbishop],” adds The Encyclopedia Americana. Since such church councils were marked by ecclesiastical politics and rivalries, they bore no fruits of God’s spirit such as love and peace. Rather, they were marred by fleshly works that included “hostilities, bickering, jealousy, . . . selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions.” With reference to works of the flesh, the apostle Paul warned: “Those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!” (Galatians 5:19-23, the Catholic New American Bible) Therefore, how can it be said that Christendom’s church councils have been approved by God?\n\nThe history of the Church under [Constantine’s] influence becomes now therefore a history of the violent struggles that were bound to follow upon his sudden and rough summons to unanimity. From him the Church acquired the disposition to be authoritative and unquestioned, to develop a centralized organization and run parallel to the empire.”\n\nThe determination to stamp out opposition led to dreadful atrocities. Most of those pronounced guilty of heresy against the popular dogma of the council were burned at the stake, suffering the agony of a slow death as a public spectacle—supposedly in the name of Christ!\n\nFor instance, the Council of Constance (1414-18) was called to end bickering over who was the legitimate pope and to deal with the heresies of Wycliffe and Hus. Thirty thousand horses are said to have carried people to Constance for this great event. During the council, John Hus was tried and condemned, then turned over to secular authorities and burned at the stake.\n\nWhat About Doctrine?\n\n. To illustrate: In 325 C.E. the Council of Nicaea introduced the doctrine of the Incarnate Christ, or God-man. This denial that Jesus was in fact a man became one of the most misleading doctrines of Christendom. (Compare 2 John 7.) Why, it has turned millions away from Jehovah God to a confusing Trinity! None of the councils held thereafter made any attempt to rectify this error. Yet the Trinity doctrine is clearly unscriptural, for Jesus said: “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28) Could God possibly approve of any council that obscured the truth about his identity and that of his Son?\n\nAs also noted in the chart, among the doctrines endorsed at Christendom’s church councils were baptism of infants, imposed and required celibacy, purgatory, and hellfire. However, the Scriptures do not support infant baptism, such celibacy, and a fiery hell, nor do they make any reference to purgatory. (Matthew 28:19, 20; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; Job 14:13) Since those desiring Jehovah’s favor must worship him “with spirit and truth,” how could he approve of councils fostering false doctrine?—John 4:23, 24.\n\nThe encyclopedia Hidria says: “Constantine was especially interested in Christianity because it backed up not only his vic
1096762
Well, that would require a 100 page essay to list all the differences, and a major history language.\n\nBoth would be preferred , at least by me, over Roman Orthodox, but I would say Coptic would be closer to what the church was like after Jesus' death/Resurrection.
480967
The Jesus myth was not established properly before the roman emperor Constantine collected the writings of the different cults and defined the New Testament at the council of Nicea. Mithra was adapted to Mithras, a roman God, so Constantine knew all about the Dec 25 virgin birth and the last supper etc etc. Romans tended to adapt gods instead of getting rid of them completely. Aside from that, the Jesus tradition is very much inspired by the original Iranian mythologies. Thought-provoking to think that so much about Jesus is just adapted, older myths...
685388
I have been saying, for years, that modern Christians follow Paul, not Jesus. The Christian New Testament is in large degree a Paulist document. The books that were accepted as worthy of inclusion were chosen by religious leaders long after the time of Christ at the request of Constantine. It was his desire to make Christianism the Roman state religion. It needed to be something that was very structured so as to give control over the masses. Paul's writtings afforded them the opportunity to do that, which is why they were picked. Anyone interested in a good look at the REAL Jesus and what HE taught, as opposed to Paul, should read the Lost Gospel of Thomas. Its easy to find, just do a web search. Funny thing about that book ... Jesus was married, spoke in ways that are foriegn to many now days, and comes off looking much more like the Jesus presented by Muslim scholars and also modern Gnostics. Its also dated, as a translation of an earlier work, to 60 C.E. which makes it older than 60 C.E. and very close to the life of Jesus. Its also older than most of Paul's works. And that married part? Makes it a little hard to let that pass as a fact and still enjoin celebacy on priests, monks, and nuns by way of example, don't you think? There goes the control over a cheap source of church labor. Another funny thing that lends credence to the Gospel of Thomas is that almost every quote in it can be found in the current Christian New Testament. But the OTHERS, the ones that are left out, make all the difference in the world. Paul was who and what he was. That's between Paul and Deity. But I don't think he was an Apostle, and I don't think he spoke for true Christianity. But, hey, Thomas did a good job. ;-) ~ Peace and Blessings ~ (Just an added thought ... Luke wrote the Book of Acts.He wasn't an Apostle, he probably never knew Jesus, he came on the scene latter. He worked and traveled with Paul. Realistically, where do you think he got his information. Who gave Luke input?)
830959
I think you can. First century Christianity is nothing like the overbloated monster that has become "Churchianity" as we know it today. To have a relationship with the Christ without the extra baggage would be very personal and probably a heck of a lot more fulfilling than joining the fan club.
361641
Christianity is supposed to be a way of life based on the teachings and life of Jesus.  Very few people actually can be classed as being "Christa in"\n\nUnfortunately there are many that call therm-selves Christian and profess to follow the teachings of Jesus but by their actions they are far from what Jesus taught.\n\nA good place to start is by reading the Bible. (Use several modern versions as some are very highly biased to theological ideas, eg the King James is highly biased) \n\n Talking to  various people the profess Christianity will possibly confuse you even more.  So send me an email.  I can tell you the different ideas and leave it up to you to decide which one you think best describes the teachings of Jesus\n\ngordo_burns@yahoo.com.au
1074110
zaphira is WAY off base.  Constantine mixed a lot of pagan rituals into Christianity.  The day of worship became 'Sun'day.  There are some other changes but the main problem is that he allowed paganism to be mixed in.  This led to Easter (an ancient fertility celebration for the 'goddess' Isis) being celebrated as resurrection sunday.  Christmas was also supposed to be some other 'god's' birthday.  When persecution ended, Christians let their guard down to let pagan worship get mixed in.  It's not popular, but it's the truth.
1176390
Around 400 years after the death of Christ and the last of the apostles, Roman Emperor Constantine supposedly saw a vision of a cross in the sky. He had all of his troops paint the image onto their shields and attributed this to his victory. He 'converted' to Christianity and all of Rome was made to do the same. In order to make the transition from false worship to that of Christianity easier, Roman celebrations and customs were 'Christianized'. Today, most 'Christian" celebrations such as Christmas, Easter, Valentine's Day (think Cupid), and New Years Eve, all began with the adoption of pagan celebrations. Also Roman doctrines were incorporated into 'Christian' beliefs leading to the Roman Catholic Church, the denomination which later spun off religions such as Lutheran, Baptist, Protestant, and others. Most professed Christians today embrace the pagan traditions of old despite Jesus' warning that such traditions dishonor God.
385667
To the Mainstream Christians, Jesus the Christ sacrificed Himself for the sake of removing the Original Sin off humanity, and in so doing Jesus the Christ opened a pathway to Eternal Life by His Salvation for humanity.  This is, of course, the view point of the Christians in general.\n\nTo the Gnositic Christians, such as the Cainites and Sethians, the Death of Jesus is viewed in ways very different from the Mainstream Christians; many of these gnostical views are termed as heretical and blasphemous even as far as to consider them satanic by many Mainstream Christians.\n\nThe view of the Gnostic Christians on the Crucifixion of Jesus is that, Jesus of Nazareth chose Death in order to release the Spirit within; in other words, he died for the sake of showing there is an Eternal Life by following his methods (of spiritual practices, not in the attempt on death), and not as an offering to the Eternal Life: "Pick up YOUR cross, and Follow me."\n\nOf these two very different, and might even opposing, views; each individual is entitled to select which to believe by his or her own choice.  The Scriptures, after all, can be read in more than one way -- let the Holy Spirit guide you or let the Divine Grace bestow you, the choice is always a personal one.\n\nPax et Amore Christi vobiscum,\nLux Mithrai ex Tenebras Crucis.
525710
I think people's faith would be more real, more indepth if we lived in a country where Christianity was persecuted, but we probably wouldn't have as many members. I praise God that we do live in a country where we are free & not persecuted to worship & practice our religion. A lot of the times, being the 'norm' helps people come to Him, but a lot of other times, it usually makes for a shallow relationship, and it dies off in a couple of months or years...
46891
I think the (or an) antichrist would act in a pay of a pursuader.  A sutle character who warms his/her way gaining trust only to abuse it. If the anitchrist is against christ then I think he/she would have these charateristics to get into the christians lives to test them most, with their love and trust. (a christians compassion and love for another he/she would take this as a weakness (not saying it is) and use that against them I really dont think that the antichrist would be a in your face kind of character, that would be too obvious.
930937
Hello, my friend. This book--"Mere Christianity"--and especially this bit about Christ's being either a lunatic or else the Son of God, was instrumental in my opening up to Jesus, simply on account of the fact that I had, for years, "respected" Jesus of Nazareth as a great teacher, ever ignoring the (what I then thought to be) creepier things he was quoted as saying in the Gospels (such as "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light")...and Lewis, with this very simple and basic observation, blew my cozy little respect for Jesus of Nazareth out of the water.\n\nWhich did something to a door. Meaning, I then had to face the very choice that Lewis proposed in this book. In other words, I was either going to have to open the door all the way (and believe Christ was who he said he is) or else close it (and believe Jesus of Nazareth to be deranged and blasphemous).\n\nUltimately, I would say that I chose to believe that Christ is God's Son, but truly God gave me the knowledge that Christ is his Son (John 6:44)...and perhaps he gave me the gift of faith for the sole reason that I was seeking it.
747920
You would hope the positive side would be actually caring about the people it helps or teaches.(but that has to be questioned when the religious institution involved if it is too political or money orientated).\n\nThe negatives to me are a lot more obvious in the fact that all religions are sectarian and exclusive so in some form (small or large) they will always persecute people of other faiths and especially atheists.
929537
Fair enough, now are you going to post all the acts of evil perpetrated in the name of Christianity.  See 34 AD to Present.\n\nNote: Big Pen, the answer was meant to be sarcastic, however, Christianity still has much to answer for.