If there is overwhelming evidence that Constantine and others wrote the christian religion...?

Question

...what do fundamentalists believe? It's all a lie, or that was part of the grand plan? What I wish people would understand is that it is the religion that is in question, not the faith. People have such a hard time prying themselves from their beliefs, they will justify their arguments with any last rediculous straw rather than ask how this new understanding can help me strenghten their faith. I fear for people who are so scared others might change their flawed paradigm that they lash out with anger reather than look within.

Excuse my wording. Constantine picked and chose the elements of the bible and built the rest of the religion on the shoulders of other myths. Thanks to all the christians who are so used to blind defense of this book that they have their reasoning sharpened and at the ready should anyone question them.

Answer 1

They refused to change their mind about anything. You can't really fault them though, they have been brainwashed since before they knew what a thought was.

Also, just because something has been around for a really long time doesn't make it empowered by God. Look at the Pyramids, they were made by man and are still around. Machu Pichu comes to mind as well.

The concept of philosophy pre-dates Christianity, I wonder if that means thinking for yourself predates Jesus. Now, we see which truly has more power.

Answer 2

Outside of Dan Brown's novel, there isn't. If you actually study history, you will learn what acutally happened at Nicea. The books that were to be included in the canon were not even discussed. The divinity of Jesus was not up for question, either. What was discussed was whether or not Jesus was created, or was co-eternal with the Father. Both sides of the argument believed that Jesus was divine. Those are the historical facts of what happened at Nicea.

As for what books to include in the New Testament while there was a tradition, the Church did not officially sanction what we now know as the New Testament until later, and which Gospels to include was never debated.

And these are the historical facts, at least as far as Constantine is concerned. They are not debateable, as they can be proven by multiple sources.

Answer 3

The problem is, the evidence you refer to doesn't exist other than the Nicean creed. The truth is no-one is sure how the canon was formed. Constantine and Eusebius probably played a big role in it, seeing as Eusebius published a canon in 325 that differs from the later documented canon by only 1 book (Revelation), but that isn't the same as writing the religion.

There are extant copies of the Gospels dating to the late 2nd/early 3rd century, well before Constantine's conversion, and there is solid secular documentation of the existence of Christianity in the mid/late 1st century.

Answer 4

There is no evidence that Constatine's influence in the Christian religion was more than a political state of affairs. The Jewish church was fed up with those claiming to follow Christ - let's face it, it just wasn't working with Judaic traditions. So Constatine said what would it take to make you happy and for us to avoid such a conflict in Rome -as at the time the entire Roman Empire stretched from now what is Norway deep into Egypt. The Jews established what they felt would suffice as a compromisable establishement between Roman customs, Jewish customs, and used the names of Christ followers to give a ring of legitimacy - this in fact is the Christianity that is known as Catholicism has its roots and structure and nomenclature of being THE church built upon St. Peter, which is completely taken out of context. By the blending of the two "religions" a Christianity was born that was neither Christ-like nor of Christ teachings and followers of Christ were appalled leading to the great massacres of those who would not conform to the state church of Christianity - a fact that we may once again face in our own nation if we are not careful of where we are allowing the various organized religions and the Vatican to run free - as the Vatican has already started a large campaign of universalism that has encompassed Islam and is working to encompass Muslim as Christian religions. Religion is the key - Christ did not come to give us religion - he came to give us himself - relationship. And you are correct when you say that religion is what is to be questioned - it is the error of all the ways that people have trod - Christ did not organize religion, he actually made it very clear that the Saducees and Pharisees were leading people astray and that they had created so much manmade malarky that it was impossible for people to remember God for all the rules. I believe we can see that in our society today as well. Too many rules, not enough God through the knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Answer 5

They would never give up their beliefs... if for no other reason than they are more afraid of burning for eternity than to actually question what they claim is truth. ANd, like you said, when confronted, they lash out.

Constantine was a huge contributor to the Christian Religion... what amazes is me is that so many praise Constantine for making Christianity a Legal religion in Rome... yet when he did that, he was a Pagan, following his own God (who also died for the world... and the followers needed to be "born again", etc...) It was very easy for Constantine to use that religion as a political tool, then later claim to follow it, since there were so many similarities to his own to begin with.

Answer 6

Constantine did not write the Christian religion. He only formally declared it the religion of Rome when he was emperor in the 4th century AD. By that time, Christianity was already widespread, and had survived heavy persecution.
Evidence from that time suggests that Jesus did in fact live.
My question is, why would people lie, say they were witness to these miracles, and to the divinity of Christ, when many were faced with a gruesome death? Jesus's apostles were martyred. Why would a "lie" continue to spread?
Like you, I had to have it proven to me exactly where Christianity came from, and use scientific evidence to support the existence of a Deity.
Keep searching. But this time I'm afraid your information was flawed.

Answer 7

Overwhelming evidence that Constantine and others wrote the christian religion?... ok, let's hear it

In the meantime...
The New Testament can be completely recreated, except for 11 verse of the 7,958 in it, from manuscript fragments, quotes in other books, quotes in letters, commentaries, history books, etc all written before the year 200AD. (Constantine is 320'sAD).

The New Testament books were written between 50AD and 100AD. Every since book, except the one chapter long books of 1 John and Philemon, has a least one quote (most many more) in letters, books, histories (some by non-Christians), etc. written between 80 and 120AD. They have to had exist before 120AD to be quoted. (Again Constantine is 320's AD)

Besides the fragments, we have complete copies of every Net Testament book dating from between 140AD and 200 AD. There are complete Bibles that PREDATE Constantine still in existence. Several only discovered in the last century. (All by Arab Muslims or Jews - who I am sure did not changed them to help Christianity)

Of the 5,300 manuscripts of the New Testament books, agreement between them is at 99.5%, with the spelling of words accounting for the overwhelming majority of the differences. (Hand copied manuscripts). Of the 7,958 verses, 40 have actual differences. None affect the meaning of the verse. They are things "our God" rather than "your God". And where there are differences most appear only once among the 5,300 hand copied manuscripts. (Nobody claims that every single copy ever made of the New Testament was without a mistake)

There is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament existed, in the form we know it today, at least 120 years before the time on Constantine.

Why do we sometimes "lash out with anger"? When the things being said do not have anything to do with solid, provable historical facts.

Answer 8

Constantine and his bishops did no write the bible but they certainly were the ones who decided what went into it, They picked and chose from the religious writings that were around at the time to compile the bible. We know that all the writings of Paul were not included, also we know that there is a Revelations of Peter that differs from the one in the bible. And it is suspected that the "John" who wrote Revelations is not John The Apostle.

Answer 9

"Constantine and others" didn't write the bible, but they did make the decisions about which books to put in it. It was Constantine who changed the sabbath to Sunday in order to make it easier for the pagans to convert, since they celebrated their sabbaths for their fake gods on Sunday. So basically, he's responsible for many christians today celebrating the sabbath on the wrong day, breaking the "honor the sabbath and keep it holy" commandment. I've heard all the excuses, the "its because Christ rose on Sunday", the "we're under a new commandment", to the "it doesn't matter which day" nonsense. I don't think God thinks His commandment is nonsense, but hey, they need to justify their breaking His commandment, that's their problem.

Answer 10

The Arian Controversy, the Council of Nicaea, and its Aftermath

Early in the fourth century a dispute erupted within the Christian church regarding the nature of the Godhead, more specifically the exact relationship of the Son to the Father. Arius, a priest in Alexandria, taught that there was a time when Christ did not exist, i.e. that he was not co-eternal with the Father, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were three separate and distinct hypostaseis, and that the Son was subordinate to the Father, was in fact a "creature." These teachings were condemned and Arius excommunicated in 318 by a council convened by Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria. But that did not by any means close the matter. Ossius (or Hosius) of Cordova, Constantine's trusted spiritual advisor, failed on his mission to bring about a reconciliation.
Constantine then summoned what has become known as the First Ecumenical Council of the church. The opening session was held on 20 May 325 in the great hall of the palace at Nicaea, Constantine himself presiding and giving the opening speech. The council formulated a creed which, although it was revised at the Council of Constantinople in 381-82, has become known as the Nicene Creed. It affirms the homoousion, i.e. the doctrine of consubstantiality. A major role at the council was played by Athanasius, Bishop Alexander's deacon, secretary, and, ultimately, successor. Arius was condemned. [[24]]

If Constantine had hoped that the council would settle the issue forever, he must have been bitterly disappointed. The disputes continued, and Constantine himself vacillated. Eusebius of Nicomedia, a supporter of Arius exiled in 325, was recalled in 327 and soon became the emperor's chief spiritual advisor. In 335 Athanasius, now bishop of Alexandria and unbending in his opposition to some of Constantine's policies, was sent into exile at far-away Trier.


Origin of the Bible - The Truth About Translations
To many, the origin of the Bible can be summed-up as follows: "A mere translation of a translation of an interpretation of an oral tradition" - and therefore, a book with no credibility or connection to the original texts. Actually, the foregoing statement is a common misunderstanding of both Christians and non-christians alike. Translations such as the King James Version are derived from existing copies of ancient manuscripts such as the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Old Testament) and the Greek Textus Receptus (New Testament), and are not translations of texts translated from other interpretations. The primary differences between today's Bible translations are merely related to how translators interpret a word or sentence from the original language of the text source (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek).

Origin of the Bible - The Reliability of Ancient Manuscripts
Another challenge against the origin of the Bible is the reliability of the manuscripts from which today's Bibles are translated. Remarkably, there is widespread evidence for absolute reliability. There are more than 14,000 existing Old Testament manuscripts and fragments copied throughout the Middle East, Mediterranean and European regions that agree dramatically with each other. In addition, these texts agree with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek some time during the 3rd century BC. The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in Israel in the 1940's and 50's, also provide phenomenal evidence for the reliability of the ancient transmission of the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) before the arrival of Jesus Christ. The Hebrew scribes who copied the Jewish Scriptures dedicated their lives to preserving the accuracy of the holy books. These scribes went to phenomenal lengths to insure manuscript reliability. They were highly trained and meticulously observed, counting every letter, word and paragraph against master scrolls. A single error would require the immediate destruction of the entire text.

The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is also dramatic, with over 5,300 known copies and fragments in the original Greek, nearly 800 of which were copied before 1000 AD. Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing copies being a remarkably short 60 years. Interestingly, this manuscript evidence far surpasses the manuscript reliability of other ancient writings that we trust as authentic every day. Look at these comparisons: Julius Caesar's "The Gallic Wars" (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph); Pliny the Younger's "History" (7 manuscripts; 750 years elapsed); Thucydides' "History" (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Herodotus' "History" (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Sophocles (193 manuscripts; 1,400 years); Euripides (9 manuscripts; 1,500 years); and Aristotle (49 manuscripts; 1,400 years).

Homer's "Iliad", the most renowned book of ancient Greece, has 643 copies of manuscript support. In those copies, there are 764 disputed lines of text, as compared to 40 lines in all the New Testament manuscripts (Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Moody, Chicago, Revised and Expanded 1986, p. 367). In fact, many people are unaware that each of William Shakespeare's 37 plays (written in the 1600's) have gaps in the surviving manuscripts, forcing scholars to "fill in the blanks." This pales in textual comparison with the over 5,300 copies and fragments of the New Testament that, together, assure us that nothing's been lost. In fact, all of the New Testament except eleven verses can be reconstructed from the writings of the early church fathers in the second and third centuries