Emperor Constantine had had just about enough of the Christians always arguing about the "Life and Times of Jesus".
Emperor Constantine was in need of soldiers to defeat Maxentius, a nearby Western Roman Emperor. Because Constantine had such a large population of Christians he made a deal with them, they were to stop being such trouble-makers and he'd give them 100 Bibles. They agreed, and he pulled two legions ( 20,000 men) from the Imperial Guards and marched off to defeat the other Roman Emperor.
After Constantine got back six months later, he made several sweeping 'Changes to Christianity'
1- The only authorized Holy Day was his; Sunday (Christians back then worshiped the Sabbath on a Saturday like the Jews did.)
2- The Holiest Day of the Year was his; December 25, the birth of HIS Deity Mithras (see Sol Invictus below).
3- In an effort to shut up the raging debates and clashes in his city he sequestered all the Bishops he could find in Nicea. He told them they were not allowed out until they had chosen the "right and proper Gospels". Of the 51 Gospels brought in...only 3 were selected.....The Gospel of John was not allowed into the New Testament for another 125 years. Everything other than the Synoptic Gospels were ordered burned and considered heresy.
Constantine 'retired' ten years before he died so he could enjoy himself on the Adriatic Sea. He left his trusted 'second' in charge, this second was Christian and Constantine trusted him. Constantine left him the Imperial Robes to wear saying that 'whom-so-ever wears these clothes rules in my name".
2006-12-26 09:07:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by wolf560 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Council of Nicea did not compile the Bible. The Councils of Hippo and Carthage did, finishing the work in 394 AD. The only thing the Council of Nicea did was reaffirm the 73 books of the Canon of Scripture, exactly as it had been defined at the Council of Carthage. Further, Constantine did not preside at the Council of Nicea. He influenced the Pope to call that Council, but since Constantine held no official position in the Church, He had no direct authority at the Council.
.
2006-12-26 17:42:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by PaulCyp 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Certainly. All of the writings selected for inclusion in the Bible are the result of various men's assorted preferences and prejudices. The Bible can teach evil...as well as good. The reality of evil is as much a part of God's Truth as is everything else. But just because we're taught about evil, doesn't mean were supposed to think God wants us to participate in it. That's why folks have argued over the Bible since Day 1...I mean does God really want us to use "an-eye-for-an-eye" as our standard of justice? Of course not...but many people believe that He does simply because some writer included that expression in a writing that ended up in the Bible.
The Bible simply helps to teach some of God's Truth...but not all. Much of the Truth is learned through tradition, oral history, other contemporary and ancient writings, etc.
If everybody who read the Bible understood the historical, cultural, political and personal leanings ("the context") of everybody involved with the writing and compilation of the Bible, they'd be much better prepared to separate the important Truths from the man made filler and fluff.
It's interesting that the Catholic Church compiled the Bible, but has never, even until this day, claimed that the Bible is the single source for all of God's revelation and Truths (nor did they intend it to be claimed as such.) Many Christians who are anti-Catholic have now taken the Bible, and claim it as their own.
2006-12-26 17:19:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by 4999_Basque 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, and that vested interest was to create a united kingdom and to squelch political unrest in his empire. That is why the Council directed that the only version of religion would be the beliefs of Jesus, which until that time were not called Christians but "followers of the way". The counsel also decided what was to go into the Bible, our basis for the Trinity, and other beliefs that was the basis for "Christian Religion" and that if you did not follow the rules, you would be branded as a heretic. Also, many pagan beliefs were then adapted and brought into the church to make it easier to adapt to the new official religion, which is why we celebrate Easter and Christmas, and explains many of the religious symbols used in the church today.
2006-12-26 17:11:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by buddha bill 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not really, but he did have a vested interest in the Christians. He wanted pliable subjects so he made Christianity the official religion of the Romans. And that was a whole lot cheaper than having to control them with legions of soldiers.
2006-12-26 17:25:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Of course he did! He was never even a Christian, he just wanted to control the people and the decisions to keep some writings and leave others out were entirely based on politics and greed.
2006-12-26 17:13:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Seeing as he died a pagan, not accepting even upon death the religion that he had made the official religion....yeah, Id have to think that there was some political interest there....
2006-12-26 17:07:07
·
answer #7
·
answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Try reading the map of bones. You'll receive an interesting history lesson.
2006-12-27 13:18:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by shadowinn 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Absolutely, he was an emperor. As a political figure, he needed to control his people.
2006-12-26 17:07:04
·
answer #9
·
answered by Sir N. Neti 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
He was converted just before he died. He did have political interests. The Catholic church does have other texts (and you can read many of them). It is interesting that they never changed it again. Anyway, what is your point?
2006-12-26 17:10:13
·
answer #10
·
answered by BigPappa 5
·
0⤊
0⤋