English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

He started the higharcy in church, brought Christianity out of private homes and into Temples, incoorperated the holidays with pagan celebrations, and envolved Christians in the political process. Were these changes good or bad for Christianity?

2007-02-18 15:42:15 · 13 answers · asked by Parrot Bay 4 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

13 answers

Anyone who thinks anybody but God was behind the conversion of Constantine, the subsequent conversion of the most of the know world for Christ, and later, the Church itself saving the world from total darkness after the fall of the Roman Empire, is either an atheist, or a self-serving protestant revisionist historian.

For the full and accurate account of those times, read Eusebius:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.html

2007-02-18 17:25:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Constantine's actions brought Christianity to a lot more people. However, what he did greatly changed some of the basic philosophies of the church, including non-violence and separation from the state. At the time Constantine was ruling, the church was already splitting into different factions, and while he helped heal some of the divides in the eastern church through the creed set down at the Coucil of Nicaea, his exclusion of western christians contributed to the later split between the catholic and eastern orthodox churches. He made Christianity legal in the empire, which was a major step. All in all, I think he weakened (but did not destroy) some of the best things about christianity, but helped overall because he brought it to so many more people.

2007-02-18 15:50:46 · answer #2 · answered by Suzanne 2 · 1 0

Hard to really say. From a stand point of spreading the word it was a high success. From the standpoint of presenting Jesus and God as Jesus would have viewed things, I think it was a dismal failure. I don't think Jesus would be happy with the way things have turned out in Christianity. I think he'd be happier with the way the Jewish religion has modernized, but without embracing Jesus, even though he may have had an influence, they won't acknowledge it.

The more modern Reformist Jewish movement is probably closer to what Jesus wanted to see in the world. More humanistic, less entrenched in the old laws of Moses, but still keeping the traditions.

I'm not sure if Jesus was a fan of strict Kosher rules or not.

2007-02-18 15:49:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

At the time prior to Constantine, Christians all over the Roman Empire were being persecuted heavily. When he assumed control of the Empire in the West he issued the Edict of Milan (313). The Edict brought tolerance for Christianity throughout the Eastern and Western Empires. Then, it was Constantine who tried to solve the early Christian problem of the nature of Christ when he called the famous Council of Nicea in 325. So to answer the question...Constantine helped Christianity because he not only halted the religious violence towards Christians, but he would help shape the early foundations of the Church.

2007-02-18 16:47:18 · answer #4 · answered by jerryserrano2004 3 · 0 2

He ended some of the persecutions that were being done against Christians, this was helpful to Christianity. However; many of the pagan politicians and authorities realized that in order to maintain their power and authority it would be in their best interest to "convert" to Christianity. Of course they did so in name only, not with a change of heart or mind, this in turn caused the church to become more worldly. This was and still is very harmful to Christianity.

2007-02-18 15:46:51 · answer #5 · answered by AirborneSaint 5 · 0 0

properly, i'm no longer a religionist yet am a Christian. i might take a seem on the information and learn them particularly than basically take despite whoever says at face fee. there is alot of "evidences" against Christianity accessible staggering now - a ton. besides the undeniable fact that it easily relies upon on what your presuppositions are - those choose for what you're making of the "information." working example, evolutionists might say that fossils are information of billions of years and that diverse strata in the fossil checklist shows diverse time frames. That comes from the presupposition that they earth is thousands and thousands of years previous. i might seem at that information and say - strata get laid down very immediately - we see that with Mount St. Helens - actually there have been timber that have been fossiled in a count of hours and - that feels like a solid clarification for a manner some fossils could be buried upright and a factor of various thousands and thousands of years of strata. See, i might say - it relatively is clever. The evolutionist might say - we basically have not got here across how the fossils have been laid down this way - it had to tak e thousands and thousands of years simply by fact they take god out of the photograph in making it extra lifelike to contemplate that it could have befell by twist of destiny. What are the possibilities that a working laptop or pc ought to place itself jointly without human intervention? It takes much extra faith and much less on information to have self belief that a individual stepped forward by twist of destiny - tremendously thinking the regulation of thermodynamics which shows the information says - issues are slowing down and there is extra ailment as time is going on and not any incorrect way around - evolution relies upon on that concept going opposite and we don't discover that throughout the time of nature. So i might say - i would not hear to the so stated as "specialists" - actually - i'm specific they're going to arise with some thing that they suspect is conclusive. properly, I won't have self belief it to any extent further than an evolutionist will have self belief in creation simply by fact of ways creationists interpret the information. this is all faith and this is all presuppositions and worldviews.

2016-10-02 09:07:12 · answer #6 · answered by blasone 4 · 0 0

First Constantine hurt Christianity as a whole. His goal was political not theological. While those in the "Catholic" church may hail him, many other "free" churches that existed saw him as an aberration. He did not "unify" Christianity, he only organized a band of christian churches under one banner.

2007-02-18 15:48:45 · answer #7 · answered by Roll_Tide! 5 · 1 0

They were good. He adopted Christianity as the official religion of the empire. He also moved the capital to Byzantium. This preserved the empire for a few more hundred years. He was the best!

2007-02-18 15:47:06 · answer #8 · answered by estee.tabernac 2 · 0 0

He made it an arm of the Roman government, enriching the higher clergy, and opened the door to corruption.

2007-02-18 15:45:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Religion and ignorance is the enemy of christianity. satan has come to rob kill and destroy through these deceptive medias.

2007-02-18 15:45:52 · answer #10 · answered by Tribble Macher 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers