₦airaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 2,334,284 members, 5,166,514 topics. Date: Sunday, 22 September 2019 at 03:17 PM

History Of The Church - Religion - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / History Of The Church (1834 Views)

10 Unbiblical/unspiritual Practices Thriving In The Church / False Spirits Invade The Church - WOLF or WOF / The Real History Of Christianity - Was The Crucifixion A Hoax? (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (Reply) (Go Down)

History Of The Church by KunleOshob(m): 3:54pm On Jun 17, 2008
Constantine’s Church

Constantine became Emperor of western Rome after Diocletian abdicated in 305 AD. Under Diocletian, 284-305 AD, the Christian faith suffered its worst persecution, but had not been eradicated. Up to this time paganism played an essential role in life and government and religion was considered an area within the governments rule. Constantine was sympathetic to Christianity and tolerant to diversity in religion, but his conversion to Christianity after his rise to power was not due to true religious zeal. Christianity was a more effective way of accomplishing goals his rivals failed to reach under paganism. It was certainly politically advantageous for him to convert. Soon he was not only the head of Rome, but also the head of Christianity. He found that if he portrayed himself as God's appointed Emperor he could accomplish more than claiming himself to be God. What he did in government was God's will, and of course by claiming to be chosen by God, he was a natural as head of the Church.
After solidifying his position to gain complete control of the western portion of the empire in 312, he instituted the Edict of Milan, a "Magna Carta of religious liberty," which eventually changed the Empire’s religion and put Christianity on an equal footing with paganism. Almost overnight the position of the Church was reversed from persecuted to legal and accepted. Constantine began to rely on the church for support, and it on him for protection. The Church and the Empire formed an alliance, which remains to this day. Very rapidly, the laws and policies of the Empire and the doctrine of the Church became one with Constantine as the interpreter of both law and policy.
Through a series of Universal Councils, he eliminated dissent and dissenters, changed holy days, and outlawed the Sabbath. The greatest effect he had was destroying any book in the accepted biblical works, (over 80% of the total), he felt did not fit within his concept of Christianity. He completely altered doctrine without regard to biblical edict, set up a church hierarchy of his own design, and established a set of beliefs and practices, which are the basis for all mainstream Bible-based churches. The separation of the Protestants and the Roman Church caused a physical split, but the beliefs and practices established by Constantine remained almost identical. Very little has changed since the 4th century Councils changed the face of Christianity.

An Inspired Church?
In light of the realities outlined above some serious questions need to be asked, and answered.
· Was Constantine, a Roman emperor who embraced pagan religion for years after his Christian "conversion", given a mandate from God to completely change almost every aspect of the church Jesus established?
· Did God inspire Constantine to denounce and criminalize doctrine established in scripture?
· Was it God's will that the Emperor Constantine should blend Christianity with a pagan religion, which God had clearly condemned and outlawed?
· Did God guide a despotic king, with a prime motivation was to firmly establish the "Divine Right of Kings", to translate the Bible into an obscure language of the elite that kept it from the common man?
· Is there any justification that allows the church to ignore clear and specific biblical doctrines and practices?
· Does it please God that the church teaches and practices doctrine that is completely contrary to scripture?
· Is it acceptable to Jesus that churches teach isolationism and prejudice, and are concerned more about the design of their buildings and the size of their Sunday attendance, than the number of poor and indigent people they serve?

If one can answer any of the above questions in the affirmative then this book will be more useful as a paperweight, than a source of knowledge.

If the these questions lead one to a conclusion that the origins of our modern church are not divinely inspired but the result of human edict then this question has been answered:
♦ “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46)

I know a lot of my brethren out there have no clue as to the history of the church and all the distortions the Original church which was founded by Christ himself as undergone over the centuries, I am sure most people do not even know that the bible is highly editted and incomplete. A lot of books were deliberately ommited from the original compilation of the bible we use today and it was compiled by a servant of a pagan emperor. want to know more watch this space.
Re: History Of The Church by KunleOshob(m): 4:06pm On Jun 17, 2008
The Non-Biblical Nature of the Modern Church

Though claiming piety and biblical authority, the reality of modern church conduct is sadly lacking in scriptural foundation, and often runs contrary to biblical principle. Finding any resemblance to the first church is a futile pursuit. Here are but a few of the discrepancies:
· All the High Sabbaths, or festivals, outlined in the Bible are ignored and are replaced with ancient pagan holidays such as Easter, Christmas, and Halloween.
· Money is solicited, and often demanded, to allegedly support the work of the church, which has little, if anything, to do with the original commission of the church. Such practice is not authorized in biblical law and may possibly be a gross violation if extracted as a tithe.
· Meetings are held on Sunday without biblical authority and setting aside the last day of the week for rest is ignored. There is no biblical command to meet in any building, on any day of the week, in force. The fact that the first day of the week is a day set aside by pagan religions to worship an assortment of sun gods only increases the violation. In the year 321, Constantine the Great ruled that the first day of the week, 'the venerable day of the sun', should be a day of rest. The personal pronouncements of a mere mortal do not negate the rules of God.
· Ministers and deacons in churches do not fulfill duties outlined in biblical text for these positions.
· Socialism, the core principle, and well-documented practice, of the first church, is condemned by its pretender.
· Miracles and abnormal powers in people are condemned as witchcraft without regard to the reality that such were common phenomenon in the first church.
· Churches openly support political issues that contradict biblical principle and use church resources for these activities.
· Churches openly support war and nationalism and use church resources for these activities.
· Churches demand adherence to an old divine contract made with the twelve tribes of Israel by persons who are not members of the nation of Israel.
· Churches ignore the new contract made with the entire world.
· Churches exhibit an extreme level of hypocrisy by following only those laws it chooses and ignoring those it violates, while claiming total obedience to all biblical law.
· Church buildings, officers, staff, customs, public and private practices, finances, celebrations, rules, solicitations, associations, appearances, and stated missions are without biblical foundation.
· Feeding, clothing, and housing the poor, a basic biblical principle, and the core teaching of Jesus, is seldom practiced and then with only a token effort and a minute percentage of the church funding and resources. In most cases of such rare exhibitions of charity, religious indoctrination is exacted as the cost for these services.
· Bigotry, with respect to race, gender, political belief, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, financial status, social conduct, and philosophy is commonly practiced or tolerated in either overt or covert manifestations.
· Mind control and dogmatic conditioning is encouraged, blind acceptance is expected, obedience is demanded, and all dissension and inquiry are condemned. Biblical demands for proof of doctrine are ignored. Loving your fellow man is restricted to those the church approves.
Re: History Of The Church by KunleOshob(m): 4:07pm On Jun 17, 2008
Church Members

As can be seen from the above verses the modern church bears no resemblance to the first church. A study of the principles Jesus taught would, of course, mean the church was engaged in helping the poor and indigent, as well as the healing by those possessed with this gift. The roles that the members of the church played were quite different from the members of today’s pew fillers and plate passers:
♦ 1 Corinthians 12: 1. Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. 2. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. 3. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 4. Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 8. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9. To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10. To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
♦ 1 Corinthians 12:27. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 28. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 29. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 30. Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 31. But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

The Power of the Church Members
♦ Acts 2:43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
♦ Acts 5:12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.
♦ Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.
♦ Acts 8:6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
♦ Acts 8:3 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
♦ Acts 14:3 Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.
♦ Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
♦ Acts 19:11 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:
♦ Romans 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
♦ I Corinthians 12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
♦ I Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
♦ 2 Corinthians 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.
♦ Galations 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
♦ Hebrews 2:4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

A Serious Question
Do we see this kind of supernatural activity in the modern mainstream church? If not, why not?

Is the Modern Church the True Church?
It is clear that not all supernatural phenomena are evil. The words miracle and miracles appear 36 times in the Bible, 33 times they refer to good miracles. Three times they refer to miracles being performed by one man, the Anti-Christ. The word wonder appears 55 times; 51 times they refer to good wonders, 2 times to the Anti-Christ, 2 times to false christs and prophets. It would seem that the good supernatural phenomenon far outweighs the bad by a hefty margin.
So why is this generally given the label of evil by the church, even though it was totally accepted by the first church? Could it be that the modern church rejects the reality of the Church Jesus inspired as they do the communal nature of that same church? Branding all super natural events as evil is no different than branding the socialistic lifestyle of the early church as communist atheism. Both were embraced by the first church, both are condemned by the modern church. Add to this the differences in the law, church structure, prejudice, finances and the very purpose for existence, and the validity of the modern church comes up very short. One begins to wonder, considering the glaring opposites, what forces brought the modern church into being?
Re: History Of The Church by oghos2k(m): 4:10pm On Jun 17, 2008
hey kunle. which church do u belong to?
Re: History Of The Church by detruth: 4:47pm On Jun 17, 2008
the church he belongs to? A good question! By their writeups ye shall know them.
Re: History Of The Church by KunleOshob(m): 4:51pm On Jun 17, 2008
@detruth
the truth is not in you
Re: History Of The Church by cold(m): 4:55pm On Jun 17, 2008
Well laid out,i cldn't put more eloquently myself.It is an incontrovertible fact that christian doctrine was greatly distorted to absorb most of the pagan festivities of  the Roman Empire who were ruling the world at the tym.The tru sabath of the Lord as it was in the beginnin was jetisond for the Sunday worship which coincided with the worship of their Sun god.Christmas,Easter.Valentine were fruadulently introducd into d xtian faith.A lot of xtians today just go 2 their churches mechanically witout knowing why or d truth about their faith.
Re: History Of The Church by detruth: 4:59pm On Jun 17, 2008
For the first time, I think you got it right! grin Why? May be because the Truth I have is different from yours! cool
Re: History Of The Church by Lady2(f): 6:02pm On Jun 17, 2008
Well laid out,i cldn't put more eloquently myself.It is an incontrovertible fact that christian doctrine was greatly distorted to absorb most of the pagan festivities of the Roman Empire who were ruling the world at the time.The tru sabath of the Lord as it was in the beginnin was jetisond for the Sunday worship which coincided with the worship of their Sun god.Christmas,Easter.Valentine were fruadulently introducd into d xtian faith.A lot of xtians today just go 2 their churches mechanically witout knowing why or d truth about their faith.

Dude the reason why the sabath for Christians is on Sunday is because of the persecution. . Instead of meeting on saturday they secretly met on Sunday. Saturday was deemed as sabath for Jews and they were very intolerrant of Christians.

anyway do more research. I will be back to read through what Kunle wrote, unfortunately after reading a part of it, I see he is truly blind to the truth.
Re: History Of The Church by mazaje(m): 6:32pm On Jun 17, 2008
~Lady~:

Dude the reason why the sabath for Christians is on Sunday is because of the persecution. . Instead of meeting on saturday they secretly met on Sunday. Saturday was deemed as sabath for Jews and they were very intolerrant of Christians.
anyway do more research. I will be back to read through what Kunle wrote, unfortunately after reading a part of it, I see he is truly blind to the truth.

This is not true. . . . . . .
Re: History Of The Church by PastorAIO: 6:47pm On Jun 17, 2008
~Lady~:

Dude the reason why the sabath for Christians is on Sunday is because of the persecution. . Instead of meeting on saturday they secretly met on Sunday. Saturday was deemed as sabath for Jews and they were very intolerrant of Christians.


Have you got any references for this? Kindly.
Re: History Of The Church by JeSoul(f): 7:09pm On Jun 17, 2008
poster,
you say some things that are true, but too much of it is highly off the mark.

You refer to "the Church" like you've been to every single church on the face on the planet, have met every single pastor and minister and know how each and every one of them operates. You make good points but quickly ruin your credibility by making such gross generalizations. If you're willing to retract and correct those then this piece will be a good topic for discussion.
Re: History Of The Church by PastorAIO: 7:26pm On Jun 17, 2008
JeSoul:

poster,
you say some things that are true, but too much of it is highly off the mark.

You refer to "the Church" like you've been to every single church on the face on the planet, have met every single pastor and minister and know how each and every one of them operates. You make good points but quickly ruin your credibility by making such gross generalizations. If you're willing to retract and correct those then this piece will be a good topic for discussion.

But christianity was not a monolithic body in those first centuries until Constantine made it the state religion. And in order to become one church it required the persecution and destruction of all the other christians that did not follow the State's orthodoxy. Yet even that violently imposed orthodoxy did not last long in one monolithic body because the Church soon splintered into the Roman Catholic and the other various eastern Orthodox churches. However the period he is talking about is between the establishment as a state religion and the splintering. So there was One Church. Everyone else was dead or had fled.
Re: History Of The Church by JeSoul(f): 8:07pm On Jun 17, 2008
Pastor AIO:

But christianity was not a monolithic body in those first centuries until Constantine made it the state religion. And in order to become one church it required the persecution and destruction of all the other christians that did not follow the State's orthodoxy. Yet even that violently imposed orthodoxy did not last long in one monolithic body because the Church soon splintered into the Roman Catholic and the other various eastern Orthodox churches. However the period he is talking about is between the establishment as a state religion and the splintering. So there was One Church. Everyone else was dead or had fled.
    No AIO, he's def not talking about then, see his title of the second post says "The Non-Biblical Nature of the Modern Church". That's what I was talking about. He constantly refers to "the church" like they were all identical, n he like he personally knows every single one of them does the things he accuses them of.

I say this becos my church and many of the churches I've been to are not guilty of these charges. If the poster wants to lament about how some or many churches act like that then he should make it explicitly clear instead of maligning the entire christian body of believers.
Re: History Of The Church by Backslider(m): 9:01pm On Jun 17, 2008
The Church of satan is growing in strength. The church is now possesed with the demon and foul spirit. Satan is now making a public show of the blood of christ. The Church has forgotten she was bought with blood by a man that put down his life, the Church is not ready to die for her beloved Husband.

There is a demonic revival and the quest for Numbers is what we see. The glory is departed from the House of God. The Church is all about Organisation. Very soon there shall be the movement of God and the blood of the saints shall be shed by the Demon possesed Church of Hell.

The Adulterous Church has shed blood so many times Killing Holy men. Satan will not win this War I assure for the Bible says that God will rise from his throne to fight for himself.

The true Church of God will be hated by many for the sake of Righteousness. You will see when they say a righteous man is evil or possesed with a demon because he says he does not love the world.

There was the time that the Church was in bed with the World Now this Adulterous Church as given birth to the False demon Possesed Church. This Church is filled with demonic signs and wonders.


@ ~Lady~

Dude the reason why the sabath for Christians is on Sunday is because of the persecution. . Instead of meeting on saturday they secretly met on Sunday. Saturday was deemed as sabath for Jews and they were very intolerrant of Christians.

You are wrong here the Scripture has that we worship the Lord of the Sabath and because he rose on Sunday that is why we meet on sunday to worship.
Re: History Of The Church by Backslider(m): 9:29pm On Jun 17, 2008
@Kunle oshob

You need to go back to history before Constantain. for about 400years satan used the emperors of Roman to kill the holy men. If you read the History of the Church by Josephus the Jewish historian you will know the real history of the Church. I will just like you to read and quote before Constataine.

Selah
Re: History Of The Church by KunleOshob(m): 10:38am On Jun 18, 2008
@jeSoul
First of all let me clarify about the post, it is not my origina writing i came across it while doing some bible research. however i found it to be very eye opening. Why it directly affects every church we have today is that today's Christianity is vastly based on the bible which was compiled by constantine( a pagan emperor) whose motive was to us religion as an instrument of control in his empire. Also to be noted was that a lot of christian scripture that was written by the apostles and the disciples of christ were deliberately omitted from the bible at that time becos they ran counter to the political motives of constantine. you can check out this thread to see the list of books that was delibeately omitted from the bible https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-143191.0.html this books had spiritual dept and some were written by disciples who worked directly with Jesus.
Re: History Of The Church by Backslider(m): 11:23am On Jun 18, 2008
@Kunleoshob

You are been deceived!

Now if you have time please read and you will see that Constantin was in the minority because the christian were regarded as the a different type of Pagan worshipper because they worshipped a man their forefather killed as God when there was Diana Venus and other Gods at the time that were recognised by the Empire.

I will give you the biography of Constantin Next
Re: History Of The Church by Backslider(m): 11:25am On Jun 18, 2008
CONSTATIN


[b]Constantine was born in Naissus, Upper Moesia, on 27 February in roughly AD 285. Another account places the year at about AD 272 or 273.
He was the son of Helena, an inn keeper's daughter, and Constantius Chlorus. It is unclear if the two were married and so Constantine may well have been an illegitimate child.

When in Constantius Chlorus in AD 293 was elevated to the rank of Caesar, Constantine became a member of the court of Diocletian.
Constantine proved an officer of much promise when serving under Diocletian's Caesar Galerius against the Persians.
He was still with Galerius when Diocletian and Maximian abdicated in AD 305, finding himself in the precarious situation of a virtual hostage to Galerius.
In AD 306 though Galerius, now sure of his position as dominant Augustus (despite Constantius being senior by rank) let Constantine return to his father to accompany him on a campaign to Britain.
Constantine however was that suspicious of this sudden change of heart by Galerius, that he took extensive precautions on his journey to Britain.
When Constantius Chlorus in AD 306 died of illness at Ebucarum (York), the troops hailed Constantine as the new Augustus.

Galerius refused to accept this proclamation but, faced with strong support for Constantius' son, he saw himself forced to grant Constantine the rank of Caesar.
Though when Constantine married Fausta, her father Maximian, now returned to power in Rome, acknowledged him as Augustus. Hence, when Maximian and Maxentius later became enemies, Maximian was granted shelter at Constantine's court.

At the Conference of Carnuntum in AD 308, where all the Caesars and Augusti met, it was demanded that Constantine give up his title of Augustus and return to being a Caesar. However, he refused.
Not long after the famous conference, Constantine was successfully campaigning against marauding Germans when news reached him that Maximian, still residing at his court, had turned against him.
Had Maximian been forced abdicate at the Conference of Carnuntum, then he now was making yet another bid for power, seeking to usurp Constantine's throne.
Denying Maximian any time to organise his defence, Constantine immediately marched his legions into Gaul. All Maximian could do was flee to Massilia. Constantine did not relent and laid siege to the city. The garrison of Massilia surrendered and Maximian either committed suicide or was executed (AD 310).

With Galerius dead in AD 311 the main authority amongst the emperors had been removed, leaving them to struggle for dominance.
In the east Licinius and Maximinus Daia fought for supremacy and in the west Constantine began a war with Maxentius.
In AD 312 Constantine invaded Italy. Maxentius is believed to have had up to four times as many troops, though they were inexperinced and undisciplined.
Brushing aside the opposition in battles at Augusta Taurinorum (Turin) and Verona, Constantine marched on Rome.
Constantine later claimed to have had a vision on the way to Rome, during the night before battle. In this dream he supposedly saw the 'Chi-Ro', the symbol of Christ, shining above the sun. Seeing this as a divine sign, it is said that Constantine had his soldiers paint the symbol on their shields. Following this Constantine went on to defeat the numerically stronger army of Maxentius at the Battle at the Milvian Bridge (Oct AD 312).
Constantine's opponent Maxentius, together with thousands of his soldiers, drowned as the bridge of boats his force was retreating over collapsed.

Constantine saw this victory as directly related to the vision he had had the night before.
Henceforth Constantine saw himself as an 'emperor of the Christian people'. If this made him a Christian is the subject of some debate. But Constantine, who only had himself baptized on his deathbed, is generally understood as the first Christian emperor of the Roman world.

With his victory over Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, Constantine became the dominant figure in the empire. The senate warmly welcomed him to Rome and the two remaining emperors, Licinius and Maximinus II Daia could do little else but agree to his demand that he henceforth should be the senior Augustus. It was in this senior position that Constantine ordered Maximinus II Daia to cease his repression of the Christians.
Though despite this turn toward Christianity, Constantine remained for some years still very tolerant of the old pagan religions. Particularly the worship of the sun god was still closely related with him for some time to come. A fact which can be seen on the carvings of his triumphal Arch in Rome and on coins minted during his reign.

Then in AD 313 Licinius defeated Maximinus II Daia. This left only two emperors.
At first both tried to live peacefully aside each other, Constantine in the west, Licinius in the east. In AD 313 they met at Mediolanum (Milan), where Licinius even married Constantine's sister Constantia and restated that Constantine was the senior Augustus. Yet it was made clear that Licinius would make his own laws in the east, without the need to consult Constantine. Further it was agreed that Licinius would return property to the Christian church which had been confiscated in the eastern provinces.

As time went on Constantine should become ever more involved with the Christian church. He appeared at first to have very little grasp of the basic beliefs governing Christian faith. But gradually he must have become more acquainted with them. So much so that he sought to resolve theological disputes among the church itself.
In this role he summoned the bishops of the western provinces to Arelate (Arles) in AD 314, after the so-called Donatist schism had split the church in Africa. If this willingness to resolve matters through peaceful debate showed one side of Constantine, then his brutal enforcement of the decisions reached at such meetings showed the other. Following the decision of the council of bishops at Arelate, donatist churches were confiscated and the followers of this branch of Christianity were brutally repressed. Evidently Constantine was also capable of persecuting Christians, if they were deemed to be the 'wrong type of Christians'.

Problems with Licinius arose when Constantine appointed his brother-in-law Bassianus as Caesar for Italy and the Danubian provinces. If the principle of the tetrarchy, established by Diocletian, still in theory defined government, then Constantine as senior Augustus had the right to do this. And yet, Diocletian's principle's would have demanded that he appointed an independent man on merit. But Licinius saw in Bassianus little else than a puppet of Constantine. If the Italian territories were Constantine's, then the important Danubian military provinces were under the control of Licinius. If Bassianus was indeed Constantine's puppet it would have ment a serious gain of power by Constantine. And so, to prevent his opponent from yet further increasing his power, Licinius managed to persuade Bassianus to revolt against Constantine in AD 314 or AD 315.
The rebellion was easily put down, but the involvement of Licinius, too, was discovered. And this discovery made war inevitable. But considering the situation responsibility for the war, must lie with Constantine. It appears that he was simply unwilling to share power and hence sought to find means by which to bring about a fight.

For a while neither side acted, instead both camps preferred to prepare for the contest ahead. Then in AD 316 Constantine attacked with his forces. In July or August at Cibalae in Pannonia he defeated Licinius larger army, forcing his opponent to retreat.
The next step was taken by Licinius, when he announced Aurelius Valerius Valens, to be the new emperor of the west. It was an attempt to undermine Constantine, but it clearly failed to work. Soon after, another battle followed, at Campus Ardiensis in Thrace. This time however, neither side gained victory, as the battle proved indecisive.

Once more the two sides reached a treaty (1 March AD 317). Licinius surrendered all Danubian and Balkan provinces, with the exception of Thrace, to Constantine. In effect this was little else but confirmation of the actual balance of power, as Constantine had indeed conquered these territories and controlled them. Despite his weaker position, Licinius though still retained complete sovereignty over his remaining eastern dominions. Also as part of the treaty, Licinius' alternative western Augustus was put to death.

The final part of this agreement reached at Serdica was the creation of three new Caesars. Crispus and Constantine II were both sons of Constantine, and Licinius the Younger was the infant son of the eastern emperor and his wife Constantia.

For a short while the empire should enjoy peace. But soon the situation began to deteriorate again. If Constantine acted more and more in favour of the Christians, then Licinius began to disagree. From AD 320 onwards Licinius began to suppress the Christian church in his eastern provinces and also began ejecting any Christians from government posts.
Another problem arose regarding the consulships. These were by now widely understood as positions in which emperors would groom their sons as future rulers. Their treaty at Serdica had hence proposed that appointments should be made by mutual agreement. Licinius though believed Constantine favoured his own sons when granting these positions.
And so, in clear defiance of their agreements, Licinius appointed himself and his two sons consuls for the eastern provinces for the year AD 322.
With this declaration it was clear that hostilities between the two sides would soon begin afresh. Both sides began to prepare for the struggle ahead.

In AD 323 Constantine created yet another Caesar by elevating his third son Constantius II to this rank.

If the eastern and western halves of the empire were hostile towards one another, then in AD 323 a reason was soon found to start a new civil war. Constantine, while campaigning against Gothic invaders, strayed into Licinius' Thracian territory.
It is well possible he did so on purposely in order to provoke a war. Be that as it may, Licinius took this as the reason to declare war in spring AD 324.
But it was once again Constantine who moved to attack first in AD 324 with 120'000 infantry and 10'000 cavalry against Licinius' 150'000 infantry and 15'000 cavalry based at Hadrianopolis. On 3 July AD 324 he severely defeated Licinius' forces at Hadrianopolis and shortly after his fleet won victories at sea.

Licinius fled across the Bosporus to Asia Minor (Turkey), but Constantine having brought with him a fleet of two thousand transport vessels ferried his army across the water and forced the decisive battle of Chrysopolis where he utterly defeated Licinius (18 September AD 324).
Licinius was imprisoned and later executed.
Alas Constantine was sole emperor of the entire Roman world.

Soon after his victory in AD 324 he outlawed pagan sacrifices, now feeling far more at liberty to enforce his new religious policy. The treasures of pagan temples were confiscated and used to pay for the construction of new Christian churches. Gladiatorial contests were outruled and harsh new laws were issued prohibiting sexual immorality. Jews in particular were forbidden from owning Christian slaves.

Constantine continued the reorganization of the army, begun by Diocletian, re-affirming the difference between frontier garrisons and mobile forces. The mobile forces consisting largely of heavy cavalry which could quickly move to trouble spots. The presence of Germans continued to increase during his reign.

The praetorian guard who'd held such influence over the empire for so long, was finally disbanded. Their place was taken by the mounted guard, largely consisting of Germans, which had been introduced under Diocletian.

As a law maker Constantine was terribly severe.
Edicts were passed by which the sons were forced to take up the professions of their fathers. Not only was this terribly harsh on such sons who sought a different career. But by making the recruitment of veteran's sons compulsory, and enforcing it ruthlessly with harsh penalties, widespread fear and hatred was caused.
Also his taxation reforms created extreme hardship. City dwellers were obliged to pay a tax in gold or silver, the chrysargyron. This tax was levied every four years, beating and torture being the consequences for those to poor to pay. Parents are said to have sold their daughters into prostitution in order to pay the chrysargyron.
Under Constantine, any girl who ran away with her lover was burned alive. Any chaperone who should assist in such a matter had molten lead poured into her mouth. Rapists were burned at the stake. But also their women victims were punished, if they had been raped away from home, as they, according to Constantine, should have no business outside the safety of their own homes.

But Constantine is perhaps most famous for the great city which came to bear his name - Constantinople.
He came to the conclusion that Rome had ceased to be a practical capital for the empire from which the emperor could exact effective control over its frontiers.
For a while he set up court in different places; Treviri (Trier), Arelate (Arles), Mediolanum (Milan), Ticinum, Sirmium and Serdica (Sofia).
Then he decided on the ancient Greek city of Byzantium. And on 8 November AD 324 Constantine created his new capital there, renaming it Constantinopolis (City of Constantine).
He was careful to maintain Rome's ancient privileges, and the new senate founded in Constantinople was of a lower rank, but he clearly intended it to be the new center of the Roman world. Measures to encourage its growth were introduced, most importantly the diversion of the Egyptian grain supplies, which had traditionally gone to Rome, to Constantinople. For a Roman-style corn-dole was introduced, granting every citizen a guaranteed ration of grain.

In AD 325 Constantine once again held a religious council, summoning the bishops of the east and west to Nicaea. At this council the branch of the Christian faith known as Arianism was condemned as a heresy and the only admissible Christian creed of the day (the Nicene Creed) was precisely defined.

Constantine's reign was that of a hard, utterly determined and ruthless man. Nowhere did this show more than when in AD 326, on suspicion of adultery or treason, he had his own eldest son Crispus executed.
One account of the events tells of Constantine's wife Fausta falling in love with Crispus, who was her stepson, and made an accusation of him committing adultery only once she had been rejected by him, or because she simply wanted Crispus out of the way, in order to let her sons acceed to the throne unhindered. Then again, Constantine had only a month ago passed a strict law against adultery and might have felt obliged to act. And so Crispus was executed at Pola in Istria.
Though after this execution Constantine's mother Helena convinced the emperor of Crispus' innocence and that Fausta's accusation had been false. Escaping the vengeance of her husband, Fausta killed herself at Treviri.

A brilliant general, Constantine was a man of boundless energy and determination, yet vain, receptive to flattery and suffering from a choleric temper.

Had Constantine defeated all contenders to the Roman throne, the need to defend the borders against the northern barbarians still remained.
In the autumn of AD 328, accompanied by Constantine II, he campaigned against the Alemanni on the Rhine. This was followed in late AD 332 by a large campaign against the Goths along the Danube until in AD 336 he had re-conquered much of Dacia, once annexed by Trajan and abandoned by Aurelian.

In AD 333 Constantine's fourth son Constans was raised to the rank of Caesar, with in the clear intent to groom him, alongside his brothers, to jointly inherit the empire. Also Constantine's nephews Flavius Dalmatius (who may have been raised to Caesar by Constantine in AD 335 !) and Hannibalianus were raised as future emperors. Evidently they also were intended to be granted their shares of power at Constantine's death.
How, after his own experience of the tetrarchy, Constantine saw it possible that all five of these heirs should rule peaceably alongside each other, is hard to understand.

In old age now, Constantine planned a last great campaign, one which was intended to conquer Persia. He even intended to have himself baptized as a Christian on the way to the frontier in the waters of the river Jordan, just as Jesus had been baptized there by John the Baptist.
As the ruler of these soon to be conquered territories, Constantine even placed his nephew Hannibalianus on the throne of Armenia, with the title of King of Kings, which had been the traditional title borne by the kings of Persia.

But this scheme was not to come to anything, for in the spring of AD 337, Constantine fell ill. Realising that he was about to die, he asked to be baptized. This was performed on his deathbed by Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia.
Constantine died on 22 May AD 337 at the imperial villa at Ankyrona.
His body was carried to the Church of the Holy Apostles, his mausoleum.
Had his own wish to be buried in Constantinople caused outrage in Rome, the Roman senate still decided on his deification. A strange decision as it elevated him, the first Christian emperor, to the status of an old pagan deity. [/b]
Re: History Of The Church by KunleOshob(m): 11:48am On Jun 18, 2008
@backslider
you are the one who does not know what he believes in. So how does your post contradict anything that i posted?? You just wasted my time by letting me read the long epistle you just posted that as no relevance to the topic angry the problem is that human beings when they come across anything that challenges their beliefs the first instinct is to fight it without even trying to understand wht it is all about
Re: History Of The Church by Backslider(m): 12:04pm On Jun 18, 2008
@Kunle Oshob

I am sorry that you had to read my epistle but you must know the truth of the Life of constantin before we can now go back to what happened before he came on scene.

below is the reason why the church was persecuted

[b]The Roman Empire was generally quite tolerant in its treatment of other religions. The imperial policy was generally one of incorporation - the local gods of a newly conquered area were simply added to the Roman pantheon and often given Roman names. Even the Jews, with their one god, were generally tolerated. So why the persecution of Christians?

In order to understand the Roman distrust of Christianity, one must understand the Roman view of religion. For the Romans, religion was first and foremost a social activity that promoted unity and loyalty to the state - a religious attitude the Romans called pietas, or piety. Cicero wrote that if piety in the Roman sense were to disappear, social unity and justic would perish along with it. {8}

The early Roman writers viewed Christianity not as another kind of pietas, piety, but as a superstitio, "superstition." Pliny, a Roman governor writing circa 110 AD, called Christianity a "superstition taken to extravagent lengths." Similarly, the Roman historian Tacitus called it "a deadly superstition," and the historian Suetonius called Christians "a class of persons given to a new and mischeivous superstition." {9} In this context, the word "superstition" has a slightly different connotation than it has today: for the Romans, it designated something foreign and different - in a negative sense. Religious beliefs were valid only in so far as it could be shown to be old and in line with ancient customs; new and innovative teachings were regarded with distrust.

The Roman distaste for Christianity, then, arose in large part from its sense that it was bad for society. In the third century, the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry wrote:

How can people not be in every way impious and atheistic who have apostatized from the customs of our ancestors through which every nation and city is sustained? , What else are they than fighters against God? {10}
As Porphyry's argument indicates, hatred of Christians also arose from the belief that proper "piety" to the Roman gods helped to sustain the well being of the cities and their people. Though much of the Roman religion was utilitarian, it was also heavily motivated by the pagan sense that bad things will happen if the gods are not respected and worshiped properly. "Many pagans held that the neglect of the old gods who had made Rome strong was responsible for the disasters which were overtaking the Mediterranean world." {11} This perspective would surface again in the fifth century, when the destruction of Rome caused many to worry that the gods were angry at the Empire's new allegiance to Christianity. Saint Augustine's opus The City of God argued against this view.

On a more social, practical level, Christians were distrusted in part because of the secret and misunderstood nature of their worship. Words like "love feast" and talk of "eating Christ's flesh" sounded understandably suspicious to the pagans, and Christians were suspected of cannibalism, incest, orgies, and all sorts of immorality. [/b]
Re: History Of The Church by redsun(m): 12:05pm On Jun 18, 2008
It is good to know all this things so that you will know how blind you could be when you talk of blind faith,there is nothing blind about it,it an orchestrated movement for change,domination and exploitations.

Originally,christ was just a self-proclaimed rebel who was preaching self freedom to all through simplicity,love,selflessness and knowledge as against the imperial rome who conquered and occupied their land,aswell as the coniving ruling jewish hypocritical religious and political leaders,just like america in iraq today or Martin Luther king Jr in the time of aparthied in america or Ghandi in the time of british occupation of india,a non violent and simple approach to deal with violent,material and oppresive regimes.Materialism as against inmaterialism,overcoming not by might or wealth but by natural knowledge and virtue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity
Re: History Of The Church by Backslider(m): 12:42pm On Jun 18, 2008
@redsun

we are discussing the History of the Church
Re: History Of The Church by cold(m): 12:48pm On Jun 18, 2008
Mr Bkslider,to say that because Christ died & rose on Sunday automatically maqs sunday a day of worship smacks of ignorance.It only goes to show dat 4 all ur epistles u rilly don't know the Biblical facts.Our God is not an author of confusion,he is unwavering & he is not fickle.He will not bend the rules to suit you.I am not one 4 long write ups,but if u're interested,i can get u the core hard unassailable facts.
Re: History Of The Church by KunleOshob(m): 12:55pm On Jun 18, 2008
@backslider
I still don't get your point the persecution of christians was carried out long b4 constantines time. Constatine was the first roman emperor to embrace christianity albeit for political reasons. what we are examining in this thread is constatine's influence on how constatine influenced the mordern church through his compilation of the bible and the reasons and motifs behind it. it is not about persecution of christians
Re: History Of The Church by Lady2(f): 1:04pm On Jun 18, 2008
You are wrong here the Scripture has that we worship the Lord of the Sabath and because he rose on Sunday that is why we meet on sunday to worship.

Ok let me be more precise.


Up until the beginning of the church, God's people were used to going to synagogue on the seventh day of the week (Saturday) which was called the Sabbath. This was a holy day to the Lord, the fourth of Ten Commandments God gave Moses. "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy" (Ex. 20:cool. This was, and will always remain, the official Sabbath. However, after Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week, Sunday, the New Testament shows that the early Christians began meeting together on this new day as a weekly commemoration of their new life in Christ. "Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight" (Acts 20:7).


Historians indicate that the earliest Christians not only met together on Sunday, but also came together regularly with their Jewish community in the synagogues on the Sabbath. This was their traditional heritage and where most of their neighbors, friends and family would congregate — a great place to witness. However it seems about A.D. 135, there was great upheaval in the synagogues. The influential Rabbi, Akiba, proclaimed the leader of the Jewish rebellion in Palestine, Bar Cochba, as the Messiah,¹ and the Jewish Christians were quick to refute this. Such hostility arose against the believers that a curse against "sectarians" (which referred to the Christians) was introduced into the synagogue services. Thus, anyone who would not pronounce the curse with other worshipers would be ejected. This effectively ostracized the Christians from participation in the synagogues on Saturday, but they continued with their meetings on Sunday.


Although they were no longer bound to a rigid code of laws or Sabbath keeping (Gal. 3:10-11, Col. 2:16), it is believed that the early church probably came to view Sunday as a combined observance of the Sabbath and the resurrection day of Jesus (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2). This day of Christian worship came to be called the Lord's Day (Rev. 1:10), a day to fellowship in celebration of the resurrection, to worship, pray and study the Word together.


There.
Re: History Of The Church by Backslider(m): 1:12pm On Jun 18, 2008
@Kunle Oshob

You must know what I am trying to say to you. The Roman empire was at clash with Christ and his Church.

I will now help you to Understand that the Church was a persecuted Church. This was how the Church was Born by the Blood of the Saints.

Now look at the TRUE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH

From the time of Nero to the collapse of the roman empire.

[b]Persecution in the early church occured sporadically almost since the beginning, but it was first sanctioned by the government under Nero. In 64 AD, a great fire ravaged Rome. Nero took the opportunity provided by the destruction to rebuild the city in the Greek style and begin building a large palace for himself. People began speculating that Nero had set the fire himself in order to indulge his aesthetic tastes in the reconstruction so, according to Tacitus' Annals and Suetonius' Nero, the eccentric emperor blamed the Christians for the fire in an effort to divert attention from himself. Nero was quite insane, and is reported to have tortured Christians with great cruelties for his own enjoyment. According to the Roman historian Tacitus:

Besides being put to death they [the Christians] were made to serve as objects of amusement; they were clad in the hides of beast and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open his grounds for the display, and was putting on a show in the circus, where he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in his chariot. All this gave rise to a feeling of pity, even toward men whose guilt merited the most exemplary punishment; for it was felt that they were being destroyed not for the public good but to satisfy the cruelty of an individual.
Despite these extreme cruelties, Nero's persecution was local and short-lived. However, it was the first official persecution and marked the first time the government distinguished Christians from Jews. Tertullian referred to persecution of Christians as institutum Neronianum, an institution of Nero.  After Nero, it became a capital crime to be a Christian, although pardon was always available if one publicly condemned Christ and sacrificed to the gods. [/b]
Re: History Of The Church by Backslider(m): 1:27pm On Jun 18, 2008
@Kunleoshob

After Nero the very Wicked then Came Domitian

[b]
Domitian is recorded as having executed members of his own family on charges of atheism and Jewish manners, who are thus generally assumed to have been Christians.

In Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, the persecution under the great philosopher-king Marcus Aurelius is described this way:

Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher on the throne, was a well-educated, just, kind, and amiable emperor, and reached the old Roman ideal of self-reliant Stoic virtue, but for this very reason he had no sympathy with Christianity, and probably regarded it as an absurd and fanatical superstition. He had no room in his cosmopolitan philanthropy for the purest and most innocent of his subjects, many of whom served in his own army. He was flooded with apologies of Melito, Miltiades, Athenagoras in behalf of the persecuted Christians, but turned a deaf ear to them. Only once, in his Meditations, does he allude to them, and then with scorn, tracing their noble enthusiasm for martyrdom to "sheer obstinacy" and love for theatrical display. His excuse is ignorance. He probably never read a line of the New Testament, nor of the apologies addressed to him.

Belonging to the later Stoical school, which believed in an immediate absorption after death into the Divine essence, he considered the Christian doctrine of the immortality of the soul, with its moral consequences, as vicious and dangerous to the welfare of the state. A law was passed under his reign, punishing every one with exile who should endeavor to influence people's mind by fear of the Divinity, and this law was, no doubt, aimed at the Christians. At all events his reign was a stormy time for the church, although the persecutions cannot be directly traced to him. The law of Trajan was sufficient to justify the severest measures against the followers of the "forbidden" religion.


It was during the reign of Marcus Aurelius that Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, was martyred. Later, there is record of "new decrees" making it easier for Christians to be accused and have their property confiscated. In 177, 48 Christians were martyred in the amphitheater in Lyons (modern France).

In 112 AD, Roman governor Pliny the Younger was sent by the emperor Trajan to the province of Bithynia on official business. During his visit, Pliny encountered Christians, and he wrote to the emperor about them. The governor indicated that he had ordered the execution of several Christians, "for I held no question that whatever it was they admitted, in any case obstinancy and unbending perversity deserve to be punished." However, he was unsure what to do about those who said they were no longer Christians, and asked Trajan his advice. The emperor responded that Christians should not be sought out, anonymous tips should be rejected as "unworthy of our times," and if they recanted and "worshipped our gods," they were to be freed. Those who persisted, however, should be punished. [/b]
Re: History Of The Church by KunleOshob(m): 1:34pm On Jun 18, 2008
@backslider
All your episltes are not relevant to the topic please be precise i don't have time to be reading them, no body is disputing the fact that early christians were persecuted but that is not what this thread is about
Re: History Of The Church by Backslider(m): 1:45pm On Jun 18, 2008
Now we see that Trajan was merciful to backsliden Christians this was seen as a softening Now See the rule of  The emperor Hadrian in which He granted Christians even more concessions. Also responding to a request for advice from his governor, this time in western Asia Minor, Hadrian decreed (c. 124 AD) that Christians could be brought to trial but only for specific illegal acts. Significantly, therefore, being a Christian was no longer sufficient in itself to merit arrest. Moreover, "slanderous attacks" against Christians were forbidden, meaning that anyone who brought a case against a Christian but failed would suffer serious consequences. Justin Martyr attached Hadrian's imperial order to the end of his First Apology

Are you seeing how Christianity began to shape what we now have as Legal Procedure of DUE PROCESS it was Made by Christian Blood.
Re: History Of The Church by Backslider(m): 1:50pm On Jun 18, 2008
@Kunle Oshob

You are Wrong The True Church was Persecuted because the Way the lived SEPERATE FROM THE WORLD. Why was the Church Persecuted immediately It was born by the Holy Ghost.

@ Cold

i will help Just Hold On
Re: History Of The Church by Backslider(m): 2:17pm On Jun 18, 2008
@ cold


Luke 22:19
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.


1 Corinthians 11:24-26
24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.


Know that without the death and resurrection of Christ we can never be anything called Christains as in our own way we were dead in sins and now we and are resurrected in the New Life of Christ.

Jesus ressurrected on the first day.

(1) (2) (Reply)

Universe Origin (Big Bang) & Christianity / Rev. Chuks Ogbueli In Awka / Answers Of An Alien From Andromeda - Nibiru And Events

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2019 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 419
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.