T5

5. Emperor Constantine

- Who was he?

- Was he truly christian?

- His role in trinity

- Did Christianity become Christendom and thus the new Imperial Cult?

(a) Emporer Constantine I lived between 280 - 337 AD and ruled a significant empire covering a large area of europe and asia.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I for more detailed information.

He is credited with making christianity the state religion of Europe and enshrining the trinity as the core belief of christianity. He was supposedly "converterd" to christianity during the battle of Milvian Bridge where he supposedly saw the "XP" sign in the heavens and so he ordered all his soldiers to put this symbol on their shields and was consequently successful in defeating Maxentius to become the sole emporer over Europe and asia, and thus credited the god of the christains for his victory.

An interesting point is the "XP" symbol on the soldiers shields that constantine commanded the soldiers put on their shields after his famous "vision" at Milvian Bridge. This symbol is accurately called a Laburnum. Some people think this meant the first two letters of Christs name, but rather it was just a symbol ( again, another example of Constantine making himself look close-ish like a christian ) to rally his troops behind. The ‘XP’ symbol can be considered the symbol of a pagan sun-cross.

From http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/crosses/chi-rho.html :

"The Greek word for Christ is Christos and the Greek lettering is Χριστος. The first letter 'Χ' (chi, shaped like the St. Andrew's Cross) and the second letter 'ρ' (rho), form the monogram of Christ (Chrismon). It also became the monogram of Constantine. Coincidentally, the labarum was similar to an existing pagan emblem used as a standard by the Roman cavalry. Constantine was the Pontifex Maximus, chief priest of the classical Roman Pagan religion. So it's easy to see why he warmed to the symbol."

It is also said that Constantine saw a "flaming cross" - see http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/crosses/flaming.html

What you notice immediately is that not only did God command us never to make idols ( like crosses ), but also that the flaming cross looks remarkably like a sun-cross. See http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/crosses/sun.html

So we ask ourselves.....is it conincidence that a pagan emporer, a master politician just happened to have a vision of a flaming cross, a cross in front of the sun, which would then really make it very similar to a sun-cross, and then command something different like a Chi-rho ( XP ) laburnum be painted on the soldiers shields? And since Constantine was Pontifex Maximus, chief priest of the roman pagan religion, and a known sun god worshipper the evidence is starting to show Constantine may not have been christian. It is also important to point out that even these days, many politicians have been known to create an appearance of faith, only for this camoflage to be removed later, and they are shown for who they really are.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labarum

The core question is - was Constantine a Christian?

(b) Many people point to Constantines church building work and the making of christainity the state religion as proof that Constantine was in fact christian. We find that when we look deeper at what constantine behaved and how he treated people gives us clues. Constantine did build churches, a notable one being the however the Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre under an appeal from his mother. But because Constantine gave money to build a church, does this mean he is christian? In fact, Constantines mother Helena was christian, and according to many historical sources, it is said Helena converted Constantine to christianity.

However we know that Constantine was only baptised on his deathbed. In fact coins have been found dated close to Constantines death carrying the sun insignia on them - a strong hint Constantine was still a sun worshipper. In addition to this, Constantine ordered the execution of his wife and son - which is not an act of a christian as it would violate the Commandment of "Thou shalt not kill".

Based on historical documents, we can safely say that while people think Constantine was christian, he was not.

He aligned himself with Yahweh the God of the Bible superficially, in order to grow his empire and to harness the structure of the newly formed christain church for ease of administration of his empire.

Based on speeches by Eusbius, we can also see that Eusbius never actually called Constantine a Christian, but instead hinted at it and around it, which indicates Constantine wanted the appearance of Christain, but as he wasnt, could not be labelled as Christian. Eusibus too would have had moral issues labelling someone as Christain when all indicators were the person was not. Obviously, had Constantine been Christain, he would have announced it loudly in his court, but it never happened publically as far as we know. Again, this is another strong pointer to Constantine not being Christian.

The 30th anniversary of Constantines rule was celebrated by a long speech by Bishop Eusbius in constantines presence, and Constantine was labelled publically ( and by Constantines consent ) as in effect an actualy replacement for Jesus Christ, with Constantine referred to as "saviour".

See Page 35-Page 42 "Constantine versus Christ" by Alistair Kee, 1982, ISBN 0334002680

This is not heresy - this is just what is recorded in history.

Obviously, as Constantine in effect replaced Christ as Gods representative on earth, as outlined in Eusbius's speech in front of the court and Constantine, and since no christian would EVER claim to be Jesus Christ, this is another strong pointer to Constantine not being a non-Christian.

Rather this is someone who linked himself publically to the God of the Christains for his own political purposes and to allow him to harness the existing structure of the Christain church for ease of administration of the empire. The giving of money to build churches would have given people the appearance of Constantine being christain, but giving money to build a church does not make someone christian. It would have further enhanced his camoflage of appearing christian, and this would have made his adminsitration of the empire easier if people thought Constantine was "a christian, someone like themselves". This is shrewd politics and clever management.

Additionally we also see that since the church became protected under constantine, the church also had to "come to the party". IN effect this means some trade-off of integrity before God to suit the demands of the pagan emporer. Bishops were given land and power and made secular administrators of areas, in effect becoming part of Constantines secular administration apparatus.

The idea that resorting to war can only be just under certain conditions and is supported by Augustine. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war

Obviously we can see that Augustine who made significant efforts into codifying the concept of a just war, directly breaks the Commandment of not killing.

We can see how the concept of a just war would allow the clergy to justify the emporer doing whatever he wanted, and this is another example of how the church traded its integrity before God to do the Emporers bidding. At this point, the emporer has become more important than God, so in effect elevating the emporer to be an idol.

Now that we have established fairly clearly that Constantine was not a christian, but rather right up until his death a sun worshipping pagan, we can understand how he could have allowed the Trinity to be created in 325 AD. Around this time the Arians lead by Arius a bishop ( who had anti-trinitarian beliefs ) and Athanasius also a bishop ( who had trinitarian beliefs ) started a public dispute about which belief was correct. Neither side conceded ground so Constantine who wanted a united empire convened a council in Nicea of all the Bishops to settle the matter.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

The key here is unified - Constantine was a pagan and a politician.What he needed was unity and since it didnt concern him about accuracy of Gods word, he obviously didnt care what form unity took. In other words, constantine likely would have signed anything that all bishops agreed on, in order to stop their fighting amongst themselves.

Since Constantine was pagan ( as we demonstrated earlier ) and a politician, he would have wanted unity. And since he was also using the church as his main method of administration, he needed unity to gather taxes etc. Logically it then makes sense that when the Nicene Creed was presented to Constantine to "sign off" as official church doctrine, its likely he would have breathed a sigh of relief and signed it.

Accuracy of Christain belief would have mattered little to Constantine - he craved unity and needed it badly, and as he wasnt a christian so he didnt need accuracy of understanding of Gods word.

And so the Nicene Creed was born.

(d) Did Christianity become the new Imperial cult?

The Imperial Cult was worship of the Emporer as a diety. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_cult

As we have seen in previous sections, Christianity traded its integrity to become the protected religion of the empire under Constantine. When it moved into this new role, it became Christendom, not Christianity.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christendom :

"The term Christendom has been used to refer to the medieval and renaissance notion of the Christian world as a sort of social and political polity. In essence, the vision of Christendom is a vision of a Christian theocracy, a government devoted to the enforcement of Christian values, and whose institutions suffused with Christian doctrine. In this vision, members of the Christian clergy wield plenty of political clout. The specific relationship between the political leaders and the clergy can vary but, in theory, national or political divisions are subsumed under the leadership of a church institution.

This vision would tempt Church leaders and political leaders alike throughout European history.

Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 to order the government to stop the persecution of Christians, and convoked the First Council of Nicaea in 325 whose Nicene Creed included belief in "one holy catholic and apostolic Church", possibly an interpretation of the Great Commission, see also Constantine I and Christianity. Christianity became the state religion of the Empire in 392 when Theodosius I passed legislation prohibiting the practice of pagan religions. The orthodox Church gradually became a defining institution of the Empire."

As we know, politics is a science of compromise and seems to regularly show poor moral behaviour. Consequently, by becoming in effect an instrument of the state, the church became Christendom and instead of following the Bible, slowly drifted into following the Emporers polical whim. We can see this in Augustines "Just War" and the regular moral issues facing churches who get involved in politics.

As we have shown, this becomes pretty obvious when you read up on the issue, as Constantine became in effect the substitute for Jesus Christ, then people would have seen Constanine as "divine", and his church as his instrument. If Constantine was seen as divine in being the substitute for Jesus Christ, then this would from a trinitarian perspective, the worship of Constantine in the new Imperial Cult.

Naturally people in Christendom are quick to disagree with this, however as we have documented writings, i.e. the Bishop Eusibus giving a speech with Constantine present at the speech ( "The Life of Constantine" ) close to Constantines death. The interesting thing about this speech is that it was given in the Emporers presence, so it would have been approved by the emporer.

This speech marked Constantine as the "saviour", so can there be any doubt that Constantine was now the head of the new Imperial Cult? Remember that Constantine was a pagan, and to be worshipped as man-god would have many uses.

So now we have the early church taken over from within - its understanding of God had distorted into an un-Biblical trinity.Constantine was now in place of Jesus Christ as the early christian worlds "saviour", with Christendom now doing Constantines’ bidding and involved in imperial politics by its own consent.........

In less than 4 centuries, satan had perverted the early church into a political being, with a false christ ( Constantine ) and un-Biblical beliefs ( the trinity ).

Now putting things in perspective, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinian_shift

"[Constantinian Shift] ......This phenomenon is known as Caesaropapism. In its extreme form, such critics say, Christianity became little more than a religious justification for the exercise of power and a tool in the expansion and maintenance of empire, a Christian empire, also known as Christendom.

Augustine of Hippo, who originally had rejected violence in religious matters, later justified it theologically against those he considered heretics, such as the Donatists, who themselves violently harassed[citation needed] their opponents."

Before him, Athanasius believed that violence was justified in weeding out heresies that could damn all future Christians.[1] "

We also see this : See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius

"Some modern historians suggest that the tactics of Athanasius were a significant factor in his success. He did not hesitate to back up his theological views with the use of force. In Alexandria, he assembled a group that could instigate a riot in the city if needed. It was an arrangement "built up and perpetuated by violence."[16] Along with the standard method of excommunication he used beatings, intimidation, kidnapping and imprisonment to silence his theological opponents. Unsurprisingly, these tactics caused widespread distrust and led him to being tried many times for "bribery, theft, extortion, sacrilege, treason and murder.[17] While the charges rarely stuck, his reputation was a major factor in his multiple exiles from Alexandria. He justified these tactics with the argument that he was saving all future Christians from hell. Athanasius stubbornly refused to compromise his theological views by stating, "What is at stake is not just a theological theory but people's salvation."[18] He played a clear role in making the Constantinian shift a part of the theology of the church."

From Athanasius, we now see the clear beginnings of Spanish Inquisition type of thinking. While this is only one person amongst many, it is concerning to us.

Add to this Augustines morally corrupt doctrine of "Just War" and we must ask serious questions of Christendom.

"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. ( Matt 5:39 )

What is included here is purely to show how fast the rot set in after Christ left earth for heaven.

So why should bishops of the early Christendom do such a thing? This is not christian behaviour.

6. Secular Power and the early church's losing its way

- Developement of un-Christian traditions

Its worth a short section on the role of the Bishops in the early church under constantine. Obviously the bishops were now signed up to the trinity doctrine, so we ask now what were the spritual fruits of the Bishops?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity

"Constantine also played an active role in the leadership of the Church. In 313, he issued the Edict of Milan, legalizing Christian worship. In 316, he acted as a judge in a North African dispute concerning the Donatist controversy. More significantly, in 325 he summoned the Council of Nicaea, effectively the first Ecumenical Council (unless the Council of Jerusalem is so classified), to deal mostly with the Arian controversy, but which also issued the Nicene Creed, which among other things professed a belief in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, the start of Christendom. "

"The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the Christian Emperor in the Church. Emperors considered themselves responsible to God for the spiritual health of their subjects, and thus they had a duty of maintain orthodoxy.[52] The emperor did not decide doctrine—that was the responsibility of the bishops—rather his role was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity.[53] The emperor ensured that God was properly worshiped in his empire; what proper worship consisted of was for the Church to determine. This precedent would continue until certain emperors of the fifth and six centuries sought to alter doctrine by imperial edit without recourse to councils, though even after this Constantine's precedent generally remained the norm.[54] "

So we now find a blending of politics and religion - Christendom is born. Consequently, despite the statement that the "bishops determined issues of faith", in real terms, the emporer was the overall controller of the faith. No longer would the word of God be taught as it was, rather it was taught in line with the Emporers wishes, and man-made doctrines frequently altered the meaning of Gods word (e.g. the trinity, apostolic succession, praying to saints etc ).

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity

"By the late first and early second century, a hierarchical and episcopal structure becomes clearly visible; early bishops of importance are Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Irenaeus of Lyons.

This structure was based on the doctrine of Apostolic Succession where, by the ritual of the laying on of hands, a bishop becomes the spiritual successor of the previous bishop in a line tracing back to the apostles themselves.

Each Christian community also had presbyters, as was the case with Jewish communities, who were also ordained and assisted the bishop; as Christianity spread, especially in rural areas, the presbyters exercised more responsibilities and took distinctive shape as priests. Lastly, deacons also performed certain duties, such as tending to the poor and sick."

Not once in the Bible is "Apostolic Succession" EVER mentioned. Christain communities of course have elders and those who assist the congregation, but never was there to be apostolic succession. Apostolic Succession is purely a man made doctrine. The laying on of hands is a purely physical practice intended to publically proclaim the successor of a Bishop.

I have included this so anyone can see how rapidly the "churches" who labelled themselves "christian" were moving away from the unchanging Word of God.

Surely we see how quickly the church has allowed man-made un-Biblical doctrines to become important. With this devlopment comes a movement away from pure worship of the Word of God. And of course once this begins, as Jesus said :

"Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough?" ( 1 Cor 5:6 )

.......and it did. The leaven is un-biblical man-made traditions.

When you wonder "how did we get to such a state, when we look carefully at church history, we can see how the church drifted from the Word of God.

7. Conclusion.

- summary

We hope you have enjoyed reading this article on the trinity. We have tried to make it cover as much material as was needed, without going into unnecessary detail.

The key points are as follows:

(1) Not ONCE is the trinity EVER mentioned explicitly in any Bible

(2) God cannot lie.

(3) Yahweh the God of the Bible is a God of order - He would not create a mess called the trinity, based on just the basics of what we know about Him.

(4) Ancient triads of gods and Neoplatonism has created a pagan foundation for the trinity idea to sprout from

(5) The Bible always says that God is God ALONE. Never has Gods word said anything else. -- scriptures required in earlier sections

(6) The idea that Jesus and Gods breath are members of the trinity cannot be supported by Gods word.

(7) Constantine has been shown to be highly likely to be pagan ( a sun worshipper ) right up until his death , and used christianity as his new administration framework for

the empire. Constantine never once decalred himself a christian in any recorded writings.

(8) Constantine required unity to maintain order in his empire. As he was a pagan and master politican, he would have been content with signing decrees that stabilised his

empire - in this case we point to the evidence that the Nicene Creed did this.

(9) Constantine committed many un-christain acts including murdering his wife and son. Constantine provided money for churches, but this does not prove he was christian.

(10)Constantines vision and use of the Labarum ( the "XP" symbol ) doenst prove he was christian. 40000 soldiers with him did not see the same vision - odd....

(11) The early church became in effect part of the official state administration - the church traded its independance and integrity before God to change into Christendom.

(12) Many post-Nicene writers like Augustine provided writings that un-Biblically gave the emporer the moral "authority" to wage war and kill.

(13) Many man-made traditions ( like the trinity ) crept into the church and are un-Biblical and false and against Gods word.

(14) Not ONCE is the trinity EVER mentioned explicitly in any Bible

8. References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hecate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimurti

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhead

http://citypages.com/detail.asp?ArticleID=14819

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_imperial_cult

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian

http://www.onlinebible.net/bibles2.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labarum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/crosses/chi-rho.html

http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/john11.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christendom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinian_shift

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity

A note on references -

Where possible all articles quoted in this document have been quoted from articles included in the section above. All efforts have been made to ensure as high degree of accuracy as possible is attained. However, it is upto the reader to independently verify everything. Most web based articles ( like those in wikipedia ) have been created using other books etc.

As always, do your own research to verify all things - as we are told :

"Instead, test everything. Hold on to what is good." ( 1 Thess 5:21 )

This means check what is said/written, and compare it to Gods word. Amen.