> Ugh, the Council of Nicaea, where they basically decided that "for ever" and "perpetual" and suchlike had no meaning anymore, and that the 7th-Day Sabbath(which God Himself sanctified and consecrated back in Genesis, made a perpetual part of the covenant, and *never* repealed) was somehow part of the "blindness of the Jews", and not to be done. :-P
>

Um... I'm a little surprised at the extent of the Constantine-bashing going on here. Have you folks read ANY of the edicts or correspondance between the bishops of the early Church and the first Christian emperor over the still-pagan Romans? Sources agree that Constantine convened the first ecumenical council (the Council of Nicaea) in 325 with an earnest desire and goal, which was not exactly successful, to promote unity between the dissenting bishops of the Eastern Church. Note that this is only twelve years after he had shocked the Romans by legalizing Christianity, in the carefully-worded Edict of Milan (313), which extended tolerance to Christians. The Nicaean Council was factious and somewhat divided in its decisions, which I think is understandable -- after all, they were trying, for the first time, to formally forge a common understanding between Christians. I already mentioned that by the time of the second ecumenical council in 382, they were still debating the original decisions made in 325.

J.F. Matthews and D.M. Nicol's commentary on the emperor's letters, regarding his decision to convene the Council of Nicaea, is that not only did he believe he was God's chosen servant, "Constantine's chief concern was that a divided church would offend the Christian God and so bring divine vengeance upon the Roman Empire and Constantine himself. Schism, in Constantine's view, was inspired by Satan. Its partisans were acting in defiance of the clemency of Christ.... Meanwhile, it was for the righteous members of the Christian community to show patience and long-suffering. In so doing they would be imitating Christ."


> > > If I recall my history correctly (and of course, I'm open for corrections), The Council of Nicosi (?) sat down to discuss the books that would for the Christian Cannon, both Old and New. The arguments went on for years, with books being added or removed continually.
> > > Eventually, Emperor Constantine got a bit annoyed with this (after all, he needed an "official" Cristianity for the Roman Empire). He told the bishops that they could either ratify the Bible as it stood, or be executed and replaced with others who would do as he wanted.
> > >
> > > Ratification was then immediate and unanimous.
> > >
> > > winter"At least, that's the version I heard"mute
>
> I wouldn't be greatly surprised...


Highly doubtful. The story sounds rather apocryphal, because as gabby says the debates over the content of the canon came much later:


> > "The earliest known recognition of the 27 books of the New Testament as alone canonical, to which nothing is to be added and from which nothing is to be subtracted, is the list preserved by Athanasius (A.D. 367). The Synod of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Third Synod of Carthage (A.D. 397) duly acquiesced, again probably under the influence of the redoubtable Augustine." -- Ronald Youngblood, "The Process; How We Got Our Bible," in the February 5, 1988 issue of Christianity Today. Actual quote stolen from a website on the subject.
> >

Constantine's main purpose in convening the Nicaean Synod in 325 was to resolve the Arian theological dispute. Arianism was a belief promoted by Arius of Alexandria, which said Christ is not divine but a created being. The premise was that since the Godhead is eternal and immutable, "the Son, who is mutable, being represented in the Gospels as subject to growth and change, cannot be God."

The Council condemned Arius and, with reluctance on the part of some, incorporated the term homoousios ("of one substance") into the famous Nicene Creed, to signify the absolute equality of the Son with the Father. "The emperor then exiled Arius, an act that, while manifesting a solidarity of church and state, underscored the importance of secular patronage in ecclesiastical affairs." (Heh).

So basically, Constantine made no threats of execution if the Church legates did not come to a decision; out of the 318 bishops he summoned to Nicaea, he ended up banishing and exiling the five most vocal proponents of the Arian heresy.


> > While looking, I found pages which said Constantine was a sun-worshipper.
>
> Correct; Like Nebuchadnezzar, he only added God to The List, as it were, but cast aside His prescribed festivals and attached the others' festivals to worship of Him. Which, by the way, He commands against(Deut. 12:29-30).
>
> > It was an interesting possibility--he only made it legal to be Christian; it became the state religion later.
> >

Well, it's been observed that the obvious impact that Constantine had on Christianity is to see how *rapidly* the State's homage to non-Christian rites, symbols, and practises declined, during his reign AS WELL AS afterwards. Early in his reign he was a hesitant syncretist, allowing Roman paganism and Christianity to co-exist side by side. This is because Roman opinion expected of its emperors not innovation but the preservation of traditional ways. Constantine did not want to offend Rome. After the consolidation of his empire, he grew bolder and accepted baptism near to the end of his life. Matthews and Nicol remark that "pronouncements expressed in letters to imperial officials and to Christian clergy, demonstrate that Constantine's commitment to Christianity was firmer and less ambiguous than some have suggested. Eusebius confirmed what Constantine himself believed: that he had a special and personal relationship with the Christian God."

Wolf "whew" spirit