Constantine, Religion, and Power

[Valerie]

This is not about any one person,

Right. You said "people", so it is safe to presume you meant multiple people.

I have not noticed anyone expecting “reverence” to President Trump. Discouraging constant bashing of him and bring up good things is not the same as demanding reverence.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

This is not about any one person,

Right. You said "people", so it is safe to presume you meant multiple people.

I have not noticed anyone expecting “reverence” to President Trump. Discouraging constant bashing of him and bring up good things is not the same as demanding reverence.

There have been posts on MenoNet by people who have criticized actions by Trump and his administration. There have been other who have responded by saying "He is the president! Show some respect!"

Now, this could be a simple misunderstanding by some who have political partisan blinders on. But the way it comes off is "You shouldn't criticize a person because that is disrespectful, and even criticizing their actions and decisions is disrespectful!"

Calling for respect is important. Personal attacks against someone, even someone in power, is disrespectful. However, criticizing someone's actions and choices is NOT disrespectful of that person. If we decided that someone in power is worthy of a higher respect -such that criticism of their actions is out-of-bounds- then we are reverencing that person to an unhealthy level.

There HAVE been people on MennoNet who have responded with indignation at criticism of Trump's actions. That is reverence, or asking for reverence for Trump.

[ken_sylvania]

Right. You said "people", so it is safe to presume you meant multiple people.

I have not noticed anyone expecting “reverence” to President Trump. Discouraging constant bashing of him and bring up good things is not the same as demanding reverence.

There have been posts on MenoNet by people who have criticized actions by Trump and his administration. There have been other who have responded by saying "He is the president! Show some respect!"

Now, this could be a simple misunderstanding by some who have political partisan blinders on. But the way it comes off is "You shouldn't criticize a person because that is disrespectful, and even criticizing their actions and decisions is disrespectful!"

Calling for respect is important. Personal attacks against someone, even someone in power, is disrespectful. However, criticizing someone's actions and choices is NOT disrespectful of that person. If we decided that someone in power is worthy of a higher respect -such that criticism of their actions is out-of-bounds- then we are reverencing that person to an unhealthy level.

There HAVE been people on MennoNet who have responded with indignation at criticism of Trump's actions. That is reverence, or asking for reverence for Trump.

It is entirely possible to criticize someone's actions respectfully. Calling a person crazy or using mocking or demeaning language is not respectful criticism and is not the kind of language we should be seeing from Christians.

[JohnH]

Right. You said "people", so it is safe to presume you meant multiple people.

I have not noticed anyone expecting “reverence” to President Trump. Discouraging constant bashing of him and bring up good things is not the same as demanding reverence.

There have been posts on MenoNet by people who have criticized actions by Trump and his administration. There have been other who have responded by saying "He is the president! Show some respect!"

Now, this could be a simple misunderstanding by some who have political partisan blinders on. But the way it comes off is "You shouldn't criticize a person because that is disrespectful, and even criticizing their actions and decisions is disrespectful!"

Calling for respect is important. Personal attacks against someone, even someone in power, is disrespectful. However, criticizing someone's actions and choices is NOT disrespectful of that person. If we decided that someone in power is worthy of a higher respect -such that criticism of their actions is out-of-bounds- then we are reverencing that person to an unhealthy level.

There HAVE been people on MennoNet who have responded with indignation at criticism of Trump's actions. That is reverence, or asking for reverence for Trump.

As a reminder, I used to remind people that Obama was the President and should be treated per Bible teachings about “kings and all who are in authority”.

[JohnHurt]

John,

I think we may be starting from very different assumptions about apostolic authority and how the New Testament fits together. I also think we have very different understandings of what these texts say at a fairly basic level.

Without some shared ground on that, I’m not sure we can have a productive conversation about Paul, James, or Gnosticism. And it is certainly not the subject of this thread.

The State Sponsored church of Constantine made following the doctrines of men instead of Christ much worse in the 4th century than it ever was in the 1st Century.

The Church of Constantine and her offspring have never recovered from this heresy, even today.

I agree with you on both points. I disagree strongly on the authority of the entire New Testament and on the Gospel of Thomas, but I think we still see Constantinianism today. For instance, in the glorification of war, treating political figures as religious figures, seeking political power, and seeing political kingdoms as more real and more important than the Kingdom of God.

Even on Mennonet, I have seen people complain that some do not "reverence" political leaders. Should Christians do that?

If you read the books authorized by Constantine to be in our New Testament, then yes, you must do whatever they tell you:

1 Peter 2:13
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

Whoever wrote 1st Peter said that you have to follow the lower level political leaders too, to get the praise of other men:
1 Peter 2:14. Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

Constantine's "Peter" also wrote:
1 Peter 2:17 - Honour all [men]. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

As well as telling slaves to always accept their slavery:
1 Peter 2:18 Servants, [be] subject to [your] masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

This elevation of political leaders to "godhood" is also found in Romans 13, and the "remain in slavery" issue is parallel to what is written in Philemon.

After reading the Clementine literature, I don't believe the historical Peter wrote 1st Peter, nor do many Bible scholars believe that Paul wrote all that is attributed to him.

These statements in 1st Peter and Romans contradict Acts 5:29 (We ought to obey God rather than men). It contradicts the example of Shiphrah and Puah in Exodus 1:15-22 who defied Pharoah by lying to him, yet were rewarded by God in verse 22, and it contradicts what God said when the Israelites rejected God by asking for a king in 1 Samuel 8:7.

1st Peter and Romans 13 also contradicts the temptation of Christ in Luke 4:5-7 where the Devil tempted Christ by offering all of the kingdoms of the world, for as the Devil said:

"All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it."

Christ could not be tempted with something that was not real.

The real question is not "should you "reverence" political leaders. The real question is should you reverence the authority of the priests of Constantine that added these books to the New Testament canon.

What authority did Athanasius have to write his "Easter Letter" that set up the New Testament canon and condemned anyone found in possession of the writings not in the NT canon to death? Did God grant Athanasius this authority, or Constantine? This death penalty is why the Gospel of Thomas and other writings were buried at Nag Hammadi.

What is worse is that the modern "Dispensationalist" will "dispense" with the words of Christ, like Matthew 5:17-20, as being under the "Old Covenant" and no longer binding, and will hold on to only Acts to Revelation, that is the books selected by Constantine, as the source of their doctrines. This is why we are "anomos" or lawless today, having no regard for God's Laws, His precepts, statutes and Judgements, even though these are the basis of King Alfred's English Common Law.

Christ warned in Matthew 24 that anomia, or lawlessness would abound (verse 12), and that this man-made religious system, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (verse 24)

So the question is, are the priests of Constantine inspired to select the books of what is called "The New Testament" and did all of the 39 books of what is called "The Old Testament" and the 4 Gospels, are they now obsolete under the "New Covenant"? If yes, then as a good Dispensationalist, you must do whatever your political leaders say.

But if you hold that Christ told us to teach His doctrines and no other, specifically: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" Matt 28:20 - as Christ never authorized us to study any other doctrines but His own, then you also have to accept what Christ said in Matthew 5:17-20, as well as Hebrews 8:8-12 - that God's Law is now written in our hearts (Jeremiah 31).

Following Christ, the most we should do in our relation to Government is to try not to offend them. Matt 17:27, and to give Caesar's money back to him if it has his name on it, as it belongs to Caesar, and everything else belongs to God. We shouldn't be using Caesar's money in the first place.

The worship of Government is the worship of men. Man's government has become an idol. There are not 2 kingdoms, only one, with the governments of men vastly inferior and in rebellion to the True Government of God.

No, you don't have to reverence "political leader", you should shun them.

[Valerie]

The State Sponsored church of Constantine made following the doctrines of men instead of Christ much worse in the 4th century than it ever was in the 1st Century.

The Church of Constantine and her offspring have never recovered from this heresy, even today.

I agree with you on both points. I disagree strongly on the authority of the entire New Testament and on the Gospel of Thomas, but I think we still see Constantinianism today. For instance, in the glorification of war, treating political figures as religious figures, seeking political power, and seeing political kingdoms as more real and more important than the Kingdom of God.

Even on Mennonet, I have seen people complain that some do not "reverence" political leaders. Should Christians do that?

If you read the books authorized by Constantine to be in our New Testament, then yes, you must do whatever they tell you:

1 Peter 2:13
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

Whoever wrote 1st Peter said that you have to follow the lower level political leaders too, to get the praise of other men:
1 Peter 2:14. Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

Constantine's "Peter" also wrote:
1 Peter 2:17 - Honour all [men]. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

As well as telling slaves to always accept their slavery:
1 Peter 2:18 Servants, [be] subject to [your] masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

This elevation of political leaders to "godhood" is also found in Romans 13, and the "remain in slavery" issue is parallel to what is written in Philemon.

After reading the Clementine literature, I don't believe the historical Peter wrote 1st Peter, nor do many Bible scholars believe that Paul wrote all that is attributed to him.

These statements in 1st Peter and Romans contradict Acts 5:29 (We ought to obey God rather than men). It contradicts the example of Shiphrah and Puah in Exodus 1:15-22 who defied Pharoah by lying to him, yet were rewarded by God in verse 22, and it contradicts what God said when the Israelites rejected God by asking for a king in 1 Samuel 8:7.

1st Peter and Romans 13 also contradicts the temptation of Christ in Luke 4:5-7 where the Devil tempted Christ by offering all of the kingdoms of the world, for as the Devil said:

"All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it."

Christ could not be tempted with something that was not real.

The real question is not "should you "reverence" political leaders. The real question is should you reverence the authority of the priests of Constantine that added these books to the New Testament canon.

What authority did Athanasius have to write his "Easter Letter" that set up the New Testament canon and condemned anyone found in possession of the writings not in the NT canon to death? Did God grant Athanasius this authority, or Constantine? This death penalty is why the Gospel of Thomas and other writings were buried at Nag Hammadi.

What is worse is that the modern "Dispensationalist" will "dispense" with the words of Christ, like Matthew 5:17-20, as being under the "Old Covenant" and no longer binding, and will hold on to only Acts to Revelation, that is the books selected by Constantine, as the source of their doctrines. This is why we are "anomos" or lawless today, having no regard for God's Laws, His precepts, statutes and Judgements, even though these are the basis of King Alfred's English Common Law.

Christ warned in Matthew 24 that anomia, or lawlessness would abound (verse 12), and that this man-made religious system, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (verse 24)

So the question is, are the priests of Constantine inspired to select the books of what is called "The New Testament" and did all of the 39 books of what is called "The Old Testament" and the 4 Gospels, are they now obsolete under the "New Covenant"? If yes, then as a good Dispensationalist, you must do whatever your political leaders say.

But if you hold that Christ told us to teach His doctrines and no other, specifically: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" Matt 28:20 - as Christ never authorized us to study any other doctrines but His own, then you also have to accept what Christ said in Matthew 5:17-20, as well as Hebrews 8:8-12 - that God's Law is now written in our hearts (Jeremiah 31).

Following Christ, the most we should do in our relation to Government is to try not to offend them. Matt 17:27, and to give Caesar's money back to him if it has his name on it, as it belongs to Caesar, and everything else belongs to God. We shouldn't be using Caesar's money in the first place.

The worship of Government is the worship of men. Man's government has become an idol. There are not 2 kingdoms, only one, with the governments of men vastly inferior and in rebellion to the True Government of God.

No, you don't have to reverence "political leader", you should shun them.

Here we go again.
Constantine is not who approved the books of the New Testament.
The Church was

[Soloist]

Constantine probably did approve. But I doubt he was in the process.

[JohnH]

The New Testament canon was largely established long before Constantine was born.

30 years after Constantine died, the canon was firmly established - the same 27 books that had been customary since before Constantine was born.

Constantine did commission having Bibles printed (by hand) and distributed when he founded Constantinople, but that has nothing to do with choosing the canon.

[JohnHurt]

The New Testament canon was largely established long before Constantine was born.

30 years after Constantine died, the canon was firmly established - the same 27 books that had been customary since before Constantine was born.

Constantine did commission having Bibles printed (by hand) and distributed when he founded Constantinople, but that has nothing to do with choosing the canon.

Who established the New Testament Canon? Did the selection of the 23 books, in addition to the 4 Gospels, originate from God, or from men?

By selecting these 23 books and placing them in the "New Testament", these 23 books have been raised to be equal in status to the 4 Gospels.

The Dispensationalist makes these 23 books superior to the Gospels and claims the 4 Gospels were part of the "old law" and have been at least partially annulled and superseded by the doctrines in Acts to Revelation.

Then there is controversy over whether 2nd Peter was written by the Apostle Peter.

Here is what Christ said about the authority of these writers of the 23 books:

John 13:16 The servant is not greater than his lord; neither is the apostle greater than he that sent him. (Douay Rheims)

Christ said that He alone should be our only Teacher and Master (Matt 23:8,10), and He only gave us permission to teach His doctrines, and not the doctrines of other men. Matthew 28:20

Christ said that when you follow these doctrines of men, your worship is in vain. Matthew 15:9

When you oppose or criticize the doctrines written in the other 23 books of the New Testament, it is like opposing the Pope himself. And you are. Because these books, and the doctrines they contain, were put in the NT Canon to consolidate the power of the clergy.

Christ said that no one preaching the Gospel should accept money, but only lodging. Matt 10:9-14. No church titles. Matt 23:8-19. No church hierarchy. Luke 22:24-26 The modern church does not teach this, because money, titles, and hierarchy are essential to the power of the Catholic church, and all churches that follow this model are catholic.

Yes, the books in the NT Canon were known and favored by many before Constantine, but by who? Who selected them? Who benefited?