You really need to take some classes before making such blatant mistakes
Because of statements like this, I am going to restrain myself from actually responding to everything you say. I'm going to cover your main points, and restrict my response to just one post over a couple of pages. Also, please don't tell me to take classes in an area that I am actually going to college to study, and that I'm nearly graduated from and will be teaching on.
he was involved in the Donatus controvery in 313
he was preaching sermon on a regular basis
he wrote to imperial officials and clergy, he had open and clear views of the current christian doctrine
He was involved in the Donatus controversy. However, he wasn't preaching sermons (there is no evidence of this). And yes, he did write to clergy. However, have you read those letters? Or really looked at what was going on? From what survives, Constantine really only got involved in the form of calling a council to deal with the matters. And if you look at the history of the Donatists, you will see that Constantine continued to flip flop on his ruling against them (over the years), not because of theological ideas, but because of political ones.
Also, you took me out of context. I was talking about the Council of Nicaea in the first place.
there was no bible then to be discussed.
pieces of collections were discussed, and at that time the bible was just a collection of sacred scripture
So what I said is correct then? They didn't argue what books to be collected and compose the Bible. They didn't vote for the Bible. They really didn't discuss the matter, in a general form, at all. Thanks.
there was a reason they counted them, it would be part of a discussion would it not?
No reason to put a number on something not being talked about.
Have you ever been to a meeting? Not everything talked about is important. More so, our source for this is only Jerome, and we have no actual context. Really, it doesn't argue against what I said, and I see no need to go further.
and take into account it was only 6 years later he ordered his 50 bibles, these works were not ignored 6 years previously, they had been important for hundreds of years
No, it wasn't ignored in that time frame. But the canon was basically already set anyway. No reason to debate it.
he ran the show and dressed up as its center piece with a purple robe studded with jewels, after being the one who invited all the bishops. He also influenced the decision.
You undercut his role. he was a mediator more or less for the council
Source? Your Wikiepedia source actually states: "Constantine had little theological understanding of the issues at stake, and did not particularly care which view of Christ's nature prevailed so long as it resulted in a unified church."
So yeah, Constantine really didn't do anything. Also, it wasn't even his idea, but the suggestion of another.
More so, he didn't vote, he wasn't upfront (when he was there, he placed Bishops in front of him, and probably didn't even preside over it nor even gave the opening statement.
the trinity was church dogma, not EVER promoted by its early authors.
Actually, many scholars would disagree. More so, the idea of the Trinity, not in name form yet, actually does find much of it's basis in the NT.
I will claim false
we know he influenced the council, lets look at that influence deeper.
You should cite your sources instead of just copying and pasting. That is plagiarism.
#1 He is said to be "one in being with The Father".
Eusebius of Caesarea ascribes the term
homoousios, or
consubstantial,
i.e., "of the
same substance" (of the Father), to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority. and I do understand Ossius role in this
Here we have Eusebius attrubuting Constantine as saying "one in being with the father", and exercising his authority![/quote] First, it doesn't state he exercised his authority. It only states he may have. Also, this issue is clear evidence that he really had no strong holding on the theological ideas present, as a few years later, he switched his stance regarding the nature of Christ for political reasons. More so, as your own sources says, the meaning of such a clause is ambiguous, and Constantine abandons the idea anyway.
The Emperor carried out his earlier statement: everybody who refused to endorse the Creed would be
exiled.
The emperor's threat of banishment is claimed to have influenced many to sign
This is a politically motivated move. Constantine didn't care what happened in the Council as long as their was unity. This was his way of making sure there was unity. More so, regardless of people being exiled, there was only unity on paper. The debates continued for quite some time, and Constantine didn't seem to really care.
boloney or baloney your choice
he talked of the divine 3
but had no real concept of the trinity as defined, only by the nicene creed starting the definition of divinity [defining god] did that start the concept in its current direction
As a matter of fact his view does not reflect the trinity at all
Have you read Origen? Even before Origen though, there was Tertullian who used the word Trinity, and described the aspect. So really, it was out there already. And Tertullian was only borrowing from others.
But to Origen. According to Chrstoph Markschies, and many scholars agree with this, "The development of Trinitarian theology in all parts of the Church over the next two centuries following him [Origen], did little other than develop the schema that he himself had first sketched out...."
So regardless of whether it is by name (and your Wiki article states that it is), Origen is accredited with Trinitarianism. Sure, it may not have been the "official" doctrine, but it was still the Trinity idea. And Tertullian, actually even uses the term Trinity. Both happen before the Council of Nicaea.
I would bet he was deified, made into a deity within a year after his death
And the Council had nothing to do with the Trinity. They simply voted on the nature of Christ, not the Trinity.
what is not up for debate was his involvement with ruling over Donatism, and the edict of Milan
Both are up for debate. There is little in history, if anything, that isn't up for debate. The edict of Milan simply legalized Christianity. And that was an indirect result, as what the edict was doing was proclaiming religious freedom. So it effected Christianity, but tolerance usually effects much more.
As for his involvement in Donatism, it was a mess. He really wasn't involved with the debates, he was trying to get some unity. He didn't really seem to know what was at stake, and instead, make politically motivated decisions. In the end, he pass tolerance for Donatism, meaning he flipped flopped on the issue quite a bit, depending on his advisors (who really oversaw the ordeal) and what it meant politically.
Trinity: The role of Constantine in the Nicene creed
Why are you citing that site? It is an apologist website. This only suggests that you really don't do real research, but only search out sites that agree with your point of view at that moment. More so, this site directly contradicts your Wikipedia source. So are you saying Wikipedia actually isn't accurate? Or is it just in this specific issue?
Where that site really fails is that it believes that the Council of Nicaea dealt with the Trinity. Not really. It dealt with the nature of Christ. The Trinity, as a doctrine, really was left out. Also, they are using an outdated version of the Encyclopedia Britannica. And in fact, looking at the current edition (online, you should be able to access it at your local library), says nothing about what your links are. In fact, it states that Constantine was basically over his head as he didn't understand the Greek, nor thought the issue was a big deal. He expected everything to be settled easily.
Furthermore, on the article regarding the Trinity, it states that "....by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since." So the impact of Constantine, and the Council of Nicaea really didn't have the greatest aspect.
like other imortant people to chriatianity, [paul] he was self proclaimed and had a huge impact.
One doesnt do that from a point of ignorance on the subject as OP tries to state
It was his.....
Constantine didn't make the Roman Empire a Christian state. He supported religious freedom. Basically, he legalized Christianity.
Also, I didn't say that Constantine was ignorant of Christianity in general. I said that he really didn't understand the theological arguments that were at stake. What he did understand though was that Christianity was divided, and he believed it would be a quick fix. He was wrong. And for the most part, he let others run the show.
And I don't get what you mean by saying he was self-appointed.
perhaps you can start on tackling which is fact ( in the Da Vinci code for example) and which is mere fiction.
