Poor old Constantine gets blamed for so many things that he obviously could not have done. The accusations are many but when they are investigated, they, like the source of their gestation simply fall beneath the weight of their lies. He gets credit for having part of the scriptures written, yet we can find no part which does not work in harmony with the other. We are informed that He(Constantine) started the tradition of Sunday worship, yet we are flooded with historical writings that predate Him by two hundred years. When any of accusations are put to the test they simply do not pass the smell test. What we are presented with today are merely "parroted" secular ideas that have been gestated by idiots that have not preformed their historical research in earnest, only looking for straws to grasp at. For the truth about Christianity is as such.

Constantine indeed may have had some influence on certain offshoots of the early Roman Church, but in no way was responsible for creating one word of the Cannonized New Testament, whose copied manuscripts can accurately be dated to have existed from the middle of the first century all the way up until the actual reign of Constantine.

Many claim that the NT was actually written in the Hebrew tongue, but history addresses a completely different finding. The evidence that the NT was originally drafted in the universal language of the lst Century (Greek) is overwhelming. We have over 5300 complete manuscripts (copies of the original) and some 13,000 fragments, all found scripted in the Greek Language. There are another 8000 manuscripts found in Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic, Coptic, Gothic, Slavic, Sahidic, and Gerogian. But what we do find lacking in any numbers at all are manuscripts in Hebrew. If the scripts were originally drafted in the Hebrew tongue, any reasonable person would hope to find the opposite, the lst and 2nd Centuries would have been flooded with copied examples of the Hebrew, not the inverse.

When "any" document is translated instead of merely copied there are many indicators of such occurrence, and we find none of these indicators in the many validated manuscripts of the NT, thus one can only conclude they were copied from the original....not translated. Every language is unique in the fact of word selection, grammar, and idioms. The "one" thing that most scholars agree on is the fact that the books of the NT show the evidence of being drafted in the "Koine" Greek.

What is truly amazing are the direct quotes found in the NT writings, that can only have been referenced from one source, THE SEPTUAGINT translation of the Old Testament, which has been dated and validated as having been drafted at least somewhere around 200-400 BC, as proven by the discovery of the "Dead Sea Scrolls". Yet we are constantly being told that "Constantine" was responsible for all the information contained in the NT testament....he indeed must have been the first exampled proof of "time travel" to predate the many proven examples of NT referenced sources. Ranging from claims to have changed the Sabbath, which history actual provides hundreds of examples of Sunday worship by Christians before Constantine was even born, might less assumed rule over Rome.

Thus by you claiming that no writings of the NT can be validated before Constantine came into power shows the weakness and duplicity of your argument, as you "assume" every one to be just as "gullible" as perhaps you have been in readily swallowing the whole load of parroted nonsense that you have presented. What you are claiming is that God does not have the power to keep his promises not to have His words of revelation corrupted, as you claim that God lost control of His creation (The Holy Scriptures) right after the New Covenant was revealed. How Odd indeed, as you have in the past presented opinion that the Old Testament is valid and historical, when you needed backing of your LIBERAL POLITICAL VIEWS by some of your female gallery followers but Claim that the NT testament was corrupted by Constantine, of all people, some 3 centuries after the fact. But this argument falls, if the texts were corrupted by men then the scriptures of the entire NT would not work in harmony with one another as surely as no two men can agree on anything, there surely would be examples of corruption in disharmony of the 27 books presented. Please point out just one truth that contradicts another truth presented in any of the books. Many have been claimed to exist, but none proven.

A physical source that predates Constantine by at least 200 years is validated by some fragments of original manuscripts, written in Greek and mentioning Jesus name. The John Ryland discovery of a portion of the Book of John dated around 100 AD, indicates the stupidity of your secular arguments.

And the only logical reason that Constantine could have chosen Christianity over the many and various other idol worshiping displays of religion that he had been exposed to from birth, would be the fact that he knew the real God of Creation when He was presented with the knowledge of such. Why would he have chosen some false religion like exampled in the Hindu faith, when he had been exposed to such false ideology from birth? BD