One need not overcome the will of God in order to usurp a physical organization. Nor does one need to overcome the will of God to lead others astray.
If, as you propose, Constantine managed this, how do you propose that he was able to deceive all of the Christians of the day in to believing that the Church was still Christ's?
Hmmm. Did IQ's drop suddenly - state religion, forced conversion at sword point - do these things ring a bell?
One need not overcome the will of God in order to usurp a physical organization. Nor does one need to overcome the will of God to lead others astray.
If, as you propose, Constantine managed this, how do you propose that he was able to deceive all of the Christians of the day in to believing that the Church was still Christ's?
Hmmm. Did IQ's drop suddenly - state religion, forced conversion at sword point - do these things ring a bell?
One need not overcome the will of God in order to usurp a physical organization. So are you saying that you believe the Church is only a physical organization? As I questioned earlier, how does this fit with Christ's statement "...I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."
Moving past your remarks about my IQ, I certainly realize that forced conversion is possible. One needn't look any further than modern Islamic states. But as was discussed earlier in this thread, where is the evidence that this happened under Constantine? The Church before and after Constantine is a seamless whole. The same Church leaders who maintained the Church before Constantine stopped the persecutions continued to support it afterwards. Thus my question earlier, if there was a mass forced conversion to a new faith, how was this covered up from such folks as Athanasius, who was certainly not one to shy away from conflict.
As I stated to Iowegian earlier, you seem to believe that either:
1 - That because Constantine was irredeemably sinful, and leader of the state, the Church during his time became irredeemably corrupt. And even if I grant the first premise, which I have no reason to, I just don't see how this leads to the second.
2 - That by being legitimized by the state, and accepted as the religion of the state, the Church necessarily became corrupted and broke from the teachings and traditions of the Apostles. Again, I don't see the evidence to support this claim. Are you saying that the Church cannot exist except in a state of persecution? How does this square with Christ's command to make disciples of all nations?
These last two questions seem to me to be the crux of the debate.