Constantine 's conversion? when and what di he do b4?

[Carey]

He created confusion in Christianity that has lasted to the present time

 

[jabechler]

Constantine was never fully converted though he did intermix the pagan believes he practised into the church thus corrupting Gods truthes. This was a political move to gain power and influence with the Church and continue the Roman empire.

 

[Carey]

Constantine was never fully converted though he did intermix the pagan believes he practised into the church thus corrupting Gods truthes. This was a political move to gain power and influence with the Church and continue the Roman empire.

It seems many dont want to admit this. I wonder why it is simply historical fact.

 

[Rick Otto]

is not just a river in Egypt!

 

[Desperate4Him2]

Wasn't Constantine a worshipper of Mithra?

If he was converted (which I doubt) it was most likely a political conversion.

 

[seth30]

Wasn't Constantine a worshipper of Mithra?

If he was converted (which I doubt) it was most likely a political conversion.

interesting..

 

[Metanoia02]

Wasn't Constantine a worshipper of Mithra?

If he was converted (which I doubt) it was most likely a political conversion.

So Paul can persecute Christians and be converted, but for some reason we assume Constantine was just politics? I guess if we start from a negative view of pre-Reformation Church history we would conclude everything that happened was corrupted Christianity until that saint of a man Martin Luther rediscovered it.

 

[Rick Otto]

Doctrinal purity was Paul's motivation.

Since Paul's motivation survived his conversion, why couldn't Constantine's?

 

[S Walch]

So Paul can persecute Christians and be converted, but for some reason we assume Constantine was just politics? I guess if we start from a negative view of pre-Reformation Church history we would conclude everything that happened was corrupted Christianity until that saint of a man Martin Luther rediscovered it.

But you see, the difference between Paul and constantine is thus:

After Paul had converted to a follower of the messiah, He didn't kill nor persecute anyone else.

But the same can't be said for Constantine.

There is a radical difference between Constantine and the apostle Paul, and comparing one to the other is like apples and oranges.

 

[Metanoia02]

Doctrinal purity was Paul's motivation.

Since Paul's motivation survived his conversion, why couldn't Constantine's?

How does this indicate whether he had authentic faith or not?

I think people need to be cautious about judging whether a person is a 'real' Christian or not.

Was Martin Luther not a real Chrisitan because he hated Jews and was a racist? What were his motivations?

I think it is a slippery slope.

 

[Rick Otto]

it IS a slippery slope!

We are not left without tools for discernment.

God's judgement of the man will be without a shadow of doubt. That is the standard of evidence for conviction in a criminal court.

Down here in civil court, the standard is a preponderance of evidence.
Judge by the fruit.
At least for one of the two, the quality of the fruit is arguable(not Paul ).

We can be cautious without walking on eggshells.

See me NOT rushing to defend Martin Luther?
I don't appreciate a LOT about him. If I were to judge him on his ecclesiology alone, I might seriously DOUBT his salvation too!

Even 'real' Christians can make major goofs.
Abraham taking up Sarah's suggestion resulting in Ishmael, for instance.

Had Constantine kept the geographical center of Christianity at Jerusalem, his motivations would've attracted far fewer critics, don't you agree?

 

[Metanoia02]

Had Constantine kept the geographical center of Christianity at Jerusalem, his motivations would've attracted far fewer critics, don't you agree?

The geographical center of Christianity hadn't been in Jerusalem for a while. Besides Pope Sylvester was in Rome, it would seem reasonable to have Rome be the center.

 

[Rick Otto]

I mean I can agree it was completely convenient for the purpose of control, but how could it be more reasonable than where He was born, or where He lived, or where He died?

 

[oldsage]

In all honesty, we don't really know if Constantine converted or not. It is just speculation from both sides. Several scholars on both sides of the road have some evidences which supports their view, but we have no first hand accounts which to verify either claim.

Respectfully,
Chris

 

[Metanoia02]

I mean I can agree it was completely convenient for the purpose of control, but how could it be more reasonable than where He was born, or where He lived, or where He died?

He was a convert. He probably thought it should be where the Pope was. He probably wanted it close so he could protect it as well.

 

[PassthePeace1]

Constantine was never fully converted though he did intermix the pagan believes he practised into the church thus corrupting Gods truthes. This was a political move to gain power and influence with the Church and continue the Roman empire.

Well, so much for "the gates of hell, will not prevail against it"....funny, I always took Jesus to be the sort of guy who would keep his word.

[bible]Matthew 16:18[/bible]

 

[PassthePeace1]

is not just a river in Egypt!

Yeah, it also flows thru Wittenberg...

 

[Rick Otto]

ya got that right, bro!

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

If the gates of Hell hav not prevailed against the Church, then that would mean that it is our calling and nature and very power to be in the deepest depths of Hell.

Forget the "salvation shop on Hells gates", Church should be in Hell, given that Hells gates could not keep us out!

 

[Ave Maria]

I believe that Constantine's conversion was true.