Constantine The Great

[heidegger]

Profile:
http://tinyurl.com/76hh7
I would like to know more on the role he plays in the creation of Christianity.

 

[CFoxDWH]

Well, he had nothing to do with the creation of Christianity. Christianity was created a couple hundred years before he was even born. But he did make it a legal religion in the Roman empire and ended the public persecutions of Christians. That website you linked to is wrong on a couple of points and not very informative. I would suggest searching for him on Wikipedia.

 

[heidegger]

It is said that although Christianity already existed a long time before Constantine, it was Constantine and the early Church who was responsible for setting up the later parts of Christianity (the New Testament). Constantine gathered hundreds of men, religious leaders and various philosophers, to determine the divinity of Jesus. Everyone of them already agreed that Jesus existed, but none is sure whether or not Jesus is Son of God. Therefore, they held meetings which resulted in them atttibuting miracles of Jesus. In other words, after the meetings, they made up stories of Jesus's miracles.
How true is this?

 

[Philip]

Constantine gathered hundreds of men, religious leaders and various philosophers, to determine the divinity of Jesus.

Actually, he requested that the bishops of the Church gather together to settle some disputes.

Everyone of them already agreed that Jesus existed, but none is sure whether or not Jesus is Son of God.

This is not correct. All of the particpants at the Nicene Council believed Christ to be divine. The major dispute was whether or not He was created or co-eternal with the Father.

Therefore, they held meetings which resulted in them atttibuting miracles of Jesus. In other words, after the meetings, they made up stories of Jesus's miracles.

This does not even come close to matching history. There are countless documents from before St Constantine's time that attribute miracles to Christ.

How true is this?

Completely untrue.

 

[davidoffinland]

From Finland.

Constantine wanted unity in the countries where he ruled. The church was divided between the bishops concerning what connection did Jesus have with God...plus in different areas of Constantine´s rule there was actual mini fights to blood battles between people who basically thought that Jesus was God come in the flesh and those who didn´t thought differently. So it took another 100 yrs or so into the 5th CT when the church worked out the finally Creed.

To those who were on the winning side, Constantine was the hero...to those who were not, mainly those who disputed, were exiled and the church rejected some of those teachings.

If you like history, religion and politics, there are many good articles and sites on the internet to get a good balanced view.

For now,
David.

 

[depthdeception]

To those who were on the winning side, Constantine was the hero...to those who were not, mainly those who disputed, were exiled and the church rejected some of those teachings.

While this is partially true (Arius was condemned, etc.), those on the "winning" side didn't fare much better. Athanasius, for example, had a pretty difficult time getting along with Constantine and others--he was exiled 5 times!

 

[Vaudois]

Ah...Constantine...the darling of State wedded with Church.
It's ironic how a compromising semi-pagan, absolute ruler of a vast empire, could "convert" and yet still worship the Sun-god.
It's amazing that "dueling bishops" with blood on their hands could dare speak the Name of the Prince of Peace....

Amazing that "killing for Jesus" and "christian politics" are common among us even today....

 

[prodromos]

Ah...Constantine...the darling of State wedded with Church.
It's ironic how a compromising semi-pagan, absolute ruler of a vast empire, could "convert" and yet still worship the Sun-god.

Someone needs to read history books.

 

[Vaudois]

Yes: reading good, unbiased history is needed.

So...there's no State church in Greece? or Serbia? Or Germany? Or England? Or Russia? Or Spain?

All those books I have read are liars? Amazing....

When God's people must rely on a "Ceasar" or "Constantine" to protect and teach them, than the Holy Spirit Himself is not trusted to do it.

 

[prodromos]

All those books I have read are liars? Amazing....

LOL I was commenting on this statement of yours...

It's ironic how a compromising semi-pagan, absolute ruler of a vast empire, could "convert" and yet still worship the Sun-god.

 

[Vaudois]

Oh...I see...
So you see Constantine as the savior of the faith? A fully converted king, with not attachments to his culture's pagan ways, festivals, sun-god, honoring of pagan religions or custom's?

Um...I noticed you said nothing about the Church married to the State in the countries I listed. Notice: some are Orthodox, some Catholic and some "Protestant"....I see no virtue in any "system" that leans on civil powers for moral/spiritual instruction.

 

[Kripost]

Ah...Constantine...the darling of State wedded with Church.
It's ironic how a compromising semi-pagan, absolute ruler of a vast empire, could "convert" and yet still worship the Sun-god.
It's amazing that "dueling bishops" with blood on their hands could dare speak the Name of the Prince of Peace....

Amazing that "killing for Jesus" and "christian politics" are common among us even today....

Firstly, contrary to popular belief, Constantine did not make Christianity the official state religion. It was emperor Theodosius who did so. Constantine made Christianity officially legal.

Secondly, The major controversy at that time was regarding Arianism. Without having a council, the controversy would have likely to errupt in a more violent manner.

Thirdly, in the Byzantine empire, the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople had different areas of influence, as defined by Justinian. The Emperor and the bishops had to cooperate, otherwise society would collapse. Also, personalities such as St John Chrysostom often spoke out against the corruption of the influential, and did suffer the wrath of Emperess Eudoxia. In short, it was not the state and church mixing to become one, but rather, both maintain a certain relation which was necessary for society.

 

[prodromos]

Oh...I see...
So you see Constantine as the savior of the faith? A fully converted king, with not attachments to his culture's pagan ways, festivals, sun-god, honoring of pagan religions or custom's?

Don't give up your day job. Going by your record so far you're not going to make it as a mind reader

 

[Vaudois]

Don't give up your day job. Going by your record so far you're not going to make it as a mind reader

Hahahahahahah! Well that's why I used question marks and asked questions and asked again for answers.....soooo...Guessing what someone seems so reluctant to answer is normal,usually, as long as I remain respectful.

Or is questioning Church/State Issues taboo here? If so I will shift my posts.

Or is questioning a saint's role in church history the problem?

 

[prodromos]

Hahahahahahah! Well that's why I used question marks and asked questions and asked again for answers.....soooo...Guessing what someone seems so reluctant to answer is normal,usually, as long as I remain respectful.

I'm sorry, I guess I'm not being particularly fair. Its just my time is limited so it is difficult for me to spend the time necessary to properly respond to your posts. I couldn't let your comment pass, but couldn't answer it properly either.

Something you ought to know about the Church in Constantine's time is that they were much stricter on themselves than we tend to be nowadays. If someone was to fall into sin after their baptism it was considered a very serious failing which put them outside the church and as a result many people put off being baptised until as late in life as possible so they would have little opportunity to "soil" their baptismal robe. Constantine was in a more difficult position knowing that as Emperor he often had to make decisions that would be considered sinful, the Roman court was full of intrigues and he had play as dirty as the others at times to maintain his control. Thus he didn't just have the concern that he might soil his baptismal robe, he knew that it was a given which is more than likely the reason why he was not baptised until near the end of his life. This was by no means unusual for the time and in fact many of the martyrs of the early church were catechumen, they had converted to the Christian faith but were still going through what you might call enquirer classes, before being baptised and becoming full members of Christ's body.

Anyway, what makes you think that Constantine was still worshipping pagan gods?

John

 

[Vaudois]

Thanks for apologizing! I was concerned; I was raised on the edges of a very large Greek community, and love Greeks very much. If I tick one off this late in life, I could never eat another mousakka without regrets.

Frankly, "keeping one's baptismal robe spotless" by waiting till old age to validte one's conversion is clearly an excuse for compromise and sin.

True, Constantine, had to keep the troops and senators happy, and they were mostly pagans. But the trouble was that the merchants and workers were hugely Christian.

What to do?

And this was his Waterloo: he played the politician and mingled pagan and Christian concepts into a embryonic version of a State religion.

I'm afraid I have run out of time now, but I suggest a quick Google search, using "Constantine Sun-god"...the Wikipedia artcle was quite objective.

(PS: Criminals were still crucifed under Constantine: a strange law for a guy in the "enquirer class")

 

[prodromos]

Thanks for apologizing! I was concerned; I was raised on the edges of a very large Greek community, and love Greeks very much. If I tick one off this late in life, I could never eat another mousakka without regrets.

Have no fear! I'm not Greek, I'm an Aussie. I just happen to be married to a lovely Greek Macedonian woman and live in Thessaloniki.

Frankly, "keeping one's baptismal robe spotless" by waiting till old age to validte one's conversion is clearly an excuse for compromise and sin.

I could say the same for "once saved, always saved" yet I see christians who hold to this belief deliberately making an effort not to sin. Why cannot we assume the same for those early christians.

True, Constantine, had to keep the troops and senators happy, and they were mostly pagans. But the trouble was that the merchants and workers were hugely Christian.

Do you have any sources to back this up? The fact is that many of the martyrs remembered by the church were soldiers.

And this was his Waterloo: he played the politician and mingled pagan and Christian concepts into a embryonic version of a State religion.

Actually Constantine had little say in the affairs of the church. He called a council of the church but the decisions at that council were made by the bishops, not the emperor. For example, Constantine leaned towards Arianism which was declared heresy by the same council he called.

I'm afraid I have run out of time now, but I suggest a quick Google search, using "Constantine Sun-god"...the Wikipedia artcle was quite objective.

I suspect that using those search terms is going to produce somewhat biased results. That is not the way to study history

PS: Criminals were still crucifed under Constantine: a strange law for a guy in the "enquirer class")

He outlawed crucifixion in 337, shortly before his death. Perhaps he did not have the political support to make it effective beforehand, like his failed attempt to outlaw gladiator fights.


John

 

[Vaudois]

ooops...Aussie, eh? My mistake! No clue..

I hear Thessilonka is big city; true?

I do not subscribe to "Once saved; always saved"concept. But I also don't fall for the "magical washing away of sins at baptism" either. I see it as a declaration of salvation and dying to sin and self, not a ritual that makes one saved.

Martyrs with weapons? Sorta of an oxymoron to me...
"Biased reporting" is too easily wielded rubber stamp for not liking what is said. Do you suggest I only use Greek Orthodox approved sources? How objective would that be? I would like to read some sources of the Orthodox Church , but I could not see them as unbiased. No one is totally unbiased...

The Emperor having little to do with the Church??? Calling grand counsels over religious disputes, banishing one man for his beliefs and granting great civil powers to rival clergy can hardly be considered "little to say within the church". He may not have ranted and argued hermeneutics, but he was instrinsically involved, none the less. It appears that he was lead by the nose by the church quite often.

I deeply discount the fawning account of Eusebius, although useful for documentation, as he was clearly enthralled to the point of worship with Constantine, a common trait of pagan times towards emporers.

As for Constantine's crucifixtion for criminals: to use the same method as what ended the life (for a short time) of our Lord can hardly be considered an act of holiness, let alone a pre-baptismal
concept.

Politcally correct? Definately, which is my whole point.

Constantine did whatever he considered good for his empire, whether it appear pagan-approved to one crowd or Orthodox to another. He was an opportunist, not a great spiritual example to anyone, as far as I can see.

My sources for research are from contemporary Greek pagans, 16th through 19th century Protestant and Catholic authors as well as a converted Jew and even the well known deist, Gibbon.

I would welcome some Orthodox scholarly works.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Profile:
http://tinyurl.com/76hh7
I would like to know more on the role he plays in the creation of Christianity.

Well, he was born almost 400 years after the Jesus Christ founded The Church.
He was a pagan up until his deathbead conversion.
He supported the followers of Arias against the Christians.

So, given the above facts, I'd say absolutely nothing.

 

[JMU]

Constantine did whatever he considered good for his empire, whether it appear pagan-approved to one crowd or Orthodox to another. He was an opportunist, not a great spiritual example to anyone, as far as I can see.

Yup let's not give constantine too much credit. This guy would have plainly killed anybody that got in the way.