Constantine the Great

[Quid est Veritas?]

The Apollo imagery is there in portrayals and accounts of Constantine. But as with many Christian victories and conversion processes there is an initial accommodation on stuff that does not matter in the existing culture in order to bring in what really does matter.

Constantine was a Roman Emperor and they were a very self important type of people who built monuments to themselves and named cities after themselves and wrote the memory of their name into the architecture and sculptures of as many places as possible. Even the faces of the gods were altered on the statues to look like the Emperors. He was also expected to behave in certain way to look like an Emperor and to command the respect of the military and the nobility. That sort of stuff does not change over night.

I am inclined to believe in the vision of the cross in the sky but not sure this can really be proven. It is not an essential part of the witness even if it adds a little magic to the story.

The evidence that Constantine reported to have experienced some event is overwhelming. Secularists especially like to connect it to a Parhelion (or Sun dog or Solar halo, to use other terms), so that it isn't miraculous. This can bear a superficial likeness to crosses in the sky. Aristotle reported this though, as did Cicero, so it was not unknown to the Romans, so I doubt Constantine would necessary have confused this for a vision - but perhaps have taken it as a sign or omen.

 

[mindlight]

The evidence that Constantine reported to have experienced some event is overwhelming. Secularists especially like to connect it to a Parhelion (or Sun dog or Solar halo, to use other terms), so that it isn't miraculous. This can bear a superficial likeness to crosses in the sky. Aristotle reported this though, as did Cicero, so it was not unknown to the Romans, so I doubt Constantine would necessary have confused this for a vision - but perhaps have taken it as a sign or omen.

I have just been rereading your arguments. Given the sheer weight of paganism in the Military and in the Roman nobility and political institutions including that of the Emperor we need some kind of explanation why Constantine made the changes he did. A vision and a victory would be an explanation that works for a man who spent much of his life fighting battles and in the case of Milvian Bridge winning them against the odds. It is a trigger event that fits the narrative of his life. As you say there are enough corroborating sources here to make this a plausible story in its own right. Something clearly happened to change the momentum of his life and of the empire in such a profound way.

Also unlike many emperors before and after him Constantine survived repeated attempts on his life and indeed the empire thrived under him. That is another evidence of grace as is also the enduring power of his story. He is one of the few Emperors whose name we remember because he accomplished great things and his conversion marked a world changing event also.

 

[Chris V++]

. Also I find it rather convenient that they left out that the supposed arc of Constantine wasn’t all built by him, most of it was probably already built by previous pagan emperors such as Trajan and Hadrian Constantine just remodeled it a bit and added his inscription on it:

Arch of Constantine

Thanks for taking the time to respond so thoroughly. Great point about the Arch maybe being a remodel.

 

[trophy33]

I guess that depends on whether the alternative means being fed to lions, burnt at the stake, boiled alive in oil etc etc. If that is the alternative please let us pretend.

Religious freedom - yes, certainly.

To make Christianity a state religion, to make Christian ministry to be a career etc. - a mistake.

 

[Not David]

Religious freedom - yes, certainly.

To make Christianity a state religion, to make Christian ministry to be a career etc. - a mistake.

You say that since you live in a country having Christianity as a big influence with candidates identifying as Christians.

 

[Not David]

If I would have a son, I would call him Constantine.
St. Constantine pray for us!

 

[Root of Jesse]

No. Religious tolerance would be much better.

It's funny that Constantine legalized Christianity, he didn't outlaw any religion, so was really a religious tolerance provider.

Only God knows.


The origin of the Roman catholicism and the idea that to be in a church means to have wordly power and a good wordly career.

Well, no. Christ originated Catholicism. It is true men tried and still try to corrupt it. But the reason the Church got worldly power was because the seat of power was moved from Rome to Constantinople. Someone had to run the Roman government, and that fell to the Church.

The church lost its purity, because many false Christians pushed in to get the advantages.

Some people lost purity, including some in the hierarchy of the Church, but Christ promised that the Church would always be guided by the Holy Spirit, and so it is impossible for the Church to lose it's purity.