- Dec 20, 2003
- 14,271
- 2,997
- Country
- Germany
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Actually, there WERE mahometans in Eastern Europe.
Ever hear of Albania? Or Kosovo?
Constantine's mother Helena visited the Holy Land in the early fourth century seeking to locate places described in the Gospels. She is supposed to have ordered churches built in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth.He built many buildings .never a church
I never did say his father was a Christian, but I personally think Constantine was just continuing honoring Sol Invictus and openly worshipping as a way of emanulatimg his father or as a political move. Constantine did officially outlaw the gladiatorial games, but chariot racing still continued into the Byzantine era, gladiatorial games also continued for a while, but illegally not sanctioned by the official government anymore and this is was not something Constantine could really fix during his time given the instability going on. Contrary to what many people think or believe, Constantine didn’t favor Athanasius during the council or the trinitarian position, I do even believe he initially favored Arias’s postion over Athanasius as Arias was given much more political power possibly due to Arias’s Christological position being more on par with paganism then the Christology of Athanasius. Not to mention Constantine wasn’t very happy when Athanasius emerged as the victor of the council of Nicaea and his views were officially canonized by the Church as in line with scripture and the apostolic traditions. But he still treated both of them with respect and treated them fairly. Which is why he is called Saint Constantine the Great.Constantine's mother may have been a Christian but his father was not. His awareness of and attraction to the faith even from childhood did not mean he was a Christian early on also. His mothers divorce from his father for the sake of his fathers political ambitions speak of a father who was more a Real Politick player than a Saint who probably implemented Diocletian's persecutions of Christians in his part of the empire. In practice Constantine was a little bit of both his father and his mother with his mothers faith winning him over in the end. Cruicifxion was indeed banned by Constantine in 337 and out of respect for its greatest victim Jesus. However Gladiatorial combats were hosted by the Emperor and the practice did not completely die out for centuries more.
I agree that his adjudication of Christian disputes like that of the Arian controversy was an important factor in their timely resolution and that on the whole he protected the faith.
Well for starters the documentary it has a few holes in it, and it only really works if you already have the presupposition that Constantine rebranded Christianity away from how it historically was. Jesus wasn’t a political rebel, which was exactly why the Jews of the time didn’t really want to follow him as a whole, in a way Jesus was a disappointment to the Jews, a carpenter with no armies and definitely not the royal king they were expecting. Instead they got someone who encourages the Jews to give “Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s,” a rather terrible disappointment in the Jewish mind of the day. And to the Jewish leadership of the time what’s the perfect way to get rid of this apocalyptic preacher and blasphemer, paint him as a political rebel to the Romans. Jesus of the Gospels was definitely not a political rebel.Here the 'Naked Archaeologist' makes an argument that Constantine was really a pagan adapting to the emerging Christian culture. The narrator isn't Christian for what that's worth. It gets interesting at the end where he starts analyzing Constantine's Arch.
Well for starters the documentary has a few holes in it, and it only really works if you already have the presupposition that Constantine rebranded Christianity away from how it historically was. Jesus wasn’t a political rebel, which was exactly why the Jews of the time didn’t really want to follow him as a whole, in a way Jesus was a disappointment to the Jews, a carpenter with no armies and definitely not the royal king they were expecting. Instead they got someone who encourages the Jews to give “Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s,” a rather terrible disappointment in the Jewish mind of the day. And to the Jewish leadership of the time what’s the perfect way to get rid of this apocalyptic preacher and blasphemer, paint him as a political rebel to the Romans. Jesus of the Gospels was definitely not a political rebel.Here the 'Naked Archaeologist' makes an argument that Constantine was really a pagan adapting to the emerging Christian culture. The narrator isn't Christian for what that's worth. It gets interesting at the end where he starts analyzing Constantine's Arch.
As Soren Kirkegaard wrote in his "The Moment", I believe that its better to say that the nation is not Christian than to falsely pretend it is and perform a theatre, supported by the government.How would you feel about classical paganism still continuing?
They built buildings.. Never the churchConstantine's mother Helena visited the Holy Land in the early fourth century seeking to locate places described in the Gospels. She is supposed to have ordered churches built in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth.
Um, what? In the mediaeval period the Albanians were a Christian people - in fact, one of the last holdouts to fight Ottoman rule. The Albanian national hero Skanderbeg resisted the Muslim encroachment. Both Albania and Bosnia converted to Islam under the Ottomans long after the Crusades, likely because both had weak Church structures infected with the heresy of Bogomilism. Kosovo was Serbian, therefore Orthodox, in the mediaeval period. In fact, Kosovo was where Serbia made its last stand against the Ottomans. Modern Kosovo is a new state, that only arose because ethnic Albanian muslims emigrated into it later, and then broke away from Serbia once they outnumbered the native Serbs - which is why Serbia is adamant not to recognise it as such.Actually, there WERE mahometans in Eastern Europe.
Ever hear of Albania? Or Kosovo?
Theodosius I has no blood relation to Constantine I.his grandson Theodosius
The Great Persecution of Diocletian was mostly carried out in the East, especially under Galerius. The persecution in the West under Maximian and Constantius Chlorus was half-hearted. The idea that Constantius Chlorus was at least a bit sympathetic, or loathe to do so, is not without merit or support. It is based on this, that many modern historians agree that Galerius likely was the driving force behind the persecutions, although his areas had a higher percentage of Christians than most. There is however, no evidence of Constantius Chlorus being anything other than a devotee of Sol Invictus.Constantine's mother may have been a Christian but his father was not. His awareness of and attraction to the faith even from childhood did not mean he was a Christian early on also. His mothers divorce from his father for the sake of his fathers political ambitions speak of a father who was more a Real Politick player than a Saint who probably implemented Diocletian's persecutions of Christians in his part of the empire. In practice Constantine was a little bit of both his father and his mother with his mothers faith winning him over in the end. Cruicifxion was indeed banned by Constantine in 337 and out of respect for its greatest victim Jesus. However Gladiatorial combats were hosted by the Emperor and the practice did not completely die out for centuries more.
I agree that his adjudication of Christian disputes like that of the Arian controversy was an important factor in their timely resolution and that on the whole he protected the faith.
The temples in which Christians worship Christ our true God are known as churches. Christ's body is known as the Church.They built buildings.. Never the church
Here the 'Naked Archaeologist' makes an argument that Constantine was really a pagan adapting to the emerging Christian culture. The narrator isn't Christian for what that's worth. It gets interesting at the end where he starts analyzing Constantine's Arch.
Language is language. Get over it.Buildings are buildings.
Nothing to get over.Language is language. Get over it.
As I said, Panegyric VII (sometimes ordered VI in the collection) has a vision of a thirty year reign by Constantine, in the form of 3 crosses over the sun. The panegyric connects it to Apollo, and is dated to 310 AD, so 2 years prior to the battle of the Milvian Bridge. So the story of some kind of vision of crosses in the sky by Constantine was well established. Lactantius mentions a dream prior to the battle, while Eusebius' vision is obviously parallel to this one - so you can argue 2 separate visions, that Constantine or Eusebius changed the content thereof to be more explicitly Christian, that Constantine initially did not see it as Christian, etc. It is unlikely he had made up a vision that was reported in both Pagan and Christian sources, even though the timing and content differs a little bit between them.It is possible Constantine made up the story of his vision ,conveniently announcing it before the major church council of Nicea or it is also possible he did not feel confident enough to announce what he had seen until that point.
As Soren Kirkegaard wrote in his "The Moment", I believe that its better to say that the nation is not Christian than to falsely pretend it is and perform a theatre, supported by the government.
As I said, Panegyric VII (sometimes ordered VI in the collection) has a vision of a thirty year reign by Constantine, in the form of 3 crosses over the sun. The panegyric connects it to Apollo, and is dated to 310 AD, so 2 years prior to the battle of the Milvian Bridge. So the story of some kind of vision of crosses in the sky by Constantine was well established. Lactantius mentions a dream prior to the battle, while Eusebius' vision is obviously parallel to this one - so you can argue 2 separate visions, that Constantine or Eusebius changed the content thereof to be more explicitly Christian, that Constantine initially did not see it as Christian, etc. It is unlikely he had made up a vision that was reported in both Pagan and Christian sources, even though the timing and content differs a little bit between them.
Constantine's mother Helena visited the Holy Land in the early fourth century seeking to locate places described in the Gospels. She is supposed to have ordered churches built in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth.
I never did say his father was a Christian, but I personally think Constantine was just continuing honoring Sol Invictus and openly worshipping as a way of emanulatimg his father or as a political move. Comstantine did officially outlaw the gladiatorial games, but chariot racing still continued into the Byzantine era, gladiatorial games also continued for a while, but illegally not sanctioned by the official government anymore and this is was not something Constantine could really fix during his time given the instability going on. Contrary to what many people think or believe, Constantine didn’t favor Athanasius during the council or the trinitarian position, I do even believe he initially favored Arias’s postion over Athanasius as Arias was given much more political power possibly due to Arias’s Christological position being more on par with paganism then the Christology of Athanasius. Not to mention Constantine wasn’t very happy when Athanasius emerged as the victor of the council of Nicaea and his views were officially canonized by the Church as in line with scripture and the apostolic traditions. But he still treated both of them with respect and treated them fairly. Which is why he is called Saint Constantine the Great.
The ups and downs of the faith come in waves more than inevitable decline. The Byzantine Religion was continually renewed over a thousand years before finally crumbling. The raising up of an adversary to the faith seems to be an agent of its renewal in some cases and can make things worse in others. In the case of the fight against the Sassanid empire I think the Byzantine state significantly encroached into the realm of religious faith in ways that were entirely inappropriate and caused immense dissatisfaction amongst their subject populations as a result. This dissatisfaction was exploited by the Muslim invaders who were even able to secure Christians allies against the empire as a result. But the challenge of Islam and the sieges of Constantinople proved to be a force for renewal of true faith and of genuine revival.
The peace that Christianity enjoyed after Constantine may have meant that they and the empire went soft and was no longer able to resist the barbarians at its gates. The sense of urgency and or purity and of passion that existed under persecution was lost in the comfortable times before the fall of the Western Empire and may indeed have contributed to that fall.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?