Constantine the Great

[mindlight]

Actually, there WERE mahometans in Eastern Europe.

Ever hear of Albania? Or Kosovo?

Northern Crusades - Wikipedia

 

[dqhall]

He built many buildings .never a church

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.

 

[Barney2.0]

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.

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.

 

[Barney2.0]

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 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.

Another thing worth mentioning is that there’s not much political leverage for Constantine to gain from adopting the Christian faith as Christians weren’t that big enough to pose a difference during the time. Again why would he convert to a religion found repulsive by the majority of the Roman nobility and upper class as a political move, this doesn’t make much sense. Jesus being portrayed as a Roman emperor being some source of conspiracy theory that Constantine was trying to romanize Christianity is as ridiculous as saying this Chinese icon of Christ and Mary as a Chinese empress and prince was part of some plot of the Chinese to make Christianity culturally Chinese:



This is definitely an issue because some Chinese royalty historically persecuted Christianity therefore this picture is a huge problem. Also the column of Constantine although portrayed in pagan fashion doesn’t mean Constantine was a pagan any more then Michel Angelo’s David, as for the sun crown or halo on his head it doesn’t indicate divinity, it was meant to represent holiness and purity which Constantine thought he had, now whether you think he was holy or not is up for dispute, but such a thing doesn’t necessarily inidicate divinity. 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

 

[Barney2.0]

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.

Another thing worth mentioning is that there’s not much political leverage for Constantine to gain from adopting the Christian faith as Christians weren’t that big enough to pose a difference during the time. Again why would he convert to a religion found repulsive by the majority of the Roman nobility and upper class as a political move, this doesn’t make much sense. Jesus being portrayed as a Roman emperor being some source of conspiracy theory that Constantine was trying to romanize Christianity is as ridiculous as saying this Chinese icon of Christ and Mary as a Chinese empress and prince was part of some plot of the Chinese to make Christianity culturally Chinese:

This is definitely an issue because some Chinese royalty historically persecuted Christianity therefore this picture is a huge problem. Also the column of Constantine although portrayed in pagan fashion doesn’t mean Constantine was a pagan any more then Michel Angelo’s David, as for the sun crown or halo on his head it doesn’t indicate divinity, it was meant to represent holiness and purity which Constantine thought he had, now whether you think he was holy or not is up for dispute, but such a thing doesn’t necessarily inidicate divinity. 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

As for Mithraism we don’t have many surviving sources on it except what Christians mainly wrote about it and due to the fact that it was a secret and mystery faith. We do know that Constantine was a follower of Sol Invictus officially as his father was and although Sol Invictus and Mithras were similar and often equated with one another, they weren’t one and the same god and each had their own cults. And we have practically no evidence that Constantine was a follower of the secret Mithras cult. I believe this documentary is pretty much bringing up the stuff liberals, atheists, and agnostics always bring up. Conspiracy theories based on a mix of historical facts used or twisted to support their position of the Christian copying from paganism myth or Jesus never existing and being based on pagan myths or etc such as this documentary trying to discredit Constantine’s obvious Christian beliefs, why would a pagan emperor downgrade paganism and destroy pagan temples and give his kids a Christian education?

 

[trophy33]

How would you feel about classical paganism still continuing?

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.

 

[Alithis]

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.

They built buildings.. Never the church

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Actually, there WERE mahometans in Eastern Europe.

Ever hear of Albania? Or Kosovo?

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.

his grandson Theodosius

Theodosius I has no blood relation to Constantine I.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

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 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.

 

[prodromos]

They built buildings.. Never the church

The temples in which Christians worship Christ our true God are known as churches. Christ's body is known as the Church.

 

[mindlight]

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.

Constantines arch, probably commissioned and organised by the pagan Senate is evidence of the deeply entrenched opposition to the Christian world view and especially in the Western empire. The overall evidence of his life was of a movement towards Christianity. Constantinople itself is a more substantial piece of evidence than the Arch or speculations about the prevalence of Mithraism in the Roman army.

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.

 

[Alithis]

The temples in which Christians worship Christ our true God are known as churches. Christ's body is known as the Church.

Buildings are buildings.

 

[prodromos]

Buildings are buildings.

Language is language. Get over it.

 

[Alithis]

Language is language. Get over it.

Nothing to get over.
Iv already accepted the simple fact.
He built no churches.
Just buildings.
And the word church is "ekklesia " certainly nothing to do with buildings.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

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 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.

 

[mindlight]

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.

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.

 

[mindlight]

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.

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.

 

[mindlight]

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 guess when a guy becomes Emperor of the superpower of his day he is in a position to use his powers to help fulfil his mothers dreams and especially in that day and age. But the strategy of building churches fits also with the church councils that Constantine organised and the Edict of Milan so seems to be a part of general policy also.

 

[mindlight]

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.

There seem to be conflicting sources on whether Constantine banned gladiators. So I did some more reading and it seems you are right.

He actually hosted games in 315 but by 325 issued a ban, even though that was never totally enforced and it took a couple more centuries to stamp out the practice

https://mereorthodoxy.com/constantine-the-gladiators-politics-or-culture/

INteresting commentary on the Arius - Athanasius discussion and how Constantine handled it , thanks.

 

[~Anastasia~]

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.

Forgive me, I wanted to reply since you quoted me, but this thread is too active for me to keep up with at present. I suspect we are using two different sets of criteria, since for us the "Byzantine Religion" never crumbled, if you mean the faith/Church of Byzantium? Governments and buildings rise and fall, but we are concerned with the faith? So I'm not sure how to answer?

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.

Well if seems very clear that Christians went soft in their fervor for Christ. That is what all the history and writings I'm aware of concerned themselves with. How that fitted in with outcomes of political war is not something I've heard too much about (a little) but also not my focus, so again I can't say much.