Did Constantine save Christianity?

[Paul Yohannan]

Of course, there must be detractors in this debate but as long as there's a shadow of doubt on the pro-Nicene side, I see no reason to accept it.

Do you not adhere to the Nicene Creed?

 

[seeking633]

Do you not adhere to the Nicene Creed?

I believe that both creeds of 325 and 381 are imperfect expressions of perfected faith that we all strive for.

 

[Philip_B]

I believe that both creeds of 325 and 381 are imperfect expressions of perfected faith that we all strive for.

I believe that 381 is some of the finest Christian theological writing ever.

As mere mortals we are incapable of perfection in the absolute sense for now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face
and in that sense I would agree with your sentiment expressed here now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known however I am firmly of the belief that until that time it is some of the best of what we have. I rank it alongside the first 18 verses of 4G.

 

[miamited]

Hi seeking,

Remember always, that without the indwelling Holy Spirit, there is no understanding of the things of God. Just as there have always been false teachers and false prophets among the children of God, so shall there always be.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Shempster]

Having done a great deal of research on the subject it appears to me that Constantine was no Christian. He "became" one out of necessity. He also continued to be involved in pagan religion. Mithraism in particular.

The real issue here is that He tried to take what is really an esoteric experience of "oneness with Christ" and formalize it into a system of written beliefs and practices.
It needed to be refined because yes, there were many splinter factions. The thing is that faction splinters continued and still does to this day. To control this, he simply gave people two choices join or die. Many did both.

A reasonable analogy would be if I started a jazz club and tried really hard to get you to join and to understand the joy and complexities of jazz music. Well, lemme tell you, there are those who already love jazz and would be glad to join. They would understand everything and contribute much. Jazz is a weird beast. Either one loves and understands it or does not love or understand it. They could join the club and memorize all of the facts, attitudes, learn the lingo and even buy lots of jazz music. The thing is, if you do not really love jazz, you will never truly understand any of it.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Having done a great deal of research on the subject it appears to me that Constantine was no Christian. He "became" one out of necessity. He also continued to be involved in pagan religion. Mithraism in particular.

Please outline for us the basis of your research, with references to relevant historical documents.

Otherwise I will continue to believe St. Constantine's contemporary Eusebius of Caesarea.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

The real issue here is that He tried to take what is really an esoteric experience of "oneness with Christ" and formalize it into a system of written beliefs and practices.

Where did he do that?

St. Constantine did not write the Creed; he was not involved on anything close to a theological level at Nicea, having merely convened the council to settle the Arian controversy.

 

[Shempster]

Please outline for us the basis of your research, with references to relevant historical documents.

Otherwise I will continue to believe St. Constantine's contemporary Eusebius of Caesarea.

Yes you are correct. It was the Bishops who did that, rather than Constantine. But it seems that the two groups were politically entwined to me.

 

[Philip_B]

Yes you are correct. It was the Bishops who did that, rather than Constantine. But it seems that the two groups were politically entwined to me.

My reading of history suggests that the religious dispute amongst the Christians was causing Constantine Political Problems so he called the Bishops together to get a theological solution. I don't think was politically committed to the answer, and happy to live with whatever brought peace the the Republic. Constantine was PRAGMATIC POLitical and pius

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

He also continued to be involved in pagan religion. Mithraism in particular

Constantine continued the state cults during his reign as he only instituted freedom of religion with his edict, not making Christianity compulsory. There is no evidence of Constantine offering sacrifices as the position of Pontifex Maximus had long ago become symbolic in nature.

As to him being involved with Mithraism: I have said this ad nauseam on these forums - Mithraism was a mystery religion with secret initiates and ceremonies. We do not have ecidence who was or was not an initiate in most cases, barring epigraphic evidence from Mithraea. As such evidence to say Constantine was a Mithraist, let alone continued any association with it, is thin to non-existent. Sol Invictus is not Mithraic if that is what you were thinking of, although I see this cult and Mithraism erroneously conflated quite often.

 

[prodromos]

Having done a great deal of research on the subject it appears to me that Constantine was no Christian.

To control this, he simply gave people two choices join or die. Many did both.

Your latter statement puts a lie to your former statement. No one who has actually researched Constantine could ever reach the latter conclusion.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I just caught a bit of an episode from the six-hour series "Ancient Roads from Christ to Constantine".

Going into it, I thought that the series would offer an interesting rehash of what historians know of the events leading from the early Nazarene assembly to the conditions surrounding the rise of Constantine as the champion of the changing Christian church in Rome. But having only caught the narration of host Jonathan Phillips on the conversion of Constantine and his subsequent influence on Christendom, I had already found myself in constant disagreement with what he was saying and refused to listen any further.

In short, Mr. Phillips suggests that if Constantine had not accepted Christianity, this weird Judaic sect would have died out or at least become fatally splintered in the thousands of so-called "heresies" that the Roman Church was able to eventually put down.

Is this what Catholics believe? That the millions living far beyond the pale of Rome and Constantinople held to nothing more than weak and dying iterations of Christian faith? I somehow believe that the Vaudois of Southern France would have disagreed considering that they were the epitome of what every well-bred citizen of Europe should aspire to.

I would like to hear your opinion on the matter.

It is truly doubtful that the Church would have died had Constantine not converted. All Constantine did was make the Church legal, and allow her to bring out all the troubles into the open to be decided-Arianism primarily, though others, too. The Church got stronger during persecution and weaker when it wasn't persecuted, just as on 9/11 when the lines going into churches were very long, but look at today. People reach for God when they are in dire straights, and tend to forget Him when things are all hunky-dory.

 

[Percivale]

It is truly doubtful that the Church would have died had Constantine not converted. All Constantine did was make the Church legal, and allow her to bring out all the troubles into the open to be decided-Arianism primarily, though others, too. The Church got stronger during persecution and weaker when it wasn't persecuted, just as on 9/11 when the lines going into churches were very long, but look at today. People reach for God when they are in dire straights, and tend to forget Him when things are all hunky-dory.

On the other hand there can be too much persecution for the church to handle. Before the Muslim conquest, North Africa was strongly Christian; not that many remain in that area. I think if the church had been more mature it could have handled the transition to state approval better, unfortunately too many Christians wanted the help of the state in enforcing their beliefs, once that became an option.

 

[Root of Jesse]

On the other hand there can be too much persecution for the church to handle. Before the Muslim conquest, North Africa was strongly Christian; not that many remain in that area. I think if the church had been more mature it could have handled the transition to state approval better, unfortunately too many Christians wanted the help of the state in enforcing their beliefs, once that became an option.

Citations and examples, please? The Church didn't have to transition, she just was legalized. Allowed to come out, so to speak. Arianism and the like were already being proposed in some places already, but the open debate was allowed only after Christianity became legalized.

 

[Percivale]

Citations and examples, please? The Church didn't have to transition, she just was legalized. Allowed to come out, so to speak. Arianism and the like were already being proposed in some places already, but the open debate was allowed only after Christianity became legalized.

Do you believe the fifth century was a time when the church was healthy and its leadership generally did the right thing? I believe their using force to suppress other religions and beliefs was very bad.

 

[JackRT]

Christianity likely would have survived without the help of Constantine but I suspect that it would look quite different today. For example, more than half the bishops attending the Council of Nicea were Arian but the influence of Constantine led the Council in a different direction.

 

[prodromos]

Christianity likely would have survived without the help of Constantine but I suspect that it would look quite different today. For example, more than half the bishops attending the Council of Nicea were Arian but the influence of Constantine led the Council in a different direction.

Really? Constantine leaned towards Arianism himself, so if he had 'led' the Council in any direction it would have been towards, not against Arianism.

 

[JackRT]

Really? Constantine leaned towards Arianism himself, so if he had 'led' the Council in any direction it would have been towards, not against Arianism.

Constantine was heavily influenced by Eusebius in the direction he went. Unfortunately Eusebius was a consummate liar.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Christianity likely would have survived without the help of Constantine but I suspect that it would look quite different today. For example, more than half the bishops attending the Council of Nicea were Arian but the influence of Constantine led the Council in a different direction.

Wrong. Only 22 were Arian supporters of 270 to 381 bishops according to the historians of the era like Eustatius and various Church Fathers with only 3 remaining so at its end. Where do you get your 'half'? Please supply the citation.

 

[Philip_B]

The Edict of Milan did not make Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine, having seen a vision of the Chi Rho in the sky and been successful in battle, did not immediately abandon the old Gods of Rome.

Constantine was born in February 272 AD, the son of Flavius Valerius Constantius who was a Joint Emperor (Tetrarch of the Western Region – Britain Gaul and Iberia) till he died in York, whilst extending the Empire there in 306. Constantine was declared Augustus (Tetrarch in succession) by the legions in York on the 25th of July 306 AD.

On the 28th of October 312, Constantine engaged Maxentius in the Battle of Milvian Bridge, and important crossing of the Tiber in Rome. Constantine was outnumbered. The soldiers, following a dream / vision carried shields marked with an X where the / was bent over to form a Chi Rho – a classic christogram. The victory marks the fall of the tetrarchy, ultimately Constantine became the sole Emperor of the whole empire East and West.

Constantine was clearly favourable to Christians. Though at this stage he was not understood as Christian, he was baptised in the last year of his life (by an Arian Bishop). As The Roman Emperor he had an official role in the Pagan cults in Rome, and held the title Pontifex Maximus (The Great Bridge Builder).

There are three reasons advanced for Constantine’s approach to the Christian Faith.

1. The victory following the vision at Milvian Bridge was a point of inner conviction.
2. Politically it made sense to acknowledge the importance of a religion that extended throughout the Empire and accounted for around 8% of it’s citizens.
3. His wife(?) and Mother in Law were Christians (happy wife – happy life!)

Basically the three things we don’t talk about – Religion, Politics and Sex!

In 313 the Edict of Milan was developed and proclaimed. This did not make Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire, however it did recognise that Christians had been persecuted, and required confiscated property be restored. However it did declare the right to free and open worship to Christians and people of all religious faiths with one expectation.

Wherefore, for this our indulgence, they ought to pray to their God for our safety, for that of the republic, and for their own, that the commonwealth may continue uninjured on every side, and that they may be able to live securely in their homes.​

Constantine almost certainly regarded Christianity as a better religion, for a stronger God, and the universality of the message of the Gospel, not tied to specific geography or people.