Milvian Bridge- the Truth

[Voice_of_Reason]

We are all very well aware of the story of Milvian Bridge, and Constantine's "miracle". Now, I want to discuss the validity of Constantine's conversion, and his understanding of the vision. I believe that Constantine actually viewed his vision as a gift from Sol Invictus, an opinion shared by quite a number of scholars. My evidence lies in numismatics. For the decade after 312, the coinage was almost exclusively of a pagan nature, focussing much of time on Sol Invictus. This makes perfect sense, as the vision reputedly occurred when Constantine gazed up at the sky. The Chi-Rho symbol, could very well have been a sundog. In the end however, the results were the same, as Christianity was becoming wider spread and Constantine simply did the logical thing: he utilized the Church to gain some measure of control over his vast Empire. Agree? Disagree?

VOR

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

We are all very well aware of the story of Milvian Bridge, and Constantine's "miracle". Now, I want to discuss the validity of Constantine's conversion, and his understanding of the vision. I believe that Constantine actually viewed his vision as a gift from Sol Invictus, an opinion shared by quite a number of scholars. My evidence lies in numismatics. For the decade after 312, the coinage was almost exclusively of a pagan nature, focussing much of time on Sol Invictus. This makes perfect sense, as the vision reputedly occurred when Constantine gazed up at the sky. The Chi-Rho symbol, could very well have been a sundog. In the end however, the results were the same, as Christianity was becoming wider spread and Constantine simply did the logical thing: he utilized the Church to gain some measure of control over his vast Empire. Agree? Disagree?

VOR

The system doesn't want to let me post an image, so here's the link to a nice example of the coin I refer to:

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10465/Constantine%20I%20Soli%20Invicto%20Comiti.jpg

VOR

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

I tend to agree with you.

Whatever happened at the Milvian Bridge, Constantine advanced a tolerant attitude toward Christianity which eventually became it's establishment as the official state cult.

It does seem clear that Constantine was a practical syncretist who conflated Sol Invictus with Christ. And though he did later tend to prefer specifically Christian language it is not at all clear that he ever threw over the pagan connection.

To me, the far more interesting question is what Constantine's eventual endorsement of Christianity has meant for the church.

A hint as to my opinion: I don't think it's been good.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

No, indeed it hasn't. Constantine combined Christianity with the going-ons of the Empire to confirm the stability of his rule, making Christianity far more political than it had ever been intended to be. The fledgling Church wasn't ready for the responsibility, and we see corruption cropping up soon afterwards. Some see Christianity as the downfall of Empire (Gibbon), simply because they couldn't manage things as well as the Senate had.

VOR

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

Another thing is that Christianity as the State Religion occasioned a lot of opportunistic "conversions". As it became necessary to be Christian in order to see civil or military advancement, conversion became a practical necessity.

How can this not have resulted in a lot of false professions by people who continued secretly pagan?

Is this the beginning of that kind of syncretism which resulted in saint worship and the exaltation of Jesus' Mother to semi-divine status?

 

[ps139]

You guys seem to be forgetting (or not mentioning) that Christianity did not become the official religion until Theodosius made it so in the 380s (386?)

Constantine did some great things for the Church. He enabled all of the bishops to come together at Nicea in 325 where the Church as a whole finally condemned the Arian heresy. He paid the way for the bishops (travel, food, lodging), were it not for his financial assistance, Arianism may have spread even more. The Nicene Creed is outlines the fundamental beliefs of orthodox Christianity and we can thank Constantine for doing his part to make the council possible.

 

[Philip]

You guys seem to be forgetting (or not mentioning) that Christianity did not become the official religion until Theodosius made it so in the 380s (386?)

It took several decrees from AD 380 to AD 391.

Constantine did some great things for the Church. He enabled all of the bishops to come together at Nicea in 325 where the Church as a whole finally condemned the Arian heresy. He paid the way for the bishops (travel, food, lodging), were it not for his financial assistance, Arianism may have spread even more. The Nicene Creed is outlines the fundamental beliefs of orthodox Christianity and we can thank Constantine for doing his part to make the council possible.

Please stop pointing out historical facts. It makes it much harder to condemn Constantine the Great.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

Whether Constantine was a good guy or a bad guy is really a moot point.

He did what he did and we are where we are today.

If you believe, as I do that everything that happens happens according to the providence of God then we are where we are and what has happened has happened because God planned it that way.

But this doesn't mean that God didn't use a crooked line to write straight; I mean, it doesn't mean that the church-state union Constantine was the first to forge was an unalloyed good just because some good things came out of it.

It's based on a bad premise: that states can be Christian.

They can't, the only collective body that can is the Church and that's pan-national.

 

[ps139]

I agree that a mingling of church and state usually turns out badly for somebody, but Constantine did not do that. Blame it on Theodosius if you want to.

 

[Philip]

Whether Constantine was a good guy or a bad guy is really a moot point.

He did what he did and we are where we are today.
...
But this doesn't mean that God didn't use a crooked line to write straight; I mean, it doesn't mean that the church-state union Constantine was the first to forge was an unalloyed good just because some good things came out of it.

Except Constantine never made Christainity a state religion. He banned the persecution of Christianity, but did not ban other religions.

 

[ps139]

I find it ironic that the biggest critics of Constantine say completely opposite things.

There is the:
A) Constantine comandeered the Christian church and molded it and its doctrines into those which suited his political aims. He made Jesus into a god and he helped the Church repress women. (a typical gnostic view)

and then the:
B)Constantine wasn't a true Christian and the devil used him to inject his paganism into Christianity. 325 AD is the year it all went down hill. (a typical 'non-traditionalist' Christian view)

Neither view is even close to accurate.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

You're right of course but it can hardly be denied that Theodosius hatched the egg Constantine laid.