What should Constantine or the Church have done?

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The Caesars used whatever god was convenient

For what purpose? Generic power or a concern with actual Godliness? It seems to me the Pagans didn't persecute Christians from an exclusive spirit of Malevolence but a concern that the gods were to be honoured. Why would we think that Theodosius didn't have the same concern that the true God be honoured instead of Idols or are we to think them all cynical power mongers who cared not a wit for the world they actually lived in?

Would you say that of King David? Probably since I presume you reject the Old Testament.

You speak in these generic condemnations of people but can offer nothing specific or substantive.

 

[timothyu]

What are you talking about? Are you saying Constantine invented the Trinity? Be clear.

I said the Constantine portrayed himself as three in one, so what are the odds that a fledgling favoured church of the empire might not cozy up a bit in it's whoring role. Look at the influence his mother had on the church as she roamed around like some New York socialite philanthropist

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I said the Constantine portrayed himself as three in one, so what are the odds that a fledgling favoured church of the empire might not cozy up a bit in it's whoring role. Look at the influence his mother had on the church as she roamed around like some New York socialite philanthropist

How did Constantine portray him self as three in one? In what way exactly? Do you have any specific primary sources because I have no idea what you're on about.

Why was his Mother going to Jerusalem and helping build a church there a bad thing? Why was his Mother trying to influence her son to be a Christian a bad thing? Is St Monica to be condemned for a similar concern for her son?

 

[timothyu]

For what purpose? Generic power

Yes in the same way as twice stated above, to win a civil war and to hold an empire together. No different than what is done today where even those who claim separation of church and state still cater to a religious majority for votes

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yes in the same way as twice stated ave, to win a civil wart and to hold an empire together. No different than what is done today where even those who claim separation of church and state still cater to a religious majority for votes

How does converting to a Church which didn't even make up a majority of the lower or intellectual classes accomplish bringing about unity? This is why I don't buy claims that this was a purely political move on Constantine's part. A factor yes but not the only concern.

Christians were not a majority at the time.

 

[timothyu]

How did Constantine portray him self as three in one? In what way exactly? Do you have any specific primary sources because I have no idea what you're on about.

Caesar, sun god and son of pagan gods was the standard secular triune of the day among Caesars. His Triumph arch and column confirm this. But this is irrelevant to what the church did. A cunning politician does what a man of the world does.

The church had no such excuse to abandon the Kingdom and the Gospel of he Kingdom of Jesus.

 

[timothyu]

How does converting to a Church which didn't even make up a majority of the lower or intellectual classes accomplish bringing about unity?

For the fourth time.. because it won him a civil war where Christian soldiers of the opposing latin forces refused to fight against their Christian brethren. They took it more serious than today.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Caesar, sun god and son of pagan gods was the standard secular triune of the day among Caesars. His Triumph arch and column confirm this. But this is irrelevant to what the church did. A cunning politician does what a man of the world does.

The church had no such excuse to abandon the Kingdom and the Gospel of he Kingdom of Jesus.

Seems like your trying to force upon Constantine an interpretaion of imperial art that I don't think it had. Especially when using the term triune which properly speaking is a quality of Christian theology and not one relating to any Pagan notion of tritheism. Can you find me a pagan author that speaks in the terms or categories of the Fathers like Athanasius? So far as I know, trinitarian theology only developed within Christianity and not Paganism.

I don't see how any of this indicates the Church abandoning the Gospel. The Gospel wasn't changed by Constantine's decree, unless you think Constantine somehow influenced the theology of the Council of Nicaea. In which case we disagree theologically and I couldn't even call you a Christian.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

For the fourth time.. because it won him a civil war where Christian soldiers of the opposing latin forces refused to fight against their Christian brethren. They took it more serious than today.

Who were the Christians fighting for Maxentius? Do you have any primary sources attesting to a Christian regiment fighting for him?

 

[Philip_B]

Caesar, sun god and son of pagan gods was the standard secular triune of the day among Caesars. His Triumph arch and column confirm this. But this is irrelevant to what the church did. A cunning politician does what a man of the world does.

The church had no such excuse to abandon the Kingdom and the Gospel of he Kingdom of Jesus.

There is no evidence that Constantine had any involvement in the Construction of the Arch erected to celebrate his victory. Much of it was assembled from pre-existing structures (re-cycling was a thing in those days) and the Arch importantly does not include Constantine's personal insignia.

The victory at Milvian Bridge was really mute, as Maxentius (another one of Constantine's Brothers-in-law) went out to meet on poor advice. This meant the defences constructed worked against him, and so they constructed a temporary bridge of boats to get the troops across the Tiber. Un/fortunately Maxentius fell in during the crossing and drowned. Constantine had his body dragged from the river, beheaded him and hung his body over a horse to parade around Rome.

As the Roman Augustus Constantine also filled the role of Pontifax Maximus (Great Bridge Builder) and was responsible for quite a bit of the Roman Mythros religion. At this stage whilst he was kind to the Church, he was not recognised to be a Christian. This almost certainly happened sometime around his move to Byzantium, or a little later.

Constantine commissioned 50 copies of the Scriptures be made, and as such he has significantly contributed to the preservation of the sacred text, and we should be grateful for that.

I have always maintained that Constantine is a complex character, those who simplistically want to make him all good or all bad are most probably wrong. The confusion between Constantine and the See of Rome is also a little silly, is that there seems little historical evidence of a relationship between him and Sylvanus 1, though he did provide funds for the construction of a new Basilica of St Peter on the site of Nero's Circus, however this was long after he had left Rome.

 

[timothyu]

I don't see how any of this indicates the Church abandoning the Gospel. The Gospel wasn't changed by Constantine's decree, unless you think Constantine somehow influenced the theology of the Council of Nicaea. In which case we disagree theologically and I couldn't even call you a Christian.

The Gospel was Jesus's Gospel of the Kingdom, which represented a culture counter to man's as shown in the scripture I posted. The church abandoned being opposite in nature to the world man created in our own image, and instead first rejoined it, built itself upon the same institution system man had always built, then later became a secular power in it's own right, making itself a faux king maker and human government over all.

This isn't about Constantine. Hr did what any other man in his position would do.. serve self interest. This is about a church that found a way to become a world power instead of a representative of the opposing forces. Two opposing forces cannot combine without one giving up it's beliefs. The government of man gave up nothing. Instead the government of man used said God to suit it's purposes. instead of changing itself to follow His will. The church whored itself to the government of man, Man did not harlot itself for gain to the governance of God.

Call me what you want and there is nothing wrong with the creeds which are based upon scripture but are not scripture, but I am more inclined to think you are defending a denomination over the teachings of Jesus and His Gospel.

 

[timothyu]

Who were the Christians fighting for Maxentius? Do you have any primary sources attesting to a Christian regiment fighting for him?

Seriously? There were Christians all over the Empire, fighting in armies of the Empire. When civil war broke out there certainly wasn't Christians only on one side. Why would Constantine command his soldiers to paint crosses on their shields otherwise? They weren't God's army but influencing Christians in the other army to either not fight their own kind but even change sides. Military strategy.

 

[timothyu]

Constantine commissioned 50 copies of the Scriptures be made, and as such he has significantly contributed to the preservation of the sacred text, and we should be grateful for that.

Which as I have continually said was God's purpose in using the enemy for His own purposes. Forwarding scripture, not fallible religion.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The Gospel was Jesus's Gospel of the Kingdom, which represented a culture counter to man's as shown in the scripture I posted. The church abandoned being opposite in nature to the world man created in our own image, and instead first rejoined it, built itself upon the same institution system man had always built, then later became a secular power in it's own right, making itself a faux king maker and human government over all.

The Church was always part of the world and never ceased being part of it, even as the world tried to tear it apart. You're introducing a dichotomy which would have forced Christians whenever they got an ounce of worldly power, wealth or the like to give it up. Christians simply didn't do they, they made use of what they had for the benefit of the faith and the Church.

Because what are you offering as an alternative? A perpetually powerless Christianity, wherein Pagan laws could have been the determining factor of what today's law could have been. A society not founded in at least some pretense of Christian principles but instead the ideology of the Pagan Imperium, one not restrained by Christian notions of mercy.

This isn't about Constantine. Hr did what any other man in his position would do.. serve self interest. This is about a church that found a way to become a world power instead of a representative of the opposing forces. Two opposing forces cannot combine without one giving up it's beliefs. The government of man gave up nothing. Instead the government of man used said God to suit it's purposes. instead of changing itself to follow His will. The church whored itself to the government of man, Man did not harlot itself for gain to the governance of God.

The Church as an institution or as a communion? Because here is where your argument falls apart. The formal separation between the secular establishment and the Church was a feature of Christianity since the beginning. The only thing that changed was that the secular authority only began to be held by lay Christians who exercised that authority for Christianity. Why then should the Church have refused patronage? Especially in an ancient context where it such relations were expected of people?

If the Church and the state are always to be two perpetually opposing forces then no Christian can rightly claim political power. Thus you cannot relegate your criticism to the Church only but to any Christian person of power and prominence.

It's not as if the Church didn't stand up to Imperial authority. Theodosius was forced to publicly repent to Ambrose for his massacre of Thessalonica. Henry II would experience a similar situation centuries later. Often the Church wanted more than it could have had. So your characterization is off to say the least. There was no whoring as a general principle, there was however a new order to things and it resulted in a Christian Europe.

Call me what you want and there is nothing wrong with the creeds which are based upon scripture but are not scripture, but I am more inclined to think you are defending a denomination over the teachings of Jesus and His Gospel.

I am defending the Church and her actions, mainly because I don't see it as contrary to the Gospel.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Seriously? There were Christians all over the Empire, fighting in armies of the Empire. When civil war broke out there certainly wasn't Christians only on one side. Why would Constantine command his soldiers to paint crosses on their shields otherwise? They weren't God's army but influencing Christians in the other army to either not fight their own kind but even change sides. Military strategy.

If we are to believe the accounts of Constantine's vision that would be reason enough. Unless we want to suppose Constantine was a cynical atheist which I don't buy, especially in the ancient world where religion was second nature to man.

But where is your evidence that Constantine specifically did this to appeal to Christians in Maxentius' army? Is there any evidence of widescale participation of Christians within the army at the time? My only knowledge of Christian soldiers is the ones who converted while serving in the army and were later martyred. I believe there were specific expectations that Christians not fight in the army within the Church probably because of how tied the army was to the cult of mars.

A Christian would then be putting themselves a situation where they would be expected by their fellow soldiers to sacrifice to Mars and Caesar on a regular basis. So your explanation makes little sense to me.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Which as I have continually said was God's purpose in using the enemy for His own purposes. Forwarding scripture, not fallible religion.

Why couldn't God do this with faithful followers? Instead he has to rely on Apostates who abandon him and his way? It's the sort of question I ask Mormons and they don't have a compelling answer. It's as if God expected his Church to fail instead of guiding her in love and patience.

 

[timothyu]

The Church was always part of the world and never ceased being part of it, even as the world tried to tear it apart. You're introducing a dichotomy which would have forced Christians whenever they got an ounce of worldly power, wealth or the like to give it up.

The Gospel of the Kingdom is about the governance of God and not of man. To represent God's governance man must put God's will first which is love all as self. Any representation in the world or government would have to follow that above all else. How's that been working out? We are to be ambassadors of another Kingdom, another world if you wish; not governments of man.

 

[timothyu]

I am defending the Church and her actions, mainly because I don't see it as contrary to the Gospel.

Which gospel?

 

[Valletta]

It is always very "dangerous", "risky", etc, I mean just look what it did to Christianity in the form of the Catholic church after they did that over the ages, etc, and how very far removed they became from the true Christianity that existed before that, etc...

But, that much being said, I do believe it was all a part of God's overall plan for that time, and going into the future after that, etc, but I think it needs a very drastic severe makeover now, etc...

Like giving up their idols for one thing, and them all going back to much more true Christian ways way before that union was ever done and/or formed, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

Constantine allowed the free practice of religion, after ten years or so Catholics began to build churches in which to worship and could openly spread the Gospel, doing God's will. It can be argued that the isolation allowed readings at mass to differ from area to area, Catholics wanted only Holy Scripture to be read at mass. With better communication and the ability to openly discuss and worship God it was only decades later when the Catholic Church made the final determination and gave the world the Bible. If you study real history the same beliefs that were held by Catholics before Constantine were held by Catholics afterwards. Read about Constantine from Eusebius, he was there:
https://www.documentacatholicaomnia...esariensis,_Vita_Constantini_[Schaff],_EN.pdf

 

[Philip_B]

Which as I have continually said was God's purpose in using the enemy for His own purposes. Forwarding scripture, not fallible religion.

I think such a view is ungracious and inelegant