What should Constantine or the Church have done?

[prodromos]

So why Christian symbolism (seemingly more representative of a sword) if most here say there was no purpose for it, in disagreement with me

No one said there was no purpose for it. We simply rejected your made up explanation.

 

[timothyu]

Obedience.

By who and to who?

 

[timothyu]

No one said there was no purpose for it.

What I heard here was either there was no Christians fighting or they wouldn't have understood the new symbol.

 

[prodromos]

By who and to who?

Constantine to God.

 

[prodromos]

What I heard here was either there was no Christians fighting or they wouldn't have understood the new symbol.

All we have stated is the reasons you put forth have no basis in reality. That is not the same thing as saying it had no purpose.

 

[timothyu]

Again, for what political gain?

 

[timothyu]

All we have stated is the reasons you put forth have no basis in reality.

I'm not interested in a denomination's reality

 

[Philip_B]

So why Christian symbolism (seemingly more representative of a sword) if most here say there was no purpose for it, in disagreement with me

I happens to be a Christogram - A monogram for Jesus, in this case the Chi (Normally identified today as an X) which was the guttural CH sound at the beginning of Christ and the Rho (normally identified today as a P) but was in Greek the RR sound of Christos (XRISTOS) in Greek.

We know that Constantine ascribed the victory at Milvian Bridge to the Christian God, and clearly the logo could be seen as a Christian Symbol, but it could also be seen as a Monogram for Constantine Romanum.

There was plenty of purpose for it for Constantine, firstly to ally Christians within the Empire (8%) with his cause, which gave him a wide base on which to build power. The authority of Empire, was a critical issue in the day, and there were plenty who would take it away, Maxentius being a clear supporter.

The choice of symbolism is possibly similar to Constantine conversion which I discussed earlier. Like most things with Constantine, it tends to be a little complex. The point I made earlier that the ChiRho does not appear on Constantine's Arch, constructed as it was by the Senate, and so, despite all manner of Symbolism, the Christian Symbolism is not there. Christianity was not at that stage the religion of Empire or Emperor.

One of the key reasons Constantine moved the capital to the site of old Byzantium was to get away from the insidious political backstabbing of Roman political life. The reason for branding is recognition, it is important in marketing, it is important in battle (don't want to kill the wrong people), and it is important in politics.

 

[timothyu]

There was plenty of purpose for it for Constantine, firstly to ally Christians within the Empire (8%) with his cause, which gave him a wide base on which to build power.

Agreed and that also applied during the civil war and to Christian soldiers fighting on either side.

The point I made earlier that the ChiRho does not appear on Constantine's Arch, constructed as it was by the Senate, and so, despite all manner of Symbolism, the Christian Symbolism is not there.

Exactly and Constantine was not Christian either but a worshipper of the sun god, himself and as a incarnation of various gods including Jesus. But he knew how to manipulate Christianity for his own purposes.

So in the end Constantine was a great politician doing what politicians do in the world of man. He can't be faulted for working in the ways of the world. The Church however was not supposed to be taking the route of the world of man. They can be faulted for not sticking with the Kingdom. God was well aware they would do this (being human in spite of their claims of godly connections) and used them for His purpose.

 

[prodromos]

I'm not interested in a denomination's reality

Truth doesn't care what you think. It remains true regardless.

 

[timothyu]

Truth doesn't care what you think. It remains true regardless.

Likewise

 

[Philip_B]

So in the end Constantine was a great politician doing what politicians do in the world of man. He can't be faulted for working in the ways of the world. The Church however was not supposed to be taking the route of the world of man. They can be faulted for not sticking with the Kingdom. God was well aware they would do this (being human in spite of their claims of godly connections) and used them for His purpose.

At the end Constantine was almost certainly a Christian, baptised by Eusebius as it happens.

I think the Church acted as the Conciliar Church did. Arius was declared a heretic and banished. It is clear however that Arianism survives to this day. Arius died before he was restored to the Church. I am not sure I would have preferred to Church to be subject of the ongoing persecutions that preceded Constantine. As far as can be observed, Constantine facilitated the Church, rather that meddle in its affairs and direct outcomes. (his pleading for Arius, perhaps argues for charity)

The one thing the Republic needed for posterity was peace. The Church was sympathetic to that goal, not unsurprisingly as promoters of the Prince of Peace. There is no evidence that the Church lost sight of the Kingdom of God in the Conciliar period, and I think that much of this happened with Charlemagne who saw the Kingdom of God as Power and Territory rather than hearts and minds. But that no doubt is the topic for another thread.

 

[Jaxxi]

This is a question for those who have a mostly negative view on the whole issue of Constantine the subsequent Constantinian shift within the Roman Empire towards Christianity. Many have a negative view about this history and I think it would be beneficial to ask two questions:

Why was it a mistake or mostly a mistake for the Church to associate with the Imperium?

Then the follow up would be:

What should the Church have done instead?

The church should not have been made the Supreme law of the land giving it's leaders diplomatic immunity because that is where the abuse begins. No one anywhere should be given diplomatic immunity to be held above the law if they are a human being. The laws are of God, all start with God, and since there is no one above Him, no one should be immune to the laws. Now we have all this sexual abuse of children in the Vatican. Can no one be held accountable? What should have been done is what was done in America. Freedom of religion. No one has the right to tell another person who they have to worship. For example, I am completely against satanism. I loathe the idea of it however I would stand neck and neck with satanists for them to have the right to worship who they want because that is their right. Do I agree with it? No! Absolutely not but I stand for the RIGHT to worship who we want individually because once that is taken, we are no longer a free society. Does that make sense? I hope no one gets the wrong idea the way I worded that.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The church should not have been made the Supreme law of the land giving it's leaders diplomatic immunity because that is where the abuse begins. No one anywhere should be given diplomatic immunity to be held above the law if they are a human being. The laws are of God, all start with God, and since there is no one above Him, no one should be immune to the laws. Now we have all this sexual abuse of children in the Vatican. Can no one be held accountable? What should have been done is what was done in America. Freedom of religion. No one has the right to tell another person who they have to worship. For example, I am completely against satanism. I loathe the idea of it however I would stand neck and neck with satanists for them to have the right to worship who they want because that is their right. Do I agree with it? No! Absolutely not but I stand for the RIGHT to worship who we want individually because once that is taken, we are no longer a free society. Does that make sense? I hope no one gets the wrong idea the way I worded that.

I understand the modern American perspective, I just don't think your ideas about freedom of religion would have been particularly helpful or beneficial to Christians or Christianity at the time of the Roman Empire. Nor do I think one could reasonably appeal to this enlightenment standard in the fourth century and expect anyone to go along with it. For Pagans the fault of Christians was their unwillingness to worship and give due honour to the gods. For Christians the fault of the Pagans was that they were worshipping false gods and idols, literal demons who masqueraded as gods.

There can be no tolerance between these two diverging views. One had to give way to the other. Thankfully Christianity triumphed.

Yet who, besides the Emperor, was not held accountable to the law? Clergy were not free to do as they wished. They only assumed more power in later centuries as the clerical estates expanded.

If Christians had protected the rights of Pagans to worship their false gods, Paganism might still be around today and I would think that a bad thing. Was Israel punished because it refused to tolerate teh presence of Idolatry? Or because it refused to blot out from the land the idolatry present? I think we should consider that it was the good Kings who destroyed the high places of the worshippers of Baal. It was the bad Kings of Israel who tolerated them.

 

[timothyu]

I hope no one gets the wrong idea the way I worded that.

Sounds about right. God gives everyone choice. Man likes to dominate, eliminating opposition be it speech or physicality.

 

[Jaxxi]

I understand the modern American perspective, I just don't think your ideas about freedom of religion would have been particularly helpful or beneficial to Christians or Christianity at the time of the Roman Empire. Nor do I think one could reasonably appeal to this enlightenment standard in the fourth century and expect anyone to go along with it. For Pagans the fault of Christians was their unwillingness to worship and give due honour to the gods. For Christians the fault of the Pagans was that they were worshipping false gods and idols, literal demons who masqueraded as gods.

There can be no tolerance between these two diverging views. One had to give way to the other. Thankfully Christianity triumphed.

Yet who, besides the Emperor, was not held accountable to the law? Clergy were not free to do as they wished. They only assumed more power in later centuries as the clerical estates expanded.

If Christians had protected the rights of Pagans to worship their false gods, Paganism might still be around today and I would think that a bad thing. Was Israel punished because it refused to tolerate teh presence of Idolatry? Or because it refused to blot out from the land the idolatry present? I think we should consider that it was the good Kings who destroyed the high places of the worshippers of Baal. It was the bad Kings of Israel who tolerated them.

But Paganism is alive in that its traditions can be found in most all of our major holidays, and Baal basically became Allah, so his worship lives on in Islam.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

But Paganism is alive in that its traditions can be found in most all of our major holidays, and Baal basically became Allah, so his worship lives on in Islam.

I'll have to disagree on the historical connection between Pagan and Christian holidays. Especially the typical ones when it comes to Easter. I'm sure there'll be a 2021 thread dedicated to Easter sometime soon. So maybe we can discuss that there.

Still, the historical consequences of Christianity becoming dominant was a rejection of Paganism and the glorification of God. Even if you disagree with historic Christian worship and customs they were not simply transmogrified versions of Pagan regalia. If you ever read the early Fathers or any early Christian of a devout character they are never shy to point out the follies of other religions, of how wicked the so-called gods are. Hence why Christians when they came to power didn't respect Pagan sacrifices or temples of worship. They respected at most the classic poets but then only because they were educated by reading those works.

If Christians had the sort of enlightenment liberal beliefs you advocate for in the tolerance of religion the world would be a much different place. A less Christian place.

 

[Philip_B]

4th Century Pagan Converts became 4th Century Christian, not 21st Century American Christians.

Allah

As I understand it, Allah is the correct term for God when worshiping in Arabic Speaking Christian Churches

 

[timothyu]

But Paganism is alive in that its traditions can be found in most all of our major holidays

The fact is that Christianity took over pagan holidays and temples, just as the Muslims have done to Christianity in Istanbul/Constantinople and Jerusalem while referring to Jesus and His teachings. It does not mean they adopted their practices.

 

[prodromos]

The fact is that Christianity took over pagan holidays

No, that is not a fact.