- This topic has 25,869 replies, 115 voices, and was last updated 13 hours, 33 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
For E..Since obviously you haven't REALLY studied the history of your god Costantine..here is a brief synopsis…(sources cited)
During Constantine’s rule Christianity not only began to play a role in Roman governmental activities, but Christian symbols made there way onto Roman coinage as well. Constantine was responsible for the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire, but his motives were not religious. Constantine’s political genius gave him the insight to realize the he could either begin tolerating the Christians, or let them slowly destroy his empire. Constantine chose to tolerate the Christian, but was aware it would be a very difficult task. Diocletian, emperor of the Western Roman Empire before Maxentius did all he could to rid his empire of the Christians, but was unsuccessful in doing so. Constantine was aware that persecuting the Christians would only encourage their martyrdom and would ultimately prove be an unsuccessful effort (Chadwick 127-29). In the centuries leading up to Constantine’s reign Christians were humiliated, tortured and killed if they refused to renounce their faith. Many gave up their Christian beliefs, but those who did not became martyrs. Those people who refused to renounce their faith and were killed and as a result became great inspirations to those living Christians in the empire. “The impact of martyrdom was immense and even, according to Tertulian, acted as a seed-bed for Christianity (Elliot 351).”
Constantine not only had to prove himself a more than efficient politician, but he had to sell himself to both religious groups. This would take a great deal of personal effort from Constantine. He would have to present himself as a supporter of the pagans, while supporting the Christians as well. What made this so difficult for Constantine was in Rome it wasn’t strange for an individual to observe several pagan traditions, Constantine himself followed several. This was completely unacceptable to Christians; in their eyes the worship of other gods was unacceptable. Constantine’s pro-Christian message was accepted without a great deal of public outcry because of its similarities to solar monotheism, the most popular form of paganism in the Roman Empire at this time. Like solar monotheism, the sun was a very important religious symbol to Christians. Many believed that Christians worshipped the sun, because just as solar monotheists they met on Sundays and prayed facing the East. Also in the Old Testament, Jesus was known as the “sun of righteousness.” Despite the similarities between Christianity and solar monotheism, this adoption of Christianity by Constantine still proved to be a difficult task.
First, Christ was not a god of war. The Old Testament frequently involved God in the slaughter of his enemies, but the New Testament did not. Constantine would have to create a totally new conception of Christianity if he was to sustain the link between the Christian God and victory in war. Second, it was crucial for Constantine’s political survival that he did not break with the pagan cults that still claimed the allegiance of most of his subjects, yet Christianity emphatically rejected paganism (Freeman 157).
As Dr. Charles Freeman illustrates in this quote, Constantine had to be very careful not to offend the pagans or the Christians. A falling out with either the pagans or the Christians could prove to be disastrous for Constantine. This division would only add to the long list of differences between the western and eastern empire. The eastern empire was extremely Christianized while the western was predominately pagan. Trouble between these two very different sections of Rome was a genuine threat. A quarrel over religion could tear the Roman Empire apart (Rodgers 235).
Soon Constantine would find out that the Christians were much more volatile than the pagans. In order to keep the Christians happy he began granting members of the clergy special favors, “in particular exemption from the heavy burden of holding civic office and taxation (Freeman 162).” This is an essential step in Constantine’s attempt to tie the Christians into Roman society. Not only was he attempting to buy the trust of Christians after a decade of persecution, but he had to do so without upsetting the non-Christian members of his empire. This was a very dangerous move, no pagan priests had ever been given special attention in the Roman Empire, and for Constantine to favor Christian clergy in this manner was almost unheard of. Amazingly there was almost no backlash from the non-Christian population of Rome. However, Constantine did not know what he was getting himself into. “He appears to have been genuinely surprised at the number and diversity of communities calling themselves Christian, and soon after his victory he had to face the dilemma of whether to give patronage to all of these or to privilege some communities more than others (Freeman 165)” Constantine devoted much more time to facilitating their actions within his empire. He must have been terrified when he realized that he was dealing with another group of people that were destroying themselves from the inside out. There was just as much dissension amongst the Christian ranks as there was amongst Roman Officials. Desperate to end the tension between those different Christian groups Constantine called a council of bishops. The bishops met at the imperial palace at Nicaea in Asia Minor, Constantine’s goal was to create a Christian doctrine that all Christians could agree on, and could be backed by the state (Chadwick 130).
Constantine’s conversion of Rome marks a turning-point in the history of the Christian Church and of Europe. “It meant more than the end of persecution. The sovereign autocrat was inevitably and immediately involved in the development of the church, and conversely the Church became more and more implicated in high political decisions (Chadwick 125).” Constantine’s toleration of Christianity was most definitely a political maneuver. The most impressive accomplishment of Constantine’s reign was his ability to keep the Roman Empire intact. The fact that Christianity was now integrated into the most powerful empire in the world and would soon become the most powerful religion in the world was a bi-product of Constantine’s policy to keep the Roman Empire afloat. Constantine may have been the greatest promoter of Christianity of all time, but his motives behind the Edict of Milan, the Council of Nicaea and every other policy favoring Christianity were purely political.
Works Cited
Bailkey, Nels M. and Richard Lim. Readings in Ancient History: Thought and
Experience from Gilgamesh to St. Augustine. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2002.
Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. London: Pelican Books, 1967.
Elliot, Thomas G. The Language of Constantine’s Propaganda. Transactions of the
American Philological Association (1974), Vol. 120. (1990), pp. 349-353.
Freeman, Charles. The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of
Reason. New York: Vintage Books, 2002.
Rodgers, Barbara Saylor. The Metamorphosis of Constantine. The Classical Quarterly,
New Series, Vol. 39, No.1. (1989), pp. 233-246.
Wright, David H. The True Face of Constantine the Great. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol.
41, Studies on Art and Archaelogy in Honor of Ernst Kitzingers on His Seventy-
Fifth Birthday. (1987), pp. 493-507.Hope you learned something
Quote (epistemaniac @ Aug. 31 2008,15:44) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 01 2008,02:52) In the beginning was the word. That does not say that the “word” was eternal, it just says that it was in the beginning. A word has an origin, first it must be a thought. Surely there must be something more than that for those of you who believe that the Son of God always existed especially if you believe those who don't believe that are “heretics”. LU
Exactly LU…. trinitarians… those who affirm that there never was a time when Jesus was not….. look to other passages which indicate Christ's eternal nature. But, as we look at Jn 1:1, well 1:3 actually, (John 1:3 (NASB) All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”) we see that Jesus cannot be a created being. If all things came into being through the agency of the Son, and nothing….. nothing came into being but by Him, then plainly Jesus cannot be a created being, for Jesus would have had to have created Himself since He is plainly said to have created all….. ALL….. things… not all OTHER things…. and since Jesus is Himself is a thing, so to speak, and since it is patently absurd for Jesus to have created Himself, for then He would have to “be” before He was, Jesus must therefore be eternal, or, if you like, uncreated. Pretty simple really.blessings,
Ken
Hello Epistemaniac and Oxy,
I agree with you that the Son of God was not a created being. But at the same time, I believe that the Son of God did have a beginning.Please allow me your consideration here. I understand that something created to be that which is the first of its kind. After God created all the “firsts” of their kind during the first six days, His creative works were complete. Now, we know that mankind was created and the first ones of that kind were Adam and Eve. Their firstborn was Cain, he came out of the womb of Eve. He was not created but reproduced and shared in the nature of the created man. He is a part of creation in that the first of his kind was created.
Now, think on this. If someone that always existed and was never created had a son born from the womb, then that son is not a part of a created order as a created being since the first of his kind always existed. He would be the firstborn, a reproduction of that which always existed. He would have the same nature as the one he came from. He would be God from God as the begotten son of God or firstborn of God. Just as Cain would be man from man, the begotten son of Adam and Eve. Cain came from a created kind, the Son of God came from an always existent kind. He was begotten, not “made” as in created.
You are a begotten son, you were not created although you are part of creation. You were born. Adam and Eve weren't born, they were created. See the difference. You are a begotten son of man, man of man, begotten, not made, as in “created”. You are one substance with your father.
As the Nicene Creed states “the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.
The Nicene Creed
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And I believe one holy catholic and Apostolic Church; I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.AMEN.”
Do you see how the Son of God could have a beginning and not have been considered “created”? Also it states in this creed that He is Light of Light. I believe that this very likely is pointing to the light referred to on day one of creation. Day one was definetly a beginning and nothing had come into being in heaven or on earth. He certainly is the “Word of God”, Oxy. And I believe that He was what the first spoken word of God represented when God said “let there be light.” He not only was what the first word represented but also is the representative of the Word of God as we see in Revelations and elsewhere.
Just think on these things guys. As you both know, the “Firstborn of all creation” is a title of the Son of God. I asked God once to show me whether it was literal or not. That is when I met the literal Son of God.
You can find this testimony in a fuller form here:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….9;st=30God bless,
LUHI LU,
DO you agree with the catholic creed that The Spirit of God is worshipped apart from the Father?
Is this written?Quote (dirtyknections @ Sep. 01 2008,09:59) Quote Sorry brother, But you need a history lesson…
Constantine WAS NOT a “true” Christian…true Christians follow Christ.. they don't try to appease Pagans by assimilating Pagan and Christian beliefs…which is exactly what constantine did. Constantine was more interested in Political expansion than unifying Christianity…Costantine and his friends are also are responsible for the abomination that is the “clergy-laity” class system. The nicene creed did nothing more than lay the foundation for the “great apostasy” that Christ foretold.
What immediately followed the development of the Nicene Creed? Death, Division, and Mayhem. Why? Because Christ said that immediately following the death of the apostles, Christianity would be invaded by wolves. And that “man of lawlessness” would infiltrate the body of christ Kill and Destroy…
Well lets examine…what followed the end of the 1st century congregation and the death of the last apostle? THE NICENE CREED
What Followed the NICENE CREED? Death and Destruction…and to top it off the offspring of Constantine tried to stop the masses from having access to the bible!!! AND THIS IS WHAT YOU BASE YOUR FAITH ON
True Christianity, can not be defined by the “creeds” and “traditions” of men…it can only be defined by the bible…the simple fact that YOU let a meeting of semi-pagan pharisaic apostasizers define your faith, lets me know that are misled…
Instead of you letting the bible determine whether I am your brother, you let the views of MEN alienate fellow members in the body of Christ. Sad, Sad, Sad..
But as Jesus said, “Those that do the will of my Father are my brother”
And for the record “Historical Christianity” is responsible for the murder of MILLIONS i.e. the Inquisition…If it wasn't for “true christians” you would not even HAVE a bible to read. Remember Historical Christianity did not think that YOU and I should have access to the bible. Thank GOD for “non-brothers” like Martin Luther and William Tyndale.
LOL…. if you want to insist on thinking that you are my brother… have at it…secondly, you are not God, you cannot decide who is a true Christian and who is not, isn't that what people have been telling me here…?
thirdly, “history” lessons aside, and perhaps you have need of some yourself…. there are differing opinions regarding Constantine's level of Christian commitment and his reasons behind that commitment: “During his life and those of his sons, Constantine's was presented as a paragon of virtue. Even pagans like Praxagoras of Athens and Libanius showered him with praise. When the last of his sons died in 361, his nephew Julian the Apostate wrote the satire Symposium, or the Saturnalia. The work stigmatized Constantine as inferior to the great pagan emperors, given over to luxury and greed.[224] Following Julian, Eunapius of Sardis began the tradition that blamed Constantine for weakening the Empire through his indulgence to the Christians. In medieval times, when the Roman Catholic Church was dominant, Catholic historians presented Constantine as an ideal ruler, the standard against which any king or emperor could be measured. The Renaissance rediscovery of anti-Constantinian sources prompted a re-evaluation of Constantine's career. The German humanist Johann Löwenklau, discoverer of Zosimus' writings, published a Latin translation thereof in 1576. He included a preface that argued for Zosimus' picture of Constantine was superior to that offered by Eusebius and the church historians, and damned Constantine as a tyrant.[227] Cardinal Caesar Baronius, a man of the Counter-Reformation, criticized Zosimus, favoring Eusebius' account of the Constantinian era. Baronius' Life of Constantine (1588) presents Constantine as the model of a Christian prince. Edward Gibbon, aiming to unite the two extremes of Constantinian scholarship, offered a portrait of Constantine built on the contrasted narratives of Eusebius and Zosimus.
Modern interpretations of Constantine's rule begin with Jacob Burckhardt's The Age of Constantine the Great (1853). Burckhardt's Constantine is a scheming secularist, a politician who manipulates all parties in a quest to secure his own power.[230] Henri Grégoire, writing in the 1930s, followed Burckhardt's evaluation of Constantine. For Grégoire, Constantine only developed an interest in Christianity after witnessing its political usefulness. Grégoire became a strong of the authenticity of Eusebius' writings, and postulated a pseudo-Eusebius to assume responsibility for the vision and conversion narratives of Eusebius' Vita Constantini. Otto Seeck, in Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt (1920–23), and André Piganiol, in L'empereur Constantin (1932), wrote against this historiographic tradition. Seeck presented Constantine as a sincere war hero, whose ambiguities were the product of his own simple inconsistency. Piganiol's Constantine is a philosophical monotheist, a child of his era's religious syncretism. Related histories by A.H.M. Jones (Constantine and the Conversion of Europe (1949)) and Ramsay MacMullen (Constantine (1969)) gave portraits of a less visionary, and more impulsive, Constantine.
These later accounts were more willing to present Constantine as a genuine convert to Christianity. Beginning with Norman H. Baynes' Constantine the Great and the Christian Church (1929) and reinforced by Andreas Alföldi's The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome (1948), a historiographic tradition developed which presented Constantine as a committed Christian. T.D. Barnes' seminal Constantine and Eusebius (1981), represents the culmination of this trend. Barnes' Constantine experienced a radical conversion, which drove him on a personal crusade to convert his empire. The trend reaches its zenith in T.G. Elliott's The Christianity of Constantine the Great (1996). Elliott portrays Constantine as a committed Christian from early childhood.” (Wikipedia)
What immediately followed the Nicene Creed….? Death, Division and Mayhem….? LOL You have got to be kidding. All these things preceded the Nicene Creed as well. Besides, the fact that these things followed the Nicene Creed, even granting for the moment the ridiculous notion that they did not exist prior to it, it does not follow that the Nicene Creed was, itself, the cause of Death (which has been around since the Fall of man), Division (which has been around since the Fall of man), and Mayhem (which, you guessed it, has been around since even before the fall of man, eg the Fall of Lucifer, which is also an example of “Division” as well). If I remember correctly, the Corinthian church had quite a problem with divisions as well didn't they…? Ah well… there are so many examples to disprove your “Nicene Creed was the cause of Death, Division and Mayhem” theory that is would be endless examples to the contrary. If you can't see the obvious fallacious nature of this reasoning, sadly, perhaps no examples to the contrary would be helpful? If you think they would be helpful, however, I wou
ld be more than glad to give you some examples of “Death, Division, and Mayhem” all existing prior to the writing of the Nicene Creed, if you like. Just give me the word that you actually need them, and I will gladly oblige.Next, you make another illogical leap by reering to the “offsping of Constantine”. What and who are they supposed to be!! LOL…. The fact that the Roman Catholic Church had the abhorrent practice of chaining the bibles to their pulpits has nothing whatsoever to do with COnstantine. However, I am willing to be taught here. Please, give me one historical example of Constantine chaing bibles to pulpits, and will gladly aquiese and say that the RCC's practice of doing so can be, if you will pardon the pun, tied directly to Constantine. This, I am confident, you will not be able to do, especially since they did not have bibles as we know them or even as the medieval Roman Church knew them. “Scrolls continued to be used during the Early Church era until the early Middle Ages era.” (Wikipedia) Hows that for a little history lesson?
Next, the only thing I allow to define my faith is the Scripture. However, where you are mistaken is to say that Creeds etc MUST be contrary to the Scriptures. You are simply allowing yourself to be blinded by the traditions of men who say that tradition and scripture MUST be contrary to one another. Sad really.
“Historical Christianity” is not responsible for any murders. However, certain people calling themselves “Christians” while carrying out heinous deeds in the name of God, Inquisition…. true, and the Crusades are another example of this practice, no more makes them “Christians” then someone standing inside a garage makes someone a car.
Lastly, thanks for bringing up the very important saints of the church Martin Luther and William Tyndale, both of whom I am very happy to call “brothers”, this is because they were both Trinitarians.
So thanks again for bringing up these great men of God. The fact that you believe they were wrong on this issue ought to cause you to reexamine your own beliefs. The fact that you likely will not, lets me know you are misled, and that truly is sad sad sad….blessings,
KenHi E,
You say
“Next, the only thing I allow to define my faith is the Scripture. “Good call.
So no derivations or inferences?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 01 2008,10:14) Hi E,
You say
” “Proof” is in the eye of the beholder, “That statement alone speaks volumes
Of course it does. It speaks volumes concerning your failure to believe the proof of the Scriptures concerning the truth of the Trinity. However, since you will reject the proof I offer, proof is in the eye of the beholder, eg, you will not accept as proof that which I accept. Perhaps you are too busy to read entire posts… if so, you should not bother to respond at all, because I made it clear that I do not agree with subjectivism, the idea that truth is pluralistic or relative. Or to say it another way,that simply because people are not persuaded by the proof offered, this does not change the fact that truth is one and that people who argue mutually exclusive propositions cannot possibly both be right. I believe the Scriptures and God-given reason are conveyors of truth. I believe that since God is a God of order and not a God of confusion, logic follows from an ordered universe, such that things like the law of non-contradiction entail. So my saying that “proof is in the eye of the beholder” was not a belief of mine in the sense that there is no absolute truth, it was merely a statement stating the way things are, that people see evidence (ie the Scriptures) and interpret the evidence (Scriptures) differently. The fact that Trinitarians base their beliefs on the Scriptures is terribly troubling to non-Trinitarians who seem to think that they are the only 'truly biblical' “Christians” around. The fact is, we both appeal to the Scriptures for our beliefs, that was my larger point and if you had only carefully read the post you … or if you have a modicum of an elementary reading level which I know you do, which tells me that you really have no excuse for this lapse unless you were simply being lazy and/or not careful…. you would have known this…. at any rate we both cannot be right, of course, but like it or not, I go to the Scriptures as my final arbiter of truth, EVEN if we disagree.blessings,
KenQuote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 31 2008,18:41) HI LU,
DO you agree with the catholic creed that The Spirit of God is worshipped apart from the Father?
Is this written?
Hi Nick,
I believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds forth from the Father and the Son. Not as a begotten being though.
LUQuote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 01 2008,10:51) Hi E,
You say
“Next, the only thing I allow to define my faith is the Scripture. “Good call.
So no derivations or inferences?
perhaps, as you seem incapable of writing out well thought detailed refutations of others beliefs and/or defenses of your beliefs, you are likewise incapable of reading the same? Good and necessary inference on the Scriptures is not only possible, but mandatory. Everyone does it, even you N. Otherwise, I ask you to provide me the Scriptural proof that there will only be 66 books in the bible. I'll be waiting. In the meantime, I am quite happy to believe that God gave us our brains to actually put to use, and that logical inference is simply loving the Lord my God with all my heart, soul, mind and strength.blessings,
kenThat is correct Nick. The Holy Spirit is the inner Spirit of the Father given to His Son and from His Son to all believers. Not a seperate being.
Did I have you worried?
LUQuote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 31 2008,19:05) Hi LU,
No you quoted the nicene creed as if it was sacrosanct.
It is flawed IMO
Nick,
What part of it is flawed in your opinion. Maybe it can be understood as the Son of God actually having a beginning as I pointed out. It doesn't mention anything about three in one, co-eternal,or co-equal.LU
Quote (epistemaniac @ Sep. 01 2008,10:43) Quote (dirtyknections @ Sep. 01 2008,09:59) Quote Sorry brother, But you need a history lesson…
Constantine WAS NOT a “true” Christian…true Christians follow Christ.. they don't try to appease Pagans by assimilating Pagan and Christian beliefs…which is exactly what constantine did. Constantine was more interested in Political expansion than unifying Christianity…Costantine and his friends are also are responsible for the abomination that is the “clergy-laity” class system. The nicene creed did nothing more than lay the foundation for the “great apostasy” that Christ foretold.
What immediately followed the development of the Nicene Creed? Death, Division, and Mayhem. Why? Because Christ said that immediately following the death of the apostles, Christianity would be invaded by wolves. And that “man of lawlessness” would infiltrate the body of christ Kill and Destroy…
Well lets examine…what followed the end of the 1st century congregation and the death of the last apostle? THE NICENE CREED
What Followed the NICENE CREED? Death and Destruction…and to top it off the offspring of Constantine tried to stop the masses from having access to the bible!!! AND THIS IS WHAT YOU BASE YOUR FAITH ON
True Christianity, can not be defined by the “creeds” and “traditions” of men…it can only be defined by the bible…the simple fact that YOU let a meeting of semi-pagan pharisaic apostasizers define your faith, lets me know that are misled…
Instead of you letting the bible determine whether I am your brother, you let the views of MEN alienate fellow members in the body of Christ. Sad, Sad, Sad..
But as Jesus said, “Those that do the will of my Father are my brother”
And for the record “Historical Christianity” is responsible for the murder of MILLIONS i.e. the Inquisition…If it wasn't for “true christians” you would not even HAVE a bible to read. Remember Historical Christianity did not think that YOU and I should have access to the bible. Thank GOD for “non-brothers” like Martin Luther and William Tyndale.
LOL…. if you want to insist on thinking that you are my brother… have at it…secondly, you are not God, you cannot decide who is a true Christian and who is not, isn't that what people have been telling me here…?
thirdly, “history” lessons aside, and perhaps you have need of some yourself…. there are differing opinions regarding Constantine's level of Christian commitment and his reasons behind that commitment: “During his life and those of his sons, Constantine's was presented as a paragon of virtue. Even pagans like Praxagoras of Athens and Libanius showered him with praise. When the last of his sons died in 361, his nephew Julian the Apostate wrote the satire Symposium, or the Saturnalia. The work stigmatized Constantine as inferior to the great pagan emperors, given over to luxury and greed.[224] Following Julian, Eunapius of Sardis began the tradition that blamed Constantine for weakening the Empire through his indulgence to the Christians. In medieval times, when the Roman Catholic Church was dominant, Catholic historians presented Constantine as an ideal ruler, the standard against which any king or emperor could be measured. The Renaissance rediscovery of anti-Constantinian sources prompted a re-evaluation of Constantine's career. The German humanist Johann Löwenklau, discoverer of Zosimus' writings, published a Latin translation thereof in 1576. He included a preface that argued for Zosimus' picture of Constantine was superior to that offered by Eusebius and the church historians, and damned Constantine as a tyrant.[227] Cardinal Caesar Baronius, a man of the Counter-Reformation, criticized Zosimus, favoring Eusebius' account of the Constantinian era. Baronius' Life of Constantine (1588) presents Constantine as the model of a Christian prince. Edward Gibbon, aiming to unite the two extremes of Constantinian scholarship, offered a portrait of Constantine built on the contrasted narratives of Eusebius and Zosimus.
Modern interpretations of Constantine's rule begin with Jacob Burckhardt's The Age of Constantine the Great (1853). Burckhardt's Constantine is a scheming secularist, a politician who manipulates all parties in a quest to secure his own power.[230] Henri Grégoire, writing in the 1930s, followed Burckhardt's evaluation of Constantine. For Grégoire, Constantine only developed an interest in Christianity after witnessing its political usefulness. Grégoire became a strong of the authenticity of Eusebius' writings, and postulated a pseudo-Eusebius to assume responsibility for the vision and conversion narratives of Eusebius' Vita Constantini. Otto Seeck, in Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt (1920–23), and André Piganiol, in L'empereur Constantin (1932), wrote against this historiographic tradition. Seeck presented Constantine as a sincere war hero, whose ambiguities were the product of his own simple inconsistency. Piganiol's Constantine is a philosophical monotheist, a child of his era's religious syncretism. Related histories by A.H.M. Jones (Constantine and the Conversion of Europe (1949)) and Ramsay MacMullen (Constantine (1969)) gave portraits of a less visionary, and more impulsive, Constantine.
These later accounts were more willing to present Constantine as a genuine convert to Christianity. Beginning with Norman H. Baynes' Constantine the Great and the Christian Church (1929) and reinforced by Andreas Alföldi's The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome (1948), a historiographic tradition developed which presented Constantine as a committed Christian. T.D. Barnes' seminal Constantine and Eusebius (1981), represents the culmination of this trend. Barnes' Constantine experienced a radical conversion, which drove him on a personal crusade to convert his empire. The trend reaches its zenith in T.G. Elliott's The Christianity of Constantine the Great (1996). Elliott portrays Constantine as a committed Christian from early childhood.” (Wikipedia)
What immediately followed the Nicene Creed….? Death, Division and Mayhem….? LOL You have got to be kidding. All these things preceded the Nicene Creed as well. Besides, the fact that these things followed the Nicene Creed, even granting for the moment the ridiculous notion that they did not exist prior to it, it does not follow that the Nicene Creed was, itself, the cause of Death (which has been around since the Fall of man), Division (which has been around since the Fall of man), and Mayhem (which, you guessed it, has been around since even before the fall of man, eg the Fall of Lucifer, which is also an example of “Division” as well). If I remember correctly, the Corinthian church had quite a problem with divisions as well didn't they…? Ah well… there are so many examples to disprove your “Nicene Creed was the cause of Death, Division and Mayhem” theory that is would be endless examples
to the contrary. If you can't see the obvious fallacious nature of this reasoning, sadly, perhaps no examples to the contrary would be helpful? If you think they would be helpful, however, I would be more than glad to give you some examples of “Death, Division, and Mayhem” all existing prior to the writing of the Nicene Creed, if you like. Just give me the word that you actually need them, and I will gladly oblige.Next, you make another illogical leap by reering to the “offsping of Constantine”. What and who are they supposed to be!! LOL…. The fact that the Roman Catholic Church had the abhorrent practice of chaining the bibles to their pulpits has nothing whatsoever to do with COnstantine. However, I am willing to be taught here. Please, give me one historical example of Constantine chaing bibles to pulpits, and will gladly aquiese and say that the RCC's practice of doing so can be, if you will pardon the pun, tied directly to Constantine. This, I am confident, you will not be able to do, especially since they did not have bibles as we know them or even as the medieval Roman Church knew them. “Scrolls continued to be used during the Early Church era until the early Middle Ages era.” (Wikipedia) Hows that for a little history lesson?
Next, the only thing I allow to define my faith is the Scripture. However, where you are mistaken is to say that Creeds etc MUST be contrary to the Scriptures. You are simply allowing yourself to be blinded by the traditions of men who say that tradition and scripture MUST be contrary to one another. Sad really.
“Historical Christianity” is not responsible for any murders. However, certain people calling themselves “Christians” while carrying out heinous deeds in the name of God, Inquisition…. true, and the Crusades are another example of this practice, no more makes them “Christians” then someone standing inside a garage makes someone a car.
Lastly, thanks for bringing up the very important saints of the church Martin Luther and William Tyndale, both of whom I am very happy to call “brothers”, this is because they were both Trinitarians.
So thanks again for bringing up these great men of God. The fact that you believe they were wrong on this issue ought to cause you to reexamine your own beliefs. The fact that you likely will not, lets me know you are misled, and that truly is sad sad sad….blessings,
Ken
You really should pick up a book
episteimaniac………….Your History of Constantine is quite different then what i have read, Have you ever read the book < (When Jesus Became God) Its very Historic and shown all the accounts of things going on during the Nicene Council. It is acclaimed as very accurate from a historical point of view. And to think the Catholic and Protestant Churches were not the cause of Millions of deaths is pure denial of historical truth, even there modern Churches have admitted this guilt of there past, and even in our recent life time the killings have continued, take the Protestant and Catholic killings in Ireland in our life time. So to say these killings have not taken place is denying of the truth. IMO
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 01 2008,10:09) Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 29 2008,00:26) If Jesus was saying that he preexisted in the “I am” statement, he sure chose a strange time to introduce that concept. There was no explaination given after that statement either. All is pretty vague, if you ask me.
What is strange about the timing and the place?The question he was asked was, “Are you older than Abraham”?
It was very relevant because the question was related. I don't see the timing as strange at all.
He was also asked are you the messiah and other questions and he answered. We wouldn't expect him to say no because of the timing or the place would we?
He said he was the truth and he answered questions truthfully.
Thanks, t8.But Jesus didn't say he was older than Abraham. He said that before Abraham was I am. Am what?
Mandy
Not3in1….Good question, Am what?, am alive, am mentioned, am foreordained, am predestined, am known by God, am in higher position. WHAT?
gene
Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 01 2008,15:31) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 01 2008,10:09) Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 29 2008,00:26) If Jesus was saying that he preexisted in the “I am” statement, he sure chose a strange time to introduce that concept. There was no explaination given after that statement either. All is pretty vague, if you ask me.
What is strange about the timing and the place?The question he was asked was, “Are you older than Abraham”?
It was very relevant because the question was related. I don't see the timing as strange at all.
He was also asked are you the messiah and other questions and he answered. We wouldn't expect him to say no because of the timing or the place would we?
He said he was the truth and he answered questions truthfully.
Thanks, t8.But Jesus didn't say he was older than Abraham. He said that before Abraham was I am. Am what?
Mandy
Hi not,
I AM is a statement beyond time constraints for God.
But for Jesus it is at least before Abraham came into being.Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Sep. 01 2008,13:56) episteimaniac………….Your History of Constantine is quite different then what i have read, Have you ever read the book < (When Jesus Became God) Its very Historic and shown all the accounts of things going on during the Nicene Council. It is acclaimed as very accurate from a historical point of view. And to think the Catholic and Protestant Churches were not the cause of Millions of deaths is pure denial of historical truth, even there modern Churches have admitted this guilt of there past, and even in our recent life time the killings have continued, take the Protestant and Catholic killings in Ireland in our life time. So to say these killings have not taken place is denying of the truth. IMO
Gen You are so right, the Catholic Church killed Millions of Christians. When you go into Basement of some Churches in Germany, you will find Torture Chambers.
Peace and Love Irene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
