Constantine's Vision

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Constantine is the protectorate of Christianity and founder just below Jesus and along side Paul.


zara

I am not sure if this is an honest opinion or a little bit of pot-stirring. It is such an unusual notion that I tend toward the latter.

'Just below Jesus and along side Paul' is hardly an apt description for a guy who used the name of Christ for his own personal gain and tried to marry church and state with disastrous consequences for both.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I am not sure if this is an honest opinion or a little bit of pot-stirring. It is such an unusual notion that I tend toward the latter.

'Just below Jesus and along side Paul' is hardly an apt description for a guy who used the name of Christ for his own personal gain and tried to marry church and state with disastrous consequences for both.

Thank you:smilewinkgrin:

 

[zara]

I am not sure if this is an honest opinion or a little bit of pot-stirring. It is such an unusual notion that I tend toward the latter.

'Just below Jesus and along side Paul' is hardly an apt description for a guy who used the name of Christ for his own personal gain and tried to marry church and state with disastrous consequences for both.

I am not at all pot-stirring.

The Edict of Milan released all religions and pulled Christians out of the Coliseum conflagrations. Constantine then ruled Roman Christianity, organized them and adopted their God. Without Constantine, Christianity would be just another desolate/abandoned roman religion.

Constantine didn't have to rescue Christianity but he did. Just as Paul's, Constantine's vision emerged at Saxa Rubra and then he was devoted to do God's Will to protect and advance Christianity, which he well did.

Constantine never used God or Christ for personal gains. If anything in those days, Christianity was used against him by the Senate and the Papa of Rome.

Like Paul, Constantine, infused financial and administrative support to move the religion forward and give them position in the World and to spread the word.

The "church and state with disastrous consequences for both" has nothing to do with Constantine. After 1054 AD, Elements of so called "Christianity" turned into Political power and Banking totally skewed from Constantine's vision of the Edict of Milan and at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The world suffers from the political and banking union even today.

zara

 

[preachinjesus]

The fiction of British roots of Constantine and Helena has long been discredited by many other than RC as I say above. Constantine is the protectorate of Christianity and founder just below Jesus and along side Paul.

Methinks somebody's been reading Defending Constantine recently.

I'm probably more generous towards Constantine than others around here. His recognition of the Church and legaization of its worship only facilitated its institutionalization. If the leaders of the Christian communities under the control of Rome had not wanted this to happen they would have said something...however they were pretty happy to go from poverty to having the government pay for their new shiney buildings.

I think Constantine gets a bad rap, but he does have some interesting peccadilloes. That said, I think you're overestimating the influence of Paul here. The apostolic office had universal appeal and while the NT primarily speaks of the Pauline mission, there are many other currents which helped form and direct the Church through the apostolic era that we overlook.

 

[preachinjesus]

IMHO, Chi-Rho came from Eusebius who read/wrote greek. When Byzantium converted to Greek from latin, they changed the symbol as well as it's meaning. My guess is that the symbol meant the "Good Shepherd" from the likeness of the shepherd's crook of the upright and the cross laying defeated on the ground.

Okay, I mean we have no way of justifying this statement nor proving it. Though Eusebius chronicles the incident there isn't much discussion outside of his works that I've seen which ascribes the design to him.

However, we can be pretty certain that the Chi-Ro takes the first two letters in Christ's name (Chi-Ro) and places them over each other to form a cross like figure. The shepherd's crook is possible, but I think its dubious.

Constantine didn't choose the sign, God did. ...ICHTHYS ..Is a fish symbol and I don't believe to used until after the sixth century in Britain??

Well not to be too pointed but this is simply wrong. The ICHTHYS is evidenced to the earliest Christian communities. If we journey around to the existing ancient church structures we see it all over the place from the first buildings. Also, a number of patristic authors use the acronym. Check Tertullian, On Baptism and Augustine's City of God to mention two works.

I can't give too much to Constantine saying he saw a Chi-Ro in the sky in a dream and then going out the next day and beating up an army. Lots of scholars have problems with it, but we can't really say if it was him or God.

Anyways, just some food for thought. Thanks for a good discussion.

 

[zara]

Methinks somebody's been reading Defending Constantine recently.

I'm probably more generous towards Constantine than others around here. His recognition of the Church and legaization of its worship only facilitated its institutionalization. If the leaders of the Christian communities under the control of Rome had not wanted this to happen they would have said something...however they were pretty happy to go from poverty to having the government pay for their new shiney buildings.

I think Constantine gets a bad rap, but he does have some interesting peccadilloes. That said, I think you're overestimating the influence of Paul here. The apostolic office had universal appeal and while the NT primarily speaks of the Pauline mission, there are many other currents which helped form and direct the Church through the apostolic era that we overlook.

We mostly agree here.

I am amazed to have another Christian of today with an understanding of Constantine The Great and his contributions.

As to Paul, I gave him much, much credit. Indeed we have a Pauline tradition Christian Religion as can be seen that we are a flock of Gentiles and not the "circumcised".

The Apostolic, Armenian, Baptists, Agnostic, Mythraists, ...... also played an important role.

Let us not forget that James gave the young church to Paul and not to Peter. Paul carried it thru east Asia and on to Rome and beyond.

zara

 

[zara]

Okay, I mean we have no way of justifying this statement nor proving it. Though Eusebius chronicles the incident there isn't much discussion outside of his works that I've seen which ascribes the design to him.

However, we can be pretty certain that the Chi-Ro takes the first two letters in Christ's name (Chi-Ro) and places them over each other to form a cross like figure. The shepherd's crook is possible, but I think its dubious.

The writings of Eusebius, the Arch of Constantine, the verbal traditions of his Army and the Christians of 333 AD, Byzantine coinage, .... This is much much better than the documentation of Paul's vision that has become factual among Christians.

Well not to be too pointed but this is simply wrong. The ICHTHYS is evidenced to the earliest Christian communities. If we journey around to the existing ancient church structures we see it all over the place from the first buildings. Also, a number of patristic authors use the acronym. Check Tertullian, On Baptism and Augustine's City of God to mention two works.

Very true. And I offered that as my position. ... My point is that the Symbol had to be meaningful to both Constantine and his Army who were mostly from England and Gall and were also Mithraist's. The ICHTHYS symbolism wasn't used in York then??

My thoughts are that the symbol with it's crook and devastated cross is for the 3-D imagery of today's Christianity.

I can't give too much to Constantine saying he saw a Chi-Ro in the sky in a dream and then going out the next day and beating up an army. Lots of scholars have problems with it, but we can't really say if it was him or God.

He conquered Maxentius at Milvian Bridge didn't he? .... and had his Army paint their shields with the symbol. God said: "In Hoc Signo Vinci" ...... and Constantine did God's work with God's authority.

Anyways, just some food for thought. Thanks for a good discussion.

thanx, this is great stuff, zara ......:godisgood:


.........................................

.........................................Severe III (latin Libius Severus is a Roman emperor of the West death in September 465.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The writings of Eusebius, the Arch of Constantine, the verbal traditions of his Army and the Christians of 333 AD, Byzantine coinage, .... This is much much better than the documentation of Paul's vision that has become factual among Christians.[/FONT]

I guess a key difference in our view of things is that I would hold the historical account in the word of God as absolutely perfect documentation of Paul's vision and human accounts of a supposed vision as quite possibly inaccurate and edited to make a man like Constantine look good.

Of course Paul's vision has become factual among Christians - it is recorded in the Word of God and our faith leads us to accept that as fact.

 

[zara]

I guess a key difference in our view of things is that I would hold the historical account in the word of God as absolutely perfect documentation of Paul's vision and human accounts of a supposed vision as quite possibly inaccurate and edited to make a man like Constantine look good.

Of course Paul's vision has become factual among Christians - it is recorded in the Word of God and our faith leads us to accept that as fact.

C4K

I would argue the same as you do. To me, Paul's sign was Biblical with the image being Christ Himself, and just a few years after Christ's resurrection. His principal mission from Christ was to take the Word to the Gentile and to all throughout the world, pronounce that Jewish laws and traditions are no longer mandatory in the Gospels and to finance and bring Christianity a organization of administration.

IMHO, The Holy Spirit stays with us throughout history and it was necessary at that time to employ an Augusta to rescue Christianity from persecution and indeed extinction. In this instance in history three hundred plus years from when Jesus walked on earth, the signs needed to be dramatic because He has selected a non-Christian. Too, I feel that the signs must also carry a profound message and assurances to future Christianity. A chard of light with "In Hoc Signo Vinci" on a Shepherd's Staff with Cross defeated on the ground, was magnificent. It gave Constantine the unmistakable message and mission that God of the Christians, is and was, the only God.

To Christians of today, I alone conclude that the sign is a 3-D image not construrd in those days; with it's Shepherd's Crook and the defeated cross, buttresses the message that Christ is the Good Shepherd now, He is risen and is with us forever and ever, and that we too will be victorius, "In Hoc Signo Vinci", upon Christ's return as the Messiah.

zara ....:godisgood: