|
Post by DKTrav88 on Aug 2, 2020 3:56:07 GMT
Emperor Constantine, before he was emperor, grew up during the reign of his father Constantine Chlorus, who was a devout follower of the cult called Sol Invictus, the "Unconquered Sun". This cult was made an official cult of the Roman Empire in 274AD by emperor Aurelian. Constantine's mother, Empress Helena, was a devout Christian. Constantine, however, took after his father, and became a follower of Sol Invictus aka Mithras, Apollo, Phoebus, Ra, etc. Mithras, or Mehr, is an Iranian Zoroastrian angelic divinity of covenant, light, oath as well as justice and an all-seeing protector of Truth, the guardian of cattle, the harvest, and of water. Apollo is a god of archery, music and dance, truth and prophecy, healing and diseases, the sun and light, poetry, and much more. Phoebus is the Roman name of Apollo. Ra was seen as the ruler of the world, the god of the sun, order, kings, and the sky. In every religion that has a sun god, the sun is seen as the bestower of light and life to the totality of the cosmos; with his unblinking, all-seeing eye, he is the stern guarantor of justice; with the almost universal connection of light with enlightenment or illumination, and is the source of wisdom. Kings ruled by the power of the sun and claimed descent from the sun. Solar deities, gods personifying the sun, are sovereign and all-seeing. Constantine associated his victory over Maxentius in 312AD with the power of the sun. He viewed Sol Invictus as very similar to the Christian God and he decided that Sol Invictus was the god of the Christians. His adoption of Christianity in the Roman Empire was a matter of political strategy, not religious conviction; he needed Christians on his side if he was going to keep control of his empire. After his confessed conversion to Christianity, Constantine continued to mint coins with images of the sun god on them until 326AD at the earliest. Sol Invictus behind Constantine In 330AD, Constantine erected a column with himself at the top depicted as the sun god. This column became the center of the Forum of Constantine in the city of Byzantium, today known as the Cemberlitas Square in Istanbul. The sign Constantine said God told him to conquer under is the Chi-Rho. However, this symbol is not a new symbol and appears on coins from Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt(Greek ruled) that were minted from 246-222BC. It can be seen underneath the eagle... Another Egyptian coin And another Also the symbol can be interpreted as a simple combination of two Nordic runes. and The former is "wunjo", meaning "joy" or "bliss". The latter is "gebo", meaning "sacrifice". A very clever combination and rendition of runes to say the least. These runes were first created in the 2nd century, before the time of Constantine. All of this only begs questions about the truthfulness of Constantine's apparent conversion to Christianity. Why would he continue to mint coins with the sun god on them and his face on the other side? Why would he erect columns with statues of himself depicted as a sun god on top? Why would he recycle pagan symbols as Christian symbols and say he saw them in a vision? Not only are these questions raised, but others are too, especially about the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, both of which claim to be the true Christian Church, but based that on the same history and the claim that Constantine the Great converted to Christianity and turned the Roman Empire into a Christian nation. Both institutions use scripture as their forte in saying that Church has all the authority, 1 Timothy 3:15, however, how does one come to conclusion that said Church is the true Church? What is the authority on what is the true Church, the Church that Jesus Christ established? It could only be God, and His word. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. This means scripture is God breathed and is our final authority and our guide for judging all things. 1 Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. And with that we can be certain that the evidence given, and this is only but a small amount of evidence, there is inconsistency with the claims of the Church of Rome, Catholic and Orthodox.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 13, 2020 12:46:41 GMT
I wonder why some modern American Protestants still try to read anything than Bible; it makes nothing but cry and producing confused historical events. So, how's it possible to seriously claim that "this term is Christian" while the other are not?!.. There were no Christian symbols when Christ lived, and it must be clear for anyone who read Bible. A little later martyrs Christians and the others used different symbols including pagan and self-made symbols to identify them and to notice a meeting (is a Protestant able to figure it out that there were no iPods and watches to see the time?). So it is clear that to claim what symbol is Christian about those time is a WASP view. WASP's views are too narrow to investigate the history, so I do not recommend for a Protestant to read anything than Bible to not catch a heart-attack suddenly.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 13, 2020 19:19:40 GMT
It's also matter that American Protestant view on Christianity is what must be taken by many other Christians as an example of a good faith.
Why then such rigorous view is unaccepted by me? Why do I not agree with it? If I think that the views of American Protestants is a very good sign of Faith, why am I struggling it?
I think there must be some credibility, the credit of trust. To see a sign of pagancy and also claim that this is blasphemy is not even good, it is KKK. Why to turn back to white lynching nights, torch-marches, and white cone hoods? Were it enough then to start repeating it now?
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Aug 14, 2020 1:55:35 GMT
Naturally, a pagan society, which is what the Roman Empire was, would have a pagan culture. So it is no surprise that a pagan society would hijack Christian doctrine/practices and twist it into their own to bring in people of a religion that was spreading quickly at the time, which is what appears to be evident here. Christ is a Rabbi, the only Rabbi(Matthew 23:8 ). I wouldn't be apologetic for an emperor who seemed to very clearly see himself as a god, so much so as to build a giant column with a statue of himself depicted as a sun god on top. His intentions seem very clear, life and tastes. Tu quoque; my being an American doesn't put me at any disadvantage in understanding anything. What I am pointing out in the OP is the relation between Constantine's actions such as erecting statues of himself depicted as a sun god and minting coins with the sun god on them while claiming to be a Christian convert. Nevermind the chi-rho which is quite obviously pagan. One should find it difficult considering the context of the Bible, that Constantine was only simply and innocently mixing paganism with Christianity. It was deliberate, the mixture of pagan culture with Christian doctrine which still holds itself today as evidence in the Church of Rome, Catholic and Orthodox. It cannot be denied, it is evident in symbology and relation between pagan mythology and the doctrines set forth by the Roman Church. What should be obvious - I don't try to say the emperor was indeed, truly Christian. Opposite to Catholics, the Orthodox know this fact, about Constantine and even some others (they were no saints in our usual meaning of this), and it perfectly know that his behaviour was not what should have taken for anyone; there were no reason to repeat his sinnerful actions, but - he can't be judged as an ordinary person as you've involved him to be. You can't judge someone if there's no law. There were no such church jury mechanisms to evaluate his actions. So, yes, your point that Constantine might have never been converted as his followers - is true. But so what? This is the same as objecting Christ to be circumcised. My point is - it is not correct to judge historical actions of someone by putting him into any contemporary situation. Role of Constantine was major, any historician (who is not uncare or who's not indifferent to Christianity) would consider it. And his role in Christianity as his saint - is in his deeds: "You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?" (James (Jacob) 2:20) When did I put Constantine into a contemporary situation? All I did was show what he did in the past, things that were contrary to Christian doctrine. I am not at all arguing the history, I am arguing the claim that he was a Christian convert, which you say may be true. As I said before, that was only a little bit of evidence; I could bring up the fact of the man who baptized Constantine was an Arian priest. Arianism is not Christian, it is closely related to Gnosticism, as it denies Jesus is God while Jesus made it clear that He is God; even the Jews who denied Christ in Christ's time on earth understood this. Why would Constantine allow an Arian priest to baptize him?
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Aug 14, 2020 11:06:58 GMT
Well just some of W.A.S.P (just sects that have arisen in this cultural environment,Adventists for example) like to say that Constantine introduced the Sunday day to the Church, instead of the biblical Sabbath, other W.A.S.P adhere to other views - but all of them think that Constantine allegedly changed the Church( but read the writers who lived before the age of Constantine) There is a version that Constantine was baptized by Pope Sylvester I. Even if he was Baptized by Eusebius it is not a problem because this Bishop was just close to the Royal court. Arians are heretics but not Gnostics( Gnostics did not recognize the old Testament). By order of Constantine the 1st Ecumenical Council was called at which Arianism was condemned . It is known that Constantine made the decision of this Council.. In any case, read the Bible. Where? The book of Numbers where the negative character Balaam is mentioned. Despite this, he made a famous strong prophecy(God acts even from such people and their donkey) therefore, it is strange to focus on some of the possible mistakes of Eusebius. Some of the Arians were cultured Arians rather than dogmatic. 18. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. )19. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. (1 Corinthians 11:18-19) That is, if a person has now been baptized by such a liberal preacher as Pope Francis(read about Balaam), this is not a problem if the person will not recognize the filioque and papal infallibility ...in this case, the baptism is valid.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,698
Likes: 1,758
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Aug 14, 2020 11:19:42 GMT
Well just some of W.A.S.P (just sects that have arisen in this cultural environment,Adventists for example) like to say that Constantine introduced the Sunday day to the Church, instead of the biblical Sabbath, other W.A.S.P adhere to other views - but all of them think that Constantine allegedly changed the Church( but read the writers who lived before the age of Constantine) There is a version that Constantine was baptized by Pope Sylvester I. Even if he was Baptized by Eusebius it is not a problem because this Bishop was just close to the Royal court. Arians are heretics but not Gnostics( Gnostics did not recognize the old Testament). By order of Constantine the 1st Ecumenical Council was called at which Arianism was condemned . It is known that Constantine made the decision of this Council.. In any case, read the Bible. Where? The book of Numbers where the negative character Balaam is mentioned. Despite this, he made a famous strong prophecy (God acts even from such people and their donkey) therefore, it is strange to focus on some of the possible mistakes of Eusebius. Some of the Arians were cultured Arians rather than dogmatic. 18. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. )19. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. (1 Corinthians 11:18-19) That is, if a person has now been baptized by such a liberal preacher as Pope Francis( read about Balaam), this is not a problem if the person will not recognize the filioque and papal infallibility ...in this case, the baptism is valid. Just an honest question asked out of curiosity. The Orthodox Church claims to be the true church with a lineage going back to Jesus Christ and the Apostles. So does the Catholic Church. So do you Orthodox Christians recognize the Catholic Church as the legitimate church as well, or a branch of it, or not the true church? If it is the latter on what basis do you choose the Orthodox church over the Catholic Church? Why do you believe the Orthodox church has the better claim to being the true church rather than the Catholics? I have been studying the great Schism and it seems that the Pope was the ultimate authority before the split and the events that led split was brought on originally by the Eastern Roman Empire being angry that the Pope crowned Charlemagne as the Roman Emperor and things got progressively worse from there until they split in the 11th century. The Pope began the split by excommunicating the Orthodox patriarch which he was well in his authority to do so. Why do you not consider the Catholic Church the true church? I'm not arguing either; I am just curious on what basis the Orthodox claims legitimacy against the Catholics.
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Aug 14, 2020 12:02:38 GMT
Well just some of W.A.S.P (just sects that have arisen in this cultural environment,Adventists for example) like to say that Constantine introduced the Sunday day to the Church, instead of the biblical Sabbath, other W.A.S.P adhere to other views - but all of them think that Constantine allegedly changed the Church( but read the writers who lived before the age of Constantine) There is a version that Constantine was baptized by Pope Sylvester I. Even if he was Baptized by Eusebius it is not a problem because this Bishop was just close to the Royal court. Arians are heretics but not Gnostics( Gnostics did not recognize the old Testament). By order of Constantine the 1st Ecumenical Council was called at which Arianism was condemned . It is known that Constantine made the decision of this Council.. In any case, read the Bible. Where? The book of Numbers where the negative character Balaam is mentioned. Despite this, he made a famous strong prophecy (God acts even from such people and their donkey) therefore, it is strange to focus on some of the possible mistakes of Eusebius. Some of the Arians were cultured Arians rather than dogmatic. 18. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. )19. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. (1 Corinthians 11:18-19) That is, if a person has now been baptized by such a liberal preacher as Pope Francis( read about Balaam), this is not a problem if the person will not recognize the filioque and papal infallibility ...in this case, the baptism is valid. Just an honest question asked out of curiosity. The Orthodox Church claims to be the true church with a lineage going back to Jesus Christ and the Apostles. So does the Catholic Church. So do you Orthodox Christians recognize the Catholic Church as the legitimate church as well, or a branch of it, or not the true church? If it is the latter on what basis do you choose the Orthodox church over the Catholic Church? Why do you believe the Orthodox church has the better claim to being the true church rather than the Catholics? I have been studying the great Schism and it seems that the Pope was the ultimate authority before the split and the events that led split was brought on originally by the Eastern Roman Empire being angry that the Pope crowned Charlemagne as the Roman Emperor and things got progressively worse from there until they split in the 11th century. The Pope began the split by excommunicating the Orthodox patriarch which he was well in his authority to do so. Why do you not consider the Catholic Church the true church? I'm not arguing either; I am just curious on what basis the Orthodox claims legitimacy against the Catholics. The Pope did not call Ecumenical councils...the Roman Emperors did this. Need to read me more information about this, but some councils the Pope did not even attend. Who is the Roman Emperor? Well, according to the Beda Venerabilis (author Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum), this is what historians now call the Byzantine Emperor. Constantine moved his capital to the Second Rome. Christianity has always been a Roman religion( since the preaching of the apostles), even if Rome is not in Italy... the Jewish tradition always associate Christianity with Rome... in their understanding it is Edom. The Orthodox Church does not recognize as a real Church a number of local churches (including the modern Vatican), but the fact that they were originally part of a single Church, there is no doubt about it , as the Scripture itself warns that some will depart from the faith, but formally the hierarchy remains even Luther emphasized his succession and this applies to the Anglicans. Then what is the problem with Catholics and Protestants? This is a liberal view in word of God and filioque. Charlemagne as we know to changes in the Symbol of faith.Why? Perhaps he claimed power in the Pyrenees where filioque was popular or theological reasons ... In addition, the Crusades .. which after the split Rome used against the Orthodox in 1204 for example. There is a lot of information you can read on this blog. www.events.orthodoxengland.org.uk/
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 14, 2020 17:45:54 GMT
What should be obvious - I don't try to say the emperor was indeed, truly Christian. Opposite to Catholics, the Orthodox know this fact, about Constantine and even some others (they were no saints in our usual meaning of this), and it perfectly know that his behaviour was not what should have taken for anyone; there were no reason to repeat his sinnerful actions, but - he can't be judged as an ordinary person as you've involved him to be. You can't judge someone if there's no law. There were no such church jury mechanisms to evaluate his actions. So, yes, your point that Constantine might have never been converted as his followers - is true. But so what? This is the same as objecting Christ to be circumcised. My point is - it is not correct to judge historical actions of someone by putting him into any contemporary situation. Role of Constantine was major, any historician (who is not uncare or who's not indifferent to Christianity) would consider it. And his role in Christianity as his saint - is in his deeds: "You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?" (James (Jacob) 2:20) When did I put Constantine into a contemporary situation? All I did was show what he did in the past, things that were contrary to Christian doctrine. I am not at all arguing the history, I am arguing the claim that he was a Christian convert, which you say may be true. As I said before, that was only a little bit of evidence; I could bring up the fact of the man who baptized Constantine was an Arian priest. Arianism is not Christian, it is closely related to Gnosticism, as it denies Jesus is God while Jesus made it clear that He is God; even the Jews who denied Christ in Christ's time on earth understood this. Why would Constantine allow an Arian priest to baptize him? Yeah, it is. Aryan were Christians, by the way.
|
|