Whats the general consensus about Constantine from a christian pov? Was he a pagan in disguise or he really become christian? If yes, since when? Remember his father had good words for christians
>>752927
>320x480
i hope that's your watch
>>752969
Thats my phone. No monnies.
>>752927
>his father had good words for christians
His mother is also literally a saint.
The fact he is now known as Saint Constantine and the Nicene Creed is still used should tell you enough.
>>754133
Saint Constantine the Great*
I think most christians got a good view of him since he officialy made christianity legal, even if he didn't babtize untill right before his death. (which was a common habit among christians at that time i think)
US christians on the other hand..
Roman Catholics and Orthodox love him because he stopped persecution of Christians....that is a pretty big deal. He genuinely became a Christian, since if he weren't I don't think he would have gotten baptized on his deathbed.
Protestants often hate him, especially Seventh Day Adventists.
![Image17[1]-477x128-1.gif](https://i.imgur.com/tYxHzsW.gif "Image17[1]-477x128-1.gif")
>>754177
because they believe everything from rome is satanic.
>>754209
Constantine was Byzantine, though. Not Roman. The Roman Empire ceased to be Roman when he transferred the Capital to Constantinople. It wasn't restored until the HRE
>>752927
>Saint Constantine
that's your answer there, OP
>>754219
The Romans became Byzantine when they ceased to operate in Latin.
>>752927
>Was he a pagan in disguise or he really become christian?
There is no way to know what he really felt and thought about christianity. Fact is he was baptized on his deathbed.
>>754219
>he transferred the Capital to Constantinople
He did not.
>>754219
>>754225
The Roman Empire never ceased to be Roman. After the fall of Rome people in the East kept calling themselves Romans. This division Roman/Byzantine empire dates back to the Renaissance.
>>754219
Firstly, Constantine was Illyrian.
Secondly, it was the Eastern ROMAN Empire. And at his time, just the Roman empire. It is only referred to as the Byzantine empire now to refer to a time when the Western Roman Empire ceased to exist.
At the time they and everybody who dealt with them referred to them as the Roman empire and they were for all intents and purposes. They only lacked control of Rome itself which was a cause of identity issue among them until it was reclaimed by Belisarius.
>>754219
It was still the roman empire senpai.
And even if its true, we are talking about people who often thinks the jesuits created islam.
Is it true he was a serb?
>>754225
Which they did under Constantine. The new administration in Constantinople used Greek
>>753071
>Saint Monica
St. Monica is the mother of St. Augustine.
St. Helen is the mother of Constantine.
>>754266
The Roman Empire is not the continuity of some state, it is the continuity of the city, Rome. If you razed it to the ground, the Roman Empire would cease to exist, since it would no longer be Roman, by definition.
>>754291
Justinian was the last emperor to operate in Latin.
>>754290
Its not a great map but here you go
>>752927
A pagan would never Edict of Milan the greatest western empire.
>>752927
He didn't really understand Christianity, he was closer to a pagan in disguise. I'm not even a Christian and i'm saying this. The guy just worshipped the Christian god "God" as a reward for the victory he gave him.
Christians love him though because without his out-of-left-field conversion Christianity would be one among a hundred religions still to this day.
>>754302
Constantine didn't even speak Latin when he could help it., and Christianity under him was in Greek. It couldn't even be the state religion, properly speaking, until the Vulgate, but by then it was no longer technically the Roman Empire, it was the Byzantine Empire. Calling Byzantium "New Rome" doesn't make it the case. Once the capital was moved to Byzantium, it was no longer the Roman Empire, it was the Byzantine Empire/
>>754290
No, the people that would become Serbs didn't enter the Balkans till around the 6th or 7th century.
>>754318
While he might not have understood Christianity during his battle, I'm very sure he understood it down the road, considering he was the one who demanded the bishops convene for the Council of Nicaea so as to definitely decide on the divinity of Christ. He was also friends with many bishops. You aren't exposed to all that and not understand Christianity.
>>754318
no one understood Christianity that's why he called for the Council of Nicaea to create an Orthodoxy.
>>754299
That's retarded. It didn't become the empire of Ravenna when they moved the capital there.
Rome was completely irrelevant in the political landscape even by Diocletian's reign but it's not called the Nicomedian empire either.
Rome had no bearing on the Roman Empire at that point. Case in point even after the city was sacked the Roman empire was still fine as a whole.
>>754335
The Council of Nicaea did not create any Orthodoxy, it simply affirmed Christianity as taught by the Apostles.
>>754338
The Roman Empire means the empire of the City of Rome. By definition. The Ottomans were more the Byzantine Empire than the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire.
>>754342
>It did not create any Orthodoxy
What is the Nicene Creed?
>>754350
So by your logic the Roman Empire ceased to exist in 286 AD when they moved the capital to Mediolanum.
>>754353
The Nicene Creed is just an affirmation of the teaching of the Apostles. The wording was created, but the dogma was continuously there from the beginning.
>>754350
Maybe by your autistic definition but that isn't the case in the real world by anybody with any understanding of history.
>>754362
Sort of, it was only the capital in name until after Constantine moved it to Byzantium. The Emperor just lived there.
>>754350
Antiquity had no such concept of "capitals". Rome was merely where the emperor was based. By the early 3rd century the emperors didn't even bother visiting Rome let alone living in it, the more important cities were Mediolanum, Trier, Sirmium and Antioch adminstratively speaking, closer to the frontiers than the old capital which was a backwater in military terms.
>>754350
Nope, it's more like the empire of the roman people.
>>754369
Except for the idea of the Trinity. That was determined to be the truth at the Council. That is the creation of an orthodoxy by its definition as an accepted doctrine.
>>754371
The real world makes a strong distinction between the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire
>>754385
>Except for the idea of the Trinity
No, the dogma that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God, was taught by the Apostles. It was just more strictly codified at Nicaea.
>>754387
>Constantine barely knew jack all about the theology
At the battle, sure. But by the time he started to get intimately acquainted with Christian leaders? Why do you think that?
>>754386
Because the real world is made up of ignorant fools. If you mean scholarship, nowadays most of them try to make clear the many continuities between the old empire of antiquity and the middle ages. 'Byzantine' was coined by a German writer trying to undermine their legitimacy, legitimacy given to them by the Ostrogothic king giving the Western Roman Empire's crown back to the Eastern emperor.
>>754381
You shouldn't forget the cultural and ideological impact it had on the people. But I agree, the City of Rome and the Roman Empire are two different things, they just share the same name.
>>754390
>No, the dogma that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God, was taught by the Apostles.
Yeah, but even then there are still a number of heresies that you could adhere to while still believing that.
>>754390
Point me to a bible passage in the Greek that supports this. If this is so, then why does Jesus claim God has forsaken him on the cross?
>>754390
>the dogma that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God, was taught by the Apostles.
That isn't true at all, why do you think people spent centuries fighting over the issue at all?
>>754410
The Trinity is expressed in the Baptismal formula. Are you asking for verses which show the Holy Spirit or Christ to be God? which one do you doubt is God/
Christ asked why God had forsaken him on the cross because for one thing that fulfills Psalm 22, and for another God is three existences with one essence, whereas Christ is one existence with two essences (human and divine). So Christ experience, simultaneously, humanity and divinity to their fullest, include human will and human knowledge.
>>754419
Because people tried to introduce things which were not taught by the Apostles. How do you think things like Prosperity Gospel get introduced? What about Mormonism?
>>754380
You make it sound like Constantine was the last Roman emperor.
Honorius did not operate in Byzantium. Nor did Majorian. Or any of the Western emperors after Constantine.
>>754386
As said to refer to the Eastern Empire after the Western Empire ceased to exist. It is recognized as the spiritual continuation of the Roman empire and they themselves at the time refer to themselves as the Roman empire.
You're full of shit
>>752927
He and his father worshiped Apollo, the sun god, and gave money to the sun god temple until the day he died.
He never 'converted' to Christianity at all. The rumors of his deathbed conversion are just that. Rumors. And an admission he was never a Christian to begin with.
Just like all Catholics.
>>754385
The Trinity is not up for a fucking vote.
>>754433
>Because people tried to introduce things which were not taught by the Apostles
I don't think you understand how Early Christianity worked. Are you by any chance a practicing Christian?
Christianity as we know it is the product of centuries of refinement, creating what we now know as 'orthodoxy'. The Bible was created many decades after the Apostles even lived and was edited repeatedly with entire chunks taken out, new parts added in. Certain interpretations only became "heresies" because they ended up losing the struggle.
Your naivety is astounding, this is a history board.
>>754449
And your lies are nauseating.
>>754440
Exactly. Even if he did convert, then he converted to Arianism. So I can't understand why later christians would praise him so much, although he was a heretic by their standards.
>>754429
>Baptismal formula
The bible says people were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, not The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
>>754445
Many groups saw Jesus as just a man, a synthesis of God and Many, or having dual natures. The council of Nicaea solidified his divine nature and his relationship to the Father. The Trinity wasn't an immediately accepted or devised idea.
>>754445
Except that it was at the time. Arian Christians were a thing you know.
>>754460
His "vision from God" was a chi and a ro flanking the sun.
Exactly what one would expect from a sun worshiper.
Constantine didn't "protect Christians".
He stopped Rome from murdering Christians.
>>754449
>I don't think you understand how Early Christianity worked. Are you by any chance a practicing Christian?
Yes.
>Christianity as we know it is the product of centuries of refinement, creating what we now know as 'orthodoxy'.
No, it is the preservation of what Christ and the Apostles taught, attested to by the Church Fathers, a continuous line of teaching. Councils and codifications are in reaction to people trying to add or subtract to these teachings, such addition or subtraction is called "heresy".
>The Bible was created many decades after the Apostles even lived
The Canon was decided a long time afterward, that doesn't mean what it contains was written decades after they lived.
>>754461
Some were, some weren't. Doesn't really matter. It was to distinguish it from the baptism of John, which was a baptism to repentance, and to follow the Law of Moses.
The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Spirit is God.
There is One God.
>>754461
>The bible says people were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, not The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Matthew 28:19
>>754471
No, He is not.
>>754482
>Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28: "The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form changed by the [Catholic] church."
>The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275: "It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the exact words of Jesus, but a later liturgical addition."
>The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
>>754483
Are you trying to say a sect of Christianity didn't actually exist or that they were wrong?
>>754475
>No, it is the preservation of what Christ and the Apostles taught, attested to by the Church Fathers, a continuous line of teaching
You seriously think there's an unbroken line all the way from the beginning of the Church which the big bad heretics have tried to mess with? You're horribly, horribly wrong. You can't argue matters of macro-historical importance regarding the Christian faith and institutions with somebody who is subject to the teachings of it themselves. You'll obviously believe whatever the modern Church tells you.
>>754475
You can't be serious.
>>754489
I'm Orthodox.
None of these statements offer any sort of argument, they are just the product of being astounded that the Trinity was so clearly elucidated from the beginning. The Catholics, support "updating" dogma, of course are going to look for justification for such.
>>754503
>You seriously think there's an unbroken line all the way from the beginning of the Church which the big bad heretics have tried to mess with?
Yes, absolutely. To be Orthodox means to preserve faithfully, without addition (Roman Catholic) or subtraction (Protestant).
>>754475
People actually believe this? On a history board?
>>754524
So the council of Nicaea was an unnecessary meeting of people who shared the same, already well defined, principles?
>>754496
I'm trying to pound through your head that God is independent of anything men say God is.
>>754530
On a His Story board, yes, people believe in Him.
>>754552
how fucking ironic of you
>>754552
What's funny is how fervently you would argue the opposite case if history has just been a little different 2000 years ago.
Fanaticism is brilliant.
Anyway, you're ignorant as fuck.
>>754544
The principles were not officially codified. That is what the Council was about. The Orthodox Church doesn't like to codify principles, because the principles of Christianity are very mystical, we only do this when it is absolutely necessary to cope with heresy. Generally we take it that the proper teachings will always thrive on their own, even if there are bits of competing error. For instance, the Biblical canon was never officially codified by the Orthodox Church (which is why some Orthodox have different numbers of OT books), because it was assumed the proper canon would win out. And today, the NT books are universal across the board, and it's not an issue, even though they were never officially codified. Normally if someone says something that is not dogma, it is called theologoumena. This sort of thing is frowned on, but we are not going to start actually codifying and anathematizing until it gets to be a serious issue, and by that I mean bishops and priests teaching theologoumena.as dogma. If something directly contradicts dogma, of course, that cannot be permitted at all and is overly heresy, theologoumena is that which isn't proper dogma but doesn't overtly conflict with dogma.
>>754572
Anyone arguing that they can change God with their beliefs does not really believe God exists.
Those men were just carving out a club of like minded fellows; they were not in charge of changing God's nature.
>>754572
Heliocentrism can be accepted or rejected or whatever, that doesn't change its truth. I could say, "If we subscribed to geocentrism, you would reject heliocentrism!" That doesn't impact the validity of heliocentrism.
Both the Orthodox ex-tripfag and the loony Protestcuck together in one place. Two opposite sides of the same delusional coin.
When will they fuck?
>>754555
Ironic, to say that God transcends mankind.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you say it means.
>>754296
Thanks for the correction.
>>754575
*overtly heresy
>>754591
Tell me one thing I have said that was "loony", or that could not be found in the bible.
>>754587
But I can say that heliocentrism wasn't widely believed x number years ago. You cannot say the same because that would go against a concept of infallibility.
>>754592
It was ironic because I was trying to convince you of the exact same thing, dumbass. You follow what men have said about God, not God itself.
>>754592
>You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you say it means.
AGAIN with the irony!
You're on a roll, my dude. Tell us another one.
>>754603
Right, because natural science is the process of discovery, whereas Christianity is about revelation.
I don't know what you mean by infallibility. Christ and the Apostles were infallible. Anyone who contradicts or adds to their teachings, is in error.
>>754219
Oh boy, here we go again...
>>754616
Science is inherently flawed because of our humanity. So is Christianity, because its teachings were formed by men. Even if they derived form a divine source, they were undoubtedly corrupted by humanity. True faith, to the exclusion of institution, is all that constitutes true worship.
>>754627
Christ is divine, so I'm gonna have to differ with you there.
>>754627
>they were undoubtedly corrupted by humanity
begging the question.
>>752927
The Eastern Orthodox and some Catholics call him a saint, good enough for me.
>>754635
Humanity is inherently sinful, yes?
>>754637
His feast day in the Roman Catholic Church is May 21 (as it is with the Orthodox Church)
>>754319
>Calling Byzantium "New Rome" doesn't make it the case
You're right, it wasn't "new" Rome as it had always been and continued to be "Roman"
>>754640
Uh, no. The material world is cloaked with the lie of sin ever since the fall, but if anything humanity is inherently NOT sinful. Sinning impairs our humanity.
>>754616
>the Apostles were infallible
They were men.
>>754524
>I'm Orthodox.
And the comma Johannus or whatever it's called is in our Bible as well.
But it's irrelevant in any case.
First mention of is literally "some people worship this Jesus fellow as a god'.
Trinitarian heresies notwithstanding, it shows divine nature was a very clear thing from the get-go.
>>754655
Insofar as the teachings we inherited from them are. Otherwise no, of course not.
>>752927
>he really become christian?
In his heart I believe so, but not officially baptized until just before his death likely for political reasons.
>>754608
And again, not only do I follow God Himself, but I have God Himself dwelling inside of me. As do all born again Christians.
>>754640
Yes. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
We aren't sinners because we sin; we sin because we're sinners.
>>754655
What they wrote, they wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God.
>>754772
You're a faggot and your mother sucks elephant dicks.
God inspired me to write this.
