How "Christian" of him!!

[SlowwHand]

Roman Emperor Constantine I in A.D. 325.


What do I win?!? I'm so excited.

[Ben Kenobi]

Who convened the First Council of Nicaea?

Constantine, but it was Arius who forced the issue.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I believe the transformation that was referenced was that the Emperor was seen to be exerting control over theological matters. Constantine was trying to exalt himself in something that should have just been a theological matter. As Eusebius stated:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iv.vi.iii.x.html

As soon, then, as the whole assembly had seated themselves with becoming orderliness, a general silence prevailed, in expectation of the emperor’s arrival. And first of all, three of his immediate family entered in succession, then others also preceded his approach, not of the soldiers or guards who usually accompanied him, but only friends in the faith. And now, all rising at the signal which indicated the emperor’s entrance, at last he himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones.

[Ben Kenobi]

The problem with attributing the changes to Constantine is that it was traditional for the Emperor (at least after Augustus), to exert control in religious affairs.

The real changes came with Theodosius, who established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire.

The reason Arius lost and the First Council ruled the way that they did is not because Constantine opposed Arianism, but because Arianism contradicted essential characteristics of Christ. Condemnation of Arius predated Constantine's influence. Whereas it is true that he called the first ecumenical council, such councils involving the whole of the church were impossible during the earlier years due to the persecution.

I'm not convinced that his influence in calling the event affected the outcome and the form of the Nicene Creed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Perhaps so, but the idea of a creed with Emperor backing was the start of a slippery slope. And without him calling the council, there is a chance that Arianism dies out on its own (or perhaps not, but doesn't gain too much influence outside of some areas of Eastern Europe), but at least the state doesn't have a precedent to start running church affairs.

[Ben Kenobi]

Perhaps so, but the idea of a creed with Emperor backing was the start of a slippery slope.

Eusebius is an excellent historian, but the influence of Constantine I believe is rather overstated. The Creed had the backing of the Emperor, because it was the consensus of the bishops at the conference.

And without him calling the council, there is a chance that Arianism dies out on its own (or perhaps not, but doesn't gain too much influence outside of some areas of Eastern Europe), but at least the state doesn't have a precedent to start running church affairs.

You forget that Arianism had Emperors who vigorously defended it after the death of Constantine, and that it persisted in the West even after the fall of Rome. The whole concept of an Emperor who did not intervene in these affairs is anathema to the entire concept of the Roman Emperor.

The entire concept of a separation of the two doesn't go back any further than Hobbes. The concept of a separation of powers is much older, going back to the old office of censor which Caesar Augustus arrogated to himself. It's not a classical idea, Plato believed that a good ruler guarded the moral affairs of his charges.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The whole concept of an Emperor who did not intervene in these affairs is anathema to the entire concept of the Roman Emperor.

That concept became the problem. Constantine made sure that it was known that he called the conference and it was seen that the Emperor was in charge of the faith and that viewpoint was in vogue until Pope Gregory VII came along.

[Kidlicious]

After Samuel anointed him.

1 Sam 10:9-11



As for the other kings, David, Solomon and Josiah King of Judah were also acclaimed as godly kings, although only David and Solomon were kings of a united Israel.

I'm not that familiar with it, but I do know that Saul tried to have David killed three times. Solomon also sinned against Israel.

But I was really talking about kings that are even more blood thirsty and oppressive than Saul.

[Kidlicious]

Recall Christ's answer to Pilate.

There is only one Master, and that is God. All the lesser masters serve under the Greater Master. You are thereby obliged to obey their orders such as they do not contradict those of their true Master.

Exactly, and collecting taxes by force and against the people's will is a sin.

[Kidlicious]

The problem with attributing the changes to Constantine is that it was traditional for the Emperor (at least after Augustus), to exert control in religious affairs.

Yes, but Constantine made a certian sect of Christianity the favored religion of Rome. This made Christianity a religion for the oppressors, not the oppressed, and caused all sorts of selfish and power seeking people to go into the Church.

Consider the Parable of the Trees, Judges 9:1-21

[Nikolai]

Yes, but Constantine made a certian sect of Christianity the favored religion of Rome. This made Christianity a religion for the oppressors, not the oppressed, and caused all sorts of selfish and power seeking people to go into the Church.

That "sect" was the majority of the time's Christianity. But I wholeheartily agree that Constantine corrupted the Church. Not in the silly Da Vinci Code conspiracy way, but in that he made the Church into a corrupted powermongering entity that we still today strive with. Christianity was a powerful force of good until Constantine, after him it was the small reform movements scattered around that kept the fire alive, often procecuted by the official Church.

[Ben Kenobi]

That concept became the problem. Constantine made sure that it was known that he called the conference and it was seen that the Emperor was in charge of the faith and that viewpoint was in vogue until Pope Gregory VII came along.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Did you not read Eusebius? He's very clear that there are patriarchs, of whom 3 of the 4 at the time were there. The only one who was not was Pope Sylvester, and he sent others to represent him. The head of the entire session was the Patriarch of Alexandria, not Constantine who convoked the session. Constantine wanted the divisions settled because it was causing serious unrest in the Empire.

[Ben Kenobi]

Exactly, and collecting taxes by force and against the people's will is a sin.

You ain't getting it. Christ explicitly says render unto Caesar, meaning that Christians have an obligation to respect the lawful authority and to pay taxes. They shouldn't need to be collected against their will.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, but Constantine made a certian sect of Christianity the favored religion of Rome.

Who said this? Eusebius? No, the bishops decided that Arianism was heretical and anathema to the Church. The bishops, not Constantine.

This made Christianity a religion for the oppressors, not the oppressed, and caused all sorts of selfish and power seeking people to go into the Church.

So it's better off that the Edict of Toleration permitting open Christian worship be rescinded? Sorry, I'm not buying it. People make Constantine out to be more than he is in failing to understand how the Church worked back in those days.

[Ben Kenobi]

That "sect" was the majority of the time's Christianity.

It's called Catholicism.

But I wholeheartily agree that Constantine corrupted the Church. Not in the silly Da Vinci Code conspiracy way, but in that he made the Church into a corrupted powermongering entity that we still today strive with.

Man, it's a good thing that Luther stripped away all those monasteries so that the Danes got them.

Christianity was a powerful force of good until Constantine, after him it was the small reform movements scattered around that kept the fire alive, often procecuted by the official Church.

So Arianism was a small reform movement? It contradicts the fact that Christ has both a human and divine nature.