Damaged section of the Arch of ConstantineColosseum Archaeological Park
Posted on 09/06/2024 2:00:03 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
According to a Reuters report, Rome's triumphal Arch of Constantine was struck by lightning during a storm that also felled trees and flooded streets, as more than two inches of rain fell in less than an hour. Staff from the nearby Colosseum Archaeological Park retrieved blocks of stone and rubble found on the ground around the monument after the lightning strike. The 82-foot-tall arch was constructed to celebrate the victory of Constantine the Great over Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in A.D. 312.
(Excerpt) Read more at archaeology.org ...
Damaged section of the Arch of ConstantineColosseum Archaeological Park
Well that’s kind of ominous. Wonder what the Romans would’ve said.
Glad it wasn’t struck too badly!
https://archaeology.org/issues/march-april-2022/features/rome-constantine-arch/
I like clicking the links in the articles....The part about Nero [Sol Invictus] added a new perspective for me...
Things like this were destroyed by lightning occasionally during Roman times. Lightening rods now protect most structures nowadays.
The lightning strike is because Zeus is pissed he wants a few more cross burnings, some more wine and cheese offerings, and don’t forget the wild women.
The 82-foot-tall arch was constructed to celebrate the victory of Constantine the Great over Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in A.D. 312.Only a couple of minutes before I saw this thread/news, I had been thinking about Constantine. Not exactly someone who comes to mind very often, yet here he was, again, mere seconds later. 🤔
The context of the thoughts had to do with the Nicene Creed, now in its 1700th year. Here's that and the above date, all rolled together in one place:
Although Constantine lived much of his life as a pagan and later as a catechumen, he began to favour Christianity beginning in 312, finally becoming a Christian and being baptised by Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian bishop, although the Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church maintain that he was baptised by Pope Sylvester I. He played an influential role in the proclamation of the Edict of Milan in 313, which declared tolerance for Christianity in the Roman Empire. He convoked the First Council of Nicaea in 325 which produced the statement of Christian belief known as the Nicene Creed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Milvian_Bridge#Vision_of_Constantine
The thought was more of a passing question, as in what would have to happen to upend literally 1700 years of settled doctrine. Doctrinal debates certainly don't accomplish anything useful, or they would have done so already. Therefore, nobody but nobody is going to battle 1700 years-worth of established beliefs (much less anything more ancient than that) by using the doctrinal debate methodology, because every debater already knows everything already. They're only there to make other people see the light.
Anyway, I then sat down to peruse the news, and discovered that
Rome's triumphal Arch of Constantine was struck by lightning during a storm that also felled trees and flooded streets, as more than two inches of rain fell in less than an hour.
Constantine was in trouble at the Milvian bridge and sought the God of the Christians for mercy.
Smart move—it worked out swimmingly.
Shame it wasn’t Titus’s arch. I’d love for it to be destroyed by act of G-d.
veni vidi vidi cucurri...............
Does not augur well.
Climbing near the summit of a mountain in New Hampshire, I sat down to rest before tackling the next (and tough) two hundred feet.
Looking at a ten foot depression at my feet, I was astonished to see SAND near the summit of this mountain.
A geologist would tell me THAT was a function of millions of years of lightning strikes...
I ate at a McDonald’s in Trastevere near where my mother and grandmother used to live. I hope those arches are okay.
The Nicene Creed in use today does not date from the First Council of Nicaea in 325 but from the First Council of Constantinople in 381. They are similar but there are a number of differences. The Western churches made a later insertion into the 381 creed, adding Filioque ("and from the Son") to the original text.
It is a product of both councils (as well as some later refining). That is why it is more accurately called "the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed." "Nicene Creed" is just kind of shorthand since no one wants to go around saying "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed."
It’ll buff out. The Eye-ties have had extensive experience piecing old historical monuments back together.
In 1527, when Michelangelo’s statue of David was standing outside the Medici palace (just where the replica now stands), someone* threw a chair out of a palace window and broke his left arm in three places. But they mended it so expertly that the damage isn’t noticeable today.
* One story claims this was the result of a cat fight between two of the Medici famously volatile women. YMMV.
:^)
Constantine was baptised an ARIAN, not a Catholic-Orthodox Christian - his belief system (the Arian) was opposed to the Nicene creed.
Although Constantine deserves credit for ceasing persecution of the Church by the Roman state, and although his mother St Helena was a lifelong devout Catholic, he was certainly no friend of the Catholic Church. He himself followed his father Constantus worshipping the many pagan gods, and became a sun-worshipper.
He favored Arianism in opposition to Catholicism - seeing Arianism as more tractable to influence by the emperor.
He used State funds to pay the travel expenses for all the bishops to travel to Nicea for a Council at which he hoped they would embrace Arianism. Instead they roundly condemned it and reiterated traditional Catholic doctrines, with only two dissenters. Expressing this by writing the Nicene Creed.
Constantine continued to favour Arians against Catholics, and eventually just before his death, he was baptised a Christian, but an Arian, not a Catholic.
Constantine’s grandson and successor as Emperor Julian the Apostate did everything he could, short of outright persecution, to suppress Christianity and promote paganism, and even tried to rebuild the Jewish Temple to restart Temple Judaism, not out of love for Judaism but just hatred of Christianity.
The historical reality is that the Church first called itself Catholic around c110AD (Ignatius of Antioch). The usage is almost certainly older - Ignatius gives no hint that his use of the term is either novel or controversial.
Back then they didn't recognize the need for good arch support.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
