Replies

Traditional history says he became a Christian. According to The primary Christian text, the Bible, becoming a Christian in practice of the Apostles as shown in the Acts was a three part deal - confession of faith from belief, baptism in water, and finally Baptism of spirit. Three things. The traditional propaganda is that he was baptised before he died - one of three. One of the three, I might add, noted by the same historian that was as liable to make up history as report it and is so rebuked by historians for the noteable examples he produced of such. Thus the claim is unsupportable by contemporanious witness other than said
flimsy testimony of said less than reputeable so called historian. Zeal and good story telling are no substitute for facts. And the facts are that the man had himself interred after pagan fashion to make himself a "god" in the afterlife. Not the act of a christian; but, historically accurate. Two very well known points among the historians.

meeting one criteria in three if it could be supported outside of Eusebius doesn't meet the Practice of the Apostles in what they not only preached but practiced as the road to becoming a Christian. It is therefore less likely he was. Adding to this that he clung to his pagan
practices throughout his life - even after he was presumed to have been baptised and was enterred in pagan ceremonies rather than Christian ceremonies - his own acts betray the traditions a fraud.

Indeed, Constantines life betrays other facts that seem to be ignored as they are inconvenient. Catholicism views Arianism (pre wwII) as heretical. Yet, Constantine favored the Arians. His top advisors were Arians - even Eusebius himself was an Arian if memory serves (how many touche's are we at right now?) Factually, He fought for the arians in conference by trying to get other factions to tone down their rhetoric and compromise on terminology that would allow for Arian views to coexist with others - ie, he was more about harmony than about being correct. One only need look at the language differences in what he proposed to understand he was a liberal seeking pacifism in the name of unity of empire. My History books say the Donatists were killed not because they were heretical; but because they were Christian. And the man who carried out their slaughter was not acting for constantine and empire; but, against both, for which he was made to answer. Alas, the traditional fabrication is the opposite, painting the intolerant man as a pawn of Constantine who was acting from some righteous protectionism of Christianity.. couldn't be farther from the truth. Of course, It would be better if I could get my buddy across town over here to further lay the record bare, he can do it from memory better than I can because he's spent the better part of 30 years studying Constantine. He thinks Constantine was a brilliant Pagan strategist.

Every historian worth his oats knows that Eusebius' tale of the vision 'paint a cross on your shields' garbage is precisely nothing less than the fictions of Eusebius being spun. The fact is it was common practice in war to adorn ones shields as a battle tactic. Armies attacking Egypt were known in cases to tie dead cats to their shields or paint cats on their shields because the cat was sacred to Egypt and a good egyptian would not dare strike a cat or it's image. Just as Christians would not dare strike an image of a cross due to the superstitions that abounded in those times. It was a tactic, not of divine inspiration but of tried and true battle strategy.

Shall I quote my favorite author on Eusebius an his practices again? I know you've seen it before and though it's a page and a half, I don't mind typing it up again.

All in all, a man who spent his life murdering his family including his own son and then has a flash of wisdom at death that he must only be baptised then turns right back to his pagan ways doesn't cry out 'this man is christian'.
The Bible refers to that as a falling away if it indeed ever happened to begin with - the which I would most highly doubt along with other historians who are just as dubious on the matter.

Given the facts as they are known, and knowing they don't
lead one to the notion that he was a christian in any way.
absent the fanciful traditions, one must invoke probability
and consider the likelyhood. The facts do not support the fanciful traditions... any more than killing the chosen people of God (the israelites) could then make the Aryans of WWII Germany God's chosen. Doesn't matter where the fanciful story comes from. If it doesn't align with the facts, it doesn't matter a hill of beans how you argue it.
the facts win - not the fanciful stories. The Aryans weren't and arent the "master race" and Constantine was about as Christian as Tommy Daschle is a Republican. But given the right spin on things, I'm sure in a hundred years, someone might be able, absent the facts to make Daschle the first american Pope - Funny and terrifying at the same time isn't it.

No, Constantine was a Christian, at least at the time of his death. He was a great benefactor of the Church: beyond the Edict of Milan, he built the Empire a new capital with no pagan temple and many Christian Churches, "New Rome" he called it, but it became known as Constantinople. And he called the First Ecumenical Council to settle the Arian controversy, and accepted the results, despite evidence he personally favored Arius. Thus we see in him, despite having qualities which would incline one to pride--military genius, political skill, and great wordly power--humility when approaching theology. He accepted the outcome, despite his predispositions.

You have your own very text-centered notion of Christian orthodoxy. Surely you would recognize as a worthy Christian one who laid aside his erroneous or non-Christian preconceptions to accept and to be obedient to the text of Scripture. For those of us, both Orthodox and Latin, who regard the Holy Ecumenical Councils as establishing the canon of Scripture, obedience to the Ecumenical Councils is worthy in the same way, and indeed constitutes a very practical confession of faith--an unbeliever in the same position would surely have tried to bias the council as many heretical emperors did in the case of later councils.

You also forget that the understanding that in Christ forgiveness is available even for post-baptismal sins was not well established at St. Constantine's time. Regarding the state-craft of his day as a likely occasion for sin, he delayed baptism until near death. As to "baptism of the Spirit" the conferring of the gift of the Holy Spirit in the Mystery of Chrismation immediately after the Mystery of Baptism and before the reception of the Eucharist was established very early. The record that St. Constantine was baptized thus suffices on your third point.