Replies

The History on Constantine speaks for itself when looking at the actual FACTS instead of the Popular notions.

OK, fine. Please expand.

Which facts definitively tell you that Constantine was not a Christian? Constantine has been considered a Christian since his death by those who recorded his times.

How can you compare a 1500+ year traditional historical interpretation with Afrocentric mumbo jumbo that was created in the past 50 years to further a political agenda?

How can you state "Constantine was not a Christian" and then say that your statement has nothing to do with religion?

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.

AH, cum'om...Have a Happy Kwanza..........

Well, you know these intellectually-superior nihilists. They can't get through breakfast without trolling for an argument with the faithful.