J
jimraboin
Guest
Have been reading more early fathers material recently. Many if not most believe Constantine was a "Christian of sorts" not seeing or unwilling to believe what Constantine thought of himself.
Did you know he thought he was the 13th and supreme apostle? He was superior to original twelve and the center of Christian religion.
And yet again it is shown in what seems at this distance his Conceit, sublime in its unconsciousness in reckoning himself a sort of thirteenth, but, it would seem, a facile princeps apostle, in the disposition for his burial, "anticipating with extraordinary fervor of faith that his body would share their title with the apostles themselves. ...He accordingly caused twelve coffins to be set up in this church, like sacred pillars, in honor and memory of the apostolic number, in the centre of which his own was placed, having six of theirs on either side of it" (V. C. 4. 60). One can seem to read in this a whole history of unblushing flattery, and it reminds that Eunapius (Vic. oedes. p. 41) has spoken of his pleasure in the stimulant of "intoxicating flattery."(Chp 2, 5(b) par 5)
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-25.htm#TopOfPage
Constantine was not a man in submission to the God of Israel. He was a man who made himself the center of it. One must ask. If he inserted himself in the center of Christianity in his mind and actions, then who was displaced from it?
And don't lose sight of his desire for praise and flattery. Many of you will not accept that Constantine was "worshipped" as a divinity. Yet your own personal refusal to admit as much is in stark contrast to early writings from contemporaries.
Consider this from the same address. In fact, everything in this post will come from the same source.
But success with men and popularity seem to have opened that pitfall of success,-Vanity,-and it is charged that he fell thereinto, although there is testimony to the exact contrary. According to Victor (Epit. p. 51) he was "immeasurably greedy of praise." (Chp 2, 5(b) par 5)
Most of you know and recognize Eusebius was a contemporary of Constantine. But did you know he was also a close personal friend and close advisor/Councelor to him?
“Hosius and Eusebius were his(Constantine’s) friends and counselors.” (Chp 2 par 7)
Doesn't the nature of things suggest that a friend of a man who was greedy for praise would have to be willing amiably to render it? If not, then Constantine would not have been so eager to embrace Eusebius or let him into his inner circle. A modern example could be Iraq' emperor. He has ultimate power. He is praised and worshipped. And he is willing to use force on anyone who opposes his will. So consider him for a second. What kind of man would you suppose he would allow as his closest friend and advisor? The same goes for Constantine.
Constantine had ultimate power. He even went so far and thought he was infallible in everything he thought and did.
Consider:
“Real power, recognizing its own success, glad of the recognition of others, not at bottom because of cold vanity, but from warm appreciation of human friendliness, became through success in carrying out what seemed to him, and were, divine plans, fired with the thought that he was the especial and necessary minister of God, that his thoughts and will were directly touched by the Divine Will and thus that whatever he thought or willed was infallible.” (Chp 2, 5(b) par 5)
Constantine was not a man in submission to a supposed Pope. He was a man who considered himself to be one. In fact, I propose Constantine is the very first Pope. That in him can be found everything necessary for a Pope. That he himself considered himself no less than head of all religions and that he went even further and received praise as if he were a god. That he was the "Divine Will" he so often mentions.
But was Constantine smart enough to create a new form of Christianity? Was he cunning enough mentally to reason out and manipulate it in a way that would set Rome on the throne? I think he was.
Consider:
“According to his biographer-friend, Constantine was even more conspicuous for the excellence of his psychical qualities than his physical (V. C. 1. 19). Among these qualities are natural intelligence (V. C. 1. 19), sound judgment (V. C. 1. 19), well-disciplined power of thought (Theoph. p. 29), and peculiarly, as might be expected from his eye and general energy, penetration (Theoph. p. 29). In respect of Education, it is said on the one hand that he "reaped the advantages of a liberal education" (V. C. 1. 19), and particularly that he was thoroughly trained in the art of reasoning” (Chp 2 par 4)
Motives. Constantine and Eusebius, I believe the facts show, conspired to hyjack Christianity from Israel by reconstructing it under Roman rule. His new form of Christianity we now know as Catholicism. The foundation for all institutional Christianity.
Who can deny this? Show me your historical rebuttal that will prove me a liar? More importantly, who of you will honestly embrace what history says by reconsidering your own beliefs? Willingly choosing to be deceived is far worse than being deceived through ignorance.
Jim
Did you know he thought he was the 13th and supreme apostle? He was superior to original twelve and the center of Christian religion.
And yet again it is shown in what seems at this distance his Conceit, sublime in its unconsciousness in reckoning himself a sort of thirteenth, but, it would seem, a facile princeps apostle, in the disposition for his burial, "anticipating with extraordinary fervor of faith that his body would share their title with the apostles themselves. ...He accordingly caused twelve coffins to be set up in this church, like sacred pillars, in honor and memory of the apostolic number, in the centre of which his own was placed, having six of theirs on either side of it" (V. C. 4. 60). One can seem to read in this a whole history of unblushing flattery, and it reminds that Eunapius (Vic. oedes. p. 41) has spoken of his pleasure in the stimulant of "intoxicating flattery."(Chp 2, 5(b) par 5)
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-25.htm#TopOfPage
Constantine was not a man in submission to the God of Israel. He was a man who made himself the center of it. One must ask. If he inserted himself in the center of Christianity in his mind and actions, then who was displaced from it?
And don't lose sight of his desire for praise and flattery. Many of you will not accept that Constantine was "worshipped" as a divinity. Yet your own personal refusal to admit as much is in stark contrast to early writings from contemporaries.
Consider this from the same address. In fact, everything in this post will come from the same source.
But success with men and popularity seem to have opened that pitfall of success,-Vanity,-and it is charged that he fell thereinto, although there is testimony to the exact contrary. According to Victor (Epit. p. 51) he was "immeasurably greedy of praise." (Chp 2, 5(b) par 5)
Most of you know and recognize Eusebius was a contemporary of Constantine. But did you know he was also a close personal friend and close advisor/Councelor to him?
“Hosius and Eusebius were his(Constantine’s) friends and counselors.” (Chp 2 par 7)
Doesn't the nature of things suggest that a friend of a man who was greedy for praise would have to be willing amiably to render it? If not, then Constantine would not have been so eager to embrace Eusebius or let him into his inner circle. A modern example could be Iraq' emperor. He has ultimate power. He is praised and worshipped. And he is willing to use force on anyone who opposes his will. So consider him for a second. What kind of man would you suppose he would allow as his closest friend and advisor? The same goes for Constantine.
Constantine had ultimate power. He even went so far and thought he was infallible in everything he thought and did.
Consider:
“Real power, recognizing its own success, glad of the recognition of others, not at bottom because of cold vanity, but from warm appreciation of human friendliness, became through success in carrying out what seemed to him, and were, divine plans, fired with the thought that he was the especial and necessary minister of God, that his thoughts and will were directly touched by the Divine Will and thus that whatever he thought or willed was infallible.” (Chp 2, 5(b) par 5)
Constantine was not a man in submission to a supposed Pope. He was a man who considered himself to be one. In fact, I propose Constantine is the very first Pope. That in him can be found everything necessary for a Pope. That he himself considered himself no less than head of all religions and that he went even further and received praise as if he were a god. That he was the "Divine Will" he so often mentions.
But was Constantine smart enough to create a new form of Christianity? Was he cunning enough mentally to reason out and manipulate it in a way that would set Rome on the throne? I think he was.
Consider:
“According to his biographer-friend, Constantine was even more conspicuous for the excellence of his psychical qualities than his physical (V. C. 1. 19). Among these qualities are natural intelligence (V. C. 1. 19), sound judgment (V. C. 1. 19), well-disciplined power of thought (Theoph. p. 29), and peculiarly, as might be expected from his eye and general energy, penetration (Theoph. p. 29). In respect of Education, it is said on the one hand that he "reaped the advantages of a liberal education" (V. C. 1. 19), and particularly that he was thoroughly trained in the art of reasoning” (Chp 2 par 4)
Motives. Constantine and Eusebius, I believe the facts show, conspired to hyjack Christianity from Israel by reconstructing it under Roman rule. His new form of Christianity we now know as Catholicism. The foundation for all institutional Christianity.
Who can deny this? Show me your historical rebuttal that will prove me a liar? More importantly, who of you will honestly embrace what history says by reconsidering your own beliefs? Willingly choosing to be deceived is far worse than being deceived through ignorance.
Jim
) decided to renounce all I had ever learned from my childhood up about my faith and convert to Catholicism, would that not be an audacious use of private judgement on my part? An act of judgement must be the ultimate foundation of all our beliefs.