How do you explain the Trinity to kids?

[revsdd]

Many believe that Constantine marked the fall of the true Christianity, when he turned it into a religion of the sword. My personal beliefs is that he did influence the altering of the Bible, he had the means and the motive. And Dan Brown, btw, has never influenced my belief structures.

Watch this video by Greg Boyd on Constantine's Pagan influence on Christianity. Do you disagree?

I never said that Constantine didn't influence Christianity. I said he had little to no interest in the canon. His interest was christology and his interest was certainly political and possibly theological. The speculation that his Christian faith was insincere rests on the assumption that it was politically advantageous for him to be a Christian and to be seen being a Christian - which, in the rough and tumble world of Roman imperial politics, is certainly a questionable proposition.

Constantine's influence on christological developments may have been more significant than any influence he could have exerted over the canon, which - as I pointed out - was largely (if informally) already in place by Nicaea. And I'm among those who have sincere doubt that Constantine's influence was positive. It opened the door to Christianity becoming the imperial religion, with great temporal power (some vestiges of which we still have) which is not at all what Christianity, in my view, was ever meant to be. "My kingdom is not of this world," Jesus said. I get frustrated when Christians lament our loss of secular power (as if it's right gor Christianity to have secular power) or declare this or that nation to be or have been a "Christian" nation. There is no such beast.

I haven't watched the video you posted, largely because I don't need to be convinced of constantinian/pagan influence over the early church. No Christian with even a shred of knowledge about church history should need to be convinced about that.

As to your personal belief that Constantine influenced the canon - it is just that: a personal belief without a shred of historical evidence to back it up. But it sounds good, and now you've posted it on the internet so some people will read it and say "I saw it on the internet so it must be true." Constantine was not interested in canon (which was already largely set) but in christology, which could be debated largely by reference to what was already accepted as canon - primarily the Gospels ( yes, by Constantine's time there was already a broad consensus about the four canonical gospels) and the pauline letters, and with reference to the various doctrinal positions already set out.

And, I also didn't say you were influenced by Dan Brown. I said that your position is "Dan Brown-ish" (ie, a nice conspiracy theory without a historical basis) except that Brown knew he was writing fiction and you apparently don't realize that you are as well. And I said that people love anything that sounds like a conspiracy theory, so many believe Brown was writing history.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Although there may have been (and I stress the may) political advantage to Constantine in his policy of growing tolerance toward Christianity - as I said in my comments on revjohn's thesis, there were both advantages and disadvantages - the argument that Constantine adopted Christianity only as an expedient because Christianity was growing strikes me as weak. It could just as easily be that Constantine was simply among those who sincerely adopted Christianity (his mother was a Christian, after all, and may have influenced him) - which was, after all, growing. Many were becoming Christians. Why couldn't Constantine have been one of them?

Constantine wasn't, in my understanding, a humble ruler. It seems to me that Constantine was a warrior - and he applied some of what he believed about pagan warrior sun worship and made a new religion in the name of Christianity. He killed his son and his wife (who was his son's step-mother and is said to have set up his son). Did he sincerely embrace Christianity or change it to fit the Roman paradigm?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Constantine was like another version of Paul. History repeats itself.

 

[revsdd]

About a year ago my husband and I got a way too long DVD series documentary out of the library about the Roman Empire - way too long because there were a whole bunch of painful to watch reenactments of Roman battles and conquests and that got a little boring for me - but it did mention that Constantine legalized Christian worship but not without incorporating Sol Invictus - creating kind of a Roman Universalism you could say - but it was a move to unify the people under Roman control. And he converted to Christianity - but with his own take on it - calling on the name of Christ in battle instead of the previous pagan gods. So he may not have influenced canon, but he called the Council together with others of influence - I don't remember all the names of all the rulers but what stood out is that there were a lot of barbaric turf wars, over religion and geography - and since Roman pagan symbolism made its way into the Bible and Christian tradition, it seems quite likely that he or other Roman authorities of his time did have some influence on the NT. Especially if he ruled before Hippo Regius came along, don't you think? It means some of his influence would be laying the groundwork for the acknowledgement of those 27 documents later.

Kimmio, canon was largely set by Constantine's time. We know that by which writings were being cited as authoritative. A rough estimate is that at least 21 of the 27 books were already accepted without question, with the remainder being among the less important books (with the exception of possibly Hebrews.) The canon debate, in other words, was largely over by Nicaea, which was called to deal with christology, not canon. Christology, with the church growing in influence and Constantine giving it more and more freedom, had the potential to create great trouble in the Empire. No emperor wanted that, so Constantine sought to stamp out the christological debate by establishing what the "Christian" position on the nature of Christ was. And the Roman authorities of Constantine's time were largely pagan with little personal interest in the church, which did not enhance Constantine's position once he began to "tolerate" the church and move toward a personal Christian faith - which itself was a blend of paganism/Christianity. But, of course, 1600 years later we still have no universally accepted litmus test for what a Christian is or what a Christian must believe.

 

[revsdd]

Constantine wasn't, in my understanding, a humble ruler. It seems to me that Constantine was a warrior - and he applied some of what he believed about pagan warrior sun worship and made a new religion in the name of Christianity. He killed his son and his wife (who was his son's step-mother and is said to have set up his son). Did he sincerely embrace Christianity or change it to fit the Roman paradigm?

We don't know the answer to your closing question for sure. I don't believe that Constantine's move toward being a Christian was an advantage for him in Roman imperial politics. Therefore I believe that he believed what he believed, and his tolerance of the church suggested that Christianity was factored into his belief system - sun worship being part of what he believed, but which WAS NOT adopted by Christianity. He did some nasty things - you're right about his son and his wife - but Rome was a bloodthirsty society. He wasn't the worst or most bloodthirsty of the emperors.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I don't see how, with the migration of peoples, languages and cultures, that other religions could not have influenced Christianity, and vice versa, wherever two cultures converged and lived in proximity. It doesn't make any sense that it would not happen.

 

[revsdd]

I don't see how, with the migration of peoples, languages and cultures, that other religions could not have influenced Christianity, and vice versa, wherever two cultures converged and lived in proximity. It doesn't make any sense that it would not happen.

No one has said that other religions didn't influence Christianity.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

We don't know the answer to your closing question for sure. I don't believe that Constantine's move toward being a Christian was an advantage for him in Roman imperial politics. Therefore I believe that he believed what he believed, and his tolerance of the church suggested that Christianity was factored into his belief system - sun worship being part of what he believed, but which WAS NOT adopted by Christianity. He did some nasty things - you're right about his son and his wife - but Rome was a bloodthirsty society. He wasn't the worst or most bloodthirsty of the emperors.

Well, the sun god was a warrior god, and Constantine turned Christ into his warrior God, by calling on his name in battle. At least, that's what I learned. I don't think his approach was what Jesus was about. In that way, he could more easily convince the Roman people to accept Christianity, and reign in the conflicts. Which was a smart political move and pretty progressive for that time period. I'm sure he sincerely believed what he was doing was right but in retrospect - I think he radically changed Christianity into something that wasn't Jesus' original intent. Or, took it a lot further from Jesus' original intent. I believe what Jesus practiced was of a branch of Judaism that looked nothing like what Romans turned Christianity into. I'm not sure that what we've come to know as Christian doctrine is anything Jesus himself would've endorsed in his day.

 

[revsdd]

Well, the sun god was a warrior god, and Constantine turned Christ into his warrior God, by calling on his name in battle. At least, that's what I learned. I don't think his approach was what Jesus was about. In that way, he could more easily convince the Roman people to accept Christianity, and reign in the conflicts. Which was a smart political move and pretty progressive for that time period. I'm sure he sincerely believed what he was doing was right but in retrospect - I think he radically changed Christianity into something that wasn't Jesus' original intent. Or, took it a lot further from Jesus' original intent. I believe what Jesus practiced was of a branch of Judaism that looked nothing like what Romans turned Christianity into. I'm not sure that what we've come to know as Christian doctrine is anything Jesus himself would've endorsed in his day.

I wouldn't disagree with you on that. Once Christianity became a largely "Gentile" faith it would have taken on a character different than anything Jesus would have known.

Incidentally, on the question of sun worship and back to the original point of the thread, here's another analogy I've used for the trinity:

Sun = Father
Light from sun = Christ/Son
Heat we feel when light from sun hits us = Holy Spirit

All exist only because the others exist, none could exist without the others existing.

 

[Luce NDs]

"We don't know the answer of a closing question?"

Thats' sah pal ling lye elusive as throwing a pall over anything you don't wish to consider, thus indicating, perhaps the extent of what we don't know by choice as many will not dig lesser sources of intellect ... Bottom S' Line or the loo aspect of Buddha conception, or how quick we are to screw up our budding friends to preserve our owned values ... avoiding Eros of share'n by all means that are physical ... while thoughts and intelligence take flight ... angelic sparks of insight for a perspective out there!

In short red*action, the blanketing of any wisdom in a fabrication because of the Aeropagus Heresy? What's aero*pagus? Consider comparing pagus and pagan with pig'n at the plateau ... not as table to the olego*AT (ole-o?) and Noble rushes couldn't stand the pagan or common demos ... the population of people of the earth below those with aero's curse ... that coming down from monarchal distaste for lesser beings and powers ... judy*ans?

This may also be naught what IT appears and the dumbing down just before ends! Ends? Can the collective surroundings continue the way it is? So the contrived fabrication has to be unraveled ... some revelling may be noted from those taking flight as un-seen angelicas ... invisible goingson! The mystery of the mid night sun, or Shadow dan' sings?

This may lead deux mends and a love to die for (connecting of 2 halve naughts) as you come face to face with all eliminated intellect during life and begin reading Classic Thoöm for the ups and downs ... on being intelligent enough to care enough for disposed thoughts under rules carried out in the Star Chamber about what they'dlike naught to be aware of and thus re*ad sales in the sun setups for those of us razing thoughts ... just to see what's intuit other that quick recession if you expect to avoid deis wrath of de hei rupts! Thus outer space is for de bur nin ethers! when neither half alone knows without soulful conjunction sometimes with reek OEm 'n! The carding-out of entanglements ... source of the Jacque card loom and the under whirr led weaving as superb souls are not to be up here ... a case for preserving the Downs (at least half of the a' moor thingy)!

Is a truly emotional religion (irrational) from a rational humanist perspective (that has a prerequisite of minor learning and infantile gods) causing a schism between those that wish infants and those that do not in a divined or separated consideration that may verge in a domain of pondering copying the demonic (c=ish) activity of Jack, or screwing up to learn anything in a whirr-eld state of those that believe the commoners don't knee'd to ghoe ... knoe? This deviates with linguistic tradition but is often unspoken as ineffable!

 

[Luce NDs]

Was Jae Su then a rebel or a rogue-8 ... opposing the opening of heavens-gate to the sacred garden in contemplation or what an individual contemplates about heaven*skating around the issue of po'folks or pagans ... that the noble hierarchy would like to eliminate through elevated heir anarchy a hairy situation that is exceptional in Kaballah in which continuum Eire demand s fuzzy logic ... or the probe of what we don't know ... intercourse with the cause*Moös sometimes considered illegal Muse 'n about things that lesser peoples hould consider ... according to one (singular) perspective! A spective point?

 

[redhead]

true John, evidence is important - science is also important in verifying facts. One of the difficulties is oral tradition and not writing - I would suggest that this is the case with both Zoroastrian and Judaic traditions. Therefore dating traditions, at best, is difficult. And explaining influence is also difficult. But looking at regions, similarities in ideology can explain influence - and agreement between people of diverging cultures

 

[redhead]

I try really hard to understand what you post Loose Ends, but sometimes I fail at sorting it out sincere apologies honestly

 

[chansen]

The Pagan roots of the bible go way back before Constantine, and before the NT. The NT just tries to shoehorn the Jesus myth to fit the OT prophesies in order to give it more credibility. Because we're dealing with fragments of old manuscripts, and nothing that could be considered "original" (whatever that means in this case), I doubt we'll ever get past conjecture about any original canon, and conjecture about the motives of leaders who may or may not have fundamentally altered the bible to suit their agendas.

What we do know is that faiths have been invented and altered by charismatic leaders before, and not exactly for altruistic reasons. I don't see why Christianity would be immune to that.

 

[Luce NDs]

I try really hard to understand what you post Loose Ends, but sometimes I fail at sorting it out sincere apologies honestly

I'yam an apologetic Christian .. always sorry to be here for there must be another side to fixed logic ... one that creeps the fixated out?

This is possibly un-orthodox to those are institutionalized about other's thoughts! yet-I am not allowed to say this publically under certain noble rules of the Star Chamber!

 

[Luce NDs]

Thus po' ethics ... lesser than tautological tense states?

 

[redhead]

loose ends - I am not critical of what you post - sometimes, and I really do try - I don't understand

 

[Neo]

Incidentally, on the question of sun worship and back to the original point of the thread, here's another analogy I've used for the trinity:

Sun = Father
Light from sun = Christ/Son
Heat we feel when light from sun hits us = Holy Spirit

All exist only because the others exist, none could exist without the others existing.

Which is a similar analogy as I quoted above, from the 1925 book, A Treatise on Cosmic Fire:

.. This triple solar system can be described in terms of three aspects, or (as the Christian theology puts it) in terms of three Persons.

ELECTRIC FIRE, or SPIRIT
1st Person - Father, Life, Will, Purpose, Positive energy.

SOLAR FIRE, or SOUL
2nd Person - Son, Consciousness, Love-Wisdom, Equilibrized energy.

FIRE BY FRICTION (Body or Matter)
3rd Person - Holy Spirit, Form, Active Intelligence, Negative energy..

 

[Hermann]

The Pagan roots of the bible go way back before Constantine, and before the NT. The NT just tries to shoehorn the Jesus myth to fit the OT prophesies in order to give it more credibility. Because we're dealing with fragments of old manuscripts, and nothing that could be considered "original" (whatever that means in this case), I doubt we'll ever get past conjecture about any original canon, and conjecture about the motives of leaders who may or may not have fundamentally altered the bible to suit their agendas.

What we do know is that faiths have been invented and altered by charismatic leaders before, and not exactly for altruistic reasons. I don't see why Christianity would be immune to that.

I agree with chansen, for a change. (Actually, I agree with him most of the time. Our disagreements are mere semantics.)

The canonical gospels were written decades after Paul, and appear to be attempts to cement Pauline/Roman Christianity into a coherent structure. Roman Christianity then got further support by various Roman Emperors, and by the Holy Roman Emperors of the Middle Ages, and became a tool of imperialist expansion. This was the main reason Roman Catholicism became the predominant religion of Europe, as well as those countries that were conquered by European powers.

 

[revjohn]

Did he sincerely embrace Christianity or change it to fit the Roman paradigm?

This is a good question.

Does anybody really care what the answer might be?

Because if they do there is evidence which makes it plain that the key writings (scripture) and key (doctrines) theology were embraced and underway before Constantine became involved.

There is also evidence that the majority of ecumenical councils called over the years met without much interference or direction from Imperial authorities.

There is also ample evidence from the material we have coming out of each ecumenical conference as to what the precipitating issue for each council was. Much to the chagrin of conspiricists.

There is no question that becoming a state religion meant Christianity would no longer be persecuted and that Christianity would have more influence than other religions in the area. Human beings being what they are we see both the benevolence of the good and malevolence of the evil in any and every system that human being can get their fingers on.

That includes Christianity.

And you don't need anyone like Constantine around to prove that is so.

Writings of early Church patriarchs survived varying levels of persecution by Roman emperors up until Constantine signed the Edict of Milan in 313 AD. Because the persecution was not uniform in degree or even uniformly applied across all precincts of the Roman Empire we have copies of material written in the areas where persecution was heaviest.

But we can ignore that if it gets in the way of pet theories.