Some comments on Christmas

[juantoo3]

Picking up where I left off, now that we seem to be on more stable footing, I will attend the rest as convenient as I am at work and have other duties pending.

From the wiki about Constantine:

In February 313, Constantine met with Licinius in Milan, where they developed the Edict of Milan. The edict stated that Christians should be allowed to follow the faith without oppression.[216] This removed penalties for professing Christianity, under which many had been martyred previously, and returned confiscated Church property. The edict protected from religious persecution not only Christians but all religions, allowing anyone to worship whichever deity they chose. A similar edict had been issued in 311 by Galerius, then senior emperor of the Tetrarchy; Galerius' edict granted Christians the right to practise their religion but did not restore any property to them.[217] The Edict of Milan included several clauses which stated that all confiscated churches would be returned as well as other provisions for previously persecuted Christians.

Scholars debate whether Constantine adopted his mother St. Helena's Christianity in his youth, or whether he adopted it gradually over the course of his life.[218] Constantine possibly retained the title of pontifex maximus, a title emperors bore as heads of the ancient Roman religion priesthood until Gratian (r. 375–383) renounced the title.[219][220] According to Christian writers, Constantine was over 40 when he finally declared himself a Christian, writing to Christians to make clear that he believed he owed his successes to the protection of the Christian High God alone.[221] Throughout his rule, Constantine supported the Church financially, built basilicas, granted privileges to clergy (e.g. exemption from certain taxes), promoted Christians to high office, and returned property confiscated during the Diocletianic persecution.[222] His most famous building projects include the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and Old Saint Peter's Basilica.

In 321, he legislated that the venerable day of the sun should be a day of rest for all citizens.[224] In the year 323, he issued a decree banning Christians from participating in state sacrifices[225] Furthermore, Constantine's coinage continued to carry the symbols of the sun. After the pagan gods had disappeared from his coinage, Christian symbols appeared as Constantine's attributes: the chi rho between his hands or on his labarum,[226] as well on the coin itself.[227]

The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the emperor as having great influence and ultimate regulatory authority within the religious discussions involving the early Christian councils of that time, e.g., most notably the dispute over Arianism. Constantine himself disliked the risks to societal stability that religious disputes and controversies brought with them, preferring where possible to establish an orthodoxy.[228] His influence over the early Church councils was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity; what proper worship and doctrines and dogma consisted of was for the Church to determine, in the hands of the participating bishops.[229]

Constantine enforced the prohibition of the First Council of Nicaea against celebrating the Lord's Supper on the day before the Jewish Passover (14 Nisan) (see Quartodecimanism and Easter controversy). This marked a definite break of Christianity from the Judaic tradition. From then on the Roman Julian Calendar, a solar calendar, was given precedence over the lunisolar Hebrew Calendar among the Christian churches of the Roman Empire.[231]

Constantine made some new laws regarding the Jews, but while some of his edicts were unfavorable towards Jews, they were not harsher than those of his predecessors.[232] It was made illegal for Jews to seek converts or to attack other Jews who had converted to Christianity.[232] They were forbidden to own Christian slaves or to circumcise their slaves.[233][234] On the other hand, Jewish clergy were given the same exemptions as Christian clergy.[232][235]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great

Still trying to find the specific reference, but what is here serves well to validate a great deal of my position.

Quartodecimanism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartodecimanism

 

[juantoo3]

Really, really warm:

Chapter XVIII.—He speaks of their Unanimity respecting the Feast of Easter, and against the Practice of the Jews.

“At this meeting the question concerning the most holy day of Easter was discussed, and it was resolved by the united judgment of all present, that this feast ought to be kept by all and in every place on one and the same day. For what can be more becoming or honorable to us than that this feast from which we date our hopes of immortality, should be observed unfailingly by all alike, according to one ascertained order and arrangement? And first of all, it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul. For we have it in our power, if we abandon their custom, to prolong the due observance of this ordinance to future ages, by a truer order, which we have preserved from the very day of the passion until the present time. Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way. A course at once legitimate and honorable lies open to our most holy religion. Beloved brethren, let us with one consent adopt this course, and withdraw ourselves from all participation in their baseness.[1] For their boast is absurd indeed, that it is not in our power without instruction from them to observe these things. For how should they be capable of forming a sound judgment, who, since their parricidal guilt in slaying their Lord, have been subject to the direction, not of reason, but of ungoverned passion, and are swayed by every impulse of the mad spirit that is in them? Hence it is that on this point as well as others they have no perception of the truth, so that, being altogether ignorant of the true adjustment of this question, they sometimes celebrate Easter twice in the same year. Why then should we follow those who are confessedly in grievous error? Surely we shall never consent to keep this feast a second time in the same year. But supposing these reasons were not of sufficient weight, still it would be incumbent on your Sagacities[2] to strive and pray continually that the purity of your souls may not seem in anything to be sullied by fellowship with the customs of these most wicked men. We must consider, too, that a discordant judgment in a case of such importance, and respecting such religious festival, is wrong. For our Saviour has left us one feast in commemoration of the day of our deliverance, I mean the day of his most holy passion; and he has willed that his Catholic Church should be one, the members of which, however scattered in many and diverse places, are yet cherished by one pervading spirit, that is, by the will of God. And let your Holinesses’ sagacity reflect how grievous and scandalous it is that on the self-same days some should be engaged in fasting, others in festive enjoyment; and again, that after the days of Easter some should be present at banquets and amusements, while others are fulfilling the appointed fasts. It is, then, plainly the will of Divine Providence (as I suppose you all clearly see), that this usage should receive fitting correction, and be reduced to one uniform rule.

Eusebius, The Life of Constantine/Book III
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nice...e/The_Life_of_Constantine/Book_III/Chapter_18

 

[juantoo3]

The First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) declared that Easter was always to be held on a Sunday, and was not to coincide with a particular phase of the moon, which might occur on any day of the week. However, a new dispute arose as to the determination of the Sunday itself, since Sundays can occur on any date of the month. Shortly before the Nicean Council, in 314, the Provincial Council of Arles in Gaul had maintained that the Lord's Pasch should be observed on the same day throughout the world and that each year the Bishop of Rome should send out letters setting the date of Easter.[2]

The Syriac Christians always held their Easter festival on the Sunday after the Jews kept their Pesach. On the other hand, at Alexandria, and seemingly throughout the rest of the Roman Empire, the Christians calculated the time of Easter for themselves, paying no attention to the Jews. In this way the date of Easter as kept at Alexandria and Antioch did not always agree. The Jewish communities in some places, possibly including Antioch, used methods of fixing their month of Nisan that sometimes put the 14th day of Nisan before the spring equinox. The Alexandrians, on the other hand, accepted it as a first principle that the Sunday to be kept as Easter Day must necessarily occur after the equinox.

The Council of Nicaea ruled that all churches should follow a single rule for Easter, which should be computed independently of the Jewish calendar, as at Alexandria. However, it did not make any explicit ruling about the details of the computation, and it was several decades before the Alexandrine computations stabilized into their final form, and several centuries beyond that before they became normative throughout Christendom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_controversy

 

[juantoo3]

Found it:

From the Letter of the Emperor to all those not present at the Council. (Found in Eusebius, Vita Const., Lib. iii., 18-20.)

When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable, than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same manner? It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom[the calculation] of the Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom,(1) we may transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter, which we have observed from the time of the Saviour's Passion to the present day[according to the day of the week]. We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and more convenient course(the order of the days of the week); and consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such wicked people[the Jews]. Besides, consider well, that in such an important matter, and on a subject of such great solemnity, there ought not to be any division. Our Saviour has left us only one festal day of our redemption, that is to say, of his holy passion, and he desired[to establish] only one Catholic Church. Think, then, how unseemly it is, that on the same day some should be fasting whilst others are seated at a banquet; and that after Easter, some should be rejoicing at feasts, whilst others are still observing a strict fast. For this reason, a Divine Providence wills that this custom should be rectified and regulated in a uniform way; and everyone, I hope, will agree upon this point. As, on the one hand, it is our duty not to have anything in common with the murderers of our Lord; and as, on the other, the custom now followed by the Churches of the West, of the South, and of the North, and by some of those of the East, is the most acceptable, it has appeared good to all; and I have been guarantee for your consent, that you would accept it with joy, as it is followed at Rome, in Africa, in all Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, in all Achaia, and in the dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and Cilicia. You should consider not only that the number of churches in these provinces make a majority, but also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we should have nothing in common with the Jews. To sum up in few words: By the unanimous judgment of all, it has been decided that the most holy festival of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one and the same day, and it is not seemly that in so holy a thing there should be any division. As this is the state of the case, accept joyfully the divine favour, and this truly divine command; for all which takes place in assemblies of the bishops ought to be regarded as proceeding from the will of God. Make known to your brethren what has been decreed, keep this most holy day according to the prescribed mode; we can thus celebrate this holy Easter day at the same time, if it is granted me, as I desire, to unite myself with you; we can rejoice together, seeing that the divine power has made use of our instrumentality for destroying the evil designs of the devil, and thus causing faith, peace, and unity to flourish amongst us. May God graciously protect you, my beloved brethren.

http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/const1-easter.asp

I do not wish to highlight the offending part, let it at least remain buried in the middle of the text. It is here you will find Constantine's anti-Semitism given official sanction, and as already shown that clearly continued to Laodicea where it reached full fruition.

So, to your comment Thomas:

Where I'm coming from is that I think we can rule out the church celebrating the birth of Christ to assimilate or otherwise a pagan festival. It simply didn't do that kind of thing in the timeframe involved, it was zealous in resisting pagan influence.

I say perhaps, but it is pretty clear the church was even more zealous to separate from the influence of Messiah's native Judaism.

 

[juantoo3]

From the reign of Nero onwards, who is said by Tacitus to have blamed the Great Fire of Rome on Christians, Christianity was considered to be illegal and Christians were frequently subjected to persecution, differing regionally. Comparably, Judaism suffered the setbacks of the Jewish-Roman wars, remembered in the legacy of the Ten Martyrs. Robin Lane Fox traces the origin of much later hostility to the period of persecution, where the commonest test by the authorities of a suspected Christian was to require homage to be paid to the deified emperor. Jews were exempt from this requirement as long as they paid the Fiscus Judaicus, and Christians (many or mostly of Jewish origins) would say they were Jewish but refused to pay the tax. This had to be confirmed by the local Jewish authorities, who were likely to refuse to accept the Christians as Jewish, often leading to their execution.[15] The Birkat haMinim was often brought forward as support for this charge that the Jews were responsible for the Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire.[citation needed] In the 3rd century systematic persecution of Christians began and lasted until Constantine's conversion to Christianity.[citation needed] In 390 Theodosius I made Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire. While pagan cults and Manichaeism were suppressed, Judaism retained its legal status as a licit religion, though anti-Jewish violence still occurred. In the 5th century, some legal measures worsened the status of the Jews in the Roman Empire (now more properly called the Byzantine Empire since relocating to Constantinople).[citation needed]

After Paul's death, Christianity emerged as a separate religion, and Pauline Christianity emerged as the dominant form of Christianity, especially after Paul, James and the other apostles agreed on a compromise set of requirements.[Acts 15] Some Christians continued to adhere to aspects of Jewish law, but they were few in number and often considered heretics by the Church. One example is the Ebionites, who seem to have denied the virgin birth of Jesus, the physical Resurrection of Jesus, and most of the books that were later canonized as the New Testament. For example, the Ethiopian Orthodox still continue Old Testament practices such as the Sabbath. As late as the 4th century Church Father John Chrysostom complained that some Christians were still attending Jewish synagogues.

The Church Fathers identified Jews and Judaism with heresy and declared the people of Israel to be extra Deum (lat. "outside of God"). Saint Peter of Antioch referred to Christians that refused to worship religious images as having "Jewish minds".[21]

Patristic bishops of the patristic era such as Augustine argued that the Jews should be left alive and suffering as a perpetual reminder of their murder of Christ. Like his anti-Jewish teacher, St. Ambrose of Milan, he defined Jews as a special subset of those damned to hell. As "Witness People", he sanctified collective punishment for the Jewish deicide and enslavement of Jews to Catholics: "Not by bodily death, shall the ungodly race of carnal Jews perish ... 'Scatter them abroad, take away their strength. And bring them down O Lord'". Augustine claimed to "love" the Jews but as a means to convert them to Christianity. Sometimes he identified all Jews with the evil Judas and developed the doctrine (together with St. Cyprian) that there was "no salvation outside the Church".[22]

Other Church Fathers, such as John Chrysostom, went further in their condemnation. The Catholic editor Paul Harkins wrote that St. John Chrysostom's anti-Jewish theology "is no longer tenable (..) For these objectively unchristian acts he cannot be excused, even if he is the product of his times." John Chrysostom held, as most Church Fathers did, that the sins of all Jews were communal and endless, to him his Jewish neighbours were the collective representation of all alleged crimes of all preexisting Jews. All Church Fathers applied the passages of the New Testament concerning the alleged advocation of the crucifixion of Christ to all Jews of his day, the Jews were the ultimate evil. However, John Chrysostom went so far to say that because Jews rejected the Christian God in human flesh, Christ, they therefore deserved to be killed: "grew fit for slaughter." In citing the New Testament,[Luke 19:27] he claimed that Jesus was speaking about Jews when he said, "as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me."[22]

St. Jerome identified Jews with Judas Iscariot and the immoral use of money ("Judas is cursed, that in Judas the Jews may be accursed... their prayers turn into sins"). Jerome's homiletical assaults, that may have served as the basis for the anti-Jewish Good Friday liturgy, contrasts Jews with the evil, and that "the ceremonies of the Jews are harmful and deadly to Christians", whoever keeps them was doomed to the devil: "My enemies are the Jews; they have conspired in hatred against Me, crucified Me, heaped evils of all kinds upon Me, blasphemed Me."[22]

Ephraim the Syrian wrote polemics against Jews in the 4th century, including the repeated accusation that Satan dwells among them as a partner. The writings were directed at Christians who were being proselytized by Jews. Ephraim feared that they were slipping back into Judaism; thus, he portrayed the Jews as enemies of Christianity, like Satan, to emphasize the contrast between the two religions, namely, that Christianity was Godly and true and Judaism was Satanic and false. Like John Chrysostom, his objective was to dissuade Christians from reverting to Judaism by emphasizing what he saw as the wickedness of the Jews and their religion.[23][24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism

 

[juantoo3]

The first apologist to do this was a newly-converted Christian named Justin Martyr (who was later killed by the Romans). In 145 CE (ten years after the Bar Kochba Revolt) Justin Martyr wrote an apology in which he was having a dialogue with a Jew named Trypho. Using Bible proof texts, Justin Martyr claimed that the Jews were originally selected by God because they were such an unspiritual group; they needed added laws. He blasted the Jews for rejecting Jesus, for killing Jesus, for leading people away from salvation. He gloated over the destruction of the Temple as being just punishment for Jewish perfidy. Justin Martyr's writings became incorporated into early Christian thought, and were the origins of Christian anti-Semitism.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-early-church-and-the-beginnings-of-anti-Semitism

Not sure I buy into this at face value, but worth reviewing

 

[Thomas]

OK. Here's something from the same wiki I'm uncertain of:

Constantine was the first emperor to stop Christian persecutions ... (wrong: the Edict of Toleration by Galerius, two years previously, ended the Diocletian persecution — according to the link in the wiki article, so I'm a bit suspicious of the author of this) and to legalise Christianity along with all other religions and cults in the Roman Empire.

So far, despite a stumble, so good.

Scholars debate whether Constantine adopted his mother St. Helena's Christianity in his youth, or whether he adopted it gradually over the course of his life...

Yes, I'm wondering about that, too.

In 321, he legislated that the venerable day of the sun should be a day of rest for all citizens.[224]

The Codex Justinianus, to which the footnote refers, is 6th century? Interesting that he creates a day of rest on the existing Lord's Day of the Church.

The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the emperor as having great influence and ultimate regulatory authority within the religious discussions involving the early Christian councils of that time, e.g., most notably the dispute over Arianism.

I can only look at the history of disputes and schisms and disagree. Constantine sought unity, but he and his successors failed to find a way to it, so really his 'regulatory authority' was dubious at best. He backed whom he thought were the main players, sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but they — the likes of Athenasius and Hilary of Poitiers or Arius and Eusebius (among others in either camp) — were the main players.

 

[juantoo3]

Constantine was the first emperor to stop Christian persecutions ... (wrong: the Edict of Toleration by Galerius, two years previously, ended the Diocletian persecution — according to the link in the wiki article, so I'm a bit suspicious of the author of this) and to legalise Christianity along with all other religions and cults in the Roman Empire.

OK, if you wish to be literal, who ended the very first persecution of Christians by Nero, or Domitian, or Trajan...all of whom came before and were therefore "first?" The Persecution of Diocletian was not the only Persecution of Christians. Galerius (said to be the instigator on prodding from his zealous Mother) inherited (gladly!) the Persecution initiated by Diocletian...while in the western Empire in the lands under the rule of Constantine's Father enjoyed relative calm with no molestation. I haven't found direct evidence, though it is said some property was confiscated, but there were no executions, no purges of the military, and Christians on the whole were allowed to worship, whereas the story in the east and central parts of the Empire the story was quite different.

Galerius, ruthless and cunning as most Emperors were, had been conniving to gain control of the Empire for himself when a series of events occurred that upset his applecart...the first being Constantine's escape from his court. Before he could effectively deal with that, Maxentius (the son of one of the previous Emperors Maximian, who had been forcibly retired by the outgoing Diocletian) usurped Rome with the aid of the Senate and the Praetorian Guard.

Condensed version: Galerius sent his junior Caesar Severus to deal with Maxentius, Maximian still eager for power joined forces with his son and defeated Severus, putting Galerius on his heels. At some point in here, Galerius contracted a bizarre tumor of his scrotum that none of his physicians were able to cure. It was only as he was staring death in the face that he recanted the Persecution of Diocletian, asking for the prayers of Christians to go with those of the pagans for his health and well being.

Max Sr and Max Jr had a falling out, Daddy ran back to Constantine, who by now was Emperor in the west and to whom by marriage there were familial ties. Max Sr attempted a coup, Constantine put Max Sr on house arrest, there is disagreement over whether Constantine ordered Max Sr executed or if he committed suicide, Max Jr used that as a pretext to declare war on Constantine, but since Max Jr wasn't much of a military man the only serious obstacle was the Praetorian General Ruricus at (I want to say) Verona, which Constantine was able to defeat in two battles, leaving the path clear to Rome. Rome was shuttered in anticipation of siege, the Milvian Bridge was made impassible, Constantine's forces camped outside the city a day or two when he received his "vision," give or take around the same time Maxentius received a divination that the "enemy of Rome" would be destroyed so he hastily built a pontoon bridge and ordered his troops out of the city to engage Constantine's forces. Constantine routed the mostly unseasoned troops of Maxentius, the only serious opposition came from the Praetorian who stood their ground on the river's edge while the others attempted retreat including Max Jr, the bridge capsized and Max Jr drowned....Constantine marched into Rome victorious.

I think it is fair to say: Constantine was the first Emperor to stop Christian persecutions for good and always, at least throughout the Empire. Even after Milvian Bridge, Constantine and Licinius issued their own toleration called the Edict of Milan, which was subsequently broken and officially Licinius opened a new Persecution of Christians, but because of circumstances was unable to fully effect it with Constantine hot on his tail. Shortly after Licinius was defeated, Constantine gained unified control of the Empire, the following year the Council at Nicea was convened, some time during this period Constantine's mother Helena was travelling the Levant seeking out various places for Christian pilgrimage, Constantine himself ordered construction of the original Church of St Peter at the Vatican as well as the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople, among others.

Point being, the statement you consider "wrong," is only wrong in the absolute literal sense. The statement is wrong only if one views the entire period spanning the better part of 20 years as functionally focused on Galerius' deathbed without looking at anything preceding or following.

Needless to say, I agree Constantine was *the* Roman Emperor who ended all persecutions of Christians throughout the Empire for good and always. A bit broader interpretation, but one I believe to be in keeping with the context of the original statement, particularly if you reinstall the second half of your edit "and to legalise Christianity along with all other religions and cults in the Roman Empire." No other Emperor did that *except* Constantine. Those that came later persecuted the pagans...

 

[juantoo3]

You can see from the wiki quotes of the Fathers that antisemitism was widespread.

While I don't disagree, each of the early church fathers could have influenced his given congregation, but not the whole. There were also at the same time congregations that, in greater and lesser degree, still maintained the long established, Biblical, traditional ways and methods. You demonstrated this in some of your own evidence, to which you agreed when I pointed it out.

First...Constantine was in a unique position as Emperor...I know you downplay the significance, but you can't possibly write it off completely. EVERY Roman Emperor prior to him back to Ceasar Augustus before Christ was born was deified. As was Constantine himself. It wasn't a role he was comfortable in, and he is the first Emperor since Augustus to minimize or downplay that role. It is said that when he entered Rome in victory after defeating Maxentius, he refused to sacrifice to the gods of Rome...unheard of before his time, you just didn't do that! Constantine didn't care, the city of Rome was *never* a priority to him, and he disbanded the Praetorian Guard (or had them executed outright). Constantine turned his back on Rome, quite literally, and never looked back for 20 years, until the anniversary of his leadership...those are the only two times recorded that he personally stepped foot in the city of Rome. As a religious leader in his own right (indeed, there are those that say he bore the traditional Roman title of Pontifex Maximus), he had the authority to bring the various church leaders together in his failed bid to unify them.

I will grant, it wasn't as easy as snapping ones fingers and commanding all to obey, and Constantine was smarter than that, you gotta give the guy credit. Constantine held the full authority to order observances, whether you fully grasp that I don't know...I suspect you would viscerally deny, but the first known observance of a "Feast of the Nativity" happened within the Great King's lifetime. There isn't anything *extant* to indicate that he did so order that "holiday," but like the implication or not Constantine was well within his authority, secular and religious, to so order such. I cannot emphatically state he did, but you cannot emphatically state he did not...all we have is a mysterious Christmas observance that popped up on the calendar late in the King's life with no record of how it got there and no precedence to go before.

Changing subject, where the various regional church councils and administrative meetings simply were not meeting the goals, as Emperor, Constantine had the persuasion of secular authority to back him up. Not saying he used it, or that he even would...but you don't snub the king without repercussion, that's just common sense.

Second...Constantine was a consummate politician. We've focused on his contributions to Christianity, which frankly since last I was here I learned he contributed GREATLY to the establishment of...bluntly...the CATHOLIC Church. I believe it was you who taught me "Catholic" meant "Universal." Constantine ordered Nicea to consolidate and "UNIFY" the beliefs among the various churches. I have not at any time said he told them what to say, do or think, but I have in times past intimated that perhaps he had more sway than some are willing to admit. He didn't write the book, but he didn't sit idly by either...that wasn't his nature. Only a person unfamiliar with Constantine's character could imply such. The truth I've long thought lay somewhere in the middle, and discovering just how encompassing his anti-Semitism was, to the point of issuing Royal, Legal, Authoritative documents professing such and thereby granting them essentially power of law goes very far in my mind to explaining a great deal of the transformation. Throughout his Emperorship, Constantine simultaneously lived as a nominal pagan, and had a strange appeal to both components of his citizens. As pointed out in the quote in the previous post...he essentially allowed *everyone* freedom to worship...though there were a couple of exceptions that I suspect pissed him off in one way or another, I never chased the stories out. I do know he executed his own son on false accusation from the boy's step mother, and when he learned the truth of the matter he had the woman (his wife) basically cooked alive in a bathhouse. So he wasn't a Saint, even though he was later Sainted! These events happened before Nicea, so were open knowledge (well, apart from deliberately killing his wife, that was a convenient tragic accident...his son however was executed in public). Point being Constantine had a temper, and the authority to back it up if he felt the need.

Off topic but closely related are the efforts of some of the later church fathers, I'm not as familiar as you, but I know there was one fellow that came along just after Constantine died who was instrumental in PR and spin, selling the Catholic Church to the masses of as yet unconverted pagans. Not saying this was bad, just saying it happened. And this fellow if I recall the story, had some rather shady beginnings of his own.

The consolidation of practices (what I've been calling "dogmatically and doctrinally") , began *in earnest* at Nicea and *pointedly* at Laodicea by distancing from the original native Judaism. Previously there had been pockets that observed, and pockets that didn't, going through and listing who, why and what only drags the conversation...the point is across all of the various churches there were a variety of rituals and traditions, some in conflict with each other, and this was causing strife among them that Constantine hoped, in vain it turned out, to overcome. (A bit like trying for peace in the Middle East...)

 

[juantoo3]

So whether Constantine's anti-semitism played into it or not I don't know, but there was certainly enough of it going round anyway, I think. Give it a few generations, by which time the gentile percentage of Christians was well into the ascendant, and tribalism will rear its head.

I can allow for that, anti-Semitism didn't begin with Constantine, but his position of power gave that prejudice teeth, legislative teeth, with fangs.

Oh sure ... and in hindsight, in responding to you I was probably unloading on all those who insist Constantine invented Christianity, wrote the NT, wrote the Creed, told the ftahers what to think, etc., etc ... so apologies for that. I do get a bit 'patristic' in my arguments sometimes Thank God it's just me ... Tertullian, a skilled rhetoritician, would not desist until he had destroyed his opponent's argument, his character, his family, his friends And Athanasius was not unknown for popping round with some of the brawnier brothers to sort out a dispute ...

Not saying he wouldn't mop the floor with me, but he would be facing stiff Aristotelian logic, particularly fleecing out logical fallacies. Doesn't always work with rhetoric, because rhetoric has no requirement to be true in the sense of reality. As for Athanasius...might doesn't make right.

I had a long conversation with a Dominican theologian once, who's line was, 'go easy on Arius, he wasn't all bad, and just did what he thought was right'.

Sounds to me like a wise teacher.

A hard claim to make stick, I would have thought, on the basis that none of the Nicean documents say anything about Judaism, nor was Judaism discussed, as far as we know.

I've already posted the quotes from the letters from Constantine written to the Bishops unable to attend, where essentially Constantine's prejudice is given weight of law.

Personally I think the Church was a long way from its Jewish roots by 325.

In places, and not uniformly. That was a big part of the reason for Nicea. Supplanting Passover in exchange for (pagan!) Easter was clearly on the docket.

Canon 12:
"As many as were called by grace, and displayed the first zeal, having cast aside their military belts, but afterwards returned, like dogs, to their own vomit ... "
By Nicea, Christians were forbidden to serve in the military — interesting, as many did serve, and suffered for their faith — just a few years before. I wonder what Constantine thought of this. Also that he, as overseeing sacrifices to the Roman gods, could not be admitted into the Church, which was perhaps why, despite his support for all things Christian, he was not baptized until he retired as emperor on his deathbed.

I would have to pursue this further, I have certain doubts. I know you know I am a keen supporter of the Christians that served in Constantine's army, even prior to his "vision," helping him gain the throne. Something here just doesn't sound correct.

 

[juantoo3]

Where I'm coming from is that I think we can rule out the church celebrating the birth of Christ to assimilate or otherwise a pagan festival. It simply didn't do that kind of thing in the timeframe involved, it was zealous in resisting pagan influence.

I wouldn't rule out so quickly. Nothing tangible, nothing concrete, but certain plenty of room for distinct possibility.

We have discussions of a birth-date in the late second, early third centuries, but during the 3rd century we have a stance against birthdays. By the 4th century we have a feast-day recorded — the Chronicle of 354 commemorates the Bishops of Rome and the Martyrs — so we have a quasi-liturgical calendar. Who introduced the commemoration of the martyrs, and when, that's not Jewish practice?

Sure the Jews had their martyrs, not sure if that is the name they used, dating back I am aware of to at least Antiochus Epiphanes and the desecration of the Temple by sacrificing swine...the whole Hannukah story is based from events of that time, predating Messiah by at least two hundred years.

There is an intertestamental apocryphal book, I want to say the Letters of Aristeas, that tells the story of the 7 brothers, gut wrenching and inspiring and really sets you in the place to see what these people endured, and why they were so fiercely independent. This story dates from that period. So yes, Judaism has a long history of martyrs.

I must correct myself, not sure where now I stumbled on the other date for Constantine's death, but I just confirmed he died in 337.

In 354 Constantius II was on the throne, one of Constantine's sons (the other two having died, one in battle and the other by assassination, *not counting the one that was executed - 4 total). So it is entirely possible Constantine did *not* see the first Christmas, that it may have been one of his sons who possibly could have ordered it. Again, without anything to go by and only working on the known and accepted authority and power of the Emperor, this is purely speculation, but the only that makes any real sense in any form of broad application.

So in a 100 years at most, more like 50, we have an about face. What changed? I reckon it was driven by the grass-roots interest in the child Jesus. There's a market for 'childhood' stories and apocryphal gospels, we have writers 'filling in' the Scriptural gaps. We have public interest, plus the imagery of Luke, with shepherds, etc.

Your speculation is as good as mine...

If someone sought to introduce a nativity feast post-Nicea, there would have been some contention, surely, as it would have been a significant innovation?

I don't think so. Various feasts and honorary holidays seemed to be introduced by various Emperors through the years...some stuck, most didn't. I think in a case like this where you had a wholesale move to distance from Judaism, already syncretized/assimilated/re-purposed both the pagan Easter and the pagan Sun-god Sabbath to set precedence, increasing Christianization and decreasing paganization throughout the Empire, I think it stands to reason quite well actually that the winter solstice, which was kind of a snobs / upper crust holiday anyway (except for the Mummers / Wild Man, which continued unabated in rural areas), so converting that holiday into a celebration of the birth of Messiah, particularly if there were some strains of thought that hinted in that direction anyway (although it is reasonable to question some of that as well, another day)...yes, I can easily see how it *could* happen. Not saying this is what did happen, just one distinct possibility...the Emperor did have the authority.

So much comes out of this, and yet there is so little recorded — mainly, I think, because the Christian Mysteries were considered secret.

I don't know...anytime I hear "mystery" and "secret" in this context, my bat-sense tells me something isn't right.

 

[juantoo3]

I don't see how, if I may say?

Theodoret? Nicea? Anti-Semitism? It's all there in the link, I only quoted the first two sentences of the second paragraph in order to find that part I was directing to.

 

[juantoo3]

Constantine's mother paid for the building of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, completed 339AD. I think it was begun in 327AD.

Not fully accurate, but close enough. Constantine bankrolled the building projects. My understanding, very limited, is that Constantine gave his mother free reign to pursue her interests. She could have just as easily planted a garden at a summer villa on one of the islands and retired in luxury, but that wasn't what she wanted.

All the sources I've read never question her Christianity. That on Constantine's father is another matter, he was clearly ambitious but apparently far more level headed and level hearted than most Emperors. He made his way through the ranks of the Praetorian and became one of Diocletian's body guards, and from there a junior part in the Tetrarchy. Technically, when Diocletian and Maximian retired, he and Galerius were elevated at the same time, but Constantius' junior officer was snubbed in favor of another Galerius picked - Severus. So Galerius had two of the junior Emperors loyal to him, leaving Constantius as the odd man out. I'm off topic, but it lays some groundwork.

Before all this, Constantius had a son out of wedlock with Helena...this part remains in some dispute, some say she was a concubine, some a genuine wife but not of royal stock, more of a barmaid fling as it were. When it came time for Constantius to move up the ladder, as was Roman custom, he had to marry into the Royal line...hence he had to divorce or set aside Helena so he could marry the (step?) daughter of Maximian, Fausta, by which he had sons and daughters...so Constantine had some half-siblings. Helena is always depicted as devoutly Christian, Constantius is always depicted as tolerant of Christianity, if not sympathetic to Christianity, though he was never Christian.

Constantine's personal life is somewhat ambiguous, but it is clear he had great tolerance and sympathy for the faith, evident by his great gifts and building of churches and preserving various places in the Holy Land, many of which are there now today because of his efforts and those of his mother. Once he became Emperor and was secure in that position (as one can ever be, there is no guaranteed job security!), he funded his mother's excursions to locate these places in the Holy Land, places like the Manger Cave in Bethlehem, Church of the Holy Seplechre (sp?), Golgotha, there may be others not coming to mind. As I understand, subject to correction, Helena found the places and worked with the builders, but Constantine bankrolled the projects in the Holy Land. Constantine was more directly responsible for The Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople, I seem to recall 3 or 4 of the Apostles being buried there, and a crypt for himself...he was deliberately buried with some of the Apostles. Not sure who was behind St. Peters as Constantine only returned to Rome once, so my guess would be his mother. St. Peters was vastly expanded some centuries later.

Justin Martyr (100–165AD):
"But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him." (Dialogue with Trypho: chapter 78).

Origen of Alexandria (185-254):
"In Bethlehem the cave is pointed out where He was born, and the manger in the cave where He was wrapped in swaddling clothes. And the rumour is in those places, and among foreigners of the Faith, that indeed Jesus was born in this cave who is worshipped and reverenced by the Christians." (Contra Celsum, book I, chapter 51).

So we have a cult of the place of the nativity from the first century. And we have Helena sponsoring a basilica there, which rather implies the place was seen as significant in Rome ...

It is easy to want to go to the cave bit...I mean, frankly it was eye opening to me to see the manger was actually a cave. But with the overt symbolic use in Mithraism...there I will stop...that does raise questions that I feel are legitimate. So when you say "cult of the place" and that place is a cave...what else is one to think? But yes, the whole "icon" and "relic" and "place" thing I see as so integral to so many Catholics of my acquaintance, I don't understand it. I don't hold this against anyone, if it honestly assists their faith, but I don't comprehend the spiritual value. Such things are not aids to me in my walk, so the concept just seems rather foreign to me.

 

[Thomas]

I think it is fair to say: Constantine was the first Emperor to stop Christian persecutions for good and always, at least throughout the Empire.

Agreed.

 

[Thomas]

While I don't disagree, each of the early church fathers could have influenced his given congregation, but not the whole.

Agreed ... but let's step back a moment.

Who, in the ancient world, was not anti-semitic? (The whole of Europe was, right up and into the Second World War. One could single out Hitler as being particularly anti-semitic, but really he was just riding on the wave of anti-semitism that was prevalent. Like all bullies, he picked on the kids that no-one liked anyway. He's quoted as saying, "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" in 1939, justifying his Lebensraum policy towards the East.)

The first Christian apologist, Justin Martyr was. Hippolytus was. Tertullian was. Origen was. Africanus was. As ill-feeling grew between the two communities, it was inevitable that supercessionism would emerge. Again, it's not so much a case of who was — that's almost a given — as who wasn't. This is not to say the Christians disregarded the Hebrew Scriptures, that was dealt with in the Marcionist disputes (c144AD).

There were also at the same time congregations that, in greater and lesser degree, still maintained the long established, Biblical, traditional ways and methods. You demonstrated this in some of your own evidence, to which you agreed when I pointed it out.

Yes, they accepted the Bible in relation to their history, but still saw the Jews as failing God in failing to acknowledge the divinity of the Son. So they followed ancient temple practice, the Ten Commandments, etc., but they saw the Jews as defaulters with regard to the Covenant, and the mantle of 'the people of God' had passed to them. In their eyes, they continued the spiritual heritage of Abraham, not the Jews.

First ... Constantine was in a unique position as Emperor ... I know you downplay the significance, but you can't possibly write it off completely.

I don't.

Constantine held the full authority to order observances, whether you fully grasp that I don't know...

As emperor, yes. What observances and when, with reference to Christianity, came from within Christianity, not from him. So at Nicea he says, what day d'you want Easter? And they say, "As we have always done ..." and regarding the dispute with Arius, "Is he right or wrong?" And they say, "He's wrong." And he says, "OK. He's wrong, he's exiled. Everything he's written will be burnt ..."
But his word was ignored. If he had full authority over the church, the dispute would have stopped there.

... but the first known observance of a "Feast of the Nativity" happened within the Great King's lifetime.

Evidence, please.

There isn't anything *extant* to indicate that he did so order that "holiday," but like the implication or not Constantine was well within his authority, secular and religious, to so order such. I cannot emphatically state he did, but you cannot emphatically state he did not...

No, but every time I imply, from interpretation of the data, you ridicule it ... then when you imply, on far weaker grounds than I, it's a reasonable argument?

Consider: Working from *what is extant* — Constantine established Sunday as a Roman day of rest. It already was for Christians. So he brought in that rule to impose Christian practice, or at least bring Roman practice in line with Christian. In the same way then, he fixes the date of the Sol Invictus celebrations to December 25 to coincide with the date of the nativity celebrated in the Western Christian tradition. His theological advisers would have told him of the relationship between Christ and the sun, so it would be natural to make a discreet move, in line with Acts 17:23 — "What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you."

We've focused on his contributions to Christianity, which frankly since last I was here I learned he contributed GREATLY to the establishment of...bluntly...the CATHOLIC Church.

We need to qualify this.

His single greatest contribution was social: lifting the threat of persecution on Christians. This no doubt led to an expansion as many came out of the closet, as it were. It also meant that movement between the communities was much easier. Properties were restored, etc. This was massive, and it changed the face of the church without a doubt.

Second was his financial contribution, which paid for the bishops to travel from across the empire to Nicea. Notably the Pope/Patriarch of Rome, the senior patriarchy in the Christian world, was not there, although he sent representatives. I wonder how many saw that as a snub?

But it did allow the church to establish itself as a single, cohesive entity, and again, that is massive.

Beyond that — and that is no mean achievement at all — I see little else. Doctrinally, nothing at all.

I believe it was you who taught me "Catholic" meant "Universal."

Yes. That was in use long before Constantine.

Constantine ordered Nicea to consolidate and "UNIFY" the beliefs among the various churches.

I'm not disputing that, but it was for them to unify their beliefs, not for them to adopt his.

I have not at any time said he told them what to say, do or think, but I have in times past intimated that perhaps he had more sway than some are willing to admit.

Or perhaps less, as the evidence seems to demonstrate.

He didn't write the book, but he didn't sit idly by either...that wasn't his nature. Only a person unfamiliar with Constantine's character could imply such.

His impatience is a matter of note, apparently, but his theological insight is a matter of question.

 

[Thomas]

I would have to pursue this further, I have certain doubts. I know you know I am a keen supporter of the Christians that served in Constantine's army, even prior to his "vision," helping him gain the throne. Something here just doesn't sound correct.

The Canon is there for all to see ...

 

[Thomas]

In 354 Constantius II was on the throne ... that it may have been one of his sons who possibly could have ordered it (Christmas)...

I don't think so, as both his pro-Christian and anti-pagan edicts are well documented. A Feast of the Nativity of Christ would have been introduced through a council or synod, especially when the Arian dispute was alive and focussed on the relation of the Son to the Father — there's no-way you could slip in Christmas without anyone noticing or commenting — and there's no record. And he was based in Constantinople, whereas the Dec 25 feast originated in the West and spread East, not the other way round.

I think in a case like this where you had a wholesale move to distance from Judaism, already syncretized/assimilated/re-purposed both the pagan Easter and the pagan Sun-god Sabbath ...

The problem here is then they would not see it as you do. The Jewish calendar was not considered syncretized/assimilated/re-purposed, so that argument is really asking ancient man to treat matters with a post-modern sensibility. Nor was Easter a distancing from from Judaism, its relation to the Passover is absolutely fundamental — all that changed was the establishing the day of the Resurrection on a Sunday and again, all this before Constantine.

I don't know...anytime I hear "mystery" and "secret" in this context, my bat-sense tells me something isn't right.

LOL, that's just you dismissing the historical evidence that doesn't suit you!

Of the dogmata and kerygmata which are kept in the Church, we have some from the written teaching, and some we derive from the Apostolic tradition, which had been handed down en mistirio. And both have the same strength in the matters of piety ... They come from the silent and mystical tradition, from the unpublic and ineffable teaching (St Basil (330-379AD), "de Spiritu Sancto", 66)

"

It is characteristic of the disciplina that the subject of the silence was not the dogma and the sacramental gift, but the elements and the ritual performance. Origen, in Contra Celsum, argues that it is the doctrine of the Christians, and not only their rites, which should be secret in character. Even if the elements of ritual performance, such as missa fidelium and other Christian rites were under the disciplina arcani during the early stages of Christianity (especially during the 3rd–4th century), nobody at the present time can definitively state which other subjects comprised the disciplina. Indeed, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Basil, St. Ambrose of Milan and many other Church Fathers of early Christianity mention an "oral tradition," as in St. Basil's appeal to the "unwritten tradition (wiki)

 

[Thomas]

Actually, the more evidence you pile in, the more I'm convinced a Christian celebration of the nativity on December 25 had to pre-date Nicea.

We know it was practiced in Rome, probably North Africa also, Gaul and all points west. Last of all, it spread east to Byzantium/Constantinople.

The point is, if Constantine or his successors wanted to introduce a major feast such as the Nativity, he would have done so through a council or a synod — he had the clout so why not? — he would not have done it anonymously, surreptitiously or discreetly, setting the ground for dispute later on, he would want it introduced across the whole church, rather than piecemeal. That goes against everything we know about Constantine who wanted, first and foremost, *unity*!

Secondly, introducing a feast, with no Scriptural, Apostolic or Traditional precedent, in the middle of the Arian Dispute, would have been somewhat problematic, if not incendiary.

Thirdly, that something has no precedent in anything other than a pagan festival would have not passed without outcry.

Fourthly, that practice was in Rome and all points west, but not his home city of Constantinople.

 

[juantoo3]

Agreed ... but let's step back a moment.

Who, in the ancient world, was not anti-semitic?

I hesitate to paint with too broad of a brush. Frankly, had I not broached the issue, I doubt this subject would have ever come up between us. And the implications would never be explored.

But this was incidental. Did it have an impact? Clearly. Was it all encompassing? I doubt it. My reasons: the Jews continued to exist, they were still tolerated to worship throughout the Empire, and some of the most crucial businesses were conducted or owned, wholly or in part, by Jews. Constantine showed he could persecute cults if he desired...while he clearly didn't care for Jews, he allowed them to continue and "legislatively tolerated" them. The Jews had to form some crucial function to the fabric of society. I can't flesh out details, but the proof is they were still there. If the hatred for them was as encompassing as you say, there would have been all out war to extinguish or exile Jews sometime during Constantine's reign...that didn't happen, so I think a broad brush approach isn't warranted in this situation.

This is not to say the Christians disregarded the Hebrew Scriptures, that was dealt with in the Marcionist disputes (c144AD).

OK, but then this becomes a bit of a two-faced argument (not accusing you), in that the verbiage used to justify establishment of Easter and Sunday quite plainly states that it is no longer obligatory to comply with rituals and traditions set forth by G-d through Moses and Abraham. I sure wouldn't want to be the scribe that originally put those thoughts in words...to my way of thinking, that is blasphemous.

Bit of a moot point now, but I am incredulous every time I read that. Superseding G-d's Commands with the commands of men.

Yes, they accepted the Bible in relation to their history, but still saw the Jews as failing God

Perhaps, but also a bit politically convenient...

As emperor, yes. What observances and when, with reference to Christianity, came from within Christianity, not from him.

I think you perhaps misunderstood. At Nicea...yes...

That does not preclude the authority and ability of the Emperor to proclaim a feast day, to honor a dead goldfish, if he so desired. The Emperor was traditionally, including Constantine, vested with both secular and religious authority. Yes, Constantine was not deeply versed in the minutiae of Christian philosophy, he was engaged with more pressing matters...he had a nation to rule, people to feed, jobs to be done, borders to protect, etc, etc, etc...that professional clergy typically had no working knowledge of. So I absolutely agree...Constantine didn't insert anything at Nicea, however it remained that ordering a feast day was well within his secular and religious authority as the Emperor, as it would be for any of the Roman Emperors. That a "Nativity Feast" is not mentioned at Nicea or Laodicea, compels me to believe it may have been a unilateral order from the Emperor, who was the only person in the Empire with broad enough authority to do such a thing. We have no evidence, this is speculation, but increasingly the more I think of it, it makes too much sense. That Emperor may not have been Constantine, although I am inclined to think he is the most likely culprit, but it was within the authority vested in the office.

Evidence, please.

Covered

No, but every time I imply, from interpretation of the data, you ridicule it ... then when you imply, on far weaker grounds than I, it's a reasonable argument?

The difference being that when I speculate, I make it very clear I am speculating. Not always the case with your speculations...

Consider: Working from *what is extant* — Constantine established Sunday as a Roman day of rest. It already was for Christians.

Not correct...it was for *some* Christians, not all. That was the kind of problem that Nicea tried to address.

His single greatest contribution was social: lifting the threat of persecution on Christians. This no doubt led to an expansion as many came out of the closet, as it were. It also meant that movement between the communities was much easier. Properties were restored, etc. This was massive, and it changed the face of the church without a doubt.

Second was his financial contribution, which paid for the bishops to travel from across the empire to Nicea. Notably the Pope/Patriarch of Rome, the senior patriarchy in the Christian world, was not there, although he sent representatives. I wonder how many saw that as a snub?

But it did allow the church to establish itself as a single, cohesive entity, and again, that is massive.

Beyond that — and that is no mean achievement at all — I see little else. Doctrinally, nothing at all.

Social, Secular...*** se, *** sa

Doctrinally, nothing at Nicea apart from the pronouncements he sent out with his "seal of approval" carrying his weight of authority using anti-Semitism to justify the changes so ordered.

What may have been done unilaterally by religious authority as Pontifex Maximus may no longer have records extant to show. That he acted, unilaterally and legally to issue "toleration" for other sects and religions is known, that he persecuted at least two minor sects is known, so he had and exercised his religious authority. I don't believe that to be a primary concern of his, but such authority was his to exercise.

 

[juantoo3]

Consider: Working from *what is extant* — Constantine established Sunday as a Roman day of rest. It already was for Christians. So he brought in that rule to impose Christian practice, or at least bring Roman practice in line with Christian.

Hang on a minute, this flew by my radar. Had to reassess...

Sunday was another work day in the Roman Empire. On March 7, 321, however, Roman Emperor Constantine I issued a civil decree making Sunday a day of rest from labor, stating:[29]

All judges and city people and the craftsmen shall rest upon the venerable day of the sun. Country people, however, may freely attend to the cultivation of the fields, because it frequently happens that no other days are better adapted for planting the grain in the furrows or the vines in trenches. So that the advantage given by heavenly providence may not for the occasion of a short time perish.

While established only in civil law rather than religious principle, the Church welcomed the development as a means by which Christians could the more easily attend Sunday worship and observe Christian rest. At Laodicea also, the Church encouraged Christians to make use of the day for Christian rest where possible,[28] without ascribing to it any of the regulation of Mosaic Law, and indeed, anathematizing Hebrew observance on the Sabbath. The civil law and its effects made possible a pattern in Church life that has been imitated throughout the centuries in many places and cultures, wherever possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_in_Christianity

I think yours may be a rather convenient reading of the situation....

Not to mention supplanting the G-d Commanded Sabbath with what amounts to a civil ordinance.