Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ejh@sei.cmu.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: nicaean council Message-ID: Date: 4 Aug 89 02:54:39 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 59 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu i watched a show on the discovery channel last night called 'testament'. i suspect it's a series, but this is the first one i ever saw or even heard about. in it, the guy put forth the notion that constantine was not so much a christian as a realist wanting to hold on to his temporal power. it seems that constantine made a deal with the christians along the lines of: i'll grant you power over the spiritual, if you cede me power over the temporal. apparently there was a lot of problems with martyrs, etc., causing lots of unrest in the empire. in other words, i'll back you guys as the official state religion, if you make my life as emperor simpler. the really interesting part was that it was constantine's secretary who actually put forth what became known as the nicaean creed, which constantine used as a way to make all the sects agree and stop their wars. from this, i conclude that constantine wasn't interested in christianity per se, just in peace. indeed, he was not baptized until he was on his deathbed. other things that came out of the show: constantine was obsessed with the idea of ancient things and ideas. when he built constantinople, he had various ancient obelisks, etc. brought there, from such varied sources as ancient egypt and 5th century bc greece. he and i share this fascination with ancient religions. diocletian (one of his predecessors) first set up 'dioceses', which were simply provinces, in charge of each of which he placed a 'vicar'. anyhow, all this may be old hat to some of you (i find it fascinating), but can anyone comment on the validity of the statements made on the show? thanks. erik yaccity yacc (don't awk back) [I think somebody was confusing opinion with fact. There are certainly many Christians who believe that the combination of Church and State created by Constantine was a mistake. Many Protestants identify the beginning of the corruption of the church with that point (though often they exaggerate the change that happened -- most of the characteristics of later Catholic belief can be found well before Constantine). With such a negative view, one naturally tends to suspect Constantine's motives. But I don't know of anyone who has found unambiguous documentation for the motives indicated here. The fact that Constantine wasn't baptized until his deathbed means nothing. That was common practice at the time. This account of the Nicene creed is, to say the least, oversimplified. It's certainly true that Constantine was quite upset that Christians were fighting on theological grounds, and that he insisted that they come to agreement. In many ways he seemed interested that they come to some agreement than in the details of what it was. But the Nicene creed was developed out of a very complex political process, and is not the result of any one person. --clh]