>be Constantinus, son of a pagan father and a christian mother>Sol-worshipper >Sol = Jesus Christ, get the support of the ever-growing new faith >Council of Nikaea, 325, don't remove all the jewish stuff and replace it with Greco-Roman lore (Jesus Sol Invictus Christ, son of Jupiter the Monad)>generations later the Gods are abandoned, their temples are destroyed and there is no Rome, just Israel>Israel-state of mind worldwide He only had to make bishops say Jupiter (Deus Pater in proto-latin) instead of Deus Pater ('God the Father' in latin) and Sol-Hercules (heroic man that becomes a God) instead of Jesus (schizo rabbi), and he failed on that.
>>18060893>there is no Rome just IsraelHuh?
>>18060904>hylic response
>>18060893I don't think Constantine converted. I think his son did, and retroactively claimed his father had converted so as to appear to be piously following in his father's footsteps (filial piety being a big deal in pre-christian Europe).Constantine was still inaugurating temples to Sol Invictus, and the whole chi-ro story is probably hijacked by christians later. The chi-ro symbol itself predates christianity by centuries.
>>18060893>don't remove all the jewish stuff and replace it with Greco-Roman loreThe emperor wasn't invited to the council. He convened it but he was not a Bishop, and therefore could not join.
>>18060973Ok, then why his sons didn't remove all the jewish stuff and replace it with Greco-Roman-Mithraic theology?>>18061162During his reign, he kick out many "heretic" bishops, he could have forced the ones on "his side" to teach the Trinity as:>God the Father = Jupiter>God the Son = Sol Invictus>God the Holy Spirit = Aetos Dios (Eagle of Jupiter)And, for some unknown reason, he didn't do it.
>>18061194>he kick out many "heretic" bishopsConstantine didn't actually enact much punishments for heresy. Bishops were punished, as would be normal for later Emperors based on their actions, usually because they caused riots.>God the Father = Jupiter>God the Son = Sol Invictus>God the Holy Spirit = Aetos Dios (Eagle of Jupiter)Your idea of what pagan thought was is lacking. Most late Roman pagan thinkers preferred Neo-Platonism, being monotheistic. Even Julian could accept that the God which Jews worshiped was the same one he did. Gods were just multiple forms of this singular God. From what we know of Constantine's pre-Christian religious proclamations, as well as Licinius', they both favoured a Neo-Platonic view on the divine.
>>18061194>why his sons didn'tWhat is going on here these days?But to answer the question, I don't know. Lots of goyim end up shabbos'ing for the jews for any number of reasons.
>>18060973He did convert, but he was most sympathetic to Arianism and was baptized by Eusabius the Arian.
>make bishops sayConstantine had no authority over the bishops in religious matters, he merely called the meeting because their quarreling was affecting matters of state. He issued no edict or voted on the matters they discussed, again because secular magnates have no legitimate religious authority over the church no matter what the quisling state church protestants and caesaropapists claim.A bishop can excommunicate the emperor. See St Ambrose.If an emperor were head of the church, this would be impossible.
>>18060904He's been on a bender on day starting new threads with the same goal. We keep teaching him that judaism is Greek but his molasses mind has trouble keeping up with it.
Constantine was probably not a Christian.
>>18062254He couldn't be openly Christian, or mint coins of himself with Christian symbols, for political reasons. A large majority of the Roman upper classes were still pagan, and openly making his conversion known could have threatened his power.
>>18062273The entire argument of him being Christian is that he explicitly told his troops that there were chi-rho clouds floating over bridges, that he established churches across the empire, and finally that he made the Donation of Constantine to the Catholic church conferring secular territory to the Papists. All of these are verifiably incorrect propositions promoted by Christians over the last several centuries. The Donation of Constantine was proven to be a forgery a few centuries ago but many Catholics persist with it. There is no silent version where he was secretly hiding his Christianity. You're just making up new narratives on the fly.
>>18062280>entire argument of him being Christiandeathbed baptisms were actually common around that time because they wanted their sins washed away, but didn't want to sin again before they diedkind of backwards reasoning, whatever>chi-rho clouds he saw the sign of the chi-rho emblazoned in a ray of light above the sun, not in the cloudsyou seem unfamiliar with the source material>making up new narratives on the flythis is simply what I was taught about Constantine in high school AP world historyin no sense is my old understanding some post-hoc reaction to your LARP headcanon >he established churches across the empireno, he didn'the provided some funding for new religious constructions out of his own pocket as an imperial patron, but because he was never a bishop he could never have established a single parish on his ownauthority in the church comes from the laying of hands in ordination instituted by the apostles, he never received that authority
bump
>>18062243>A bishop can excommunicate the emperor. See St Ambrose. Theodosius I was kinda cuck, just like Constantinus I when he trusted his whore christian wife Fausta rather than his pagan son Crispus (who was loved by both greco-romans and christians).>>18061563I wonder how was the relationship between arians and greco-romans, it feel they had a better relationship than trinitarians and greco-romans.
>>18062243>A bishop can excommunicate the emperor. See St Ambrose.This was a political play orchestrated by Theodosius to turn his embarrassing inability to control his troops in Thessaloniki into a 'deliberate' act by him, saving him face. Ambrose in his letters was terrified by Theodosius and the possibility he would be upset with him after the civil wars from the Western Emperors. Even in practice an emperor could (and did) simply just remove bishops from power they didn't like, Theodosius approved of this 'excommunication', if he actually thought it was an issue he would have removed and disgraced Ambrose while getting a different bishop to approve him. Just because emperors did not actively take part in councils, did not mean they did not have considerable coercive power over them which they could not enact over him.
All he had to do was fully commit to the syncretism. But he half-stepped it and now we are all living in theological cuckland.
>>18066271there was no syncretism
