i would like someone to provide an intelligent response, but of course i would like to see the repsonse of people like vincent (the christian extremist) as well.
as far as i know the following is historical fact, using western references only:
the emporer constantine of rome was a pagan high preist. he was the one who adopted christianity as the official roman religion. he also brought the famous nicaean creed (discussed at length elsewhere in this forum). prior to christianity the official religion of rome was sun worship.
he combined christianity with pagan rituals, symbols, dates (sun calender). the origin of altars, communion, the miter are all found in pagan religions. the god, mithras, was born on december 25th, so was osiris. the emporer even changed the holy day to "sun"day. some say this was to compete and rival with pagan religions of the time (britannica.com) at the council of nicaea, the dates for easter and even the divinity, were voted on!
he also tolerated pagan rituals and even encouraged the imperail cult (columbia encyclopedia, 6th ed. 2001). he frequently wavered between Sol (one of the planetary gods)and Christ. for some time his religious policy was devised so as to allow the coexistence of both religions (brittanica.com). the church tolerated the cult of the emperor under many forms. it was permitted to speak of the divinity of the emperor, of the sacred palace, the sacred chamber and of the altar of the emperor, without being considered on this account an idolater . from this point of view constantine's religious change was relatively trifling; it consisted of little more than the renunciation of a formality. for what his predecessors had aimed to attain by the use of all their authority and at the cost of incessant bloodshed, was in truth only the recognition of their own divinity; constantine gained this end, though he renounced the offering of sacrifices to himself. (Catholic Encyclopedia)
the funny thing about all of this is that he wasnt baptized until 336 or 337 about the time of his death. history has documented that this was common, as then he would not be bound by the laws (brittanica.com). wouldnt this be hypocracy? other historians claim his loyalty to christianity prior to his baptism was purely for selfish reasons and with hidden agendas, otherwise how could a christian kill his wife and child? an emporer at that too!
i am not disputing the basics of the chritian doctrine, but i find it strange that the church would adopt so many pagan ideaolgies. is there a reason for this?
as far as i know the following is historical fact, using western references only:
the emporer constantine of rome was a pagan high preist. he was the one who adopted christianity as the official roman religion. he also brought the famous nicaean creed (discussed at length elsewhere in this forum). prior to christianity the official religion of rome was sun worship.
he combined christianity with pagan rituals, symbols, dates (sun calender). the origin of altars, communion, the miter are all found in pagan religions. the god, mithras, was born on december 25th, so was osiris. the emporer even changed the holy day to "sun"day. some say this was to compete and rival with pagan religions of the time (britannica.com) at the council of nicaea, the dates for easter and even the divinity, were voted on!
he also tolerated pagan rituals and even encouraged the imperail cult (columbia encyclopedia, 6th ed. 2001). he frequently wavered between Sol (one of the planetary gods)and Christ. for some time his religious policy was devised so as to allow the coexistence of both religions (brittanica.com). the church tolerated the cult of the emperor under many forms. it was permitted to speak of the divinity of the emperor, of the sacred palace, the sacred chamber and of the altar of the emperor, without being considered on this account an idolater . from this point of view constantine's religious change was relatively trifling; it consisted of little more than the renunciation of a formality. for what his predecessors had aimed to attain by the use of all their authority and at the cost of incessant bloodshed, was in truth only the recognition of their own divinity; constantine gained this end, though he renounced the offering of sacrifices to himself. (Catholic Encyclopedia)
the funny thing about all of this is that he wasnt baptized until 336 or 337 about the time of his death. history has documented that this was common, as then he would not be bound by the laws (brittanica.com). wouldnt this be hypocracy? other historians claim his loyalty to christianity prior to his baptism was purely for selfish reasons and with hidden agendas, otherwise how could a christian kill his wife and child? an emporer at that too!
i am not disputing the basics of the chritian doctrine, but i find it strange that the church would adopt so many pagan ideaolgies. is there a reason for this?