I’m currently in a discussion revolved around supposable changes that came from Constantine’s signing of the Edict-
Basically, it goes like this-
Before Emperor Constantine’s Dream-
*]The church did not support the state
*]Christians were generally persecuted and excluded from public affairs
*]Though some Christians were in the Roman army, the church advocated pacifism and was force for peace
*]The church was heavily taxed and received no state funds
After Emperor Constantine’s Dream and his victory it went like this-
]Persecution and taxation of the church stopped. With fellow emperor Licinius he issued the Edict of Milan which legalized Christianity, without making it the official state religion
*** I know this one is true-not sure how that it’s bad thing though-it allowed Christianity to flourish.**
]He promoted Christianity and used it to solidify his power, using state funds to establish and control the clergy.
Since the Church was still very minority and not ALL Bishops lived in Rome, this one seems impractical. Also, from what I can tell, a lot of this belief comes from he forged document "Donation to Constantine"
]The church became a major force in everyone’s daily life
*** Since the Church was sill very minority, I don’t see how this would have played out.*
*]The church now supported the state and its wars. God now sanctioned killing! God took sides to help one band of killers triumph over an other, as the church prayed for victory
I doubt this one-but would like some clarification.
*]Conscientious objectors were excommunicated
*]The prayer day of Mithras (sunday) was declared the official day of prayer and rest for the whole empire.
From what I can tell-this one is bogus-Mithras never had a day of worship on Sunday.
*]He built the church’s 3 greatest centres of pilgrimage which still stand to this day: St Peter’s in Rome, Hagia Sophia in Constantinople and the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem
God bless everyone! I hope that you can shed some light on this highly controversial subject.
PS-the link that “he” got this information/theory from is here-click here
Which sites several books at the bottom-
(i) Kurlansky, Mark “Non-violence. The history of a dangerous idea” Vintage (2006)
(ii) Murray Stuart “The naked Anabaptist. The bare essentials of a radical faith” Paternoster (2011)
(iii) Stephenson, P. “Constantine. Unconquered emperor. Christian Victor” Quercus (2009)
(iv) Vidales, Raúl “How should we speak of Christ today?” in “Faces of Jesus. Latin American christologies” ed J. Bonino Orbis (1977)
(v) Garaudy, Roger ‘Le Monde’ (Paris) 25/12/1969 p.7