Constantine a FRAUD?

  • Thread starter Thread starter anrmenchaca47
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

anrmenchaca47

Guest
I’m hoping someone caught this episode on the History Channel…it was a long time ago and I have vague recollection…so here goes.

I was watching the History Channel and I came across an episode in which there were “experts” talking about about how Constantine didn’t have anything to do with Christianity by studying this big architectual building with a type of stone mural built on top…The building looks like a big box with an arched walk way underneath and at the very top there was, a mural carved from stone that was said to have come from the time of Constantine.

What they were basically trying to do is disprove that Constantine did not have a vision of God in which he therefore used the cross as the symbol in one of his battles, which supposedly is the carved mural at the top of this building, by pointing out that none of the figures at the top had a cross on the shield since this would have been depicted.

If anyone caught this episode here is my question:

Are the “experts” correct in saying that Constantine was a phony just because the carved figures didn’t display the symbol of the cross which disproves him?

Also, could the carving at the top of this building have been dated wrong and perhaps may have been before Constantine’s time?

I know this is probably a far shot but any info could help…My apologies if what I describe doesn’t make sense.
 
No, they aren’t correct. This is one of the major problem with “historians” trying to debunk the claims of ancient times; they simply have no way of knowing. They take small tidbits of information and try to spin them into wildly unfounded “conclusions.”

They did the same thing with Pontious Pilate in one I saw, saying that since there were no reports of him having behaved in the manner he did in the Bible, there was no way he could have acted that way. It’s utter lunacy to think that they can determine how ancient people acted based on severely limited accounts of what they did.

I’d take what they said with a grain of salt.
 
I didn’t see this, but I have watched other programs about the Church on the History Channel just to see how many things they can get wrong and how long I can stand to watch the thing. The latest was some “expert” saying that we consider the Shroud of Turin to have magic. Basically you can find someone somewhere to say about anything, especially if that means they can then claim have been consulted for a documentary (no matter how outlandish) on TV. There is no way those folks could make such a major claim on the basis of one building. I quit watching the History Channel when they kept harping on Bigfoot being real without any evidence that would actually prove it one way or another.
 
anrmenchaca47 said:
I’m hoping someone caught this episode on the History Channel…it was a long time ago and I have vague recollection…so here goes.

I was watching the History Channel and I came across an episode in which there were “experts” talking about about how Constantine didn’t have anything to do with Christianity by studying this big architectual building with a type of stone mural built on top…The building looks like a big box with an arched walk way underneath and at the very top there was, a mural carved from stone that was said to have come from the time of Constantine.

What they were basically trying to do is disprove that Constantine did not have a vision of God in which he therefore used the cross as the symbol in one of his battles, which supposedly is the carved mural at the top of this building, by pointing out that none of the figures at the top had a cross on the shield since this would have been depicted.

If anyone caught this episode here is my question:

Are the “experts” correct in saying that Constantine was a phony just because the carved figures didn’t display the symbol of the cross which disproves him?
Click to expand...
That was the Arch of Constantine. It is true that the arch describes his victory in the Battle of Milvian Bridge in very ambiguous terms (“he, inspired by the divine, and by the greatness of his mind, has delivered the state from the tyrant and all of his followers at the same time, with his army and just force of arms…”) and does not display overt Christian imagery.


The Arch of Constantine


Frieze depicting the Siege of Verona. Note the winged Nike/Victoria figure among the soldiers on the left.


Roundel portraying the sun god Sol Invictus
In fact, Constantine’s official coinage continues to bear images of Sol Invictus along with other pagan/secular imagery as was customary until the mid-320s, at which point we begin to see the Chi-Rho displayed prominently (although we already see what looks like crosses and Chi-Rhos from coins slightly earlier than this).

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7277/solunl.jpg
Coin from 313-314 depicting Sol Invictus with the legend Soli Invicto Comiti (“To the Unconquered Sun, companion”)

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/8183/vicvar.jpg
Coin from 319 showing Victory holding wreath and palm branch, with the inscription Victoria Augg. nn. (Victoria Augusti nostri, “Victory of our Emperors”)

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/8210/tic86.jpg
Coin from 318-319 showing two Victories facing one another, together holding shield inscribed Vot(a) P(opuli) R(omani) “Vows of the Roman People” on altar inscribed with equilateral cross

http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/3581/con19e.jpg
Coin from 327 showing the Chi-rho atop a standard impaling a snake

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/1184/arles394.jpg
From 336, showing the Chi-Rho on standard

What that program is doing however is an argument from silence. Not good.
 
Also, could the carving at the top of this building have been dated wrong and perhaps may have been before Constantine’s time?
Click to expand...
Parts of the Arch are actually taken from unknown monuments originally erected in honor of Trajan, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius, which were integrated with new material. The carvings in question - namely the frieze showing scenes from the Italian campaign of Constantine against Maxentius and the rising sun (Sol Invictus) roundel - however, does date from the time of Constantine.

 
patrick457 said:
parts of the arch are actually taken from unknown monuments originally erected in honor of trajan, hadrian and marcus aurelius, which were integrated with new material. The carvings in question - namely the frieze showing scenes from the italian campaign of constantine against maxentius and the rising sun (sol invictus) roundel - however, does date from the time of constantine.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...vg/640px-constantine_arch_datation_en.svg.png
Click to expand...
thanks so much!!! This helps a lot
 
anrmenchaca47 said:
I’m hoping someone caught this episode on the History Channel…it was a long time ago and I have vague recollection…so here goes.

I was watching the History Channel and I came across an episode in which there were “experts” talking about about how Constantine didn’t have anything to do with Christianity by studying this big architectual building with a type of stone mural built on top…The building looks like a big box with an arched walk way underneath and at the very top there was, a mural carved from stone that was said to have come from the time of Constantine.

What they were basically trying to do is disprove that Constantine did not have a vision of God in which he therefore used the cross as the symbol in one of his battles, which supposedly is the carved mural at the top of this building, by pointing out that none of the figures at the top had a cross on the shield since this would have been depicted.

If anyone caught this episode here is my question:

Are the “experts” correct in saying that Constantine was a phony just because the carved figures didn’t display the symbol of the cross which disproves him?

Also, could the carving at the top of this building have been dated wrong and perhaps may have been before Constantine’s time?

I know this is probably a far shot but any info could help…My apologies if what I describe doesn’t make sense.
Click to expand...
Was that before the UFO show and after Bigfoot or the other way around?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top