Constantine the Great should not be considered a mainstream Christian, because he was actually a heretic

In the most common sense, "mainstream" refers to Nicene Christianity, or rather the traditions which continue to claim adherence to the Nicene Creed.

Constantine, baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia at the very end of his life, falls into the dogma of Arius, and from that time until now seizures of churches and discord of the whole world have followed.

Arianism, in Christianity, the Christological (concerning the doctrine of Christ) position that Jesus, as the Son of God, was created by God. It was proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius and was popular throughout much of the Eastern and Western Roman empires, even after it was denounced as a heresy by the Council of Nicaea (325).

Religion

Nicene Christianity

Roman polytheism (Until 312)

Christianity (From 312)

The proclamation, made for the East by Licinius in June 313, granted all persons freedom to worship whatever deity they pleased

Constantine ruled the Roman Empire as sole emperor for much of his reign. Some scholars allege that his main objective was to gain unanimous approval and submission to his authority from all classes, and therefore chose Christianity to conduct his political propaganda, believing that it was the most appropriate religion that could fit with the Imperial cult (see also Sol Invictus).

Donation of ( Constitutum domini Constantini imperatoris ) A forged document allegedly written by the emperor Constantine the Great ( c .272/3–337) to Pope Sylvester I (r. 314–35 ), in which Constantine professes his faith and confers on the papacy primacy within the Church, honours equivalent to those of the emperor, and temporal power in the West. The authorship, date, and primary purpose of the document remain uncertain. In 1440 , Valla proved it a forgery by applying the techniques of Renaissance classical scholarship and textual...

Constantine might not have patronized Christianity alone. He built a triumphal arch in 315 to celebrate his victory in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (312) which was decorated with images of the goddess Victoria, and sacrifices were made to pagan gods at its dedication, including Apollo, Diana, and Hercules. Absent from the Arch are any depictions of Christian symbolism. However, the Arch was commissioned by the Senate, so the absence of Christian symbols may reflect the role of the Curia at the time as a pagan redoubt.[233]

At the time of his accession (375) he refused the insignia of pontifex maximus, which even Constantine and the other Christian emperors had always accepted. 

• Father baptised Arian + Semi-Arian son = most likely Nicene Christian?
  

Religion

Semi-Arianism

Felix (II), (died Nov. 22, 365, Porto, near Rome), antipope from 355 to 365. Originally an archdeacon, Felix was irregularly installed as pope in 355 after the emperor Constantius banished the reigning pope, Liberius. 

That he appreciated the import of these alterations, or realized that this revision was virtually the proclamation of a new doctrine, is scarcely probable. The creed thus evolved-the expression ὁμοούσιος is of Western origin-was finally signed by all the deputies with the exception of the bishops Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais: even the Arians had submitted. The two recalcitrant prelates, with the presbyter Arius, were banished to Illyria; Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea were also driven into exile and at the same time the works of Arius were condemned to be burned under pain of death.

1.  The edict of Milan protected "all" religions from persecution
   
2. Attempts to provide evidence for Constantine the Greats loyalty to Christianity have been found to be lies, fakes and forgeries. How much can we trust the counter argument when deceit such as this is at play
   
3. At no point did Constantine the Great relinquish his Pagan position as high priest of the ancient Roman religion. Is this acceptable in Christianity, to have a loyal convert that is still acting as Pontifex maximus? 
   
4. Constantine the Great somehow managed to spawn a son that became a Semi-Arian. So on top of the lies, fakes and forgeries + the fact Constantine did not relinquish his title, I am to believe that it is just coincidence that his son became a Semi-Arian through no influence from his father? 
   
5. Constantine the Great was baptized on his death bed an Arian Christian. I am to believe that the fact that Constantine the Great was baptized an Arian Christian, and spawned a son who became a Semi-Arian, mean he should be considered a Nicene Christian?
   
6. My opponent has on this occasion taken on a debate he should not be able to win. Quite simply, Constantine the Great and his son were heretics, and that is not up for debate unless one is delusional. - Fact
   

Thank you, Nevets, for this debate. This is a great subject and I’m glad that you challenged it. I love history. 

At the time of his accession (375) he refused the insignia of pontifex maximus, which even Constantine and the other Christian emperors had always accepted. 

I.a Religion is a matter of personal choice. At the root, religion is a belief that establishes what doctrine, and the originating deity of that doctrine, a person chooses to embrace, emulate, and worship. Christianity, as a religion, is no different than any other of the world’s religions in these concepts, though their doctrines and deities differ. That they do is not a matter of discussion in this debate; we concentrate on Christianity, and not even if that particular religion is the truth.

The most enthusiastic and skillful opponent of Arius was the archdeacon of the Alexandrian church, Athanasius. After heated discussions the council condemned the heresy of Arius, and after introducing some corrections and additions, it adopted the Creed in which, contrary to the teachings of Arius, Jesus Christ was recognized as the Son of God, unbegotten, and consubstantial (of one essence) with His Father. The Nicene Creed was signed by many of the Arian bishops. The more persistent of them, including Arius himself, were subjected to exile and confinement.

 In the attitude of Constantine himself there came to be a marked change in favor of the Arians. A few years after the council, Arius and his most fervent followers were recalled from exile.

Pelagianism is a heterodox Christian theological position that holds that the original sin did not taint human nature and that humans have the free will to achieve human perfection without divine grace.

he door to the trial of the antichrist and the exit of Essa Ibn Mary and the exit of Gog and Magog

I.b Since religion is a matter of personal choice, if one espouses Christianity, and apparently, as I will show, this was Emperor Constantine’s personal choice, it is his place to consider if he was “mainstream,” or not. However, as will be shown, there are indicators of Constantine’s choice. The timing of Constantine, straddling the 3rd and 4th centuries C.E., was a period of minor variant branches of Christianity. The Roman Catholics consider their launch with Simon Peter in the third decade of the 1stcentury C.E.[1]   The East-West division of established Roman Catholicism occurred roughly in the 11th century C.E., creating the [eastern] Orthodox Church centuries following Constantine. And, so on. As the world of Constantine embraced Roman Catholicism, that was mainstream Christianity, and it is to that religion that Constantine was drawn:  “Constantine continued to proclaim his adherence to Christianity…”[2]

Clovis is also significant due to his conversion to Catholicism in 496, largely at the behest of his wife, Clotilde, who would later be venerated as a saint for this act, celebrated today in both the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church. Clovis was baptized on Christmas Day in 508.[4] The adoption by Clovis of Catholicism (as opposed to the Arianism of most other Germanic tribes) led to widespread conversion among the Frankish peoples; to religious unification across what is now modern-day France, Belgium and Germany; three centuries later, to Charlemagne's alliance with the Bishop of Rome; and in the middle of the 10th century under Otto I the Great, to the consequent birth of the early Holy Roman Empire.

The core beliefs of Catholicism are found in the Nicene Creed.

I.b.1 Adherence to Christianity, in the singular realm of the Roman Catholic Church, in which Constantine was baptized, was primarily exemplified by that ordinance into the faith. However, a curious tenet was in vogue at the time:   “Constantine waited until death drew near to be baptized as a Christian. His decision was not unusual in a day when many Christians believed one could not be forgiven after baptism.”[3]   This is no longer believed, but, we must consider Constantine in his element of the 4th century C.E., not by 21st century C.E. standards. Is it fair to doubt “mainstream” if one accepts the basic ordinances of a religion and performs them? No. Therefore, the Resolution fails on this point: Constantine was mainstream Christian.

II.a Pro employs Wiki as his primary source, and appears satisfied to stop at Wiki for substantiation of fact. I will repeat a criticism I’ve argued since my membership began with DArt 14 months ago, citing Wiki, itself: “Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source”[4]   I have always advised that Wiki’s sources, such as Pro cites in R1, citation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Christianity#Citations  as well as the 2nd Summary, be, themselves, investigated by research. Pro quotes his source: “Constantine, baptized by Eusebius of Nicodemia at the very end of his life, falls into the dogma of Arius…”[5]  

II.a.1 Using Pro’s own sourcing string in Wiki [but not Wiki, itself], we find disclaimer of Pro’s claim of Constantine’s Arian allegiance in Wiki’s discussion of Arianism: 

“In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offence, he shall be submitted for capital punishment. ... 

— Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians”[6]

 In the attitude of Constantine himself there came to be a marked change in favor of the Arians. A few years after the council, Arius and his most fervent followers were recalled from exile.

It seems Constantine’s position on Arianism, accused by Jerome [reference my source [5], which is Pro’s source R1 [2]] is flawed, but then, Wiki sites evidence that “Practically all of Jerome's productions in the field of dogma have a more or less vehemently polemical character…”[7]    Jerome was not exactly kind to those he criticized, such as Constantine.  

II.b Further, as Pro claims the Nicene Christianity as the “mainstream” Christianity, [and I agree with the definition] let us be reminded of who it was who decreed the creation of official doctrine of the Orthodox Church of Rome by the Nicene Creed:[8]     Constantine the Great. A mainstream Christian.

II.b Further, as Pro claims the Nicene Christianity as the “mainstream” Christianity, [and I agree with the definition] let us be reminded of who it was who decreed the creation of official doctrine of the Orthodox Church of Rome by the Nicene Creed:[8]     Constantine the Great. A mainstream Christian.

II.c Observe the image to the right side of the text of Pro’s cited source [my source [8], above in II.b], an image of the Church Fathers of the First Council of Nicaea of 325 C.E.; an image with the Fathers to either side of a figure in their midst: Constantine, their instigator, their faithful follower, their Emperor.

NICAEA, COUNCIL OF. The Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) is an event of the highest importance in the history of Christianity. Its convocation and its course illustrate the radical revolution which the position of this religion, within the confines of the Roman empire, had undergone in consequence of the Edict of Milan.

II.d So, Pro identifies Constantine an Arian, but his own sourcing declares otherwise, in obvious disagreement with itself, as noted above re: Wiki’s self-proclaimed lack of reliability. I’ll let Pro’s sourcing refute his claim of the “Arian Christian,” Constantine. Thus, the Resolution fails. However, I’ll also remind that my argument I, above, relies on different sources.

III.a Helena is Constantine’s revered mother. But, is Helena a subject of the Resolution?  Nevertheless, a word about Helena: The accepted history is that Helena encouraged Constantine to embrace Christianity. That it may have been Nicene [i.e., the “mainstream”] as alleged by Pro, is only strengthened by Constantine’s own decree by the gathering of the Council of Nicaea of 325, as noted above, II.a.1. Therefore, the relationship of Helena and Constantine only supports the idea that Constantine was “mainstream,” and the Resolution is defeated.

 

IV.a “Now, I am sure we are all aware that it is greatly disputed just how much Constantine the Great actually converted to Christianity”   Pro claims. Are we so aware?  Even Pro earlier admits Constantine’s conversion to Christianity. Pro is self-documented confused regarding that it was Arian or Nicene. By my rebuttal II, above, it seems clear that he embraced Nicene Christianity by virtue of the gathering of the Church Fathers at Nicaea in 325 [II.a.1]

IV.b Pro then says, “So for this reason, Constantine the Great could have easily been a member of "any" religion.”  Do we then dismiss Pro’s own claim in R1 that Constantine was baptized a Christian near the end of his life? Prior to his baptism, sure. But Pro also advises that, from his youth, Helena, his mother, was herself, embracing Christianity, and encouraged her son in that regard; so says Pro in R1.

V.a No need belabor this Pro argument. He cites Wiki, which says “Some scholars allege…” concluding Constantine’s embrace of Christianity for political purposes. As if politics cannot be a source of conversion to any religion? So, what if it is? Does that in any way invalidate the sincerity of conversion? Particularly since, as cited, only “some scholars allege…” allegations being merely suggestions and not evidence-based facts, not to mention that only some, not most, allege same. Does not sound like solid evidence to me. In fact, Pro’s source, Wiki, admits that relative to this claim by adding:  “full citation needed.”  I’ll leave that to voters to determine scholastic authenticity.

 

The vision of Constantine in the summer of 312 before the Battle of MilvianBridge has been a source of considerable debate. The controversy of Constantine’sconversion comes from the debate over his legitimacy as a convert to Christianity.Constantine had many Christian influences throughout his life. As a child the impact ofhis father, Constantius (250-306), played a major role in Constantine’s view towardChristians and the Battle of Milvian Bridge was a turning point in the view ofChristianity for Constantine personally. The coins issued as the sole Roman Emperor, hisedicts, and his presidency at the famous Council of Nicaea in 325 all show him as aconscious Christian not only personally as an individual, but also as an emperor.Constantine was convinced that Christianity would be beneficial for him and his empire,but led two lives, public and private.

VI.a Pro claims, “If Constantine truly converted to Christianity, then why the lies that Constantine was baptized by Pope Sylvester?”   Lies? Was it a lie that science claimed, in antiquity, and, in fact, until the 17th century, that the universe was geocentric? A lie is an intentional deception. A claim of some fact, in ignorance, is not a lie. Let’s be certain of our word definitions, here. Who is certain that the claim of Constantine’s baptism was, in fact, deception and not just ignorance of facts? I’ll acknowledge that Pope Sylvester was not the officiator of Constantine’s baptism, particularly since Eusibius of Nicomedia, likely was that officiator, and, coincidentally a relation to Constantine, further cementing the argument of who baptized Constantine.

VI.b Why, as Pro alleges, would I be inclined to discuss “the donation of Constantine” as an alleged forged document? So what? It is not particularly a matter I find definitive to disprove the Resolution. Apparently, Pro finds it is not sufficient to prove the Resolution, either. Let us agree that it is not a matter relative to either side’s BoP, and let the matter drop. I appreciate Pro’s attempt at prescience of my BoP, but, this time, it fails.

Donation of Constantine, Latin Donatio Constantini and Constitutum Constantini, the best-known and most important forgery of the Middle Ages, the document purporting to record the Roman emperor Constantine the Great’s bestowal of vast territory and spiritual and temporal power on Pope Sylvester I

VII.a.1 I, too, a professed Christian, believer in the Holy Bible, and testifier of the divinity and glory of Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the world, nevertheless, profess truths contained in the Qu’ran, the Torah, The Book of Mormon, the Gida, the Tripitaka, and others. Does that mean I deny my Christianity? No, it indicates my belief that truth is contained in many places.

VII.b I suggest Pro research the meaning of  pontifex,  in Latin, “bridge builder.”[9]   So what if Constantine declared himself  “Pontifax Maximus.”  Is there any doubt Constantine was a proud man, perhaps to a fault? But, how does that support declare the truth of the Resolution?

the chief priest (pontifex maximus).

VII.b.1 Did Pro bother to define his terms beyond “mainstream Christianity?” No. In particular, he did not define  heresy;

belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine.

VIII.a  A brief: The debate Resolution is not about Constantine’s son. In this matter, the Resolution is a failure by exclusion. 

Thus, Pro’s additional claim, “…and that is not up for debate unless one is delusional”  is suspect since Pro is the initiator. Will Pro agree that Pro, initiator, is, thus, delusional?, since this is, contrary to Pro's claim, a debate? I make no comment on the matter; caveat lector.

 

Assuming Pro will back-step from that accusation, let’s agree we have a debate, and that neither participant is delusional. Therefore, if Pro wants to insist Con cannot win, has Pro, therefore, violated CoC by some perversion of the policy? It is my belief that it is voters who determine who wins the debate, and that based on argument within the rounds, and not by claims to the contrary by participants. As Con, I am fully willing to allow voters their judgment, regardless of outcome.

 

1. I successfully showed my opponent why religion being a personal choice is only true in peacetime and in an ideal world, and in Fauxlaw Christianity.
   
2. I successfully showed my opponent why he was wrong about Arianism simply becoming Catholicism. In fact, Catholicism was the continuation of Nicene Christianity, not Arianism.
   
3. My opponent has conceded that Constantine was baptized by the heretic Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia in 337
   
4. My opponent appeared unaware that Constantine later dropped his support for the Council of Nicaea and became sympathetic towards the Arians.
   
5. My opponent appeared unaware that the decision was made by the Council of Nicaea and merely temporarily upheld by Constantine
   
6. My opponent needs to provide the quote he is pertaining to where I ever admitted to Constantine converting wholeheartedly to Nicene Christianity, or I am confused about whether he converted to Nicene Christianity or Arianism.
   
7. My opponent was shown that  Constantine the Greats conversion to Christianity is under scholastic dispute, despite his claims otherwise.
   
8. My opponent sees no importance in a forgery faking evidence of Constantine's loyalty to the bishops.
   
9. My opponent claimed that Constantine was merely a bridge builder, which is almost 100% false.
   
10. My opponent wants to debate the definition of heresy, which is common knowledge in English speaking countries.
    
11. My opponent fails to even understand how Constantine the Great having a son that became Semi-Arian "might" suggest that his own father may have had some influence.
    

XI.a Both Pro R1 and R2 have laid down a gauntlet normally not part of a debate in the spirit of good sportsmanship; a CofC fundamental. Pro’s R1 Description  declared, “…this debate will work with the exact same principles as all other standard debates.”  I accepted the debate on that declaration.

The debate which I am Pro for, is: Constantine the Great should not be considered a mainstream Christian, because he was actually a heretic.

XI.a.1 Need I say, again, I don’t appreciate the allegation of being delusional [Pro R1]? 

XII.a In R1, we discussed what makes a mainstream Christian: an adherent to Christianity, following its tenants and ordinances, as Constantine did. This 2nd round will consider what a heretic is. The definition of the term is revealing: according to the OED, “One who maintains theological or religious opinions at variance with the ‘catholic’ or orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, that of any church or religious system, considered as orthodox.”

religion : a person who differs in opinion from established religious dogma

Heresy is any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs, in particular the accepted beliefs of a church or religious organization.[1]

excommunication & death penalty

 In certain historical Christian, Muslim and Jewish cultures, among others, espousing ideas deemed heretical has been (and in some cases still is) met with censure ranging from excommunication to the death penalty.

XII.a.1 My R1 definition from Britannica [see my R1, VII.b.1] was a more philosophic than religious definition. Above is the more religious connotation. 

XII.b Who is best suited to make the declaration identifying a heretic? Is it fair to say that leaders of said orthodoxy would be best suited to declare one a heretic? Or, is it our place, 1,700 years distant from the history to make the declaration of a heretic? Fausta [I do not refer to Constantine’s wife; just using the name at random], a woman making bread in the market square of Rome, a Constantinian subject, would not be well suited to make the declaration: “The Emperor is a heretic.” She may truly believe it, but I happen to believe that blue people inhabit a distant moon in another system. What credibility have I in that matter?  I will wager, for example, that few of us in this century are aware of the belief in the 4thcentury C.E. that forgiveness was not achievable after baptism.[2] [See my R1, I.b.1] 

XII.c The salient question, then, is, did the Roman Catholic Church, in Constantine’s lifetime, declare Constantine a heretic? “Not wanting questions about the divine nature of Christ to sow discord, Constantine summoned church officials to the Council of Nicaea in 325. Out of this came the Nicene Creed, which affirmed that Jesus was a divine being.”[3]  Is there any doubt that, to Roman Catholicism, Jesus Christ, and his divinity, was and is the  prima facie  Christian doctrine? Would the Church, then, declare the man responsible for gathering a council of Church Fathers for canonizing that doctrine a heretic?  They did not.

XII.d Perspective is the elephant in the room. In his lifetime, 300 years behind Constantine, in the perspective of the Pharisees, Jesus was a heretic. A heretic of their sanhedrin hold on tradition. Jesus was a tradition-breaker; a revolutionary. Just politically, Jesus represented a serious threat to their hold on sand through their fingers compared to the Roman fist holding them. The Jews response to Pontius Pilate that Jesus represented a threat to him was quelled in Pilate’s direct interview with Jesus:  “Whence art thou?”[4]   Pilate asks. Jesus ultimately concludes,  “My kingdom is not of this world.”[5]  What threat, then, to Pilate? A heretic? Maybe to the Jews, but, what are they to Pilate? He washed his hands. Done. A diversion, yes, but it has the point of putting heresy in perspective. It has the point of demonstrating who is giving offense, but more who is offended.

XII.e Even a source that questions Constantine’s devotion to Christianity declares, “Constantine built many churches. He celebrated faith in one (Christian) God and his son Jesus by creating many of the greatest churches in the world, including: St. Peter’s in Rome…”[6]   The Resolution fails on this point. Constantine was actually not a heretic.

The Tyche of Constantinople holding a wreath to crown Constantine (sardonyx cameo, 4th century)

Under Constantine, the Tychai of Rome and Constantinople together might be presented as personifications of the empire ruling the world.[6]

 Constantine's reign did not constitute the end of temple construction. He both permitted and commissioned temple construction in areas outside Constantinople.[48]:

XIII.a One should read the Edict of Milan, It’s short, but too long to quote here, but is cited.[7]  Pro’s summary is that the Edict protected all religions, but his argument suggested ulterior motives by Constantine. Yes, he wanted a peaceful empire, void of religious squabbles, mainly because, as evidenced by this website’s Forum, let alone the Debate section, religion tends to spill over into other controversies, and likely always has. That is quite evident in this sentiment from the Edict: “…that no man should be denied leave of attaching himself to the rites of the Christians, or to whatever other religion his mind directed him, that thus the supreme Divinity, to whose worship we freely devote ourselves, might continue to vouchsafe His favour and beneficence to us.”  Herein is no mention of factions of Christians. Arian, Nicene, or Fauxlaw. The latter of which, by the way, does not exist, but in Pro’s imagination. I’ll let that one pass, for now, okay, Mr. Beatty?

XIV.a Pro has offered nothing in defense of his claim but by repetition of the pro R1 argument. However, there is no deceit if there is no lie. Constantine desired a peaceful kingdom. He saw in Christianity the vehicle to make that happen. He requested a conferring council of Church Fathers to convene to settle the various squabbles among Christians by establishing a cohesive creed; what became the Nicene Creed of 325. If Constantine thought his politics would be more easily conducted if people of his empire were united in one Christian faith, at least, allowing for the variance in religious faiths be recognizing in such a vast empire of differing peoples and cultures, so much the better. And if, by example, Constantine could espouse Christianity himself, so much further the better. If all of that is deception, it certainly had the blessing of the Church Fathers. Occam’s razor might be applied here.

XV.a Constantine, Emperor. A title the man legitimately held; the benefactor of the previous holder of the title. And, since Constantine’s title is not a factor in the Resolution, this argument, already visited in my R1, VII by rebuttal, is irrelevant. 

While we’re on irrelevance, let’s not hear further about Constantine’s father,  Flavius Valerius Constantius "Chlorus", also called Constantius I, mentioned in Pro’s R2, because he’s not a subject of the debate. Of political influence on Constantine, yes, but that’s not a subject of the debate, either.

XVI.a Already visited and dismissed as irrelevant to the Resolution in my R1, X.a.4.

XVII.a Pro alleges that Constantine’s baptism was, itself, a heresy, given by whom he was baptized. He accuses as opinion, a standing belief in the 4th century, that forgiveness after baptism was my opinion, and not fact. I offered my source of the claim.[8]  Further, consider,  “…because Baptism takes away past, but not future, sins: wherefore the more it is deferred, the more sins it takes away. Therefore it seems that Baptism should be deferred for a long time.”[9]

 

XVII.b Are there clowns here? Isn’t it rich? If Christianity were merely a club, and baptism an initiation protocol, then baptism is going to be the only way to join the club. If the club by-laws do not designate the specific officiator who must perform the baptism, one assumes that any current member of the club may so officiate. Does it matter who it is? 1,700 years later? Does it matter who’s on the ground, and who’s in mid-air? Perhaps as a matter of record, there is merit. Beyond that? Do we accept that Constantine was a member of the club? The circus has come to town. Send in the clowns.

 

As rebutted in R1 regarding irrelevant matters to the debate, this Pro R2 reference to Gratian, whose birth post-dates Constantine’s death by two decades, is not a relevant subject of the debate, regardless of its discussion of  pontifex maximus,  particularly since that is a title not unique to Constantine. In fact, Gratian rejected the title, as Pro argues, but Constantine had naught to do with that decision. As was said of Constantine’s son and a circus, there is at least that degree of separation between Constantine and Gratian. Therefore, the Resolution fails by this exclusion.

XX.a Pro claims religion is by personal choice only in peacetime. Is it funny that people tend to turn heavenward, Godward, in times of war? No; it’s respectful. And this is not a personal choice?  Pro throws at us examples of despots who force matters on their subjects, and includes Constantine in that mix of despots. We have read the Edict of Milan. Are those words of force, or of liberty, or, in constitutional jargon “freedom of religion?” Yes, there are examples drawn from history, even by the historic Catholic faith, and others, who burned accused heretics and witches at stakes, under the edict, “repent, or die!” Is that not a choice given, and did not many choose death as a release from despotism? Personal choice, my friends has been the God-given edict since Adam & Eve at the tree; they were also given the choice, avoid the fruit of that tree, or die. Well, now, they chose both the fruit, and, therefore, to die, eventually. Freedom of choice, just as the Edict of Milam dictates: “…For it befits the well-ordered state and the tranquility of our times that each individual be allowed, according to his own choice…”[10]  Aren't you pleased we're discussing the text of the Edict, itself, and not merely opinions about it?

XXI.a Clovis: According to Pro’s source on the subject, a 5th– 6th  century figure. What relevance, then, to Constantine and the debate Resolution? Being irrelevant, Clovis and his crowd are relegated to the scrap heap.

XXII.a While Arius is a contemporary, the rest are as the clowns listed in XXI, above; irrelevant. As for Arius, since Pro is insistent that the Nicene Creed was so dismissive of Arianism and its namesake, why don’t we take a look at the text of the Nicene Creed, and see for ourselves if Arius and his group are maligned as heretics, as Pro claims. Constantine, too, while we’re at it:

 

The creed thus evolved-the expression ὁμοούσιος is of Western origin-was finally signed by all the deputies with the exception of the bishops Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais: even the Arians had submitted. The two recalcitrant prelates, with the presbyter Arius, were banished to Illyria; Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea were also driven into exile and at the same time the works of Arius were condemned to be burned under pain of death.

Review the text of the Nicene Creed, just above, specifically line 6, and compare it to the quote immediately above from Pro’s source. Seems we’re confused about the begotteness of Jesus Christ [begotten? unbegotten?], but that may be understandable in the context of the source’s opinion [unsubstantiated], that no records exist of the content of the Creed. “Some doubt that any written records of the proceedings were kept at ll.”[13]  How would Elpenor, the Pro source, know with such conviction, that the council “condemned” anybody? Either they have scholastic sources, or they don’t. The Loyola Press [my source for the Creed], a Catholic enterprise, begs to differ.

The acts of the Council of Nicaea have not been preserved. Some doubt that any written records of the proceedings were kept at all. Information about the council comes from the writings of those who participated in it as well as from the accounts of historians.

Somehow, Pro concludes that the Nicene Creed “…blows a hole in my opponents argument.”   If it does, why is Con the only participant to quote the Creed, in full, and discuss what it really says, not what it is alleged to say by a source that barely acknowledges it is a real, factual document and not some doubting modern academic’s [Elpenor] opinion? Facts, not opinions? It appears Pro's sources are not so hot to trot with facts.

I conclude that Pro is using a wide field to exercise what ought to be a fairly concise garden [by the Resolution] set of arguments. We’re already extended a lifetime before Constantine, and several centuries after to justify the Resolution which is contained, by its language, within his lifetime, alone, and a foreshortened span of that. 

1. In round 1 I claimed that the Edict of Milan protected all religions from persecution, and not only Christianity, and my opponent has conceded this point.
   
2. My opponent has given an unsatisfactory response to the donation of Constantine forgery and his insistance that key evidence of Constantine's devout mainstream Christianity being faked is unimportant, is unsatisfactory
   
3. My opponent appears to have conceded that Constantine remained the Pagan Pontifex Maximus
   
4. My opponent has conceded that his own son was Semi-Aryan
   
5. My opponent has conceded that Constantine was baptised by an Arian bishop
   
6. I claimed that my opponent was wrong about Catholicism being born out of Arianism, and he did not dispute this
   
7. I have claimed that Constantine turned his back on the Nicene Council and became an Arian sympathiser, and my opponent has failed to respond to this
   
8. My opponent has dropped the argument about me admitted to Constantine being a mainstream Christian, or being confused about the differences between Arianism and Nicene Christianity, and the allegation was without foundation and was preposterous
   
9. My opponent has dropped his argument about my claims regarding Constantine's devotion being under scholastic dispute
   
10. My opponent has dropped his argument about Pontifex Maximus meaning anything else other than Chief Priest when taken in to context
    
11. I have successfully offered a definition for heresy from the dictionary which precisely defines Constantine's unorthodoxy and baptism as heretic. As well as his loyalty to Roman religion.
    
12. I succesfully countered one of my opponents very few arguments regards to Constantine's building of churches, pointing out that Constantine also issued and commissioned Pagan constructs
    
13. I successfully pointed out my opponents contradictions
    
14. I successfully pointed out my opponents irrelevant argument regarding Gratian
    
15. My opponent needs to provide evidence that those he calls clowns can be accurately defined as such
    
16. I successfully showed my opponent that Arius and Arianism has been condemned as a heresy
    
17. I successfully showed my opponent where he was wrong about there being no scholastic evidence for the council of Nicaea, even though the council of Nicaea is his claim, not mine
    
18. Out of 17 arguments of my own that have went unrebutted and unrefuted, my opponent has only really came up with two arguments of his own. That being Christian churches, which I rebutted and refuted. And his main argument the Nicene council being proof of Constantine's devotion to mainstream Christianity, which I have refuted by pointing out that he abandoned the council of Nicaea
    

 

XXIII.a Constantine, a Roman by birth [though his mother, Helena, was a low-born Greek, who may or may not have ever been wed to her son’s father, Constantius Chlorus] spoke Latin as a native language, and was a poor student of Greek, requiring translators in that language his entire life.[i]   I have argued my entire adult life, being a student with fluency in four languages, English, by birth, French, by ancestry and domicile for 3 years, Italian and Greek by personal interest and formal education in Greek, plus a fifth in Egyptian hieroglyphs, by formal education, that translation from one language to another is usually, at best, a dictionary-to-dictionary word-for-word translation, and not usually by an in-depth understanding of both cultures where those languages’ cultures differ. Culture is the creator of language, and not the reverse. 

 

XXIII.a.1 Therefore, though translations by dictionary comparison are common, that method lacks integrity, since 2 languages, particularly those of different roots, do not have a complete lexicon [word set] that are word-for-word compatible with one another. Dictionaries do not exist to teach even its own culture, let alone another, and are, therefore, poor teachers of culture. This is true simply from Greek [considered the original language of the New Testament, for example] to Latin, a language into which biblical texts were first attempted to be translated in Constantine’s lifetime.[ii]

 

XXIII.b Combine that issue with the Christian squabbling going on between factions under Constantine’s nose; one begins to gain perspective on the Emperor’s dilemma of unifying his empire to a greater degree than had even been accomplished by his father. Where previous emperors were stick-bearers, Constantine determined to use a carrot: Christianity.[

1.   Constantine favored Arian Christianity prior to the timing of the Nicene Creed [pre 325 CE], as opposed to the Church Fathers who assembled to create the Nicene Creed [325 CE], and who, under Constantine’s wishes, formed the Nicene faction by its creed. This is born out by Pro’s claim in R3 that “Constantine would have also canonized Arian Christianity had Arius won the vote. You also skip over the fact that Constantine "removed his support" for the council of Nicaea.”

 2. Therefore, Constantine was branded a heretic by the Church Fathers.

My reply:  The first claim is not supported by any scholastic reference; not even Wiki.Not to mention any sure confidence, 17 centuries later, of what Constantine  would have  done. Conjecture is not evidence.  The second claim has no support by scholastic reference; it is Pro’s opinion.

First Council of Nicaea, (325), the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey). It was called by the emperor Constantine I, an unbaptized catechumen, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions. He hoped a general council of the church would solve the problem created in the Eastern church by Arianism, a heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created being. Pope Sylvester I did not attend the council but was represented by legates.

XXIII.c These factions appear to have squabbled over a single point of doctrine; the consubstantial  nature of Christ, the Son of God. Let’s not get into the weeds of the meaning and consequences of this schism; it is enough to know Constantine’s mind on the subject, to wit:  According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, “Constantine… sent from Nicomedia to Alexander a famous letter, in which he treated the controversy as an idle dispute about words and enlarged on the blessings of peace. The emperor, we should call to mind, was only a catechumen, imperfectly acquainted with Greek, much more incompetent in theology, and yet ambitious… to exercise… as Pontifex Maximus …determined on restoring ecclesiastical order.”[iv]

XXIII.d  According to the same source:  “Constantine, in 336, recalled the Lybian [Eusibius Nicomedia, who had been exiled], extracted from him a  solemn adhesion to the Nicene faith, and ordered Alexander, Bishop of the Imperial City, to give him Communion in his own church.”[v]

The saint firmly declined. In 325 the heresiarch was absolved by two councils, at Tyre and Jerusalem, the former of which deposed Athanasius on false and shameful grounds of personal misconduct. He was banished to Trier, and his sojourn of eighteen months in those parts cemented Alexandria more closely to Rome and the Catholic West. Meanwhile, Constantia, the Emperor's sister, had recommended Arius, whom she thought an injured man, to Constantine's leniency. Her dying words affected him, and he recalled the Lybian, extracted from him a solemn adhesion to the Nicene faith, and ordered Alexander, Bishop of the Imperial City, to give him Communion in his own church (336). Arius openly triumphed; but as he went about in parade, the evening before this event was to take place, he expired from a sudden disorder, which Catholics could not help regarding as a judgment of heaven, due to the bishop's prayers. His death, however, did not stay the plague. Constantine now favoured none but Arians; 

Nicomedia (/ˌnɪkəˈmiːdiə/;[1] Greek: Νικομήδεια, Nikomedeia; modern İzmit) was an ancient Greek city located in what is now Turkey.

Already events were happening at Constantinople which were soon to make him the most important figure of his time. Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had fallen into disgrace and been banished by the Emperor Constantine for his part in the earlier Arian controversies, had been recalled from exile.

XXIII.e Apparently, Constantine is not the heretic Con accuses him of being. These five source links, [i - v] I’ve offered are all from the The New Advent, the Catholic Encyclopedia. I will acknowledge that later, 10 years later, at the end of his life, the same source acknowledges a Constantinian drift to Arianism, but nowhere in the text on this encyclopedic subject of “Arianism” is Constantine branded a heretic by the Holy Roman Church as Pro claims. Pro’s sources for his argument are, themselves, lacking scholastic sourcing, by their admission [see my R2, XIII,], or are Con accusations of opinion against my sourced facts [see my R2, XII], or simply miss Con’s claims of relevance to the Resolution [See my R2, XIII – XXII]

XXIV.a Pro belabors the definition of Shakespeare’s Richard III’s  missing horse, whose name, of course, was Heretic. Just kidding, but from a position of barely defining terms in Description, they are in abundance, now. Even to the point of confusing Merriam-Webster’s version of “heretic” with “religion.” A curious juxtaposition.

A heresy which arose in the fourth century, and denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

XXV.a Pro accuses Constantine of turning his back on the Nicene Creed. As I have already demonstrated, by virtue of the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia [see XXIII, above], that Constantine not only kept his britches on, but did not turn his back on the Creed, and, in fact, demonstrated his loyalty by convincing the alleged villain, Eusibius Nicodemia, to profess the supremacy of the Creed, and to have communion in Bishop Alexander’s church.[vi]  See my XXIII.d, above.

Constantine now favoured none but Arians; 

XXVI.a Two portraits [yes, I purposely misspelled Pro’s version] of Constantine. Either he was a heretic, or, he was a mainstream Christian. Aren’t those really the only two factors in this debate? May we please stay on point? Does the Resolution identify any other factors, such as Constantine’s dad, his son, Helena, Clovis, Blovis, Beavis & Butthead, Arius, Pelogius, Gog and Magog, Gratius, Pontifex, clowns and weeds…  and now Tyche and an 8thcentury forgery [the “Donation  of Constantine”]?  It should be much more simple. It is. Let’s clear the clutter and the clowns, because, much as Pro wants to malign the Donation, specifically, as a forgery, the which I do not contest, it is a document post-dating Constantine by four centuries, so, what, pray tell, has it to do with the Resolution? Preposterous?  Caveat lector.

 

XXVI.c  “Constantine did not consider himself a Nicene Christian,”   Pro claims, and further,  “The point you seem to be missing and skipping over is that Constantine would have also canonized Arian Christianity had Arius won the vote.”   Why miss ‘n skip over a history that did not happen? Uh, because it did not happen? Since it didn’t happen, Pro’s unsubstantiated opinion, notwithstanding, fails on that mic drop.

XXVI.c.1 Let us recall that the Church Fathers attending Constantine’s requested council in 325 in Nicea, was to canonize [by the Fathers, not by Constantine, as Pro alleges], a doctrine: the Nicene doctrine that exists to this day. I’ve asked Pro to demonstrate the documentation that Constantine was branded a heretic by these same Church Fathers. Let’s add where, when, and why. We wait with baited breath.

XXVI.d “Jesus could be deemed a heretic,”Pro alleges Con said. Nope, I did not say that. What I said was that, from the perspective of the Pharisees, Jesus was a heretic. Heresy can by launched from any faction; it is not an exclusively Christian charge. It’s fine to misquote as a means to rebut a point, but the misquote carries no water and no weight if that is not what was said. Caveat lector.

XXVI.e Pro alleges that if Constantine both built Christian churches and pagan structures, he cannot be a loyal Christian. No? As a growing child in Brentwood [L.A.] CA, our next-door neighbor was a wealthy construction contractor, specifically of hospitals. He was a converted Christian from Judaism. He built a Shriners hospital [Shriners, formerly known as the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine].[vii]   If my neighbor was capable of such separate activities, I think the Emperor of an Empire could do at least as much without stirring controversy by an opinionator 17 centuries later. Let us recall one title Constantine bore, reminded of it by Pro: Pontifex Maximus. The meaning being “bridge builder,” I reminded in R2. I emphasize the words, both of them. Seems the Emperor wore the title well, recalling, after all, that we are not talking about one of the Church Fathers, who were dedicated to a singular religion, but an Emperor, who had to keep peace in a vast empire of several religions, cultures, languages, and people. Oh, by the way, he happened to profess to be a Christian. Given the dichotomy of even that denomination, as it is today, must we insist that Constantine, a political, and not a religious leader, declare by which he was most dedicated, if, as we have observed, by virtue of the Edict of Milan, his aim of a peaceful empire went beyond the confines of a single doctrine?

XXVI.f The Nicene Creed  “makes a mockery of the Edict of Milan,” Pro charges, without citation? Having demonstrated the Creed in total in my R2, and also having cited reference to the Edict of Milan, I challenge the evidence of mockery by the Creed. The former is a declaration of freedom of religion. The latter declares the doctrine of one of many religions, Christianity, which is referenced in the former document. What mockery? I see, in the Creed, nothing but affirmation of core beliefs of Christianity. The Edict acknowledges the hope of peaceful coexistence of all doctrines of all religions. The two documents seek separate purposes, but if Pro wants to argue that one of them dismisses the other, it is more correct by the evidence of their respective texts, rather than some anonymous modern academic’s opinion on which Pro builds his own opinion, that of the two, the Edict of Milan is the more generalized, and, therefore, dismissive of a specific doctrine.

XXVI.g Pro: “Fakes and forgeries are not important.”  Once again, Pro misquotes to bolster his argument. Did I say these were not important? No, words mean things. “Important” is not the equivalent of “Relevant,” is it? I said they are not relevant because they are not featured as elements of the Resolution. Why must I be the one to keep Pro on track? It’s his Resolution. He’d best be about a BoP focused on the Resolution. But, Pro’s arguments are his to choose… Caveat lector.

XXVI.h Pro: “Why will my opponent accept Constantine’s Mother as part of the debate, but not father?”  Please refer to my R2, III.a question; “Is Helena a subject of the Resolution?” In XXVI.a, above, do I not essentially ask the same question? Please, let’s keep the characters Pro insists are Resolution-inclusive at bay. It calls out one character; the portrait we are attempting to complete. There are not enough colors on the palette to paint all the characters Pro wants to include.  Caveat lector.

XXVI.j Pro: “Constantine’s semi-arian son…”  I refer my opponent to my R1, X.a.4 and R2, XVI.4, and repeat the above: There are not enough colors on the palette to paint all the contradicting 1,2,3 characters Pro wants to include.  Caveat lector.

XXVI.k Pro: “Does being baptized by a heretic also make one a heretic?”   The question makes some assumptions. Let’s consider the chronology, according to the New Advent Catholic Dictionary:

a person believing in or practising religious heresy.

1.     Eusibius Nocodemia, a Bishop, aligns with Arianism. At the time, its just another brand of Christianity. Of Nicene persuasion.. well, it doesn’t yet exist.

2.     Constantine requests a council of Bishops to gather to Nicaea to consolidate a doctrine. Differing arguments are heard. Eventually, the Church Fathers assemble sufficient proponents of one doctrine, with noted dissenters, to publish the Nicene Creed.

4.     Constantine requests the Church Fathers re-admit Eusibius and offer him sacrament. The Holy Roman Church acquiesces.

5.     Constantine succeeds in his request to Eusibius to declare his allegiance to the Nicene Creed.

.[15] Though he never repudiated the council or its decrees, the emperor ultimately permitted Arius (who had taken refuge in Palestine) and many of his adherents to return to their homes, once Arius had reformulated his Christology to mute the ideas found most objectionable by his critics. Athanasius was exiled following his condemnation by the First Synod of Tyre in 335 (though he was later recalled), and the Synod of Jerusalem the following year restored Arius to communion. The emperor directed Alexander of Constantinople to receive Arius, despite the bishop's objections; Bishop Alexander responded by earnestly praying that Arius might perish before this could happen.[33]

6.     At the end of his life, Constantine is baptized by Eusibius, who is no longer considered a heretic by Church Fathers.

1. I have successfully confirmed that a heretic is a person of a faith deemed heretic
   
2. I have successfully concluded that Arianism is to deny the divinity of Christ
   
3. I have successfully used my opponents own source to show him that his own source states that Constantine turned to Arianism
   
4. I successfully showed my opponent where he misread the information regarding Eusebius of Nicomedia, therefore his rebuttal was debunked
   
5. I successfully showed my opponent that he was wrong about what his own source said, and that it refutted him, regarding Arianism being a heresy or no 
   
6. My opponent has conceded that Constantine did indeed build Pagan temple.
   

Arianism is often considered to be a form of Unitarian theology in that it stresses God’s unity at the expense of the notion of the Trinity, the doctrine that three distinct persons are united in one Godhead. Arius’s basic premise was the uniqueness of God, who is alone self-existent (not dependent for its existence on anything else) and immutable; the Son, who is not self-existent, cannot therefore be the self-existent and immutable God. Because the Godhead is unique, it cannot be shared or communicated. Because the Godhead is immutable, the Son, who is mutable, must, therefore, be deemed a creature who has been called into existence out of nothing and has had a beginning. Moreover, the Son can have no direct knowledge of the Father, since the Son is finite and of a different order of existence.

Arianism, in Christianity, the Christological (concerning the doctrine of Christ) position that Jesus, as the Son of God, was created by God. It was proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius and was popular throughout much of the Eastern and Western Roman empires, even after it was denounced as a heresy by the Council of Nicaea (325).

g.1  I acknowledge my error mistaking Eusibius for Arian as being “the Libyan.” However, Pro manages to ignore [skimming?] l  that I also acknowledge in R3, XXIII.d ;that,  “These five source links, [i - v][5]   I’ve offered are all from the The New Advent, the Catholic Encyclopedia. I will acknowledge that later, 10 years later, at the end of his life, the same source acknowledges a Constantinian drift to Arianism.”  However, I assure you, this will be revisited…  Is there a more proximate source to the events involved who may have a word or two of scholastic observation?

u.3.1  The re-visit: a later historian, Socrates Scholasticus,[14]  [we should all have such a name!] in 439 CE,  described the events of 325 CE, when the Council of Nicaea convened at the behest of Constantine, records that once the Nicene Creed was composed and issued for vote by the attending bishops, five bishops, in the presence of Constantine, including Eusebius Nicodemia, declined to agree. Eusebius, among others, including Arius, had earlier been recommended for excommunication as heretics by Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria [Egypt], but such excommunication had not yet occurred. The request was repeated upon the denial by Eusebius, who, upon an edict of exile by Constantine [not the Church Fathers], departed hence.  Not long after the agreement of the Nicene Creed, Eusebius, “…who had held aloof for a short time, after mature consideration whether he ought to receive this definition of faith  [referring to the Creed],  at length acquiesced in it,  and subscribed it with all the rest: he also sent to the people under his charge a copy of the Creed.”[15]  Following this change of heart, Constantine reversed the exile, and welcomed Eusebius back.[16]

 

u.4  Thus, Eusebius, forgiven, was not excommunicated, the declaration of heresy was withdrawn, and he subsequently, years later, baptized Constantine in full authority as a bishop.

THE partisans of Eusebius and Theognis having returned from their exile, these latter were reinstated in their churches, having expelled, as we observed, those who had been ordained in their stead. Moreover, they came into great consideration with the emperor, who honored them exceedingly, as those who had returned from error to the orthodox faith. They, however, abused the license thus afforded them, by exciting greater commotions in the world than they had done before; being instigated to this by two causes — on the one hand the Arian heresy with which they had been previously infected, and bitter animosity against Athanasius on the other, because he had so vigorously withstood them in the Synod while the articles of faith were under discussion. 

u.5  With that, though Arianism may have been declared heretical by the Nicene Creed [though only in discussion by the assembled bishops, for the declaration is not within the Creed, itself, as quoted by historian Socrates Scholasticus.[17]   Therefore, I am not wrong, as claimed via Pro’s  webo,  with regard to Eusebius, and his subsequent officiating Constantine’s baptism, of which we read:   “Perceiving, however, that his illness increased, he  [Constantine]  deferred the use of the baths; and removing from Helenopolis to Nicomedia, he took up his residence in the suburbs, and there received Christian baptism.”[18]  There is no mention of Arius, devotion to Arian heresy, or denial of Constantine’s devotion to Christianity as had been conscripted by the Nicene Creed. That being, at the time, Nicene in nature. Therefore, the Resolution fails.

 

XXIX Conclusion of R4

 

XXIX.a I wrote, in R3,  XXVI.k  “6.     At the end of his life, Constantine is baptized by Eusibius, who is no longer considered a heretic by Church Fathers.”

1.  The edict of Milan protected "all" religions from persecution - My opponent agreed with this. The Edict of Milan was an Edict which protected all religions, so it would have been wrong for anyone to suggest that this Edict was proof of Constantine devout Christianity.
   
2. Attempts to provide evidence for Constantine the Greats loyalty to Christianity have been found to be lies, fakes and forgeries. How much can we trust the counter argument when deceit such as this is at play - My opponent did not dispute that the donation of Constantine is indeed a forgery which fakes evidence of his loyalty to the Pope. Though he did argue that because the forgery was a few hundred years after the death of Constantine, that it should not be considered evidence of anything. I slightly disagree however. If the Church had real evidence of Constantine devout loyalty, then why the need to forge anything, regardless of when the it was forged?
   
3. At no point did Constantine the Great relinquish his Pagan position as high priest of the ancient Roman religion. Is this acceptable in Christianity, to have a loyal convert that is still acting as Pontifex maximus? - My opponent at no point disputed this fact, though simply questioned the relevance. I suppose it is a matter of opinion whether or not remaining loyal to the Roman religion at the same time as being friendly to Christians, makes him a devout Christian or not.
   
4. Constantine the Great somehow managed to spawn a son that became a Semi-Arian. So on top of the lies, fakes and forgeries + the fact Constantine did not relinquish his title, I am to believe that it is just coincidence that his son became a Semi-Arian through no influence from his father? - My opponent did not deny that Constantine's son was a Semi-Aryan, but merely questioned the relevance, and claimed that the son has nothing to do with this debate. I must point out however, my opponent was willing to accept Constantine's Mother in to the debate, suggesting that one of the reasons Constantine may have became Christian, might have been because his Mother was a devout Christian. Do you see the contradiction?
   
5. Constantine the Great was baptized on his death bed an Arian Christian. I am to believe that the fact that Constantine the Great was baptized an Arian Christian, and spawned a son who became a Semi-Arian, mean he should be considered a Nicene Christian? - My opponent tried to deny the fact that Constantine was baptized as a heretic Arian Christian, but he had to apologise for making two errors. Horrifically, he did not learn from his first two errors, but simply went to seek a different source, and made the exact same error with  that source as well. Once bitten, as they say !
   
6. My opponent has on this occasion taken on a debate he should not be able to win. Quite simply, Constantine the Great and his son were heretics, and that is not up for debate unless one is delusional. - Fact - My opponent has almost admitted it is a fact, with his two failed attempts to disprove it.
   

1. I successfully showed my opponent why religion being a personal choice is only true in peacetime and in an ideal world, and in Fauxlaw Christianity.
   
2. I successfully showed my opponent why he was wrong about Arianism simply becoming Catholicism. In fact, Catholicism was the continuation of Nicene Christianity, not Arianism. - My opponent claims that I misread him on this one. Maybe I did, but sometimes I find his style unclear.
   
3. My opponent has conceded that Constantine was baptized by the heretic Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia in 337 - see Round 1, Summary 5 above
   
4. My opponent appeared unaware that Constantine later dropped his support for the Council of Nicaea and became sympathetic towards the Arians. - My opponents second error was suggesting I have no evidence that Constantine drifted towards Arianism later in life. But I pointed out his error by pointing him to his own source, which said he did, and my opponent in round 4 conceded this fact.
   
5. My opponent appeared unaware that the decision was made by the Council of Nicaea and merely temporarily upheld by Constantine - See round 1, Summary 5 & Round 2 Summary 4.above
   
6. My opponent needs to provide the quote he is pertaining to where I ever admitted to Constantine converting wholeheartedly to Nicene Christianity, or I am confused about whether he converted to Nicene Christianity or Arianism.- This claim was dropped by my opponent and never brought up again, though it is not a key point anyway.
   
7. My opponent was shown that  Constantine the Greats conversion to Christianity is under scholastic dispute, despite his claims otherwise. - My opponent dropped this claim and never challenged this, though is probably not a key point.
   
8. My opponent sees no importance in a forgery faking evidence of Constantine's loyalty to the bishops. - See round 1, Summary 2 above
   
9. My opponent claimed that Constantine was merely a bridge builder, which is almost 100% false. - My opponent reiterated that the etymology of Pontifex Maximus means "bridge builder". I let the issue drop as I do not see the relevance. Quite simply, Pontifex Maximus was a Pagan Roman high priest of the Roman religion and the words etymological root is meaningless, and my opponent offered no explanation for its relevance.
   
10. My opponent wants to debate the definition of heresy, which is common knowledge in English speaking countries. - My opponent argues that I should be using the religious definition and not the dictionary definition, but I have shown him that even his own New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia highlights at the top that Arianism is a heresy. He does not appear to have rebutted this fact.
    
11. My opponent fails to even understand how Constantine the Great having a son that became Semi-Arian "might" suggest that his own father may have had some influence. - See Round 1, Summary 4 above
    

1. In round 1 I claimed that the Edict of Milan protected all religions from persecution, and not only Christianity, and my opponent has conceded this point. - See Round 1, Summary 1 above
   
2. My opponent has given an unsatisfactory response to the donation of Constantine forgery and his insistence that key evidence of Constantine's devout mainstream Christianity being faked is unimportant, is unsatisfactory - See Round 1, Summary 2 above
   
3. My opponent appears to have conceded that Constantine remained the Pagan Pontifex Maximus - See Round 1, summary 3 above
   
4. My opponent has conceded that his own son was Semi-Aryan - See Round 1, Summary 4 above
   
5. My opponent has conceded that Constantine was baptised by an Arian bishop - See Round 1, Summary 5 above
   
6. I claimed that my opponent was wrong about Catholicism being born out of Arianism, and he did not dispute this - See Round 2, Summary 2 above
   
7. I have claimed that Constantine turned his back on the Nicene Council and became an Arian sympathiser, and my opponent has failed to respond to this - See round 1, Summary 5 above
   
8. My opponent has dropped the argument about me admitting to Constantine being a mainstream Christian, or being confused about the differences between Arianism and Nicene Christianity, and the allegation was without foundation and was preposterous - See Round 2, Summary 6 above
   
9. My opponent has dropped his argument about my claims regarding Constantine's devotion being under scholastic dispute - See Round 2, Summary 7 above
   
10. My opponent has dropped his argument about Pontifex Maximus meaning anything else other than Chief Priest when taken in to context - See Round 2, Summary 9 above
    
11. I have successfully offered a definition for heresy from the dictionary which precisely defines Constantine's unorthodoxy and baptism as heretic. As well as his loyalty to Roman religion. - See Round 2, Summary 10 above
    
12. I successfully countered one of my opponents very few arguments regards to Constantine's building of churches, pointing out that Constantine also issued and commissioned Pagan constructs - My opponent claimed that the building of Christian churches proved that Constantine was a devout Christian. Yet when met with the rebuttal that Constantine also built Pagan temples, he would not accept that this means that building churches is not proof that he was a devout Christian.
    
13. I successfully pointed out my opponents contradictions - See Round 1, Summary 4 above
    
14. I successfully pointed out my opponents irrelevant argument regarding Gratian - My opponent accused me of bringing Gratian in to the mix. However I never mentioned Gratian once in this debate. Gratian was merely a person referred to in a link I provided, but what was being cited was not even concerning Gratian. My opponent did deny that this is the case in XVII.n. However he is merely quoting his own claim. He should not be quoting his own claim, but quoting where I ever brought Gratian in to this. It is however a petty trivial point. But still.
    
15. My opponent needs to provide evidence that those he calls clowns can be accurately defined as such - My opponent has throughout this debate repeatedly referred to those that are not Constantine's Mother, as Clowns. Since he has made a claim, no matter how trivial or petty, he should be expected to provide proof for this.
    
16. I successfully showed my opponent that Arius and Arianism has been condemned as a heresy - My opponent appears to deny this fact. Though my opponent chops and changes so it is sometimes hard to establish whether he denies something or not. But even if he did not, I provided him with the Britannica encyclopedia which clearly states that Arianism was denounced as a heresy in 325.
    
17. I successfully showed my opponent where he was wrong about there being no scholastic evidence for the council of Nicaea, even though the council of Nicaea is his claim, not mine - Quite simply, the accounts of the Council were recorded by those that attended and historians. I don't think my opponent is contesting this fact, and if he does, it is because he has committed yet another misread.
    
18. Out of 17 arguments of my own that have went unrebutted and unrefuted, my opponent has only really came up with two arguments of his own. That being Christian churches, which I rebutted and refuted. And his main argument the Nicene council being proof of Constantine's devotion to mainstream Christianity, which I have refuted by pointing out that he abandoned the council of Nicaea
    

1. I have successfully confirmed that a heretic is a person of a faith deemed a heresy - See Round 2, Summary 10, above
   
2. I have successfully concluded that Arianism is to deny the divinity of Christ - My opponent offered a rebuttal for this fact, offering his own unorthodox interpretation and declaring Arianism non heterodox minus any scholastic support. I however produced the Britannica encyclopaedia which concludes that Arius denied the divinity of Jesus Christ and explains how so.
3. I have successfully used my opponents own source to show him that his own source states that Constantine turned to Arianism - See round 2, Summary 4 above.
   
4. I successfully showed my opponent where he misread the information regarding Eusebius of Nicomedia, therefore his rebuttal was debunked - My opponent admitted to this error. But did not end it there. Instead he went away and sought a new source and carried on with the claim and made the exact same error a second time, because his second source also refuted his claim, and my opponent simply did not read the entire link. This is a crucial point however, as it means that my opponent has failed to remove Constantine from the fact that he was baptized in to an Arian heresy on his death bed.
   
5. I successfully showed my opponent that he was wrong about what his own source said, and that it refuted him, regarding Arianism being a heresy or not. - My opponent continues to ignore the facts regarding this, however I have produced the Britannica encyclopaedia which clearly states that Arianism was denounced as a heresy by the Council of Nicaea in 325. (Nicene Creed).
   
6. My opponent has conceded that Constantine did indeed build Pagan temples. See Round 3, Summary 12 above.
   

1. In round 5 I have produced the Britannica encyclopaedia to show that scholastic opinion disagrees with my opponents own interpretations of what Arianism is, and the Britannica encyclopaedia is of the opinion that Arius denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. Perhaps in this last round my opponent might produce some scholastic evidence of his own to support his misinterpretation. And I don't mean scholastic evidence whereby my opponent simply quotes something and then offers an opinion on its translation. I mean scholastic evidence where the scholar "actually says" what my opponent is saying. Do you know what I mean? !
   
2. My opponent denies that if a religion is denounced as a heresy, then its adherents are heretics. But the dictionary disagrees. Simply google definitions of heresy and heretic.
   
3. My opponent attempted to suggest that Eusebius of Nicomedia was a Nicene Christian by the time he baptized Constantine, but as we see above, in this very page, he had to apologise for his error.
   
4. My opponent then went and made the same error a second time, and so has another error to admit to in his round 5. Quite simply, he had just apologised for his first error, when he ran to another source making the same claim, and completely misinterpreted him also. His source specifically states that Eusebius of Nicomedia was merely "pretending" to be a converted Nicene Christian in order to destroy Nicene Christianity from within. And also please remember, this is the same Arian bishop that baptized Constantine.
   
5. One last thing. My opponent also conceded that Eusebius of Nicomedia was a relative of Constantine.