Simple question?

I don't recall where I last talked about the infamous vision before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, so this is as good a place as any to retake it.

Naturally I don't believe Constantine, or his soldiers, had either a vision of the Chi Ro or a prophetic dream about Jesus urging the use of the initials on the Labarum. But I kind of always assumed Constantine said he did.

And why not? All sorts of people, ambitious people in particular, have claimed such things all the time. Marius claimed a vision of a nest with seven eagle chicks (the eagle being Jupiter's symbol), Hatshepsut claimed all sorts of miracles performed by her real father Amun, Caesar bragged about being descended directly from Venus, and so on.

But yesterday I began to revisit a lecture series on the topic of the rise of Christianity in Rome, and I got to thinking: "Who's the source for Constantine's vision?" I knew this of course: Eusebius, a bishop and chronicler, and also a Christian Apologist.

Ah, but Eusebius did not record this hugely important fact until three decades after the battle.

Again, it seems whenever there is a major event regarding Christianity, the news spreads with all the speed of an arthritic snail reluctant to move. And we don't even have a distance excuse this time around. So when the momentous news that the emperor received a visit by one third of the god himself takes thirty years to be known... Well, do the math, the result is: "sounds kind of made up."

Ah, but did Constantine in fact paint crosses and/or the initials Chi Ro on his men's shields and on his battle flag (Labarum)? It could be, but why? And who's the source for that?

The battle of the Milvian bridge was not only a large one, but it was a crucial one. it got Constantine the crown. And not only did it involve thousands of soldiers one ach side, it took place right outside the gates of a city you might think was important in the Roman Empire, namely ROME. You can be sure there were tens of thousands of witnesses to the prelude, the battle and the aftermath.

It's worth looking into. I wouldn't be surprised if the source were also Eusebius, thirty years after the fact.

Quote: Nareed

Again, it seems whenever there is a major event regarding Christianity, the news spreads with all the speed of an arthritic snail reluctant to move.

In those days only 3% of men could
read and write, women not at all. It
takes a long time to spread anything
by word of mouth, and it gets changed
along the way, embellished. If a story
is told by 100 people, it only takes a
few embellishments to change the
whole thing. Like the gospels, for
instance.

Quote: Evenbob

It takes a long time to spread anything
by word of mouth, and it gets changed
along the way, embellished. If a story
is told by 100 people, it only takes a
few embellishments to change the
whole thing. Like the gospels, for
instance.

Don't know if kids still play the old phone game (not sure what it was called)

Something is whispered and goes around a circle of kids and by the time it gets back it is something different.

Quote: rxwine

Don't know if kids still play the old phone game (not sure what it was called)

In Mexico it's called "broken telephone."

Kids don't play it, but teachers make them play it in class sometimes for some reason.

Quote: rxwine

Don't know if kids still play the old phone game (not sure what it was called)

Something is whispered and goes around a circle of kids and by the time it gets back it is something different.

On the old show Candid Camera, they played
that game as a running bit. Tell one person a
story and he tells someone else. It gets told
this way five times and the last person tells
the camera what he heard. It has some major
points of the original story, but the details
have been changed. That's how the Jesus
story spread, that's why the gospels bear
no resemblance to what really happened.
FrG will say god would never let that happen
and I respond with a guffaw.

You know what is interesting, try playing that game but instead of using a complicated story just have one person witness something simple to describe and no matter how many people pass it on it doesn't change. For example when His disciples saw that Jesus was risen from the dead this is the message that was told and it is still the fundamental message at the heart of Christianity today.

Quote: FrGamble

You know what is interesting, try playing that game but instead of using a complicated story just have one person witness something simple to describe and no matter how many people pass it on it doesn't change. For example when His disciples saw that Jesus was risen from the dead this is the message that was told and it is still the fundamental message at the heart of Christianity today.

How do you know it didn't change before it was written down?

We already have evidence of things changing and being added after they were written down.

Again the fact that Jesus rose from the dead was not changed or added to. It is the seed which grew into Christianity and all of its many branches and flowers.

Quote: FrGamble

Again the fact that Jesus rose from the dead was not changed or added to. .

It's not a fact, nor can you prove it is.
We've been over this a hundred times.
You think it happened, you hope it did.
If you could prove it you would, but
you can't.

Quote: FrGamble

You know what is interesting, try playing that game but instead of using a complicated story just have one person witness something simple to describe and no matter how many people pass it on it doesn't change.

1) As has been pointed out, how would you know it doesn't change?

2) Witness testimony is highly unreliable and prone to false memories. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-happens-in-the-brain-when-we-misremember/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20160914

3) Seriously. If the testimony of an alleged witness gets passed around by tens of people, how do you figure it cannot change?

4) https://youtu.be/QCRAUKWKKlo