The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
- Status
Lol, can you name one belief system without a plethora of books/words?
In the beginning was a book...
God knows what's going on with all the words and books . God isn't stained by human wrangling? Imo. How can it be expressed? By words. But it's the pure idea that lives, not the words. It's the kernel, not the dead wood of the nut?
Nothing new.
But God knows, cares for everyone.
Sorry ...
Nothing new.
But God knows, cares for everyone.
Sorry ...
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Non-Christian, traditional Pagan Romans, with a sprinkling of Jews and other minority religions. Point being they were in control, and held the dominant social zeitgeist position...something you freely acknowledged earlier.
*In part.* How many times must I quote myself to drive this point home? Of course there were others in his army, and as any good general of the time he rewarded faithful service. I did say there was probably on the order of 5-10%, the same 5-10% you go on about, except that in his realm they were free to be open about who they were, and free to serve in the military...unlike in the armies of all of the other Emperors at that time. Brief refresher for those who may not know, Rome just prior to Constantine had 4 co-serving Emperors. Constantine managed to consolidate all of the sub-kingdoms back under his rule, reuniting the Empire.
Already have, you don't like the answer.
I'm still waiting on your reply to:
So before you make *any* further demands, I demand you fulfill this.Thomas said:
I expected no less. Shell game.
P.S. I still love you.
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Is that not true of all of the great faiths of the world?
Menus and food, fingers pointing and the moon.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
If only that were true, people have been wrangling "god" for as long as civilization and organized religion have existed. It's called "Power."
A part of me wants to believe that in some instance(s) G-d may have a role to play behind the scenes...but if so He has a really cruel sense of humor about it all. Another part of me wants to believe He brought us to this place in time (however you wish to translate that) to turn us loose and see what we do to try to return to His presence. The more I see of organized religion, the more I think it is, generally, a good starting point but after "schooling" it is time to move on and apply the teaching. Too many incorrigibles are stuck in detention.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Precisely.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
<bows> Thank you, we'll be here all week. Be sure to generously tip your waitress!*Goes back to refill his popcorn bowl* I'm enjoying this thread
Absolutely correct and proof it takes a book if you want to convince converts.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
My knowledge of Roman history is fuzzy outside of the era of Constantine, but I am aware of a little. With the sack of Rome the Empire was yet again divided, and it wasn't until the 20th century that Rome once again had a population to rival that of classical times. The western half of the Empire disintegrated...under Christian rule.
We have already noted the Donation of Constantine, used to exert authority over the Frankish Kings, beginning with Pepin the Short. His son Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope at his coronation, emblematic of the Church taking authority over the secular power of the King, making the King subservient to the will of the Church. From there, Charlemagne and his descendants for some generations did the bidding of the Vatican, and brought together the better part of Europe (excluding England, who always had its own internal struggles but seemed able to ultimately resist the push by the Vatican into that country). I would have to look it up, but I believe Sweden and some other Scandinavian countries were also able to resist, and clearly wherever Copernicus was from (Denmark?) was not under the sway of the Pope, he predating Galileo by the better part of a hundred years as I recall. It was by the secular power projected by the Holy Roman Emperors that the Catholic Church extended its influence far and wide across Europe.
Likewise the Eastern half of the Empire, also under Christian rule, continued for what amounts to another thousand years. Constantinople was a crucial ally during the Crusades, and the final Crusade saw the Catholic forces turn on their host, so weakening the city that shortly after it fell to the Ottoman onslaught.
The Papacy retreated to France sometime after the fall of Rome, to Avignon. For a period of time (I would have to look it up) the Pope ruled from Avignon. At some point another Pope was raised, I don't recall if in Rome or Greece, and the other shortly after...and we ended up with three Popes at one time - excommunicating each other. Finally the matter was settled and the Pope returned to Rome (as I recall it was mostly serendipity...one Pope died at an opportune moment, and I forget what other situation befell the remaining Pope). We all have cursory familiarity with the Crusades and the Inquisition. A lot of folks don't realize the turmoil the Vatican fomented on what we now call Italy and Germany...both of those countries were not united until very late in the 19th and early in the 20th century, in large part due to the interference of the Vatican in internal politics.
The Catholic Church was always active in evangelizing, and Catholic missions went into Africa and Asia quite early. In Asia progress was slow, but steady. In Africa, progress was made by incorporating local religious customs into the various Church practices...a look at Haiti is a good example of the result, where the population is 90% Catholic and 100% Voodun. This method was also used throughout the European conquests, incorporating various local customs and traditions.
Catholism was in China as early as the 7th century, but met with many centuries of resistance. Jesuits made inroads in the 16th century, only to be rebuffed. A very strange variant of Christianity unique to China was the Taiping, and the Taiping Rebellion around 1851 proved to be one of the bloodiest civil wars ever fought anywhere, as the traditional authorities spent vast amounts of treasure and blood to end the uprising. Truly an intriguing piece of Church history worth looking into for a student interested in these matters.
In the Americas it was another story. Between the sword, slavery and disease the Church simply bulldozed the natives into submission, forcing them to mine for gold to send back to Spain and Portugal on countless Treasure Galleons. When the smoke cleared and the dust settled, again the Church adapted local customs into their repertoire...and how we get such as the Lady of Guadelupe, who looks remarkably like the Virgin Mary, except she's the patron saint of Mexico.
So the incorporation of non-Christian practices and traditions into the Catholic Church specifically, is a long standing and continual method of operation throughout the history of the Church. You will never get anyone to spell this out directly, but with a little looking it is quite easy to find...low hanging fruit is everywhere around the world.
So it really is no wonder at all that pagan practices were incorporated into the early Church, it has been that way since the formal founding during Constantine's time, beginning with the deliberate distancing from the native Judaism where the Christian Faith first began. Thomas sees no issue with this, I see great issue with this. But I also understand that it is what it is, and after the better part of 1700 years it isn't about to change. Protestants are not much better, as they have their foundation in the Catholic Church, and while certain issues (Indulgences, excesses of the clergy in the Vatican City) were "protested" by Luthur, other issues at the heart of what I am pointing to were never contested formally or officially. There are some Protestant denominations that touch base on one or another (such as the Seventh Day Adventists advocating a return to Jewish Sabbath), but no denomination takes all of it into consideration.
Perhaps this is more than a person should know, perhaps ignorance is bliss. I am not blissfully ignorant, and refuse to be kept so. In another age I would burn at the stake...I know this. I am not submissive to any man-made institution. The lesson I learn from the man commonly called Jesus is to reach out with my heart and my soul, first to our Heavenly Father G!d, and next to my brothers and sisters around me...I need no building, or hymnal, or priest, or nun with a ruler to whack my knuckles in order to reach out to the Divine. G!d gave me everything I need when I was born, He gave all of us everything we need to reach out to Him when we were born. We only have to do.
We have already noted the Donation of Constantine, used to exert authority over the Frankish Kings, beginning with Pepin the Short. His son Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope at his coronation, emblematic of the Church taking authority over the secular power of the King, making the King subservient to the will of the Church. From there, Charlemagne and his descendants for some generations did the bidding of the Vatican, and brought together the better part of Europe (excluding England, who always had its own internal struggles but seemed able to ultimately resist the push by the Vatican into that country). I would have to look it up, but I believe Sweden and some other Scandinavian countries were also able to resist, and clearly wherever Copernicus was from (Denmark?) was not under the sway of the Pope, he predating Galileo by the better part of a hundred years as I recall. It was by the secular power projected by the Holy Roman Emperors that the Catholic Church extended its influence far and wide across Europe.
Likewise the Eastern half of the Empire, also under Christian rule, continued for what amounts to another thousand years. Constantinople was a crucial ally during the Crusades, and the final Crusade saw the Catholic forces turn on their host, so weakening the city that shortly after it fell to the Ottoman onslaught.
The Papacy retreated to France sometime after the fall of Rome, to Avignon. For a period of time (I would have to look it up) the Pope ruled from Avignon. At some point another Pope was raised, I don't recall if in Rome or Greece, and the other shortly after...and we ended up with three Popes at one time - excommunicating each other. Finally the matter was settled and the Pope returned to Rome (as I recall it was mostly serendipity...one Pope died at an opportune moment, and I forget what other situation befell the remaining Pope). We all have cursory familiarity with the Crusades and the Inquisition. A lot of folks don't realize the turmoil the Vatican fomented on what we now call Italy and Germany...both of those countries were not united until very late in the 19th and early in the 20th century, in large part due to the interference of the Vatican in internal politics.
The Catholic Church was always active in evangelizing, and Catholic missions went into Africa and Asia quite early. In Asia progress was slow, but steady. In Africa, progress was made by incorporating local religious customs into the various Church practices...a look at Haiti is a good example of the result, where the population is 90% Catholic and 100% Voodun. This method was also used throughout the European conquests, incorporating various local customs and traditions.
Catholism was in China as early as the 7th century, but met with many centuries of resistance. Jesuits made inroads in the 16th century, only to be rebuffed. A very strange variant of Christianity unique to China was the Taiping, and the Taiping Rebellion around 1851 proved to be one of the bloodiest civil wars ever fought anywhere, as the traditional authorities spent vast amounts of treasure and blood to end the uprising. Truly an intriguing piece of Church history worth looking into for a student interested in these matters.
In the Americas it was another story. Between the sword, slavery and disease the Church simply bulldozed the natives into submission, forcing them to mine for gold to send back to Spain and Portugal on countless Treasure Galleons. When the smoke cleared and the dust settled, again the Church adapted local customs into their repertoire...and how we get such as the Lady of Guadelupe, who looks remarkably like the Virgin Mary, except she's the patron saint of Mexico.
So the incorporation of non-Christian practices and traditions into the Catholic Church specifically, is a long standing and continual method of operation throughout the history of the Church. You will never get anyone to spell this out directly, but with a little looking it is quite easy to find...low hanging fruit is everywhere around the world.
So it really is no wonder at all that pagan practices were incorporated into the early Church, it has been that way since the formal founding during Constantine's time, beginning with the deliberate distancing from the native Judaism where the Christian Faith first began. Thomas sees no issue with this, I see great issue with this. But I also understand that it is what it is, and after the better part of 1700 years it isn't about to change. Protestants are not much better, as they have their foundation in the Catholic Church, and while certain issues (Indulgences, excesses of the clergy in the Vatican City) were "protested" by Luthur, other issues at the heart of what I am pointing to were never contested formally or officially. There are some Protestant denominations that touch base on one or another (such as the Seventh Day Adventists advocating a return to Jewish Sabbath), but no denomination takes all of it into consideration.
Perhaps this is more than a person should know, perhaps ignorance is bliss. I am not blissfully ignorant, and refuse to be kept so. In another age I would burn at the stake...I know this. I am not submissive to any man-made institution. The lesson I learn from the man commonly called Jesus is to reach out with my heart and my soul, first to our Heavenly Father G!d, and next to my brothers and sisters around me...I need no building, or hymnal, or priest, or nun with a ruler to whack my knuckles in order to reach out to the Divine. G!d gave me everything I need when I was born, He gave all of us everything we need to reach out to Him when we were born. We only have to do.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
My knowledge of Roman history is fuzzy outside of the era of Constantine, but I am aware of a little. With the sack of Rome the Empire was yet again divided, and it wasn't until the 20th century that Rome once again had a population to rival that of classical times. The western half of the Empire disintegrated...under Christian rule.
We have already noted the Donation of Constantine, used to exert authority over the Frankish Kings, beginning with Pepin the Short. His son Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope at his coronation, emblematic of the Church taking authority over the secular power of the King, making the King subservient to the will of the Church. From there, Charlemagne and his descendants for some generations did the bidding of the Vatican, and brought together the better part of Europe (excluding England, who always had its own internal struggles but seemed able to ultimately resist the push by the Vatican into that country). I would have to look it up, but I believe Sweden and some other Scandinavian countries were also able to resist, and clearly wherever Copernicus was from (Denmark?) was not under the sway of the Pope, he predating Galileo by the better part of a hundred years as I recall. It was by the secular power projected by the Holy Roman Emperors that the Catholic Church extended its influence far and wide across Europe.
Likewise the Eastern half of the Empire, also under Christian rule, continued for what amounts to another thousand years. Constantinople was a crucial ally during the Crusades, and the final Crusade saw the Catholic forces turn on their host, so weakening the city that shortly after it fell to the Ottoman onslaught.
The Papacy retreated to France sometime after the fall of Rome, to Avignon. For a period of time (I would have to look it up) the Pope ruled from Avignon. At some point another Pope was raised, I don't recall if in Rome or Greece, and the other shortly after...and we ended up with three Popes at one time - excommunicating each other. Finally the matter was settled and the Pope returned to Rome (as I recall it was mostly serendipity...one Pope died at an opportune moment, and I forget what other situation befell the remaining Pope). We all have cursory familiarity with the Crusades and the Inquisition. A lot of folks don't realize the turmoil the Vatican fomented on what we now call Italy and Germany...both of those countries were not united until very late in the 19th and early in the 20th century, in large part due to the interference of the Vatican in internal politics.
The Catholic Church was always active in evangelizing, and Catholic missions went into Africa and Asia quite early. In Asia progress was slow, but steady. In Africa, progress was made by incorporating local religious customs into the various Church practices...a look at Haiti is a good example of the result, where the population is 90% Catholic and 100% Voodun. This method was also used throughout the European conquests, incorporating various local customs and traditions.
Catholism was in China as early as the 7th century, but met with many centuries of resistance. Jesuits made inroads in the 16th century, only to be rebuffed. A very strange variant of Christianity unique to China was the Taiping, and the Taiping Rebellion around 1851 proved to be one of the bloodiest civil wars ever fought anywhere, as the traditional authorities spent vast amounts of treasure and blood to end the uprising. Truly an intriguing piece of Church history worth looking into for a student interested in these matters.
In the Americas it was another story. Between the sword, slavery and disease the Church simply bulldozed the natives into submission, forcing them to mine for gold to send back to Spain and Portugal on countless Treasure Galleons. When the smoke cleared and the dust settled, again the Church adapted local customs into their repertoire...and how we get such as the Lady of Guadelupe, who looks remarkably like the Virgin Mary, except she's the patron saint of Mexico.
So the incorporation of non-Christian practices and traditions into the Catholic Church specifically, is a long standing and continual method of operation throughout the history of the Church. You will never get anyone to spell this out directly, but with a little looking it is quite easy to find...low hanging fruit is everywhere around the world.
So it really is no wonder at all that pagan practices were incorporated into the early Church, it has been that way since the formal founding during Constantine's time, beginning with the deliberate distancing from the native Judaism where the Christian Faith first began. Thomas sees no issue with this, I see great issue with this. But I also understand that it is what it is, and after the better part of 1700 years it isn't about to change. Protestants are not much better, as they have their foundation in the Catholic Church, and while certain issues (Indulgences, excesses of the clergy in the Vatican City) were "protested" by Luthur, other issues at the heart of what I am pointing to were never contested formally or officially. There are some Protestant denominations that touch base on one or another (such as the Seventh Day Adventists advocating a return to Jewish Sabbath), but no denomination takes all of it into consideration.
Perhaps this is more than a person should know, perhaps ignorance is bliss. I am not blissfully ignorant, and refuse to be kept so. In another age I would burn at the stake...I know this. I am not submissive to any man-made institution. The lesson I learn from the man commonly called Jesus is to reach out with my heart and my soul, first to our Heavenly Father G!d, and next to my brothers and sisters around me...I need no building, or hymnal, or priest, or nun with a ruler to whack my knuckles in order to reach out to the Divine. G!d gave me everything I need when I was born, He gave all of us everything we need to reach out to Him when we were born. We only have to do.
We have already noted the Donation of Constantine, used to exert authority over the Frankish Kings, beginning with Pepin the Short. His son Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope at his coronation, emblematic of the Church taking authority over the secular power of the King, making the King subservient to the will of the Church. From there, Charlemagne and his descendants for some generations did the bidding of the Vatican, and brought together the better part of Europe (excluding England, who always had its own internal struggles but seemed able to ultimately resist the push by the Vatican into that country). I would have to look it up, but I believe Sweden and some other Scandinavian countries were also able to resist, and clearly wherever Copernicus was from (Denmark?) was not under the sway of the Pope, he predating Galileo by the better part of a hundred years as I recall. It was by the secular power projected by the Holy Roman Emperors that the Catholic Church extended its influence far and wide across Europe.
Likewise the Eastern half of the Empire, also under Christian rule, continued for what amounts to another thousand years. Constantinople was a crucial ally during the Crusades, and the final Crusade saw the Catholic forces turn on their host, so weakening the city that shortly after it fell to the Ottoman onslaught.
The Papacy retreated to France sometime after the fall of Rome, to Avignon. For a period of time (I would have to look it up) the Pope ruled from Avignon. At some point another Pope was raised, I don't recall if in Rome or Greece, and the other shortly after...and we ended up with three Popes at one time - excommunicating each other. Finally the matter was settled and the Pope returned to Rome (as I recall it was mostly serendipity...one Pope died at an opportune moment, and I forget what other situation befell the remaining Pope). We all have cursory familiarity with the Crusades and the Inquisition. A lot of folks don't realize the turmoil the Vatican fomented on what we now call Italy and Germany...both of those countries were not united until very late in the 19th and early in the 20th century, in large part due to the interference of the Vatican in internal politics.
The Catholic Church was always active in evangelizing, and Catholic missions went into Africa and Asia quite early. In Asia progress was slow, but steady. In Africa, progress was made by incorporating local religious customs into the various Church practices...a look at Haiti is a good example of the result, where the population is 90% Catholic and 100% Voodun. This method was also used throughout the European conquests, incorporating various local customs and traditions.
Catholism was in China as early as the 7th century, but met with many centuries of resistance. Jesuits made inroads in the 16th century, only to be rebuffed. A very strange variant of Christianity unique to China was the Taiping, and the Taiping Rebellion around 1851 proved to be one of the bloodiest civil wars ever fought anywhere, as the traditional authorities spent vast amounts of treasure and blood to end the uprising. Truly an intriguing piece of Church history worth looking into for a student interested in these matters.
In the Americas it was another story. Between the sword, slavery and disease the Church simply bulldozed the natives into submission, forcing them to mine for gold to send back to Spain and Portugal on countless Treasure Galleons. When the smoke cleared and the dust settled, again the Church adapted local customs into their repertoire...and how we get such as the Lady of Guadelupe, who looks remarkably like the Virgin Mary, except she's the patron saint of Mexico.
So the incorporation of non-Christian practices and traditions into the Catholic Church specifically, is a long standing and continual method of operation throughout the history of the Church. You will never get anyone to spell this out directly, but with a little looking it is quite easy to find...low hanging fruit is everywhere around the world.
So it really is no wonder at all that pagan practices were incorporated into the early Church, it has been that way since the formal founding during Constantine's time, beginning with the deliberate distancing from the native Judaism where the Christian Faith first began. Thomas sees no issue with this, I see great issue with this. But I also understand that it is what it is, and after the better part of 1700 years it isn't about to change. Protestants are not much better, as they have their foundation in the Catholic Church, and while certain issues (Indulgences, excesses of the clergy in the Vatican City) were "protested" by Luthur, other issues at the heart of what I am pointing to were never contested formally or officially. There are some Protestant denominations that touch base on one or another (such as the Seventh Day Adventists advocating a return to Jewish Sabbath), but no denomination takes all of it into consideration.
Perhaps this is more than a person should know, perhaps ignorance is bliss. I am not blissfully ignorant, and refuse to be kept so. In another age I would burn at the stake...I know this. I am not submissive to any man-made institution. The lesson I learn from the man commonly called Jesus is to reach out with my heart and my soul, first to our Heavenly Father G!d, and next to my brothers and sisters around me...I need no building, or hymnal, or priest, or nun with a ruler to whack my knuckles in order to reach out to the Divine. G!d gave me everything I need when I was born, He gave all of us everything we need to reach out to Him when we were born. We only have to do.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
wow...don't know why it posted 3 times
OK ... as this thread seems to be so entertaining, I'll continue ...
I asked, if Christians composed 5-10% of the population, what were the other 90-95%?
Juantoo3, I'm not challenging, I'm asking you to explain on what grounds Constantine would have made such a concession to the Christians in his army, when they represent such a small proportion of the whole?
You asked somewhat rhetorically who promoted Constantine. It seems the normal path of patronage and politics. From the wiki biog of Constantine:
"Constantine had been placed in the court of Diocletian. Diocletian announced his resignation (304/5AD). Lactantius states that Galerius manipulated the weakened Diocletian into resigning, and forced him to accept Galerius' allies in the imperial succession. According to Lactantius, the crowd listening to Diocletian's resignation speech believed, until the very last moment, that Diocletian would choose Constantine as a successor. It was not to be: Constantius and Galerius were promoted to Augusti, while Severus and Maximinus Daia, Galerius' nephew, were appointed their Caesars respectively. Constantine and Maxentius were ignored.
Constantine recognized the implicit danger of remaining at Galerius's court, where he was held as a virtual hostage. Constantius requested leave for his son to help him campaign in Britain. Galerius granted the request. Constantine's later propaganda describes how he fled the court in the night, before Galerius could change his mind. Constantine joined his father in Gaul 305AD.
Father and son crossed the Channel and arrived at York. Constantine spent a year in northern Britain at his father's side. Constantius became ill and died 25 July 306. Before dying, he declared his support for raising Constantine to the rank of full Augustus. The Alamannic king Chrocus, a barbarian taken into service under Constantius, then proclaimed Constantine as Augustus. The troops loyal to Constantius' memory followed him in acclamation. Gaul and Britain quickly accepted his rule; Hispania, which had been in his father's domain for less than a year, rejected it."
So I can see Constantine owes something to his army as a whole, but not the Christians in particular. Given that he's gonna make a play for power, he has the option of a concession to 5-10%, or a concession to 90-95%, or to all, or to none ... I'm not disputing his army promoted him in a fait accompli against Galerius, but I am disputing the fact that Christians played a significant part, enough to deserve a particular acknowledgement?
If it were me, I'd do something for the army as a whole, not just a minority who belong to some far-out cult. A booze-up would suffice.
Choosing to change the army's standard before a battle is, in my view, a really, really, big thing. In the histories I've read, going back from today into Antiquity, soldiers fight for their comrades, for their unit, and for the flag/standard/banner ... they fight for their commanders when they're good ones, and we've no reason to assume Constantine wasn't a capable commander, his troops supported him, after all ... But the flag/standard holds an enduring place, it's really important. It's who we are. It's not something I would change lightly, and Constantine's decision seems really significant from that viewpoint, but I cannot being made to tip the wink to just 5% of his army, unless that 5% were super-super-special forces?
Thoughts?
I asked, if Christians composed 5-10% of the population, what were the other 90-95%?
Quite.
Juantoo3, I'm not challenging, I'm asking you to explain on what grounds Constantine would have made such a concession to the Christians in his army, when they represent such a small proportion of the whole?
You asked somewhat rhetorically who promoted Constantine. It seems the normal path of patronage and politics. From the wiki biog of Constantine:
"Constantine had been placed in the court of Diocletian. Diocletian announced his resignation (304/5AD). Lactantius states that Galerius manipulated the weakened Diocletian into resigning, and forced him to accept Galerius' allies in the imperial succession. According to Lactantius, the crowd listening to Diocletian's resignation speech believed, until the very last moment, that Diocletian would choose Constantine as a successor. It was not to be: Constantius and Galerius were promoted to Augusti, while Severus and Maximinus Daia, Galerius' nephew, were appointed their Caesars respectively. Constantine and Maxentius were ignored.
Constantine recognized the implicit danger of remaining at Galerius's court, where he was held as a virtual hostage. Constantius requested leave for his son to help him campaign in Britain. Galerius granted the request. Constantine's later propaganda describes how he fled the court in the night, before Galerius could change his mind. Constantine joined his father in Gaul 305AD.
Father and son crossed the Channel and arrived at York. Constantine spent a year in northern Britain at his father's side. Constantius became ill and died 25 July 306. Before dying, he declared his support for raising Constantine to the rank of full Augustus. The Alamannic king Chrocus, a barbarian taken into service under Constantius, then proclaimed Constantine as Augustus. The troops loyal to Constantius' memory followed him in acclamation. Gaul and Britain quickly accepted his rule; Hispania, which had been in his father's domain for less than a year, rejected it."
So I can see Constantine owes something to his army as a whole, but not the Christians in particular. Given that he's gonna make a play for power, he has the option of a concession to 5-10%, or a concession to 90-95%, or to all, or to none ... I'm not disputing his army promoted him in a fait accompli against Galerius, but I am disputing the fact that Christians played a significant part, enough to deserve a particular acknowledgement?
If it were me, I'd do something for the army as a whole, not just a minority who belong to some far-out cult. A booze-up would suffice.
Choosing to change the army's standard before a battle is, in my view, a really, really, big thing. In the histories I've read, going back from today into Antiquity, soldiers fight for their comrades, for their unit, and for the flag/standard/banner ... they fight for their commanders when they're good ones, and we've no reason to assume Constantine wasn't a capable commander, his troops supported him, after all ... But the flag/standard holds an enduring place, it's really important. It's who we are. It's not something I would change lightly, and Constantine's decision seems really significant from that viewpoint, but I cannot being made to tip the wink to just 5% of his army, unless that 5% were super-super-special forces?
Thoughts?
I can point to three. I'm not bothering with the full reference bit, that just leads to one of your shell game scenarios.
'The Triumph of Christianity', Bart D Ehrman, and its review on an atheist site.
'Christianizing the Roman Empire: (AD100-400)' Ramsay MacMullen, Dunham Professor of History and Classics at Yale University. Review on the Amazon site
'The Rise of Christianity', Rodney Stark, Professor of Sociology and Comparative Religion at the University of Washington.
"Stark has produced a provocative, insightful, challenging account of the rise of Christianity. The thesis — that Christianity was a success because it provided those who joined it with a more appealing, more assuring, happier, and perhaps longer life — may anger many readers and force all readers to stop and think. It is a marvelous exercise in the sociological imagination and a warning to those who like simple explanations - such as that Constantine was ultimately responsible for the success of Christianity when he made it the official religion of the Roman Empire" Andrew M. Greeley, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago
There's three, each showing no dependency on Constantine.
Your turn, the Herculean anti-semitism of Nicea ...
Nice polemical post, Jtoo3!
I'd only nit-pick on one point:
All the evidence and scholarship agrees that the early Christin church demonstrated a remarkable antipathy towards paganism. Good grief, look at how they declared anyone not following the orthodox faith (as they saw it) as heretic! Ebionites, Nazoreans, all the Gnostic sects ... no scholarship sees Christianity absorbing pagan practice until well into the 6th/7th centuries, by which time Christianity was secure enough in its foundation to be able to do so under the rubric of Acts 17:23: "For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you... "
I'd only nit-pick on one point:
Ah, here you falling into an anachronism, an error because of your lack of knowledge of early Christianity.
All the evidence and scholarship agrees that the early Christin church demonstrated a remarkable antipathy towards paganism. Good grief, look at how they declared anyone not following the orthodox faith (as they saw it) as heretic! Ebionites, Nazoreans, all the Gnostic sects ... no scholarship sees Christianity absorbing pagan practice until well into the 6th/7th centuries, by which time Christianity was secure enough in its foundation to be able to do so under the rubric of Acts 17:23: "For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you... "
And this where people like St Francis were probably on the mark. Because even the shallowest understanding of Christ's teaching diverges away from the Old Testament God of David and Joshua -- necessary in and of its time, leading Israel's armies to victory and a home of their own-- instead to the gentle way of Jesus.
Surely Constantine would have understood this? That matching to war with the cross on his flag and a sword in his hand in fact contradicted all that Christians were?
Perhaps the rot that led to Cortez etc, indeed started with this Roman emperor?
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Simplistic...but basically yes.
- Status