The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World

[juantoo3]

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... "

I know enough of the early Church to know the Ebionites and the Nazareans were about as close to the original "format" if you will of the Jerusalem Church of James the Just, blood brother of Jesus...but they were "voted" out by the other factions, and were (by your own admission in an earlier discussion) pushed aside, so by the time of Constantine were essentially an anachronism. You go to lengths, even in this thread, to point out the distancing from Judaism and adoption of pagan methods early on, all the while saying that there was antipathy towards paganism...what a masterful stroke of propaganda, the words don't fully jibe with the behavior. Constantine, through his actions, allowed this adoption of pagan practices to become normative behavior for the Church. I have no doubt there was widespread anti-Semitism rampant within certain circles...but when Constantine, as the face of the government, sets it into writing to be promulgated throughout the Empire, it carries the weight of law. Ecclesiastical law is a wee bit different than secular law, in that it is easier to disobey without repercussion. (at least until the Inquisition...)

 

[juantoo3]

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 ...

Not getting off so easy -

What, precisely, did Ehrman and MacMullen say, and direct references please. Standard APA format, credit source. I do this routinely for you, you *NEVER* do it for anybody, we are expected to take you at your word.

You made the claim, it is incumbent upon you to back it up. Otherwise it is null and void and inadmissible.

 

[Thomas]

I do this routinely for you, you *NEVER* do it for anybody

This is just more evasion. If not, be the bigger man ... show me how it's done.

 

[juantoo3]

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?

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.

Not trying to be difficult here, I know I'm composing in the English language. Sometimes my syntax can use some cleaning up, but overall I think my grammar is pretty good. I addressed this, already. I said: "*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."

And quite frankly your "booze up" comment shows how little you know of Roman history of the time. The rewards typically were greater, in some cases (officers) *much* greater...estates, land, slaves, etc.

I am well aware of the history: Lactantius, Eusebius, Gibbon, and anywhere else I could find it

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?

My thoughts are it was a calculated and well considered matter, I don't believe it happened as Eusebius claims (Eusebius is noted for his "flowery embellishment," Lactantius a bit less so, but both need to be taken with a grain of salt) within a short span of days, perhaps the day before. From the time of Maximian's suicide under house arrest and Maxentius declaring war on Constantine up to Milvian Bridge was a short span of time, if memory serves something like 3 months or less, a lot happened in a short time. I think Maximian was at modern Marseilles, Constantine marched over the mountains and descended on Turin, where if I recall the inhabitants threw open the gates to his forces who took Maxentius' troops with little resistance. Constantine could not march directly to Rome from there as Praetorian General Ruricus was stationed at Verona, on the other side of modern Italy, so he met Ruricus' heavy cavalry there with his light cavalry, and in two battles defeated Ruricus (I'm still trying to find details of the Battles...imagine heavy armed cavalry against light cavalry...how Constantine emerged victorious remains a mystery to me!) From Verona, Constantine turned his forces towards Rome, and with no resistance expected to lay siege to that city. I've told the rest already, how Maxentius interpreted the omen as meaning the destruction of Constantine, and we know the story from there. Had Maxentius holed up in the city, it was well equipped to endure siege, but he misjudged.

At what point in this did Constantine order the insignia changed? Don't know, depending how one reads primarily Lactantius and / or Eusebius, it could have been anywhere along this line. Given that both men were writing political propaganda as opposed to straight history, they have to be interpreted and not taken at face value.

I suspect (from a secular, military point of view) that the order was as much a poke in the eye of those military leaders he was going up against..."oh yeah?! you guys persecute the Christians, let me show you what Christians *can* do given the opportunity!" Probably not verbatim, but the general gist. His troops were comfortable with Christians in the ranks, unlike all of the other armies throughout the Empire, so that was *a* distinguishing feature of his armies compared to the rest, and it served as a dare, an unnerving "under the skin" psychological jab even before the first sword was swung or arrow let loose.

Now, centuries after the fact, it is easy to say "Divine Providence" or "G-d's Hand" or some such, I don't think it was that cut and dried going onto the battlefield. Now, as a point of historical interest, according to Vegetius the commander of an army going into battle had the duty to seek favorable omens, and that if those omens were not to be had the battle was postponed. This obviously involved sacrifice to pagan gods. It is really hard to say if Constantine performed these duties or not...they were so commonplace they were simply done without concern of recording them. It would be pure conjecture on my part, but perhaps the rapid deployment force he assembled was able to be convinced the Christian G!d would provide that same "protection," in which case I would think the banners were in place at least at the time of Verona, possibly as early as Turin...but there stands a very real possibility that it goes all the way back to England. My short answer is I don't know and can only guess, but I do believe the banner was already in place well before Milvian Bridge. The mischievous side of me thinks it was a goad to Ruricus, to get under his skin psychologically.

I think it is important to note that the insignia wasn't a "t" cross, typically it is said to have been the "chi rho," essentially an "X" superimposed on a "P."

 

[juantoo3]

This is just more evasion. If not, be the bigger man ... show me how it's done.

I have, multiple times, repeatedly, routinely, ad nauseum...it is my stock in trade, it is how I was taught a scholar properly attributes

 

[Thomas]

Surely Constantine would have understood this?

Well as ever, they'd see it in their own terms ... I think we need be careful not to view the past with a modern or post-modern outlook?

You refer to 'the gentle way of Jesus', but it's clear He didn't take crap off anyone, and His dealing with what He perceived as hypocrisy would make the disciples' blood run cold, I'm sure ... He took no prisoners.

But the issues are common to all religions, the world over. Buddhism is theoretically more peaceful than Christianity, but the emperor Shirakawa (1073-1086) declared that the three things which he was unable to control were the waters of the Kamo River, the fall of the dice, and the monks of Buddha. (The sohei, or warrior monk, was a military and militant force in Japan from about 900 until the end of the Waring States era in 1600.)

 

[Thomas]

I addressed this, already. I said: "*In part.* How many times must I quote myself to drive this point home?

My point is, in what part? I would suggest, so small a part as to make no difference.

My short answer is I don't know and can only guess ...

And this is what I think underpins your supposed anti-semitic thrust of Nicea, and the effect Constantine had on the Church ... I don't think you know, and I think you're spinning the facts to fit your own agenda, regardless of what the evidence says.

 

[Thomas]

To sum up my on position ...

We're not sure to what degree Constantine was Christian. I was always of the 'pragmatist' school, however I've read recently that his conversion might have been genuine, and I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Christianity was on a growth curve from the late first century on, a steady increase around 40%, and there are a number of factor that played into that. I do not think that 'the glorious martyrs', who used to be trumpeted as the major attraction of Christianity, were any such thing. Nor that the early Church was exclusively slaves, the downtrodden, the dispossessed. Nor that the growth of the early church was 'miraculous'. Nor that Constantine's conversion launched Christianity from obscurity into the spotlight.

+++

Christianity was distancing itself from Judaism from the outset. The 'murders' of Stephen and James, the persecutions akin to Paul's commission before he was headed off at the pass as it were, the fear of converts of reprisals set a certain template. Christians were fighting with Jews in Rome as early as 60AD.

The developing theological view of Christianity as a universal message of salvation, rather than an in-house message to the Jews, also set it far apart from its origins.

So, as I've argued here, the Church was anti-semitic long before Constantine, and the rift between the two was a done deal by the time he came along.

+++

Neither Constantine nor Nicea deified Christ, that had already happened. Nor was Christ ever a Roman Deity, rather Rome transferred to a God quite unlike and quite apart from its traditional pantheon.

Constantine called Nicea to settle a dispute that was at large in the Eastern part of the empire... more street battles, this time between 'orthodox' and Arians ... this was too important, issues with the Jews were not on the table, they being too inconsequential to bother with.

Interestingly, we have not discussed Hosius of Cordoba, theological advisor to Constantine.

From newadvent.org:
Born c256AD and made Bishop of Cordova c295AD, escaping martyrdom in the persecution of Maximian.
In 313AD he's with Constantine. In 323AD Hosius was the bearer of Constantine's letter to Bishop Alexander and Arius, urging reconciliation. When this failed, Constantine convened Nicea, probably in agreement with Pope Sylvester I, and perhaps on the advise of Hosius. Hosius presided, although it is unclear whether he did so in the name of the pope or was nominated by Constantine. Hosius took an active part in drawing up its canons and the Creed. After the Council, he returned to his diocese in Spain. (according to newadvent.org)

When Athanasius of Alexandria was expelled from his diocese by the Arians (340AD), he went to Rome and then on to Gaul to confer with Hosius. They went to the Synod of Sardica (343AD), another attempt to settle the Arian controversy. Hosius presided. The Synod failed.

After Constantine's death, the Arian faction put pressure on Constantius II to summons Hosius to Milan. He duly arrived, but refused to condemn Athanasius, nor to extend communion to Arians. He so impressed the emperor that he was allowed to return home.

More Arian pressure led to Constantius writing a letter demanding whether Hosius alone was going to remain obstinate. In reply, Hosius sent a letter of protest against imperial interference in Church affairs (353AD), resulting in Hosius' exile in 355AD to Sirmium.

Subjected to continual attention from the Arians, Hosius, now nearly 100 years old (!) was pressed to sign a formula adopted by the third Synod of Sirmium (357AD), which involved communion with the Arians but not the condemnation of Athanasius. He was then permitted to return to his diocese, where he died in 359AD.

+++

The continual failure of emperors to settle theological disputes signals the general tendency of the bishops to ignore secular interference in the affairs of the Church.

Imperial pressure certainly bore some weight in the East, but the West proved more resistant (or the emperor more tolerant). Either way, it would not do to assume the emperors had any influence over matters of dogma or doctrine.

I might argue that the iconoclast pogrom in the East in the 8th century was in part down to Emperor Leo III, an attempt to placate his Muslim neighbours.

Whatever, Nicea ruled against Arius but failed so monumentally that, within a couple of years, the Arians had the upper political hand and the ear of the emperor. The Nicean faction hung on, the Arians rewrote their creed a dozen times and still could not agree, and eventually a pro-Nicean Emperor, Theodosius I, called another council and suddenly the Arian sails lost their wind ... I really think their position was theologically and philosophically untenable; too close to paganism, too Platonic — a demiurge cannot be made to sit well in Monotheism.

+++

 

[juantoo3]

And this is what I think underpins your supposed anti-semitic thrust of Nicea, and the effect Constantine had on the Church ... I don't think you know, and I think you're spinning the facts to fit your own agenda, regardless of what the evidence says.

Or because of what painfully little evidence there actually is, and my punishment for being candid is to endure such as this.

Not that you've EVER spun the facts to suit your agenda...

Aside...there is a lot of good stuff in your previous post, but some of the same hyperbole we've already hashed as well. Some things we will never see eye to eye on.

 

[Thomas]

Or because of what painfully little evidence there actually is ...

Well therein lies the rub, old chum.

There is no evidence, because as far as we know, Jewish issues were never discussed. Nothing new regarding the Jews came out of Nicea.

The Arian issue, and the problems with bishops over-stepping their authority, was front and centre. In fact the early synods expound an awful lot and proposed an awful lot of canons about episcopal authority, limitations, grievances, etc., etc.

Not that you've EVER spun the facts to suit your agenda...

Well if and when i have I accept correction — where there is evidence — but on balance I rather think I've spun way, way less than you.

 

[wil]

Some things we will never see eye to eye

This be a fact for all if us...

As well as admitting we all have our own confirmation bias.

It has been such a good discussion but as with many it boils down to...we just don't know...there are so many assumptions and conjecture along the way we can't (at this time) have a definitive answer.

It falls into the glorious what its... What if Kennedy or MLK didn't get shot....would.they be the hero's they are today...or would they have gone the way of Cosby due to their infidelity? Who knows. This is the thing about events...are they the lynch pin...or would another event have stepped up to notoriety... Winners write history...

Shake hands, back to the gym, we got another bout coming up soon!

 

[juantoo3]

Well therein lies the rub, old chum.

There is no evidence, because as far as we know, Jewish issues were never discussed. Nothing new regarding the Jews came out of Nicea.

Jewish issues were discussed, you've made it painfully clear you have no interest in acknowledging them. I can guess why...

 

[juantoo3]

I might argue that the iconoclast pogrom in the East in the 8th century was in part down to Emperor Leo III, an attempt to placate his Muslim neighbours.

I hadn't intended to go here, but since you opened the door...

Yes, you might argue that, but you would be at best only partially correct. The roots are MUCH deeper.

Byzantine Iconoclasm (Greek: Εἰκονομαχία, Eikonomachía, literally, "image struggle" or "struggle over images") refers to two periods in the history of the Byzantine Empire when the use of religious images or icons was opposed by religious and imperial authorities within the Eastern Church and the temporal imperial hierarchy. The "First Iconoclasm", as it is sometimes called, lasted between about 726 and 787. The "Second Iconoclasm" was between 814 and 842. According to the traditional view, Byzantine Iconoclasm was started by a ban on religious images by Emperor Leo III and continued under his successors. It was accompanied by widespread destruction of images and persecution of supporters of the veneration of images. The Western church remained firmly in support of the use of images throughout the period, and the whole episode widened the growing divergence between the Eastern and Western traditions in what was still a unified church, as well as facilitating the reduction or removal of Byzantine political control over parts of Italy.

ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Iconoclasm
(Aside...APA format scholarship reference, since I am not using footnotes)

Ten Commandments:
1. I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness.
10. Thou shalt not covet.

The Catechism’s traditional presentation of the Ten Commandments:
1. I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
2. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
3. Remember to keep holy the Lord’s Day.
4. Honor your father and mother.
5. You shall not kill.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.

emphasis mine, -jt3

Since the Jews, the earliest Christians, the Eastern Orthodox and even the Muslims understand this, how can this not be seen for what it is? This was a concession to the pagan idol veneration practices that were being absorbed into the Church practices.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

(withdrawn)

Edit:
I had posted a beating a dead horse animated gif here, but thought it might be taken the wrong way so I deleted it. It was just my way of saying, this is one of those arguments you get nowhere with. Everybody kicks it around for a while and ends up leaving, usually mad, with the very same opinion they came in with.

 

[RJM]

But is there a sense that Christianity has somehow achieved an unfair leg-over Judaism? Via Constantine? Is this what I, as largely an outsider, seem to be picking-up as the real unspoken challenge of this epic back-and-forth tennis match? Or am I quite wrong?

 

[juantoo3]

But is there a sense that Christianity has somehow achieved an unfair leg-over Judaism? Via Constantine? Is this what I, as largely an outsider, seem to be picking-up as the real unspoken challenge of this epic back-and-forth tennis match? Or am I quite wrong?

Here's my take:

Is Jesus real? Did he really live, teach, practice, and walk the earth, and die?

Most Christians would say yes without a second thought, and by far the vast majority of those would go so far as to say He is even G-d incarnate.

I know I tread thin ice, but the point underlying the entire discussion, is that the Jesus of the Christian religion is no longer the real man, he is an (arguably over-)inflated myth, and has been mythical since at least the time of Constantine.

Was Jesus Jewish? If so, was he an observant Jew, meaning did he keep the various Holy Days and the 613 Jewish laws? I've heard arguments that he may have bent the rules a bit on a few, but overall I think anyone who agrees the man walked the earth, also agrees he was observant for the most part.

Mind...this man is the example for Christians. He laid the ground rules, he "showed the way."

So when I hear about his teachings being overturned and poo-pooed away by what amounts to either anti-Semitism, or pagan preference, or prejudice, or some combination of these things...it leaves me dumfounded and beside myself in amazement how these things...these Commands of G!d...can be subverted so casually, and that there are people even today willing to defend the casual dismissal of G!d given commands!

Now, I have had to struggle with the impact of Paul, and I've reached peace with that...I understand were it not for the effort of Paul Christianity would be a footnote or less in the history books. I get that. Paul opened the way to others outside of the Jewish faith, in other words you didn't have to be Jewish *first* before becoming Christian. I understand.

I'm not fully prepared to go there with Constantine. I love the guy from an historical perspective, I find him fascinating. And I know he isn't the driver behind every little nuance that was bickered over at Nicea, but his governmental pragmatism was instrumental in making the various factions...which by then were multiple, far more than some are willing to admit...sit down and try to sort their differences. Was it fully successful...clearly no. But there was a beginning to consolidation, and the end result is the Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Coptic Churches. Constantine was about order in the whole Empire...Pagans included.

You can call it beating a dead horse, I call it turning a blind eye and sticking one's head in the sand, plugging their fingers in their ears, and pretending it will all just go away if they wish it hard enough. For such people the mythical Jesus is enough.

 

[StevePame]

I know I tread thin ice, but the point underlying the entire discussion, is that the Jesus of the Christian religion is no longer the real man, he is an (arguably over-)inflated myth, and has been mythical since at least the time of Constantine.

How does this statement conform with the point of an interfaith forum?

 

[wil]

How does this statement conform with the point of an interfaith forum?

Many a Christian isn't postive about it...and this being the Christian forum... And (I think) 123 is a Christian?? I got no issues.

https://www.premierchristianity.com...esus-existed.-Here-s-how-to-change-their-mind

Some aren't sure he existed at all. Some believe the stories to be an amalgamation of a number of people. Some believe he existed, yet some of the stories contain exagerations for effect.

 

[juantoo3]

How does this statement conform with the point of an interfaith forum?

Not wishing to seem antagonistic...but how does it not?

I've posted response to Mr Garaffa's long standing challenge to his dissertation, including extended conversation with the man personally...years ago...yet my rebuttal still, all these years later...is not appended to his challenge, as if no rebuttal is possible.

1700 years of historic whitewash, someone invokes my name and >poof< I appear to rise to the challenge, and I'm the bad guy?

Perhaps I should simply bow out and let ya'll return to singing kum-ba-yah around the campfire toasting s'mores. Clearly historical reality has no place here. Or as I fear, religion is *only* about self-congratulatory pats on the back and passing the offering plate. The story behind the story doesn't matter, it's not important anyway.

I didn't begin the thread, I merely attempted to set the record straight, and chip away at the veneer. So much for Truth in advertising.

I'm no longer part of the in crowd, so I suppose this is the way to shove me out the door? All those years trying, vainly, to keep the peace around here...yeah, wasted time.

You're welcome. Toodles

 

[wil]

crap