Did Most Early Christians Believe The Divinity of Christ?

[RJM]

This is the issue: acceptance of history against denial of history to suit preconceived agendas? The alleged murderous enemity was really a much milder doctrinal controversy about the nature of, not the fact of, the divinity of Christ.

Constantine himself wrote about the Arian controversy as a storm in a teacup. It has been taken up and misrepresented by those with an axe to grind against the Christian Trinitarian belief, imo.

They fail every time, but cannot let it go,

 

[juantoo3]

Employing Occam's Razor in effect that Arius's own letters are a better view of Arius's thoughts, than a contrived explanation that contradicts what Arius himself actually said -- involving forgery etc, to conform to a particular (Islamist & other) agenda.

The letters were published by Arius's opponent, not by his ally. There is no evidence or reason to believe that Arius believed different to what he himself actually wrote -- and what Constantine wrote about him -- unless Arius's and even Constantine's own writings need to be challenged and deviously manipulated to conform to a certain predisposed agenda?

This regardless of how later 'Arians' may have taken and run with the idea?

My comment was specific to the employment of Occam's Razor, nothing more. There are parts of the conversation I have chosen to "ignore."

 

[juantoo3]

Employing Occam's Razor in effect that Arius's own letters are a better view of Arius's thoughts, than a contrived explanation that contradicts what Arius himself actually said -- involving forgery etc, to conform to a particular (Islamist & other) agenda.

The letters were published by Arius's opponent, not by his ally. There is no evidence or reason to believe that Arius believed different to what he himself actually wrote -- and what Constantine wrote about him -- unless Arius's and even Constantine's own writings need to be challenged and deviously manipulated to conform to a certain predisposed agenda?

This regardless of how later 'Arians' may have taken and run with the idea?

Or how the Athanasians smeared his name and (for lack of a better expression) perverted his philosophy in a fit of political vengeance? Seems to me if Athanasius was exiled for "murder, illegal taxation, sorcery, and treason", he was fully capable of doing so, and the historical evidence suggests either that or something quite similar in fact took place.

 

[juantoo3]

Constantine himself wrote about the Arian controversy as a storm in a teacup.

Quite, but it was sufficient to upset civil order in the Empire. That "storm in a teacup" was sufficient to call the Council together at Nicea in a bid to iron things out between the feuding sides. That bid failed on that point, though it did lay groundwork that eventually coalesced into the Catholic Church, but not without a LOT of political posturing and maneuvering (and a large dose of undermining).

 

[juantoo3]

Though significantly after Nicea, this sheds a bit of light (and answers a question or two I had) on the Coptic Church:

"When in AD 451 Emperor Marcian attempted to heal divisions in the Church, the response of Pope Dioscorus–the Pope of Alexandria who was later exiled–as that the emperor should not intervene in the affairs of the Church. It was at Chalcedon that the emperor, through the imperial delegates, enforced harsh disciplinary measures against Pope Dioscorus in response to his boldness. In AD 449, Pope Dioscorus headed the 2nd Council of Ephesus, called the "Robber Council" by Chalcedonian historians. It held to the Miaphysite formula which upheld the Christology of "One Incarnate Nature of God the Word" (Greek: μία φύσις Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη (mia physis Theou Logou sesarkōmenē)),[17] and upheld the heretic Eutyches claiming he was orthodox.

The Council of Chalcedon summoned Dioscorus three times to appear at the council, after which he was deposed. The Council of Chalcedon further deposed him for his support of Eutyches, but not necessarily for Eutychian Monophysitism. Dioscorus appealed to the conciliar fathers to allow for a more Miaphysite interpretation of Christology at the council, but was denied. Following his being deposed, the Coptic Church and its faithful felt unfairly underrepresented at the council and oppressed politically by the Byzantine Empire. After the Byzantines appointed Proterius of Alexandria as Patriarch to represent the Chalcedonian Church, the Coptic Church appointed their own Patriarch Timothy Aelurus and broke from the State church of the Roman Empire.

The Council of Chalcedon, from the perspective of the Alexandrine Christology, has deviated from the approved Cyrillian terminology and declared that Christ was one hypostasis in two natures. However, in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, "Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary," thus the foundation of the definition according to the Non-Chalcedonian adherents, according to the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria is valid. There is a change in the Non-Chalcedonian definition here, as the Nicene creed clearly uses the terms "of", rather than "in."[citation needed]

In terms of Christology, the Oriental Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonians) understanding is that Christ is "One Nature—the Logos Incarnate," of the full humanity and full divinity. The Chalcedonians' understanding is that Christ is recognized in two natures, full humanity and full divinity. Oriental Orthodoxy contends that such a formulation is no different from what the Nestorians teach.[18] This is the doctrinal perception that makes the apparent difference which separated the Oriental Orthodox from the Eastern Orthodox.

The council's findings were rejected by many of the Christians on the fringes of the Byzantine Empire, including Egyptians, Syriacs, Armenians, and others.

From that point onward, Alexandria would have two patriarchs: the non-Chalcedonian native Egyptian one, now known as the Coptic Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of All Africa on the Holy Apostolic See of St. Mark, and the Melkite or Imperial Patriarch, now known as the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria.[19]

Almost the entire Egyptian population rejected the terms of the Council of Chalcedon and remained faithful to the native Egyptian Church (now known as the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria).[20] Those who supported the Chalcedonian definition remained in communion with the other leading imperial churches of Rome and Constantinople. The non-Chalcedonian party became what is today called the Oriental Orthodox Church.

The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria regards itself as having been misunderstood at the Council of Chalcedon. There was an opinion in the Church that viewed that perhaps the Council understood the Church of Alexandria correctly, but wanted to curtail the existing power of the Alexandrine Hierarch, especially after the events that happened several years before at Constantinople from Pope Theophilus of Alexandria towards Patriarch John Chrysostom and the unfortunate turnouts of the Second Council of Ephesus in AD 449, where Eutychus misled Pope Dioscorus and the Council in confessing the Orthodox Faith in writing and then renouncing it after the council, which in turn, had upset Rome, especially that the tome which was sent was not read during the council sessions.

To make things even worse, the Tome of Pope Leo of Rome was, according to the Alexandria School of Theology,[citation needed] particularly in regards to the definition of Christology, considered influenced by Nestorian heretical teachings. So, due to the above-mentioned, especially in the consecutive sequences of events, the Hierarchs of Alexandria were considered holding too much of power from one hand, and on the other hand, due to the conflict of the Schools of Theology, there would be an impasse and a scapegoat, i.e. Pope Dioscorus. The Tome of Leo has been widely criticized (surprisingly by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scholars) in the past 50 years as a much less than perfect orthodox theological doctrine.[citation needed] By anathematizing Pope Leo because of the tone and content of his tome, as per Alexandrine Theology perception, Pope Dioscorus was found guilty of doing so without due process; in other words, the Tome of Leo was not a subject of heresy in the first place, but it was a question of questioning the reasons behind not having it either acknowledged or read at the Second Council of Ephesus in AD 449. Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria was never labeled as heretic by the council's canons. Copts also believe that the Pope of Alexandria was forcibly prevented from attending the third congregation of the council from which he was ousted, apparently the result of a conspiracy tailored by the Roman delegates.[21]

Before the current positive era of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox dialogues, Chalcedonians sometimes used to call the non-Chalcedonians "Monophysites", though the Coptic Orthodox Church in reality regards Monophysitism as a heresy. The Chalcedonian doctrine in turn came to be known as "Dyophysite". A term that comes closer to Coptic Orthodoxy is Miaphysite,[22][23] which refers to a conjoined nature for Christ, both human and divine, united indivisibly in the Incarnate Logos. The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria believes that Christ is perfect in his divinity, and he is perfect in his humanity, but his divinity and his humanity were united in one nature called "the nature of the incarnate word", which was reiterated by Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Copts, thus, believe in two natures "human" and "divine" that are united in one hypostasis "without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration". These two natures "did not separate for a moment or the twinkling of an eye" (Coptic Liturgy of Saint Basil of Caesarea)." wiki: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria - Wikipedia

So depending once again what is meant in the original question regarding the intended meaning of "early Christians," as we get farther and farther away the puddle gets muddier and muddier.

 

[RJM]

@juantoo3
To simplify:

The common argument against the validity of (trinitarian) Christianity is that it was created and spread by Constantine: the crucifixion (death), the resurrection, the eucharistic sacrament, the writings of Paul, the gospel of John -- many other facets -- are rejected as misrepresenting true early Christianity -- which was supposed to be a mere Yeshuan cult, but whose adherents were from the earliest known as Christians, not as Yeshuans, both by others and by themselves.

The ‘Constantine Christinity’ argument is enthusiastically punted by people whose actual knowledge of Christianity and its New Testament scripture is often very thin and derived mostly from Wikipaedia. A forum like this one is in a position to dig deeper and correct errors.

The point I have been making is that the Arianism dispute cannot be used to imply that Constantine forced Trinitarian upon early Christians against the will of the majority, or that the heresy of Arians was punished in a similar way to how the Spanish Inquisition dealt with heretics – which is a thing in itself.

Early Roman Christians seemed to practice the Eucharistic sacrament, leading to the charge of cannibalism. The Arianism of Arius himself was never an attempt to dismiss the divinity of Christ, but to try to define it. The Holy Spirit – the third member of the trinity – was the main focus of the Nicean councils, not the divinity of Christ?

 

[juantoo3]

@juantoo3
To simplify:

The common argument against the validity of (trinitarian) Christianity is that it was created and spread by Constantine: the crucifixion (death), the resurrection, the eucharistic sacrament, the writings of Paul, the gospel of John -- many other facets -- are rejected as misrepresenting true early Christianity -- which was supposed to be a mere Yeshuan cult, but whose adherents were from the earliest known as Christians, not as Yeshuans, both by others and by themselves.

I think this argument fails on a number of counts. The First Council of Nicea was focused primarily on settling some doctrine to be acceptable to all sides. Constantine's contribution was pragmatic, in an attempt to smooth governance. Remember, Paganism was still the order of the day, Christianity had only recently been given government sanction. Not too many years before was the brief persecution of Licinius, and a mere twelve years prior the major persecution of Diocletian and Galerius was finally brought to an end.

As the benefactor and a Roman Emperor, certain polity and decorum would have been required of the attendees towards Constantine. Even to look through the "minutes of the meeting" so to speak, one sees the gratitude extended to the Emperor for making the Council possible. So one can be assured there was nothing unflattering going to be pointed at their host (regardless of his avowed anti-Semitism), or the host nation...and why we see a Jewish Rabbi executed in Roman fashion by Romans, yet the story is spun so the fault falls on the Jews - rightly or wrongly.

Specifically at Nicea the matters discussed apart from Arius vs Athanasius dealt with moving worship to Sunday (as some but not all had done) in an effort to separate from Judaism, while acquiescing to Pagan Sun worship (which like it or not, Constantine conducted matters of state as a Pagan Sun worshipper, as noted on coinage from the period). While Constantine was sympathetic to the Christian cause, and even restored properties and built various Christian monuments (with the aid of his mother, St Helena...that both Constantine and his mother were sainted by the Catholic Church should indicate how much their efforts were valued), he stood in a transitional period wherein he had to appeal to both constituencies, Pagan and Christian.

There was also a minor faction reprimanded for observing "ritual ablutions" in the manner of the Jews. So Nicea was about distinguishing Christianity apart from Judaism, the line was formally and officially drawn in the sand between the two at Nicea, though unofficially Judaism had already distanced itself from Christianity before Bar Kochba, though from outside of Israel the differences appeared trivial at that time.

The ‘Constantine Christinity’ argument is enthusiastically punted by people whose actual knowledge of Christianity and its New Testament scripture is often very thin and derived mostly from Wikipaedia. A forum like this one is in a position to dig deeper and correct errors.

Yeah...a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. There are all sorts that pretend they know something when they don't.

Do not give answer to a fool according to his foolishness, lest you also be like him. -Proverbs 26:4, Peshitta

The point I have been making is that the Arianism dispute cannot be used to imply that Constantine forced Trinitarian upon early Christians against the will of the majority, or that the heresy of Arians was punished in a similar way to how the Spanish Inquisition dealt with heretics – which is a thing in itself.

Why would it? The Catholic Church had no teeth at the time of Nicea. By the time of Justinian, the Catholic Church had teeth and had learned to throw its weight around. By the time of Charlemagne and the Crusades, they had learned to throw their weight around very well, some might say too well. At Nicea, differences of opinion had to be discussed. By the time of Justinian, differences of opinion were simply obliterated and paved over.

Early Roman Christians seemed to practice the Eucharistic sacrament, leading to the charge of cannibalism. The Arianism of Arius himself was never an attempt to dismiss the divinity of Christ, but to try to define it. The Holy Spirit – the third member of the trinity – was the main focus of the Nicean councils, not the divinity of Christ?

And that charge came from Romans, who themselves took glee in sending folks to their death in the Colosseum and other arenas as spectator sport.

I will leave to Thomas to flesh out the details, but the argument between Arius and Athanasius was specifically over the Divinity of Christ. I don't recall any discussion of the Holy Spirit, if so it was peripheral to the debate. The information is not difficult to find, so there is no excuse for misrepresentation, even Wiki presents a tolerable brief. Nicea was about separating and distinguishing from Judaism (thou shalt not Judaize!), specifically moving the day of worship to Sunday and chastising a minor sect for ritual washing ("just as the Jews"), and the biggie was the debate between Arius and Athanasius regarding the nature of Christ - was he born Divine or human? To someone who had more important matters to attend to (like running an Empire) it would indeed seem like a tempest in a teacup. There was no Canonizing of scripture, there were no other matters of importance or doctrine settled at that time.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..the argument between Arius and Athanasius was specifically over the Divinity of Christ.

Yes

 

[Thomas]

...that both Constantine and his mother were sainted by the Catholic Church should indicate how much their efforts were valued)...

Just to clarify here, Helena is, but Constantine is not a saint of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches regard him as a saint and furthermore an 'equal of the Apostles', a titles reserved for those who have made a significant contribution to the church equal to that of the original Apostles.

... the argument between Arius and Athanasius was specifically over the Divinity of Christ.

Quite.

What is often missed is that Arius nevertheless believed that Jesus Christ was, in effect, 'a created God', or demigod, Scripture interpreted through a very Greek philosophical lens.

According to Arius, God the Father is the sole Uncreated and Eternal God. The Father created the Logos, the Son, as the first and greatest of His creatures. Thw Son has the right to be worshiped as God because of His constant devotion to the Father. The Son is the Father's instrument of the salvation of the world, born as the man Jesus. For Arius, the Son is not an uncreated divinity, but a created divinity, as is the Holy Spirit.

I don't recall any discussion of the Holy Spirit, if so it was peripheral to the debate.

Yep, not an issue at Nicea.

To someone who had more important matters to attend to (like running an Empire) it would indeed seem like a tempest in a teacup.

Oh yes! As you say, and I agree, Constantine was a pragmatist.

And while he was baptised by the pro-Arian Eusebius, Eusebius was a political player first and foremost. Constantine's theological advisers were Hosius of Cordoba (Spanish) and Lactanius (North African), although it was Hosius who was the more influential – Lactanius died in 325.

There was no Canonizing of scripture, there were no other matters of importance or doctrine settled at that time.

Quite so.

Imagine: Constantine issues his desire to have 5o bibles prepared for the churches he's establishing.
In a nearby room: 'He what?' 'He wants 50 bibles' 'Really? By when, a week tomorrow, I suppose?' Nods, 'As soon as' 'And you said yes?' 'You don't say no to the emperor.' 'Oh, you muppet!'

 

[Thomas]

The common argument against the validity of (trinitarian) Christianity is that it was created and spread by Constantine ...

The argument of ignorance.

How the Trinity was conceived was a whole other thing, and in the mind of the average believer was/is not as clearcut – neither then nor now – as dogmatic as the theological definitions would have us believe. Nevertheless, confession of faith was in the name of the Father AND the Son AND the Holy Spirit, by people who simultaneously professed a belief in One God. They saw no contradiction because they didn't question the details.

The point I have been making is that the Arianism dispute cannot be used to imply that Constantine forced Trinitarian upon early Christians against the will of the majority, or that the heresy of Arians was punished in a similar way to how the Spanish Inquisition dealt with heretics – which is a thing in itself.

Quite ... was punished after Niceas? Arius and five others. With what? Exile ... and they were recalled and forgiven shortly after.

The Arianism of Arius himself was never an attempt to dismiss the divinity of Christ, but to try to define it.

Yes, this is the point that is so often missed, people assume Arius is saying Jesus is not God — which he's not.

 

[Thomas]

... (regardless of his avowed anti-Semitism) ...

His language yes, but then Christianity generally was pretty outspoken on that score.

But was Constantine particularly anti-Semitic? I'm not sure. He advanced Rabbis the same rights as Christian clergy. He forbad the owning of Christian slaves, of circumcising Christian slaves, of pagans converting to Judaism and of intermarriage ... but all that could have been from Christian sources?

... moving worship to Sunday ...

Not discussed at Nicaea, I think. Constantine established the Day of Rest was established 321AD, but that was for the Roman state?

There was also a minor faction reprimanded for observing "ritual ablutions" in the manner of the Jews.

But nothing in the Canons?

So Nicea was about distinguishing Christianity apart from Judaism ...

I rather think this is over-stating the case. The Jews weren't a target at Nicaea?

 

[Cino]

Imagine: Constantine issues his desire to have 5o bibles prepared for the churches he's establishing.
In a nearby room: 'He what?' 'He wants 50 bibles' 'Really? By when, a week tomorrow, I suppose?' Nods, 'As soon as' 'And you said yes?' 'You don't say no to the emperor.' 'Oh, you muppet!'

Nothing ever changes.

 

[juantoo3]

His language yes, but then Christianity generally was pretty outspoken on that score.

But was Constantine particularly anti-Semitic? I'm not sure. He advanced Rabbis the same rights as Christian clergy. He forbad the owning of Christian slaves, of circumcising Christian slaves, of pagans converting to Judaism and of intermarriage ... but all that could have been from Christian sources?

Comme ci, Comme ça. If one repeats the words attributed to Constantine today, they are rightly slapped with the label "anti-Semite." Just ask Mel Gibson.

(Sunday) Not discussed at Nicaea, I think. Constantine established the Day of Rest was established 321AD, but that was for the Roman state?

I stand corrected, the matter was establishment of Easter in deference to Passover:

The agenda of the synod included the following issues:

1. The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and the Son (not only in his incarnate form as Jesus, but also in his nature before the creation of the world); i.e., are the Father and Son one in divine purpose only, or also one in being?
2. The date of celebration of Pascha/Easter
3. The Meletian schism
4. Various matters of church discipline, which resulted in twenty canons
   1. Organizational structure of the Church: focused on the ordering of the episcopacy
   2. Dignity standards for the clergy: issues of ordination at all levels and of suitability of behavior and background for clergy
   3. Reconciliation of the lapsed: establishing norms for public repentance and penance
   4. Readmission to the Church of heretics and schismatics: including issues of when reordination and/or rebaptism were to be required
   5. Liturgical practice: including the place of deacons, and the practice of standing at prayer during liturgy[41]

First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia

But nothing in the Canons?

"Canon" to me, and I think generally, refers to the accepted letters. Clearly from the reference there is a bit more obscure meaning as well (like guidelines or procedures). This may well be a source of some (deliberate?) confusion by those with an axe to grind, purposely conflating the two very different meanings. So while there were "standard operating procedures" (canon - note my use of lower case) discussed, there was no discussion of what letters were acceptable and what were not, certainly not at this time. As we discussed just last week, that would come later, and did not involve Constantine.

I rather think this is over-stating the case. The Jews weren't a target at Nicaea?

Was it overtly documented and agreed "we are out to get the Jews!,"? No. But by the state sanction of Sunday in lieu of Sabbath, substitution of Easter for Passover, and reprimanding the Meletians for "Jewish ablutions" (ritual washing), it doesn't take a rocket scientist to piece the matter together. Keep in mind, what was discussed privately was cleaned up, white washed, polished, given a legal spin, and *then* presented as "official." Really no different than Parliament or Congress in that regard. It's not like they walked in on day one, took their seats, and stood up the last day and walked out with a completed document with a vacuum of silence in between...I would be willing to bet there was a good bit of back and forth over the various matters before them. The big debate alone would have had the 300 odd members present wheeling and dealing...but this was "Church," not "Government." I seem to recall reading there was vigorous debate over whether or not and under what conditions to readmit those who recanted under threat of death during the Persecution of Diocletian. There were those who were unwilling to forgive that indiscretion.

 

[Thomas]

Comme ci, Comme ça. If one repeats the words attributed to Constantine today, they are rightly slapped with the label "anti-Semite." Just ask Mel Gibson.

Quite.

Was it overtly documented and agreed "we are out to get the Jews!,"? No. But by the state sanction of Sunday in lieu of Sabbath, substitution of Easter for Passover, and reprimanding the Meletians for "Jewish ablutions" (ritual washing), it doesn't take a rocket scientist to piece the matter together.

Actually, I'm coming round to your way of thinking.

I wasn't so much defending Constantine as saying the whole Church used this kind of language ... so hoist on my own petard, I think.

 

[juantoo3]

Eusebius was a political player first and foremost. Constantine's theological advisers were Hosius of Cordoba (Spanish) and Lactanius (North African), although it was Hosius who was the more influential – Lactanius died in 325.

I think we can see Athanasius was the far more cunning political player...

 

[wil]

What is the time period of early Christians?

Does it begin while he was alive?

And how many centuries after his death are we calling early?

 

[juantoo3]

What is the time period of early Christians?

Does it begin while he was alive?

And how many centuries after his death are we calling early?

I have asked the same question, still waiting on an answer.

 

[RJM]

Nero was murdering 'Christians' in Rome in 64AD. Christians were well established in Rome within around 25 years of Jesus death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

"The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.

The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero. The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.

The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd argue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus. Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea ..."

Paul was writing in the same time period. Anyway, too soon for a cult to have grown around a crucified Jesus Christ who never existed?

 

[RJM]

The following is not my own research, but the facts are good:

Justin Martyr (c. 100 – c. 165)
“There is not a single race of human beings, barbarians, Greeks, or whatever name you please to call them, nomads or vagrants or herdsmen living in tents where prayers in the name of Jesus are not offered up”

Tertullian (155-240 CE)
“ The outcry is that the State is infested with Christians … we have filled every place among you: cities islands, fortresses, towns, market-places, the very camp, tribes, companies, palace, senate, forum -- we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods."

St. Clement of Rome in the mid-90s of the first century spoke of the apostles preaching “throughout the countryside and in the cities".

The Bithynian Roman governor Pliny, informed the emperor Trajan that Christianity had spread not only to cities, but also into villages and country districts:

Pliny the Younger on Christians - Wikipedia

“Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia and Pontus (now in modern Turkey) wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan around AD 112 and asked for counsel on dealing with the early Christian community. The letter (Epistulae X.96) details an account of how Pliny conducted trials of suspected Christians who appeared before him as a result of anonymous accusations and asks for the Emperor's guidance on how they should be treated

Neither Pliny nor Trajan mentions the crime that Christians had committed, except for being a Christian; and other historical sources do not provide a simple answer to what that crime could be, but most likely due to the stubborn refusal of Christians to worship Roman gods; making them appear as objecting to Roman rule.

Pliny states that he gives Christians multiple chances to affirm they are innocent and if they refuse three times, they are executed. Pliny states that his investigations have revealed nothing on the Christians' part but harmless practices and "depraved, excessive superstition." However, Pliny seems concerned about the rapid spread of their practices and views Christian gatherings as a potential starting point for sedition.

The letter is the first pagan account to refer to Christianity, providing key information on early Christian beliefs and practices and how these were viewed and dealt with by the Romans. The letter and Trajan's reply indicate that at the time of its writing there was no systematic and official persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire. There was persecution of Christians before this but only on a local basis. Trajan's reply also offers valuable insight into the relationship between Roman provincial governors and Emperors and indicates that at the time Christians were not sought out or tracked down by imperial orders, and that persecutions could be local and sporadic …”

The letter supports the existence of the early Christian Church and its rapid growth and speaks to its belief system. It also provides valuable evidence as to the attitudes of the Roman authorities with regard to early Christianity.

Pliny and Trajan on the Christians
“It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians...

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so....

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it.”

This was 200 years before Constantine.

By the year 300 CE there were roughly 6 million Christians in the Roman empire -- about 10% of the total population of the Roman state. By the second century Christian 'sympathisers' had already made their way into the ruling hierarchy.

Marcia (mistress of Commodus) - Wikipedia
“Marcia had Christian sympathies and persuaded Commodus to adopt a policy in favour of Christians, and kept close relations with Victor, Bishop of Rome. After Pope Victor I gave her a list she had asked for including all of the Christians sentenced to mine works in Sardinia, she convinced Commodus to allow them to return to Rome ...”

She saved many Christian lives and her efforts were commended by St. Hippolytus and other Fathers.

"In the late 2nd century CE, Marcia, a “god-loving a woman” and the principal concubine of the Roman Emperor Commodus, interceded with her lover to free a number of Christian prisoners who had been sentenced to slave labour in the mines of Sardinia...[This] reveals its own story about the nature of early church politics, the complex intrigues of an Emperor’s court at the end of the high empire, and the ability of a lowly concubine to exert political influence and change the course of Western history"

Marcia's patron was the eunuch who controlled the imperial harem and also himself a Christian presbyter:

"Hippolytus also claims that the Christian eunuch Hyacinthus was Marcia’s foster-father... It is unclear whether Hyacinthus served as a spiritual father to Marcia or actually raised her."

"For Christians ... life under Commodus was a good deal easier ... to the point where a eunuch named Hyacinthus combined the duties of controller of a 300-strong harem and a presbyter of the Christian Church."

 

[Cino]

Fascinating. There are some similarities to the spread of Buddhism and other "foreign religions" in Tang China. Similar situation with imperial sanction swaying this way and that, culminating in mass executions and expulsion at one point, and eventualky broad acceptance (though not patronage to the extent Constantine went to).