History of Christianity

Abdul Fattah

a.k.a. steve
Messages
1,931
Reaction score
450
Gender
Male
Religion
Islam
Hi everyone
I was looking up some stuff about the change from Roman belief to christian belief whilst posting on another thread and stumbled upon this most interesting text. It's a summary of teh rise of Christianity and some of it's early problems. There's mainly 2 reasons I am posting this here.
First reason I is because it is something that was not mentioned at all in my history lessons in high school, like there was a big gap in history there (I went to a Catholic school for those who were wondering).
Second reason is because I am interested in reading the response of the Christians on this forum. I skipped the first few paragraphs which talks about stuff that most people know already.


Constantine the Great - Christianization of the Empire

The key moment in the establishment if Christianity as the predominant religion of the Roman empire, happened in AD 312 when emperor Constantine on the eve before battle against the rival emperor Maxentius had a vision of the sign of Christ (the so called chi-rho symbol) in a dream.
And Constantine was to have the symbol inscribed on his helmet and ordered all his soldiers (or at least those of his bodyguard) to point it on their shields.
It was after the crushing victory he inflicted on his opponent against overwhelming odds that Constantine declared he owed his victory to the god of the Christians.
However, Constantine's claim to conversion is not without controversy. There are many who see in his conversion rather the political realization of the potential power of Christianity instead of any celestial vision.
Constantine had inherited a very tolerant attitude towards Christians from his father, but for the years of his rule previous to that fateful night in AD 312 there was no definite indication of any gradual conversion towards the Christian faith. Although he did already have Christian bishops in his royal entourage before AD 312.
But however truthful his conversion might have been, it should change the fate of Christianity for good. In meetings with his rival emperor Licinius, Constantine secured religious tolerance towards Christians all over the empire.
Until AD 324 Constantine appeared to on purposely blur the distinction of which god it was he followed, the Christian god or pagan sun god Sol. Perhaps at this time he truly hadn't made up his mind yet.
Perhaps it was just that he felt his power was not yet established enough to confront the pagan majority of the empire with a Christian ruler.
However, substantial gestures were made toward the Christians very soon after the fateful Battle of the Milvian Bridge in AD 312. Already in AD 313 tax exemptions were granted to Christian clergy and money was granted to rebuild the major churches in Rome.
Also in AD 314 Constantine already engaged in a major meeting of bishops at Milan to deal with problems befalling the church in the 'Donatist schism'.
But once Constantine had defeated his last rival emperor Licinius in AD 324, the last of Constantine's restraint disappeared and a Christian emperor (or at least one who championed the Christian cause) ruled over the entire empire.
He built a vast new basilica church on the Vatican hill, where reputedly St Peter had been martyred. Other great churches were built by Constantine, such as the great St John Lateran in Rome or the reconstruction of the great church of Nicomedia which had been destroyed by Diocletian.
Apart from building great monuments to Christianity, Constantine now also became openly hostile toward the pagans. Even pagan sacrifice itself was forbidden. Pagan temples (except those of the previous official Roman state cult) had their treasures confiscated. These treasures were largely given to the Christian churches instead.
Some cults which were deemed sexually immoral by Christian standards were forbidden and their temples were razed.
Gruesomely brutal laws were introduced to enforce Christian sexual morality. Constantine was evidently not an emperor who had decided to gradually educate the people of his empire to this new religion.
Far more the empire was shocked into a new religious order.

But in the same year as Constantine achieved supremacy over the empire (and effectively over the Christian church) the Christian faith itself suffered a grave crisis. Arianism, a heresy which challenged the church's view of God (the father) and Jesus (the son), was creating a serious divide in the church.Constantine called the famous Council of Nicaea which decided the definition of the Christian deity as the Holy Trinity, God the father, God the son and God the Holy Spirit.
Had Christianity previously been unclear about its message then the Council of Nicaea (together with a later council at Constantinople in 381 AD) created a clearly defined core belief. However, the nature of its creation - a council - and the diplomatically sensitive way in defining the formula, to many suggests the creed of the Holy Trinity to be rather a political construct between theologians and politicians rather than anything achieved by divine inspiration.
It is hence often sought that the Council of Nicaea represents the Christian church becoming a more wordly institution, moving away from its innocent beginnings in its ascent to power.
The Christian church continued to grow and rise in importance under Constantine. Within his reign the cost of the church already became larger than the cost of the entire imperial civil service.

As for emperor Constantine; he bowed out in the same fashion in which he had lived, leaving it still unclear to historians today, if he truly had completely converted to Christianity, or not.
He was baptized on his deathbed. It was not an unusual practice for Christians of the day to leave their baptism for such a time. However, it still fails to answer completely to what point this was due to conviction and not for political purposes, considering the succession of his sons.

Christian Heresy

One of the primary problems of early Christianity was that of heresy.
Heresy as generally defined as a departure from the traditional Christian beliefs; the creation of new ideas, rituals and forms of worship within the Christian church. This was especially dangerous to a faith in which for a long time the rules as to what was the proper Christian belief remained very vague and open to interpretation.
The result of the definition of heresy was often bloody slaughter. Religious suppression against heretics became to any account just as brutal as some of the excesses of Roman emperors in suppressing the Christians.

Julian the Apostate

If Constantine's conversion of the empire had been harsh, it was irreversible.
when in AD 361 Julian ascended to the throne and officially renounced Christianity, he could do little to change the religious make-up of an empire in which Christianity by then dominated.
Had under Constantine and his sons being a Christian almost been a pre-requisite for receiving any official position, then the entire working of the empire by now had been turned over to Christians.
It is unclear to what point the population had converted to Christianity (though the numbers will have been rising quickly), but it is clear that the institutions of empire must by the time Julian came to power have been dominated by Christians.
Hence a reverse was impossible, unless a pagan emperor of the drive and ruthlessness of Constantine would have emerged. Julian the Apostate was no such man. Far more does history paint him as a gentle intellectual, who simply tolerated Christianity in spite of his disagreement with it.
Christian teachers lost their jobs, as Julian argued that it made little sense for them to teach pagan texts of which they did not approve. Also some of the financial privileges which the church had enjoyed were now refused. But by no means could this have been seen as a renewal of Christian persecution.
In fact in the east of the empire Christian mobs ran riot and vandalized the pagan temples which Julian had re-instated.
Was Julian not a violent man of the likes of Constantine, then his response to these Christian outrages were never felt, as he already died in AD 363.
If his reign had a been a brief setback for Christianity, it had only provided further proof that Christianity was here to stay.

The Power of the Church

With the death of Julian the Apostate matters quickly returned to normal for the Christian church as it resumed its role as the religion of the power.
In AD 380 emperor Theodosius took the final step and made Christianity the official religion of state.
Severe punishments were introduced for people who disagreed with the official version of Christianity.
Furthermore, becoming a member of the clergy became a possible career for the educated classes, for the bishops were gaining ever more influence.
At the great council of Constantinople a further decision was reached which placed the bishopric of Rome above that of Constantinople.
This in effect confirmed the church's more political outlook, as until the prestige of the bishoprics had been ranked according to the church's apostolic history. And for that particular time preference for the bishop of Rome evidently appeared to be greater than for the bishop of Constantinople.

In AD 390 alas a massacre in Thessalonica revealed the new order to the world. After a massacre of some seven thousand people the emperor Theodosius was excommunicated and required to do penance for this crime. This did not mean that now the church was the highest authority in the empire, but it proved that now the church felt sufficiently confident to challenge the emperor himself on matters of moral authority.


source: http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/religion.html
 
Pretty similar to most everything I've read on the subject. I'm not sure what exactly you want Christians to comment on. Perhaps if you elaborated on the point of interest for you I could respond to the point you intended to raise.
 
Not sure what type of response you are looking for.

1) I too am not sure, and don't think anyone ever will be, whether or not Constantine's conversion was personal or for politcal reasons. In terms of the history of Christianity it probably really is academic, and doesn't change how we would view those times. The impact on the Church and the general population was the same either way.

2) I had not paid attention to how much Constatine was responsible for the physical construction of the institutions of Christendom. That came out more in what you provided than I had taken the time to reflect on myself.

3) Regarding the issues of heresy, to me it is clear that the early Church (before Constatine) had dealt with many heresies that had arisen either from within or outside that were threats to the new faith. The most common response appears to have been to expounge those who taught contrary to the accepted faith, and thus the chuch maintained its core and central tenants. Reading the Patristic Church Fathers tells this story very well. Their influence was very much as individuals whose understandings and interpretations of the Christian faith had to compete in the marketplace of ideas for acceptance. That Constantine sought to coalesce this influence by the creation of councils fits well with the concept of someone who wanted to bring unity to his empire.

4) Beginning with Constantine and until the fall of the Roman Empire (and a little beyond) Councils become the primary means of providing governance in the Church. I see this as being the path which leads ultimately to establishing the concept of a Pope. (All subsequent understandings of the position being read back into the position by the Church itself.) So, in establishing councils, erecting church buildings, and (as you also mentioned) putting Christians in key goverment positions Constatine was in many ways the architect of the next several hundred years of Church history where state and church were virtually one.
 
Last edited:
Constantine is the MAIN reason why Christianity is the largest religion today.

Christianity was growing in power regardless of Constantine's conversion. It is true his conversion quickened and strengthened the spread of Christianity, but Constantine also saw the writing on the wall, which was that Christianity was growing in numbers and influence within his empire.
 
Christianity was extremely fractured and varied prior to Constantine, even moreso than it is today. The differences in belief between protestants and catholics pale in comparison to those of the old Christian sects.
 
Christianity was extremely fractured and varied prior to Constantine, even moreso than it is today. The differences in belief between protestants and catholics pale in comparison to those of the old Christian sects.

I suppose you could say it was "fractured"" in terms of not having one spiritual leader and being spread across various regions.
 
Christianity was growing in power regardless of Constantine's conversion. It is true his conversion quickened and strengthened the spread of Christianity, but Constantine also saw the writing on the wall, which was that Christianity was growing in numbers and influence within his empire.

If it wasnt for Constantine, Christianity would be as small as Judaism, perhaps even smaller.

If you didnt know, "Christian" was meant to be an offensive term back in the days. Back then, Christianity was considered an heretical sect of Judaism, and the only reason it spread was because of Constantine when he converted.

Christianity was to Judaism what Bahai is to Islam.
 
Greetings and peace be with you Philosopher;
If it wasnt for Constantine, Christianity would be as small as Judaism, perhaps even smaller.

Are you saying that Constantine was more influential than Christ?

Did God create Constantine for any purpose?

In the spirit of searching

Eric
 
If it wasnt for Constantine, Christianity would be as small as Judaism, perhaps even smaller.

If you didnt know, "Christian" was meant to be an offensive term back in the days. Back then, Christianity was considered an heretical sect of Judaism, and the only reason it spread was because of Constantine when he converted.

Christianity was to Judaism what Bahai is to Islam.

Not quite accurate. I'm sure those who practiced Judaism during the time in question did consider Christianity to be a "heretical sect of Judaism", but the numbers of people converting to Christianity was growing at an alarming pace to the Roman Emperors. Constantine was already faced with Christianity before his conversion, it wasn't like woke up one morning and decided he wanted to be one of those small insignificant Christians that nobody had heard of. Christianity was a growing force in the world with or without Constantine.
 
I suppose you could say it was "fractured"" in terms of not having one spiritual leader and being spread across various regions.

No, I mean it was fractured as in the beliefs varied wildly. There was no one accepted doctrine. Different regions had different beliefs and they varied much much more than todays christian sects do, even considering the mormons and jehovas witnesses as christian sects of today.
 
I think it is quite debatable whether Christianity would exist today if not for Constantine. It may. It may not. I think the odds were about even.
 
No, I mean it was fractured as in the beliefs varied wildly. There was no one accepted doctrine. Different regions had different beliefs and they varied much much more than todays christian sects do, even considering the mormons and jehovas witnesses as christian sects of today.

Considers what beliefs you are referring to. The primary doctrine of Christianity is that Jesus Christ was the Messiah who brought the path of salvation to mankind. That is what a Christian is. Of course when a religion isn't centralized and when no orthodoxy has been established, there will be offshoot sects. That was the primary reason the Council of Nicaea. Mostly to do with Arianism and other sects deemed by the majority of Bishops to be heretical.
 
I think it is quite debatable whether Christianity would exist today if not for Constantine. It may. It may not. I think the odds were about even.

Christianity was already a major religion in the region when Constantine legalized the faith. Constantine's mother was a Christian.
 
No, I mean it was fractured as in the beliefs varied wildly. There was no one accepted doctrine. Different regions had different beliefs and they varied much much more than todays christian sects do, even considering the mormons and jehovas witnesses as christian sects of today.

I'm not sure that is true either. Yes, there were sects and divisions, but not all of these were heresies. And some of the reasons for heresies were because Christianity was making inroads in pagan communities, and the first generation of this formerly pagan Christians often had views wherein they tried to understand and interpret Christian faith in the language and traditions of their former belief systems. Thus the early church was continuously promoting the true Gospel so as to preserve the integrity of the faith. This is why the creedal statements of the church were so important. Beyond Arius, I am not even aware of other attempts by others to write what would be considered heretical creeds. So, I don't think the existence varied beliefs was as wide and certainly not as entrenched as you appear to believe.
 
I think it is quite debatable whether Christianity would exist today if not for Constantine. It may. It may not. I think the odds were about even.

When the first European missionaries arrived in India, they found that there were already small Christian sects in existence there. Constantine had nothing to do with that.
 
an episcolpalian priest who is a friend of a family member just read constantines's sword: the church and the jews.
he said he was really amazed at the depth and continuity of hatred for jews -he knew about it of course, but had no idea just how big it was (is?).
he is going to mail it to me. i'm certainly familiar with the subject but am curious to see if this book affects me the same way as it did him.
it's by james carrol - anyone read it?
 
an episcolpalian priest who is a friend of a family member just read constantines's sword: the church and the jews.
he said he was really amazed at the depth and continuity of hatred for jews -he knew about it of course, but had no idea just how big it was (is?).
he is going to mail it to me. i'm certainly familiar with the subject but am curious to see if this book affects me the same way as it did him.
it's by james carrol - anyone read it?

I'm not familiar with this book, is it about Constantine's hatred of Jews or what exactly?
 
keltoi,
i am not sure. from what he told me, i think it is broader than constantine - like maybe it is a chronicle of christian anti-semitism from constantine onward. it should be a pretty fat book.
 
keltoi,
i am not sure. from what he told me, i think it is broader than constantine - like maybe it is a chronicle of christian anti-semitism from constantine onward. it should be a pretty fat book.

Europe, and the world in general, has always had a cancer of anti-semitism with it. There is no sugar coating that part of the past. In a large degree we are still dealing with it, by "we" I mean Western society in general.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top