How could the Romans have wiped out Christianity?

[arnoldo]

It is a historical fact that Christianity played a major role within the Roman Empire. Beginning with Constantine onwards Christianity, be it Arian or Nicean flavor, was firmly entrenched in Roman Society. Some Emperors after Constantine weren

[athanasios]

Actually it was Constantine who eliminated true Christianity when he introduced a mixture of Paganism and Sun worship with Christian beliefs as the State Religion. The worst abomination being the cross-the symbol of the Sun to be used as a symbol of Jesus.

http://www.hol.com/~mikesch/verita.htm

Those who did not want to conform to this new religion were eliminated, either true Christians or Pagans. and Olympic Games stopped. That's how the dark ages of 'State Christian' terror started.

So, to conclude, the Romans actually WIPED out True Christianity.

[Calthazar]

The worst abomination being the cross-the symbol of the Sun to be used as a symbol of Jesus.

I always wondered why they used the cross.  Seems like so much focus on the death rather than the life.  Oh well, not a christian anyways.

[arnoldo]

Actually it was Constantine who eliminated true Christianity when he introduced a mixture of Paganism and Sun worship with Christian beliefs as the State Religion. The worst abomination being the cross-the symbol of the Sun to be used as a symbol of Jesus.

http://www.hol.com/~mikesch/verita.htm

Those who did not want to conform to this new religion were eliminated, either true Christians or Pagans. and Olympic Games stopped. That's how the dark ages of 'State Christian' terror started.

So, to conclude, the Romans actually WIPED out True Christianity.

Constantine sought to use Christianity to unite the roman empire.  By that time Christianity was spread geographically over a large area with Christians residing in key cities such as Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, having somewhat distinct theological interpretations of the gospels.  Specifically, Constantine sought to unite his empire under the Nicean theological interpretation of Christianity.  Constantine failed and Arianism thrived most notably amongst the

[Caid Ivik]

I always wondered why they used the cross.  Seems like so much focus on the death rather than the life.  Oh well, not a christian anyways.

Cross symbolizes meeting between the ideal (vertical axis) and practical (horizontal), or in Christian terms, God coming down to human to invite him to the divine realm. It was a strong symbol, very easy to comprehend and yet full of meanings. The fact it became dominant over the other symbols (fish, David's star, key, jhwh or whatever) was rather this simplicity, not some Roman Catholic/imperial conspiracy.

Roman religion was a tribal one, making the hierarchical order between the citizens and others to be of divine origin, success of their foreign policy was thought as a blessing. Christianity was more appealing, because it was open for everybody. If you immigrated to Rome and had enough money, you still would be a second-class person and I think that excluded you partly from the social organization (in things like education, marriage, retirement etc) of the majority.

Roman rulers faced a question - either include all and replace tribal religion with a universal one (and anger those, who profitted from the previous ideology, like the army), or syncretically adopt religions of friendly tribes to hold up manpower, bluntly said. As it happens in history, the solution was a compromise one after two attempts (Constantine and Julianus) of radical (universalist/tribal) solution.

[Caid Ivik]

Constantine sought to use Christianity to unite the roman empire.  By that time Christianity was spread geographically over a large area with Christians residing in key cities such as Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, having somewhat distinct theological interpretations of the gospels.  Specifically, Constantine sought to unite his empire under the Nicean theological interpretation of Christianity.  Constantine failed and Arianism thrived most notably amongst the

[ErasOmnius]

Constantine was very shrewd man, who is definitely in the Top 25 of Historical figures of the World.

Constantine realized that if he could tweak Christianity he could actually have a group of people who believed in strong families and discipline -- on his side. What he had to do was break down their resistance to getting involved in political affairs -- and most importantly, their resistance to serving in the legions and navy.

The Council of Nicene was a giant turning point in history. One of the most important changes to ever occur. Christians made a type of 'Faustian bargain' with the Emperor, and it has stood until the 1950s. 'Don't martyr us, and let us raise our children as Christians , and we will give them to you to discipline as soldiers'.

So 'Christianity' changed permanently. 'Turn the other cheek', became, 'become a soldier and kill your enemy on the front line'. In return from the state, Christian martyrdom basically ended.

As an Emperor, Constantine was brilliant in instituting this change. It was either this, or collapse. A few decades earlier, Decius has spent so much of the Empire's time, effort, and man-power trying to wipe out Christianity, that Constantine knew something had to give. Add in the Parthians, the Germans, and civil war; big C needed to think fast.

Plus, the Roman urban citizenry, especially in the Grecian/Syrian East, was so riddled with the sex cults of the fertility goddess Cybele and the sun god Sol Invictus, that the birth rate was falling precipitously. No large families with many children meant no one to till the land for food [and pay taxes to the state on the crops sold], not enough soldiers to maintain the legions at the boundaries, and not enough naval men to man the fleets.

Constantine solved all of his problems in one swift stroke.

[athanasios]

...In 321' date=' Constantine instructed that Christians and non-Christians should be united in observing the "venerable day of the sun", referencing the esoteric eastern sun-worship which Aurelian  had helped introduce, and his coinage still carried the symbols of the sun-cult until 324. Even after the pagan gods had disappeared from the coinage, Christian symbols appear only as Constantine's personal attributes: the chi rho between his hands or on his labarum, but never on the coin itself.[200']  Even when Constantine dedicated the new capital of Constantinople, which became the seat of Byzantine Christianity for a millennium, he did so wearing the Apollonian sun-rayed Diadem...

Constantine also enforced the prohibition of the First Council of Nicaea against celebrating the Lord's Supper on the day before the Jewish Passover  (14 Nisan)...

On some date between 15 May and 17 June 326, Constantine had his eldest son Crispus, by Minervina, seized and put to death by "cold poison" at Pola (Pula, Croatia).[213]  In July, Constantine had his wife, the Empress Fausta, killed at the behest of his mother, Helena...

Ευρεία χρήση του σταυρού ως σύμβολο του χριστιανισμού ξεκίνησε στα χρόνια μετά τους διωγμούς, επί Μεγάλου Κωνσταντίνου  περίοδος όπου εφαρμόστηκαν διατάγματα ανεξιθρησκείας. Ο Μέγας Κωνσταντίνος ισχυρίστηκε ότι είχε δει στον ουρανό ένα σύμβολο με τις λέξεις

[arnoldo]

Constantine's reforms stretched further than religion, he reformed a number of administrative details, which simply better suited economics of the East then of the West. Eastern Rome wasn't helpless against the "barbarians" nor against Muslims, it was to live through many periods of thriving and decline yet. If it eventually came down after some thousand years, it still is much more than the imperial era of Rome.

Your right, the Eastern Roman Empire was able to resist muslim invasions more effectively than the western half of the Roman Empire. Constantinople remained in Roman hands while Egypt, North Africa, and the Iberian Peninsula was lost by the Romans to the Muslim armies.  If Islam had been able to conquer the Roman Empire entirely christianity as we know it would've changed radically.  Perhaps the Ebionite form of christianity would've been allowed to continue to a degree since it stressed the human nature of Christ whom Muhammad regarded as a prophet rather than the Son of God. 

[Caid Ivik]

Your right, the Eastern Roman Empire was able to resist muslim invasions more effectively than the western half of the Roman Empire. Constantinople remained in Roman hands while Egypt, North Africa, and the Iberian Peninsula was lost by the Romans to the Muslim armies.  If Islam had been able to conquer the Roman Empire entirely christianity as we know it would've changed radically.  Perhaps the Ebionite form of christianity would've been allowed to continue to a degree since it stressed the human nature of Christ whom Muhammad regarded as a prophet rather than the Son of God. 

If Muhammad came a few centuries ago, when the imperial structure was still effective in the West, it surely would have a vast influence. But between, say, years 400 and 630 there were numerous changes in ethnic structure of the lands which belonged to the West; there came numerous tribes (Goths, Slavs, Francs, Allemans...) with their own religions (tough without clerical and diocese system) and most of their population was (of some only in the Muhammad's time) just getting baptized. It seems to me more likely that if some strong religious movement like Islam would take over Rome in 400, it would rather replace Christianity as the dominant religion. Conversion rates in Syria, Egypt or Anatolia and Balkan under Ottomans vary, so I don't think it can be generalized anyway.

It is evident that Constantine was a pagan, an enemy of true Christianity, and a perverted murderer.

Enjoy how Fake Christian Faith was established! By the minority of Heretics who succumbed to a pagan emperor.

"Faith" cannot be "established", as it is a personal feeling, not a thing which can be commanded.

[athanasios]

... when people are left to think for themselves, not when they are brainwashed.

[Caid Ivik]

Do you think the Romans knew how to brainwash? I think you overestimate their psychological capabilities  ::)

[ErasOmnius]

Do you think the Romans knew how to brainwash? I think you overestimate their psychological capabilities  ::)

I think what Ath is trying to say is that Christianity's ability to 'breathe a sign of relief' in the area of not being martyred, out-weighed any concern they may have had of becoming doctrinally incorrect.

[Edric O]

Enjoy how Fake Christian Faith was established! By the minority of Heretics who succumbed to a pagan emperor.

And I suppose you happen to know what the other bishops believed? No? Then we have a slight problem here. This "fake" Christian faith, as you call it, is the oldest Christian faith that we know about. If Nicean Christianity is not true Christianity, then true Christianity is lost forever.

Also, if Nicean Christianity is not true Christianity, then the Christian faith is false and God does not exist. After all, how could God allow His religion - His vehicle for the salvation of Humanity - to be destroyed by some upstart human emperor? No. If Constantine could destroy Christianity, then Christianity was not protected by God, so God does not exist.

On the other hand, if God does exist, then He must have ensured that the true Christian faith survived. And since Nicean Christianity is the only type of Christianity that survived from the earliest times to the present, this must be the faith protected by God - this must be true Christianity.

[Dante]

Just because something is incredibly old doesn't mean that it's right.

Isn't that right, Hwi?

[Wolf]

Edric: I respect your position and acknowledge that you have a valid interpretation of events, but I disagree in that I do not think we are dealing with an "either/or" scenario with respect to the status of Nicean Christianity, and I believe that there is a spectrum of possible "truths" that God is capable of communicating to a species that is as diverse in beliefs as there are individuals in it. If we are to believe that one of God's objectives in all of this is to have an objectively correct, easily-accessible Christian ideology emerge from the mists of history, then we must ask ourselves why he allowed such an ideology to become marred by alternative views in the first place, thus requiring a later confirmation of sorts, or why he tolerates the existence of competing religions at all. Or, in other words, if we are to believe that God would not allow a "false Christianity" to exist, and therefore orchestrated the events at Nicea, why wouldn't he simply have prevented the rise of false Christian beliefs in the first place? In yet briefer terms, if Nicea was necessary, then why was it necessary at all? My personal interpretation is that this may be a conclusion that invalidates its premise, and my own suspicions regarding Nicea drift towards the notion that while Nicean Christianity may be "righter" than others, it is at its core a human interpretation and expression of divine insight, and is still in some form marred by the imperfections of our perception and will. I imagine that if God has a plan, then humanity must require some measure of free will for this plan to have any meaning come the end of time. Perhaps God's goals are not to guide us to the perfect doctrine on Earth, but to provide us with a means of interacting with the world that will more likely than not result in our enlightenment and salvation in Eternity. In my experience, some people are not satisfied with doctrinaire answers that fail to satisfy reasonable objections or that cannot speak to the unique perspectives of their communities: I cannot accept that these people do not have an equally valid, if not more complicated path to salvation than those who take it on faith that the old doctrines are also the right ones.

[athanasios]

God gave us the Bible. We do not need anything else to know what true Christianity is. History provides enough details of how first century Christians applied it in their lives. God protected the Bible and it is available to anyone on Earth. So your logic fails Edric O.

[Edric O]

God gave us the Bible.

No He didn't. The Church gave us the Bible.

Compare the Bible with the Qur'an, for example. Muslims can say that God gave them the Qur'an, because the Qur'an is supposed to have been handed down in its final, complete, perfect form to Muhammad. That is what it would look like to have a Holy Book given to us by God. An angel comes, he gives the book to some prophet, and there you have it. End of story.

The Bible is not like that. God did not send an angel to deliver us a copy of the Bible. Instead, various people wrote the Bible at various times. They were divinely inspired, of course, but still human. I believe the reason for this is because God's Word is too complex to be captured in any text, no matter how long or detailed. God did not send an angel to deliver us a perfect Holy Book because such a book cannot be written in any human language. Instead, God told us to rely on each other for wisdom and insight. That is the meaning of the fact that the Bible is a collective work by so many authors. Salvation is not something that you can find alone. It is a collective experience. It is something that you find through communion with other believers. God's second greatest commandment is that we love each other. A man alone cannot love others. A man alone cannot find salvation. We need the Church because we need community. Because we need each other.

(and now you may also get an idea of how I think that Christianity fits with communism)

[Edric O]

Just because something is incredibly old doesn't mean that it's right.

What I said was that the correct Christian doctrine must be old - not that the old doctrine must be right.

Also, your post was clearly intended as an insult to Hwi and little else. Stop that.

If we are to believe that one of God's objectives in all of this is to have an objectively correct, easily-accessible Christian ideology emerge from the mists of history, then we must ask ourselves why he allowed such an ideology to become marred by alternative views in the first place, thus requiring a later confirmation of sorts, or why he tolerates the existence of competing religions at all. Or, in other words, if we are to believe that God would not allow a "false Christianity" to exist, and therefore orchestrated the events at Nicea, why wouldn't he simply have prevented the rise of false Christian beliefs in the first place?

I did not say that God would not allow a "false Christianity" to exist. I said that He would not allow true Christianity to go extinct. Those are two very different things. I don't think God would intervene against a "false Christianity", unless it threatened to completely destroy true Christianity.

True Christianity must survive so that human beings may continue to have the option of saving their souls. If true Christianity does not survive, then the sacrifice of Christ was in vain. God would not allow that.

But survival does not mean being widespread or powerful or dominant. Those are different things. I believe God ensures our survival, but no more than that.

Perhaps God's goals are not to guide us to the perfect doctrine on Earth, but to provide us with a means of interacting with the world that will more likely than not result in our enlightenment and salvation in Eternity. In my experience, some people are not satisfied with doctrinaire answers that fail to satisfy reasonable objections or that cannot speak to the unique perspectives of their communities: I cannot accept that these people do not have an equally valid, if not more complicated path to salvation than those who take it on faith that the old doctrines are also the right ones.

I don't think the correct doctrine is particularly important in and of itself; I believe Christian doctrine is like a guide to help us on the way to salvation. The guide doesn't have to be perfect. You can find your way even with an imperfect or substandard guide - it's just more difficult that way. The correct doctrine is not the only way to salvation, but it is the best way.

I believe that Christians of all denominations - and even some non-Christians - can be saved. But it's easier if you are part of the Orthodox Church. Or the Catholic Church, for that matter. Our doctrinal differences are little more than splitting hairs (plus the question of the authority of the Pope, which is all politics).

[Dante]

Now Edric, you must know by now that I like to serve my insults side by side with valid points.

For example, I still question the assumption that the "correct" faith must be an old one. An immortal could very easily be playing a very long game indeed. I mean modern humans are what, twelve thousand years old? That's a fraction of the time life has been present on the planet, itself a fraction of the planet's age, itself a fraction of the age of the universe. If an immortal is prepared to wait that long to enact a grand plan, I don't see why that plan should not also be far-reaching and slow-moving.

You appear to be working from the assumption that the original word (as translated) is as close to the true intent of god as possible, the difficulty then residing primarily in translation and interpretation errors. I would argue that the opposite is also possible, that the original word was not intended as a golden standard that has been watered down throughout the ages, but as a vague ideal that humanity is supposed to study, refine, sharpen and otherwise develop into the best possible model.

This would mean that differing historical interpretations are not deviations so much as necessary steps from a rude beginning to an enlightened future. Those who partook in them were not wrong, simply part of a development centuries in the making. "True" christianity may not even have arrived yet.

Two questions then arise. 1) How do you know when you have reached the true intent of god?

Well, I remember Edric saying before that god may have sacrificed omniscience in order to allow true free will. If that is the case then even god doesn't know what humanity will do with the word (though is probably possessed of a pretty good guess). This suggests that god actively wants (or at the very least is prepared to allow) alternative interpretations. So perhaps there is no "true" intent. Perhaps one is as valid as another. Or perhaps the whole idea is for humanity itself to define the divine word, to surpass the will of the creator. What else would free will be for, after all?

2) What of earlier variants of the faith?

Stepping stones. A necessary part of creating something true. I see no reason why adherents to those faiths shouldn't be celebrated as part of the great work.

And don't think that I'm not aware of the similarity of this model to that of natural selection. Mutations arise, are adopted or killed off. Variations die out and are superceded by more fit examples. It's a model that is driven by the present and the past, not working towards any specific goal in the future.

There is the possibility of course that free will doesn't even enter the equation, and that god knows exactly where that word placed long ago will take humanity. That doesn't change the fact that it is up to humanity to find it, to seek the truth rather than read it and quibble over what it means.

There now, all that from the "little else."

[ErasOmnius]

True Christianity must survive so that human beings may continue to have the option of saving their souls. If true Christianity does not survive, then the sacrifice of Christ was in vain. God would not allow that.

True Christianity.

Give me an example of the tenets of True Christianity.

[athanasios]

... the Qur'an is supposed ... An angel comes, he gives the book to some prophet, and there you have it.

... They were divinely inspired, of course, but still human.

Good you stated 'is supposed because' the Qur'an was written much much latter.

God is the author even though humans were used, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to pen his message with their own style. That style didn't alter the message though. And take note that at some cases it was an angel commanding to write; the ten commandments were given directly.

Now about the church giving us the Bible this doesn't stand. In pre christian times there was no church. And after the 1st century there has been no addition to the Bible.

[Caid Ivik]

No He didn't. The Church gave us the Bible.

Compare the Bible with the Qur'an, for example. Muslims can say that God gave them the Qur'an, because the Qur'an is supposed to have been handed down in its final, complete, perfect form to Muhammad. That is what it would look like to have a Holy Book given to us by God. An angel comes, he gives the book to some prophet, and there you have it. End of story.

The Bible is not like that. God did not send an angel to deliver us a copy of the Bible. Instead, various people wrote the Bible at various times. They were divinely inspired, of course, but still human. I believe the reason for this is because God's Word is too complex to be captured in any text, no matter how long or detailed. God did not send an angel to deliver us a perfect Holy Book because such a book cannot be written in any human language. Instead, God told us to rely on each other for wisdom and insight. That is the meaning of the fact that the Bible is a collective work by so many authors. Salvation is not something that you can find alone. It is a collective experience. It is something that you find through communion with other believers. God's second greatest commandment is that we love each other. A man alone cannot love others. A man alone cannot find salvation. We need the Church because we need community. Because we need each other.

(and now you may also get an idea of how I think that Christianity fits with communism)

It seems to me you generalize a little. The Bible is a collection of prophecies and experiences of many centuries - a collective work indeed. The Church's role was that of a reviewer; translation and preservation of such a giant text needs significant resources, and here Church was very helpful. As every community, it has a cultural expression (social role is an important one as well and related to this aspect). But it is a "wandering Church" as well, it still has to search for its role in the world, according to the changes in it. It needs to find interpretations of the teaching comprehensible to the actual world. In how far you understand and follow them remains an individual problem.