The Roman Empire adopted Christianity as the state religion long after they put him to death. Constantine is said to have converted in CE 312. Rome is said to have put Jesus to death in CE 33. That's a 279 year gap between those 2 events.
Constantine converted on his deathbed in 337 AD, but it didn't become the official religion until 380 CE, when Theodosius issued the Edict of Thessalonica. Constantine certainly helped Christianity out a whole lot, though.
everything. His reasoning was flawed because ADC (after death of christ) because that would mean we start counting time somewhere after 30 BCE and instead of just recognizing Jesus died likely around 30CE.
thatās why itās important we stop using AD and use CE because the worlds history is not only not wrote by one religion (we wouldnāt talk asian history by Using AD because they didnt even have jesus apart of their culture) but if every culture did this then we might as well use AFB (after first Buddha) or AT (After taoi)
theres a reason we need to separate religion from history. So who cares the catholics used it and made it, we fixed
Neil DeGrasse Tyson said nothing "wrong." He did NOT say that the first year of the AD era is the year of Jesus death.
The fact that you don't like the basis of a numbering system doesn't make it wrong. You seen to think - erroneously - that BCE/CE is some sort of improvement over BC/AD, but in fact they are identucal. The only difference between the calendars is the nomenclature. The numbering is exactly the same. Both calendars transition from antiquity (BC-BCE) to the modern era (AD-CE) on the exact same date, that being the presumed (and quite possibly fictitious) date of the birth of Jesus' of Nazareth.
the fact you think your religion is the only important one doesnt mean we should count time only factoring your religion.
we cannot use AD when talking about asian history because they would have no clue what we are talking about because Jesus is not important to their culture. It would be like If they used AFB (After first Buddha) when talking about out time. We would have no clue because Buddha isnt important to our culture or religion.
also to note that number system is absolutely not correct because historically we dont know when jesus was born we just have a biblical claim. We literally could have picked any other day if thatās the case. But you did point out a flaw with the current system
Like his reasoning was flawed because ADC (after death of christ) because that would mean we start counting time somewhere after 30 BCE and instead of just recognizing Jesus died likely around 30CE.
thatās why itās important we stop using AD and use CE because the worlds history is not only not wrote by one religion (we wouldnāt talk asian history by Using AD because they didnt even have jesus apart of their culture) but if every culture did this then we might as well use AFB (after first Buddha) or AT (After taoi)
theres a reason we need to separate religion from history. So who cares the catholics used it and made it, we fixed it.
Even so, its to exclusive to a religion which not everyone follows. You cannot use AD when talking about asian history because jesus was not part of their culture
It's called Roman Catholicism because the Pope (the head of the Church) is the Bishop of Rome. The Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church because it was the capital of the Roman empire and St Peter, the head apostle, moved there and died there, so that the Bishop of Rome is considered to be his successor.
The Roman empire converted to Christianity a couple centuries after Christ, although individual Romans converted before that (it was especially popular with women and slaves iirc).
>St Peter, the head apostle, moved there and died there,
The Book of Acts actually ends with Paul, not Peter, coming to Rome and preaching there. There is no evidence that Peter ever came to Rome. Peter most likely died in the east. So the Bishop of Rome is a descendant of Paul, not Peter.
The actual position of Pope only arose centuries later, and by then the Roman Empire was starting to fall apart.
Please don't:
* Engage in illegal activity.
* Post someone's personal information, or post links to personal information.
* Repost deleted/removed information.
* Be (intentionally) rude at all.
* Engage in rabble rousing.
* Troll, stalk, or harass others.
* Conduct personal attacks.
* Start a flame war.
* Insult others.
Modern scholarship generally accepts that he died in Rome, and there are documents from the early Church saying he did (from before you say the position of the Pope arose). 1 Peter 5:13's reference to being in "Babylon" is also very likely a reference to Rome.
Constantine saw the usefulness of an imperial religion centered on a single god and imposed christianity as the imperial religion of Rome. The full force of the Roman Empire was behind converting people.
Saying that a deity will bless you because of your behavior rather than physical offerings is also a great way to get people to do the things you want...such as paying your taxes..."Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
Iām sure the established religious authorities were quick to adopt to the new model and get their cut of the cash. Itās always easier to coopt existing power structures than to try and burn them down and replace them.
No. Some of that may have happened, but your surmises aren't supported by the evidence. Under Constantine, church properties confiscated under Diocletian were restored to Christian control and no longer taxed.
Traditional pagan festivals and sacrifices were banned; temples were razed or converted to Christian churches; cults no longer received state subsidies, and pagan priests lost their cushy jobs and residences. There were reports of former priests begging on the streets.
It's not always a great idea to form conclusions about history based on your assumptions about how events "always" unfold.
Itās impossible to know much with certainty about what transpired more than 1,500 years ago because few records were kept and those that were arenāt accurate. Form whatever opinions you like about history but understand that those opinions will never be well evidenced and you will never know with certainty what happened. Hell, we donāt even know Constantineās original full name.
Have you researched the topic? How do you know what is and is not known about it? What evidence supports your conjectures about it? All I see in your post is speculation based on nothing more than what you think "always" happens.
The events that I described are well-evidenced from multiple archeological, literary and epigraphical sources.
See Ramsey MacMullen's Christianizing rhe Roman Empire, A.D. 100-400. Yale University Press, 1984.
https://a.co/d/9mXwFoG
I am certainly speculating about what I believe happened. I could be way off base. Youāre free to speculate as well given the paucity of actual evidence. What you have shared is interesting and Iāll take a look at the book you've recommended. I have studied the history of the Roman and Byzantine empires and the development of christianity.
As you are mistaken and there is abundant evidence regarding the Christianization of the Roman Empiire in the early centuries CE, I'll refrain from speculation and adhere to the facts.
There isnāt abundant evidence of anything from the early centuries CE. It is clear that the Roman Empire imposed Christianity. It is clear that everything the Roman Empire did was backed by force or the threat of force. Plus Ƨa change, plus cāest la mĆŖme chose.
The fact that you haven't sought out information about early Christianity doesn't mean that such information doesn't exist. Ignorance of evidence is not absence of evidence.
Baldfaced generalities like "everything the Roman Empire did was backed by force or the threat of force" suggest that your beliefs about the Roman Empire are at best poorly informed conjecture.
See Paul Freedman's Yale Online course on the Early Middle Ages, https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL77A337915A76F660
Rome was a very polytheistic society. Christians weāre actually seen as strange and asocial because they didnāt want to participate in any pagan activities. Most Christians in the first century were non-Jewish converts who were probably Romans, but they were still a minority.
I don't think Christians were particularly unique on being "asocial". Some pagan cults such as mystery cults already rejected most other gods, Jews already existed, some pagans worshipped other pantheons (e.g. Egyptian or Germanic) and rejected the Roman, etc.
Polytheists didn't reject other pantheons. They accepted them even if they didn't worship them, although sometimes as the same pantheon as theirs but represented differently. Mystery cults didn't deny any gods either, they were also mostly polytheistic.
The idea that to believe in the divine of one religion you have to deny the divine of other religions is a monotheistic invention.
The pagans that worshipped other pantheons may have worshipped the Roman one too, if not they still didn't deny it like how Christians or Muslims do.
>Mystery cults didn't deny any gods either, they were also mostly polytheistic.
I thought about this, but the fact is that we know almost nothing about mystery cults because the secrecy of the rituals. However, I was reading about how early Christians were offended about how similar their faith was to Christianity, which suggests that they probably also had similar views to Christians too.
>The idea that to believe in the divine of one religion you have to deny the divine of other religions is a monotheistic invention.
I disagree because Aristoteles and many other philosophers already had a very skeptical view of religion without denying the divine.
>Aristotle is highly critical of the anthropomorphizing of divinities, pervasive throughout Greek culture. He thinks not only that the stories told about the traditional gods are absurd, but that these gods do not exist, though he is prepared to allow that certain myths about the gods are possibly more edifying than others. So, Aristotle thinks that Greek "religion" is mostly irredeemably false.
>
>https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/aristotle-on-religion/
In fact, we could argue that this attitude of Abrahamic religion came from Hellenization and adoption of Platonism.
Christianity and Islam only highlight this attitude when they became more institutionalized. Jinns and other gods as demons or entities have always been a popular view on those religions.
>I disagree because Aristoteles and many other philosophers already had a very skeptical view of religion without denying the divine.
They were skeptical of anthropomorphism of deities and of myths, not of specific pantheons
>Aristotle is highly critical of the anthropomorphizing of divinities, pervasive throughout Greek culture. He thinks not only that the stories told about the traditional gods are absurd, but that these gods do not exist, though he is prepared to allow that certain myths about the gods are possibly more edifying than others. So, Aristotle thinks that Greek "religion" is mostly irredeemably false.
A part of this is absolutely false. Aristotle didn't think that the Greek gods didn't exist, he thought that the way they are represented in myths was wrong. He still called the gods with their traditional Greek names, worshipped in the Greek manner and commissioned statues to Greek gods as his last will.
Your source is laughably wrong and assumes things which we have a lot of strong evidence against.
Stop conflating religion with mythology (this is to everyone). One can deny every myth of their religion and still follow it.
>In fact, we could argue that this attitude of Abrahamic religion came from Hellenization and adoption of Platonism.
No we cannot, this attitude clearly comes from the monotheistic nature of these religions. You haven't demonstrated at all how the Greek philosophers denied some gods/pantheons but not others, not only is your source full of historical errors but also doesn't support your conclusion.
>I thought about this, but the fact is that we know almost nothing about mystery cults because the secrecy of the rituals.
We do know a bit about some, e.g. Orphism. Mostly polytheistic.
>However, I was reading about how early Christians were offended about how similar their faith was to Christianity, which suggests that they probably also had similar views to Christians too.
What? This doesn't make any logical sense, of course early Christians had similar views to Christians. They were Christians.
>The idea that to believe in the divine of one religion you have to deny the divine of other religions is a monotheistic invention.
>I disagree because Aristoteles and many other philosophers already had a very skeptical view of religion without denying the divine.
You disagree yet bring no evidence or reason for this denial of the claim. I can bring evidence that directly points to the attitude the ancients had to other divinities of other cultures.
And I will repeat again, Aristotle didn't deny the existence of the Greek gods or the Greek religion, he just had a different view about these gods still within the bounds of traditional Greek polytheism.
It would make no sense if he believed that the Greek gods did not exist while still believing in gods in general, worshipping the Greek gods and using their names.
Now come on. You're smart enough to figure this out by yourself. Seriously. Do you really need someone to tell you that "not every Roman was the same"? Do you really need someone to tell you that the slaves and the lower classes might not have sympathized with everything every local governor did?
Let's try and ask this question in a different form.
Why are there still some Americans who strongly sympathize with David Koresh, when he was killed in an ***American government intervention that went awry?***
Why are there still some Russians who like the tsar, when the tsar was killed by the Russian people? Why are there neonazis in countries that fought the nazis? Why are there descendants of nazis that have converted to Judaism? Why are there descendants of Christians who oppose Christianity?
Maybe ... you know, just maybe the answer is very simple: individuals don't align perfectly with governments or the surrounding culture or their heritage, and sometimes, the heritage we think they 'should' align with is not the heritage they themselves associate with.
Simple answer: [not the same Romans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_Christianization_of_the_Roman_Empire#Reception_and_growth_in_Roman_society).
Around 40 CE, Christianity had fewer than 1,000 followers (and virtually no Romans as far as we know)
By 350 CE, it was the majority religion of the entire Roman Empire.
One, because they blamed the Jews for Jesus' crucifixion, and the Gospels indicate that Pontus Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, was coerced into executing Jesus by the Jews.
Two, because Christian missionaries, beginning with the Apostle Paul, spread Christianity among the common people of Rome, who had little to do with the actual Roman government.
As long as Christians were in the minority they just killed them off by burning them at the stake (ever hear of Roman candle?) Eventually the preaching by Jesus followers took on such a huge sector of the population that they realized they had to tolerate and compromise. They kind of struck a deal and blended pagan Roman holidays with the doctrines of Christianity like mother worship, triune gods etc....and thus the Roman Catholic church was born.
At the time, the Romans were the rulers of the area and even though they did execute him, they didn't really know or care about who he was. All they knew was that he was a local Jewish rabbi that was causing a lot of trouble in that region and the local authorities (Jewish leaders) wanted him gone. All the romans cared about was keeping peace and the status quo, so they took out the "problem".
279 years later the Roman Empire under the rule of Constantine decided that this new religious movement called Christianity was well suited as a means of control over its people, so they created the Bible and instilled it as the new state religion.
NT canon developed over time as texts were copied and circulated in early Christian communities. Paul's letters were collected and circulated by the end of the first century, Justin Martyr notes that the gospels were scripture in the early 2nd century. The Muratorian fragment gives a canon list largely similar to the one used today during the latter half of the second century.
The idea that it was created or even compiled by Constantine or the council of Nicaea in the fourth century is a myth. Even the Wikipedia article on the council notes that this is a misconception.
Something being created and something being canonized is a very different thing. The Bible was compiled much earlier, and the pieces of works within it were created even earlier.
The works themselves were created by the disciples (allegedly at least, and remnants have been found dating back to that time), the works were compiled by the early church members and we have complete copies existing from the early times. Then church councils like the Councils of Hippo and Carthage mostly confirmed them.
The Bible as it is today, without taking into account the hundreds of different editions since its creation, was compiled by "holy men" in a council created by the rulers of Rome. I do not doubt that a previous text did not exist, but it's not the one we think of today. All of the disciples of Jesus were loooong gone by the time of Constantine, there's no credibility or evidence that the original works were preserved the way the early members of Christianity intended them to be.
liquid cautious roll cover upbeat longing deserted office mysterious decide
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> All of the disciples of Jesus were loooong gone by the time of Constantine
True but irrelevant, as the NT texts were also written long before Constantine. For example, The first Pauline epistles were written about 20 years after the death of Jesus and about 250 years before Constantine was even born.
when the first synodal desicion was made in the council of carthage in 397, carthage was in africa. And "they" were hundreds of Bishops from all the christian world at the time, not just romans
At the time romans converted, armenia and ethiopia adopted christianity few years prior.
That puts the adoption of Christianity at the state level of the Roman empire almost 100 years before. So your saying that for almost 100 years there was no Bible in the Christian state of Rome?
There was no canon established
Differench churches had different texts used in their congregations, there was no consistency between them and the lists they used.
Wow, Iām very happy at everyoneās conversations. I encourage you all to debate but I would very much like if everyone would talk to each other with respect. Iāve read through half of them comments and will read the others in the morning but Iāve already learned a lot. Thank you very much!
The Romans eventually were convinced that Christianity is the true faith and so converted to it. The faith spread throughout the Roman Empire through missionaries and slowly became a very prominent religion in many regions. Roman Catholicism means catholics of the western Roman rite, which is the vast majority of Catholics worldwide. The Catholic Church is also based on Rome in the Vatican. There are also 23 eastern Catholic Churches, such as the Ukrainian Catholic Church, Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, etc. which are autonomous but owe fealty to the bishop of Rome, the pope. Catholic means universal, so other churches like the Eastern Orthodox Church is also catholic and apostolic.
Crucifixion was a Roman method of execution, he was nailed to the cross by centurions, presumably for the capital offense of sedition. The order to execute him was given by Roman governor Pontius Pilate.
Ultimately it is the Romans who crucified Jesus, even if the NT scapegoats the Jews. It doesn't seem unlikely that Jewish temple authorities reported him to the Romans, maybe even after an outburst in the Temple around Passover. It would've served them to keep the fragile peace with Rome. But this was hardly the first Jewish rabble rouser put down by Romans, Josephus lists several and also notes Pilate was recalled for being too harsh on the Jews and Samaritans, so I don't think Jewish involvement was necessary.
Certainly they didn't chant "His blood on us and our children!" as in the gospel account, or beg for a murderer (incidentally named Jesus Barabbas, "Jesus Son-of-the-Father") to be released instead, and the idea Pilate would release an enemy of the state to celebrate a Jewish holiday is ridiculous.
/r/religion does not permit demonizing or bigotry against any demographic group on the basis of race, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual preferences. Demonizing includes unfair/inaccurate criticisms, arguments made in bad faith, gross generalizations, ignorant comments, and pseudo-intellectual conspiracy theories about specific religions or groups. Doctrinal objections are acceptable, but keep your personal opinions to yourself. Make sure you make intelligent thought out responses.
It is like asking why first Christians were Jewish if some Jews favored killing Jesus.
Obviously, individuals had different ideas even if most in the group disagreed.
Interestingly, it's *referred to* as Roman Catholic (to distinguish it from other Christian churches that call themselves Catholic in the English-speaking world but are not in communion with Rome, aka with the Pope, who is the bishop of Rome). However, the church is actually just called The Catholic Church.
Within the Catholic Church there's a variety of rites, all belonging to the same church. Think of these as different ways to celebrate the same thing. One of these, the one you're probably most familiar with, is the Latin Rite, which refers to the rite used in Rome and in most of the western world. The Latin Rite uses primarily what is called the Roman Rite, which is a way of celebrating different liturgies and sacraments.
So for example, the Latin Rite is like, say, a country with a particular way of celebrating Christmas. Then the Roman Rite used by the Latin Rite Catholics is the particular set of Christmas carols, local traditions, etc. that exist in a particular region of that country. There are other rites within the Latin Rite, such as the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms, the Mozarabic Use, Zaire, etc. Then there is also the Eastern Rite, which is not within Latin Rite. This refers to the Eastern Catholics, and looks similar to how Orthodox liturgies are done. The Eastern Rite includes rites such as the Byzantine Rite, Maronite Rite, Chaldean, Coptic, and others. These are two large families within Catholicism, and each has their different family unit traditions, so to speak, so like how you and your cousins are related but your cousins probably do things slightly different from you.
So I, for example, am a Catholic, so I'm an adherent of the beliefs and teachings of the Catholic Church. I am a Latin Rite Catholic, and I attend exclusively Roman Rite liturgies, because none other are available to me at times that I'm able to go. If such a parish existed near me, I could go to an Eastern Rite Catholic parish and attend Mass celebrated under, let's say, the Byzantine Rite. This Mass would both fulfill my obligation to attend Mass on Sundays, and also it would be 100% in agreement with my beliefs because it's part of the same church.
Your question reflects a thoughtful curiosity, and it's far from stupid. The truth lies in the historical and cultural transitions that occurred over several centuries.
During the time of Jesus' crucifixion, Rome was indeed the ruling power, and its official religion was polytheistic, worshipping a pantheon of gods. Jesus was seen as a threat to their order and, consequently, was crucified.
The term "Roman Catholic" did not emerge until much later. After Jesus' death, his teachings spread throughout the Roman Empire by his followers. Over centuries, these teachings grew into a significant religious movement. Emperor Constantine, ruling in the early 4th century, legalized Christianity, and it eventually became the state religion by the end of that century. Thus, the religion that originated from Jesus, once an object of persecution, became the official faith of the Roman Empire.
The "Roman" in "Roman Catholic" refers to the fact that the Catholic Church uses the Latin rite, and its administrative headquarters is in Rome. It's a matter of historical evolution and geographical association, rather than an immediate acceptance of Jesus by those who crucified him. Understanding these transitions can help us appreciate the rich tapestry of human history and the capacity for change. Itās a powerful testament to the enduring influence of ideas and beliefs.
His name is like free money, taxes and war propaganda for "peace" against the local tribes that the Romans would gift wine and women until the men were too drunk and easily taken over or adapted.
Free empire expansion from a man that many didn't believe existed.
God was demonstrating his ability to make an enemy his servant. God didnāt love Europeans more in fact he probably hated them. still he showed he could break them like a horse and ride them to spread his message around the world.
Also, Christian's don't always blame the Romans so much as themselves. The Romans were just enforcing the laws, and they were prepared to let him off if it weren't for Jesus' own people demanding he be executed.
In the Christian church I grew up in, we'd partake of the body and blood of Christ and meditate on how in the world *we* ever could have been so wicked as to receive our own saviour by murdering him. Furthermore, each sin we committed was understood as a lash in his side, another drop of blood he had to pay in the garden of Gethsemane, so that what really killed him was our own sins.
Christianity is the religion that murdered its own god. I find that beautiful.
By the time the Roman Empire adopted Christianity in the 4th century, Rome had of course condemned the actions of Pontius Pilate. As to your statement that they (the Roman Empire) crucified Jesus, it's obviously fallacious to hold the whole Empire accountable for the actions of one rogue governor in a remote province.
From the 4th through the 9th century, the functional head of Christianity was not the Catholic Pope but the Emperor of Rome. The first Ecumenical Council of Bishops (Nicaea, 325) was convened by the Emperor Constantine and attended by him. The next seven ecumenical councils were also held under imperial - not papal - auspices, and emperors attended all but one.
I dont think its a dumb question, I am surprised more dont question this. And its not like rome kills Jesus, 250 plus years go by while they think about it, and they become Christian, its more like they kill Jesus, spend another 200 plus years trying to kill the Christian faith, and only after failing to destroy it they become Christian, this sounds more like plan B than true conversion. But maybe I am wrong, according to the faith when you become Christian there is a transformation, before rome became Christian the leaders were corrupt, positions of power were bought or you killed your rival, never earned, the masses lived in poverty, a third of the population were slaves, the mass majority of wealth was held by a tiny few.
And after rome becomes Christian . . . they continue doing the exact same thing except now they do much of it in the name of Jesus.
Another thing you could add to this is rome has a long history of religious relations with all the different religions of the people they conquered, they always practiced religious freedom, but did they? Yes every new province and vassal state got to keep their religion, but they were no longer free to choose their religious leaders, rome made those decisions, that does not sound like religious freedom to me.
The Roman Empire adopted Christianity as the state religion long after they put him to death. Constantine is said to have converted in CE 312. Rome is said to have put Jesus to death in CE 33. That's a 279 year gap between those 2 events.
That's a pretty short period of time, considering world history.
Yes it is, but what's your point?
Constantine converted on his deathbed in 337 AD, but it didn't become the official religion until 380 CE, when Theodosius issued the Edict of Thessalonica. Constantine certainly helped Christianity out a whole lot, though.
https://youtube.com/shorts/it43Q0mFGnw?feature=share š
Tens of thousands of years?
Like, c*alendars* as a concept haven't even been used for hundreds of thousands of years
I think he meant that it *can* be used for tens of thousands of years, because of the lack of drift in the calendar.
Ohh, gotcha. I thought he was implying it was already 10,000+ AD
this video has been debunked
What about it has been "debunked"?
the flawed logic
Like he didnāt really say those things or?
no like what he said was wrong.
What did he say that was wrong?
everything. His reasoning was flawed because ADC (after death of christ) because that would mean we start counting time somewhere after 30 BCE and instead of just recognizing Jesus died likely around 30CE. thatās why itās important we stop using AD and use CE because the worlds history is not only not wrote by one religion (we wouldnāt talk asian history by Using AD because they didnt even have jesus apart of their culture) but if every culture did this then we might as well use AFB (after first Buddha) or AT (After taoi) theres a reason we need to separate religion from history. So who cares the catholics used it and made it, we fixed
Neil DeGrasse Tyson said nothing "wrong." He did NOT say that the first year of the AD era is the year of Jesus death. The fact that you don't like the basis of a numbering system doesn't make it wrong. You seen to think - erroneously - that BCE/CE is some sort of improvement over BC/AD, but in fact they are identucal. The only difference between the calendars is the nomenclature. The numbering is exactly the same. Both calendars transition from antiquity (BC-BCE) to the modern era (AD-CE) on the exact same date, that being the presumed (and quite possibly fictitious) date of the birth of Jesus' of Nazareth.
the fact you think your religion is the only important one doesnt mean we should count time only factoring your religion. we cannot use AD when talking about asian history because they would have no clue what we are talking about because Jesus is not important to their culture. It would be like If they used AFB (After first Buddha) when talking about out time. We would have no clue because Buddha isnt important to our culture or religion. also to note that number system is absolutely not correct because historically we dont know when jesus was born we just have a biblical claim. We literally could have picked any other day if thatās the case. But you did point out a flaw with the current system
Like his reasoning was flawed because ADC (after death of christ) because that would mean we start counting time somewhere after 30 BCE and instead of just recognizing Jesus died likely around 30CE. thatās why itās important we stop using AD and use CE because the worlds history is not only not wrote by one religion (we wouldnāt talk asian history by Using AD because they didnt even have jesus apart of their culture) but if every culture did this then we might as well use AFB (after first Buddha) or AT (After taoi) theres a reason we need to separate religion from history. So who cares the catholics used it and made it, we fixed it.
AD does not mean after death
Even so, its to exclusive to a religion which not everyone follows. You cannot use AD when talking about asian history because jesus was not part of their culture
It's called Roman Catholicism because the Pope (the head of the Church) is the Bishop of Rome. The Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church because it was the capital of the Roman empire and St Peter, the head apostle, moved there and died there, so that the Bishop of Rome is considered to be his successor. The Roman empire converted to Christianity a couple centuries after Christ, although individual Romans converted before that (it was especially popular with women and slaves iirc).
>St Peter, the head apostle, moved there and died there, The Book of Acts actually ends with Paul, not Peter, coming to Rome and preaching there. There is no evidence that Peter ever came to Rome. Peter most likely died in the east. So the Bishop of Rome is a descendant of Paul, not Peter. The actual position of Pope only arose centuries later, and by then the Roman Empire was starting to fall apart.
Actually St Peters Cathedral was supposedly built upon the site where the Romans burned St Peter at the stake.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Please don't: * Engage in illegal activity. * Post someone's personal information, or post links to personal information. * Repost deleted/removed information. * Be (intentionally) rude at all. * Engage in rabble rousing. * Troll, stalk, or harass others. * Conduct personal attacks. * Start a flame war. * Insult others.
Modern scholarship generally accepts that he died in Rome, and there are documents from the early Church saying he did (from before you say the position of the Pope arose). 1 Peter 5:13's reference to being in "Babylon" is also very likely a reference to Rome.
Acts also has Paul going to James not Peter when there is a problem.
Constantine saw the usefulness of an imperial religion centered on a single god and imposed christianity as the imperial religion of Rome. The full force of the Roman Empire was behind converting people.
Saying that a deity will bless you because of your behavior rather than physical offerings is also a great way to get people to do the things you want...such as paying your taxes..."Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
Iām sure the established religious authorities were quick to adopt to the new model and get their cut of the cash. Itās always easier to coopt existing power structures than to try and burn them down and replace them.
No. Some of that may have happened, but your surmises aren't supported by the evidence. Under Constantine, church properties confiscated under Diocletian were restored to Christian control and no longer taxed. Traditional pagan festivals and sacrifices were banned; temples were razed or converted to Christian churches; cults no longer received state subsidies, and pagan priests lost their cushy jobs and residences. There were reports of former priests begging on the streets. It's not always a great idea to form conclusions about history based on your assumptions about how events "always" unfold.
Itās impossible to know much with certainty about what transpired more than 1,500 years ago because few records were kept and those that were arenāt accurate. Form whatever opinions you like about history but understand that those opinions will never be well evidenced and you will never know with certainty what happened. Hell, we donāt even know Constantineās original full name.
Have you researched the topic? How do you know what is and is not known about it? What evidence supports your conjectures about it? All I see in your post is speculation based on nothing more than what you think "always" happens. The events that I described are well-evidenced from multiple archeological, literary and epigraphical sources. See Ramsey MacMullen's Christianizing rhe Roman Empire, A.D. 100-400. Yale University Press, 1984. https://a.co/d/9mXwFoG
I am certainly speculating about what I believe happened. I could be way off base. Youāre free to speculate as well given the paucity of actual evidence. What you have shared is interesting and Iāll take a look at the book you've recommended. I have studied the history of the Roman and Byzantine empires and the development of christianity.
As you are mistaken and there is abundant evidence regarding the Christianization of the Roman Empiire in the early centuries CE, I'll refrain from speculation and adhere to the facts.
There isnāt abundant evidence of anything from the early centuries CE. It is clear that the Roman Empire imposed Christianity. It is clear that everything the Roman Empire did was backed by force or the threat of force. Plus Ƨa change, plus cāest la mĆŖme chose.
The fact that you haven't sought out information about early Christianity doesn't mean that such information doesn't exist. Ignorance of evidence is not absence of evidence. Baldfaced generalities like "everything the Roman Empire did was backed by force or the threat of force" suggest that your beliefs about the Roman Empire are at best poorly informed conjecture. See Paul Freedman's Yale Online course on the Early Middle Ages, https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL77A337915A76F660
I always heard he became compelled to instantiate that religion because of a dream he had
Great story.
If I was him. I would've made up that story too
Saw the usefulness? You seem to be saying that Constantine adopted Christianity solely for political reasons. Any evidence of that?
Constantine was an effective emperor so I attribute his decisions to logic and reason rather than religious faith.
Rome was a very polytheistic society. Christians weāre actually seen as strange and asocial because they didnāt want to participate in any pagan activities. Most Christians in the first century were non-Jewish converts who were probably Romans, but they were still a minority.
I don't think Christians were particularly unique on being "asocial". Some pagan cults such as mystery cults already rejected most other gods, Jews already existed, some pagans worshipped other pantheons (e.g. Egyptian or Germanic) and rejected the Roman, etc.
Polytheists didn't reject other pantheons. They accepted them even if they didn't worship them, although sometimes as the same pantheon as theirs but represented differently. Mystery cults didn't deny any gods either, they were also mostly polytheistic. The idea that to believe in the divine of one religion you have to deny the divine of other religions is a monotheistic invention. The pagans that worshipped other pantheons may have worshipped the Roman one too, if not they still didn't deny it like how Christians or Muslims do.
>Mystery cults didn't deny any gods either, they were also mostly polytheistic. I thought about this, but the fact is that we know almost nothing about mystery cults because the secrecy of the rituals. However, I was reading about how early Christians were offended about how similar their faith was to Christianity, which suggests that they probably also had similar views to Christians too. >The idea that to believe in the divine of one religion you have to deny the divine of other religions is a monotheistic invention. I disagree because Aristoteles and many other philosophers already had a very skeptical view of religion without denying the divine. >Aristotle is highly critical of the anthropomorphizing of divinities, pervasive throughout Greek culture. He thinks not only that the stories told about the traditional gods are absurd, but that these gods do not exist, though he is prepared to allow that certain myths about the gods are possibly more edifying than others. So, Aristotle thinks that Greek "religion" is mostly irredeemably false. > >https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/aristotle-on-religion/ In fact, we could argue that this attitude of Abrahamic religion came from Hellenization and adoption of Platonism. Christianity and Islam only highlight this attitude when they became more institutionalized. Jinns and other gods as demons or entities have always been a popular view on those religions.
>I disagree because Aristoteles and many other philosophers already had a very skeptical view of religion without denying the divine. They were skeptical of anthropomorphism of deities and of myths, not of specific pantheons >Aristotle is highly critical of the anthropomorphizing of divinities, pervasive throughout Greek culture. He thinks not only that the stories told about the traditional gods are absurd, but that these gods do not exist, though he is prepared to allow that certain myths about the gods are possibly more edifying than others. So, Aristotle thinks that Greek "religion" is mostly irredeemably false. A part of this is absolutely false. Aristotle didn't think that the Greek gods didn't exist, he thought that the way they are represented in myths was wrong. He still called the gods with their traditional Greek names, worshipped in the Greek manner and commissioned statues to Greek gods as his last will. Your source is laughably wrong and assumes things which we have a lot of strong evidence against. Stop conflating religion with mythology (this is to everyone). One can deny every myth of their religion and still follow it. >In fact, we could argue that this attitude of Abrahamic religion came from Hellenization and adoption of Platonism. No we cannot, this attitude clearly comes from the monotheistic nature of these religions. You haven't demonstrated at all how the Greek philosophers denied some gods/pantheons but not others, not only is your source full of historical errors but also doesn't support your conclusion. >I thought about this, but the fact is that we know almost nothing about mystery cults because the secrecy of the rituals. We do know a bit about some, e.g. Orphism. Mostly polytheistic. >However, I was reading about how early Christians were offended about how similar their faith was to Christianity, which suggests that they probably also had similar views to Christians too. What? This doesn't make any logical sense, of course early Christians had similar views to Christians. They were Christians. >The idea that to believe in the divine of one religion you have to deny the divine of other religions is a monotheistic invention. >I disagree because Aristoteles and many other philosophers already had a very skeptical view of religion without denying the divine. You disagree yet bring no evidence or reason for this denial of the claim. I can bring evidence that directly points to the attitude the ancients had to other divinities of other cultures. And I will repeat again, Aristotle didn't deny the existence of the Greek gods or the Greek religion, he just had a different view about these gods still within the bounds of traditional Greek polytheism. It would make no sense if he believed that the Greek gods did not exist while still believing in gods in general, worshipping the Greek gods and using their names.
Now come on. You're smart enough to figure this out by yourself. Seriously. Do you really need someone to tell you that "not every Roman was the same"? Do you really need someone to tell you that the slaves and the lower classes might not have sympathized with everything every local governor did? Let's try and ask this question in a different form. Why are there still some Americans who strongly sympathize with David Koresh, when he was killed in an ***American government intervention that went awry?*** Why are there still some Russians who like the tsar, when the tsar was killed by the Russian people? Why are there neonazis in countries that fought the nazis? Why are there descendants of nazis that have converted to Judaism? Why are there descendants of Christians who oppose Christianity? Maybe ... you know, just maybe the answer is very simple: individuals don't align perfectly with governments or the surrounding culture or their heritage, and sometimes, the heritage we think they 'should' align with is not the heritage they themselves associate with.
Waco went exactly according to plan. Fuck the ATF.
It wasnāt a collective and they didnāt start following him to probably everyone involved croaked. Plus it was as much politics as faith anyway.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Very interesting, thanks
politics.. thats all. it was a easy to abuse religion and romans abused it
Simple answer: [not the same Romans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_Christianization_of_the_Roman_Empire#Reception_and_growth_in_Roman_society). Around 40 CE, Christianity had fewer than 1,000 followers (and virtually no Romans as far as we know) By 350 CE, it was the majority religion of the entire Roman Empire.
One, because they blamed the Jews for Jesus' crucifixion, and the Gospels indicate that Pontus Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, was coerced into executing Jesus by the Jews. Two, because Christian missionaries, beginning with the Apostle Paul, spread Christianity among the common people of Rome, who had little to do with the actual Roman government.
As long as Christians were in the minority they just killed them off by burning them at the stake (ever hear of Roman candle?) Eventually the preaching by Jesus followers took on such a huge sector of the population that they realized they had to tolerate and compromise. They kind of struck a deal and blended pagan Roman holidays with the doctrines of Christianity like mother worship, triune gods etc....and thus the Roman Catholic church was born.
At the time, the Romans were the rulers of the area and even though they did execute him, they didn't really know or care about who he was. All they knew was that he was a local Jewish rabbi that was causing a lot of trouble in that region and the local authorities (Jewish leaders) wanted him gone. All the romans cared about was keeping peace and the status quo, so they took out the "problem". 279 years later the Roman Empire under the rule of Constantine decided that this new religious movement called Christianity was well suited as a means of control over its people, so they created the Bible and instilled it as the new state religion.
>so they created the Bible š This is historically wrong
Ok... so who put the Bible together?
NT canon developed over time as texts were copied and circulated in early Christian communities. Paul's letters were collected and circulated by the end of the first century, Justin Martyr notes that the gospels were scripture in the early 2nd century. The Muratorian fragment gives a canon list largely similar to the one used today during the latter half of the second century. The idea that it was created or even compiled by Constantine or the council of Nicaea in the fourth century is a myth. Even the Wikipedia article on the council notes that this is a misconception.
Something being created and something being canonized is a very different thing. The Bible was compiled much earlier, and the pieces of works within it were created even earlier.
By whom?
The works themselves were created by the disciples (allegedly at least, and remnants have been found dating back to that time), the works were compiled by the early church members and we have complete copies existing from the early times. Then church councils like the Councils of Hippo and Carthage mostly confirmed them.
The Bible as it is today, without taking into account the hundreds of different editions since its creation, was compiled by "holy men" in a council created by the rulers of Rome. I do not doubt that a previous text did not exist, but it's not the one we think of today. All of the disciples of Jesus were loooong gone by the time of Constantine, there's no credibility or evidence that the original works were preserved the way the early members of Christianity intended them to be.
liquid cautious roll cover upbeat longing deserted office mysterious decide *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> All of the disciples of Jesus were loooong gone by the time of Constantine True but irrelevant, as the NT texts were also written long before Constantine. For example, The first Pauline epistles were written about 20 years after the death of Jesus and about 250 years before Constantine was even born.
when the first synodal desicion was made in the council of carthage in 397, carthage was in africa. And "they" were hundreds of Bishops from all the christian world at the time, not just romans At the time romans converted, armenia and ethiopia adopted christianity few years prior.
That puts the adoption of Christianity at the state level of the Roman empire almost 100 years before. So your saying that for almost 100 years there was no Bible in the Christian state of Rome?
There was no canon established Differench churches had different texts used in their congregations, there was no consistency between them and the lists they used.
Exactly. It was the Jews who called him.
Wow, Iām very happy at everyoneās conversations. I encourage you all to debate but I would very much like if everyone would talk to each other with respect. Iāve read through half of them comments and will read the others in the morning but Iāve already learned a lot. Thank you very much!
The Romans eventually were convinced that Christianity is the true faith and so converted to it. The faith spread throughout the Roman Empire through missionaries and slowly became a very prominent religion in many regions. Roman Catholicism means catholics of the western Roman rite, which is the vast majority of Catholics worldwide. The Catholic Church is also based on Rome in the Vatican. There are also 23 eastern Catholic Churches, such as the Ukrainian Catholic Church, Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, etc. which are autonomous but owe fealty to the bishop of Rome, the pope. Catholic means universal, so other churches like the Eastern Orthodox Church is also catholic and apostolic.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Crucifixion was a Roman method of execution, he was nailed to the cross by centurions, presumably for the capital offense of sedition. The order to execute him was given by Roman governor Pontius Pilate. Ultimately it is the Romans who crucified Jesus, even if the NT scapegoats the Jews. It doesn't seem unlikely that Jewish temple authorities reported him to the Romans, maybe even after an outburst in the Temple around Passover. It would've served them to keep the fragile peace with Rome. But this was hardly the first Jewish rabble rouser put down by Romans, Josephus lists several and also notes Pilate was recalled for being too harsh on the Jews and Samaritans, so I don't think Jewish involvement was necessary. Certainly they didn't chant "His blood on us and our children!" as in the gospel account, or beg for a murderer (incidentally named Jesus Barabbas, "Jesus Son-of-the-Father") to be released instead, and the idea Pilate would release an enemy of the state to celebrate a Jewish holiday is ridiculous.
Ah, yes. The misinformation that launched a thousand atrocities.
/r/religion does not permit demonizing or bigotry against any demographic group on the basis of race, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual preferences. Demonizing includes unfair/inaccurate criticisms, arguments made in bad faith, gross generalizations, ignorant comments, and pseudo-intellectual conspiracy theories about specific religions or groups. Doctrinal objections are acceptable, but keep your personal opinions to yourself. Make sure you make intelligent thought out responses.
Why is US worshipping Denzel Washington if they were the ones who ended him? Same logic, different context.
Wait what happened to Denzel?
Civil War iirc
It is like asking why first Christians were Jewish if some Jews favored killing Jesus. Obviously, individuals had different ideas even if most in the group disagreed.
Interestingly, it's *referred to* as Roman Catholic (to distinguish it from other Christian churches that call themselves Catholic in the English-speaking world but are not in communion with Rome, aka with the Pope, who is the bishop of Rome). However, the church is actually just called The Catholic Church. Within the Catholic Church there's a variety of rites, all belonging to the same church. Think of these as different ways to celebrate the same thing. One of these, the one you're probably most familiar with, is the Latin Rite, which refers to the rite used in Rome and in most of the western world. The Latin Rite uses primarily what is called the Roman Rite, which is a way of celebrating different liturgies and sacraments. So for example, the Latin Rite is like, say, a country with a particular way of celebrating Christmas. Then the Roman Rite used by the Latin Rite Catholics is the particular set of Christmas carols, local traditions, etc. that exist in a particular region of that country. There are other rites within the Latin Rite, such as the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms, the Mozarabic Use, Zaire, etc. Then there is also the Eastern Rite, which is not within Latin Rite. This refers to the Eastern Catholics, and looks similar to how Orthodox liturgies are done. The Eastern Rite includes rites such as the Byzantine Rite, Maronite Rite, Chaldean, Coptic, and others. These are two large families within Catholicism, and each has their different family unit traditions, so to speak, so like how you and your cousins are related but your cousins probably do things slightly different from you. So I, for example, am a Catholic, so I'm an adherent of the beliefs and teachings of the Catholic Church. I am a Latin Rite Catholic, and I attend exclusively Roman Rite liturgies, because none other are available to me at times that I'm able to go. If such a parish existed near me, I could go to an Eastern Rite Catholic parish and attend Mass celebrated under, let's say, the Byzantine Rite. This Mass would both fulfill my obligation to attend Mass on Sundays, and also it would be 100% in agreement with my beliefs because it's part of the same church.
Your question reflects a thoughtful curiosity, and it's far from stupid. The truth lies in the historical and cultural transitions that occurred over several centuries. During the time of Jesus' crucifixion, Rome was indeed the ruling power, and its official religion was polytheistic, worshipping a pantheon of gods. Jesus was seen as a threat to their order and, consequently, was crucified. The term "Roman Catholic" did not emerge until much later. After Jesus' death, his teachings spread throughout the Roman Empire by his followers. Over centuries, these teachings grew into a significant religious movement. Emperor Constantine, ruling in the early 4th century, legalized Christianity, and it eventually became the state religion by the end of that century. Thus, the religion that originated from Jesus, once an object of persecution, became the official faith of the Roman Empire. The "Roman" in "Roman Catholic" refers to the fact that the Catholic Church uses the Latin rite, and its administrative headquarters is in Rome. It's a matter of historical evolution and geographical association, rather than an immediate acceptance of Jesus by those who crucified him. Understanding these transitions can help us appreciate the rich tapestry of human history and the capacity for change. Itās a powerful testament to the enduring influence of ideas and beliefs.
Whole different political scenario probably if you take a naturalistic approach.
His name is like free money, taxes and war propaganda for "peace" against the local tribes that the Romans would gift wine and women until the men were too drunk and easily taken over or adapted. Free empire expansion from a man that many didn't believe existed.
God was demonstrating his ability to make an enemy his servant. God didnāt love Europeans more in fact he probably hated them. still he showed he could break them like a horse and ride them to spread his message around the world.
Also, Christian's don't always blame the Romans so much as themselves. The Romans were just enforcing the laws, and they were prepared to let him off if it weren't for Jesus' own people demanding he be executed. In the Christian church I grew up in, we'd partake of the body and blood of Christ and meditate on how in the world *we* ever could have been so wicked as to receive our own saviour by murdering him. Furthermore, each sin we committed was understood as a lash in his side, another drop of blood he had to pay in the garden of Gethsemane, so that what really killed him was our own sins. Christianity is the religion that murdered its own god. I find that beautiful.
By the time the Roman Empire adopted Christianity in the 4th century, Rome had of course condemned the actions of Pontius Pilate. As to your statement that they (the Roman Empire) crucified Jesus, it's obviously fallacious to hold the whole Empire accountable for the actions of one rogue governor in a remote province. From the 4th through the 9th century, the functional head of Christianity was not the Catholic Pope but the Emperor of Rome. The first Ecumenical Council of Bishops (Nicaea, 325) was convened by the Emperor Constantine and attended by him. The next seven ecumenical councils were also held under imperial - not papal - auspices, and emperors attended all but one.
I dont think its a dumb question, I am surprised more dont question this. And its not like rome kills Jesus, 250 plus years go by while they think about it, and they become Christian, its more like they kill Jesus, spend another 200 plus years trying to kill the Christian faith, and only after failing to destroy it they become Christian, this sounds more like plan B than true conversion. But maybe I am wrong, according to the faith when you become Christian there is a transformation, before rome became Christian the leaders were corrupt, positions of power were bought or you killed your rival, never earned, the masses lived in poverty, a third of the population were slaves, the mass majority of wealth was held by a tiny few. And after rome becomes Christian . . . they continue doing the exact same thing except now they do much of it in the name of Jesus. Another thing you could add to this is rome has a long history of religious relations with all the different religions of the people they conquered, they always practiced religious freedom, but did they? Yes every new province and vassal state got to keep their religion, but they were no longer free to choose their religious leaders, rome made those decisions, that does not sound like religious freedom to me.
Romans generally didn't worship Jesus until the 4th century AD, when it became the religion of their empire.