Emperor Constantine's Christian Conversion: Why It Was Just Politics - Episode 1
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ก.ย. 2024
- Many feel that Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity was sincere. The current understanding is that 'Christians' were a minority sect made up of supposed communities of the lower classes, therefore, there was no political or power advantage.
New evidence from primary sources and archeological finds points to the current preconceptions as being wrong.
Examined in this video is the genealogy of Emperor Constantine, showing his descent from the Flavian Emperors, the powerful Calpurnius Piso family, and the Gordian Emperors. The presentation will show that Emperor Constantine brought Christianity 'back from the dead' and used it politically, over time, to control how the people thought, just as his ancestors, the Pisos and Flavians had tried to do before him.
Constantine and Christianity: It Was Just Politics - Updated Article
www.henryhdavi...
Book On Amazon
www.amazon.com...
Bro you are seriously trying to paint Matthew 19:13-15 as pedophilic episode? Incredibly malicious.
Absolutely fantastic. Need more
Thank you
Such an excellent video, great production
Excellent production. Thank you for your hard work.
Thank you, much appreciated.
@@henryhdavis716 yeah I bet it's real hard work reading your perversions into everything.
I heard it somewhere that Aurelian was fascinated by the cult of Sol Invictus, and that the various eastern religions played a huge role in diminishing the strength of the Roman traditions.
While I agree that Constantine's conversion was a calculus, the moment you used the term "CE" I knew what would come next. I read Scripture through the eyes of faith (which is the only way it should be read), so that puts us in different camps. I am in total disagreement with your conclusions, but I'm sure you'll have many followers.
Thanks for your comment Elizabeth. Yes, it does look like we are in different camps. I have never been religious, so for me to accept the New Testament literature based on faith is impossible. The study of history requires a way of thinking that is the opposite of trust or faith in the sources. Historical investigation means taking a rigorous and independent investigation into the human past, regardless of traditions, beliefs, and faith claims.
@Elizabeth Farzan
"I read Scripture through the eyes of faith (which is the only way it should be read)"; the amount of unrestricted dogma and ignorance in that comment is so unfortunately obvious. Skeptical, critical, empirical, and historical investigations ought to be used when the circumstances are sufficient to require them. Once you remove the dogma, apply the apistevism, then you will come to the realization that the biblical scriptures are Jewish accounts of the Jews' own history; this so-called history includes contradicting narratives (with the inclusion of self-contradiction), immoral teachings, illogical conclusions, pseudo-prophecies (postdiction included), bland & uninspiring poetry, irrational concepts, terrible, grammatical structures, and plagiarism from older Canaanite, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Iranian & Greek myths. Historical criticism, biblical criticism, textual criticism, and exegesis are topics you ought to study, ignorant Christian.
" I read Scripture through the eyes of faith (which is the only way it should be read)" And which of the over 50 different versions of the Bible and over 40,000 different sects of Christianity would that be? Reading through the eyes of faith is another way of saying cherry picking and denying reality.
@@henryhdavis716, I was born and raised in a religious family, have an uncle who is ordained and Christian for over 40 years. Christians ( and other religious groups) have to look at their religions through the eyes of faith. If they used critical thinking skills, reasoning, common sense and logic and credible evidence their religion falls apart faster than a fart disappears in a hurricane and they know it. Therefore the mental gymnastics.
@@samuelschick8813 you're entitled to your opinion. Blessings
Jesus never forced Christianity on anyone, telling his disciples; "if anyone rejects your message, knock the dust from you feet and go to the next place".
How could he force anything? It's mythology not to be taken literally.
@@taye7968 , it's not a myth just because you don't believe it.
@@ezkl9424 it is a myth.
So for actual history on Constantine, you should visit Tim O’Neil, History for Atheists, as it’s more in line with mainstream scholarship on the subject.
Thank you for your comment. Being aware of the mainstream position within academia on this subject is vitally important. However, when new evidence points to the context being different, the mainstream view should still be acknowledged but not stuck to as gospel. As Brent D. Shaw stated in his paper The Myth of Neronian Persecution - "I once wrote that the purpose of historical
research is to create by description and explanation but that sometimes it is destruction
that is required."
Thanks
Well, DUH😮!
Thank u so much. What a pleasure. If people knew... Great work!
Okay stick with the Constantine topic and avoid making incorrect statements such as the law allows male soldiers to rape captive women. That's beyond incorrect.
What that verse says in Hebrew is that Israelites were allowed to marry foreign women if the women wanted the same. The stipulation was that the women had to leave their pagan ways behind and follow the God of Israel. That's what the verse says. Remember Israel was to remain holy (seperate) from pagan nations, yet the Prophecies stipulate that God will be the God of the entire world meaning pagan people can join him. This is showing the beginning of that philosophy coming to be. If Israel found women they were attracted to that weren't part of Israel said women could enjoy all the benefits of Yah if they left their idolatry behind.
The Talmud has nothing to do with the torah. The Talmudic rabbis also argue that the Talmud is greater than the torah.
Hey Henry…..are you familiar with Ralph Ellis?
Hello Shanny. I have heard the name, but have not read any work by the author.
Clowns continuing to try and apply modern politics to the ancient hyper religious world of Rome always makes me laugh. Imagine doing this shit when in Rome the fate of ones soul was paramount, and The faith of The Emperor could cause him to be usurped. A world where atheisism wasnt just uncommon like in the modern day. It was down right mockable, seen as something only the insane believed. To the point even Christians had to deal with accusations of Atheism during the prosecutions before Constantine.
It appears "The Chaz" has difficulty understanding the evidence against persecution, that is, it's bullshit. Chaz is also obviously unaware that the evidence points to only the elite having the education to write the NT after a war. I guess "Chazz" like to believe what he reads.
The commonality is that he had a vison or a dream which resulted in an action. Can they be reconciled? Did he have both a dream and a vision? They are not necessarily the same thing.
Even Emperors love their mommies and are impacted by them. Helena was a very devout Christian. Mothers have a huge impact on faith, even on such people like Putin.
I heard it was on his death bed and the priest bent down and asked if he accepted Jesus. Then the priest turned and said he does.
That is what was written, yes. However, because the genealogical data points to Constantine being a descendant of those who most likely composed the Christian Literature, it is unlikely he actually 'converted'.
The key is the unalterable fact that his arch celebrating his victory over Maxentius, the one where the Chi-Ro vision supposedly guaranteed the victory (instead of it actually being Maxentius' horrible mistake of putting boats in the river instead of the bridge), the vision of divine intervention has ZERO mention on the arch. There are in fact Mithraic symbols and references, but not one chi-ro. Kind of odd since they had put the chi-ro on the troops' shields for that battle, kind of strange not to honor one's god (ahem) unless you actually did and it wasn't "Jesus". Eusebius is a political suck-up.
The points made here about the "euphemisms" for sex--that's abundantly clear in the book of Ruth. Naomi pimped her daughter-in-law out! Uncover his feet--do Xtians actually think she just pulled his blanket up (which he wouldn't have had anyway in the threshing floor, drunk as a skunk) and laid beside him? No, she had her way with a drunk!! Ruth was a rapist!
Thanks for your comment. We must be careful when it comes to what was included/not included on the arch. It was the norm to recycle elements from earlier monuments. It appears his use of 'Christian' iconography came in when his regime was established.
Info regarding 'Eusebius' can be found here www.henryhdavis.com/emperor-constantine
@Con Koumis, Here's a video you might find interesting: th-cam.com/video/0E_bRADucBI/w-d-xo.html
Didn't he kill his son and wife?
The wife blamed the son(who would have been a great Emperor) for raping her, so Constantine tried and executed his son. Then in his grief, he found out about the betrayal, locked his wife in a sauna, and cranked up the heat until she died.
Freaking Rome is full of tragedies and the biggest tragedy of all time is we will never know the true history of Rome. Revisionists be damned.
@@draconian9785 I always thought he became jealous of his son, and I thought only the priest heard him except Jesus
It was just politics? Are you God to judge what's in men's hearts?
Even if it was doesn't even matter. Constantine is but one man.
You appear to be wrong.
Thanks for your comment. I am happy to read criticism which is supported by evidence/sources.
This is some Da Vinci code level BS lol. I'm not a Christian btw.
Thanks for your comment. I'm always happy to read any evidence against the evidence in these presentations, supported by credible sources of course. Thanks
IESVS KRISTUS/SOL INVICTOS Is there a real difference? The decree of Milan and the Council of Nicea were the game changers for Christianity. Constantine had to appease the clergy.
That that is one view yes. But the contradictions regarding the size of the religion are just one suspicious element. The precise number of bishops is also suspicious, 300 for example represents the cross. I think that is briefly mentioned in the video.
Thanks
@@henryhdavis716 Excellent video, thank you
@@henryhdavis716 Yes, 300 is the number of the cross, or rather, the 'T', because the main frame of the Roman execution cross, or _crux_ ( _stauros_ in Greek) was in the form of the capital letter 'tau', i.e., 'T' (Lucian, In the Court of the Vowels), and because in the ancient Greek numeral system, the numerical value 300 is represented by the letter 'tau'.