I think he sincerely believed, and was smart enough to realize that he had to move slowly and tolerate his pagan subjects, in order to create a lasting Christian dynasty. Ironically Julian the Apostate could have learned much from him.
Well you can't use some modern notion of what 'true conversion' is. You need to define 'conversion' in some sense intelligible to the 4th century and by that standard I think the answer is: he was sincere enough.
When we think of the comparative advantage of the two religions to the powerful, it is easy to forget that under the status quo, the emperor was not just chosen by the gods, but was the chief priest (pontifex maximus) of the state religion, a literal descendant of the goddess Venus through Aneas and the Julian dynasty, and his genius was worshipped as a god, with the emperor himself becoming a god upon his death. For us modern people, we are used to politicians abusing Christianity to boost their image, but even the most arrogant of our politicians don't demand everyone sacrifice to their "very stable genius" on pain of death! The only modern parallel I can think of is the emperor of Japan making the declaration that he was not a god.
"When historians attempt to provide what they view as the true story behind the conversion, they really only tell us about themselves." Never thought about it like that, absolutely brilliant. Subscribed with the bell.
I recently read a volume on Norse religion; it says that Christian missionaries quickly made inroads into Scandinavia insofar as getting people to accept Christ as a god. Much to their exasperation, however, they'd often continue to worship Norse gods alongside him and didn't see this as a contradiction.
Something similar likely happened with Constantine - according to surviving documents his gradual transition to monotheism seemingly began before his vision but he was always careful in his public statements to use language that the wider population would find acceptable
Meanwhile slavs destroyed their gods as soon as they converted. Holding to traditional ways of worrship but giving the glory to Christ. Making at that time logical assumtion that saints and angels are the good old gods, and demons the bad ones. With the holly trinity on top and not to be toppeled by anyother being. Wierdly enough even today we practice the old ways of worrship as a fun tradition. And allways on a saints day. Most of the people dont know this but I dont think it matters. Since we do not do anything prohibited by Jesus.
My research into this topic is somewhat limited but I believe Constantine was willing to adopt Chritstianity, but had immense difficulty in deciding whether to adopt the Nicene, Arian, or other theology and saw religion equally as a public policy tool to redefine and unify the fractious Western and Eastern portions of the empire. As for his personal view of Christianity the sources are far too conflicted to make a definitive statement on his personal conversion.
If he operated out of callous self-interest the absolutely most beneficial for himself would have been to continue the path of Diocletian, to proscribe Christians, seizing their land, property, and treasure, and having them executed. Constantine could easily have made an exception for his Christian mother. Legitimizing Christianity and its church, and professing belief in it was clearly the uphill path, one that risked him losing the confidence of the people, tainting himself with stigma and distrust. Not flouting his beliefs and keeping a low profile, and not pushing his luck too far, was undoubtedly from feeling what he was doing already was dangerous enough.
well said - I think the conversion was authentic but Constantine was a soldier, not a theologian. When priests came to him with doctrinal differences he wasn't really able to follow their logic
The only area of history I've studied with any real depth is Church history. And I find it fascinating how variably Constantine is viewed within that narrow field. In low-church Protestant circles he is sometimes viewed as a cynical opportunist whose centralization of the church hierarchy was ruinous, in high-church Protestant circles he is viewed as a bad Christian who meant well, in Roman Catholicism he is viewed as a great leader and unifier of the Church, and in Eastern Orthodoxy he is venerated as Saint Constantine the Great. Which I think backs up the point you made, it is easy to see what we want to when viewing historical figures.
Yes exactly - Constantine also presents a unique problem because unlike other ancient figures where we have a dearth of information and so must speculate (thus leading to the construction of figures in our own image) Constantine has left us with an abundance of evidence but much of it is contradictory and its veracity can be doubted. So we're essentially in the exact same place as with other figures but the arguments just have more citations.
Hey man I just want to say I really enjoy your videos. I see so much history ‘content’ that really doesn’t interest me (especially regarding Rome as it’s one of the more popular topics online). Your videos especially regarding Caesar and your willingness to try and find a wider scope there that doesn’t follow the more conservative narrative on rails is honestly very unique and definitely reminds me of how my thought process approaching history changed after doing it at university. Keep up everything you’re doing and regardless of what you choose to make I’ll be tuning in. Regards
This has been my view for some time aswell. I have no doubt that Constantine did indeed convert to Christianity and died a Christian; but his conversion wasn't as rapid as some might believe; he likely still held to some pagan beliefs before around 324. After all, even if he did have what he saw as a divine vision coming from Christ, it sounds very unlikely he would entirely change his religious beliefs so quickly, that's not really how faith works. I think it's worth pointing out that the theory of Constantine converting merely for political gain gained quite a bit of popularity after the release of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code book, which practically every historian agrees is filled with psuedo-historical nonsense.
Thanks for the feedback - yes, the appraisal of him and his conversion in actual scholarship is much more nuanced than the pop history that presents him as a machiavellian mastermind. But even among scholars I think that too few recognize the enormous gulf between a pagan and Christian religious worldview and how even a heartfelt convert at this time would have found it difficult to abandon their pagan "instincts" immediately. We're hoping to bring this perspective a little more into the light
Not getting baptized until your death was the common practice at the time, the fathers even wrote sermons condemning the practice. The idea was to wait and wash away your sins last minute so you die clean
This is the type of video that I truly appreciate from you guys and why I cant wait til ya'll finally blow up. You always use nuance and tact when discussing things like this. It's so easy, ESPECIALLY as a youtube channel that wants to attract more viewers, to want to lean into bombast and "answers" but you guys always take real care with your subject matter and never try to "force" an answer for the sake of content. That is commendable.
I doubt you guys will see this but I also want to thank you for including subtitles. I know it's extra work and it probably goes mostly unappreciated, at least vocally, since it's easy for most to either not use them or take them for granted, but it means a lot for accessibility. I personally have no issues and just prefer captions because I read better than I hear, but my partner is hard of hearing and it can be difficult for her to understand a lot of videos. Having them available just flat out helps people, and that is great.
We're happy to do it - we want the content to be as accessible as possible so that there isn't a huge barrier to entry. The study of the classics is elitist enough as it is so we want to tear down walls where we can
Well if you're an Orthodox Christian then of course you believe the conversion was authentic... of St Constantine the Great, who's feast day is May 21st.
As a lover of history, especially the Greco-Roman period and as a man who went through a profound religious experience, I love Constantine. I can relate to a bit of his journey. My childhood religion is thought of as a bit of a cult outside of my home where it was revered. I never really bought it until I was faced with a serious medical issue. I had to find God before I faced he/her/them or faced the abyss. The same zeal I had for history, I turned to religion. I've always thought of myself a pragmatic and skeptical guy but also open-minded. I investigated everything under the sun before sitting at an empty Catholic Church. I had my head in my lap, beaten down by treatments and feeling overall depressed. I swear I heard something. Like a form of sleep paralysis, some kind of loud *something* that wakes you. You know? I was definitely halfway asleep, and so that's possibly what did it, but when I shot up, the church was bright, super bright. Also maybe due to my having woken up so quickly, but when my eyes adjusted there was one particularly bright beam coming through one of the stained glass panes. It cut a path through the church onto the station of the cross right in front of me, 7. It's when Jesus falls and is in great pain, in the particular wood carving in this church he's looking back and he's looking right at me. And I do mean, RIGHT at me, like direct eye contact. I could embellish the story to high heaven but unlike Constantine, I am no emperor. I had nothing to gain by my conversion, but holy shit was that a conversion. I've never seen light from the sun come through a window like that before nor after (also ironic, given Constantines apperent difficulty separating the two. If I had the previous religious understanding he did, I'd probably have followed him in the exact same boat). I beat my cancer, I have friends and acquaintances that'll say now "You don't seem catholic", "you don't act catholic", "well what about when the church did this or that" but I know what I am, I may not be the perfect catholic but I know what I am. So did Constantine. And I adore him for it.
Much appreciated! Constantine is one of those select few figures in history that really polarizes opinion and its difficult to produce an "objective" analysis of the man. Best we can do is acknowledge our biases at the door and try looking at both his accomplishments AND failures as we evaluate his legacy
@@tribunateSPQR I was really leaning on the cynical power player angle but you convinced me that things are not quite so straightforward. Now I'm wondering the same about Olaf Haraldsson II ahah.
@@BernasLL yes, he’s difficult to pin down and though there were certainly some political considerations I believe it was a heartfelt conversion. One of the things I wished we had gotten to was that Romans expected gods to speak with leaders so his repeated “encounters” with the divine (even different deities) would have been seen as a good thing whereas we interpret it as him faking them all. He very well could have but a Roman would expect their leaders to have these experiences so it fit the leadership mold he was trying to fill
I imagine Constantine would be the one person in the Empire whom Christian theologians would hesitate to admonish for syncretism. Coming off a century of persecution by imperial decree on a stroke of unbelievable luck, one might be hesitant to push their luck
Thank you for your reasoned and balanced approached it is so refreshing to see a take that while understanding the political picture still allow for genuine human desire to reach for the Divine. I agree with you as well that humanity is far more complex than what the cynical outlook of modern man would like them to be. Thank you once more for this video.
Thanks for the kind words and positive feedback - we also believe that the ancients were just as intelligent and intellectually complex as we are today. It may be easier to make sweeping generalizations about those that came before but ultimately that is not useful in the quest for historical truth
A theological quibble: it’s not that ancient Christians delayed baptism because it diminished their culpability. It’s that baptism remits all sins, no matter how grave, but is also a once in a lifetime event. At a time when other means of sin forgiveness, like the sacrament of confession, were yet not fully developed, delaying baptism until the last possible minute made sense, so that one would enter Heaven as a clean slate
I see that you explained this later on in the video.... Christians of that time were so terrified of sinning after their baptism that they pushed baptism as late as possible, as in on their deathbeds. It was Augustine decades later who brought in infant baptism. so Constantine hesitation to be baptized was not a proof of reluctant adherence. it was relatively common for the time. It seems to me that there was no real political advantage to be gotten from converting to Christ at that time as the percentage of those claim Christian faith was less than 10 % so i think ( well aware that this is still hotly debated) that he experienced something, but that his understanding of what Christianity actually was was very very poor my stand point is that of a convinced Christian who is an amateur theologian. I regard his superficial conversion as a disaster for the church, for it made claims of faith necessary to seek societal preferment; and of course it had the church gladly jump into bed with what the Bible calls the world I think Constantine converted to something but that he was not a genuinely born again Christian as the Bible describes it and as for his blasphemous hubris in likening himself to a thirteenth apostle?? need i say more??
I think his baptism prior to his death says a lot. It seems to point to some belief, perhaps even some guilt for the sins (murders) he commited. He didn't seem to invested in the Arian vs Orthodox controversy so long as it didn't cause political division. Really it seems like an all of the above answer. There were politically beneficial reasons for conversion. But there was also danger. His legalization of the religion without making it the state religion does perhaps point to it being a personal matter for him.
I think David Potter put it best when he said there was a difference between Constantine being sincere towards Christianity vs actually comprehending it. By most accounts, I think it's safe to say that the conversion was sincere. What real benefit did Constantine have to gain from conversion? Least of all to a religion that had been frowned down upon by most other Romans and been persecuted multiple times. At that point in the empire's history, the emperor's power and legitimacy derived solely from the military, so Constantine didn't need to win over the common people/ grass roots movement of Christianity to increase his own power. At the same time, Constantine's understanding - or attempts to understand- Christian doctrine were a fluid process. He at first continued to depict himself with both Christian and pagan symbols on coins and in Constantinople constructed a huge statue of himself as Apollo. He also was dismissive towards the Arian controversy at first and didn't want the bishops involved to discuss what he perceived to be a petty theological issue, before then agreeing to host Nicaea. But even after that point he reversed his anti-Arian stance and was even baptised by an Arian on his deathbed.
I thought Peter Leithart did a great job on his book “Defending Constantine.” The author argues that Constantine, for all his flaws, was sincere in his conversion and did his best to start reforming the empire in Christ’s image. A great book; highly recommended.
It's an important question - one of the chief reasons I believe he opted to convert was a heartfelt conviction driven by some sort of religious experience
I think it’s clear that he believed in a literal Deus Sol Invictus. That being he believed in the unity of god with all things with the sun being core to this idea for obvious reasons. The most similar concept to his belief is Protestant views on Providence. A force greater than oneself but a force which is all and works for reasons beyond our comprehension.
Much of the Senate was still pagan. Even though it was politically irrelevant, stuff commissioned by the Senate would still have pagan iconography attached.
The idea that he did it for political reasons is contradicted by his lukewarm public support of it. If telling people you were Christian was such a good political move why did his coins have pagan symbols?
This video was quite interesting in presenting the more realistic theory that Constantine needed to be mindful of Roman society and not to change too much at once, even if he was a true believer in Christianity. It definitely caused me to question my own bias regarding Constantine, since I thought of his actions through a more Machiavellian lens beforehand. An important thing that should certainly be looked at would be how the sentiment of people in Rome toward Christianity was changing on the whole, as that would deliver even greater insight than just the recorded actions of a single person, however influential he was as an emperor.
Most of the time secularists bring this topic up in an effort to discredit Christianity and to assert that Constantine chose conversion for political benefits. The problem for the secularists is that Christians represented only 10% of the Roman Empire by the time of Constantines Edict of Milan in 313 A.D so there were no tangible political benefits for Constantine. Also the idea that Constantine did not take an interest in theological matters is belied by the fact that Ecumenical Councils have always been chaired by Roman Emperors and not the Bishop of Rome. Constantine was not a passive but active participant in First Council of Nicaea. Not only that but not a single Ecumenical Council has ever been chaired by a Bishop of Rome nor attended by a Bishop of Rome who merely sent his legates. Hardly the conduct of the "Primes inter pares".
At a guess I would say his conversion might be similar to King Aethelstan (previously Guthrum, one of the leaders of the Great Northern Army) who was defeated by Aelfred the Great and converted to Christianity on assuming the throne of East Anglia towards the end of the 9th Century. A mixture of politics and new-found belief. I doubt Constantine truly believed the God of Christianity was The One True God, but that He was ascendant among a larger pantheon. But as you say, that is simply my opinion and can never be any more than that!
It still doesn't convincingly answer the question 'why'. Why adopt a religion that supposedly only the lower tenth of the society practiced? And why did it work out? None of this makes any sense, I'm sorry. There has to be a different story here.
It was not the religion of the lowest 10%. It was most popular in the biggest cities of the empire, like Alexandria, Antioch or Carthage, and least popular in the countryside. Pagan means something like rustic villager. This video itself also mentions Christianity was focused in eastern urbanized areas.
@@faramund9865 Christianity piggy-backed on the backs of previously pagan cults to spread itself; most importantly that of Dionysus (that was the fertile ground of the religious ethos in the eastern Mediterranean), eventually subduing them in favor of the Christian cult, but in the process incorporating many aspects of said cults into its own practices.
The Question is Constantine conversion Genuine? The Answer was yes but it was nuance than that, Constantine weren't a good christian and didn't become fully christian even after milvian Bridge. It was gradual and didn't fully become realized until the later half of Constantine life.
I just don’t see how it makes logical sense for the Roman Emperor to embrace a fringe minority religion most popular amongst women and slaves, if it was mere opportunism.
If 95% of your population is poor, and Rome is full of poor people who've formed mobs and caused trouble on and off for centuries, a religion that elevates humility and meekness can be a very useful moderator of popular frustrations.
Constatine was not a Christian his edict changing the Sabbath to Sunday said quote " you shall not judiaze on Sat you shall work and on Sunday you shall not , ". You shall "worship on the venerable day of the sun "". Not the day of son . He changed times and laws and he was the catalyst to taking books out of the scriptures.
Great video I do belive we all have our own crosses we need to carry. And for who he was (a sociopathic general, devout to his own glory and the glory of Rome) he has done what God intended him to do. Was he a Christian ofcourse he was not everything is a conspiracy theory. But was he a good Christian, no but how could have he been? He was the emperor of the strongest empire in history. If he wanted to he could have made himself a god. But no he took the God of the poor and misreble. The outcast Jew that got crusified and shunned by his own people. To a real roman Christ would be a mockery. Simply alien to their way of thinking. So thats why I belive it was really a spiritual encounter. Even when you said Apollo came to him I knew it was true. The devil tried to sway him away from his divine destiny but God used him as a vessel. Great video you got yourself a new subscriber❤
We may safely assume Constanine knew about the origins of the "gospels" and the first pope by the Flavians. And he knew what had been originally aimed at rebellious jews, now being picked up by desperate normal people was not a good thing, rather a portentious omen. Constantine's conversion is more like accepting the inevitable and trying to help his successor and the "republic".
I’m a devout Christian and attend church every Sunday, go to confession and write icons but I also have sex with many different women, get drunk, fight, say hatful shit to people I don’t like, I hate ugly people and people whose skin is too light. So one can sincerely believe yet still struggle with sin and passions
True brother I also fail to reach Godlike love for all humans. My distrust in human nature and become zelously angry when I see blasthemy. I was angry with God for allowing so much torture to come upon my christian brothers in the middle east and in my part of the world the balkans. But God told us if we live for the flesh and blood we will never reach his glory and true sainthood. And that is a big struggle for me, and for most I would imagine. But God is good and he will lead us. Its summer time here so I'm not as pale as usual😂
🤣😂 Yep, looks like Constantine was also this type of ‘Christian’😆 PS It’s not funny really, I hope you’re just being silly, repentance and change of life style is at the heart of Christianity. The Bible makes it clear what will happen to those who don’t abandon their sinful lifestyle. There’s freedom from Christ offered to all those who cry out for His salvation✝️
I find no irony or conflict with respect to a man Constantine professing belief in God and then acting otherwise frequently. God selected King David and others as leaders and servants and yet, such key individuals repeatedly fell into errors such as adultery and were even complicit in the murder of someone such as when David stole Uriah’s wife and allowed him to be murdered. Ultimately, it’s about God working mysteriously and majestically in His ways and for His purposes…….the selected individuals are entirely secondary and will always display their imperfections ……
They didn’t, that’s a pervasive myth. The urban elite senatorial class remained pagan until at least the time of theodosius (who made Christianity the state religion) with whom they fought a battle at frigidis river and set up a puppet emperor against. Even when Alaric sacked Rome and Forced a random senator to be his puppet emperor said senator (Priscus Attalus) said Senator was forcibly converted to Christianity by the Goths
I don't think we need to understand Constantine in the way you are referring. It's pretty easy to see that his motivation is apparent by his actions. He had chaos in the empire, mostly caused by religious differences, and he made up this farce of a story to unite all the religions into one universal or catholic faith. Those who refused to follow this melding of religious deities were killed, and thus ended true Christianity, and put in place, this fusion pagan religion, bringing idols, armies and anti-biblical theology, such as a fiery hell and an immortal soul, coupled to a mystical three-headed trinity god-being, that could not being explained, so required a priesthood to represent. There were no priests in Christianity, They were to learn war no more. They were to call no man on earth "father", and the whole premise became the beginning of the weeds that were to be sowed in with the wheat, and grow till the end of the system, bearing no fruitage - in fact, CHOKING OUT the true Christian message. His phony story and teaching will soon be gathered and burned in a great fire, as these false religious doctrines have brought with them falsehoods, that are now being exposed to all men. Even the cross image was non-existent, as Jesus, as the Hebrew scriptures noted died on an upright post, as was foretold - a criminal.
Genuine conversion of political expediency? NEITHER Professed Christians were still only a small minority . There would have been nothing to gain by joining them BUT i do think that he only really had the haziest idea of what Christian was actually about so, if Christianity is true, and I hold it to be so - he did not convert to it, rather some kind of experience with some kind of solar phenomenon and a lucky victory in battle after this made him think he was a Christian when he was not. This of course only my opinion from one who regards C's conversion as an unmitigated DISASTER for the church for it made professions of faith fashionable rather than genuine and it signaled the churches denying Christ for the favour of he world
The first Christians were disproportionately drawn from among the poor and enslaved but there is evidence that high-profile individuals also adopted the faith early. There was a diverse core nearly from the beginning and that is likely one of the factors that increased its appeal
@@magnusallmighty5000 It's simple. Yahwehism is a Canaanite religion. Judaism (began ~ 250BCE) began as an offshoot of Yahwehism which was an offshoot of the broader Canaanite religion. Within the text of the Torah (composed between 315 BCE and 250 BCE) we see Henotheism not monotheism. At the time Christianity was invented "Jews" conflated the high god El and his son Yahweh as being one and the same entity. They also suppressed worship of Asherah (though worship of her survived up to and after the destruction of the Jerusalem Yahweh temple). The belief in early "Christianity" was not that other gods did not exist but that the god of Jesus (which was sometimes Yahweh sometimes not) was the high god which worship should be oriented towards through the practice of the Sacred Mysteries. Special Note: "Christianity" is a neo-platonic Greek religion. Proto-Christianity is the Jewish religion from which the neo-platonic Greek religion was born.
@@magnusallmighty5000 okay so I don't think you know what an argument is. An argument is an assertion of facts that connect together in a conclusion. If you wish for further elaboration of a point I can do that but please tell me which fact you dispute (ie Judaism began as a Canaanite religion).
In both cases he executed them for crimes he believed they had committed (rape and lying about rape to get someone killed) respectively. That’s not murder that’s just part of his job description
You seem to be in the "The Republic was flawed but fundamnetally good, but was then corrupted by imperialism and slavery. Then Christianity re-invented all that is good in the world and made men care about puppies, women and homeless people again. Also, fuck Augustus, he was literally Palpatine" camp of Roman history. I'm not saying this perspective is completely wrong, indeed there's quite a bit of truth to it, but there are holes in the narrative as well: 1. According to more modern literature, slavery didn't really decline much during late antiquity. See: Kyle Harper "Slavery in the Late Antique World" 2. Legal restrictions on how brutal you could be to your slaves pre-date Constantine by about 300 years. They start with Augustus and continue under Antoninus Pius. Then there's the question of how well they were enforced, or whether they were even new legislation or merely the formal codification of customary practice. 3. Legal protections and legal intercessions by emperors and imperial officials on behalf of the working poor also aren't/weren't a Christian innovation. Julius Caesar's anti-corruption law had many provisions aimed at protecting provincials from being exploited by local Imperial officials. It didn't always work, but the intention was there, thus kinda poking a hole in your more general vibe of "The Romans viewed all non-Romans as little more than subhuman chattels" you allude to from time to time. See: Dennis Kehoe: Law and Rural Economy in the Roman Empire. 4. The church owned a fuckton of slaves, and there's no indication that they were treated any better than anybody else's slaves. 5. I may be pathologically cynical, and I am, but the banning of crucifixion and gladiatorial games seems like it had nothing to do with the desire to lighten the misery of the working poor and more to do with religious virtue-signaling. As in "nobody deserves the privilege of dying like out Lord and Savior" or something like that. Banning gladiatorial games also seems pretty performative and meaningless in the grand scheme of things. 6. While Christian authors do express squeamishness about enslaving people - and a handful of fringe Christian writers like Gregory of Nyssa are the only recorded outright abolitionists of antiquity - the general vibe of "Can't we at least be a little nicer to our slaves?" is common as dogshit among the elite sources like Seneca, long before the Christians take up the mantle of pretending to care about the downtrodden while barely doing anything in reality. Really, once you actually dig into the sources, you find it hard to believe Christianity is anything more than a new aesthetic expression of a zeitgeist that long predated and that would have found another expression had it not been for a peculiar plucky Nazarene.
I appreciate this channel and what it is trying to do. What I am going to say next is going to sound unreasonable and crazy but please hear me out as i promise it will make sense if you follow it to the conclusion. Calling Constantine a Christian is wildly inappropriate. Christianity did not and honestly doesn't exist. No meaningful information is conveyed by the application of that term. Constantine was an Arianite. It appears as if he might have changed religions a few times possibly being a Eusebianite by the time he died. these are distinct religions with distinct beliefs. Mushing them together does nothing but create confusion. Don't do it.
@@TheLordboki except 1 that's not an argument made in the video. 2) that's an unfounded assertion. 3) that's an excuse to perpetuate a monolithic myth.
Religion is human made. So is our position amongst other people. How powerful is a human invented spiritual experience? God is impossible, Christ and the holy spirit are not.
When the Emperor Constantine declared himself to be the Summus Pontifex, what followed was more than ten centuries of Dark Ages, during which time people who professed Christ rather than Mary or the Popes, people who denied transubstantiation, were fed to lions or burned at the stake. During the Dark Ages, for a common person to read the Bible was a sin for which there was no forgiveness; and so the people were spoon-fed from the papist pulpit. The Bible was said to exist only in the Latin text and the common and largely illiterate people could learn the stories that were in the Bible from paintings and stained glass windows. Those who first made the Bible available in the language of the people were killed for their trouble; but when Martin Luther quoted Paul, of all people, the Protestant Reformation began. I declare unto you the gospel By which also ye are saved how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
The Dark ages is a myth and majority of Europe didn't have a codified idea of Western Christendom until Charlemagne. Remember Christianity spread outside of the Roman world via missionaries and even before Rome's Conversion. Four other Kingdom from Armenia to Ethiopia was already christian, The Brutality of the Early Middle ages was due to chaos created by the fall of centralized authority within Europe and the former territories of the Greco-Roman World. Being unable to read to bible was more a language barrier as latin and other forms of classical language like Coptic and Church Greek was also used, Commoner being unable to read the bible is nonsense given that it differs from state to state and Europe specially regions like the Holy Roman Empire and Italy had different traditions and norms regarding liturgy and scripture then we have the eastern churches who had a more oral tradition due to losing their lands and being under Islamic rule for over a millenia. Again, The Byzantine Empire (Eastern Rome) had a literacy rate of 30% to 40%. It ain't a christian dark age when the continuation of Rome and the Seat of Eastern Orthodox would have their own earlier Renaissance and in it's very fall kick-starts the Renaissance within the west itself.
The Dark ages is a myth and majority of Europe didn't have a codified idea of Western Christendom until Charlemagne. Remember Christianity spread outside of the Roman world via missionaries and even before Rome's Conversion. Four other Kingdom from Armenia to Ethiopia was already christian, The Brutality of the Early Middle ages was due to chaos created by the fall of centralized authority within Europe and the former territories of the Greco-Roman World. Being unable to read to bible was more a language barrier as latin and other forms of classical language like Coptic and Church Greek was also used, Commoner being unable to read the bible is nonsense given that it differs from state to state and Europe specially regions like the Holy Roman Empire and Italy had different traditions and norms regarding liturgy and scripture then we have the eastern churches who had a more oral tradition due to losing their lands and being under Islamic rule for over a millenia. Again, The Byzantine Empire (Eastern Rome) had a literacy rate of 30% to 40%. It ain't a christian dark age when the continuation of Rome and the Seat of Eastern Orthodox would have their own earlier Renaissance and in it's very fall kick-starts the Renaissance within the west itself.
Also yes the Catholic church had a horrible history but do not spread misinformation regarding the dark ages, disregarding the role of the Catholic church in keeping Western Europe unified during the Middle Ages and Technological barring a few lost in time, The Middle ages was significantly more advance than Rome and half of the reason for that is due to the Scholastic Theology within the Catholic Church.
This is factually wrong. Slavic script was developed in the 8th century. For the purpuse of spreading Christs message. Latin, Greek and Old Church Slavonic were the liturgical languages and the common people attended mass. Books were so expensive this being the dark ages and all. And people had priests in their family more often than now. Having 12 children made it easier to send one to become a priest. And it was a pious thing to do. There is a old chatolic saying that any family that fails to produce a priest in 5 generations have failed their society. Christianity is the reason we survived the dark ages.
ATerrible Christian but a christian nonetheless. Him tearing down pagan temple isn't really political ampt when your powerbase is in the west and Christianity is mostly in the east. Again it's that soup of early Christianity where the Nicean Creed was yet to be codified given he was the reason for it, He was something more along the lines of a Arian Christian ,The Nazerenes or a Polytheistic Christian.
@@lettuceman9439 No, simply not a Christian. He remained pagan. He didn't destroy pagan temples, he restored them. He used religion as a political tool to try unify a crumbling Empire, that ultimately didn't work (or did, depending on how you see it; the Catholic Church being the continuation of the Roman Empire that still has very much power in the world. And is still very pagan, which was one of the causes for the reformation).
Your reasoning is just false, have us decided about Constantine inner decision. You really are trying the please the majority of the people. The reason historians will not tell the truth because they do not want to offer the majority of the people who are the believers, they are doing the culture correctness. Because coming of my writing which Constantine is involved, I will not go into the details, Constantine was not a Christian or was he converted nor was there a strange vision. You need to do best research and lest reasoning. Remember, the reasoning creates falsehood, the modern superstition. I give you one hint, on the Battle of the Milviam Bridge, Maxentius was weak living in Rome against Constantine who was a General at least twenty years in the battle fields . Maxentius's soldiers were more or less the garrison soldiers but Constantine's soldiers were hardness battle soldiers who were on the battle fields over ten years before the Milivian Bridge. It seems that Maxentius needs the strange vision and not Constantine. As for you, your reasons have a lot of strange suggestions and decisions. So many of your other stuffs are just nonsense. Reason is for idleness. Research is for the work.
I despise this man, for turning his back on the ancient ways and the gods who had always been there for them, to adopt some new custom, foolish that man, he was not sorry for anything he's done
Do you believe that Constantine's conversion was heartfelt or that his adoption of Christianity was motivated by political considerations?
I think he sincerely believed, and was smart enough to realize that he had to move slowly and tolerate his pagan subjects, in order to create a lasting Christian dynasty.
Ironically Julian the Apostate could have learned much from him.
Well you can't use some modern notion of what 'true conversion' is. You need to define 'conversion' in some sense intelligible to the 4th century and by that standard I think the answer is: he was sincere enough.
Yes. Both of those.
@@ldamoff fair enough
When we think of the comparative advantage of the two religions to the powerful, it is easy to forget that under the status quo, the emperor was not just chosen by the gods, but was the chief priest (pontifex maximus) of the state religion, a literal descendant of the goddess Venus through Aneas and the Julian dynasty, and his genius was worshipped as a god, with the emperor himself becoming a god upon his death. For us modern people, we are used to politicians abusing Christianity to boost their image, but even the most arrogant of our politicians don't demand everyone sacrifice to their "very stable genius" on pain of death! The only modern parallel I can think of is the emperor of Japan making the declaration that he was not a god.
"When historians attempt to provide what they view as the true story behind the conversion, they really only tell us about themselves."
Never thought about it like that, absolutely brilliant. Subscribed with the bell.
Thank you!
I recently read a volume on Norse religion; it says that Christian missionaries quickly made inroads into Scandinavia insofar as getting people to accept Christ as a god. Much to their exasperation, however, they'd often continue to worship Norse gods alongside him and didn't see this as a contradiction.
Something similar likely happened with Constantine - according to surviving documents his gradual transition to monotheism seemingly began before his vision but he was always careful in his public statements to use language that the wider population would find acceptable
Meanwhile slavs destroyed their gods as soon as they converted. Holding to traditional ways of worrship but giving the glory to Christ. Making at that time logical assumtion that saints and angels are the good old gods, and demons the bad ones. With the holly trinity on top and not to be toppeled by anyother being. Wierdly enough even today we practice the old ways of worrship as a fun tradition. And allways on a saints day. Most of the people dont know this but I dont think it matters. Since we do not do anything prohibited by Jesus.
My research into this topic is somewhat limited but I believe Constantine was willing to adopt Chritstianity, but had immense difficulty in deciding whether to adopt the Nicene, Arian, or other theology and saw religion equally as a public policy tool to redefine and unify the fractious Western and Eastern portions of the empire. As for his personal view of Christianity the sources are far too conflicted to make a definitive statement on his personal conversion.
If he operated out of callous self-interest the absolutely most beneficial for himself would have been to continue the path of Diocletian, to proscribe Christians, seizing their land, property, and treasure, and having them executed. Constantine could easily have made an exception for his Christian mother. Legitimizing Christianity and its church, and professing belief in it was clearly the uphill path, one that risked him losing the confidence of the people, tainting himself with stigma and distrust. Not flouting his beliefs and keeping a low profile, and not pushing his luck too far, was undoubtedly from feeling what he was doing already was dangerous enough.
well said - I think the conversion was authentic but Constantine was a soldier, not a theologian. When priests came to him with doctrinal differences he wasn't really able to follow their logic
The only area of history I've studied with any real depth is Church history. And I find it fascinating how variably Constantine is viewed within that narrow field. In low-church Protestant circles he is sometimes viewed as a cynical opportunist whose centralization of the church hierarchy was ruinous, in high-church Protestant circles he is viewed as a bad Christian who meant well, in Roman Catholicism he is viewed as a great leader and unifier of the Church, and in Eastern Orthodoxy he is venerated as Saint Constantine the Great.
Which I think backs up the point you made, it is easy to see what we want to when viewing historical figures.
Yes exactly - Constantine also presents a unique problem because unlike other ancient figures where we have a dearth of information and so must speculate (thus leading to the construction of figures in our own image) Constantine has left us with an abundance of evidence but much of it is contradictory and its veracity can be doubted.
So we're essentially in the exact same place as with other figures but the arguments just have more citations.
I’m slowly becoming addicted to your videos. I recently discovered your channel and from the first video, I’ve been in love! Keep it up guys!
Thank you so much!! Really glad that you enjoy our content and we're so happy to see positive feedback like this. Much appreciated
Hey man I just want to say I really enjoy your videos. I see so much history ‘content’ that really doesn’t interest me (especially regarding Rome as it’s one of the more popular topics online). Your videos especially regarding Caesar and your willingness to try and find a wider scope there that doesn’t follow the more conservative narrative on rails is honestly very unique and definitely reminds me of how my thought process approaching history changed after doing it at university. Keep up everything you’re doing and regardless of what you choose to make I’ll be tuning in. Regards
Thank you so much! It really means a lot to us to see such encouraging feedback and to know that the work we put in is useful to our audience.
This has been my view for some time aswell. I have no doubt that Constantine did indeed convert to Christianity and died a Christian; but his conversion wasn't as rapid as some might believe; he likely still held to some pagan beliefs before around 324. After all, even if he did have what he saw as a divine vision coming from Christ, it sounds very unlikely he would entirely change his religious beliefs so quickly, that's not really how faith works.
I think it's worth pointing out that the theory of Constantine converting merely for political gain gained quite a bit of popularity after the release of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code book, which practically every historian agrees is filled with psuedo-historical nonsense.
Thanks for the feedback - yes, the appraisal of him and his conversion in actual scholarship is much more nuanced than the pop history that presents him as a machiavellian mastermind. But even among scholars I think that too few recognize the enormous gulf between a pagan and Christian religious worldview and how even a heartfelt convert at this time would have found it difficult to abandon their pagan "instincts" immediately.
We're hoping to bring this perspective a little more into the light
Not getting baptized until your death was the common practice at the time, the fathers even wrote sermons condemning the practice. The idea was to wait and wash away your sins last minute so you die clean
Completely fascinating! I’m so glad I found this channel, you gained a new subscriber, man! 😉💪🏼
Thank you for the kind words!!! Really glad you enjoyed the video!
This is the type of video that I truly appreciate from you guys and why I cant wait til ya'll finally blow up. You always use nuance and tact when discussing things like this. It's so easy, ESPECIALLY as a youtube channel that wants to attract more viewers, to want to lean into bombast and "answers" but you guys always take real care with your subject matter and never try to "force" an answer for the sake of content. That is commendable.
I doubt you guys will see this but I also want to thank you for including subtitles. I know it's extra work and it probably goes mostly unappreciated, at least vocally, since it's easy for most to either not use them or take them for granted, but it means a lot for accessibility. I personally have no issues and just prefer captions because I read better than I hear, but my partner is hard of hearing and it can be difficult for her to understand a lot of videos. Having them available just flat out helps people, and that is great.
Thanks for the kind words, its very encouraging to know that the extra effort we put in to depict the nuance inherent in these things is appreciated.
We're happy to do it - we want the content to be as accessible as possible so that there isn't a huge barrier to entry. The study of the classics is elitist enough as it is so we want to tear down walls where we can
Your whole channel is amazing
Thank you so much!
Well if you're an Orthodox Christian then of course you believe the conversion was authentic... of St Constantine the Great, who's feast day is May 21st.
And I’ll go with their account, instead of a modern, secular, summary
As a lover of history, especially the Greco-Roman period and as a man who went through a profound religious experience, I love Constantine. I can relate to a bit of his journey. My childhood religion is thought of as a bit of a cult outside of my home where it was revered. I never really bought it until I was faced with a serious medical issue. I had to find God before I faced he/her/them or faced the abyss. The same zeal I had for history, I turned to religion. I've always thought of myself a pragmatic and skeptical guy but also open-minded. I investigated everything under the sun before sitting at an empty Catholic Church. I had my head in my lap, beaten down by treatments and feeling overall depressed. I swear I heard something. Like a form of sleep paralysis, some kind of loud *something* that wakes you. You know? I was definitely halfway asleep, and so that's possibly what did it, but when I shot up, the church was bright, super bright. Also maybe due to my having woken up so quickly, but when my eyes adjusted there was one particularly bright beam coming through one of the stained glass panes. It cut a path through the church onto the station of the cross right in front of me, 7. It's when Jesus falls and is in great pain, in the particular wood carving in this church he's looking back and he's looking right at me. And I do mean, RIGHT at me, like direct eye contact. I could embellish the story to high heaven but unlike Constantine, I am no emperor. I had nothing to gain by my conversion, but holy shit was that a conversion. I've never seen light from the sun come through a window like that before nor after (also ironic, given Constantines apperent difficulty separating the two. If I had the previous religious understanding he did, I'd probably have followed him in the exact same boat). I beat my cancer, I have friends and acquaintances that'll say now "You don't seem catholic", "you don't act catholic", "well what about when the church did this or that" but I know what I am, I may not be the perfect catholic but I know what I am. So did Constantine. And I adore him for it.
Second comment ever on YT. Very good content. +1 sub. Please keep going
Thank you so much! Glad you liked it and honored that you felt it was worth the comment!
Really loved this videos, keep it up!
Thank you! Appreciate the positive feedback!
I really enjoyed how you navigated us through the hazards of bias in this one. Great video very informative.
Much appreciated! Constantine is one of those select few figures in history that really polarizes opinion and its difficult to produce an "objective" analysis of the man. Best we can do is acknowledge our biases at the door and try looking at both his accomplishments AND failures as we evaluate his legacy
@@tribunateSPQR I was really leaning on the cynical power player angle but you convinced me that things are not quite so straightforward.
Now I'm wondering the same about Olaf Haraldsson II ahah.
@@BernasLL yes, he’s difficult to pin down and though there were certainly some political considerations I believe it was a heartfelt conversion.
One of the things I wished we had gotten to was that Romans expected gods to speak with leaders so his repeated “encounters” with the divine (even different deities) would have been seen as a good thing whereas we interpret it as him faking them all. He very well could have but a Roman would expect their leaders to have these experiences so it fit the leadership mold he was trying to fill
I imagine Constantine would be the one person in the Empire whom Christian theologians would hesitate to admonish for syncretism. Coming off a century of persecution by imperial decree on a stroke of unbelievable luck, one might be hesitant to push their luck
Thank you for your reasoned and balanced approached it is so refreshing to see a take that while understanding the political picture still allow for genuine human desire to reach for the Divine. I agree with you as well that humanity is far more complex than what the cynical outlook of modern man would like them to be. Thank you once more for this video.
Thanks for the kind words and positive feedback - we also believe that the ancients were just as intelligent and intellectually complex as we are today. It may be easier to make sweeping generalizations about those that came before but ultimately that is not useful in the quest for historical truth
A theological quibble: it’s not that ancient Christians delayed baptism because it diminished their culpability. It’s that baptism remits all sins, no matter how grave, but is also a once in a lifetime event. At a time when other means of sin forgiveness, like the sacrament of confession, were yet not fully developed, delaying baptism until the last possible minute made sense, so that one would enter Heaven as a clean slate
I see that you explained this later on in the video.... Christians of that time were so terrified of sinning after their baptism that they pushed baptism as late as possible, as in on their deathbeds. It was Augustine decades later who brought in infant baptism.
so Constantine hesitation to be baptized was not a proof of reluctant adherence. it was relatively common for the time.
It seems to me that there was no real political advantage to be gotten from converting to Christ at that time as the percentage of those claim Christian faith was less than 10 %
so i think ( well aware that this is still hotly debated) that he experienced something, but that his understanding of what Christianity actually was was very very poor
my stand point is that of a convinced Christian who is an amateur theologian.
I regard his superficial conversion as a disaster for the church, for it made claims of faith necessary to seek societal preferment; and of course it had the church gladly jump into bed with what the Bible calls the world
I think Constantine converted to something but that he was not a genuinely born again Christian as the Bible describes it
and as for his blasphemous hubris in likening himself to a thirteenth apostle?? need i say more??
I think his baptism prior to his death says a lot. It seems to point to some belief, perhaps even some guilt for the sins (murders) he commited. He didn't seem to invested in the Arian vs Orthodox controversy so long as it didn't cause political division. Really it seems like an all of the above answer. There were politically beneficial reasons for conversion. But there was also danger. His legalization of the religion without making it the state religion does perhaps point to it being a personal matter for him.
I love how you occasionally sprinkle Marx into these videos. It makes them so much better : )
You remind me of why Carl Jung was so fascinated with synchronicity.
Carl Yuck imo tbh
I think David Potter put it best when he said there was a difference between Constantine being sincere towards Christianity vs actually comprehending it.
By most accounts, I think it's safe to say that the conversion was sincere. What real benefit did Constantine have to gain from conversion? Least of all to a religion that had been frowned down upon by most other Romans and been persecuted multiple times. At that point in the empire's history, the emperor's power and legitimacy derived solely from the military, so Constantine didn't need to win over the common people/ grass roots movement of Christianity to increase his own power.
At the same time, Constantine's understanding - or attempts to understand- Christian doctrine were a fluid process. He at first continued to depict himself with both Christian and pagan symbols on coins and in Constantinople constructed a huge statue of himself as Apollo. He also was dismissive towards the Arian controversy at first and didn't want the bishops involved to discuss what he perceived to be a petty theological issue, before then agreeing to host Nicaea. But even after that point he reversed his anti-Arian stance and was even baptised by an Arian on his deathbed.
I thought Peter Leithart did a great job on his book “Defending Constantine.” The author argues that Constantine, for all his flaws, was sincere in his conversion and did his best to start reforming the empire in Christ’s image. A great book; highly recommended.
Great thoughts
Part of me was thinking why he chose Christianity rather than just with toleration policies?
It's an important question - one of the chief reasons I believe he opted to convert was a heartfelt conviction driven by some sort of religious experience
Didn't Constantine see Sol Invictus and Jesus Christ as basically the same person
I have never heard this idea before
I think it’s clear that he believed in a literal Deus Sol Invictus. That being he believed in the unity of god with all things with the sun being core to this idea for obvious reasons.
The most similar concept to his belief is Protestant views on Providence. A force greater than oneself but a force which is all and works for reasons beyond our comprehension.
Much of the Senate was still pagan. Even though it was politically irrelevant, stuff commissioned by the Senate would still have pagan iconography attached.
The idea that he did it for political reasons is contradicted by his lukewarm public support of it. If telling people you were Christian was such a good political move why did his coins have pagan symbols?
very informative
Thank you!
This video was quite interesting in presenting the more realistic theory that Constantine needed to be mindful of Roman society and not to change too much at once, even if he was a true believer in Christianity. It definitely caused me to question my own bias regarding Constantine, since I thought of his actions through a more Machiavellian lens beforehand.
An important thing that should certainly be looked at would be how the sentiment of people in Rome toward Christianity was changing on the whole, as that would deliver even greater insight than just the recorded actions of a single person, however influential he was as an emperor.
Most of the time secularists bring this topic up in an effort to discredit Christianity and to assert that Constantine chose conversion for political benefits. The problem for the secularists is that Christians represented only 10% of the Roman Empire by the time of Constantines Edict of Milan in 313 A.D so there were no tangible political benefits for Constantine. Also the idea that Constantine did not take an interest in theological matters is belied by the fact that Ecumenical Councils have always been chaired by Roman Emperors and not the Bishop of Rome. Constantine was not a passive but active participant in First Council of Nicaea. Not only that but not a single Ecumenical Council has ever been chaired by a Bishop of Rome nor attended by a Bishop of Rome who merely sent his legates. Hardly the conduct of the "Primes inter pares".
Very well done
Thank you very much!
At a guess I would say his conversion might be similar to King Aethelstan (previously Guthrum, one of the leaders of the Great Northern Army) who was defeated by Aelfred the Great and converted to Christianity on assuming the throne of East Anglia towards the end of the 9th Century. A mixture of politics and new-found belief. I doubt Constantine truly believed the God of Christianity was The One True God, but that He was ascendant among a larger pantheon. But as you say, that is simply my opinion and can never be any more than that!
It still doesn't convincingly answer the question 'why'. Why adopt a religion that supposedly only the lower tenth of the society practiced? And why did it work out? None of this makes any sense, I'm sorry.
There has to be a different story here.
It was not the religion of the lowest 10%. It was most popular in the biggest cities of the empire, like Alexandria, Antioch or Carthage, and least popular in the countryside. Pagan means something like rustic villager. This video itself also mentions Christianity was focused in eastern urbanized areas.
@@walterht8083 And how did that happen?
@@faramund9865 Christianity piggy-backed on the backs of previously pagan cults to spread itself; most importantly that of Dionysus (that was the fertile ground of the religious ethos in the eastern Mediterranean), eventually subduing them in favor of the Christian cult, but in the process incorporating many aspects of said cults into its own practices.
The Question is Constantine conversion Genuine?
The Answer was yes but it was nuance than that, Constantine weren't a good christian and didn't become fully christian even after milvian Bridge. It was gradual and didn't fully become realized until the later half of Constantine life.
Because he genuinely believed in it
I just don’t see how it makes logical sense for the Roman Emperor to embrace a fringe minority religion most popular amongst women and slaves, if it was mere opportunism.
If 95% of your population is poor, and Rome is full of poor people who've formed mobs and caused trouble on and off for centuries, a religion that elevates humility and meekness can be a very useful moderator of popular frustrations.
Constatine was not a Christian his edict changing the Sabbath to Sunday said quote " you shall not judiaze on Sat you shall work and on Sunday you shall not , ". You shall "worship on the venerable day of the sun "". Not the day of son . He changed times and laws and he was the catalyst to taking books out of the scriptures.
Great video I do belive we all have our own crosses we need to carry. And for who he was (a sociopathic general, devout to his own glory and the glory of Rome) he has done what God intended him to do. Was he a Christian ofcourse he was not everything is a conspiracy theory. But was he a good Christian, no but how could have he been? He was the emperor of the strongest empire in history. If he wanted to he could have made himself a god. But no he took the God of the poor and misreble. The outcast Jew that got crusified and shunned by his own people. To a real roman Christ would be a mockery. Simply alien to their way of thinking. So thats why I belive it was really a spiritual encounter. Even when you said Apollo came to him I knew it was true. The devil tried to sway him away from his divine destiny but God used him as a vessel. Great video you got yourself a new subscriber❤
We may safely assume Constanine knew about the origins of the "gospels" and the first pope by the Flavians. And he knew what had been originally aimed at rebellious jews, now being picked up by desperate normal people was not a good thing, rather a portentious omen. Constantine's conversion is more like accepting the inevitable and trying to help his successor and the "republic".
I’m a devout Christian and attend church every Sunday, go to confession and write icons but I also have sex with many different women, get drunk, fight, say hatful shit to people I don’t like, I hate ugly people and people whose skin is too light. So one can sincerely believe yet still struggle with sin and passions
Lmfao
True brother I also fail to reach Godlike love for all humans. My distrust in human nature and become zelously angry when I see blasthemy. I was angry with God for allowing so much torture to come upon my christian brothers in the middle east and in my part of the world the balkans. But God told us if we live for the flesh and blood we will never reach his glory and true sainthood. And that is a big struggle for me, and for most I would imagine. But God is good and he will lead us. Its summer time here so I'm not as pale as usual😂
🤣😂 Yep, looks like Constantine was also this type of ‘Christian’😆
PS It’s not funny really, I hope you’re just being silly, repentance and change of life style is at the heart of Christianity. The Bible makes it clear what will happen to those who don’t abandon their sinful lifestyle. There’s freedom from Christ offered to all those who cry out for His salvation✝️
I find no irony or conflict with respect to a man Constantine professing belief in God and then acting otherwise frequently. God selected King David and others as leaders and servants and yet, such key individuals repeatedly fell into errors such as adultery and were even complicit in the murder of someone such as when David stole Uriah’s wife and allowed him to be murdered. Ultimately, it’s about God working mysteriously and majestically in His ways and for His purposes…….the selected individuals are entirely secondary and will always display their imperfections ……
Why did the urban elite adopt Christianity to readily?
They didn’t, that’s a pervasive myth. The urban elite senatorial class remained pagan until at least the time of theodosius (who made Christianity the state religion) with whom they fought a battle at frigidis river and set up a puppet emperor against. Even when Alaric sacked Rome and Forced a random senator to be his puppet emperor said senator (Priscus Attalus) said Senator was forcibly converted to Christianity by the Goths
I don't think we need to understand Constantine in the way you are referring. It's pretty easy to see that his motivation is apparent by his actions. He had chaos in the empire, mostly caused by religious differences, and he made up this farce of a story to unite all the religions into one universal or catholic faith. Those who refused to follow this melding of religious deities were killed, and thus ended true Christianity, and put in place, this fusion pagan religion, bringing idols, armies and anti-biblical theology, such as a fiery hell and an immortal soul, coupled to a mystical three-headed trinity god-being, that could not being explained, so required a priesthood to represent. There were no priests in Christianity, They were to learn war no more. They were to call no man on earth "father", and the whole premise became the beginning of the weeds that were to be sowed in with the wheat, and grow till the end of the system, bearing no fruitage - in fact, CHOKING OUT the true Christian message. His phony story and teaching will soon be gathered and burned in a great fire, as these false religious doctrines have brought with them falsehoods, that are now being exposed to all men. Even the cross image was non-existent, as Jesus, as the Hebrew scriptures noted died on an upright post, as was foretold - a criminal.
Genuine conversion of political expediency?
NEITHER
Professed Christians were still only a small minority . There would have been nothing to gain by joining them
BUT
i do think that he only really had the haziest idea of what Christian was actually about so, if Christianity is true, and I hold it to be so - he did not convert to it, rather some kind of experience with some kind of solar phenomenon and a lucky victory in battle after this made him think he was a Christian when he was not.
This of course only my opinion from one who regards C's conversion as an unmitigated DISASTER for the church for it made professions of faith fashionable rather than genuine and it signaled the churches denying Christ for the favour of he world
Still makes no sense to me at all why Europe would adopt the religion of the slaves and poor. That is literally an incredible, non-credible story.
The first Christians were disproportionately drawn from among the poor and enslaved but there is evidence that high-profile individuals also adopted the faith early. There was a diverse core nearly from the beginning and that is likely one of the factors that increased its appeal
Because it is the one true religion.
Babby's first intro to Nietzsche 101
Christianity was not monotheistic at the time. It was polytheist in particular Henotheist.
Okay, What's the argument?
@@magnusallmighty5000 It's simple. Yahwehism is a Canaanite religion. Judaism (began ~ 250BCE) began as an offshoot of Yahwehism which was an offshoot of the broader Canaanite religion. Within the text of the Torah (composed between 315 BCE and 250 BCE) we see Henotheism not monotheism. At the time Christianity was invented "Jews" conflated the high god El and his son Yahweh as being one and the same entity. They also suppressed worship of Asherah (though worship of her survived up to and after the destruction of the Jerusalem Yahweh temple).
The belief in early "Christianity" was not that other gods did not exist but that the god of Jesus (which was sometimes Yahweh sometimes not) was the high god which worship should be oriented towards through the practice of the Sacred Mysteries.
Special Note: "Christianity" is a neo-platonic Greek religion. Proto-Christianity is the Jewish religion from which the neo-platonic Greek religion was born.
@alananimus9145 you gave no argument, you only further elaborated on your assertion, can you give an argument ?
@@magnusallmighty5000 okay so I don't think you know what an argument is. An argument is an assertion of facts that connect together in a conclusion. If you wish for further elaboration of a point I can do that but please tell me which fact you dispute (ie Judaism began as a Canaanite religion).
Constantine murdered his wife and son. Doesn’t seem very christian to me.
He wasn’t the first (nor will he be the last) to claim a religion yet fail to love up to its moral code
To BE fair Constantine converted Like 5 minutes before dying
Neither does the Banquet of Chestnuts (dibs on Jeremy Irons iykyk)
If you think rulers always follow the religion they espouse then I highly recommend getting more into Islamic history.
In both cases he executed them for crimes he believed they had committed (rape and lying about rape to get someone killed) respectively. That’s not murder that’s just part of his job description
You seem to be in the "The Republic was flawed but fundamnetally good, but was then corrupted by imperialism and slavery. Then Christianity re-invented all that is good in the world and made men care about puppies, women and homeless people again. Also, fuck Augustus, he was literally Palpatine" camp of Roman history.
I'm not saying this perspective is completely wrong, indeed there's quite a bit of truth to it, but there are holes in the narrative as well:
1. According to more modern literature, slavery didn't really decline much during late antiquity. See: Kyle Harper "Slavery in the Late Antique World"
2. Legal restrictions on how brutal you could be to your slaves pre-date Constantine by about 300 years. They start with Augustus and continue under Antoninus Pius. Then there's the question of how well they were enforced, or whether they were even new legislation or merely the formal codification of customary practice.
3. Legal protections and legal intercessions by emperors and imperial officials on behalf of the working poor also aren't/weren't a Christian innovation. Julius Caesar's anti-corruption law had many provisions aimed at protecting provincials from being exploited by local Imperial officials. It didn't always work, but the intention was there, thus kinda poking a hole in your more general vibe of "The Romans viewed all non-Romans as little more than subhuman chattels" you allude to from time to time.
See: Dennis Kehoe: Law and Rural Economy in the Roman Empire.
4. The church owned a fuckton of slaves, and there's no indication that they were treated any better than anybody else's slaves.
5. I may be pathologically cynical, and I am, but the banning of crucifixion and gladiatorial games seems like it had nothing to do with the desire to lighten the misery of the working poor and more to do with religious virtue-signaling. As in "nobody deserves the privilege of dying like out Lord and Savior" or something like that. Banning gladiatorial games also seems pretty performative and meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
6. While Christian authors do express squeamishness about enslaving people - and a handful of fringe Christian writers like Gregory of Nyssa are the only recorded outright abolitionists of antiquity - the general vibe of "Can't we at least be a little nicer to our slaves?" is common as dogshit among the elite sources like Seneca, long before the Christians take up the mantle of pretending to care about the downtrodden while barely doing anything in reality.
Really, once you actually dig into the sources, you find it hard to believe Christianity is anything more than a new aesthetic expression of a zeitgeist that long predated and that would have found another expression had it not been for a peculiar plucky Nazarene.
I appreciate this channel and what it is trying to do. What I am going to say next is going to sound unreasonable and crazy but please hear me out as i promise it will make sense if you follow it to the conclusion. Calling Constantine a Christian is wildly inappropriate. Christianity did not and honestly doesn't exist. No meaningful information is conveyed by the application of that term. Constantine was an Arianite. It appears as if he might have changed religions a few times possibly being a Eusebianite by the time he died. these are distinct religions with distinct beliefs. Mushing them together does nothing but create confusion. Don't do it.
I agree with the video in that Constantine probably wasn't sure which teaching he belonged to, so this argument is irrelevant.
@@TheLordboki except 1 that's not an argument made in the video. 2) that's an unfounded assertion. 3) that's an excuse to perpetuate a monolithic myth.
Religion is human made. So is our position amongst other people. How powerful is a human invented spiritual experience? God is impossible, Christ and the holy spirit are not.
What do you mean by the last sentence
When the Emperor Constantine declared himself to be the Summus Pontifex, what followed was more than ten centuries of Dark Ages, during which time people who professed Christ rather than Mary or the Popes, people who denied transubstantiation, were fed to lions or burned at the stake.
During the Dark Ages, for a common person to read the Bible was a sin for which there was no forgiveness; and so the people were spoon-fed from the papist pulpit.
The Bible was said to exist only in the Latin text and the common and largely illiterate people could learn the stories that were in the Bible from paintings and stained glass windows.
Those who first made the Bible available in the language of the people were killed for their trouble; but when Martin Luther quoted Paul, of all people, the Protestant Reformation began.
I declare unto you the gospel
By which also ye are saved
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
The Dark ages is a myth and majority of Europe didn't have a codified idea of Western Christendom until Charlemagne.
Remember Christianity spread outside of the Roman world via missionaries and even before Rome's Conversion. Four other Kingdom from Armenia to Ethiopia was already christian, The Brutality of the Early Middle ages was due to chaos created by the fall of centralized authority within Europe and the former territories of the Greco-Roman World.
Being unable to read to bible was more a language barrier as latin and other forms of classical language like Coptic and Church Greek was also used, Commoner being unable to read the bible is nonsense given that it differs from state to state and Europe specially regions like the Holy Roman Empire and Italy had different traditions and norms regarding liturgy and scripture then we have the eastern churches who had a more oral tradition due to losing their lands and being under Islamic rule for over a millenia.
Again, The Byzantine Empire (Eastern Rome) had a literacy rate of 30% to 40%. It ain't a christian dark age when the continuation of Rome and the Seat of Eastern Orthodox would have their own earlier Renaissance and in it's very fall kick-starts the Renaissance within the west itself.
The Dark ages is a myth and majority of Europe didn't have a codified idea of Western Christendom until Charlemagne.
Remember Christianity spread outside of the Roman world via missionaries and even before Rome's Conversion. Four other Kingdom from Armenia to Ethiopia was already christian, The Brutality of the Early Middle ages was due to chaos created by the fall of centralized authority within Europe and the former territories of the Greco-Roman World.
Being unable to read to bible was more a language barrier as latin and other forms of classical language like Coptic and Church Greek was also used, Commoner being unable to read the bible is nonsense given that it differs from state to state and Europe specially regions like the Holy Roman Empire and Italy had different traditions and norms regarding liturgy and scripture then we have the eastern churches who had a more oral tradition due to losing their lands and being under Islamic rule for over a millenia.
Again, The Byzantine Empire (Eastern Rome) had a literacy rate of 30% to 40%. It ain't a christian dark age when the continuation of Rome and the Seat of Eastern Orthodox would have their own earlier Renaissance and in it's very fall kick-starts the Renaissance within the west itself.
Also yes the Catholic church had a horrible history but do not spread misinformation regarding the dark ages, disregarding the role of the Catholic church in keeping Western Europe unified during the Middle Ages and Technological barring a few lost in time, The Middle ages was significantly more advance than Rome and half of the reason for that is due to the Scholastic Theology within the Catholic Church.
This is factually wrong. Slavic script was developed in the 8th century. For the purpuse of spreading Christs message. Latin, Greek and Old Church Slavonic were the liturgical languages and the common people attended mass. Books were so expensive this being the dark ages and all. And people had priests in their family more often than now. Having 12 children made it easier to send one to become a priest. And it was a pious thing to do. There is a old chatolic saying that any family that fails to produce a priest in 5 generations have failed their society. Christianity is the reason we survived the dark ages.
Meds
He saw nothing but an opportunity for propaganda
So, you're just a petty Christian apologist then? It's pretty clear, historically, that Constantine himself wasn't ever really "Christian".
ATerrible Christian but a christian nonetheless.
Him tearing down pagan temple isn't really political ampt when your powerbase is in the west and Christianity is mostly in the east.
Again it's that soup of early Christianity where the Nicean Creed was yet to be codified given he was the reason for it, He was something more along the lines of a Arian Christian ,The Nazerenes or a Polytheistic Christian.
@@lettuceman9439 No, simply not a Christian. He remained pagan. He didn't destroy pagan temples, he restored them. He used religion as a political tool to try unify a crumbling Empire, that ultimately didn't work (or did, depending on how you see it; the Catholic Church being the continuation of the Roman Empire that still has very much power in the world. And is still very pagan, which was one of the causes for the reformation).
@@Bluesruse Lmao, Funny even Mr Sagan
@@lettuceman9439 The truth can be funny, depending how you see it..
@@Bluesruse for those who scream might be better to loiter
Your reasoning is just false, have us decided about Constantine inner decision. You really are trying the please the majority of the people. The reason historians will not tell the truth because they do not want to offer the majority of the people who are the believers, they are doing the culture correctness. Because coming of my writing which Constantine is involved, I will not go into the details, Constantine was not a Christian or was he converted nor was there a strange vision. You need to do best research and lest reasoning. Remember, the reasoning creates falsehood, the modern superstition. I give you one hint, on the Battle of the Milviam Bridge, Maxentius was weak living in Rome against Constantine who was a General at least twenty years in the battle fields . Maxentius's soldiers were more or less the garrison soldiers but Constantine's soldiers were hardness battle soldiers who were on the battle fields over ten years before the Milivian Bridge. It seems that Maxentius needs the strange vision and not Constantine. As for you, your reasons have a lot of strange suggestions and decisions. So many of your other stuffs are just nonsense. Reason is for idleness. Research is for the work.
Plus, Apollo mentioned in early, is of Greek, the Romans may had some share with the greeks in their ways but custom and spiritual is very different
I despise this man, for turning his back on the ancient ways and the gods who had always been there for them, to adopt some new custom, foolish that man, he was not sorry for anything he's done