This was a common early Christian practice. Since Baptism washed away all one's sins, and yet could be performed only once, there was a lot to be said for leaving it as late as possible - especially for a ruler or magistrate, who had to wage war, pass sentence of death, and do other morally questionable things. Constantine, like a smart politician, postponed his Baptism to what was for him the ideal moment.
Constantine is dead, milvian bridge lost: what happens to christianity?
- Thread starter Archon of Thessaly
- Start date
This was a common early Christian practice. Since Baptism washed away all one's sins, and yet could be performed only once, there was a lot to be said for leaving it as late as possible - especially for a ruler or magistrate, who had to wage war, pass sentence of death, and do other morally questionable things. Constantine, like a smart politician, postponed his Baptism to what was for him the ideal moment.
I agree, yet from moderating extensive, not exhaustive mind you so I might be wrong, but Really it is not till the sons of Constantine are there truly Christian believing Emperors are around
I understand that but he is good for some things, and I believe that this is one of them.
The other Apostles accepted Paul readily enough, however. So it seems wrong to introduce such a distinction between the "Jerusalem" Church and the "Pauline" Church.
In any event, Paul does make numerous references to the life, death and resurrection of Christ in his Letters. Again, while I agree that Paul is critical to the formation of Christianity, I think it's not fair to suggest he represents a major departure from what came before, or is at odds with the leadership as it existed at the time.
One point of confusion
Constantine is absolutely critical to the history and development of the Roman Empire. Only Augustus stands before him.
But he's less important to the history of the Church. He has an impact, to be sure; but it's also true that Christianity had become too large, too vibrant, especially in the East and Italy, for the Roman state not to make some accommodation with it in by the 4th century. The persecutions of Diocletian were already seen as having had no effect, or even backfiring.
Constantine is absolutely critical to the history and development of the Roman Empire. Only Augustus stands before him.
But he's less important to the history of the Church. He has an impact, to be sure; but it's also true that Christianity had become too large, too vibrant, especially in the East and Italy, for the Roman state not to make some accommodation with it in by the 4th century. The persecutions of Diocletian were already seen as having had no effect, or even backfiring.
Without an imperial church granting growing state backing for orthodoxy I think Christianity would diverge and cluster into two or three early denominations around Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria and kind of obviously but still interestingly not Constantinople. The power to enforce orthodoxy would not have the same kind of state support, so it would have less bite, within these hypothetical churches as well as over the whole community too. They wouldn't divide indefinitely like amoebas and exeunt into the religious background though, not with a POD in the 4th century.
Christian religions might agree on Jesus as a resurrected saviour and pretty much nothing else due to diversion over time, or they might just reflect the greater diversity of the contemporary church and disputes around the Arian kind of controversy. The main denominations of Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Church of the East broke off 100-200 years later over disputes a level less great. So the argument would be over "is Jesus divine and primordial and by how much" rather than "what is the shape of the combination of divine and human nature in Jesus".
If at a later date an Emperor does decide to back Christianity, he might be a true believer without an interest in consensus. Instead of ecumenical councils, his own favoured line is enforced. The first OTL ecumenical councils in Rome (313) and Arles (314) organised to resolve the Donatist schism were failures. TTL councils have the possibility of failing, so that Christian emperor might be pushed into something similar even if his original political aims are different.
Jerusalem would have a smaller Christian population for the time being, because it was patronised as a centre of pilgrimage by Constantine.
I think accruing butterflies of theological factions and the OTL number of later decisions would make Christianity unrecognisable by say the 11th century. That might be true even with a negligible POD, maybe.
Christian religions might agree on Jesus as a resurrected saviour and pretty much nothing else due to diversion over time, or they might just reflect the greater diversity of the contemporary church and disputes around the Arian kind of controversy. The main denominations of Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Church of the East broke off 100-200 years later over disputes a level less great. So the argument would be over "is Jesus divine and primordial and by how much" rather than "what is the shape of the combination of divine and human nature in Jesus".
If at a later date an Emperor does decide to back Christianity, he might be a true believer without an interest in consensus. Instead of ecumenical councils, his own favoured line is enforced. The first OTL ecumenical councils in Rome (313) and Arles (314) organised to resolve the Donatist schism were failures. TTL councils have the possibility of failing, so that Christian emperor might be pushed into something similar even if his original political aims are different.
Jerusalem would have a smaller Christian population for the time being, because it was patronised as a centre of pilgrimage by Constantine.
I think accruing butterflies of theological factions and the OTL number of later decisions would make Christianity unrecognisable by say the 11th century. That might be true even with a negligible POD, maybe.
Last edited:
What Constantine really was great at was making a mess of theological debate. He kept meddling (fully within his rights, as he presumed) and changing his positions regarding Arianism, so I'm not sure it's fair to say that Constantine gave Christianity a direction.
He's a damn important emperor, and his adoption of Christianity (While amusingly flawed) was a major step in its legitimization, it already was a powerful force within the later Roman Empire.
Yep. I've seen the argument that Paul didn't know anything about the human Jesus before and it's blatantly wrong.
Sorry if this seems too self-promoting, but here's a blog post in which I listed Paul's references to the life of Jesus. These are from letters whose authorship is uncontested and don't include anything that could be possibly "allegorized" or "spiritualized."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_4th_century
To show more on the really messed up and confused world of christianity in the 4th centuary.
To show more on the really messed up and confused world of christianity in the 4th centuary.
Read this:
http://www.churchhistory101.com/feedback/constantine-against-donatists.php
Christian fighting christian over the appointment of a bishop? You can see why Constantines intervening in the establishment of doctrains was vital.
Without an imperial church granting growing state backing for orthodoxy I think Christianity would diverge and cluster into two or three early denominations around Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria and kind of obviously but still interestingly not Constantinople. The power to enforce orthodoxy would not have the same kind of state support, so it would have less bite, within these hypothetical churches as well as over the whole community too. They wouldn't divide indefinitely like amoebas and exeunt into the religious background though, not with a POD in the 4th century.
Christian religions might agree on Jesus as a resurrected saviour and pretty much nothing else due to diversion over time, or they might just reflect the greater diversity of the contemporary church and disputes around the Arian kind of controversy. The main denominations of Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Church of the East broke off 100-200 years later after enforced over disputes a level less great. So the argument would be over "is Jesus divine and primordial and by how much" rather than "what is the shape of the combination of divine and human nature in Jesus".
If at a later date an Emperor does decide to back Christianity, he might be a true believer without an interest in consensus. Instead of ecumenical councils, his own favoured line is enforced. The first OTL ecumenical councils in Rome (313) and Arles (314) organised to resolve the Donatist schism were failures. TTL councils have the possibility of failing, so that Christian emperor might be pushed into something similar even if his original political aims are different.
Jerusalem would have a smaller Christian population for the time being, because it was patronised as a centre of pilgrimage by Constantine.
I think accruing butterflies of theological factions and the OTL number of later decisions would make Christianity unrecognisable by say the 11th century. That might be true even with a negligible POD, maybe.
This is exactly what i was thinking. I think christiaty would remain a powerful force in africa ( where a bishop could be appointed in carthage?) and the east ( with a rivel "pope in antioch.) Its also possible that the emporer/powerful general in the east could convert to christianity to act as a uniting bulwark against the west.
However, one possibility that facinated me was the idea that an emporer could distort christianity to make themselves the son of god? Now that would be interesting.
After all, how better to scare a populace into submisson then to take the role of an omnepotent god in earth?
Constantine himself went partway down this road when he called himself the 13th apostle.
Not exactly drawn from one source, got it from a book....still trying to find it.
Anyway, there are several accounts of major street clashes between varoius groups different views on the perticuler doctrian.
Paul was damn important in the early story of the religion and helped to keep the fledgling cult alive. perhaps he was more important, but dont forget he didnt propel chrisitanity into the mainstream spot light-constantine did that.
I don't know, I looked at the quotations of Paul on your blog post, and not one of them actually displays any special knowledge of Jesus as an actual person. They are all tied up in Paul's own theology, other than the facts that he had brothers among his followers and that he was executed by the Romans (and both facts were presumably common knowledge among those aware of him in the first place.)
Hmmmmthat is one of the major flaws of the bible as a source-its written by a variety of authors who wrote it after the event and thus open to different interpratations and distortions. This is why there are so many shisms and controversies surrounding the bible.
It'd already been done- Augustus Divi Filius, anyone?
But I can't see that happening, anyway. Certainly not in a Christian context, no-one would accept the idea. And there's no reason for an Emperor to do it in the context of the one God of the Jews and Christians.
You can say that about the vast majority of sources for periods of antiquity, so it somewhat annoys me when people bring up the Bible as being a special case in that regard. If we're going to say that Paul is entirely untrustworthy for Jesus, it means we don't have any trustworthy sources for the life of Alexander, and only a few fragmentary ones for Augustus.
He actually talks about the Last Supper, for one, not just that He was crucified.
One other point:
Without an imperial church granting growing state backing for orthodoxy I think Christianity would diverge and cluster into two or three early denominations around Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria and kind of obviously but still interestingly not Constantinople. The power to enforce orthodoxy would not have the same kind of state support, so it would have less bite, within these hypothetical churches as well as over the whole community too. They wouldn't divide indefinitely like amoebas and exeunt into the religious background though, not with a POD in the 4th century.
I'm certainly biased (I'm a very Roman Catholic), but I do think it's telling that a) there was only one major heresy (Gnosticism and its variants) - which disintegrated fairly quickly and conclusively - and no real schisms before Nicaea, and b) when schisms finally did happen beginning with the Nestorians (post-431), Monophysites (post 451) and the East-West Schism (sporadic up until the final break in 1054), they happened largely for cultural and political reasons. The Nestorians and Monophysites predominated among the non-Greek semitic Christians of the Levant and Egypt and Armenia., for example.
In a Roman Empire in which Christianity still lived in tension and no official position with Roman authority, the ability to assemble in ecumenical council to actually reach doctrinal agreement of the sort that would create possible dissensions would be difficult, and likewise, whatever tensions did exist within the Christian communities would be mitigated by the perceived threat of a hostile Roman society and government.
None of which is to say that a schism could not have happened in such a timeline. Just that, based on the history of what did happen, we can say that it's difficult to claim that it would have happened easily or readily.
Without an imperial church granting growing state backing for orthodoxy I think Christianity would diverge and cluster into two or three early denominations around Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria and kind of obviously but still interestingly not Constantinople. The power to enforce orthodoxy would not have the same kind of state support, so it would have less bite, within these hypothetical churches as well as over the whole community too. They wouldn't divide indefinitely like amoebas and exeunt into the religious background though, not with a POD in the 4th century.
I'm certainly biased (I'm a very Roman Catholic), but I do think it's telling that a) there was only one major heresy (Gnosticism and its variants) - which disintegrated fairly quickly and conclusively - and no real schisms before Nicaea, and b) when schisms finally did happen beginning with the Nestorians (post-431), Monophysites (post 451) and the East-West Schism (sporadic up until the final break in 1054), they happened largely for cultural and political reasons. The Nestorians and Monophysites predominated among the non-Greek semitic Christians of the Levant and Egypt and Armenia., for example.
In a Roman Empire in which Christianity still lived in tension and no official position with Roman authority, the ability to assemble in ecumenical council to actually reach doctrinal agreement of the sort that would create possible dissensions would be difficult, and likewise, whatever tensions did exist within the Christian communities would be mitigated by the perceived threat of a hostile Roman society and government.
None of which is to say that a schism could not have happened in such a timeline. Just that, based on the history of what did happen, we can say that it's difficult to claim that it would have happened easily or readily.
Well, its important to realise that early Christianity was very diverse; more diverse than Christianity today (despite the pletora of different denominations, they actually agree on a suprisingly large amount of things. This could not be said about the first centuries of Christianity). Although the Gnostics were certainly the most 'sexy' (for lack of a better term) of the early divisions, and so get a majority of the attention, there were actually a large number of sects; Montanists, Donatists, Adoptionists, to name just a few.
Beginning during the time of the persecutions, however, there was a concerted effort by the Church elders to consolidate Christians into a single church, to standardize the canon, and to forumulate doctrine that everyone could agree with (which, truthfully, makes sense. If your group is being openly attacked and hunted down, you want to make your organization as strong as possible). For instance, by the 3rd century or so, much of the Bible, as we understand it, had come to be standardized (although this, of course, did not become official until Constantine).
Anyway, my point, is that Early Christianity was very diverse; it consolidated during the time of the persecutions (although, of course, not entirely. Look at the group which was using the recently discovered Gospel of Judas; a work which vehmently attacked the standard Church, as well as the desire to become martyrs), and began to diverge again in the years preceeding Constantine, once the external pressures which drove Christians together had been eliminated.