Constantine is dead, milvian bridge lost: what happens to christianity?

[veni vidi vici]

He have been foolishly associating Christianity for the 'decay' of Rome, which is both his believes showing, a clearly incomplete and perhaps wrong analysis, and there was actually no even 'decay' of Rome ina way. The 3rd century changes and onward had a good side, even, maybe, for the commoners..

It's a Lumières ideology creepy in history.

Yeah I get that but I was referring to Constantine and Christianity

 

[Mongo]

It is cliche. The " dark ages" was the peroid in which democracy, law our languages and cultures were all largely forged in this period. And we do see some remarkable art and churches being built in this peroid. Alfred the great, , Cnut are examples of great, forward thinking rulers in this peroid who would have been at home amongst some " civilised" noblemen.

This may all be true, but the archaeological evidence is very clear that life for the average non-noble person living in most parts of the Mediterranean basin was much worse than it had been before.

 

[Karelian]

Here's an interesting scenario based on this premise:
http://antiikki.taivaansusi.net/?page_id=167

 

[Malta]

My problem with Monotheism in general is its break neck beliefs in its own moral and religious superiority. If I want to be a shade on the plain or be drawn into the bosom of Hathor is my own business!

 

[The Ubbergeek]

My problem with Monotheism in general is its break neck beliefs in its own moral and religious superiority. If I want to be a shade on the plain or be drawn into the bosom of Hathor is my own business!

Monotheism is not the only one who may do this - hinduism, by example...

 

[Malta]

Monotheism is not the only one who may do this - hinduism, by example...

Well, certainly in reaction to Islam, Nationalism has poisoned Hinduism with extremist and racist politics, but it is a more modern phenomenon.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Well, certainly in reaction to Islam, Nationalism has poisoned Hinduism with extremist and racist politics, but it is a more modern phenomenon.

I am annoyed with a certain 'idealisation' of the 'pagan' past, who shown actually different yet similar moralisation. And all that, as you said up.

Polytheism is no different. Many gods doing it instead of One God. Purity instead of Code of law...

 

[DanMcCollum]

With respect, I think the idea of a highly diverse early Church is overstated. If anything, what stands out is the remarkable uniformity of belief and practice across a culturally diverse Mediterranean basin. Too often contemporary scholarship (which has its own agendas) has latched onto marginal documents, such as the so-called Gospel of Judas, and inflated their import and authority with any real empirical warrant.

To take the cases of the heresies in question, none were really significant save for the qualified case of Donatism. Adoptionist theologies were arguably (I'd dispute the point) enunciated in some of the writings of Paul of Samosata and Theodotus of Byzantium, but there's little evidence that such views had wide adherence at any time; Adoptionism only became a significant issue in the Middle Ages, in 8th century Spain. Montanism had a brief, interesting life in central Anatolia but faded by the end of the 2nd century. Only Donatism posed a significant issue, and ironically, it only posed a problem once Constantine had legally allowed toleration for the Church - only then it did become apparent that there was a disagreement on how to treat those clergy and laity who had acceded to state demands under torture or imprisonment. Even so, Donatism has to be understood as more of a disciplinary issue than a doctrinal one, and it was spurred by the very state role we're debating here.

At any rate, it was a remarkably uniform Church which confronted Constantine in the 310's - not completely uniform, obviously, but certainly on questions of doctrine.

I'm not saying that there would have been no schisms down the road had there been no Constantine. I am saying that a) the Roman state was likely to reach some accommodation with Christianity, given its great extent in the most important parts of the Empire, and b) state recognition ironically provided an important precondition for the schisms we know eventually *did* take place in our own timeline.

I have to disagree to a certain extent, at least in the first centuries. You need to look at the sources; which largely come from, for lack of a better term, proto-Orthodox writers. It was in these author's best interest to play down the importance of any group which disagreed with them. Furthermore, they weren't against only preserving documents which supported their own beliefs. This is one of the reasons that much of what we know of 'heretical' beliefs, until recently, was the words left by the proto-Orthodox writers who were commenting, negatively, on those beliefs.

Now, one the persecutions began in earnest, I believe it did cause a solidifying of belief, as the Proto-Orthodox were the best organized organization in existence at the time; and during periods of external pressure, people huddle together.

Once the persecution stop, you will notice, there was a large upspring of non-Orthodox belief, as people felt comfortable of experimenting an expressing their own ideas and concerns.

 

[Titus_Pullo]

A professor of mine had a rather unique theory on the Christianization of the Empire. He mainly credited bored upper-class women.

It was actually an upper level history course at my university ahwile back. One point that the professor giving the lectures made several times, was that the vast majority of pre-Constantine Church Councils were decided by which Bishops had the most Roman Military Commanders backing them.

The Bishops with the most legions backing them, set doctrine and policy until another council was called.

When Constantine became Emperor that pattern continued and the Roman Catholic Church that we know today is a direct descendant of what Constantine's and his Mother's Bishops believed.


Another main point he made repeatedly was that at the time of Constanine Christianity had become the favorite religion of bored Patrician and bourgeois Roman women; women whose husbands ran things, both politically and economically. Women who passed their beliefs onto the children they raised.
Children who either followed in their father's shoes, or raised more children .....

Another Another point he made was at the time of Constanine Eithical Monotheism was the dominant belief system among both the Roman Military Officer Corps and the senior enlisted, IIRC the Cult of Heracles was very powerful. And it isn't much of a leap from Ethical Monotheism to basic Christianity.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I had a similar idea once. Christianity sometimes got mocked as a religion of women and slaves--but who is actually raising the children?

 

[Crazy Calvinist]

My problem with Monotheism in general is its break neck beliefs in its own moral and religious superiority. If I want to be a shade on the plain or be drawn into the bosom of Hathor is my own business!

You can bash things you don't agree with on your own time. As to the topic at hand:

Without Constantine, you would probably see more persecutions later on. I think the end result would be a church pretty similar to the one we have today, but without the monolithic Catholic Church.

 

[Malta]

I am annoyed with a certain 'idealisation' of the 'pagan' past, who shown actually different yet similar moralisation. And all that, as you said up.

Polytheism is no different. Many gods doing it instead of One God. Purity instead of Code of law...

Purity to what?

 

[MerryPrankster]

Purity to what?

Didn't the Greek religion have a notion of sin causing a pollution that had to be cleansed?

 

[eliphas8]

Didn't the Greek religion have a notion of sin causing a pollution that had to be cleansed?

A lot of religions had that, although I would actually say that was most prominent in Zoroastrianism rather than in Greek paganism.

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Didn't the Greek religion have a notion of sin causing a pollution that had to be cleansed?

Miasma, it was called. Although the Greeks and Romans considered it as much physical phenomena as well as spiritual pollution. I think the Christian notion of Sin seems to be a cross between the Jewish conception of violating the commandments with the Greek Miasma, and expanded the idea as a universal state of being.

 

[Malta]

Miasma, it was called. Although the Greeks and Romans considered it as much physical phenomena as well as spiritual pollution. I think the Christian notion of Sin seems to be a cross between the Jewish conception of violating the commandments with the Greek Miasma, and expanded the idea as a universal state of being.

Indeed, it still is more connected with a issue of physical and spiritual happenings rather then personal action or development. In my rituals to the gods I burn a twig and dip it into a bowl of water and sprinkle the water over the space. I did the same in my Grandmother's house after she had died there. Te only major thing the gods looked down upon was High Hubris. Like Sisyphus who thought him above the order of men and god.

Now what I would really interested in seeing is a Aurelian POD where he pushes the Worship of Sol Invictus. Constantine and his father were well known worshippers of Sol Invictus (as had been every Emperor after Aurelian). I think the development was going to culminate in the establishment of Sol Invictus as the Supreme God at some point if Constantine hadnt interuppted.