SLD

I'm reading a great book on the rise of Christianity and its impact on creating the Dark Ages. It is interesting to see how Constantine just up and decided to make Christianity the normal state religion.

Certainly he didn't have a dream at the Milvian Bridge one evening and poof the empire was christian! No his father had been a co-emporer during the Diocletian persecutions but had refused to really enforce the decrees. Constantine probably just saw no point in ignoring Christianity and realized that it was not going away, so he might as well use it for his benefit. But he really didn't know anything about it, and never really bothered to learn. He thought he might by Christ's favors in battle if he paid homage to it, but he also paid homage to Pagan deities. According to this book, Constantine probably just didn't realize that Christianity required all or nothing belief. You couldn't believe in other gods. But note that his famous arch still in Rome contains no Christain imagery. But once in, Constantine couldn't go back. So he decided to make it the official state religion, but appease traditional pagans. A lot of his art work and statements are ambiguous. Then to his horror he found out that there was no real Christian core set of beliefs. The Christians were constantly arguing over the whole meaning of Christ and what books were authoritative.

So he demanded conformity, and thus the Council of Nicea. At the council, which he helped to preside over, he is the one who claimed that Jesus and God were one and the same. This author goes on to argue that Constantine's original ignorance of Christianity came back to bite him. He suddenly didn't like the idea that God was a rebel against Rome who suffered the ultmate Roman penalty. So the way to avoid that embarassment was simply to make Jesus of one being with the father. A concept which many noted at the time had no basis in scripture - especially the Synoptics. Jesus praying at Gesthamane, his pathetic cry on the cross, and even Paul's Epistles suggest Jesus as at least a lesser deity if not completely human. Greeks were used to their children of gods as lesser gods. But hey, that's what the emperor wanted, that's what he gets. So the whole trinity is effctively born. not really though. Very few Christians at the time bought into it. It took quite a few years for this to become the truly orthodox view. The actual fully explained trinity came about later by a Greek bishop who had been steeped in classical neo platonic philosophy. And again he got the backing of the latest emperor to have this view declared orthodox and all others heresy.

It's amazing that so many Christians don't bother to learn their own history.

SLD

Jaybees

I was amazed when I discovered that Constantine didn't allow himself to be baptized until he was on his death bed. If I remember correctly, the baptizer was a heretic, so maybe the baptism didn't take.

SLD

Actually a lot of Christians at this time waited to be baptized on their death bed. This was not uncommon, but became more so as the 4th century took hold.

SLD

Toto

What is the book?

SLD

The Closing of the Western Mind - The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason, by Charles Freeman (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Clivedurdle

Fascinating review on Amazon

Horatio Parker

I agree Nietzsche is a rollicking good ride of a diatribe.

Better than Freeman's book, IMO.

Freeman sounds to me like a closet apologist. It's been a while, so the details are hazy, but my recollection is that he presents Xtianity as an improvement or progression from paganism. It's the evil Constantine and his crew that are to blame, not Jesus. (Fwiw I think the collapse of Rome had more to do with the closing mind than Constantine or Theodosius)

Sabine Grant

Topic better suited for HAR.

aa5874

Please name the Christians who were baptized on their death beds.

mountainman

Freeman's main thesis for this book is summarised as follows:


The idea is that the Christian state suppressed the Greek intellectual tradition (i.e. the pagans), scupl

NOTE: These traditions may be represented in the following form: mathematics, geometry, astronomy, physics, science, medicine, philosophy, literature, art, etc, etc, etc. These traditions were rubbed out for over a thousand years by the Christian state.



However Freeman has written a smaller more recent book:

AD 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Christian State (or via: amazon.co.uk)

It presents a more cohesive thesis because it is focussed on the political events surrounding the year 381 CE.


I have a few extracts and quotes from these two books here

Freeman's entire thesis is summarised in his concluding chapter of 381 CE as follows:

So the 4th century is looking like the century in which the Christian Dictators Emperors made the decisions and called the shots.

Much later, the ecclesiastical clerics invented the documentary evidence to make posterity think that 381 CE was a "harmonius" consultative process.

AFAIK Freeman deals with 381 (Theodosius) and not 325 CE (Bullneck).
The OP and Freeman are thus slightly uncalibrated, but the principle remains,

Hence the necessity of investigation the means, motive and opportunity for a pious forgery mill ["Pseudo-Eusebian History"]. The primer for this line of investigation is understanding the modus operandi of the already exposed and massive 9th century forgery mill [Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals]