Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Christianity in the roman empire.
#16
Quote:I'm a Christian but I would stand up for Timotheus's post/opinion. Whether it is right or wrong, a great deal of people think that the church was always an evil torturer of non believers in its quest to convert the world. That was more applicable in the medieval times for sure, but some people get the idea that this was always the case before our "modern" times. If he is telling what he thinks was the case in this time, I wouldnt call it bashing Christians. It caused a good debate and revealed knowlege for sure.

-Nihonius

I agree with that. Most religious groups have stories from the past about over-zealous attempts at converting. This doesn't mean the whole religion is evil. Its just a statement of things that have happened. If you took that into more recent events just because there is a tiny group of Muslim extremists it doesn't mean the religion of Islam is inherently bad. I don't condone these attacks btw. Christians in the distant past have led pogroms and the Spanish Inquisition weren't exactly the nicest blokes but they were just a miniscule proportion of Christians.
I think Timotheus was just expressing a viewpoint and wasn't meant to offend anyone. I'm agnostic myself but with an entire family of Christians (except my younger brother who's either atheist or an anarchist) I have nothing against Christians.
Jeremy Latcham
Quae caret ora cruore nostro?
Reply
#17
Personally I think the majority here is quite overestimating what 'the Christian church' really was during the time discussed here. It was certainly not a big, centralised organisation with a centralised leadership, a strict policy of future plans or even a common view on what 'belief' entailed. Nor did it have the means to enforce any policy.

I mean, if even a (highly!) centralised organisation such as the Later Roman Empire could not possibly hope to directly control government beyond the provincial level (or not even that far down), how on earth should we look upon the Christian church as an organisation that could 'persecute pagans' or 'change history'? This, if the case, was mostly due to local views, local influences and most of the time the work of individuals. Whenever there were synods, these were never ever organised for at best half the empire (and even then it was impossible for representatives of all the regions involved to turn up). Decisions made at such synods were (as we know from subsequent communications) impossible to implement, because (as I argued above) the Christian church simply was not a centralised organisation that could even hope to do so.

I think that the view of what ‘the Christian church’ could do is a bit clouded by a view of the later Medieval Roman Catholic church, and it’s role in politics of the time. And even then the Pope was not an absolute ruler with direct power to command millions. :wink:
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#18
Quote:I'm a Christian but I would stand up for Timotheus's post/opinion.
I considered writing something along the same lines, but decided that David, as a moderator, might know more than we do. There may have been complaints that were more reasonable than I can right now imagine. That being said, I agree that Tim's remark was within what I consider, with what I know now, to be the limits of decent debate.
Quote:I think that the view of what ‘the Christian church’ could do is a bit clouded by a view of the later Medieval Roman Catholic church, and it’s role in politics of the time. And even then the Pope was not an absolute ruler with direct power to command millions. :wink:
Exactly. Perhaps it must be stressed that this view of the later Church has little resemblance to reality. It is for a large part constructed from polemics by (a) the Reformers and (b) the Enlightenment, which remained plausible because the Roman Catholic Church in the nineteenth century did indeed become extremely conservative. One of the greatest surprises of the past half century of scholarship was, I think, the discovery that the Spanish Inquisition was never the ruthless organization that it had become in the eyes of Protestants and authors like Voltaire (recommended reading: Henri Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition).
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#19
Sorry to interfere gentlemen but I was just wondering if anyone else has any other ideas about when rome became majority christian? or if not I would like to know who the first pope was, the chronological list of popes could not stretch so far. Am I right in saying that there was such thing as 'the holy roman emperor'?

Thank You
Conor Maher
Reply
#20
Quote:or if not I would like to know who the first pope was, the chronological list of popes could not stretch so far.
The traditional answer is Peter, even though he is not mentioned in the Bible as ever visiting Rome, and his absence from Acts when Paul arrives in Rome is surprising. On the other hand, that may be explicable. I do not betray one of Christianity's mysteries when I say that Paul and Peter were not exactly on the best of terms. Personally, I think that the evidence for Peter's visit, although indirect, is sufficient. Clement, writing in the nineties of the first century, takes Peter's stay in Rome for granted. So, if by pope you mean "leader of the Christians of Rome", Peter's your answer. After that, the sequence of names is contested; still, the evidence from the catacombs -where many papal tombs were found- proves that the tradition is reliable from at least the third century onward.
Quote:Am I right in saying that there was such thing as 'the holy roman emperor'?
That title is usually used for the German emperor of the Middle Ages.
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#21
THe first pope is debated. The Catholic church says that it was St. Peter, others dissagree. I didnt find who everyone else thinks was the first pope. Charlemagne is considered by some to be the first Holy Roman Emperor, others start the line of kings at Otto I. My guess of a good year for a christian majority...800 AD or so maybe. Up north I think there were alot less christians in Europe. After the fall of Rome christianity died down a bit everywhere except Rome, Egypt, Judea, and the Byzantine Empire I believe. This is due to the barbarian invasians into former Roman areas.
Nomen:Jared AKA "Nihon" AKA "Nihonius" AKA "Hey You"

Now with Anti-Varus protection! If your legion is lost for any reason, we will give it back! Guaranteed!

Carpe Dium
Reply
#22
Quote:
Primus Pilus:2t7c370p Wrote:or if not I would like to know who the first pope was, the chronological list of popes could not stretch so far.
The traditional answer is Peter, even though he is not mentioned in the Bible as ever visiting Rome, and his absence from Acts when Paul arrives in Rome is surprising. On the other hand, that may be explicable. I do not betray one of Christianity's mysteries when I say that Paul and Peter were not exactly on the best of terms. Personally, I think that the evidence for Peter's visit, although indirect, is sufficient. Clement, writing in the nineties of the first century, takes Peter's stay in Rome for granted. So, if by pope you mean "leader of the Christians of Rome", Peter's your answer. After that, the sequence of names is contested; still, the evidence from the catacombs -where many papal tombs were found- proves that the tradition is reliable from at least the third century onward.
Quote:Am I right in saying that there was such thing as 'the holy roman emperor'?
That title is usually used for the German emperor of the Middle Ages.

I think it is fair to say he was anything but holy though? IIRC
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#23
Quote:I strongly agree. The death of Hypathia is the obvious counter-example, but it must be noted that this was exceptional, and I am not sure whether the over-enthusiastic Alexandrian mob had orders from the Patriarch to follow the intelligent woman. Besides, I can not find a second example of a martyr for Paganism.

The impression I get from the whole episode was that the conflict was strictly political, one faction competing with another for power. She certainly wasn’t simply a private person quietly teaching philosophy. Had Hypathia not involved herself with the struggle I very much doubt she would have attracted attention to herself. As for her status as a martyr, I think this is an anachronism at best, created during the Enlightenment. It hardly fits with what little we know about the woman. She had favorable press from Christian sources, many of whom were her own devoted students. I’ve read that as many as half of her students may have been Christian. Most of our sources are either neutral or even favorable to her. The fact that they survive throws doubt over whether she really died for her paganism.

Quote:Pagan intellectuals had, since the second century, developed ideas that behind the multitudes of divinities was one single God, and in the fourth century, Christianity presented itself in this fashion too.

Right, the process of Hellenization of Christianity began with Christian scholars trained in Alexandria or Athens (e.g. Origen, Clement) in the late second century. By portraying the religion as a philosophy they enhanced its prestige among pagan academia.

Quote:That being said, I agree that Tim's remark was within what I consider, with what I know now, to be the limits of decent debate.


Frankly, I thought it was borderline. If he at least said it was his opinion that would have gone over better. Some people don’t know how to use “IMO” when needed. I think we can all remember this has caused misunderstandings in the past on this forum. At any rate, it would have been a profitless argument with respect to the thread’s question at hand, IMO.

Quote:One of the greatest surprises of the past half century of scholarship was, I think, the discovery that the Spanish Inquisition was never the ruthless organization that it had become in the eyes of Protestants and authors like Voltaire (recommended reading: Henri Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition).

Indeed. Yes, I second Kamen's book(s) on the subject. It would surprise most people to know that the Church was a moderating influence when it came to torture (which again was only practiced by the state and even then on a very limited scale).

Quote:Sorry to interfere gentlemen but I was just wondering if anyone else has any other ideas about when rome became majority christian?

I'm sorry this thread has gone astray for so long. Back to your question : Vortigern’s right to point out that we should look at Christianity on a regional basis. It’s well known that the Eastern half was much more Christian than the Western half for centuries. I’d guess the Eastern Empire was majority Christian by the end of the fourth century at the latest.

Quote:My guess of a good year for a christian majority...800 AD or so maybe.
But the empire at that point consisted of little more than modern Turkey, the southern Balkans, and southern Italy. It would have been thoroughly Christian at that point.

Quote:Up north I think there were alot less christians in Europe. After the fall of Rome christianity died down a bit everywhere except Rome, Egypt, Judea, and the Byzantine Empire I believe. This is due to the barbarian invasians into former Roman areas.

This was only true for Britain, IIRC. The Goths were already Christian before they even invaded Roman territory. The Franks and Vandals quickly converted after their invasions. Christianity was flourishing in Spain under the Visigoths. It was still possible to attain a classical education in Spain and Italy in the sixth century. Only Britain and parts of Gaul truly descended into a dark age.

Quote:I think it is fair to say he was anything but holy though? IIRC
Or Roman for that matter. Though he did mint nice imitation Roman coins : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charl ... 12_814.jpg
Smile

~Theo
Jaime
Reply
#24
Quote:As for her [Hypatia's] status as a martyr, I think this is an anachronism at best
You're right about that.
Quote:
Jona Lendering:1c0ch8vc Wrote:That being said, I agree that Tim's remark was within what I consider, with what I know now, to be the limits of decent debate.

Frankly, I thought it was borderline. If he at least said it was his opinion that would have gone over better. Some people don’t know how to use “IMO” when needed.
That might indeed have been better. Perhaps - I am serious - we should make an IMO emoticon?
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#25
Quote:I'm a Christian but I would stand up for Timotheus's post/opinion. Whether it is right or wrong, a great deal of people think that the church was always an evil torturer of non believers in its quest to convert the world. That was more applicable in the medieval times for sure, but some people get the idea that this was always the case before our "modern" times. If he is telling what he thinks was the case in this time, I wouldnt call it bashing Christians. It caused a good debate and revealed knowlege for sure.

-Nihonius

I look at it this way. Early Christians had no problem killing each other as they decided what was proper doctrine. They had no problem pillaging pagan temples of anything of value. Early Christians also had no problem with destroying books and closing down libraries. How many libraries were closed in Rome once Christians took over the city?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_pers2.htm

This article points to ancient sources where Christians did not even consdier it theft if they were stealing from pagans.


So the odds of finding any numbers on church membership is going to be impossible to find. Christians were quick to destroy any books they did not deem "worthy" and it is not a stretch to consider any writing on the expansion of membership by "enticing" pagans would sure fit into that category.
Timothy Hanna
Reply
#26
Quote:I think it is fair to say he was anything but holy though? IIRC

Which could lead to a very interstign debate on the question. What is holy?
Timothy Hanna
Reply
#27
I think that how the Romans acted under the religious title of "Christian" is no different from how they acted as "Pagans". They still maintained large armies and conquered lands, fought amongst themselves, had slaves, etc. Whatever way they acted under the new banner of christianity is undoubtedly influenced by their actions as pagans, that is a cultural and social behavior that was predominant in their society for hundreds of years, you cannot expect them to be any less violent or ethnocentric just because they have a new religion. They were still the same people they always were.
Dennis Flynn
Reply
#28
Quote:
Gaius Julius Caesar:b277gmrs Wrote:I think it is fair to say he was anything but holy though? IIRC

Which could lead to a very interstign debate on the question. What is holy?

The same point could be made about a variety of popes and churchmen as well, methinks... LOL
And not only about christians, of course. I wonder if there ar "holy people" at all.
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
Reply
#29
Quote:Early Christians had no problem killing each other as they decided what was proper doctrine.
That's exaggerated. From the fourth century, I know two examples: Priscillian was executed by the emperor Magnus Maximus, but this had little to do with religion. The Spanish preacher had deduced from "blessed are the poor" that it was acceptable to steal from the rich. The other example is Nicholas of Myra striking and accidentally killing a heritic during the Council of Nicea; the story, however, may be inauthentic (Nicholas is not mentioned in the authentikon, the list of those present). Even if it is true, it should be noted that Nicholas was punished.
Quote:They had no problem pillaging pagan temples of anything of value.
That is correct. Christianity was a normal religion. It is to be regretted that the early Christians were not different from the Roman pagans government, who not only took the possessions of the adherents if Isis, "magians", Jews, Manichaeans, and Christians, but also sent them into exile or to the lions.
Quote:How many libraries were closed in Rome once Christians took over the city?
That's an old canard. The Christians took care of the libraries after they had, in the fourth century, recognized the value of ancient literature (think of Ambrose and Augustine). That so many ancient literature is now lost, has to do with the switch from papyrus to parchment; cf. this article on the disappearance of ancient texts. Note that Christian copiists took care of the poems of Martial, which they can not have appreciated, and of pagan books like Apuleius' Metamorphoses of Lucius.
Quote:http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_pers2.htm
I think that is not a very good article, and you might have seen that for yourself: the author quotes the Wikipedia. Now the Wiki is fine when it discusses relatively value-free subjects like ancient bridge building - I love the contributions of our fellow-RAT Stephan - but when modern polemics are involved, the Wiki is to be avoided.

Note in that article the claim that pagans were religiously tolerant; have you ever read the Senatusconsultum de bacchanalibus? Many people were killed for their beliefs. Tacitus' tells about the persecution of Jews (exiled to Sardinia) and the adherents of Isis during the reign of Tiberius. Diocletian was merciless towards the Manichees. Et cetera.

I can sympathize with a site that calls itself religioustolerance.org; yet, I think it damages its own case when it presents arguments from the Wiki. It gives me the impression that it's tolerance for all, except for modern Christians. As it happens, I think that many bad things have been done in the name of Christianity, and I agree that criticism of certain tenets of Christianity is necessary, but I think that one's opinion about modern Christianity should not be projected upon Antiquity.
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#30
Quote:I look at it this way. Early Christians had no problem killing each other as they decided what was proper doctrine. They had no problem pillaging pagan temples of anything of value. Early Christians also had no problem with destroying books and closing down libraries. How many libraries were closed in Rome once Christians took over the city?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_pers2.htm

This article points to ancient sources where Christians did not even consdier it theft if they were stealing from pagans.


So the odds of finding any numbers on church membership is going to be impossible to find. Christians were quick to destroy any books they did not deem "worthy" and it is not a stretch to consider any writing on the expansion of membership by "enticing" pagans would sure fit into that category.

Sounds a bit more bitter this time, but as long as they are valid historical points then okay.
Pagan Germans killed people and nailed their heads to trees. After Teutoberg forest the Roman bodies were desecrated and left above ground for years. When the Romans returned and burried them, the Germans dug them back up. Pagans werent so nice either. The lesson of this is that no matter what your religion or how good you think you are, you are a weak human. We are all flawed. I hold no resentment towards any of these dead peole for what they did to eachother, its just all a lesson for us to learn.
Nomen:Jared AKA "Nihon" AKA "Nihonius" AKA "Hey You"

Now with Anti-Varus protection! If your legion is lost for any reason, we will give it back! Guaranteed!

Carpe Dium
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Christianity and the Late Roman Empire Valerian Pertinax 29 5,687 03-16-2013, 08:00 PM
Last Post: Alanus

Forum Jump: