The Rise of Christianity in the West

[lunakilo]

HOw do you figure that? When I read "uprising" such as here:" a pagan uprising in Birka that resulted in the martyrdom of Nithard and forced the resident missionary Bishop Gautbert to flee."[11] I assume that they had something they were rebelling against, like the forced conversions to Christianity. Worth noting that there were no newspapers at this time, and the records available on historical events were recorded by monks....and do we really have to work hard to understand who's side they were on? How much of the historical record was just omitted or lost? Because it wasn't useful to the Church.

Of course they had something to rebel against. But rebelling against something does not necessarily mean that what you are rebelling against an organisation using violence. It means the rebels took up arms, but we don't know how the church behaved.
It is possible that the missionaries were the violent sort and the pagans rebelled because of that.
It could also be that they had just had enough of those crazy people telling them how to live their lives.
Who knows, I can't read that from the wiki article.
What the wiki article does say is that in this instance the pagans won (at least temporerely) so they must have been in the stronger ones at that time and place. So this episode is not christias converting pagans by the sword.

This story is not a whole lot different than that of the British Isles. At first, they tolerated paganism in the countryside, and even used it to their advantage if needed to help suppress rebellions. But, as Church authorities increased in power, they became more adamant about stamping out paganism.

True, and it what I am saying too.

The difference between the Lutheran Church and the Catholic Church is not much different than the Anglican - they just stopped swearing allegiance to the Pope. It didn't usher in the Age of Enlightenment in the year 1000. And judging from Martin Luther's persecution of Jews and advocacy for driving all the Jews out of Europe, I don't see how that was a great improvement!

I was responding to your statement that "modern Europeans should be extremely vigilant against this Pope and his minions" The reformation probably did not make Europe a better place, but it did diminish the popes power.

 

[arcanum]

I'll tell you why in a nutshell: the pagan gods did not care about you or love you, the christian god did. This was huge in the ancient world, a god who actually cared about you and knew you and not just a capricious power to appease with sacrifices, therein lies the core of what you are asking.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I'll tell you why in a nutshell: the pagan gods did not care about you or love you, the christian god did. This was huge in the ancient world, a god who actually cared about you and knew you and not just a capricious power to appease with sacrifices, therein lies the core of what you are asking.

You clearly know little about the direct relationship between the northern European Gods and their followers. We are their literal ancestors. They are our forebears. The situation could not have been more opposite than you describe

Convert or die, is that the tenet of a God who loves you? Yeah, that would be a 'no'.

the Christian God will end the world, again.
the Norse Gods pledge to die defending it.

And, talk about sacrifices, God sacrifices his own son, rather than just forgiving?

Come now, think about the words you are using.

 

[waitasec]

I'll tell you why in a nutshell: the pagan gods did not care about you or love you, the christian god did. This was huge in the ancient world, a god who actually cared about you and knew you and not just a capricious power to appease with sacrifices, therein lies the core of what you are asking.

i can see how in a world were people were being politically persecuted can be attracted to the idea that a god man died for man and went on to paradise for man to follow him there.

doen't mean it's true...

 

[Parsifal]

what led to the decline of Pagan religions in the west nearly 1500 years ago and the increase toward Christianity. Was it the political powers of the time or was there more to it then that?

I feel that a lot of the historical & political observations people made in the thread are valid & insightful, but I also see some larger spiritual dynamics at work. A higher spirit seemed to enter the world in what some historians call the Axial period around the 6th century BC. This was marked by the appearance of Lao Tze and Buddha in the East, plus Krishna if we count the composition of the Bhagavad Gita during this time as heralding the actual presence of this deity as the Avatar of Vishnu, reinvigorating an older tradition of Krishna-worship. In the West, Pythagorus did his enlightened work during this very period. Many researchers trace the mundane connections (e.g., Pythagorus was acquainted with Eastern texts) and cultural cross-fertilizations, which all have validity. In my view, though, the ultimate causal forces are spiritual-metaphysical. Something like a great numenal wave may have swept across the planet during the Axial age, rippling through the collective consciousness.

If there is truth to this view, then the still larger pattern is that events came to a peak again with the birth and ministry of Jesus, causing enormous changes in the political-cultural situation. Then the direct spiritual influence seemed to wane with the Church calcifying into a mundane power and driving competing sects into oblivion, as noted in a number of posts. But then came another major infusion of causative spiritual force with the career of Mohammed in the 6th century AD. So it all forms a coherent pattern: the Axial age at one end of the temporal spectrum, the founding of Islam at the other, and the coming of Christ right in the middle, evidently a central pivot of the whole process.

I am remind of the Church Father Justin Martyr and his conversion to Christianity, in part, because of the fearless Christians facing execution in the arena. There was something very convincing about early Christianity.

A direct infusion of Supernal Spirit, the divine presence, into the world convinces everyone who is open to it in the most compelling way, transcending reason, feeling, and even the visceral urge to physical survival. Perhaps the most harmful of the later dogmatizations about Christ was that he was the one and only Avataric instrument of this divine power. In fact (as the Hindus well know) there have been many Sons of God ~ and also Daughters.

There's a theory that the manifestation in history of an Avatar, or equivalent intervention, actually warps the continuum, like a black or white hole bending time. It's as if the stream of history now flowed from the moment of the divine invasion, both backward and forward. If you can wrap your head around this arcane concept, it explains the symmetry noted above of major spiritual (and even geopolitical) events the same length of time before and after the pivotal moment.

It's also a clue as to why the great anniversaries of these events have such a stimulating effect on the human imagination and beliefs. The recent turn of the millennium was one such node, and may have had a major impact on the continuum, even though the literalistic beliefs of devout Christians were not fulfilled. For instance, here's a hypothesis that The End of the World is Within You.

 

[paarsurrey]

I want all of your thoughts on what led to the decline of Pagan religions in the west nearly 1500 years ago and the increase toward Christianity. Was it the political powers of the time or was there more to it then that? Were the people of the empire looking for a new direction and Christianity just happened to catch their fancy? You tell me what factors you think influenced the Pagan world's shift.

Note- I won't be participating in this thread. This is basically to collect data for lack of a better term, and I know you'll all give me some good opinions

There may be some frubals in it for you

How did the pagan religions got started? Please

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I'll tell you why in a nutshell: the pagan gods did not care about you or love you, the christian god did. This was huge in the ancient world, a god who actually cared about you and knew you and not just a capricious power to appease with sacrifices, therein lies the core of what you are asking.

I have never known any Polytheistic person past or present who felt the gods do not love, so not sure where you get that.

As for a power you just try to appease, that sounds more to me like the Christian God who's attributes are so unknowable and beyond man that we should just trust his ways being above ours.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

A few political influences (ie constantine) gave them sufficient legitimacy to establish themselves and gather power, that allowed certain christian based organisations to have the sway to then 'spread the word' by the sword, which tends to be the favoured tool of most conversion attempts.

I know Constantine has been remembered as a Christian in history, but honestly what I've read gives me reason to doubt.

He sure did a good job on Julian who refused to be Christian he he.

 

[Vouthon]

I know Constantine has been remembered as a Christian in history, but honestly what I've read gives me reason to doubt.

He sure did a good job on Julian who refused to be Christian he he.

I think that the historical consensus today is that Constantine was a sincere Christian. He simply wanted the church to conform to his vision of a unified body to fit his newly re-unified Roman Empire. He therefore hoped that Nicea would put an end to the diversity of views in the Early Church.

Surprisingly, outwith Christianity - within which he was intolerant of anything outside Nicene Orthodoxy - he was remarkably tolerant of Paganism and other religions. He didn't even try and make Christianity the state religion, like Theodosius later did.

Some quotes from his edicts and writings:

"...It is one thing acting with free will to enter into contest for immortality, another to compel others to do so by force through the fear of punishment. No one should greatly trouble another, rather, everyone should follow what his soul prefers..."

- Saint Constantine the Great (c.272 – 337), Letters

"...Amongst those things that are profitable to mankind in general, the reverence paid to the Divinity merited our first and chief attention, and that it was proper that the Christians and all others should have liberty to follow that mode of religion which to each of them appeared best; so that that God might be benign and propitious to us, and to every one under our government. And therefore we judged it a salutary measure, and one highly consonant to right reason, that no man should be denied leave of attaching himself to the rites of the Christians, or to whatever other religion his mind directs him, that thus the supreme Divinity, to whose worship we freely devote ourselves, might continue to vouchsafe His favour and beneficence to us. And accordingly we give you to know that, without regard to any provisos in our former orders to you concerning the Christians, all who choose that religion are to be permitted, freely and absolutely, to remain in it, and not to be disturbed any ways, or molested...For it befits the well-ordered state and the tranquillity of our times that each individual be allowed, according to his own choice, to worship the Divinity; and we mean not to derogate aught from the honour due to any religion or its votaries..."

Constantine the Great (c.272 – 337), Edict of Milan

Rodney Stark, sociologist, spoke of Constantine's religious policy in a 2011 book:

"...Although Constantine played a central role in repressing all Christian dissent, he was remarkably tolerant of paganism throughout his reign. Constantine neither outlawed paganism nor did he condone persecution of non-Christians. In fact, although Constantine subsidized and gave official standing to the Catholic Church, he continued also funding pagan temples...More significant even than his toleration of pagan temples, Constantine continued to appoint pagans to the very highest positions, including those of consul and prefect. In addition, pagan philosophers played a prominent role in his court and depictions of the sun god appeared on his coins. Indeed Constantine directed his most ferocious rhetoric not against pagans, but against Christian dissidents...Historians cite the persistence of pagan elements in his reign as examples of his commitment to religious harmony. Of critical importance are two edicts issued by Constantine soon after he defeated Licinius to reunite the empire. Both stressed peaceful pluralism. The Edict to the Palestinians is notable for the pluralism of its language. In it, Constantine repeatedly referred to God, but never mentioned Christ, using phrases common to Christians and pagans alike which is consistent with the search for a common denominator that was the hallmark of his religious policy. But, it is the Edict to the Eastern Provincials that fully expresses Constantine's commitment to accomodation and his rejection of coercive forms of conversion. He began with a prayer, invoking "the most mighty God" on behalf of "the common benefit of the world and all mankind, I long for your people to be at peace and to remain free from strife". He went on: "Let those who delight in error alike with those who believe partake of the advantages of peace and quiet...Let no one disturb another, let each man hold fast to that which his soul wishes, let him make full use of this". He continued, "What each man has adopted as his persuasion, let him do no harm with this to another...For it is one thing to undertake the contest for immortality voluntarily, another to compel it with punishment". Finally, Constantine condemned "the violent opposition to wicked error...immoderately embedded in some souls, to the detriment to our common salvation". Thus, in both word and deed Constantine supported pluralism, even while making his own commitment to Christianity explicit. In fact, during Constantine's reign, "friendships between Christian bishops and pagan grandees" were well known, and the many examples of the peaceful intermingling of pagan and Christian thought may be thought of as proof of the success of Constantine's policy of consensus and pluralism..."

"...Constantine fostered an atmosphere of religious liberty ... Since it favored all religions equally, the edict expressed a policy of religious liberty, not toleration...All should try to share the benefits of their religious understanding with others, but no one should force his or her truth upon another. … (for according to Constantine)..."it is one thing acting with free will to enter into contest for immortality, another to compel others to do so by force through the fear of punishment. No one should greatly trouble another, rather, everyone should follow what his soul prefers...This edict is a paradigmatic statement of concord. … Since Constantine hopes that common fellowship and the persuasion "of those who believe" will lead everyone freely to choose (what he called) the straight path, he indicates his wish that religious unity will ultimately evolve..."

- Elizabeth DePalma Digeser, in The making of a Christian Empire: Lactantius & Rome

"...In principle he (Constantine) treated religion as a matter of choice and conscience, an arena free of state meddling...Liberis mentibus — "With Free minds" — all are to worship their Gods. It is a remarkable policy, an unexpected one, since it would have been natural for a ruler after his conversion to a new religion to shift all the previous relations. … Most of the apologists who defended the Church in the early centuries advocated freedom of religion...the latin rhetor Lactantius developed a theological arguement for religious freedom. Lactantius was close enough to Constantine later to serve as tutor to the emperor's sons, and his influence is evident in many ways in Constantine's own writings...He (Lactantius) asked those who believed in compulsion of religion: "What good can you do, then, if you defile the body but cannot break the will?" It is a surprisingly modern statement, arguing, that religious freedom is the "first freedom", rooted in the very nature of religious life as an exercise of free will...Under Constantine's policy of concord, the Church was flooded with new converts, not through coercion but by force of Imperial example...Eventually, Christian Emperors abandoned Constantinian religious policy...Constantine favoured the Church but gave serious attention to protecting the rights of non-Christians..."

- Peter J. Leithart, in Defending Constantine : The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom (2010)

Julian on the other hand is more like the Pagan answer to the later Theodosius. Both of them were intolerant people - the former intolerant of the ascent of Christianity and the latter intolerant of Paganism.

Compared with them, Constantine's religious policy looks modern.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I doubt that Constantine was a Christian simply because he continued his devotion to both Jupiter and Apollo after his supposed conversion.

One of the more interesting aspects of Constantine was his tomb containing both Christian and pagan relics and symbolism.

I don't know what Constantine felt in his heart for Christianity, but he never let paganism go.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I believe Julian was obviously raised pagan and always remained strongly so, which says something about Constantine.

As for Julian being anti Christian, he wasn't nearly to the extent other emperors had been. Most of Julian's anti Christian stuff was his sentiments. He wrote a thorough amount of polemics and counter apologetics.

 

[Vouthon]

I doubt that Constantine was a Christian simply because he continued his devotion to both Jupiter and Apollo after his supposed conversion.

One of the more interesting aspects of Constantine was his tomb containing both Christian and pagan relics and symbolism.

I don't know what Constantine felt in his heart for Christianity, but he never let paganism go.

Consider this:

"...By keeping the Divine faith, I am made a partaker of the light of truth: guided by the light of truth, I advance in the knowledge of the Divine faith. Hence it is that, as my actions themselves evince, I profess the most holy religion; and this worship I declare to be that which teaches me deeper acquaintance with the most holy God...This God I invoke with bended knees, and recoil with horror from the blood of sacrifices from their foul and detestable odors, and from every earth-born magic fire: for the profane and impious superstitions which are defiled by these rites have cast down and consigned to perdition many, nay, whole nations of the Gentile world. For he who is Lord of all cannot endure that those blessings which, in his own loving-kindness and consideration of the wants of men he has revealed for the rise of all, should be perverted to serve the lusts of any. His only demand from man is purity of mind and an undefiled spirit; and by this standard he weighs the actions of virtue and godliness...I CANNOT, then, my brother believe that I err in acknowledging this one God, the author and parent of all things: whom many of my predecessors in power, led astray by the madness of error, have ventured to deny... For I myself have witnessed the end of those who lately harassed the worshipers of God by their impious edict. And for this abundant thanksgivings are due to God that through his excellent Providence all men who observe his holy laws are gladdened by the renewed enjoyment of peace. Hence I am fully persuaded that everything is in the best and safest posture, since God is vouchsafing, through the influence of their pure and faithful religious service, and their unity of judgment respecting his Divine character, to gather all men to himself..."

• Letter of Constantine to Sapor, King of the Persians (333)

This is a personal letter to the Persian Shah, begging him to stop his persecution of Christians. Constantine saw himself as the defender of Christians wherever they lived in the world, even outside his Empire.

He explicitly equates pagan sacrifices with superstitious magic and says that his ancestors strayed in denying the Christian God. He even goes on to mention the persecution of Christians by Diocletian which he ended. He makes a clear statement of his monotheism, his worship of "One God" the parent and creator of the Universe.

Constantine for the first time in Roman history made Christianity a recognized religion that could be freely practised everywhere in the Empire.

His tolerance of Paganism stemmed from his Christian mentor Lactantius, who taught:

"...Religion being a matter of the will, it cannot be forced on anyone. In this matter it is better to employ words than blows...Religion is the one field in which freedom has pitched her tent, for religion is, first and foremost, a matter of free will, and no man can be forced under compulsion to adore what he has no will to adore...Of what use is cruelty? What has the rack to do with piety?... For nothing is so intrinsically a matter of free will as religion..."

- Lactantius, Christian theologian, church father & tutor of Constantine, (Divine Institutes 5)

It thus has an explicitly Christian origin.

Constantine even thought of himself as Christ's "13th Apostle".

He frequently declared Paganism to be in error but mandated that it must be in its various forms a tolerated, recognised religion in his Empire:

"Let those who delight in error alike with those who believe partake of the advantages of peace and quiet...Let no one disturb another, let each man hold fast to that which his soul wishes, let him make full use of this".

He explicitly says that pagans "delight in error" yet should be allowed to worship side-by-side with "those who believe".

 

[Vouthon]

I believe Julian was obviously raised pagan and always remained strongly so, which says something about Constantine.

As for Julian being anti Christian, he wasn't nearly to the extent other emperors had been. Most of Julian's anti Christian stuff was his sentiments. He wrote a thorough amount of polemics and counter apologetics.

Diocletian was certainly the most anti-Christian Emperor. However Julian desired to stop the rise of Christianity and establish a Neo-Platonist type of paganism as an intellectual rival to Christianity.

Julian himself dated his conversion to paganism from the year 351, so by his own admission he was not raised Pagan. He started to doubt Christianity as a result of his education in Greek philosophy. He became deeply interested in Plotinus' Neoplatonism, as were most Christians. However his attraction to it went beyond what was normal for Christians. It led him to prefer it doctrinally to Christianity.

Read:

Julian was trained to the profession of the Christian religion; but he became early attracted to the old faith, or rather to the idealized amalgam of paganism and philosophy which was current among his teachers, the rhetoricians. Cut off from all sympathy with the reigning belief by the terrible fate of his family, and with no prospect of a public career, he turned with all the eagerness of an enthusiastic temperament to the literary and philosophic studies of the time. The old Hellenic world had an irresistible attraction for him. Love for its culture was in Julian's mind intimately associated with loyalty to its religion...

Julian had already made a public avowal of paganism, of which he had been a secret adherent from the age of twenty. It was no ordinary profession, but the expression of a strong and even enthusiastic conviction; the restoration of the pagan worship was to be the great aim and controlling principle of his government. His reign was too short to show what precise form the pagan revival might ultimately have taken, how far his feelings might have become embittered by his conflict with the Christian faith, whether persecution, violence and civil war might not have taken the place of the moral suasion which was the method he originally affected

Julian the Apostate

 

[Rainbow Mage]

That's all very nice, but I think you're overlooking the politics of what Constantine was doing. Regardless of what he said, we know he continued in his position as Caesar and head of the state pagan worship.

We know his tomb contained relics to Apollo just as any Caesar's tomb did.

You are whitewashing the pagan elements of Constantine's life

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I think Constantine was good at playing politics and I also wonder how much his mother Helen pressured him into all of this.

You cannot deny the pagan stuff he kept doing on the side.

 

[Awoon]

I want all of your thoughts on what led to the decline of Pagan religions in the west nearly 1500 years ago and the increase toward Christianity. Was it the political powers of the time or was there more to it then that? Were the people of the empire looking for a new direction and Christianity just happened to catch their fancy? You tell me what factors you think influenced the Pagan world's shift.

Note- I won't be participating in this thread. This is basically to collect data for lack of a better term, and I know you'll all give me some good opinions

There may be some frubals in it for you

Christianity eliminated the Gods/Goddesses, nature and human imagination by putting their religion to a set of strict rules by force and fear of their human God.

 

[Vouthon]

That's all very nice, but I think you're overlooking the politics of what Constantine was doing. Regardless of what he said, we know he continued in his position as Caesar and head of the state pagan worship.

We know his tomb contained relics to Apollo just as any Caesar's tomb did.

You are whitewashing the pagan elements of Constantine's life

I am certainly not :no:

Since the majority of the Roman population was still pagan and deeply suspicious of Christianity, it was bad enough for them having a Christian Emperor. Constantine could not very well abandon the centuries old duties of the Imperial cult simply on the basis of his personal beliefs in monotheism and Nicene Christianity. Paganism was the state religion. Constantine didn't change this, although he became the patron of the Catholic Church.

What on earth would Constatine's "political" motive have been in stopping the persecutions of Christians and making it a privileged, legal religion when it was despised by most ordinary pagans? Why convoke the Council of Nicea and publically declare his faith in Christ and devotion to the Apostles Peter and Paul, to create a unified Christian orthodoxy on behalf of such a minor, hated cult from the East? Why on earth would a pagan Emperor be interested in doing this?

Plus, Constantine's mother Helena was a Christian convert. And she had obviously been wanting him to join her faith for decades, as you suggested above. The perfect opportunity came with the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, which Constantine became convinced - perhaps due to his mother and Lactantius convincing him - was the work of the Christian God. There is no reason to doubt his genuine embracing of his mother's religion. She was a huge influence on him. He put her before his own wife - who had a tragic end.

I see absolutely no political sense in a Pagan Emperor of a Pagan Empire in which Christianity still represented a minimal percentage of the population, publically absolving this religion of ill will, declaring it legal, pumping money into building churches and temples for it and trying to make it more unified as well as publically declaring his belief in it as the "most holy religion", while the pagan beliefs of the majority of Romans was disparaged by him as a "superstitious error". That's an insane political policy, surely, unless he actually believed as he said he did.

If all he wanted to do was pacify his mother, he could have simply made Christianity legal and leave it there.

Christianity meant nothing to the majority of pagans, except as a nuisance :sarcastic

Plus, it was Constantine's conversion that led to so many Romans converting to Christianity to follow their Emperor:

"...Under Constantine's policy of concord, the Church was flooded with new converts, not through coercion but by force of Imperial example...Eventually, Christian Emperors abandoned Constantinian religious policy...Constantine favoured the Church but gave serious attention to protecting the rights of non-Christians..."

• Peter J. Leithart

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Oh I'm not suggesting Constantine wasn't to some extent Christian leaning, but its hard to say where he stood in his heart.

Why wait until his deathbed to be baptized for example? Why order the pagan articles placed in his tomb?

I think he was torn between the two. Either that or he hoped his maneuver would bring Christians and pagans close enough for Jesus to be absorbed into the state cult.

Julian suggested doing just that with Yahweh not long after.

 

[Vouthon]

Oh I'm not suggesting Constantine wasn't to some extent Christian leaning, but its hard to say where he stood in his heart.

I can accept that as a valid argument

Why wait until his deathbed to be baptized for example? Why order the pagan articles placed in his tomb?

1. A common practice of the Early Church. There were many in the early church who started to delay baptism until later in life, eventually till the deathbed. The church believed in something called baptism by desire for catechumens. This meant and means that Catechumens are baptised by desire even if they haven't received water baptism. Augustine for example taught:

"I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44–48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit"

St. Augustine's mother Monica, for example, had him as a child enrolled as a catechumen but not baptised. Read:

"...Augustine relates the reasoning of his mother and others that it was better, in view of the temptations of adolescence, to delay baptism until later, since the guilt would be greater for sins committed after that solemn washing...."

The rationale was that baptism washed away all sin and assured one of heaven; also that sins committed after baptism would be more severe. As an Emperor, Constantine had more reason than most to fear for his soul since his job led him into doing some very un-Christian things that were demanded of him but gave him a guilty conscience. He wanted baptism to wash all that away so that he could live out his old age with a clear conscience and look forward to eternity.

2. Because it was mandated by the Imperial cult, of which Constantine still had the duty to uphold since Paganism was the state religion. Constantine never changed this, he simply on a personal level adhered to Christianity.

I think he was torn between the two. Either that or he hoped his maneuver would bring Christians and pagans close enough for Jesus to be absorbed into the state cult.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that he might have desired this? He clearly claimed to believe in One God, the Christian one. I see no reason to doubt his self-affirmation of faith, since he had no politically good reason to proclaim his adherence to Christianity in a majority pagan Empire which had Paganism as its state religion.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

It was standard Roman practice to absorb deities the elite liked into the state cult. Don't really need evidence for something that was standard practice.

I did mention that Julian wanted to absorb Yahweh into the state cult.