Taking over the Empire

[HitRed]

From persecuted to authorized. How did Christianity take over the Roman Empire?

[Apatheist]

From persecuted to authorized. How did Christianity take over the Roman Empire?

According to AI:

Unlike traditional Roman religion, which reinforced strict social hierarchies, early Christianity offered spiritual equality. It promised salvation to everyone regardless of social status, heavily attracting the marginalized, the poor, women, and slaves.
Early Christian communities functioned as robust social safety nets. They provided charity, looked after the sick during devastating plagues, and supported orphans and widows, which built deep community loyalty.
Periodic, empire-wide persecutions under emperors like Decius and Diocletian ultimately backfired. Instead of crushing the faith, the steadfast courage of martyrs inspired admiration and drew more followers.

As I've said elsewhere, it was simpler for simple people to follow, and in more than one sense, they didn't have to make so many sacrifices.
It appealed to the masses, rather than just the rich, then became too big to ignore.

[HitRed]

I'm reading Justin Martyr. He wrote a very early book explaining Christianity...and...personally took it to the Roman Emperor. This is beyond brave.

He tells the Emperor, Christians are dying because the word "Christian" and not evidence of actual crimes. Justin demands from the Emperor that Christians receive fair trials.

Interesting enough, Justin says Christians are being killed for being Atheists. Since they don't worship Jupiter, Venus, or other Roman gods. To correct this perception Justin explains the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Christian concern for slaves and the poor. Basically the 10 Commandments and Jesus's teaching about an orderly society. He even tells the Emperor that Christians are instructed by Jesus to, "Pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's...". Worship to one true God, pay taxes, don't steal, care for your neighbor as you would yourself.

He covers: The Prophets, Baptism, Sacraments, the Eucharist, the Cross and weekly Sunday gatherings.

It's an interesting window into the Church.

https://basilica.ca/documents/2016/10/S ... Justin.pdf

[jusplay4fun]

From persecuted to authorized. How did Christianity take over the Roman Empire?

According to AI:

Unlike traditional Roman religion, which reinforced strict social hierarchies, early Christianity offered spiritual equality. It promised salvation to everyone regardless of social status, heavily attracting the marginalized, the poor, women, and slaves.
Early Christian communities functioned as robust social safety nets. They provided charity, looked after the sick during devastating plagues, and supported orphans and widows, which built deep community loyalty.
Periodic, empire-wide persecutions under emperors like Decius and Diocletian ultimately backfired. Instead of crushing the faith, the steadfast courage of martyrs inspired admiration and drew more followers.

As I've said elsewhere, it was simpler for simple people to follow, and in more than one sense, they didn't have to make so many sacrifices.
It appealed to the masses, rather than just the rich, then became too big to ignore.

As usual, his previous post is an over-stimplification of the events and facts by Apatheist. It was NOT ONLY the poor and "simple" for whom Christianity was the "right" religion.

AI Summary:

To understand whether early Christianity attracted the rich and powerful of the Roman Empire, consider the following points:

Early Christianity appealed to some elites seeking spiritual fulfillment beyond traditional Roman religions.

Wealthy converts often provided financial support and resources for the growing Christian communities.

The promise of eternal life and social equality resonated with those disillusioned by the existing social hierarchy.

Some influential figures, like Constantine, embraced Christianity, leading to its increased acceptance and spread.

However, many wealthy individuals remained skeptical or hostile due to Christianity's challenge to established power structures.

Overall, while some rich and powerful individuals were attracted to Christianity, it was not universally embraced among the elite.

and more:

In the last decade of the 20th century and into the 21st century, multiple new discoveries of texts and documents, along with new research (such as modern archaeology and numismatics), combined with new fields of study (such as sociology and anthropology) and modern mathematical modeling, have undermined much of this traditional view. According to modern theories, Christianity became established in the third century, before Constantine, paganism did not end in the fourth century, and imperial legislation had only limited effect before the era of the Eastern emperor Justinian I (reign 527 to 565).[1][2][3][4] In the twenty-first century, the conflict model has become marginalized, while a grassroots theory has developed.[5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiog ... man_Empire

still more:

The rise of Christianity from a small, persecuted Jewish sect to the dominant religion of the Roman Empire is one of the most significant transformations in Western history. In the span of just four centuries, the Christian faith spread throughout the Mediterranean world, winning converts from all levels of society and ultimately becoming the official creed of the empire itself. This article will explore the key factors, events, and turning points in Christianity‘s unlikely path to supremacy in Rome.

https://www.historytools.org/stories/th ... e_vignette

A key point is that the early Christian Church GREW as many martyrs to the Faith were KILLED by the Romans in power. Most people are not willing to die for much, unless it has a power to TRANSFORM lives. Christianity was and STILL IS such a POWER, such a fundamental shift away from mere and simple sacrifice to some capricious and random gods. The early Christian martyrs, and even many TODAY, are willing to die for their FAITH, that faith being SO IMPORTANT to them personally then and NOW.

I think Apatheist cannot grasp this TRANSFORMATIVE power of FAITH, as he is dismissive of such power that goes beyond mere intellect, simple or otherwise.

[Apatheist]

I think JP4Fun cannot grasp that just because people believe it and are willing to die for it, it doesn't mean it's the right explanation for the universe. It just means that it appeals to people and their need for an explanation.
People have been willing to set themselves on fire, commit suicide, sacrifice their children or even be buried alive with their husbands because of their faith - they're not Christians though. People were willing to die by the Inquisition because they WEREN'T Christian. Quite a lot of Jews have died for their faith - has the total of Christians got anywhere near 6 million? You don't have a monopoly.
I'm well aware that faith can cause people to die, and kill, because of their beliefs, and I can admire them for it - Thomas More is one of my favourite historical people. I don't have a problem with the idea of being nice to people and paying taxes. I said it appealed to more than "just the rich" - not only the poor, the rich too, but the hierarchical religions were more geared towards reinforcing the political hierarchy.

[jusplay4fun]

Apatheist assume LOTS and assumes that he understands me. He certainly does NOT understand me. I also assert, based on good evidence, that he does not understand religion and religious views. He is STUCK in his belief in SCIENCE and human superiority.

I know the limits of Science; do you, Apatheist?

[Apatheist]

Apatheist assume LOTS and assumes that he understands me. He certainly does NOT understand me. I also assert, based on good evidence, that he does not understand religion and religious views. He is STUCK in his belief in SCIENCE and human superiority.

I know the limits of Science; do you, Apatheist?

Yes. I understand that we are constantly pushing back those limits.
I also understand very well that you avoid questions that you find difficult or uncomfortable to answer. You haven't refuted a single point that I just made.

[Pack Rat]

...said the blind man to the deaf guy

[HitRed]

Never heard of the Byzantine Papacy

In the 5th century, the Western Roman Empire decayed; invaders sacked Rome in 410 and in 455, and forced Romulus Augustus, the last nominal Western Emperor, to abdicate in 476. In the 6th century, the Byzantine armies of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I recovered Italy and other regions of the Western Mediterranean shore. The Byzantine Empire soon lost most of these gains, but it held Rome, as part of the Exarchate of Ravenna, until 751, a period known in church history as the Byzantine Papacy.

Not sure if the next part is hyped

“In terms of prosperity and cultural life, the Byzantine Empire was one of the peaks in Christian history and Christian civilization,[48] and Constantinople remained the leading city of the Christian world in size, wealth, and culture. Byzantine art and literature held a preeminent place in Europe, and the cultural impact of Byzantine art on the West during this period was enormous and of long-lasting significance.

[Apatheist]

Never heard of the Byzantine Papacy

In the 5th century, the Western Roman Empire decayed; invaders sacked Rome in 410 and in 455, and forced Romulus Augustus, the last nominal Western Emperor, to abdicate in 476. In the 6th century, the Byzantine armies of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I recovered Italy and other regions of the Western Mediterranean shore. The Byzantine Empire soon lost most of these gains, but it held Rome, as part of the Exarchate of Ravenna, until 751, a period known in church history as the Byzantine Papacy.

Not sure if the next part is hyped

“In terms of prosperity and cultural life, the Byzantine Empire was one of the peaks in Christian history and Christian civilization,[48] and Constantinople remained the leading city of the Christian world in size, wealth, and culture. Byzantine art and literature held a preeminent place in Europe, and the cultural impact of Byzantine art on the West during this period was enormous and of long-lasting significance.

If the Byzantine empire was a peak of Christianity, that suggests a decline thereafter. Not sure why this is relevant to your original question though, if it happened after the Roman Empire.

[Apatheist]

...said the blind man to the deaf guy

Rather than just being sarcastic, do you have anything worthwhile to contribute to the discussion?

[Dukasaur]

Never heard of the Byzantine Papacy

In the 5th century, the Western Roman Empire decayed; invaders sacked Rome in 410 and in 455, and forced Romulus Augustus, the last nominal Western Emperor, to abdicate in 476. In the 6th century, the Byzantine armies of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I recovered Italy and other regions of the Western Mediterranean shore. The Byzantine Empire soon lost most of these gains, but it held Rome, as part of the Exarchate of Ravenna, until 751, a period known in church history as the Byzantine Papacy.

Not sure if the next part is hyped

“In terms of prosperity and cultural life, the Byzantine Empire was one of the peaks in Christian history and Christian civilization,[48] and Constantinople remained the leading city of the Christian world in size, wealth, and culture. Byzantine art and literature held a preeminent place in Europe, and the cultural impact of Byzantine art on the West during this period was enormous and of long-lasting significance.

If the Byzantine empire was a peak of Christianity, that suggests a decline thereafter. Not sure why this is relevant to your original question though, if it happened after the Roman Empire.

The empire we call "Byzantine" was the Roman Empire. Yes, it lost Rome itself, but the seat of the Empire moved to Constantinople and the Emperors there were clearly a continuation, not a new entity.