The Christian Discussion Thread VI

[The Archregimancy]

Not really.

The initial plan was 'can you get me a few mercenaries to help stabilise the frontier in Anatolia', not 'can you call for a large-scale armed quest to set up fragile feudal states in Syria and Palestine?' The two are quite different things.

Might I recommend Steven Runciman's three-volume History of the Crusades? Judging from your posts on the subject so far, you might even learn something.

Back handed comments are back handed.

Not back-handed at all; I'm entirely sincere.

Judging from your posts on the subject so far, you might well learn something from reading Runciman; clearly your knowledge of the Crusades isn't what it might be, so here's an excellent opportunity to improve your knowledge of a fascinating period of history.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Yes, I always have found the 4th century fascinating as well. Emperor Constantine goes from persecuting Christians to making Christianity the national religion, which is a pretty huge leap, all because of a vision that he saw in the sky of a cross, I believe, before a battle that his army was seemingly destined to lose. The thing that I always see kind of funny ironic about Constantine is that he refused to convert to Christianity until he was on his deathbed, because he didn't want to follow Christianity's rules. XD He is still an enormously awesome character in the history of Christianity, though.

When did Constantine persecute Christians? I've never heard that before.

Well, maybe not actively like the likes of Nero. But Christians were persecuted in Rome up until the Edict of Milan, that happened 7 years after he took over as emperor.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Back handed comments are back handed.

Not back-handed at all; I'm entirely sincere.

Judging from your posts on the subject so far, you might well learn something from reading Runciman; clearly your knowledge of the Crusades isn't what it might be, so here's an excellent opportunity to improve your knowledge of a fascinating period of history.

I'm sure I will.

[Luminesa]

When did Constantine persecute Christians? I've never heard that before.

Well, maybe not actively like the likes of Nero. But Christians were persecuted in Rome up until the Edict of Milan, that happened 7 years after he took over as emperor.

Ew.

Okay.

[Constantinopolis]

The 4th century was extraordinary. In less than a hundred years, Christianity went from being a relatively popular but still persecuted and maligned "cult", to being the official state religion across an entire continent-sized landmass, stretching from Gibraltar to the Caucasus mountains, and from Hadrian's Wall to the source of the Blue Nile.

We really should call this "the miracle of the fourth century".

And that was also the century when the Creed was composed, when the dogma of the Holy Trinity was explicitly defined, when the New Testament canon was finalized and universally accepted, when Christians agreed on a single method to calculate the date of Easter (Pascha), and when monasticism spread beyond Egypt to become a global Christian movement. And the liturgies used by all the ancient Churches today trace their origins to the 4th century.

Other than the time of Christ and the Apostles themselves, the 4th century was the most formative period in the history of the Church.

Yes, I always have found the 4th century fascinating as well. Emperor Constantine goes from persecuting Christians to making Christianity the national religion, which is a pretty huge leap, all because of a vision that he saw in the sky of a cross, I believe, before a battle that his army was seemingly destined to lose. The thing that I always see kind of funny ironic about Constantine is that he refused to convert to Christianity until he was on his deathbed, because he didn't want to follow Christianity's rules. XD He is still an enormously awesome character in the history of Christianity, though.

Constantine never persecuted Christians in his capacity as Emperor. However, it is true that he was an officer under Diocletian before becoming Emperor, and Diocletian did persecute Christians (quite intensely and savagely, too), so it is possible that Constantine may have received orders to participate in these persecutions at some point.

Also, Constantine never made Christianity the national religion, either. He gave Christians freedom to worship, and sponsored the building of churches with imperial funds, but that was all. The Emperor who made Christianity the state religion was Theodosius I, in the 380s, some 50 years after Constantine died. Theodosius wasn't even born when Constantine ruled.

And I wasn't talking just about the Roman Empire in the post you quoted. In the early 4th century, before achieving recognition in the Roman Empire, Christianity had already become the state religion of Armenia, Axum (= Ethiopia), and the Kingdom of Edessa. Clearly, Christianity was on the rise in general. It wasn't just about the Roman world or the actions of this or that Roman Emperor.

[Allied Skrall]

The 4th century was extraordinary. In less than a hundred years, Christianity went from being a relatively popular but still persecuted and maligned "cult", to being the official state religion across an entire continent-sized landmass, stretching from Gibraltar to the Caucasus mountains, and from Hadrian's Wall to the source of the Blue Nile.

We really should call this "the miracle of the fourth century".

And that was also the century when the Creed was composed, when the dogma of the Holy Trinity was explicitly defined, when the New Testament canon was finalized and universally accepted, when Christians agreed on a single method to calculate the date of Easter (Pascha), and when monasticism spread beyond Egypt to become a global Christian movement. And the liturgies used by all the ancient Churches today trace their origins to the 4th century.

Other than the time of Christ and the Apostles themselves, the 4th century was the most formative period in the history of the Church.

Yes, I always have found the 4th century fascinating as well. Emperor Constantine goes from persecuting Christians to making Christianity the national religion, which is a pretty huge leap, all because of a vision that he saw in the sky of a cross, I believe, before a battle that his army was seemingly destined to lose. The thing that I always see kind of funny ironic about Constantine is that he refused to convert to Christianity until he was on his deathbed, because he didn't want to follow Christianity's rules. XD He is still an enormously awesome character in the history of Christianity, though.

Theodosius the Great made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Under the Edict of Milan, which was co-authored by Constantine the Great, the Roman Empire became secular in government, Christian persecution ended, and freedom of religion was to be administered across the Empire. I think it was too ahead of it's time.

[The Wolven League]

Yes, I always have found the 4th century fascinating as well. Emperor Constantine goes from persecuting Christians to making Christianity the national religion, which is a pretty huge leap, all because of a vision that he saw in the sky of a cross, I believe, before a battle that his army was seemingly destined to lose. The thing that I always see kind of funny ironic about Constantine is that he refused to convert to Christianity until he was on his deathbed, because he didn't want to follow Christianity's rules. XD He is still an enormously awesome character in the history of Christianity, though.

Theodosius the Great made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Under the Edict of Milan, which was co-authored by Constantine the Great, the Roman Empire became secular in government, Christian persecution ended, and freedom of religion was to be administered across the Empire. I think it was too ahead of it's time.

At the signing of the Edict of Milan, Rome was in a civil war, IIRC. So neither Theodosius or Constantine can be considered "Emperors" at the time.

[Constantinopolis]

Well, maybe not actively like the likes of Nero. But Christians were persecuted in Rome up until the Edict of Milan, that happened 7 years after he took over as emperor.

Constantine didn't "take over" as Emperor. He was proclaimed Emperor by his legions, while he was in Eboracum (modern-day York, England) during a campaign in northern Britannia. At that point, he ruled only a tiny corner of the Empire. There were several other self-proclaimed Emperors, all of them more powerful than him, and he spent the next 20 years slowly defeating them one by one until he became sole ruler of the Empire.

So while it's certainly true that Christians were persecuted in Rome (and most of the Empire) while Constantine was Emperor, this persecution happened in the parts of the Empire that he didn't control.

[The Wolven League]

The Crusaders were a loose coalition of forces with very different goals and ambitions, extremely prone to infighting. To bring up Sun Tzu is to imply that they were following some kind of master plan or grand strategy. They were not.

While true, there was an overall plan. Rebuff Islamic advancement. Then later this became centerslizsx around the Levant.

The Byzantines ask for some help in Anatolia.

Pope calls for a massive military expedition in the Levant, calls them Crusades, sparks two centuries of pointless fighting to found fragile feudal states in the Levant that had zero chance of survival.

Crusaders were mostly selfish and in it for the money, frequently sacking cities regardless of their religion and engaging in brutal oppression of non-Christians, which was likely caused by a good deal of them being ex-criminals looking to redeem themselves. The Crusaders constantly fought amongst themselves over land and loot.

"Overall plan"? Perhaps. "Overall plan that was actually enforced after it started"? Hell no.

[The Archregimancy]

Well, maybe not actively like the likes of Nero. But Christians were persecuted in Rome up until the Edict of Milan, that happened 7 years after he took over as emperor.

That's not quite what the Edict of Milan was for; I think you've muddled your edicts.

The official persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire ended with Galerius' Edict of Toleration in 311 AD; however, official persecution only continued in the Eastern Empire (the portion controlled by Galerius) after Diocletian abdicated in 305 AD.

Constantine I entered Rome in 312 AD, after the Edict of Toleration ending persecution had already been passed - and after Constantine had already begun to show sympathy for Christianity at the Milvian Bridge. So Constantine never persecuted Christians in Rome.

What the Edict of Milan of 313 AD did was grant Christians formal official status (though not as the state religion) for the first time, and has two of the competing post-tetratchy Augusti - Constantine and Licinius - agree to recognise that status in both their territories; Licinius then implements the Edict across the entirety of the Empire after defeating the third competitor - Maximinus - to take control of the East later that year. The Edict of Milan doesn't, however, apply to Christianity specifically, but rather grants legal status to all religions. This ambiguity was necessary since it was a compromise solution between the already Christian-leaning Constantine and the pagan Licinius - though with Licinius wanting to win sympathy in the increasingly Christian East before his campaign against Maximinus.

[The Alexanderians]

...That's Christianity in general...QUIZ TIME!

1.) Founder of modern monasticism?

2.) What was the Catholic Reformation?

3.) Who was St. Augustine?

4.) Who was St. Thomas Aquinas?

5.) Name 5 religious orders.

6.) What is "transubstantiation" and who came up with the term?

7.) What pope came up with the term "New Evangelization"?

8.) What Saint popularized the Rosary?

9.) What is the purpose of the Rosary?

10.) When was the term "Catholic" first used and what does it mean?

It's a very Roman Catholic quiz, isn't it?


Here's a potential Orthodox version, with only two questions held over (though both edited):

1.) Who was the founder of monasticism?

2.) What was the Confession of Cyril Lucaris about?

3.) Who were the Cappadocian Fathers?

4.) Who was St. Gregory Palamas?

5.) Name 5 autocephalous churches other than the original members of the Pentarchy.

6.) What is "Hesychasm"?

7.) What heresy was denounced by the Seventh Ecumenical Council?

8.) What is a yurodivy?

9.) What is the purpose of a Prayer Rope (κομποσκοίνι or чётки)?

10.) When was the term "Catholic" first used and by whom?

1. Father of all Monks St Anthony

2. I'm sorry I don't know this one I think it was related to reforming Orthodoxy to be more in tune with Calvinism, which he was really fond of.

3. Sts. Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa. Of which I believe two were brothers.

4. He was a heavy supporter of hesychastic theology and had a spat with a philosopher that claimed he knew God better than the monks did. Past that I don't know much.

5. OCA, Moscow, Georgia, Serbia, and Bulgaria (I think some of these are unrecognized by others as being autocephalous though).

6. OH! I know this one! Translates as "the stillness" or "silence". It is the act of closing off outer senses to reach "inner stillness" in order to reach a closer understanding of God. In some ways it resembles Buddhist meditation but mantras are not used (prayers are but there is a BIG difference, as empty repetition runs counter to the purpose of prayer) and the similarities are only on the surface. Mt. Athos is a monastic hotspot for it.

7. (Had to google for this one...I keep getting all of them confused) Iconoclasm

8. "Fool-for-Christ". They did "Unorthodox" (pardon the expression) things to show devotion to Christ, some of which now may be considered symptoms of mental or behavioral disorders except that it was intentional behavior. Much of what they did was shocking to the point of drawing great attention in order to make a point. Such behavior as nudity or speaking in riddles.

9. Used to count the number of times one has said a prayer, usually the Jesus prayer.

10. No idea, I'm going to be totally honest about this one. I'd imagine it was in the 2nd or 3rd centuries though.

[Herskerstad]

While true, there was an overall plan. Rebuff Islamic advancement. Then later this became centerslizsx around the Levant.

Not really.

The initial plan was 'can you get me a few mercenaries to help stabilise the frontier in Anatolia', not 'can you call for a large-scale armed quest to set up fragile feudal states in Syria and Palestine?' The two are quite different things.

Might I recommend Steven Runciman's three-volume History of the Crusades? Judging from your posts on the subject so far, you might even learn something.

I recall about reading the Emperors reaction when he more or less had an army before the gates of Constantinople, being all to aware of the Romanesque claims of the Carolingian history which various princes would at least symbolically uphold, to which he quite shrewdly dealt with said Princes on an individual basis. Still, the general idea was never for the crusaders to set up their own states in the Levant, but that territory would be given back to the eastern empire which was never to a greater degree acted upon at least after their larger army rather than a small, well trained set of knights was a reality.

[The Archregimancy]

Theodosius the Great made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Under the Edict of Milan, which was co-authored by Constantine the Great, the Roman Empire became secular in government, Christian persecution ended, and freedom of religion was to be administered across the Empire. I think it was too ahead of it's time.

At the signing of the Edict of Milan, Rome was in a civil war, IIRC. So neither Theodosius or Constantine can be considered "Emperors" at the time.

Theodosius certainly can't; largely because he wouldn't be born until more than 30 years after the Edict of Milan.

Constantine, however, was certainly a Roman Emperor at the time of the Edict of Milan, and had been for some seven years. Just because the situation in the wake of Diocletian's abdication was confused doesn't mean that there weren't legitimately recognised emperors; his accession in 306, while irregular, was fully (albeit reluctantly) recognised by the senior Augustus Galerius, who personally sent Constantine the purple robes marking Imperial status.

[Constantinopolis]

Theodosius the Great made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Under the Edict of Milan, which was co-authored by Constantine the Great, the Roman Empire became secular in government, Christian persecution ended, and freedom of religion was to be administered across the Empire. I think it was too ahead of it's time.

At the signing of the Edict of Milan, Rome was in a civil war, IIRC. So neither Theodosius or Constantine can be considered "Emperors" at the time.

Theodosius the Great wasn't even born when the Edict of Milan was signed.

Constantine was born in 272 AD, was proclaimed Emperor at Eboracum (as mentioned above) in 306 AD, co-signed the Edict of Milan in 313, achieved full control over the Empire in 324, and died in 337.

Theodosius was born in 347 AD, became Emperor in 379, made Christianity the state religion gradually, through a series of edicts, over the course of his rule, and died in 395.

[The Wolven League]

At the signing of the Edict of Milan, Rome was in a civil war, IIRC. So neither Theodosius or Constantine can be considered "Emperors" at the time.

Theodosius certainly can't; largely because he wouldn't be born until more than 30 years after the Edict of Milan.

Constantine, however, was certainly a Roman Emperor at the time of the Edict of Milan, and had been for some seven years. Just because the situation in the wake of Diocletian's abdication was confused doesn't mean that there weren't legitimately recognised emperors; his accession in 306, while irregular, was fully (albeit reluctantly) recognised by the senior Augustus Galerius, who personally sent Constantine the purple robes marking Imperial status.

Yeah, sorry, I thought he was trying to say that Theodosius was an Emperor at the time.

But the sole title of Emperor couldn't really be given to anyone, as there were several "Emperors".

[The Wolven League]

At the signing of the Edict of Milan, Rome was in a civil war, IIRC. So neither Theodosius or Constantine can be considered "Emperors" at the time.

Theodosius the Great wasn't even born when the Edict of Milan was signed.

Constantine was born in 272 AD, was proclaimed Emperor at Eboracum (as mentioned above) in 306 AD, co-signed the Edict of Milan in 313, achieved full control over the Empire in 324, and died in 337.

Theodosius was born in 347 AD, became Emperor in 379, made Christianity the state religion gradually, through a series of edicts, over the course of his rule, and died in 395.

I'm aware, I thought the Skrall guy was trying to say Theodosius was Emperor at the time.

[Schiltzberg]

Yes, I always have found the 4th century fascinating as well. Emperor Constantine goes from persecuting Christians to making Christianity the national religion, which is a pretty huge leap, all because of a vision that he saw in the sky of a cross, I believe, before a battle that his army was seemingly destined to lose. The thing that I always see kind of funny ironic about Constantine is that he refused to convert to Christianity until he was on his deathbed, because he didn't want to follow Christianity's rules. XD He is still an enormously awesome character in the history of Christianity, though.

Constantine never persecuted Christians in his capacity as Emperor. However, it is true that he was an officer under Diocletian before becoming Emperor, and Diocletian did persecute Christians (quite intensely and savagely, too), so it is possible that Constantine may have received orders to participate in these persecutions at some point.

Also, Constantine never made Christianity the national religion, either. He gave Christians freedom to worship, and sponsored the building of churches with imperial funds, but that was all. The Emperor who made Christianity the state religion was Theodosius I, in the 380s, some 50 years after Constantine died. Theodosius wasn't even born when Constantine ruled.

And I wasn't talking just about the Roman Empire in the post you quoted. In the early 4th century, before achieving recognition in the Roman Empire, Christianity had already become the state religion of Armenia, Axum (= Ethiopia), and the Kingdom of Edessa. Clearly, Christianity was on the rise in general. It wasn't just about the Roman world or the actions of this or that Roman Emperor.

Dang man, you are against me in everything, aren't you? I thought that I was agreeing with you on this one, but okay. I want to clarify that when I said that Constantine persecuted Christians, it was a mistake, and what I meant was that the Romans persecuted them up until that point, and, like you say, he may have been a part of that too, I don't know. He was definitely not Nero.

I have heard that the Book of Revelation is supposed to be about the Christian persecutions under Emperor Nero, and that Nero is 666. That is an interesting way to interpret the book, but I am not fully convinced. Any thoughts on this?

[Luminesa]

EVERYONE WRITES REALLY LONG POSTS WITH LOTS AND LOTS OF DETAILS!!!! AAAAAAAAAARGH!!!

*Head kersplodes.*

[Herskerstad]

While true, there was an overall plan. Rebuff Islamic advancement. Then later this became centerslizsx around the Levant.

The Byzantines ask for some help in Anatolia.

Pope calls for a massive military expedition in the Levant, calls them Crusades, sparks two centuries of pointless fighting to found fragile feudal states in the Levant that had zero chance of survival.

Crusaders were mostly selfish and in it for the money, frequently sacking cities regardless of their religion and engaging in brutal oppression of non-Christians, which was likely caused by a good deal of them being ex-criminals looking to redeem themselves. The Crusaders constantly fought amongst themselves over land and loot.

"Overall plan"? Perhaps. "Overall plan that was actually enforced after it started"? Hell no.

The general call is a bit hard to estimate. While the well known sermon of Clermont did have certainly an appeal which extended beyond a pragmatic summons of well trained noble knights, given the absolute mess which was the Children's crusade it is unlikely that what he had in mind was the near migration it turned into. There are a few clues to look into for cause and effect, indulgences were becoming increasingly in demand so to speak, and the plenary indulgence offered up for anyone who'd undertake a faithful expedition was, quite frankly, a very desired item for the rather violent class of knights and lesser nobles who were not beyond living rather libertine lifestyles. Given that and certain monks who propagated this exceptionally well ensured more or less an early display of mass media, but we can also say this was not discouraged despite the snowball reaching unheard of proportions and there were nowhere near the military traditions for even the experienced expedition leaders to handle, and given their decentralized structure you often see some rather disorganized practices by various of the leaders to what was ultimately quite an astonishing campaign for a military standpoint.

Regardless, while it is clear that the motives of the high ranking princes in negating on their promises to the Byzantine Empire were that of at least some temporal gains, and that some of the more considerable figures hoped to gain land and wealth, it really is not a situation that you can paint with a brush of opportunism alone. It existed sure, but it would be one of a number of factors of motivation. The Franks and the Greeks had always had a somewhat broken relationship even before Charlemagne's claims and so minor negations of support was seen by the Franks as the Greeks turning their backs on them, and the Greeks general distrust and court intrigue was always a beast that consumed itself.

At either rate, it was a mess that somehow succeeded at least in the first run, but with two major dynasties going against them, no support of the Byzantine states, and the fact that one of the least tactful events in military history, being in the second crusade's rather bizarre siege of Damascus more or less killed any kind of regional support which they had depended on in the first. Third being an ultimately losing stalemate, and the fourth . . .well, I'd let Arch handle that one if for nothing other than the fireworks.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

EVERYONE WRITES REALLY LONG POSTS WITH LOTS AND LOTS OF DETAILS!!!! AAAAAAAAAARGH!!!

*Head kersplodes.*

What's worse is they assume because don't that it's because you don't know enough to.

[The Wolven League]

The Byzantines ask for some help in Anatolia.

Pope calls for a massive military expedition in the Levant, calls them Crusades, sparks two centuries of pointless fighting to found fragile feudal states in the Levant that had zero chance of survival.

Crusaders were mostly selfish and in it for the money, frequently sacking cities regardless of their religion and engaging in brutal oppression of non-Christians, which was likely caused by a good deal of them being ex-criminals looking to redeem themselves. The Crusaders constantly fought amongst themselves over land and loot.

"Overall plan"? Perhaps. "Overall plan that was actually enforced after it started"? Hell no.

The general call is a bit hard to estimate. While the well known sermon of Clermont did have certainly an appeal which extended beyond a pragmatic summons of well trained noble knights, given the absolute mess which was the Children's crusade it is unlikely that what he had in mind was the near migration it turned into. There are a few clues to look into for cause and effect, indulgences were becoming increasingly in demand so to speak, and the plenary indulgence offered up for anyone who'd undertake a faithful expedition was, quite frankly, a very desired item for the rather violent class of knights and lesser nobles who were not beyond living rather libertine lifestyles. Given that and certain monks who propagated this exceptionally well ensured more or less an early display of mass media, but we can also say this was not discouraged despite the snowball reaching unheard of proportions and there were nowhere near the military traditions for even the experienced expedition leaders to handle, and given their decentralized structure you often see some rather disorganized practices by various of the leaders to what was ultimately quite an astonishing campaign for a military standpoint.

Regardless, while it is clear that the motives of the high ranking princes in negating on their promises to the Byzantine Empire were that of at least some temporal gains, and that some of the more considerable figures hoped to gain land and wealth, it really is not a situation that you can paint with a brush of opportunism alone. It existed sure, but it would be one of a number of factors of motivation. The Franks and the Greeks had always had a somewhat broken relationship even before Charlemagne's claims and so minor negations of support was seen by the Franks as the Greeks turning their backs on them, and the Greeks general distrust and court intrigue was always a beast that consumed itself.

At either rate, it was a mess that somehow succeeded at least in the first run, but with two major dynasties going against them, no support of the Byzantine states, and the fact that one of the least tactful events in military history, being in the second crusade's rather bizarre siege of Damascus more or less killed any kind of regional support which they had depended on in the first. Third being an ultimately losing stalemate, and the fourth . . .well, I'd let Arch handle that one if for nothing other than the fireworks.

Gotta love some Latin Empire.

[Luminesa]

EVERYONE WRITES REALLY LONG POSTS WITH LOTS AND LOTS OF DETAILS!!!! AAAAAAAAAARGH!!!

*Head kersplodes.*

What's worse is they assume because don't that it's because you don't know enough to.

I don't mind it, it's just...a lot to absorb. Lol.

[Schiltzberg]

Hey, want to hear a joke? There are some languages that do not have an equivalent for the word "fellowship," and it is impossible for Protestantism to exist in places where those languages are spoken. XD

[Galloism]

That's a really easy question for Witnesses to answer, and one that gets asked a lot.

I mean, I could come up with a harder question if I had a mixture of speed, ecstasy, alcohol, and benzodiazepine in my system.

Sorry, you're number 144,001. You did not make the cut.

Says another person who has no idea what he's talking about.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Sorry, you're number 144,001. You did not make the cut.

Says another person who has no idea what he's talking about.

Well no, it's true that witnesses say 144000 people will be chosen. Though that doesn't relegate the rest to perdition.