Constantine believed that Octavian was the father of Jesus. That's why the early church mosaics in Anatolia show Jesus with red hair. That's right, Jesus was ginger!
False Doctrine Haile Selassie. Ist was and is the prophetic 1 H.I.MConquering Lion Tribe of ✡ Judah through Christ and where the first church Exsistance 🇪🇹
@@abaddon2148 nope. Akhenaten…while monotheist believed in a composite god whereas Constantine whom was under the teaching of Eusebius believed in a non-composite god as decided upon in Nicea.
@@claudius_drusus_ You can't compare the two: Akhenaten was a Bronze Age ruler at a time when there was no monotheistic religion codified into one source (the Hebrews hadn't even done it at Akhenaten's Time; they still almost certainly believed other Gods existed in their Pantheon.). Constantine was a late Antiquity ruler at a time when religions had become far more organized and were all moving to the general direction of being codified into a more monotheistic model.
Anecdote about sun monotheism and Christianity: when I was in Oaxaca, Mexico with Mazatec indigenous people, I learned their language. If you asked them, they would say very strongly that they were catholics, but they were nonetheless syncretic. I noticed they had a lot of pictures of saints, but none of Jesus. When I asked them why, they laughed at me, and one of them said "because he's already here" and pointed to the sun.
I love this channels community. Christians, Atheists, and followers of all other faiths and world views in genuine search of historical truth. It's such a breath of fresh air from the fanatical, agenda driven conspiracy theorists you see scattered throughout religion based channels. I can actually go into the comments and find interesting and productive discussions.
That's the reason I subscribe, I avoid those channels which insist that their narrow interpretation of a faith is the only correct one and any slight digression from their dogma is heresy and should be vilified.
The idea that Constantine syncretized Sol Invictus and the Christian God shouldn't be that much of a stretch. I mean, Romans did that stuff all the time. Heck, it wouldn't even the first recorded time Constantine did religious stuff consistent with syncretizing Sol Invictus.
@@cpn6464 alcohol doesn't give you visions 12 hours later. And if he was so intoxicated that it did, there was no way he was in fighting condition. This is probably sarcasm but oh well
Really good point! Dreams/visions and their interpretations are heavily influenced by personal experiences and cultural context, both of which change over time.
@@collinkirkbright7715 see funnily enough I've had different experiences as a religious person. I am asking why something terrible or strange happens in my life. It might be weeks or months later where things come full circle to a real conclusion and lasting life lesson. Then I'll be like, "Ooooooh, I see what you did there. That was absolutely brilliant! Man you're good at this!" lol yes I will pray but I will also talk to God as a family member and as I would my biological father. It's a great feeling. Even *if* He wasn't real (and I truly believe He is) His teachings and the religion that came from His teachings give me true peace. I am a happier person, I have structure and discipline in my life, and a sense of direction. I feel more fulfilled personally.
I rarely comment on videos, but just wanted to tell you that you inspired me to go back to college for a Religious Studies program. I graduated from college in 2016 and thought I'd never, ever go back, but you changed my mind. Thank you so much for your educational videos.
Keep in mind you don’t have to go to college to learn more. I read avidly to get my education. Getting a degree, paying thousands, only makes sense if it leads to a career that pays it back and then some. Otherwise let’s all keep learning, earning, and staying out of debt.
It always baffles Europeans when they hear Iran means "Land of Aryans" and Arya is a common name/surname for Iranians. And yes, it has nothing to do with blue eyes and blond hair.
I don't know about villan name, but it is a badass name. I'm Iranian Indian and that name sounds very kickass to me. Darius- as in Daryush, the Persian Emperor, and Arya, the race or 'learned person' in Sanskrit, depending on whom you ask. Kickass name
@@soroushal1921 it has something to do though...the Indo-European male horde did create the foundation of Iran. Replacing the previous god's and languages. Farsi being related to the Steppe warriors who when settled Europe. I don't know why you mentioned blue eyes but I would argue a good percentage of Iran and Pakistan and India did have White male ancestry. Specifically R1B haplotype
I would imagine that Constantine's conversion was pretty similar to the later conversions of the Norman Vikings to christianity during the medieval era; you're a Christian now, but that doesnt mean you necessarily have to stop worshipping Odin and Thor.
That's called syncretism and I also believe it was more common than is documented. Rædwald of East Anglia, the Brytenwalda, was the first Christian Angle king in Britain, and still kept faith with the Old Gods. Syncretism goes against Christianity but it's really hard to just get someone to stop believing in something they have believed in their whole life. I also think mock conversion was more common too, as in became "Christian" due to political concerns. Mock conversion might even be what Constantinus did, but I tend to believe he truly became Christian.
@@willchristie2650 in most Germanic cultures the king was responsible for all of their society's foreign relationships, and that included their civilization's relationship with the gods.
...and it didn't much change their behavior, did it? Conversion and monarchy mixed with Christianity pretty much just provided a unity and gave divine right to continuing brutality.
I always think it's strange when people set up this dichotomy where Constantine's conversion was either instant, or fake. That's rarely how these things work. Genuine conversions can take years, talks with multiple guiding figures, reading important texts, ect. Quite frankly, it's very likely that Constantine saw (or thought he saw) a vision of the Chi-Rho prior to the Milvian, but, having only a limited understanding of Christianity, did not fully understand what that meant for his continued association with Sol Invictus. In fact, while harmony was certainly an issue, it is very likely that a big part of the reason why the Council of Nicaea was called was to give Constantine himself definitive answers to his own questions about Christianity, since up until that point there were numerous conflicting sources and no certain way of determining the correct one. He may well have gone into the council hoping that the bishops would declare Sol Invictus to be a part of the trinity somehow, though if he did, he clearly wasn't willing to force the issue. We have a modern tendency of seeing Constantine as a sociopathic consummate politician, and he was certainly skilled in politics and battle, but he almost certainly would not have inspired the loyalty that he did if he didn't have any strong convictions or loyalties of his own. Frankly, he seems to have been a deeply religious man who was nevertheless unsure of what religion was correct, and who only settled the question gradually and relatively late in life. As for his allowing pagan temples to be built in his honor, that's not an endorsement. He was a civic figure too, and much like modern politicians do not turn away endorsements from religions they don't belong to, Constantine was likely simply maintaining the peace and being polite. His turn towards Christianity was unmistakable though, and prevailing political precedent of the time held Christians to be a liability, not worth pursuing for support, so Constantine choosing them cannot be explained by politics as usual. If it was not due to a genuine experience on his part, then it was at least a novel strategy that he pursued well in excess of what was necessary to get the Christians on side.
I think that's about right. I might add that Constantine was quite impressionable on religious matters and inclined to fall under the religious influence of forceful personalities such as Athanasius and Eusebius of Nicomedia. (Or even the Novatian bishop Acesius). After all these were the religious experts while military matters were his own domain of expertise.
Oh man, alternate history where the early church moved in the direction of syncreticism with previous greco-roman belief for the sake of stability and Sol Invictus is equated with the "Father", with the holy spirit being personified in "Sophia" and...wait, goddamit, I've just ran into gnosticism again!
History Channel video explained Constantine as a Homosexual and the bottom Man feminist frustrating many of his followers as he probably lived in Pegan for rest f his life.
@knightoffailure1869 I think that people approach this discussion with unspoken and differing ideas about what it means to be a sincere convert to Christianity. A secular/irreligious observer like myself might simply ask whether Constantine thought of himself as a sincere Christian. Modern Christians instead would probably measure Constantine's actions and stated beliefs with a theological yardstick to see whether they align with (their interpretation of) the Bible. If the people involved in the discussion cannot agree on what it means to be a true convert, then it's hard to have a productive conversation. I share your skepticism when it comes to the political motivations of his conversion. Perhaps it was a visionary long play to secure Christian support in the east, where they were more numerous, but as you mentioned, he did *far* more than needed to win that support.
I think for many people,religious conversion isn’t always the “aha” moment when you change your mind; it’s a steady road of thought over an extended period of time Also still petitioning you to do a video on Margaret Barker’s first temple theory of Christianity... : D
I concur. It is a transition of accepting what you truly believe. For me at least, I had thoughts for months and then came to a point where I knew I had to just accept my beliefs were not in line with the religion I was tied to.
I agree on the "aha" moment. Was baptized Catholic two years ago and throughout going through Catechism it was a growth process. I'm still learning more and more of my faith as time goes on.
@@thewamp9306 I here ya - I personally think Catholicism has a ton of depth to it; I’ve gone from a Lutheran to a “high church” Episcopalian with a latitudinarian tilt to Eastern Orthodox theology (so almost Catholic myself) - I’m mainly Episcopalian because of their female leadership and pro-LGBT stance as a community though restricting Priestly recruits to unmarried men and discouraging homosexuality doesn’t really seem to be what defines the Catholic Church at its soulful core essence
I am myself a professor of Ancient History, and Peter Weiss was one of the supervisors of my PhD thesis. I'll make sure he sees this. - Congratulations on your channel, by the way. Excellent work. - P.S.: For those who want to learn more about this, cf. Peter Weiss, "The Vision of Constantine", in: The Journal of Roman Archaeology 16, 2003, pp. 237-259.
On the subject of Constantine's mother and sister, I'd actually really like to see a video about the role and influence of women in the early Christian church. I've heard that the early church seemed extremely popular with women converts, and that there at least some women leaders that contributed to its spread. I'd love to see more detail expanding on this as to why, or how true it is.
A number of women served as leaders of the house churches that sprang up in the cities of the Roman Empire-the list includes Priscilla, Chloe, Lydia, Apphia, Nympha, the mother of John Mark, and possibly the “elect lady” of John’s second epistle. In the 2nd century, Clement of Alexandria wrote that the apostles were accompanied on their missionary journeys by women who were not marriage partners, but colleagues, “that they might be their fellowministers in dealing with housewives. It was through them that the Lord’s teaching penetrated also the women’s quarters without any scandal being aroused.
Hopefully this vid on Constantine is a sign of future vids on Constaninople, Byzantium, the Schism, the orthodix churches; Russian, Greek, Armenian but hopefully most of all, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Fingers crossed.
This made me think of C.S. Lewis and his conversion. He said that first he had to become a pagan, then a monotheist, then a Christian. Once you accept the possibility of a god, you have to go further and find the answers to additional questions: who is this god? Are they a person, Do they reason? Do they feel? what do they want from me? How do I know them? etc. Constantine identifying with Sol Invictus and then attributing it to the Christian God doesn't make him an embellisher. He was seeking the truth and that took time.
What makes you think the voyage of Lewis lead him TOWARDS truth? Not just towards a comfortable white lie, that was just more convenient for him to accept than the previously held not quite truth?
Vinny T Yes.. there are, but you likely wouldn't consider them credible, any more than the original eyewitness accounts. We are each Free to choose our beliefs.. or whether to believe in anything whatsoever.. So those who seek no evidence will most assuredly never find it.
I had the good fortune to meet Darius Arya back in 2014 during a study abroad program, and he showed us all kinds of amazing sites. Glad to see he's still doing great work in Rome.
The real evidence is that Constantine's "foundation" was not based on the true principles of the Hebrew Bible. The important question people should ask about Constantine and his entire entourage is the following: Is anywhere in the Bible as a prophecy predicting that a " Roman Emperor" as a heathen nation ..will be the one replace the children Of Israel to start a new institutional Roman church ruled by an Emperor? NOPE. where is that in the New Testament?? The Bible predicted that the God of Abraham will gather his exiles ( physical descendants of Jacob) from the four corners of the earth as a nation not as a church founded by heathen pagans. Ezekiel 37:21,22 . God predicted a Hebrew Messiah to gather his people ( lost sheep of the house of Israel and Judah) not a Roman Emperor usurping the position of a Messiah for the entire world. I think the problem is that most people don't understand the Bible prophecies to identify between truth and deception. Matthew 10:5,6 and Matthew 15:24 In Summary: There are so much historical evidence in christian churches having icon images of sol Invictus or Mithra all over the world after 325AD as part of their rituals like the Eucharist communion , Eastern Resurrection, the birth of Jesus Celebration in December 25th, the Immaculate Conception doctrine, the Last Supper not Passover, the sacrificial Lamb etc. That means, Christianity was a Dualist religion worshiping Satan and at the same time trying to pretend to worship the God of Abraham disguised in a Roman sun god to gain power and control of the crowds. The Vatican st Peter Basilica, underneath you can find a temple of MIthra, according to some academic sources, the Vatican cardinals and Pope were practicing rituals underground where the temple of Mithra is located built on top of the St Peter Basilica. How come the Vatican did not destroy that temple of MIthra and other similar temples around the world?? Christianity is a pagan religion based on the historical evidence.
Eusebius is notorious for creating narrations to support his views. He has been shown to create out of whole-cloth stories about the new testimate and about the writers of them.
The real evidence is that Constantine's "foundation" was not based on the true principles of the Hebrew Bible. The important question people should ask about Constantine and his entire entourage is the following: Is anywhere in the Bible as a prophecy predicting that a " Roman Emperor" as a heathen nation ..will be the one replace the children Of Israel to start a new institutional Roman church ruled by an Emperor? NOPE. where is that in the New Testament?? The Bible predicted that the God of Abraham will gather his exiles ( physical descendants of Jacob) from the four corners of the earth as a nation not as a church founded by heathen pagans. Ezekiel 37:21,22 . God predicted a Hebrew Messiah to gather his people ( lost sheep of the house of Israel and Judah) not a Roman Emperor usurping the position of a Messiah for the entire world. I think the problem is that most people don't understand the Bible prophecies to identify between truth and deception. Matthew 10:5,6 and Matthew 15:24 In Summary: There are so much historical evidence in christian churches having icon images of sol Invictus or Mithra all over the world after 325AD as part of their rituals like the Eucharist communion , Eastern Resurrection, the birth of Jesus Celebration in December 25th, the Immaculate Conception doctrine, the Last Supper not Passover, the sacrificial Lamb etc. That means, Christianity was a Dualist religion worshiping Satan and at the same time trying to pretend to worship the God of Abraham disguised in a Roman sun god to gain power and control of the crowds. The Vatican st Peter Basilica, underneath you can find a temple of MIthra, according to some academic sources, the Vatican cardinals and Pope were practicing rituals underground where the temple of Mithra is located built on top of the St Peter Basilica. How come the Vatican did not destroy that temple of MIthra and other similar temples around the world?? Christianity is a pagan religion based on the historical evidence.
@@TorahisLifeandLight What a load of nonsense. God told Abraham that he would be the father of many nations. The tribes of Israel eventually scattered into the rest of the Middle East and even Europe through mass migration and the Phoenician coastal empire. Those people intermingled with the locals, fulfilling God's prophecy that his seed would father many nations.
@@comicsans1689 Yes, the Jews mixed with the Phoenicians ( Canaanites) or later called Carthaginians, with the Arabs, Spanish, Greeks, Egyptians, Armenians, etc and the all the so called fertile crescent cultures, and including the Romans when the Romans invaded North Africa in the Punic Wars. However, a Jew is always Jew no matter if they live in any country or got mixed with the gentiles. (See Ezra 9:1-3 , 8, 12,14) ( See also Mamzers) Obadiah 1:20 In Palestine lives a genetic mixed people or Mongrels since ancient times or Ashdod. Read Zechariah 9::6 some of the people in Palestine are a remnant of the Philistines. That's what the Romans named Judea as Palestine after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. . Yes , Jews were mixed with those cultures , the ones i mentioned ...but other Jews who kept Torah did not mixed or rarely mixed at all because they will rather die keeping Torah than breaking Torah as many did . The prophecy got fulfilled for israel to be scattered in the four corners of the earth. Deutoronomy 4:27 ( Mongrels or crossbred race ) Another big reason, why the Jews kept Torah will not mix with other ethnic cultures is because Goyim /gentiles never kept Torah, feasts, customs or Hebrew traditions. For example: An Indian man will not marry other women from different cultures UNLESS the bride converts into Hinduism and embraces all the traditions and customs of the indian culture. So if the Jews (mongrels) who did not keep Torah with other ethnic cultures , they still carry the Jewish recessive gene between 10%- 20% depending how mixed they are. (Nehemiah 9;1-3, 24-26 )The Bible called this people Goyim or gentile Hebrews, specially if they never kept Torah. There are other population as well called of mixed people populations which are the are "Mamzers" from forbidden relationships. (Hosea 5:7) Adonai Elohim , G-d of Abraham kept a natural remnant of Israelites for himself for time indefinitely. ( Ezra 9: 8.15 ) The original israelites are not extinct in any way according to his divine purpose. We ( the Jews) became a remnant among the nations.
I love this channel, you talk about religion in such a non endoctrinating and skeptical way, it really feels like you are trying to inform rather than push an agenda
Experiments show that even those who truly try to stick with the original story (and I'm not saying Constantine did; I think it was a political move), end up elaborating. It's because our memory isn't perfect. We lose details over time, and our minds make up new details to compensate
I think this phenomenon is also a direct result of our own behavior. We usually try to recall our memories with a given purpose in mind. Even when it's just reminiscing for the sake of it, we still pick out whichever memories we do with some kind of intention. Thus, how we choose to characterize our memories at any given moment is inherently tied to why we're trying to recall them in the first place.
I thought the same. None of these are really Sol Invictus-y, they just seem like pretty commonplace Christian "In him was life; and the life was the light of men" type language.
The real evidence is that Constantine's "foundation" was not based on the true principles of the Hebrew Bible. The important question people should ask about Constantine and his entire entourage is the following: Is anywhere in the Bible as a prophecy predicting that a " Roman Emperor" as a heathen nation ..will be the one replace the children Of Israel to start a new institutional Roman church ruled by an Emperor? NOPE. where is that in the New Testament?? The Bible predicted that the God of Abraham will gather his exiles ( physical descendants of Jacob) from the four corners of the earth as a nation not as a church founded by heathen pagans. Ezekiel 37:21,22 . God predicted a Hebrew Messiah to gather his people ( lost sheep of the house of Israel and Judah) not a Roman Emperor usurping the position of a Messiah for the entire world. I think the problem is that most people don't understand the Bible prophecies to identify between truth and deception. Matthew 10:5,6 and Matthew 15:24 In Summary: There are so much historical evidence in christian churches having icon images of sol Invictus or Mithra all over the world after 325AD as part of their rituals like the Eucharist communion , Eastern Resurrection, the birth of Jesus Celebration in December 25th, the Immaculate Conception doctrine, the Last Supper not Passover, the sacrificial Lamb etc. That means, Christianity was a Dualist religion worshiping Satan and at the same time trying to pretend to worship the God of Abraham disguised in a Roman sun god to gain power and control of the crowds. The Vatican st Peter Basilica, underneath you can find a temple of MIthra, according to some academic sources, the Vatican cardinals and Pope were practicing rituals underground where the temple of Mithra is located built on top of the St Peter Basilica. How come the Vatican did not destroy that temple of MIthra and other similar temples around the world?? Christianity is a pagan religion based on the historical evidence.
@Asher Salvatore!!! I am not. I am being lied or manipulated. LOL Christianity. They are being toyed around. The clowns are the clergy putting a show for the ignorant. LOL LOL LOL LOL
@@TorahisLifeandLight St Peters basilica is built on top of the Circus Neronis and a cemetery in which Saint Peter was buried. No temple of Mithras there. Just this easily obtainable information puts your whole argument in check.
I've always thought a reasonable portion of Constantine's "Sol Invictus" worship was plausible deniability for his actual Christianity. The more secure in his power he became, the more he advanced Christianity. It's not like that was the obvious Machiavellian move, either. Most of the people and even more of the powerful people were pagan.
I think, having read a lot of analysis of Constantine's conversion, that the story of the sign in the sky before the Battle of Milvian Bridge evolved over time during Constantine's life, and that explains the contradictory stories we receive from that time. Emperors were extremely mindful of the legacy they would leave, and understood that the narrative they left would contribute heavily to that legacy. So it started as a sign in the sky, followed by a dream. Originally only Constantine saw it. Later renditions claimed the entire army saw it, something the earlier versions don't mention. The order to the army to paint the sign on their equipment before Milvian Bridge is questionable, but there is no doubt that the Labarum, with the Chi Rho, was definitely used by Constantine in later battles, particularly against Licinius, who was, apparently, terrified of it ordering his men to not even look at it. The conversion was certainly not a marked "wow" moment in time, but a long process, tied to the acceptance of monotheism, first through Sol Invictus, which had been a trend since Emperor Aurelius, leading to the Christian Christ through the influence of the growing religion in the empire.
I don't see why the sunhalo/sundog before the battle of Milvian Bridge is out of the question. It certainly can look like a Chi Rho. Perhaps it is only he who saw any words over it and attributed it to supernatural guidance.
I'd like to see that video! I do, however, have a few serious things to say about going to grad school for Religious Studies. These things probably apply to grad school for all subjects but my area, and therefore experience, is Early Christianity. I went to college as a married, middled aged, white dude from the trailer park. My undergrad was Indiana University of Pennsylvania and I got my MTS at HDS. Grad school was a pipe dream but getting accepted at Harvard was way outside the orbit of anything I ever hoped for. I do wish I'd thought about it a little harder, though! I was married when I moved to Cambridge and divorced when I graduated. Grad school is all consuming. Romantic relationships, no matter how serious or important, are put under an incredible amount of stress and fall apart at a shockingly high rate. I'm not saying don't go to grad school! In the long run, 6 years later, I'm glad that I did! I can read 3 ancient languages and know far too much about early Christian "heresies", which is pretty cool for a nerd in a modern Gnostic church. I'm even writing a book about the Gospel of Mary. But be prepared to give your life to your studies. Fortify your close relationships so they can survive less attention from you than they're used to. I apologise if this is discouraging! People should go to grad school anyways. Just be prepared for the stressors it brings.
Yes, don't. Unless you marry someone with money or plan to write non-secular fluff for religious patrons on the side. Not saying religious studies is bad, only that the prospects are grim for anyone looking to do honest secular work in the field. At the end of the day we all have to eat. I was interested in this field over a decade ago but ended up doing history and taking a hard turn into cloud engineering. I spend my day job doing remote SRE work and teach courses on the weekends.
SOOOO ridiculously fascinating......can't get enough....THANK YOU!!!!! for actually creating a channel looking into all aspects of religious history free of all the culty drama that goes along with it, it's exactly what I was looking for, an honest, unbiased historical approach to religion and the bible, I genuinely want to learn about this stuff to make an informed decision on what it's all about, without mindless drones throwing bible quotes at me left and right. This is it! so refreshing!
Thank you for explaining the process by which Constantine might have slowly been converted over time. This has long been my own contention: becoming a Christian is not now, nor was it then a binary thing. When a person converts from one religion to another, it is not a sudden shift from one set of beliefs to a new set. It is a gradual process. It is good to hear you put to bed the widely held doubt that Constantine was ever a Christian.
*Historians:* "Constantine was the first Christian Roman Emperor." *Constantine:* "The sun is a wondrous body. Like a magnificent father! If only I could be so grossly incandescent!"
@@Georgios1821 To be fair, that's the point. He's saying that all we can do for now is speculate based on science and historical accounts, and maybe fill the gaps with philosophical logic. There might eventually be a way to find out for sure, but right now, all we can do is hypothesize.
It also can be argued there is no "true christisn" and it all so grossly simplified. And technically since there is no "true cult follower" or biggest fan. Then, is there a point in competitive piousness? (Warring religions all worshipping the same God but claiming that their's is the right one) If God is the right God and the only God? Then, why doesn't he come out of hiding and proclaim it to stop his zealot followers from murdering one another? Over him? Well... If he can't maybe God doesn't exist I guess 🤷
@@GbV0 I'm no expert but I believes it ties into the belief that the Council determined the canonical books of the Bible and therefor left out some stuff, which depending on the person may include the "Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a kid" thing.
3:23 Sol Invictus 4:58 Henotheist 5:53 Constantius 5:33 Helena 7:32 Labarum (Eusebius’s version) 8:01 Accounts dates 10:16 two vision theory 13:33 Pagan statue Ancient Hippodrome
My favorite account of the conversion is from Zosimus. From his account, which has a clear bias against Constantine, after Constantine killed his son and wife he converts from guilt and the Roman priests not absolving him.
I love your perspective on this. And how you never choose the vision that fights for a bias of belief you have, but the one that seems the most likely. It really helps to calm down the toxic conversations where people pick whatever hates Christians the most, or whatever makes Christians look the best. Very refreshing.
It's curious how the story of the cross appearing in the sky right before (or during) an important battle, and suddenly converting everyone, seems to repeat in the history of Christianity. It happens with the Spanish in their battles against the Moors, with Saint Santiago de Compostela appearing to grant them victory, and then again it happens in Mexico during the Battle of Sangremal Hill against the Chichimeca Indigenous Peoples (hence Santiago de Querétaro City), and even in South America (hence Santiago de Chile).
One of the best books I have ever read is _Constantine and the Conversion of Europe_ by A. Jones. A fantastically written book and very informative too.
You made a great point about Constantine's conversion being more of a steady process over time than a sudden moment of epiphany. We often tend to oversimplify such shifts, condensing complex experiences and influences into more dramatical "eurika" moments. Such revelatory instances seldom happen in real life and they are almost never as streamlined and smooth as we often make them out to be. The "a-ha" moment prompted by a miraculous sign in the sky certainly makes for more dramatic storytelling, but it is almost certainly a matter of poetic licence.
More than that, Constantine is described as being a visionary, he seems to have been on a journey. But his acceptance of Christianity and generosity thereto, his efforts to move early Church leaders to establish canonical doctrine, and the rapid explosion of Christianity during his reign DESPITE whatever pagan support he may have continued to offer, ALL point to a rather dramatic event. The sky-vision story is not challenged, just debated - "How many visions did he have? When?" His personal conversion is not recounted as "smooth", iirc, and his life as understood both before and after the bridge victory bear that out, but that does not mean that he did not consider himself as trying to be 'Christian' after the event, just that it was a work in progress. He wasn't a Christian Theologian, he was a general/politician who'd apparently been having visions and suddenly became emperor of a vast territory and also the largest supporter of Christianity ever after repeated periods of widespread persecution. Remember, Christianity wasn't even LEGAL until 313, and that thanks to him. He didn't officially convert (via baptism) until he lay on is death bed. From the information we have, Constantine seems to have been a man stumbling his way toward Christianity who experienced a dramatic event that cemented his allegiance firmly in that camp to which he tried to adhere thereafter until his death.
I'm currently reading "The Living Wood" by Louis De Wohl. It's a novel about St Helen, the mother of Constantine. But it includes this episode about the vision of the cross. Anyway, Thomas F Madden makes a very good argument about Constantine's genuine conversion to Christianity after a real perceived vision. You can look up his "Modern Scholar" lecture series. One thing not mentioned in this video is that Constantine postponed baptism until the end of his life, knowing that his role as Emperor would necessitate a life of sin.
Great video. I love to see someone who acknowledges just how much theology can vary among individuals, as it does among groups. Personal experience does so much to shape people's concept of divine entities and forces, and Constantine's ideas about the Christian god in relation to the Roman pantheon are such a good way of showing that. We all live and think within our own means, and conceive of the world in terms we ourselves are deeply familiar with.
The real evidence is that Constantine's "foundation" was not based on the true principles of the Hebrew Bible. The important question people should ask about Constantine and his entire entourage is the following: Is anywhere in the Bible as a prophecy predicting that a " Roman Emperor" as a heathen nation ..will be the one replace the children Of Israel to start a new institutional Roman church ruled by an Emperor? NOPE. where is that in the New Testament?? The Bible predicted that the God of Abraham will gather his exiles ( physical descendants of Jacob) from the four corners of the earth as a nation not as a church founded by heathen pagans. Ezekiel 37:21,22 . God predicted a Hebrew Messiah to gather his people ( lost sheep of the house of Israel and Judah) not a Roman Emperor usurping the position of a Messiah for the entire world. I think the problem is that most people don't understand the Bible prophecies to identify between truth and deception. Matthew 10:5,6 and Matthew 15:24 In Summary: There are so much historical evidence in christian churches having icon images of sol Invictus or Mithra all over the world after 325AD as part of their rituals like the Eucharist communion , Eastern Resurrection, the birth of Jesus Celebration in December 25th, the Immaculate Conception doctrine, the Last Supper not Passover, the sacrificial Lamb etc. That means, Christianity was a Dualist religion worshiping Satan and at the same time trying to pretend to worship the God of Abraham disguised in a Roman sun god to gain power and control of the crowds. The Vatican st Peter Basilica, underneath you can find a temple of MIthra, according to some academic sources, the Vatican cardinals and Pope were practicing rituals underground where the temple of Mithra is located built on top of the St Peter Basilica. How come the Vatican did not destroy that temple of MIthra and other similar temples around the world?? Christianity is a pagan religion based on the historical evidence.
The real evidence is that Constantine's "foundation" was not based on the true principles of the Hebrew Bible. The important question people should ask about Constantine and his entire entourage is the following: Is anywhere in the Bible as a prophecy predicting that a " Roman Emperor" as a heathen nation ..will be the one replace the children Of Israel to start a new institutional Roman church ruled by an Emperor? NOPE. where is that in the New Testament?? The Bible predicted that the God of Abraham will gather his exiles ( physical descendants of Jacob) from the four corners of the earth as a nation not as a church founded by heathen pagans. Ezekiel 37:21,22 . God predicted a Hebrew Messiah to gather his people ( lost sheep of the house of Israel and Judah) not a Roman Emperor usurping the position of a Messiah for the entire world. I think the problem is that most people don't understand the Bible prophecies to identify between truth and deception. Matthew 10:5,6 and Matthew 15:24 In Summary: There are so much historical evidence in christian churches having icon images of sol Invictus or Mithra all over the world after 325AD as part of their rituals like the Eucharist communion , Eastern Resurrection, the birth of Jesus Celebration in December 25th, the Immaculate Conception doctrine, the Last Supper not Passover, the sacrificial Lamb etc. That means, Christianity was a Dualist religion worshiping Satan and at the same time trying to pretend to worship the God of Abraham disguised in a Roman sun god to gain power and control of the crowds. The Vatican st Peter Basilica, underneath you can find a temple of MIthra, according to some academic sources, the Vatican cardinals and Pope were practicing rituals underground where the temple of Mithra is located built on top of the St Peter Basilica. How come the Vatican did not destroy that temple of MIthra and other similar temples around the world?? Christianity is a pagan religion based on the historical evidence.
having been raised Greek Orthodox, this story about Constantine's vision and victory is the one that I was taught growing up. It always struck me as maaad sus. Very interesting to learn about the (secular) historical accounts of these holy figures.
This is brilliant. Reminds me of reading about a possible solar calendar in use by the kingdom of Israel (after the alleged split between Judah and Israel), makes me think of the Moses-Atenism connection, makes me think of the solar imagery of the Ain Soph Aur in Kabbalah. Very stimulating content.
The real evidence is that Constantine's "foundation" was not based on the true principles of the Hebrew Bible. The important question people should ask about Constantine and his entire entourage is the following: Is anywhere in the Bible as a prophecy predicting that a " Roman Emperor" as a heathen nation ..will be the one replace the children Of Israel to start a new institutional Roman church ruled by an Emperor? NOPE. where is that in the New Testament?? The Bible predicted that the God of Abraham will gather his exiles ( physical descendants of Jacob) from the four corners of the earth as a nation not as a church founded by heathen pagans. Ezekiel 37:21,22 . God predicted a Hebrew Messiah to gather his people ( lost sheep of the house of Israel and Judah) not a Roman Emperor usurping the position of a Messiah for the entire world. I think the problem is that most people don't understand the Bible prophecies to identify between truth and deception. Matthew 10:5,6 and Matthew 15:24 In Summary: There are so much historical evidence in christian churches having icon images of sol Invictus or Mithra all over the world after 325AD as part of their rituals like the Eucharist communion , Eastern Resurrection, the birth of Jesus Celebration in December 25th, the Immaculate Conception doctrine, the Last Supper not Passover, the sacrificial Lamb etc. That means, Christianity was a Dualist religion worshiping Satan and at the same time trying to pretend to worship the God of Abraham disguised in a Roman sun god to gain power and control of the crowds. The Vatican st Peter Basilica, underneath you can find a temple of MIthra, according to some academic sources, the Vatican cardinals and Pope were practicing rituals underground where the temple of Mithra is located built on top of the St Peter Basilica. How come the Vatican did not destroy that temple of MIthra and other similar temples around the world?? Christianity is a pagan religion based on the historical evidence.
An excellent video as always! I love how well researched and nuanced your content is, your explanations are clear and engaging for me (a non-expert) to follow and learn from, and the length/scope of the videos is not intimidating! I really appreciate your work, thank you!
It seems like your video is attributing the “solar” comparisons of Christ as some sort of unique Roman-syncretic anomaly. This is clearly untrue since they are in the Bible itself. Jesus is described as the light of the world in John 1:9/3:19/8:12/9:5/12:46. Christ will “shine” on all men, in Eph 5:14. This is nothing new. The Aaronic blessing of Numbers 6 in the Old Testament beseeches God to “shine his face” upon the blessed. Psalm 84:11 “the Lord God is a sun and shield.” Habakkuk 3:4 “His radiance is like the sunlight.” It would have been better had you used actual biblical text, rather than support a crackpot theory with little evidence. Comparing the biblical God to the sun is hardly anything new.
@@mosesking2923 Yes, but these are letters from Constantine himself. Do you think he's quoting Scripture or is he drawing on decades of experience as a sun worshiper? Read in the context of Constantine's fealty to Sol Invictus, these letters read differently to me.
ReligionForBreakfast I think it’s very likely that he understood religious worship of the Christian God through his upbringing as a pagan/sun worshiper. It makes sense to worship based on your own experiences and understanding of divinity
@@ReligionForBreakfast but then again, the creation of Greek. And then Roman religion spawned from abrahamic faiths as the early people migrated from the middle east into Europe. The abrahamic Gods imigary and association with light, much like the link between zoroastrianism and the abrahamic God, likely inspired the sun gods of Greek and then Roman religions. Basicly just creating a circle. Where Sol was inspired by the abrahamic God, but beliefs evolved, then led back to its origin. It could be entirely possible it was always referring to the same entity the entire time. This is what likely ended up converting him as he began to learn and trace back the roots of the belief in Sol. As the. Bible says, he is called by many names.
Thank you for another outstanding video. I appreciate the evidence-based information and your sources at the bottom. They always start me down the wormhole of learning something new. Also thanks for the link to this other channel, I’ve got him on subscribe now.
@Sam Bacon You are not getting my point; in the context of the 4th century, heresies were treated like competition. Like people battling over a piece of land or something. You also pretty much just outlined a lot of the difference in their views that are polar opposites of each other.
D Arya's programmes here in Italy are the only watchable [ actually v good ] t v ...I was v surprised to suddenly see him in your video . kudos to both of you!
One correction, Constantine didn't build the Basilica of St. John Lateran. The building already existed when Constantine ascended the throne and it belonged to the patrician Lateranus family, he confiscated the building from them and converted it into a church. That's also why the building has the "Lateran" name attached to it.
The building itself didn't exist prior to Constantine's conquest. The property belonged to the Laterani at some point, and that's where the name comes from, and they had their palace there which probably became the bishop's palace in Constantine's reign. But the basilica is most probably built at the place of the barracks of the Imperial cavalry bodyguards (dissolved by Constantine), and was built by Constantine.
Emperor Nero was actually the one that confiscated the properties of the Lateranus family including the place where Lateran Basilica standing now. The Roman consul-designated Plautius Lateranus accused by Nero of conspiracy against him and confiscated and redistributed the properties of the Lateranus family. When Constantine married his second wife Fausta, sister of Maxentius, then the Lateran area fell into his hand. Only after that, the Lateran Basilica was then erected into the place.
In Plato's Republic they also describe a unique perfect god (in opposition to the current pantheon, at the time) as the sun (not Apollo, but the actual sun) after explaining the cave allegory*. Maybe that's where he got the idea of this particular syncretism? *(The point being that following one perfect god that is the source of all good is like following one's reason, since reason extends from goodness like the sun's rays fall on the man that is out of the cave)
Whoa there. Constantine was raised mostly by Helena, his Christian saint of a mother. Constantius may have been a pagan, but he didn't spend much time around Constantine as a boy, given how much he would have been away fighting wars. As for the persecutions, Constantius basically didn't implement them in any more than a very minimal way if at all in the part of the Roman Empire he governed.
Wait if in both accounts chi-rho was used as a sigil either on the shields or the staff/battle-standard wouldn’t both be for christ, how could it be related to sol invictus? or did I miss hear the two accounts.
Hi Andrew. I am impressed with your handling of this contentious topic, and I share in your conclusions about Constantine's gradual and syncretic conversion (The subject of my undergraduate thesis). Well done man!
How far south did that phenomenon occur in 312 AD? I just turned 60, and I live in the Southern U.S. Until the Monday after Easter 2014, I had never in my entire life seen a Halo around the Sun.. and since then, I see them all the time. Rome is 41° N latitude roughly. Central Florida is around 28° and I grew up in the 33° zone. The phenomenon is.. or was.. unheard of this far South until 7 years ago, and I'm sure there a numerous factors that contribute to it, but the confidence to assert definitely that this explains what Constantine saw is far from surety.
I agree with the politician theory in attempting to analyze Constantine’s religious leanings. He was a highly successful emperor and obviously a highly skilled politician.
Personally, I'm more for the two visions theory. Specifically, I think that he had a dream which he attributed to Sol Invictus. Then, later, he and his soldiers saw a Solar Halo. Him seeing the halo and winning was the final-ish straw for him converting to Christianity. He then attributed the earlier dream to Jesus. Basically, your theory except I believe he also saw a Solar Halo on their way to winning the war.
I have Constantine's problems with bright lights too. It's called astigmatism. If I don't wear corrective lenses, I will have visions of crosses around any bright light source. Unlike Constantine, I don't attach religious significance to it. Of course, my suggestion is a bit in jest, but wouldn't it be funny if the main reason Constantine was attracted to cross symbolism was because of a very common vision defect.
So basically, a veiled critique of Constantine's experience as being highly subjective using an even more subjective viewpoint. I also have astigmatism. Bright lights do not approximate to spiritual experiences for me. Shall I squeeze in some theory from that? Perhaps not.
Thank you so much. This is just what I was looking for. I was wondering why would Constantine be motivated to accept Christianity if not for having had a true revelation.
Christianity around this time was NOT a unified collection of thought. It makes perfect sense that there was at least one syncretic school that combined the basics of Christian thought -- a single god who sent a delegate to offer salvation -- with major streams of Roman philosophy and religious practice. It may very well be that Constantine was a Christian just like Arius and Valentinus were Christians, and a follower of a flavor that was not eventually harmonized with proto-orthodoxy.
One thing that's not referred to in the video, but I find interesting, is that the Edict of Milan is not actually an edict and was not actually signed in Milan. It's a bit of a misnomer.
It seems to have been basically an agreed formula between Constantine and Licinius and an affirmation of their alliance There was no need for a grant of toleration since this had been done by Galerius two years earlier. It expanded on Galerius by ordering restitution of property confiscated during the recent persecution.
The real evidence is that Constantine's "foundation" was not based on the true principles of the Hebrew Bible. The important question people should ask about Constantine and his entire entourage is the following: Is anywhere in the Bible as a prophecy predicting that a " Roman Emperor" as a heathen nation ..will be the one replace the children Of Israel to start a new institutional Roman church ruled by an Emperor? NOPE. where is that in the New Testament?? The Bible predicted that the God of Abraham will gather his exiles ( physical descendants of Jacob) from the four corners of the earth as a nation not as a church founded by heathen pagans. Ezekiel 37:21,22 . God predicted a Hebrew Messiah to gather his people ( lost sheep of the house of Israel and Judah) not a Roman Emperor usurping the position of a Messiah for the entire world. I think the problem is that most people don't understand the Bible prophecies to identify between truth and deception. Matthew 10:5,6 and Matthew 15:24 In Summary: There are so much historical evidence in christian churches having icon images of sol Invictus or Mithra all over the world after 325AD as part of their rituals like the Eucharist communion , Eastern Resurrection, the birth of Jesus Celebration in December 25th, the Immaculate Conception doctrine, the Last Supper not Passover, the sacrificial Lamb etc. That means, Christianity was a Dualist religion worshiping Satan and at the same time trying to pretend to worship the God of Abraham disguised in a Roman sun god to gain power and control of the crowds. The Vatican st Peter Basilica, underneath you can find a temple of MIthra, according to some academic sources, the Vatican cardinals and Pope were practicing rituals underground where the temple of Mithra is located built on top of the St Peter Basilica. How come the Vatican did not destroy that temple of MIthra and other similar temples around the world?? Christianity is a pagan religion based on the historical evidence.
How about the "no vision theory" which says that Constantine made up his visions to appear as though he had communications with gods, he also changed the story to fit changing circumstances. No visions, just thoughts about how he could inspire his troops and promote his image by claiming to have a vision or two, and it just got worse.
The real evidence is that Constantine's "foundation" was not based on the true principles of the Hebrew Bible. The important question people should ask about Constantine and his entire entourage is the following: Is anywhere in the Bible as a prophecy predicting that a " Roman Emperor" as a heathen nation ..will be the one replace the children Of Israel to start a new institutional Roman church ruled by an Emperor? NOPE. where is that in the New Testament?? The Bible predicted that the God of Abraham will gather his exiles ( physical descendants of Jacob) from the four corners of the earth as a nation not as a church founded by heathen pagans. Ezekiel 37:21,22 . God predicted a Hebrew Messiah to gather his people ( lost sheep of the house of Israel and Judah) not a Roman Emperor usurping the position of a Messiah for the entire world. I think the problem is that most people don't understand the Bible prophecies to identify between truth and deception. Matthew 10:5,6 and Matthew 15:24 In Summary: There are so much historical evidence in christian churches having icon images of sol Invictus or Mithra all over the world after 325AD as part of their rituals like the Eucharist communion , Eastern Resurrection, the birth of Jesus Celebration in December 25th, the Immaculate Conception doctrine, the Last Supper not Passover, the sacrificial Lamb etc. That means, Christianity was a Dualist religion worshiping Satan and at the same time trying to pretend to worship the God of Abraham disguised in a Roman sun god to gain power and control of the crowds. The Vatican st Peter Basilica, underneath you can find a temple of MIthra, according to some academic sources, the Vatican cardinals and Pope were practicing rituals underground where the temple of Mithra is located built on top of the St Peter Basilica. How come the Vatican did not destroy that temple of MIthra and other similar temples around the world?? Christianity is a pagan religion based on the historical evidence.
It was the religious side of Augustus' reconstruction of The Roman State. Augustus could not accept divine honours on his own behalf but he could accept then on behalf of his deceased patron.
As always good video RFB. I think however your summary of Weiss’s argument is somewhat inaccurate. Weiss distinguishes between Constantine’s vision and his later dream. His argument is that the vision described by the panegyric and Eusebius are the same, and that it was the later dream before the battle of the Milvian Bridge, described by Lactantius and Eusebius, which is what caused Constantine to re-interpret his earlier vision as a sign from the Christian God. Lactantius doesn’t actually directly describe any vision event, though it is possible he references it in the words of Constantine’s dream to commemorate the “celestial sign of Christ” on the shields of his soldiers. Weiss though does not argue Lactantius or Eusebius misdated the vision by 2 years. Some other points: *I believe the Arch of Constantine was more the work of the Roman Senate, though of course with the emperor’s approval *The statue in Constantinople atop the burnt column I think was actually of Constantine himself depicted like Sol, rather than a straightforward depiction of Sol directly.
Thanks Terry, I'll revisit Weiss' article to confirm this. I might have misrepresented how he interprets Lactantius. -Yes you're correct the arch is probably a work of the Roman Senate, but I suspect that inscription is relaying what Constantine told them. (some sort of divine intervention was involved) - I've read the statue described as both or either. Keeping in mind that Constantine apparently viewed himself as resembling Sol Invictus.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
What is the earliest depiction of Jesus? Watch here to learn more: ruclips.net/video/7DUekrCnye8/видео.html
Can you please make an episode about the true religion, Pastafarianism?
Constantine believed that Octavian was the father of Jesus.
That's why the early church mosaics in Anatolia show Jesus with red hair.
That's right, Jesus was ginger!
Chad Constantine vs Virgin Maxencius
False Doctrine Haile Selassie. Ist was and is the prophetic 1 H.I.MConquering Lion Tribe of ✡ Judah through Christ and where the first church Exsistance 🇪🇹
TtQW
Being in a civil war with your brother-in-law must have made for an awkward Saturnalia
Better than having a civil war with your brother or father, which happened a few times.
Pretty standard for Christmas, though...
gordon thomas - 🙂 Good one.
Would’ve made for a great Festivus though.
Just a repeat of the civil war between Octavian and Mark Anthony since they were also brothers in law
Constantine: "Solar monotheist"
Akhenaten: This guy. This guy is my kind of guy.
akhenaten: "we should hang out sometime"
a[k]henotheist ; )
Apologize and make things right with your mother
@@abaddon2148 nope. Akhenaten…while monotheist believed in a composite god whereas Constantine whom was under the teaching of Eusebius believed in a non-composite god as decided upon in Nicea.
@@claudius_drusus_ You can't compare the two: Akhenaten was a Bronze Age ruler at a time when there was no monotheistic religion codified into one source (the Hebrews hadn't even done it at Akhenaten's Time; they still almost certainly believed other Gods existed in their Pantheon.).
Constantine was a late Antiquity ruler at a time when religions had become far more organized and were all moving to the general direction of being codified into a more monotheistic model.
Anecdote about sun monotheism and Christianity: when I was in Oaxaca, Mexico with Mazatec indigenous people, I learned their language. If you asked them, they would say very strongly that they were catholics, but they were nonetheless syncretic. I noticed they had a lot of pictures of saints, but none of Jesus. When I asked them why, they laughed at me, and one of them said "because he's already here" and pointed to the sun.
That is the exactly the same , how Constantine thought. He didn't saw Jesus a Jewish Preacher
@@lonelyberg1808 it is not only a mixture. The sun was always only a symbol for God. The catholic church mix many thinks together
@@lonelyberg1808 of course constantine didn't make the Catholic church, Christ did.
@@jonathansoko5368 No he didn't dude. There was no single unified Church at the time of Jesus death.
@@isabelrodriguezsjolund9701 sure thing kiddo
I love this channels community. Christians, Atheists, and followers of all other faiths and world views in genuine search of historical truth. It's such a breath of fresh air from the fanatical, agenda driven conspiracy theorists you see scattered throughout religion based channels. I can actually go into the comments and find interesting and productive discussions.
That's the reason I subscribe, I avoid those channels which insist that their narrow interpretation of a faith is the only correct one and any slight digression from their dogma is heresy and should be vilified.
True, it's almost like the not-crazy-atheist and the sane-theist found some common ground 😱😱😱
History is a lie written by those who wish to create their oown propaganda and ideology.
Ikr, same I am so happy I found this channel
It's because this channel encourages a historical debate rather than a religious one.
The idea that Constantine syncretized Sol Invictus and the Christian God shouldn't be that much of a stretch. I mean, Romans did that stuff all the time. Heck, it wouldn't even the first recorded time Constantine did religious stuff consistent with syncretizing Sol Invictus.
Yeah, it makes a lot of sense to me.
Well the thing is Christian don't believe in a sun god.
@@htoodoh5770 While true, Sun imagery has always been synonymous with Christianity
@@CrustyMuffin33 what do you mean?
@@henrylansing9734 The sun is a symbol of Christ
Most probably even Constantine himself was unsure what tha hell he actually saw that day.
Too much wine the night before. Those Romans knew how to party.
@@cpn6464 alcohol doesn't give you visions 12 hours later. And if he was so intoxicated that it did, there was no way he was in fighting condition.
This is probably sarcasm but oh well
@@henrylansing9734 He wouldn't be the first one.
Really good point! Dreams/visions and their interpretations are heavily influenced by personal experiences and cultural context, both of which change over time.
@@collinkirkbright7715 see funnily enough I've had different experiences as a religious person. I am asking why something terrible or strange happens in my life. It might be weeks or months later where things come full circle to a real conclusion and lasting life lesson. Then I'll be like, "Ooooooh, I see what you did there. That was absolutely brilliant! Man you're good at this!" lol yes I will pray but I will also talk to God as a family member and as I would my biological father. It's a great feeling. Even *if* He wasn't real (and I truly believe He is) His teachings and the religion that came from His teachings give me true peace. I am a happier person, I have structure and discipline in my life, and a sense of direction. I feel more fulfilled personally.
I rarely comment on videos, but just wanted to tell you that you inspired me to go back to college for a Religious Studies program. I graduated from college in 2016 and thought I'd never, ever go back, but you changed my mind. Thank you so much for your educational videos.
This is so awesome and encouraging. Thank you for sharing!
10 years later: "my God, I didnt have a job in years, how tf could that happen??"
Don't waste your time and money
Keep in mind you don’t have to go to college to learn more. I read avidly to get my education. Getting a degree, paying thousands, only makes sense if it leads to a career that pays it back and then some. Otherwise let’s all keep learning, earning, and staying out of debt.
@@SM-zl4zd they already have a degree. This must imply they're going for a grad degree. It's a different story in terms of job outlook then
Dr. Darius Arya is such a badass name, he could be a Bond villain
Shutendoji All he needs is a swivel chair and a white cat
It always baffles Europeans when they hear Iran means "Land of Aryans" and Arya is a common name/surname for Iranians. And yes, it has nothing to do with blue eyes and blond hair.
@@soroushal1921 You can thank those wacky Nazis for that one.
I don't know about villan name, but it is a badass name. I'm Iranian Indian and that name sounds very kickass to me. Darius- as in Daryush, the Persian Emperor, and Arya, the race or 'learned person' in Sanskrit, depending on whom you ask. Kickass name
@@soroushal1921 it has something to do though...the Indo-European male horde did create the foundation of Iran. Replacing the previous god's and languages. Farsi being related to the Steppe warriors who when settled Europe. I don't know why you mentioned blue eyes but I would argue a good percentage of Iran and Pakistan and India did have White male ancestry. Specifically R1B haplotype
I would imagine that Constantine's conversion was pretty similar to the later conversions of the Norman Vikings to christianity during the medieval era; you're a Christian now, but that doesnt mean you necessarily have to stop worshipping Odin and Thor.
Lol
That's called syncretism and I also believe it was more common than is documented. Rædwald of East Anglia, the Brytenwalda, was the first Christian Angle king in Britain, and still kept faith with the Old Gods. Syncretism goes against Christianity but it's really hard to just get someone to stop believing in something they have believed in their whole life. I also think mock conversion was more common too, as in became "Christian" due to political concerns. Mock conversion might even be what Constantinus did, but I tend to believe he truly became Christian.
@@willchristie2650 in most Germanic cultures the king was responsible for all of their society's foreign relationships, and that included their civilization's relationship with the gods.
...and it didn't much change their behavior, did it? Conversion and monarchy mixed with Christianity pretty much just provided a unity and gave divine right to continuing brutality.
Interestingly the Ten Commandments state “thou shalt have no other gods BEFORE me.” So it’s actually not inconsistent
I always think it's strange when people set up this dichotomy where Constantine's conversion was either instant, or fake. That's rarely how these things work. Genuine conversions can take years, talks with multiple guiding figures, reading important texts, ect. Quite frankly, it's very likely that Constantine saw (or thought he saw) a vision of the Chi-Rho prior to the Milvian, but, having only a limited understanding of Christianity, did not fully understand what that meant for his continued association with Sol Invictus. In fact, while harmony was certainly an issue, it is very likely that a big part of the reason why the Council of Nicaea was called was to give Constantine himself definitive answers to his own questions about Christianity, since up until that point there were numerous conflicting sources and no certain way of determining the correct one. He may well have gone into the council hoping that the bishops would declare Sol Invictus to be a part of the trinity somehow, though if he did, he clearly wasn't willing to force the issue.
We have a modern tendency of seeing Constantine as a sociopathic consummate politician, and he was certainly skilled in politics and battle, but he almost certainly would not have inspired the loyalty that he did if he didn't have any strong convictions or loyalties of his own. Frankly, he seems to have been a deeply religious man who was nevertheless unsure of what religion was correct, and who only settled the question gradually and relatively late in life. As for his allowing pagan temples to be built in his honor, that's not an endorsement. He was a civic figure too, and much like modern politicians do not turn away endorsements from religions they don't belong to, Constantine was likely simply maintaining the peace and being polite. His turn towards Christianity was unmistakable though, and prevailing political precedent of the time held Christians to be a liability, not worth pursuing for support, so Constantine choosing them cannot be explained by politics as usual. If it was not due to a genuine experience on his part, then it was at least a novel strategy that he pursued well in excess of what was necessary to get the Christians on side.
I think that's about right.
I might add that Constantine was quite impressionable on religious matters and inclined to fall under the religious influence of forceful personalities such as Athanasius and Eusebius of Nicomedia. (Or even the Novatian bishop Acesius).
After all these were the religious experts while military matters were his own domain of expertise.
Oh man, alternate history where the early church moved in the direction of syncreticism with previous greco-roman belief for the sake of stability and Sol Invictus is equated with the "Father", with the holy spirit being personified in "Sophia" and...wait, goddamit, I've just ran into gnosticism again!
History Channel video explained Constantine as a Homosexual and the bottom Man feminist frustrating many of his followers as he probably lived in Pegan for rest f his life.
@knightoffailure1869 I think that people approach this discussion with unspoken and differing ideas about what it means to be a sincere convert to Christianity. A secular/irreligious observer like myself might simply ask whether Constantine thought of himself as a sincere Christian. Modern Christians instead would probably measure Constantine's actions and stated beliefs with a theological yardstick to see whether they align with (their interpretation of) the Bible. If the people involved in the discussion cannot agree on what it means to be a true convert, then it's hard to have a productive conversation.
I share your skepticism when it comes to the political motivations of his conversion. Perhaps it was a visionary long play to secure Christian support in the east, where they were more numerous, but as you mentioned, he did *far* more than needed to win that support.
I think for many people,religious conversion isn’t always the “aha” moment when you change your mind; it’s a steady road of thought over an extended period of time
Also still petitioning you to do a video on Margaret Barker’s first temple theory of Christianity... : D
Yes! to the Margaret Barker/Temple Theology video!!
I concur. It is a transition of accepting what you truly believe. For me at least, I had thoughts for months and then came to a point where I knew I had to just accept my beliefs were not in line with the religion I was tied to.
true, christian to atheist to christian again
I agree on the "aha" moment. Was baptized Catholic two years ago and throughout going through Catechism it was a growth process. I'm still learning more and more of my faith as time goes on.
@@thewamp9306 I here ya - I personally think Catholicism has a ton of depth to it; I’ve gone from a Lutheran to a “high church” Episcopalian with a latitudinarian tilt to Eastern Orthodox theology (so almost Catholic myself) - I’m mainly Episcopalian because of their female leadership and pro-LGBT stance as a community though restricting Priestly recruits to unmarried men and discouraging homosexuality doesn’t really seem to be what defines the Catholic Church at its soulful core essence
I am myself a professor of Ancient History, and Peter Weiss was one of the supervisors of my PhD thesis. I'll make sure he sees this. - Congratulations on your channel, by the way. Excellent work. - P.S.: For those who want to learn more about this, cf. Peter Weiss, "The Vision of Constantine", in: The Journal of Roman Archaeology 16, 2003, pp. 237-259.
Remember when ReligionForBreakfast still had like 1K subscribers? We've come a long way since then.
God bless you, Henry!
The more I listen to him the more I think God is very much us
No need to. Natural theology exists after all.
@@mariocassina90 We are made in His image after all (:
@@bromponie7330 Christian? Why are you here young lad? Did Papias send you?
On the subject of Constantine's mother and sister, I'd actually really like to see a video about the role and influence of women in the early Christian church. I've heard that the early church seemed extremely popular with women converts, and that there at least some women leaders that contributed to its spread. I'd love to see more detail expanding on this as to why, or how true it is.
A number of women served as leaders of the house churches that sprang up in the cities of the Roman Empire-the list includes Priscilla, Chloe, Lydia, Apphia, Nympha, the mother of John Mark, and possibly the “elect lady” of John’s second epistle.
In the 2nd century, Clement of Alexandria wrote that the apostles were accompanied on their missionary journeys by women who were not marriage partners, but colleagues, “that they might be their fellowministers in dealing with housewives. It was through them that the Lord’s teaching penetrated also the women’s quarters without any scandal being aroused.
Hopefully this vid on Constantine is a sign of future vids on Constaninople, Byzantium, the Schism, the orthodix churches; Russian, Greek, Armenian but hopefully most of all, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Fingers crossed.
This made me think of C.S. Lewis and his conversion. He said that first he had to become a pagan, then a monotheist, then a Christian. Once you accept the possibility of a god, you have to go further and find the answers to additional questions: who is this god? Are they a person, Do they reason? Do they feel? what do they want from me? How do I know them? etc. Constantine identifying with Sol Invictus and then attributing it to the Christian God doesn't make him an embellisher. He was seeking the truth and that took time.
What makes you think the voyage of Lewis lead him TOWARDS truth? Not just towards a comfortable white lie, that was just more convenient for him to accept than the previously held not quite truth?
@Hunter Hall Ok Jesus existed, look at evidence and more videos from this channel
@@giftedguitarist161 so did Mohammad.
@@giftedguitarist161 there's no contemporary accounts of Jesus, no evidence.
Vinny T
Yes.. there are, but you likely wouldn't consider them credible, any more than the original eyewitness accounts.
We are each Free to choose our beliefs.. or whether to believe in anything whatsoever..
So those who seek no evidence will most assuredly never find it.
A new ReligionForBreakfast video after only one week?
And they say miracles don't happen.
2tehnik you're that Law Shin Megami Tensei guy I see all the time in Law videos!
A pleasant to see you here
@@tanvan802 Hello fellow lawfriend.
That's me.
2tehnik dude, I always love how you btfu all the chaoslarp and neutrals
Nice works my dude. Have a nice blessed day
He kinda even look the part. He just need to slick up his hair and wear a suit or something and surround himself with minions.
I had the good fortune to meet Darius Arya back in 2014 during a study abroad program, and he showed us all kinds of amazing sites. Glad to see he's still doing great work in Rome.
I'm just reading Bart Ehrman's book 'Triumph of Christianity' that talks about this! Perfect timing
He was one of my main sources for this vid!
Is the book good? I have read another of Ehrman's and seen videos of him lecturing.
@@legalvampire8136 I really enjoyed it, it's well researched and easy to read!
@@dcsmall1 Daniel, thanks, I shall order 'The Triumph of Christianity' from Amazon.
The real evidence is that Constantine's "foundation" was not based on the true principles of the Hebrew Bible. The important question people should ask about Constantine and his entire entourage is the following:
Is anywhere in the Bible as a prophecy predicting that a " Roman Emperor" as a heathen nation ..will be the one replace the children Of Israel to start a new institutional Roman church ruled by an Emperor? NOPE. where is that in the New Testament?? The Bible predicted that the God of Abraham will gather his exiles ( physical descendants of Jacob) from the four corners of the earth as a nation not as a church founded by heathen pagans. Ezekiel 37:21,22
. God predicted a Hebrew Messiah to gather his people ( lost sheep of the house of Israel and Judah) not a Roman Emperor usurping the position of a Messiah for the entire world. I think the problem is that most people don't understand the Bible prophecies to identify between truth and deception. Matthew 10:5,6 and Matthew 15:24
In Summary: There are so much historical evidence in christian churches having icon images of sol Invictus or Mithra all over the world after 325AD as part of their rituals like the Eucharist communion , Eastern Resurrection, the birth of Jesus Celebration in December 25th, the Immaculate Conception doctrine, the Last Supper not Passover, the sacrificial Lamb etc.
That means, Christianity was a Dualist religion worshiping Satan and at the same time trying to pretend to worship the God of Abraham disguised in a Roman sun god to gain power and control of the crowds.
The Vatican st Peter Basilica, underneath you can find a temple of MIthra, according to some academic sources, the Vatican cardinals and Pope were practicing rituals underground where the temple of Mithra is located built on top of the St Peter Basilica. How come the Vatican did not destroy that temple of MIthra and other similar temples around the world??
Christianity is a pagan religion based on the historical evidence.
Eusebius is notorious for creating narrations to support his views. He has been shown to create out of whole-cloth stories about the new testimate and about the writers of them.
The real evidence is that Constantine's "foundation" was not based on the true principles of the Hebrew Bible. The important question people should ask about Constantine and his entire entourage is the following:
Is anywhere in the Bible as a prophecy predicting that a " Roman Emperor" as a heathen nation ..will be the one replace the children Of Israel to start a new institutional Roman church ruled by an Emperor? NOPE. where is that in the New Testament?? The Bible predicted that the God of Abraham will gather his exiles ( physical descendants of Jacob) from the four corners of the earth as a nation not as a church founded by heathen pagans. Ezekiel 37:21,22
. God predicted a Hebrew Messiah to gather his people ( lost sheep of the house of Israel and Judah) not a Roman Emperor usurping the position of a Messiah for the entire world. I think the problem is that most people don't understand the Bible prophecies to identify between truth and deception. Matthew 10:5,6 and Matthew 15:24
In Summary: There are so much historical evidence in christian churches having icon images of sol Invictus or Mithra all over the world after 325AD as part of their rituals like the Eucharist communion , Eastern Resurrection, the birth of Jesus Celebration in December 25th, the Immaculate Conception doctrine, the Last Supper not Passover, the sacrificial Lamb etc.
That means, Christianity was a Dualist religion worshiping Satan and at the same time trying to pretend to worship the God of Abraham disguised in a Roman sun god to gain power and control of the crowds.
The Vatican st Peter Basilica, underneath you can find a temple of MIthra, according to some academic sources, the Vatican cardinals and Pope were practicing rituals underground where the temple of Mithra is located built on top of the St Peter Basilica. How come the Vatican did not destroy that temple of MIthra and other similar temples around the world??
Christianity is a pagan religion based on the historical evidence.
@@TorahisLifeandLight What a load of nonsense. God told Abraham that he would be the father of many nations. The tribes of Israel eventually scattered into the rest of the Middle East and even Europe through mass migration and the Phoenician coastal empire. Those people intermingled with the locals, fulfilling God's prophecy that his seed would father many nations.
@@comicsans1689 Yes, the Jews mixed with the Phoenicians ( Canaanites) or later called Carthaginians, with the Arabs, Spanish, Greeks, Egyptians, Armenians, etc and the all the so called fertile crescent cultures, and including the Romans when the Romans invaded North Africa in the Punic Wars. However, a Jew is always Jew no matter if they live in any country or got mixed with the gentiles. (See Ezra 9:1-3 , 8, 12,14) ( See also Mamzers) Obadiah 1:20
In Palestine lives a genetic mixed people or Mongrels since ancient times or Ashdod. Read Zechariah 9::6 some of the people in Palestine are a remnant of the Philistines. That's what the Romans named Judea as Palestine after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.
. Yes , Jews were mixed with those cultures , the ones i mentioned ...but other Jews who kept Torah did not mixed or rarely mixed at all because they will rather die keeping Torah than breaking Torah as many did . The prophecy got fulfilled for israel to be scattered in the four corners of the earth. Deutoronomy 4:27 ( Mongrels or crossbred race )
Another big reason, why the Jews kept Torah will not mix with other ethnic cultures is because Goyim /gentiles never kept Torah, feasts, customs or Hebrew traditions.
For example: An Indian man will not marry other women from different cultures UNLESS the bride converts into Hinduism and embraces all the traditions and customs of the indian culture.
So if the Jews (mongrels) who did not keep Torah with other ethnic cultures , they still carry the Jewish recessive gene between 10%- 20% depending how mixed they are. (Nehemiah 9;1-3, 24-26 )The Bible called this people Goyim or gentile Hebrews, specially if they never kept Torah. There are other population as well called of mixed people populations which are the are "Mamzers" from forbidden relationships. (Hosea 5:7)
Adonai Elohim , G-d of Abraham kept a natural remnant of Israelites for himself for time indefinitely. ( Ezra 9: 8.15 ) The original israelites are not extinct in any way according to his divine purpose. We ( the Jews) became a remnant among the nations.
I love this channel, you talk about religion in such a non endoctrinating and skeptical way, it really feels like you are trying to inform rather than push an agenda
I don't think he is exactly skeptical about religion
@@speedwagon1824 he looked at Constantine visions very critically, juding it for what they could actually be, and this was skeptical enough for me
Experiments show that even those who truly try to stick with the original story (and I'm not saying Constantine did; I think it was a political move), end up elaborating. It's because our memory isn't perfect. We lose details over time, and our minds make up new details to compensate
I think this phenomenon is also a direct result of our own behavior. We usually try to recall our memories with a given purpose in mind. Even when it's just reminiscing for the sake of it, we still pick out whichever memories we do with some kind of intention. Thus, how we choose to characterize our memories at any given moment is inherently tied to why we're trying to recall them in the first place.
12:40, I can't help but think of the metaphors of Jesus as the light of the world.
I thought the same. None of these are really Sol Invictus-y, they just seem like pretty commonplace Christian "In him was life; and the life was the light of men" type language.
The real evidence is that Constantine's "foundation" was not based on the true principles of the Hebrew Bible. The important question people should ask about Constantine and his entire entourage is the following:
Is anywhere in the Bible as a prophecy predicting that a " Roman Emperor" as a heathen nation ..will be the one replace the children Of Israel to start a new institutional Roman church ruled by an Emperor? NOPE. where is that in the New Testament?? The Bible predicted that the God of Abraham will gather his exiles ( physical descendants of Jacob) from the four corners of the earth as a nation not as a church founded by heathen pagans. Ezekiel 37:21,22
. God predicted a Hebrew Messiah to gather his people ( lost sheep of the house of Israel and Judah) not a Roman Emperor usurping the position of a Messiah for the entire world. I think the problem is that most people don't understand the Bible prophecies to identify between truth and deception. Matthew 10:5,6 and Matthew 15:24
In Summary: There are so much historical evidence in christian churches having icon images of sol Invictus or Mithra all over the world after 325AD as part of their rituals like the Eucharist communion , Eastern Resurrection, the birth of Jesus Celebration in December 25th, the Immaculate Conception doctrine, the Last Supper not Passover, the sacrificial Lamb etc.
That means, Christianity was a Dualist religion worshiping Satan and at the same time trying to pretend to worship the God of Abraham disguised in a Roman sun god to gain power and control of the crowds.
The Vatican st Peter Basilica, underneath you can find a temple of MIthra, according to some academic sources, the Vatican cardinals and Pope were practicing rituals underground where the temple of Mithra is located built on top of the St Peter Basilica. How come the Vatican did not destroy that temple of MIthra and other similar temples around the world??
Christianity is a pagan religion based on the historical evidence.
@Asher Salvatore!!! I am not. I am being lied or manipulated. LOL Christianity. They are being toyed around. The clowns are the clergy putting a show for the ignorant. LOL LOL LOL LOL
@@TorahisLifeandLight St Peters basilica is built on top of the Circus Neronis and a cemetery in which Saint Peter was buried. No temple of Mithras there. Just this easily obtainable information puts your whole argument in check.
I had always wanted to know a nuanced take on the Constantine conversion. Plus memes? This channel is awesome!
I've always thought a reasonable portion of Constantine's "Sol Invictus" worship was plausible deniability for his actual Christianity. The more secure in his power he became, the more he advanced Christianity. It's not like that was the obvious Machiavellian move, either. Most of the people and even more of the powerful people were pagan.
I think, having read a lot of analysis of Constantine's conversion, that the story of the sign in the sky before the Battle of Milvian Bridge evolved over time during Constantine's life, and that explains the contradictory stories we receive from that time. Emperors were extremely mindful of the legacy they would leave, and understood that the narrative they left would contribute heavily to that legacy. So it started as a sign in the sky, followed by a dream. Originally only Constantine saw it. Later renditions claimed the entire army saw it, something the earlier versions don't mention. The order to the army to paint the sign on their equipment before Milvian Bridge is questionable, but there is no doubt that the Labarum, with the Chi Rho, was definitely used by Constantine in later battles, particularly against Licinius, who was, apparently, terrified of it ordering his men to not even look at it.
The conversion was certainly not a marked "wow" moment in time, but a long process, tied to the acceptance of monotheism, first through Sol Invictus, which had been a trend since Emperor Aurelius, leading to the Christian Christ through the influence of the growing religion in the empire.
I don't see why the sunhalo/sundog before the battle of Milvian Bridge is out of the question. It certainly can look like a Chi Rho. Perhaps it is only he who saw any words over it and attributed it to supernatural guidance.
Have you ever considered making a video on advice for those considering grad school? I think you probably have an interesting perspective.
Yes, I've considered making a "How to get a PhD in religious studies" video. It'd include advice like you mentioned.
I'd like to see that video! I do, however, have a few serious things to say about going to grad school for Religious Studies. These things probably apply to grad school for all subjects but my area, and therefore experience, is Early Christianity.
I went to college as a married, middled aged, white dude from the trailer park. My undergrad was Indiana University of Pennsylvania and I got my MTS at HDS. Grad school was a pipe dream but getting accepted at Harvard was way outside the orbit of anything I ever hoped for. I do wish I'd thought about it a little harder, though! I was married when I moved to Cambridge and divorced when I graduated. Grad school is all consuming. Romantic relationships, no matter how serious or important, are put under an incredible amount of stress and fall apart at a shockingly high rate.
I'm not saying don't go to grad school! In the long run, 6 years later, I'm glad that I did! I can read 3 ancient languages and know far too much about early Christian "heresies", which is pretty cool for a nerd in a modern Gnostic church. I'm even writing a book about the Gospel of Mary. But be prepared to give your life to your studies. Fortify your close relationships so they can survive less attention from you than they're used to.
I apologise if this is discouraging! People should go to grad school anyways. Just be prepared for the stressors it brings.
Fantastic channel! Keep it up
I too want to see that video
Yes, don't. Unless you marry someone with money or plan to write non-secular fluff for religious patrons on the side.
Not saying religious studies is bad, only that the prospects are grim for anyone looking to do honest secular work in the field. At the end of the day we all have to eat.
I was interested in this field over a decade ago but ended up doing history and taking a hard turn into cloud engineering. I spend my day job doing remote SRE work and teach courses on the weekends.
SOOOO ridiculously fascinating......can't get enough....THANK YOU!!!!! for actually creating a channel looking into all aspects of religious history free of all the culty drama that goes along with it, it's exactly what I was looking for, an honest, unbiased historical approach to religion and the bible, I genuinely want to learn about this stuff to make an informed decision on what it's all about, without mindless drones throwing bible quotes at me left and right. This is it! so refreshing!
As a dude named Constantine I always love hearing about the original
Thank you for explaining the process by which Constantine might have slowly been converted over time. This has long been my own contention: becoming a Christian is not now, nor was it then a binary thing. When a person converts from one religion to another, it is not a sudden shift from one set of beliefs to a new set. It is a gradual process. It is good to hear you put to bed the widely held doubt that Constantine was ever a Christian.
He was a politician. More and more of his soldiers had the chiro symbol on their shields.
Love these videos. I love history and this is one of the most accessible ways for me to enjoy it.
*Historians:* "Constantine was the first Christian Roman Emperor."
*Constantine:* "The sun is a wondrous body. Like a magnificent father! If only I could be so grossly incandescent!"
This video is full of hypotheses, he is making assumption he cannot prove
@@Georgios1821 To be fair, that's the point. He's saying that all we can do for now is speculate based on science and historical accounts, and maybe fill the gaps with philosophical logic. There might eventually be a way to find out for sure, but right now, all we can do is hypothesize.
Unless you build a time machine and yere a supersoldier spy 5000 millenium later from today
And the boooooooommm Sun-day worship existed
It also can be argued there is no "true christisn" and it all so grossly simplified. And technically since there is no "true cult follower" or biggest fan. Then, is there a point in competitive piousness? (Warring religions all worshipping the same God but claiming that their's is the right one) If God is the right God and the only God? Then, why doesn't he come out of hiding and proclaim it to stop his zealot followers from murdering one another? Over him? Well...
If he can't maybe God doesn't exist I guess 🤷
Here before the conspiracy theorists bring up the council of Nicea.
Should be amusing at least.
never heard of it, time to look it up thanks!
Pretty sure Dan Brown will be scouring the comments section for info on his next book.
What's the story with it? I've read it's part of that Q stupidity, but I'm scared to find out 🤣🤣🤣
@@GbV0 I'm no expert but I believes it ties into the belief that the Council determined the canonical books of the Bible and therefor left out some stuff, which depending on the person may include the "Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a kid" thing.
3:23 Sol Invictus
4:58 Henotheist
5:53 Constantius
5:33 Helena
7:32 Labarum (Eusebius’s version)
8:01 Accounts dates
10:16 two vision theory
13:33 Pagan statue Ancient Hippodrome
My favorite account of the conversion is from Zosimus. From his account, which has a clear bias against Constantine, after Constantine killed his son and wife he converts from guilt and the Roman priests not absolving him.
I love your perspective on this. And how you never choose the vision that fights for a bias of belief you have, but the one that seems the most likely.
It really helps to calm down the toxic conversations where people pick whatever hates Christians the most, or whatever makes Christians look the best. Very refreshing.
It's curious how the story of the cross appearing in the sky right before (or during) an important battle, and suddenly converting everyone, seems to repeat in the history of Christianity. It happens with the Spanish in their battles against the Moors, with Saint Santiago de Compostela appearing to grant them victory, and then again it happens in Mexico during the Battle of Sangremal Hill against the Chichimeca Indigenous Peoples (hence Santiago de Querétaro City), and even in South America (hence Santiago de Chile).
i love that you dont have any bias im sick of those who do I appreciate your honesty we lack this these days
One of the best books I have ever read is _Constantine and the Conversion of Europe_ by A. Jones. A fantastically written book and very informative too.
Excellent book.
Jones embraces the Solar Halo theory, and that theory does provide a good reason why Constantine conflated Jesus and Sol.
Wow didn’t think I’d see my favorite early christian historian Dr. Ehrman on here! Great video and content!
he is an atheist
Wow! So much research that goes into such nuance into this story. Lovin' it
I really love your channel, I learn more from your concise explanations than any other channels when it comes to religion
You made a great point about Constantine's conversion being more of a steady process over time than a sudden moment of epiphany.
We often tend to oversimplify such shifts, condensing complex experiences and influences into more dramatical "eurika" moments. Such revelatory instances seldom happen in real life and they are almost never as streamlined and smooth as we often make them out to be.
The "a-ha" moment prompted by a miraculous sign in the sky certainly makes for more dramatic storytelling, but it is almost certainly a matter of poetic licence.
More than that, Constantine is described as being a visionary, he seems to have been on a journey. But his acceptance of Christianity and generosity thereto, his efforts to move early Church leaders to establish canonical doctrine, and the rapid explosion of Christianity during his reign DESPITE whatever pagan support he may have continued to offer, ALL point to a rather dramatic event. The sky-vision story is not challenged, just debated - "How many visions did he have? When?" His personal conversion is not recounted as "smooth", iirc, and his life as understood both before and after the bridge victory bear that out, but that does not mean that he did not consider himself as trying to be 'Christian' after the event, just that it was a work in progress. He wasn't a Christian Theologian, he was a general/politician who'd apparently been having visions and suddenly became emperor of a vast territory and also the largest supporter of Christianity ever after repeated periods of widespread persecution. Remember, Christianity wasn't even LEGAL until 313, and that thanks to him. He didn't officially convert (via baptism) until he lay on is death bed. From the information we have, Constantine seems to have been a man stumbling his way toward Christianity who experienced a dramatic event that cemented his allegiance firmly in that camp to which he tried to adhere thereafter until his death.
8-bit shades lend a certain gravitas to the conversation. Great video.
I'm currently reading "The Living Wood" by Louis De Wohl. It's a novel about St Helen, the mother of Constantine. But it includes this episode about the vision of the cross. Anyway, Thomas F Madden makes a very good argument about Constantine's genuine conversion to Christianity after a real perceived vision. You can look up his "Modern Scholar" lecture series. One thing not mentioned in this video is that Constantine postponed baptism until the end of his life, knowing that his role as Emperor would necessitate a life of sin.
Great video. I love to see someone who acknowledges just how much theology can vary among individuals, as it does among groups. Personal experience does so much to shape people's concept of divine entities and forces, and Constantine's ideas about the Christian god in relation to the Roman pantheon are such a good way of showing that. We all live and think within our own means, and conceive of the world in terms we ourselves are deeply familiar with.
The real evidence is that Constantine's "foundation" was not based on the true principles of the Hebrew Bible. The important question people should ask about Constantine and his entire entourage is the following:
Is anywhere in the Bible as a prophecy predicting that a " Roman Emperor" as a heathen nation ..will be the one replace the children Of Israel to start a new institutional Roman church ruled by an Emperor? NOPE. where is that in the New Testament?? The Bible predicted that the God of Abraham will gather his exiles ( physical descendants of Jacob) from the four corners of the earth as a nation not as a church founded by heathen pagans. Ezekiel 37:21,22
. God predicted a Hebrew Messiah to gather his people ( lost sheep of the house of Israel and Judah) not a Roman Emperor usurping the position of a Messiah for the entire world. I think the problem is that most people don't understand the Bible prophecies to identify between truth and deception. Matthew 10:5,6 and Matthew 15:24
In Summary: There are so much historical evidence in christian churches having icon images of sol Invictus or Mithra all over the world after 325AD as part of their rituals like the Eucharist communion , Eastern Resurrection, the birth of Jesus Celebration in December 25th, the Immaculate Conception doctrine, the Last Supper not Passover, the sacrificial Lamb etc.
That means, Christianity was a Dualist religion worshiping Satan and at the same time trying to pretend to worship the God of Abraham disguised in a Roman sun god to gain power and control of the crowds.
The Vatican st Peter Basilica, underneath you can find a temple of MIthra, according to some academic sources, the Vatican cardinals and Pope were practicing rituals underground where the temple of Mithra is located built on top of the St Peter Basilica. How come the Vatican did not destroy that temple of MIthra and other similar temples around the world??
Christianity is a pagan religion based on the historical evidence.
Can you do an episode on sol invictus? I’ve heard the name before but I really don’t know who he is, except he’s not Apolo.
Seconding this
Sol Invictus is sort of like a Roman Helios.
The real evidence is that Constantine's "foundation" was not based on the true principles of the Hebrew Bible. The important question people should ask about Constantine and his entire entourage is the following:
Is anywhere in the Bible as a prophecy predicting that a " Roman Emperor" as a heathen nation ..will be the one replace the children Of Israel to start a new institutional Roman church ruled by an Emperor? NOPE. where is that in the New Testament?? The Bible predicted that the God of Abraham will gather his exiles ( physical descendants of Jacob) from the four corners of the earth as a nation not as a church founded by heathen pagans. Ezekiel 37:21,22
. God predicted a Hebrew Messiah to gather his people ( lost sheep of the house of Israel and Judah) not a Roman Emperor usurping the position of a Messiah for the entire world. I think the problem is that most people don't understand the Bible prophecies to identify between truth and deception. Matthew 10:5,6 and Matthew 15:24
In Summary: There are so much historical evidence in christian churches having icon images of sol Invictus or Mithra all over the world after 325AD as part of their rituals like the Eucharist communion , Eastern Resurrection, the birth of Jesus Celebration in December 25th, the Immaculate Conception doctrine, the Last Supper not Passover, the sacrificial Lamb etc.
That means, Christianity was a Dualist religion worshiping Satan and at the same time trying to pretend to worship the God of Abraham disguised in a Roman sun god to gain power and control of the crowds.
The Vatican st Peter Basilica, underneath you can find a temple of MIthra, according to some academic sources, the Vatican cardinals and Pope were practicing rituals underground where the temple of Mithra is located built on top of the St Peter Basilica. How come the Vatican did not destroy that temple of MIthra and other similar temples around the world??
Christianity is a pagan religion based on the historical evidence.
@@TorahisLifeandLight Hebrew roots is a cult.
@@booba8930 i am a Sephardic Jew by birth...iam a natural...i don't need a movement or any religion
Awesome delves into ancient formations of the Church. Thank you.
having been raised Greek Orthodox, this story about Constantine's vision and victory is the one that I was taught growing up. It always struck me as maaad sus. Very interesting to learn about the (secular) historical accounts of these holy figures.
There are no secular accounts. They are accounts from pagans or jews
I've been hoping for this video for a long time! Awesome job.
This is brilliant. Reminds me of reading about a possible solar calendar in use by the kingdom of Israel (after the alleged split between Judah and Israel), makes me think of the Moses-Atenism connection, makes me think of the solar imagery of the Ain Soph Aur in Kabbalah. Very stimulating content.
Always enjoy your videos, Andrew, because I always learn something. Thanks for posting; great job!
Hi, been waiting for this
Indeed
The real evidence is that Constantine's "foundation" was not based on the true principles of the Hebrew Bible. The important question people should ask about Constantine and his entire entourage is the following:
Is anywhere in the Bible as a prophecy predicting that a " Roman Emperor" as a heathen nation ..will be the one replace the children Of Israel to start a new institutional Roman church ruled by an Emperor? NOPE. where is that in the New Testament?? The Bible predicted that the God of Abraham will gather his exiles ( physical descendants of Jacob) from the four corners of the earth as a nation not as a church founded by heathen pagans. Ezekiel 37:21,22
. God predicted a Hebrew Messiah to gather his people ( lost sheep of the house of Israel and Judah) not a Roman Emperor usurping the position of a Messiah for the entire world. I think the problem is that most people don't understand the Bible prophecies to identify between truth and deception. Matthew 10:5,6 and Matthew 15:24
In Summary: There are so much historical evidence in christian churches having icon images of sol Invictus or Mithra all over the world after 325AD as part of their rituals like the Eucharist communion , Eastern Resurrection, the birth of Jesus Celebration in December 25th, the Immaculate Conception doctrine, the Last Supper not Passover, the sacrificial Lamb etc.
That means, Christianity was a Dualist religion worshiping Satan and at the same time trying to pretend to worship the God of Abraham disguised in a Roman sun god to gain power and control of the crowds.
The Vatican st Peter Basilica, underneath you can find a temple of MIthra, according to some academic sources, the Vatican cardinals and Pope were practicing rituals underground where the temple of Mithra is located built on top of the St Peter Basilica. How come the Vatican did not destroy that temple of MIthra and other similar temples around the world??
Christianity is a pagan religion based on the historical evidence.
Wow, super informative episode! You know it’s a great video when you want to dig into more by the end. Thanks, Dr. Henry!
An excellent video as always! I love how well researched and nuanced your content is, your explanations are clear and engaging for me (a non-expert) to follow and learn from, and the length/scope of the videos is not intimidating!
I really appreciate your work, thank you!
Follow Dr. Darius Arya's channel for more on-the-ground educational vids about Rome: ruclips.net/user/dariusarya
It seems like your video is attributing the “solar” comparisons of Christ as some sort of unique Roman-syncretic anomaly. This is clearly untrue since they are in the Bible itself. Jesus is described as the light of the world in John 1:9/3:19/8:12/9:5/12:46. Christ will “shine” on all men, in Eph 5:14. This is nothing new. The Aaronic blessing of Numbers 6 in the Old Testament beseeches God to “shine his face” upon the blessed. Psalm 84:11 “the Lord God is a sun and shield.” Habakkuk 3:4 “His radiance is like the sunlight.” It would have been better had you used actual biblical text, rather than support a crackpot theory with little evidence. Comparing the biblical God to the sun is hardly anything new.
@@mosesking2923 Yes, but these are letters from Constantine himself. Do you think he's quoting Scripture or is he drawing on decades of experience as a sun worshiper? Read in the context of Constantine's fealty to Sol Invictus, these letters read differently to me.
ReligionForBreakfast I think it’s very likely that he understood religious worship of the Christian God through his upbringing as a pagan/sun worshiper. It makes sense to worship based on your own experiences and understanding of divinity
I'll be honest maybe your not a Christian like me but I enjoyed this. Very well explained and I learned so much. Thank you.
@@ReligionForBreakfast but then again, the creation of Greek. And then Roman religion spawned from abrahamic faiths as the early people migrated from the middle east into Europe. The abrahamic Gods imigary and association with light, much like the link between zoroastrianism and the abrahamic God, likely inspired the sun gods of Greek and then Roman religions. Basicly just creating a circle. Where Sol was inspired by the abrahamic God, but beliefs evolved, then led back to its origin. It could be entirely possible it was always referring to the same entity the entire time. This is what likely ended up converting him as he began to learn and trace back the roots of the belief in Sol.
As the. Bible says, he is called by many names.
Thank you for another outstanding video. I appreciate the evidence-based information and your sources at the bottom. They always start me down the wormhole of learning something new. Also thanks for the link to this other channel, I’ve got him on subscribe now.
Always love another Religion for Breakfast video
The battle at the Milvian bridge is one of the key reasons why I reconverted to Christianity, thanks for the very informative video!
Are you serious 👀
@Stefan Urban
Very good
@@jcxkzhgco3050 yes
Uh, what?
@@jcxkzhgco3050yes
I keep hearing "Mac Sanchez" and can't stop giggling. But that's on me. Great video ☺️
I know!
Hey, ever thought about making a video about Constantine's purported conversion to Arianism in his latter years?
Dang, dude keeps converting it seems
@Sam Bacon In those days, it definitely felt that way. Plus, both sects have pretty antithetical views too.
@Sam Bacon You are not getting my point; in the context of the 4th century, heresies were treated like competition. Like people battling over a piece of land or something. You also pretty much just outlined a lot of the difference in their views that are polar opposites of each other.
D Arya's programmes here in Italy are the only watchable [ actually v good ] t v ...I was v surprised to suddenly see him in your video . kudos to both of you!
One correction, Constantine didn't build the Basilica of St. John Lateran. The building already existed when Constantine ascended the throne and it belonged to the patrician Lateranus family, he confiscated the building from them and converted it into a church. That's also why the building has the "Lateran" name attached to it.
The building itself didn't exist prior to Constantine's conquest. The property belonged to the Laterani at some point, and that's where the name comes from, and they had their palace there which probably became the bishop's palace in Constantine's reign.
But the basilica is most probably built at the place of the barracks of the Imperial cavalry bodyguards (dissolved by Constantine), and was built by Constantine.
Emperor Nero was actually the one that confiscated the properties of the Lateranus family including the place where Lateran Basilica standing now. The Roman consul-designated Plautius Lateranus accused by Nero of conspiracy against him and confiscated and redistributed the properties of the Lateranus family. When Constantine married his second wife Fausta, sister of Maxentius, then the Lateran area fell into his hand. Only after that, the Lateran Basilica was then erected into the place.
I would really love to see a video on manicheanism and/or the prophet Mani. I really enjoy your videos by the way! keep up the good work
In Plato's Republic they also describe a unique perfect god (in opposition to the current pantheon, at the time) as the sun (not Apollo, but the actual sun) after explaining the cave allegory*. Maybe that's where he got the idea of this particular syncretism?
*(The point being that following one perfect god that is the source of all good is like following one's reason, since reason extends from goodness like the sun's rays fall on the man that is out of the cave)
Would you consider making a video on the bicameral mind theory? I’d love to hear your take on it
Whoa there. Constantine was raised mostly by Helena, his Christian saint of a mother. Constantius may have been a pagan, but he didn't spend much time around Constantine as a boy, given how much he would have been away fighting wars. As for the persecutions, Constantius basically didn't implement them in any more than a very minimal way if at all in the part of the Roman Empire he governed.
A great topic thank you for always making these thought-provoking videos! keep up the great work!!
Wait if in both accounts chi-rho was used as a sigil either on the shields or the staff/battle-standard wouldn’t both be for christ, how could it be related to sol invictus? or did I miss hear the two accounts.
Praise the sun! ☀️ Your videos are always amazing and super interesting. Thank you
“For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten Son so whosoever believes in him, will not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16
What is the Latin for "Grossly Incandescent"?
Hi Andrew. I am impressed with your handling of this contentious topic, and I share in your conclusions about Constantine's gradual and syncretic conversion (The subject of my undergraduate thesis). Well done man!
It was a sundog. I saw a sundog here in Sweden and first I thought it was also a holy cross.
Jasmine 4ever I see Sun dogs all time, and they are pretty awe inspiring
How far south did that phenomenon occur in 312 AD?
I just turned 60, and I live in the Southern U.S. Until the Monday after Easter 2014, I had never in my entire life seen a Halo around the Sun.. and since then, I see them all the time. Rome is 41° N latitude roughly. Central Florida is around 28° and I grew up in the 33° zone. The phenomenon is.. or was.. unheard of this far South until 7 years ago, and I'm sure there a numerous factors that contribute to it, but the confidence to assert definitely that this explains what Constantine saw is far from surety.
@@Ricca_Day maybe some freak weather phenomenon at the time
I agree with the politician theory in attempting to analyze Constantine’s religious leanings. He was a highly successful emperor and obviously a highly skilled politician.
I've always loved how you turn historical pictures into emojis lol
Ah! Neat surprise to see Dr Arya turn up here. I recall seeing him on TV back before I ditched cable to save money...
Darius Arya sounds like a name right out of antiquity
Awesome video as always!
My own theory is that Constantine probably had a dream, at first associated it with sol invictus and then came to associate it to Christ later in life
Personally, I'm more for the two visions theory. Specifically, I think that he had a dream which he attributed to Sol Invictus. Then, later, he and his soldiers saw a Solar Halo. Him seeing the halo and winning was the final-ish straw for him converting to Christianity. He then attributed the earlier dream to Jesus.
Basically, your theory except I believe he also saw a Solar Halo on their way to winning the war.
What bout cessars messuggah
Good Work!
Not exactly the same topic but I had love to hear about palmryn religion at some point
I've always wondered about the sources for this particular story. Thanks for reminding me of it.
I have Constantine's problems with bright lights too. It's called astigmatism. If I don't wear corrective lenses, I will have visions of crosses around any bright light source. Unlike Constantine, I don't attach religious significance to it. Of course, my suggestion is a bit in jest, but wouldn't it be funny if the main reason Constantine was attracted to cross symbolism was because of a very common vision defect.
So basically, a veiled critique of Constantine's experience as being highly subjective using an even more subjective viewpoint. I also have astigmatism. Bright lights do not approximate to spiritual experiences for me. Shall I squeeze in some theory from that? Perhaps not.
Thank you so much. This is just what I was looking for. I was wondering why would Constantine be motivated to accept Christianity if not for having had a true revelation.
And above all, his busts kind of make him look like Rocky.
Darius is your friend? Cool! He is fantastic! I enjoy his insights into the history of Rome.
According to Joe Rogan, Constantine personally assembled the New Testament.
Truly we mere mortals cannot question a mind such as his.
I'm atheistic but I'd rather be religious than a complete doofus saying that.
@@merrittanimation7721 Especially such a stoned mind.
The same guy who believes Graham Norton? No way!
Religious for breakfast made a video where its shown Constantine did not compiled the New Testament.
Thanks for actually listing your sources! 🙏🏼
👍 good video
This is great! That’s for uploading.
Christianity around this time was NOT a unified collection of thought. It makes perfect sense that there was at least one syncretic school that combined the basics of Christian thought -- a single god who sent a delegate to offer salvation -- with major streams of Roman philosophy and religious practice. It may very well be that Constantine was a Christian just like Arius and Valentinus were Christians, and a follower of a flavor that was not eventually harmonized with proto-orthodoxy.
One thing that's not referred to in the video, but I find interesting, is that the Edict of Milan is not actually an edict and was not actually signed in Milan. It's a bit of a misnomer.
It seems to have been basically an agreed formula between Constantine and Licinius and an affirmation of their alliance
There was no need for a grant of toleration since this had been done by Galerius two years earlier.
It expanded on Galerius by ordering restitution of property confiscated during the recent persecution.
Fourteen years ago had a dream that a Rabbi told me that I was in the Torah.
why?
Outstanding. Thanks for the balanced and thorough approach.
I just want to point out that being new convert in a different believing culture can be very hard and could possibly be a source of insecurity.
The real evidence is that Constantine's "foundation" was not based on the true principles of the Hebrew Bible. The important question people should ask about Constantine and his entire entourage is the following:
Is anywhere in the Bible as a prophecy predicting that a " Roman Emperor" as a heathen nation ..will be the one replace the children Of Israel to start a new institutional Roman church ruled by an Emperor? NOPE. where is that in the New Testament?? The Bible predicted that the God of Abraham will gather his exiles ( physical descendants of Jacob) from the four corners of the earth as a nation not as a church founded by heathen pagans. Ezekiel 37:21,22
. God predicted a Hebrew Messiah to gather his people ( lost sheep of the house of Israel and Judah) not a Roman Emperor usurping the position of a Messiah for the entire world. I think the problem is that most people don't understand the Bible prophecies to identify between truth and deception. Matthew 10:5,6 and Matthew 15:24
In Summary: There are so much historical evidence in christian churches having icon images of sol Invictus or Mithra all over the world after 325AD as part of their rituals like the Eucharist communion , Eastern Resurrection, the birth of Jesus Celebration in December 25th, the Immaculate Conception doctrine, the Last Supper not Passover, the sacrificial Lamb etc.
That means, Christianity was a Dualist religion worshiping Satan and at the same time trying to pretend to worship the God of Abraham disguised in a Roman sun god to gain power and control of the crowds.
The Vatican st Peter Basilica, underneath you can find a temple of MIthra, according to some academic sources, the Vatican cardinals and Pope were practicing rituals underground where the temple of Mithra is located built on top of the St Peter Basilica. How come the Vatican did not destroy that temple of MIthra and other similar temples around the world??
Christianity is a pagan religion based on the historical evidence.
Great comprehensive video, thanks!
How about the "no vision theory" which says that Constantine made up his visions to appear as though he had communications with gods, he also changed the story to fit changing circumstances. No visions, just thoughts about how he could inspire his troops and promote his image by claiming to have a vision or two, and it just got worse.
The real evidence is that Constantine's "foundation" was not based on the true principles of the Hebrew Bible. The important question people should ask about Constantine and his entire entourage is the following:
Is anywhere in the Bible as a prophecy predicting that a " Roman Emperor" as a heathen nation ..will be the one replace the children Of Israel to start a new institutional Roman church ruled by an Emperor? NOPE. where is that in the New Testament?? The Bible predicted that the God of Abraham will gather his exiles ( physical descendants of Jacob) from the four corners of the earth as a nation not as a church founded by heathen pagans. Ezekiel 37:21,22
. God predicted a Hebrew Messiah to gather his people ( lost sheep of the house of Israel and Judah) not a Roman Emperor usurping the position of a Messiah for the entire world. I think the problem is that most people don't understand the Bible prophecies to identify between truth and deception. Matthew 10:5,6 and Matthew 15:24
In Summary: There are so much historical evidence in christian churches having icon images of sol Invictus or Mithra all over the world after 325AD as part of their rituals like the Eucharist communion , Eastern Resurrection, the birth of Jesus Celebration in December 25th, the Immaculate Conception doctrine, the Last Supper not Passover, the sacrificial Lamb etc.
That means, Christianity was a Dualist religion worshiping Satan and at the same time trying to pretend to worship the God of Abraham disguised in a Roman sun god to gain power and control of the crowds.
The Vatican st Peter Basilica, underneath you can find a temple of MIthra, according to some academic sources, the Vatican cardinals and Pope were practicing rituals underground where the temple of Mithra is located built on top of the St Peter Basilica. How come the Vatican did not destroy that temple of MIthra and other similar temples around the world??
Christianity is a pagan religion based on the historical evidence.
It's possible, but I'm still more for the two visions theory. Not convinced by the one vision theory, but the "no vision theory" is also likely.
@@moondust2365 The no vision theory is the most likey honestly. Funny how convient religious visions tend to be.
@@joehill4094 If the no vision theory _is_ true, it's either he (or whoever wrote the stories) deliberately lied, or certain stories got mixed up.
@@moondust2365 You mean someone would lie when recording historical events to suit their own agenda, do you really think someone would do that?
Such an excellent program!
what’s the evolution of the Cult of Julius Caesar?
Religious people don't believe in the evolution of ideas.
They believe in the creation of ideas which are fixed like dogma until they die.
@@jamesspackman9819 That’s blatantly wrong and I assume you’re an atheist making a strawman from such a poor comment.
@@baronofbahlingen9662 so are you a monotheist or a polytheist?
@@jamesspackman9819 Monotheist
It was the religious side of Augustus' reconstruction of The Roman State.
Augustus could not accept divine honours on his own behalf but he could accept then on behalf of his deceased patron.
As always good video RFB. I think however your summary of Weiss’s argument is somewhat inaccurate. Weiss distinguishes between Constantine’s vision and his later dream. His argument is that the vision described by the panegyric and Eusebius are the same, and that it was the later dream before the battle of the Milvian Bridge, described by Lactantius and Eusebius, which is what caused Constantine to re-interpret his earlier vision as a sign from the Christian God. Lactantius doesn’t actually directly describe any vision event, though it is possible he references it in the words of Constantine’s dream to commemorate the “celestial sign of Christ” on the shields of his soldiers. Weiss though does not argue Lactantius or Eusebius misdated the vision by 2 years.
Some other points:
*I believe the Arch of Constantine was more the work of the Roman Senate, though of course with the emperor’s approval
*The statue in Constantinople atop the burnt column I think was actually of Constantine himself depicted like Sol, rather than a straightforward depiction of Sol directly.
Thanks Terry, I'll revisit Weiss' article to confirm this. I might have misrepresented how he interprets Lactantius.
-Yes you're correct the arch is probably a work of the Roman Senate, but I suspect that inscription is relaying what Constantine told them. (some sort of divine intervention was involved)
- I've read the statue described as both or either. Keeping in mind that Constantine apparently viewed himself as resembling Sol Invictus.