SECTION V Chapter 1 - Evolution of the Christian Church Early First Century Developments--The First Christians Jerusalem Church Following the crucifixion of Jesus, the FIRST Christian Church was headquartered in Jerusalem under the leadership of James, the brother of Jesus. In Acts, we are told that the earliest Christians worshiped daily in the Temple, and obeyed all the Jewish laws (see Acts 2:43-7). From descriptions such as these in Acts, it is likely that this earliest group of Christians perceived their own status as being more an "Elect" group of Jews, as opposed to members of a new religion. (See Section I, Chapter 6) James was murdered by the Sadducean head priest. After this, Simeon, the cousin of Jesus and James, assumed the leadership of the Jerusalem Church. He was captured during the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., and later executed. It is likely that MANY of the original Jerusalem Christian leaders died with their compatriot Jewish revolutionaries at the hands of the Romans. If true, then this would mean that the original sect of Jewish Christians died out/were replaced by Greek Christians. (Note: This of course, is not the only viewpoint. According to the fourth century C.E. Christian chronicler Eusebius, there was no disruption in Christian leadership following the Jewish-Roman wars, although the congregation was forced to move to Syria. Still, when Eusebius describes this congregation he clearly has now switched towards GENTILE Christian doctrines. Because Eusebius was writing over two hundred years after the Roman- Jewish war of 66-70 C.E., some scholars have questioned the reliability of his writings-- especially since other areas have not proved reliable. (For example, basically no historian today accepts Eusebius' contention that Pilate suffered divine retribution for his role in sentencing Jesus.) Possibly, Eusebius had information that a few escaped and merged later with what became a gentile congregation. Jewish Christians who refused to merge with gentiles, such as the Ebionites, were later declared heretical by the GENTILE, Orthodox Church.) The Early Community of Gentile Christians Even during the lifetime of St. Paul, gentile Christian congregations were rapidly gaining new converts throughout the ancient world. Based on Paul's letters, it would appear that during his ministry, the majority of Christian converts were drawn from the lower uneducated classes. Consider these passages by Paul: *"Consider your call, brethren, not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many of noble birth; but God chose the foolish in the world to shame the wise. (1 Cor. 1:26) * "It is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart. "Where is this wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world! (1 Corinthians 1:19-20) The gospel writers also picked up on this theme, by depicting Jesus himself as denigrating human wisdom. For example, in Matthew 11:25, we read how Jesus had leveled judgment against those cities which had apparently rejected him: "I am grateful, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; such was your gracious intention." (see also Luke 10:21) A careful reading of the gospels also shows an antagonism towards the rich (see for ex. Matthew 19:22-24;23:17) and the wise (see Matthew 22:15; 23:1-11). Christian brotherhood is emphasized as opposed to learning. Jesus is presented as constantly putting down the supposed "learning" of the Pharisees. (see Matthew 23:8) (R Joseph Hoffman, JESUS OUTSIDE THE GOSPELS, Prometheus Books, 1984, p 31) Early Pagan Criticism of Christianity Apparently, pagan critics of Christianity also leveled the charge that early Christianity appealed to the more uneducated elements of society. Although these original pagan criticisms have NOT survived the book burnings and purges that began in the fourth century C.E., some references to these by Christian writers have survived. One of the most important sources of pagan criticisms comes from the Christian theologian Origen (185-254 C.E.) who wrote a book to REFUTE the attacks made by a pagan named Celsus. Naming his book CONTRA CELSUM (Opposing Celsus), Origen sometimes directly quotes some of the claims made by Celsus, such as the following: [Christians] do not even want to give or to receive a reason for what they believe, and use such expressions as "Do not ask question; just believe" and "Thy faith will save thee." ... Their injunctions are like this: "Let no one educated, no one wise, no one sensible draw near. For these abilities are thought by us to be evil. But as for anyone ignorant, anyone stupid, anyone uneducated, anyone who is a child, let him come boldly." By the fact that they themselves admit that these people are worthy of their God, they show that they are able to convince only the foolish, dishonourable, and stupid, and only slaves, women, and little children...In private houses also we see wool-workers, cobblers, laundry workers, and the most bucolic and illiterate yokels. who would not dare to say anything at all in front of their elders and more intelligent masters. (ORIGEN, CONTRA CELSUM, trans Henry Chadwick (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 1,9;3.44 quoted by JESUS OUTSIDE THE GOSPELS, JOSEPH HOFFMAN P 33) By the second century C.E., intellectuals were converting to Christianity too. Origen, was one such example. In rebutting claims made by Celsus (in his book CONTRA CELSUS), Origen observed that most pagans were ALSO uneducated and superstitious--and believed in FALSE gods at that! Church Organization and Hierarchy during the FIRST Century C.E. During the ministry of the Apostle Paul to the Gentile congregations, Paul preached that the End of the World was imminent! Therefore the saving of souls was of the most urgent matter. Because the End was near, there was no need, in Paul's mind, for the church to develop a formal hierarchical structure of bishops, deacons, etc. Instead, Paul envisioned a hierarchy where apostles were revered as the head of the Church. After that, the power of the Spirit took over--working through all the believers. According to Paul, "God has appointed in the Church first apostles, then prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues." Even in Paul's time, this complete spiritual freedom quickly led to anarchy. Various individuals, by claiming that they were under the influence of the Spirit, could boast of "superior" wisdom and gifts--superior not only to the educated elite, but to ALL forms of authority as well-- including "Paul's" claim to authority. --Growth of Gnostic Christians Gnostic Christians posed a special problem. As with Paul, they believed in the power of the individual to possess spiritual knowledge ("gnosis" is Greek for knowledge). This is probably the main reason they were attracted to Paul's gentile version of Christianity. But even though they formally converted to Christianity, they insisted that THEY still possessed the power to "know" or tap into spiritual truth themselves. To Paul's dismay, he found that many kept some of their older gnostic beliefs, while stubbornly refusing to acknowledge all [of Paul's] "orthodox" doctrine. For example, in Colossus, Paul discovered that some Christians were worshiping intermediary spirits and angels. Thus, almost as quickly as Paul gave spiritual freedom, he and other church leaders found it necessary to reverse this position, and define "orthodox", meaning "correct" doctrine. During this time, gnostic Christians groups grew and expanded in power. Indeed, to Paul and later "orthodox" Christians, this would be hard to combat, because (as Hippolytus observed), it was like the mythological Hydra.-- Whenever one head had been successfully severed off, two more ugly heads grew in its place. As we have already seen, some gnostic groups, such as those in Syria, had accepted Jesus as their redeemer, but believed the Jewish god of the Old Testament was the devil (or Demiurge). Other groups accepted Christian redemption, but substituted their own redeemer--such as Simon Magus, Hercules, etc in place of Jesus. One powerful sect of Gnostic Christians believed that Jesus was a divine spirit--and as such, that it was thus impossible for him to be physically transformed into human flesh. (That is they believed Jesus was divine, but did NOT believe in the incarnation.) As a divine spirit, Jesus could not have REALLY suffered on the cross--but only "APPEARED" to suffer. These gnostics were dubbed "Docetists" from the Greek word "dokesis", which means "seems" or "appears". The Docetist Christians gained a large number of adherents especially among hellenized groups, for whom a Jewish messiah had no real relevance or meaning. Many Docetists wished to disregard the Old Testament, and in this way sever all ties with Judaism. One important offshoot of the Docetists was a movement known as the Manichees. The leader of this sect, a Greek Christian convert named Marcian quarreled with the Roman Christian authorities in 144 C.E., and took his body of believers eastwards with him. Marcion believed that only the letters of Paul and the gospel of Luke and Acts were inspired. Stressing a pure God of "love", Marcion rejected the use of coercion and force to bring about obedience. (Jehovah of the Old Testament was rejected as the "true" God according to this view). Manichees held the gnostic dualistic view that all matter was evil. The true God gave humanity a spark of the light that could lead one to salvation through self-knowledge. Although none of Marcion's writings have survived, orthodox Christian critiques of his movements do exist. The orthodox Christian Tertullian raged against followers of Marcion for their naive belief that only love of God is needed to be a good Christian, and not fear: "They say it is only an evil being who will be feared, a good one will be loved. Foolish man! Do you say that he whom you call LORD ought not to be feared, whilst the very title you give him indicates a power which MUST be feared?' Without fear, men would "boil over into lust" thus indulging in all the sinful activities such as frequenting games, circuses, and theatres." Other groups were charismatic, as opposed to gnostic in nature. Around 170 C.E., Montanus was declared an enemy of the church for his style of Christianity. Members of his congregation were encouraged to prophesize through the power of the Holy Spirit. Montanus believed the End of the World was near and apparently presented himself as the paraclete predicted in the gospel of John. Montanus' sect was reportedly very popular with women. Montanus was accused of encouraging women to leave their husbands, and for giving them high level offices within his church. During this time, Tertullian railed against this subversion: "The impudence of the heretics' women! They dare to teach, to dispute, to carry out exorcisms, perform cures--perhaps they even baptize". It is possible that the later Catholic tradition of barring women from holding religious office, was in response to some of these "unorthodox" movements. Early Christian Texts The gospel writings of Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John were probably all written in the latter half of the first century/ early second century C.E. Still, these were not universally accepted by all Christian sects. Instead, each Christian sect determined which writings they considered sacred. During this time, there were a large number of gnostic writings, which were revered by gnostic Christian sects. One of these, the gospel of Thomas (discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1947), is believed by many scholars to have been contemporary to those of the New Testament gospels. Some biblical historians believe that up through the second century C.E., the MAJORITY of Christians belonged to various gnostic or charismatic inspired sects. Their proof for this position is as follows: Although most Christian "heretical" writings have disappeared, some references to their TITLES have survived . And these titles themselves do not suggest the struggle of a minority heretical sect against a majority orthodoxy. Instead, some historians have argued, they suggest that they were the ' "regular teachings of the established majority faith". (Paul Johnson, A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, p 52). Although the Church father Eusebius (4th century C.E.) strove to validate the Catholic church as the only orthodox church through the earliest centuries, his proof is less then convincing.--He wanted to show that a large number of books setting down the orthodox faith had been written during the first centuries and that these had forced the heretics back into tiny minority groups. However these books Eusebius refers to, have not survived down to us-- and judging from his references, even he had not appeared to have read them. Since the Catholic church became the dominate church after the times of Eusebius, it is strange that these works would have disappeared after this time, if they had really existed. (Ibid) DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIANITY INTO THE SECOND CENTURY-- --I. New Testament Books are Agreed Upon, in Compromise After, 1) it became obvious that the Second Coming had been indefinitely postponed, and 2) faced with diverse Christian groups espousing "heretical" doctrines, non-gnostic Christian groups (following in the tradition of Paul), sought to define "orthodox" or correct Christian beliefs and practices. This created the demand for a "universal" creed, which was especially difficult at this time, because different groups did not even agree on which books of the New Testament were inspired. It was around the time of Irenaeus (around 180 C.E.), that we first hear (in his AGAINST HERESIES) of the existence of a network of Christian churches, that would later evolve into Orthodox (correct) Christianity. Irenaeus, who was bishop of Lyons, was also the first to mention the official books of the canon--which we refer today as the New Testament. Because there were still a large number of small Christian sects during this time, Irenaeus' list of New Testament canon was not accepted by all Christian sects. Split of Early Christian Groups over Acceptance of the New Testament Canon Seeing the diverse corpus of religious writings that existed, Christian writers were more aware of the contradictions that existed and of the possibility of religious fraud. Origen had complained of the common practice of his day of tampering with the scriptures when he wrote: "Men add to them or leave out, as seems good to themselves." Even earlier than Origen, Dionysius of Corinth (168-176 C.E.) remarked that it was no wonder that his own writings were tampered with, seeing how men similarly presumed to deprave the Word of God. His contemporary, Irenaeus also complained of a corrupted text. One reaction (as can be shown from the writings of Bishop Papias) was to exclude all writings that were demonstrably not connected to the traditions of the apostles. Marcion had taken this policy to an extreme degree, by accepting as inspired, only the Pauline letters and the writings of Luke. Using essentially modern methods, he had determined that some letters were falsely ascribed to Paul, and thus also excluded these from his canon. His most dramatic decision was to exclude the Old Testament from his canon, thus cutting off all official ties in his community to Judaism. Many Church fathers obviously recognized that by severing all ties with Judaism, that "historical" aspects of Jesus' ministry and teachings would be missing from the canon. And in this void, they probably worried that this would open up Christianity to more hellenized, gnostic interpretations. The movement toward defining the canonical text was gradual, and in the end, represented a compromise between different communities who had their own favorite texts. The true goal was to identify and take "dangerous" heretical texts out of circulation. In the early fourth century, starting with the reign of Constantine, gnostic texts were largely destroyed after Orthodox Christians came to power. Indeed, gnostic writings were so thoroughly hunted down and destroyed, that prior to this century, the only information on gnostic writings came from references by orthodox Christians to the "heretical" gnostic writings. It was not until 1947, that a large collection of gnostic texts were discovered at Nag Hammadi, Egypt. (Presumably they were buried by Coptic monks in Egypt in order to save them from being destroyed by Orthodox censors in the fourth century C.E.) Included in the heretical writings, was the gospel of Thomas. Some scholars believe the gospel of Thomas, which shows strong gnostic influences, was possibly written close in time to the other gospels of the New Testament--ie Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The gospel of John is believed to contain strong gnostic influences, and was a favorite of the Montanists and other "heretical" groups. Interestingly, it was targeted for exclusion by some groups from the official canon. Gradually, the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John became universally accepted as the official canon. As noted above, Irenaeus of Lyons was the first to write of the existence of the four gospels by name -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Irenaeus argued that there MUST be four gospels, just as there were four faces in the vision of Ezekiel--ie a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle. Although Revelation was pronounced inspired, the eastern Christian churches refused to accept it, even up into the eighth century C.E. The 'Gospel of Peter' was in use in Rhossus during the latter part of the second century. Eusebius of Caesarea who wrote in the fourth century C.E. noted that such letters as James, Jude, II Peter, and II and III John were not accepted by all the churches. To broaden the appeal of the canon, compromises were made to help gain their acceptance. After all, even with their known contradictions, there was still useful information in all of these texts-- and various church groups could always emphasize their favorite passages to their own individual congregations. The pastoral epistles (which most modern scholars agree with Marcion, were not written by Paul) were included in the canon because of their favorable treatment of orthodox topics. Almost all of the early Christian fathers (including Augustine) believed that the epistle of Hebrews was not written by Paul. Nevertheless, it was popular in the Eastern churches--and was therefore later accepted as an official Pauline letter in a compromise struck during the church council of Carthage in 419 C.E. The first official list of inspired books was prepared by the Patriarch Athanasius of Alexandria in the year 367 C.E. (Codex Sinaiticus includes in it the letter of Barabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Origin thought the latter inspired. Barnabas, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria quoted from it.) --II. Early Churches Begin to Organize along Formal Hierarchies By the second century, churches began to formally organize into the formal levels of authority--bishops, deacons, and so forth in an orderly succession of power. Clement (who according to one tradition was the third bishop of Rome) first suggested the authority of church leaders through their succession from the apostles, in a letter he wrote to the Corinthians (circa 95 C.E.). However, in this same letter he makes no reference to his own authority as a bishop. Roughly a hundred years later, the current bishop of Rome, Ignatius wrote how the position of bishop had evolved more clearly into the leading authority of the community: "Do nothing without the bishop", was a favorite maxim of Ignatius'. (Bainton, op cit, p 73) According to Ignatius of Antioch, the three church ranks of bishop, priests, and deacons mirrored the divine order of authority in heaven itself. Just as there is one God in heaven, Ignatius reasoned, so there should only be one bishop in the church. And just as God rules over a divine council in heaven which is over the apostles; the bishop should rule over a council of priests, which in turn rules over the deacons in the Christian community. The hierarchical organization of the church was patterned largely after the political organization within the Roman Empire. Every municipality designated a bishop. An archbishop ruled over the bishops of his province. Bishops over certain cities, such as in Constantinople and Milan were able to assert their leadership within the church, largely because of their nearness to the power of the emperor. Other cities claimed authority over issues of doctrine and discipline, due to their purported ties to apostolic foundings of their churches (and therefore the claim that they preserved in purer form the authoritative teachings of the original apostles). By the early fifth century C.E., five bishoprics (or patriarchates) had become pre-eminent within Christianity: Constantinople, Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Controversy and In-Fighting Among the Early Christian groups. As the orthodox church grew in numbers and power, it became more common to believe that ANY deviation in doctrine was a serious sin--which would inevitably lead to moral decay. With this narrow outlook, the verbal and written attacks between the orthodox and the other Christian sects became extremely bitter and divisive. Even though NON-orthodox Christian sects attracted large followings, and were often very strict and God-fearing, this did not prevent Orthodox Christians from attacking them on MORAL grounds. For example, Montanists officials were accused of gluttony and greed, just for receiving salaries. Orthodox Christians also charged that among the Manichees "no modesty, no sense of honour and no chastity whatever is to be found; their moral code is a mass of falsehoods, their religious beliefs are shaped by the devil, and their sacrifice is immorality itself." (Paul Johnson, HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, p 51). Another sect, lead by an Alexander was accused of committing theft, and holding disgusting feasts with the prophetess Priscilla. The orthodox charged: "Does a true prophet use make-up? Does he gamble? Play dice? Does he lend money at interest?" (Ibid) There were attacks AGAINST the orthodox Christian churches too, although most of these have not survived. The following one, dating from the fifth century is one of the few that has survived: When Bishop Cyril of Alexandria died, Bishop Theodoret of Cyrrhus wrote, "The living are delighted. The dead, perhaps, are sorry, afraid they may be burdened with his company... May the guild of undertakers lay a huge, heavy stone on his grave, lest he should come back again and show his faithless mind again. Let him take his new doctrines to Hell, and preach to the damned all day and night." (Ibid) Pagans noted the in-fighting that existing among Christians. Quoting from Origin's CONTRA CELSUS, the pagan Celsus charged how different groups of Christians "slander one another with dreadful and unspeakable words of abuse, and they would not make even the least concession to come to agreement; for they utterly detest one another." Celsus' THE TRUE WORD Celsus had originaly written his anti-Christian polemic, in a work entitled THE TRUE WORD. Although the original work of Celsus has not survived, Origen, writing some seventy years after Celsus' book, preserved many of his criticisms in his rebuttal CONTRA CELSUS. Here, Origin included Celsus' charges, so that he could refute them. From Origen's book, CONTRA CELSUS, we know that pagans such as Celsus (who was a Platonist) believed that an all powerful and good God could not have created this wicked world--for surely God would have made a good world instead of a corrupted world. In contrast, polytheism reflected nature--each deity being an expression of the Supreme God in heaven, and having special duties in a good Creation. Celsus argued that there was a serious flaw in both Judaic and Christian theology in that it taught that the Creation centered around man: "They say that God made all things for man". However, the truth was, that man was no "better" than the ants and the bees, before the eyes of God. Indeed, plants grew for the sake of animals as well as for men. Before he settled down to live in cities, man did not have unquestioned mastery over the animals. Pagans such as Celsus challenged stories in the Old Testament as obvious myths. For example, the question was asked how God could have made light before he made the sun and moon, as asserted in the first chapter of Genesis. (Bainton, p 84) (see Section VIII, Chapter 2.) The story of Noah's ark was also questioned. For as more animals from around the world were being documented, pagans calculated that there did not appear to be any PHYSICAL way for Noah's ark (which purportedly measured only 300 cubits X 50 cubits X 30 cubits) to be large enough to hold a pair of all known animals. During this time, a cubit was held to be the distance from a man's elbow to his index finger--ie about 1 1/2 feet, which would make the ark roughly 150 yards long. Origen offered one possible solution.--That because Genesis 6:4 recorded that "there were giants on the earth in those days", Origen though it possible that the cubit referred to in the Bible could be as much as six times larger that its current measurement. Attacks were also made on New Testament passages on the life of Jesus. Celsus argued that Jesus had NOT lived an exemplary life. Instead, the gospel stories showed that Jesus had collected around him a group of 'rascals' that were instructed to simply run to the next town when they got into trouble. (Celsus is here referencing Matthew's Jesus: "When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next..."). Celsus also stated that there was no strong evidence of Jesus' resurrection.--Indeed, it was only witnessed by a crazy woman (ie Mary Magdalene) and some deluded followers. When Christians claimed that the scripture predicted his resurrection, Celsus replied that it would have been easy for the disciples to have inserted the predictions in their gospel. According to Celsus, if God WERE interested in setting the world right, He certainly would not have selected Palestine (which was far from main civilization) as his base-- nor would he have saved the world through an illegitimate child. Instead of hiding Jesus away in some remote corner of the world, God would have sent Jesus to confront religious leaders and intellectuals--those who scoffed that the resurrection was real. Celsus spoke bitterly how Christianity encouraged sinners to join them, whereas the mystery religions encourge those to live a good life in order to be invited: "I speak bitterly about this, because I feel bitterly. When we are invited to the Mysteries the masters use another tone. They say, 'Come to us ye who are of clean heands and pure speech, ye who are unstained by crime, who have a good conscience towards God, who have done justly and lived uprightly." In contrast, the Christians invite to belong to their religion: "...whosoever is a sinner or unintelligent, or a fool, in a word, whosoever is god-forsaken, him the kingdom of God will receive.. Now whom do you mean by the sinner but the wicked, thief, housebreaker, poisoner, temple robber, grave robber? ... [Christians] pretend that God will save the unjust man if he repents and humbles himself. The just man who has held steadily from the cradle in the ways of virtue he will not look upon." Celsus repeated the charge that Christians would hurt Roman society-- That is, because Christians withdrew from social and political life, it followed that if all society became Christian, then no one would fight in the army and the empire would be overrun with barbarians. Origen's Rebuttal to Celsus Origen argued eloquently to these charges brought up by Celsus in his CONTRA CELSUS as follows. First of all, it was ILLOGICAL for Christ's disciples to have manufactured a lie.--Were they not SO convinced of its truth that they were ready to DIE for this belief? Origen conceded that events recorded in the New Testament were unusual for an all-powerful deity (for example, as to why Jesus picked the disciple Judas, who would later betray him.) However to Origen, this was proof that Christians were HONESTLY recording ALL the facts--ie and NOT manufacturing lies! Origen also stressed that Christians were good, moral citizens of Rome-- whose congregations stood out as beacons in the night before the pagan world. (Bainton, CHRISTIANITY, p 84-5) No other pagan religious leader taught such deep, inspiring moral stories AND conducted miracles during their ministries. Indeed, pagan ethics often contained immoral ethics, originating from the legends of the gods on Olympus. As to Celsus' charge that the Christian miracles were difficult to believe as true, Origen pointed out that many beliefs in paganism were even more absurd! Pagans worshiped God's creation, as opposed to God Himself. Their idols were lifeless and dumb-- and were made from rotten wood or rusty metal, at that. Still, Origen conceded that one could NOT always accept all passages of the Scriptures as LITERALLY true. Instead he interpreted some stories ALLEGORICALLY as representing great spiritual truths. "What man of sense", he wrote, "will suppose that the first and second and third day, and the evening and the morning existed without sun and moon and stars? Or that God walked in the garden in the evening and that Adam hid himself under a tree? Or that the Devil took Jesus into a high mountain from which he could see the kingdom of the Persians and Scythians and Indians?" Instead, such passages held meaning only on a higher, spiritual plane. Origen believed that discrepancies between the Synoptic Gospels were not important because they were merely the human media through which the divine message of the Gospels were expressed. Developments in the later Second and Third Century-- --Incorporation of Greek classical philosophy into Christian theology. Early Christianity at first appealed largely to the uneducated masses. However, this changed after the first century, as various Church fathers (such as Origen) who were well versed in the Greek classics, "intellectualized" Christianity. In the process, Greek ideals and concepts became incorporated into Christianized views and dogma. Christian writers recognized that in order to compete intellectually with both Greek and Jewish philosophies, that they needed to build an intellectually sound foundation. Known as "apologetes", these writers defended Christian doctrine against attacks that became increasingly common, as Christians grew in numbers to became a sizeable minority by the third century C.E. During this time, many Church fathers saw a brotherhood between Christianity and Greek Platonic philosophy. Admiring the virtues of Greek Platonism, the Christian father Clement of Alexandria (d. 203 C.E.) wrote that God had given Greek philosophy to the people to prepare them for the coming of Christ, just as he had given the Hebrew scriptures to the Jews. According to Clement, "Philosophy then before the advent of the Lord was necessary to bring them to righteousness, but now it is profitable to bring them to [Christian] piety ..." He thus saw philosophy as "a preparation, making the way ready for the man who is being made perfect by Christ." (Clement, STROMATA, and MISCELLANIES). Platonic philosophy also believed in a great Creator of the universe. Clement believed that the references he saw in Plato's TIMAEUS to the Creator as "father" and about the three levels of divine reality were evidence for "nothing else than the Holy Trinity." (Ibid, 5.14). Likewise, the Genesis account describing the creation of the universe through God's words (Let there be..." was found to be similar to the later identification of Jesus as the Logos or Word of God, who had pre-existed with God since the beginning of time. According to Clement, "Plato all but predicts the history of salvation." Clement believed he saw a clear reference to Jesus in book 2 of Plato's REPUBLIC, which depicts a dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon. Glaucon postulated that whereas most of us have a combination of righteousness and unrighteousness in us, that there would arise a man who was totally unrighteous, and another man who was totally righteous. Glaucon continues, Let this one "righteous man, in his nobleness and simplicity, one who desires ...to be a good man" be instead falsely accused of being the worst of men. Let him, more ever "remain steadfast to the hour of death, seeming to be unrighteous and yet being righteous." What will the outcome be? Glaucon answers that "he shall be scourged, tortured, bound, his eyes burnt out, and at last, after suffering every evil, shall be impaled or crucified." (Plato, REPUBLIC 2.360-61, IBID 44-45) Thus Clement argued the Greeks had anticipated Christ all along. (Clement of Alexandria, STROMATA 5.12) Likewise, the philosopher Socrates was seen sympathetically as a precursor and forerunner of Christ. The divine Logos was seen to have been active in Socrates when he denounced polytheism among the ancient Greeks, and by his teachings anticipated Christian doctrine, such as the belief in immortality. The Christian father Justin stated that Socrates was "A Christian before Christ", and like Christ he was executed by the enemies of reason and the Logos. (Justin Martyr, I APOLOGY 5 46; II APOLOGY 10. Ibid, p 44) As we have seen, Origen intellectualized Christianity through allegory and direct arguments--such as those presented in his famous work CONTRA CELSUS, The result was that Origen's writings served to make Christian doctrine more attractive to educated pagans in the late second and third centuries C.E. Naturally there were some Christian "purists" that resisted any reconciliation of Christianity with Greek philosophy. A contemporary of Origen, Tertullian issued the following famous statement on faith: "The Son of God died; this is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And he was buried and rose again; this fact is certain, because it is impossible" (Tertullian, ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST 5) And, "Philosophy is the material of the world's wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and dispensation of God. Indeed, heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy. From this source came the 'aeons' and I know not what infinite 'forms', and the 'trinity of man' in the system of Valentinus: he was a Platonist. From the same source came Marcion better god with his tranquility--he started as a Stoic..." Indeed, demanded Tertullian, "we want no curious disputation, no inquiries after enjoying the gospel! What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to do with the Church? What have heretics to do with Christians? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart. Away with all attempts to produce a Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic Christianity!" (Tertullian, ON PRESCRIPTION AGAINST HERETICS 7) Despite his attacks on "Athens", Tertullian had also (whether he realized it or not) borrowed from the Greek intellectual culture in his formulation of Christian dogma. It was he who first used the word "Trinity" and devised the doctrine of THREE separate persons combined together in ONE substance. It was Tertullian who also coined the word "consubstantial" which would be later adopted by the Orthodox Catholic church in composing the official catholic creed for believers. ("Consubstantial" is a vague term--but it can be thought of in terms of the Son SHARING in substance with the Father). (Bainton, op cit., p 79) As a purist, Tertullian believed that once a person had been baptized, then there could be no "second" forgiveness, if he later committed a serious sin. (Indeed, this view was so common, that many people delayed formal conversion to Christianity until later in life--and some even waited until they were close to death--just to ensure that they would not elapse into sin AFTER baptism--and thus not be forgiven.) When other Orthodox leaders allowed "second" forgiveness--ie began the use of sacraments to "forgive" sins, Tertullian became so outraged that he eventually left Orthodoxy--joining the ranks of the Montanists (whom he had bitterly accused of being a heretical sect earlier in his career.) Thus, ironically, over this one issue, Tertullian, who had lived the majority of his life as a staunch orthodox, became in effect, its first "protestant". "FAKED" Genealogies of Christian Bishop Successions By the third century, most orthodox congregations, in an effort to prove their "legitimacy" for authority--compiled lists of bishops, each being consecrated by the former--who purportedly went back to the very founding of the church by Jesus' apostles. The idea was probably borrowed from gnostics, who claimed that THEIR teachers had also gone all the way back to Jesus' disciples, from whom they were transmitting the power of "gnosis". (The gnostic Valentinus, for example, claimed to have been taught by Theodas, a disciple of Paul.) The fourth century chronicler Eusebius referred to succession lists as "proof" that orthodox Christianity had a tradition of authority that went all the way back to Jesus. An analysis of these lists by scholars and historians has, however, presented a different view: For example, the succession proofs in Edessa, Syria are generally believed to have been manufactured by Bishop Kune, the first orthodox bishop of the church--who was a CONTEMPORAY of Eusebius (fourth century C.E.). There is evidence that Christianity was instead originally brought into the area by Manichean missionaries around the year 150 C.E. Likewise in Egypt, gnostic Christian groups appeared to have been the majority Christian group in the upper Nile valley (which is also the area where the Nag Hammadi gnostic texts were discovered in 1947). The first orthodox bishop, is believed to have been Bishop Demetrius (189-231 C.E.) A genealogy list of ten mythological bishop predecessors which purported to go all the way back to Mark, and therefore Peter and Jesus, is believed by many scholars to have been faked. (Paul Johnson, A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, p 52) Rome, Mother Church of Christianity-- Peter, the Rock on Which the Church is Built. Even today, the popes in Rome justify their supreme authority over Christendom, based on the claim that they are the successors of a long line of popes, going all the way back to St. Peter. Although there is NO reference in the Bible WHERE Peter went after departing from Jerusalem-- nevertheless, Catholic tradition holds that he went to Rome and later founded the church there. (The Roman Catholic Church thus traces his authority as coming from Peter, and hence from Jesus.) The Catholic church bases their authority on the following arguments: (1) Peter was the first disciple to be called by Jesus. (2) Peter was mentioned first in the list of disciples. (3) Peter established the Catholic church in Rome. (Footnote, this section borrows heavily from Gerald Larue, "The Papal Peter Principle, FREE INQUIRY, Spring 1990, ) Skeptics (including Protestants) disagree with Catholic Rome's claim to authority. Below are some common refutations to Rome's claim to primacy: (1) Although it is true that the Synoptic gospels lists Simon (Peter) as the first disciple to be called--according to the gospel of John, it was Andrew (brother of Peter) who first brought Peter to Jesus. In the gospel of John, it was also Andrew who first recognized Jesus' status as messiah (unlike in the other three gospels who state it was Peter.) (2) While the synoptic gospels mention Peter first in the list of disciples, in John, Peter is not emphasized at all. Instead John focuses on the "beloved disciple"--who sits next to Jesus during the Last Supper and receives the care of Jesus' mother during Jesus' crucifixion. (3) Catholics point to Matthew 16:18, as their strongest proof that Jesus meant to give Peter the authority on which Christianity would build its church. According to this verse, Jesus tells Peter: "You are Peter [Petros] and on this rock [petra] I will build my church." (Note: Peter means rock in Greek, while Cephas is the Aramaic word for rock) Protestants are not convinced that St. Peter was given such authority. Matthew 16:19 ALSO tells how Jesus told Peter: "I will give you the keys to the kingdom, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." This SAME authority was ALSO given to the ENTIRE group of disciples in other passages. In Matthew 18:19-20, Jesus promises power and authority to ANY "two or three" of the disciples who are "gathered in my name". (see also John 20:21-3). In Matthew 18:18, Jesus said to his disciples: "Truly, I say to you that whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Note, the terms "binding" and "loosing" mean to "determine that which is acceptable or unacceptable", or the "right to speak words of condemnation or forgiveness".) (Ibid, p 27) Peter is also NOT the only person referred to as a rock in the Bible. The Old Testament refers to Yahweh as the "salvation rock" (Dt. 32:4, 15,18; 1 Sam 2:2; 2 Sam 22:2, Psalm 118:22, etc). Paul calls Jesus the "rock" (1 Cor. 10:4) and the "cornerstone" (Eph 2:20). Some critics have pointed out that the term for church used in Matthew 16:18 (ie "ecclesia"--or formal organization of a church) is a term that does not appear anywhere else in the four gospels. Instead, the term appears in the Pauline letters, the book of Acts (written by the author of Luke), and Revelation. Their point is, that Jesus probably had no intention of forming a formal church, and that this was probably added by later Christians as the Christian movement began expanding outside of Palestine into the Gentile world. (According to Gerald Larue, if Jesus had ever discussed the topic, he probably would have used the Aramaic term "qahela" or "kenishta" which refer to an UNSTRUCTURED community of users-- as opposed to a formal organization.) (Ibid, p 27) Peter in Rome According to Catholic tradition, Peter went to Rome and was martyred by the Emperor Nero by being crucified UPSIDE DOWN. There is an indirect reference in the New Testament to Peter's martyrdom (although the city where it took place is not mentioned.) In John 21:18-19, the resurrected Jesus tells Peter "'...when you are old, you will reach out your hands and someone else will bind you and carry you where you do not wish to go.' He said this to indicate the manner of death by which Peter was to glorify God." The tradition that Peter was in Rome, is an ancient one. The late second century C.E. Christian father Tertullian had known of this tradition and by his time, there was already a monument commemorating Peter's martyrdom on Vatican Hill (around 160 C.E.). Although Rome could claim two great martyrs--Peter and Paul--when its genealogies were being compiled, Paul's name was not included on the succession lists (possibly in response to the orthodox split with the Marcionists who regarded Paul as their only authority). The first real functioning bishop of Rome was probably Soter (166-74 C.E.). (Paul Johnson, A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, p 60) Interestingly enough, there appears to be no HISTORICAL evidence that Rome took advantage of its claim to be Peter's rock, or mother church, until around 250 C.E., during an episcopal conflict. (Ibid, P 61). (Note: Around 185 C.E., Irenaeus wrote a letter to the Corinthians where he traced the Roman succession in chronological order to himself as follows: Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter, Eleutherus. On the Liberian Catalogue was compiled in Rome around 354 C.E., Peter's name appears as first bishop of Rome. A forged letter believed to have been written around the third century purports to be evidence of Peter ordaining Clement as the SECOND bishop of Rome (ie Linus and Anacletus are omitted). Since the time of Irenaeus, the Church of Rome maintained its position of leadership from its succession of bishops from Peter. (Roland H. Bainton, CHRISTIANITY, p 73-4) There were other factors though that probably lead to Rome's claim to primacy as the legitimate head of Christendom IN THE WEST. It had an early reputation for faithfulness and orthodoxy--It steered clear of the influences of gnosticism and charismatics that were so popular in the eastern realms of the Empire--such as Syria, Asia Minor, and Egypt. Being headquartered in the capital of the Roman Empire also gave the Church in Rome an image of prestige and power. The Roman congregation was very wealthy, and had become even wealthier during the second century C.E. There are surviving letters that tell of the Roman Christians' great generosity in sending contributions to "many churches in every city." Persecutions of Early Christian by Roman pagans. The Christians were NOT the first religious group to suffer persecution at the hands of the Romans! In order to revive traditional Roman religious practices, attempts had been made, going as far back as the Roman emperor Augustus, to suppress some of the "mystery" or Oriental cults. Tensions mounted from these attempts, such as the Jewish-pagan riots in Alexandria in 38 C.E. and 115-116 C.E. The first recorded instance of Christians being persecuted (according to the second century C.E. historian Tacitus) occurred when Nero blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome in 64 C.E. Were the Earliest Christians Persecuted? Early Christian writings tell of "worldwide" persecutions against Christians. (ex. 1 Peter 5:9). Yet these writings do not indicate that Christians, for the most part, were in fear of their lives. Instead these writings typically urge Christians to OBEY the imperial authorities". For example 1 Peter 2:13-4 states, "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right." It would be difficult to assume that this Christian author would write so respectfully of the Roman Empire, and authority in general, if there were serious persecutions being waged against the Christian community. Early persecutions against Christians were often in response to wildly exaggerated rumors about the Christians.-- The rite of the Eucharist whereby the adherents participated in "flesh" and "blood" was distorted into a rumor that Christians were cannibals. The Christians' "kiss of peace" at Sunday services was similarly distorted to refer to deviate sexual practices, including incest. During this time many of the purges against Christians represented LOCAL pagan mob reactions to these distorted stories--and not empire wide practices. Early, Local Persecutions Against Christians The earliest persecutions--such as those under Nero(54-68 C.E.)--appear to have been local only to Rome and of short duration. (Note: According to GA Wells in THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR JESUS, P 81, only the Christian writer Clement even mentions Nero's persecution before bishop Melito (circa 170 C.E.). Melito wrote as though persecution in his area of Asia was rare during his time, and Tertullian wrote that persecution began in North Africa after 180 C.E.). Interesting, some historians believe that the majority of the EARLIEST Christian martyrs belonged to mainly the more charismatic Christian sects, (which would later be deemed "heretical" by the Catholic Church.) (Paul Johnson, A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, p 72). For example, one of the most violent accounts of Christian martyrdom was the reported torturing of a Christian woman named Belinda. According to Eusebius she was "tortured from dawn till evening, till her torturers were exhausted and... marveled that the breath was still in her body". She was then roasted, and then thrown in a basket which was tossed to wild bulls. According to some historians and scholars, Belinda was probably a Montanist mystic and prophetess. (Ibid, p 73) In the first centuries C.E., between brief outbreaks of fanatical persecutions against them, Christians were tolerated for even longer periods of time. During these periods of toleration, Christians began organizing into churches under the leadership of presbyters, bishops and deacons. (This is a common pattern, and parallels the waves of persecutions the Jews would later experience, followed by other periods of toleration.) Christians, for their part, liked to keep attention away from themselves, so they could live in peace. One tactic was to stress their loyalty as good citizens of Rome, and their high morals as Christian believers. This was possibly one reason why the Church tried to push for uniformity against more charismatic sects, whose non-orthodox practices tended to be noisier and thus attracted more unwanted attention from the Roman authorities. Possibly it was for this reason that prophesizing was forbidden by members of the Christian Orthodoxy. Prophesying (a common practice among the Montanists) was also a Roman State offense, as this was believed to encourage mob incitement. Empire-Wide Persecutions against Christians It is possibly not a coincidence that the large systematic purges against Christians occurred in the second century C.E., as Christians were becoming a more powerful growing minority in the Empire, and Roman emperors perceived them as more of an unstable influence on the empire. In the eyes of the Roman pagans, early Christianity was just another one of the many mystery religions operating within society. However, unlike the other mystery religions who were generally tolerant of beliefs outside their religious system, Christians were INTOLERANT and ANTI-SOCIAL against pagans and Jews, even fighting violently among themselves over doctrinal matters. Many Roman officials were angered by the Christian's apparent lack of respect for people outside their own religion--which of course continued on into lack of respect for the Roman State and her institutions. The Christians refused to sacrifice to the health of the emperor, nor take part in any of the State celebrations in which any of the empire's gods were honored. The office of the emperor represented the symbol of the Roman Empire itself, which united the empire's diverse citizens together under one authority. Refusal to acknowledge that the emperor ruled by divine right, was viewed with suspicion as tantamount to unpatriotic behavior, possibly even potential rebellion. (As noted in Section I, Chapter 9, educated Romans since the first century C.E., remembered Jesus as living in the fanatically rebellious district of Judea-- and that he had been ordered crucified by a Roman governor. Although this implied rebellious activity--Christians passionately denied that their religious founder had ever been involved in ANY revolutionary activity!) Starting around 90 C.E., these empire-wide persecutions were particularly fierce under the reigns of the Roman emperors Domitian (81-96 C.E.), Hadrian (117-138 C.E.), Antoninus Pius (138-161 C.E.), Decius (249-51 C.E.), and last Diocletian (285-305 C.E.). Golden Age of the Roman Empire From 96 to 180 C.E., The Roman Empire had experienced what would later be favorably recalled as a GOLDEN AGE in the history of the empire-- a period when Rome's borders reached their furthest limits, and the Roman economy enjoyed great prosperity. The emperor Hadrian (117-138 C.E.) had personally journeyed throughout the borders of the Roman Empire to see how the people lived. Impressed by what he saw in Athens and Alexandria, he determined to construct large projects in the Roman empire--including bridges, aqueducts, temples, and theatres-- (The Tivoli gardens outside Rome were built under Hadrian.) Hadrian spoke of the peoples of Rome as citizens and established the precedent that any person could "appeal to Caesar" (meaning they could obtain a trial in Rome) for any conviction at a local level. The Jews staged a massive revolt under Hadrian's rule, probably in reaction to Hadrian's ruling that treated castration as a crime of mutilation. The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius (ruled 161-80 C.E.)--paradoxically considered one of the better Roman emperors and a highly respected Stoic philosopher in his own right--nevertheless allowed persecutions against Christians during his reign. According to Marcus Aurelius, it was dangerous to upset "the unstable mind of man by superstitious fear of the divine." He also believed the "sheer spirit of opposition" of Christians encouraged unpatriotic feelings towards Rome. (Paul Johnson, HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY p 72) Marcus Aurelius basically kept the legal laws against Christians that he had inherited from his predecessors. He did not initiate any systematic purges during his reign against Christians, to locate those who worshiped privately. Still there were some fierce persecutions of Christians at the local level, such as the Christian martyrdoms at Lyons in 177 C.E. During the early third century, the stable Roman administration had begun to deteriorate. Increasingly, emperors were military leaders who had seized power. Anarchy was always a threat. Economics lay at the base of the problem. In the early days of the Roman Empire, people typically lived off small farms. With conquests, came spoils of war, including slaves. Over time, the small farms however became displaced by large plantations run by wealthy owners who employed large numbers of slaves. In addition, taxes remained high to sustain a large military budget. During the third century C.E., there were no new conquests (and resulting plunder) with which to offset military costs. Emperors during this period were typically bravado generals from the frontiers, who believed in a "tough" solution to the empire's problems. Although pagan, they tended to be very "religious" and blamed all the empire's ills NOT on economic or administration problems-- but instead on the NEGLECT of Rome's founding gods and goddesses. Thus increasingly, they disagreed with earlier calls for toleration and moderation, increasing their demand for the UNIVERSAL worship of the Roman pantheon of gods! The emperor Caracalla was so convinced that larger numbers of people were needed to pray to the gods, that in 212 C.E. he granted Roman citizenship to all freemen within the empire. As Roman citizens, essentially ALL the people were now expected to participate in the cult of the emperor which was designated as the state religion. Emperors would place themselves under the special protection of one of the gods--such as Jupiter or Hercules. (Apparently many Christians could get away without directly participating in this state religion--although some did perform the required sacrifices, in order to save their lives.) The stepped-up persecutions against Christians paralleled increasing barbarian invasions and a worsening economy. (Roman pagans blamed these on the Christians' disrespect for the empire's gods.) The Christian father Tertullian (late second century C.E.) wrote how, Christians were used as SCAPEGOATS to cover for poor Roman POLITICAL or NATURAL failures and disasters during this time. According to Tertullian: "If the Tiber reaches the walls, if the Nile fails to rise to the fields, if the sky doesn't move, or the earth does, if there is famine or plague, the cry is at once: "The Christians to the Lion!"' Numerous accounts exist of religious Christians who refused to obey the new ordinances--many of these show that their ONLY offense, was in admitting to being a Christian. For example, note the following terse exchange recorded at the trial of a Christian bishop brought before the governor of Spain: GOVERNOR OF SPAIN: "You are a Christian?" CHRISTIAN BISHOP: "I am." GOVERNOR OF SPAIN: "You were"! The Christian bishop was then sentenced to be burned alive. (Episcopuses Sum. Fuisti. Acts of Fructuosus, 2. as reported in A CHRONICLE OF THE LAST PAGANS, Pierre Chuvin, translated by B.A. Archer, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England 1990) Growth in Christianity, Despite the Purges Instead of destroying Christianity, these purges backfired against the Roman leaders--as spectators would be inspired by the courage of the Christian martyrs marching fearlessly towards their death, to become Christians themselves. On this subject, Tertullian commented "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church". Rome itself appears to have recognized this--and from roughly 193 to 250 C.E., emperors largely left the Christians alone. Both Christianity and the mystery religions prospered greatly during this time. Diocletian and the Purge Against Christians One of the worst systematic purges ever for Christians came during the reign of Diocletian (d. 305). First, the Manichaeans were outlawed in 297 C.E., (Note: The Roman Empire was also at war with Persia, and the Manichaean religion had its roots in Persia.) Their books were seized and burned. Priests and believers were also executed. Six years later in 303 C.E. after having consulting an oracle of Apollo, Diocletian published his first decree against Christians: Their sacred books were to be burned, their churches destroyed, and Christians would essentially lose all their rights as citizens. They could not hold political office and employment, they could not testify in a court for grievances, and no Christian slaves could be freed. By then Christians, were probably too numerous to be exterminated--Diocletian most likely sought to destroy their base of power and wealth without bloodshed. After Christians were blamed for provoking a rebellion in the eastern frontier, further edicts were passed in 304 C.E., now ordering all Christians to sacrifice to the pagan gods. Cruel punishments--including tortures and the death penalty--were now applied against Christians who refused to worship the state gods. A year later, 305 C.E., Diocletian (who was in poor health) abdicated the throne, so that he would have time to "raise cabbages" on his personal estate. During the next twenty years, the Roman Empire was ruled by Galerius in the east, and Maxentius in the west. Maxentius and his co-ruler, Constantine chose to pursue a policy of toleration, so that there was no systematic persecution against Christians in the Western realm--in England, France, Spain, Italy, and Africa (That is, there were occasional Christian martyrs in this region, but their persecutions were instigated by local individuals, as opposed to being imposed at the federal level.) This toleration was not extended in the eastern realm. Galerius chose to pursue systematic persecutions against Christians in the East for the next seven years. Still, even he recognized that toleration was the best policy for the empire, and on his deathbed in 311 C.E., proclaimed the following edict: "In the various edicts we constantly issue for the well-being and advantage of the state we have declared that it is our will to order all affairs in accordance with the ancient laws and political tradition of the Romans, and hence to see to it that the Christians, who have deserted the religion of their forefathers, are brought to a better frame of mind. For some reason these Christians were seized by such willfulness and folly that they no longer kept the customs of the ancients, which perhaps even their own ancestors once observed but following their own judgment made their own laws, each as he pleased... When therefore we issued an edict that they should return to the old ways, many were brought to trial and many even expropriated. But since most of them have become even more resolute in their intention...in consideration of our benign clemency and constant habit of granting pardon to all men, we have become convinced that in this case too our grace must freely flow: therefore they shall again be Christians and rebuild the houses in which they meet, always on condition that they in no way act against the public order...Out of this our gracious act, the Christians shall pray to their god for our well-being, for that of the state and for their own, so that the state may remain unharmed in every way and they themselves live carefree in their houses." Following this edict, Christianity became an officially recognized legal religion within the Roman Empire, side by side the pagan religions. Never again, would ancient Roman Christians face government imposed persecutions. Indeed, as will be discussed next, the next emperor, Constantine formally converted to Christianity on his deathbed, and by 380-92 C.E., a series of decrees ordered all Romans to convert to orthodox Christianity.