Did Emperor Decius Target Christians?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 тра 2016
- In the mid-3rd century CE, Emperor Decius ordered that everyone in the Roman Empire is to offer a sacrifice to the Roman gods. This caused a controversy among Christian communities as bunches of Christians refused to sacrifice and ended up being jailed, tortured, or executed. But was this edict specifically an anti-Christian decree? Or did Decius inadvertently stumble into a theological controversy?
Patreon: www.patreon.com/religionforbreakfast
Twitter: @andrewmarkhenry
Facebook: religionforbreakfast
Blog: www.religionforbreakfast.com
Music: Kevin MacLeod, www.incompetech.com
Animation: EC Henry, www.echenry.com
Special Thanks to our patrons on Patreon!:
Brian B.
John M.
Alex B.
Cain D.
Manny
Mark H.
Dan D.
Andrew S.
Wilson
Photo Attributions:
Decius: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decius#...
Diocletian:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioclet...
Theadelphia Libellus: www.luther.edu/archives/resear...
Libation Vessel: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libatio...
Libating Priest statue: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libatio...
I find quite interesting the possibility that the romans would be thinking that the straying from tradicional religion could be the cause for the decline of the empire, the same way a good deal of the religious right does today.
I don't identify with the Christian right, but killing 35 million babies in the womb just might bring with it some collective karma.
According to Gibbins "The Decline and Fall..." very many Christians pragmatically did do a sacrifice, leaving only what we might think of as Fundamentalists to face persecution. They later came back in droves. (Good book; audio version takes around 125 hours. Even though written in the mid 1700s, it's easy language makes it very interesting and frequently entertaining. Dude had a sense of humor.)
Pretty sure this was actually a cause of contention among Christians during Constantine's time, the donatist heresy where some believer claimed that those that submitted to the persecutions should not be allowed to be re-admitted into the church.
There was a neat compromise whereby you could bribe officials to give you a certificate saying you'd sacrificed even though you hadn't.
Win/win, though you might well be put on probationary penance for several years.
I highly recommend viewing What is the Difference Between Religious Studies and Theology to provide context for this video. I think some of the comments are missing the point and address theology instead.
One important detail is left out though. The orginal edict issued by Decius was never recovered. Its supposed contents are derived from the other primary sources you previously mentioned, most notably the libelli, and also Cyprian and Dionysius. Also it is debatable whether the libelli are to be taken as an empire wide measure and not just for Egypt or perhaps Roman North Africa (I know Dionysius mentioned something of the sort that was akin to a libellus but it was not 100% certain). Furthermore, decrees issued by emperors around this time period were rarely if ever specific on the practical side of things. Very often Praefects were relied on to interpret the 'spirit of the decree' in order to exact the emperor's wishes. It is truly a shame we only managed to find few papyri outside of arid regions since it could teach us a lot about the bureaucratic machine the Roman Empire may have been and probably was.
One of the most beautiful and oldest buildings in Rome, the Pantheon, was constructed to celebrate all faiths and gods, even those that they were not familiar with. As long as you were not an enemy of Rome, they supposedly left you alone.
Perhaps this is the reason why the Christians were later on persecuted, because they were not willing to sacrifice to the emperor or to Roma in general. The pagans understood this as a threat because rejecting the traditions meant to risk the empires well-being.
Empires change over time.
2:06 it's the University of Notre Dame! We get mistaken for Notre Dame University sometimes but we're different schools.
Decius came into power 50 yrs after Christian growth. There was a serious economic crisis and since ancient traditions had been forgotten, the traditional Roman, Decius, believed it was due to their abandonment of the ancient gods. He felt that if all the subjects would worship the gods that maybe they would once again gain favor for the Empire.
I've heard of Aurelius and Diogenes separately, but would Aurelius Diogenes have been a common name in the Roman Empire? Golden Son of Zeus - what a name!
In the provinces, especially around the eastern Mediterranean, many provincials whose forefathers happened to be Roman citizens, would inherit the "nomen" (Latin clan name) of the Roman governor (or even the emperor) who had granted their forefathers citizenship. Thus such provincials would inherit a name like "Aurelius" (or some other Latin clan name) and add their own individual given name (e.g., Diogenes) placed after their clan name. The Christian Apostle Paul (Latin "Paulus") was born a Roman citizen in Tarsus (now in SE Turkey), so probably he inherited his Roman citizenship from a forebear in Tarsus who had been granted Roman citizenship. If so, Paul's legal name (under Roman law) would be "(Latin clan name) Paulus (or Paullus in another spelling)" The name "Paulus" was a common name in the Roman clan with the name of "Aemilius," so that might have been the clan name of the governor who first gave Paul's ancestor Roman citizenship, and as such the apostle would have inherited it. This naming practice was very common around the eastern Mediterranean where since at least 146 BCE Roman generals and governors had handed out Roman citizenship right and left in recognition of service to the Roman government during Rome's military expansion into the eastern Mediterranean region.
The language here reminds me of my research on Halfbreed scrip. But I only had to deal with a couple thousand of those. Out of maybe 50 000 records. 50-60 million such documents is damned near unfathomable.
Regarding Diocletian's Persecution: My recollection is that the Emperor's officials were aware that persecution had resulted in greater Christian recruitment during the Decian & Valerian persecution and intended to go after the places and the texts directly, but not --initially-- against the persons. However, there was a fire set at the Imperial palace twice and the Christians were blamed. And this aggravated the officials and caused them to start doing what they had initially thought unwise, forcing people to go through the sacrifices.
He was surely aware of the political dangers of Christians, but it is likely that the sacrifice was the only requirement because it was not Christianity that he wanted to get rid of, only the threat. If they worship Jesus it didn't matter, as long as they were loyal to the emperor first and foremost. It's also probable that figures like Cyprian who were well known in their local area and possibly unpopular with the administrators (I've read some exchanges between him and authorities and let's just say he was quite the arguing type) were specifically targeted by the local administrators due to their unpopularity. They would have used this as a justification to get rid of him once and for all (plus I'm sure they knew he'd refuse).
Probably BOTH motives were active. In Decius' view, the gods were going to be angry with the empire if the people were rejecting them. And he knew that the Christians would have been the chief rejectors.
Being a religious head. It would be hard to believe that he would have been oblivious to how the Christians would be likely to respond. He just likely wasn't all that concerned with it. If Rome had such tolerance that means they also had a sense of equal treatment under the law. It probably didn't matter what religion you were. Ignoring such an edict would have the same consequence regardless. It was more the Christian beliefs that caused the problem for the Christians. It seems to me the empire was just doing what it does irrespective of that. A sort of "well that sounds like not my problem" thing.
according to the vlogger the jews were exempted from it, the Christians weren't
+ReligionForBreakfast - Has anyone done a comparison of the arguments around Decius's edict (if there were any) and the current arguments around the pledge of allegiance in the US?
hi candida! 🥰
There is Nothing to translate Duh Duh, wake up and read all of the letters j
I agree with you.....Decius wasn't inherently anti-Christian like Diocletian
Of course he would have been very angry with bishops who publicly urged non - compliance since this was obvious sedition.
Since you asked for our thoughts. I don't think it can be ever settled until we get evidence of someone who was known to be christian to the authorities do the sacrifice without any consequences. As as you said these two bishops would be biased as they were against Christians doing it so would not mention this. But until we find one of those wee notarized contracts from a Christian I don't think we will never know.
The wording of the papyrus was neat. Do ancient roman/greek sacrifices seem kinda like a barbecue? Everybody get together, do something, and eat some good food? Thanks for your top shelf content.
I'm a fairly new viewer to this channel and it's one of my favorites BUT seeing you without a beard sometimes is a little weird. I know it's an old video but still lol
I could be wrong, but every other source I look at places the martyring of Polycarp in the second century.
thank - you .
Sounds like a national project to me!!
Why did he want ritual participation so badly as to force it with the threat of death? Was that very common?
A possible series of events could be:
Decius and his colleagues thought this ritual of sacrifice was necessary. The topic of the christian population not participating was discussed. Decius had enough like minded colleagues with prejudice against christians that he believed threatening nonconformity with the pain of death.
But seriously, what do I know? I'm as informed of the topic as what I have learned from this video
Speaking about the topic of Christian persecutions, there is a famous joke dedicated to this theme.
Rome, II century CE. A group of Christians are about to be executed with their preacher on the arena of Colosseum. A big hungry lion is approaching them. The preacher, frightened to death, cries loudly "Lord, oh Lord almighty, put some christian thoughts into this lion's head!". After that, lion stops, stands on his knees and starts praying "Lord, oh Lord almighty, thank you for giving me my daily bread. Give your blessings upon my food. Amen." and then eats the preacher😄
Smh
North African regions like Carthage and Alexandria were where divisive "heretical" movements around extreme rectitude, like the Novationists and Donatists, arose. Those "traitorous" Christians who had made sacrifices, professions, etc., were forced to be rebaptised or were barred from the hierarchy. It's no surprise that some leaders like Cyprian would see the Decian and Valerian decrees primarily as anti-christian. In the prior century Celsus had criticized the Christians (at least according to the evidence we have from Origen) as morally weak. I think of greater driving explanation in the mid third century was the Roman triumphalist self-identity of power that was weakening through economic problems, skirmishes on the Western borders, internal civil strife, and the rise of Sassanid rival power to the East. Yet these decrees did set the stage for Diocletian at the end of the third century to more overtly identify Christians as a scapegoat to persecute for the Empire's "moral failures" as the transition to the Dominate and its Tetrarchy solidified.
Sounds like he was just being a good and pious Roman
I have a question: couldn't those who were persecuted under Roman empire move away to a place where they could exercise their belief at peace without being forced on their throats to do the sacrifice?
+RRK93 RRK93 This is a good question. Some Roman authorities didn't seem to care if you were a Christian or not. Other Roman authorities persecuted Christians, Manicheans, and sometimes Jews. Though remember that the people living in the Roman empire were pre-industrial subsistence farmers. They probably never moved more than a few miles away from their home town.
RRk93 hOLAHA. Move where ?!, the roman empire was immense it was the superpower of the ancient world from portugal all the way to irak from scotland to Marroco, from the Charpatians to the Piramids of Egypt there where roman legions!.
the Neighbouring Persians where Zorroastrians and even if they did not hate cristians they did have a grudge against the romans and will not accept ROMAN Immigration!.
And the last once you left the empire you end up into gemanic confederations ful with savage tribes where death and destruction was part of life, that is if they dont sacrifice you to there pagan Gods! Even if these christians left the roman empire the will find that barbarians are even worst.
ROME AND PERSIA AND THE HAN EMPIRE WHERE THE MOST CIVILISED PLACES ON EARTH AT THAT TIME!!! once you go deep intro europe ouside roman border or even north africa outside roman bordes your chanses of loosing you life, kidnapped sold into slavery or rape where astronomicly high!!!.
"supplicatio"... the first vowel is a "u" like "soup", not "a" like "scar"
He just pronounced "Decius" with an 's' sound the whole video. Romans would have pronounced this "Daykioos"
You are Not stressing enough that this is in the middle of the 3rd century crisis in which Rome was invaded from all sides and falling apart- Decius himself was killed by barbarians
The context does tend to indicate the purpose of the edict.
The Empire was clearly in danger and some special measure was needed to save it
Sign this paper pore some wine on the ground and eat some t bones ya why not!!
Its very similar to the current huha about NFL players 'taking-the-knee' during national anthem.
Some people get really worked up about such innocuous actions and 'edicts' flow from rulers with dictatorial traits.
Christians probably already used wine and bread but being monotheistic, didn't want to do it 'for the emperor'.
Anyway - I am glad people are questioning the myth of Christian persecution.
Bhagwat Shah I was thinking the same about Trump and the NFL players. But your assertion of Christian persecution being a myth is false. It’s well documented. He’s talking about this particular emperor being lumped in unfairly.
Decius..... Hmmm..... More destructive than Nero...... But St John only spoke of Nero
Decius came later. A few centuries later.
Those inscriptions from Oescus (not Oeseus) in Moesia and from Cosa in Italy are not very good examples since the first one is quite ambiguous in order to identify a certain meaning by these few words (FUNDATOR SACRAE URBIS). Generally speaking, the archaeological evidence is very rare and not very informative and therefore since no hermeneutic system can be attributed, can’t really be taken into account. Surely they can’t be ignored in this discussion but historians pay way too much attention to these little stones of low quality.
We might better have a look at the coinage, the libelli that you mentioned and with caution at the literary sources.
To me, the so-called decian persecution was more or less a side effect of this edict, which paved the way for later specifically Christian persecution like the one under Diocletian.
As long as we won’t find any further puzzles we won’t be able to make a certain statement.
Name n shame, I love it!
I believe that text that you read is interesting , in particular because the text appears explicitly design to violate Acts 15:20. Probably the ones that eat were following Pauline tradition that idols are nothing.
We should remember that Roman religion was a performative religion --- nobody knows how many Romans actually believed in the Roman gods, but the Romans put on a public show of piety none the less. They held colorful and lively festivals throughout the year, with elaborate spectacles and sacrifices ostensibly to honor different pagan gods, but really for the ruling elite to show off.
Don't think Decius understood Christian practice, thus he didn't understand the effects of such an edict. He was just acting as pontifex Maximus and trying to placate the gods.
It may be that he actually did understand, that most Christians understood his intentions and went along, either offering sacrifices or at least pretending to to avoid annoying their neighbours, and that only a few bishops made trouble.
Decius was the firts among Roman rulers to clearly understand the univeraslity Christianity is aspiring to!!
Perhaps just add a bit of organizational psychology into this mis on why it was OBVIOUSLY streetwise of the Christians to play the victim card. Too good a chance to miss if you strengthen you brand! Never waste a good crisis - Churchill
I think it probably wasn't specifically anti-Christian. First there are much easier ways for the Emperor to target Christians specifically, second I expect there were other religious groups in the empire who had as much or more of a negative reaction to the idea of sacrifice, and finally because it would take a deeper understanding of Christianity then I expect a pagan Roman Emperor to have in what was still a minority religion. What this strikes me as is a mistake through ignorance, and I am reminded of the stories of the British using pig lard on their bullets in India without thought to the reaction of Muslim and Hindu soldiers. It would be interesting to know exactly what the orders were.
The exchange between Pliny and Trajan makes it sound as if you could be executed for the sole crime of being a recognized Christian, and that the Emperor was fine with that. In today's standard, that sounds awfully like persecution. Also the exchange seems to indicate this has taken place for some time so much that Pliny did not have to detail what would warrant the execution of those Christians and that both he and the Emperor were familiar with them and that the punishment was something that did not require any sort of explanation (other than a few modalities).
Kalistic Modiani basicaly all crimes in anciant Rome were punished by death.
In fact, ostracism was considered a more harsh punishment than death.
Yep.
Though Pliny was uncertain exactly why the profession of Christianity in itself should be considered criminal.
The most likely explanation was that Christianity was considered apostasy from the imperial cult (cult of the divi) and this endangered the security of The Empire.
Reminds me of the Covid political reaction.
This certificate was a 3rd Century mark of the beast.
I believe Satanists still do this kind of weird thing. (hopefully I'm wrong).
The church of Satan (or possibly the temple of Satan, I can never remember which is which) does not do animal sacrifices. They are not even really a church so much as a civil rights group masquerading as a church to use the establishment clause in the u.s. constitution against politicians looking to advance religious goals, especially religious laws and court decisions. If you're wondering why, the fact abortion just became illegal in like 30 states, with some looking to outlaw seeking abortion even in other states, should give you enough reason. They also have a lot of fun community events where they entertain children with props or costumes and things. They seem like very fun people just being facetious with Christian iconography.
I may be confusing church of Satan and satanic temple. Neither one seem like they'd do any kind of animal or human based sacrifices though and neither have any real institutional power to discriminate against Christians. There are occasionally reports of people killing in the name of the devil or something but many of those reports are known to be either highly exaggerated or made up whole cloth. A few incredibly rare cases here and there that are few and far between may be real but I think a serial killer is far more likely and those are extremely unlikely to begin with.
he targeted gamers.
This makes me think about our current version of sacrifice refusal. The athletes that are refusing to stand for the pledge of allegiance.
@@paradisecityX0 to be fair, neither do right wing politics. sports is sports...let em play, we don't need a prayer or a show of patriotism.
"What, you don't support the troops? Do you HATE America?"
As a Brit, the whole pledge of allegiance thing is odd and slightly creepy in an imperialistic kind of way.
Noone other than naturalising citizens, politicians and the odd aristocrat ever do that sort of thing here.
Why in earth is it in sports games?
I don’t think this guy understands that Christians would never partake in that sacrifice, because they would absolutely be renouncing their faith by doing such things
Slow down it is too noisy!
too binary...either this or that. in any case, the question that should be posed: were Christians in fact the only ones persecuted and killed because of the Decian edict? What about the Jews? Were there adherents of other religions in the empire who refused as well to offer the sacrifice? Or was the sacrifice envisioned in such a way that those same adherents had no trouble with following the edict because it did not in their own mind impact on their own cult of multiple gods? the answers to these questions should provide a more nuanced answer...
Okay I have scrolled through what I think is all your videos I would like to hear more about the Jews and how they were persecuted by the Christians and a video and all their programs against the Jews all I ever hear and so far have seen is all other religions.. I'm very interested and seeing and hearing something about the Jews please
One thing I like about studying history from a socialist point of view is that one must first and foremost always do the 'human nature' sniff test. What is most in accord with typical human behavior? Comic book-style histories with colorful, blaring divides between good and evil are tempting but must be quickly recognized as such when they seem to contradict normal human behavior.
"Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness," Jesus said. There is nothing there about affiliation. I see lots of evidence that communists are persecuted these days for standing up for what's right. So their reward in heaven must be great, atheist or not. We certainly saw persecution for righteousness sake in Latin America with death squads killing thousands of priests and nuns for the high crime of standing up for the poor.
A Román Josiah?
There is NOTHING to translate, Duh Duh, wake up and read all of the letters
Decius was the first emperor to try, but failed. It wasn't all his fault actually, because Decius was in unfortunate situations. I can respect that the fact he tried.
It seems clear this was just another method of persecution.
Mhe the myth of the "Great Persecution" is also slowly being dissected.
Mediolanon I mean is not exactly a Myth because it happened just in different way and less often
Funny, I thought it eroded the modern myth that Christianity was invented by the Roman Empire
Sounds like antimaskers
Um, how? I'm pretty provaccine and pro mask myself, I just genuinely don't understand the similarities here.
You know he made several videos about the poor Christians being prosecuted how about the Jews ?they’re the most prosecuted group in the world
🤣🤣🤣 Decius, that is my last name.
Did you forget about the Pax deorum? The peace of the Gods as Christians by their very existence were in violation of the PAX DEORUM or the peace of the Gods
It was maybe not specifically targeting Christians but surely INDIRECTLY to them. The Christian God is known to be a jealous God. That's the first law of "Moses" in the ten commandments: "Thou shalt not have no other gods". The significance of that law means that you can't consider yourself adhering to that God if you partake in worship to other gods. Also even Jesus stated in the book of Matthew, that you cannot have two masters: it's either you love one master and hate the other one.
It was perceived a big crime for the Roman empire to not carry-out ritual sacrifice to their gods. From the Christian perspective, it was a big crime to worship other gods. Can you realise the dilemma that the Christians were in at that time?
You seem to imply that sacrifice is just some mere actions to appease the gods. However spiritually speaking, it was a big deal! Can you realise that the Roman authority would threatened people'lives if they don't take part to their sacrifice?
It was a big threatening to the Christians but it was especially a test to their faith: whether or not they really gave allegiance to God they claimed, whether your lifetime as a supposed Christian was real or false. Yes partaking to their sacrifice was a sign of renouncement of the Christian belief. We are talking about a time when spiritually, religious matters were worth more than a life.
Let's imagine that analogy: let's say that you are married man, the authority come to you and oblige you to have sexual intercourse with a woman that is not your wife otherwise you will get persecuted and killed. So would you live cowardly or die honourably?
+RRK93 RRK93 I certainly do realize that this caused a dilemma for certain Christians. Some Christians definitely saw sacrificing as apostasy...forsaking their allegiance to God. Others probably didn't feel the contradiction at all and didn't care. Still others felt the contradiction, but paid someone else to go do the sacrifice as their proxy. I would say we need to think of other reasons other than "cowardice" for trying to explain why some (maybe most?) Christians would have gone through with the sacrifice.
I do imply that sacrifice was primarily an "action to appease the gods." For the Romans, religion was all about action...not much about belief or identity as we think about religion today. Sacrifice can be summed up by the Latin phrase "Do ut Des" = "I give so that you may give back." They were primarily concerned about appeasing the gods and ensuring good things will come from the gods. That's why refusing to sacrifice would have been seen as a scandal.
To the Romans, a sacrifice to their gods was not too different from a tax. The church and the state were not separate. Jesus said give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. I think if I were in that situation I could justify making the sacrifice as an act of political submission to Caesar, rather than an act of religious submission to the Roman gods, especially if I could pay someone to do it rather than do it myself.
@@thomasjenkins5727 my thought was the purpose may have been to raise taxes since people generally would have paid to have the sacrifice done, I don't know if it would have been acceptable to perform the sacrifice yourself.
Yet partaking symbolically in the blood and flesh of Christ last in Rome.
On one hand no more blood sacrifice of animals. On the other, millions of blood sacrifices during Colonization in the name of Christ, to include the spiritual warfare waged against folks who are emotionally traumatized over generations. Evil requires you spill blood to prove loyalty, like being made in the mafia. Share in the evil and one is part of the gang. Refuse and you are not only uncontrollable, but a threat to it.
Warfare especially modern warfare is blood sacrifice. Animal farming for food when not required to survive in a civilized society is blood sacrifice. The God of the OT makes it clear it demands blood of the defenseless to be properly acknowledged and appeased. The slaughter of lambs, circumcision, etc...we who have been or are followers of the religions rooted in the OLD TESTament have been feared or culturally conditioned into compliance in some ways. We are its slaves...
In one of the Gnostic text Jesus called on the apostles to partake in a holy bloodless meal... The sacrifice of animals in rituals was something Jesus was against. Its stated though in the operations order of the Bible it will be reintroduced again in the third Temple prior to the return of the?
I really don't follow your logic here. Whether his intention was to eradicate Christians specifically or to bring the Roman Empire back to its religious roots (which would require eradicating other forms of religion, which would include Christianity), the end result is the same: he was persecuting Christians. The only supposition that would allow for your view to be partially true is if he never expected Christians to react the way they did but given he was Emperor of a population that by this time was adopting Christianity in growing numbers, surely he must have known of their monotheistic belief and how sacrificing to pagan gods they did not believe in - even for the sake of national unity - would not go down well with them.
+theblindcritic
We don't know that they were monotheistic. Marcionism was the dominate form of Chrestians and he had two gods(note, not christians - they did not exist yet. Chrestians followed Jesus Chrestos, Jesus "the good"). No trinity as with the later Niceans. They were definitely more compatible with the existing religions than what we realise as yet.
The archaeological remains of a Marcionite synagogue/church include an inscription dated to 318 CE:
The meeting-house of the Marcionists, in the village of Lebaba, of the Lord and Saviour JS the Good - Erected by the forethought of Paul a presbyter, in the year 630 Seleucid era. [4] (318 CE)
[4] Philippe Le Bas and William Henry Waddington, Greek Inscriptions grecques et latines recueillies en Grèce et en Asie Mineure (1870), volume 3, inscription 2558.
Justin Martyr - Apology 1, Chapter 4.
"By the mere application of a name, nothing is decided, either good or evil, apart from the actions implied in the name; and indeed, so far at least as one may judge from the name we are accused of, we are Chrestians. But as we do not think it just to beg to be acquitted on account of the name, if we be convicted as evil-doers, so, on the other hand, if we be found to have committed no offense, either in the matter of thus naming ourselves, or of our conduct as citizens, it is your part very earnestly to guard against incurring just punishment, by unjustly punishing those who are not convicted."
Inscriptions of Phrygia" in this review of the data presented by Elsa Gibson. A total of four inscriptions provided the term "Chrestian". In Phrygia a number of funerary stone inscriptions use the term Chrestians, with (at least) one stone inscription using both terms together, reading: "Chrestians for Christians". [Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, pages 33-35]
Except that the Decian and Valerian backlashes were still largely acute and local, not uniform and widespread, which undercuts the assumption they were primarily about persecuting religious sects, whether Christian, Mithraist or Zoroastrian. Christians throughout the Empire didn't react to the decrees as stridently and uniformly as the more staunch rectidude-oriented leaders such as in Alexandria and Carthage portrayed.
His argument is not between "eradicate Christians" and "return to old religion." It's between "everybody do a sacrifice" and "persecute Christians."
Decius knew the affect that his edit would have on the Christians. Decius' predecessor, Philip, was very tolerant of Christians and even listened to their stories. Decius was a staunch pagan and felt the lessening of the faith in the gods was part of why the empire was struggling. His edict was a direct attempt to force Christians to renounce their faith and return to paganism. That in turn, he felt, would return Rome to it's glory.
Agree. The idea that Decius did not intend to target Christians is ridiculous and held from an opinion not from fact and historical record. And the idea that other religions also suffered doesnt excuse the fact that he targeted Christians. He could have tagetted Christians as well as other sects. That doesn't mean he didn't target the Christians. Its like saying a football striker didn't target to score because he scored a hat trick. No. That argument can fly.
In A.D. 249 the emperor Trajan Decius issued an edict requiring the inhabitants of the Roman Empire to sacrifice to the gods. With this decree, he also inaugurated the first empire-wide persecution of Christians. What part of do this or die you don’t understand?
Intentionality: was this a deliberate persecution or a demand for sacrifices that unintentionally harmed Christians?
Did this harm Christians specifically or were other religions targeted as well?
Was it a result of extenuating factors with a declining empire done to appease the Roman gods or was it done specifically to root out Christians as a scary new rising religion?
I'm sure there are more questions this event raises but that's a starting list.
I do believe that he understands all of the situation, because he is a very knowledgeable person
Great presentation to the status from the point view of Roman, my understanding is Christianity and Judaism both hold the same theology of worshiping one God “none other”. The interesting part is historians only documented the refusal of the Christians to abide to the Roman laws. If we can prove from history that that Jews were also under the same affliction we may conclude that Rome did not target Christians. What where are the evidences? What we have in the Book of the Maccabees predates the time of Decius.
Judaism was a recognized religion in the Roman empire.
Occasionally, an emperor would want a pagan statute in
the temple complex or would want a plaque with his
image on the wall of the temple/a synagogue. Most of
the time his advisors were able to talk him out of
doing such a thing.
In 66 AD there was tension between the Jews and the
Greeks of Caesarea Maritima. The Greeks sacrificed
an animal in front of the synagogue; then there were
protests to the Roman government; which began the
First Jewish Roman War (66-73 AD)
True Christians wud never compromise on this..
The church had that debate following the persecutions. The Donatist controversy. It was an interesting movement.
They had to pledge allegiance to the Roman gods. There is only one true God, so why would they?
Appease the Roman government now, ask forgiveness from God later, especially on pain of death.
Maybe Decius was actually trying to weed out that most subversive demographic group of all, vegetarians, who even today are perceived as dangerous to the meat & dairy based economy, and worse, who possibly believe themselves morally superior to omnivores, which is so annoying to those who are trying to remain complacent & totally ignore what it says right up front in Genesis 1:29.
"Are you not sacrificing to please the gods? Do you not care about peace and tranquility of the empire?"
"Do you not use masks to please the gods? Do you not care about human lives?"
He targetted them, specifically or not the fact is Decius targetted Christians. The fact that other movements also suffered doesnt mean he dient target them specifically. What do you mean mean when you say specifically? Decius' edict targeted specifically those he targetted. Simple as that. You argument is made from a Roman perspective, as a scholar, which you seem you are, you should make argumwnts from bith perspective, or risk appearing like a Decius apologist.
Can you please redo all your annoying early vids again. Pls.Pls remake them, this is accidentally an ASMR sleep learning channel now. Can we get some ASMR remakes pls and thx you.
Wilful speculation. You can do better
True Christians wud never compromise on this..