Roman Gods

Why did Konstantin change the Roman religion?
I know the myths, but what was reality?

I know that the Romans adopted foreign Gods. Their original Gods were more or less Greek. When they took Egypt they started to gather each kind of Gods. Soon it must have been a complete chaos. The Roman Emoire accepted every new god as long as he was tolerant to the others and accepted that the Emperor was a god too. (Christians did not!)

At the age of Konstantin there were three main religions: Sol Invictus (a sun god), Isis and the Christian god. I think that K. tried to combine these religions to have a new Roman religion. The reason was to have something to keep the Empire together.

Most of this speculation. What do you think!

.
He didn't "change" anything per se, but followed the current and made good use of the ongoing events so to speak. ~;) While he was the "Christian saint" emperor in Rome, at the same time, he erected the famous coloumn (recently being restorated) in his newly built New Rome (Konstantinopolis) on which a stutue of his figuring his as Sol Invictus (lost a few centuries later in an earthquake). He was playing for both sides; the Christian majority in the west and the pagan one in the east.

However, he did "convert" fully afterwards, holding the first ecumenic council in the new city etc. All those show his careful exploitation of the varying status quo.
.

Wasn't there unification of the three religions?
Sol invictus had his birthday on Dec. 25th (!). He was also celebrated at Sundays (dies solis). The Roman Emperers called themselfes 'invictus'.
Sol seems to be already the combination of Sol, Mithras and Baal.
Isis, originally a egyptian godness, mother of Hoth and sister and wife of Osiris. Pictures show her with the baby, sad because of the death of her husband. She is also called Godmother and seemed to be the source for Mother Mary.

So after a phase of extreme diversity there was a recombination of religions and cults resulting in a Christion state religion. The question is: Did this happen by accident or was this forced by the Emperors?

Found another information::book:
Aurelian promoted the idea of a Roman state religion. He supported Mitras = sol. Many of his soldiers were already followers. It is reported the he had a vision before the battle of Zenobia (just like Konstantin). Did not find any details! 25. December 274 the Romans celebrated the birthday of sol for the very first time. Coins appeared with Sol Dominus imperii Romani .

.
I would still call that amalgamation, apparently by design, a sort of moderation rather than being forced upon. The original Rome was obviously better in integrating such currents within their system than their future pseudo-name sake (the HRE), which shot herself in the foot during the reformation.
.

Mithras was not the same or combined with Sol Invictus. He was the soldier-god. I saw map of his worship in the Empire (shrines found), and it is simply massive on the borders of the Empire, but there are few places intside the Empire.

Interestingly the worship of Mithras had a similar altar to Christian churches, and it had an outline very much similar to Christian churches. The main problem for the Mithras cult was that they had their places of worship underground. The Christians could then easily say "See, they are in consort with the Devil, they go underground to talk with him." Not taking into account that they too had had underground chapels early on (but double standards are not new when it comes to political agendas).

Interestingly it is believed that Santa Clause's red hood is actually Mithra's since he was always depicted with a similar headdress (the Phrygian cap with a few alterations). Though St. Nicolaus might have worn a similar headdress, but it is surprisingly similar to Mithra's, which is a bit different from the normal Phrygian cap.

This is interesting...:book:

I think this is a good explanation (from DIR) -

Constantine's Conversion

"When Diocletian and Maximian announced their retirement in 305, the problem posed by the Christians was unresolved and the persecution in progress. Upon coming to power Constantine unilaterally ended all persecution in his territories, even providing for restitution. His personal devotions, however, he offered first to Mars and then increasingly to Apollo, reverenced as Sol Invictus.
The next significant event in Constantine's religious development occurred in 312. Lactantius, whom Constantine appointed tutor of his son Crispus and who therefore must have been close to the imperial family, reports that during the night before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge Constantine was commanded in a dream to place the sign of Christ on the shields of his soldiers. Twenty-five years later Eusebius gives us a far different, more elaborate, and less convincing account in his Life of Constantine. When Constantine and his army were on their march toward Rome - neither the time nor the location is specified - they observed in broad daylight a strange phenomenon in the sky: a cross of light and the words "by this sign you will be victor" (hoc signo victor eris or ). During the next night, so Eusebius' account continues, Christ appeared to Constantine and instructed him to place the heavenly sign on the battle standards of his army. The new battle standard became known as the labarum.

Whatever vision Constantine may have experienced, he attributed his victory to the power of "the God of the Christians" and committed himself to the Christian faith from that day on, although his understanding of the Christian faith at this time was quite superficial. It has often been supposed that Constantine's profession of Christianity was a matter of political expediency more than of religious conviction; upon closer examination this view cannot be sustained. Constantine did not receive baptism until shortly before his death . It would be a mistake to interpret this as a lack of sincerity or commitment; in the fourth and fifth centuries Christians often delayed their baptisms until late in life.

In February 313, probably, Constantine and Licinius met at Milan. On this occasion Constantine's half-sister Constantia was wed to Licinius. Also on this occasion, the two emperors formulated a common religious policy. Several months later Licinius issued an edict which is commonly but erroneously known as the Edict of Milan. Unlike Constantine, Licinius did not commit himself personally to Christianity; even his commitment to toleration eventually gave way to renewed persecution. Constantine's profession of Christianity was not an unmixed blessing to the church. Constantine used the church as an instrument of imperial policy, imposed upon it his imperial ideology, and thus deprived it of much of the independence which it had previously enjoyed. "


I belive that it was just politics

Alright! So now the question left is what of Christian religion / church comes originally from pagan religions?

.
That, IMO, having no exact factual answer, will lead us to speculation, and this thread to the backroom. :no:
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Alright! So now the question left is what of Christian religion / church comes originally from pagan religions?

---

Christmas Trees (Druids)
Jesus' Birthday (Sol Invictus)
Divine maternity (Isis [unlikely])
The 'Trinity' (Germanic, symbolizing originally the earth sky and water, the triquetra)
Santa Claus (Mithras Possibly)
Superstitions (Slavish/Germanic)
Confession (found in many forms in paganism, oracles arguably among them)
Rebirth and Ressurection (found in many religions worldwide, probably because it was central to one of the original mother religions)

All possible but difficult to prove as pagan influenced. Some may very well be, and others perhaps not. It is very likely that certain aspects of the Bible were modified for political reasons. Christians however should keep in mind that obsession over details is never valuable in religion and the point of Christianity holds true despite the 3rd party sources the New Testament was compiled by. Reading the gnostic gospels is an interesting experience because they were not included in the Bible as a result of inconsistencies due to oral tradition with the synoptic gospels and therefore were not modified for political reasons. Some of these are more legit than others, and the same mindset should be applied to these as any other Christian text.

The Christmas Tree is a German creation (Jul), and the Trinity was also very present in Celtic mythology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

.
That, IMO, having no exact factual answer, will lead us to speculation, and this thread to the backroom. :no:
.

---

Oh Mouzafphaerre, why do think so? Are spekulations in history, philosophy and religion evil and banned to the backroom? That is new to me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Oh Mouzafphaerre, why do think so? Are spekulations in history, philosophy and religion evil and banned to the backroom? That is new to me!

---

.
I reread your post and it seems I took it the wrong way. Stand corrected. :bow:
.

Santa is not Mithras. That is St. Nicolaus, a friendly guy who lived in Phrygia, supposedly hading out stuff to people.
I just meant that the hood Satan carries might come from Mithras.

Confession was included in the cult of Mithras (the similarities between christianity and Mithraism is simply too great not to notice), so perhaps it was included to get the soldiers onto 'our' side? Remember he was the warrior's god, and it might also be why Mithraism suffered the worst prosecusion, to get rid of a conflicting religion among the dangerous soldiers.

The Chrstmas Tree wasn't used in any real effect until about the early 1800s. Haven't heard of earlier trees (though would love to hear of them if there are anything pointing in that direction).

None of the things I listed are anything more than influenced by outside religions. I did not say that Mithras is Santa Claus. We can only speculate about Christian origins, because of the lack of records (just as Constantine and contemporaries wanted).
The Christmas tree and 'knocking on wood' are undeniably Druidic, steming from a nature worshiping religion. It is helpful to view early Christianity like early Islam, both the missionaries and Sufis were very willing to allow people to keep their tribal spirits and superstitions, and the Catholics more so. "Hey you love trees, we love trees, why on Christ's birthday we put presents under a tree (not)" It is always easier to convert a person to an idea which has pre existing facets, entirely new concepts are hard for the animal parts of our brains to understand. I agree about Mithras, and I also forgot to mention that Christmas presents stem from Sol Invictus as well, the tradition of exchanging gifts was common in both of their cults. The cult of Mithras indured the most persecution after Milan undeniably because of the military religious conflict. Sol Invictus was of the people and Mithras of the soldiers, and to have disgruntled soldiers was far more dangerous with barbarian pressed borders than disgruntled peasants (most of the time).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

I just meant that the hood Satan carries might come from Mithras.

---

My dear... What happened there? Santa to Satan... GAH!

Anyway, could you point me to any christmas tree prior to 1700 (I haven't heard of earlier than 1800, but I'm sure it is older than that)? If not then I find it very hard that it could be Druidic. Knocking on wood perhaps as it doesn't seem to be very widespread in areas where there was a period of intermission between Celtic ways and Christianity (such as here in Denmark).

So there is:

the date for christmas and sunday (sol)
The 'Trinity' (what I read there is a celtic origin; a god with three faces and three characters combined in one person)
angels (there were angels but the new form came from the celtic holy vergins)
field altars / crosses (there were holy places / trees at Germanians; people came to pray, ask for favours and left gifts)
other holy places (wasn't Lourdes a cult place before?)
Mother mary (I think the need for a female godness = Isis or Hera ...)

I think the Christians also adopted some pagan gods and made them saints. I read the story about Ireland. The dominant godness was calle Bridget or so. She had monestaries with female monks. When Ireland converted a abbess converted two. Her name was Bridget of cause. I think the whole monastery converted and they kept just doing what they did before. When Bridget died she became a saint and is now the national saint of Ireland.
You got it? The national godness became a national christian saint.

What I've read the Christians more or less "mass-produced" saints to replace the old gods, they were more or less worshipped as gods themselves with their own cults and churches dedicated to them.

But the basic seems to be rather similer.