The most important concept to remember with Christianity is that Jesus was born from the Virgin Mary. He was the son of God, who had sent him here to save the world from its sin. He spent his entire adult life spreading the word of God through teachings, he had also performed miracles and in some cases, healings. He had disciples which followed him everywhere he had went, and had documented his work, which we know as the Bible. He was then taken by the romans because of him spreading the word of another faith from their own. They, then crucified him, and killed him. His sacrifice is known as "dying for everyone's sins", in which to those who believe in him and his word.Paul, was at first a strict protester of the religion, but was then "blinded"
…show more content…
Without this, this religion would, to this day, only be available to the Jewish, and it would not have expanded as greatly as it has.Christianity challenge the Roman State by weakening people's' loyalty to it. The people used to look up to the leaders as Gods, but with this new religion that was circulating, it made people look in a new perspective. If I were a Roman emperor in the 1st century AD/CE (Common Era), I would respond to this new religion with open arms. Without doing so, it would just cause rebellion, and maybe even a overthrowing anarchy if it grew any larger. Constantine was right in welcoming the religion, if he didn't, the empire would have fallen earlier than it had.6th century Christianity contrasted with early Christianity in many different ways. For example, in the time of early Christianity, disciples such as John the Baptist roamed the desert, spreading "His" word, with nothing but the clothes on their backs. In contrast, during the 6th century, Christianity, was way more organized, there were monasteries solely for transcribing and practicing the "Christian …show more content…
I would go utterly mad.First off, I believe that the splitting of an entire empire between a few rulers without a borderline of control, would end in absolute chaos, no matter how it was handled. Otherwise, without the following rulers consciously keeping to the same doctrine as the ruler before them, no one person can rule the same as another, it all depends on how that person cares about its people. An empire is prone to corruption or even slow deterioration if they do not effectively rule, there is not much more to say. So yes, empires do depend on great people, at least, great ideas in which the ruler abides to.The advantages of feudalism are that the state is always prepared for war, and has ample enough security, and a guaranteed protection from famine. Of the many disadvantages is that the government does not handle any tribulations that they agreement may cause, the people may declare their own wars if they please, and there is nothing to stop them. Also, it does discourage any trade or economic growth of the government, yet the people who own land can gain a sufficent amount of income by issuing fees to people who wish to cross their
Without this, this religion would, to this day, only be available to the Jewish, and it would not have expanded as greatly as it has.Christianity challenge the Roman State by weakening people's' loyalty to it. The people used to look up to the leaders as Gods, but with this new religion that was circulating, it made people look in a new perspective. If I were a Roman emperor in the 1st century AD/CE (Common Era), I would respond to this new religion with open arms. Without doing so, it would just cause rebellion, and maybe even a overthrowing anarchy if it grew any larger. Constantine was right in welcoming the religion, if he didn't, the empire would have fallen earlier than it had.6th century Christianity contrasted with early Christianity in many different ways. For example, in the time of early Christianity, disciples such as John the Baptist roamed the desert, spreading "His" word, with nothing but the clothes on their backs. In contrast, during the 6th century, Christianity, was way more organized, there were monasteries solely for transcribing and practicing the "Christian …show more content…
I would go utterly mad.First off, I believe that the splitting of an entire empire between a few rulers without a borderline of control, would end in absolute chaos, no matter how it was handled. Otherwise, without the following rulers consciously keeping to the same doctrine as the ruler before them, no one person can rule the same as another, it all depends on how that person cares about its people. An empire is prone to corruption or even slow deterioration if they do not effectively rule, there is not much more to say. So yes, empires do depend on great people, at least, great ideas in which the ruler abides to.The advantages of feudalism are that the state is always prepared for war, and has ample enough security, and a guaranteed protection from famine. Of the many disadvantages is that the government does not handle any tribulations that they agreement may cause, the people may declare their own wars if they please, and there is nothing to stop them. Also, it does discourage any trade or economic growth of the government, yet the people who own land can gain a sufficent amount of income by issuing fees to people who wish to cross their