Duvduv

I think it is helpful in understanding the emergence of imperial Christianity with what happened in England after the catalyst of the divorce issue broke the bubble and allowed for the gradual emergence of the English reformation.

We know what happened when he took over the monasteries for money as he was established the "pope" of the Church of England (which had some kind of political basis in the past in England).
We know what happened when his advisor Cranmer developed the Book of Common Prayer and how the reformation of religion brought about a struggle between "radicals" and "moderates" both during Henry's life and thereafter.
We know what happened to poor Cranmer under Bloody Mary and what happened to all the protestant/anglican forces.
We know what happened with Separatists and Puritans later on all as a result of the unleashing of a "reformation" and their belief that Anglicanism was still too Papist.....

Once a Constantinian religion started to emerge in the new Empire, there were various struggles about which direction the new religion should go based on Greco-Roman philosophical trends that found expression in various Christian trends and where Athanasian Christianity ultimately prevailed over Eusebius and others.

I realize that there is a difference: The Anglican reformation was to "restore" the authentic "Catholic" faith that had been sullied by Vaticanism but which was rather comfortable in terms of similarities to Roman Catholicism, and the Constantinian reformation was to establish a purer religion vaguely based on Jewish ideas.

aa5874

It is completely unsubstantiated that "Constantinian reformation was to establish a purer religion vaguely based on Jewish ideas.

It is already known that the Jesus cult existed for hundreds of years BEFORE Constantine was Emperor.

We have dated writings of the Jesus story about 200 years BEFORE Constantine.

sotto voce

BC&H has hit a new level.

Duvduv

You can view it as you wish. The fact is that it was through the power of the new empire that the religion gained a wide "following" and became a state religion. Now you can reread what I posted.

Toto

What is your source for this view of history?

Constantine legalized Christianity, but the disputes and conflicts among Christians pre-dated him. I have never heard the debates among Christians described as "based on Greco-Roman philosophical trends." Could you identify these trends?

There was no Constantinian reformation. Constantine got a lot of bishops together and told them to come to some agreement as to what they believed and stop squabbling. His aim was to use the Christian church as a social institution to support the Roman Empire, and he could hardly do this if the leaders spent all their time in disputes.

Constantine is usually charged with trying to paganize Christianity by combining it with the worship of Sol Invictus.

mountainman

This is debateable.


This is misleading. See the analysis of many scholars - e.g. Robin Lane Fox.

Constantine personally assumed a leading role in finalising the decision making processes.

It is also reported that he personally appointed perhaps as many as 1800 bishops throughout the dioceses of his empire. Since the evidence is that he legislated against a great rush by clever and rich pagans trying to secure these positions of TAX-EXEMPT bishops it is quite clear that that the bishops were not squabbling over the concessions he granted to them.

Duvduv

I was being a bit liberal with the terminology, but I was interpreting how events unfolded with political requirements and prior philosophical commitments. I was also thinking of developments over time, ecumenical councils, etc. etc. Obviously the early question of the nature of the godhead must have been informed by Greco-Roman philosophical ideas. In the Tudor period there were various influences including in the parliament, Roman Catholic, Reformist, Lutheran, etc. Arguments over the prayer book etc. And then the later maneuvering by Elizabeth the First, whose injunctions after 1559 included compromises bringing together the old with the new.
Now you can accuse me of projecting this scenario back into the 4th and 5th century...... ;-)

Toto

No it's not, and your own theories do not support this.

Constantine was not a reformer. He did not call for Christians to return to an earlier, purer form of the faith. He established the church that the Reformation eventually rebelled against.

Toto

Obviously?

Any time you have political leaders interfering in religion, you get something of the same pattern - compromises of doctrine, political maneuvering, sometimes invention of new doctrines where convenient.

But that doesn't make Constantine's rule a reformation in any sense of the word.

Duvduv

A gradual move from absolute paganism into something closer to monotheism isn't a REFORMATION?
Anyway, here is a very interesting lecture about the religious events of the Elizabethan period:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPyNc0kd2z4