Jo

Theodosius established the Church as a State religion.

Doug Shaver

Thanks. I couldn't remember who it was, just that it wasn't Constantine.

mountainman

The Arian controversy was the controversy surrounding
the fraudulent historical misrepresentation of the
invention of christianity by Constantine and that
"wretched" Eusebius.

That Christianity was not the imperially favoured
cult of the empire with effect from Antioch 325 CE,
could not possibly be argued.

The emperor and the role of Pontifex Maximus
had its own heritage of dominion and power.

When the Bishop Damasius assumed for the
first time in a thousand years the role of a
tolerant "pagan" with collegiate responsibilities,
the end was near.

Officially everyone likes to think that the new
and strange religion (of Constantine) became
THE STATE BINDING-TOGETHER under
Theodosius towards the end of the fourth century.

At the time when the christian persecution of
"non-christians" became supreme. There was
at the end of the fourth century only one fly
in the anointment of the new christian religion.

Julian's arraignment against it.
The tax-exempt Bishop, and hit man, Cyril
took care of censoring this in a political
fashion, by writing a refutation
AGAINST JULIAN'S LIES.

It was all over.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

Ardashir, father of Shapur I, a century before Nicaea,
created a new religion out of the fragments of the Avesta,
and burned and destroyed every single line of writing
from the Parthian civilisation.

Mere details in the story. In the case of
Constantine, he commanded legions of fictions.
He did everything lavishly and on a grand scale.
The basilicas alone cost billions.


The planet was "Middle-Earth".

It was vast and yet small particularly
within the Roman Empire of the
fourth century, constantly "at war".
Generals were well regarded.
Intelligence was collegiate.
The great libraries stood.

Best wishes,


Pete

J-D

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...21#post4729721

mountainman

Actually, T. D. Barnes, in the JSTOR Article
Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice,
writes the following ....

On the assumption that
Eusebius' report is reliable and accurate, it may be argued that in 324
Constantine established Christianity as the official religion of the
Roman Empire, and that he carried through a systematic and coherent
reformation, at least in the eastern provinces which he conquered in
324 as a professed Christian in a Christian crusade against the last of
the persecutor.

J-D

I don't think Pete's methodology distinguishes between fantasy and history.

mountainman

“For those who believe no proof is necessary.
For those who dont believe no proof is possible.”

Doug Shaver

Or the contrary may be argued. Eusebius's report, as summarized by Barnes on the first two pages of that article, contains no mention of Christianity's becoming the empire's official religion.

Eusebius does claim, according to Barnes, that Christianity was given certain favored treatments by Constantine. and that certain practices of competing religions were outlawed. But preferential treatment for one religion over others is not the same as the establishment of an official religion.

In any case, Barnes does not, in that article, present any argument either for or against Constantine's granting Christianity official status. The article is only about a dispute over whether Constantine actually prohibited pagan sacrifices.

J-D

Confirmation.