stephan huller

But that's precisely what's wrong with your approach. You inject an assertion that is not evidenced from the material - viz. the establishment of a canon of writings by Constantine. It's absolutely stupid. Most people will go along with you to the point that Constantine, with the power of the Roman state, 'encouraged' some sort of ecumenical harmony in the Church for the good of the Empire. But my point is that when you actually look at the evidence it would seem that he was dealing from a weaker hand than has generally been recognized. Perhaps the Christians were happy that the persecutions were over and this Emperor was at least meeting them part way. But the efforts of Constantine may have been prompted by the fact that the persecutions of Christians in the previous regime did not blunt Christianity or perhaps - their only practical effect was to deplete the Egyptian Church. It's hard to say. But to me at least I see Alexander and his company having the upper hand. It may be that Constantine couldn't control Alexander and Athanasius. It is important to note that Constantine

It is very important to remember that Constantine only had control of Egypt a year before Nicaea. His rival Licinius was in possession of Thrace, Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt, but added numerous provinces to the Western empire. In 323 Constantine again declared war against him, and, having defeated his army at Adrianople (3rd of July 323), succeeded in shutting him up within the walls of Byzantium. This more than anything else may have encouraged him to seek a compromise at Nicaea in the very next year. Christians already numbered about 50 percent of the population. He was trying to win over their hearts and minds.

How could Constantine have had control of Alexander and Athanasius when he didn't have control of Egypt. It makes no sense.

mountainman

I agree with all of the above with the exception of that last phrase.
But this disagreement is not relevant to your OP.



But my point is that Constantine physically published a bible, perhaps as represented in the evidence by Codex Vaticanus et al. As such it had within it certain books and it also obviously excluded certain books. Someone must have decided which books were to be published. As such, whoever that person was, effectively decided the canon for that publication.




Ammianus tells us that Constantine ripped the largest obelisk at Heliopolis from its foundations. Writing on an Egyptian tomb wall dated 325 CE shows that Constantine had a presence. Constantine used his army to create a presence in Egypt that was characterised by destruction of major items of architecture. If Constantine did not have control in Egypt how could he have used his army to tear this obelisk from its foundations?

IMO Constantine secured Byzantium, then Antioch, then Alexandria by means of the army

IMO Constantine would have had control of Alexandria by means of the deployment of his army.

This is standard military procedure.

The warlord consolidates his new empire by control and deployment of his army and his bishops.

Alexandria was very useful to have control over - artefacts, statues, taxation, flour, grain, papyrus, libraries, etc.



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Iskander

Agreeing on the text of a document will not necessarily assure agreement on its interpretation for all time.

The doctrine of Arianism is a name given to an identifiable interpretation of the one agreed text. This same sanctified text which was approved by everyone is the text used by the diverse combatants to justify their opposition to each other.

Constantine considers the question of the nature of Jesus-the-Christ to be of no importance and one which should set aside in order to forge a strong political unity. Constantine asked Alexander and Arius to support Rome and stop bickering.

When this political secular approach failed Constantine, then, implemented the alternative solution of imposing unity by giving full support to the faction he perceived as being the stronger of the two.

Chili

The Catholic church can take any and all minor mythologies under her wings, but not hell-fed oppositions. So that means enough.

And notice that also the Eastern Catholics are separate but still the best of friends, and the main difference here is the filioque that allows for some fire/ wolves about and that always has been their problems for the RCC.

Iskander

It is nice when you make your post short and to the point, you should cultivate this style.

Hell-fed is very expressive and fully explains the bloody religious conflict that followed.


Hell-fed is a concept so alien to the classical Greek culture and to the Jewish Torah that one should ask who the originator of this change might have been.
Who was responsible for the transformation that took the nature of devils from naughty into the malignant obsession with hellish devils and the never-ending struggle for salvation?


The filoque conflict was also hell-fed but only remotely linked to the subordination problem and was also a bloody and a protracted episode.

We should leave the filoque for some other time, in some other place.