History is no theory...it happened, or it did not.
Quite.
What religion does with history, for political expedience (remember, the two are one and the same in this period of time, politics *does* influence religion and religion *does* influence politics)...
Quit wrong. In the era under discussion the two were definitely not the same at all.
Until the 4th century, the church suffered sporadic persecution. The worst under Diocletian and Galerius in the 290-310AD:
"...more troubling was the resistance of veteran Christian soldiers to the revival of pagan rituals in the camps. The conversion of pagan soldiers and the conscription of Christian believers had increased the Christian presence in the army by the end of the third century. As long as these fideles were not forced to commit idolatry, many of them seemed willing to offer service to a state that was not persecuting their brethren." (Odahl's 'Constantine', p.64)
A scandal erupted when Christians in Diocletian's service made the sign of the cross while soothsayers were trying to divine the future for the emperor, and they complained the Christians were causing difficulties. Diocletian demanded the Christians be whipped. He orders all Christians serving in the military must offer sacrifice to the gods or be dismissed from service. (Lactantius, 'Of The Manner in Which the Persecutors Died' 10.6)
In 303AD an edict was issued ordering all Christian church buildings to be destroyed (and many were house churches),
all sacred writings were to be surrendered to authorities to be burned, all sacred items used in Christian meetings to be confiscated, and worship meetings were outlawed. A few months later, another edict was issued ordering the arrest of all clergy, and so many were arrested that it had to be halted due to the overflowing of the prisons. In early 304 all Christians were required to make sacrifice to the empire on the pain of death. Later that year Diocletian retired and was succeeded by Galerius. Under Galerius the persecution intensified until Diocletian's death in 311.
Eusebius graphically describes the persecution and torture in Book 8 of his history.
(some) were committed to the flames; some were drowned in the sea; some offered their heads bravely to those who cut them off; some died under their tortures, and others perished with hunger. And yet others were crucified; some according to the method commonly employed for malefactors; others yet more cruelly, being nailed to the cross with their heads downward, and being kept alive until they perished on the cross with hunger ... Others being bound to the branches and trunks of trees perished. For they drew the stoutest branches together with machines, and bound the limbs of the martyrs to them; and then, allowing the branches to assume their natural position, they tore asunder instantly the limbs of those for whom they contrived this... All these things were done, not for a few days or a short time, but for a long series of years. Sometimes more than ten, at other times above twenty were put to death ... and yet again a hundred men with young children and women, were slain in one day, being condemned to various and diverse torments.
We, also being on the spot ourselves, have observed large crowds in one day; some suffering decapitation, others torture by fire; so that the murderous sword was blunted, and becoming weak, was broken, and the very executioners grew weary and relieved each other. (VIII.8-9)
When reports came in that the cilil population was growing uneasy at the persecution, the style changed ...
Therefore it was commanded that our eyes should be put out, and that we should be maimed in one of our limbs. For such things were humane in their sight, and the lightest of punishments for us. So that now on account of this kindly treatment accorded us by the impious, it was impossible to tell the incalculable number of those whose right eyes had first been cut out with the sword, and then had been cauterized with fire; or who had been disabled in the left foot by burning the joints, and afterward condemned to the provincial copper mines, not so much for service as for distress and hardship... (VIII.12.10-11)
Christianity did not become the state religion until 380AD, by which time the matter under discussiuon was a done deal, accepted East and West.
The "weight" of your evidence is about as ponderous as a feather.
Well that feather certainly outweighs the syncretism argument, based not on evidence but assumption, and plenty to suggest its chronologically highly unlikely.
... (and I noted your aversion to Jan 6...quite comical actually, considering both are actually the same date whether according the Julian or Gregorian calendar...which I already understood but you included in your own defense earlier yet seem to have so quickly forgotten).
No. As you say, it's the same date if one takes in the calendar adjustments.
I have yet to see your claims of December celebration earlier than Nicea shown...
Then you've ignored the sources: Tertullian, Hippolytus, Africanus, the North African Donatists ... I'm illustrating materials which support an argument, unlike yourself.
I *could* get all conspiratorial and note the vast underground library the Vatican keeps, of records no doubt, dating back to the time of Constantine, records no mere mortals shall ever see, and no mere mortal has been allowed to see for over 1500 years. That aside...
Ah, come on, you resorting to conspiracy theories now? Please check the facts, look it up online ... The library is accessible to research scholars, about a thousand a year. There are no records prior to the 8th century. If you think that's not the case, please supply evidence to that end.
That the Roman Church, indeed Roman religion in the broad sense of the word, as a matter of pragmatism, were and still are in the case of the Catholic Church *very* syncretic in their approach particularly when it came to proselytizing and expansion is not a point of contention.
You cannot equate the Roman catholic Church with Roman religion in general, so no, this is illogical.
I've shown but a few, I have read of *many* more and will be happy to share should the need arise.
Please do, but please make sure it's spported by material evidence and rest on more than assumption.
The Church *beginning* at Nicea ...
It by no means *began* at Nicea.
Ablution was discarded at Nicea, for no other reason than that it was a Jewish custom.
OK. I'm now going to Trump you over 'made up facts'.
The actual practice of the rite of baptism in not mentioned in the Canons of Nicea. You're making this up.
Simply put, no-one knows precisely how baptism was administered, and it's generally agreed that submersion, immersion and affusion were all considered suitable. Remember John baptised in the Jordan, this was not deemed necessary. By the fourth and fifth centuries, baptism had become a several-week-long rite leading up to the actual baptismal washing on Easter. Catechumens receieved intensive instruction, often by a bishop. At dawn following the Paschal Vigil starting the night of Holy Saturday, they were taken to the baptistry where the catechumens disrobed, were anointed with oil, renounced the devil and his works, confessed their faith in the Trinity, and were immersed in the font. They were then anointed with chrism, received the laying on of hands, clothed in white, and led to join the congregation in the Easter celebration.
In 895AD, the Council of Tribur commented on the traditional teaching that the triple immersion in baptism was an imitation of Christ for the three days he spent in the tomb, and the rising from the water an imitation of the resurrection of Jesus.
Triple immersion is found in Cyril of Jerusalem (313–86AD) and Gregory of Nyssa (c335-394AD). Between the 12th and the 14th centuries, affusion became the usual manner of administering baptism in Western Europe, though immersion continued to be found in some places even as late as the 16th century.
If, as you said, Messiah was the Pascal Lamb, a point I do not contend with...why did the Catholic Church then distance itself from the High Holy Day of Passover, and attach that significant point of our Faith to a longstanding pagan holiday?
To fix the Resurrection on a Sunday, as I explained. The Church declared Christ 'our Passover' — we celebrate His resurrection, not Israel's deliverance.
With all of these facts...
They're not facts. They're your opinions, and like your assumptions about Nicea, Baptism, Constantine, easily shown to be inaccurate if not plain wrong. They're not supported by evidence nor by scholarship.
tried to bale earlier, and should have, this is going nowhere.
