The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World

[wil]

Disregard...no sense even bothering with someone who has nothing pertinent to say to the subject at hand and simply wants to showboat.

Lol, hey was I thinking too loud?

Seriously, enjoying this reading...

My 2 cents... Without him we have no idea what would have transpired...with him and his influence we know what happened (similar questions could be asked with Paul) His mom thou, I had read wandered around and named places... This is the tomb, this is the garden, this is the hill...somewhere I'd hope there is archeological or historical evidence for areas that the tour busses go.

 

[Thomas]

I did say....multiple times..."almost 300 years." That's hardly "one step."

OK. I did say I was clarifying for others ...

And again... dogma notwithstanding... Jesus was not universally recognized across the Empire as Deity *until* Constantine.

Well again, that statement's not quite right.

Early Christianity was, to quote the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 'theologically diverse'. From Pentecost on there emerged a bishop-led 'orthodox' organization which claimed to be the true successors of the Apostles, and this orthodoxy became increasingly dominant, out-competing both (Hellene) gnostic and (Hebrew) Jewish-Christian groups.

This orthodoxy was fundamentally Trinitarian in its belief, however it's possible to discern a number of theological perspectives among the Fathers concerning both the nature of the Son and the relationship of Son and Spirit to the Father, and whilst some of these theologians were and are regarded as 'heavyweights', nevertheless some held views which would later be refuted as councils gathered to settle theological disputes. (Origen perhaps the most famous, but it's widely held that St John Nazianzen is the ONLY Father NOT to have expressed a view later rejected.)

Nicea was called to settle a particular theological dispute: The nature of the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. That Jesus was God was not in dispute. Rather, Arius saw Christ as a created nature, albeit a divine one. For Arius, Christ stood somewhere above man but below the Father.

These questions were theological niceties that theologians argued over. They didn't trouble the average Christian believer, until Arius began composing ditties for his congregation which said that Jesus was created, at which point the congregation complained to their bishop that their presbyter had gone 'off-message' and was saying something different to their baptismal profession.

Their Christology was probably much the same as the average Christian's Christology today, but for them, Jesus is God.

Scripture apart, we have Polycarp (early 2nd century) who was a disciple of John, and Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd), a disciple of Polycarp and who saw John as a boy. Justin Martyr (c165AD). Justin went so far as to claim that it was Christ who spoke through the burning bush to Moses. The sermons of Melito of Sardis (c170AD). A fragment of the apology of Aristides (c125AD) states: "The Christians trace the beginning of their religion to Jesus the Messiah. He is called the Son of the Most High God. It is said that God came down from heaven. He assumed flesh and clothed Himself with it from a Hebrew virgin." The Epistle to Diognetus, Clement of Rome, Athenagoras (c178AD) puts Jesus in a Trinitarian context: "(Christians) speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and "declare both their power in union and their distinction in order."

So the religion to which Constantine converted believed in and preached a Triune Godhead.

Nicea wasn't called to determine whether or not Jesus was God, that was a given, no-one was contending that. Nicea was called to thrash out the nature of the relation, in essence and substance, of the Son to the Father.

 

[Thomas]

So when and why was infant baptism instituted? Or sprinkling for that matter?

Different times, different places, different practices ... Early baptism seems to be by full immersion, and quite a spooky ceremony.

We cannot say this, it is pure conjecture.

Well your whole argument is largely conjecture on what you've assumed must have happened!

I don't think it is such a given that Christianity would have continued on an uninterrupted upward trend.

The evidence, I suggest, tells otherwise. What's to stop it?

I think as with other "cultic" religions throughout the Empire, it would have found a plateau...

But it was quite unlike other cultic religions, in that it was exclusive, and it was actively proselytising, so I think the comparison doesn't hold.

I think scholars generally agree that Christianity had tipped the balance before Constantine, membership continued to rise, there was no Constantinian peak nor blip, as far as I'm aware?

 

[Thomas]

And yet you object to ceasaropapism? I'm confused.

Ceaseropapism is the emperor is also the head of the church. Din't happen in the west, did to some degree in the East.

My issue is with the head of the church assuming the material mantle of a head of state. I'd rather the Church adopted the outward appearance of its inward self-description, 'a pilgrim church'. The opulence of the Magisterium stands in stark contrast to its founder... that kind of thing.

... that it isn't so neatly cut and dried. And considering the Herculean effort put forth at Nicea to distance *from* Judaism, I don't believe this is a given.

The 'Herculean effort' is largely the conjecture of your own imagination. It's not there in the Canons of the Council, it's not there in the Synodal Letter of the Council to the community at large, it's NOWHERE in the documents of the council, it's only in a letter from Constantine, and I've already acknowledged his anti-semitism, and the anti-semitism of the Christian community generally.

So I think you're blowing Constantine out of all proportion.

Point being Nicea went to lengths to disconnect...officially, legally, decidedly, permanently...from Judaism. Not just local attitudes and opinions...WRIT OF LAW legally binding across the Empire.

OK. Show me.

 

[juantoo3]

Seriously, enjoying this reading...

My 2 cents... Without him we have no idea what would have transpired...with him and his influence we know what happened (similar questions could be asked with Paul) His mom thou, I had read wandered around and named places... This is the tomb, this is the garden, this is the hill...somewhere I'd hope there is archeological or historical evidence for areas that the tour busses go.

Glad to be of service, don't forget to generously tip the waitress

Constantine's Mother Helena, like other Emperor's Mothers, could have as easily retired to a villa on the coast to tend a flower garden or some such if she so chose. She chose to go to the Holy Land and try to identify the various sites she felt were important to Christianity, and her son was only too happy to indulge her. I find it quite interesting, the "manger" where Jesus was born is actually a cave.

 

[juantoo3]

OK. I did say I was clarifying for others ...


Well again, that statement's not quite right.

At some point in the interest of brevity, you and I both have been resorting to generalities in order to move the discussion along. Do we have to be absolutely precise with every statement? If so, every reply is going to be a massive tome no one will read.

Early Christianity was, to quote the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 'theologically diverse'...So the religion to which Constantine converted believed in and preached a Triune Godhead.

This is all well and good...for the 5-10% as you said, of believers. For the rest of the 90-95% of the population of the Empire, this was meaningless until Constantine.

Nicea wasn't called to determine whether or not Jesus was God, that was a given, no-one was contending that. Nicea was called to thrash out the nature of the relation, in essence and substance, of the Son to the Father.

That is only one of the matters discussed...the most famous, the one that gets the most attention, the one that some people like to fixate on, the one some people want others to focus on to not see the balance of the dance card...

There was far more discussed at Nicea...and you know it.

 

[juantoo3]

Different times, different places, different practices ... Early baptism seems to be by full immersion, and quite a spooky ceremony.

Wasn't spooky to me. Nice dodge, but we have bigger fish to fry so I will let this and the dodge of the Donation of Constantine pass for the moment, but I will return at a later date to the Donation of Constantine.

Well your whole argument is largely conjecture on what you've assumed must have happened!

OK, but that conjecture is based on a lot of the same sources you are using... What you were doing with the so-called math was wishful thinking with zero to back it up. So you are correct, it doesn't even deserve to be called conjecture. At least my rebuttal is based on known history.

The evidence, I suggest, tells otherwise. What's to stop it?

Oh, I don't know...reality? Human nature? Population psychology? Game theory?

But it was quite unlike other cultic religions, in that it was exclusive, and it was actively proselytising, so I think the comparison doesn't hold.

"(I)t was exclusive, and it was actively proselytizing" sounds to me like an oxymoron, like Jumbo Shrimp. Christianity *unfettered* is far from exclusive, unless it is in control, evidenced from Justinian onward.

I think scholars generally agree that Christianity had tipped the balance before Constantine,

Can you point to three, and give full quotes and references, please? If "scholars generally agree" that shouldn't be a difficult task at all, and I would expect at least one non-Christian scholar in that group...you know, to represent the "general" part, so there is no clear bias in the sample.

Just need you to conform to your earlier request about clarifying for others and minimizing conjecture...

 

[juantoo3]

Ceaseropapism is the emperor is also the head of the church. Din't happen in the west, did to some degree in the East.

OK, but that is by no means unique to Christianity, the model going back into pre-history. Not saying right or wrong, and accepting that we have a different view *now* with widespread acceptance of separation of Church and State, but even in places like Mesopotamia and Egypt it was not at all uncommon for the King/Emperor/Pharoah/Leader to also be the head of their respective "church."

My issue is with the head of the church assuming the material mantle of a head of state. I'd rather the Church adopted the outward appearance of its inward self-description, 'a pilgrim church'. The opulence of the Magisterium stands in stark contrast to its founder... that kind of thing.

I can see that objection from a modern separation of Church and State POV. You are projecting onto historical norms and faulting them for not obeying your preferences.

The 'Herculean effort' is largely the conjecture of your own imagination. It's not there in the Canons of the Council, it's not there in the Synodal Letter of the Council to the community at large, it's NOWHERE in the documents of the council, it's only in a letter from Constantine, and I've already acknowledged his anti-semitism, and the anti-semitism of the Christian community generally.

So I think you're blowing Constantine out of all proportion.


OK. Show me.

Here we go...again. I don't expect this will be the last, every time we go here you ask me to reiterate and once again I have to go and list the matters discussed at Nicea. Very well, for clarification for others:

"The agenda of the synod included:

1. The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and the Son (not only in his incarnate form as Jesus, but also in his nature before the creation of the world); i.e., are the Father and Son one in divine purpose only or also one in being?
2. The date of celebration of Pascha/Easter
3. The Meletian schism
4. Various matters of church discipline, which resulted in twenty canons
   1. Organizational structure of the Church: focused on the ordering of the episcopacy
   2. Dignity standards for the clergy: issues of ordination at all levels and of suitability of behavior and background for clergy
   3. Reconciliation of the lapsed: establishing norms for public repentance and penance
   4. Readmission to the Church of heretics and schismatics: including issues of when reordination and/or rebaptism were to be required
   5. Liturgical practice: including the place of deacons, and the practice of standing at prayer during liturgy[38]

The council was formally opened 20 May, in the central structure of the imperial palace at Nicaea, with preliminary discussions of the Arian question. Emperor Constantine arrived nearly a month later on 14 June.[39] In these discussions, some dominant figures were Arius, with several adherents. "Some 22 of the bishops at the council, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of the more shocking passages from his writings were read, they were almost universally seen as blasphemous."[5] Bishops Theognis of Nicaea and Maris of Chalcedon were among the initial supporters of Arius.

Eusebius of Caesarea called to mind the baptismal creed of his own diocese at Caesarea at Palestine, as a form of reconciliation. The majority of the bishops agreed. For some time, scholars thought that the original Nicene Creed was based on this statement of Eusebius. Today, most scholars think that the Creed is derived from the baptismal creed of Jerusalem, as Hans Lietzmann proposed.

The orthodox bishops won approval of every one of their proposals regarding the Creed. After being in session for an entire month, the council promulgated on 19 June the original Nicene Creed. This profession of faith was adopted by all the bishops "but two from Libya who had been closely associated with Arius from the beginning".[19] No explicit historical record of their dissent actually exists; the signatures of these bishops are simply absent from the Creed. The sessions continued to deal with minor matters until 25 August.[39]"
ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Agenda_and_procedure

For those so inclined, here from Fordham University (Catholic): https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/nicea1.txt

Separation of Easter computation from Jewish calendar

The feast of Easter is linked to the Jewish Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, as Christians believe that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus occurred at the time of those observances.

As early as Pope Sixtus I, some Christians had set Easter to a Sunday in the lunar month of Nisan. To determine which lunar month was to be designated as Nisan, Christians relied on the Jewish community. By the later 3rd century some Christians began to express dissatisfaction with what they took to be the disorderly state of the Jewish calendar. They argued that contemporary Jews were identifying the wrong lunar month as the month of Nisan, choosing a month whose 14th day fell before the spring equinox.[55]

Christians, these thinkers argued, should abandon the custom of relying on Jewish informants and instead do their own computations to determine which month should be styled Nisan, setting Easter within this independently computed, Christian Nisan, which would always locate the festival after the equinox. They justified this break with tradition by arguing that it was in fact the contemporary Jewish calendar that had broken with tradition by ignoring the equinox, and that in former times the 14th of Nisan had never preceded the equinox.[56] Others felt that the customary practice of reliance on the Jewish calendar should continue, even if the Jewish computations were in error from a Christian point of view.[57]

The controversy between those who argued for independent computations and those who argued for continued reliance on the Jewish calendar was formally resolved by the Council, which endorsed the independent procedure that had been in use for some time at Rome and Alexandria. Easter was henceforward to be a Sunday in a lunar month chosen according to Christian criteria—in effect, a Christian Nisan—not in the month of Nisan as defined by Jews.[7] Those who argued for continued reliance on the Jewish calendar (called "protopaschites" by later historians) were urged to come around to the majority position. That they did not all immediately do so is revealed by the existence of sermons,[58] canons,[59] and tracts[60] written against the protopaschite practice in the later 4th century.

These two rules, independence of the Jewish calendar and worldwide uniformity, were the only rules for Easter explicitly laid down by the Council. No details for the computation were specified; these were worked out in practice, a process that took centuries and generated a number of controversies (see also Computus and Reform of the date of Easter.) In particular, the Council did not seem to decree that Easter must fall on Sunday.[61]

Nor did the Council decree that Easter must never coincide with Nisan 14 (the first Day of Unleavened Bread, now commonly called "Passover") in the Hebrew calendar. By endorsing the move to independent computations, the Council had separated the Easter computation from all dependence, positive or negative, on the Jewish calendar. The "Zonaras proviso", the claim that Easter must always follow Nisan 14 in the Hebrew calendar, was not formulated until after some centuries. By that time, the accumulation of errors in the Julian solar and lunar calendars had made it the de facto state of affairs that Julian Easter always followed Hebrew Nisan 14.[62]

(emphasis mine, jt3)
ref:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First...on_of_Easter_computation_from_Jewish_calendar


SABBATH

Constantine's laws enforced and reflected his Christian attitudes. Crucifixion was abolished for reasons of Christian piety, but was replaced with hanging, to demonstrate the preservation of Roman supremacy. On March 7, 321, Sunday, already sacred to Christians and to the Roman Sun God Sol Invictus, was declared an official day of rest. On that day markets were banned and public offices were closed,[22] except for the purpose of freeing slaves.[23] There were, however, no restrictions on performing farming work, which was the work of the great majority of the population, on Sundays.[24]

REF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Christianity

I stand corrected, the Sabbath change officially took place about 4 years *prior* to Nicea, still within the "time of Constantine."

Notes about the Sabbath change from Saturday to Sunday: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_in_Christianity

Meletian Schism (including "Jewish Ablutions" - ritual washing of hands)

The suppression of the Meletian schism was one of the three important matters that came before the Council of Nicæa. Its decree has been preserved in the synodical epistle addressed to the Egyptian bishops. Meletius, it was decided, should remain in his own city of Lycopolis, but without exercising authority or the power of ordaining; moreover he was forbidded to go into the environs of the town or to enter another diocese for the purpose of ordaining its subjects. He retained his episcopal title, but the ecclesiastics ordained by him were to receive again the imposition of hands, the ordinations performed by Meletius being therefore regarded as invalid. Throughout the diocese where they were found, those ordained by him were always to yield precedence to those ordained by Alexander, nor were they to do anything without the consent of Bishop Alexander. In the event of the death of a non-Meletian bishop or eccclesiastic, the vacant preferment might be given to a Meletian, provided he were worthy and the popular election were ratified by Alexander. As to Meletius himself, episcopal rights and prerogatives were taken from him owing to his incorrigible habit of everywhere exciting confusion. These mild measures, however, were in vain; the Meletians joined the Arians and did more harm than ever, being among the worst enemies of St. Athanasius. Referring to this attempt at reunion the latter said: "Would to God it had never happened."

About 325 the Meletians counted in Egypt twenty-nine bishops, Meletius included, and in Alexandria itself, four priests, three deacons, and one army chaplain. Conformably to the Nicene decree, Meletius lived first at Lycopolis in the Thebaid, but after Bishops Alexander's death he took a personal part in the negotiations which united his party to the Arians. The date of his death is not known. He nominated his friend, John, as his successor. Theodoret mentions very superstitious Meletian monks who practised Jewish ablutions. The Meletians died out after the middle of the fifth century.

(emphasis mine, -jt3)
ref: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Meletius_of_Lycopolis

Letter from Constantine to those not in attendance at Nicea:

From the Letter of the Emperor to all those not present at the Council.

(Found in Eusebius, Vita Const., Lib. iii., 18-20.)

When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable, than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same manner? It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom,1 we may transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter, which we have observed from the time of the Saviour's Passion to the present day [according to the day of the week]. We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and more convenient course (the order of the days of the week); and consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such wicked people [the Jews]. Besides, consider well, that in such an important matter, and on a subject of such great solemnity, there ought not to be any division. Our Saviour has left us only one festal day of our redemption, that is to say, of his holy passion, and he desired [to establish] only one Catholic Church. Think, then, how unseemly it is, that on the same day some should be fasting whilstothers are seated at a banquet; and that after Easter, some should be rejoicing at feasts, whilst others are still observing a strict fast. For this reason, a Divine Providence wills that this custom should be rectified and regulated in a uniform way; and everyone, I hope, will agree upon this point. As, on the one hand, it is our duty not to have anything in common with the murderers of our Lord; and as, on the other, the custom now followed by the Churches of the West, of the South, and of the North, and by some of those of the East, is the most acceptable, it has appeared good to all; and I have been guarantee for your consent, that you would accept it with joy, as it is followed at Rome, in Africa, in all Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, in all Achaia, and in the dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and Cilicia. You should consider not only that the number of churches in these provinces make a majority, but also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we should have nothing in common with the Jews. To sum up in few words: By the unanimous judgment of all, it has been decided that the most holy festival of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one and the same day, and it is not seemly that in so holy a thing there should be any division. As this is the state of the case, accept joyfully the divine favour, and this truly divine command; for all which takes place in assemblies of the bishops ought to be regarded as proceedingfrom the will of God. Make known to your brethren what has been decreed, keep this most holy day according to the prescribed mode; we can thus celebrate this holy Easter day at the same time, if it is granted me, as I desire, to unite myself with you; we canrejoice together, seeing that the divine power has made use of our instrumentality for destroying the evil designs of the devil, and thus causing faith, peace, and unity to flourish amongst us. May God graciously protect you, my beloved brethren.

ref: http://orthodoxchurchfathers.com/fathers/npnf214/npnf2127.htm#P1395_321799

So Nicea was the point that anti-Semitism was given teeth, with full force of law, and marked the "officially, legally, decidedly, permanently" dissociation of Christianity from Judaism, binding across the Empire.

 

[Thomas]

At some point in the interest of brevity, you and I both have been resorting to generalities in order to move the discussion along.

I'll let that one slide...

Do we have to be absolutely precise with every statement?

That seems to be increasingly necessary.

If so, every reply is going to be a massive tome no one will read.

Not necessarily.

There was far more discussed at Nicea...and you know it.

OK, so we can be specific, can you point to the documents or whatever of Nicea, that you see as a "Herculean effort" and

the lengths Nicea went to, to disconnect...officially, legally, decidedly, permanently...from Judaism. Not just local attitudes and opinions...WRIT OF LAW legally binding across the Empire.

 

[juantoo3]

How's that for conjecture?

 

[juantoo3]

I'll let that one slide...


That seems to be increasingly necessary.


Not necessarily.


OK, so we can be specific, can you point to the documents or whatever of Nicea, that you see as a "Herculean effort" and

I suspect you were writing as I was completing my dissertation above, which thoroughly answers your requests.

 

[Thomas]

OK. Concerning Nicea:

Here we go...again. I don't expect this will be the last, every time we go here you ask me to reiterate and once again I have to go and list the matters discussed at Nicea. Very well, for clarification for others:
"The agenda of the synod included:

1. The Arian question ...
2. regarding the relationship between God the Father and the Son ... are the Father and Son one in divine purpose only or also one in being?
3. The date of celebration of Pascha/Easter
4. The Meletian schism
5. Various matters of church discipline ...

I know that, but I fail to see how any of it amounts to a 'Herculean effort' to break with Christianity's Jewish roots! Only the dating of Easter can be said to have any reference to Judaism, and by then Easter was not a Paschal celebration but a Christian one, having already taken on its own distinct characteristics (40 days fasting, etc.) long before the fourth century.

I stand corrected, the Sabbath change officially took place about 4 years *prior* to Nicea

Quite. And as ever, 'official' designation usually follows long after common practice, and usually only when there's a dispute needing to be resolved. The practice of a Christian Eucharistic celebration goes back before 2nd century, so the horse had bolted on that one ...

And as your reference notes:

The issues about Hebrew practices that continued into the 2nd century tended to relate mostly to the Sabbath. Justin Martyr, who attended worship on the first day (Sunday), wrote about the cessation of Hebrew Sabbath observance and stated that the Sabbath was enjoined as a temporary sign to Israel to teach it of human sinfulness (Gal. 3:24-25), no longer needed after Christ came without sin. He rejected the need to keep literal seventh-day Sabbath, arguing instead that "the new law requires you to keep the sabbath constantly." With Christian corporate worship so clearly aligned with the Eucharist and allowed on the seventh day, Hebrew Sabbath practices primarily involved the observance of a day of rest. (my emphasis)

ing "Jewish Ablutions" - ritual washing of hands)

Nah, misdirection. This was noted by Theodoret in the 5th century, it wasn't an issue at Nicea.

The Meletian schism was not a religious nor even a theological disagreement. It involved the treatment of those Christians who had fallen away from the church during the persecutions... long story short, nothing to do with Judaism.

ref: http://orthodoxchurchfathers.com/fathers/npnf214/npnf2127.htm#P1395_321799

So Nicea was the point that anti-Semitism was given teeth, with full force of law, and marked the "officially, legally, decidedly, permanently" dissociation from Judaism

Yep, Constantine wrote a very anti-semitic letter, but this does not stand as "officially, legally, decidedly, permanently" marking anything, as Judeo-Christian relations continued where they didn't give way to polemics. Christians and Jews continued to pray together well into the fourth century and on.

Nicea utterly failed to end the Arian dispute, didn't it? So Constantine's ruling against Arius failed 'officially, legally, decidedly and permanently' to end the matter! If his ruling on the one, central issue, the whole point and reason of the council, was ignored, then why should we suppose that anything else was taken up with greater vigour?

Over the following centuries, time and again emperors were shown incapable of managing theological disputes within the Church.

 

[juantoo3]

Again, you are writing as if the "5-10%" held sway over the other 90-95%...which didn't happen until the time of Constantine. Doesn't matter what each separate church was doing (and there were a wide variety of observances, which you have noted yourself in the past) in the eyes of the 90 plus percent...they were all kooks, a nominal sub-cult that had little to no relevance to the Empire as a whole. You are using a magnifying glass to focus on your preferred meme, I am trying to take a broad perspective here, looking not only from the eyes of the Christians in the Empire, but all of the other factions as well.

And I wasn't arguing about Arius, nowhere did you see my comment directed at his cause...but it is telling you quote Eusebius, an Arian Christian, the Bishop who baptized Constantine, whenever convenient. Show me just one occasion where I invoked Arius apart from a quote listing the matters addressed at the Council. Just once will do...

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Glad to be of service, don't forget to generously tip the waitress

Hell no! She took so long explaining the menu, my soup went cold!

 

[Thomas]

Again, you are writing as if the "5-10%" held sway over the other 90-95%...

No I'm not.

I'm saying the 5-10% who designate themselves Christian were one thing. The 90-95% who don't designate as Christian I'm assuming as belonging to no Christian designation, so questions of Christology for them would be irrelevant?

I'm not sure where gnostics fit on that scale, but I would assume that the 5-10% includes heterodox Jewish-Christians like Ebionities and Nozoreans, for whom again the question was largely irrelevant. were orthodox Christians, as opposed to

in the eyes of the 90 plus percent...they were all kooks, a nominal sub-cult that had little to no relevance to the Empire as a whole.

Then again I ask why Constantine made any concessions to them, as you assert, in the military?

Show me just one occasion where I invoked Arius apart from a quote listing the matters addressed at the Council. Just once will do...

That's the point, you haven't. Nicea was all about Arianism, but you seem to think its all about separating from Judaism, and yet there's nothing to signify that, other than Constantine's letter? All the debate was Arianism. All the subsequent kerfuffle was Arianism. Nothing in the Creed, Statement or Canons of the council address any issue that can be perceived as anti-semitic?

 

[juantoo3]

I'm saying the 5-10% who designate themselves Christian were one thing. The 90-95% who don't designate as Christian I'm assuming as belonging to no Christian designation, so questions of Christology for them would be irrelevant?

Irrelevant to what...social order in the Empire? You are trying to argue from the POV of the "victor" centuries later as if no competing POVs mattered.

Then again I ask why Constantine made any concessions to them, as you assert, in the military?

Who put Constantine on the throne? The Senate? No. The Church? No. Who else could it have possibly been?

That's the point, you haven't. Nicea was all about Arianism, but you seem to think its all about separating from Judaism, and yet there's nothing to signify that, other than Constantine's letter? All the debate was Arianism. All the subsequent kerfuffle was Arianism. Nothing in the Creed, Statement or Canons of the council address any issue that can be perceived as anti-semitic?

Look at the bolded part...therein lies the issue. Doesn't matter if I post the list of matters addressed by the Council. All you see is Arius, and the controversy surrounding him. Nothing else matters to you. You chide me for exactitude, then make such a patently false statement authoritatively as if everything I just posted has no bearing on this discussion. You just saw the list of concerns that were addressed, of which the Arian controversy was *only* one of about 19 issues that were "settled" then. Yeah yeah, problems still went on, Constantine didn't settle a damn thing...but the *only* thing discussed was Arianism in your view.

So why are we having this discussion? Clearly there is no interest in anything remotely associated with historical reality.

Shell game indeed.

 

[wil]

Glad to be of service, don't forget to generously tip the waitress

Constantine's Mother Helena, like other Emperor's Mothers, could have as easily retired to a villa on the coast to tend a flower garden or some such if she so chose. She chose to go to the Holy Land and try to identify the various sites she felt were important to Christianity, and her son was only too happy to indulge her. I find it quite interesting, the "manger" where Jesus was born is actually a cave.

Exactly.... It is like Oprah...and you get a car..and you get a car.... And you get a holy site, and you get a tourist trap, and you get a historical plaque...

 

[juantoo3]

Exactly.... It is like Oprah...and you get a car..and you get a car.... And you get a holy site, and you get a tourist trap, and you get a historical plaque...

Basically, yes.

 

[Thomas]

Irrelevant to what...social order in the Empire?

If we accept that 5-10% of the empire was Christian, how would you define the 90-95%?

Who put Constantine on the throne? The Senate? No. The Church? No. Who else could it have possibly been?

The army, in the first instance. I see no reason why he might particularly reward the Christian element, and risk pissing off the rest?

You chide me for exactitude ...

Stop blustering and answer the question.

What actual evidence you have for a "Herculean effort" to distance Christianity from its Jewish roots, and what actual evidence "to disconnect... officially, legally, decidedly, permanently...from Judaism. Not just local attitudes and opinions...WRIT OF LAW legally binding across the Empire."?

So far ... nothing but Constantine's letter, which was not WRIT OF LAW nor doctrine and, in the light of the Council, probably ignored along with much else, as you say: ". Yeah yeah, problems still went on, Constantine didn't settle a damn thing... " which has been my point all along.

So until that issue is addressed, I am withdrawing from this discussion.

 

[RJM]

Faith is knowing there's no choice but to let God take over completely: no words, nowhere else to turn. Only God. I have greatly benefited from Thomas' understanding. This is a reality. It's not a philosophy, of wishful thinking, or my 'imaginary friend' or the opium of the people. We're always being asked to PROVE it. But the only proof is quiet peace and inner knowledge of small daily miracles, every day. Religion(s) are the shell of the nut, truth is the kernel within. Imo ...