I remember that an emperor in Rome or Judea issued an edict that made Christianity the only legitimate religion in their empire. I cannot remember which one it was. Can someone track this down for me?
Tell you what; I'll get you close. There are a pair of edicts, one in 313 A.D., and one in 380 A.D. Go from there and you'll find what you are looking for.
I will help you a little further [;)] with this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Theodosianus
When you read the appropriate edicts, you will probably adjust your wording about what they actually promoted. [;)]
with this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Theodosianus
Good clue! And it references (secondary) the great (older) resource in Logos:
https://www.logos.com/product/20315/dictionary-of-greek-and-roman-antiquities
Which is interesting reading ... when reading the woman caught in adultery, I was well aware of the jewish rules. But not conversant with the roman. Which deals with both parties. Best described as 'it all depends'.
Check out this Logos resource to bust the Legend - https://www.logos.com/product/215711/urban-legends-of-church-history-40-common-misconceptions
If you are interested in Christianity as a state religion, these states were Christian states before the Roman Empire was: Armenia, Ethiopia (Aksum), and Georgia (Iberia). My memory is vague on Ethiopia ...
I remember that an emperor in Rome or Judea issued an edict that made Christianity the only legitimate religion in their empire. I cannot remember which one it was. Can someone track this down for me? If you are interested in Christianity as a state religion, Georgia and Armenia are the first Christian states.
If you are interested in Christianity as a state religion, Georgia and Armenia are the first Christian states.
You are misleading him! Georgia is the state and Armenia 🇦🇲 is a country; unless you meant Georgia and Alabama 😂😂😂 (I hope it’s clear that this is a joke 😂😂😂).
You are misleading him!
I was!! I have edited the post to recognize that somewhere in my hazy memory I've got Ethiopia stashed as at least claiming a similar status. And being firmly from the PNW I will acknowledge Georgia and Alabama as very foreign.[:D]
I wish Logos would carry The Pilgrim Church, by Broadbent. This is easily my favorite church history book on the market.
Any resource that suggests that the church did not severely morph under Constantine isn’t being truthful.
Could you explain? Large chunks of the Church were well outside Constantine's influence - he was influential in attempting to get a defined orthodoxy in the core geographic region of Christianity but even that was not terribly successful for several hundred years. Note I am not denying that there were significant changes in the Church at the time of Constantine. It's been more than five decades since I've seen the book you mention (my Dad had a copy) but IIRC it covers only the Western Church i.e. a very limited view of Christianity.
Have you read Jesus Before Constantine: The Church, Her Beliefs, and Her Apologetics by Doug E. Taylor? It is one of the better pre-Constantine church histories that is firmly evidence based.
Any resource that suggests that the church did not severely morph under Constantine isn’t being truthful. Could you explain? Large chunks of the Church were well outside Constantine's influence - he was influential in attempting to get a defined orthodoxy in the core geographic region of Christianity but even that was not terribly successful for several hundred years. Note I am not denying that there were significant changes in the Church at the time of Constantine. It's been more than five decades since I've seen the book you mention (my Dad had a copy) but IIRC it covers only the Western Church i.e. a very limited view of Christianity. Have you read Jesus Before Constantine: The Church, Her Beliefs, and Her Apologetics by Doug E. Taylor? It is one of the better pre-Constantine church histories that is firmly evidence based.
I haven't read the book you referenced, MJ. And unfortunately, when I click the hyperlink, it goes to dead space.
To be honest, I doubt I could answer your question without veering into a discussion that would be frowned on here. But I would maintain the "conversion" of Constantine* and the resulting changes to both the Empire and Christianity were significant and eventually created a religious system that was far different from the Christian experience of the first several centuries of the Church.
*Yes, the word conversion is in quotes for a reason.
Ok.... I'm gonna show how naive I am... and will say there is a lot I don't understand... But... the church that Jesus started never has needed to have any kind of edict or approval by men. So what am I missing?
Exactly.
Have you read Jesus Before Constantine: The Church, Her Beliefs, and Her Apologetics by Doug E. Taylor? It is one of the better pre-Constantine church histories that is firmly evidence based. I haven't read the book you referenced, MJ. And unfortunately, when I click the hyperlink, it goes to dead space.
Service: this is probably a better hyperlink: https://www.logos.com/product/197132/jesus-before-constantine-the-church-her-beliefs-and-her-apologetics
Have you read Jesus Before Constantine: The Church, Her Beliefs, and Her Apologetics by Doug E. Taylor? It is one of the better pre-Constantine church histories that is firmly evidence based. I haven't read the book you referenced, MJ. And unfortunately, when I click the hyperlink, it goes to dead space. Service: this is probably a better hyperlink: https://www.logos.com/product/197132/jesus-before-constantine-the-church-her-beliefs-and-her-apologetics
Thanks. I'll take a look.
But I would maintain the "conversion" of Constantine* and the resulting changes to both the Empire and Christianity were significant and eventually created a religious system that was far different from the Christian experience of the first several centuries of the Church.
I was carefully agreeing with this but trying to politely point out the regional aspects of that influence and note that your preferred resource, while good for its time is severely limited by three factors:
But... the church that Jesus started never has needed to have any kind of edict or approval by men. So what am I missing?
No one indicated anything to the contrary ... what is the relevance to Logos software or resources? But Christian's recent question about anthropology of religion might help you sort out the relevance of the edict question.
But... the church that Jesus started never has needed to have any kind of edict or approval by men. So what am I missing? No one indicated anything to the contrary ... what is the relevance to Logos software or resources? But Christian's recent question about anthropology of religion might help you sort out the relevance of the edict question.
Maybe... but I just never found anything to back up the thought that Jesus started "religion" at all. "Religion" comes from man, not God. The "edict" that any man gives is for the proving or backing up of the way that man believes. It has nothing to do with the way Jesus wanted the church He built to believe, to worship or how it was to be structured. And that church, built by Jesus, has always been approved by God, which needs no man's "edict". Not so with the many "edicts" that come from man about how the church should be or if it is approved. Anthro - (man) ology - (study of) is the science of studying man.
I often wonder what ministry schools are really teaching the young men that go to them. [8-|]
I fear we disagree on the meaning of the word religion, and on the meaning of the political word edict. At least we agree on the meaning of anthropology.
I often wonder what ministry schools are really teaching the young men that go to them.
But I would maintain the "conversion" of Constantine* and the resulting changes to both the Empire and Christianity were significant and eventually created a religious system that was far different from the Christian experience of the first several centuries of the Church. I was carefully agreeing with this but trying to politely point out the regional aspects of that influence and note that your preferred resource, while good for its time is severely limited by three factors: it is pre-Dead Sea Scrolls it is pre-Nag Hammadi it is regional in scope
Limited perhaps. But limited doesn't equate to weak or wrong. In fact limits can sometimes be a plus.
I'll say no more. [:D]
In fact limits can sometimes be a plus.
They can. They can also be blinders. In this case, the "regional in scope" equates to me as a kind of blinder as it allows one to be convinced by excluding (rather than refuting) counterevidence.
But I would maintain the "conversion" of Constantine* and the resulting changes to both the Empire and Christianity were significant and eventually created a religious system that was far different from the Christian experience of the first several centuries of the Church. I was carefully agreeing with this but trying to politely point out the regional aspects of that influence and note that your preferred resource, while good for its time is severely limited by three factors: it is pre-Dead Sea Scrolls it is pre-Nag Hammadi it is regional in scope I'll say no more.
I'll say no more.
Gary, I also find this to be one of my favorite books. Helped and influenced me decades ago in my Christian thinking and walk.
MJ, thanks for your comments on the book and also the suggested resource. This type of stuff fascinates me.
In fact limits can sometimes be a plus. They can. They can also be blinders. In this case, the "regional in scope" equates to me as a kind of blinder as it allows one to be convinced by excluding (rather than refuting) counterevidence.
We will have to agree to disagree.
And regardless of what one thinks of the book, Logos should carry it. It’s a watershed resource in Evangelical Christianity.
