Comments
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, these states were Christian states before the Roman Empire was: Armenia, Ethiopia (Aksum), and Georgia (Iberia). My memory is vague on Ethiopia ...
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
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.
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]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
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.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
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?
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
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. [;)]
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'.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
Check out this Logos resource to bust the Legend - https://www.logos.com/product/215711/urban-legends-of-church-history-40-common-misconceptions
Making Disciples! Logos Ecosystem = LogosMax on Microsoft Surface Pro 7 (Win11), Android app on tablet, FSB on iPhone & iPad mini, Proclaim (Proclaim Remote on Fire Tablet).