An Open Letter to Governor Brown Re: History 101

[WeakandDizzy]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Is that the one where the Roman general blinded his enemies by reflecting sunlight off his big bald head?

I'm not sure about that. This is the battle between Constantine and Maxentius. Constantine had a vision that the Christian god of his mother Helena would insure victory if he painted the chi-rho on his soldiers shields. Constantine prevailed and converted to Christianity. He also abolished the Praetorian Guard following his victory. Western Europe became a Christian region largely because of Constantine.

[.highnlite]

I had a Roman history professor that said what Constantine actually saw was the sign for Apollo. He went with the Christain theme for political reasons. Constantine legalized Christianity, but did not become Christian until his death bed.

The legalization of Christianity doomed the empire.

The numbers of Christians did not appreciably increase upon legalization, they just came out of the closet.

The Barbarians who invaded Rome where often Christian, Arian Christians, whereas the Roman Christians were Athanasian.

[BlackShoe]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

The Republic of Rome did not collapse. In fact, it was quite prosperous right up to the point Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon and consolidated power, becoming Rome's first dictator and establishing what would become The Roman Empire.

Just a historical note, but in the 1st century BC the Roman Republic already had established an empire of sorts, with Roman influence and control exercised far beyond her borders. Caesar was not at all Rome's first dictator, there were several during it's long history, in fact, Caesar as a young man lived under Rome's most recent one, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, and may have known him personally. The last hundred years of the Roman Republic was an era filled with a great deal of conflict and turmoil, and is an extremely interesting period for those with an interest in history to study.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

I had a Roman history professor that said what Constantine actually saw was the sign for Apollo. He went with the Christain theme for political reasons. Constantine legalized Christianity, but did not become Christian until his death bed.

The legalization of Christianity doomed the empire.

The numbers of Christians did not appreciably increase upon legalization, they just came out of the closet.

The Barbarians who invaded Rome where often Christian, Arian Christians, whereas the Roman Christians were Athanasian.

Correct except for the last line. Even in Constantine's day the "Arians" out numbered the Trinitarians. It was Constantine's decree that started to give the Athanasion Trinitarians the power, and a later emperor finished it pretty well off in 381 AD, though even then Trinitarians were in the minority.

It is another example of how people in power can influence the direction people are forced to go, even if the majority do not wish to follow that path.

[.highnlite]

It is my understanding that by about 340 Athanasians held power in the church in the West, while the Arians held the East. It was Arian missionaries moving north to attempt to convert the hostile tribes, and had success there. By 383 Arianism was no longer officially recognized but.

I have always had a soft spot for Julian. He tried to toss out all that Christian nonsense and get back to good manly paganism.
homoousios and homoiousios pretty well sums up the pettiness of the Christians. People fought and died over those two words.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

It is my understanding that by about 340 Athanasians held power in the church in the West, while the Arians held the East. It was Arian missionaries moving north to attempt to convert the hostile tribes, and had success there. By 383 Arianism was no longer officially recognized but.

I have always had a soft spot for Julian. He tried to toss out all that Christian nonsense and get back to good manly paganism.
homoousios and homoiousios pretty well sums up the pettiness of the Christians. People fought and died over those two words.

Hi,

In both instances it was decided in the East not West and by a the two emperors. Both sides had far more "Arian" believers than Trinitarians.

When one does speak of unqualified [unlimited] Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say the last quadrant of the 4th century ... Herein lies the difficulty. On the one hand, it was the dogmatic formula “one God in Three Persons” that would henceforth for more than 15 centuries structure and guide the Trinitarian essence of the Christian message...On the other hand, the formula itself does not reflect the immediate consciousness of the period of origins; it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development. (e.a.)—New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 295.



Trinity. The trinity of God is defined by the [Roman Catholic] Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief. (e.a.)-Dictionary of the Bible, John McKenzie, S.J., (Society of Jesuits) 1965, pp. 899-900.



THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA:

Even after the elimination of Gnosticism...the Trinitarians and the Unitarians continued to confront each other, the latter [the Unitarians] at the beginning of the 3rd century still forming the large majority. (e.a.)-11th edition, 1910-11, Vol. XXXIII (33), p. 963; and ibid., 1892, Vol. XXI (21), p. 127.
THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA:

Unitarianism as a theological movement ... antedated Trinitarianism by many decades. Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian. The road which led from Jerusalem [the location of the first Christian congregation] to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding God; it [Trinitarianism] was, on the contrary, a deviation from this [early Christian] teaching. It [Trinitarianism] therefore developed against constant Unitarian or at least anti-Trinitarian opposition, and it was never wholly victorious...Earl Morse Wilbur, in the introduction to his History of Unitarianism enumerates a number of anti-Trinitarian groups which deserve attention in this connection; among others he refers to the Ebionites, the Sabellians, the Samosatanians, and the Arians...it must

be reemphasized that the concept God, understood as a single, undivided personality, precedes the Nicean notion of a Deity defined as three persons sharing one essence. Unitarianism is the early norm, Trinitarianism a latter deviation from this norm. It is therefore more proper to speak of Trinitarianism as an anti-Unitarian movement than of Unitarianism as an anti-Trinitarian mode of theological speculation. (e.a.)-1956, Vol. 27, p. 294L.

This has been an area of study for me for many years.

Now Julian gets kudo's for dealing with those who called them selves "Christian" when they were so in name only. The argument that split the "Church" was between people who had already abandoned the Bible for their own philosophy, as you note in the two words fought over, neither of which appear in Scripture as they try to apply them.

What we see here is what happens in Government. The will of those with power, such as the Unions and big business, get what they want and declare it the "best", even when the majority do not agree.