O
Oska2
Guest
What did the Edict of Thessalonica entail?
Do you find anything in the Wikipedia article questionable? The article seems in-order to me.What did the Edict of Thessalonica entail?
Thanks for the reference to the article.Do you find anything in the Wikipedia article questionable? The article seems in-order to me.
Note that the Edict was an act of the Roman government, and not the Church (though I’m sure the Church celebrated it).
The Edict of Milan was issued in 312, by the Emperors Constantine and Maximilian. Maximilian became unimportant shortly thereafter. The Edict ended religious persecution within the Roman Empire, but did not establish any sort of “state religion.”Thanks for the reference to the article.
The article says that the Edict made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire.
I wish to understand why the Roman government favored Christianity. What were the non-christian people of the Roman Empire believing-in, and how the Edict was enforced.
Thanks for this insight.Some decades later, the Edict of Thessalonica established Christianity as the State Religion of Rome. But, since the Edict of Milan had ended religious persecution (or mandatory religion) in the Roman Empire, the Edict of Thessalonica had no judicial effect upon non-Christians (Jews, etc) living in Roman lands. It did, however, form the basis of the so-called Holy Roman Empire, which was not holy, and was not Roman, and was not an empire.
Why do you say that?The state religion had to be practiced by all government officials.
Because the Church won.Could this explain why all the pagan beliefs within the Roman Empire declined and eventually died-off?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_roman_empireYou have mentioned, ‘The Holy Roman Empire’. I’d like to know more about it.
Why do you say that?
I’ve not read that anywhere, but I thought the Roman Empire was very strict on the Edicts.
I compare with what is mentioned in the Book of Esther, where the King’s edict was enacted very strictly.
I have not read that anywhere either. But I know that various Roman Emperors persecuted Christians, while (most) others pretty much ignored Christians. The “laws” were the same, but they were selectively enforced according to the disposition of the Roman Emperor.I’ve not read that anywhere, but I thought the Roman Empire was very strict on the Edicts.
That Book describes (only) one Persian ruler. There is no reason to suppose that ALL Persian rulers were as strict. And there is certainly no historic basis to superimpose the policy of a single Persian ruler upon Roman emperors who ruled many centuries later.I compare with what is mentioned in the Book of Esther, where the King’s edict was enacted very strictly.
Ok, I see the point, Thanks.I have not read that anywhere either. But I know that various Roman Emperors persecuted Christians, while (most) others pretty much ignored Christians. The “laws” were the same, but they were selectively enforced according to the disposition of the Roman Emperor.
That Book describes (only) one Persian ruler. There is no reason to suppose that ALL Persian rulers were as strict. And there is certainly no historic basis to superimpose the policy of a single Persian ruler upon Roman emperors who ruled many centuries later.
That would be like superimposing the persecution of, say, the Roman Emperor Diocletian upon ALL Roman emperors. Most Roman Emperors did not give a fig about Christians, and did not persecute them.
What makes you conclude that it was not Holy, and was not Roman & was not an empire.Some decades later, the Edict of Thessalonica established Christianity as the State Religion of Rome.
I’d very much wish to understand why the Emperor who issued the Edict favoured Christianity in the place of other religions. There must have been a previous state religion of the Roman Empire (I’m not sure).
It did, however, form the basis of the so-called Holy Roman Empire, which was not holy, and was not Roman, and was not an empire.