MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Edwin Johnson (History)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Please don't put the kybosh on the Kaiser, he's just brought out a book featuring this passage

Officially, Christianity began during the Roman Empire. It might even be said they began coterminously since Augustus declared himself emperor in 27 BC and the angel of the Lord impregnated the Queen of Heaven with our Saviour only a smidgeon after that. Not that either side would have recognised the concordance given their respective agendas but, since the world owes its modern form to western Europe and western Europe owes its modern form to a combination of the Roman Empire and Papal Christianity, the coincidence is worth noting even if it is happenstance.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The date (A.D.) of an epoch-ending event, the withdrawal of the Romans from Britain in 410, is another Bedian contribution to English history. Some archaeologists, and perhaps historians, are not entirely persuaded that 410 is valid, though it's useful and much used for marking the end of Constantine III's rule, barbarian invasions, et al.

The dissenters feel there are cases of Roman archaeology being mislabelled Early Medieval and came up with 'Late Antiquity' to explain one period leaching into another but there is no evidence of Roman Christianity in the archaeological record; at most there are references to Mithraism, otherwise buildings are described generically as temples. The importance of breaking with Rome in a religious sense seems to be a mainly Tudor preoccupation.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yes, Roman Christianity has become a bit of a focus. They can make excuses for having no evidence for the Dark Ages but when it comes to the state religion of the world's most powerful empire (o.n.o.) they're going to have a bit of explaining (away) to do.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hatty wrote:
The date (A.D.) of an epoch-ending event, the withdrawal of the Romans from Britain in 410, is another Bedian contribution to English history. Some archaeologists, and perhaps historians, are not entirely persuaded that 410 is valid, though it's useful and much used for marking the end of Constantine III's rule, barbarian invasions, et al.

The dissenters feel there are cases of Roman archaeology being mislabelled Early Medieval and came up with 'Late Antiquity' to explain one period leaching into another but there is no evidence of Roman Christianity in the archaeological record; at most there are references to Mithraism, otherwise buildings are described generically as temples. The importance of breaking with Rome in a religious sense seems to be a mainly Tudor preoccupation.


The legions have to go, so Augustine (sic) can arrive.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Jump to:  
Page 5 of 5

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group