When I speak of Christianity I’m speaking of true belief in the Lord Jesus. Anyone can say they are Christian or Holy. Those terms are applied loosely and were even then. Just because it was the ‘designated’ religion of Rome or that the Christians were no longer persecuted does not mean it was a ‘holy’ place.
And I do not FAIL in my history dear self professed experts. I did not dispute what you are saying...And yes it can be debated. Similar to whether or not the marxist in the WH, who professes to be a Christian, is or not. Just because it is ‘professed’ does not make it so.
Yeah, you have failed in your history.
The Roman emperors immediately post-Diocletian seem to have been either those who viewed Christianity favorably or who were actual Christians holding a ‘true belief in the Lord Jesus’. See the Nicene Creed and everything through Theodosius’ reign for proof.
In addition, the empire spent the next *thousand* years (off and on) defending Christianity, and in fact the last remnant of the empire (the Eastern part, aka the Byzantines) fell to the swords and cannon of Islamic Turks in the Siege and Fall of Constantinople in 1453 (in part) because the emperor refused to leave the church of Hagia Sofia for the Islamics to torch.
I would also suggest that you re-read the works of the Apostle Paul, a Roman who prior to conversion violently and cruelly persecuted the Christians. Specifically, Galatians 1:13-14, Philippians 3:6, and Acts 8:1-3.
Do you not consider him holy or Christian? Because his conversion was a parallel to what would eventually happen to the Roman Empire as a whole.