This is exacly my take on it.
A lot of questionable theology (to me at least) came out of this general time period, including the abolishement of the sabbath and other biblical holy days. Sadly many protestants cling to the teaching of the Roman Church on this and other topics.
Thanks for your efforts...
Thank you Douglas. I just enjoy history told by the facts as opposed to fiction created that is based on the facts. They are two entirely seperate things. And if I've learned nothing else in 15 years with regard to religious history, it's that it is far more political and imaginative than it is factual. What you believe is largely a matter of who told it rather than what the facts say. And that is a travesty. One has to wonder how one can ever interpret Licinius as acting on behalf of Constantine when they were in fact enemies. One further has to wonder how it can be said that constantine wiped out the Donatists when they survived him. One further wonders how it can then be construed as a holy quest to put down heresy when the record shows it was merely a political persecution in attempt to quell unrest. That, as it happens, failed. But history also shows that Constantine took pleasure in letting the Donatists flourish because they were a thorn in the side of Licinius. Where is that in the official Catholic apologetics? Any one of these things poses a problem to the official propaganda. But all in sum render that propaganda for what it is - a lie. And i'm so sick of being lied to that I could spit lies and crap lightning. It was infuriating when I learned that editors of School text books didn't have the respect for me to tell the truth. It's more infuriating yet when philosophers presuming to be christians do it in every other statement. Have they no shame, no fear of God? Anyway, glad to contribute something. And glad I'm not the only one.