It seems that you insist upon dismissing as "propoganda" what does not comport with your views. In place of counter evidence. however, you offer only speculation. What I am complaining about now is your ignoring of the simple fact that in the 3rd century orthodox Christians dominated the scene because they were organized and to a considerable extent centralized. Otherwise, why should the offical persecution aimed at decapitation rather than extermination?
The weakening of the state created a vacuum, psychological, spiritual, social, and as usual the Church attracted people by offering them roles parallel to those found in traditional society. And just as in a democratic society organizations like democratic forms, so in authoritarian states, they follow authoritarian forms.
Episcopacy offered many advantages over the original traveling missionary form. It of course built on the older Jewish forms, but as Christianity and Judaism developed differently after the expulsion of Christians from the synagogues, a bishop early on was a very different office from that of rabbi. Whereas a rabbi was primarily a teacher and retained little priestly authority, a bishop was both teacher and priest. As the Christian clergy assimilated into Roman society--that is, as the notion of Christian and Roman became less antithetical--the bishop also became more like a public figure,so that Cyprian's authroity was a bit like Cardinal Spellman's was in the 1950s. The process was completed in the 5th as the bishop became in effect a prelate, offical exercising both the secular and religious authority. A confederation of bishops--for that was what the Church was in the 3rd century--must be very different from a confederation of Baptist pastors. It is/was marked by both rivalry and collegiality. But there is always an advantage in size, and so a united front appeared despite personal differences. One can see this tendency today even in the SBC toward orthodoxy and "Catholicism,"which so scandalized many Texas Baptists. In Roman society, with no democratic tendencies,hierarchy early on became the dominate fact of church government. In this enviroment, the sects were been marginalized. Groups like the Marcionites and the Manicheans were centralized like the Catholics, not small and scattered secrs, although there were many of them.
Decapitation rather than extermination - indeed. Persecution in the first century was toward the end of both just as in the third. In the first century, the apostles were at the head of the church - teaching and overseeing. In the third it was the Bishops who filled the self same roles that the apostles had. You are in essence arguing a difference that doesn't exist. But this was different because it wasn't different, right.
The weakening of the state created a vacuum, psychological, spiritual, social, and as usual the Church attracted people by offering them roles parallel to those found in traditional society. And just as in a democratic society organizations like democratic forms, so in authoritarian states, they follow authoritarian forms.
The first part I agree with. The second I'm trying to grasp the relevance of. So let's go on and see if it finds grounding in the rest of your dissertation here..
Episcopacy offered many advantages over the original traveling missionary form. It of course built on the older Jewish forms, but as Christianity and Judaism developed differently after the expulsion of Christians from the synagogues, a bishop early on was a very different office from that of rabbi. Whereas a rabbi was primarily a teacher and retained little priestly authority, a bishop was both teacher and priest.
On this point we'll have to disagree. Christ became the chief priest and the apostles so pointed out that he made us all "kings and priests". Ministers did not and do not uniquely hold this role and thus it is irrelevant to which you speak unless it is considered that some sects didn't understand this any more than they understood the rest of christianity and thus grounded this as a point from which to begin doing what they chose instead of what Christ's message had afore dictated. It fits the overall picture as it existed then and now.
As the Christian clergy assimilated into Roman society--that is, as the notion of Christian and Roman became less antithetical--the bishop also became more like a public figure,so that Cyprian's authroity was a bit like Cardinal Spellman's was in the 1950s. The process was completed in the 5th as the bishop became in effect a prelate, offical exercising both the secular and religious authority.
The office of Bishop in Constantine's time was no more than it was in the time of the apostles. This is seen clearly in the Request by Donatus to Constantine for the intervention of judges from Gaul in the matters of the Church as regards their standing. The simple fact is that their authority extended no further than their congregational meeting places and did not extend to civil authority.
A confederation of bishops--for that was what the Church was in the 3rd century--must be very different from a confederation of Baptist pastors. It is/was marked by both rivalry and collegiality. But there is always an advantage in size, and so a united front appeared despite personal differences.
IE, we're on the same page to an extent. All these sects were viewed as Christian. The only reason the Donatist sect came to prominance is that they posed a political problem of major noteworthiness. To the other sects, it was a small matter to make offerings to the pagan gods to pacify Roman law. Donatus preached against this and that was the sticking point. This is what the historians report. So in essence the majority of the sects of Africa were involved in a blatent and major sin, yet it is Donatus who is reviled - and for pointing out the error of the others. The majority was in error. And with the majority having the advantage the error prevailed. They are for now, sects to be referred to after the names of their bishops as is the practice for naming outlaw sects otherwise. For the Gospel and the OT either in concert or seperately condemn the practices to which those bishops and their congregations because of them subscribed. But you are arguing nearly the same thing I have stated as though it were a difference. You're just failing to put context to it and draw the conclusions.
One can see this tendency today even in the SBC toward orthodoxy and "Catholicism,"which so scandalized many Texas Baptists. In Roman society, with no democratic tendencies,hierarchy early on became the dominate fact of church government. In this enviroment, the sects were been marginalized. Groups like the Marcionites and the Manicheans were centralized like the Catholics, not small and scattered secrs, although there were many of them.
Early on is a relative term when it didn't happen till over 300 years after Christ. Considering that through the time of Constantine the same structure existed unchanged from the 1st century, I'm not sure what you are trying to establish. The simple fact is that there is no central figure up to the time of Constantine - period. No primary bishop to whome all answered. If there had been, it would be a part of the historical record in Constantine's dealings with the church. It is not there. And this is not a matter of Constantine being in town overnight and failing to pay respects. This is a matter of him paying no attention for all the years of his riegn to any self styled ruler of Christian faith. You've as much as admitted this already. Stunning as that might be, you are fighting to tell me that there were few sects. That is not the case. The nature of a sect is that it is led by a single major leader and has some sort of seperate name - usually. There is no brand name "Catholic" in this period pre-Theodosian. It just isn't there. But there are numerous Bishops allowing their congregations to pay homage to pagan gods as though it's nothing. Every one of those bishops represents a sect seperate from christianity at that point as one cannot serve two masters.
As soon as the choice is made to serve another, they belong to that other god. This is exemplified by the treatment of Adam and eve by God. As soon as they made the choice to serve Satan by rejecting God's authority, they by default belonged to Satan whome they'd chosen as master by submitting to his authority. This is a very simple spiritual truth not to brushed aside for it's import. It proves what I say by default because of the spiritual truth involved. Whether the sects have names that we can pin to them or not, they still exist in the historical record. If Donatus had not been spurned by them for pointing out their error and attempting to correct it, their existance would not be known and this would all be elementary. It would also not be so clear the extent to which Revisionism has been applied to cover the truth. But then the truth doesn't paint Catholicism in a good light since they take credit for putting Donatus down as a heretic now does it. The mere act of taking credit identifies the Catholicism as holding to the same beliefs as those in Africa who were in error. But those in Rome were holding to the same erroneous practices. That does not equate to large scale unity - this is debunked by the proceedings of the debate over Arius. That means we are yet dealing with an unorganized loose group of Bishops operating largely independantly - again equating to individual sects - not a large centralized agreeable and single church. At this point the only thing I can find that they agreed upon and not unanimously was that Donatus had to go. His hard line teaching against sin just could not be allowed to stand.
If you need, I can post the letter written by Donatus to Constantine. I've already posted what is known with regard to what Donatus was preaching as a historical matter. The propaganda is quite different. I can further offer Grant's notation on the fact that Donatus' movement outlived Constantine. The historians didn't just make up these political issues of Licinius being an enemy of Constantine, nor of Constantine dragging his feet on the Donatist issue because Donatus drove Licinius nuts. Licinius according to the historians hastened his own end by persecuting the Donatists and was put down, I believe, officially, for persecuting Christians with specific reference to Donatus implied as that's the only group he went after. Interesting that; but, that's another discussion. If you want speculation, I'll give you some. I'd say the sects who were disagreeable with the Donatists were playing Licinius and Constantine and when Constantine decided to cut the Donatists a break, Licinius became the willing puppet in order to try and gain support from the dominant Christians against Constantine. I haven't gotten that far into Licinius; but, it would explain how the popular myth about him came into being after Constantine's death. And after Constantine, anyone wishing to set on the throne would need the nod of the Christians to rule peacefully. This is a juxtaposition that had not before existed for Christians; but, as noted above, the dominant collection of sects leaned into error. Thus whatever seeming power belonged to "christians" it was being weilded largely by those in error. And with Donatus out of the way, There would be no one to check them spiritually who would be able to stand.
Now, lets inject the rest of what we know. Eusebius is a known fraud. For it to be known now, it had to be known then. And the group that ended up becoming modern catholicism subscribed to his errors and outright forgeries. But the nature of the error is what is important. It is designed for a purpose in a time when the emperor needed Christians as much as they needed him. The balance if anything was tilted more to the Christians. As without them, domestic restlessness would have been through the roof and the empire would fall. In the midst of this mess and with the aid of Constantine and Theodosius, the Catholic name came into being along with the groundwork for Catholicism to later steal the throne through politicing, lies, a fabricated history, etc. Let us not forget - the frauds of Eusebius were not the only ones that came out of this period. And the number of them from here on continued to mount and all in favor of granting great powers and authority to the Church. It is not money that corrupts, it is the love of it. So too with power. And to that end, I would correct a popular postulation 'absolute power' does not corrupt. It is the thirst for absolute power that corrupts because it is impossible for absolute power to be attained. That thirst took a group that was already spiritually corrupt to depths that no Christian would dare descend to - then attempted to put a 'holy' face on it by blaming their actions on the apostles, Christ, and God himself. And none of it would have been possible save for the times and the happenstance of a disintegrating empire. As it happens, it plays right along with prophesy. Who'd have thunk it.