By the third century, Christianity was well established in and around Greece and the Middle East, as well as in Rome, Alexandria, Carthage and a few cities such as Lyons in the 'barbarian' western Europe.
Christianity had largely failed to penetrate Egypt outside Alexandria, or much of western Europe. Even Italy, outside the city of Rome, seems to have largely resisted Christianity. It seems that the Egyptian and Celtic religions had not entered a period of decline and scepticism in the way that the Greco-Roman religion had done. However, there was no impediment to Christians preaching in those areas, other than a lack of interest on the part of the population.
Christian tradition suggests that the Christians suffered constant harrassment and persecution by the Roman authorities. However, Euan Cameron (Interpreting Christian History: The Challenge of the Churches' Past) says, "Contrary to popular tradition, the first three centuries of Christianity were not times of steady or consistent persecution. Persecution was sporadic, intermittent, and mostly local." Edward Gibbon (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire) goes further and, on a number of occasions, praises the pagan Romans for their general tolerance towards Christianity. Widespread and persistent persecution of other faiths only really began with the Christian Empire.
There was a total of perhaps 12 years of official persecution of Christianity during nearly three hundred years in which Christianity existed in the pagan Empire. Otherwise, the Christians were largely allowed to worship as they pleased, and even to proselytise their faith, as long as they took care not to offend others or disturb the peace. This allowed Christianity to prosper and spread far and wide.
Hope this helps :)
Answer:
Explanation:
CHRISPGJGJ ER COMXIMBUS IS MADKE AMVERICA!!!!!!
Socrates comes a sustained inquiry into ethical matters—an orientation towards human living and the best life for human beings. With Plato comes one of the most creative and flexible ways of doing philosophy, which some have since attempted to imitate by writing philosophical dialogues covering topics still of interest today in ethics, political thought, metaphysics, and epistemology.
The northern lawmakers needed the state to join the union instead of the confederacy, because if they joined the confederacy, the Union would be weaker. They got the Missouri on their side by allowing it to hold slaves (but that could easily be overturned, so getting the state was more of a priority than having slavery or not)
hope this helps
Answer:
Dred Scott decision, formally Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on March 6, 1857, ruled (7–2) that a slave (Dred Scott) who had resided in a free state and territory (where slavery was prohibited) was not thereby entitled to his freedom; that African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States; and that the Missouri Compromise (1820), which had declared free all territories west of Missouri and north of latitude 36°30′, was unconstitutional. The decision added fuel to the sectional controversy and pushed the country closer to civil war.
Dred Scott
Explanation:
It's B. Sir
