Interesting page, learned a lot i didnt know

[TigranJamharian]

http://www.friesian.com/armenia.htm#armenia1

[HyeJinx1984]

Thanks for posting this, I love reading up on stuff like this.

[TigranJamharian]

It gives you a rush doesnt it?

[HyeJinx1984]

Yup. But then I realize I'm just sitting in my room with no real power to make real everything that I've been inspired to want to accomplish.

[bell-the-cat]

Thanks for posting this, I love reading up on stuff like this.

And it's not written by an Armenian. Hence the sacrilegious :rolleyes: :) suggestion that Armenia might actually not have been the first Christian nation - and that they maybe did it for political reasons rather than religious conviction. :eek:

[TigranJamharian]

1. im glad u read it i wouldnt expect someone like you to.
2. that is the first time i read anything of the kind, and even so, does it really fu cking matter, we are almost universally acknowledged as the first Christian nation, and i find that political argument quite shaky, plus today, our religion is such a big part of our culture i see no bearing of that on us.
3. Funny how you choose to comment on that, rather than on anything else, just goes to shoe your mindset.

[Yeznik]

And it's not written by an Armenian. Hence the sacrilegious :rolleyes: :) suggestion that Armenia might actually not have been the first Christian nation - and that they maybe did it for political reasons rather than religious conviction. :eek:


I read the "suggestion" regarding Armenia not being the first Christian nation in the world. The author of the site has a phd in philosophy NOT history. Therefore, what he is stating is just a poorly formed opinion.

[Tres Bien]

Is he azeri by any chance, or perhaps xxxish..

[garegin]

hes a typical liberal gasbag. :laugh:

[Crimson Glow]

Armenia converted to Christianity in 301 AD, more than a decade before Christianity had any official toleration or status in Romania itself.

Does this make sense if it was done for political reasons?

[HyeJinx1984]

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it was politically motivated... the truth is most of the religious establishments in the world, at least originally, were politically motivated. However this is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that Armenia was the first Christian nation.

[Yeznik]

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it was politically motivated... the truth is most of the religious establishments in the world, at least originally, were politically motivated. However this is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that Armenia was the first Christian nation.

Hyjinx jan, why in the world would Armenia, when being neighbored by all pagan nations at that time, would choose to be Christian? This is polictical suicide. If you have a chance, I suggest reading Agathangelos, this "anonymous" Greek historian wrote the account of the conversion of Armenia.

[garegin]

armenia paid dearly for its faith. thats wat i know.
i BTW, do u think Illuminator cared about politics when he preached. i know that kings and stuff. but the people who spread it wouldnt give a broken penny about political alliances and such.

[HyeJinx1984]

fine fine. I do know that the creation of the alphabet and translation of the bible was politically motivated, my Teacher who has a PhD in Armenian history told me so. Also, "politically motivated" isn't necessarily a bad thing... for example, the alphabet was created largely in part to create a much more nationalistic group of Armenians by giving them something unique and that only that had, making them even more protective of themselves as a nation (or something to that affect, I can get the specific reason later)... I consider that "political" but at the same time God bless those in power for doing it.

[garegin]

as anon said. "this post puts back the gay in alegator". :laugh:
if politicly movivated means "in interests" than yes, i can pretty can that alphabet was invented for "national interests".

[bell-the-cat]

Re: the quote (from where?) in post No 10. Armenia did NOT convert to Christianity in 301AD. I'm surprised that anyone can be so ignorant about Armenian history to still believe that old myth.

[bell-the-cat]

I read the "suggestion" regarding Armenia not being the first Christian nation in the world. The author of the site has a phd in philosophy NOT history. Therefore, what he is stating is just a poorly formed opinion.

The author of the site is stating no opinions, but is just presenting the opinions he has found in various widely available books on Armenian history written in English. Those books' authors would have have got their facts from various other more obscure books, specialist periodicals, and source materials.

[TigranJamharian]

he only cites one author and one book for that statement, not "various widely available books on Armenian history written in English." get your facts straight

[garegin]

dude, we didnt make this up. greek and roman sources suggest this event first happened in armenia. the subgenuis historian had to look up in books written by accountants not pseudo-intellectual gasbags. the guy probably learn about teh constitution from metlock and religion from Davinci Code. :laugh:

[Yeznik]

Re: the quote (from where?) in post No 10. Armenia did NOT convert to Christianity in 301AD. I'm surprised that anyone can be so ignorant about Armenian history to still believe that old myth.

According to history the Armenia converted between the time 287 - 301 AD. Now, this only means that the Armenians accepted Christianity as the national religion. There were Armenian Christians from the time Christ, read the story of King Abgar and the Church historian Tertullian. Again, YOU are stating it to be a myth, and you have not provided and FACTS to show otherwise.

[bell-the-cat]

It is unbelievable that this 301AD myth is still around and is still believed by some people. Have you all been living in a cave for the last 20 years?

There are numerous examples of the modern research that has been done on this subject. And it was talked about in depth on hiforum years ago (during the 2001 "anniversary" year) - go search for the info there.

[bell-the-cat]

he only cites one author and one book for that statement, not "various widely available books on Armenian history written in English." get your facts straight

He cites various books in various parts of the page - proving that his words are not his own opinions but are derived from other sources. For the 314 date he quotes A. E. Redgate's book "The Armenians", said to be one of the best books available on Armenia for a general reader. Redgate, obviously, got his info about that date from recent research papers and books.

However, if you are someone who only believes in Armenian history when it is written by someone whose name ends in "ian", I suggest you check out Vreg Nersessian's book "Treasures From The Ark". In it, various possible dates for Trdat's conversion to Christianity are discussed, none are earlier than 305

[Yeznik]

It is unbelievable that this 301AD myth is still around and is still believed by some people. Have you all been living in a cave for the last 20 years?

There are numerous examples of the modern research that has been done on this subject. And it was talked about in depth on hiforum years ago (during the 2001 "anniversary" year) - go search for the info there.

Ok, (gets text books ready) Most of the people who are stating its 314 have not really reviewed there history. I have read the people who thought it was 314 and did the research. So here you go,

In 311 Maximinus began war on the struggling Church of Armenia, but met with many repulses. (They lost the war to Armenians)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01736b.htm

Can anyone explain to me why Maximinus is fighting the Church of Armenia, if the Armenians converted in 314?

This is from a non-Armenian source, the Catholic Church. I think that alot of people including the people in hiforum have been hoodwinked regarding the 314 conversion date. There is also the THEORY that the Armenians accepted Christianity as a national religion after the "Decree of Milan" in about 312 AD. Well, there are actual historians that say there is no actual decree. I know for a fact that is wasn't 314 AD based on HISTORICAL EVENTS.

[TigranJamharian]

dont even pay attention to that cat idiot, being hte only person who is stating that it was in 314 here. This person i dont know what nationality or what gender or what has not dont anything on this forum but try to contest every single positive event in Armenian hisotry and paint us as a nation of people who make up their history. maybe an unbiased view once in a while might make you a little more credible. It is obvious you have no other objective than what is bad for Armenia. you are a biased fool. go read some real history and get some straight facts before you try to argue your pathetic points again.

[garegin]

thats the whole problem with ancient history.
most historians look to Flavianos for historical dates. his book "Judian War" is book that was translated by Freightfanger.

[bell-the-cat]

and paint us as a nation of people who make up their history.

You said it :rolleyes:

I would rarely trust anything from an Armenian source, without independent corroboration - same for Turkish sources (only even more so). :(

[garegin]

other sources like the greek and roman historians confirm this. :)

[Anonymouse]

Now, now, it's a historical discussion, not ad hominem attacks.

[nairi]

Hmm, not sure I should trust Redgate, if only because she fails to mention that Ararat is a sacred mountain for Armenians :)

Seriously, she has never even met an Armenian, never been to Armenia or anything like that and yet claims to be objective... That's like me writing my thesis on Apache Indian without ever hearing that language first hand, but only reading other people's accounts. How seriously would you take me?

[Anonymouse]

Hmm, not sure I should trust Redgate, if only because she fails to mention that Ararat is a sacred mountain for Armenians :)

Seriously, she has never even met an Armenian, never been to Armenia or anything like that and yet claims to be objective... That's like me writing my thesis on Apache Indian without ever hearing that language first hand, but only reading other people's accounts. How seriously would you take me?

Not very seriously. In fact, to quote Marx, I would relegate you to the "dust bin of history".

[bell-the-cat]

From Vrej Nersessian's "Treasures from the Ark", p19 - 20.

The Date of Armenia's Conversion to Christianity

In the past twenty-five years remarkable re-evaluations have been made of the sources concerning the Christianization of Armenia. These advances have been accomplished through an analysis of the sources, as well as through some notable revisions in our understanding of the genealogical and chronological aspects of the history of the Armenian Arshakuni kingdom. The exact year in which the conversion of King Trdat tool: place is not agreed among scholars. Tournebize argued that the most probable date lay between 290 and 295. E. Dulaurier, M. Ormanian, M.-L. Chaumont and Father Poghos Ananian, relying largely on the evidence of Movses Khorenatsi's History, have calculated it to have been in or about 302.[12] Movses had concluded that Trdat had begun his reign in the third year of the emperor Diocletian and that St Gregory the Illuminator had 'sat on the throne of Thaddeus in the seventeenth year of Trdat's reign'.[13] Diocletian's reign began in November 284, so Trdat's year of accession would have been 286 or 287, and his seventeenth 302 or 303. H. Manandyan's reading of the evidence leads to a different date.[14] He placed the return of Trdat to Armenia from Rome in 298 or 299, subsequent to the peace established between Rome and Persia after Galerius's victory. Hence Trdat's seventeenth year fell in 314, which, he concluded, was the date of the king's conversion. Behind this conclusion lies Manandyan's proposition that Trdat could not have adopted the Christian faith before 313. It would have been impossible for Trdat, the protege of the Romans and Diocletian in particular, to have adopted officially the Christian faith in his realm when it was opposed by imperial policy. In a passage preserved in the Greek version of Agat'angeghos, Trdat's reliance on Diocletian in matters of religion is put in these terms:

From a youthful age raised and educated by you [Diocletianj ... hailing the gods who saved our power together with ourselves, I loathe the so-called Christians. What is more, I gave over to the bitterest death [after] tortures a certain Cappadocian [named] Gregory beloved by me, throwing [him] into a pit in which dwell snakes who devour [those] thrown therein. And now, Lord emperor, I will fulfill thy orders to me with all haste and willingness.[15]

An external evidence for the dating of Trdat's conversion is provided by St Gregory's consecration in Cappadocia. According to Agat'angeghos's History of the Armenians, Gregory went to Caesarea where a council of bishops had been held on the occasion of his consecration. The date of this council is fixed at 314.[16] This date is consistent with another statement in Agat'angeghos that, on his return from Caesarea, Gregory had brought with him the relics of St Athenogenes. The latter was martyred probably about 303-5, so his relics would have been available in 314. Following this line of the argument, Ananian concluded that the year 314 was also the date of the 'official' conversion of the Armenians.[17] Behind Ananian's conclusion lies Manandyan's proposition that Trdat could not have adopted the Christian faith before 313, as this was the year in which an edict had been promulgated in Milan by the emperors Constantine and Licinius granting freedom of worship to Christians. The non-Armenian evidence for the conversion of Armenia is small, but nevertheless important. Sozomen in his Ecclesiastical History refers to the Armenians:
the Armenians were the first to embrace Christianity. It is said that Tiridates, the sovereign of that nation, was converted by means of a miracle which was wrought in his own house: and that he issued commands to all the rulers, by a herald, to adopt the same
religion. Subsequently, the Christian religion became known to the neighbouring tribes, and was very greatly disseminated.[18]

A second external source is Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History. The author records in relation to Emperor Maximinus Daia, who governed the Roman province of Oriens:

In addition to this, the tyrant had the further trouble of the war against the Armenians, men who from ancient times had been friends and allies of the Romans; but as they were Christians and exceedingly earnest in their piety towards the Deity, this hater of God, by attempting to compel them to sacrifice to idols and demons, made them foes instead of friends, and enemies instead of allies.[19]

This war took place in 312. The outcome was that Maximinus Daia 'was worn out along with his commanders in the Armenian war' . The question that now arises is: if Gregory was sent to Caesarea for consecration in 314, when was Trdat's conversion likely to have taken place? Relying on the chronology of the Narratio de rebus Armeniae, compiled in about 700, the Council of Nicaea had been held 'in the thirty-fourth year of Trdat and the twentieth after the deliverance of St Gregory'. The deliverance refers to Gregory's emergence from the dungeon. His release had occurred just before the king's conversion. If the Council of Nicaea was held in June 325, then the release of Gregory and the subsequent conversion of the king took place in 305 or 306. Confirmation of this dating is provided by Patriarch Michael's independent testimony that Gregory's mission took place 'at the beginning of Constantine's reign', i.e. around 306. Furthermore, Trdat's persecution of the Christians now coincides with the Great Persecution that broke out on 23 February 303, led by Diocletian. The flight of the thirty-three Christian nuns to Armenia must have taken place between 304 and 306. It was led by Gayane and Hrip'sime, and they suffered martyrdom at the hands of King Trdat sometime during those years. St John Chrysostom in his panegyric dedicated to St Gregory, written during his exile in Armenia (AD 404-7), refers to the two virgin martyrs. The death of the young women led to the eventual conversion of the king.

Bibliography

12. Tournebize, Fr., Histoire politique et religieuse de l'Armenie. Paris, 1910, pp. 428-44; Dulaurier, E., Recherches sur la chronologie armenienne. Paris, 1859, p. 47; Ormanian, M., The Church of Armenia, 2nd edn, London, 1955, p. 8; Chaumont, Marie-Louise, NOTES
Recherches sur I'histoire d' Armenie. Sassanides conversion du Royaume. Paris, 1969, pp. 156-8; Manaseryan, Ruben, Hayastane Artavazdits mintchev Trdat Meds (Armenia from Artavazd to Trdat the Great). Erevan, 1997, pp. 196-201.
13. Movses Khorenatsi, History of the Armenians, transl. R.W. Thomson. Cambridge, MA, 1980, II, 82 and 91.
14. Manandyan, Hakob, K'nnakan tesut'yun hay zhoghovrdi patmut'yan (Critical analysis of Armenian history). Erevan, 1957, vol. 2(1 ), 114-28; Mirichian Ara, 'Samuel Anetsin Rayots K'ristoneut'iwn endunelu t'uali:ani aintchut'eamb' (Samuel Anetsi on the date of the conversion of Armenia to Christianity), Shoghakat (July 1953), 193-6; Fntglian Garnik, Hayots dardzn i I('ristoneut'iwn (The conversion of Armenia to Christianity), pp. 20-21.
15. Garitte, G., Documents pour I'etude du livre d'Agathange (Studie Testi 127). Vatican City, 1946, pp. 37 and 293.
16. Lebon, J., 'Sur un concile de Cesaree', Le Museon 51 (1938), 89-132.
17. Ananian' Poghos, Grigor Lusavortchi jernadrut'ean t'uakane ev paraganere (The date and circumstances of Gregory the Illuminator's consecration). Venice, 1960, p. 172.
18. Sozomen, The Ecclesiastical History. Bli:. II, 8, transl. by Edward Walford. London, 1855, p. 63.
19. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, The Ecclesiastical History and the Martyrs of Palestine, transl. and introduction by H.J. Lawlor. London, 1927-28, pp. 214, 286; Frend, W.H.C., The Early Church. Philadelphia, 1982, p. 123.

[garegin]

its ironic, cuz regab said that communism would be 'in the dust bin of history'.

[bell-the-cat]

Hmm, not sure I should trust Redgate, if only because she fails to mention that Ararat is a sacred mountain for Armenians :)

Seriously, she has never even met an Armenian, never been to Armenia or anything like that and yet claims to be objective... That's like me writing my thesis on Apache Indian without ever hearing that language first hand, but only reading other people's accounts. How seriously would you take me?

Oops, I forgot "he" was actually a "she" :o

But all these sort of books are just selections gleamed from other sources, the sort of sources that never get onto the ordinary bookshelves. One does not need specialist knowledge to be objective in such circumstances, one only needs a good reading list!

[garegin]

so what, according to enstein time is relative. armenians accpted christianity is 314. and america rejected it in 1783.

[bell-the-cat]

Me, writing back in January 2001, on hy(e)forum. I was rather eloquent in those distant days. ;)

"Long ago and far away, there once was a dynasty of kings called the Arsacids. One branch ruled in what is now Persia, another branch ruled much of Armenia. In the mid 220s the Persian Arsacid dynasty was expelled by a new dynasty, the Sassanids. The Armenian branch supported attempts to re-establish their Persian cousins - and to stop these actions it is believed the Sassanids instigated the murder of the Armenian Arsacid king Khosrov the second (this happened around the year 287). It is thought that he was murdered by his own brother, and religious tradition says that the assassin was captured and executed along with his whole family, except for two boys. One of these boys was taken to the Roman empire (to the city of Caeserea) for safety and he was to be later known as St. Gregory the Illuminator.

The son of Khosrov, Trdat or Tiridates, also was taken to the Roman empire to save him from his father's fate. The Romans won an important military victory over Persia in the year 297, after which they re-acquired their suzrency over Armenia and placed the pro-Roman Trdat on its throne (who then had to cede part of western Armenian territory to Rome). Trdat was forced to adopt a very pro-Roman policy for Armenia to counteract the constant threat of a Persian campaign against him.

This is why the 301AD date for Armenia's "conversion" to Christianity is very unlikely. At that time the last serious persecutions of Christians in the Roman Empire was taking place, and it is unlikely that Trdat would not have followed the policies of his Roman ally, with perhaps a short delay to see what way the wind was blowing. This would account for Hripsime's virgins fleeing to Armenia to escape persecution by the Romans - Armenia would be a likely place for Christians to flee to at the start of the Roman persecutions, and there would have been a period of safety before Trdat enforced the persecutions in his own realm.

The official persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire ended in 311, and shortly afterwards came the emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity.

It is with this background that Trdat suddenly ceased his own persecutions of Christians and embraced the new faith himself. This probably happened in the year 314. He did it for purely political reasons - to ensure a continuing alliance with the now Christian Roman empire and a permanent break with the Zoroastrian Persian empire. The previously established religion in Armenia would have been pro-Persian so it had to be totally dismantled as an organisation. Its lands were given to the new religion, - which actually meant given to the Arsacids since St. Gregory, the head of this new religion, later married into the Arsacid dynasty (and if he was the son of the assassin of Khasrov, and the assassin was the king’s brother, then he already was an Arsacid).

Most of the population did not immediately become Christian. To start with only the nobility followed the king - and that to start with was probably just political as well. Later both king Trdat and a son of St. Gregory were to be assassinated by pro-Persian / anti-Christian factions in the nobility. The conversion of the ordinary people probably took about 150 years to complete - and for further centuries they still retained many of their old beliefs. I'm not certain, but I presume the Georgian claim for being the first Christian nation comes from their king being converted by St. Nino - who was a survivor from St. Hripsime's party.

As usual, history is written by the winners - so official church history and traditions should not be automatically seen as a true history of the Armenian church. Be wary also of some history books written by Armenians! While checking some of this I looked at a book called "the Kingdom of Armenia" by M. Chahin. He seems to think that Trdat was the son of Khosrov the first, whom he says died in 252. He actually died in 217, but even if it was 252, he would have been dead before his son was born!

Later I wrote:

"Does anyone honestly believe that everyone in Armenia in 301 meekly abandoned their beliefs to adopt the latest fashion just because the king wanted it. It is about as likely as everyone in Armenia becoming ardent communists in 1921! And there were plenty of Christians in Armenia before 301.

This 1700 anniversary thing may be useful as a hook to hang all sorts of worthwhile cultural events on, but don't confuse it with real history!"

To which someone (MJ?) replied:

"I think this skepticism of Bellthecat/Steve highlights one of the biggest myths in Armenian history and consciousness.

Of course, Trdat was the first King in history to declare Christianity as official state religion (my understanding is that there is no argument about it anywhere). But what does this mean? Is it as simple as Armenians became Christian in 301? To me this type of declaration is absurd. People, especially nations, don't become Christian or Muslim overnight, by the order of the King. Christianity is a lifetime process of self-cleansing and spiritual self-perfection.

It is known that the Christianity is brought to Armenia by the Apostles Bartholomeous and Thaddeus. In the absence of airplanes, it is obvious that, unless God’s miracle has descended them directly in Armenia (of which there is no evidence), they had to walk/ride through many other countries and nations. Being devoted disciples of Christ, they could’ve not just headed directly to Armenia, but would’ve tried to preach and baptize every one on their way. They had also to maneuver to avoid the persecution of the local authorities on their way. So it should’ve taken a very long time for them to reach Armenia since the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. By that time, with the same success, many communities would’ve become Christian. Don’t forget that meanwhile, the other Apostles and other disciples were doing the same – baptizing anyone they could. So by the time the two “Armenian” Apostles would've reached Armenia, a lot of communities would've already been Christened, and moreover, even slaughtered for their beliefs – so that Armenians are not even the first Christian martyrs."

[CatWoman]

Bell-the-cat, why are you arguing about our history? 301AD is a fact and everyone knows it. Don't be silly. You're not even Armenian, so I'm sorry but you can't possibly know more about us that we do.

[bell-the-cat]

Sorry, but you are the one who is being silly. I thought cats were cleverer :) (oops sorry, you are just dressed as a cat! :) :) )

There are no proper "facts" at all to support 301AD. The numerous evidence that points to the various other dates and not 301AD is proof of that. All dates from such an early and obscure period are uncertain, what should be done is to make a judgement base on the evidence as a whole.

[TigranJamharian]

you are an idiot. no facts? what the hell are you talking about? 301 ad is almost universally accepted as the date by both Armenians and non Armenians and still you jabber on bringing up obscure crap.

[CatWoman]

Yes, cats are very smart, they just don't care.….hehe ;)

Ok now back to the main subject,

St. Gregory the son of Anak was the person that taught Armenians about Christianity during King Drtad III. It’s an interesting story actually. Here is a short version of it. The king met Gregory who had already accepted the Christian faith on his way back to Armenia to regain his throne. He took Gregory into his service, later finding out about his Christian faith and sending Gregory to be imprisoned in Khor virab (deep pit) because of some jealousy issues. (you can actually visit khor virab in Armenia known as the place where St Gregory stayed for I believe 7years, it’s a freaky and DARK place!) Later the king gets ill (mental disorder) and his sister had a dream where she was told that only Gregory could save him, the King agreed to release Gregory. Gregory restored the king’s health and sanity, and then baptized him with all his household. Thus, the King, in 301 A.D., proclaimed Christianity the sole state religion, making Armenia the first Christian nation.

Now, there are books on this that you can actually read if interested, but it’s history. There is no way to go back and double check so we just have to take the words of historians and we do (well I don’t know about you, but most people do) and honestly, I don’t think they would have benefited in any way from making this up so many years ago!!

[Yeznik]

bell-the-cat, first you say that you don't believe in the Armenian sources, then you quote one, which makes your statement very hypocritical. Second you are basing the events on the Latin calender, I am pretty sure that the Armenians used the Armenian calander. Thirdly, and again, since the Catholic Church states that the war took place at 311 against the Church of Armenia (meaning the national church), I am going to take the Catholic Churches statement against an INDIVIDUAL conclusion. BTW, I provided you with a non-Armenian source regarding the conversion date and you still refuse to accept it.

[bell-the-cat]

you are an idiot. no facts? what the hell are you talking about? 301 ad is almost universally accepted as the date by both Armenians and non Armenians and still you jabber on bringing up obscure crap.

You will not find a single expert, Armenian or non-Armenian, who will support the 301AD date.

[bell-the-cat]

You're not even Armenian, so I'm sorry but you can't possibly know more about us that we do.

Yeh, everything you need to know about Armenia is already encoded in your genes. So you don't actually need to learn anything. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[bell-the-cat]

bell-the-cat, first you say that you don't believe in the Armenian sources, then you quote one, which makes your statement very hypocritical. Second you are basing the events on the Latin calender, I am pretty sure that the Armenians used the Armenian calander. Thirdly, and again, since the Catholic Church states that the war took place at 311 against the Church of Armenia (meaning the national church), I am going to take the Catholic Churches statement against an INDIVIDUAL conclusion. BTW, I provided you with a non-Armenian source regarding the conversion date and you still refuse to accept it.

The "Armenian calendar" starts at year 1, the year when Trdat was converted - so it is irrelevant when considering the date of that conversion. The "Catholic Church" wouild have said nothing at all about the conversion - it didn't exist at the time!

However, there is no point in pursuing this. It's pretty obvious to me now that this is not the place to have any sort of intellectual conversation. This is just a place full of Redneck Armenians, or whatever the actual term for them is (I'm sure there is one!) with all the knowledge of Armenian history that their granny or priest engrained into them, and nothing more. Live under your rock of ignorance if you want to - but just be aware that there is a real world out there.

[Anonymouse]

The "Armenian calendar" starts at year 1, the year when Trdat was converted - so it is irrelevant when considering the date of that conversion. The "Catholic Church" wouild have said nothing at all about the conversion - it didn't exist at the time!

However, there is no point in pursuing this. It's pretty obvious to me now that this is not the place to have any sort of intellectual conversation. This is just a place full of Redneck Armenians, or whatever the actual term for them is (I'm sure there is one!) with all the knowledge of Armenian history that their granny or priest engrained into them, and nothing more. Live under your rock of ignorance if you want to - but just be aware that there is a real world out there.

Everyone is pretensious on this here internet. I do not see your position any more holier than the other pretenders on this thread. You people are all whining over an interweb discussion about some meaningless dates that really don't make or break history, but only add to its dryness. It would be fair to say, due to the conflicting sources that the conversion took place somewhere between 301 and 314 AD. Sometimes, solutions are easier than previously thought.

[CatWoman]

However, there is no point in pursuing this. It's pretty obvious to me now that this is not the place to have any sort of intellectual conversation. This is just a place full of Redneck Armenians, or whatever the actual term for them is (I'm sure there is one!) with all the knowledge of Armenian history that their granny or priest engrained into them, and nothing more. Live under your rock of ignorance if you want to - but just be aware that there is a real world out there.

Honey we're discussing history not science!! Plus, I trust my people (your terminology: granny/priest) to know my history better than any other. Unlike your granny, mine actually reads... so don't stereotype grannies based on your own. Not to mention all those history text books that I've read. Be aware of the real world? lol OKAY!! I don't know about you, but the real world has been nothing but good to me! =)

[HyeJinx1984]

Honey we're discussing history not science!! Plus, I trust my people (your terminology: granny/priest) to know my history better than any other. Unlike your granny, mine actually reads... so don't stereotype grannies based on your own. Not to mention all those history text books that I've read. Be aware of the real world? lol OKAY!! I don't know about you, but the real world has been nothing but good to me! =)

The real world has sucked for me and led me into a life of constant sexual escapism. Woe is me...

[Anonymouse]

The real world has sucked for me and led me into a life of constant sexual escapism. Woe is me...

Wow, a non-topical post. Post whorre much?

[HyeJinx1984]

Says the man... ugh, mouse... ugh, retarded lady with 10,158 posts of her own.

But to answer your question.. yes, the biggest one around. :D

[Crimson Glow]

Steve: First of all, since it was your reply to my post that started this all, I wanted to clarify something. My remark to the statement from the link had nothing to do with my stance on 301 AD. I was merely asking why, if the author was trying to imply the conversion was for political reasons, and not genuine faith, would we have done it "more then a decade" before it was tolerated?

Now.....I've read through the articles you've presented/posted, and I don't see how any of it definitively disperses the 301 "myth", as you put it. All I see are speculations on all ends. This neither proves, nor disproves the 301 AD hallmark, as your findings can be just as much a myth. I do have one question, though. If no single expert, Armenian or non-Armenian, will support the 301AD date, how did it come to be? Why is it the readily accepted date? Did Armenians just kinda' say "hey, we converted to Christianity in 301", and everyone just....sorta' believed them? I'm not asking to make a point, but rather I just want to know how this transpired.


Bell-the-cat, why are you arguing about our history? 301AD is a fact and everyone knows it. Don't be silly. You're not even Armenian, so I'm sorry but you can't possibly know more about us that we do.

This as an absolutely ridiculous argument. Being Armenian has NOTHING to do with knowing Armenian history. A good portion of South Cali Armenians are proof of this. :wave:

Everyone is pretensious on this here internet. I do not see your position any more holier than the other pretenders on this thread. You people are all whining over an interweb discussion about some meaningless dates that really don't make or break history, but only add to its dryness. It would be fair to say, due to the conflicting sources that the conversion took place somewhere between 301 and 314 AD. Sometimes, solutions are easier than previously thought.

While I agree with the last sentence, the beginning of your post goes against your own tendencies, as well as the entire point of the internet. By your definition (calling this thread meaningless), any discussion can basically be considered meaningless whining on the net. If that's the case, why do you post at all? It's a discussion, not whining (ok....some on here are whining), and new ideas/revelations are not born without discussion.

With that being said, I agree, the best way to put it is somewhere from 301 to 314 AD, and even that may not be true. But that's the point of a discussion. We'll never know anything concretely, but by exchanging ideas/knowledge, we can achieve a new/different vantage point.

[garegin]

actually its imporatant to remember that amenians didnt accept the universal calendar till some time passed. the method counting years was invented by a monk in 6th century, befoe that people used the old method starting from emperors birth, or something like that.
and the gregorian calendar was accepted in 1917 after the commies took over. Phasen sehnen sich die Revolution!. down with the monarcy. its interesting to see the parallels between the "founding fathers" and the old revolution and lenin and the "new" revolution. goddam commies, thell be back again.
:evil:

[bell-the-cat]

Everyone is pretensious on this here internet.

And pretentious too. ;)

Ozymandias has nothing on most of them, and like him and his statue, just wait a few years and they are gone, leaving nothing but a desert of dead threads and long forgotten arguments.

"I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive (stamped on these lifeless things),
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings;
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

Percy B. Shelley

[bell-the-cat]

Steve: First of all, since it was your reply to my post that started this all, I wanted to clarify something. My remark to the statement from the link had nothing to do with my stance on 301 AD. I was merely asking why, if the author was trying to imply the conversion was for political reasons, and not genuine faith, would we have done it "more then a decade" before it was tolerated?

That's why I was trying to prove that the 301AD date is not the real date of his conversion - that it wasn't done before it was tolerated.

Now.....I've read through the articles you've presented/posted, and I don't see how any of it definitively disperses the 301 "myth", as you put it. All I see are speculations on all ends. This neither proves, nor disproves the 301 AD hallmark, as your findings can be just as much a myth. I do have one question, though. If no single expert, Armenian or non-Armenian, will support the 301AD date, how did it come to be? Why is it the readily accepted date? Did Armenians just kinda' say "hey, we converted to Christianity in 301", and everyone just....sorta' believed them? I'm not asking to make a point, but rather I just want to know how this transpired.

The 301AD date is maintained because of tradition - if a thing is said often enough and for long enough then it becomes true, especially if it enters into the collective knowledge of an entire people. But knowledge has moved on from that tradition, and nobody (in the know) now accepts the 301AD date. Even the late archbishop Ashjian, who organised the 1500 Anniversary celebrations in Yerevan, did not believe that the 301AD date was an historical fact. Probably, nobody is ever going to know the real date - sometime between 304 and 315 is all that can be said with certainty. That, and that it was certainly not 301AD.