Not available / text

Thesis (doctoral)--Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität in Bonn, 1906. / Lebenslauf. Vita. Includes bibliography.

Diss.--Philosophische Fakultät--Bonn--Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Wintersemester 1991/92. / Bibliogr. p. 229-259. Index.

No description available.

This thesis deals with a person of Karl Eusebius of Liechtenstein in a field of architecture. Karl Eusebius from Liechtenstein was interested in Architecture in many different poits of view. Firstly, he wrote a theoretical work, which is excerpted and analysed in first chapter. Second chapter summarises buildings (or interventions), which are shown in more detailed form in appendix. Chapter is divided in three parts. In first part are representative buildings at the areas, they traditionaly belonged to House of Liechtenstein, principal seat Valtice and summer residence in Lednice. The building activities are brought together in second part, taken through in manors he was not so strongly interrested. Last but not least, the chapter is about his one and only architectonical work, castle of Plumlov, where is very intensive connection with his theoretical work . This thesis aims to describe relations between theoretical work of Karl Eusebius from Liechtenstein and architecture donated or build by himself and aims to investigate different levels of his interrest.

The theology of empire is a critical theme that dates back many centuries. This research work is inspired by that of Eusebius of Caesarea who was emphatic in his support for the Roman Empire under Constantine during the first part of the fourth century of our common era. It could be said that appealing to such a theme in a colonial context marred by gross injustices yet premised on gospel imperatives as they guide the progress of a given church is not only challenging but interesting as well. By using the Diocese of Mashonaland as our referral case, the idea is to interrogate how the influence of Eusebius’ approach to history could be prevalent even in our time. By putting Anglican missionaries on the spotlight, who worked in the Diocese of Mashonaland, from the early 1890s up to 1979, an attempt is made to analyse their activities and attitudes, the way historians favourable to their venture narrated the Church’s progress and related matters. One major question leading all the analyses made in this context is to what extent could we justify the claim that the spirit of Eusebius is behind the Mashonaland Anglican Church narratives and attitudes? This question naturally leads us to bring in other perspectives that are linked to the socio-economic developments of the country, the political dispensations defining issues of governance, and the overall impact these had on racial matters given the critical reference to Christianity and civilisation. Historians and others who help us to appreciate this context are therefore taken to task as to whether they could be trusted unconditionally. The theology of empire is therefore allowed to dictate the way we could interrogate those who opt to ignore gross injustices that the Church in this context did not challenge in any conclusive manner. The history of the Diocese of Mashonaland from this perspective is therefore an interesting narrative. Our work that looks at the period between 1890 and 1979 leaves us with a lot of curious questions that call for further scholarly investigation within the same Mashonaland Anglican context. / Christian Spirituality, Church History and Missiology / D. Th. (Church History)

As a debate over the legitimacy of the liturgical use of images, the Byzantine Iconoclastic controversy (ca. 726-843) had important political and theological implications, which modern scholarship generally tends to treat unconnectedly. The primary object of this study is to explicate the relationship between the political and theological dimensions of the controversy and to reconstruct the debate over images in a comprehensive approach that accounts for both its political and theological dimensions. / The main argument of the thesis is that the question of images was a politico-theological problem and the prospects of 'political expediency' and 'theological propriety' were correlated in the minds of both the Iconoclastic reformers and their Iconodule rivals. Indeed, it was through their respective soteriologies that the two parties gave meaning to the theological and political dimensions of the debate in relationship with their respective theological first principles. Therefore, the Iconoclastic debate is explained as a soteriological dispute where the worldview represented by the traditional Byzantine religio-political ideology and the worldview represented by the proponents of images were set over against each other. / The main contribution of our thesis to modern scholarship of the Byzantine Iconoclastic controversy is to reconstruct the debate in the light of the contending theological paradigms of the two parties, which shaped not only their attitudes towards images but also their political stands in relation to the Byzantine Empire's involvement in ecclesiastical politics. This new synthetic reading explains the debate in reference to two essential theological cornerstones of the Byzantine tradition---the Eusebian "Imperial Theology" and the Christological definition of the council of Chalcedon---both taken as key reference points, against which the political and doctrinal stands of both parties were constructed and interpreted.

No description available.

Diplomová práce zkoumá jednotlivé kapitoly knihy Církevní Dějiny napsané Eusebiem Cézarejským, jež je označován jako "otec církevních dějin", přesto kniha obsahuje velké množství nejasností, rozporů, nepřesností a její celkový obsah vyznívá jako snaha o apologii raděj nežli seriózní historické dílo. V diplomové práci vycházím z velkého množství pramenných zdrojů od respektovaných učenců v oblasti teologie rané církve a historie. Cílem práce je důkladně prozkoumat jednotlivé kapitoly, které vykazují největší množství problematických částí stejně tak jako závěr, zda Eusebius se pokoušel cíleně "ohnout" pravdu ve své upřímné víře či zda jeho cílem bylo sepsat obranu křesťanství, která se pouze tváří jako seriózní historické dílo. Annotation The master thesis focus on a particular chapter of Historia Ecclesiastica written by Eusebius of Caesarea, who is renowned as "father of church history" although the book contains a number of serious mistakes, interpolations, discrepancies and exaggerations. In its complexity could be perceived as an apologetic writing rather than historical writing. I used a great amount of sources by respected scholars in my master thesis while its aim is research of particular chapters which demonstrate the most controversies. In the conclusion I expect the biggest challenge will...

This study seeks to address three main questions: How do Panegyric VI, Lactantius, and Eusebius characterise and utilise their respective visions in their narratives? In what ways are they similar and/or different? Are some or all of the accounts related and, if so, how do they contribute to the Christian Vision legend? In Chapter One the vision narrative in Panegyric VI is deconstructed to show that the panegyrist describes the vision as taking place on Constantine’s return march from Massalia and that he is describing a dream-vision that took place at the sanctuary of Apollo at Grand. In Chapter Two it is argued that: Lactantius never resided in Gaul; he places the vision incorrectly in 312 because he did not know the details of the tradition and used Licinius’ dream as a template; and the Christian character of the vision is part of his interpretation. In Chapter Three Eusebius’ account is deconstructed to show that: the vision story derives from Constantine ca. 336; there is evidence that Constantine was reconstructing his past experiences; Eusebius inserted parallels with St. Paul to give the appearance of a conversion narrative; and Constantine’s actual story shows little influence of Christian socialisation. In each chapter the core elements of the narratives are highlighted: each describes a dream-vision, in which a deity appears to Constantine with a promise of victory and a token representation of that promise. In Chapter Four it is argued that Lactantius and Eusebius are describing the same symbol, which is a tau-cross with a loop; and that the panegyrist and Eusebius describe the same vision: they give the same chronology, but the panegyrist avoids referencing a solar halo because it was an inopportune omen of civil war. In conclusion, all three sources describe the same experience from different perspectives: the vision of Apollo was being constantly adapted to incorporate new historical developments. Appended also is an argument for redating Panegyric VI to August 309 on the basis of the narratives of the panegyrist and Lactantius, as well as archaeological investigations at Cologne (Constantine’s bridge over the Rhine) and Deutz (Castellum Divitia).