SKU: 43823013010

EASTERN ROMAN Theodosius I,AD 379-395 AE4 NUMMUS /Christian VICTORY ANGEL NGC(9)

Sale price$36.00 Regular price$40.00
Save 10%

Pay in installments of $10.00 with ShopPay, AfterPay and Klarna

Shipping Estimate
USA
  • USA
  • CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Jul 21 - Jul 26

Promo Codes Available:

For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15

Description

EASTERN ROMAN Theodosius I,AD 379-395 AE4 NUMMUS /Christian VICTORY ANGEL NGC(9)EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CERTIFIED BY NGC Theodosius I , AD 379 395 Bronze AE4 Nummus Obverse: Pearl diademed draped cuirassed bust right Reverse: SALVS REIPVBLICAE Staurogram SMKS, Victory advancing left, holding trophy and dragging captive. Flavius Theodosius ( 11 January 347 17 January 395), also called Theodosius I and Theodosius the Great was Roman Emperor from 379 to 395. Reuniting the eastern and western portions of the empire, Theodosius was the


EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE



CERTIFIED BY NGC



Theodosius I , AD 379-395



Bronze AE4 Nummus



Obverse: Pearl diademed draped

cuirassed bust right


Reverse: SALVS REIPVBLICAE / Staurogram/SMKS,
Victory advancing left, holding trophy and dragging captive.



Flavius Theodosius ( 11 January 347 – 17

January 395), also called Theodosius I and Theodosius the Great was Roman

Emperor from 379 to 395. Reuniting the eastern and western portions of the

empire, Theodosius was the last emperor of both the Eastern and Western Roman

Empire . After his death, the two parts split permanently. He is also known for

making Nicene Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire.


Staurogram




The Staurogram (meaning monogram of the cross, from the Greek σταυρός, i.e.
cross), or Monogrammatic Cross or Tau-Rho symbol, is composed by a tau (Τ)
superimposed on a rho (Ρ). The Staurogram was first used to abbreviate the Greek
word for cross in very early New Testament manuscripts such as P66, P45 and P75,
almost like a nomen sacrum, and may visually have represented Jesus on the
cross.



Ephrem the Syrian in the 4th-century explained these two united letters stating
that the tau refers to the cross, and the rho refers to the Greek word "help"
which has the numerological value in Greek of 100 as the letter rho has. In such
a way the symbol expresses the idea that the Cross saves. The two letters tau
and rho can also be found separately as symbols on early Christian ossuaries.



The tau was considered a symbol of salvation due to the identification of the
tau with the sign which in Ezekiel 9:4 was marked on the forehead of the saved
ones, or due to the tau-shaped outstretched hands of Moses in Exodus 17:11. The
rho by itself can refer to Christ as Messiah because Abraham, taken as symbol of
the Messiah, generated Isaac according to a promise made by God when he was one
hundred years old, and 100 is the value of rho.:158



The Monogrammatic Cross was later seen also as a variation of the Chi Rho
symbol, and it spread over Western Europe in the 5th and 6th centuries.In
ancient Roman religion, Victoria or Victory was the personified goddess of
victory. She is the Roman equivalent of the Greek goddess Nike, and was
associated with Bellona. She was adapted from the Sabine agricultural goddess
Vacuna and had a temple on the Palatine Hill. The goddess Vica Pota was also
sometimes identified with Victoria.



Unlike the Greek Nike, the goddess Victoria (Latin for "victory") was a major
part of Roman society. Multiple temples were erected in her honor. When her
statue was removed in 382 CE by Emperor Gratianus there was much anger in Rome.
She was normally worshiped by triumphant generals returning from war.



Also unlike the Greek Nike, who was known for success in athletic games such as
chariot races, Victoria was a symbol of victory over death and determined who
would be successful during war.



Victoria appears widely on Roman coins, jewelry, architecture, and other arts.
She is often seen with or in a chariot, as in the late 18th-century sculpture
representing Victory in a quadriga on the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Germany;
"Il Vittoriano" in Rome has two.






Flavius Theodosius ( 11 January 347 – 17)

January 395), also called Theodosius I and Theodosius the Great was Roman

Emperor from 379 to 395. Reuniting the eastern and western portions of the

empire, Theodosius was the last emperor of both the Eastern and Western Roman

Empire . After his death, the two parts split permanently. He is also known for

making Nicene Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire.


 Please check out my other listings and we will be happy to combine in one package !

YOU WILL RECEIVED THE SAME COIN AS PICTURED.

ALL COINS ARE AUTHENTIC AS DESCRIBED.


Listed with ExportYourStore.com
Shipping Notes
  • Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
  • Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
  • Delivery to the USA:
  1. Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
  • If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
  • We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
  • Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
  • To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
  • Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
SKU: 43823013010

Discover Niche Categories That Outsell

Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order

4.3 ★★★★★
Based on 22 reviews
Sort
Highest Rating
Newest First
Oldest First
Product Reviews
A
Verified Purchase
A
Belleville, US
★★★★★ 5
A Case for Jesus' Divine Self-Conception
Format: Kindle
This is a very meticulously reasoned argument attempting to show that Jesus had a Divine self-conception. That is, Jesus believed, and claimed, that he was God. Pitre begins by posing C.S. Lewis’ famous “trilemma” to the reader. If Jesus claimed to be God, we have three ways to respond – he was either a Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. Pitre’s work in this book strives to bring us back, face to face, with this trilemma. To accomplish this, Pitre needs to defeat another popular notion in the modern mind – that Jesus, or at least much of the Gospel material about him, was a “Legend.” If Pitre can show that Jesus did, in fact, historically claim Divinity, we will be forced to respond to his claim and answer Jesus’ own question for ourselves – “Who do you say that I am?” To accomplish this Pitre first attempts to show that the Gospels are historically reliable. He believes that, contrary to modern scholarly opinion, the Gospels were indeed written by the authors they have been attributed to (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), that they were intended to portray historically accurate biographical pictures of Jesus, and that they were written much more closely to the time of Jesus than liberal scholars assume (Pitre tentatively dates the synoptic Gospels all before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70). These three pieces of evidence – authorship, intent, and dating – all lead Pitre to the conclusion that the Gospels give us historically accurate information about Jesus. After setting the stage by arguing for the accuracy of our sources, Pitre delves into the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and tries to show that although it is not always explicit (i.e. Jesus doesn’t say “I am God, worship Me.”) even the synoptics portray Jesus as claiming Divinity. Using evidence such as Jesus’ use of the titles “Son of Man” and “I Am,” prophesy from the book of Daniel, Jesus’ “stilling of the storm,” the transfiguration, the pronouncement of the forgiveness of the parlytic’s sins, the riddle about the Son of David being David’s “Lord,”, the crucifixion, and the resurrection, Pitre makes his case. In the end, he believes that not only do the Gospel authors portray Jesus as Divine, but that these claims came from Jesus himself. Thus we are led, full circle, back to the trilemma. We can call Jesus Liar, Lunatic, or Lord, but not, according to Pitre, a Legend. This was a really interesting read from a conservative scholar. His exegesis of many Gospel passages illuminate how the Hebrew Scriptures provide a much needed backdrop for understanding each story. The Gospels are much more nuanced than we might first think and oftentimes one saying or image may evoke whole passages or concepts from the Old Testament that would have been apparent to early Jewish readers. As Pitre argues, understanding the Jewish context of the synoptic authors helps in understanding their Christology. In the end, I agree with Pitre that the Gospels are generally more historically accurate than “mainstream” scholars give them credit for. I think it’s plausible that the Gospel titles reveal their true authors and that they were written fairly early after Jesus’ death (before the fall of Jerusalem). I also agree that the Synoptics may implicitly ascribe Divinity to Jesus – although I don’t think that is an open and shut case. If there were more explicit cases in the synoptic Gospels where Jesus claimed Divinity, it would help his case. It still seems to me the only explicit sayings we have come from the Gospel of John, which even Pitre doesn’t seem to argue is historically reliable (at least he doesn’t focus on this in the book). It’s probably outside the scope of this book, but I would have loved to see Pitre address the idea of Jesus as Apocalyptic Prophet. He interacts with several scholars who accept this notion (EP Sanders, Dale Allison, Bart Ehrman, John Meier) and it’s a viable option in the world of Historical Jesus scholarship. I think it’s a relevant topic in all discussions surrounding a Historical Jesus and can be a large factor in how one answers the question of Jesus’ identity. This study is worth reading regardless of your theological persuasion, and Pitre’s arguments deserve serious consideration.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on February 3, 2016
S
Verified Purchase
ShopWeez
Grantham, US
★★★★★ 5
Relief for dry mouth without gum irritation
Big improvement for users with sensitive gums. These relieve dry mouth during the night almost as well as the regular tabs. Some complained about a residual gel left on the gums. 🙄Just wipe it off. It’s a small thing.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 4, 2026
B
Verified Purchase
Bronx Mike
Draper, US
★★★★★ 5
An easy fix for dry mouth
Excellent for dry mouth.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 6, 2026
D
Verified Purchase
Discerning Buyer
Boise, US
★★★★★ 1
This version doesn’t work
I used these 2 nights in a row. I was hoping Oracoat found a solution to the problem people like me have with the regular Xylimelts: irritation of gums. As others have noted the “sensitive” version doesn’t melt and the goo that remains can be difficult to remove. I didn’t have too much trouble after the first night. However, the second day after use, it was so hard to get the remains out, I wound up with a very sore spot from digging it out. I will toss the rest. It’s too bad this effort fizzled. I hope Oracoat will find a solution For sensitive mouths. In the b meantime, I will use the original for a few nights and then stop before repeating. The idea behind the original product is fantastic. Unfortunately this attempt to make it usable for people with sensitive mouths hasn’t worked. Please try again.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on March 25, 2025
M
Verified Purchase
Masey
Whiting, US
★★★★★ 5
Helped with Dry Mouth
Followed the instructions on the box and everything turned out amazing! Absolutely love the results and relief I felt
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on April 21, 2026

recommand products