Diogenes the Cynic

Constantine wasn't afraid of the Bible, he was afraid of his mom.

mountainman

I think that's a matter of opinion.

I still prefer "The Hobbit" to the official conquerors' codex .


Constantine introduced laws to burn people alive. Why was Consantine afraid of the Bible? He published it far and wide for Christ's sake and for the sake of his centralised monotheistic state cult. Was Chairman Mao afraid of his "Little Red Book"? Was Moses afraid of the Hebrew Bible? Was Muhammad afraid of the Quran?



Tell that to Ashoka.

sotto voce

Not entirely. The concept of Christian monarchy, crystallised in 'Christian' oaths, sworn by monarchs at coronation services, under the authority of mitred 'bishops', is a very long-standing one that has not entirely vanished, even now.

Because of his fear of Christianity. He was not a very rational man. Few emperors were, the job being a high-risk one. Though his law against auspices was probably never put into practice.

It contradicted his paymasters, the Roman patricians. They had contrasting views on morality, doncha know.

Bob Hope lives.

He was lucky. He wrote it himself, so it's hardly likely. He was afraid of democracy, just as Constantine was. And afraid of the Bible too, as the Chinese govt. is now.

Moses was no monarch. In fact, he got quite fed up with his own people.

He was afraid it wouldn't take off without cold steel as persuasion, and he was right. But again, he was terrified of the Bible. That's why he (or someone) concocted that absurd caricature, the Qur'an.

As is so very obvious.

Surely not Ashoka, the mighty military leader? Why?

Diogenes the Cynic

Moses never existed, dude. Just FYI.

aa5874

There was an Historical Moses, DUDE!!!!

Moses was NOT described as the Son of a Ghost like Jesus and you believe Jesus was a figure of history.

The Historical Moses is far more likely than an historical Jesus the Son of a Ghost, Dude!!!

Horatio Parker

Perhaps this one:

sotto voce

This is a good example of the way the artisan from Galilee is formally recognised, but kept at arm's length, because he is not perceived as just an artisan from Galilee. It's lip service.

mountainman

Entirely a matter of opinion.

There have been discussions about the hegemony of the christian conceptual framework.




And because of non peer-reviewed publications under Constantine's 4th century propaganda machine that explicitly infer that Constantine did not commission his Imperial Codex, you believe that Constantine did not indulge in rat-cunning fabrication.

One codex was worth a legion.

sotto voce

Among the uninformed, yes.

There have been discussions about hegemony of a 'Christian' conceptual framework. Which fact of course means that this cannot be a matter of opinion.

Now where the Bible was already established, writing one's own thoughts and making them 'divine' wasn't going to cut any ice. So one had to recognise the Bible, but do whatever was needed to invert meaning via false teachers supported by coercion. In the case of Rome this 'necessitated' the restoration of terrorist rights to the imperium, as represented by the title Pontifex Maximus, passed on indeed to a 'Christian' terrorist.

How silly. Those who must corrupt expertly must be experts.

Well put.

mountainman

Well this reverts to the classification of the biblical historians and the ancient historians as insiders and outsiders. The biblical historians have the inside information on the mysterious historical origins of their church.


It may not be a matter of opinion from within the hegemony of the framework, but quite certainly from outside this framework, if your mind is capable of such objectivity, the entire framework and its glossy glittering hegemony is a distinctly matter of opinion.



Such were the compelling logistics of imperially sponsored centralised state monotheistic holy writs in antiquity. How to efficiently control the feudal diocesian populace one basilica and one codex at a time.