spin

I'm confident that any recent scholarly rather than devotional commentaries will help you. Start with ones on the pastoral letters.


spin

mountainman

He had just invested in a fabrication of literature
to be associated with his own new religion (he was
after all "Pontifex Maximus") and, at the same time,
he was a military supremacist, with a big and very
victorius army. He did his own thing for plunder.

He was a robber. Greedy for money and power.
The Eastern Empire was the prize. He took it.
He plundered the ancient temples and traditions.
He had the new and strange religion to help
him in this holy flaming quest.


The Boss'. (His own version! "Yes Boss", Of course Boss)



I read the Edict of Milan as the first time Christianity
had ever been publicised in the empire. Read the
edict of Milan for the propaganda of Constantine.
The Edict of Milan is the entry point of Christianity
into the history books. IMO.

The entry point does not exhibit intolerance.
All looks to be in order, but behind the scenes
Constantine is gathering his army to take the east.

Milan c.311 is the preface to the storm to follow.
The pivotal point is the (Ahem) "Council of Antioch"
which preceeded the (Ahem) "Council" of Nicaea.


Additionally, interesting quotes concerning Helena.
There is a great deal more information revealed about
Helena via numismatic study of Constantine's coins.

Best wishes,


Pete

No Robots

Sweeping condemnations are common enough in the prophets:

Ah, sinful nation,
a people loaded with guilt,
a brood of evildoers,
children given to corruption!
They have forsaken the LORD;
they have spurned the Holy One of Israel
and turned their backs on him.--Isaiah 1:4

Magdlyn

You do have a point, but it's about 7 centuries too late.

mountainman

Was Constantine Jewish?


Pete

No Robots

The point is that the anti-Jewish rhetoric of the NT has its root in the prophetic rhetoric of the OT.

Sarai

Hi Magdyln I think you're on to something here. After Solomon's death, the people protested to his successor, Rehoboam, about heavy taxation and forced military service. Rehoboam refused to address their concerns, and 10 tribes split off and formed the Kingdom of Israel, including the area of Galilee. Only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, in the south, stayed loyal to the House of David. The Kingdom of Israel was taken by Assyria in 722 BCE and its population deported and spread throughout the Assyrian Empire.

If I remember correctly the Galilee had no direct connection again with Jerusalem until Hyrcanus took the Galilee in around 100 BCE. That's a long time separate!

Sarai

Magdlyn

Hey Sarai,

Yes. And if you take the view, as I do, that the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel were never really united to begin with (the power of Solomon being greatly exaggerated by the Judaean elite scribes of the court of Josiah, 7th cent BCE) it gets even more interesting.

Sarai

Interesting? That's an understatement! I'm kind of thinking out loud here, because I don't know that I remember this ancient history (from way back in Hebrew School) very well. Assyria is predominantly Baal worshipping, do I remember that correctly? The Israelite inhabitants were deported and resettled throughout the Assyrian empire, while the population of other overrun kingdoms were transplanted to what had been the northern kingdom, Israel. So the population at the time of the Isaiah quote that No Robots has kindly provided is directed to a population that is not predominantly made up of "native" Israelites or their progeny.

What are the implications of this for the harangues of the prophets against the "children of Israel"? Are they proselytizing? Given that almost all gods at the time were considered local, are they trying to import a "foreign" god into a place not associated with that god?

Boy, I need to do some reading about Assyria. I just don't remember enough...Thanks, Magdyln, I was really hoping to sleep tonight!

Sarai

Sarai

I'm sorry I misspelled your name--see, I do need that sleep!

Sarai