mountainman

Thanks Pamela,

An interesting synthesis. The definition that I am using as a warlord is a military commander who has become the (obviously successful) supreme military commander of any one empire. I am not seeking to show that these people in general were either good or evil, but rather I am seeking to show that such people, in the case of Constantine and Muhammad (and Ardashir) implemented centralised monotheistic state religions based upon the canonization of a "Holy Writ".

Certainly, we might make a character assessment of each warlord being discussed. I appreciate such character assessments may vary quite alot. , But this is not the primary issue or the claims here.

I have summarised 3 claims in the above post, but one more may be added to these claims with respect to both Constantine and Muhammad.


Muhammad did however make certain exceptions: Mohammed Ordered Execution of Satirists.

Earlier Constantine may have taken a contract out on Arius of Alexandria.
Therefore the claims are 4:

The warlords Constantine and Muhammad .... [also see Ardashir c.222CE]


1) were supreme military commanders of their respective empires;

2) during this epoch of supremacy they each implemented centralized monotheistic state religions;

3) that these religions were characterized by the "canonization" of a "Holy Writ"

4) that on obtaining supreme military power, they publically executed key satirists (dissidents, etc)

Best wishes


Pete

mountainman

On the Road to Nicaea?

sotto voce

Well done. Not as neat as "Like Webster's Diction-ary, we're Morocco bound," but good enough!

Doug Shaver

You call them warlords, and I'm supposed to believe that you intend no moral judgment?

Your credibility, in my eyes, just went from near zero to exactly zero.

Net2004

Hello sotto. my name is John Rambo from solihull .
i believe that your scholarship is very unfair scholarship. using your scholarship one can ask about who saw mary get impregnated by the holy ghost. who actually heard mary converse with the father before she was impregnated?


so mr voce, you believe that mary was carrying yhwh in her womb because joseph confirmed it via a dream he had. but the problem is that a dream does not mean witness to the conversation and impregnation of mary and a dream told to the israel's would create problems, they would assume josif is creating lies to defend mary.
so admit for all the viewers that mary was carrying yhwh coz josif had a dream.


mr voce, what did jesus tell his apostles in private? he along with the other persons in trinity impregnated mary and then mary gave birth to him ?

Net2004

mary impregnated by a god and mary carrying yhwh in her womb coz josif confirmed via a dream is not worse than fiction??

mountainman

You are free to believe whatever you choose to believe, and you are free to make judgement on the basis of your beliefs, but none of this changes the facts that Muhammad and Constantine were warlords - supreme military commanders. The world's two major religions were originally established as centralized monotheistic state cults, by warlords, at the zenith of their military power. It sounds like I am to presume that you believe this historical fact to be serindipitous, and of minor importance to the overall history of each religion.

Toto

Constantine does not fit the definition of warlord: This is the opposite of a centralized governmental authority.

Calling someone a warlord denies them "legitimacy" (admitting that this is a slippery concept.)

This thread has yet to justify its existence.

mountainman

Using this definition, with Constantine having military and civil power over the "subnational" western Roman empire between 312 and 324 CE, having dismissed the praetorian guard and instead surrounding himself with Barbarian chieftans, and their tribes, Constantine was a warlord.

When he defeated Lucinius and became the supreme ruler of the empire, and not just a sub-area, did he cease to become a warlord? I dont see that this is the case.

What is legitimate rulership? What do weaker nations do when they are invaded by a warlord and his war machine? Play the "illegitimate ruler" card? Of course, some resistance will do so. This is the politics of war.



The claims are stated as follows.
Are these claims unjustified claims?

The warlords Constantine and Muhammad .... [also see Ardashir c.222CE]


1) were supreme military commanders of their respective empires;

2) during this epoch of supremacy they each implemented centralized monotheistic state religions;

3) that these religions were characterized by the "canonization" of a "Holy Writ"

4) that on obtaining supreme military power, they publically executed key satirists (dissidents, etc)

sotto voce

So true. They each had the aim of exterminating Christianity and supplanting it with a surrogate. Indeed, the second probably copied the first as far as possible. Because both surrogates were so incompetent and lacking credibility, brute force was necessary to get them established.

The amazing thing is that people still think they have validity! But then, as Paul Simon wrote, 'Still, a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.'