mountainman

Yes. Monotheistic religions are useful for the rulers. They become true for the common people and false for the wise, but they remain useful for the ruler, and the amount of use is proportional to their power. A ruler with absolute power finds a monothistic religion absolutely useful. Ardashir found the centralised state Zorastrian monotheism absolutely useful c.222 CE, Constantine found the centralised state Christian monotheistm absolutely useful c.324/325 CE, and Muhammad found the centralised state Islamic monotheistm absolutely useful some centuries afterwards. All these centralised state monotheistic religions were cemented into place by successful military supremacists who had just risen to absolute power in various empires in antiquity.


Diocletian seems to have outlawed Manichaeanism in the eastern Roman empire in the late 3rd century. But it may have been a political decision since the Holy Man of the Manichaeans, Mani, was a Persian, and thus a sworn enemy of Rome.

At any event, Constantine outlawed the Graeco-Roman religions and cults which the previous 300 years of imperial sponsorship had variously supported and preserved. The prohibition of temple practices appears to have been enforced by the army. This was a massive precedent. It was a new and strange religion. Eusebius was not wrong on that count.

It would appear that there was a revolution in progress. With the exception of Julian, all the Roman Emperors after Constantine followed Constantine's lead, and sacked or prohibited use of the temples and their associated cultural and religious activities. The conformation to the new christian cult was adhered to during this massive revolution.



Authority based Christianity, then and now, is based on BELIEF and the requirement to CONFESS that Jesus had "appeared in the flesh" - and I read this as "appearing in history". Those people who refused to confess that Jesus was historical were - according to the new testament itself - to be seen as anti christians. The new testament carries with it a story, and the penalty for refusing to confess that the story is a true historical story. Hence the history of christian INQUISITION and persecutions starts with the rescripts Constantine issued after the "Council of Antioch", that order for the torture of philosophers and leading citizens who would not so confess to the truth of the new and strange religion (for details see Robin Lane-Fox "Pagans and Christians").

In retrospect, the Roman Emperors from Constantine bought the story to the empire as an anti-Hellenistic political manifesto to convert the Gentiles (mainly Graeco-Romans) to a new way of thinking - and to get rid of the power of the Graeco-Roman priesthoods by backing another monotheism. It was a barbaric act, but there were such tremendous opportunities with the newly created Christian regime, such as tax exemptions, that Constantine had to legislate against clever pagans who were trying to jump onto the new revolutionary bandwaggon. The ancient Greek Gardian Class, the ruling educated class (previously represented by the "Sacred College of the Pontifices" who reported to the "Pontifex Maximus", fell into the dark ages immediately - they were made redundant overnight. But not without an historical controversy related to the figure of Arius of Alexandria, upon whose books, and name and political memory Constantine placed "damnatio memoriae". (i.e. "rubbing out of history")

And while Plato and Euclid (preserved in the books of Porphyry) burned c.325 CE (along with any libraries associated with the major Hellenic temples of the eastern empire), orders were given to replicate the new testament (the Constantine Bible) fifty times over in imperially controlled scriptoria. The beginning of the END had arrived for the Greek civilisation for more than 1000 years: Christian civilisation and the Dark Ages had been kick-started. By the mid 4th century, land tax had tripled withinin living memory, and the highways of the Roman Empire were covered with tax exempt galloping bishops.
.

Horatio Parker

If Jesus on the cross represents an eternal truth, then that truth is not validated or invalidated by any particular manifestation.

I guess I'm just a Greek...

It's immensely paradoxical that a spiritual advancement or innovation is based on regressed thinking. Maybe that explains the emotional appeal. It would then be logical for a ruler to exploit that.

mountainman

Aristotle's Three Modes of Persuasion in Rhetoric

Ethos: Appeal to the audience's sense of honesty and/or authority
Pathos: Appeal to the audience's sense of emotions
Logos: Appeal to the audience's sense of logic

The Bible has no logic and no ethics. Clearly the Bible is pathetic in its continual appeal to the audience's sense of emotional belief. How could they have crucified Jesus? Thank goodness he was resurrected at the end of the story! The Bible peddles BELIEF. Believe in this and believe in that! Believe must be one of the more common verbs used by the editor.

The ruler astutely perceives that the people need a shepherd. That's why they probably later axed "The Shepherd" from Constantine's canon. It was too conspicuous as a "Shepherd Story" for later Christians closing the One True New Testament Canon, but not for the Boss.

Horatio Parker

I don't have a problem with the lack of logic and ethics in the Bible. It's not designed for concrete logical axioms; it's designed to be contemplated. It's mythos, not logos.

The problem I have is the misguided effort to make the Bible into something it isn't, such as a history book or a spiritual instruction manual.

As for belief, it's not a bad thing either, only it's misguided in the context of Xtianity. In Plato, it's called courage. Courage to maintain the highest vision in the face of pain, pleasure, desire and fear reveals spiritual truth. But to exert spiritual energy attempting to create an irrelevant historical reality is a waste.

aa5874

You give the impression that Christians ONLY believed the Jesus story. You seem NOT to understand that even in the 2nd century OTHER CHRISTIANS were RIDICULING and LAUGHING at those who BELIEVED the Jesus story.

Do you understand that CHRISTIANS were calling EACH OTHER DEVILS in the 2nd century?

It is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that you recognize that CHRISTIANS themselves did NOT all BELIEVE the Jesus story.

"First Apolgy" XXVI It must be UNDERSTOOD that the word CHRISTIANS in the 2nd century was USED from NUMEROUS beliefs which had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Jesus.

Horatio Parker

I was not thinking of Xtians that far back; I was thinking of the tradition of literalism.

If there were more 1st and 2nd century Xtians around today, the future of Xtianity, in the first world anyway, might look a little brighter.

aa5874

You mean if there were MORE Magicians like 1st century Christian Simon Magus and people who Believed in the Christian Phantom of Marcion that the world might look a little brighter?

Horatio Parker

trolling?

try reading my other posts first...

aa5874

Trolling? Surely you can read mine.....

I read your post and responded.

Horatio Parker

I doubt the sincerity of this:

"You mean if there were MORE Magicians like 1st century Christian Simon Magus and people who Believed in the Christian Phantom of Marcion that the world might look a little brighter?"

I think I was pretty clear, but to restate, Xtians would be better off if they regarded scripture as allegory. That would exclude the above examples of magical thinking.