Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History

The History on Constantine speaks for itself when looking at the actual FACTS instead of the Popular notions.

OK, fine. Please expand.

Which facts definitively tell you that Constantine was not a Christian? Constantine has been considered a Christian since his death by those who recorded his times.

How can you compare a 1500+ year traditional historical interpretation with Afrocentric mumbo jumbo that was created in the past 50 years to further a political agenda?

How can you state "Constantine was not a Christian" and then say that your statement has nothing to do with religion?

Traditional history says he became a Christian. According to The primary Christian text, the Bible, becoming a Christian in practice of the Apostles as shown in the Acts was a three part deal - confession of faith from belief, baptism in water, and finally Baptism of spirit. Three things. The traditional propaganda is that he was baptised before he died - one of three. One of the three, I might add, noted by the same historian that was as liable to make up history as report it and is so rebuked by historians for the noteable examples he produced of such. Thus the claim is unsupportable by contemporanious witness other than said
flimsy testimony of said less than reputeable so called historian. Zeal and good story telling are no substitute for facts. And the facts are that the man had himself interred after pagan fashion to make himself a "god" in the afterlife. Not the act of a christian; but, historically accurate. Two very well known points among the historians.

meeting one criteria in three if it could be supported outside of Eusebius doesn't meet the Practice of the Apostles in what they not only preached but practiced as the road to becoming a Christian. It is therefore less likely he was. Adding to this that he clung to his pagan
practices throughout his life - even after he was presumed to have been baptised and was enterred in pagan ceremonies rather than Christian ceremonies - his own acts betray the traditions a fraud.

Indeed, Constantines life betrays other facts that seem to be ignored as they are inconvenient. Catholicism views Arianism (pre wwII) as heretical. Yet, Constantine favored the Arians. His top advisors were Arians - even Eusebius himself was an Arian if memory serves (how many touche's are we at right now?) Factually, He fought for the arians in conference by trying to get other factions to tone down their rhetoric and compromise on terminology that would allow for Arian views to coexist with others - ie, he was more about harmony than about being correct. One only need look at the language differences in what he proposed to understand he was a liberal seeking pacifism in the name of unity of empire. My History books say the Donatists were killed not because they were heretical; but because they were Christian. And the man who carried out their slaughter was not acting for constantine and empire; but, against both, for which he was made to answer. Alas, the traditional fabrication is the opposite, painting the intolerant man as a pawn of Constantine who was acting from some righteous protectionism of Christianity.. couldn't be farther from the truth. Of course, It would be better if I could get my buddy across town over here to further lay the record bare, he can do it from memory better than I can because he's spent the better part of 30 years studying Constantine. He thinks Constantine was a brilliant Pagan strategist.

Every historian worth his oats knows that Eusebius' tale of the vision 'paint a cross on your shields' garbage is precisely nothing less than the fictions of Eusebius being spun. The fact is it was common practice in war to adorn ones shields as a battle tactic. Armies attacking Egypt were known in cases to tie dead cats to their shields or paint cats on their shields because the cat was sacred to Egypt and a good egyptian would not dare strike a cat or it's image. Just as Christians would not dare strike an image of a cross due to the superstitions that abounded in those times. It was a tactic, not of divine inspiration but of tried and true battle strategy.

Shall I quote my favorite author on Eusebius an his practices again? I know you've seen it before and though it's a page and a half, I don't mind typing it up again.

All in all, a man who spent his life murdering his family including his own son and then has a flash of wisdom at death that he must only be baptised then turns right back to his pagan ways doesn't cry out 'this man is christian'.
The Bible refers to that as a falling away if it indeed ever happened to begin with - the which I would most highly doubt along with other historians who are just as dubious on the matter.

Given the facts as they are known, and knowing they don't
lead one to the notion that he was a christian in any way.
absent the fanciful traditions, one must invoke probability
and consider the likelyhood. The facts do not support the fanciful traditions... any more than killing the chosen people of God (the israelites) could then make the Aryans of WWII Germany God's chosen. Doesn't matter where the fanciful story comes from. If it doesn't align with the facts, it doesn't matter a hill of beans how you argue it.
the facts win - not the fanciful stories. The Aryans weren't and arent the "master race" and Constantine was about as Christian as Tommy Daschle is a Republican. But given the right spin on things, I'm sure in a hundred years, someone might be able, absent the facts to make Daschle the first american Pope - Funny and terrifying at the same time isn't it.

You forgot frosty the snowman.

Oh and Jesus may have had olive color skin given the area he was born in, not that it matters as the message is what counts.

Oh and Jesus may have had olive color skin given the area he was born in, not that it matters as the message is what counts.

The case here is exactly the opposite.

Flush the liberal Democrats.

the Roman deception and rewrite of History that is the Isidorian decretals and the frauds of Gracian. But to put those indoctrinated in such beliefs on the spot is to ask them to think for themselves

Yeah, I got those darned old Isidorian decretals and frauds of Gracian hammered into my head at the dinner table, right along with the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer. But I'm over it now.

-ccm

If you can't address what was said, you misquote to address something not?

AH, cum'om...Have a Happy Kwanza..........

Huh?

If you can't address what was said, you misquote to address something not?

My point exactly. What in the world were you talking about in your post and to whom were you addressing it? How many people on this board do you think know what Isidorian decretals and frauds of Gracian are? I am a very well-read and well-educated person and I never heard of them.

If you are going to post windy diatribes about religious esoterica, it would be helpful for all the rest of us poor unenlightened souls to have some background before you take off on your rant. You can't throw a term like 'Isidorian decretal' into a post about leftist Afrocentrist idiocy without giving a definition or at least enough context for an intelligent person to figure out what in the hell you are trying to say.

And how did I misquote you? The quotation is copied word for word from your post.

-ccm

Interesting!

Oh and Jesus may have had olive color skin given the area he was born in

Jesus was green?

There was a question mark behind my question there to question what you were trying to make in way of a point. the point I was making is that indoctrinated people generally haven't a clue about the isidorean decretals or Gracian because they only get the "traditional" history and are told the world hates them and trys to slander them with such things as isidore and Gracian.. LOL.

Isidore and Gracian are both collections of Known and proven forgeries and frauds that were created for the purpose of establishing the preiminence of the Roman Church over the entirety of what then called itself the 'Catholic' church. Rome was trying to sieze control of the church to a central point by fraud and succeeded in doing so. Sad thing is that much of what Roman Catholics know as Canon Law today which pretended to come down from the Apostles is actually a batch of forgeries that were dubbed by caveat into church law and the Law of the Empire. Eight of those laws formed the basis of the stance that led to the inquisitions and the crusades - the notion that killing heretics was Godly derived from thence. But many of the documents are web published in part or in full. And much is available on the web about them. The decretals included a well known fraud called the Donation of Constantine that setup the churchs' one time "Temporal" authority over the empire. It was combined with the rest of the documents and was used to dupe parts of the church that didn't know any better into believing Rome and bowing to their claims, and further was used to dupe Europe into bowing to their claims of authority over the empire. Their reign in Europe which caused the Dark ages is a result of fraud.

When the documents were finally proven frauds publicly in the mid 1500s (the first time was quashed and only internal) the church clung to portions of them fastidiously because the damage to be done by removing so much would be the end of them. No two ways about it. The damage done by what they did admit was deep enough. It's the reason why there is a Vatican state now within Italy rather than a larger state controlled by them. Once exposed they lost all authority and their claims to land and empire were removed bit by bit until the Italian milatary finally removed them by force from the control of Itallian lands in the 1800s. They wouldn't make things right themselves so after 300 years, italy did it for them. Those documents are collectively viewed as the greatest fraud ever perpetrated upon mankind. But you don't read about it in your history books at school. Cause telling the truth just isn't in vogue. They don't tell you my great uncle was drunk and spilled acid in his lap bacause of it causing Watson to hear quite different across the phone the first time than what is commonly reported in school. They don't want kids to know a great man had a drink or that he cussed. So they manipulate the story fit their gameplan. If you want the truth, you have to grow up a few years down the line and go looking for it yourself. Or in my case, just ask the family LOL.

It's also worth noting that one of their great philosophers was duped by these documents and upon finding out, he withdrew his written support of them and actually went and joined another sect. But we don't like to talk about things such as that either..

But to make this point again, this isn't about religion. Or shall we go back to my remarks and note that I also invoked wwii germany. Perhaps my comments belong in a strategy and warfare sub because I mentioned WWII germany. Or because I discussed early battle tactics. Perhaps it belongs in an archeology sub because I mentioned early Egypt. Perhaps it belongs in sub x.... The original article touches on religion and philosophy so perhaps it belongs in the religion sub. See. People can get upset when some things are brought up that paint their views in a bad light. If the truth hurts, it isn't a reason not to tell the truth. And I'm on topic. The topic of the article was how history is manipulated by some to the point of defrauding people with it. I merely expanded upon that. If it gets your nose out of joint. That's not my problem; but, it makes me curious about why. LOL. You aren't perchance telling me that it's ok for Catholics to lie about history for their ends because they are a religious group, are you?

Bookmarking

entertaining read

BUMP for an interesting thread, and a very interesting and well written book; which I have read and quoted from on FR.

:) A little humor takes the edge off. I don't always remember that. But, as my statements can easily be checked by anyone willing to go research it, I don't mind stating established fact. I've found with some of these people that citation is a fools game. They find a reason to knit pick any citation under the sun and never deal with the central issues - only try to discredit the author by way of namecalling and such. Facts are funny things. When you stand them up by themselves and let people research them, they prove themselves. Unfortuneatly for some, they will only read "authorized" material or material that agrees with the "authorized" material.. and the "authorized material" is written by the same people that lied to them in the first place. Doesn't occur to them that if Bill Clinton lies to them, going to Bill and asking if he lied may produce a denial. But then if they don't believe he's lying and he denys it, then well all's better isn't it. If you clearly label the subject a liar, they know how to respond. If they have to think for themselves - forget it.

Scientists are a great example of this. Which really urks me. I'm a big Egyptology nut. And if you could see what facts say about the egyptian timeline and note that most scientists won't accept those facts because it messes with their accepted beliefs.... Tells you why Shoshenk is considered to be the Shishak Pharaoh in the Israelite History instead of who the facts say it was - Ramsees. But when you start matching other facts up with the timeline related facts. It wows you because everything then fits and stops making one wonder about all the unexplained inconsistencies. Anyway.. Glad you enjoyed the read.

Now I understand the oj jury.

Wow . . . good.

Deconstructing the deconstructionists. Revising history back toward truth. A noble effort, and one rendered well here.

No, Constantine was a Christian, at least at the time of his death. He was a great benefactor of the Church: beyond the Edict of Milan, he built the Empire a new capital with no pagan temple and many Christian Churches, "New Rome" he called it, but it became known as Constantinople. And he called the First Ecumenical Council to settle the Arian controversy, and accepted the results, despite evidence he personally favored Arius. Thus we see in him, despite having qualities which would incline one to pride--military genius, political skill, and great wordly power--humility when approaching theology. He accepted the outcome, despite his predispositions.

You have your own very text-centered notion of Christian orthodoxy. Surely you would recognize as a worthy Christian one who laid aside his erroneous or non-Christian preconceptions to accept and to be obedient to the text of Scripture. For those of us, both Orthodox and Latin, who regard the Holy Ecumenical Councils as establishing the canon of Scripture, obedience to the Ecumenical Councils is worthy in the same way, and indeed constitutes a very practical confession of faith--an unbeliever in the same position would surely have tried to bias the council as many heretical emperors did in the case of later councils.

You also forget that the understanding that in Christ forgiveness is available even for post-baptismal sins was not well established at St. Constantine's time. Regarding the state-craft of his day as a likely occasion for sin, he delayed baptism until near death. As to "baptism of the Spirit" the conferring of the gift of the Holy Spirit in the Mystery of Chrismation immediately after the Mystery of Baptism and before the reception of the Eucharist was established very early. The record that St. Constantine was baptized thus suffices on your third point.