The Terrible History Thread

Mize said:
You're answering my questions with questions.
I'm not going to engage in a massive literature search over a dubious premise.

Mize said:
I'm not saying it's inevitably pagan. I'm saying it's most probably... ancient, not even pagan.

You seemed to have just suggested that and what does 'ancient, not even pagan' even mean?

Mize said:
"Man, this Jesus guy is alright, but can I still slaughter a goat on X day?"

That's still a big ask because one would need to assume that cities like Antioch and Rome with different cultures, all associated the the Equinox with "rebirth", celebrated it at around the same time and that all Christian communities would have accepted such a proposition. That... would have been unusual.

I could see local popular practices being papered over, but that would have been at a much later date when the Church was stronger and could expect to impose it's will on people. Not when it was a maligned, minority, religious sect born out of a maligned religion.

Mize said:
Oh, and was it really Jewish? I know that even after the Julian reforms most of the Roman empire still used their own lunar calendar. Was it different from the Jewish one?
Some Christians calculated it in relation to the Passover. And how else would you figure out when Jesus died, he was a Jew, as were most of his early followers. It makes sense that they would use their calender.
 
Christians don't worship those things - they venerate them - and that's not the same thing.

And when non-Christians venerate objects it´s idol worship.... Defenitely not the same thing.

(It's also the case that polytheism often seems to have an inherent tendency to develop into monotheism, too, which is equally interesting.)

As in Hinduism?
 
And when non-Christians venerate objects it´s idol worship.... Defenitely not the same thing.



As in Hinduism?
It's perfectly possible for non-Christian cultures to venerate objects without it being idol worship; Hinduism, to throw your example back at you.

More like Judaism, which was originally polytheistic, then monotheistic, then started to revert to polytheism again. I guess that's just what happens when a religion is that old.
 
I'm not going to engage in a massive literature search over a dubious premise.

And I don't ask that of you. I was just wondering whether anyone here knew any details.

... what does 'ancient, not even pagan' even mean?

It was a playful jab at you for your earlier comment about my use of the word 'pagan'.

... one would need to assume that cities like Antioch and Rome with different cultures, all associated the the Equinox with "rebirth", celebrated it at around the same time and that all Christian communities would have accepted such a proposition. That... would have been unusual. I could see local popular practices being papered over, but that would have been at a much later date when the Church was stronger and could expect to impose it's will on people. Not when it was a maligned, minority, religious sect born out of a maligned religion.

This. Earlier I was talking about Nicaea and the fact that the church needed three centuries to officially assign a particular date (well, not exactly a date) to one of their most important holidays, if not the most important. The way I see it, this can only mean two things. Either people were already celebrating it like that en masse, or they were celebrating it on all sorts of different dates and occasions and the church wanted to settle it once and for all. My money's on the former assumption, but whatever the case, it was a clever move by the bishops. Everybody from Gibraltar to Mesopotamia had some sort of festival going on around the Equinox. It was now a matter of which local customs were to be kept and which could and should be banned.

About the 'rebirth' thing, I've already started reading up on pre-christian religious and agricultural practices. If I stumble across anything meaningful that could back up my point, I'll be sure to pop back in this thread. For now I'll stop bothering you with my ill-backed reasonings. Thanks for the discussion.
 
It's clear Easter would be celebrated on a Sunday because the stories say that Jesus died on a Sunday. It's also clear, according to the same stories, that Jesus died on or around Passover. Passover starts the first day after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox. Easter starts on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox.
 
Wait, I'm confused. I thought it was pretty well established that Christianity built upon existing religious traditions when it came to a new area, which is why we have Easter and Christmas on major 'pagan' holidays, along with several other parts (I seem to remember LS writing something about a Bible produced under Charlemagne that sort of turned Jesus and his disciples into some sort of Saxon warband.)

ah gosh oversimplification

The date of Christmas is based on the date of the Alexandrian Christian tradition in determining the crucifixion of Jesus, which itself follows from a Jewish mystic belief that prophets are conceived on the same day that they die (and it was believed in that era that Good Friday was March 25 based on the dating of Passover and the presumed year in which Jesus died, so nine months from then is December 25).

The thing you're talking about is the Heliand, which is the four Gospels loosely translated into Old Saxon during the reign of Ludwig der Fromme. Since the Saxon language was amusingly primitive at this point in history, most of the diction is rendered in military terms, yes. But the translation itself says more about Frankish society than it does anything about contemporary Christianity.

And when non-Christians venerate objects it´s idol worship.... Defenitely not the same thing.

If you're incapable of distinguishing that people of different spiritual beliefs conceive of certain things with different attitudes, you're probably not worth talking to about the matter in the first place.
 
It's clear Easter would be celebrated on a Sunday because the stories say that Jesus died on a Sunday. It's also clear, according to the same stories, that Jesus died on or around Passover. Passover starts the first day after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox. Easter starts on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox.

Although the full moon used isn't the real full moon but the Paschal Full Moon, the date of which is determined by tables. This means Easter doesn't have to fall during Passover at all. In 2008 Easter was four weeks before Passover. (For Western tradition. Catholics and Orthodox Christians don't necessarily celebrate Easter on the same day.)
 
The date of Christmas is based on the date of the Alexandrian Christian tradition in determining the crucifixion of Jesus, which itself follows from a Jewish mystic belief that prophets are conceived on the same day that they die (and it was believed in that era that Good Friday was March 25 based on the dating of Passover and the presumed year in which Jesus died, so nine months from then is December 25).
That's really interesting. I never knew that. I thought the Romans just pulled the date out of their arses.
 
Mize said:
Either people were already celebrating it like that en masse, or they were celebrating it on all sorts of different dates and occasions and the church wanted to settle it once and for all. My money's on the former assumption, but whatever the case, it was a clever move by the bishops. Everybody from Gibraltar to Mesopotamia had some sort of festival going on around the Equinox. It was now a matter of which local customs were to be kept and which could and should be banned.

That's a fair point. But it begs a better one, if Easter was a 'pagan' thing, celebrated on the Solstice, how the heck was it that it fell on different days?
 
It's perfectly possible for non-Christian cultures to venerate objects without it being idol worship; Hinduism, to throw your example back at you.

I see. So Hindus ´venerate´gods, but do not worship them. Is that what you mean? If Christians worship God, but venerate saints, bits of saints, bits of things saints have touched, etc etc that´s perfectly fine to call ´monotheism´.

More like Judaism, which was originally polytheistic, then monotheistic, then started to revert to polytheism again.

Now that is interesting. Also applicable to Christianity ofcourse. Or perhaps these socalled monotheisms never were really monotheistic; having just one omnipotent being might simply not be enough for the average believer. It might just be in human nature to venerate wherever it is possible to venerate.

If you're incapable of distinguishing that people of different spiritual beliefs conceive of certain things with different attitudes, you're probably not worth talking to about the matter in the first place.

If you´re incapable of civil discussion, you might want to refrain from posting in the first place.
 
I see. So Hindus ´venerate´gods,
Gods aren't idols. This isn't Ancient Babylon, and Vishnu isn't Marduk - though that would be awesome.

but do not worship them. Is that what you mean?
Nope.

If Christians worship God, but venerate saints, bits of saints, bits of things saints have touched, etc etc that´s perfectly fine to call ´monotheism´.
If it's only veneration and not worship, then yes, it is fine to call it monotheism. I don't necessarily agree with it - I am agnostic - but it's still quite clearly monotheistic, at least as the Vatican describes it. Whether or not the average Catholic lives up to Catholic dogma is another matter entirely.

Now that is interesting. Also applicable to Christianity ofcourse. Or perhaps these socalled monotheisms never were really monotheistic; having just one omnipotent being might simply not be enough for the average believer. It might just be in human nature to venerate wherever it is possible to venerate.
Christianity has never swung between the extremes in quite the same way Judaism has. Islam has swung even less, but it's also a lot younger than both. Zoroastrianism is very similar to Judaism.
 
Although the full moon used isn't the real full moon but the Paschal Full Moon, the date of which is determined by tables. This means Easter doesn't have to fall during Passover at all. In 2008 Easter was four weeks before Passover. (For Western tradition. Catholics and Orthodox Christians don't necessarily celebrate Easter on the same day.)

Yeah, but that's because they use different lunarsolar calendars. That isn't a religious thing, though, it's just a different calendar. The calculation is logically the same, they just are looking at a different calendar to calculate it with. It's the same thing as using a Julian calendar to calculate an event on a fixed date and getting a different result than with the Gregorian calendar.
 
If you´re incapable of civil discussion, you might want to refrain from posting in the first place.

I beg your pardon? I'm being perfectly civil, and the point I made was a valid one. In the same vein, there's no point in arguing geometry with somebody that refuses to acknowledge obtuse angles aren't acute angles.

I see. So Hindus ´venerate´gods, but do not worship them. Is that what you mean? If Christians worship God, but venerate saints, bits of saints, bits of things saints have touched, etc etc that´s perfectly fine to call ´monotheism´.

This is the point you either cannot grasp because you don't understand it, or refuse to acknowledge because it deflates your polemics. The sense of the words "worship" and "venerate" are the same across any "religion", but to what they are applied is based on the observer. Worship means you think the being/object in question has independent divine power; whereas veneration means you think the being in question is only worthy of emulation, or is an object of significant ritualistic value (but not with independent divine power).

Catholics don't think saints have independent divine power. If you pay close attention to all sorts of prayers about saints or things saints have blessed, it's always an intercession from God. If you're speaking about "a miracle of St. Anthony of Padua", you're just abbreviating it from "a miracle of God performed through the intercession of St. Anthony of Padua." The line does get a bit dirty sometimes (e.g.; there was recently a religious order that was excommunicated for worshiping the Blessed Virgin Mary as an incarnation of the Holy Spirit; Catholic doctrine says she's merely worthy of hyper-veneration, never worship), but this is a constant thing. Now, some folks like Jack Chick will say that Catholics pretend to venerate when they secretly worship, but let's not enter the realm of insane conspiracies regarding cognition please. This is what the Catholic Church says about itself: worship God, venerate saints.

Hindus think their gods have independent divine power, so they worship them. Catholics think said gods do not have independent divine power, hence Catholics believe Hindus engage in idolatry. There's both a subjective and an objective element here that must be accepted. Subjectively, it's what the believer thinks he's doing. Objectively, the question is asked as to whether or not the being in question actually is divine. If you say Hindus are idolatrous in the same way Catholics are, then you're saying that Hindus view their gods in the same way Catholics view the communion of saints, which is objectively false. Furthermore, objectively, Hindus do not merely venerate their gods, they worship them.
 
Either people were already celebrating it like that en masse, or they were celebrating it on all sorts of different dates and occasions and the church wanted to settle it once and for all. My money's on the former assumption, but whatever the case, it was a clever move by the bishops.

It was the latter. Different people calculated Easter differently, and indeed would continue to do so for centuries.

The point has already been made that however one calculates Easter, it has to be roughly at the time of Passover because it's a festival that's based on Passover. So it's in spring because Passover is in spring, not because any pagan festivals or similar were in spring. Of course, one may legitimately ask why Passover is in spring, and the answer may well have something to do with ancient fertility festivals or what-have-you. I don't know. But that's a question for Jewish scholarship, not Christian scholarship.

I think it's simply too vague to say "Easter is at more or less the same time of year as the equinox, therefore its date was deliberately chosen to coincide with the equinox," especially when any such choice was at best indirect given that Easter was directly intended to coincide not with the equinox but with Passover. The calendar's full of dates that are or were sacred to somebody - if Easter or Christmas were at other times of year no doubt people would claim they were specifically celebrated then to take over some other pagan festivals. Modern Wiccans have eight sabbats in the year, after all, all of which, I think, have some kind of ancient heritage.


On monotheism, polytheism, and Hinduism, the point is that although Hinduism is undoubtedly a truly polytheistic religion, with literally millions of gods that are worshipped qua gods, it nevertheless also contains strong tendencies towards monotheism. Brahman is often considered to be true universal spirit of which all the gods are manifestations. Indeed Advaita Vedanta takes this further to a sort of monism, where Brahman is all that truly exists. There are close parallels to the development of monotheism in Greek philosophical schools such as Stoicism and Middle Platonism, which continued to use the language of classical polytheism. The point is that both monotheism and polytheism meet certain spiritual needs that seem to be very widely shared by people in different cultures, which means that strict monotheism and strict polytheism alike can struggle to meet all of these needs. Hence the tendency for religions to oscillate - very slowly - between them: monotheisms will tend to develop polytheistic tendencies, and polytheisms will tend to develop monotheistic tendencies.
 
Top Bottom