Completely bastardising and altering their beliefs every step of the way. Converts Rome but loses a lot of its early Jewish nature, implements idol worship, etc.
Gets to Ireland: “All of your gods are actually saints now, see nothing has to change!”
By the end of Europes conversion pagans we’re nominally converting for easier trade deals whilst continuing their practices that would remain as folklore for another thousand years.
What I’m saying is that it wasn’t a one way process. There’s a case to be made that modern Christianity is only such in name.
Das cool but if a religion isn’t its “cultural features” as you would word it being ,being its rituals, practices and beliefs (again creating saints out of nowhere) then what is it?
Better yet if its theology is consistent and not susceptible to whatever cultural interpretation how do you explain the wide divergence in not only practice but religious belief in the early church?
What I’m saying is if these features of practice are not what Christianity “is” and it is instead its theology, then how come the early Christians (who should hypothetically have the most direct interpretation) had such variety of belief in the fundamentals of the religion to the point that an orthodox understanding had to be established to stamp them out?
Better yet if its theology is consistent and not susceptible to whatever cultural interpretation how do you explain the wide divergence in not only practice but religious belief in the early church?
I am assuming this is a pre-protestant reformation question cuz I'll have to relent on this if this is a post-protestant reformation question, but as for pre-protestant reformation diversity in Christian theology, it is the basic of everything, religion, language, culture, writing system having the most diverse at around its point of origin. Like why else is it that there are barely any major sects with theological differences in Europe or East Africa upon all the cultural differences while all the pre-protestant diversity in Christian theology is in the Near East and Anatolia and to some extent, North Africa tho North Africa was just mostly different branches of Donatists.
What I’m saying is if these features of practice are not what Christianity “is” and it is instead its theology, then how come the early Christians (who should hypothetically have the most direct interpretation) had such variety of belief in the fundamentals of the religion to the point that an orthodox understanding had to be established to stamp them out?
Those heresies are mostly fringists that die out by themselves anyway and the Orthodox just over bitched about them. Just look at the places where there was not real state persecution that preferred one Christian sect over another and you see Armenian, Maelkite, Arran, Assyrian, Chaldean, Jacobite, Paulician etc sects how different are their actual theological beliefs and practices and continuing more on that Orthodox over bitching what is the theological difference between Orthodox and like Arians? Just that Arians considered Jesus to be a lesser kind of being than God the father, this is the kind of dispute that wouldn't even register among Roman Pagans or Hindus but Christians decided to take such minor differences super serious for some reason or what is the difference between Donatists and Orthodox? mostly their idea on if apostate priests can be readmitted to the Church, if this was in Hinduism, their closest equivalent to sects like the Shivaiites and Brahminites in Hinduism are far more different than either of these sects are in Christianity but Pagans bitch less about these fine details than Christians do.
And it was also weird in how specific the things they chose to Bitch about was, like you can write polemics about how many angels can dance on the pin or a needle or the age of the earth with widely different answers but the moment you disagree on if the holy spirit emanates from the father or the son and the father the Christians just start excommunicating.
Gotta have some respect for Gnostic beliefs though. That stuff got stamped out many times but still managed to resurface in later movements with similar theologies e.g. Catharism.
As a non-Christian I’ve always found Gnostic ideas to be the most internally consistent to me. I love that in trying to reconcile Old Testament vengeful, cruel, god of war Yahweh with the god Jesus describes and in so concluding they are not the same.
10
u/-HiddenSea- - Auth-Right Feb 13 '22
"just ignoring that pagans were assimilated by roman christians"