There are debates that some saints, including Saint Christopher, were not real. This has become apparent as time goes on, and the Catholic demoted his position in the 60's. Some say he was made up as a metaphor for the weight one has to carry from being a

Email
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 16 MB. Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 5 per post.

File: 94982c3ebea2ca6⋯.jpg (40.73 KB, 383x600, 383:600, serveimage.jpg)

Christanon 10/07/18 (Sun) 22:56:43 9feebf No.711328

There are debates that some saints, including Saint Christopher, were not real. This has become apparent as time goes on, and the Catholic demoted his position in the 60's. Some say he was made up as a metaphor for the weight one has to carry from being a Christian. And this isn't just the idea of him being a wolf-headed man, but the guy in general.

>It is disputed whether Christopher existed, and if so whether the name applied to a specific person or was a general title meaning "Christ-bearer" which was applied to several different real or legendary people. He may be the same figure as Saint Menas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Christopher

Is Saint Christopher a real man? A misunderstanding? Why would there be Saints like Christopher if people are aware they didn't exist?

Christanon 10/08/18 (Mon) 10:43:59 462b78 No.711616

If he's a saint, he existed, period. His real life may be different than what we know but he existed. (((Modern historians))) are not to be listened to, because they take lack of historical sources as evidence of non-existence.

Christanon 10/08/18 (Mon) 10:52:10 d395e3 No.711617

>>711616

That is not much of an argument, in that I think they take it as a lack of sources for the most part. It's not the he isn't real but that there is no historical authority that can be recognized outside the clergy. If however you are apart of the church, this is not an issue because they define truth in the religion. So St.Christopher might not exist, in a scientific context, but in a religious context. So this is not really a problem for anybody except historians.

Christanon 10/08/18 (Mon) 12:55:10 966f12 No.711659

This reminds of how the first sentence of Moses' Wikipedia page states that he was prophet to the Abrahamic religions but a legend by scholars.

>>711617

>If however you are apart of the church, this is not an issue because they define truth in the religion.

Based

Christanon 10/08/18 (Mon) 14:20:07 a9032b No.711677

This icon carver talks a lot about the subject:

https://www.orthodoxartsjournal.org/the-icon-of-st-christopher/

Christanon 10/08/18 (Mon) 15:02:52 272616 No.711706

>>711617

>So St.Christopher might not exist, in a scientific context, but in a religious context.

The scientific context and the religious context are one in the same. Jesus rose from the dead in both a religious context and a historical context. Christianity isn't Buddhism, if a claim isn't literally true then you can't hide behind it being "religiously true". If Christopher didn't exist, then he shouldn't be canonized.

>>711616

Anti-intellectualism is for pagans. Not all modern historians are evil or Jewish. Scholarly explorations of biblical history is one of the main things that's convinced me Christianity is true over the past couple of years.

Christanon 10/08/18 (Mon) 15:37:37 98e9aa No.711731

>>711706

>Anti-intellectualism is for pagans

This.