/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>815262

99% of the myths that are shared on the internet about pagan traditions in Christianity are lies. They mostly originate from Protestant propaganda against the Catholics.

https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2018/12/six-men-who-tried-to-paganize-origins.html

There exists a few actual pagan rituals that have been Christianized, but they're not accepted as legitimate by the church

>Also are there any instances of a particular sect that has been so greatly influenced by non-Abrahamic faiths that some have questioned whether or not it is truly Christian?

I would say some Protestant sects that allow gay marriage and women priests and stuff like that

None.

Go read the fathers of the Church, the writtings of the fist Christians. You can check it yourself.

>Abrahamic faiths

lmao

>>815262

Cath here, the answer is a lot. For your first question, look at the fact that Judaism is a near-eastern religion, and in the totality of human history,a small fraction of our time, before Christianity was made. All things Christians get from the Jews are near-eastern, look at the religions there first (the paganism, Zoroastrianism, etc). For the second, look at Nestorian Chinese Christians, influenced and syncretistic with Buddhism, possibly the Cathars/some gnostics for Greek pagan influence and Manichaen influence, and that's all from the top of my head rn.

Have fun on your research, God bless

>>815280

>Cath here, the answer is a lot

Cath here, no.

>>815262

The lines have been blurred for far too long to do so with ease, but the essence of Christianity has remained whatever inculturation it has accrued throughout history is accidental.

Religious rituals are a way to try to wrestle with some deep truths, and when you examine and analyze pagan rituals, you can see some profound truths buried in them. Christianity took these truths, refined them and polished them and connected them with the Truth. As an example, sacrifice is a typical ritual of many religions across the world. In Christianity, Jesus' death was a sacrifice. Yes, it was not only a sacrifice, but the sacrificial element of the crucifixion is really important. It's easy to see the Eucharist as something reminiscent of a pagan sacrifice (blood and flesh in the altar, and also offerings of wine and food), but at the same time, it's so much more. It's a way of connecting to God (like pagan sacrifices allowed you to connect to your gods) but instead of sacrificing an animal, it's done by being pure and taking part in the sacrifice of Christ.

Christmas is another typical example. Pagans would celebrate the point of the year where nights start becoming shorter and days become longer. We now celebrate the coming of the Lords, who is the Light. The 24th of June, another solar festivity, was substituted with the day of St John the Baptist, who announced the coming of Christ. You can see the common theme, you can see how pagan festivities were substituted with Christian ones that carried similar meaning on the surface but are based on much deeper truths, on the Truth himself.

Pagan gods would also be replaced with saints. Missionaries would look into which gods local people venerated the most, and substitute them with saints who had similar tributes (the cult to a warrior god could be substituted with a cult to St Michael or to St George, and a cult to a mother goddess with the Virgin).

Now, this is an important distinction, a crucial one: it is not the case that Christianity takes things from paganism; instead, missionaries substituted pagan rituals with pagans truths with Christian rituals that carried similar truths, but under a Christian light, and pagans adopted the later since those truths are connected to the Truth and thus are much more deeper and profound. Humans naturally seek God, we have a need for religion, and pagans (both during roman times and during the early middle ages) could see how Christianity could bring them closer to God than their superstitious beliefs. If Christianity had been a mere mishmash of pagan traditions it wouldn't have triumphed. Conversion to Christianity was something radical, something completely opposed to your previous life. You don't change your whole life, defy your old morals, part with your traditions and, in many cases, risk your life, just to embrace a new religion that's like the one you already had. Let's not forget that Christianity expanded through the Roman Empire mostly when it was illegal, and then expanded through Europe when the Empire was crippled or already dissolved. People converted voluntarily, cause they could see it was true; conversions by the sword would take centuries to come.

So, to resume and clarify: missionaries would use similes between Christianity and paganism to aid people into understanding the former and adopting it. Those similarities exist cause pagans were trying (erratically and in a primitive way) to get closer to God. The dates of some festivities have pre-Christian origins, but the meaning, and the festivity itself, are purely Christian. "Christianity comes from paganism" was originally protestant propaganda, coming from a misunderstanding of how missionary work functions (if you want to understand that, look into the evangelization of the New World, since it's properly documented, and can give you really good insights).

(Sorry for double posting, thought I'd leave my grain of sand for this too)

>>815262

>Also are there any instances of a particular sect that has been so greatly influenced by non-Abrahamic faiths that some have questioned whether or not it is truly Christian?

I don't know about pagan beliefs, but there are some cases of christian corruption under other faiths. Most notably, during the protestant reformation, with "sola scriptura", many protestant branches adopted the thinking of Talmudic Judaism, with their faith being based on the Old Testament and having the New Testament as an addendum. In the Eastern Roman Empire, the nestorian areas had little trouble converting to Islam. Similarly, in the Arabic push to the west, arrians (and people with an arrian tradition, like the Visigoths, who had only recently adopted Catholicism) also converted easily to Islam. The Bishop of Toledo, Elipando, under Arab influence, started proclaiming nestorian-like heresies (to which the Spanish monk, Beato of Liebana, responded calling him "the left testicle of the Antichrist"; we don't have insults like that anymore).

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any Church that has been declared heretical because of beliefs originating from paganism.

>>815278

Why do I always see /christians/ laughing at the term "Abrahamic religion"? What's wrong with it?

>>815299

>I can't think of any Church that has been declared heretical because of beliefs originating from paganism.

Gnosticism would probably be it. It's basically Neoplatonism but the difference is the demiurge is evil and then clothed in judeo-christian mythos and fanfic as a afterthought.

>Obligatory

>>815262

>I recently learned about the concepts syncretism and inculturation, and am wondering if any of you could help me identify concepts, beliefs or traditions in Christianity that have their origins outside of Christianity?

Christianity is a very unique religion on its own influenced by almost nothing.

Its main influence was/is pre-Pharisaical Judaism (that is, priesthood, no Talmud and no "letter>spirit" mentality).

After that I read a lot about Neoplatonism influencing christianity but I never researched that so I couldn't tell.

Besides that, nothing really springs up.

I do know christianity influenced many other cultures/religions even if it was only by existing.

>>815304

Islam has no legitimate claim to being related to Abraham whatsoever, apart from that the Quran talks about him. Its sort of like a Protestant trying to claim to have apostolic succession.

Judaism (aka talmudism) is actually younger than Christianity, and its unrecognizable to the religion of the old testament.

>>815313

Really? How so, anon? Don't they still retain many things? If not, could you give some examples of what they did *not* keep?

>>815313

Don’t they trace their ancestry back to Ishmael though?

>>815297

>like pagan sacrifices allowed you to connect to your gods

Should this read 'appease your gods,' not 'connect to'?

>>815316

The temple, the sacrifices, the priesthood and the records delineating bloodlines confirming who is a Jew by blood. Iirc the former and the latter were destroyed in 70AD (the former certainly) and if you don't got no temple well you don't have an alter and if you don't have an alter you can't offer a sacrifice, and if you can't make sacrifices the priests are all out of a job.

Vid related and the follow up touch on Christ's sacrifice in relation to the Jewish/pagan sacrificial systems that came before

https://youtu.be/wksSoWq7l5o

>>815297

This post was very enlightening. Thank you.

>>815361

>Vid related and the follow up

'Follow up linked below' I meant, the link isn't the same as embed to clarify

>>815411

Tfw modern Biblical scholarship which the Church allows us to study and I was catechized with is heresy

>>815262

A fair bit, to be honest. It's entirely philosophical and aesthetic stuff, but there are a few traditions, for example, that have their origin in Greek philosophy. The theory of the Unmoved Mover has its origins in Aristotle's dichotomy of potential and actual; the concept of the "Logos" was borrowed from Greek philosophy to help the Greeks understand Christ better, and there are portions of Augustine's works that read like a Platonic dialogue. In that case, we used the methods for thinking that the Greek pagans had laid out and used them as aides to help us better understand God.

And of course there are certain Christian holidays which in certain cultures use certain pagan traditions, for example, during Christmas in countries that speak Germanic languages such as English, the Christmas tree was actually from a saint who used it to co-opt the pagan practice of smashing children under an oak tree for Thor. In the case of holidays, this was a good way to get people to convert without abandoning their cultures.

Some Christians don't like to admit this, and some heathens like to gloat over it, because they think it somehow de-legitimizes Christianity. But that's nonsense. Every myth and every philosophy with any amount of good in it was partially inspired by God, and it's therefore no wonder that we were able to use these things as ways of converting people.

>>815415

>its new so it's bad

>>815430

>it's new, so it must be right

>>815483

Oh ffs

>>815362

You're welcome, anon.

>>815423

That's a pretty good and sensible post.

>>815361

Sacrifices are not only to appease gods, they're a wager with the future: I give up something valuable now to hopefully get something even better afterwards. Pagans wouldn't made sacrifices only to appease the gods, though the rites and their purposes vary greatly between cultures. That being said, the sacrifice of Christ is not to be understood in the context of pagan sacrifices but more in the context of Judaic ones (that is Temple Judaism, not Talmudic; important distinction there).Careful, however, with the false but way too common notion that Christ had to die to appease God; that's not what the crucifixion was for.

>>815483

>t. SDA Turboprot

https://www.catholic.com/tract/is-catholicism-pagan

>>815483

How many times do the same stupid things have to get repeated? Like Easter - it's only called Easter in English. The only language of the Roman Catholic church until V2 was latin. In latin (and in Greek) it's Pascha.

>>815499

I'd also add the root of the word Easter is the same as "east", which if you go back enough means "the direction the sun rises". Rising. He is Risen. That's the link.

One English monk had a wild ass guess based on nothing more than they sound a bit alike about eostre once and every turboprot has tried to hang their hat on it since.

>>815483

This is a good one

>>815498

https://www.chick.com/products/tract?stk=74

>>815423

Thanks for this post. I used to be an occultist and one of the opinions I was always exposed to was that Christianity isn't original, that it actually uses things that were found in other faiths before it and that it's all a trick to gobble up your soul. Thanks for the new perspective.

>>815483

How can you be a Christian and argue that the Pope wears a Saturn hat? Don't you realise that the very people who argue that the Pope wears a Saturn hat argue that the whole of Christianity is Saturn worship (a cross is the net of a cube)? You sling that criticism as if you're protected from it.

>>815492

>Careful, however, with the false but way too common notion that Christ had to die to appease God; that's not what the crucifixion was for.

You're right, he didn't have to die, the Son could have been let be and continued on his way and the Father issued retributive justice to us sinners as we deserve instead. But he didn't, so a scapegoat was necessary.

Is it the case that the scapegoat could have been someone or something other than God the Son himself? Genuine question too tired to think things through and the logical implications of God providing/arranging a scapegoat that wasn't the God the Son incarnate voluntarily offering himself up.

Is greentext above a caution against penal substitutionary atonement? Atonment theories are something I never see discussed on this board and I know it's not on topic but along with the monergism/synergism/freewill/predestination/calvism/arianism debate and the trinity itself, atonement theories are one of the most interesting aspects of Christian theology imo

>>815924

>the reason why Jesus rebuked the Pharisees

Jesus didn't rebuke the Pharisees for no other reason than that they had traditions. He rebuked them because their traditions were wrong. In the very same passage where He uses the "traditions of men" phrase you guys love to use so much, He goes on to explain why exactly the so-called "oral torah" was wrong, by giving an example of how it contradicted the 10 Commandments.

>>815924

>they believe only the rabbis can interpret their Scripture

We don't believe priests are the only ones that can interpret scripture. There are multiple interpretations of scripture in the church. There are just also those that are heretical. As long as you avoid heresy though, you can interpret scripture however you want. Heresy means defying the teachings of God, a la Gnosticism and the Solas.

>>815924

We don't restrict interpretation anymore than you guys do. Can I be a baptist and believe that faith requires works? If so, where do I go?

>>815958

>It's not saying "faith is dead without works" but that good works are a grand demonstration of faith.

That's correct, but that stilll means you'd need both. I never understand how protestants have any other interpretation, and that's why I never converted even when I was an atheist.

>It doesn't confirm you're saved through such works and not your faith alone

You don't have one without the other. You don't truly believe if you don't live out your faith. How can you believe otherwise? Your only means of justification is the denial of free will and the fallibility of believers, even though we see both in scripture. By your logic the minute someone converts they would lose all fallibility to sin, which you yourselves say isn't the case.

>>815958

Speaking as a former atheist who was initially evangelized by protestants, your interpretation of Sola Fide to me was basically either a roundabout way of professing the catholic position whilst claiming to oppose it at best, and a free license to sin without repercussion at worst, Either way at best it was needlessly contrarian purely for the sake of it, and that put me off enough to turn from you.

Additionally, I don't know how you condemn tradition whilst still having a unified practice of any kind. Either Christ opposed all traditions or he didn't, you can't pick and choose based on what you feel is necessary. If you want traditions fine, but you can't condemn another church purely for the sake of traditions whilst you maintain them.

I had already agreed with Catholicism on other points, but protestant interpretation of the Solas were the straw that broke the camels back.

>>815964

>It never implies that you'd need both. It says great works are what show your faith, you're still saved by only faith alone.

Right, so they happen simultaneously if your faith is true. Ergo, you would have both. if your faith is true. You haven't contradicted me, you've just rephrased it to sound sympathetic to your views.

>You're arrested and taken to prison, and in the middle of all that, you convert to Christianity, you believe in Jesus in your heart, yet you don't perform any good works in captivity. Are you not justified?

Being a kind person is a good work. A change of behavior is a good work. Good works aren't just things like donations to charity or volunteer work. We send priests to prisons for a reason. You're ill informed on our stance, like most protestants.

>That is if they've really converted. If they're pretending to be Christians (Constantine for example), it isn't the case. If they repent and sincerely believe in Jesus, then it would be so.

So you're saying you've personally never sinned since you became a christian? Not even accidentally? That's a very lofty claim for a common man.

This entire discussion is reminding me why I turned away from Protestantism: A sense of internal elitism. You may act outwardly with humility, but you have a "holier than thou" attitude internally. You may deride the church for pomp and circumstance, but I've yet to meet a priest in my life who strikes me as arrogant, and anyone that is is one I've never met.

>>815966

>What "traditions" am I maintaining here?

Do you go to church on a weekly basis? Have you read the bible because you were instructed to?

Traditions can be defined as any activity passed on to others and repeated over time. Do you understand how many different aspects of christian practice fall under that umbrella?

Catholic Traditions have a meaning beyond the pure act. A meaning you would understand if you did any searching.

>>815958

>Yes. Catholic tradition is also wrong.

But it isn't.

>>815966

Even if you only do the Eucharist once a year or even once every few years purely for memorial and symbolism with out viewing it as necessary to salvation and use grape juice instead of wine, THAT'S STILL A TRADITION.

Worse, it's a tradition without meaning to you all other than "the bible says do x, even though it's meaningless outside of recalling things we already know". Tradition for tradition's sake, which is what the Pharisees taught. The traditions they taught were of no benefit to the Jew. The one's Christ and his church teach are of benefit to all. That's the difference between the traditions of men and those of God.

>>815976

>And you don't need to demonstrate your faith with good works to have faith.

But they're linked, so they would always occur simultaneously. Like hail and a funnel cloud.

>Now do you know what I'm getting at now?

No, because it doesn't make sense.

>I never said I never sinned after I became a Christian. We all sin, we're not completely Godly after we convert.

That's what I'm saying to you! Your stance implies that either you are sinless or your sins are meaningless. To say you profess the way of Christ and not live by it is contrary to christian teaching.

>Look at David for example. He committed adultery and murdered to cover that up. Deep-down however, he still had very deep faith in God.

But he also did things that were righteous to show his faith, including not only confessing to adultery but compensating for it to the victims and to god. To turn from sin and reconcile yourself to those you harmed is yet another good work. He didn't just say "oops" and leave the matter there.

>Does faith alone counts as work? Do you say that you need to go through works to even espouse faith internally?

You need to act like a christian in order to claim to be a christian. It's that simple. What more detail do you need?

>No.

That's sad

>Because I was instructed to? Just the simple act of instructing others to read Scripture counts as "tradition"? Paul literally tells people to.

Which is a tradition handed on by the church starting with Paul and the Apostles... Again, nothing contradictory to what I said was stated here. Just an attempt to deflect the question.

>A meaning that certainly isn't Christian

Because the adoration and honoring of the sacrifice of Christ and his constant embodiment both within and though the church and its followers is counter to christian teachings I guess...

>The Eucharist/Lord's Supper is literally the Passover Kiddush that Jesus and the Apostles observed

And they told us to do this in memory of Christ, for whoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood shall be given eternal life in the kingdom of heaven.

>Are you saying that grape juice as a substitute to wine is the "tradition" here?

I'm saying the act itself, even in the apostolic age, was a tradition and still is, yet protestants practice it.

>It has meaning, it's symbolic. It isn't literally thinking that you're eating Jesus's flesh and drinking his blood

Christ is incarnate in bread and wine BEACAUSE cannibalism is a sin, and he would never force such an act on his followers. this has been the churches teaching since the very beginning and is documented not only in scripture based on the phrasing in the Greek NT, but also in the wrings of the early church going back to the desert fathers. Ante-Nicene mind you.

>Man's corruption of God's own "tradition" if you suppose to abide by the literal definition.

The only corruptions of Gods traditions are the Talmud, the Koran, and the 95 Theses. Each twist the truth to serve their own desires, whilst calling those who are true to be of Satan. Just like the Pharisees. Notice I never stooped to such petty insults. And yet you wonder why I called you an elitist.

>>816028

>The deity of Constantine when he legalised Christianity has its "birthday" transfer over to Christmas in the Mediterranean? Nah, just a coincidence, heretic.

And Hitler was born on columbine. That doesn't mean they're skinheads. Also, again, this ignores the entire rest of Roman calendar, and the Birthday and greatest holiday in the church is Easter, not Christmas.

>No, literally.

>ome scholars suggest that the saint is a Christianization of the goddess, others that she was a real person whose mythos took on the goddess's attributes. Medieval art historian Pamela Berger argues that Christian monks "took the ancient figure of the mother goddess and grafted her name and functions onto her Christian counterpart".[4][page needed] Professor Dáithí Ó hÓgáin and others suggest that the saint had been chief druid at the temple of the goddess Brigid, and was responsible for converting it into a Christian monastery. After her death, the name and characteristics of the goddess became attached to the saint.

So, conjecture and speculation? So, even more meaningless. good.

>>816028

The church fathers as early as 50 AD said it was December 25th as the day of atonement occurred during March 2th, then you add 9 months for the Virgin Mary's pregnancy. The only thing he did in the edict of Milan in full was simply make Christianity legal, not shift any dates around.

>>816033

March 25th*

>>816033

>The only thing he did in the edict of Milan in full was simply make Christianity legal

I forgot to mention that, since I was so caught up in other saints. But yea, Constantine wasn't even christian until his deathbed.

I'm sure this will be written off as propaganda though.

>>815262

I actually prefer CS Lewis explanation for a lot of it (where it isn't simply a fabrication by atheists or a demonic inspired red herring). To paraphrase: Just as even the unredeemed conscience of Man is still enough to rightfully convict him (ie, we still instinctively know right & wrong in at least a vague way), so too Man is instinctively drawn towards the imagery of the true Church, so we dream up myths of redeemers, sacraments & the like. It's a sort of semi-perenialist view that I don't think is heretical (feel free to correct me of course!) - and it aligns IMO with how you can have St James (and others like St Aquinas) talk of "Righteous Pagans", who were not specifically part of either the old covenant or the new.

That isn't license to run off and worship Krishna or something though, just because there's a possible superficial resemblance to Christ. The Church is the lifeboat - just because the occasional strong swimmer found some driftwood to cling too should be taken as the exception rather than the rule. Incidentally, I think this is what Pope Francis was TRYING to explain with his crack about some people outside the the Chrich possibly still getting to heaven - it just got misinterpreted as a call to Universalism. I hope, it's hard to tell.

no, because retard prots will try to destroy said traditions if we talk too much about them

>>815277

gay marriage is considered abhorrent in almost every religion, abrahamic or not. its a purely satanic influence and practice.

>>815430

Your homework assignment for today is to look up the meanings of the words "modern" and "modernist" and how they don't mean the same thing in a religious context.