2 ms·

> I remember growing up, pastors lecturing me that "no other religion is like Christianity". These pastors should go back to school; they should have gotten ed

> I remember growing up, pastors lecturing me that "no other religion is like Christianity". These pastors should go back to school; they should have gotten education about other religions in their training so that they fully understand the origins, similarities and differences between them. They should know the origins of their own religion, like how the date of Christmas was established in the 4th century based on the date of the winter solstice in the Roman Empire. These pastors are reciting dogma instead of learning.

bjourne 2y ago
That Christmas is a Christianized version of Saturnalia is a myth: https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/is-christmas-a-pagan-rip-off https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/is-christmas-a-pagan-r...
- sethammons 2y ago
  Interesting read. I'm not convinced. It predicates it's assertion on the idea that profits die on the same day they were conceived or born. That is a very unconvincing start. Even if Jesus was born on Christmas, it is undeniable that having a similar dated holiday to co-opt is a marketing win. Other overlaps exist with stories thousands of years older, including virgin births, death and resurrection, and dying for humanity.
  - wahern 2y ago
    It's easier to understand the evidence when you appreciate that most early Christians for the first few centuries were semitic peoples (Jews, Syrians), Greeks, Copts and Berbers in the Levant and North Africa. Even the church in Rome used Greek, not Latin, for its liturgy until the 3rd century. There are multiple historical sources mentioning a March annunciation (i.e. conception) and December/January nativity[1] in the 2nd century, well over a century, if not two centuries, before Christianity was adopted by a significant number of Romans proper. Alexandria and Antioch were far more influential centers of Christian theology and scholarship, where Jewish (and related?) and Coptic calendars were the point of reference. Moreover, during this time Christian theologians were adamant about not mixing pagan Greek and Roman practices with Christian practices. And let's not forget the persecutions. The Roman calendar and the dates of its festivals were largely irrelevant to them in terms of establishing mythological dates or community festivals. And the nativity just wasn't a very important date--and never important enough to be an origin for other dates--to Christians until much later, long after a rough consensus on dates had been established. Theologically the annunciation (conception of Christ) was vastly more important, second only to easter. There's significant substantive evidence for these dates being established independent of the Roman festival, based on transparent and consistent rationales. The only real evidence for the date being chosen because of the Roman festival is basically a curious coincidence that stands out as significant from a Western European cultural perspective, rooted in a Roman centric historical narrative, by those living many centuries later. The coincidence feels particularly strong and intuitive in modern times, where Christmas is seemingly synonymous with Christianity. Plus, much of the modern narrative regarding the origins of Christmas arises from attempts by Protestantism to delegitimize Roman Catholicism, without appreciating that during this time the church in Rome wasn't nearly as preeminent as they would become [long] after Constantine. The conception of Catholicism as a religion dictated by clergy in Rome who could successfully scheme to set a date for Christmas comes largely from the Middle Ages, after the Great Schism with Constantinople, when Rome no longer had to justify itself to any of the other early Christian churches. This image was later reinforced and refined by Protestantism literally attempting to paint the Catholic church as a malevolently scheming institution. Now, the spring dates for the annunciation and death of Christ... you could easily trace it back to pagan origins, but rooted in semitic culture, not Roman or even Greek. The sources spell this out for you; no need to connect the dots. [1] In some instances the dates were mentioned alongside alternative opinions that were significantly different (some web articles seem to mention only these non-concordant alternatives), but that's beside the point. The point is that the relevant dates were rooted at a time when most Christians couldn't care less about the Roman festival, except in so far as they wanted to avoid any conflation.
hn_acc1 2y ago
> These pastors are reciting dogma instead of learning. But isn't that more or less the point? I was raised in that tradition (evangelical) and the more you dig, the more you find the "simple stuff" isn't quite so 100% true or reliable, has a pretty convoluted history, etc.. Which makes you wonder and doubt and question, and for me, after seeing what N.A. evangelicalism is promoting these days, de-convert. And I know I'm not the only one who followed that path - many who wanted "a deeper understanding of it all" ended up deconverting because the "truths" they were taught weren't quite so true after all. By NOT teaching the historical details and just telling pastors the "high school summary" at seminary (in the same way that high school students aren't taught full quantum mechanics, but still study the basic theories of atoms, electrons, orbitals, ...), they can 100% believe and probably be more effective. If they 100% believe you're going to hell, they will work very hard to save you. If they're "well, the Bible borrowed this from these 3 other religions and integrated it over time and the current theories are different from what they were 30 years ago", they might not be as fervent and also be less convincing if they admit their doubts to you. Which might also cause you to question, study more, deconvert, etc. And there is a huge percentage of people who WANT concrete yes/no hard-line answers to difficult questions so they can stop thinking about it.

bjourne 2y ago

That Christmas is a Christianized version of Saturnalia is a myth: https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/is-christmas-a-pagan-rip-off https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/is-christmas-a-pagan-r...

sethammons 2y ago
Interesting read. I'm not convinced. It predicates it's assertion on the idea that profits die on the same day they were conceived or born. That is a very unconvincing start. Even if Jesus was born on Christmas, it is undeniable that having a similar dated holiday to co-opt is a marketing win. Other overlaps exist with stories thousands of years older, including virgin births, death and resurrection, and dying for humanity.
- wahern 2y ago
  It's easier to understand the evidence when you appreciate that most early Christians for the first few centuries were semitic peoples (Jews, Syrians), Greeks, Copts and Berbers in the Levant and North Africa. Even the church in Rome used Greek, not Latin, for its liturgy until the 3rd century. There are multiple historical sources mentioning a March annunciation (i.e. conception) and December/January nativity[1] in the 2nd century, well over a century, if not two centuries, before Christianity was adopted by a significant number of Romans proper. Alexandria and Antioch were far more influential centers of Christian theology and scholarship, where Jewish (and related?) and Coptic calendars were the point of reference. Moreover, during this time Christian theologians were adamant about not mixing pagan Greek and Roman practices with Christian practices. And let's not forget the persecutions. The Roman calendar and the dates of its festivals were largely irrelevant to them in terms of establishing mythological dates or community festivals. And the nativity just wasn't a very important date--and never important enough to be an origin for other dates--to Christians until much later, long after a rough consensus on dates had been established. Theologically the annunciation (conception of Christ) was vastly more important, second only to easter. There's significant substantive evidence for these dates being established independent of the Roman festival, based on transparent and consistent rationales. The only real evidence for the date being chosen because of the Roman festival is basically a curious coincidence that stands out as significant from a Western European cultural perspective, rooted in a Roman centric historical narrative, by those living many centuries later. The coincidence feels particularly strong and intuitive in modern times, where Christmas is seemingly synonymous with Christianity. Plus, much of the modern narrative regarding the origins of Christmas arises from attempts by Protestantism to delegitimize Roman Catholicism, without appreciating that during this time the church in Rome wasn't nearly as preeminent as they would become [long] after Constantine. The conception of Catholicism as a religion dictated by clergy in Rome who could successfully scheme to set a date for Christmas comes largely from the Middle Ages, after the Great Schism with Constantinople, when Rome no longer had to justify itself to any of the other early Christian churches. This image was later reinforced and refined by Protestantism literally attempting to paint the Catholic church as a malevolently scheming institution. Now, the spring dates for the annunciation and death of Christ... you could easily trace it back to pagan origins, but rooted in semitic culture, not Roman or even Greek. The sources spell this out for you; no need to connect the dots. [1] In some instances the dates were mentioned alongside alternative opinions that were significantly different (some web articles seem to mention only these non-concordant alternatives), but that's beside the point. The point is that the relevant dates were rooted at a time when most Christians couldn't care less about the Roman festival, except in so far as they wanted to avoid any conflation.

hn_acc1 2y ago

> These pastors are reciting dogma instead of learning. But isn't that more or less the point? I was raised in that tradition (evangelical) and the more you dig, the more you find the "simple stuff" isn't quite so 100% true or reliable, has a pretty convoluted history, etc.. Which makes you wonder and doubt and question, and for me, after seeing what N.A. evangelicalism is promoting these days, de-convert. And I know I'm not the only one who followed that path - many who wanted "a deeper understanding of it all" ended up deconverting because the "truths" they were taught weren't quite so true after all. By NOT teaching the historical details and just telling pastors the "high school summary" at seminary (in the same way that high school students aren't taught full quantum mechanics, but still study the basic theories of atoms, electrons, orbitals, ...), they can 100% believe and probably be more effective. If they 100% believe you're going to hell, they will work very hard to save you. If they're "well, the Bible borrowed this from these 3 other religions and integrated it over time and the current theories are different from what they were 30 years ago", they might not be as fervent and also be less convincing if they admit their doubts to you. Which might also cause you to question, study more, deconvert, etc. And there is a huge percentage of people who WANT concrete yes/no hard-line answers to difficult questions so they can stop thinking about it.