1. Standard memberDavid C
    Flamenco Sketches
    Spain, in spirit
    Joined
    09 Sep '04
    Moves
    59422
    26 Oct '05 07:07
    What did the Romans fear? Anyone have any insight to share? The Wiki article is interesting indeed. I especially like the Celtic tradition of dating Easter to the vernal equinox.
  2. Meddling with things
    Joined
    04 Aug '04
    Moves
    58590
    26 Oct '05 07:39
    Originally posted by David C
    What did the Romans fear? Anyone have any insight to share? The Wiki article is interesting indeed. I especially like the Celtic tradition of dating Easter to the vernal equinox.
    I suspect it was political. The Celtic church was competing with Rome in converting the peoples of central Germany.
  3. England
    Joined
    15 Nov '03
    Moves
    33497
    26 Oct '05 09:54
    seem to recall its also conected with the passover and to my knowledge they are at the time, but willing to learn if increct.
  4. Standard memberDavid C
    Flamenco Sketches
    Spain, in spirit
    Joined
    09 Sep '04
    Moves
    59422
    26 Oct '05 10:40
    Originally posted by catfoodtim
    my understanding would be very limited... but aren't most (if not all) christian festivals purloined from older religions too?
    Yes, xtianity is a highly syncretic religion...despite the objections of many in this forum to that characterization. From what I have read of this fledgling version of christianity in the ancient British Isles that was snuffed out by Rome, their beliefs were of a much more esoteric nature. The christ-figure was seen as a fertility symbol and was often depicted with an erect phallus (a la Osiris). Since there appears to be specualtion that this brand of xtianity came to the Isles before Nicea, I was hoping someone might shed some additional light on the issue.
  5. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    26 Oct '05 14:43
    Originally posted by catfoodtim
    The Roman brand of christianity was the original christian faith,
    Nope.

    Christainity began as a Jewish cult in a region rule by Rome, but resistant to the culture of Rome. Rome itself, as it brought people in from all over the empire, became the breeding ground for syncretisms of many sorts. This influx of peoples and ideas transformed Roman culture and institutions. The "orthodox" form of Christianity that emerged when it became the official religion of the empire was centered neither in its Jewish origins, nor in the diversity of Rome itself, but in Asia Minor, Greece, and Egypt.
  6. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    26 Oct '05 16:48
    Originally posted by catfoodtim
    fine, fine. I concur.

    But this thread isn't about the origins of christianity.

    For the celts converted to christianity the roman brand they were fed was the original version.

    Which I think was my point.
    It took centuries for the Roman Church to solidify its doctrines into a coherent whole, and centuries more to stamp out the vestiges of alternative practices--all of which are of greater antiquity. Celtic Christianity is more pure, and more true to the teachings of the first xtians than anything in Rome, itself more pure and true to the original than anything spawned by the 500 year Protestant Revolt. Most true xtians today practice a religion that the majority labels pagan.
  7. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    26 Oct '05 18:032 edits
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    It took centuries for the Roman Church to solidify its doctrines into a coherent whole, and centuries more to stamp out the vestiges of alternative practices--all of which are of greater antiquity. Celtic Christianity is more pure, and more true to the teachings of the first xtians than anything in Rome, itself more pure and true to the original than anythin ...[text shortened]... ar Protestant Revolt. Most true xtians today practice a religion that the majority labels pagan.
    It took centuries for the Roman Church to solidify its doctrines into a coherent whole...

    For example (from the Orthodox point of view), the Great Schism of 1054, when Rome separated from the Orthodox Churches, over (1) the filioque (the addition, in the West, of the words “and the son” to the third article of the Nicene Creed), and (2) the authority of the patriarch of Rome, vis-à-vis the other patriarchates and the ecumenical councils, to insist on such a creedal change. Orthodox writers sometimes refer to this as “the first reformation.”

    I recall reading somewhere that Celtic Christianity was closer to the Orthodox tradition of the East. But Celtic Christianity lost out to the Roman form at the Synod of Whitby in 664. Of course at this time, there was no RCC separate from Orthodoxy.

    St. John Chrysostom (347 – 406 CE), Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote: “The British Isles which are beyond the sea, and which lie in the ocean, have received virtue of the Word. Churches are there found and altars erected ... Though thou shouldst go to the ocean, to the British Isles, there though shouldst hear all men everywhere discoursing matters out of the scriptures, with another voice indeed, but not another faith, with a different tongue, but the same judgement.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity; wikipedia discusses older traditions about how Christianity came to Britain, and only gives passing mention to possible correspondences with the Eastern churches.]
Back to Top