Christianity sets a date for the end of the world--effects?

If the vast majority of the theologians have adopted the millenerian idea as a central tenet, let's say fixing the date at 1,000 years after the death of Christ, then the effect will be literally shattering. Those Christian sects that have a "it will happen but who knows when" theology will gain in strength and adherents, but how many sects like that would there be. You might see groups like the Cathars gain strength. Assuming this is not a theological divide between east and west both churches take a hit. At best you have Christianity that is not around a central strong church with a not yet unbridgeable east/west divide in 1,032 AD but a religion with numerous sects, all scrambling to find their own "correct" doctrine (much like the proliferation of Protestant sects during the Reformation and to today). At worst you have adherents drop away from Christianity back to older religions which are still there on the fringes or underground. A multiply divided Christian world is certainly less able to resist Islam militarily or intellectually than OTL. Just as rulers OTL would be converted and drag the population along with them, you could see rulers leave Christianity for Islam (or even Judaism), or a revival of older Pagan religions (especially in areas with remaining adherents or recent conversions). You could see a significant divergence among "Christian" sects ITTL, ending up with many more than OTL and a greater divergence in theology than OTL. This could mean more devastating religious wars, although given the fracturing none as bad as some of the ones OTL.
 
I seem to recall their being a biblical reference to "no one including the Son knowing the day or the hour".

Yep, addressed above as to why this wouldn't be a problem for these theologians promoting this idea which becomes doctrine.

You're overlooking a few things here. Firstly all of Christianity must agree on this central tenant for this to be plausible. Look at the contentious nature of early Christendom and the Councils of the early Church, literal blood on the floor over doctrine. The nature of the divinity of Jesus was a matter of intense debate for centuries. Even if the early Church picked up on this doctrine of "Jesus will return after a thousand years" you'd have people who disagreed with it, or would say the dating system is incorrect, or that its not a human thousand years. No religion is a monolithic bloc, so one failed prophecy, even if it was central to early Christian doctrine, isn't going to break the faith.

Secondly, even if it caused a serious schism in theology, the worst you get is a crisis of faith in whichever major church adopted this, or they rewrite the theology to accommodate that point, or they get trounced by an opposing theological school which disagrees with them. That's assuming it doesn't take place well before the coming of the prophecy too.

We're going to assume this belief is floating around in the early centuries, and yet is agreed is upon at one of the major church councils. It doesn't even need to be agreed upon by all churches, just we'll say this becomes part of what is adopted by the time of the Council of Chalcedon. It doesn't need to be an exact AH parallel of OTL's Council of Chalcedon, but I think for this scenario, we need to have the ecumenical councils of the 4th and 5th centuries as in OTL, and one of the doctrines taught is that in 1033 AD, Christ will return to Earth. And we need this branch of Christianity to be adopted in the West, if not as well in the East.

You are right in that this would be challenged. But we'll assume that the school which holds the upper hand, so to speak, is that which is in control of church (and by extension secular) institutions. I can already see issues with saying "a thousand years after Jesus's death". The date of the crucifixion is a mess--some say 30 AD, I'm just saying 33 AD because that's what I learned growing up (of course I learned another traditional date). The Easter controversy would have to play into this too, since that's how you'd compute the date of Jesus's ascension and thus the date he'd return. But I think my point is to put this sense of "one day, Jesus will return, and we know it'll be in a thousand years." They can speculate on the exact date, leaving people to hesitate as which the exact date actually is.

OTL had plenty of panic around this time (including in 1033 itself), so I suppose we're just amplifying this by having it be part of official doctrine.

Well, sure ... but relatively speaking it was pretty mainstream at least doing the first century, and a significant minority the next couple of centuries, up to somewhere around the time of Nicaea

Yeah, but when Jesus didn't return in a generation or two (based on Matthew 24), the early church didn't fragment. So I suppose I'm postulating that once in the early-mid 2nd century, once everyone knows Jesus will not return in the lifetime of his followers (since he didn't), there will be interpretations, and we add a bunch of ideas and discussions together and produce the idea that Jesus will return a thousand years after he ascended to heaven.

If the vast majority of the theologians have adopted the millenerian idea as a central tenet, let's say fixing the date at 1,000 years after the death of Christ, then the effect will be literally shattering. Those Christian sects that have a "it will happen but who knows when" theology will gain in strength and adherents, but how many sects like that would there be. You might see groups like the Cathars gain strength. Assuming this is not a theological divide between east and west both churches take a hit. At best you have Christianity that is not around a central strong church with a not yet unbridgeable east/west divide in 1,032 AD but a religion with numerous sects, all scrambling to find their own "correct" doctrine (much like the proliferation of Protestant sects during the Reformation and to today). At worst you have adherents drop away from Christianity back to older religions which are still there on the fringes or underground. A multiply divided Christian world is certainly less able to resist Islam militarily or intellectually than OTL. Just as rulers OTL would be converted and drag the population along with them, you could see rulers leave Christianity for Islam (or even Judaism), or a revival of older Pagan religions (especially in areas with remaining adherents or recent conversions). You could see a significant divergence among "Christian" sects ITTL, ending up with many more than OTL and a greater divergence in theology than OTL. This could mean more devastating religious wars, although given the fracturing none as bad as some of the ones OTL.

As mentioned above, there will be some sects of that nature, they just won't be the mainstream until 1033 comes and every date within 1033 is just another day without the Apocalypse.

Whatever happens with the Jews will be interesting but I have a feeling could end very unfortunately. Especially if in 1032/early 1033 we get a "let's prepare the way for Jesus's return by making sure his murderers are gone" sort of movement.
 
Top