what is the latest POD for Europe to be majority pagan

Eh... You didn't understand my point. Paul is the most important in one instrumental thing in further evolution of Christianity. It is the break with the Judaism and abaddoning the Law, so making it interesting for the Gentiles, instead of just another messianic jewish sect.

Julian's reforms needed an ASB to succes, or at least a totalitarian state (in a real soviet style) to impose them on the population. If not Constantine so it would have been some other emperor, who would realize that it was important for the Empire to had support in the biggest religion. The cult of Isis, mithraism, etc were just novelties, fashions, no true rivals to Christianity. They lacked cohherent doctrines, organizaton, church structures, universal appealing, less prozelyting, etc.
But the christian faith was about 10 percent of the empire's population duriang constantine's time.
my opinion from what i could take from my sources is that without constantine's sincere belief christianity would never have spread as far.
i mean, he basically strip mined most temples to build constantinople, after all.
edit: your post is talking about julian, not constantine, i'm dumb, sorry.
 
Christianity could have easily been kneecapped before Constantine. The Cult of Isis and especially Manicheanism regularly had converts from Christianity, Christians were persecuted pretty much everywhere they went, and Christianity very nearly became a Jewish-only religion back before Paul even converted. There's reasons why people say Christianity's survival was perhaps only due to divine intervention.
 

Toraach

Banned
Christianity could have easily been kneecapped before Constantine. The Cult of Isis and especially Manicheanism regularly had converts from Christianity, Christians were persecuted pretty much everywhere they went, and Christianity very nearly became a Jewish-only religion back before Paul even converted. There's reasons why people say Christianity's survival was perhaps only due to divine intervention.
Tell me please. When did Paul convert? And how long before Constantine was it?

The cult of Isis (whatever this really was) and Manichenism had more followers abadoning it for Christianity than in the other way. Manichenism was too strange, too strict and too radical to have that universal appeal of Christianity.
 
Also the Christianity offered a strong "personal" conection to God, instead of sacrificies and rituals of pagan public religion. It was also a reason why various mysteries were popular at that time, or gnostic sects.

I think you're missing something here - the "sacrifices and rituals" of Hellenistic religion (and Hellenstic religion was far more than that) were very popular so long as the state remained powerful and capable of protecting them. People turned to Christianity and other contemporary religious movements because they provided a sense of community and safety in uncertain times. Christianity took care of it's own and offered a support network the mid to late Empire simply couldn't.

Christianity also was apealing for lower classes, women, slaves, poor people. They weren't treaten by early Christians as worse element, as despicables. The unique characteristic of Christianity was its organization, since middle 2nd century Christian communities were lead by bishops with strong power, they were only onews who ruled in religious matters. Doctrine was also coherent, relativly simple, not very demanding, so it was actractive. There need to be something which caused this strong growth.

Same reasons Isis, Cybele, and a hundred other movements were successful among people treated as second class citizens. Christianity wasn't magically more coherent or obvious. To be honest the controversies and heresies in Christianity are not logical at all - so God is himself but also this other guy and they both are omnipresent but then one guy sacrificed himself to himself so we could all be free from sin and sin is an intrisic quality of humanity? I'm not trying to speak I'll of Christian doctrine but the sheer number of misinterpretations and reinterpretations speaks volumes in my opinion to how confusing the message can be.

they weren't real rivals, but just as I described "novelties" with limited followings, and a lack of coherent, universally apealing doctrine

Manichaeism, the cult of Isis, and many other religions would disagree. Where are you getting your numbers?

is a diffrent situation. The codification/redaction of existing holy texts, and uniformisation of existing doctrine versus creating a totally new stuff, which was needed for Julian's religion.

Late Hellenism wasn't an intellectual void waiting to be filled by Christianity. It was it's own vibrant and fascinating philosophical and religious tradition that was ultimately stamped our by a more successful competitor. Julian does seem to be a bit late in the game for a sea change back to some new paganism - but I think he might have been able to relegate Christianity to a strong minority religion much like Buddhism in China.

He certainly wouldn't have had to invent anything - merely draw on the huge number of texts already available to him.

You are right in that we don't know much about the evolution of Zoroastrianism. But also it is important that this religion had already existed before the Sassanians, yet not in uninformed form, intervined with the State. Just like Christianity existed had existed before the formation of the State Church of the Roman Empire, with Emperors who organized councils and decided on doctrinal matters. The Avestan Language is much older than the Sassanians, so holy texts had to existed way before, but of course probably in many diffrent versions.

We don't know much about the formation of Zoroastrianism as a state cult? News to me. Time to throw out the encyclopedia iranica and all the sources used to create it, I guess. :p

I think you're letting a personal bias towards Christianity cloud your assessment. Yes, it was an appealing faith with a powerful message that did win historically, but nothing is inevitable and the idea that you'd have to kill it with Paul strains credulity and ignores how many other otherwise vital religions like Manichaeism were ultimately largely forgotten despite their mass appeal.

Or we just go with survivorship bias and say that because Manichaeism was wiped out in the Mediterranean it was "weird."
 
The latest POD for this? I think that St Paul got a stroke on a way to Damascus, or got into a brawl with roman soldiers in Jerusalem even earlier and was killed in this brawl. Later things were settled in my opinnion.

Seriously? Back when Christianity was a super-minor cult was when Europe was doomed to be Christian? This is a statement so absurd that I'm wondering whether you're being serious.
 
Tell me please. When did Paul convert? And how long before Constantine was it?

The cult of Isis (whatever this really was) and Manichenism had more followers abadoning it for Christianity than in the other way. Manichenism was too strange, too strict and too radical to have that universal appeal of Christianity.
Do you know?

[Citation Needed]. Also, don't forget that Manicheanism has spread from Spain to China, so don't pretend like it's a solely Mediterranean religion.
 

Toraach

Banned
Late Hellenism wasn't an intellectual void waiting to be filled by Christianity. It was it's own vibrant and fascinating philosophical and religious tradition that was ultimately stamped our by a more successful competitor. Julian does seem to be a bit late in the game for a sea change back to some new paganism - but I think he might have been able to relegate Christianity to a strong minority religion much like Buddhism in China.
There is a problem. Making those fascinating philosophical traditions into relativly simple doctrine understanble by common folk. When those theological disputes among Christians usually stayed just for theologians and their lenghtly texts, yet there was a simple doctrine which common folk could follow (before you accuse me of forgetting Arianism and other stuff like that, I know about them, but they are from 4th century, I know also about a problem in Africa what to do with broken victims of prosecutions in 3rd century).

For the Cult of Isis, I mean that it was not that organized and riggid as Christianity was, but just a yet another element of the roman religious einvorment.

You accused me of being biased, I could accuse you for the same, seeing that you wrote a story called "To Ourselves, to New Paganism". So we are equal in that.

Comparing Christianity and Zoroastrianism, it is pretty obvioius that we have more sources about the first one. Also I mean mostly Zoroastianizm under the Parthians and before.

And yes I regard Manichaeism as weird with their gnostic dualism and how they despise the material world.
 

Toraach

Banned
Do you know?

[Citation Needed]. Also, don't forget that Manicheanism has spread from Spain to China, so don't pretend like it's a solely Mediterranean religion.
Ehh.

I asked you about this date, because you wrote about Christianity being a exclusivly jewish religion before Paul. So I asked that question, to show you that this period was very short, because Paul converted very early.
 
Ehh.

I asked you about this date, because you wrote about Christianity being a exclusivly jewish religion before Paul. So I asked that question, to show you that this period was very short, because Paul converted very early.
Well, don't forget that St. James wanted to have an exclusively Jewish leaning church, and even St. Peter was on board with it for a while. All Paul need to do is to loose the debate and Christianity would be only for Jews.
 
You accused me of being biased, I could accuse you for the same, seeing that you wrote a story called "To Ourselves, to New Paganism". So we are equal in that

I mean the name is a vague reference to James Joyce, and the content actually could be said to support your claim since I butterfly Christianity pre-Paul. I wasn't interested in strangling Christianity say, post-Constantine, which seems difficult and not nearly as interesting.

Making those fascinating philosophical traditions into relativly simple doctrine understanble by common folk.

Given that it was the rural peasants who remained "pagan" the longest, I don't know if that's really fair. ;)

And yes I regard Manichaeism as weird with their gnostic dualism and how they despise the material world.

Plenty of early Christians despised the material world. We have countless accounts of people going into the desert to live in poverty, starving themselves, abstaining from sex, etc.

Sounds pretty weird to the average second century Hellenized Roman, I think.
 

Toraach

Banned
I mean the name is a vague reference to James Joyce, and the content actually could be said to support your claim since I butterfly Christianity pre-Paul. I wasn't interested in strangling Christianity say, post-Constantine, which seems difficult and not nearly as interesting.



Given that it was the rural peasants who remained "pagan" the longest, I don't know if that's really fair. ;)



Plenty of early Christians despised the material world. We have countless accounts of people going into the desert to live in poverty, starving themselves, abstaining from sex, etc.

Sounds pretty weird to the average second century Hellenized Roman, I think.
I'm sorry. I wrongly wrote my sentence. I mean something like that you are writing a story about triumphant paganism, and probably you are interesting in this side, and I'm interesting in other side more. So I mean something like that you are more biased in favour of one side, and I'm biased into other.

In my country common peasantry also remained pagan for long time. Yet I understand appealing to comon folk, as something which could be understand by them, rather a simple stuff, if they live close to "civilization", not in remote villages lost among woodlands as in my country. Those hardcores never contained the maiority and luckily for Christianity their strict doctrine didn't became dominant.

Well, don't forget that St. James wanted to have an exclusively Jewish leaning church, and even St. Peter was on board with it for a while. All Paul need to do is to loose the debate and Christianity would be only for Jews.
No I don't forget about him. I know also that judeo-christian Church in Jerusalem existed to the Siege of Jerusalem by Titus. Also there is decatable if judeo-christian groups of later period were direct descendatns of those early judeo-christians. I can imagine that Paul would have just ignored their decision and gone his own way.
 
I'm sorry. I wrongly wrote my sentence. I mean something like that you are writing a story about triumphant paganism, and probably you are interesting in this side, and I'm interesting in other side more. So I mean something like that you are more biased in favour of one side, and I'm biased into other.

I still think that's a bit unfair, but I admit so too was saying you're biased. I just think you should give the pre-Christian religious beliefs of the Mediterranean more credit.
 
No I don't forget about him. I know also that judeo-christian Church in Jerusalem existed to the Siege of Jerusalem by Titus. Also there is decatable if judeo-christian groups of later period were direct descendatns of those early judeo-christians. I can imagine that Paul would have just ignored their decision and gone his own way.
And then faded into obscurity.
 
Top