There are a plethora of tantalizing clues that are open to many interesting interpretations. To think that early Christianity was unaffected by the practices and even the beliefs of ... o say ...Mithraism, the Isis Cult, Roman gods and goddesses, Greek myths, Judaism, etc. would just be plain stupid.
After all, Pope Benedict shares a title ... Pontifex Maximus ... with Julius Caesar who once held the job. None of this denigrates Christianity or weakens it. Protestants in the Calvinist line would love to believe that their sects are untainted by the Romans or Greeks, even while reading St. Augustine. Good luck with that!
Once St. Paul decided that one need not become Jewish before becoming Christian and decided to "market" Christianity to the Hellenistic and then the Roman World, who can say with certainty exactly how wildly differing groups of converts actually practiced the faith or what actually went on with their prayers and ceremonies in their churches? It was a good while ago!
After Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome, things may be a bit clearer because of somewhat improved record-keeping, or at least more consistent record-fudging. Though one always wonders just how many "pagan" priests just converted ... themselves and their temples to the new official faith. In like fashion, many a Roman Catholic priest became an "Anglican," ... and now vice-versa!
“After Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome,...”
And yet you want to be taken seriously? Who taught you that falsehood?
“After Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome,...”
And yet you want to be taken seriously? Who taught you that falsehood?
Pagan priests NEVER just converted to Catholicism. That is a Protestant thing. ONLY a bishop can give holy orders for priesthood. The record keeping was just fine prior to Constantine - that is why we have the bible today along with many other non-biblical documents and papal letters.
Why not make it up? Because if one studies the Ante-Nicene Fathers and reads Acts and the Epistles in light of them, one knows the history of the early Church. Start with St. Ignatius of Antioch (the third bishop of Antioch who knew the Apostles personally) and the martyrdom of Polycarp.
And you’ve fallen into (or for) making up stuff even when contrary facts are known: Constantine didn’t make Christianity the state religion of Rome, just made it legal (and gave it a boost up by having a newly built Christian city — in the sense it had lots of churches and no pagan temples — made the new capital). The Empire didn’t become formally a Christian state until decrees of Theodosius I in 380.
Quite frankly, I’ve always regarded the horror among some protestants of the idea that the Church might have blotted out a pagan feast by scheduling a Christian one opposite it — as was most assuredly done in the West with All Saints — or “baptized” a pagan custom — as was done in the East with the offering of wheat as a memorial for the dead — as a sort of new Judaizing heresy. Contrariwise, we Orthodox sing about Christ delivering us from the delusion of idols down to the present day.
Actually, if anyone wants to object to Greek elements in Christianity, they’ve got a big problem: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. . .” The Holy Apostle John, the Disciple whom Jesus loved, when he sat down to give his account of who Jesus is, didn’t stick to Jewish sources. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, he spoke of Christ as the Divine Logos, “baptizing” a notion from pagan neoplatonism.
I disagree. Do you recall something about two masters, how about lukewarm water?
Half pagan/satanic isn't that bad? C'mon!!!
... an event that happened only in fictional "histories".