On Constantine and Western ethnocentrism

https://blog.extraface.com/2024/08/07/im8314w1

Recently, I posted a meme that began a discussion concerning Constantine I and the silliness of the argument that is made about how Constantine I somehow stole the Church. This was in spite of the fact that the Church has successfully resisted imperial attempts to excise it for 2 1/2 centuries. As one person who responded commented, the claim is made in spite of the fact that the emperors following Constantine I were against the doctrinal statements of the fathers in the Council of Nicea and in spite of the fact that Christianity was not declared the religion of the Empire for around 60 years after Constantine I. What Constantine I did were two things, with which one would think most modern Christians would agree. The first was the Edict of Toleration, which not only allowed for the practice of Christianity, but of multiple other religions. It was a very early form of freedom of religion. The second was the Edict of Milan, which fully legalized Christianity. What he did not do was make Christianity the religion of the Empire, though Constantine I was personally a Christian. But, I have been summarizing part of someone else’s blog post, so let me quote him more directly, and point you to his article. I recommend you read it before you continue to read this post.

https://transculturalexchange.org/dp2tnlucb As I noted in this article St Constantine, Scapegoat of the West | Notes from underground: There are at least two historical phenomena that need to be examined. One is the question of St Constantine himself, and his alleged legacy, in the 4th-7th centuries. The other is the scapegoating of Constantine in Western culture in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries.

https://aiohealthpro.com/6rdc3fjoc Beginning in the 19th century among various of the “scholars” in Germany and Great Britain, and certainly among conservative Christians in Protestant America, a set of conclusions began to be made that had little to do with history, and much to do with a strong dislike of Christianity, in the case of the secularists, and of certain types of Christianity, in the case of various American non-liturgical groups. Constantine was but one of the targets of their ire. The interesting part that author of the article above points out is that several of those conclusions were based on an unmitigated ethnocentrism that often saw either Great Britain or northern Europe as the definitional basis of Christianity. The fact that Christianity had begun in the Middle East and was present over most of the world was either ignored or credited to the missionary activities of the British empires and some of the other northern Europeans. In the case of various non-liturgical Christian groups, there was a willingness to believe and spread false stories in order to show just how corrupt liturgical churches are.

https://homeupgradespecialist.com/7crw5go Have you heard that the Christian use of the word Easter comes from the spring rites of a goddess named Eostre? You probably have, as that is common mythology in English-speaking countries. There is only one major problem. The word Easter is not used in most of Christianity and never has been. In Spanish, it is Pascua. In Greek, it is Pascha. In French, it is Pâques. In Danish, it is Påsque. In Irish, it is Cásca (a near-sounding analog to Pascha). In Azerbaijani, it is Pasxa. In Russian, it is Pacxa. All of those are words that come from the Hebrew Pesach, which we translate as Passover. But, because the word Easter is used in English and Ostern in German, all of Christianity has been charged with observing the spring rites of some northern European goddess. Worse, that goddess is named in only one passage in a history written by the Venerable Bede in the very late 600’s and early 700’s. But, in the late 19th century, at the height of the British Empire with Germany occupying a few areas of Africa, English and German scholars amazingly saw Christianity as though it were a northern European / British product. In reality, had you asked them, they would have recognized that Christianity began in the Middle East, but they would have seen it as perfectioned in the Reformation (Germany and Luther) and civilized by the British. Why else would one of the major cultural icon-hymns of the British be “Jerusalem,” the hymn of the Empire? Have you read its words?

And did those feet in ancient time,
Walk upon England’s mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On England’s pleasant pastures seen!

https://sugandhmalhotra.com/2024/08/07/4u0wya0a And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

https://foster2forever.com/2024/08/8vunpnewaxj.html

Catch the carefully worded question that implies that Jesus came to England. Catch also that to the Anglo-Saxons was given the destiny to build Jerusalem. While the British of the 19th century saw the building of Jerusalem in their spread of Christianity via the expansions of the British Empire, the Americans also adopted the same thinking in their doctrines of Manifest Destiny and today’s modern analog, American Exceptionalism. With that built-in ethnocentrism, it is no surprise that the secularists of the late 19th century would look only at the wording used in England (and Germany) in order to conclude that the Christian Passover was only a renamed pagan feast. No other parts of Christianity mattered.

Ordering Xanax But, the same thing happened with Christmas. Have you ever heard that Christmas is simply the winter solstice feast of the Roman Empire taken over by Christians? That idea is part and parcel of that same late 19th-century movement that tended to discredit Christianity. But, oddly enough, this one began much earlier than the 19th century. Let me refer you to a study by the University of Chicago, not a conservative Christian university, http://bit.ly/2sXE64U. It began with the Anabaptist Reformers, who wished to discredit Christmas as simply being a wrong-headed Catholic false feast. The American Puritans had laws that forbade the celebration of Christmas in the New England colonies. Despite the great Calvinist learning, they lacked a good timeline of history. Remember that much learning had been lost in the Middle Ages and that the Islamic invasions had cut Christians off from the Middle East. Here is the problem. The traditional claim is that Christmas took over from the Feast of the Sol Invictus. But, if you do an Internet search and look at very reliable sources, you will find that this solstice feast did not exist until 274 AD. On 25 December 274 AD the Roman emperor Aurelian made it an official cult alongside the traditional Roman cults. The only problem is that Hippolytus was claiming that he had calculated Christ’s birth to 25 December by the late 100s while Clement of Alexandria was claiming 06 January around the same time. In 221, Julius Africanus claims that Jesus was conceived on 25 March, which would make his birth around 25 December. Frankly, most Christians ended up celebrating the Birth/Theophany on 06 January. But, the tradition of 25 December existed decades before the Feast of Sol Invictus. Eventually, 25 December did become celebrated as the Feast, and the days between 25 December and 06 January became the Twelve Days of Christmas. The point is that Christianity did not take over a pagan feast. In this case, it was not a case of ethnocentrism, but a willingness to believe and spread the worst about liturgical churches. Thus, our holy days are supposedly based on pagan roots.

https://udaan.org/4kre0ab1c.php I will stop here, as I could continue to give quite a few good examples, from red eggs during Pascha to the honor given to Mary. However, the point that began with the other post is to be careful to think logically and to check out supposed historical information that you may receive. Think it through. As with the meme from the other day, does it make sense that after 2 1/2 centuries of resistance the Church would simply hand over the reins to Constantine I? If only a couple of countries use Easter (or Ostern), does it make sense that all the rest of Christianity, which uses a different word, simply took over a pagan holiday? This is particularly true since one can read that the Early Christians observed Pascha in relation to Passover, and still somewhat do. Evaluate claims logically. Do your historical research from several reliable sites from different philosophical backgrounds. Frankly, mostly a simple logical evaluation will often show you the problem with some of the myths that are believed and passed on to others.

Think, people, think!