Are saints within Christianity adopted from polytheism?

Are saints within Christianity adopted from polytheism? Different saints have different domains just like pagan gods, cities have patron saints just like Athens had Athena as their patron goddess, and there are also festivals associated with saints just like there were festivals associated with gods in antiquity. Was this view of saints always present in Judaism or did Christians living in a polytheistic environment adopt this into their own religion?

Is this an accepted view by historian and if not why?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 6 months ago
    Ο Σολιταίρ

    The practice of worshiping saints is an innovation adopted from paganism, but also arises from the sinful human psyche, paganism or otherwise.
    People want to game the system.
    They want to, in their mind, make sure their prayers will definitely work.
    So, they invent divine beings who "specialize" in certain realms. And their auspices guarantee (or so the worshiper thinks) the efficacy of a prayer which is in the domain of the specific being.
    There is no logical reason for a Christian to believe in "patron" saints. All kinds of sophistry might lead you to believe that the saints in heaven pray for the saints on earth, fine. But the idea that some are more "powerful" than others belies the actual idolatrous nature of the belief itself.

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    It is true for some saints but not others. There are saints that are pagan gods just rebranded.

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's a myth that was perpetuated by 19th century Protestant American pseudo-historians. It's the Graham Hanwiener tier of Christian history. Secular modernists parrot the myths because they're too lazy to read real history and like being able to dismiss Christianity as historically bankrupt.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      So do you have an explanation of how these practices came about if they weren't originally present in Judaism?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Christianity is a new covenant. It's not the same religion.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          I understand it's not the same religion but Christianity came from Judaism, or is a continuation of Judaism, however you view it. The question is if this view of saints wasn't present in Judaism before the first century where did it come from?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >this view of saints wasn't present in Judaism before the first century
            sounds like you need to look into the history of second temple judaism

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Can you actually tell me something instead of "just look into it bro"

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your question has a poor foundation. You incorrectly presume that religious practice cannot organically form, but must be adopted from a prior source. That's not how human culture works. Asking for intercession from the saints is inherently connected to veneration of said saints, and pagans absolutely despised early Christians for being cannibalistic weirdos who carried around dead bones. This isn't perfect evidence of praying to saints in the early church, but it's orders of magnitude better than the close to zero evidence for any of the pagan accusations.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You incorrectly presume that religious practice cannot organically form, but must be adopted from a prior source
            That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if religion A comes into contact with religion B, and then religion A starts a practice very similar to a practice in religion B, it's safe to assume it was adopted or inspired from religion B

            >Asking for intercession from the saints is inherently connected to veneration of said saints
            Yes just like how pagans ask for intercession of heroes and keep relics of heroes

            >and pagans absolutely despised early Christians for being cannibalistic weirdos who carried around dead bones
            This is one of the few differences. Pagan hero relics were just objects while Christian saint relics also included their bones

            People who bring up “saint worship” just don’t understand how it works. You don’t worship the saints, you ask them to pray to God on your behalf

            I understand there's a theological difference but practically there isn't, or only very little.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is what papists do, my friend.

            >not a single source cited in this entire thread
            You are parroting 19th century propaganda.

            Not all comparisons between modern Roman Catholic doctrine and European polytheism are parrots of a fairly recent polemic. The Catholic apologetic here tends to be threefold: the first is to misunderstand paganism, the second is to misrepresent the early Church, usually drawing from II Nicaea's florilegium, and the third is to reduce all objectors to Pentecostal Protestants or some absurd caricature wherein all criticisms of the pope are the same as Jack Chick's. You haven't cited sources either, because the cult of images, relics and saints prior to the 4th century mass-conversion of pagans following the Edict of Milan is almost completely nonexistent. It is only after a significant portion of time, the 7th century mainly, that we see many of the Roman practices involved in worship at all.

            Eusebius, a church historian in the 4th century, receives a request for an ikon from the Empress, here's his response:
            > You also wrote me concerning some supposed image of Christ, which image you wished me to send you. Now what kind of thing is this that you call the image of Christ? I do not know what impelled you to request that an image of Our Saviour should be delineated. [. . .] How can one paint an image of so wondrous and unattainable a form—if the term ‘form’ is at all applicable to the divine and spiritual essence—unless, like the unbelieving pagans, one is to represent things that bear no possible resemblance to anything. . . ? For they, too, make such idols when they wish to mould the likeness of what they consider to be a god or, as they might say, one of the heroes or anything else of the kind, yet are unable even to approach a resemblance, and so delineate and represent some strange human shapes. Surely, even you will agree that such practices are not lawful for us.
            Good Eusebius, a scholar of the Church and himself a presbyter, had never heard of your "Apostolic Traditions" here. How strange.

          • 6 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            No one actually reads Church History prior to Augustine.
            It's convenient that people never look into things for themselves.
            Eusebius alone is a great source. Not to mention many many Apostolic Era writers.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I was in discernment to be a Benedictine monk. I'm a little autistic, so when I get on something I sort of don't know how to relegate it to a hobby or interest. It eats me. I read pretty much all of the Church father and council works available on New Advent, plus the entire first and second parts of the Summa and was working through encyclicals when the burnout finally hit. All these syllogisms and no certainty. So much belief and so little faith. Joined spaces where people debate this stuff and met some of the most confidently ignorant souls I'd ever seen. I went Orthodox for a bit, grew some, had to leave for similar reasons. I ended up deciding I couldn't find any one infallible visible tradition. It's tough rn man but I'm just trying to be normal and not sucked into the perpetual tradcath rabbit hole of argumentation. It's not Christianity. It's a contorted self-comforting mechanism justified in a narrative of perpetual attack against an at-once predestined victor and yet urgently frail institution. Is Pope Francis paving the way for the antichrist or the infallible head of Christ's very body? The world may never know.

          • 6 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            I was an agnostic atheist.
            Until I decided to simply read the Bible myself and see what it really said.
            The answer is right in front of all of us, but it requires humility to accept. Regardless of who gives the message.

            God bless.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Here's Jerome, a saint, bishop, and theologian honored with the highest magisterial title for a saint, "Doctor of the Church" translating another saint and bishop, Epiphanius of Salamis, in a letter which Jerome would spread favorably:
            > I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place.
            So St. Epiphanius, a bishop, sees an image, doesn't even know who it is, rips it down in a fit of religious outrage, and the guilty parties are like "yeah fair enough can we have a new curtain though?" and St. Jerome, defender of orthodoxy and scholar of the Church, reads this and clearly sees Epiphanius is in the right. Why did Jerome and Epiphanius not know your "Apostolic" traditions? And again, this is a fourth-century novelty. Why are all these frustrated accounts of churchmen and saints being baffled by images coming during the century when pagans converted en masse?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why do we have examples of Christian art prior to the 4th century?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Here's Jerome, a saint, bishop, and theologian honored with the highest magisterial title for a saint, "Doctor of the Church" translating another saint and bishop, Epiphanius of Salamis, in a letter which Jerome would spread favorably:
            > I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place.
            So St. Epiphanius, a bishop, sees an image, doesn't even know who it is, rips it down in a fit of religious outrage, and the guilty parties are like "yeah fair enough can we have a new curtain though?" and St. Jerome, defender of orthodoxy and scholar of the Church, reads this and clearly sees Epiphanius is in the right. Why did Jerome and Epiphanius not know your "Apostolic" traditions? And again, this is a fourth-century novelty. Why are all these frustrated accounts of churchmen and saints being baffled by images coming during the century when pagans converted en masse?

            I was in discernment to be a Benedictine monk. I'm a little autistic, so when I get on something I sort of don't know how to relegate it to a hobby or interest. It eats me. I read pretty much all of the Church father and council works available on New Advent, plus the entire first and second parts of the Summa and was working through encyclicals when the burnout finally hit. All these syllogisms and no certainty. So much belief and so little faith. Joined spaces where people debate this stuff and met some of the most confidently ignorant souls I'd ever seen. I went Orthodox for a bit, grew some, had to leave for similar reasons. I ended up deciding I couldn't find any one infallible visible tradition. It's tough rn man but I'm just trying to be normal and not sucked into the perpetual tradcath rabbit hole of argumentation. It's not Christianity. It's a contorted self-comforting mechanism justified in a narrative of perpetual attack against an at-once predestined victor and yet urgently frail institution. Is Pope Francis paving the way for the antichrist or the infallible head of Christ's very body? The world may never know.

            Your standards for infallibility are too high and your tolerance for the development of doctrine is too low. Read Newman.
            Someone with autism would know to attribute any influx of pagan practices into Christianity to the Edict of Thessalonica rather than the Edict of Milan.
            Iconoclasts have always existed within the Church, just like schismatics. Quoting them doesn't make Second Nicaea go away.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >your standards for infallibility are too high

            Lmao
            You do realize that the west didn’t even recognize 2nd Nicaea at the time? And had their own council (Frankfurt) which rebuked the anathemas set by 2nd Nicaea?

            Infallibility by definition can’t have standards too high. That’s what “infallible” actually means

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You do realize that the west didn’t even recognize 2nd Nicaea at the time? And had their own council (Frankfurt) which rebuked the anathemas set by 2nd Nicaea?
            The Frankish bishops rejected Second Nicaea because their big daddy warlord wasn't represented there. Frankfurt was little more than a synodal tantrum inspired by Charlemagne's massive ego. Pope Hadrian rejected the Synod, yet was represented at Second Nicaea without rejecting it. If I had to bet money on it, I'd wager the slowness to officially confirm the council was due to the fear of Frankish schism. German bishops are self-important morons even today, so it makes sense.

            >Infallibility by definition can’t have standards too high. That’s what “infallible” actually means
            What exactly do you think infallibility means?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The cult of images and relics has its origins in the Bible itself (the arc of the covenant, Paul's aprons healing people).

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Those were both Old Testament specific and Apostolic Age specific. After the Apostles, such types ceased to be valid to Christian life.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's no such restriction mentioned in the scriptures.

            >Images of God forbidden in Judaism
            >Pagans make images of gods all the time
            >Pagans convert to Christianity and start making images of God
            >"Guys we totally didn't adopt icons from paganism"

            >Images of God forbidden in Judaism
            Talmudic Judaism began around 200 AD, long after Christ.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Talmudic Judaism began around 200 AD, long after Christ.
            I'm talking about Second Temple Judaism. Show me any image of God or law permitting images of God from Second Temple Judaism

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Iconoclast orthodoxy crisis

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Images of God forbidden in Judaism
          >Pagans make images of gods all the time
          >Pagans convert to Christianity and start making images of God
          >"Guys we totally didn't adopt icons from paganism"

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    if both atheists and baptists find themselves in agreement about something relating to religion, it's probably wrong

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    People who bring up “saint worship” just don’t understand how it works. You don’t worship the saints, you ask them to pray to God on your behalf

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's the problem, you are directing worship through them just like idolaters are doing but instead you have another human being instead of a statue assisting your supposed worship to God.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You don’t worship the saints
      Actual Catholics do, you do not as you are not Catholic.

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's a continuation of hero worship, something so interwoven in the european culture that was impossible to not manifest itself into the new religion
    But instead of demi-gods and pagan exemplars, it's martyrs, apostles and christian exemplars

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >another "Christianity stole X from polytheism" thread

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Did they?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes.

        • 6 months ago
          Ο Σολιταίρ

          It's
          >ROMAN Catholics* stole X from polytheism"
          but it's not theft when instead of stealing, it was forced "converts" continuing to practice their paganism under a "Christian" veneer

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I mean, yeah? How else is Catholicism supposed to be the fulfillment of all religions? How else is Catholicism supposed to have kept the GOOD parts of Paganism? You can't have a pure israeli monotheism and continuity with European polytheism unless you, y'know, believe in a continuity.

          • 6 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            >You can't have a pure israeli monotheism and continuity with European polytheism unless you, y'know, believe in a continuity.
            what are you talking about?

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >not a single source cited in this entire thread
    You are parroting 19th century propaganda.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Explain what the meaningful difference is between them then

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        You’ve shown no evidence of first century pagan practices synonymous with intercession of the saints. The difference between the purported pagan practice put forward in this thread and the Christian practice is theological. You likely don’t consider theological differences to be meaningful.

        • 6 months ago
          Ο Σολιταίρ

          Whence cometh a "patron" saint? anon?
          Does this not imply that the saint himself has power to bless? Not unlike the pagan gods?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok now ask in English.

          • 6 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            are you ESL?

            okay
            Where does one get the idea of a "patron" saint? anon?
            Doesn't this imply that the saint himself has special power outside of God? Even if you could pray to a saint, and that saint prayed for you, why would any saint be more or less "potent" since they're all perfect in Heaven?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I know our practices look exactly like pagan ones but we totally didn't get it from them. See! We have some slight theological differences between them

          Please show me where the current view of saints is found within in first century Judaism

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    yes

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    yes

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not directly. Veneration of the dead was seen in most Mediterranean cultures and was even done in Judaism to a limited extent. Many early Christian communities had resident "miracle workers" martyrs,. and revered elders and they continued to be celebrated and revered after they died. Over time this combined with things that were already done in the culture to make the cult of the saints. It arose quite naturally, and pretty early on. by the 4th century it was so common they had boxes filled with saint bones you could pour oil though to make it holy. Even in the earliest stages they built some people special graves which became the site of pilgrimages.

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    yes

  13. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >this thread

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      For the love of god please read another book

  14. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Reminer that Saint Brigid never existed and is 100% just a christianization of the goddess Brigid.

  15. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
  16. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Saints were the minor deities of european pre-romanizing monotheism.

    Their major deities became God, Christ, Holy Spirit, Mary and Joseph.

    "Christianism" is just the official romanizing of the ancient eternal and indigenous European true faith.

    Christ is our Lord for Eternity. Repent, sinners.

  17. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Christianity is Constantine's canon; an imperial cult. All the works chosen valued faith and devotion over reason and curiosity.
    Saints were an excellent way for the imperial cult to infiltrate all aspects of life, to ensure everything was in line with imperial policy.
    Whenever saints are venerated, it's basically saying "I trust the empire will make this good".

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *