Why did the Anglo-Saxons convert to Christianity?

Why did the Anglo-Saxons convert to Christianity?

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because it was politically convenient for their rulers to do so, and because Christianity has the greatest story of any religion by far. It replaced the bitter worldview of Germanic paganism with a hopefulness that just hadn't been there before.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Came to post this, but idk if they cared much about the optimism aspect. Early Nicene-Frankish monarchs didn’t even follow the rules (i.e. polygamy, incest, war), they only converted to appease the spiritual establishment which led the laity.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Clovis was clearly a pragmatist seekng how he specifically wasn’t an Aryan so he could have the support of his new non-Aryan subjects.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >It replaced the bitter worldview of Germanic paganism with a hopefulness that just hadn't been there before
      This is completely wrong in abstract, but it's just not how this was perceived at the time. What willing Germanic converts liked about Christianity was that it was completely and utterly hopeless and stripped man of any sort of free will. They viewed it as an incredibly deterministic religion that stripped men of duty, obligation, right, group membership, etc. They liked being atomized individuals stripped of the intricate web of family, clan, tribe, race, etc that Asatru embedded them in. The people who willingly took up Christianity didn't like having to live up to Thor or prove themselves to Odin, they didn't like the promise of rebirth in the next world, they liked that everything was preset, predetermined, and that they didn't have to give a shit about anyone but themselves.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nice fanfiction, this really strikes me as the product of rigorous historical research and not an effeminate emotional outburst at all. Actually I'm sure what a lot of early converts liked was simply the fact that Christ was a powerful deity that could be worshiped alongside others, while over the course of generations they became gradually more attuned to Christian orthodoxy. Of course in reality Christianity has a far more rigorously codified notion of what our duties are than whatever folk traditions various tribes adhered to.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >this really strikes me as the product of rigorous historical research
          Thank you, this is a period I'm passionate about. Since you're new to this topic and know nothing about it, I'll give you some beginner's literature:
          The One Eyed God by Kris Kershaw
          Lady with the Mead Cup
          Beowulf (Tolkien's translation has commentary and discussion of Germanic society)
          The Heliand (I read Mariann Scott's translation because it's on libgen)
          Culture of the Teutons
          Freyr's Offspring
          Orpheus, Odin, and the Indo-European Underworld
          The Germanization of Early-Medieval Christianity
          The Road to Hell
          The King and his Cult: the axe-hammer (this is a paper, you can use sci-hub).

          If you have any questions, feel free to ask and I'll happily answer.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You can read a thousand books on the period, but if you think Christianity frees men from obligations you're clearly too dim-witted to be trusted on any aspect of the period. Here we have an "early medieval expert" who thinks that the Church told men their actions in life didn't matter, so they can stop worrying, lol. You have completely misrepresented one of the most important aspects of the period to make room for your own ideology, much like most in academia today.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            My opinion isn't relevant, I'm just telling you what the Anglo-Saxons believed. If you want to go on an effeminate emotional outburst because of your neochristian LARP, please take it somewhere else, no on here cares.

            That's completely wrong.

            In Germanic society all political and economic power was invested in the king. Political, military, judicial, religious, cultural, societal, and economic. With this came a very careful web of duties and obligations: he had to defend his subjects rights, he had to adjudicate their disputes, and he had to be a patron of the local economy. If he fricked up, his life was forfeit (literally, kings who started to falter either had to step down or were killed by their subjects). This last one is important as the king was basically the central bank. Anglo-Saxon kings held titles like "beaggiefa", which means "ring-giver" ("bea" has religious connotations and as such was no longer used after Christianity came along): he would give rings as part of his job, as he was the central creditor. He would distributed wealth to his subjects as part of his job, and acquiring wealth to distribute was part of his job (there's a magico-religious portion to this as the king is supposed to basically spring wealth up from the land, which is poetically described as if occurring by magic but obviously came via agriculture, fishing, mining, and if that didn't work, raiding). This central distribution even came in the form of food, where the king would ritually distribute meat to his subjects (the king that got buried with the Sutton Hoo helm, Raedwald, was buried with a traditional pan-Indo-European instrument of a "hammer-axe", used for breaking down cattle carcasses in a ritualized manner for distribution at public sacrifices).

            So being a king in a good position was great, but being one in a shitty position sucked. This is a human universal pretty much everywhere, it's called the Sword of Damocles. There's two methods of spreading a religion or ideology: you either get the dregs of society to take it up en masse, or you find the weakest of the nobility and bolster them in return for ideological support.

            The latter is how Christianity spread through Europe (Ireland and Armenia are the major exceptions). Missionaries would come bringing wealth (which could easily offset problems of legitimacy or not being a good king in a technical or military sense), and pay a king for his ear. They'd usually try to set kings up with marriages in existing Christian lands (such as Æthelberht marrying Bertha, who was a Frankishwoman), which has a bunch of ties into legitimacy and spirituality (see: Lady with the Mead Cup, it takes too long to explain), but more importantly gives secures them military alliances (again, very important for a failing king). The pious Asatruar just killed the missionaries that came to them (Radbod in the Netherlands has a lot of antihagiography because he just executed missionaries for blasphemy or attacking temples). This created a social impetus to conform as the king, and now his wife, suddenly have an ideology that everyone beneath them can kowtow to in order to curry favor. It also is a meaningful demonstration of loyalty as taking a different religion because your boss says to costs social currency (you have to explain to your dad why you can't eat the horse meat at this year's Yule feast).

            From there, Christian clerics would either pressure the king into applying Christianity upon those below him (usually this was just layer by layer rather than all at once; doing that resulted in revolts), or offer their services where his regime was failing the most. On the long-term this lead to a shift away from jurisprudence and economics as "matters of state", because those were handled by the church.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's a marked increase in violence that comes with Christianization, and this is part of that (the kings literally spent more time killing each other), but it's also because the wealth coming in was used to, y'know, start warts to spread the religion. At scale, this usually results in "first generation" Christians butchering each other for a period, and then some guy coming in, toning down the clergy, and settling things down.

            Direct management of a king's affairs by foreign cultural revolutionaries seems odd to us today, but at the time it's a move that makes sense: the missionary wants to directly impose his religion upon the populace, and the king wants a middle man in between himself and the populace. If the missionary fricks up, the king can bump off the missionary. Many saints are just the last in a chain of missionaries who keep fricking up, with them just being the one to get lucky (Patrich is this in Ireland, but the situation is different).

            Two modern scenarios that you can compare are the Christianization of Hawaii and that of Manipur and Nagaland. You can look at any instance of religious conversion of a society and you'll see a similar pattern (this is how Buddhism and Hinduism spread through SEA, for example).

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            An important thing to keep in mind is that, today, "the state" and "government" are abstractions done through many layers of people sitting at desks beyond computers typing away about laws and procedures. There's huge amounts of technology that acts as "the state" in a manner almost independent of men. But in the Anglo-Saxon period, that wasn't the case. When the king went around giving out rings to his subjects to show that he was a good king acting on behalf of Wodan, he would literally travel around on horseback with his buddies handing out rings (presumably from a sack or treasure chest). At most, you could get some guy to do something for you (which has its own problems, like "where does your X-guy get food?"), or come up with hyper-ritualized social technologies (in pre-Christian Scandinavia taxes in some areas would be offered as sacrifice into a chute that lead into a mound which would be ritually emptied by the local priesthood or king that ran the area; accessing the mound's contents took several days' worth of labor to dig up). "Social technology" meant "getting people to do things by hand".

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're telling me the Anglo-Saxons converted to Christianity because they believed the exact opposite of Church doctrine. Needless to say this is not a mainstream view and I'm not going to take it as a given because you said so. At least provide some context for this belief. Were the Saxons just too dumb to understand their own bishops or was it all a ruse by the pope?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            He's saying that your personal understanding of Christianity that you concocted in your mom's basement doesn't reflect that of the Anglo-Saxons 1300 years ago, dipshit.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >personal understanding of Christianity
            It's just my personal understanding of Christianity that it has a far more codified notion of duty than the various forms of Germanic paganism? Then feel free to show me their unquestionable dogma, doctrines, and scriptures.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you'd like to go find a copy of the Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity, which discusses exactly this, then feel free to. It discusses this. The short answer is:

            >It's just my personal understanding of Christianity that it has a far more codified notion of duty than the various forms of Germanic paganism?
            Yes. Early Christians completely rejected the ideas of duty and obligation as spiritual poison concocted by demons (Augustine talks about this in City of God). Primitive Christians to this day completely reject the idea that a Christian can actually swear an oath or be held accountable to any kind of contract for that reason. They are direct importations from Asatru by Christian Bishops who were trying to convert Asatruar by introducing foreign elements into Christianity to make it palatable to a specific group of people. The ENTIRE model of Christian Knighthood, service to one's lord as a Christian duty, of God the Father as a celestial king, all of that is one that is being INVENTED during the time that we are talking about.

            Just because you personally believe something today does not mean that other people believe it at the same time, and it does not mean that other people believed the same thing as you currently do in the past, and it ESPECIALLY means that people who lived thousands of years apart from you in a radically different cultural context.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Ctrl+F "duty" on a .pdf of City of God
            >First two results are about how it's our duty to worship and imitate God
            ???
            >Primitive Christians
            Who the hell is that, and why should i care?

            Scripture is the one source that all Christians believe is infallible. So it's a bit weird that nothing you're saying ever appears there. It's almost like I'm completely correct and you're just redefining Christianity how you wish so that your worldview won't be harmed by actual history.
            >God the Father as a celestial king, all of that is one that is being INVENTED during the time that we are talking about
            Now I'm supposed to believe that the omnipotence of God isn't found in Bible, but was made up in the early middle ages? Lol. You have gone completely off the deep end buddy, this is a level of reality-denial on part with communists.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is strange he isn't mentioning anything about Scripture.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is strange he isn't mentioning anything about Scripture.

            I've cited my sources. If you want to argue in bad faith about israeli mythology, take it to another thread.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah and as far as I can tell at least one of those sources doesn't say what you claim it did. The whole point of Christianity is our obligation to serve God and our fellow man. Duty, and community. That isn't up for debate. So I'm just curious about how the Anglo-Saxons got the completely wrong idea about the whole thing.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not arguing Christian theology with you, I don't care about it. What I am telling you is that YOU believe that
            >The whole point of Christianity is our obligation to serve God and our fellow man. Duty, and community.
            YOU personally might believe that. YOU personally might believe that this has always been the point of Christianity and that anyone who disagrees or disagreed is or was wrong. That does not mean that OTHER PEOPLE do or did, and that does not meant that you can assume that OTHER PEOPLE HISTORICALLY did.

            >obligation
            >duty, and community
            That word there is a huge problem and the entire idea of "obligation" and "duty" was something that Early Christians absolutely abhorred. They did not agree with you that they had any obligations or duties what so ever. They conceptualized their relationship to the divine differently than you do. They rejected the idea of duty and they rejected the idea of a community deriving from anything other than willful spiritual brotherhood (meaning profession of belief, they rejected the idea of race, town, tribe, etc).

            You're a discordtroony debateme, so you won't just google "christians and oaths" to get actually understand the topic that you want to argue about, so I'll spoonfeed you: Matthew 5:34 was interpreted (and still is) by many as meaning that Christians cannot swear oaths (as in, they shouldn't do it but also shouldn't adhere to the oath if they do it) or be subjected to relationships of duty or obligation. It would not be until after the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons that your ideas of this verse would be invented.

            The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity goes into this in depth, and yes don't worry it cites the israeli holy texts plenty.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            But acknowledgement of nationality and duty both appear routinely in the Bible, even with the authors of the New Testament. I guess they were the only real Christians, and their followers just didn't get it, lol.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'll let you in on a little secret: not everyone who professes to be a believer in a religion believes the same things, including things that might seem incredibly fundamental to the religion. I'll let you in on another: attitudes, beliefs, and focuses within religions change over time, sometimes radically.

            This is one of those times.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I just think it's very curious that early Christians apparently believed the precise opposite of what their earliest leaders wrote. They had bishops, but no obligations to follow them? Not exactly how Christ, Paul, or the Church Fathers described temporal authority. I guess Augustine and the others must have been Germanized, there is clearly no other way to explain their defense of Church hierarchy. And let's not forget the countless Christian writings that say nationality isn't real and shouldn't be respected, those are just everywhere.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the precise opposite of what their earliest leaders wrote.
            Jesus himself says not to swear oaths, and the Church Fathers didn't like it either. The Apostles also speak out against them.

            >They had bishops, but no obligations to follow them?
            They didn't conceptualize religiosity as an obligation to follow someone but rather as something that you do out of a conscious profession. Early Christians weren't obligated to follow their bishops, they chose to. The obvious problems that would cause made trouble almost immediately (it's one of the issues that Paul writes about, among several early ones).

            >there is clearly no other way to explain their defense of Church hierarchy
            You're anachronizing the church of today onto the church of 250AD. Bishops ran a single building and that was that.

            >And let's not forget the countless Christian writings that say nationality isn't real and shouldn't be respected,
            Augustine literally makes fun of the Romans and Greeks for believing in race, and Eusebius wrote tracts about how race was a lie invented by demons that needed to be destroyed.

            Have you considered actually looking into these issues before having an opinion on them? Multiple people have introduced you to historical phenomena that you have apparently never heard of before, and you've gotten upset when they've elaborated on them. Why not look into the topics at hand before forming deeply held opinions on the fly? Could you actually make the argument that, say, Christians shouldn't believe in racism? Like, do you actually know what passages someone who holds that opinion would cite, what their logic would be, and so on?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Jesus himself says not to swear oaths
            >Muh oaths again
            I'm not sure where this is coming from but Christ's words very much align with everything I've been saying. If there was some anti-duty, anti-community sect of early Christianity, it did not come from its founder.
            >Early Christians weren't obligated to follow their bishops
            And this was the dominant view at the time? That doesn't exactly line up with what I've heard. In a recent book about the papacy I even read a passage about some Christians surrendering their Scriptures to the Emperor out of a sense of obligation to him, which is of course more consistent with the spirit of the Bible than what you've described. Cyprian wrote:
            >Certainly the other Apostles were what Peter was, but primacy is given to Peter so that it may be shown that the church is one.
            So it kind of seems like the notion of divinely-ordained authority and our obligation to follow it wasn't just some Germanic intrusion to me.
            >Augustine literally makes fun of the Romans and Greeks for believing in race, and Eusebius wrote tracts about how race was a lie invented by demons that needed to be destroyed.
            Do you have quotes? Because all that comes to mind for me on this subject is Augustine calling another African a countryman.
            >Multiple people have introduced you to historical phenomena that you have apparently never heard of before
            Nope. You're defending an extremely fringe view and presenting it as the unopposed mainstream. I'm not impressed by your blustering.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not sure where this is coming from
            he literally cited the fricking bible verse earlier in the thread dude. this is like bible 101

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You might be taking the Sermon on the Mount out of context. The New Testament does have teachings on obligations of various kinds. For instance:

            "Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."
            - Romans 13:7

            "And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
            25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
            26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
            27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee."
            - Matthew 17

            "And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
            17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
            18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
            19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
            20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
            21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
            22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way."
            - Matthew 22:16-22

            "And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages."
            - Luke 3:14

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            whichever discord you pulled that off of did a great job, you should send it to the baptists, jws, quakers, and other sects that reject oaths and obligations as theologically valid

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know what to tell you, anon. I'm going to a baptist church revival meeting today.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Baptists don't believe in oaths?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Baptists believe that it's not a sin to take an oath when interacting with the government but that oaths, duties, and obligations are not theologically valid compacts between men. Vows are something different because they're with God, not man. I'm sure some dweeb can explain why actually the Eastern Orthodox disagree with this because Jay Dyer said blah blah blah blah some gay shit no one cares about.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Baptists believe that it's not a sin to take an oath when interacting with the government but that oaths, duties, and obligations are not theologically valid compacts between men. Vows are something different because they're with God, not man. I'm sure some dweeb can explain why actually the Eastern Orthodox disagree with this because Jay Dyer said blah blah blah blah some gay shit no one cares about.

            A big reason is oaths are meaningless. You should do what you say you're going to do, not make a big deal about it. People were using oaths as an excuse to weasel out of doing what they agreed to do.
            >yeah, i said i'd help you, but i didn't promise to, so it doesn't count.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well, yeah, because we don't punish oathbreaking. That's kind of the whole point of the entire israeli opposition to oaths that Jesus was part of: they come with a huge legal apparatus to make an oath actually meaningful.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >baptists, jws, quakers

            all denominations you've listed are far far more recent than early christianity or conversion of anglo-saxons, like 17th century recent.
            if anything, this would prove that some external (to christianity) factor influenced it around 16-17th century, so that these no-oath denominations emerged.

            lack of any such no-oath denominations before that point in time disproves your hypothesis that no-oath was the "default" for christianity from the start (at least as an organised religion).

            moreover, even if this no-oathness were to be the default for christianity in 1st century, conversion of anglo-saxons started in 7th century. 3 centuries after 1st council of nicea, where (pagan at the time) emperor constantine summoned bishops to unify their dogma. of all such councils, only 2nd nicean occured after conversion of anglo-saxons started. half of chalcedon council was about church hierarchy and jurisdiction. at least from that point onwards, both layman and clergy are very much bound by "obligation" and "duty" at least towards the church.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >conversion of anglo-saxons started in 7th century
            late-6th if we take bertha of kent as a starting point

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >denominations based on taking the bible literally with no reference to tradition or built up moral and social dialogue more closely resemble denoninations that took the bible literally and existed before the built up moral and social dialogue of christendom
            I mean, yeah? Read the thread. Christianity isn't just "Feudalism: The Religion".

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >denominations based on taking the bible literally

            literally in their translated into english versions.
            translated versions which were documented to be changed due to political reasons (parts of "luther's bible" translated from german to english into "tyndale's bible", which later had been rewritten into "great bible" on orders of cromwell, which then was replaced by milder "king james' bible").

            people that founded these denominations had so many layers of indirection to primary sources, that it cannot be claimed they were "based on taking the bible with no reference to tradition".
            they were heavily influenced by protestant and reformist take on vulgate, and protestant and reformist traditions.

            to even start to claim these movements were based on unaltered, "primordial" version of christianity, they would need to be started with something like "literal standard version bible", or even better "yale anchor bible".

            >Christianity isn't just "Feudalism: The Religion".
            haven't claimed that
            claimed instead that your "early christians were no-oath like these early modern post-reformation denominations" hypothesis is easily disprovable knowing the historical context of changes within christianity over centuries

            your main hypothesis "anglo-saxons converted because christianity was no-oath" is also easily disprovable - even if your former hypothesis about early christians was true (it is not), the conversion of anglo-saxons was conducted by priesthood several centuries removed from those early christians. on views (different than you claim) of that priesthood we have many written accounts, many of which are primary sources.

            >conversion of anglo-saxons started in 7th century
            late-6th if we take bertha of kent as a starting point

            I stand corrected.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the historical context of changes within christianity over centuries
            So then you admit that the religion has changed over time and that just because you personally hold certain theological beliefs it does not mean that others did or do. I'm glad to see that you have accepted this.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >because you personally hold certain theological beliefs
            you seem to suffer from the paranoia that every poster here other than you is the same person. you seem very confused.
            yes, christianity changed over time.
            not, not a christian here, performed secular exegesis on bible in the past and generally interested in the period.
            no, none of your hypotheses are true.
            no, at the point in time we discuss christianity was not like you try to describe it.

            you have this annoying childish tendency to cherry pick a single sentence and ignore rest. you do not even try to hide that you do not want to discuss the subject in good faith. so cherry-pick that:

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you seem to suffer from the paranoia
            That was my first post in the thread.

            >yes, christianity changed over time.
            Good to know that your IQ is at least in the double digits, tell it to the other morons in here who don't understand that fricking Anglo-Saxon peasants circa 700AD don't have the same idea of what "Christianity" is as they do.

            >not, not a christian here, performed secular exegesis on bible in the past and generally interested in the period.
            I don't care in the slightest.

            >no, none of your hypotheses are true.
            That was my first post in the thread.

            >you have this annoying childish tendency to cherry pick a single sentence and ignore rest
            That was my first post in this thread.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            you are an insufferable homosexual

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >parts of "luther's bible" translated from german to english into "tyndale's bible"
            Well, for one thing that never happened. Tyndale translated his New Testament directly from the Greek, and it doesn't contains the variations of Luther's Bible. Tyndale also translated part of the Old Testament from the Bomberg 1525 Old Testament text, while Luther used the Soncino 1494 Tanakh. They were completely different Bible translations projects that were happening at the same time. Luther's first edition came out in 1522, but Tyndale had already started his translation and his first edition was in 1525.

            >which later had been rewritten into "great bible" on orders of cromwell, which then was replaced by milder "king james' bible"
            You forgot the Bishops' Bible, as well as the influence of the Geneva Bible of 1560, which is why the Bishops' Bible and 1611 Authorized version were made.
            >people that founded these denominations had so many layers of indirection to primary sources
            Bible translations aren't equivalent to denominations and they all referred to the original Greek and Hebrew (plus some Syriac-Aramaic at parts) texts in their translations.
            >they were heavily influenced by protestant and reformist take on vulgate
            Most of these Bibles weren't based on the Vulgate at all, with the exception of Coverdale's Bible (which you didn't mention) and the Great Bible.

            >knowing the historical context of changes within christianity over centuries
            The point is that those councils you mentioned before weren't held to by the orthodox churches at all. You can tell because they have innovations like the practice of infant baptism that isn't found in the New Testament, and many other things besides. That's how we can distinguish them from the early or primitive church which doesn't have such things.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >because you personally hold certain theological beliefs
            you seem to suffer from the paranoia that every poster here other than you is the same person. you seem very confused.
            yes, christianity changed over time.
            not, not a christian here, performed secular exegesis on bible in the past and generally interested in the period.
            no, none of your hypotheses are true.
            no, at the point in time we discuss christianity was not like you try to describe it.

            you have this annoying childish tendency to cherry pick a single sentence and ignore rest. you do not even try to hide that you do not want to discuss the subject in good faith. so cherry-pick that:

            You seem to be having a bout of paranoid schizophrenia, so I'll be uncouthly self-referential: I'm not

            >you seem to suffer from the paranoia
            That was my first post in the thread.

            >yes, christianity changed over time.
            Good to know that your IQ is at least in the double digits, tell it to the other morons in here who don't understand that fricking Anglo-Saxon peasants circa 700AD don't have the same idea of what "Christianity" is as they do.

            >not, not a christian here, performed secular exegesis on bible in the past and generally interested in the period.
            I don't care in the slightest.

            >no, none of your hypotheses are true.
            That was my first post in the thread.

            >you have this annoying childish tendency to cherry pick a single sentence and ignore rest
            That was my first post in this thread.

            ,

            >the historical context of changes within christianity over centuries
            So then you admit that the religion has changed over time and that just because you personally hold certain theological beliefs it does not mean that others did or do. I'm glad to see that you have accepted this.

            , or

            >denominations based on taking the bible literally with no reference to tradition or built up moral and social dialogue more closely resemble denoninations that took the bible literally and existed before the built up moral and social dialogue of christendom
            I mean, yeah? Read the thread. Christianity isn't just "Feudalism: The Religion".

            , I'm the guy who was citing books and effortposting earlier.

            I'm not going to both getting into theological discussion with you because, again, I don't actually care about what you believe the correct interpretation of Christianity is.

            >your main hypothesis "anglo-saxons converted because christianity was no-oath"
            This is not at all what I claimed. What I claimed is that largescale religious and ideological changes occur due to powerful forces altering material conditions to affect political and socioeconomic change at scale. If you want, you can take a look at Christian Anglo-Saxon literature to see how those who felt like writing about it felt about their new religion, and they say that they found it liberating from the webs of oaths, duties, obligations, etc that the old religion put upon them. If you disagree and think that they were wrong for thinking that because of your personal study of the Bible, that's fine, I just don't care.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you want, you can take a look at Christian Anglo-Saxon literature to see how those who felt like writing about it felt about their new religion, and they say that they found it liberating from the webs of oaths, duties, obligations, etc that the old religion put upon them.
            I would assume that this body of writings would be skewed though, because literacy in Europe during the early medieval period was the lowest it had ever been, and the lucky few who were literate tended to be religious functionaries, like monks and religious nobility like bishops.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >lack of any such no-oath denominations before that point in time
            The Vaudois, anon. Like we already discussed.

            >half of chalcedon council was about church hierarchy and jurisdiction.
            You are assuming all orthodox churches followed these councils, which isn't the case at all. There were Biblical only churches who weren't taking part in these councils. They were called various names by the Catholics in the post-Constantine era, like Rebaptizandi, Donatists, and so forth. For instance, see the below law that was passed against credobaptism ("rebaptism") in 405 AD.

            Imperatoris Theodosii codex: Book 16, Title 6
            16.6.4 The same Augustuses to Hadrianus, Praetorian Prefect.
            We sanction by this law that if any person should hereafter be discovered to rebaptize, he shall be brought before the judge who presides over the province. Thus, the offenders shall be punished by the confiscation of all their property, and they shall suffer the penalty of poverty, with which they shall be afflicted forever. But if their children dissent from the depravity of the paternal association, they shall not forfeit the paternal inheritance. Likewise, if perchance they have been involved in the perversity of the paternal depravity and prefer to return to the Catholic religion, the right to acquire possession of such property shall not be denied them. (A.D. 405 febr. 12)

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oaths aren't what I was talking about or attempting to refute so I don't get why they were brought up. But just for the record, "don't ever swear an oath ever" is only the meaning of that verse of you take it completely out of context. Much of Matthew 5 is about using legal subterfuge to subvert the law of God, and verses 33-37 are just continuing that theme.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, they are what this is about. This whole thread has been about you wanting to argue your belief that Christianity is about Feudalism and that following your liege into battle is super based and then getting confused about why anyone could could call themselves a Christian and disagree. You want to argue about this, and are upset that no one wants to argue with you.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Who has been arguing with me then, the ghost of Christmas past? I'd say I have provided at least as much evidence as the people I have replied to that my view of early Christianity is accurate. And even if it isn't, as I pointed out here

            And btw I would just like to say if your theory is correct, then the "Germanization" of Christianity was really just a return to its roots. Apparently all the early Christians just forgot verses like Romans 13:1, but later they came back around thanks to the Germans. Thanks, Germany.

            then the "Germanized" Christianity is closer to the Bible's teachings anyway.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            And btw I would just like to say if your theory is correct, then the "Germanization" of Christianity was really just a return to its roots. Apparently all the early Christians just forgot verses like Romans 13:1, but later they came back around thanks to the Germans. Thanks, Germany.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            If anything in your mind has ever been true and that the sense of duty really is completely opposed to Christianity, how was it ever possible for Christians to field armies and kick pagan asses all over Europe?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They rejected the idea of duty and they rejected the idea of a community deriving from anything other than willful spiritual brotherhood (meaning profession of belief, they rejected the idea of race, town, tribe, etc).
            This is a gross overexaggeration of actual Christian beliefs. Yes, a Christian is meant to be a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven first and all his other identities come second, but this does not mean all other identities are annulled. It means that when choosing between duties as citizens of the Kingdom of God and their own tribe, they choose the former. They're not "sovereign citizens who don't need to pay taxes because they don't consider themselves part of society."

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I find it hilarious that you're doing the exact same thing as the guy he was responding to, but from the opposite ideology that the LARPer was trying to push.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I've cited my sources.
            Ok, let's suppose you are reproducing your source entirely accurate. Does that mean you're right because it appeared in a published book?

            And regardless the logical followup is that these criticisms about not even mentioning Scripture apply to the source as well, if not you for your choice in using it. What actually is up with that anyway? Do you think the Bible didn't exist or something? It makes everything else pretty unbelievable.

            I would personally explain it in a way that doesn't simplify things to absurdity. Some people were genuine believers, while others were in it for political reasons and didn't practice the faith purely but for basically Machiavellian reasons (just as Constantine did). That also explains even what we see today as well.

            Focusing on the thread subject of the Anglo-Saxons, my understanding is the answer to this fits in this overall framework. The rulers were influenced by early missionaries operating out of Canterbury, starting in Kent. But you also had native Christian influence on a "lower" level (from a social standpoint) from places like Wales that had already been converted pre-400, and so-called Insular Christianity. So there were multiple sources of traditions, and Scripture deeply permeated all of it, with varying interpretations of it. In the high middle ages and after Anglo-Saxon times, the Mendicant orders had a huge influence on the royal sphere in England, followed by an eventual backlash against it around the time of the Investiture Controversy and Magna Carta. You can see more of that grassroots influence in the spread of the Beghards or Lollards from the low countries (see Mosheim), which happened around the time of Wycliffe, and they were very much Scripturally influenced. Yorkists generally supported them more in the 15th century, as their power base was largely in areas that were traditional strongholds of this movement.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Does that mean you're right because it appeared in a published book?
            I already addressed you on this: I don't care about what you personally view as correct Christian theology, I'm simply discussing the historical period.

            >And regardless the logical followup is that...
            See above.

            >I would personally explain it in a way that doesn't simplify things to absurdity
            Assuming that everyone ever has agreed with you on everything is absurd, yes. Believing that religions do not change over time or that people cannot be wrong is also absurd, yes.

            >It was really complicated
            Yes, that is what I said.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >>It was really complicated
            >Yes, that is what I said.
            I never said those four words in my post, you fabricated a quotation just now.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You got me: I couldn't fit the entire paragraph AND comment in the post without going over the character limit, so I summarized it so as to respond properly.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You know, I've found that certain people have trouble with that. I mean, reproducing accurately and in good faith what I said. Usually it isn't this but rather cutting things off in sentence fragments, then acting confused, like they didn't read the rest of the sentence. It makes it very hard to have a discussion, so I usually just speak directly to the audience who are reading the thread instead, because I know they're tracking me.

            Also, regarding the point about not taking oaths, vows or pledges, that's something that comes straight from the Sermon on the Mount. Various groups like the Waldensians (Vaudois) were persecuted during the middle ages and inquisitors would use their refusal to swear an oath as a cause for execution. Samuel Morland talks about this in his book. And the ancestors of these Christian groups had previously been called "Albigenses" (lumping in with gnostics/Cathars) and earlier still Petrobrusians or Henricians, during the times of conflict before RCC political dominance in southern France. So that is one historical example that does indeed exist as you mentioned.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think that in terms of number of sects (not members, just different sects) most Christian groups actually believe that Christians are either not allowed to swear oaths or are not required to uphold them. It's sort of why I was so shocked when he said that he was just completely unaware of this: this is a pretty old disagreement within Christianity, and it keeps coming up because Jesus does literally say "don't swear oaths".

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well there is a long-running discussion as to what makes a simple statement of what your allegiance and loyalty is versus making an oath, vow or pledge, and how that relates to the Gospel. Ultra-pacifists (think Swiss Brethren or other Radical Reformation groups) tended to be very conservative about this while others held themselves to a standard that was not as stringent, since obviously Jesus makes room for people who simply say what they are going to do and then do it, without adding the element of swearing by anything.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >oh yeah? well -I- believe...
            No one cares what you believe, this is a thread about the Anglo-Saxons.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it doesnt matter how much you know about this topic, it doesnt agree with the ideology of the eceleb that im in a parasocial relationship with!
            what a strange argument

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >this really strikes me as the product of rigorous historical research
        Thank you, this is a period I'm passionate about. Since you're new to this topic and know nothing about it, I'll give you some beginner's literature:
        The One Eyed God by Kris Kershaw
        Lady with the Mead Cup
        Beowulf (Tolkien's translation has commentary and discussion of Germanic society)
        The Heliand (I read Mariann Scott's translation because it's on libgen)
        Culture of the Teutons
        Freyr's Offspring
        Orpheus, Odin, and the Indo-European Underworld
        The Germanization of Early-Medieval Christianity
        The Road to Hell
        The King and his Cult: the axe-hammer (this is a paper, you can use sci-hub).

        If you have any questions, feel free to ask and I'll happily answer.

        What you're writing has no basis in history let alone logic, and as someone who actually has read those books and others on the medieval period I can tell you none of those remote support the BS /misc/ theory you're stating

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        were is the proofs 😀

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          read the thread

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >tfw Jean Calvin was the first man to spread Christianity on the British isles

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Cool story, Avi.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Asatru
        Modern meme term, also only used in Scandinavia, nobody in Anglo-Saxon England would have used that.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          That's what the religion is called, if you don't like it then that's too bad. Anyways, no "Asatru" is perfectly apt because the term is just a contraction of "Æs tru", that is "True to the Aesir". The Old English cognate of the Old Norse "Æs" is "As", and the Old English cognate of the Norse "tru" is "triewe", so the word would literally be "astriewe" which would be pronounced and spelled "Asatrue" according to modern conventions (the first vowel varying depending on dialect).

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          "Hindu" is a meme term too but you know what it means, don't you? You pedantic twat.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      > It replaced the bitter worldview of Germanic paganism with a hopefulness that just hadn't been there before.
      Christc**t moronation on display

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Christian storytelling isn’t particularly compelling relative to Germanic paganism, a religion that makes a point of glorifying good kings and heroes and reveling in their accomplishments, exploits, and grand adventures, which you bizarrely characterize as bitter, which doesn’t really make any sense. The “appealing” aspect of christianity is the fact that you go to hell if you don’t follow it, which has a tendency to light a fire under people’s asses. You can see with people like the Anglo-saxons that there was still a craving for the pagan gods with practices such as the trial by combat which attempts to invoke the judgement of god, but which flagrantly on its face violates the Bible and the commandments of YHWH, but which largely comports with the nature of Odin, who did specifically intervene in battles to determine winners and losers.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The “appealing” aspect of christianity is the fact that you go to hell if you don’t follow it
        Absolutely delusional. If this is the best thing Christianity has to offer, why is it spread all over the world?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          It hasn't, most of the planet is not Christian in terms of area or population, by your own admission. But, he literally called you out, as what you like about Christianity is Feudalism, the Middle Ages, and BTFOing people so that they'll go to hell for disagreeing with you. You're getting upset at him because he called you out on it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Dude I gotta respect your strawman game! Great job not adressing anything I've ever said.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I addressed everything you said. Christianity has not "spread over the entire world", by your own admission, and the point of Christianity is not just "make people live in the Middle Ages" like you are implying.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Dumb phone poster! Stop strawmanning!

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >can't even reply to the correct post
            If you made this post on a PC you clearly are moronic.

            By your logic Islam is better than Christianity because it covers more territory and has more adherents.

            Your post is false. Christianity has more followers and is more evenly spread out throughout the world. Also even if your post was true, it does not adress my point which is:

            >conversion of anglo-saxons started in 7th century
            late-6th if we take bertha of kent as a starting point

            says:
            >The “appealing” aspect of christianity is the fact that you go to hell if you don’t follow it, which has a tendency to light a fire under people’s asses.

            To which I reply:
            >Absolutely delusional. If this is the best thing Christianity has to offer, why is it spread all over the world?
            Which it is and it would not even matter if it was the second or third largest religion. This question has never been answered, instead there was nothing but nitpicking from phoneposters who make the completely silly claim that Christianity is not spread all over the world.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >can't even reply to the correct post
            >If you made this post on a PC you clearly are moronic.
            then proceeds to fail to reply to correct post (

            >conversion of anglo-saxons started in 7th century
            late-6th if we take bertha of kent as a starting point

            instead of

            Christian storytelling isn’t particularly compelling relative to Germanic paganism, a religion that makes a point of glorifying good kings and heroes and reveling in their accomplishments, exploits, and grand adventures, which you bizarrely characterize as bitter, which doesn’t really make any sense. The “appealing” aspect of christianity is the fact that you go to hell if you don’t follow it, which has a tendency to light a fire under people’s asses. You can see with people like the Anglo-saxons that there was still a craving for the pagan gods with practices such as the trial by combat which attempts to invoke the judgement of god, but which flagrantly on its face violates the Bible and the commandments of YHWH, but which largely comports with the nature of Odin, who did specifically intervene in battles to determine winners and losers.

            )

            pottery

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks!

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Christianity has more followers
            It does not. Even ignoring your doctrinal specificities, Islam has more followers.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Cool, like my post said, this is not my main point.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, the largest denomination of Islam has more followers than the largest denomination of Christianity. If you combine all the denominations, Christianity has more followers

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Dude you can't even properly quote people correctly and you think every poster disagreeing with you is the same person.
            Dumb phone poster!

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          By your logic Islam is better than Christianity because it covers more territory and has more adherents.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >why is it spread all over the world?
          because threats work? What a stupid question.

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Long term financial backing of chaotic elements of society by foreign NGO complexes monetarily compensating the prosecution of a cultural revolution.

    That is, the Pope found the shittiest King in an area, and gave him money to buy an army in return for him taking up some kind of mangled Christianity. Then he'd repeat, and have the next king make up for the first king's poor understanding of Christianity, and then the cycle would repeat.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I had no idea this happened. I was under the impression that many pagan tribes converted because Christian traders would only trade with other Christians. Is that true or totally false?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's completely wrong.

        In Germanic society all political and economic power was invested in the king. Political, military, judicial, religious, cultural, societal, and economic. With this came a very careful web of duties and obligations: he had to defend his subjects rights, he had to adjudicate their disputes, and he had to be a patron of the local economy. If he fricked up, his life was forfeit (literally, kings who started to falter either had to step down or were killed by their subjects). This last one is important as the king was basically the central bank. Anglo-Saxon kings held titles like "beaggiefa", which means "ring-giver" ("bea" has religious connotations and as such was no longer used after Christianity came along): he would give rings as part of his job, as he was the central creditor. He would distributed wealth to his subjects as part of his job, and acquiring wealth to distribute was part of his job (there's a magico-religious portion to this as the king is supposed to basically spring wealth up from the land, which is poetically described as if occurring by magic but obviously came via agriculture, fishing, mining, and if that didn't work, raiding). This central distribution even came in the form of food, where the king would ritually distribute meat to his subjects (the king that got buried with the Sutton Hoo helm, Raedwald, was buried with a traditional pan-Indo-European instrument of a "hammer-axe", used for breaking down cattle carcasses in a ritualized manner for distribution at public sacrifices).

        So being a king in a good position was great, but being one in a shitty position sucked. This is a human universal pretty much everywhere, it's called the Sword of Damocles. There's two methods of spreading a religion or ideology: you either get the dregs of society to take it up en masse, or you find the weakest of the nobility and bolster them in return for ideological support.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why do people who don’t give a shit about history come here and post?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, idk why they don't just stay on discord if they don't want to get books thrown at them.

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    they wanted pope magic and change mudhut for nice stone house

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    It depends on the anglo saxon you ask :^)

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    realized it was truth.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >implying it wasnt because everyone else was doing it
      What do you know about truth loser
      You were probably born into it

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm reading pic related right now and it's very eye opening. He argues that the Germanic tribes didn't necessarily convert to Christianity, they simply took on the exterior trappings of it while retaining their pagan folk religion.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Every people who converted did this. In fact most iconography we associate with Christianity is Pagan in origin.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >He argues that the Germanic tribes didn't necessarily convert to Christianity, they simply took on the exterior trappings of it while retaining their pagan folk religion.
      This is like, exactly what happened with the Romans and just about every group of people that converted to Christianity in the Early Middle Ages

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    organized religion with high IQ takes versus pagan tribal homosexual witchmagic with semen drinking wotan/odin

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      The book you are citing is The Construction of Homosexuality by David F. Greenberg. His believes that Jesus was a gay prostitute, the apostles were his clients, and every Christian mass involves the ritual consumption of the priest's semen.

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    They liked the Gospel and wanted to hear more.

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coifi
    >But Coifi added that he wished more attentively to hear Paulinus discourse concerning the God whom he preached. So the bishop having spoken by the king's command at greater length, Coifi, hearing his words, cried out: I have long since been sensible that there was nothing in that which we worshipped, because the more diligently I sought after truth in that worship, the less I found it. But now I freely confess that such evident truth appears in this preaching as can confer on us the gifts of life, of salvation, and of eternal happiness. For which reason I advise, O king, that we instantly abjure and set fire to those temples and altars which we have consecrated without reaping any benefits from them.

    >In short, the king publicly gave his permission to Paulinus to preach the gospel, and, renouncing idolatry, declared that he received the faith of Christ; and when he inquired of the high priest who should first profane the altars and temples of their idols, with the inclosures that were about them, the high priest answered, I; for who can more properly than myself destroy those things which I worshipped through ignorance, for an example to all others, through the wisdom which has been given me by the true God?

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bribery

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Anglo-saxons were Romanboos.

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why his always talks about historic paganism but never mentions pagan traditions that survived until late 1800s and early 1900s?
    Some descriptions of viking worship sites are 100% similar to those that were used by finno-ugric tribes in late 1800s and early 1900s.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Why his always talks about historic paganism but never mentions pagan traditions that survived until late 1800s and early 1900s?
      Christianity is good at absorbing pagan practices without technically breaking rules on idol worship and/or just straight up Christianizing them. Conversion of Europe was a slow process with practices and worship slowly eroded, but some survive in secularized or Christianized forms.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Jesus us basically a european creation to bridge the gap between paganism and israeli desert autism. It's why white people worship jesus and not a space diety

  13. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >my thread started a flame war again
    I'm sorry, Oyish, I didn't mean for it to turn out like this.

  14. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because of the blood of christ

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