Submitted by kweenllama t3_118qa85 in todayilearned
Reply to comment by BigEd369 in TIL about Saint Josaphat (aka Būdhasaf), a legendary Christian saint whose life is based on Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism. His life story tells of how Josaphat, a son of an Indian kind that persecuted the Christian Church in his kingdom, converted to Christianity. by kweenllama
> over 150 inscriptions from the second century CE devoted to the female goddess Austriahenae
Sure, but when you search about those you learn that they 1) all came from a single settlement and there's no corroborative evidence elsewhere for worship of "Austriahenae", and 2) are dedications that form part of a wider Romano-Germanic pattern of dedications to unknown triumverates of female deities referred to as "Matronae X", "Mothers of X", not singular deities. These two things points to the probable fact that "Matronae X" were patron spirits of settlements and not gods in their own right; the fact that the name "Austriahenae" is probably not wholly Germanic and is partially derived from Celtic also speaks to the fact that it was a name associated with a specific settlement.
> but you do see a lot of depictions of eggs, green grass, baby animals, and fruit flavors, all of which symbolize spring, not torment as a vehicle for redemption or suffering for the sins of others.
The fact Easter has that aesthetic doesn't mean Easter is based on Pagan tradition.
You stated that there was no such deity, I provided evidence that there likely was, and your argument changed to “well that was only one place where they found these nearly 2000 year old inscriptions”, but that doesn’t speak to your original statement that there wasn’t a goddess associated with Easter. I feel like you’re attempting to shift away from the central question each time we reply to one another. Okay, I’ve got to ask now, what evidence, if any, would you actually accept on this subject? You appear to be responding to my “here’s some archeological evidence” with the counter “It’s not enough evidence”, so what would be enough for you? You can take some time to think about it if you’d like, but I won’t be responding to anything else you say or do until you answer this question. And also, if you ask for irrefutable definitive proof or something like that, I’m going to hold you to the same standard. Side note: I won’t accept “scholarship”from overtly pro-Christian sources, I’m asking you for evidence the same way you’re asking me, which means actual objective evidence.
> You stated that there was no such deity, I provided evidence that there likely was, and your argument changed
You provided "evidence" for the fact that at a single Germano-Roman settlement there were dedications made to a "Matronae Austriahenae", dedications that fit into a pattern that is most likely to do with local patron spirits and not some "Goddess of Spring", evidence that isn't actually linked to the supposed deity of Eostre when modern phiological methods and historical knowledge is used to evaluate it.
> but that doesn’t speak to your original statement that there wasn’t a goddess associated with Easter.
Where did I say there wasn't? All I said was Eostre was invented by Bede and that Easter is Christian, which isn't diminished by your "evidence".
> You appear to be responding to my “here’s some archeological evidence” with the counter “It’s not enough evidence”, so what would be enough for you? You can take some time to think about it if you’d like, but I won’t be responding to anything else you say or do until you answer this question.
You said it yourself - you are reading all this off Wikipedia, if you want evidence that'll convince me I suggest you look beyond it and read deeper about whatever you want to present as evidence.
> Side note: I won’t accept “scholarship”from overtly pro-Christian sources, I’m asking you for evidence the same way you’re asking me, which means actual objective evidence.
And what is "pro-christian sources" supposed to mean in the contex of material and philiological evidence?
By pro-Christian, I mean sources that have a vested interest in the Christian churches being right. For instance, if you wanted to use a theologian as a source, if that person was or is also an active participant in the religion, then they really need to able to demonstrate evidence of objectivity or detachment. Otherwise, it’s just priests, pastors, etc. talking about how Christianity is right, when they’re already explicitly on the side of Christianity being right. That’s a lotlike someone employed by, and/or a big fan of, a sporting organization can and will give us an unbiased opinion about the history/significant events that directly affected said sporting organization. It can definitely be true, but it’s very unlikely that it is true, because the person providing the info is very likely biased towards thinking the organization that they’re an active part of is right and good. So yeah, if it’s coming from a professional Christian, their info about historical Christianity becomes suspect, because they have a vested interest in things related to Christian faith being right and correct.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments