The problem was, Christianity was able to spread rapidly because paganism at that time was already essentially in a state of terminal decline, at least in the Mediterranean.
That is, paganism was already in a weakened state long before Christians ever moved to abolish it through the state. And it had been that way for some time.

Traditional practices were already widely unpopular and neglected.
In that sense, Christianity was filling a void and remoralizing people that had slipped en masse into systemic hedonism and debauched wantonness.

The Christians offered a more robust doctrine to the urban centers of the empire than the pagans were able to. Compared to say the cult of emperors, Christianity had an actual message that resonated with people.
They also had the advantage of being relatively unified compared to the various mystery sects and local cults, of which there were a huge number.

So you're asking, if it would be possible to revive something after Christianity when really it needed reviving even before it.

addendum

The storied Latin virtues (think Cincinnatus as a paragon) which helped the Roman Republic rise to the point where it could become Imperial were already basically defunct by the time of Christ.

This moral decline actually went hand in hand with serious demographic changes which altered the national character of even the city of Rome itself, and that aforementioned religious atrophy.

Augustus' revitalization of priesthoods and building projects focusing on temples were actually a reaction to the very real perception of a Roman religion that was noticably failing. This is during the time of Caesar, mind you.

If Plethon was more successful, his version of “pagan” religion would have looked nothing like classical greece. There wouldn’t be public sacrifices of bulls, polycentric notions of divine power. It would have been a very philosophically inclined religion with gods being seen as intermediaries between mankind and the One, with Zeus representing the divine sovereign, because that’s the neoplatonist philosophy he aligned with.

If neopaganism is ever going to be more successful, they have to stop pretending like the world can ever go back to antiquity.

>>18454420
Nice quads but this is a late Christian piece of propaganda that flies in the face of what both pagans and early Christians said. Early Christian were extremely concerned with genuine religious devotion to the pagan gods, by both commoners and the elites, they fully believed that people not only worshipped them fervently but that there were real divine beings receiving those prayers. They explicitly said that demons were receiving pagans' sacrifices and giving them oracles, e.g. Justin Martyr around 150 AD.

Pagan intellectuals explicitly defended common religious practices. Celsus' book against Christianity was a learned polemic by a Platonist, which defends the reality of the Olympian gods and figures like Heracles. Porphyry of Tyre was called the most learned of all the pagan philosophers by Augustine, and he defended public religion, consulting oracles, and so on.

It's a false idea that there were was a hard dividing line between the stupid masses who believed in the gods and the elites who thought it was all nonsense. In the 2nd century AD you can see Pliny the Younger and Celsus genuinely concerned that Christians not worshipping the gods will lead to disaster as the empire would lose divine favour and social cohesion, which were inextricably intertwined in the "pagan" worldview.

>>18454435
>If neopaganism is ever going to be more successful, they have to stop pretending like the world can ever go back to antiquity.

This will never happen because neopagans aren't serious about religion. There's no neopagan sitting down and hammering out the theology and philosophy of their religion. If it wants to compete with organised monotheist religion it can't be some frou-frou collection of local traditions which can't last under the weight of an organised doctrine.

>>18454462
No, the manifest decline of paganism in Roman society even during the Late Republic is well accepted in the literature.

It's not "muh xtain propaganda". This is something the ancients themselves were aware of to some degree and reacting to.

The literati of the classical world had long since shied away from the literalist interpretation of their pagan myths, which for many centuries prior had been normative and undisputed, and accepted instead the philosophical ideas of Greek Platonism which dramatically undermined these more irrational aspects of their traditional religion and rendered them into obscure abstractions.

This had the effect of individualizing, and hence atomizing, religious expression.
Instead of a broad community, you had individual devotions if that.
The Stoic and Epicurian schools in particular criticized the anthropomorphic gods as amoral, and belief in them as naive.
The elites went from valuing founding myths, to reason as a result of the Greek influence. This effected what is called a "memetic vacuum".

You projecting neoplatonism back into deep antiquity is a hilarious anachronism.
Traditional paganism was already lightly scoffed at by the first century AD, and much of that had to do with the social upheavals of the first century BC.

If you really still can't accept this is a fact, just refer to Seneca and Lucretius as examples of this way of thinking.

They critique contemporary "superstitio" and even "religio" itself (respectfully) as essentially being backwards hick nonsense which are actively detrimental to the cultivation of personal virtue.
Notably, the practices they critique constituted the widely popular forms of devotion which went hand in hand with those old anthropomorphic fetishes of the common man.

The difference is, Seneca saw religion as a useful tool of social order even if the rituals were meaningless fluff for an "ignoble crowd of gods", whereas Lucretius saw religion itself as something which negatively affected people.

When I refer to "fetish" as an example of the common objects of superstition which these philosopher critics were lampooning, I mean it literally.

They were highly abundant in their society, as tutelary talismans meant to commune with and honor household spirits.

Magical objects or embodiments of protective spirits included the Fascinus (a phallic charm meant to ward off the evil eye), protective dolls called Oscilla hung during festivals, and various amulets.

>>18454350
I think it's better to invent your own myths than just rely on ancient myths that could have been edited by christian writers.
A bit like what Ludendorff did:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bund_f%C3%BCr_Deutsche_Gotterkenntnis
Sorry I couldn't find a german article. You can use a browser translator for that.
Or this this site it's in english:
https://ludendorff.info/en/ludendorff/

>>18454541
They allowed it in 1937:
https://www.jta.org/archive/germany-recognizes-ludendorffs-anti-semitic-religion
Today I think they are persecuted by the german state because of nazi.

>>18454541
>invent your own myths

That's not how this works at all.
Like, you're a Scientologist at that point.

File: Visnu-Garuda.jpg (120 KB, 500x743)

120 KB JPG

>>18454350
no. and all the effort put to revive it now is just postmodern pharaphernalia since people doesnt have a genuine, real tradition to follow up

someone can be a pagan in the sense that can have religious believes that are not related to the abrahamanic religions, like wicca, but what they cant really do is to larp as a heir of the nordic tradition since it has been long dead or asimilated

>>18454540
The Vestal Virgins tended the cult of the fascinus populi Romani, the sacred image of the phallus that was one of the tokens of the safety of the state (sacra Romana). It was thus associated with the Palladium.[4] Roman myths, such as the begetting of Servius Tullius, suggest that this phallus was an embodiment of a masculine generative power located within the hearth, regarded as sacred.[5] When a general celebrated a triumph, the Vestals hung an effigy of the fascinus on the underside of his chariot to protect him from invidia.[6]

...

Tutelary deities who guard and preserve a place or a person are fundamental to ancient Roman religion. The tutelary deity of a man was his Genius, that of a woman her Juno.[3] In the Imperial era, the Genius of the Emperor was a focus of Imperial cult. An emperor might also adopt a major deity as his personal patron or tutelary,[4] as Augustus did Apollo.[5][6] Precedents for claiming the personal protection of a deity were established in the Republican era, when for instance the Roman dictator Sulla advertised the goddess Victory as his tutelary by holding public games (ludi) in her honor.[7]

Each town or city had one or more tutelary deities, whose protection was considered particularly vital in time of war and siege. Rome itself was protected by a goddess whose name was to be kept ritually secret on pain of death (for a supposed case, see Quintus Valerius Soranus).[8][9] The Capitoline Triad of Juno, Jupiter, and Minerva were also tutelaries of Rome.[10]

The Italic towns had their own tutelary deities. Juno often had this function, as at the Latin town of Lanuvium and the Etruscan city of Veii,[11] and was often housed in an especially grand temple on the arx (citadel) or other prominent or central location.[12] The tutelary deity of Praeneste was Fortuna, whose oracle was renowned.[13]

cont

>>18454572
The Roman ritual of evocatio was premised on the belief that a town could be made vulnerable to military defeat if the power of its tutelary deity were diverted outside the city, perhaps by the offer of superior cult at Rome.[14][15] The depiction of some goddesses such as the Magna Mater (Great Mother, or Cybele) as "tower-crowned" represents their capacity to preserve the city.[16]

...

Tutelary deities were also attached to sites of a much smaller scale, such as storerooms, crossroads, and granaries. Each Roman home had a set of protective deities: the Lar or Lares of the household or familia, whose shrine was a lararium; the Penates who guarded the storeroom (penus) of the innermost part of the house; Vesta, whose sacred site in each house was the hearth; and the Genius of the paterfamilias, the head of household.[18] The poet Martial lists the tutelary deities who watch over various aspects of his farm.[19] The architecture of a granary (horreum) featured niches for images of the tutelary deities, who might include the genius loci or guardian spirit of the site, Hercules, Silvanus, Fortuna Conservatrix ("Fortuna the Preserver") and in the Greek East Aphrodite and Agathe Tyche.[20]

The Lares Compitales were the tutelary gods of a neighborhood (vicus), each of which had a compitum (shrine) devoted to these.[21][22] Their annual public festival was the Compitalia. During the Republic, the cult of local or neighborhood tutelaries sometimes became rallying points for political and social unrest.[23]

The spread of Greek literature, mythology and philosophy offered Roman poets and antiquarians a model for the interpretation of Rome's festivals and rituals, and the embellishment of its mythology. Ennius translated the work of Graeco-Sicilian Euhemerus, who explained the genesis of the gods as deified mortals.

In the last century of the Republic, Epicurean and particularly Stoic interpretations were a preoccupation of the literate elite, most of whom held – or had held – high office and traditional Roman priesthoods; notably, Scaevola and the polymath Varro.

For Varro – well versed in Euhemerus' theory – popular religious observance was based on a necessary fiction; what the people believed was not itself the truth, but their observance led them to as much higher truth as their limited capacity could deal with. Whereas in popular belief deities held power over mortal lives, the skeptic might say that mortal devotion had made gods of mortals, and these same gods were only sustained by devotion and cult.

...

Under the rule of Augustus, there existed a deliberate campaign to reinstate previously held belief systems amongst the Roman population. These once held ideals had been eroded and met with cynicism by this time.[169]

>>18454497
>No, the manifest decline of paganism in Roman society even during the Late Republic is well accepted in the literature.
It's not. “Pagan” was originally an insult that Christian writers used for anyone who didn’t follow Christianity or Judaism and by this original definition, nearly every religion that has ever existed is “pagan.” It comes from the Latin word paganus meaning “rural” or “country-dweller” because even after Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, rural areas still remained mostly pagan. Much of rural Italy, France, and Spain remained pagan well into the early Middle Ages. The Mani Peninsula in Greece remained pagan until at least the 8th century. Even Lithuanian paganism survived the Christianization of Lithuania in the 14th century in rural areas and the last actual Lithuanian pagan, Balčiūnas Minvydas-Vincas, died in 1908.
>It's not "muh xtain propaganda". This is something the ancients themselves were aware of to some degree and reacting to.
Nope. Pagan philosophers still defended traditional religious practices and believed they were a valid way for the masses to access the divine. Porphyry of Tyre for example, whom even Augustine reluctantly admitted was one of the most learnt intellectuals of his time, defended divination and consulted oracles.
>The Stoic and Epicurian schools in particular criticized the anthropomorphic gods as amoral, and belief in them as naive.
Viewing traditional myths as allegories rather than literal historical events is not a “gotcha” against pagan religions considering that the intellectuals of every religion today including Christianity take certain myths as allegories rather than literal historical events, tell me again how many Christians today genuinely think the earth is only 5,786 years old and that Adam and Eve were real historical figures that all humans descend from?
(Cont)

You forget that most people have left polytheism for monotheism, dualism, henotenicism and gnosticism event before the 4th century and the choice of christianism as faith of the state.

Sol invictus/Mithraïsm, Manicheism, Mystery Cults devoted to one god, Hypsistarians etc...

>>18454497
>>18454592
>This had the effect of individualizing, and hence atomizing, religious expression.
>Instead of a broad community, you had individual devotions if that.
So? Religions evolve over time. The issue is that Christianity was not an evolution of earlier pagan traditions but rather an entirely new and separate religion that explicitly tried to snuff them out.
The rise of philosophies and mystery religions didn't mean the replacement of previous ones because religious syncretism was the norm. Nobody saw it as a contradiction to partake in public festivals and sacrifices while also belonging to an Orphic mystery cult or adhering to a philosophy like Stoicism or Platonism. This kind of religious syncretism was the norm prior to Christianity and outside of the Abrahamic religions it still is, just look at Japan. According to multiple surveys Japan is both 70% Buddhist and 70% Shinto because historically Buddhism in Japan syncretized with Shinto and nobody ever saw any contradictions in that.
>You projecting neoplatonism back into deep antiquity is a hilarious anachronism.
Neoplatonism is simply an evolution of earlier Platonic philosophy which itself was heavily influenced by pagan theologians of the near east like Egyptian priests, Chaldean astrologers, and the Magi of Persia.

... religious revivalists were also involved in occultism, Pythagoreanism, and Freemasonry, including figures like Amedeo Rocco Armentano, Arturo Reghini, and Giulio Parise. In 1914, Reghini published Imperialismo Pagano (Pagan Imperialism), claiming an unbroken initiatory lineage in Italy that linked ancient Roman religion to modern times, via historical figures such as Numa Pompilius, Virgil, Dante Alighieri, and Giuseppe Mazzini.[23]

The efforts to revive Roman cults aligned with the rise of the National Fascist Party, and several polytheists attempted to form alliances with fascism. However, the signing of the Lateran Treaty in 1929 by Benito Mussolini and Pope Pius XI left polytheists like Musmeci and Reghini disillusioned.[21][24]

>tfw neopagans are just freemason occultists having a LARP
XD

>>18454594
>Sol invictus/Mithraïsm, Manicheism, Mystery Cults devoted to one god, Hypsistarians etc...
Except for Manicheism (which btw was never popular), none of these were monotheistic lmao. When Aurelian declared Sol Invictus the state god of the Roman Empire, he did not seek to eradicate or replace traditional Roman religious practices. He still worshiped traditional Roman gods alongside Sol Invictus (and Sol Invictus himself is just a syncretism of the Roman sun god Sol with the Syrian sun god Elagabalus).
These mystery cults also heavily syncretized with traditional religions. Most adherents of mystery cults partook in public festivals and sacrifices, none of them saw this as contradictory especially since Mithraists identified Mithras with Sol.

>>18454592
>Pagan” was originally an insult that Christian writers used for anyone who didn’t follow Christianity

Duh. Big deal, that's just how regular people refer to antique polytheism.

>not a “gotcha” against pagan religions
You're being very defensive for some reason.

The facts I've laid out ITT aren't controversial, and they aren't even hostile towards paganism. The receipts are ITT already, anyone can take a look at the history of Roman religion wiki and see them there.

In fact, I personally identify more with the "hicks" than the enlightened by my own intelligence fedora tippers of the late Republic.

You're taking offense to this because it doesn't adequately glaze the religious vibe you've taken up for yourself.
Like, you automatically pivot to attacking Christianity and the Bible.

But my commentary has nothing to do with the truth value of Christianity.
You're the one trying to turn this into a interfaith slapfight, and it's mostly because the idea that these myths and anthropomorphic deities were taken literally for a long time is uncomfortable for you.
It's instead identifying sociological problems with Rome and the decline of their society at large that lead to the need for a restoration at all.

Like, Caesar claimed to be physically descended from literally Venus.
And expected this to legitimize and glorify him in the eyes of the public.

That's not indicative of a culture where the gods are commonly regarded as metaphorical, or their traits and inclinations being poetic invention or licence.
That's a society where real people genealogies include supernatural entities and they took it seriously.

>>18454616
>You're the one trying to turn this into an interfaith slapfight, and it's mostly because the idea that these myths and anthropomorphic deities were taken literally for a long time is uncomfortable for you.
Didn’t they already address that here though >>18454601

>>18454693
In my estimation, the roughly 3rd century development of the gods from what amount to superhumans who themselves descended from prior cosmic entities and likewise themselves had many mortal descendants, like Alexander the Great, to abstracted intellectual intermediaries between humans and pleroma was a reaction to both pressure from eastern cults and the cataclysms of the crises of third century and late Republic respectfully devastating people's faith in the traditional transactional mode of devotion, rather than an actual in house theological elaboration on long standing facets of their religion.

In short, many people saw that the deities which were supposed to protect them did not and were want of an explanation from failure to sacrifice or being devoted enough.
Though this was a remarkable undercurrent in Roman intellectual life during the late Republic, much of the old ways persisted in large part due to Augustus reestablishing the doctrine.

If these myriad gods of various cities who had been so depopulated had not protected their people, and their priests had performed all the necessary rituals in the proper way, then it must be true that the city was harboring infidels and the gods were offended. Cue your various 3rd century persecutions of the convenient scapegoats.

Euhemerus is probably right. Mythology is just history which had long since passed into song, these gods were once men.
The pagans made men into gods, titled Caesar the son of god (in fact this culture induced im Caesar the need to have a man stand with him in his chariot during the triumph to remind him repeatedly that he was indeed mortal), and what Christianity did was essentially invert this idea.

They instead proclaimed that God became a man.
While this distinction is lost on many today, part of the reason it was effective back then was because people were deeply intimate with the apotheosis of the emperor.
And so hearing that it's really the other way around was novel.

>>18454736
What's your opinion of how judaism evolved and what's the truth about the gospels?
I think that judaism evolved from levantine henotheism. Other levantine groups like the moabites and even the assyrians seemed to have evolved strong henotheism. Eventually one of the israelite kings or it was a judean king decided to follow strong form of very strong henotheism, some kind of monotheism and to demonize all the other gods because he thought that it would unite his kingdom and his people better. He used his scribes and "prophets" to rewrite their religious scriptures to fit in more into what he wanted his religion to be. Maybe these scribes used babylonian sources and even egyptian sources to make their folk traditions and myths more historical sounding.
An example of this is I don't know how accurate this is but the hebrew word kofer in the old testament is used one time to mean the word pitch. It's only in that passage that it's used that way and that passage seems to use that word as a loanword from akkadian kupru or kupuru which means bitum or pitch from akkadian flood myths.
I think in that case they had their own Noah folk myth but copied some parts of the akkadian and other flood myths to improve the story a bit and make it a bit more historical in their view. A bit like a historical novel.

File: IMG_9641.jpg (106 KB, 1095x844)

106 KB JPG

>>18454736

>>18454469
There’s a couple, but ultimately it all lacks institutional gravitas. Most fall under some kind of wiccan homosexual grabbag of whatever aesthetic appeals to them, or blind fetishism of barbarian “vitality”