WI The Roman Empire adopted Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity?

[PRFU]

WI The Roman Empire adopted Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity as a State Religion?

[LSCatilina]

You'll first need zoroastrian minority worth of mention within the Roman Empire.
Then that Sassanids aren't a threat anymore and probably don't exist at all.
And that Zoroastrian change radically their uses and allow exogamy.

So, it would necessit a POD earlier than Roman Empire (the more close would be in the -600's), and of course earlier than 300's, in a way that would likely butterfly away Christianity, and Rome as we know it.

[CandyDragon]

WI The Roman Empire adopted Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity as a State Religion?

That's not possible, I believe. Firstly, it took a hell of a lot to get Christianity to become entrenched in Roman life, and that wasn't the religion of the Empire's greatest enemy. In the traditional Roman religion, the Emperor was ensconced as a god, in Christianity as the "Equal to the Apostles," while in Zoroastrianism, that role of the leader of the religion would always be contested with the Sassanids.

Christianity itself rising was really a fluke. Zoroastrianism rising would be madness.

[PRFU]

Okay scratch that, new question:

WI The Roman Empire adopted Judaism instead of Christianity?

I was actually going to add this as a sub question, but then changed my mind.

[LSCatilina]

Okay scratch that, new question:

WI The Roman Empire adopted Judaism instead of Christianity?

I was actually going to add this as a sub question, but then changed my mind.

It would need that Jews made mass converted, adress themselves far more to "Gentiles from the door" (non-Jews present in jewish prayers), split from Shanderin and adapt themselves to greco-roman uses by adopting the classical philosophy into their dogmas and rejecting the more annoying issues as circumcision and taboo in food.

Wait a minute...

[Daeres]

Well, I think a more likely possibility is Rome officially adopted Mithra as a deity, as it was extremely popular in the Roman Army. But it's hard to see that working as long as the Sassanids were Rome's main enemies.

[CandyDragon]

Okay scratch that, new question:

WI The Roman Empire adopted Judaism instead of Christianity?

I was actually going to add this as a sub question, but then changed my mind.

That would require a precedent for proselytism in the Jews, which wasn't really active. Dietary restrictions are probably going to be gotten rid of too, as well as circumcision, all of which served to isolate the Jewish people from foreign culture, and to provide them with their own culture that could not blend with others.

[PRFU]

Okay, never mind then. :(

[LSCatilina]

Well, I think a more likely possibility is Rome officially adopted Mithra as a deity, as it was extremely popular in the Roman Army. But it's hard to see that working as long as the Sassanids were Rome's main enemies.

The main problem regarding Mithra isn't really the oriental origin, it's that is a deity that is for soldiers.
For a state's religion you need something more worshipped, by all social classes.

I think that the better candidate would be manicheism. It was relativly popular, and if it's not Christianism to fight it, it would be a serious option.
If not, maybe a reduced polytheism around Sol Invictus, but even there i'm not really conviced regarding the militar indentity of the cult.

[PRFU]

Last try :D how about Hinduism, initially taken from India via the Macedonian empire, develops along the lines of Hellenistic Judaism

[LSCatilina]

Last try :D how about Hinduism, initially taken from India via the Macedonian empire, develops along the lines of Hellenistic Judaism

Err...No.
Defenitly not adapted to greek culture, a fortiori roman one. Unless you drastically change everything in hinduism at the point that is no longer hinduism.

While we're here, i would think the same about taoïsm, atenism, babayagism, shinto, or pre-islamic arab cults.
Again, if you search some serious candidate, there's manicheism.

[Daeres]

That or the Imperial Cult evolves into an actual separate religion.

[LSCatilina]

Imperial Cult didn't have a real grasp on the population, it was mainly for loyal legions and urban elites.

[CandyDragon]

That or the Imperial Cult evolves into an actual separate religion.

The Imperial Cult was really just a supplement to the traditional religion.

[PRFU]

Err...No.
Defenitly not adapted to greek culture, a fortiori roman one. Unless you drastically change everything in hinduism at the point that is no longer hinduism.

While we're here, i would think the same about taoïsm, atenism, babayagism, shinto, or pre-islamic arab cults.
Again, if you search some serious candidate, there's manicheism.

Are there equivalents to the ten Commandments in Mancheism? Also according to Muslim documents, Mani was crucified (not in the nailed-to-the-cross way that Jesus allegedly was but rather cut in half and hung on a gate) maybe the gate would be used in later european flags..

[LSCatilina]

Are there equivalents to the ten Commandments in Mancheism? Also according to Muslim documents, Mani was crucified (not in the nailed-to-the-cross way that Jesus allegedly was but rather cut in half and hung on a gate) maybe the gate would be used in later european flags..

Manicheism is a syncretism of all big oriental religions. So, it's not really about texts, but more about a moral revelation. But you have indeed the "10 commendments of Mani" : four prayers corresponding to sun evolution, imposed charity, alimentary taboo, reincarnation and social dualism between "adepts" (more free but inferiors) and "Chosen" superior but having more duties and rites to respect.

The Manicheist more known symbol is the black and white, the opposition between light and darkness. You have a cross symbol in reference to Jesus, but gate wouldn't be revered.

Indeed, the passage of Mani into a better level would signify that his carnal presence including gate and death would have little importance and even to be rejected as a part of "evil world".

Manicheism would be, and have been, seriously argued, and object of philosophical study as Christianism in OTL. After all, St Augustine was a manicheist before his reconverstion to Christianism.

[PRFU]

Manicheism is a syncretism of all big oriental religions. So, it's not really about texts, but more about a moral revelation. But you have indeed the "10 commendments of Mani" : four prayers corresponding to sun evolution, imposed charity, alimentary taboo, reincarnation and social dualism between "adepts" (more free but inferiors) and "Chosen" superior but having more duties and rites to respect.

The Manicheist more known symbol is the black and white, the opposition between light and darkness. You have a cross symbol in reference to Jesus, but gate wouldn't be revered.

Indeed, the passage of Mani into a better level would signify that his carnal presence including gate and death would have little importance and even to be rejected as a part of "evil world".

Manicheism would be, and have been, seriously argued, and object of philosophical study as Christianism in OTL. After all, St Augustine was a manicheist before his reconverstion to Christianism.

I'd be interested to develop a basic TL from this, or at least an idea of how European society may differ. I would imagine the Crusades still took place, the Holy Land also being holy to Manicheists (right?) and thus the basis for pan-european 'christendom' euqivalent. Would there be a great schism, or indeed reformation? Inquisition, witch hunting, supression of science?

[VictorLaszlo]

I think the only cult that had a real chance to replace the role of OTLs christianity was the one of Sol invictus. Most important, like christianity it had the backing of an emperor.

[Johnrankins]

Well, it goes to show you can learn some theology here. I never heard of Manicheism before. I looked for information on it online and seems to be a complex religion.

[eliphas8]

A more likely alter-religion Rome would be Mithraism or some other major pagan movement of the time. The Zoroastrians arent an extensive enough segment of the population for Rome to care.

[PRFU]

A more likely alter-religion Rome would be Mithraism or some other major pagan movement of the time. The Zoroastrians arent an extensive enough segment of the population for Rome to care.

Thats an interesting possibility. A cult dedicated to a Zoroastrian God would at some stage incorporate further elements of Zoroastrianism, almost the reverse of Christianity incorporating Pagan deities and traditions.
Dionysian cults, prevalent in the Macedonian Empire prior to Roman occupation, were later as heavily supressed as Christianity. This martyrism may have an effect of actually enocuraging others to follow the faith. According to some authors myths about Dionysius paralleled the writings about Jesus in some respects, and the Dionysian cults are sometimes viewed as Monotheist. A Dionysian Europe would be very interesting, with its drinking, dancing, orgies and music, and various insane cults around it. Its association with the outsiders of Roman society would mean it was heavily supressed, which is possibly one of the reasons why, paradoxically, Christianity eventually became the sole Religion of the Roman Empire.

[Wolfpaw]

In a "Rome survives" TL that I occasionally fiddle with, I basically have this happen with the cult of Sol Inuictus blending a form of Roman dualistic sun-worship and Neoplatonism.

[LSCatilina]

I'd be interested to develop a basic TL from this, or at least an idea of how European society may differ. I would imagine the Crusades still took place, the Holy Land also being holy to Manicheists (right?) and thus the basis for pan-european 'christendom' euqivalent. Would there be a great schism, or indeed reformation? Inquisition, witch hunting, supression of science?

Indeed, if Manicheism prevails, it would be something as pan-european. For the institutions, it would be something between the gnostics cults (catharism, vaudois, paulicianism, bogomilism) and OTL christianity.
Probably no Pope, but maybe a prophet mormon-like figure?
Great Schism and Reformation would be likely butterflied away by such a POD. Be careful, i don't say there wouldn't any change of this kind, just that it would be VERY different from what we know.

I don't think Holy Land would have a so important place in this religion. Remember we talk about a faith that depise material world and carnal contingences. And even if it slow down on the most rude aspect (vegetarianism or absolute chastity), because to be accepted manicheism have to make comprimises as OTL christianity, even with that it wouldn't be such a priority.

Inquisition is maybe the religious aspect of Christianism that less made into the "with hunting" and in the supression of science.
Middles-Ages are not the stinking dark hole of humanity, dammnit!

For the scientific aspect, remembers that great thinkers of Late Antiquity as St Augustine were first manicheans. It would probably lead to an interesting philosophical and theological way if he keep his first faith.

I think the only cult that had a real chance to replace the role of OTLs christianity was the one of Sol invictus. Most important, like christianity it had the backing of an emperor.

A more likely alter-religion Rome would be Mithraism or some other major pagan movement of the time. The Zoroastrians arent an extensive enough segment of the population for Rome to care.

No, and No. Mithraism and Sol Invictus are soldiers' religion. Not well integrated into provincial and civil usages that are definitly cutted from the "official" polytheist cults.

[Gordius]

Do you think the Cult of Isis could become more successful in the Empire? It seemed to share a great many qualities with Christianity Such as caring for the poor and had support among the masses.
Though it was mainly centred around port cities due to Isis being a sea oriented diety, the idea of a religion which only has female priests can turn history in an interesting direction.

[LSCatilina]

Isis was indeed popular, and more socially widespread that Mithra, and have a comparable ammount of followers. But as a Mysteries' cult, based on a revelation only to initiates and regarding the vitality of popular and not-initiate religosity in the late Antiquity, i think that only an open religion could be victorious at last.

It's why manicheism have to abandon the division between Chosen and the others (it's quite easy, as this division is not a "divine" order or written in revelated texts that are inexistant) in order to be THE religion of post-roman Europe.

[Kosta]

Well, I think a more likely possibility is Rome officially adopted Mithra as a deity, as it was extremely popular in the Roman Army. But it's hard to see that working as long as the Sassanids were Rome's main enemies.

That whole theory that Mithraism could have just as easily one the hearts and minds of Rome isn't exactly accurate. It was primary a religion of military-men, so much that women weren't even allowed at all, and it wasn't found too much outside of military camps and bases I don't believe.

[Wolfpaw]

That whole theory that Mithraism could have just as easily one the hearts and minds of Rome isn't exactly accurate. It was primary a religion of military-men, so much that women weren't even allowed at all, and it wasn't found too much outside of military camps and bases I don't believe.It was a mystery cult as well, which means that it suffers from the same exclusivity as the Dionysian cults.

I don't see why Sol couldn't emerge as the head; the Aurelii seemed to favor the cult of Sol, and heliotheism is far from alien to imperial tradition.

[Sarantapechaina]

Isis was indeed popular, and more socially widespread that Mithra, and have a comparable ammount of followers. But as a Mysteries' cult, based on a revelation only to initiates and regarding the vitality of popular and not-initiate religosity in the late Antiquity, i think that only an open religion could be victorious at last.
I don't know if that was the sticking point about mystery religions. After all, Christianity also relies on initiation rituals. I always thought it was more because mystery religions were sort of a gentleman's club, complete with fees to keep out the riffraff.

[LSCatilina]

]It was a mystery cult as well, which means that it suffers from the same exclusivity as the Dionysian cults.

I don't see why Sol couldn't emerge as the head; the Aurelii seemed to favor the cult of Sol, and heliotheism is far from alien to imperial tradition.

Because Sol is only a military cult so far. It didn't even really progress as an imperial cult and was too cut from the popular spiritual "needs" and conceptions to really work. You can see it by the number of temples or sanctuaries discovered, Sol Invictus is not even comparable to Mithraism and Isis cults.


I don't know if that was the sticking point about mystery religions. After all, Christianity also relies on initiation rituals. I always thought it was more because mystery religions were sort of a gentleman's club, complete with fees to keep out the riffraff.
Intitations rituals are defenitly not the same than mysteries.
In Christianity, the fact that you're baptised, ordined, maried of confessed didn't alter the theology and the background of the religion.
In a Mysteries Cult, you progress in knowledge by a closed ceremonial reserved to an elite.

It's basically why gnosticism never really worked as a religion : every great faith need to be the same for riches and poors, elites and peoples.

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

What's wrong with someone re-inventing the existing Graeco-Roman belief-system? Not so much a new religion where people change their beliefs, but adding new idealogical dimensions to a multi-cultural pantheon.

[PRFU]

Mystery cults could later become something like the freemasons, which allegedly worship Isis and put great signinificance in pyramids and Egpytian symbology. Or have I been reading too many conspiracy theories? :D

Indeed, if Manicheism prevails, it would be something as pan-european. For the institutions, it would be something between the gnostics cults (catharism, vaudois, paulicianism, bogomilism) and OTL christianity.
Probably no Pope, but maybe a prophet mormon-like figure?
Great Schism and Reformation would be likely butterflied away by such a POD. Be careful, i don't say there wouldn't any change of this kind, just that it would be VERY different from what we know.

OTL there was a schism between the followers or Mar Ammo in Sogdiana, known as Denawars, and the mainstream manicheans in Babylonia. In the ATL perhaps the rift is never healed (by the time they resolved their differences it may be because of a lack of following), so to some extent it may resemble the Sunni/ Shia split in Islam.

I don't think Holy Land would have a so important place in this religion. Remember we talk about a faith that depise material world and carnal contingences. And even if it slow down on the most rude aspect (vegetarianism or absolute chastity), because to be accepted manicheism have to make comprimises as OTL christianity, even with that it wouldn't be such a priority.

Would the 'Manichean Bible' include the old Testament? Or like the Quran make mention of it but not be required reading.. I think you're right about the Holy Land, however with Arabs invading Persia and killing Manicheans could there possibly be an equivalent 'Crusade' from Europe? I'm aware that i'm maybe trying too hard here to conflate events from two very different timelines, but its an interesting way to come up with scenarios as opposed to systematically trying to work out cause and effect from the beginning, which usually takes me on too radically different a course as I get carried away! :D

Inquisition is maybe the religious aspect of Christianism that less made into the "with hunting" and in the supression of science.
Middles-Ages are not the stinking dark hole of humanity, dammnit!

I know I know but all religions have their extremists.. In this timeline I can't find any plausible way to kill christianity entirely, maybe it survives as an underground cult sort of thing.. In which case the Manicheans, with such a strong view of Good and Evil, would at the very least be suspicious of a religion which worshipped the Creator, as to them the Creator is Ahriman, or Satan? However Jesus is also mentioned in Manichean texts so perhaps thats not entirely accurate, and they just view Christians as misguided..

For the scientific aspect, remembers that great thinkers of Late Antiquity as St Augustine were first manicheans. It would probably lead to an interesting philosophical and theological way if he keep his first faith.


Perhaps if he didn't take the position in Rome, but built up a significant following in Africa. He could either persuade the Romans to tolerate manicheism, as he was a great orator, or perhaps be such an important martyr as to inspire a great number of followers. There is maybe some argument that he converted to Christianity only because the Romans had ordered all manicheans to be killed.

[PRFU]

What's wrong with someone re-inventing the existing Graeco-Roman belief-system? Not so much a new religion where people change their beliefs, but adding new idealogical dimensions to a multi-cultural pantheon.

History seems to favour Monotheism over Polytheism.I personally prefer the latter, there's nothing particularly revealing about someone saying 'actually there's just one God who is all powerful and he's my friend and if you don't obey these rules you'll go to a place of fire forever.' Hopefully though the pattern will continue and Atheism will reign supreme! :D

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

History seems to favour Monotheism over Polytheism.I personally prefer the latter, there's nothing particularly revealing about someone saying 'actually there's just one God who is all powerful and he's my friend and if you don't obey these rules you'll go to a place of fire forever.' Hopefully though the pattern will continue and Atheism will reign supreme! :D

I don't find Monotheism to be inherently superior to Polytheism. To a non-religious person like myself, its sort of ridiculous to consider one brand of superstition to be "better" than another. Granted, some can be more interesting, but they're all still subjective to the society that values them.

I don't believe that people in the later Roman Empire were just waiting for a certain Abrahamic faith to appear and "save" them. Ancient ethnic polytheistic peoples were just as loyal to their native systems of belief than any Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist over the centuries since. Christianity owes much to the Emperor Constantine. If he didn't already have a mother or sister who were practising Christians, then it would not have risen above the pack of mystery cults and ethnic religions in the eastern provinces. Imperial patronage is what got Christianity where it is today.

[LSCatilina]

Mystery cults could later become something like the freemasons, which allegedly worship Isis and put great signinificance in pyramids and Egpytian symbology. Or have I been reading too many conspiracy theories? :D
Yes, you're reading too much conspiracy theories.

OTL there was a schism between the followers or Mar Ammo in Sogdiana, known as Denawars, and the mainstream manicheans in Babylonia. In the ATL perhaps the rift is never healed (by the time they resolved their differences it may be because of a lack of following), so to some extent it may resemble the Sunni/ Shia split in Islam.
You know, there were many schism that never healed in early Christianity : arianism in Europe, donatism in Africa to speak about the major ones. They don't exist nowadays. So, even if there's a schism, there's no particular reason to his lasting except if its matches economical and political interests.
For the Shiism : Mainly supported by Persians, considered a second class muslims by the others because they weren't Arabs, and they had a will of independent rule if not supremacy.
Same for Kharijism in Maghrib.


Would the 'Manichean Bible' include the old Testament? Or like the Quran make mention of it but not be required reading.. I think you're right about the Holy Land, however with Arabs invading Persia and killing Manicheans could there possibly be an equivalent 'Crusade' from Europe? I'm aware that i'm maybe trying too hard here to conflate events from two very different timelines, but its an interesting way to come up with scenarios as opposed to systematically trying to work out cause and effect from the beginning, which usually takes me on too radically different a course as I get carried away! :D
For the Holy Texts, it really depends HOW Manicheism became widespread in Europe. If it's in hard concurrence with Christianism, likely not. If the Nazareanism stand a little religion, then maybe some extracts from Bible (both "canon" OTL and apocryphal) could be used as in OTL Quran.

For Crusades, short answer : BUTTERFLIES!
Long answer : there could be or not an equivalent. But it would be probably more a djihad-like expeditions, rather than a Crusade to reconquer a "holy" land, due to the nature of manicheism.


I know I know but all religions have their extremists..
There is nothing about extremists.
During all Middle-Ages and early Renaissances, there was no church-based witch hunt. Even in the Inquisition.
With-Hunt and flames for heresy have nothing to do with "extremist" but all about royal power that urges religious trial to be resolved as in civil courts, or religous clash between Protestants and Catholics all along the division border with a "i'm more pure than you and i'll proove it by buring heretics"-contest.

If you want to make a TL about religion, keep in mind that is all about why this religionis established, and which interets it's representating.


In this timeline I can't find any plausible way to kill christianity entirely, maybe it survives as an underground cult sort of thing.. In which case the Manicheans, with such a strong view of Good and Evil, would at the very least be suspicious of a religion which worshipped the Creator, as to them the Creator is Ahriman, or Satan? However Jesus is also mentioned in Manichean texts so perhaps thats not entirely accurate, and they just view Christians as misguided..
I would say that instead of gnostic heresy as catharism, bogomilism, paulicianism, etc, you'll have equivalents cults but workshipping the Creator. I suppose ATL manicheist would call them "jewish heresies", because of similar beliefs about God. Maybe an earlier jewish persecution.

Perhaps if he didn't take the position in Rome, but built up a significant following in Africa. He could either persuade the Romans to tolerate manicheism, as he was a great orator, or perhaps be such an important martyr as to inspire a great number of followers.[/QUOTE
Why not? Here, YOU have to decide.

[QUOTE]
There is maybe some argument that he converted to Christianity only because the Romans had ordered all manicheans to be killed.
Short answer, no.
Long answer, i don't think that in an era where every yahoo would gladly give his life for martyr would make St.Augustine afraid of persecution. Critically when Rome didn't have the ressources to really enforce it.

History seems to favour Monotheism over Polytheism.I personally prefer the latter, there's nothing particularly revealing about someone saying 'actually there's just one God who is all powerful and he's my friend and if you don't obey these rules you'll go to a place of fire forever.' Hopefully though the pattern will continue and Atheism will reign supreme! :D

Please, not this **** again.
History favours religion that are the most representatives of interests.
And, as there's as many "polytheists" than there is christians in the world...I don't think history favour that much a religion.

In 400, there was maybe at maximum 10% of Christian, the remaining are pagans and not really mithraists in majority. No, big popular pagans with ex-votos and water worship. And Christianity had to integrate that in order to survive.

[CandyDragon]

History seems to favour Monotheism over Polytheism.I personally prefer the latter, there's nothing particularly revealing about someone saying 'actually there's just one God who is all powerful and he's my friend and if you don't obey these rules you'll go to a place of fire forever.' Hopefully though the pattern will continue and Atheism will reign supreme! :D

I don't think there have been any trends towards monotheism at all throughout history. It is just that, after the Mongols, Europe, which was primarily Christian monotheists, was one of the only un-wrecked places on Earth that could rise, and even today, I'm pretty sure that it's just a result of this proportionate increase in power that Europe, and thus Christians became so "dominant." That's just my theory, and it's just a reflection of my "everything bad stems from the Mongols" views.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

That would require a precedent for proselytism in the Jews, which wasn't really active. Dietary restrictions are probably going to be gotten rid of too, as well as circumcision, all of which served to isolate the Jewish people from foreign culture, and to provide them with their own culture that could not blend with others.

Actually, proselytism WAS quite active at the time of Jesus. Many of the early Christian converts were from recent Jewish converts (and 'God fearers' - people who hadn't actually converted, but were interested).

It is very true that it was a heck of a lot easier for women to convert than men, and, in fact, you got many women actually converting when their menfolk were... less enthusiastic, shall we say. Many families wouldn't be wholly converted until the children grew up, which would limit the speed of penetration of the society.

Judaism was actually making significant inroads into Roman society when Christianity came along with all the appeal, and none of the barriers.

Without Christianity, I think Judaism has a serious chance of becoming the Empire's religion. (Even aside from the fact that it's God's choice....) A Sol Invictus is probably more likely, though.

I wouldn't be surprised if some other variant of Judaism, with relaxed restrictions mightn't have succeeded without Christianity.

[Antiochus]

Actually, proselytism WAS quite active at the time of Jesus. Many of the early Christian converts were from recent Jewish converts (and 'God fearers' - people who hadn't actually converted, but were interested).

It is very true that it was a heck of a lot easier for women to convert than men, and, in fact, you got many women actually converting when their menfolk were... less enthusiastic, shall we say. Many families wouldn't be wholly converted until the children grew up, which would limit the speed of penetration of the society.

Judaism was actually making significant inroads into Roman society when Christianity came along with all the appeal, and none of the barriers.

Without Christianity, I think Judaism has a serious chance of becoming the Empire's religion. (Even aside from the fact that it's God's choice....) A Sol Invictus is probably more likely, though.

I wouldn't be surprised if some other variant of Judaism, with relaxed restrictions mightn't have succeeded without Christianity.

I think you have to look at the transformation that Christianity made that allowed it to become the state religion in the Roman Empire. Judaism would probably need to undergo a similar transformation, making itself almost unrecognisable from modern Judaism. Judaism is a defensive religion, and the experience of the Jewish people has only made this more so. To rise to control the Roman Empire it would need to become an aggressive religion that was far easier to convert to, like Christianity or Islam. I personally don't think Judaism was capable of that transformation at this point, Chrstianity was very early in its conception and still malleable at the time. I think Jewish scripture was held in too high regard and entrenched to allow that.

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Judaism was actually making significant inroads into Roman society when Christianity came along with all the appeal, and none of the barriers.

Without Christianity, I think Judaism has a serious chance of becoming the Empire's religion. (Even aside from the fact that it's God's choice....) A Sol Invictus is probably more likely, though.

I wouldn't be surprised if some other variant of Judaism, with relaxed restrictions mightn't have succeeded without Christianity.

Mormonism and Scientology have made significant inroads into western society as well. Does this mean they're going to replace every other religion?

Judaism, with its specific ethnic origins and cultural traits, becoming the Empire's official religion. Christianity's Hellenism was only part of why it was more acceptable. And as I said before, Christianity only achieved its position in western culture through patronage. As many followers as it gained before the 300's CE, they were still not a dominant minority.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Mormonism and Scientology have made significant inroads into western society as well. Does this mean they're going to replace every other religion?
No, because there is already a higher religion in place. The Greek/Roman polytheism WAS going to be replaced by something else. The question was what.

Judaism, with its specific ethnic origins and cultural traits, becoming the Empire's official religion. Christianity's Hellenism was only part of why it was more acceptable. And as I said before, Christianity only achieved its position in western culture through patronage. As many followers as it gained before the 300's CE, they were still not a dominant minority.

Judaism at that point was pretty Hellenic, and they had some patronage, too, although mostly with upper class women.

Would it be easy? no. Would it be possible? certainly. While Judaism had some strong handicaps, so did most of the available alternatives. Mithraism was pretty much restricted to men, Isis or one of the other Great Mother cults were largely restricted to women. The mystery cults were, as some one pointed out, not open to everyone. Sol Invictus was pretty artificial, and it showed.

Absent Christianity, which of those remaining options would get the greatest traction? I think it's a bit of a coin toss. My personal guess if Mithraism and one of the Great Mother cults could 'marry', they'd carry the day. Failing that, I still think Judaism is most likely.

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

No, because there is already a higher religion in place. The Greek/Roman polytheism WAS going to be replaced by something else. The question was what.

Says who? And why is Christianity a "higher religion"?



Judaism at that point was pretty Hellenic, and they had some patronage, too, although mostly with upper class women.

There was a Hellenized Jewish population in the eastern Roman provinces. But could the same be said of the native Judeans, the Mesopotamian Jews and the Jews in Arabia?

Would it be easy? no. Would it be possible? certainly. While Judaism had some strong handicaps, so did most of the available alternatives. Mithraism was pretty much restricted to men, Isis or one of the other Great Mother cults were largely restricted to women. The mystery cults were, as some one pointed out, not open to everyone. Sol Invictus was pretty artificial, and it showed.

Absent Christianity, which of those remaining options would get the greatest traction? I think it's a bit of a coin toss. My personal guess if Mithraism and one of the Great Mother cults could 'marry', they'd carry the day. Failing that, I still think Judaism is most likely.

I don't think any of those was bound to totally dominate the spiritual lives of population in the centuries to come. Having said that, I don't see any evidence that people were looking for a superior religion to practice. I find the whole premise to be absolutely false. Christianity's rise to cultural importance was no more than an accident of history.

[CandyDragon]

I don't see any evidence that people were looking for a superior religion to practice. I find the whole premise to be absolutely false. Christianity's rise to cultural importance was no more than an accident of history.

I agree. I find it a bizarrely Christianocentric argument to say that it was destined to become a major religion because of its superior traits. I find it to be one of the more bizarre, but not fated, rises.

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

I agree. I find it a bizarrely Christianocentric argument to say that it was destined to become a major religion because of its superior traits. I find it to be one of the more bizarre, but not fated, rises.

If anyone uses an argument that even approaches to saying that it was "God's plan", then it means absolutely nothing to me.

[CandyDragon]

If anyone uses an argument that even approaches to saying that it was "God's plan", then it means absolutely nothing to me.

If one uses that argument, then one could say that it was "Jupiter's plan that his religion fade from sight," Gods are ineffable and all that jazz. :D

(And I'm a practicing Catholic... I'm just somewhat too logical to attribute divine will to whether my toast falls butter side down or up.)