No Christ

[Faeelin]

I'm very surprised this didn't come up today.

What if Christ had never existed?

I'll post some thoughts when I finish digesting.

[Nicksplace27]

Well, if I were a very religious catholic, this would be saying there is no God, becuase Jesus was apart of God.

But in historical context...

Judea would find another messiah...

[Susano]

Well, if I were a very religious catholic, this would be saying there is no God, becuase Jesus was apart of God.

But in historical context...

Judea would find another messiah...

While there were many wandering rabbis like Jesus at that time in Juda, it took a serie of fortunate circumstances to have Christianity spread worldwide. Change a little thing, and you wont have that. There wont be a suggorate Christianity, so to say.

So, Hail Odin! ;)

[Count Dearborn]

We would still have a holiday at this time of the year, we just wouldn't call it Christmas. Some of us would call it names like Yule, or maybe Saternalia. A syncretic religion probably made up the Cult of Mithras, the Cult of Sol Invictus, with some Persian religion and a smattering of philsophy thrown in for good measure.

[Tocomocho]

Europe and the Mediterranean region would have a more diverse range of religions, although only one (Mithraism, in my opinion) would be the dominant.

[Faeelin]

Europe and the Mediterranean region would have a more diverse range of religions, although only one (Mithraism, in my opinion) would be the dominant.

Did Mithraism ever act like an aggressive prosletyzing religion? My impression is that it was a bunch of guys getting together to sacrifice a bull when their women weren't around.

[carlton_bach]

Did Mithraism ever act like an aggressive prosletyzing religion? My impression is that it was a bunch of guys getting together to sacrifice a bull when their women weren't around.

Mithraism most likely was proselytising in the way that freemasonry is - they'd look for promising candidates with the right ideas and the right wallet size and invite them. There seems also to have been a worship of Mithras that was unconnected with the Mithraeum cults. But there was never the idea of making *everybody* come to the Mithraeum, or even of offering all to participate as the public cults did.

[Tocomocho]

But remember that Mithraism was very popular among soldiers. That would have an impact during the Barbarian invasions, don't you think? For example, I'm imagining an Alternate-Aetius leading a bunch of fanatical "Mithraist" legions against Attila and saving Rome. :D

[Ran Exilis]

Did Mithraism ever act like an aggressive prosletyzing religion? My impression is that it was a bunch of guys getting together to sacrifice a bull when their women weren't around.

...which brings us to another crucial point: Mithraism did not allow women to join, and it childred were forbidden to join as well.

Only adult men were eligible to join this cult.

And Mithraism was also mainly adhered by soldiers and merciants, while it didn't attract many converts from the lower classes of society like Christianity did.

...and by the way; in my opinion, the idea of classic Mithraism as the next world religion is grossly overrated.

It might have become a good candidate for becoming the new world religion, but to become like that, it'll have to drop the whole
"men only" thing, since the most efficient religions are religions in which women and children can also actively participate.

And keep in mind that there doesn't need to be one dominant cult or religion, and that there can be a number of important cults and philosophies in the whole area, and perhaps a one or a few official imperial cults (the cult of emperor-worship, the cult of Sol Invictus).

And come to think of it, I'd like to see what Europe and the Mediterranean would have looked like if it would have remained a society where many different polytheistic religions and cults merge, with an official imperial cult dedicated to the emperor or Sol Invictus, Neoplatonic philosophies, and many Mesopotamian, Persian and Indian philosophical and religious ideas coming from the east...

[Ran Exilis]

But remember that Mithraism was very popular among soldiers. That would have an impact during the Barbarian invasions, don't you think? For example, I'm imagining an Alternate-Aetius leading a bunch of fanatical "Mithraist" legions against Attila and saving Rome. :D

...but that can also backfire; what would the moral and religious effects be if the Huns would defeat them?

[sunsurf]

John Reilly has two relevant essays...

http://www.johnreilly.info/ijhnbb.htm

http://www.johnreilly.info/temple.htm

WI Christianity had gotten started in 500 BC, or 500 AD, or even earlier or later?

WI Jesus was born 500 years earlier, visited India and met Buddha?

[Tocomocho]

...but that can also backfire; what would the moral and religious effects be if the Huns would defeat them?

The Roman culture crashes, the Empire implodes, Attila enters in Rome and destroys it... ??

[Faeelin]

But remember that Mithraism was very popular among soldiers. That would have an impact during the Barbarian invasions, don't you think? For example, I'm imagining an Alternate-Aetius leading a bunch of fanatical "Mithraist" legions against Attila and saving Rome. :D

So, you're picturing warriors who see themselves as servants of their Gods fighting against an angry agent of darkness?

Who knows how warfare in Europe would develop, in such a system. :D

[Hendryk]

I have on a previous occasion exposed my hypothesis of how the Roman empire would evolve without Christianity; in a nutshell, I speculate that a philosophical system--probably Stoicism given its popularity with such figures as Marcus Aurelius in OTL--would become the de facto and later on the official state ideology, while classic polytheism would remain practiced on a formal level for civic purposes, and those people looking for a spiritually meaningful religion would join this or that mystery cult. Not altogether unlike what happened in China, where such an arrangement proved durable for more than two millennia.

It would have remained self-evident in Western civilization that religious pluralism is the natural state of human societies, and those cultures that seek to enforce religious homogeneity among their members would be considered with puzzlement and not a little distaste.

[Tyr]

According to QI he never existed anyway and the entire christian thing was just the Jewish take on a existing Roman cult....
But I doubt it.

[Aozhouhuaren]

Could it be possible that Zoroastrianism becomes big, since it would only be getting competition from Judaism. As without Christ, theres no Christianity and in a sense no Christianity leads partly to a large chunk of Islamic teachings to not even form, these two religions were largely responsible for the decline of Zoroastrianism. Now the problem would be how would Zoroastrianism travel from Persia to Judea and when it does would it spread as quickly as the Abrahamic religions did.

[Tyr]

It has the same problem as Judaism with its quite stuck up 'You're only a Zorastrian if your father was'.

[ninebucks]

I agree that a different Messiah would come to power. But the question is, what kind of personalities will be involved. The personalities involved in Christianity were all joined to Jesus via links of kinship or friendship, but the alternative Messiahs would have different friends and family, with different philosophies to create different churches.

The alternative messianism could literally be anywhere on the theological scale. It could be a pacifist, stoic cult of nonexistance, or a materialistic, flesh-eating monster-worshipping horde.

[Hendryk]

BTW, this thread (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=49758) has already explored the consequences of Christianity not showing up.

Could it be possible that Zoroastrianism becomes big, since it would only be getting competition from Judaism. As without Christ, theres no Christianity and in a sense no Christianity leads partly to a large chunk of Islamic teachings to not even form, these two religions were largely responsible for the decline of Zoroastrianism. Now the problem would be how would Zoroastrianism travel from Persia to Judea and when it does would it spread as quickly as the Abrahamic religions did.
The problem is that "orthodox" Zoroastrianism is a non-proselyte religion, so in order for it to spread a "reformed" variant would have to come up. I speculated at one point about what would happen if Mohammed had converted to Zoroastrianism and tweaked its teachings to make it as aggressively expansionary as Islam has been in OTL, and you may want to take a look at it (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=26240).

[MrP]

According to QI he never existed anyway and the entire christian thing was just the Jewish take on a existing Roman cult....
But I doubt it.

Yeah, just watched that. Looks like they've got AMBOMB on the research staff now. :rolleyes: ;)

[freivolk]

We would be living in Nietsches world. Not a nice place, if you don´t belong to the higher ranks in the food chain.

[Keenir]

It has the same problem as Judaism with its quite stuck up 'You're only a Zorastrian if your father was'.

then how exactly is it that Judaism made converts?

(after all, Christian rulers wouldn't need to make laws forbidding converting to the Jewish faith if such things never happened)

[Keenir]

We would be living in Nietsches world.

why is that?

even the Romans knew it was a good idea to help the lower ranks.

Not a nice place, if you don´t belong to the higher ranks in the food chain.

and how is this different from the Christian middle ages?

[Faeelin]

It has the same problem as Judaism with its quite stuck up 'You're only a Zorastrian if your father was'.

Actually, I think its' worse than Judaism. By this point in world history, there was a large population of "Judaizers", who accepted the teachings of Moses but weren't Jews.

[Ran Exilis]

The problem is that "orthodox" Zoroastrianism is a non-proselyte religion, so in order for it to spread a "reformed" variant would have to come up. I speculated at one point about what would happen if Mohammed had converted to Zoroastrianism and tweaked its teachings to make it as aggressively expansionary as Islam has been in OTL, and you may want to take a look at it (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=26240).

Just one footnote on Zoroastrianism: the whole no-conversion policy was appearantly something that did not develop until well into the Medieval Ages, and this policy could very well have been a result of Islamic domination.

And I recall that from both the Sassanid age, as well as the early Islamic age (though mainly concerning the Parsees in India) that conversion to Zoroastrianism was not only considered permitted, but even meritable. And I recall that there has been some active prosyletizing under Sassanid rule.

...and a final detail: keep in mind that Zoroastrianism was (and still is) effectively a (somewhat) heterodox religion, with several different philosophies and religious movements (like Zurvanism and Mazdakism).

So, even if mainstream Zoroastrianism rejects active prosyletizing, then that still leaves a number of Zoroastrian sects that may not reject active prosyletizing.

[Ran Exilis]

Actually, I think its' worse than Judaism. By this point in world history, there was a large population of "Judaizers", who accepted the teachings of Moses but weren't Jews.

That's true! - and there were quite a lot of such converts too.

...just think of the Khazars.

[DuQuense]

given that Sol Invictus was popular with the Roman Rulers up till well after Constantine converted to Christ, and Zoroastrianism's views of Light and Fire,
I see a slight merging here as some Easterner comes to the Throne, and trys to make make peace with Persia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_temple

[Leo Caesius]

Zoroastrianism is very much an ethnic religion, as is Judaism. If you actually read the Zoroastrian sacred texts, you'll see that the Zoroastrians place as much an emphasis upon purity of one's Aryan "stock" as they do upon good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. On the other hand, there are references to conversion throughout the religious texts, which cannot simply be waved away. In their Farvardin Yasht, Zoroastrians profess that "the Good Religion of worshipping the Wise One shall spread on the seven regions of the earth", which, on the face of it, seems to be a call to proselytize.

As for the theory that the ban on conversion originated as a response to Islamic oppression, I don't buy it. The Parsi community in and around Bombay dates to the 9th c. CE according to their own traditions (see the Qisse-ye Sanjan). This is the larger of the two communities and is the more conservative, yet they have been living among non-Muslims for the better part of the last millennium or more.

The Iranian community is known to be much more liberal on this issue. One might conclude that this is a recent development (unlikely, IMHO, that such a development might occur in the Islamic Republic of Iran, in contrast to the secular Republic of India) except that the Iranian community was clearly welcoming converts well into the 16th century, to judge by the Persian Rivayats (which deal with this issue explicitly), and probably much later.Thus, we have two communities of Zoroastrians - one which has been living in its ancient homeland, albeit under Islamic rule for the last millennium or so, and one which has been living in a diaspora in India, alongside Hindus and members of other faiths, for most of this time. If the ban against accepting converts arose as a response to Islam, we would have expected the Iranians to have laid down the law against converts, and the Indians to have opened their arms to them - but this is, in fact, the very opposite of what happened.

Looking at that link Hendryk offered, I realized that we never get very far when discussing this issue. I guess that's why Faeelin decided to put the cat amongst the pigeons.

Leaving theological questions aside, either one assumes that the rise and spread of Christianity were unique or one assumes that some kind of vacuum existed and that any faith could have stepped into it and fulfilled the same role as Christianity. I do get the feeling that the Late Antique world was ready for a religious revolution, or rather several religious revolutions. The most successful of these (Christianity, Mithraism, Manichaeism, Islam, etc.) seem to have been phenomena of the Hellenistic world (broadly defined), and were produced through the fusion of Hellenistic culture with what we might call, for lack of a better word, "Oriental" culture or cultures.

I do see room for a possible contender to or replacement for Christianity. I do not think that this contender would be so different from Christianity in the end. It would necessarily need to be universalistic, and speak to the Hellenistic world in all of its diversity. It goes without saying that it must be evangelical. It is a good bet that it would be dualistic to some extent and incorporate Neoplatonic ideas as well. It would likely develop along hierarchical lines, the model for this development being furnished by the empires in which it matures. Likewise, it would owe much to the peoples among whom it matured and local varieties of it would likely develop quite quickly.

[Taninniver]

Another Messiah might spring up with a religion built around him, but I doubt it would have the philosophical charm and apocalyptic fervor that Christianity had. Your best bet is to have a completely new individual step up, someone young, maybe a proohet. Definitely a martyr, that is, one who dies in the end.

Also, when you say that Mithraism was male-exclusive, how male-exclusive do you mean? Like, Orthodox Christianity exclusive, in which women were tolerated, but not able to be anything other than just converts (as they were thought to be at best lesser than men, or at worst tainted succubi of satan), or completely and utterly secretive and male?

[Keenir]

Another Messiah might spring up with a religion built around him, but I doubt it would have the philosophical charm and apocalyptic fervor that Christianity had.

you mean like John the Baptist or Simon Magus?

both of those are in the NT, yet each had their own movements.

[Hendryk]

We would be living in Nietsches world. Not a nice place, if you don´t belong to the higher ranks in the food chain.
I don't get it. Was the world Nietzschean before Jesus? Is the non-Christian world Nietzschean now? It's a matter of debate how much Christian teachings have smoothed the harder edges of Roman civilization, though I can't help but notice that slavery was only abolished by Christians about 1840 years after their religion was first set up, which is a rather long time to make up their minds about it. Be that as it may, the non-Christian world hasn't waited for Jesus to come up with humane recommandations of its own. The Golden Law has been known in China since Confucius, and in India since Buddha, both of whom lived some five centuries before the time of Jesus.

[Tyr]

then how exactly is it that Judaism made converts?

(after all, Christian rulers wouldn't need to make laws forbidding converting to the Jewish faith if such things never happened)

Its only more modern varients where you can convert.
With orthodox jews you can't.
And I can't reacall any anti-conversion laws...That was usually covered by that standard 'no jews allowed' (which was always bent) and 'everyone must be catholic' laws.

[Ran Exilis]

Also, when you say that Mithraism was male-exclusive, how male-exclusive do you mean? Like, Orthodox Christianity exclusive, in which women were tolerated, but not able to be anything other than just converts (as they were thought to be at best lesser than men, or at worst tainted succubi of satan), or completely and utterly secretive and male?

Mithraism was completely and utterly secretive and men-only.

It was impossible for women to convert to this faith.

[carlton_bach]

And I can't reacall any anti-conversion laws...That was usually covered by that standard 'no jews allowed' (which was always bent) and 'everyone must be catholic' laws.

You're thinking post-1300. Beginning at the latest in the days of Gregory of Tours, and well into the twelfth century, Judaism proved an attractive religion for far too many Christians for the authorities to be sanguine about it. Proselytising carried the death penalty at least in some Christian Spanish realms and universally severe penalties throughout Christendom. Apostasy, of course, was a severe spiritual crime and would be dealt with accordingly. It certainly was an issue.

[carlton_bach]

I don't get it. Was the world Nietzschean before Jesus? Is the non-Christian world Nietzschean now? It's a matter of debate how much Christian teachings have smoothed the harder edges of Roman civilization, though I can't help but notice that slavery was only abolished by Christians about 1840 years after their religion was first set up, which is a rather long time to make up their minds about it. Be that as it may, the non-Christian world hasn't waited for Jesus to come up with humane recommandations of its own. The Golden Law has been known in China since Confucius, and in India since Buddha, both of whom lived some five centuries before the time of Jesus.

Hendryk, you don't understand - there is a significant difference between karma or the moreals of Confucius and Christian charity. Karma is mechanistic. It is assumed to work and thus as normal as a stone, once let go, dropping to the ground. It isn't a moral obligation, doing bad things just is as unwise as stepping off a cliff. Gravity's a bitch, and so's karma. Confucian ethics are one step further removed from the spiritual plane. They are merely the rules by which you run a society you want to live in. Christian charity,. on the other hand, is predicated on a do-ut-des exchange mechanism outlined in in Matthew 19, 16ff, in which three parties exist - the giver, the recipient, and the personal, judging deity. A Buddhist gives charity to a beggar in order to accumulate good karma and, once enlightenment is reached, continues to give charity out of human pity, or ceases to do so, freely, with no odium attaching to his final abandonment of all such duties for Nirvana. A good Confucian gives charity to a beggar because it is fit for all good hgumans to concern themselves with their fellow humans and alleviate their misfortune where they may reasonably and safely do so. A good Christian must give charity to gain eternal life. Thus, if a Confucian should become cionvinced that Cioinfucius was ahistorical, he would continue to live his life by maxims that make sense. A Christian bereft of the kerygmatic Christ as the judging deity has no more reason to practice charity. Big difference. Clearly superior. Or so I'm told.

[Hendryk]

A Buddhist gives charity to a beggar in order to accumulate good karma and, once enlightenment is reached, continues to give charity out of human pity, or ceases to do so, freely, with no odium attaching to his final abandonment of all such duties for Nirvana. A good Confucian gives charity to a beggar because it is fit for all good hgumans to concern themselves with their fellow humans and alleviate their misfortune where they may reasonably and safely do so. A good Christian must give charity to gain eternal life. Thus, if a Confucian should become cionvinced that Cioinfucius was ahistorical, he would continue to live his life by maxims that make sense. A Christian bereft of the kerygmatic Christ as the judging deity has no more reason to practice charity. Big difference. Clearly superior. Or so I'm told.
Quite. And what gets to me is precisely the very Christian (and more generally Abrahamic) idea that, if you don't believe in a watchful deity keeping track of your every move, you no longer need to behave morally. Apparently some Christians are unable to understand that people who adhere to non-theistic religious or ethical systems have no need for a personal God to tell them to be good to one another.

[Nekromans]

And so we come full-circle from the Pharisees.

[MarkA]

According to QI he never existed anyway and the entire christian thing was just the Jewish take on a existing Roman cult....
But I doubt it.

I would have thought it was the other way around.

Whether Jesus existed or not is largely irrelevent. Paul is the inventor of christianity. So even if Jesus did not exist it would be necessary to invent him. This is of course what some people think happened.

Was there really a spiritual crisis in the Roman world that led to the rapid expansion of christianity? If there was could another mystery religion simply fit the void?

The so called spiritual crisis was really an economic crisis. Most people were caught in a poverty trap while inflation grew and wages decreased or remained staic. Slavery was becoming a state more akin to popular conceptions of it than it had in the past. Field slaves were always treated badly, but now the evidence seems to indicate that even household slaves were being seen as less than fully human. This was because of the failure of stocism to be a real moral force.

Also, people tend to underestimate the human desire for magic and supernatural explanations when times are tough. My particular diety will free me from want. Sort of like winning the lottery. Before consumerism, spiritual desires were the things that people sought for satisfaction not material goods. When a religion came along that allowed communal celebrations for all the person's family and friends without discriminating in any way about their origins or gender or age or anything else, it is not surprising it became popular.

No christianity means that the west would probably resemble China in terms of its spiritual basis. Would it make a difference? Well no popes and no conflict between church and state which was citical in the development of those western institutions that made the west successful.

[Tocomocho]

So, you're picturing warriors who see themselves as servants of their Gods fighting against an angry agent of darkness?

Who knows how warfare in Europe would develop, in such a system. :D

Well, I was thinking in some form to send the lazy late Romans to the battlefield...

[Stalker]

Well, many have already expressed this idea. Without Christ, there might be another messiah, or the monotheistic religion of a messian kind would have arisen in any case. Say, even when there's no any Messiah, such a faith would develop a projudaistic doctrine of the Messiah to come as it was predicted in the Book of Joshua Navin.

[mojojojo]

No christianity means that the west would probably resemble China in terms of its spiritual basis. Would it make a difference? Well no popes and no conflict between church and state which was citical in the development of those western institutions that made the west successful.
If that was the case then how would history have infolded. How much of the world would the west dominate? What would the world be like today?

[Keenir]

No christianity means that the west would probably resemble China in terms of its spiritual basis. Would it make a difference? Well no popes and no conflict between church and state which was citical in the development of those western institutions that made the west successful.

:eek:

China was never successful???????????????

:eek:

[lounge60]

Don't forget ISIS cult. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis

[Max Sinister]

OK, so the things which made Christianity special was the combination of:

1. A monotheistic, missionarizing religion

2. The importance of charity and compassion

Plus 3. What Saint Paul made of this idea.

Something similar might emerge later in history. Maybe 100 years later? If history develops similar, Palestine would be in a similar situation as it was between Titus destroying the 2nd Temple and Bar Kochba's uprising. How different would such a Christianity be?

[mojojojo]

can someone take a crack at my question

[Northern Sushi]

I am considering something similar yet different for an AH I wish to write up. What if Christ existed, but had no signifigance? My discussion (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=53542)

[Leo Caesius]

Was there really a spiritual crisis in the Roman world that led to the rapid expansion of christianity? If there was could another mystery religion simply fit the void?

The so called spiritual crisis was really an economic crisis. Most people were caught in a poverty trap while inflation grew and wages decreased or remained staic. Slavery was becoming a state more akin to popular conceptions of it than it had in the past.I don't think that this is the full picture. The world was changing due to economic and cultural considerations, certainly, and traditional religions were increasingly unable to address this change. The eastern Mediterranean (and the Greek colonies in the West) were unified by one language, for the first time in history, and people were moving throughout the region - soldiers, colonists, merchants, etc. The traditional religions were essentially local, ill-suited to this new reality, as they were tied to the land and various features of the landscape (although some cults were successfully transplanted to the colonies). At the same time, the chief agents of this change (the Hellenistic Greeks) were coming into contact with new peoples with much older civilizations and different ways of looking at the world. This contact would change all parties involved profoundly.

That is why I feel that any religion that arises out of this cultural ferment must be universal and syncretistic, as Christianity, Islam, the various Gnostic sects, and the rest were.

[Bety]

I have read some time ago a study on Chrisitanity versus Gnostism.
I said the main advantage of Christianity is it offered a way "up", better world for all, a kingdom of god for all ..Who just wanted to take the very simple path - up. Gnostism being much too inner and the development rather circular then linear.

[MarkA]

I don't think that this is the full picture. The world was changing due to economic and cultural considerations, certainly, and traditional religions were increasingly unable to address this change. The eastern Mediterranean (and the Greek colonies in the West) were unified by one language, for the first time in history, and people were moving throughout the region - soldiers, colonists, merchants, etc. The traditional religions were essentially local, ill-suited to this new reality, as they were tied to the land and various features of the landscape (although some cults were successfully transplanted to the colonies). At the same time, the chief agents of this change (the Hellenistic Greeks) were coming into contact with new peoples with much older civilizations and different ways of looking at the world. This contact would change all parties involved profoundly.

That is why I feel that any religion that arises out of this cultural ferment must be universal and syncretistic, as Christianity, Islam, the various Gnostic sects, and the rest were.

Exactly why Sol Invictus and the revamped Isis cult,for example, were so successful.

My point is that christianity was succssful because it was directed solely at the economic crisis that swamped the people. Slaves, the poor, the meek, women and so on were included not excluded. If the official and local cults could include these groups they too would be successful. Just like Julian tried to do when he saw why christianity was so successful.

[MarkA]

:eek:

China was never successful???????????????

:eek:

I think you know I meant in terms of dominating the rest of the world.

[MarkA]

If that was the case then how would history have infolded. How much of the world would the west dominate? What would the world be like today?

Bloody big question!

Let me think about it a while.

[Keenir]

I think you know I meant in terms of dominating the rest of the world.

you're right - after all, China has no ability to pressure other nations into doing what China wants.
:p :D

[mojojojo]

Bloody big question!

Let me think about it a while.
I look forward to it, that was what I was trying to get to when I posted on this topic before.

[At-Bari]

you're right - after all, China has no ability to pressure other nations into doing what China wants.
:p :D

Maybe the colonial era...