AHC: Integrate Jesus into Roman Paganism

[Napoleonrules]

The idea that Christianity formed as a misunderstanding of Judaism is pretty laughable.

Disregarding that, if you're going to consider each (non-exclusive) cult as a separate religion, why not do the same to the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes? Mystery cults were mostly popular among the urban elite anyway, in the country where the majority of the population resided traditional folk religion remained strong. There's really no case to be made for Judaism forming a plurality in the Roman Empire, especially considering that Judea was under direct Roman rule for less than 200 years before the diaspora happened.

You seem to have your ancient history mistaken. The Diaspora occurred under the Babylonian Captivity, not under the Romans. There were Jews in Rome long before Rome came to Judah.

Christianity was a misunderstanding of Judaism, some intentional some an honest mistake. Judaism is quite clear "I am the Lord, your G-d, who led you out of Egypt to be your god; you shall have none before me" and the Shema prayer- "Hear O Israel! The Lord is your G-d the Lord is one" both of those pretty much show that the trinity and divinity of Christ, intervention prayers to Mary and the saints, etc etc contradicts the very essence of what it means to be a Jew. Christianity is more Zoroastrian and other cults than it is Jewish. It is fact that Christianity started its growth among newly converted Jews rather than among established Jewish families.

 

[Spengler]

Indeed, I think the crucial difference would be to embrace Christ very early on, so that the number of converts to the polytheist version far outnumber converts to the monotheist version. Basically I'm saying integration would require the Roman State to go all out in promoting and publicising their own version of Christ before most people have even heard of him and whilst monotheist Christians are still small in number. That didn't happen in OTL.


That rather depends on your definition of "single religion" and as two (ultimately far more popular) monotheistic religions followed Judaism in OTL it is reasonable to expect another one would come along if Christianity was butterflied. Proselytising monotheism clearly met a need.

why would they? Its a minor cult, it wouldn't be until the middle of the xsecond century that it would begin to see inroads with the neoplatonists, also being that its rather pacifistic means that the romans would consider it to be at best a nuciance at worst a threat to their order.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Judaism at that point was no longer an ethnic religion as it had been proselytizing for quite some time. Judaism only stopped because of the problem they had with converts not understanding monotheism and creating this concept of Christianity. Kinda turned Jews off from wanting more converts after that.

Greeks and Egyptians and Romans had all fragmented from their pantheons into mysteries and semi-montheistic religions based on Isis, Osiris, and others. There was also some Zoroastrians.

Is there evidence for how Roman or other varied people's where unable to understand monotheism and this led to Christianity? I seriously doubt that the non Jewish Syriac speakers in the Mid East where having a hard time with the concept of monotheism, but perhaps more with circumcision and other features of traditional Judaiism.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

You seem to have your ancient history mistaken. The Diaspora occurred under the Babylonian Captivity, not under the Romans. There were Jews in Rome long before Rome came to Judah.

Christianity was a misunderstanding of Judaism, some intentional some an honest mistake. Judaism is quite clear "I am the Lord, your G-d, who led you out of Egypt to be your god; you shall have none before me" and the Shema prayer- "Hear O Israel! The Lord is your G-d the Lord is one" both of those pretty much show that the trinity and divinity of Christ, intervention prayers to Mary and the saints, etc etc contradicts the very essence of what it means to be a Jew. Christianity is more Zoroastrian and other cults than it is Jewish. It is fact that Christianity started its growth among newly converted Jews rather than among established Jewish families.

No, neither of you are wrong. There were various times in which the Jews went into the diaspora and where spread throughout the land beginning with:

1.The conquest of Israel by Sargon II in 722 BCE.

2. The Babylonian captivity during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II in 586 BCE

Then of course the dispersions caused by Jewish revolts in 66-70 CE and then the Bar Khokhba revolt of 132-136 CE which finally pushed the Jews out of Judea.


I also find it interesting that you say Christianity is a mistake by newly converted Jews who did not understand monotheism, but where is the evidence? Just saying well Jewish families didn't convert or quoting scripture isn't proof. For one, it is easy to take readings of the Torah and come out with Trinity or Duality, hence Christianity, which used these readings and verses to validate the new religion, which is unique in and of itself, not a misunderstanding. In fact I would also contend that Christianity has far more in common with Judaiism than it does with Zoroastrianism or any religion in the Parthian or Roman Empire (not counting the eventual Manichaeism) as you say.

Either ways, part of the problem with Jesus is that he was someone who had recently died, and died a rebel. Such a 'god' would not seem fit to be part of a pantheon of victorious gods and goddesses who did their acts in a far distant time period. Perhaps if Christianity can make major inroads as it did otl, then a more agreeable empereor adopts some concepts of Jesus and adds the person as a god of Rome as they did with Yahweh. Perhaps Jesus becomes the God of Sacrifice and subsistence?

 

[Napoleonrules]

No, neither of you are wrong. There were various times in which the Jews went into the diaspora and where spread throughout the land beginning with:

1.The conquest of Israel by Sargon II in 722 BCE.

2. The Babylonian captivity during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II in 586 BCE

Then of course the dispersions caused by Jewish revolts in 66-70 CE and then the Bar Khokhba revolt of 132-136 CE which finally pushed the Jews out of Judea.


I also find it interesting that you say Christianity is a mistake by newly converted Jews who did not understand monotheism, but where is the evidence? Just saying well Jewish families didn't convert or quoting scripture isn't proof. For one, it is easy to take readings of the Torah and come out with Trinity or Duality, hence Christianity, which used these readings and verses to validate the new religion, which is unique in and of itself, not a misunderstanding. In fact I would also contend that Christianity has far more in common with Judaiism than it does with Zoroastrianism or any religion in the Parthian or Roman Empire (not counting the eventual Manichaeism) as you say.

Either ways, part of the problem with Jesus is that he was someone who had recently died, and died a rebel. Such a 'god' would not seem fit to be part of a pantheon of victorious gods and goddesses who did their acts in a far distant time period. Perhaps if Christianity can make major inroads as it did otl, then a more agreeable empereor adopts some concepts of Jesus and adds the person as a god of Rome as they did with Yahweh. Perhaps Jesus becomes the God of Sacrifice and subsistence?

For example- Christianity has concept of good and evil duality (from Zoroastrianism) which Judaism lacks; Judaism lacks a devil or Satan (Ha Satan in the book of Job is an angel under full control of the Lord doing only what the Lord asks and is not the Christian devil despite Christianity calling him that), Judaism lacks heaven and hell, heaven is for angels not dead people, sheol is more like purgatory a grey nothingness where you have no bodily feelings, the only feeling is a removal of the presence of the Lord (which to any Jew the lack of feeling the Lord's presence IS a kind of hell); Judaism is fully strict monotheism which only Islam shares; Judaism does not have the concept of Original Sin and lacks a real understanding of a concept such as "sin" at all, the 613 laws of the Torah are just that- LAWS not morals that you can "sin" against; it is deeds that matter, not religious thought, belief, or prayer (the boy that recites the Hebrew alphabet at Yom Kippur because he doesn't know the prayers, but does good deeds and is sincere in his heart bends the Lord's ear more than those who prayer in the Temple "correctly"); the Eucarist- can't possibly understand how someone can look at the Eucarist and say "that's something a Jew told them to do"... "Eat this for it is my flesh, drink this it is my body"... noooo, Jewish taboo on canabilism or drinking of ANY blood would make this absolutely something that would have gotten Jesus stoned long before the Romans crucified him, clearly the idea of transmogrification was a later concept by non-Jews; the Talmud clearly states when an abortion is mandatory (to save the woman's life) and that a fetus is not a living human child until the crown of the head passes the "opening", clearly different that Christianity's views (though Christianity's anti-abortion stance is relatively recent in its 2,000 yr history). A lot of the quoting of Scripture from the Old Testament that Christianity does to validate many of their beliefs are taken out of context or poor translations.

Those are just some of the differences between Christianity and Judaism and doesn't even begin to mention the fact that Christians don't follow any of the laws. Other than Christians say "we worship the same god", the two religions are as different as Judaism and Zoroastrianism.

 

[Orsino]

why would they? Its a minor cult, it wouldn't be until the middle of the xsecond century that it would begin to see inroads with the neoplatonists, also being that its rather pacifistic means that the romans would consider it to be at best a nuciance at worst a threat to their order.

The most likely possibility I can see is a chance opportunity for an early Christian to try and convert an emperor. The emperor is swayed into thinking this Jesus bloke really is the son of a god, but disregards the monotheistic elements. Maybe that seems like a long shot but I think any early adoption of Jesus must be based on personal convictions or omens rather than pragmatism because no such need would yet be perceived.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

For example- Christianity has concept of good and evil duality (from Zoroastrianism) which Judaism lacks; Judaism lacks a devil or Satan (Ha Satan in the book of Job is an angel under full control of the Lord doing only what the Lord asks and is not the Christian devil despite Christianity calling him that), Judaism lacks heaven and hell, heaven is for angels not dead people, sheol is more like purgatory a grey nothingness where you have no bodily feelings, the only feeling is a removal of the presence of the Lord (which to any Jew the lack of feeling the Lord's presence IS a kind of hell); Judaism is fully strict monotheism which only Islam shares; Judaism does not have the concept of Original Sin and lacks a real understanding of a concept such as "sin" at all, the 613 laws of the Torah are just that- LAWS not morals that you can "sin" against; it is deeds that matter, not religious thought, belief, or prayer (the boy that recites the Hebrew alphabet at Yom Kippur because he doesn't know the prayers, but does good deeds and is sincere in his heart bends the Lord's ear more than those who prayer in the Temple "correctly"); the Eucarist- can't possibly understand how someone can look at the Eucarist and say "that's something a Jew told them to do"... "Eat this for it is my flesh, drink this it is my body"... noooo, Jewish taboo on canabilism or drinking of ANY blood would make this absolutely something that would have gotten Jesus stoned long before the Romans crucified him, clearly the idea of transmogrification was a later concept by non-Jews; the Talmud clearly states when an abortion is mandatory (to save the woman's life) and that a fetus is not a living human child until the crown of the head passes the "opening", clearly different that Christianity's views (though Christianity's anti-abortion stance is relatively recent in its 2,000 yr history). A lot of the quoting of Scripture from the Old Testament that Christianity does to validate many of their beliefs are taken out of context or poor translations.

Those are just some of the differences between Christianity and Judaism and doesn't even begin to mention the fact that Christians don't follow any of the laws. Other than Christians say "we worship the same god", the two religions are as different as Judaism and Zoroastrianism.

If they are so different then why do you say it is a misunderstood version?

However to begin with, you write as if you have a deep bias and have perhaps a reverence for one over the other. Either ways let's examine this piece by piece.

1. The duality of Good vs Evil in Christianity is unlike that of the Zoroastrian version, in which the world is in a struggle between two opposing forces and that each one is fighting for the souls of one or the other. Christianity (from what I have read) is against this theory completely denounced, as in Christianity it is clear; God does not seek converts in order to defeat an opposing ideology, but for 'his' glory. Therefore Christianity's version of Satan is built from the Jewish version, not a insertion from Iran. If you have proof that the concept of Satan in Christianity came from Iran, please provide it.


2. Heaven and hell you are correct on. But was this version of Heaven and Hell from Iran? The burden of proof is on you.

3. Judaiism as it is preached orthodox is monotheism, but does that mean anything? Same for Islam. I can argue easily how one sect is true and the other is not, who are you to say one is orthodox and its interpretation is correct? As well answering several points in one, do you know that these peoples interpretation is wrong whenever they knew the books, they knew Syriac and had the translation or they themselves knew Hebrew natively. How was the interpretation flawed? Now tell me how these verses where mistranslated by early Christians...

Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters"

Through the English translation we get the possibility depending upon the lens that you read that the 'spirit' is separate from this God and is in some way a separate entity whether it is subservient matters not, to the Christian this validates his/her belief. Also the word used is Rûach which (I don't speak Hebrew but I can get around lol) "wind" ,"breath", "storm winds", "spirit" it is the same word used for the 'recreation'/renewal of the world following the deluge. Whatever your view is on this word, how could a Christian not see this in Hebrew then turn to the deluge and not make connections?

Exodus 3:2-6 KJV
"[2] And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. [3] And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. [4] And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. [5] And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. [6] Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God."

So the through this it can be argued that it was the Angel of the Lord who said it was the God as well, the text did not introduce a new figure that is Elohim but it said he called to Moses from the bush from where the Angel of the Lord was. Does this mean that the Angel of the lord is Elohim as well? If not it still begs the question. Either ways this is one of the many instances that the "Malakah YHWH" is something more than a regular Angel, and regardless of your belief or interpretation, wouldn't a Christian looking to validate his belief look at this and say hey that's Jesus? In fact this is what they did...

These are only two out of several for both the Rûach and the Malakah YHWH but I assume you understand the point. Now I have shown instances where a Christian could pull trinity from whether it is correct to you or not. Now the burden is on you show me where Christians where pulling trinity from, after I have shown they pulled it right from the Jewish sources.



4. You should know that the Eucarist refers to a sacrifice that Jesus supposedly paid. While on the surface it is easy to say well cannibalism is taboo in Israel and surely this was addition, that is not entirely the case. Christians will pull up Leviticus 17:11 " For the life of the flesh is in the blood...", so a Christian will say that it is a ritual to commenmorate "the sacrifice/life" of Jesus which was spilled. It is a concept not unlike that found in pre-Columbian Mexico.

5. You are correct on original sin, it perhaps originated in Iraq, but the Tanakh leaves this an open ended question and a Christian/Gnostic can take their own meaning.

Now after all this, Christians use Hebrew text then and now to validate their belief system and find evidence for it in Jewish scriptures, did they do the same for the Avesta? Of course the two are different but the question was which is more alike, Christianity to Judaiism or Christianity to Zoroastrianism.


But to clarify this, this was not to offend anyone and I took a position that either could be right depending upon interpretation, at least if you hold one of these religions.

 

[dannythegreat]

You seem to have your ancient history mistaken. The Diaspora occurred under the Babylonian Captivity, not under the Romans. There were Jews in Rome long before Rome came to Judah.

Christianity was a misunderstanding of Judaism, some intentional some an honest mistake. Judaism is quite clear "I am the Lord, your G-d, who led you out of Egypt to be your god; you shall have none before me" and the Shema prayer- "Hear O Israel! The Lord is your G-d the Lord is one" both of those pretty much show that the trinity and divinity of Christ, intervention prayers to Mary and the saints, etc etc contradicts the very essence of what it means to be a Jew. Christianity is more Zoroastrian and other cults than it is Jewish. It is fact that Christianity started its growth among newly converted Jews rather than among established Jewish families.

As John7755 mentioned, I was referring to the exile imposed under Jews by the Romans after the various Jewish-Romn wars which caused the Jews to be expelled from Judea and the end of Second Temple Judaism. I'm well aware that the Jews were forced into exile multiple times.

And if Christianity is a misunderstanding of Judaism, then I suppose Islam is a misunderstanding of Christianity and Judaism, Buddhism is a misunderstanding of Hinduism, Taoism is a misunderstanding of Chinese shamanism, Manichaeism is a misunderstanding of Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and Christianity, and Sikhi is a misunderstanding of Hinduism and Islam. Christianity ultimately derives from Judaism, but it is a very different thing from either it or Zoroastrianism.

Anyway, I didn't come here to argue about the evolution of religion, my point is that Judaism did not form a plurality of the Roman Empire. If we use Wikipedia's figures (http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Roman_Empire#Population) and we assume that fully half of Syria's population was Jewish (likely a vast overestimate) and that were another million Jews elsewhere in the Empire (likely another overestimate) we get 3.15 million Jews in the Roman Empire. If we assume that somehow fully half of Italy's population was engaged in mystery cults and foreign religions to a degree that they no longer participated in traditional religion, that still leaves us with 3.5 million people in Italy alone that follow traditional Roman religion.

 

[fi11222]

Judaism at that point was no longer an ethnic religion as it had been proselytizing for quite some time. Judaism only stopped because of the problem they had with converts not understanding monotheism and creating this concept of Christianity. Kinda turned Jews off from wanting more converts after that.

Hmm. Is that really the origin of Christianity?

It rather seems to me that the main reason Christianity arose (among Jews first of all) was that Judaism had a pretty bad case of Messiah obsession during the Ist century. And it was not the "peace and love" kind that we have come to associate with the word. To most Ist century Jews, the Messiah was a world conqueror who was going to defeat all the empires of the Goyim and establish a universal Jewish dominion. In many ways, this Messiah-fever was not so different from the goals of present day ISIL. The "Kaliph" Al-Baghdadi is in many respect a 21st century islamic equivalent of the Ist century Jewish Messiah and modern Jihadist fighters are ideological descendants of the Ist century Jewish Zealots. The Qumran so called War Scroll is eerily similar to many a Daesh Youtube videos or other propaganda.

Of course that was bad for Jews then, just as Daesh is bad for Muslims now. Jews could not resist following candidate Messiahs in rebellion against the Romans, just like Muslims cannot resist following the Ben-Ladens and the Bagdhadis of our day, and just like them the were beaten (and extereminated) every time.

It is in this climate that Christianity made converts. As time passed, in the late Ist century and early IInd, more and more Jews started to wonder if God really wanted them to follow the Barabbases of this world ("Bar-Abbas" means "Son of the Father", a messianic title) and be mowed down each time. An increasing number concluded that the "dying" Messiah of Christianity might be what God had in mind since the begining. For example, Rabbi Akibah, who was at first a supporter of the last big Messiah adventurer, Simon Bar Kokhba in 135 AD, eventually changed his mind when he witnessed the disasters the latter's endeavours had caused and eventually dubbed him "Bar Kozibah", which means "son of the lie" (while "Bar Kokhba" means "Son of the Star", another messianic title). Such an about-face by an immensely respected Rabbi must have made many observant Jews wonder whether the whole idea of a warlike messiah was not a complete mistake. From this watershed to christianity, there is but a small step.

 

[Spengler]

The most likely possibility I can see is a chance opportunity for an early Christian to try and convert an emperor. The emperor is swayed into thinking this Jesus bloke really is the son of a god, but disregards the monotheistic elements. Maybe that seems like a long shot but I think any early adoption of Jesus must be based on personal convictions or omens rather than pragmatism because no such need would yet be perceived.

Yeah the emperor gets killed and Christianity goes the way of Atenism.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

I'm surprised know one's mentioned Emperor Severus Alexander. He had wanted to build a temple to Jesus, but was supposedly persuaded against it by "pagan priests". Of course, it comes from the Historia Augusta, so hard to tell how truthful it was, but still the possibility is highly interesting. By making Jesus just another god/demi-god among many, you could see the Romans begin to assimilate him into their pantheon.

 

[Timaeus]

The most likely possibility I can see is a chance opportunity for an early Christian to try and convert an emperor. The emperor is swayed into thinking this Jesus bloke really is the son of a god, but disregards the monotheistic elements. Maybe that seems like a long shot but I think any early adoption of Jesus must be based on personal convictions or omens rather than pragmatism because no such need would yet be perceived.

*wonders what happened to that Saint Caligula TL*

 

[Orsino]

Yeah the emperor gets killed and Christianity goes the way of Atenism.

Unlikely, a polytheistic interpretation of Christ would give no great offense to Roman society and it is part of an emperor's role to champion new cults. If Hadrian can get away with making his gay lover a god then I don't see why Caligula/Claudius/Nero should have any problems turning Christ into a minor deity.

 

[Zireael]

I can definitely see a Roman emperor erecting a temple to him. Caligula was way too crazy for this, but Tiberius would fit.

 

[fi11222]

I can definitely see a Roman emperor erecting a temple to him. Caligula was way too crazy for this, but Tiberius would fit.

The main problem is Judaism I think. Wouldn't they rebel if a temple was erected by the Romans in the honor of a blasphemer ?

 

[Seraphiel]

The main problem is Judaism I think. Wouldn't they rebel if a temple was erected by the Romans in the honor of a blasphemer ?

Well they rebelled OTL without that, they now would just have one more reason to do so. Results for the Jewish Rebellion would be the same nonetheless.

 

[fi11222]

Well they rebelled OTL without that, they now would just have one more reason to do so. Results for the Jewish Rebellion would be the same nonetheless.

Sure. But what Emperor would want another Jewish rebellion on his hands?

 

[Seraphiel]

Sure. But what Emperor would want another Jewish rebellion on his hands?

I think it would just merge into the variety of reasons that caused the Great Revolt but then again I have my doubts on whether it would really be a big deal anyways for the Jews.

 

[Tom Colton]

The cult of Jesus and Sol Invictus did overlap briefly in the 3rd century, so maybe have one of the emperors of the crisis (looking at you, Phillip the Arab) formally unify them in a bid to gain Christian support, and hang on long enough to codify this beyond their rule?

 

[Mixxer5]

Shouldn't be that difficult, I mean the Romans were, if nothing else, masters at integrating religions into their own. Just have an emperor, maybe in the third century, find an excuse for creating a temple to Jesus.

Hah. Romans You say? Recently I've been reading fascinating book about New Testament. Its author states that Jesus actually was[/] considered to be one of pagan gods. Not by mainstream of course (although- decentralized nature of Roman faith makes it difficult to discern...), but for some time... Anyway- even among Christians it was debatable matter for a long time! For example Gnostics- Christians undoubtly- considered Christ one of many, sent to "show them a way". Other groups considered him first among gods, others considered Jahwe (as Jewish deity) to be "evil" and Christ's God to be someone in opposition to him. After all- most of people worshipping Him only repeated what they heard during proselytyzation. They never met him, nor were present during NT events. And as we know- people are imaginative

tl;dr It happened otl.