AHC: Integrate Jesus into Roman Paganism

With a POD not before his crucifixion, is there a way to have the Christian God/Christ successfully integrated into the Roman Pantheon?

Obviously this will require finding a way to address, sublimate or eliminate the Christian focus on Monotheism. Can it be done? What would a polytheism-compatible version of Christ be like? And how would this affect the course of history?

Not gonna happen, I'm afraid. Yes, there were people IOTL who worshipped Jesus along with pagan gods, but there's a reason that this never really became mainstream. The Jesus of the Bible consistently presents himself as the fulfilment of the prophecies of the Old Testament -- you know, the same Old Testament (and often the same prophets) which is very anti-paganism and anti-idolatory. Accepting Jesus as the son of a pagan god would require ignoring half the things he's actually recorded saying, and, whilst there have always been people who pick and choose which religious doctrines to follow, I doubt many people would be willing to swallow the camel of the Incarnation and Resurrection whilst straining at the gnat of monotheism.

(ETA: Especially since henotheism and philosophical monotheism were on the increase anyway during the Late Empire. Of all the things about Christianity which made it difficult to accept, monotheism was pretty much the least difficult.)

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),

Satan isn't an evil god like the Zoroastrian Angra Mainyu, but a created being who rebelled against God. This no more implies dualism than the existence of evil humans like Hitler does.

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);

Early Judaism lacked them, but I'm pretty sure that by the 1st century AD belief in Heaven/Hell/resurrection had become common and mainstream, if not dominant. (There's that rather amusing bit in the Acts of the Apostles where St. Paul manages to disrupt his trial before the Sanhedrin by mentioning the resurrection of the dead, knowing that his judges will all start arguing among themselves over whether or not this is a proper Jewish belief.)

Judaism is fully strict monotheism which only Islam shares;

Trinitarianism doesn't mean that there are three separate gods.

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");

Original Sin isn't necessary for Christianity (otherwise there would have been no Christians before Augustine). I'm pretty sure any Christian theologian would say that loving one's neighbour is more important than understanding theological nuances, but I'll note that your example undermines itself: you mention someone who "does good deeds and is sincere in his heart", but if "it is deeds that matter", what importance does his sincerity have? I can help others for selfish or underhand motives.

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;

Well obviously you're wrong, since that's exactly what a Jew (Jesus) told them to do.

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.

(a) Quite a few Christians would permit abortion to save the mother's life.

(b) The Talmud didn't even exist in Jesus' time! It didn't even start to be written until some time after the destruction of the Temple, by which time Christianity and Judaism had already split apart. You can't argue that the first Christians "misunderstood" their Judaism based on the teachings of a document written hundreds of years after they died.

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.

There's been plenty written on why Christians don't follow the Law. You can disagree with their justifications if you like, but saying "Christians don't follow the Law, therefore they don't understand Judaism" is premature.
 
Roman Catholicism being what it is today, I don't think it'd be too difficult. Speaking as a former alterboy there are a few noteworthy...polytheistic-ish things to note about Christianity in general and specifically Roman Catholicism:

"soft polytheism" in the form of the Holy Trinity to begin with
prayer to and veneration of Mary
prayer to and veneration of the saints (for specialized things; i.e. praying to Saint Anthony, patron saint of lost belongings, if you can't find your eyeglasses)
prayer to and veneration of ancestors (mostly for communication with the dead)
a strong emphasis on tradition

The latter four are due primarily to Roman influence on the church following the Christianization of the Empire, (and to the best of my knowledge NOT okay with ANY other subset of Christianity), but I feel that there's a definite possibility of assimilation akin to how Hinduism integrated Buddha into their pantheon.

By creating a hierarchy where the Roman deities are placed in between mortals and the Christian/Jewish God, and assuming there was a doctrinal method of doing so, I can see it being easily accepted by new Roman Christians though with a more...uneasy transition by its former Jewish practitioners. Perhaps an earlier schism as a result?

In summary, definitely not in a role equal to that of the Roman deities, but it's certainly possible if the Roman pantheon was seen as an extension of the Jewish God, perhaps as representatives of His specific aspects.

Sorry if I got any details wrong; as stated I'm mostly going off of personal experience (as an alterboy, going to Sunday School, etc.) and what little Biblical study I've done on my own time.
 
Last edited:
Top