[AHC?] Jesus Christ as an emanation of a Roman god?

[ThePicene]

A little off-color consideration I had as inspired by some recent readings. It is rather well known that Romans did not actively ban or suppress the local deities cults, but rather either with the support of Roman authorities or even Romanized locals the worship continued, if only by taking the form of local emanations of what were Roman deities. Two examples that come to mind are Mars Mullo and Mars Camulus in Gaul, which originally were indigenous Gaulish gods but eventually became worshipped as interpretations of the god Mars. Likewise, it is also attested how the Romans claimed (accused?), evidently as a result of miscommunication, that Jews too were worshipping a "Jupiter Sabazius" as their god, surely not without the Jewish community taking offence at it.

In the same vein, and imagining a different (more Hellenized?) manner the Christian worship came to make its way into the non-Jewish community, how could the biblical Jesus come to be worshipped in the same fashion? Of course, some alternate history liberties about the course of Jesus's life are accepted in order to make it fit, so is taking into account also the narrative in early apocriphas (which is very strong in the way of miraculous portents and miracles done just for the sake of it).

 

[NotAMyth]

Interpretatio Romana gets a bit tough when the other side terms the other gods as Demon princes from Hell.
Honestly, Abrahamic Faiths are extremely unsyncretic as a whole. Maybe you could get an officially recognized cult of Jesus, like that of Mithridates, but the large majority of early Christians would stick to their Orthodox doctrine. Especially given the antagonistic relationship christianity had with the the Empire right from the start.

 

[pandizzy]

Seeing as how, according to scripture, Jesus was killed because of the Roman Empire, I don't know how they would accept a more positive relationship.

 

[Gloss]

Interpretatio Romana gets a bit tough when the other side terms the other gods as Demon princes from Hell.
Honestly, Abrahamic Faiths are extremely unsyncretic as a whole. Maybe you could get an officially recognized cult of Jesus, like that of Mithridates, but the large majority of early Christians would stick to their Orthodox doctrine. Especially given the antagonistic relationship christianity had with the the Empire right from the start.

Abrahamic Faiths are just as syncretic as others are, if you were an Ebionite in the 2nd century CE to you the emerging form of Hellenized Christianity was a strong deviation from what Messianic Judaism or Christianity was meant to be.

Also the amount of heresies that existed clearly require some amount of syncretism, or are we to believe that every single heresy was somehow an original creation of Christians that didn't have any contact or ifnluence from the existing philosophies and religions of the time?

 

[Sarufiyyun]

Alexander Severus planned to build a temple to Jesus in Rome but the priesthood convinced him to not along with it.

 

[NotAMyth]

Abrahamic Faiths are just as syncretic as others are, if you were an Ebionite in the 2nd century CE to you the emerging form of Hellenized Christianity was a strong deviation from what Messianic Judaism or Christianity was meant to be.

Also the amount of heresies that existed clearly require some amount of syncretism, or are we to believe that every single heresy was somehow an original creation of Christians that didn't have any contact or ifnluence from the existing philosophies and religions of the time?

I admit that there were some heretical deviations that were somewhat more accepting of existing religious traditions/philosophies (That's why I said "as a whole"), but consider the fact that "bellum sanctum" as a concept, pretty much didn't exist except in monotheistic sects. And while you had any number of henotheistic empires, widespread monotheism only came with Abrahamic faiths.
It is not my intent to say that All Abrahamic faiths are somehow fundamentally violent, because obviously they are not. All I mean to say is while every religion is self-promoting, not many actively, as a matter of doctrine, oppose worship of deities in other religious traditions.
In fact even the concept of religion as a distinct set of doctrine is fairly recent. I believe it was only in 17th century Europe that it first became something more than abstract terms, used to define ethnicities or legal/cultural traditions. Religion as we define it would have been pretty dynamic in antiquity.
Anyways all I wanted to say is it would be pretty darn difficult to have Interpretatio Romano with Christianity, even in it's early form. No one would want it, not the priesthood, and neither the Christians themselves, who'd see it as a dilution of their core principles.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Seeing as how, according to scripture, Jesus was killed because of the Roman Empire, I don't know how they would accept a more positive relationship.

Actually, the Bible itself goes well out of its way to frame the Christian relationship with Rome positively, generally downplaying the Roman role in Jesus' execution and playing up or emphasizing positive interactions with Romans and gentiles in general (the faithful centurion and the like). This is particularly striking in Acts, but it is present in all of the gospels as well.

Now, this was more to play down any threat by Christianity to Rome and help win Roman converts than anything else, and certainly was not meant to lead to Jesus being assimilated as just another exotic deity, but it definitely indicates a desire on the part of Christians for a positive, or at least neutral, relationship with Rome. Of course, it worked in the end, as the Empire became the proponent of Christianity and Rome itself the home of the Pope.

 

[pandizzy]

Actually, the Bible itself goes well out of its way to frame the Christian relationship with Rome positively, generally downplaying the Roman role in Jesus' execution and playing up or emphasizing positive interactions with Romans and gentiles in general (the faithful centurion and the like). This is particularly striking in Acts, but it is present in all of the gospels as well.

Now, this was more to play down any threat by Christianity to Rome and help win Roman converts than anything else, and certainly was not meant to lead to Jesus being assimilated as just another exotic deity, but it definitely indicates a desire on the part of Christians for a positive, or at least neutral, relationship with Rome. Of course, it worked in the end, as the Empire became the proponent of Christianity and Rome itself the home of the Pope.

Ah, if you're right, you're right. I haven't read the Bible in many many moons, so I'm not an expert on the subject.

 

[Byzantion]

A little off-color consideration I had as inspired by some recent readings. It is rather well known that Romans did not actively ban or suppress the local deities cults, but rather either with the support of Roman authorities or even Romanized locals the worship continued, if only by taking the form of local emanations of what were Roman deities. Two examples that come to mind are Mars Mullo and Mars Camulus in Gaul, which originally were indigenous Gaulish gods but eventually became worshipped as interpretations of the god Mars. Likewise, it is also attested how the Romans claimed (accused?), evidently as a result of miscommunication, that Jews too were worshipping a "Jupiter Sabazius" as their god, surely not without the Jewish community taking offence at it.

In the same vein, and imagining a different (more Hellenized?) manner the Christian worship came to make its way into the non-Jewish community, how could the biblical Jesus come to be worshipped in the same fashion? Of course, some alternate history liberties about the course of Jesus's life are accepted in order to make it fit, so is taking into account also the narrative in early apocriphas (which is very strong in the way of miraculous portents and miracles done just for the sake of it).

Maybe even independent Jesus cults that have a half god Jesus mixed up with Hercules and see him as final revelation of Jupiter. Statues of Heracles like Jesus statues in Rome with mixed symbolism. Jesus as an resurrection god of the dead in Hades in the Pantheon of gods in general. Or Jesus as manifestation or extension of Sol Invictus. Roman Soldiers wearing Jesus deity amulettes with the belief that they after a honorable death avoid Hades and eventually rise again.

 

[JennyB]

The Roman Sons of God were called Caesar

 

[Xenophonte]

Actually, the Bible itself goes well out of its way to frame the Christian relationship with Rome positively, generally downplaying the Roman role in Jesus' execution and playing up or emphasizing positive interactions with Romans and gentiles in general (the faithful centurion and the like). This is particularly striking in Acts, but it is present in all of the gospels as well.

Agree, though, I think that, too, should be taken into account the fact that the Gospels were starting to be transcribed from the more earlier/original oral tradition around one century post fact and from those were selected the ones which 'd be incorporated to the actual cannon... So, I think that 'd be to expect the above mentioned emphasizing...

 

[Byzantion]

Jesus Christus as Ichthys. Have Jesus actually evolve into a patron god of all sailors, navy and fishermen. As a Neptun like savior or some Lovecroftian
fishlike entity. The resurrection aspect is also kept. Maybe the drunken souls rest on seaground one day arise again with Ichtys.

 

[James Ricker]

The classical portrayal of Jesus is said to be the face of a statue of Zeus

 

[Socrates]

The most obvious gap in the Roman pantheon for Jesus to fill is as God of the downtrodden and excluded.

 

[oshron]

iirc, the classic depiction of Jesus was actually modeled on Cesare Borgia because it was commissioned by Pope Alexander VI, Cesare's father

Jesus Christus as Ichthys. Have Jesus actually evolve into a patron god of all sailors, navy and fishermen. As a Neptun like savior or some Lovecroftian
fishlike entity. The resurrection aspect is also kept. Maybe the drunken souls rest on seaground one day arise again with Ichtys.

i'd think the more likely evolution of Christ as interpreted as a pagan god would be that He's counted as a god of charity (the loaves and fishes, etc.) and of mercy/redemption (for my own part, in designing the "evolved/reformed" Aztec pantheon for my ASB ATL, i decided that "Dios" is counted as one of those in the cases where He is counted among other deities). it's also worth noting that there are actually some more historically-recent Christian legends telling that a man who is obviously insinuated to be Jesus shows up to help people who are having trouble building something (since He's a carpenter) and helping them complete it almost literally in no time flat

EDIT: and that's not even touching on genuine syncretism involving Christ where He's identified with some other genuine polytheist gods--Baldr and Dionysus in particular, iirc