Christians NOT Persecuted?

Exactly what it says on the tin.

Say, during the early days of Christianity, for some reason or other, the Romans decide they're just another harmless cult who can't actually do anything to harm the Empire, and just leave them be?

What sort of effects does this have?
 
That's pretty easy. All the Christians have to do is acknowledge the Roman Emperor as a divine being. Of course that's the problem.
 
It's important to remember that Christian persecution was not uniform. Not all emperors launched pogroms. There were times in the pre-Constantinian era where internal debates over doctrinal and eccesiastical authority trumped persecution.

It's also important to realize that much of pre-Constantinian hagiography (or post-Constantinian reflections of the period of persecution) often presents saints in impossibly difficult situations or in grossly exaggerated scenes of martyrdom.

Even the so-called Peace of Constantine in the 4th century did not quickly cement Christianity's later profound impact on Byzantine culture. Disputes over the role of hellenistic-roman paganism in a Christianity-tolerant culture both predate and follow the reign of Julian the Apostate.
 
i'd bet the religion would have spread faster through the empire, and would have been able to create orthodoxy much quicker through councils
 
It probably wouldn't have become a world religion and been a minor sect like Zorasterism. Somehow persecution resulted in solidarity and an Christians sticking together. It would have had an effect on Islam as Islam claims to a heritage from Christian teaching in that Christ is regarded as one of Islam's greatest prophets
 
Way, way less Catholic feast days of Saint X the Martyr. More campaigning days where fighting between Christian lords was legal during the Middle Ages (although not always observed). Nobody saying that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. Probably slows down progress towards a 'theory of optimal persecution' (my money is that Early Islam found that optimal level where the maximal number of conquered peoples will adopt their faith).
 
Easy. Have Jesus be accepted into the Roman pantheon. Which almost happened.

The Romans would hardly have had a problem with that.

Thing is, without the external pressure to create a strong group identity, it's likely that the Christian communities throughout the empire would unravel more around the fringes. Manicheanism was a strong and popular belief system, but it lacked the administrative rigour and strong group identity of the Christian core (and it got hunted to extinction afterwards, otherwise we'd probably still have some Manicheans around here). So what we would think of as Christianity may well be very different from what we think of today. I also wonder whether a non-persecuted christianity would develop as effective a 'bad times' theology, or so clear a mental divide between the secular state and the organs of the church.
 
The Roman god Mithras was very popular in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and he shares an awful lot of similarities with Jesus (born in stable, had halo, died and was resurrected). Given the Christian way of taking from local religions to gain popularity (as in South America) I think what we "know" about Jesus would be different if the Christians didn't have to subvert Mithras followers.
 
I also wonder whether a non-persecuted christianity would develop as effective a 'bad times' theology, or so clear a mental divide between the secular state and the organs of the church.

Eh? The secular state and it's divide were a consequence of the Reformation more than Roman persecution as there was no divide in Christendom.

For the OP, I think something like a Real Life™ Ben-Hur type getting proclaimed a hero by a victorious general (if not one of the Augustus or one of the Caesar's himself) would be enough to create an initial positive impression.
 
That... Would certainly make for an interesting timeline.

Yeah. I was quite surprised by that myself. A Christianized Rome, while the Roman Empire is at its greatest extent would make for interesting butterflies. The only question is would the Christians actually venerate the Emperor?
 
Would a broader interpretation of "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s..." be enough to allow emperor worship?
 
have it stay mostly Jewish Christians it was mostly like a reform Jewish sect then a new religion but would have been protected like the Jews wore at the time. or if you had the emperors think of themselves as oracles instead of gods it still has the effect of "what i say is perfect" with out the need of worship
 
Would a broader interpretation of "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s..." be enough to allow emperor worship?

Possibly. Maybe Jesus tells the Apostles that in order to not draw attention to themselves, and to make themselves and their mission more palatable, they should at least pretend to pay lipservice to Roman traditions. Perhaps this evetually leds to the veneration of the Emperor, not as a god, but as someting along the lines of the Pope, the person chosen by God to lead the Roman people.
 
Top