Jesus Christ dies at childbirth

#1- But leaders of a religion that preaches for people to repent before the End Times can remember what their religion is supposed to be about before they curry favour with an imperial overlord that happens to think they're useful. Some church leaders clearly didn't believe in what they preached. Christianity's success in the early Fourth Century CE had less to do with what the general populace thought of it then the contemporary powers-that-be.

#2 - So, people should be characterized generally as selfish and spiteful bastards who enjoy seeing others struggle and suffer while expecting an eternal reward for just grovelling in regret about their own mistakes or trespasses?

#3 - Well even if this was true of most of the human race, this argument in favour of Christianity's so-called mass appeal always fails to take into account the actual genuinely held beliefs of people from other religions. No matter how good it may sound on an individual basis, not everyone is willing to jump on board, whatever promises are made.

#4 - There were lots of people at the time who thought that Zeus/Jupiter was the mightiest being in the cosmos and were as unwilling to cross him just as many believing Christians today are worried about their god's displeasure. When a large demographic are raised from infancy in a belief, its difficult for them to shake off when they're adults. No religion is unique in that.

#5 - I really doubt that even the very first Christians were uniformly chaste. Some early Christians raised families. Marcion was the son of a leading Christian in Sinope and inherited a shipping business. Chasteness, while considered a virtue by some, wouldn't have been realistically observed by everyone.

#6 - Before the 300's CE, Christians didn't number more than 10% of the empire's population. Constantine's endorsement of the cult and ending the persecutions started by Diocletian and Galerius was a reversal of their fortunes. Their numbers seriously started to expand from that point onwards because they were generally favoured by the state. This increased patronage by the emperors, who had all been raised Christian starting with Constantine's sons, helped the Church grow as an organization and was even granted a place in civil administration, and the leading bishops acting as politicians and imperial advisors. This increase in special treatment encouraged elements of the aristocracy to convert.

#7 - By the reign of Theodosius I, traditional ethnic religions were banned and their practices were to be considered treasonous. The common people were then legally obliged to convert. The new decrees were better applied in the cities than in the countryside, so this is what led to "Pagans" getting that label. Hellenic Polytheism continued to linger right until the Ninth Century in when the last known practices of the religion Lacedaemonia when St Nikon the Metanoeite reputedly ended them.


#8 - Christianity had a full-time clergy that could double as a bureaucracy, which is why it appealed to many post-Roman kings. The Romanized-Hellenized religious cults had priests with only part-time religious duties and didn't possess a tight corporate unity. The Church is the reason why Christianity was successful. Its so-called "messages" less so.

(Numbers added by myself at the head of each section so I can adress them in order)

#1 That is a central criticism of any religion pagan or otherwise. Of course some members of the early Chruch were power hungry and greedy, so were many of the pagan priests of old, they simply had to expansive a pantheon to properly integrate thenselves into the political system. The Christian Church OTOH had a central system, One God to follow and a fairly standard set of beliefs. Just try making one of the pantheons like the Catholic Church. It would be pretty damn difficult, especially without the exclusive nature of Christianity.

#2 Thats one of many schools of thought regarding human nature.

#3 Well despite those genuinely well held beleifs of other cultures Christianity did spread pretty damn quick and those other genuine beliefs died pretty quick considering their previous entrenchment. That they didn't stick nor even slow the spread of Christianity in any meaningful way is pretty relevant.

#4 hand in hand with #3

#5 I doubt that too, but the practice and belief was there...

#6 By 300AD they were close to 10% and their numbers were gaining, Constantine's edicts had little effect on their growth. In fact they spread quicker after the Western Empires demise. It was the so called 'barbarians' who spread it rather than Rome. Its also important to remember that much of Europe wa still pagan for many centuries after too.

#7 That probably allowed them to last longer than they did actually. Resistance to the ban helped increase growth throughout many parts of the Empire until its eventual death.

#8 Not denying their power as a central Church helped them spread but I think you underestimate just how much people had a habit of caring about their immortal souls back then. The kings who saw a chance to save themselves and earn paradise in the next life would jump at that as a pretty good deal, the fact that some monks might be willing to be scribes or to train them was simply a bonus. I don't think the writing prowess was as impressive to the masses, nor does that in any way shape or form even come close to a good reason for explaining its spread.
 
Hasn't this discussion gotten quite a distance from the original question?

I must refer people to Rodney Stark's "The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries."

Stark, a sociologist, was interested in how a small group (110, supposedly in 33 CE) became over 3 million at the start of Constantine's reign. His thesis is that Christianity grew because:

1 - It appealed to the lower economic classes (through its communalism and sense of economic altruism), of which the overwhelming majority of people were in the first few centuries CE.

2 - It appealed to many Jews, who were wide-spread in the Empire and became new bases of growth throughout the Mediterranean world. (NOTE: Constantine forbid the Jews to proselytize at the same time he established Christianity as official.)

3 - Many Christians sacrificed their lives to care for non-Christian neighbors during times of plague, which appealed to the Romans sense of honor and heroism, as well as saving many people from death who converted to the faith of the ones who nursed them back to health.

4 - It appealed to women and encouraged them to stay with their non-Christian husbands and have MANY children. Upper class Romans were big into abortion and infanticide to the extent that Rome was suffering a population decline during Augustus' reign, causing tax incentives to be given to people for having MORE children. The more numerous children of Christian mothers stayed within the faith.

5 - It was an urban religion and that's where the people were! Roman paganism managed to stick around in the Balkan back-country well into the 2nd Millenium CE.

6 - Martyrdom during persecutions again appealed to the Roman sense of heroism and stoicism. People adopted the faith of such stalwart people.

Sorry to bring in an "expert" but these ideas do seem to hold a LOT of weight.

So, instead of arguing the good and bad points of Christianity, can we get back to the original question: What would the world be like without Christianity??
 
The spread of Christianity had a much simpler set of reasons than this: the Crisis of the Third Century needed to be ended, Diocletian's ideas worked but to try to rule the entire empire there needed to be a basis beyond "I have better armies than you do." Enter the Church which has a ready-made bureaucratic structure to be patronized by the state, presto! Christianity.
 

I don't really feel like arguing with you. The points I made were mostly drawn from a few passages in Europe: A history with a few of my own thoughts added in. I'll just put them here for you to read; if you have any issues feel free to voice them.
The sub-chapter I drew from is rather long, so forgive a few omissions.
Norman Davies said:
[Introductory paragraph]
[Three paragraph biography of Jesus]
That Christianity should have become the official religion of the Roman Empire could hardly have been foreseen. For generations of Christian believers in later times, the triumph of Christianity was simply the will of God. It was not seriously questioned or analyzed. But for many Romans in the early centuries it must have presented a real puzzle. Jesus was long regarded as an obscure, local phenomenon. His followers, whose beliefs were confused by outsiders with Judaism, were unlikely candidates to found a religion of universal appeal. The faith of slaves and simple fishermen offered no advantage for class or sectional interest. Their gospel, which made such a clear distinction between the spiritual 'Kingdom of God' and the rule of Caesar, seemed to have resigned in advance from all secular ambitions. Even when they became more numerous, and were repressed for refusing to participate in the imperial cult, Christians could hardly be seen as a general menace.
Of course, one may see with hindsight that Christianity's emphasis on the inner life was filling a spiritual void to which the Roman lifestyle gave no relief; also that the Christian doctrine of redemption, and the triumph over death, must have exerted great attractions. But one can also understand the bafflement of imperial officials, like Pliny the Elder in Bithynia (see p. 191 above). It is one thing to decide that the ancient world was ripe for a new 'salvationist' religion; it is quite another to explain why the void should have been filled by Christianity rather than by half a dozen other candidates. [...]
The spread of Christianity was greatly facilitated by the Pax Romana. Within three decades of Christ's crucifixion, Christian communities were established in most of the great cities of the eastern Mediterranean. St Paul, whose writings constitute the greater part of the New Testament, and whose journeys were the first pastoral visit of a Christian leader, was largely concerned with the Greek-speaking cities of the East. St Peter, Christ's closest disciple, is said to have sailed to Rome and to have been martyred there c. AD 68. From Rome, the gospel travelled to every province of the Empire, from Iberia to Armenia.
[A two-paragraph biography of St Paul]
St Paul's contribution was crucial on two separate counts. On the one hand, as the Apostle of the Gentiles, he established the principle that the New Way was not the tribal preserve of the Jews, that it was open to all comers. 'There shall be neither Jew nor Gentile, neither bond nor free.' On the other hand, he laid the foundations of all subsequent Christian theology. Sinful humanity is redeemed by Divine Grace through Christ, whose Resurrection abrogated the Old Law and ushered in the new era of the Spirit. Christ is more than the Messiah: He is the Son of God, identified with the Church in His mystical Body, which is shared by the faithful through Repentance and the Sacraments until the Second Coming. Jesus was uniquely the source of its inspiration; but it was St Paul who founded Christianity as a coherent religion.
The Jewish origins of Christianity have had lasting consequences, especially on relations between Christians and Jews. Following the Jewish Revolt of AD 70, the Jewish diaspora began to spread far and wide through the Empire. Judaism ceased to be concentrated in Judaea, and 'the People of the Book' became a religious minority in many parts of Europe and Asia. for them, Jesus Christ was a false messiah, a usurper, a renegade. For them, the Christians were a threat and a menace: dangerous rivals who had hijacked the scriptures and who broke the sacred taboos dividing Jew from Gentile. For the Christians, the Jews were also a threat and a challenge. They were Christ's own people who had none the less denied his divinity, and whose leaders had handed him over for execution. In popular legend, and eventually for a time in official theology, they became the 'Christ-killers.'
[Four more paragraphs on Jewish-Christian relations]
Early Christianity had many rivals. In the first two centuries of the Empire the mystery cults of Isis, Cybele, and the Persian sun-god Mithras were thriving. They shared several important traits with Christianity, including the ecstatic union with the divinity, the concept of a personal Saviour or Lord, and initiation rites akin to baptism. The anthropological approach to religion would stress these similarities.
[The rest of the chapter is on the development and history of early Christianity]

There is also a capsule on chastity, which I will reproduce entirely.
Norman Davies said:
CHASTITY
Chastity—in the sense of the permanent renunciation of sexual activity—was adopted by the early Christians as a central feature of their moral code. It was not unknown among the ancients, although Juvenal hinted that it had not been since 'Saturn filled the throne'. It was practised by pagan priestesses, such as the vestal virgins of Rome, on pain of death, and in the Jewish world by some of the all-male sects. But it had never been upheld as a universal ideal.
Indeed, the wholesale pursuit of virgin life had serious social implications. It threatened the family, the most respected institution of Roman life, and it undermined marriage. In a world where infant mortality was high, and average life expectancy did not exceed 25 years, the average household needed five pregnancies from each of its adult women to maintain numbers. Celibacy among adults seriously endangered the reproduction of the species.
Yet the Christians cherished chastity with uremitting ardour. From St Paul onwards, they increasingly condemned the 'bondage of the flesh'. 'For I delight in the law of God after the inward man,' wrote St Paul. 'But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members… For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.'[1]
The appeal of these Pauline teachings can only be partly explained in terms of the life of the spirit demanding freedom from all worldly preoccupations. The belief in the imminence of the 'Second Coming' may also have played a part, since it was thought to have rendered procreation superfluous. Sexual orgasm was condemned because it involved the ultimate loss of free will. Many people believed that the character of a child was determined by the parents' humour during intercourse. This created further inhibitions, since lovers would fear that impure sexual feelings might deform their offspring. Galen reports an erroneous medical notion to the effect that semen was produced from the froth of agitated blood. For men, sex was linked with physical as well as with spiritual disorder. For women, lifelong virginity was seen as the surest means of liberation from the tyranny of husbands and of traditional domestic duties. In general, therefore, sex was seen to be the mechanism whereby 'the sins of the fathers' were transmitted from generation to generation.
In August 386 there occurred in Milan one of the most famous conversions of a self-confessed fornicator. St Augustine's Confessions provide a vital insight into the considerations involved in his acceptance of chastity. By that time, however, three hundred years had passed since St Paul. Established Christian communities were feeling the need to multiply.
Hence the secondary ideal of Christian marriage was revived alongside the primary ideal of Christian chastity. In this, marriage officially remained a stop-gap measure, a guard against lust and fornication for those too weak to abstain. 'For it is better to marry', St Paul had written to the Christians of Corinth, 'than to burn.'[2]
This 'rout of the body' continued to hold sway in the middle ages. The secular Latin clergy joined the monks in celibacy. The 'Virgin Saints' were universally revered. The cult of the Virgin Mary, immaculate notwithstanding both conception and childbirth, was given a status similar to that accorded to the creed of the Trinity. Christian ascetics practised every form of mental and physical restraint, self-castration not excepted.
The history of chastity is one of those topics in the study of Mentalités which best help modern readers to penetrate the mind of the ancients. It serves as a point of entry to what has been called 'a long extinct and deeply reticent world'. The magisterial study, which traces the debates on chastity among the Church Fathers of both Greek and Latin traditions, does not comment on present-day sexual attitudes, which the early Christians mus surely have seen as a form of tyranny. But it undertakes the task of every good historian—to signal the differences between the past and the present, where chastity, to borrow a phrase, is often seen as the most unnatural of sexual perversions. 'To modern persons', Peter Brown concludes, '…the early Christian themes of sexual renunciation, continence, celibacy, and the virgin life have come to carry with them icy overtones.… Whether they say anything of help or comfort for our own times, the readers… must decide for themselves.'[3]
Footnotes:
1. Rom. 7: 22–4; 8: 6.
2. 1 Cor. 7:9.
3. Peter brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York, 1988), 446-7.
 
#1 That is a central criticism of any religion pagan or otherwise. Of course some members of the early Chruch were power hungry and greedy, so were many of the pagan priests of old, they simply had to expansive a pantheon to properly integrate thenselves into the political system. The Christian Church OTOH had a central system, One God to follow and a fairly standard set of beliefs. Just try making one of the pantheons like the Catholic Church. It would be pretty damn difficult, especially without the exclusive nature of Christianity.

What are you talking about? How do polytheistic beliefs prevent the "integration of the political system (a political system developed within a polytheistic culture at that)? Also, what about the veneration of saints? Isn't this a but an echo of polytheistic thought?

#2 Thats one of many schools of thought regarding human nature.

A very cynical school of thought that is convenient for a Church that preaches Original Sin.

#3 Well despite those genuinely well held beleifs of other cultures Christianity did spread pretty damn quick and those other genuine beliefs died pretty quick considering their previous entrenchment. That they didn't stick nor even slow the spread of Christianity in any meaningful way is pretty relevant.

Wrong actually. They persisted for centuries, despite pro-Christian imperial decrees, and were ruthlessly driven underground by an increasingly powerful Church with whatever means it had at its disposal. Ethnic beliefs died a slow death in Roman Europe.

#4 hand in hand with #3

People born in the faith are generally more malleable than those who converted out of their own choice. After the Church was endorsed by the imperial authorities and integrated with the civil administration, they were able to to increase its followers tenfold as they were able to indoctrinate everyone's infants.

#5 I doubt that too, but the practice and belief was there...

But my point was that not shagging didn't personally appeal to everyone.

#6 By 300AD they were close to 10% and their numbers were gaining, Constantine's edicts had little effect on their growth. In fact they spread quicker after the Western Empires demise. It was the so called 'barbarians' who spread it rather than Rome. Its also important to remember that much of Europe wa still pagan for many centuries after too.

With imperial Roman authority dead in western Europe, the Church was the only part of the state apparatus that was functioning as it took up the civil administration in its absence. All courts, chanceries and the schools had were now in their charge. The new Germanic rulers necessarily enlisted their aid in governing their new realms.

#7 That probably allowed them to last longer than they did actually. Resistance to the ban helped increase growth throughout many parts of the Empire until its eventual death.

I'm not sure I follow. "The ban on Paganism allowed it to survive longer"?

#8 Not denying their power as a central Church helped them spread but I think you underestimate just how much people had a habit of caring about their immortal souls back then. The kings who saw a chance to save themselves and earn paradise in the next life would jump at that as a pretty good deal, the fact that some monks might be willing to be scribes or to train them was simply a bonus. I don't think the writing prowess was as impressive to the masses, nor does that in any way shape or form even come close to a good reason for explaining its spread.

Just because people cared about their "immortal souls", doesn't mean that they all felt as if they needed to justify themselves to an alien deity of an alien world-view. They already had their ideas of paradise independent of Christian Heaven. And again, the religion (or at least its clerics) would only be seen as a benefit to the ruling powers before later indoctrinated generations of both the nobility and common populace alike began to see it as the "one true faith".
 
Last edited:
#1-What are you talking about? How do polytheistic beliefs prevent the "integration of the political system (a political system developed within a polytheistic culture at that)? Also, what about the veneration of saints? Isn't this a but an echo of polytheistic thought?

#2 -A very cynical school of thought that is convenient for a Church that preaches Original Sin.

#3 - Wrong actually. They persisted for centuries, despite pro-Christian imperial decrees, and were ruthlessly driven underground by an increasingly powerful Church with whatever means it had at its disposal. Ethnic beliefs died a slow death in Roman Europe.

#4 - People born in the faith are generally more malleable than those who converted out of their own choice. After the Church was endorsed by the imperial authorities and integrated with the civil administration, they were able to to increase its followers tenfold as they were able to indoctrinate everyone's infants.

#5 - But my point was that not shagging didn't personally appeal to everyone.

#6 - With imperial Roman authority dead in western Europe, the Church was the only part of the state apparatus that was functioning as it took up the civil administration in its absence. All courts, chanceries and the schools had were now in their charge. The new Germanic rulers necessarily enlisted their aid in governing their new realms.

#7 - I'm not sure I follow. "The ban on Paganism allowed it to survive longer"?

#8 - Just because people cared about their "immortal souls", doesn't mean that they all felt as if they needed to justify themselves to an alien deity of an alien world-view. They already had their ideas of paradise independent of Christian Heaven. And again, the religion (or at least its clerics) would only be seen as a benefit to the ruling powers before later indoctrinated generations of both the nobility and common populace alike began to see it as the "one true faith".

#1 Quite simple, polytheistic religions don't have the base or the central structure to easily work themselves INTO (such as beurecracy, schools, ect) a political system as the early Church did. They would not be able to form any type of substitute for what the early Church eventually became!

As for veneration of Saints, couldn't tell you, talk to a Catholic.

#2 Cynical yes. Necessarily untrue? No.

#3 Never said they died out right away. I simply state the fact that for all intensive purposes they DID die out and in the meantime did not represent any serious threat to the spread of Christianity after the time of Diocletian.

#4 I really have to dispute the whole 'indoctrinate' aspect here. Especially since from the fall of the Roman Empire onwards there was no system of centralized schooling, let alone was schooling available to the vast majority of the population. They may have helped the civil authorities but they did not form the core of the civil service. Indeed the courts weren't filled to the brim with desk job priests because those early kings you talked about were jealous of the churches power. Those lengthy debates between the power of the Church and those of the king happened for a reason.

Also while your assertion is somewhat true it most certainly is not the norm. Remember many of the most zealous preachers back in the day were direct converts and weren't born into it at all. Hell that was the ENTIRE early Church!

#5 Point noted but my counter point still stands that it was still observed and practiced.

#6 Points for #4 stand, as well as the courts actually functioned secularly and obeyed the old Roman system for the most part. That idea and institution stuck around.

#7 Did the exact same for Christianity. Trying to ban it only made the problem worse, Church does the same thing and predictably we have the same result.

#8 Again that does not mean those ideas are not subject to change. They may be fine with their original values then along comes a more persuasive, charismatic and what might seem holy man (remember alot of early men were fanatics who might whip themselves or put themselves on pillars exposing themselves to the elements thus going to extremes) and preach of a new God whose message may seem more tolerable then their old beliefs, not to mention easy. Cue conversions, small at first but definately growing. The assertion stands that it was pretty much impossible to 'indoctrinate' the population as there was no central schooling or simple way to accomplish such a feat.
 
Quite simple, polytheistic religions don't have the base or the central structure to easily work themselves INTO (such as beurecracy, schools, ect) a political system as the early Church did. They would not be able to form any type of substitute for what the early Church eventually became!

Try telling that to the priesthoods of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia and the scholar-bureaucrats of imperial China in their involvement in Shenism.

As for veneration of Saints, couldn't tell you, talk to a Catholic.

St Martin (Mars) and St Cyrinus (Quirinus/Romulus) to name a couple.

Cynical yes. Necessarily untrue? No.

A notion which claims that humanity is incapable of morality without a belief in Christianity.

Never said they died out right away. I simply state the fact that for all intensive purposes they DID die out and in the meantime did not represent any serious threat to the spread of Christianity after the time of Diocletian.

You said they "died out pretty damn quick". Make up your mind.

I really have to dispute the whole 'indoctrinate' aspect here. Especially since from the fall of the Roman Empire onwards there was no system of centralized schooling, let alone was schooling available to the vast majority of the population. They may have helped the civil authorities but they did not form the core of the civil service. Indeed the courts weren't filled to the brim with desk job priests because those early kings you talked about were jealous of the churches power. Those lengthy debates between the power of the Church and those of the king happened for a reason.

The Church had control of the few schools that existed in the former western Empire. The rise of Monasticism in the empire was also useful for this as they would act as schools. With the collapse of imperial authority in Spain and Gaul, priests were normally the one's with the education and status to act in the capacity of civil servants and magistrates. Some of those Germanic kings, such as the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Burgundians, and the Scirii previously had field commissions as Foederati generals in Roman service before they took land for themselves. In Spain and Gaul, the Christian clerics made themselves useful to their new bosses by assisting them in their governance, whereas in Italy both Odoacer of the Scirii and Theodoric of the Ostrogoths would maintain the old state structures of the Church, the Senate, the army and the civilian bureaucracy. The Ostrogoths were Arian and the native Italians were Catholic, so both followed a different body of laws.

Also while your assertion is somewhat true it most certainly is not the norm. Remember many of the most zealous preachers back in the day were direct converts and weren't born into it at all. Hell that was the ENTIRE early Church!

The odd person's conversion for their own individual reasons reflects little the effectiveness of conversion of large numbers of the population. You still underestimate the conscientious fidelity people have for the religions of their ancestry. When their own religions were banned and their practices and observances are forbidden under pain of death, some who have a high profile status in the community have to make a choice between carrying on a tradition that feels right to them, or preserving what they have by keeping up appearances with a religion that they either secretly despise or are indifferent to. Most of the converts of Theodosius' generation may have been reluctant, but with infant baptism and church attendance being compulsory, subsequent generations are bound to become true-r believers.

#6 Points for #4 stand, as well as the courts actually functioned secularly and obeyed the old Roman system for the most part. That idea and institution stuck around.

Even if the magistrates were laymen, they were still followers of the Church. No one holding a top job could keep it by being a Pagan or admitting that they were.

Did the exact same for Christianity. Trying to ban it only made the problem worse, Church does the same thing and predictably we have the same result.

Between the First and Third centuries BCE, there was a number of different Christian sects with alternating beliefs from each other. Were they all persecuted by the authorities? Or could it be that the early persecution of Christianity is mostly an exaggeration?

Again that does not mean those ideas are not subject to change. They may be fine with their original values then along comes a more persuasive, charismatic and what might seem holy man (remember alot of early men were fanatics who might whip themselves or put themselves on pillars exposing themselves to the elements thus going to extremes) and preach of a new God whose message may seem more tolerable then their old beliefs, not to mention easy. Cue conversions, small at first but definately growing. The assertion stands that it was pretty much impossible to 'indoctrinate' the population as there was no central schooling or simple way to accomplish such a feat.

It doesn't matter how "persuasive" or "charismatic" individual preachers are, or what sophistry they get up to. The bulk of people will inevitably think that their particular brand of religious faith is the right and correct version, and will be reluctant to give it up. With most of the aristocracy and educated classes sufficiently Christianized and with the Church linked up with the civil administration, the bulk of the populace (mainly in the cities), largely being uneducated and not be in a position to contradict their social superiors, would be slowly pressed into professing Christianity, before their immediate descendents, being subjected to years of sermonizing, would gradually become inured to the religion itself.
 
Last edited:
Hmm. Judging by my ancestry, I'd probably have been raise either Nordic Pagan or Celtic Pagan, if the Roman religion didn't remain in power.

Well, really, I'd probably not exist, due to nearly 2000 years of butterflies, but you know what I mean.
 
I think Jesus didn't exist to begin with so for me a more interesting question is what if the christians hadn't tried to separate themselves from traditional judaism and they died out like other fringe groups at the time. I think it would probably be Roman, Jewish, or some form of Germanic Paganism.
 
I think Jesus didn't exist to begin with so for me a more interesting question is what if the christians hadn't tried to separate themselves from traditional judaism and they died out like other fringe groups at the time. I think it would probably be Roman, Jewish, or some form of Germanic Paganism.

You may believe that but it's just plain wrong. There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed.
 
I think Jesus didn't exist to begin with so for me a more interesting question is what if the christians hadn't tried to separate themselves from traditional judaism and they died out like other fringe groups at the time. I think it would probably be Roman, Jewish, or some form of Germanic Paganism.

Don't troll please. Start a separate thread for your WI question.
 

Meerkat92

Banned
You may believe that but it's just plain wrong. There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed.

Really? I hadn't heard about this. Can we verify that it was actually Jesus (not a lot of records survive for over two thousand years), or is it more along the lines of "some dude who lived in the same area as Jesus and we think perhaps could have had some of Jesus' actions attributed to him maybe"?

It would be really incredible if archaeologists were to turn up Jesus' execution order, but that'll never, ever, happen.
 

Warsie

Banned
Shinto did pretty well as a polytheistic religion that foster unity, I don't think a single deity bring anything particularly more fruitful.

I don't think Shinto unified Japan as much as the Japanese people did thatby pushing out and/or intermarrying with emishi/ainu....
 
Top