Elijah

The political and philosophical context is found in the ideas not the names and dates. It doesn’t matter if it was George Bush making a specific religion the state religion or a Roman emperor 2000 years ago, it’s understanding the ideas behind the act that creates the understanding of Christianity; not knowing the specific names and dates.
How so?
He had the power/ability to promote a certain belief system, not create one on his own. This type of thinking seems more like a satire of the other myther theories based on a lack of evidence than anything that is actually possible.
So you think Christianity is an attack on the Senate by an emperor now, not an attack against intellectualism?

Why did Rome choose a Jewish messiah cult to do this and not a more Roman religion (maybe one that promotes the Caesars instead of combats them) especially if Roman emperors are the ones forcing a supposedly new religion on the people?
I’m not sure the point you are trying to make with the list. It seems like the problem was against superstitious paganism that included sacrifice, not the philosophical schools. Do you have anything that Rome directed specifically at the philosophers or their schools or their teachings? Greek philosophy and Greek paganism aren’t synonymous and the influence on the Jews that made them Hellenized was the philosophical influence not the superstitious pagan traditions.

It’s not Hellenism that is the heresy, it’s denying the resurrection or that faith in Christ is the source of salvation. You can have a Platonic understanding of the universe but can’t deny the resurrection or the salvation via faith in Jesus, claiming Gnosis as the source of salvation.

And again I’m unsure of what you think they thought the threat with intellectualism was or why you think they choose such a non roman religion to become the state religion.

dog-on

What would you consider to be, specifically, "non roman" about Christianity, if I may ask?

Elijah

It's exalting a Jewish man as the figure of authority that brings salvation.

dog-on

A Jewish man given up as a ransom to the Jewish god, to be more precise.

Still, that alone is not a specifically "non Roman" idea.

Elijah

I don't know what you consider Roman about the story other than they appear in there as an antagonist.

Your "ransom to the Jewish god" is just a particular interpretation.

dog-on

Not my interpretation, the originators' interpretation.

The story sits much better as a Roman story then as a Jewish one.

Elijah

Which "originators'" interpretation are you speaking of specifically?

Feel free to support that claim.

dog-on

Paul.


Christianity reduces Yahweh's greatest creation to sin.

Elijah

Where or how did you come to this interpretation of Paul?

Where is this idea coming from also and what makes this a Roman idea?

dog-on

Paul states the reason for the ransom rather plainly.

As far as the second goes, let's do it this way.

What does Paul think about flesh?