mountainman

On p.136 of On Pagans, Jews and Christians (or via: amazon.co.uk): Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987 the author emphasizes

[IRONY]

"the very remarkable attitude of those Christians who, though
persecuted by the Roman Empire, defended the notion that
the Roman Empire had been providentially created to foster
and support the Christian message."

[/IRONY]

Was the attitude of the "Early Christians" to the Empire noble, stupid or fictitious? Please discuss.

Sheshbazzar

From all of the Early Christian literature I have read, ingratiating seems the most apt.
And was evidently very effective.

Same method Fundies in America use when they wrap themselves and their form of religion up in The Flag.

mountainman

ingratiating is an interesting alternative. Thanks Shesh.

I can understand the modern concept underpinning the idea that the "Early Christians" may similarly have been ingratiating. In the modern case, it is easy to see why modern Christians are ingratiating to the state - they are receiving benefits from it. The Fundies in America are not being persecuted and martryed for their convictions, as was apparently the case with the "Early Christians".

So why would the "Early Christians" develop the attitude that although they should alas be persecuted, killed, maimed, martyred and fried by the Roman Empire, they defended the notion that the Roman Empire had been providentially created to foster and support the Christian message. It seems very patriotic in a twisted sense.

DoubtingDave

Actually, the roman empire was quite accepting of the Christians (who were then classified as a cult) except during the Nero era.

mountainman

Are you referring to the incredible legend of the "Early Christians" being used as Roman streetlights under Nero?

But the OP is asking what was the attitude of the "Early Christians" to the Roman Empire, rather than vice verse.