A Romanised Christianity?

[euromellows]

Hi All

 

Is it possible that Christianity could have been more romanised in the sense that it didn't contradict the earlier heritage of Rome? For example is there a way to reconcile the divinity of Rome with that of Christ? Could the theology be morphed to appear that Rome paved the way for Christ to come on earth - that the Divine Caesar, Divine Augustus etc were also tools that set the conditions for God's son on earth? Could all these old Roman gods become Saints for example?

 

I think the only way this could work would be if elements of Arianism and Adoptionism became the official creed. That way a hiararchy is established in theology, as well as the doctrine of God using people as a means to project his message (through the doctine of Adoptionism). It just seems to me that Constantine could have manipulated further to make the Christian religion also venerate Rome. Any thoughts?

[Divus Iulius]

Christianity is already Romanised, it is after all a Roman Religion

 

The Divine Augustus was God's son on earth, that is why he is venerated as "Divi filius" , a Latin phrase meaning "son of a god", the 'god' being Julius Caesar, the venerated God-Father of the Roman Empire.

 

Christian Religion does venerate Rome, if you understand the typology of the Gospels.

 

The Main Christian Symbols, the Cross, the Chi-Rho and the Church Design are all derived from the Imperial Cult of Rome.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwfY069iPVI

[caldrail]

Hi All

 

Is it possible that Christianity could have been more romanised in the sense that it didn't contradict the earlier heritage of Rome? For example is there a way to reconcile the divinity of Rome with that of Christ? Could the theology be morphed to appear that Rome paved the way for Christ to come on earth - that the Divine Caesar, Divine Augustus etc were also tools that set the conditions for God's son on earth? Could all these old Roman gods become Saints for example?

 

I think the only way this could work would be if elements of Arianism and Adoptionism became the official creed. That way a hiararchy is established in theology, as well as the doctrine of God using people as a means to project his message (through the doctine of Adoptionism). It just seems to me that Constantine could have manipulated further to make the Christian religion also venerate Rome. Any thoughts?

 

A deep question. Or several. I suspect the problem people have today when considering the history of christianity is that they tend to apply modern sensibilities and ideas to the Roman era. Hopefully I'm not making the same mistake here of course, but I think we first need to see how the Romans thought of the relationship between divine and mundane. To them there was no clear dividing line - a powerful man, be it politically or charismatic, had in some way attracted or been given elements of divinity, which was why the Senate honoured individuals with posthumous divinity and why some individuals claimed divine status while very much alive. There was no clear division between Man and God - merely power and influence upon the lives of the ordinary Roman, real or imagined, although clearly there was also an element of expediency in creating Gods.

 

As for setting conditions for Christ to return, this is a dubious standpoint because being the Son of God was a transposition of a Roman concept more than the qualification for divinity it has now become. The important idea back then was the reincartion of humanity, that the dead would return to life, which played on the natural fear of death. The idea that Christ would return to accomplish this feat has since become one of the defining properties of Jesus as a divimne character.

 

I would have thought that sainthood was perhaps not an easy qualification for Roman Caesars on the grounds that they were pagan, corrupted by power, and given to displays of wealth. Why would a man already declared a god by the Senate become a saint? That amounts to a demotion in Roman terms, and in some ways, sullies the idea of purity that Caesars clearly had no intention of adopting.

 

My own view is that we have to realise Christianity was a divided cult system until organised under the aegis of Constantine as a state sponsored religion. We also need to realise that the Romans were inextricably given to profit, and a Roman in the late empire wrote "Make me a bisphop of Rome today and I'll become a christian tomorrow", meaning that cult leadership was a lucrative occupation. In other words, the Romans took a long time to establish the social behaviour that we associate with pious christianity.

[euromellows]

Interesting posts. Thanks for the replies. I don't see Christianity's rise as inevitable, particularly because it was involved in so many theological disputes and 'splits' within its own community, it must have looked strange from the outside in. The Roman Senate in particular appeared to be very resistant to abandoning traditional Roman polytheism as well, even well until the Christian era.