Knowing the biblical history associated with Jesus (I.e. Pontius Pilate crucifying him to appease the Jews), how did Roman Catholicism end up becoming the dominant religion in the Roman world? It seem like they’d want to distance themselves from that, sort of like how it would be kind of awkward for Jews to accept Jesus as the messiah, ya know?
In: Other
Early communalism in some (not all, but some) Christian communities was unconditionally altruistic, giving needed material goods to others without. Although communalism itself is rare today except in specific Christian denominations such as the Hutterites, unconditional religious altruism continues today in most Christian denominations. Furthermore, as a religion, Christianity has always systematically encouraged the formation of social networks that are family-like but outside the family, in the form of a defined congregation of believers.
This all is *very* pragmatically-useful in a time without a substantial social safety net.
There were other religions in the Middle Roman Period that had a congregational model, but they did not lean in as hard to the unconditional altruism component. Of the many nonreligious or panreligious fraternal, service, and civic clubs today that are organized similarly — Lions and Rotarians; Freemasons and Oddfellows — the longest-lasting and most successful are always those which create strong social support networks for members.
So then for Christianity, Christianity also had the added advantage of preaching equality between slaves and the upper class. Recall that the shortest book of the Bible, Philemon, is the text of a letter that Paul purportedly gave to Onesimus, a former slave who had run away from his master, Philemon. In the letter, Paul tells Philemon that he should receive Onesimus as a free man and as a brother, and that if Onesimus owes Philemon anything, Paul will pay it the next time he drops by. If you are a slave in 1st-century Rome, this kind of message is *fundamentally* ideologically attractive.
This is how Christianity expanded from just some people who told stories about a Judaean preacher, into a major religious minority encompassing 10% of Roman citizens by 300 AD. The details of belief were mostly irrelevant to the spread; [it was the social structure that was attractive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_Christianization_of_the_Roman_Empire#Possible_reasons_for_a_grassroots_spread).
Preaching equality between classes is great and all, but it poses a problem for the upper class. If 10% of people have decided that slaves are equal to their masters, and, oh, also, our preacher said you are ethically obligated to share everything you have with others and you are a fundamentally flawed person if you do not, this belief starts to create the conditions for revolution.
If you are a Roman noble at the beginning of the 4th century, you could argue publicly that you are actually better than slaves, but that sounds arrogant, and you might make the slaves mad. Alternatively, you could claim to agree with equality between people.
(Of course, once you do, then this doesn’t *automatically require* anything to change, right? You are, after all, equal to the poor, even though you are rich. Right?)
Any hesitancy you might have in adopting the position of ethical equality between people, is gone once the ruler of the Empire has also adopted a religion saying so. Human equality is a position with inherent moral force, but once it receives official favor from the ultimate authority in society, it becomes *respectable*.
And that is how the Roman Empire ended up Christian.
Latest Answers