>instead of Roman Empire adopting Christianity, the Roman Empire co-opted Christianity and blended it with paganism.Is he right? Is Catholicism just paganism with Christianity slapped on and the gods changed to "saints"?
>>18105795But why though?It had no popular support among the people
>>18105803>It had no popular support among the peopleAdopting Christianity or mixing it with Roman paganism?
No the church already had saints and the rituals it did before the conversion of the empire.
Every single demoniac in existence pushes this "real Christianity was never tried" nonsense because they're intimidated by the richness, antiquity, and success of Christianity and they know none of their faggy ideologies forwarded as replacements will ever compare.
It reminds me of how mesoamerican pagan gods were converted into saints.(Quetzalcoatl was often compared with Thomas Aquinas and the Virgin of Guadalupe is just Coatlicue).
>>18105808neither
>>18105803The Roman State Church was basically a codification of Late Roman Popular Religion, Christianity and Manichaeism included. In a very grand sense, this may have been inspired by the highly organized State Religion of Persia, which seemed to garner more strength than the vast and disparate cults and small religions of Rome.picrel is the prototypical "icon" which later characterized the Roman State Church. Small, portable, rectangular paintings of the gods were widespread in the Late Roman Empire. You'd create your own shrines with them.
>>18105795No. This is cope by people who want to think of themselves as “returning” to an imagined “true” Christianity while also holding to relatively novel theological stances. Laundering innovation by pretending it is restoration.
>>18105795yeah
