We’re assuming Rome still remains pagan in this scenario. That way, the Persians won’t see Christianity as a fundamentally “Roman” religion and therefore, will be less hostile and more open to it.
>>18449011Unlike Rome, Persia was not a completely centralised state, opposition to Christianity lived and died by who ruled Rome. Persia had both a powerful priesthood and clans which could actually resist the king if they so desired. It would be far harder for Persia to convert, Christian elites in Persia did exist in Late Antiquity, but largely only because their protection was lobbied for by the Romans, only in the 7th century do we even see any member of one of the Parthian clans convert to Christianity and that was due to Roman support.That's not even accounting for cultural opposition to Christianity. No different from how the Romans violently attacked Manicheans where they found them in large numbers, they were considered subversive and too foreign to be acceptable. Diocletian's first persecution was against them and he eliminated them from Egypt completely.
>>18449011Would the similarity between the Zoroastrian cosmology and that of Christianity make them easier to convert (since they already accept the idea of a dualism between a benevolent creator opposed to a malevolent devil-like figure), or harder to convert (since Christianity might just be perceived as a mistaken variant of their existing beliefs)?Also, I wonder if the role of the Three Magi who attended Jesus' birth would end up becoming much more central in Christian thought and symbolism, akin to how the Catholics venerate Mary almost as much as Jesus himself.
>>18449011It would have been marcian
Christianity is hostile to Persia precisely because it insidiously tramples over Mithras for the benefit Ishtar Atena who is nothing more than Venus getting ascended wrongfully and ascribed everything Mithras is supposed to be.I suppose the Jews just don't like men.
