Emperor Aurelian (the only emperor luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan) tried to make the worship of Sol Invictus the state faith of the Empire IOTL, so maybe you could do something with it?
A Light Shines East: The World of a Christian Persia
- Thread starter Merovingian
- Start date
Something like that, yes. Aurelian might be butterflied away, but something similar to this is likely ITTL.
Very interesting timeline. Are we going to see a Nestorianism on steroids scenario?
The Persian-based Apostolic Church will probably have several theological similarities to Nestorianism, but the basic idea is that Persia becomes Christian, rather than Rome.
It's still closer to Chalcedonian Christianity with more influence from Zoroastrianism than Neoplatonism fwiw.
Something that should be noted as that what is usually known as “Nestorianism” in the West actually refers to the Church of the East, and doesn’t actually have all that much to do with the teachings of Nestorius. The word “Nestorian” was originally used by Roman Christians to discredit the Church, who would eventually adopt the term to distance themselves from the Romans’ state religion in the eyes of the Sassanid authorities.
Will you butterfly Manicheism , or it will become a major offshoot?
I might include Manichaeism ITTL, but the altered religious environment in Persia and Mesopotamia likely mean that it’s butterflied.
King of Kings by the Will of God
From “History of the Apostolic Church” by Afshin Khorrami
Under the Parthians, the Apostolic Church had gained a considerable following in Mesopotamia, and was making inroads in Persia. Under the new Sassanid Empire, founded by King Ardashir of Pars, Zoroastrianism enjoyed a revival as the new state religion. The primary affect of Ardashir’s Zoroastrian revival was the decline of polytheism within Persia, while Christians and Jews were largely left untouched. In the year 240 AD, Shapur I outdated succeed Ardashir as Shah of Persia.
Shapur, like his father before him, was a Zoroastrian, however, he would eventually come into contact with the Patriarch of Ctesiphon, Mar Mani[1] of Babylon. Mar Mani would become an important member of the Sassanid court. Mani would write the Shabuhragan, or Book for Shapur, explaining the already established Church doctrine that Ahura Mazda was simply the Christian God as known to the Persians, and how Cyrus had freed the Jews from captivity in Babylon and how the three Zoroastrian Magi cisited the baby Jesus. Therefore, Mani argued, Christianity was simply a continuation of Persia’s ancient history, and that conversion to Christianity would be the logical endpoint of the Persian revival that began under Ardashir.
Shapur would finally be convinced after seeing a vision of the cross after his victory against the Romans at the Battle of Rasaena[2]. Shapur would then be baptized by Mani by the waters of the Jordan River, giving himself the title “King of Kings by the Will of God.” Although Shapur himself wa now Christian, he declared that Christianity, Judaism, Mandaeism, and Zoroastrianism would all have co-official status under the Sassanids. In Shapur’s mind, all four of these religions could trace their origins to the same God, and thus all deserved to be recognized by the Persian state. However, heretics of all four religions were brutally persecuted. Now that Shapur had converted, the world would never be the same again.
[1]Looks like I’ve found a use for Mani ITTL
[2]IOTL, the battle wa a Roman victory
Under the Parthians, the Apostolic Church had gained a considerable following in Mesopotamia, and was making inroads in Persia. Under the new Sassanid Empire, founded by King Ardashir of Pars, Zoroastrianism enjoyed a revival as the new state religion. The primary affect of Ardashir’s Zoroastrian revival was the decline of polytheism within Persia, while Christians and Jews were largely left untouched. In the year 240 AD, Shapur I outdated succeed Ardashir as Shah of Persia.
Shapur, like his father before him, was a Zoroastrian, however, he would eventually come into contact with the Patriarch of Ctesiphon, Mar Mani[1] of Babylon. Mar Mani would become an important member of the Sassanid court. Mani would write the Shabuhragan, or Book for Shapur, explaining the already established Church doctrine that Ahura Mazda was simply the Christian God as known to the Persians, and how Cyrus had freed the Jews from captivity in Babylon and how the three Zoroastrian Magi cisited the baby Jesus. Therefore, Mani argued, Christianity was simply a continuation of Persia’s ancient history, and that conversion to Christianity would be the logical endpoint of the Persian revival that began under Ardashir.
Shapur would finally be convinced after seeing a vision of the cross after his victory against the Romans at the Battle of Rasaena[2]. Shapur would then be baptized by Mani by the waters of the Jordan River, giving himself the title “King of Kings by the Will of God.” Although Shapur himself wa now Christian, he declared that Christianity, Judaism, Mandaeism, and Zoroastrianism would all have co-official status under the Sassanids. In Shapur’s mind, all four of these religions could trace their origins to the same God, and thus all deserved to be recognized by the Persian state. However, heretics of all four religions were brutally persecuted. Now that Shapur had converted, the world would never be the same again.
[1]Looks like I’ve found a use for Mani ITTL
[2]IOTL, the battle wa a Roman victory
So ITTL Zoroastrianism is retroactively added to the Abrahamic set of faiths, while Mandaeism is likewise welcomed. Shapur is also our Constantine analogue, being receptive to the faith and more or less adopting it after military success aids his case.
Honestly, what would be interesting to explore would be the schisms of TTL's early church, on that note.
Honestly Zoroastrianism being retroactively added to the Abrahamic faith isn't that unwarranted. There is plenty of evidence that Judaism was influenced by Zorastrianism in several ways from what I understand. Specifically that Zoroastrianism's already extant mono/dualistic themism influenced Judaism when they came into contact after the ending of the Babylonian exile. The influence of Zoroastrianism on the Abrahamic faiths of the world gradually becoming better and the battle for good vs evil is also another major influence I'm pretty sure.
Though with Zoroastrian influence even more explicit that will have the interesting impact of completely butterflying, or at least heavily modifying, the 'original sin' concept as from what I understand in Zoroastrian thought people are inherently good, even if they are misled into evil, and that inherent goodness is why in the end Ahura Mazda will win over their evil counterpart in the war between good and evil.
Though with Zoroastrian influence even more explicit that will have the interesting impact of completely butterflying, or at least heavily modifying, the 'original sin' concept as from what I understand in Zoroastrian thought people are inherently good, even if they are misled into evil, and that inherent goodness is why in the end Ahura Mazda will win over their evil counterpart in the war between good and evil.
Agreed. That's gonna be a significant doctrinal departure, and if St. Augustine still exists ITTL, he's likely gonna remain being the unrepentant party boy he was before his OTL conversion.
Saying that Ahura Mazda was just a Persian interpretation of Yahweh isn’t really all that difficult, due to the aforementioned Zoroastrian influence on Judaism and, by extension, Christianity. Christianity is also somewhat infamous for syncretism IOTL, so there’s precedent for this.
The concept of the original sin is probably butterflied in the Apostolic Church, but it might take root among a schismatic sect or two.
I agree that this is an interesting topic to explore. While I’ve added some stuff about it, I think I could go into more detail in a later update. After all, even if Christianity now has Sassanid state support, that still doesn’t mean that the theology and church practices have been fully established.
I do wonder if ITTL Christinaity is going to be explicitly dualistic due to the stronger Zorastrian influence, rather than how it is IOTL where it's monotheistic but with a wannabe Angra Maiyu in Satan who is inherently weaker than God. It would especially be able to also replace the explanation for why the world is kind of shit in that it's due to the influence of Angra Maiyu's (or I guess Satan) machinations instead of 'original sin' and 'free will' being the explanation(s).
...I do wonder how the arguments over the Trinity are going to play out. Since whilst ITTL Christianity lacks at least some of the influence of Platoism and other hellenistic influences, due to being in Iran instead of the hellenistic Roman Empire, which may had helped shaped Jesus Christ as a demigod figure (looking at this from a historical, material analysis) from what I understand there is still probably some influence, hellenism was very widespread in general, and furthermore if I understand correctly Zorastrianism has seven divine figures that emanate from Ahura Mazda so they likely will in some way have that concept syncretized with ITTL Christianity I imagine.
Edit: Actually something interesting I'm now wondering...since Shapur I made all four, Judaism, Mandaeism, Zoroastrianism and Christianity explicitly legal and from what I understand the Parathian and Sassanid Empires were more religiously tolerant in many ways compared to the Roman Empire I do wonder if this may have the potential long term impact of creating a sort of 'dhimmi'/people of the book belief ITTL Christianity in a way similar to OTL Islam in that other Abrahamic faiths (which I'm pretty sure Zorastrianism is seen as ITTL) are explicitly tolerated as following the same god, even if they are seen in error for how they interpret the holy text. The lack of the Roman Empire's extant antisemitism on ITTL Christianity I imagine may further help there.
...I wonder how Zoroaster, the semi-legendary founder of Zoroastrianism, will be syncretized into the general Abrahamic, or at least Christian, tradition as a prophet. I'm asking that due to him not being in the Old Testament, from what I understand at least, but being very important in Zoroastrianism there almost certainly has to be some effort to bring him into the fold with the position Zoroastrianism has ITTL Christianity and being seen ITTL as an Abrahamic faith.
...I do wonder how the arguments over the Trinity are going to play out. Since whilst ITTL Christianity lacks at least some of the influence of Platoism and other hellenistic influences, due to being in Iran instead of the hellenistic Roman Empire, which may had helped shaped Jesus Christ as a demigod figure (looking at this from a historical, material analysis) from what I understand there is still probably some influence, hellenism was very widespread in general, and furthermore if I understand correctly Zorastrianism has seven divine figures that emanate from Ahura Mazda so they likely will in some way have that concept syncretized with ITTL Christianity I imagine.
Edit: Actually something interesting I'm now wondering...since Shapur I made all four, Judaism, Mandaeism, Zoroastrianism and Christianity explicitly legal and from what I understand the Parathian and Sassanid Empires were more religiously tolerant in many ways compared to the Roman Empire I do wonder if this may have the potential long term impact of creating a sort of 'dhimmi'/people of the book belief ITTL Christianity in a way similar to OTL Islam in that other Abrahamic faiths (which I'm pretty sure Zorastrianism is seen as ITTL) are explicitly tolerated as following the same god, even if they are seen in error for how they interpret the holy text. The lack of the Roman Empire's extant antisemitism on ITTL Christianity I imagine may further help there.
...I wonder how Zoroaster, the semi-legendary founder of Zoroastrianism, will be syncretized into the general Abrahamic, or at least Christian, tradition as a prophet. I'm asking that due to him not being in the Old Testament, from what I understand at least, but being very important in Zoroastrianism there almost certainly has to be some effort to bring him into the fold with the position Zoroastrianism has ITTL Christianity and being seen ITTL as an Abrahamic faith.
Last edited:
While Christianity has a few more dualistic elements ITTL, full dualism isn’t happening. Christianity is still a firmly monotheistic religion. Satan is probably seen as some sort of demiurge-figure, but still infinitely weaker than God and not a true Angra Mainyu analogue
Paul’s influence in syncretizing Christianity with Hellenic philosophy is still there, plus Platonism was fairly widespread. The Hellenistic deities were also widely worshipped alongside Persian and Mesopotamian ones in Parthia. The Zoroastrian concept of the Saoshyant will definitely be syncretized into TTL’s Christology.
TTL’s Christianity will have something similar to OTL Islam’s dhimmi. Zoroaster is probably seen as a local prophet who didn’t make it into the Old Testament due to that being the history of the Jews, of which he wasn’t one, but he might also be syncretized with Melchizedek or some other Old Testament figure.
On that note, I wonder what other "local prophets" TTL's Christianity would recognize, especially as it spreads to India and possibly China.
I suppose the Christology makes sense with the influence of both Hellenism in the general region and Paul's syncretization of Hellenism with Christianity earlier. Also looking at the Saoshyant concept and man it really does seem ready made to syncretize with Christology in regards to the saivor figure that redeems the world and triumphs over evil. The Demiurge conception of Satan is also pretty interesting. I suppose it makes sense since from what I understand Mandaeism was (and presumebly also ITTL) IOTL a gnostic tradition which seems ITTL to had been brought into the Abrahamic faith fully, it has to in some way reconcile Angra Mainyu from the Zorastrianism tradition with the complete monotheism of Judaism due to how Zoroastrianism is viewed and lastly it does seem that Valentian Gnosticism lasts long term ITTL as the 'Gnostic church' (if I understand what the 'gnostic church' meant in the second post) in the so it may also be a bit of unintentional and unacknowledged influence of how to conceive evil. Though of course with the source of evil/the demiurge figure being different, with Satan being equated to it in the Apostolic Church whereas, presumably, the Gnostic Church keeps their belief of the Demiurge being the God of the Old Testament which they considered different from the Monad/God of the New Testament. I actually wonder if the 'Gnostic Church' may end up syncretizing Angra Mainyu with the Demiurge as unintentional unfluence of their rival the Apostolic Church.
That actually is going to pretty interesting with the long term continuation of the Gnostic Tradition as an established faith under the Christianity umbrella instead of how IOTL it was suppressed for centuries/millenia and only recently began to gain attention again.
... I wonder how Marcon is viewed in the Gnostic Church due to his influence on Valentianism from what I understand on the matter.
That actually is going to pretty interesting with the long term continuation of the Gnostic Tradition as an established faith under the Christianity umbrella instead of how IOTL it was suppressed for centuries/millenia and only recently began to gain attention again.
... I wonder how Marcon is viewed in the Gnostic Church due to his influence on Valentianism from what I understand on the matter.
A few other major religious figures may be recognized as local prophets by various scholars, but exactly who gets that title is debated.
The Gnostic Church will undergo its own history separate from their Apostolic rival, and will likely be forced to adapt in response to it. I agree that the long-term survival of Gnosticism will be interesting ITTL. Marcion is likely viewed by TTL’s Gnostic Church as “close, but not quite” in terms of theology, as opposed to the Apostolics who simply believe that he was a heretic and schismatic.
Yeah, that makes sense with Marcion. I do wonder if ITTL Gnostic Church keeps it's more egalitarian/less structed faith, since from what I understand OTL Valentianism rejected ecclesiastical authority as part of it, or due to its long-term survival and as a possible response to its Apostolic rival it eventually develops some form of ecclesial hierarchy. Though I imagine even if it does it'll be far less hierarchal than the Apostolic Church, instead being more like congregationalist protestant sects or from what I understand of Rabbinical Judaism where religious figures are more independent, equal and in general the system is far less structured in how they interact with each other. Since as I understand the matter there isn't really a hierarchy of rabbis, for Judaism, or Ministers, for various protestant sects, where they report to someone above them. Instead, they are people who were trained in the religious texts and theology and then serve as the religious authority of their specific community. With their relationship to fellow religious leaders of the faith instead being letters, papers and other ways of less formal communication. Whereas in contrast the Roman Catholic Church, for an OTL example and presumably the ITTL Apostolic Church, has a formalized system of priests, bishops, archbishops that lead all the way up to the head of the faith (or for Eastern Orthodox Church, the Patriarchs who are then nominally all equal to each other if the Apostolic Church is more like that).
Am I in anyway correct about how the Gnostic Church is going to develop organizationally if that's alright to ask?
Am I in anyway correct about how the Gnostic Church is going to develop organizationally if that's alright to ask?