How Christianity became so big..

[danny ski]

There is no one single answer to why Christianity has been so successful. But if I had to pick one meta-theory it would be that Christianity is antifragile. Like a Hydra, every time you cut the head off of Christianity, n+1 new versions of Christianity emerge.

Temple is destroyed? No prob. Jewish Christianity dies off, Gentile Christianities expand.
Jesus cancels RSVP for 2nd Coming? Apocalyptic radical Christianity gives way to Postponed-apocalypse socially-conservative Christianity
Empire persecutes Christians (less than reported, but still)? Re-emerged egalitarian sects die off, bureaucratic Christian doppelgangers of the Roman empire consolidate power, themselves fracturing into still more sects that will rule for another thousand years.

Notice the Antifragile theory is opposite to the Golden Thread theory which says the strength of Christianity is that a single core of doctrines and practices has remained unchanged since the very beginning. According to the Antifragile theory Christianity has thrived precisely because there is no Golden Thread.

If Christianity had remained rigidly conservative since before Paul, it would have died off an insignificant Jewish heresy. Instead Christianity is successful thanks to innovators like Paul, Origen, Luther, Kierkegaard, etc., even though some of those innovators were utterly convinced they were anti-innovation.

Exactly the same case can be made about Islam. As for Christianity, the latter expansion into Central and Northern Europe was a simple one. The ruler converted, he gave the word and the sacred oaks and groves were chopped down and burned and the subjects were forced to convert. Kiss the cross or kiss the sword type of persuasion. Or in today's language- politics.

 

[smaneck]

Exactly the same case can be made about Islam.

Not entirely. Muslims conquered territory at extraordinary speed but the areas they conquered usually took centuries to Islamicize. In areas like Spain and India, Muslims remained a minority. Ironically Islam enjoyed the biggest growth as a religion after the Mongols had destroyed the Caliphate.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Thought this might be a fun thread. Why do you think the spread of Christianity has been so successful? What do you think are the psychological attractions to the religion? Why did it blow up in the Roman world? What do you think Christianity has to say about humanity?

I hate to be the one to say this but Christianity blew up in the Roman world because for 686 years if you lived under Roman jurisdiction and you weren’t Catholic you would be tortured until you converted and if you persistently refused to convert you would be executed.

 

[ubicaritas]

Thought this might be a fun thread. Why do you think the spread of Christianity has been so successful? What do you think are the psychological attractions to the religion? Why did it blow up in the Roman world? What do you think Christianity has to say about humanity?

Christianity became a major world religion because of colonialism. Catholicism and Jesuit missionaries alone account for much of the growth.

 

[ubicaritas]

In addition to the above, the Emperors following Constantine launched an unprecedented campaign of persecution against the pagans that continued for centuries. Any "competition" was systematically eliminated. An unintended side effect was the destruction of the intellectual underpinnings of civilization. This coupled with barbarian invasions led to the collapse of the Western portion of the Roman Empire.

Rome was pretty much done for with or without Christianity, it had little to do with Christian anti-intellectualism. The Romans themselves were not as intellectually inclined, which is why they often relied on Greek slaves as tutors.

Rome had a great organizational capacity and an ability to organize societies they conquered, but other than that, they were parasitic and their culture drained other nations of vitality because their primary philosophy was hedonism.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Rome was pretty much done for with or without Christianity, it had little to do with Christian anti-intellectualism. The Romans themselves were not as intellectually inclined, which is why they often relied on Greek slaves as tutors.

Rome had a great organizational capacity and an ability to organize societies they conquered, but other than that, they were parasitic and their culture drained other nations of vitality because their primary philosophy was hedonism.

This is very untrue. Rome was a great adopter of what worked, but also a great innovator.

Our modern legal systems are directly dependant on Roman civil law, via Justinian's codification thereof.
They were also great engineers. They built roads, aqueducts and buildings still in use today. They invented concrete, perfected the arch, invented water mills, etc.
Our political systems are also very Roman, hence the US has a Senate and Capitol, even the term President. The usage of the term 'democracy' to describe representational government is a more modern invention, once Rome and Imperialism got a bad name.
In Medicine, much of classical medicine was done under Roman Aegis. Galen was Marcus Aurelius' court physician, for example.

I could go on, but you get my point. Rome was inclusive, to the extent that Greeks called themselves Roman up till the 19th century. So all that Greek innovation became Roman, and many 'Greeks' continued their work under Rome, like Heron or Galen. Rome used Greek as its lingua franca in the East and language of education in the West, which is why they got Greek slaves to act as paedagogus for their children. It wasn't 'intellectual laziness'. Really now. Read Cicero, or Tacitus, or Varro, or Vitruvius, etc. That characterisation is false. Even Emperors like Marcus Aurelius and Claudius were literary. Rome developed Greek classics, though embracing much of the culture.

Further, the primary intellectual undercurrent of Roman life was not hedonism, but a sense of duty. This was why Stoicism was so prevalent philosophically, from Marcus Aurelius to Cato, etc. The Roman idea of Liberty, in fact means something closer to shouldering civic responsibility for the good of all, as opposed to Licentitas (where licentitious comes from) which was unfettered freedom and reviled.
There also was a current of Epicureanism, such as Lucullus and Lucretius, but these were never dominant in society. Look at the constant attempts at sumptuary laws and you'll see that Roman society certainly wasn't hedonistic. While they had to appease a listless mob later, this was a consequence of well-meaning civic measures, such as corn and oil doles, and electioneering via public games. It was constantly decried even in Roman times, but it is difficult to kill a monster once created. The Gracchi had had good intentions after all, but many politicians abused popularii sentiment until it was too late. However, it certainly wasn't the primary drive of society. There was a constant cry in Imperial times for a return to the republican virtues of hardwork and self-sufficiency.

However you slice it, Rome was not parasitic. The Empire lasted 500 years in the West, and 1500 in the East, not through parasitism, but bringing peace, prosperity and convincing everyone they were Romans, and that it was 'their' empire too.

The final word:

 

[ubicaritas]

Romans couldn't even make curved roads. Sure they were good at building because they relied upon lots and lots of slaves but it seems to me they just got their engineering from other cultures they conquered.

I took 4 years of Latin in highschool and Romans seem like the most unimaginative, incurious people of the ancient world . A very static, uninspiring worldview. That ability to devise legal codes sort of proves my point. They were ancient bullies that were good at crushing other people and subjugating them. It's like their whole society was militarism.

The eastern empire is usually considered different by western historians. The east was much more influenced by non-European cultures.

IMO, Greeks were much more intellectually adept. Most of the scientific discoveries of the ancient world happened there (or in Greek colonies), not in Rome. Archimedes, Pythagoras, etc.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Romans couldn't even make curved roads. Sure they were good at building because they relied upon lots and lots of slaves but it seems to me they just got their engineering from other cultures they conquered.

Incorrect. They invented much of their engineering, building domes that only became equalled in the 16th century. No nation Rome conquered can hold a candle to Roman engineering prowess, Greece included. Why do you think the Parthenon has so many columns, but the Pantheon and Hagia Sophia so little?

Curved roads are anyway inferior. It places more stress on the materials and forces traffic to slow down. Rome built straight roads by choice, for efficiency. We only build curved roads to save costs.
On rare occasion their roads do curve, and then the Romans added strengthening tracks to limit damage and ease carriage traffic, as ancient carts didn't have articulated front wheels. With Roads, you really cannot fault them, which is why All Roads lead to Rome.

I took 4 years of Latin in highschool and Romans seem like the most unimaginative, incurious people of the ancient world . A very static, uninspiring worldview. That ability to devise legal codes sort of proves my point. They were ancient bullies that were good at crushing other people.

I am a bit biased myself, being a great Romanophile. However, this used to be the baseline of Western Civilisation. Why do you think tbe Germans, Americans, Russians, Napoleonic France, etc. all use Eagles? Rome was the acknowledged mistress of Europe, one of the twin dynamoes of the civilisation with Greece. Our modern worldview of Liberty is very much Roman, and much less Greek, but with caveats.
The denigration of Rome is more to do with modern views where 'Imperialism' became a bad word, rather than flaws of the Romans. The Romans extended citizenship until everyone considered themselves Roman, giving equal protection to all.

Greeks by contrast, were just as Imperialistic and bullying - Delian league or Alexander and the Diadochoi anyone? But they kept the Greek separate, creating a ruler and ruled. Separate law codes, etc. This was why Alexandria was termed 'by Egypt' not 'in Egypt'. Rome was cruel if you crossed her, but magnaminous in general. The Greeks stayed on top and never integrated, hence so much Greek/Jewish/Egyptian rioting under the Ptolemies. That is more 'bullying' in my opinion.

The eastern empire is usually considered different by western historians. The east was much more influenced by non-European cultures.

No they arbitrarily start labelling it Byzantine as well as Roman from Constantine up till Justinian or Heraclius, and solely Byzantine thereafter. This is merely convention. The Eastern Empire is as much Roman as the West, calling themselves thus to boot.
This is because Westerners started considering themselves the true heirs of Rome, rather than Constantinople, from Charlemagme onwards.

IMO, Greeks were much more intellectually adept. Most of the scientific discoveries of the ancient world happened there (or in Greek colonies), not in Rome. Archimedes, Pythagoras, etc.

This is the equivalent of denigrating French science because all the dynamic stuff happened in the Renaissance, or American Science because English Science before this had made more important discoveries. It is a flawed perspective.

Don't confuse Hellenic and Hellenistic. Rome is also a Hellenistic culture. They aren't in competition. The glories of Greece were the classic Greek period and the first 100 or so years of the Hellenistic epoch. They were in decline thereafter, from internal strife, and Rome rode in to save it from Carthage and later the Parthians, and their own internal instability. Rome embraced and saved Greek knowledge, and allowed a second period of flourishing until the third century crisis.

Besides, a lot of our ancient discoveries are under Rome's Aegis, just not given credit. Medicine owes far more to Galen than Hippocrates, for instance.
The Romans were never as good philosophers as the Greeks: Cicero and Lucretius are okay, not great. But the Romans were much better Engineers, administrators, Lawyers or Soldiers than the Greeks ever were. Without Rome, Greek contributions to civilisation could have been snuffed out multiple times.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Not entirely. Muslims conquered territory at extraordinary speed but the areas they conquered usually took centuries to Islamicize. In areas like Spain and India, Muslims remained a minority. Ironically Islam enjoyed the biggest growth as a religion after the Mongols had destroyed the Caliphate.

I've heard argued that much of Persia only became Muslim under Tamberlaine. India, as you mentioned, is an especcially good example of this, where almost a thousand years of Islamic rule didn't lead to large scale conversion.

 

[smaneck]

I've heard argued that much of Persia only became Muslim under Tamberlaine. India, as you mentioned, is an especcially good example of this, where almost a thousand years of Islamic rule didn't lead to large scale conversion.

It was about 300 years before the majority of Iran had embraced Islam. But other religions were still significantly large at the time of the Mongol invasions for them to be put in charge initially.

 

[zippy2006]

There is no one single answer to why Christianity has been so successful. But if I had to pick one meta-theory it would be that Christianity is antifragile. Like a Hydra, every time you cut the head off of Christianity, n+1 new versions of Christianity emerge.

Temple is destroyed? No prob. Jewish Christianity dies off, Gentile Christianities expand.
Jesus cancels RSVP for 2nd Coming? Apocalyptic radical Christianity gives way to Postponed-apocalypse socially-conservative Christianity
Empire persecutes Christians (less than reported, but still)? Re-emerged egalitarian sects die off, bureaucratic Christian doppelgangers of the Roman empire consolidate power, themselves fracturing into still more sects that will rule for another thousand years.

Notice the Antifragile theory is opposite to the Golden Thread theory which says the strength of Christianity is that a single core of doctrines and practices has remained unchanged since the very beginning. According to the Antifragile theory Christianity has thrived precisely because there is no Golden Thread.

If Christianity had remained rigidly conservative since before Paul, it would have died off an insignificant Jewish heresy. Instead Christianity is successful thanks to innovators like Paul, Origen, Luther, Kierkegaard, etc., even though some of those innovators were utterly convinced they were anti-innovation.

I enjoy your posts and your thoughts but I have a question for you here. What makes Christianity "antifragile"? You seem to reference flexibility and innovation, but why are those things specifically Christian?

 

[AV1611VET]

Thought this might be a fun thread.

Good questions.

Q: Why do you think the spread of Christianity has been so successful?

A: John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Q: What do you think are the psychological attractions to the religion?

A: The Golden Rule. The joy of the LORD. Love thy neighbor. Love thine enemies.
Love thy wife/husband/children. In short: love.

Q: Why did it blow up in the Roman world?

A: The Romans built roads that gave access to all the major parts of the world.

Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

In addition, the Greeks unified the language

Ease of access and a unified language made the right conditions for the spread of the Gospel.

Q: What do you think Christianity has to say about humanity?

That we were made from the dust of the ground; we are sinners by birth, in need of the Saviour; we are tripartite beings: body, soul, spirit.

 

[Carbon]

I enjoy your posts and your thoughts but I have a question for you here. What makes Christianity "antifragile"? You seem to reference flexibility and innovation, but why are those things specifically Christian?

Hey Zippy,

You may already be familiar with Taleb’s spectrum:

Fragility - vulnerable to disorder
Robustness - stable in disorder
Antifragility - thrives on disorder

Two schools of thought here. One is that Christianity is fundamentally antifragile because it is inherently liberal-minded and has a tradition of creativity even though its self-image is often the precise opposite. The other is that Christianity has been the unwitting vessel for religious creativity, first in the East and later in the West, and the question of why Christianity succeeded instead of say Zoroastrianism is a chimera explainable by survivorship bias. I can see arguments going either way.

 

[zippy2006]

Hey Zippy,

You may already be familiar with Taleb’s spectrum:

Fragility - vulnerable to disorder
Robustness - stable in disorder
Antifragility - thrives on disorder

Two schools of thought here. One is that Christianity is fundamentally antifragile because it is inherently liberal-minded and has a tradition of creativity even though its self-image is often the precise opposite. The other is that Christianity has been the unwitting vessel for religious creativity, first in the East and later in the West, and the question of why Christianity succeeded instead of say Zoroastrianism is a chimera explainable by survivorship bias. I can see arguments going either way.

So which of the two schools do you align with? Is 'antifragility'--and liberal-mindedness and creativity--essential or accidental to Christianity?

 

[Newtheran]

Thought this might be a fun thread. Why do you think the spread of Christianity has been so successful? What do you think are the psychological attractions to the religion? Why did it blow up in the Roman world? What do you think Christianity has to say about humanity?

... in part because life for humanity under paganism is so hard. You don't even have to go back to historic times when Roman pagans left their unwanted babies to die and or be eaten by wild animals in the wilderness where they were rescued by Christians, or other practices such as burning widows alive in Hinduism. Even in the modern world, you simply have to look at how bad life is under paganism today in the Islamic world or parts of Africa or Europe.

Today, much of the world is living on a cultural credit card where they simultaneously try to reap the social benefits of Christian doctrine while denying it's claim on individual lives or theological claims.

 

[Carbon]

So which of the two schools do you align with? Is 'antifragility'--and liberal-mindedness and creativity--essential or accidental to Christianity?

Apologies for the delay, I have been out of town.

My guess is early Christianity was uniquely antifragile within its reference class of European and near-Eastern hellenized mystery cults. Christianity was decentralized, a mile wide and an inch deep, doctrinally liberal, exclusivist, and subversive to the imperial cult yet small enough to fly below the radar. Paul and others (Apollos, Barnabas?) decentralized and “widened” Christianity by conceptually spreading it across geographic and ethnic lines. Doctrinal liberalness and exclusivity were inherited de facto from Judaism, a hundred-sided die of a religion if there ever was one. Smallness is important because Christianity was philosophically subversive to the Pax Deorum. Even Pliny Jr. seems totally unfamiliar with Christianity, which he shouldn’t have been if it was substantially large. Strategically you want to be either harmless to, invisible to or illegible to your more powerful rivals.

Christianity’s mystery cult peers to the contrary were more centralized, doctrinally conservative, and complementary to the imperial cult. Of course we have to be cautious here given the scarcity of evidence. It’s possible all the mystery cults were structurally more similar than we realize and the differentiator was something else, like for example that Judaism and its children evolved more antifragility simply because they were subjected to more shocks. Israel was beaten up by all its neighbors for centuries so evermore-creative theodicies were more or less a cultural necessity.

In any case being as small as possible (but, to remix Einstein, no smaller), doctrinally unanchored, and decentralized are minimal prerequisites for inherent non-conscious antifragility at the level of free-floating rationales.

Antifragile moves by conscious agents are a little more complicated. Here I think Christianity and other organizations attract members at the level of base motives, antifragile decision making comes along as a by-product.

 

[dzheremi]

How would we then account for its resilience considerably later on when it very much was on the empire's radar, e.g., during the reign of Julian the Apostate, or perhaps more appropriately the earlier reigns of Decius, Valerian, Diocletian, and Maximinus Daia? Evolved anti-fragility due to repeated shocks, as you've suggested with Judaism?

Also, doesn't this only work in relation to the territories within the Roman empire, then? What can it tell us about the Armenians and Ethiopians, then, to choose the first two 'modern' recognizable countries to embrace Christianity as their official religion (in 301 and c. 330, respectively)? I know there is some argument as to whether or not Armenia can be really classed as being outside of the Greco-Roman empire, but it's worth noting the cultural affinity the ancient, pre-Christian Armenians had with the Iranians, not to mention the fact that the king who actually converted to Christianity from paganism and declared Christianity the religion of his kingdom, King Tiridates III (r. 287-330) was of the Arsacid dynasty, which is at its origin a branch of the larger Parthian Empire which ruled over Iraq and Iran from 247 BC until the establishment of the Sassanids. Even much, much later (well after the end of the Arsacids), the split with the Greco-Roman churches after Chalcedon took place in 506 following multiple complaints from the Armenians in Persia to their catholicos, Babgen II, at Dvin (which was within the borders of modern Armenia, as the nearby town bearing that name today also is).

And the Ethiopians, insofar as we know about their pre-Christian history, appeared to carry on some traditions inherited from Yemen (their unique script ultimately descends from the Ancient South Arabian scripts found there, and the Habesha/highland Semitic population is known to have descended partially from there), perhaps including some ancient primitive form of Judaism (at least it is taken to be so with regard to the hypothesized history of the Beta Israel/'Falashas', anyway, though that is not able to be reconstructed). I am curious as to what benefit there may have been for entire kingdoms to have adopted this religion in these circumstances, which are either outside of the Greco-Roman empire entirely (in the case of Ethiopia), or partly in while intimately tied to a competing empire that would prove to be very hostile towards it (in the case of the Armenians vis-a-vis the Persian empire; and you can add to them the Assyrians and Syriacs within Mesopotamia, though they've been without a state of their own since long before Christianity).

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Apologies for the delay, I have been out of town.

My guess is early Christianity was uniquely antifragile within its reference class of European and near-Eastern hellenized mystery cults. Christianity was decentralized, a mile wide and an inch deep, doctrinally liberal, exclusivist, and subversive to the imperial cult yet small enough to fly below the radar. Paul and others (Apollos, Barnabas?) decentralized and “widened” Christianity by conceptually spreading it across geographic and ethnic lines. Doctrinal liberalness and exclusivity were inherited de facto from Judaism, a hundred-sided die of a religion if there ever was one. Smallness is important because Christianity was philosophically subversive to the Pax Deorum. Even Pliny Jr. seems totally unfamiliar with Christianity, which he shouldn’t have been if it was substantially large. Strategically you want to be either harmless to, invisible to or illegible to your more powerful rivals.

Christianity’s mystery cult peers to the contrary were more centralized, doctrinally conservative, and complementary to the imperial cult. Of course we have to be cautious here given the scarcity of evidence. It’s possible all the mystery cults were structurally more similar than we realize and the differentiator was something else, like for example that Judaism and its children evolved more antifragility simply because they were subjected to more shocks. Israel was beaten up by all its neighbors for centuries so evermore-creative theodicies were more or less a cultural necessity.

In any case being as small as possible (but, to remix Einstein, no smaller), doctrinally unanchored, and decentralized are minimal prerequisites for inherent non-conscious antifragility at the level of free-floating rationales.

Antifragile moves by conscious agents are a little more complicated. Here I think Christianity and other organizations attract members at the level of base motives, antifragile decision making comes along as a by-product.

I am sorry, but your terminology is very sloppy here - I am having an apoplectic fit of pedantry.

Firstly, what is a 'Mystery Religion'? The term is derived from mystai or initiates, and denoted a religion characterised by secret doctrines and rituals only known to initiates, with or without secret membership as well - often graded. This is how the term was used by both Christian writers like Justin Martyr and their opponents like Celsus or Libanius. Christianity with its Great Commission, does not apply. To consider it a 'mystery religion' as well, was a 19th century fad that has largely been discarded. The modern equivalent of a mystery religion would be Scientology.

So the Mystery Religions were Mithraism, Orphism, Eleusian Mysteries, the Bacchanalia, Jupiter Dolicenus, Gnosticism, etc. Manichaeism, Christianity or public cults like Sol Invictus, do not apply. Mystery religions such as Mithraism were compatible with official religion in and so as they were military cults in which Emperors took part. Other mystery religions like the Bacchanalia were official suppressed as subversive. There was also movements such as Isis and Sarapis, that had an open worship but might entail mystery elements - this was also periodically expelled from Rome. Rome didn't trust secret rites that weren't traditional ones like the Bona Dea, so mystery religions only flourished under direct Imperial patronage - otherwise they were suppressed as potential proto-conspiracies or cabals.
It is quite possible that the later popularity of Sol invictus as a public cult, may be related to Jupiter Dolicenus and Mithraism as secretive ones, under the auspices of Emperors like Aurelian.

The on and off persecution of Christianity was a different animal, largely related to their perceived 'atheism' and refusal to sacrifice to the Emperor's Genius. They were seen as disloyal then, which is clear from Pliny's letters.

Pliny was the nephew of Pliny the Elder. Junior either implies descent, or a relation of Pliny I then Pliny II, which does not apply here, as Plinius is the nomen of Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus. Though the elder adopted the younger, such nomenclature of 'junior' is technically incorrect. Pliny the younger is the heir of Pliny the Elder, so have a similar relation as that between Augustus and Julius Caesar.

Rome didn't care about you, so long as you paid taxes and kept the peace. Trajan tells Pliny not to seek out the Christians, but only act if they were brought to him. They didn't care until much later, when sufficient numbers started making Christianity appear a potential powerbase for rivals or fifth column (the same reason the Roman anti-Semitism became more prominent, due to succesive Jewish Revolts and potential collusion with Parthia). This is understandable from a Realpolitik standpoint, as certainly that is exactly what Constantine used against Galerius later.

Much of the 'antifragile' argument rests on debatable points: How centralised was Christianity initially? What are we defining as Christianity (including heresies like Montanism or considering syncretic Gnostocism as related or not)? How much doctrinal differentiation is present (for we see early attempts at cohesion of doctrine in Pauline and Clementine letters). Juxtaposing this against official Roman religion, other eastern Religions like Manichaeism, Mystery Religions, etc. merely muddies it further. Official Roman religion was long ago a dead letter, with people like Cicero saying he doesn't know how two Augurs can meet in public without bursting into laughter. This is why Roman religion had a strong tendency to late Monotheistic thinking, as can be seen in Varro or Neoplatonism, which was uniquely compatible to Christianity. It wasn't coincidence that all these cults proliferated in the Principate, nor that the Monotheistic ones came out on top.

 

[Carbon]

I am having an apoplectic fit of pedantry

LOL. If an internet forum isn't a codependent support group for pedantic people, then what is it?

Early Christianity was a mystery religion in my view. You don't see a case for this in Paul and the Gospel of Mark?

"Pliny Jr." was a little loose wasn't it. Just a little bait to torture my pedantic friends.

On the definition of Christianity, my take is you can either define it on grounds of minimal doctrine (Jesus = Messiah), or self-reporting. Anything else hopelessly devolves into tautology and special pleading. So yes, I count those so-called heretics as Christians if they count themselves as Christians.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Early Christianity was a mystery religion in my view. You don't see a case for this in Paul and the Gospel of Mark?

I can see a case can be made, but would it be reasonable? It is based on 1 Corinthians' "Milk and Meat" and Mark's "don't tell them". Neither of these are very strong arguments when taken in context.

Mark also has the Great Commission, and the very fact that the 'secret teaching' is written down plainly, in arguably the first gospel, is telling. Spreading the Good News as far as possible is hardly a mystery religion.

Paul is writing a pastoral letter to the Corinthians, instructing on immorality and pagan practices - the very basics. This is clearly the 'milk' when taken in context with other Pauline letters like Romans that discuss more difficult concepts like Grace. It reflects the immaturity and division in Corinth.

While certain syncretic Gnostic sects came to claim Paul as originator (notably Valentinianism) based thereon, there is simply little to support the contention, and much in such sects quite inimical to Paul's teaching - leading to claims that Paul was merely 'hiding his deeper truths in a facade of falsity'. If we are in such territory, you can literally claim anything.

So no, based on our earliest apologists like Justin Martyr or the Letters of Clement, there is no reason to see Christianity as a mystery religion. If it had been one, it ceased being so by the early second century, and I don't consider the argument a strong one that it ever was before this. As I said, this was a 19th century fad that has become a decidedly minority opinion nowadays. We can reconstruct 'first century Christianity' in however many ways one wishes, but the Church that descended from it, and faced the various Roman persecutions, was not a Mystery Religion. The very fact that they declared themselves Christians, and faithfully told their doctrines, to men like Pliny, is against it.