So we end up with a Jewish Rabbi who isn't Jewish, who is executed but doesn't die, executed in Roman fashion but not by Romans...and a criminal threat to the Roman political authority posthumously becomes a unifying religious icon and rallying point for the Roman people, under penalty of law.
Just to recap:
From 165 BCE to 63 BCE, the formation of an independent Jewish kingdom, known as the Hasmonaean Dynasty. This is the era of the Maccabbees.
A Roman campaign of conquest and annexation soon followed. Gradually the rule over Judea became less and less Jewish, until it came under the direct rule of Rome.
Some 34 years or so later (3 BC, +/-), the man we know as Jesus is born (thought by some to have occurred in the late summer or early autumn of the year).
33 years later (30 AD, +/-), the man we know as Jesus dies a criminal's death in the spring at the hands of the Romans at the instigation of the Jewish priests, ostensibly for posing a threat to the religious establishment and possibly for posing a threat to the civil establishment.
In 66 CE, Judeans began to revolt against the Roman rulers. The revolt was defeated and the Temple was destroyed in the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The siege of Masada followed shortly after, marking the end of this war. This is the period Josephus writes about as I recall.
Judeans continued to live in their land in significant numbers, until the Bar Kokhba revolt. Most of the Jewish population of central Judaea was essentially wiped out, killed, sold into slavery, or forced to flee, banished from Jerusalem until 1948 (another story for another day). By the way, this also meant that there were no Christians in Jerusalem either. For intents and purposes at this point and for some time yet to come, Christianity was viewed as an offshoot of Judaism.
Christians didn't have it easy. Nero was the first Roman Emperor to scapegoat the Christians, blaming them for the fires that levelled a lot of the old city of Rome. Christians were dipped in barrels of tar and set alight to illuminate Nero's garden parties, among other more famous tortures like being thrown to lions and executed by gladiators.
There were at least 3 major persecutions of the Christians over the ensuing 200 years or so, and several minor ones. Even so, Christians were by and large tolerated well enough that their numbers grew and they were even allowed at times to hold various public offices and conduct public business. They were even allowed a presence in the military. So Rome had a love/hate relationship with Christianity. When it was convenient, Rome tolerated them. When it was convenient, Rome butchered them. Until the time of Constantine the terms of tolerance or not were what Pagan Rome dictated at the moment.
So it took some intestinal fortitude to be a Christian during the period leading up to Constantine. No doubt there was some comforting element offered that the Pagan pantheon could not provide, perhaps the hope of eternal life and resurrection into a peaceful heaven rather than the arbitrary whims offered by Pagan superstitions? Perhaps the idea of common good and social welfare, (no stranger to Judaism even before Jesus), developed into an art that provided comfort and shelter and consolation that the Pagan pantheon could not beyond the appeasement of bread and circuses?
Along comes Constantine, no doubt a remarkable man no matter how history cares to view him. The son of the Ceasar of Britain, history recalls that British Christians joined the ranks of his soldiers and helped him defeat Maxentius at the Battle of Milvian Bridge. It was in payment for this debt of gratitude for this victory in 313 AD that Constantine officially lifted the sanctions that were imposed on Christians. No longer was it a social handicap to be a Christian. From this point Christianity exploded and never looked back.
The Christianity of this point in time was fragmented, holding a number of differing beliefs and traditions. There were no established canons, no set books (or "letters") that were read, indeed many texts still exist that were held at that time and later deemed non-canonical. So there were a lot of differing views, much like how Christianity is today.
What did these early, pre-Roman Catholic Christians believe? We can't say for sure. No doubt our pride and loyalty want us to believe that we believe now as we did then, but there isn't much to confirm that with. Indeed, some of the Gnostic texts and other texts that were ostracized by Rome in 325 AD and later suggest that at least some Christians held views quite unlike those commonly held today, views that seem to hold an even stronger influence from earlier Greek pagan, mystical and philosophical traditions. Even in what history remains, simply in considering the Arius - Athanasius controversy that framed the first Council at Nicaea, it is apparent that there was no "one" set way to be a Christian. And until one specific "denomination" if you will gained the political upper hand, there were no winners to these arguments. Arius lost at Nicaea- yet- Constantine was baptised on his deathbed as an Arian Christian!
Constantine was a great benefactor to Christianity, but he conducted his public and private life as a Pagan throughout until he was on his deathbed. After a few fits and starts, it was several emperors later before any could actually be said to have been Christian in more than just name.
Did the pre-Catholic Christians believe in a trinity? Hard to say...some probably did, some probably didn't. There are trinitys in certain Pagan pantheons, and there is evidence that Pagan practices were adopted and adjusted...given a fresh coat of paint and a new name, so to speak, and called Christian. This is how we end up with certain Pagan holidays (like Christmas and Easter) being celebrated in Christianity instead of the Jewish Holy Days (like Passover).
To this end I found it remarkable the stated anti-semitism of Constantine, word for word the same I have heard in more recent contexts (from Catholics!). Considering that Constantine was in a position to shape future policy within the emerging Christian institution, it begins to make sense to me how particularly at this stage in time Christianity began to take on Pagan attributes as it distanced itself from its Jewish roots. No doubt another reason was expediency, PR, "spin," in an attempt to mold the formulaic church into something appealing to a Pagan audience.
Was Jesus defacto G-d in flesh, rather than a remarkable human teacher of righteousness? In light of some of these other contextual events it becomes a bit harder to say. Of course we want him to be, but will it destroy our faith if he is not? It is hard to deny how much the "Savior" story resembles other Pagan savior and hero myths that long predate the formative era of Christianity. Myths where gods embue their human offspring with supernatural powers to heal, feed masses, teach wisdom and work miracles, even returning from the dead. It is coincidences like these that raise what I feel are legitimate doubts as to the factual authenticity of the Christian savior mythos. Even his name, Jesus, is a pagan name!, his Jewish name Yashua having been forsaken by the church in its quest to distance itself from Judaism.
The more I look, the more loose ends I find. It doesn't add up.
Either I blindly accept the routine traditions with all of the...inaccurate non truths...as part and parcel of the deal. Or I hold out for the truth of reality and personal experience. Seems to me the Christianity Jesus, James, Peter and Paul taught was more Jewish than it is now. A LOT more. Want truth? Be careful what you pray for...you might get it.
