The Roman Empire was religiously tolerant. The state allowed people
from different parts of the empire to keep their own religions. Often,
old and new cults from different parts of the empire were merged
together, that is, there was a lot of _syncretism_ of religions.

But there was one exception from this Roman tolerance against
religions: Christianity. As I understand it, Christianity was illegal
in the Roman Empire from its appearance in the 1st century A.D. until
Emperor Constantine made it legal in the 4th century. There were many
Christian martyrs that were executed during this period, and there were
major waves of persecution about 250 A.D. during Emperor Decius and
about 300 A.D. during Emperor Diocletian.

Why? What was the difference between Christianity and other religions,
that made the Romans feel it necessary to ban Christianity and to
persecute and execute Christians?
After all, most Christians were law abiding citizens that just wanted
to mind their own business and, to some extent, convert others. Yet, to
waste so much energy and resources in persecution of Christians, the
Romans must have considered the Christians as a seriuos threat against
society. What was that threat they perceived?

One possible answer is that the Christians refused to worship the
Emperor, a costum that was made mandatory by the state, and that most
other religions accepted. But this can hardly be all of it, because the
Jews didn't worship the Emperor either, and the Romans granted them an
exception from that rule. Why couldn't the Christians get a similar
exception?

Could it be the apocalyptics of Early Christianity that was the
problem? The Early Christians believed in a Second Coming of Christ in
the _near_ future, when major upheavals would occur and the world as
they knew it would be destroyed. Perhaps the Romans feared that the
Christians would not just passively wait for this, but also actively
try to cause these upheavals and destruction? If so, the Romans would
naturally consider the Christians as very dangerous potential
troublemakers. And perpaps this fear wasn't entirely unfounded.
Couldn't there actually have existed fringe Christians that wanted to
expedite the Second Coming of Christ in this way? If so, the blame cast
upon the Christians by Emperor Nero for setting fire to Rome in 64 A.D.
might have appeared as quite justified by the public...

But that's only my own speculations. Does anybode have some more
definite knowledge about this?

Regards,

Erland Gadde