Do you really believe a small, often persecuted religion of the underclasses was bound to take off? That it lasted 300 years as an underground religion labelled a superstition, associated with slaves and women, is not to be waved away. There was clearly something about it that lasted for 300 years that made it gain momentum and this is clearly not state sponsorship. Christianity grew for 300 years under state suspicion. The first centuries are vital and give us thinkers like Origen, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Polycarp et al. These men were hardly state sponsored but it's these men we go to for doctrine. They needed zero support from Rome, so clearly the rise of Christianity is not due to Rome.No, I mean the state of which it was the official religion. You do realize stuff happened after 300 AD, right?
Yes, they were supported by states after the people in these states converted. What do you think made them convert exactly? How can the state support a religion to which no-one belongs in the first place?Christianity and Islam have stuck around because they have been supported by powerful states. Because of that, their god-concepts have morphed over time to be malleable to different areas and different times.
It is to suggest that Rome is responsible for Christianity, not Christianity itself.There's nothing anti-Catholic about any of this. It's just facts. What I don't understand is why you deny it and why you think it's anti-Catholic. Saying Christianity survived due to being the official religion of powerful states starting with Rome is anti-Rome? I'm not even sure how that's supposed to make sense.