Crudely, two opponents define Christian literature and dogmas. First non-Jesus Jews and then Plato's Greeks.
When Titus burnt the Jerusalem temple, Jewish Christianity withered (along with most other Jewish sects), leaving one Christianity, the Greek. It takes a lot of bile to justify taking another nation's history, to tell it that it doesn't understand its writings but these Greeks were up to the task - as Asclepiades and others say, their writings (the gospels) reflect that. But I think placate-the-Romans is overemphasized. The focus was wrestling holy texts and their legitimacy from the last rival standing (the forerunners of the rabbi's).
Jesus as a god was very Greek and the doctrine was refined debating Greeks. The "begotten, not made" son of God admitted by the vast majority of Christians today only crystallized in the early fourth century. It is beyond the gospels, even "logos" John - certainly, I defy anyone to find the creator of the universe in the the demon-chasing, faith healer of Mark (28 short pages!). Here Rome (western, latin-speaking, Augustus, eternal Rome) again has at most a secondary part. Constantine summoned Nicea but the dispute and its "resolution" was not his, not Rome's.
p.s. On Language. "the gospels were written in Greek for the general Roman population". Um. Language use and spread (how much Berber used in North Africa, any "Celtic" left in Gaul, use of Greek vs Coptic in Egypt, how much Greek, known by the upper classes in the west) is a huge topic in itself. Not necessary here 'cause the west had little influence on Christianity. But it's a good'un too!