How did Christianity spread so far and wide being an offshoot of Judaism?

[Albion]

Presumably it spread through the early church for the same reasons it is shown to have spread in Scripture. When miracles will be sufficient testimony for a people, God does miracles.

This factor no doubt was important in getting the new church established and going. How it came to spread so rapidly through the rest of the Roman World, from Britain to east of the Euphrates, would seem to owe to other factors.

 

[FireDragon76]

The quote from Celsus, referred to in JackRT's post, belies a lack of recognition of the uniqueness of the gospel. e.g., where is the part for salvation where I have to pay something to God for my sins? This is contrary to fallen human nature. We're wired to not be satisfied with a justice where there is no punishment to the lawbreaker. When a person (whose faith is not cold) learns the good news he gets an injection of God's glory into his heart (which hopefully will bring him to Life ).

Actually, early Greek Christians were not at all focused on divine punishment or justice (that was a later western emphasis in the late middle ages). For them the good news was that God himself had provided a sacrifice and the ability to commune with him. That was a big deal in Greco-Roman culture, where public, organized religion was always transactional in nature and usually cost money or resources.

Paul lays a lot of emphasis on God in Christ as the philanthropos, the benefactor or patron who dispenses favors or gifts (the literal meaning of grace), a concept that would have been understood by Greeks easily because it was a ubiquitous part of their world, and the way that common people found social access and influence. Paul was the great bridge between the Jewish and Gentile worlds because he understood both.

Another thing was the pessimism of the Greco-Roman world. Christianity offered a different vision for humanity. Instead of a merciless fate, human freedom, dignity, and moral accountability was emphasized. The belief in resurrection and future glory contrasted with the Greek denigration of the body and the treatment of the human condition as inherently problematic- a stop onto something better (reincarnation was not an unheard of belief). This is too often lost on western Christians because western Christianity itself eventually took a pessimistic turn, starting with Augustine but it only grew worse in the middle ages.

 

[Landon Caeli]

This factor no doubt was important in getting the new church established and going. How it came to spread so rapidly through the rest of the Roman World, from Britain to east of the Euphrates, would seem to owe to other factors.

But the Church isn't just the Roman or Latin Church. The OO and later the EO also spread far and wide, and today there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide.

...But in this thread, I'm focusing on the original spread of Christianity in its earliest stages. It seems peculiar that a Jewish off shoot could reach so many cultures so far and wide, especially when existing cultures already had their own faith systems... Because it wasn't spread by the sword.

...It would seem difficult, no matter the message.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Presumably it spread through the early church for the same reasons it is shown to have spread in Scripture. When miracles will be sufficient testimony for a people, God does miracles.

Some non-historical thoughts:

The message itself is appealing: God loves you. He came to earth to pay for all your wrongdoings by dying and now you are cleansed from all offense against him, and he now sees (and on Judgment Day will see) you as holy, righteous, and good. There will be no more pain, and so forth. These things are not presented in Scripture as hopes (in something that may or may not happen), but things that will happen.

The Word has power that can affect people in ways unlike anything else, such as triggering a recognition of Truth, rather than convicting someone that an explanation is logical. Although there are various nonspiritual ways to explain why the Ethiopian was quick to believe (he was in Jerusalem because he already had some faith), the bottom line was that he was given a basic understanding of some things from the Word and the good news and he believed (narrative in Acts 8:26-40).

I've heard that God has ensured there remain avenues in every culture through which people can connect to the truth of the gospel. I don't know if that's true, but wherever it was the case, Jesus would have been an answer that rang true to a people group where there was a tension (or pain) about something (e.g., the resurrection story for people desperate to know they have eternal life, instead of a reason to hope for it).

The quote from Celsus, referred to in JackRT's post, belies a lack of recognition of the uniqueness of the gospel. e.g., where is the part for salvation where I have to pay something to God for my sins? This is contrary to fallen human nature. We're wired to not be satisfied with a justice where there is no punishment to the lawbreaker. When a person (whose faith is not cold) learns the good news he gets an injection of God's glory into his heart (which hopefully will bring him to Life ).

Excellent post. Thanks for sharing that.

 

[Albion]

But the Church isn't just the Roman or Latin Church. The OO and the EO also spread far and wide, and today there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide.

I was speaking of all forms of Christianity. I thought that was the perspective of the question we were asked.

...But in this thread, I'm focusing on the original spread of Christianity in its earliest stages.

Only in the first generation or two, do you mean? That's not what you asked in the OP ("It seems miraculous that people in India, Egypt, Russia, Romania, Italy, etc., would all accept a religion rooted in Judaism, especially when they had their own preferred culture....")

 

[Landon Caeli]

I was speaking of all forms of Christianity. I thought that was the perspective of the question we were asked.


Only in the first generation, do you mean? That's not what you asked in the OP ("It seems miraculous that people in India, Egypt, Russia, Romania, Italy, etc., would all accept a religion rooted in Judaism, especially when they had their own preferred culture...."

Yes, in general the apostles. Thanks, thats exactly what I'm getting at in asking these questions.

 

[Albion]

So, we're revising the OP.

OK, in that period, the miracles probably did account for a lot of the spread, but the spread wasn't all that mindblowing, either, not if we look at the extent of it on a map.

Historians are concerned, however, to know why it spread from Britain to almost India within little more than a century. Now THAT was a real breakthrough, and it obviously was not accomplished because of a handful of Apostles performing miracles over the course of thousands of miles.

 

[Landon Caeli]

So, we're revising the OP.

OK, in that period, the miracles probably did account for a lot of the spread, but the spread wasn't all that mindblowing, either, not if we look at the extent of it on a map.

Historians are concerned, however, to know why it spread from Britain to almost India within little more than a century. Now THAT was a real breakthrough, and it obviously was not accomplished because of a handful of Apostles performing miracles over the course of thousands of miles.

Albion, I'm talking about the first few hundred years with a special focus on the apostles. That's why I brought up the St. thomas Christians earlier. But still, we don't have to stop there.

I'm sorry I'm having such a difficult time espressing that. I am glad to read your posts though -they're informative.

 

[Albion]

Albion, I'm talking about the first few hundred years with a special focus on the apostles.

I'm sorry I'm having such a difficult time espressing that.

...and I hope I'm not coming across as grilling you. I just want to answer with the right time frame in mind. But I find some inconsistencies in the proposition that affect how any of us would answer. The Apostles, except for John living in exile, were all dead within a couple of generations after the Ascension. That's not a "few hundred years." Therefore, if we limit the inquiry to the time of the Apostles, it isn't very long. OTOH, Russia (mentioned in the OP) wasn't Christianized until almost a thousand years later.

What I said earlier about a number of societal factors accounting for the impressive spread from Britain to the Middle East and North Africa was accomplished within the first few hundred years.

 

[Landon Caeli]

...and I hope I'm not coming across as grilling you. I just want to answer with the right time frame in mind. But I find some inconsistencies in the proposition that affect how any of us would answer. The Apostles, except for John living in exile, were all dead within a couple of generations after the Ascension. That's not a "few hundred years." Therefore, if we limit the inquiry to the time of the Apostles, it isn't very long. OTOH, Russia (mentioned in the OP) wasn't Christianized until almost a thousand years later.

What I said earlier about a number of societal factors accounting for the impressive spread from Britain to the Middle East and North Africa was accomplished within the first few hundred years.

Isn't it true that St. Andrew the apostle went to Ukraine and Russia though?

 

[Albion]

Mainly in present day Turkey and Greece, but he is the patron saint of Russia. Your question, though, concerned the spread of the Christian faith, so if he was in parts of today's Russia, it didn't result in any significant numbers of conversions to the faith. Russia remained a pagan country until after ca.900.

 

[Deadworm]

I challenge you to find one reputable early church historian who embraces the tradition that Thomas went to India. This legend is traceable to the totally fictional Acts of Thomas written in the 3rd century. This is the same book that identifies Thomas as Jesus' twin brother! The legend is rooted in the earlier tradition that the real Thomas is the one apostle who evangelized east of the Jordan River and may have founded the church at Edessa in eastern Syria. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas (late first - early 2nd century), is thought by many scholars to have been written at Edessa, not by Thomas, but by bearers of the tradition that Thomas was present in Edessa.

 

[pescador]

The original question concerns me. Why wouldn't Christianity spread? It gave (and still gives) a message of love, peace, and hope to people, regardless of their physical location or belief system. Why have so many around the world accepted the Gospel? Not because of it's being "an offshoot of Judaism" (which it isn't) but because of the promises of the New Covenant.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I challenge you to find one reputable early church historian who embraces the tradition that Thomas went to India. This legend is traceable to the totally fictional Acts of Thomas written in the 3rd century. This is the same book that identifies Thomas as Jesus' twin brother! The legend is rooted in the earlier tradition that the real Thomas is the one apostle who evangelized east of the Jordan River and may have founded the church at Edessa in eastern Syria. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas (late first - early 2nd century), is thought by many scholars to have been written at Edessa, not by Thomas, but by bearers of the tradition that Thomas was present in Edessa.

It wouldn't be hard to believe considering:
Pantænus
"Head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria about 180 (Eusebius, Church History V.10), still alive in 193 (Eusebius, "Chron." Abr., 2210). As he was succeeded by Clement who left Alexandria about 203, the probable date of his death would be about 200. He was trained in the Stoic philosophy; as a Christian missionary, he reached India (probably South Arabia), and found there Christians possessing the Gospel of St. Matthew in Hebrew, which they had received from St. Bartholomew. All this is given by Eusebius as what was "said" (Church History V.11). Eusebius continues: "In his 'Hypotyposes' he [Clement] speaks of Pantænus by name as his teacher."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11446b.htm

 

[FireDragon76]

Just because a story contains hagiography doesn't mean the essential truths of it aren't plausible. It seems unwarranted to dismiss a story outright just because elements of it are improbable or even demonstrably false. Anybody who is familiar with how ancients recorded history would know this.

 

[chilehed]

It seems miraculous that people in India, Egypt, Russia, Romania, Italy, etc., would all accept a religion rooted in Judaism, especially when they had their own preferred culture that normally would have taken precedence over foreign influences.

...It seems impossible! What happened?

Simple: they were very convincing. A big plus: they treated women with more respect for their dignity than anyone else.

 

[Landon Caeli]

The original question concerns me. Why wouldn't Christianity spread? It gave (and still gives) a message of love, peace, and hope to people, regardless of their physical location or belief system. Why have so many around the world accepted the Gospel? Not because of it's being "an offshoot of Judaism" (which it isn't) but because of the promises of the New Covenant.

Zoroastrianism was also very loving and peaceful, but that didn't really spread far and wide. It could be that the Zoroastrians didn't evangelize though, which made it susceptible to its end later, when Islam was instituted and spread.

...Which also makes me think that Islam copied the evangelization techniques of early Christianity, and maximized it after witnessing its successes. But that was much later compared to the first couple hundred years that this thread is focused on.

 

[Widlast]

It seems miraculous that people in India, Egypt, Russia, Romania, Italy, etc., would all accept a religion rooted in Judaism, especially when they had their own preferred culture that normally would have taken precedence over foreign influences.

...It seems impossible! What happened?

Like those who St. Paul evangelized in Greece, honest folks with a little insight see that the Christian message is true.
The Christian message is quite different than the legends and myths that the pagan religions are based on.

 

[Hawkins]

It seems miraculous that people in India, Egypt, Russia, Romania, Italy, etc., would all accept a religion rooted in Judaism, especially when they had their own preferred culture that normally would have taken precedence over foreign influences.

...It seems impossible! What happened?

Ancient people have more spiritually sense, that's before humans are brainwashed by modern secular education.

 

[Widlast]

Zoroastrianism was also very loving and peaceful, but that didn't really spread far and wide. It could be that the Zoroastrians didn't evangelize though, which made it susceptible to its end later, when Islam was instituted and spread.

...Which also makes me think that Islam copied the evangelization techniques of early Christianity, and maximized it after witnessing its successes. But that was much later compared to the first couple hundred years that this thread is focused on.

Zoroastrianism, by it's own doctrine cannot be "spread". They do not allow evangelization. To be a "Parsi", both of your parents must be "Parsi". Attrition due to mortality and forced conversion have doomed Zoroastrianism.