Oh, so that's how all Western Europe became Catholic and Eastern Europe became Orthodox--the bishops and theologians just sat in their cathedrals and millions of people showed up and asked questions.
It's been a while since I've read the "new testament," so maybe you can refresh my memory. Where did it tell how Paul just sat and waited for all of Anatolia and Greece to come to him?
The Catholic/Orthodox attitude toward proselytization doesn't "come from" Judaism but rather shares with Judaism the fact that they are ethnic religions (similar to the Black Church in America). Catholic and Orthodox chr*stianity keep going via reproduction, not missionary activity. All this is true. But to imply that this is the original apostolic attitude? Shame on you, old friend!
BTW, while Judaism isn't conventionally proselytary, it does proselytize for the Noachide Laws. The current withdrawn non-activist attitude of Orthodox Judaism doesn't come from the religion but from two millennia of living in a situation where all that mattered was survival and where any proselytization would have been met with mass slaughter.
No, ZC, I am surprised you would say something like that.
In fact, the number of Christians at the end of the century was relatively small (less than ten thousand, according to estimates). There were many competing "mystery religions" that cliamed Jesus of their own, and at one point one such cult, Manicheanism, was much more prominent then all Christian sects combined. Christianity was established in Europe by much more effective means than proselytizing.
Europe became Christian 1,698 years ago by the Edict of Milan, an imperial decree by the Roman Emperor Constantine. In other words, by fiat.
And he did that out of supersititon! After having dreamt of a victory with a sign of a cross, he decided that the Christian God was the "stronger god", and ordered everyone to become Christian. So, Europe (which was Rome) became Christian by an imperial edict. Of course the Church didn't complain...ebven though Constantine refused to be baptized until near his death, and in fact, is venerated as a saint in the Orthodox Church.
And Russia became Christian by the will of her prince. He sent emissaries to find out more about this Christian religion and they visited Rome and Constantinople and liked the eastern liturgy ("it's like heaven on earth" they reported back to him) and that sealed Russia as an Orthodox country.
It's been a while since I've read the "new testament," so maybe you can refresh my memory. Where did it tell how Paul just sat and waited for all of Anatolia and Greece to come to him?
But Anatolia and Greece didn't come to him. Yes, he did preach there, because that was his mission. He was saving the Church! Literally speaking.
Of course, the "official truth" is that he preached because God told him to do so (where did I see that reason before?).
And someone made sure to put that into the Gospels at the very end (catching up with times), in order to make it look look "official."
But Jesus never taught that. To the contrary! He told the disciples to go only to the "lost sheep of Israel" (which we know is not Gentiles and not even Samaritans). And they were supposed to go there to heal and to announce the messianic message that the kingdom of God (re-established Israel) and not to preach a new religion.
It is only at the very end of the Gospels of Mark (Ch. 16), apparently a latter-day addition after verse 9, and Matthew (Ch. 28), a "trinitized" version that was apparently introduced after the First Ecumenical Council in 25 AD, that they are sent to the "ethne" (which literally means "tribes").
Now what other tribes would Jesus send his disciples to if he specifically forbade them to go to any other than Jewish tribes, and if he himself admits to having been sent ONLY for the lost sheep of Israel?!?
Yes, he does send them to go to the "end of the world" but that's because the Jews were scattered all over the known world, and one of the things the Jewish messiah will accomplish is convince all the Jews in diaspora to return to Israel!
Clearly, the Church later changed this (and many other things) to mean nations of the world, since the Church was no longer a Jewish gathering and her mission was to the Gentiles.
But it is clear that Christianity, in most instances, was introduced by the will of the rulers, as a state religion, and not by proselytizing.
The current withdrawn non-activist attitude of Orthodox Judaism doesn't come from the religion but from two millennia of living in a situation where all that mattered was survival and where any proselytization would have been met with mass slaughter.
Was there an active attempt to convert large groups of people to Judaism? No of course not. It is contrary to Judaism to proselytize. Noahaide laws, yes, because that goes hand in hand with the OT Covenant God made with Noah and "all living creatures" after the Flood "for all generations."
Christianity, on the other hand, is out there to "save" the rest of the world, so they tend to proselytize. But the Church, especially the more traditional Eastern Church, never proselytized very actively.
In the colonies, there was a pressure gradient to convert the population and in some instances for strictly moral reasons (nudity, incest, etc.) encountered among indigenous populations.
So, while it is understandable that the ostracized Jews preferred to take a low profile in the Christian world, I can't recall an instance in history when Judaism actively proselytized.