You came in here with absolutely nothing to contribute to call me out on something I didn't do and I am the one being obnoxious? I have nothing more to say to or hear from you.
AHC: Maximize the Conversions and Peaceful Spread of Christianity Before 7th Century
- Thread starter Isfendil
- Start date
Here are the current questions of the discussion for its resumption.
Well, when I convey thoughts in written or spoken form, its usually not by accident. So, yes, I mention Islam on purpose. It had a diplomatically isolating effect on Axum. That set up an endpoint for when whatever the Ethiopian Christian kingdom in power at the time was could easily spread its faith.
What is your concern with people mentioning the other great prosyletizing Abrahamic faith? Your title is not definitive in excluding Islam from consideration in the discussion. By the year AD 600, the rise of Islam was quite plausible. So, unless you want to set your cutoff date several decades earlier, it has a place in the concersation.
Paulus is the one who first stated that non-jews could be christians. At the same time he was a roman citizen. His efforts were therefore mostly focused on setting up a christian organization in the roman empire. Maybe if there was a second organizer as Paulus, who focussed on the East. Maybe someone from the jewish community in Mesopotamy. He should be in close communication with Paulus, to make sure there's at least a small semblance between what is believed in the East and the West.
A later problem would be though, when either the roman empire or the sassanid empire makes christianity it's state religion.
A later problem would be though, when either the roman empire or the sassanid empire makes christianity it's state religion.
When you say before 600 AD essentially or essentially before 0 After Hijra, Then Islam is not even a thought. Muhammad is 29 at 600 AD and this is before scholars believe Muhammad even frequented the Jabal an-Noor (Mountain). So Islam should have no bearing in this, as well, reading the posters request is well advised (not saying you didn't; but definitely for some).
Christianity was founded in the 1st Century AD, there are six centuries of butterflies in between now and then.
The Prophet was born at the end of the designated time period, and as a literal, living, breathing student of Fiqh has stated, he is not even close to receiving revelation (if you're not gonna believe me)- this also means he is not at all religiously at this time inclined according to the Qur'an, if his life has even gone down the same way. Attempts to include his religion as a genuine political force in this conversation, after potentially six centuries of possible butterflies, is plainly outside the discussion. There is no Islam involved in the conversation of Axum before the POD designation, why on earth would a question about their ability to spread christianity before the seventh century involve Islam at all?
Are there any known possible candidates for an eastern Paul the Apostle analogue? Also what sort of problems would the imperial conversions bring?
Well, St. Thomas was said to have made missionary trips as far east as India, though who knows whether that's what actually happened or just invented hagiography. For the purposes of this thread, say that St. Thomas manages to convert a number of Indians, and eventually a Rajah converts to Christianity.
Where in India specifically, or does the apocryphal nature of the story make it too vague?
The Nasrani of Kerala (in Southwestern India) trace their origin to St. Thomas.
Towelie
Banned
The idea of forced conversions actually did not gain much sway with Christian Church authorities until the preaching of the 2nd Crusade in terms of the Wends, who had reverted to dualistic Paganism. For example, the Rhineland Pogroms of 1096 saw forced conversions undone by local authorities after the Popular Crusade had left the area and the Jews were not forced to become Christian.
Most conversions as a result were peaceful. There was of course the problem with converting a royal court and having the King forcefully implement Christianity, as what happened frequently with Germanic polities after the fall of Rome.
If you want more peaceful spreading of Christianity, it needs to attach itself to a secular bureaucracy (like in the example of Rome) and go that way. The Sassanids, with Zoroastrianism, were possibly a good target for this. The problem of course was that they persecuted Christians as more of an anti-Roman/Byzantine political statement than any sort of religious statement, and Christianity was too tied up with the concept of Rome for them to be a good target. So you need better Sassanid/Byzantine relations.
Having Muhammad convert to Christianity would be another way. He was able to unify the Arabic tribes and clans OTL for the most part, and dogmatic monotheism was a big helper in that. Of course, Christianity does not need to be that of the Chalcedonian variety in the case of Muhammad. Perhaps he could be a Nestorian or Miaphysite. The problem is that Muhammad extinguished Arabic Paganism by force, but some conversion was indeed peaceful, so I suppose this would add to the stipulation a little bit as well.
At the risk of getting too ASB, it might be worth exploring what would have happened if one of Christ's disciples was able to have made it to China.
Most conversions as a result were peaceful. There was of course the problem with converting a royal court and having the King forcefully implement Christianity, as what happened frequently with Germanic polities after the fall of Rome.
If you want more peaceful spreading of Christianity, it needs to attach itself to a secular bureaucracy (like in the example of Rome) and go that way. The Sassanids, with Zoroastrianism, were possibly a good target for this. The problem of course was that they persecuted Christians as more of an anti-Roman/Byzantine political statement than any sort of religious statement, and Christianity was too tied up with the concept of Rome for them to be a good target. So you need better Sassanid/Byzantine relations.
Having Muhammad convert to Christianity would be another way. He was able to unify the Arabic tribes and clans OTL for the most part, and dogmatic monotheism was a big helper in that. Of course, Christianity does not need to be that of the Chalcedonian variety in the case of Muhammad. Perhaps he could be a Nestorian or Miaphysite. The problem is that Muhammad extinguished Arabic Paganism by force, but some conversion was indeed peaceful, so I suppose this would add to the stipulation a little bit as well.
At the risk of getting too ASB, it might be worth exploring what would have happened if one of Christ's disciples was able to have made it to China.
I'm doubtful that's possible. A raja isn't going to convert to Christianity after the initial conversion. If my memory is right, after the initial conversion, the Nasrani ceased to convert after the initial conversion, and in fact became part of the caste system and assimilated into Indian society. If you want a raja to convert, it'll have to be by St. Thomas himself. And the ruling dynasty of the time seems to have been the Cheras, who seem to have believed in some sort of pre-Hindu belief at the time, worshipping a local variant of Kali as supreme. Religion, however, was quite flexible in India at this time, so you could conceivably get the raja of the country to convert, but it wouldn't really hold a lot of say for the locals in this time of religious flexibility.
I actually know a Keralite christian personally, funny. At any rate, it was mentioned earlier that Kerala was located along a major trade route, so that if an actual locus point were established there, the spread would be easily facilitated.
Your title states a POD before the 7th century. That is all. If you want a POD in the first century, just say so.
I'm just gonna copy and paste the title here:
AHC: Maximize the Conversions and Peaceful Spread of Christianity Before 7th Century
edit: Emphasis ignored. Again.
Last edited:
Yes, we all know that. How late can our POD be? If you're not giving a specific date, then dkn't be mad if people discuss options up to the year AD 599.
Why would St. Thomas doing the conversion himself facilitate this? Also, this may go a bit outside the box, but is it possible that in India, Christianity could form a belief synthesis with local traditions? I am not sure about ideas of sexual propriety and iconoclasm gaining much ground in India.
As I said, apart from the initial conversion, the Christians in the area didn't really proselytize. Assuming the initial conversion was caused by St. Thomas himself, it'll require St. Thomas to convert the local Raja.
Certainly. There's the example of Sikhism as a syncretism of Hinduism and Islam, for one, and religion in Kerala at the time was looser than religion in Punjab in the fifteenth century for sure. You could see Jesus seen as an avatar of Vishnu (for it seems worship of Vishnu and Shiva did exist at the time), which would doubtless not be seen well by the local Christians, but could occur regardless.