Christianity without St. Paul

Flocculencio

Donor
The history of the early Church isn't one of my strongest areas but I was just thinking about this- what if Saul of Tarsus, instead of receiving his epiphany on the road to Damascus, dropped dead of an aneurysm? How might Christianity have developed without the Pauline influence.
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Donor
Flocculencio said:
The history of the early Church isn't one of my strongest areas but I was just thinking about this- what if Saul of Tarsus, instead of receiving his epiphany on the road to Damascus, dropped dead of an aneurysm? How might Christianity have developed without the Pauline influence.
Click to expand...

Less 'Holy Spirit' stuff perhaps

Also, his letters and journies seem aimed at combatting other interpretations of Christianity and of unifying them all into one 'on-message' version. Thus, without this either another interpretation gains the upper hand, or perhaps more likely each community establishes its own brand of Christianity, leading it to become more cult like (as per the ancient gods not Waco !) and lack a strong unifying force ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Douglas

Grey Wolf said:
(as per the ancient gods not Waco !)
Click to expand...

Gah!

Everyone in the world only thinks of Waco as being a cultist place!

David Koresh' compound was not in Waco, it was 20 miles away. Gah...sorry, but I go to college at Baylor University in Waco, and I must stand up to this defamation! :p
 

The Mists Of Time

Three differences come to mind.

1. Without Paul, Christianity would not have spread as fast or as far as it did in its very early years. Paul was really the great salesman of early Christianity. Without Paul and his travels and efforts, Christianity would probably have remained more localized to the area we call The Holy Lands for a longer period of time.

2. Without Paul's influence and interpretation of Christianity, and his extensive writings, it would be Jewish Christianity incorporating many Jewish traditions, views, etc that Christianity as we know it has moved away from. Without Paul, Christianity might a sect or form of Judaism instead of being a separate religion.

3. Without Paul's letters and other writings, The New Testament of The Bible would be much smaller than The New Testament as we know it.

I think it is very safe to say that without The Apostle Paul and his influence, Christianity throughout history and still today would be quite different than the Christianity we know in OTL.
 

Keenir

Banned
The Mists Of Time said:
Three differences come to mind.

1. Without Paul, Christianity would not have spread as fast or as far as it did in its very early years. Paul was really the great salesman of early Christianity. Without Paul and his travels and efforts, Christianity would probably have remained more localized to the area we call The Holy Lands
Click to expand...

...and India.
 

sunsurf

Various church leaders probably were approaching St. Paul with problems and questions, which he was answering in his epistles.
If St. Paul weren't around, they would probably be asking one or more of the other apostles. What answers they give, and how many of their epistles get into the Canon, is an open question. Jewish Christianity does seem like a likely outcome.
Wouldn't St. Peter have more influence, and maybe more of his epistles in the Canon?
 

MarkA

Dan1988 said:
Actually MarkA Christianity would still exist. It would be Jewish Christianity.
Click to expand...

Well Jewish Christianity is a modern term to define the Jewish followers of Jesus. It confuses the issue completely. Jewish Christians were not christians as most people would understand the term. They were Jews.

As the leaders were Jesus' family, his brothers, sisters and other kin as well as all the apostles, they presumably knew what the message Jesus was trying to put out was. Since they opposed Paul completely presumably his message was simply made up. Truly he was the apostle to the heretics since he as the first.
 

Smaug

I think he kind of codified, for lack of a better term, early Christianity, and made it quite different from Judaism. No Paul might mean a long period of constant religious squabbles, or give Rome the opportunity so pick them off one by one

Wonder if Islam will ever show up?
 

MarkA

fenkmaster said:
Religio-trolling still.
Click to expand...

I did not post this AH scenario.

I presume you are claiming that several popes are trolling since that is what they called Paul.

To paraphrase a well known saying: if Jesus did not exist it would be necessary for Paul to invent him.
 
Redem

Redem

Well if Jewish Christanity would thrive, maybe we would frown less at group like "Jews for Jesus" :D
 

marl_d

MarkA said:
Well Jewish Christianity is a modern term to define the Jewish followers of Jesus. It confuses the issue completely. Jewish Christians were not christians as most people would understand the term. They were Jews.

As the leaders were Jesus' family, his brothers, sisters and other kin as well as all the apostles, they presumably knew what the message Jesus was trying to put out was. Since they opposed Paul completely presumably his message was simply made up. Truly he was the apostle to the heretics since he as the first.
Click to expand...

they didn't oppose him because of a wrong message, in fact after becoming Paul they embraced him. what they DISAGREED with him on was his instance that converts, especially the gentiles, no longer NEEDED to be circumcised to because the Israelites were no longer his chosen people, but that it had passed to the anyone that believed and followed Christ. He was NOT a heretic, his teachings are extensions of Christ's and his letters are there to help clarify what Christ taught.


oh and the are not Jewish Christians, they are Messianic Jews, Jews that believe that Jesus was the Messiah, but still follow Jewish customs
 

MarkA

marl_d said:
they didn't oppose him because of a wrong message, in fact after becoming Paul they embraced him. what they DISAGREED with him on was his instance that converts, especially the gentiles, no longer NEEDED to be circumcised to because the Israelites were no longer his chosen people, but that it had passed to the anyone that believed and followed Christ. He was NOT a heretic, his teachings are extensions of Christ's and his letters are there to help clarify what Christ taught.


oh and the are not Jewish Christians, they are Messianic Jews, Jews that believe that Jesus was the Messiah, but still follow Jewish customs
Click to expand...

Sorry but no on all counts.

After the tradition that he changed his name to Paul the tradition goes on to relate that he was opposed by James and the 'church' even more strenuously. Indeed, he was summoned to appear before James and the elders to justify his teachings as Paul. Both the tradition and the archaeology seem to paint the picture that he followed the so-called Jewish Christians to their outposts in Asia Minor and converted the 'christians' to his visons.

You are right they were messianic Jews. As I said the term Jewish Christians is a modern fabrication. What was meant by Messiah is the whole point. That the term meant something completely different to Jesus and his family than it did to Paul is obvious. That Paul was the apostle to the heretics is self evident not only to the papacy but to anyone.

He never knew Jesus and opposed everyone who did so how can you claim that his message was an extension of Jesus'?
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Donor
sunsurf said:
Various church leaders probably were approaching St. Paul with problems and questions, which he was answering in his epistles.
If St. Paul weren't around, they would probably be asking one or more of the other apostles. What answers they give, and how many of their epistles get into the Canon, is an open question. Jewish Christianity does seem like a likely outcome.
Wouldn't St. Peter have more influence, and maybe more of his epistles in the Canon?
Click to expand...

Well, I was wondering about St Peter too...

Not quite sure WHAT I was wondering, but I was definitely wondering ABOUT him...

Grey Wolf
 

Dearnen

Paul's concept of the Gospel was the same as that of James, Peter, and the other leaders of the early church. The reason he stands out is because he did not think it necessary for gentiles to become Jewish as a part of accepting the Gospel. Paul was as Jewish as they come, raised Jewish and trained by the greatest Rabbi of his time (Gameliel). This continued after his so-called conversion - I would argue that he saw it as a continuation of his faith, so it was not a conversion. He did not change the message of the Christian faith, nor the early church's understanding of Christ. Paul's understanding and message was examined deeply by the Apostles. His primary opposition were those that wanted new gentile believers to abide by Jewish custom (circumcision, food laws, etc.), and those that wanted to weaken the Christian message through pagan influences and philosophy. Sometimes he was simply caught between too different extremes of opposition. Paul primarily approached this by focusing on Christ and the Gospel. Also, remember that Paul was not the first person to take the message to the gentiles. Indeed it was Peter who first sat down with Gentiles to eat (unclean food even) and share the message - before Paul's experience on the road to Damascus. Peter later seems to have retreated from that position, but it seems likely that he was trying to walk the fence to keep the young church together. Without Paul's strong moderating influence, the church would have spread among the Jewish population similarly to OTL, but not amongst the gentiles. It would have remained an odd sect of Judaism, but probably never grown much beyond that. In fact, it may have simply died out. Of course, for us Christians God had something to do with way this all went, but it's still interesting to ponder the alternative.

Heh..I knew my Biblical Studies degree would come in handy someday. Also halfway to my Master of Divinity degree. er...just saying I have specific interest and knowledge on the subject. :rolleyes:
 

marl_d

Peter didn't eat anything unclean, but that is semantics at this point.

anyway, Paul was part of the Sanhedrin, he was Jewish, but he was also a Roman citizen that is why he was able to spread the word more easily to the gentiles. the main point of contention was that the Apostles were worried that he was a spy, seeing that as Saul, he was persecuting any and all Christians he found. The main issues that he, and Peter to a lesser degree, were trying to point out was that the legalism that was rampant in Judaism, was NOT the way to Christ and you didn't have to adhere to the old sacrificial customs, because Christ was the Ultimate sacrifice and it was no longer needed.

and as far as not knowing Jesus personally has no bearing on whither or not his believes or his teachings were an extension of Christ's teachings. Heck neither Luke nor Mark were of the 12 and they both wrote 2 of the Gospels and Luke wrote Acts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top