AHQ: Christianity without Paul

It wouldn't exist, or would be unrecognizable. Jesus was _probably_ not a historical person, or if he was had so little influence as it doesn't matter in any way whether he was. Anything that made Christianity what it was, initially, was due to Paul.
 
Last edited:
It wouldn't exist, or would be unrecognizable. Jesus was _probably_ not a historical person, or if he was had so little influence as it doesn't matter in any way whether he was. Anything that made Christianity what it was, initially, was due to Paul.
No way for anyone else to replace him?
 
Do you mean Paul? Probably, but that's what I meant by "unrecognizable". Although I guess there was a social environment for a religion with vaguely similar tenets to arise. But I guess you should read the Epistles and analyze them in the context of the society they were written in. There might have arisen a similar person to Paul, but how different their views might have been, I can't speculate about right now. It's an interesting question, though.
 
Last edited:
Without Paul (and I'm presuming you also don't want anyone filling the same role) making the new religion more palatable to gentiles, I doubt it'd spread much beyond the Jewish communities. So far as everybody else would be concerned, Yeheshuaism would be a weird sect of Judaism and probably not worth much more notice than any other. Without widespread Christianity, there's not really a model for an aggressively proselytising exclusivist religion, which probably impacts the development of gnostic religions and mystery cults in the region.
 
The main questions to me seem to be:
1) how significant was Paul to what we now call Christianity?
2) could other figures create a gentile version of the Jesus sect?
3) how popular would these gentile Jesus sects be?

My rough answers:
1) fairly significant. He enabled the establishment of a gentile version in Rome and his commentaries formed the basics of the later hierarchy
2) yes. How well is open to speculation (see 3)
3) depends how acceptable to the local administration they are, how resistant to persecution, and how they spread.
 
Do take into account that Paul had contemporaries in the faith, he’s just the one we have to most 1st hand direct documentation from.
 
This discussion is pointless without an in depth study of How Christianity came to be:
first red the first three parts of MacCoulochs History of Christianity for an officially accepted version of how Christianity came to be:

2.Than read part 1 Tom Hollands Dominion on The making of the Western Mind:

3. Tom Hollands in the Shadow of the Sword (parts 1 and 2):

4. For a complete refusal of the official views browse Richard Carriers work specifically On the Historicity of Jesus why we might have reasons for doubt:

5.Lectures:
Tom Holland :
1.How Christianity gained dominion -an alternative to reading the book :
2.On Paul:

Richard Carrier:
3. Why invent Jesus?:

Maccouloch is the accepted official view Tom Holland is a middle ground moderate and Richard Carrier is a Skeptic/ Radical.
 
Top