Christianity without St. Paul

I wouldn't call the dispute over how the Law should be applied minor at all. But I disagree that Paul and Peter, James, etc. had such contrary views about who Jesus was. It is clear from the Bible alone that there was much dispute in regards to whether gentile believers needed to become Jewish and practice Jewish law. But as to whether Jesus was the Christ, was crucified and resurrected, etc. there was no debate. As regards the Gospel itself, they agreed. The implications of this, though, were certainly debated then..and still are, as the hundreds of different Christian denominations obviously testify.
 
Totally agree... Gentiles were the reason that the Apostolic Synod of 49 AD was convoked... In which Peter and Paul and the remaining Apostles participated (James the Great was decapitated by Herod Agrippa in 44 AD) under the presidency of James the Just...
Peter supported that Gentiles were not to be accepted unless circumcised first... Paul supported that anyone could be accepted without accepting the Mosaic Law
Result was that Paul's view was upheld... Christianity was disconnected by the Mosaic Law (connection to Mosaic Law made christianity a Jewish sect not a different religion) and opened its gates to Gentiles too...
If Paul was absent its sure that Peter's view would be accepted and Christianity wouldnt have progressed...
 
On the contrary, the Gospel writers appear to show excellent knowledge about Palestine. This is especially true of Luke, a second generation believer and follower of Paul. Though Greek, he goes out of his way to be geographically and historically correct. Matthew, who like Luke was reliant on Mark (second Generation follower of Paul), clearly demonstrates an understanding of Palestine as well as the Jewish faith.

The fact that Matthew and Luke rely on Mark (as well as Q) indicates an early circulation of gospel writings. By the time of Ireneaus the 4-fold Gospel was so strongly accepted in the Church that he could hold them up on the same level as the four winds, the four corners of the earth, etc. Yet, it's also clear that there was enough question about using the 4 that he felt the need to make the argument. It is important to note that this was very early in church history. Although the gospels were written later than Paul's letters, they were not much later. Certainly within the lifetime of some of the original witnesses (especially if Matthew and John were the Apostles that tradition holds - likewise if Mark was a young disciple of Jesus).

In any case, there is still much debate about the issues we are discussing and not enough certainty among scholars about some of the points you have made. The question of Paul's teachings being alien to the Jerusalem church's views is far from settled.

The point of historical investigation is to try and discover something closer to the truth of what happened. So of course the issue of some points is not conclusive. At least you seem to understand that the importance of debate in trying to understand the underlying issues unlike some on this board.

In regard to the accuracy of the bible stories, the earliest discovered fragments are sayings (some of which are not in modern bibles) attributed to Jesus and have no accompanying narrative. The content of the gospels contain such things as mentioning places that did not exist at the time of Jesus, giving wrong directions to places and claiming events of central importance like the census that did not happen.

Ireneaus I thought was the first to make the connection with the mystic four number but I am not sure about that. It may even very well go back much further to pagan mysticism.

My understanding is that the eariest gospels, as opposed to collections of sayings, are no earlier than the Destruction of the Temple and the second generation when it was clear that the original followers were going to die soon, or had already died probably, and therefore the message had to be preserved.

Which message was preserved? The one where Jesus was the Prince of Peace (a direct steal from Virgil) or the traditional messiah of blood and sword? Obey your parents or cast your family aside and follow me? Cast out he money lenders or render unto Caesar? The list goes on.
 
All 4 gospels were written by people who were connected somehow with Jesus...
Mark who chronologically wrote the first gospel around 54 AD used his own information as a young follower of Jesus (He was present at his arrest in Gesthemani garden (sic) as he says in his writings) and on informations given to him by Apostle Peter...
Mathew who wrote the second around 62 AD was an Apostle himself and the only one to write in Hebrew at first while all the others used Greek language... (he was aiming to his fellow Israelites) and translated to greek some years later...
Luke wasnt present at the events of Jesus life but used informations given to him by Virgin Mary (and made pics of her too) and by Apostle John about 66 AD...
John was Apostle too and very close friend to Jesus (he was the beloved disciple) and wrote his own gospel in about 80 AD...
From Christ's crucifixion and resurrection till the writing of the first gospel 25 years had elapsed... its easy for mark and the others to have make some mistakkes or mention something that another writer doesnt mention...
 
True.. He was Peter's disciple but as a young man he followed Jesus himself... This is recorded by him in his gospel by implying that he was present when Jesus was arrested...
Tradition says that it was his mother Mary who offered her house to Jesus for the Last Supper and it was the same house that Pentecost happened...
 
All 4 gospels were written by people who were connected somehow with Jesus...
Mark who chronologically wrote the first gospel around 54 AD used his own information as a young follower of Jesus (He was present at his arrest in Gesthemani garden (sic) as he says in his writings) and on informations given to him by Apostle Peter...
Mathew who wrote the second around 62 AD was an Apostle himself and the only one to write in Hebrew at first while all the others used Greek language... (he was aiming to his fellow Israelites) and translated to greek some years later...
Luke wasnt present at the events of Jesus life but used informations given to him by Virgin Mary (and made pics of her too) and by Apostle John about 66 AD...
John was Apostle too and very close friend to Jesus (he was the beloved disciple) and wrote his own gospel in about 80 AD...
From Christ's crucifixion and resurrection till the writing of the first gospel 25 years had elapsed... its easy for mark and the others to have make some mistakkes or mention something that another writer doesnt mention...

It must have been very easy for them to make mistakes since they record mutually exclusive interpretations of Jesus' philosophy, don't seem to know the location of towns they visited or even the details of their teachers early life.

I also find it compelling that the earliest discovered writings about Jesus record his sayings only. Indeed, it seems these writers took lists of Jesus' sayings and added in the narrative.
 
The gospel writers did not record mutually exclusive views of Jesus' teachings, but simply concentrated on different aspects of it. Likewise his life in general.
 
It must have been very easy for them to make mistakes since they record mutually exclusive interpretations of Jesus' philosophy, don't seem to know the location of towns they visited or even the details of their teachers early life.

I also find it compelling that the earliest discovered writings about Jesus record his sayings only. Indeed, it seems these writers took lists of Jesus' sayings and added in the narrative.
It's likely that the authors probably used the lists of sayings to some extent, and added in the narrative and more... and maybe a few mistakes were made with geography, which they probably did not consider really important anyway, after all, the point was to write about Jesus, not to paint a sociopolitical picture of first century Judea...
 
It's likely that the authors probably used the lists of sayings to some extent, and added in the narrative and more... and maybe a few mistakes were made with geography, which they probably did not consider really important anyway, after all, the point was to write about Jesus, not to paint a sociopolitical picture of first century Judea...

If you trod the ground from one end of the country to the other it is not likely that you would make simple mistakes in geography. You would not mention towns that did not exist at the time you moved through the area but did exist at a much later time. And you would certainly be able to recall the direction particular towns were from each other and the capital.

So the narrative or connecting stories may be inventions and the life they purport to convey a mythical one.
 
The gospel writers did not record mutually exclusive views of Jesus' teachings, but simply concentrated on different aspects of it. Likewise his life in general.

Different aspects of it?

Which is the teaching to be followed - turn the other cheek or take up your sword and follow me? Or - honour thy father and mother or become like an orphan and reject your family and friends. What about - render unto Caesar what is Caesar's or overturn the money changers tables?

Of most importance however is whether he came to destroy the law or fulfil it. Which is it to be?

How are these not contradictory positions?
 
Jesus said "take up your cross and follow me." He did tell the disciples to buy swords, but that's a completely different passage.

You're mixing things up.

Furthermore, the money-changers were not "Caesar"--they were some seedy characters who were cheating the pilgrims at the Temple. Ask NapXIV about them sometime.
 
Render onto Caesar what is Caesar's is followed up by render unto God what is God's.

The money lenders were interfering in religion and were thus stepping over the divide.

It is clearly a message to keep the material world out of religion and vice versa.

The two incidents are perfectly consistent.
 
Jesus said "take up your cross and follow me." He did tell the disciples to buy swords, but that's a completely different passage.

You're mixing things up.

Furthermore, the money-changers were not "Caesar"--they were some seedy characters who were cheating the pilgrims at the Temple. Ask NapXIV about them sometime.

I am not 'mixing things up' at all. If the disciples were told to buy swords then how does that square with the pacifist message?
 
Render onto Caesar what is Caesar's is followed up by render unto God what is God's.

The money lenders were interfering in religion and were thus stepping over the divide.

It is clearly a message to keep the material world out of religion and vice versa.

The two incidents are perfectly consistent.

What about the other contradictory positions I quoted?

How does a first century Jew imagine that politics and religion are separate like a post enlightenment thinker would? Jesus certainly did not or his whole series of attacks against the ruling class the gospel writers attribute to him would make no sense. Why would he care if the rich got richer and the poor got poorer if the material world had nothing to do with religion?
 
You invented an entirely new Bible verse--"take up your sword and follow me."

I quoted from memory so I made a mistake. Nonetheless, as you admitted there is a reference to Jesus ordering his followers to buy weapons and of course Peter was told to surrender after he had drawn his sword in the garden andcut off a Temple guard's ear.
 
To return ito the original subject... Paul's view altered dramatically the newly founded religion...
Without him christianity would another minor Jewish sect as i said on another thread...
 
Someone else would have done the same

The gospels would still exist and Christ's message would still have been spread. Jesus is recorded in Mark 16:15 giving the commandment that we now call the "great commission authority" which states: "He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.' "

If you believe that Paul's encounter was a divine one, then it is reasonable to also believe that someone else might have been chosen to do the same as he did in following what was taught/commanded by Christ. I can see where Christianity might have been introduced to Europe until after the gospels of MML&J were recorded since Paul's travels and epistles occurred in the middle of the first century, whereas the gospels were not written until the end of the first century. Also, John's revelation took place about 90AD. If the message of Revelation came from a Divine source, then this would have still taken place.
 
Last edited:
oops....that is "I can see where Christianity might not have been introduced to Europe until after the gospels of MML&J were recorded......"
 
Top