Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 1 of 15  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15 Next
Switch to Forum Live View If it weren't for Paul of Tarsus there would be no Christianity.
5 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2013 - 10:27AM #1
GodtheFather
Posts: 9,470
Is this true or not and why?
The best lack all conviction yet the worst are filled with passionate intensity.

Yates
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2013 - 10:29AM #2
davelaw40
Posts: 19,669

not true


Christianity would have remained a Jewish sect longer.

Non Quis, Sed Quid
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2013 - 10:31AM #3
Daldianus
Posts: 32,447

True.


Christianity is primarily based on Paul's visions. Not on what Jesus actually taught when he was alive.

>> Feed your brain with awesome!
“After your death you will be what you were before your birth.” - Arthur Schopenhauer
"Eternity is very long, especially towards the end." - Woody Allen
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2013 - 10:35AM #4
JimRigas
Posts: 2,950

True.  The basics of Christianity, sin and salvation from sin through Jesus' death and resurrection, and our own life after death through the "magical" baptismal procedure, are based on Paul's letters.  The belief that Jesus is God, however, is based on John's Gospel.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2013 - 10:48AM #5
Ebon
Posts: 10,148

True, to an extent.


Without Paul's influence (and, even more, that of Constantine), Christianity would not exist in the form we know it today. It would probably never have become a religion in it's own right but would have remained a Jewish cult. It was Paul's travels spreading Christianity (and his status as a Roman citizen) which caused Christianity to spread into Asia Minor and Europe far sooner than they otherwise would have done. Christianity would also be lacking the X number of books (traditionally fourteen although that's disputed) he contributed to teh canon. It's Paul who is primarily responsible for the idea of salvation through faith alone (rather than through works). It was likely Paul who brought Christianity to Rome itself or, at least, organised the Christians of Rome into a self-governing community rather than disparate individuals.


So, without Paul, you would have a Christian community that remained a Jewish cult, possibly forever; that spread much more slowly across the Empire and that lacked what Paul contributed to the canon (and which may be more gay friendly as a result). I think it would still have survived but in the present day, it would be a faith devoutly held by a minority rather than the majority faith it is now.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2013 - 10:55AM #6
JimRigas
Posts: 2,950

But Jesus' teachings did not differ much from that of any other rabbi.  His followers woiuld have remained Jews just as his own brother became head of the Temple twenty years after his own death.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2013 - 11:00AM #7
koolpoi
Posts: 7,169

Apr 30, 2013 -- 10:55AM, JimRigas wrote:


But Jesus' teachings did not differ much from that of any other rabbi.  His followers woiuld have remained Jews just as his own brother became head of the Temple twenty years after his own death.




So what do you think were the crucial factors in the split?Paul's focus on the Gentiles perhaps?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2013 - 11:17AM #8
Adelphe
Posts: 28,765

Apr 30, 2013 -- 10:55AM, JimRigas wrote:


But Jesus' teachings did not differ much from that of any other rabbi.



Then His rejection by them wouldn't make much sense, no?


Also, “I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away. They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God." (John 16)





His followers woiuld have remained Jews just as his own brother became head of the Temple twenty years after his own death.




I'm not aware of any tradition that Jesus' brother became head of the Temple.  Some traditions assume he was head of the ekklesia (church) in Jerusalem but even then it's Peter who speaks first at the Council in Acts 15 and Paul also reports in Galatians that there were three "pillars"--"and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars"--of the church there.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2013 - 11:20AM #9
Daldianus
Posts: 32,447

Apr 30, 2013 -- 11:17AM, Adelphe wrote:


Apr 30, 2013 -- 10:55AM, JimRigas wrote:


But Jesus' teachings did not differ much from that of any other rabbi.



Then His rejection by them wouldn't make much sense, no?


Also, “I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away. They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God." (John 16)


That's a Pauline Christian putting words into Jesus' mouth.


I'm not aware of any tradition that Jesus' brother became head of the Temple.  Some traditions assume he was head of the ekklesia (church) in Jerusalem but even then it's Peter who speaks first at the Council in Acts 15 and Paul also reports in Galatians that there were three "pillars"--"and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars"--of the church there.


The Jerusalem 'Church' was the original community of believers in Jesus as the Messiah who was expected to come back soon.

>> Feed your brain with awesome!
“After your death you will be what you were before your birth.” - Arthur Schopenhauer
"Eternity is very long, especially towards the end." - Woody Allen
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2013 - 11:37AM #10
tfvespasianus
Posts: 2,339

Apr 30, 2013 -- 11:17AM, Adelphe wrote:


I'm not aware of any tradition that Jesus' brother became head of the Temple.  Some traditions assume he was head of the ekklesia (church) in Jerusalem but even then it's Peter who speaks first at the Council in Acts 15 and Paul also reports in Galatians that there were three "pillars"--"and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars"--of the church there.




This is partially rooted in a reading of a tradition attested to in the Panarion of Epiphanius (ca. 29.4) which reads:



But I find further that he [James] also functioned as a priest in the ancient priesthood. For this reason he was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies once a year, as scripture says the Law commanded the high priests. For many before me – Eusebius, Clement, and others- have reported this of him. He was allowed to wear the priestly mitre besides as the trust worthy persons mentioned have testified in the same historical writings.



Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant - Tacitus
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 15  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook