• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Would Christianity have survived as a movement without Paul?

arcanum

Active Member
Doing a lot of reading on christian origins lately And I'm struck by something: Paul who had never known Jesus, seemed to start his own religion not based on the life and teachings of the earthly Jesus but of his own revelation of Jesus, a risen savior figure. He never speaks of anything he said or did while he was on earth aside from a mention of the last supper. He had this revelation and just goes with it, on his own authority he spread his version of Christianity, the Christianity of his own understanding. Though he claimed to have met with peter and james it didn't seem to make much of an impact on him, he didn't really seem to care anything about the earthly Jesus at all. Would Christianity have survived at all without Paul and if so in what form?
 
Last edited:

SageTree

Spiritual Friend
Premium Member
Religion OF Jesus vs Religion ABOUT Jesus, for sure acanum.

It might also be worth having a quick look over this page as well for a more in depth look at if Paul even wrote them in the first place. Check out the references for more good reading.

:namaste
SageTree
 

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
I can make assertions too. Paul was preaching Jesus' Christianity, not his own.
 

arcanum

Active Member
I can make assertions too. Paul was preaching Jesus' Christianity, not his own.
That is what most christians are taught. But why does he never quote anything Jesus ever said or make any references to the events of his earthly life, teachings, or places where he visited and taught?
 

tarasan

Well-Known Member
That is what most christians are taught. But why does he never quote anything Jesus ever said or make any references to the events of his earthly life, teachings, or places where he visited and taught?

i think alot of this is just speculative mate, after all we christians can just say that while Paul didnt use quotations he did spread Jesus' teachings. I would focus more on whether Jesus' teaching and Pauls are consistent.

Also remember it wasn't just Paul that was going about spreading the gospel but people such as Peter, James, John etc. not only were there other missionaries but these "apostles" did communicate with each other, it wasnt like Paul was talking in a vacuum.
 

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
That is what most christians are taught. But why does he never quote anything Jesus ever said or make any references to the events of his earthly life, teachings, or places where he visited and taught?

His conversion is based on something Jesus said to him. His teachings are based in what Jesus taught.
 

arcanum

Active Member
i think alot of this is just speculative mate, after all we christians can just say that while Paul didnt use quotations he did spread Jesus' teachings. I would focus more on whether Jesus' teaching and Pauls are consistent.

Also remember it wasn't just Paul that was going about spreading the gospel but people such as Peter, James, John etc. not only were there other missionaries but these "apostles" did communicate with each other, it wasnt like Paul was talking in a vacuum.
But if you look into it you'll find not one unified church at the beginning but many, Paul's version is basically the once who won out and was embraced by Rome.
 

tarasan

Well-Known Member
But if you look into it you'll find not one unified church at the beginning but many, Paul's version is basically the once who won out and was embraced by Rome.

i dont think you read what I said i didnt say that the churches didnt differ I was referring to Paul and his teaching not what every single church did. in the biblical texts it is obvious that he and the other apostles spoke heck even Peter said that he was an apostle.
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
Who knows? For all we know it could have. It may have been a sect of Judaism- after all, Jesus was a Jew and all. There are Messianic Jews- so that might be an indication that it would have survived. Then there are the four gospels- which were not written by Paul. And there were epistles included in the Bible credited to Peter (Simon), John, and James (there were two James, one was one of the Son of Zebedee and the other is thought to be Jesus' brother, as the son of Zebedee was killed early on, it may have been the other James).
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
But if you look into it you'll find not one unified church at the beginning but many, Paul's version is basically the once who won out and was embraced by Rome.

We do see a unified church at the beginning though. We see the central authority at Jerusalem, with James, Peter, and John. Paul was accepted by this group, as both Acts and Paul tell us. Now, they do have disagreements, but they remain connected. The Jerusalem church remained behind Paul. At any time, they could have rejected him, but they didn't. So we see a united (or semi-united) front here.

Now, there were other groups, to a point. However, they were all under the same movement.

As for Paul's version winning out, not really. Yes, some of his ideas, actually many of them, stuck, but we see a variety of other ones were circumvented by later teachings, or even earlier teachings.

Now, Paul's teachings, in many instances, were in the same line of Jesus's. Paul expanded, and he directed his towards gentiles. But the basics were the same.

The reason why a gentile mission won out though was that it had to. A major reason why Christianity broke from Judaism was because of the destruction of the Temple, and the later redefining of Judaism. Judaism became centralized under Rabbinical Judaism (which was a logical move as centralizing gave them security in a time when their world was crashing down). With the centralization of Judaism, that meant that opposing views of Judaism were pushed away. Christianity was one of those opposing views that were pushed away. Being pushed away, it became natural for the movement to go to more of the gentile base.

And this movement that surfaced after the fall of the Temple, was Pauline in part, as he did work with the gentiles (as did other individuals in the movement). However, the Pauline ideas were influenced, and largely based off of the Jewish teachings of Jesus, as well as Judaism in general.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
According to the scriptures it was Jesus who said, “I will build My church” (Matt. 16:18.). Jesus did not appear out of nowhere, nor did He start a new religion. Jesus came in fulfillment of hundreds of prophesies given to Israel. He came to further reveal God to humanity (John 5:39) and Himself as Messiah of Israel and Savior of the world. It was Jesus who chose the apostles and later Saul/Paul as His vessels (Acts 9:15) to continue His building project of the church comprised of all who believe in Him.



After the resurrection of Christ, Peter along with the other early Jewish believers in Christ were already preaching Jesus Christ and showing from the scriptures that He was the prophesied Messiah. For this they were facing persecution, imprisonment, and beatings (Acts Chapters 1-7)



Paul did not start his own different religion. Paul, formerly known as Saul, was a Jewish Pharisee and one of the persecutors of the early church (Acts 8:23-4; 26:4-11; Phil. 3:5). Then Saul/Paul met and was confronted by Jesus Christ (Acts 9:1-22; 26:14-18). From that point on Paul also believed in Jesus and began boldly preaching Jesus Christ as were the other apostles and disciples (Acts 9:20-22).


Jesus, the apostles, and Paul were all in complete agreement concerning the gospel or good news: salvation and eternal life is given by grace to those who believe and trust in Jesus Christ alone as Savior. The gospel message is real Christianity and the church which Jesus has been building is made up of those anywhere in this world who believe the good news concerning Him. Paul was used by Christ to spread the gospel, but with or without Paul Jesus would have still built His church and the same message would still be proclaimed.
 

arcanum

Active Member
We do see a unified church at the beginning though. We see the central authority at Jerusalem, with James, Peter, and John. Paul was accepted by this group, as both Acts and Paul tell us. Now, they do have disagreements, but they remain connected. The Jerusalem church remained behind Paul. At any time, they could have rejected him, but they didn't. So we see a united (or semi-united) front here.

Now, there were other groups, to a point. However, they were all under the same movement.

As for Paul's version winning out, not really. Yes, some of his ideas, actually many of them, stuck, but we see a variety of other ones were circumvented by later teachings, or even earlier teachings.

Now, Paul's teachings, in many instances, were in the same line of Jesus's. Paul expanded, and he directed his towards gentiles. But the basics were the same.

The reason why a gentile mission won out though was that it had to. A major reason why Christianity broke from Judaism was because of the destruction of the Temple, and the later redefining of Judaism. Judaism became centralized under Rabbinical Judaism (which was a logical move as centralizing gave them security in a time when their world was crashing down). With the centralization of Judaism, that meant that opposing views of Judaism were pushed away. Christianity was one of those opposing views that were pushed away. Being pushed away, it became natural for the movement to go to more of the gentile base.

And this movement that surfaced after the fall of the Temple, was Pauline in part, as he did work with the gentiles (as did other individuals in the movement). However, the Pauline ideas were influenced, and largely based off of the Jewish teachings of Jesus, as well as Judaism in general.
That is the view I used to hold until I started really exploring christian origins. Do you think some of paul's teachings were influenced by pagan mystery religions? There are many non jewish elements that emerged into Christianity, And Paul was no stranger to the pagan thought in his day. Once you start exploring christian origins you come to realize that Christianity was basically a sponge that absorbed a lot of non Jewish elements and Paul had a lot to do with it's development.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
That is the view I used to hold until I started really exploring christian origins. Do you think some of paul's teachings were influenced by pagan mystery religions? There are many non jewish elements that emerged into Christianity, And Paul was no stranger to the pagan thought in his day. Once you start exploring christian origins you come to realize that Christianity was basically a sponge that absorbed a lot of non Jewish elements and Paul had a lot to do with it's development.
I don't think Paul's teachings were influenced by pagan mystery religions. I think many try to make it out as if that were the case. However, I don't think there is enough evidence to support such. Especially considering that we know extremely little about those pagan mystery religions. The big reasons was because they were mysteries.

Paul was a Pharisee. He may have been exposed to pagan thought (it is certain that he did, as he was living in a Greek culture). However, we see Paul being true to Judaism (for the most part. He considered himself a Jew throughout his life, and never rejected that religion), did for the most part keep the Jewish ideas there. He opened up some parts, but he did not stray very far from Judaism at all.

Paul had something to do with the development of Christianity; however, during his time, we still see Christianity as a part of Judaism. It isn't until after his death, and most likely the death of the original apostles, as well as the destruction of the Temple, that we begin seeing Christianity really start being more influenced by pagan ideas. This is in large part as many of the new followers were former pagans.

But there is little evidence that Paul was introducing pagan ideas into Christianity.
 

obi one

Member
Doing a lot of reading on christian origins lately And I'm struck by something: Paul who had never known Jesus, seemed to start his own religion not based on the life and teachings of the earthly Jesus but of his own revelation of Jesus, a risen savior figure. He never speaks of anything he said or did while he was on earth aside from a mention of the last supper. He had this revelation and just goes with it, on his own authority he spread his version of Christianity, the Christianity of his own understanding. Though he claimed to have met with peter and james it didn't seem to make much of an impact on him, he didn't really seem to care anything about the earthly Jesus at all. Would Christianity have survived at all without Paul and if so in what form?

Christianity is the religion that was chosen and established by the power of Rome, loosely arranged around the Paul's teachings and the false authority of Peter. The teachings are in the opposition of the testimony of Yeshua, based on a fantasy that Yeshua's teachings were nailed to a cross.
There would be no "Christianity" as we know it today without Paul. As for Yeshua's kingdom of heaven, that is always with us, but it is found by the few and not the many. What Paul's Christianity does do, is help propegate the testimony of Yeshua, but does it the through the mechanism of having the good seed mixed with the seed of tares.

Yeshua told his apostles to leave the tares alone, and let them grow with the good wheat. Paul is simply fulfilling his part in prophesy, just as Judas Iscariot fulfilled his part.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
But if you look into it you'll find not one unified church at the beginning but many, Paul's version is basically the once who won out and was embraced by Rome.
So? Just like nature, diversity is key to survival. "Paul's version" was embraced by Rome, but that's not the only version that survived.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
That is the view I used to hold until I started really exploring christian origins. Do you think some of paul's teachings were influenced by pagan mystery religions? There are many non jewish elements that emerged into Christianity, And Paul was no stranger to the pagan thought in his day. Once you start exploring christian origins you come to realize that Christianity was basically a sponge that absorbed a lot of non Jewish elements and Paul had a lot to do with it's development.
And that's a bad thing ... why, again?
One of the great things about Xy is that it is pan-religious.
 

obi one

Member
So? Just like nature, diversity is key to survival. "Paul's version" was embraced by Rome, but that's not the only version that survived.

That was the version which is to survive until the end of the age, which is portrayed as "Babylon the Great", in Revelations. She has many daughters, but they are portrayed as harlots, like mother like daughter. As for the true church, in Revelations, you will find that church is hidden in the wilderness. (Rev 12:13-17)

As to the woman's offspring, they are described as those, "who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Yeshua." (Rev 12:17)
 

Mehr Licht

Ave Sophia
Pauls writings are the earliest Christian Scriptures we have accesses to. Older even than the four canonical Gospels.
 

SageTree

Spiritual Friend
Premium Member
Pauls writings are the earliest Christian Scriptures we have accesses to. Older even than the four canonical Gospels.


However...

In my exploring I've read and been swayed to believe that many of these writings have been disputed to be 'authentic'... time taken into account and all.... some are commonly accepted as straight up pseudo-writings of various sources.

Are you familiar with such claims?

True or Not, either one of us... are you familiar with what I'm talking about?

Stepping on your toes is NOT my intent, I only hope to bring a differing view point which you might not be aware of.

:namaste
SageTree
 

Mehr Licht

Ave Sophia
In my exploring I've read and been swayed to believe that many of these writings have been disputed to be 'authentic'... time taken into account and all.... some are commonly accepted as straight up pseudo-writings of various sources.

Yes. There is a lot of doubt regarding the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. They seem to have been written at a later date. Pastoral Epistles = 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus.
 
Top