Christianity without Paul

[Shermana]

I have to disagree with all of this.

Paul certainly played an important part; however, he was not the only player.

He is however supposedly the "official apostle to the Gentiles" or something. He's the "ringleader of the Nazarene sect" of the area, so not being the only player is a guaranteed thing, but he was apparently THE leader of this movement of a movement and a later leader whose only claim to knowledge of Jesus is through a dubious vision which his guards either "saw the light but hearkened nothing" or "saw nothing but heard a voice".

Before Paul, there was already a movement that was going.

Right. And what was that movement "Without Paul" for the years before he entered the picture?

Paul was part of that movement, he just went a different direction (it should be noted that Paul was still under the watch of the Jerusalem church, which could have kicked him out, yet they didn't).

Ok, so he steered his own "different" direction from the direction the original movement was going within his own management of his own sect. We don't know if they didn't kick him out for sure, there are many scholars disputing Acts 15's account and authenticity, and whether its a later interpolation. It is not an established fact to say that Paul was not kicked out. We have scholars like F.C. Baur and others who say that "Simon Magus" was code word for Paul in the "Pseudo-Clementine" Literature.

The Jesus movement would have been kicked out of Judaism regardless of Paul or not.

I agree.

When Rabbinical Judaism was centralizing it's power, all other forms of Judaism were rejected. Christianity was one of those forms of Judaism that was rejected. So the Jesus movement still would have been rejected by Judaism anyway.

That's fine, we agree. One way or another, they'd reject the Jesus movement no matter who was leading it. No problem there.

More so, Paul was hardly the only one furthering a gentile movement.

And how do we know that exactly? What were the differences in these other gentile movements?

Peter was even said to have ministered to gentiles to point.

In a way which Paul argued with. And why did he argue again?

Paul also mentions other missionaries in his work, that were preaching to the same groups that he was.

Quote it for context.

So we have clear indication that there was a gentile movement within the Jesus movement.

And we have no clear proof that Paul's was similar to theirs, or what theirs were like that were different than the original "Jewish Christianity".

Then we would still have some of the epistles we do today anyway.

Yes, I agree we'd have John and James and Jude, but I think we wouldn't have the Peters.

Even if we ignore the pseudo-Pauline works, we have Hebrews (which never claims to be Paul), as well as the Epistles of John, James, etc. So most likely, Christianity would be different, but maybe not for the better.

Better? Define "better".

Hebrews may have been by one of Paul's gentile groups though, so perhaps not.

Not to mention that even the Gospels have (especially John) somewhat of an anti-Jewish look.

You mean anti-Pharisee look. This is a very common interpretation. It's not anti-Torah or anti-"Judaism", it's anti-proto Rabbinicism. Huge difference.

Then move onto Luke and Acts, we see a clear departure from Judaism.

Depends on how you read Luke exactly, such as Luke 16:17. But also, look who Luke was. Paul's collaborator.

Even in Acts, before they really talk about Paul, we begin to see a departure from Judaism. Not to mention that Paul most likely didn't completely create Christianity (even though his works do give us the beliefs that the movement had at that time, or at least to a point). We see other working in the same area as well. Paul is just remembered so much because we have his writings.

But what kinds of other workings? Who taught Paul his doctrine? How do we know he didn't form his own ideas and intentionally teach differently on his own accord something drastically different?

So to sum up, no, I can't see Christianity having been just Judaism even if we didn't have Paul's writings, or even if Paul hadn't existed. Christianity may not have taken off (even though it still did so slowly anyway) like it did, and maybe it would have ceased to exist after the Temple was destroyed, but it wouldn't have continued as part of Judaism either.

Okay, so what would it have been like anyway until the time of the Temple's destruction? What WAS it like before the time of the Temple's construction? How do we know? How do we know Paul wasn't writing to people who obeyed like the Jerusalem Church and trying to get them to switch to his plan instead?

 

[Jainarayan]

Christianity without Paul?!

but but but but but that would only be...?! What Jesus said!

don´t you get bored?

You gotta add it something.

And therein lies the problem. Paul added things that Jesus never said. Why is it so bad or wrong to listen only to what Jesus taught? Interpretation and explanation is one thing, creating your own view is another.

Srila Prabhupada's interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita is not accepted by all Vaishnavas; there are other interpretations too. Shankaracharya's Advaita was challenged by Ramanuja, Vallabha, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and others who debated, interpreted and came up with their own philosophies and schools of thought.

I have misgivings about Chaitanya's Achintya BhedAbheda but have more of an affinity with Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita. That doesn't make me any less Hindu. Any Hindu is free to accept any interpretation.

Buddhism also has a plethora of schools and philosophies, yet no one who subscribes to those differing schools is less Buddhist than any other: a Mahayana Buddhist is no less Buddhist than a Theravada, or a Zen or a Nichiren.

It is not so in Christianity. It's Paul's way or you are not Christian.

 

[fallingblood]

It is not so in Christianity. It's Paul's way or you are not Christian.

That's not really true.

First, Paul didn't contradict much of what Jesus said. However, Jesus simply didn't speak on many subjects that cropped up when Paul was speaking. For the most part, they did follow basically the same movement.

More so though, there have been many who have rejected Paul's ideas, and have either gone with other interpretations, or tried to get back down to just what Jesus taught. So one does not need Paul in this case.

However, I get the point you are making. Much of our modern understanding of Christianity comes from Paul.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Perhaps without Paul, "Christianity" would have grown from its Jewish roots rather than from its non-Jewish influence.

 

[idav]

What would the "Christian" religion be without Paul's epistles?

Christianity without Paul would be a lot more simple. Paul confused too many issues and the message found in the gospels is pretty straight forward even if Jesus spoke in parables. I doubt jesus was trying to establish more dogma to adhere to.

 

[SageTree]

What would the "Christian" religion be without Paul's epistles?

Awesome, was the first word that came to mind...

Going back to read thread now...

 

[outhouse]

Awesome, was the first word that came to mind...

Going back to read thread now...

Namaste right back atcha :clap

 

[outhouse]

Paul is a valuable source in knowing how one particular branch began

You know this hurts LOL

but I agree

 

[Sleeppy]

I would think.. It would likely cater only to Jews.

 

[SageTree]

I've really enjoyed reading this thread, thanks folks.

Fallingblood, your reason and even kilter NEVER cease to amaze me. Thanks.

Basically, I feel that perhaps we would have ended up with a more Jewish looking Christianity, whether is was inside or outside of Judaism.

Perhaps without Paul, "Christianity" would have grown from its Jewish roots rather than from its non-Jewish influence.

QFT.....


Although, isn't is true to say that Judaism was also influenced by Hellenistic thought as well?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I find it hard to imagine what it wold be like with out the work Paul did amongst the gentiles.
Except perhaps that the Didache Gives quite another view of how early gentile converts were taught.

I think the James Faction, to a large extent died out, soon after the destruction of the second temple. The rump would have been absorbed into groups of Christians caught up with the diaspora.

However I do not think Christianity would have died out with out Paul. But it would have remained much closer to being a sect of Judaism. From there it could have slowly expended as a Christian sect or been re-adsorbed into mainstream Judaism. However it is unlikely to have become the official Roman religion.

Fortunately Christianity is what it is, even though shaped by Paul.

 

[InChrist]

What would the "Christian" religion be without Paul's epistles?

True Christianity would be the same with or without Paul’s epistles because it is not a religion, but a relationship with the Living God.

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; John 14:7) 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 faced 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). The Jews then tried to kill Paul (Acts 9:23). At first, other followers of Jesus were afraid and hesitant to believe that Saul/Paul, who had such a reputation for persecuting them, was actually a disciple of Jesus. Barnabas then took him to the other apostles in Jerusalem and Paul told them how he had met the Lord Jesus and was now preaching in His name. It was evident that they were on the same page, in agreement, and united in Christ. (Acts 9:25-27)

Later, when a controversy came up concerning whether the Gentile believers had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem and brought the question before the apostles and elders. After considering the matter Peter arose and said, “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.” (Acts 15:7-11) The apostles and elders and the whole church sent chosen men with a letter to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas stating their unanimous decision on the matter (Acts 15:22-29).

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 the 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.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Although, isn't is true to say that Judaism was also influenced by Hellenistic thought as well?

Sure it was. But Paul instituted a radical divide between "Christ-believers" and "Judaism" that caused a dramatic break from which there was no recovery. Jesus's teachings made it difficult for Christians to remain united with Jews, and Paul's made it impossible. With Paul's teachings gone, Christianity would have remained an insignificant Jewish sect that would not have gained any distinction or influence within Judaism.

However, with Paul, Christianity broke away and developed largely in non-Jewish contexts and became increasingly anti-Semitic.

 

[SageTree]

Sure it was. But Paul instituted a radical divide between "Christ-believers" and "Judaism" that caused a dramatic break from which there was no recovery. Jesus's teachings made it difficult for Christians to remain united with Jews, and Paul's made it impossible. With Paul's teachings gone, Christianity would have remained an insignificant Jewish sect that would not have gained any distinction or influence within Judaism.

However, with Paul, Christianity broke away and developed largely in non-Jewish contexts and became increasingly anti-Semitic.

Cool, thanks for the lengthier explanation. I just wanted to delve a little more deeply into what you said, so thanks for unearthing some more info.

 

[Shermana]

The apostles and elders and the whole church sent chosen men with a letter to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas stating their unanimous decision on the matter (Acts 15:22-29).

Just wanted to add, as I've mentioned on several other posts, many scholars dispute Acts 15:22-29's authenticity and consider it a later interpolation by the Pauline camp, saying that the Council of Jerusalem never actually happened.

Additionally, it seems the Bezan manuscript shows that there were apparently different versions of what exactly the council commanded. Did they forbid meat from strangled animals or not?

http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/0060_acts_western.html#C17

16. Importance of the Bezan Text of the decree of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts xv
I now pass to the second of the two special readings of D and the β text in general, the omission mentioned above in sections 4 and 12, which is even more important in its results. |15
The ordinary text of xv. 28, 29, gives the decree of the great Council of Jerusalem as follows: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves it shall be well with you. Fare ye well." In the β text the opening words are the same; but those that follow are: "that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from fornication; and that whatsoever ye would not should be done to you ye do not to others; from which if ye keep yourselves it shall be well with you. Fare ye well, being sustained by the Holy Spirit." The important point of difference is not the omission in a of the last clauses, interesting as that is; but the absence from β of the words "things strangled," both in this chapter and again in xxi. 25. The questions arise, Which of the texts is really Lucan? or Are both really Lucan? and Which of the two rightly reproduces the text of the decree?
It is now coming to be believed as clearly proved that the β text alone is really Lucan, and alone gives the original and true form of the decree.

And 2 Peter, which is often considered by believers to be where Peter defends Paul...

http://www.biblelessons.com/paul.html

Probably the greatest proof of Paul's apostleship and authority is found in 2 Peter 3:15-16. There Peter refers to Paul as "our beloved brother." He states that Paul wrote "according to the wisdom given him." Finally, Peter refers to (apparently) a collection of Paul's letters and calls them "Scripture."

Is one of the most disputed epistles, whose authenticity has been questioned since the old days even by Paulinists.

http://basictheology.com/articles/The_Authenticity_and_Authorship_of_2_Peter/full/

The references to Paul in 2 Peter 3:15-16 have also been questioned. First, the author of 2 Peter calls Paul “our dear brother.” According to the Tübingen school of thought, there was a deep and bitter divide between Peter and Paul caused by their disagreement in Gal. 2. But there is no reason to assume that an early disagreement from which Peter clearly repented precludes Peter from considering Paul a dear brother. Further, a second century writer might more likely refer to Paul as an “apostle” instead of a brother.
The second noteworthy reference to Paul is the idea that Paul’s writings were on par with “other Scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:16). There are two problems here. First, the author of 2 Peter makes reference to “all of his letters,” but there is no evidence of a Pauline Corpus until after Peter’s day. Yet it is not farfetched to assume that Peter may have in fact collected and studied Paul’s writings and that “all of his letters” does not mean every letter written by Paul, only the ones that Peter had available to him. Further, Paul’s own writings indicate that he saw his writings as the Word of God (2 Thess. 2:13) inspired by the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13), that they were to be shared with other churches (Col. 4:16), and that rejection of them invited excommunication (2 Thess. 3:14; 1 Tim 4:3, 6).27
A third point of interest is the reference to Paul’s writings being difficult to understand. It seems odd that a second century writer would use this in his case for Petrine authorship.

 

[Plato]

I haven't seen a very important historical fact mentioned in the thread yet so....
There would be 'NO' Christianity AT ALL without Paul.
To many believers this is why God knocked him off his horse on the way to Tarsus and made him 'the extra apostle' to the Gentiles.
The historical fact is the entire population of Judea/Palestine was wiped out by the Romans in the 2nd century (132-140AD) in the 'Bar Kochba Wars'. Judaism as a religion survived only because it existed also outside of exterminated Palestine (in Iraq, Persia, North Africa, Greece). Without Paul spreading Christianity outside of Judea/Palestine 50-90AD it would have stayed local only there and been wiped out with the population in the next century 132-140AD.
To scholarly believers this is the reason God took the unusual step of making Paul (1st called Saul) a later apostle with instructions to convert the Gentiles because God of course knew what was going to happen in the next century to Judea/Palestine and didn't want Christianity to be wiped out there.
If you google 'bar kochba wars' you can read about the Roman-Jewish wars that really wiped out for all intesive purposes both Judaism and Christianity in Palestine, began the Jewish Diaspora, and see how both religions probably would have died out if they had only been restricted to Palestine in the 2nd century AD.

 

[Bob Dixon]

There would be 'NO' Christianity AT ALL without Paul.

Yes, yes, the Ebionites didn't continue existing without Paul, right?

 

[Shermana]

Yes, yes, the Ebionites didn't continue existing without Paul, right?

Or the Nazarenes. Because we know they wouldn't have been persecuted to near extinction without the Gentile churches bitterly opposing them of course. Not like we have records of Jewish Christian groups existing and continuing on well after the destruction of the Temple or of the "Orthodox Church" considering them heretical groups as if they needed to be hunted down. Not like we have documents like the Pseudo-Clementine literature and the "Apostolic Constitutions" that show a defacto Jewish Christian movement.

Because of course, they wouldn't have been able to fill in the void of course that groups like the Marcionites tried to stamp out or anything, not at all.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

However, with Paul, Christianity broke away and developed largely in non-Jewish contexts and became increasingly anti-Semitic.

I'm hesitant to question the view of someone about Paul whose doctoral work is on the man himself, but...

Granted, given the record we have, Paul seems to have been key in the "break away" you refer to. But our records for early christianity (first and second generation) are so sparse. Isn't it possible, or even likely, that because his letters survived and were distributed so early and frequently, that his role in the divide between Christianity and Judaism has been exaggerated?

 

[Pegg]

Paul is a valuable source in knowing how one particular branch began, the Nazarenes and Ebionites from what is written, were in bitter opposition to him.

can you provide references to the scriptures which show this?

So when you say "something very different", that's exactly what I'm saying, going by the Gospels alone (including the fragments of things like Gospel to the Hebrews/Nazoreans), we have a "very different" religion. We have "Jewish Christianity".

Can you show some examples of the differences you are talking about?