Could Christianity have existed at all without Paul?

[Ilisrum]

I've been thinking about this a bit lately and I'm of the opinion of that Christianity wouldn't be around at all today if it weren't for Paul and his evangelizing mission to the Pagans of the Roman world. I'm not simply talking about theology, although it has a lot to do with it as Paul's teachings and theology were, and still are, more palatable to most people than the Jewish message of Jesus.

Given that the original Jesus movement based in Jerusalem under James and Cephas was a Jewish Messianic movement (which almost certainly included a large number of Zealot supporters), it seems reasonable to assume that the movement would have died out after the Jewish War with Rome. Although there's a legend that the Jerusalem based followers of Jesus relocated to Pella prior to the Roman invasion, the report's untenable, and if it does hold some water, it may have been an attempt of the Jerusalem leadership to preserve the original message which was by this time largely being corrupted by the "wicked Gentiles". And any remnants of Nazarenes living outside of Palestine would likely have dissolved after the Bar Kochba revolt.

Although half of the world's population is Christian today, the fact of the matter is, without Paul many of us would still be worshiping Mithra and Attis (or any god of your choice). For better or worse, who knows what a different place the world would be today.

 

[fallingblood]

Paul wasn't the only missionary to the Gentiles. A good piece of evidence for this is that church in Rome. We know from what Paul writes, he did not establish the church in Rome. So, some one else would have had to started it there. In addition though, Paul tells us about other missionaries who were actually causing him problems in the congregations that he formed. We see this many times in his writings; his attack on other gentile missionaries.

Paul is simply the missionary we know most about simply because by chance his writings were preserved (it could also be that the other missionaries weren't really writing either, but can't be sure about that).

That being said, we really can't know how much Paul effected the Gospels. It is possible that the Gospels would still have been written without Paul having a gentile mission. That the communities that existed in which the Gospels were written would have been there either way. So even without Paul, there is a very good chance that we would still have the Gospels, and other communities of Gentile Christians that would have survived after the revolt against Rome.

I don't think most people would be worshipping Mithra or Attis though if Christianity failed. I think Judaism would actually have been the big religion, as it was gaining quite a bit of popularity. I think Christianity is a big reason that Judaism didn't become more popular.

 

[LuisDantas]

Are we talking about Christianism as a major political force, or about the actual survival of some form of Christianism to this day?

I can see Paul as necessary to the first (although I agree with Fallinblood that it is very difficult to gauge how much difference he made, or even in which direction), but I doubt the second. Gnostic Christianism exists to this day despite having always been at odds with Paulism, after all.

Although I want to say that I am not sure if Mohammad wasn't ultimately the main force behind the survival of Christianism to this day. The existence of Islam gave many Christians a drive to "defend their faith" that, for all I know, was decisive to the continued existence of same.

 

[Ilisrum]

I accept that a form of Christianity could still have survived till the present day. It certainly wouldn't exist as the major force in the world that it is today however, and European and World history would have definitely gone down a different path without the iron fist of the Church.

 

[ellenjanuary]

No. Paul made the whole thing up, you ask me.

 

[outhouse]

I think Judaism would actually have been the big religion, as it was gaining quite a bit of popularity. I think Christianity is a big reason that Judaism didn't become more popular.

not sure about that, it wasnt as user friendly to the masses.

I think the society at that time was ready for something knew whether it was christians or a offshoot.

because constantine mixed politics and religion to a point it stuck.

you can only imagine what would have stuck if chrisrtianity hadnt had a foot hold.

One way or another I think we still would have had a offshoot of hellenistic judaism, as to how far it would have evolved away from judaism is anybodys guess

 

[fallingblood]

not sure about that, it wasnt as user friendly to the masses.

I think the society at that time was ready for something knew whether it was christians or a offshoot.

because constantine mixed politics and religion to a point it stuck.

you can only imagine what would have stuck if chrisrtianity hadnt had a foot hold.

One way or another I think we still would have had a offshoot of hellenistic judaism, as to how far it would have evolved away from judaism is anybodys guess

I think Christianity had a unique position though. Judaism was very attractive to Pagans. One of the main points that kept people from fully accepting it though was that it required circumcision. Christianity gave a loop hole to this ordeal. It had the attraction of Judaism, yet without some of the practices that others found barbaric.

 

[Ilisrum]

A good piece of evidence for this is that church in Rome. We know from what Paul writes, he did not establish the church in Rome. So, some one else would have had to started it there.

According to Roman Catholic Church mythology, Cephas founded the church in Rome and was it's first Pope.

And of course everybody knows that the Church is infallible.:areyoucra

 

[Pegg]

christianity would most certainly have still spread, as has been stated, Paul wasnt the only missionary...he just happened to be a very good one besides being a lawyer and a roman citizen

christianity was for ALL nations, so God saw to it that it spread to all nations...Jesus said "this good news of the kingdom WILL be preached in all the inhabited earth", So that was assured, with or without Paul. christianity wasnt dependent on Paul...it was dependent on God.

 

[outhouse]

Jesus said "this good news of the kingdom WILL be preached in all the inhabited earth",

So your saying that jesus is a lier???

as far as I know, it is not preached in all the lands. Only about a third as i recall.

 

[Pegg]

So your saying that jesus is a lier???

as far as I know, it is not preached in all the lands. Only about a third as i recall.

you would be surprised then

the good news is being preached in 185 lands around the earth thus far...that number will likely increase

 

[Quagmire]

Well, it's fairly certain that Pauline Christianity couldn't have existed without Paul.

 

[fallingblood]

So your saying that jesus is a lier???

as far as I know, it is not preached in all the lands. Only about a third as i recall.

Jesus also said not to take this message to the Gentiles or even Samaritans. He probably was just confused. But that is expected. Always changing water into wine will do that.

 

[Jacksnyte]

I've been thinking about this a bit lately and I'm of the opinion of that Christianity wouldn't be around at all today if it weren't for Paul and his evangelizing mission to the Pagans of the Roman world. I'm not simply talking about theology, although it has a lot to do with it as Paul's teachings and theology were, and still are, more palatable to most people than the Jewish message of Jesus.

Given that the original Jesus movement based in Jerusalem under James and Cephas was a Jewish Messianic movement (which almost certainly included a large number of Zealot supporters), it seems reasonable to assume that the movement would have died out after the Jewish War with Rome. Although there's a legend that the Jerusalem based followers of Jesus relocated to Pella prior to the Roman invasion, the report's untenable, and if it does hold some water, it may have been an attempt of the Jerusalem leadership to preserve the original message which was by this time largely being corrupted by the "wicked Gentiles". And any remnants of Nazarenes living outside of Palestine would likely have dissolved after the Bar Kochba revolt.

Although half of the world's population is Christian today, the fact of the matter is, without Paul many of us would still be worshiping Mithra and Attis (or any god of your choice). For better or worse, who knows what a different place the world would be today.

Without Paul, Christianity would have disappeared as a religion in the region it came from. Of course, I would personally be more inclined to call it Paulianity, as the majority of church doctrine has been based on his writings and ideals, and not the teachings attributed to Jesus the Christ.
It is Constantine's fault, however, that such a large portion of the planet has been under the tyranny of Christian rule for the last 2000 years!

 

[fallingblood]

Without Paul, Christianity would have disappeared as a religion in the region it came from. Of course, I would personally be more inclined to call it Paulianity, as the majority of church doctrine has been based on i\his writings and ideals, and not the teachings attributed to Jesus the Christ.
It is Constantine's fault, however, that such a large portion of the planet has been under the tyranny of Christian rule for the last 2000 years!

That really isn't true though. Again, Paul was just one of the various missionaries to the Gentiles. In fact, it is very likely that without Paul, we would also have the Gospels anyway (maybe with out Luke) as they don't seem to be aware of Paul anyway.

More so, Paul was following many of the teachings of Jesus. We can be fairly certain about this because James (the brother of Jesus), and Peter and John (disciples of Jesus), who ran the Jerusalem church (and were continuing the message of Jesus, as they had known it personally) allowed Paul to continue on his message. If it was so radically different, there is no reason to assume that the Jerusalem Church, in which Paul did answer to, would ever allow Paul to be part of that mission, or that Paul would try so hard to be apart of such a mission. So really, Paul was most likely preaching much of the same thing Jesus was. There may have been some difference, but it wasn't radically different.

 

[Jacksnyte]

That really isn't true though. Again, Paul was just one of the various missionaries to the Gentiles. In fact, it is very likely that without Paul, we would also have the Gospels anyway (maybe with out Luke) as they don't seem to be aware of Paul anyway.

More so, Paul was following many of the teachings of Jesus. We can be fairly certain about this because James (the brother of Jesus), and Peter and John (disciples of Jesus), who ran the Jerusalem church (and were continuing the message of Jesus, as they had known it personally) allowed Paul to continue on his message. If it was so radically different, there is no reason to assume that the Jerusalem Church, in which Paul did answer to, would ever allow Paul to be part of that mission, or that Paul would try so hard to be apart of such a mission. So really, Paul was most likely preaching much of the same thing Jesus was. There may have been some difference, but it wasn't radically different.

If Paul were actually acquainted with people who actually spent time with Jesus, then why does he never mention so much of what makes Christianity what it is: namely, the events of Jesus' life and death, along with his direct teachings? If one were to read only the writings attributed to Paul, one would quickly see that he most likely had never heard of any of these events, therefore, it stands to reason that he never really spent any time in the company of anyone who ever actually even met Jesus in the flesh, regardless of his claims. If he had, then they would have told him these stories.

 

[outhouse]

f Paul were actually acquainted with people who actually spent time with Jesus, then why does he never mention so much of what makes Christianity what it is: namely, the events of Jesus' life and death, along with his direct teachings?

paul didnt know jesus or his real friends that well at all.

I think he seized the moment took the opening and ran with what he had.

you would also have to take into account paul would role in his grave if he knew what they did with his personal letters.

there were never ment to be included in a book of such importance, they did go with the flow so they were introduced

 

[fallingblood]

If Paul were actually acquainted with people who actually spent time with Jesus, then why does he never mention so much of what makes Christianity what it is: namely, the events of Jesus' life and death, along with his direct teachings? If one were to read only the writings attributed to Paul, one would quickly see that he most likely had never heard of any of these events, therefore, it stands to reason that he never really spent any time in the company of anyone who ever actually even met Jesus in the flesh, regardless of his claims. If he had, then they would have told him these stories.

The events of the life of Jesus meant very little to the early Jesus movement. The reason the movement really continued was because of the idea of the resurrection, and thus, Paul taught about such.

However, who says that Paul never mentions any of the teachings of Jesus? Is it because he seldom says, "this is what Jesus taught?"

Scholars know that that Paul borrowed from various sources. Primarily because of the similarities of his teachings with others. In fact, we see these similarities with Jesus and Paul. Paul simply did not credit those who needed crediting.

Also, Paul tells us specifically that he went to Cephas (Peter) and spent time learning from him. It is only logical that much of what Paul was learning was about the teaching of Jesus. This would also explain why he was allowed to continue with his mission. If it was so different, there is no reason why the Jerusalem church would allow Paul to continue in their tradition. And in fact, if the Jerusalem church had rejected Paul, we would most likely know as Paul did in fact tell us about his disagreements with them.

Finally, you are assuming way to much. Who says Paul didn't know stories of the life of Jesus? Is it because he never mentions them in the very small amount of material we have of his? Once one realizes that Paul was writing letters in order to address problems and questions that were arising, then it becomes no surprise that Paul never mentioned much about Jesus. It wasn't being questioned.

Plus, we don't have all of the letters Paul wrote (or the ones written to him). We don't know what he taught in the various churches and congregations he went to. We know very very little of what Paul believed and taught.

 

[Jacksnyte]

The events of the life of Jesus meant very little to the early Jesus movement. The reason the movement really continued was because of the idea of the resurrection, and thus, Paul taught about such.

However, who says that Paul never mentions any of the teachings of Jesus? Is it because he seldom says, "this is what Jesus taught?"

Scholars know that that Paul borrowed from various sources. Primarily because of the similarities of his teachings with others. In fact, we see these similarities with Jesus and Paul. Paul simply did not credit those who needed crediting.

Also, Paul tells us specifically that he went to Cephas (Peter) and spent time learning from him. It is only logical that much of what Paul was learning was about the teaching of Jesus. This would also explain why he was allowed to continue with his mission. If it was so different, there is no reason why the Jerusalem church would allow Paul to continue in their tradition. And in fact, if the Jerusalem church had rejected Paul, we would most likely know as Paul did in fact tell us about his disagreements with them.

Finally, you are assuming way to much. Who says Paul didn't know stories of the life of Jesus? Is it because he never mentions them in the very small amount of material we have of his? Once one realizes that Paul was writing letters in order to address problems and questions that were arising, then it becomes no surprise that Paul never mentioned much about Jesus. It wasn't being questioned.

Plus, we don't have all of the letters Paul wrote (or the ones written to him). We don't know what he taught in the various churches and congregations he went to. We know very very little of what Paul believed and taught.

In that case, why in the world is this guy's personal correspondence cannonized?!? I mean, sure: preserve it as valuable church writings, but from what you say, it sounds like his writings have no business in a book that is supposedly divinely inspired by vote...oops..I mean God (yeah, that's the ticket!)

 

[fallingblood]

In that case, why in the world is this guy's personal correspondence cannonized?!? I mean, sure: preserve it as valuable church writings, but from what you say, it sounds like his writings have no business in a book that is supposedly divinely inspired by vote...oops..I mean God (yeah, that's the ticket!)

The reason is quite simple. His writings were being used quite often by a widespread community.

It isn't a mystery. Certain books and writings were used more often by various groups. They became special to those groups and then were considered scripture. Thus, they were later canonized. There was no vote as you try to suggest.