Jump to content

Apostle Paul


Abiyoyo
 Share

Recommended Posts

How would Christianity have been different if the Apostle Paul never wrote his 13 Epistles, or never canonized? Also, how would Protestant Christianity be different if Catholic books would have been added, such as Maccabees?

 

What's your opinions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the stuff such as the Gospel of Thomas, Infancy Gospel or Gospel of Judas would have become more mainstream which would have definitely changed the religious doctrine and thoughts we have today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the stuff such as the Gospel of Thomas, Infancy Gospel or Gospel of Judas would have become more mainstream which would have definitely changed the religious doctrine and thoughts we have today.

 

What do you see as impacting in the these Gospels?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without Paul I doubt there would ever have been such a thing as Christianity. Possibly it would have continued for awhile as an obscure sect of Judaism. I don't think it would ever have left the middle east and we would never even have heard of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christianity wouldn't be known by that name, and it would be a small sect of Judaism if it had survived at all.

 

Paul was the man. Even Jesus is interpreted via Paul rather than the reverse. Paul went to some pains to disconnect himself from the "real" disciples. Paul should be considered the first Pope, not Peter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without Paul I doubt there would ever have been such a thing as Christianity. Possibly it would have continued for awhile as an obscure sect of Judaism. I don't think it would ever have left the middle east and we would never even have heard of it.

 

I think it would just be RCC.

I think Deva is right. Paul was the one who made Christianity popular and adjusted it to fit a larger population.

 

He may of made it popular, but it was already established. And, Peter and Paul didn't really see eye to eye from what I gathered.

 

Paul was the man. Even Jesus is interpreted via Paul rather than the reverse. Paul went to some pains to disconnect himself from the "real" disciples. Paul should be considered the first Pope, not Peter.

 

First Pope to the Protestants.

 

To all, How do you think it would've changed the Protestant movement? Did Mather Luther truly examine the scriptures as thorough as the priests in the RCC?

 

Example. I was raised Catholic, and I never saw people speaking in tongues, confirming it, etc. Just one point of Paul's doctrine that has been a debated, progressive practice in different sects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He may of made it popular, but it was already established. And, Peter and Paul didn't really see eye to eye from what I gathered.

Right. That's kind of my view on it too. There was a Jewish sect, not accepted by any other group, because it was considered just another "denomination" of the Jewish faith. Just like Pharisees or Sadducees, this was another cult basically. But Paul saw how he could take this tot the non-Jewish masses, and my opinion is that he modified it and added Hellenistic philosophy, hero-myths, and stuff like that, to make it more palatable to the Romans. He "Romanized" the Jewish Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a Jewish sect, not accepted by any other group, because it was considered just another "denomination" of the Jewish faith. Just like Pharisees or Sadducees, this was another cult basically. But Paul saw how he could take this tot the non-Jewish masses, and my opinion is that he modified it and added Hellenistic philosophy, hero-myths, and stuff like that, to make it more palatable to the Romans. He "Romanized" the Jewish Jesus.

 

Do you think that influenced Constantine in 313AD?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that influenced Constantine in 313AD?

By then the history was long gone. The original sect in Jerusalem was destroy through Saul persecuting them, but also the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. So Christianity was a de facto new religion and completely different than the Jewish cult when Constantine got into the picture. One reason for creating an orthodox church was that there were more than 200 different sects of Christians in the year 300 CE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that influenced Constantine in 313AD?

By then the history was long gone. The original sect in Jerusalem was destroy through Saul persecuting them, but also the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. So Christianity was a de facto new religion and completely different than the Jewish cult when Constantine got into the picture. One reason for creating an orthodox church was that there were more than 200 different sects of Christians in the year 300 CE.

 

Constantine was a Christian though, so would that have made his direction more personal. Paul more just influenced Gentiles, and their acceptance into the Christian faith. Even the Catholic disagree with some of Paul's writings, especially the ones considered written after his death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Constantine was a Christian though, so would that have made his direction more personal.

If I remember correctly, Constantine opted to wait to get baptized until his deathbed, because he was afraid that the "forgiveness" from God only could be received once. So was he a truly Christian during his life, or was he just a supporter? It comes back to the question what really makes a Christian a Christian.

 

Paul more just influenced Gentiles, and their acceptance into the Christian faith.

Of course. I'm not sure where you place Constantine in this or bringing him into the picture? Any particular reason?

 

Even the Catholic disagree with some of Paul's writings, especially the ones considered written after his death.

I would disagree with posthumous writings too, since it's kind of difficult to write while your hand is decomposing. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Constantine was a Christian though, so would that have made his direction more personal.
If I remember correctly, Constantine opted to wait to get baptized until his deathbed, because he was afraid that the "forgiveness" from God only could be received once. So was he a truly Christian during his life, or was he just a supporter? It comes back to the question what really makes a Christian a Christian.

 

He was baptized in the Jordan River. There was from what I understood, controversy about baptism in his time. I think he was undecided.

 

 

Paul more just influenced Gentiles, and their acceptance into the Christian faith.

Of course. I'm not sure where you place Constantine in this or bringing him into the picture? Any particular reason?

 

I guess I am trying to connect a direct influence of Paul to Constantine, and I am not seeing one.

 

Even the Catholic disagree with some of Paul's writings, especially the ones considered written after his death.

I would disagree with posthumous writings too, since it's kind of difficult to write while your hand is decomposing. :grin:

 

:grin: I am trying to figure out why the Catholics included his writings, and how influential they actually were to the Catholics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I am trying to connect a direct influence of Paul to Constantine, and I am not seeing one.

You're trying to establish how much the Pauline letters affected Constantin's theology? I'm not quite sure still what you're trying to do.

 

I am trying to figure out why the Catholics included his writings, and how influential they actually were to the Catholics.

They must have meant something, since they included them. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I am trying to connect a direct influence of Paul to Constantine, and I am not seeing one.

You're trying to establish how much the Pauline letters affected Constantin's theology? I'm not quite sure still what you're trying to do.

 

I am trying to figure out why the Catholics included his writings, and how influential they actually were to the Catholics.

They must have meant something, since they included them. :shrug:

 

Paul, in my opinion is the reason why Christianity is so screwed up, and it is the reason why the Protestant movement began. So, his writings in my mind have been or are more hurtful to his body of Christ than they are useful. Example the Nicene Creed. Paul didn't establish the trinity, it was already present. The Catholic movement was present, and the most solid of the other sects branching out. Obvious, because of the Canon. I say the doctrine was applied by the Catholic as more of a memorial, and as said, philosophy that attended the ears of Rome better.

 

That's where I'm at though. Constantine stopped the killings, and paved the way for Christianity later becoming the official religion of Rome; Would that have changed without Paul's writings? I definitely think churches today would be more limited in beliefs by doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, in my opinion is the reason why Christianity is so screwed up, and it is the reason why the Protestant movement began. So, his writings in my mind have been or are more hurtful to his body of Christ than they are useful. Example the Nicene Creed. Paul didn't establish the trinity, it was already present. The Catholic movement was present, and the most solid of the other sects branching out. Obvious, because of the Canon. I say the doctrine was applied by the Catholic as more of a memorial, and as said, philosophy that attended the ears of Rome better.

 

That's where I'm at though. Constantine stopped the killings, and paved the way for Christianity later becoming the official religion of Rome; Would that have changed without Paul's writings? I definitely think churches today would be more limited in beliefs by doctrine.

 

 

I am not sure about that. "Paul didn't establish the trinity, it was already present." There are certain passages in the gospels that may, in retrospect-- and with centuries of dogma afterward, suggest the trinity. But people were still arguing in the streets of the Byzantine Empire about the nature of Christ 1,000 years after Christ lived. I don't think it was already present, it took a long time for theologians to develop it and for it to become universally accepted.

 

What you are calling the Catholic movement was probably the group of churches which were the most organized and had the largest numbers, but they accepted Paul's writings. Paul's writings are the earliest we have. Paul was the one who made Christianity acceptable to Jews and also to Greeks and other pagans. I still say it would never have been seen as anything other than a Jewish sect if it had not been for Paul. It would have been very obscure and Constantine would never have heard of it, probably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never found discussions like this to be terribly fruitful. History is full of too many variables to account for all the possible changes that would have occurred had some major player in the events not been there.

 

The world could have been changed in any one of a dozen different ways, figuring out which way is most likely is nearly impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would Christianity have been different if the Apostle Paul never wrote his 13 Epistles, or never canonized? Also, how would Protestant Christianity be different if Catholic books would have been added, such as Maccabees?

 

What's your opinions

It's actually only seven epistles as the rest are pseudo-anonymous (including the often quoted 2 Tim 3:16). If Paul had never existed, it would be unlikely you would have any of the narrative gospels. There wouldn't be a story of an earthly Jesus to a heavenly Christ story arch. There would have been no need. There wouldn't have been any Christ cults in order to create a story that supported the Jesus movements with their sayings collections along with those who practiced a mystery religion of the Christ. No Gospel of Mark, and subsequently no Matthew or Luke, or John either, since it takes that basic story and spices it with gnostic tones.

 

What you would have would essentially be a sayings document movement like those of the Gospel of Thomas, but perhaps not with the Gnostic flavor of them. You wouldn't have a miracle man, a Son of God, a sacrifice for sin, messiah, eternal God in flesh image of Jesus. There would have been no need to take the earthly man and making him the heavenly creature of Paul's Christ. In short there would be no Jesus Christ. Just Jesus.

 

So as a result today we would have:

 

- no nativity scenes

- no Christmas holiday season

- no priests

- no worship services

- no Christian religion

 

So.... if you could go back in history and stop just one man, who would it be? :)

 

P.S. The apocryphal books included in the Catholic Bible have no bearing on Christian theology. They predate the rise of Christianity in Asia Minor (note I didn't say Israel).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

I think Antlerman summed it up perfectly. Paul invented the religion, so no Paul would mean no Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jim and Tammy Faye, End Time prophecies, Creationism, or witch burnings.

 

I could live with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it was already present, it took a long time for theologians to develop it and for it to become universally accepted.

 

The Trinity was one of the main issues in the Counsel of Nicaea in 325AD. I would assume then that it was a current belief, if it was being debated among sects.

 

What you are calling the Catholic movement was probably the group of churches which were the most organized and had the largest numbers, but they accepted Paul's writings. Paul's writings are the earliest we have. Paul was the one who made Christianity acceptable to Jews and also to Greeks and other pagans. I still say it would never have been seen as anything other than a Jewish sect if it had not been for Paul. It would have been very obscure and Constantine would never have heard of it, probably.

 

 

Paul's preaching was rejected by Jews, thats why he went to the Gentiles. Constantine built and supposedly dedicated his church he built to the Disciples and Jesus, not mentioning Paul. I still don't think Paul had any influence in Constantine's Christian life. I think it was the standard church that Peter set up, and had branched up. From my studies, the meat of the new Jesus based religion was through the Catholics, later expounded on by Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- no priests

 

I'm still thinking on the rest of your response. But, no priests? Did they not have 'church', and priests before, during Paul's ministry. What about Peter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never found discussions like this to be terribly fruitful.

:grin:

 

History is full of too many variables to account for all the possible changes that would have occurred had some major player in the events not been there.

 

:scratch: I see it the opposite. History points toward accuracy, if the reference of history is an accredited source, ...and I love history anyway :woohoo:

The world could have been changed in any one of a dozen different ways, figuring out which way is most likely is nearly impossible.

 

That tis true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Paul had never existed, it would be unlikely you would have any of the narrative gospels. There wouldn't be a story of an earthly Jesus to a heavenly Christ story arch. There would have been no need. There wouldn't have been any Christ cults in order to create a story that supported the Jesus movements with their sayings collections along with those who practiced a mystery religion of the Christ. No Gospel of Mark, and subsequently no Matthew or Luke, or John either, since it takes that basic story and spices it with gnostic tones.

 

Are you suggesting that the possible skepticism of unknown authors of these books was Paul? :scratch: You initially went way past me there, but then 'I think', I understand your point. I am basing my hypothesis on most generally accepted knowledge. Even if they didn't write it, the Catholic movement set up by Peter was still present and large, by Constantine's time. I think whether scholars say it was written in 60AD or 100AD is irrelevant to the suggestion of Paul's lack of influence on Constantine; whom enabled Christianity to expand.

 

I still say Paul, if his writings never existed, and now ( since your input) say the Gospels where present and wrote by some other than Paul; Christianity would to the least still be existent? Agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So.... if you could go back in history and stop just one man, who would it be? :)

 

None. I look at Paul's letters as just that, letters to other people. Not the authority of God. I am grateful they exist, yet I am frustrated at the emphasis and modern day church structure around his writings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.