Christianity without Paul

[RDKirk]

Paul is the single most important apostle to the gentiles. Without him, I think Chrisitanity would have disappeared into history as a strange sect of judaism like the essenes. God chose Paul because I think Paul could relate to Romans and greeks better being more hellenized Jew compared to the 11 poor fisherman of Palestine. Think of Acts or in Galatians where Paul confronted Peter and others of a jew focused ministry the 11 were backsliding into. He was the cultural bridge that could better relate the gospel to the gentiles.

I don't think it's that cut and dried, unless the discussion discounts the Holy Spirit.

Acts clearly shows us that the Holy Spirit had begun using Hellenists out of Antioch as a powerful evangelical force before Paul got involved.

Paul had been himself the chief and most violent "Judaizer" among the Hellenists (the "Judaizers" were Hellenist Jews, not Hebraic Jews). Merely getting him off that particular team was a great boon to the Hellenist evangelists, even if Paul had not become one of them.

But if, say, Paul had decided to stay holed up in Tarsus instead of going to Macedonia, I don't think God would have been any more dependent on him that God was dependent on Elijah.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I don't think it's that cut and dried, unless the discussion discounts the Holy Spirit.

Acts clearly shows us that the Holy Spirit had begun using Hellenists out of Antioch as a powerful evangelical force before Paul got involved.

Paul had been himself the chief and most violent "Judaizer" among the Hellenists (the "Judaizers" were Hellenist Jews, not Hebraic Jews). Merely getting him off that particular team was a great boon to the Hellenist evangelists, even if Paul had not become one of them.

But if, say, Paul had decided to stay holed up in Tarsus instead of going to Macedonia, I don't think God would have been any more dependent on him that God was dependent on Elijah.

I look at it more like the information given to us by Paul in his epistles and what kinowledge that brings us after his death also.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

I don't think it's that cut and dried, unless the discussion discounts the Holy Spirit.

Acts clearly shows us that the Holy Spirit had begun using Hellenists out of Antioch as a powerful evangelical force before Paul got involved.

Paul had been himself the chief and most violent "Judaizer" among the Hellenists (the "Judaizers" were Hellenist Jews, not Hebraic Jews). Merely getting him off that particular team was a great boon to the Hellenist evangelists, even if Paul had not become one of them.

But if, say, Paul had decided to stay holed up in Tarsus instead of going to Macedonia, I don't think God would have been any more dependent on him that God was dependent on Elijah.

Well Paul was perhaps the great example. One of those, "If God can change somebody like him. Who can't He change?"

 

[RDKirk]

Well Paul was perhaps the great example. One of those, "If God can change somebody like him. Who can't He change?"

For sure, and Paul used himself as that example.

After writing my previous post, I began thinking of Apollos. Apollos had become a great evangelist with only part of the gospel--without Paul. Aquilla and Priscilla had organized the church in Rome--without Paul. Aquilla and Priscilla had also wound up (not by coincidence!) in Ephesus at the same time as Apollos and taught Apollos the gospel more perfectly--without Paul.

Even by Paul's own testimony, Apollos was equal to him in evangelistic capability. I suspect that without Paul, the Holy Spirit would have done just fine with Apollos.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

For sure, and Paul used himself as that example.

After writing my previous post, I began thinking of Apollos. Apollos had become a great evangelist with only part of the gospel--without Paul. Aquilla and Priscilla had organized the church in Rome--without Paul. Aquilla and Priscilla had also wound up (not by coincidence!) in Ephesus at the same time as Apollos and taught Apollos the gospel more perfectly--without Paul.

Even by Paul's own testimony, Apollos was equal to him in evangelistic capability. I suspect that without Paul, the Holy Spirit would have done just fine with Apollos.

I just read through Philippians today and Paul name drops a few people who are lost to the obscurity of history. We will never know what exactly the sort of impact Epharoditus had for example. [unless there is some church tradition saying otherwise I do not know of]

 

[PsychoeDial]

How was Abraham a Gentile?

I thought it was common knowledge among Christians.
Romans 4 reports as much.

But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD. – Joshua 24:15

 

[ToBeLoved]

I thought it was common knowledge among Christians.
Romans 4 reports as much.

But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD. – Joshua 24:15

Huh?

 

[PsychoeDial]

Huh?

Right.
Look it up.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Right.
Look it up.

Then please do not give me the answer if it is not an answer.

 

[Biblicist]

The theologian N.T. Wright gave a lecture back in 2014 where he titled his lecture "How Paul invented Theology", which I think sums up the critical role that Paul has played within the Church superbly. If the Father had not instigated the scholar Paul's inclusion as an Apostle-of-Christ, then I wonder where we would be right now as I fully appreciate that the Twelve were not up to the mark when it comes to systematic theology.

 

[RDKirk]

The theologian N.T. Wright gave a lecture back in 2014 where he titled his lecture "How Paul invented Theology", which I think sums up the critical role that Paul has played within the Church superbly. If the Father had not instigated the scholar Paul's inclusion as an Apostle-of-Christ, then I wonder where we would be right now as I fully appreciate that the Twelve were not up to the mark when it comes to systematic theology.

See my post #184. As the Lord explained to Elijah, He is never without sufficient resources.

From what I see in Acts, the problem with the Twelve was not a failure in developing systematic theology (one of the other Hellenist believers besides Paul would have done that sooner or later), but a failure to get the Gospel out of Jerusalem. Even under the pressure of the super-Judaizer Saul, the Apostles holed up in Jerusalem and left it to the Hellenists to spread the Gospel into the non-Judaic world.

 

[Goodbook]

How much of Christianity is Paul? Is the faith as we know it made up mostly of Paul and his teachings?

Where would we be without Paul?

I have wondered about Paul. He does seem to take up a large part of the NT in his writings etc. Did he have his own agenda? Was his teachings very different from those of Jesus?

I ask these questions because i am curious to know if others have asked these questions and what answers people give. I for one are very much inexperienced in Biblical matters but i am trying to learn more and more as time goes on.

Paul was called by Jesus to be the apostle to the Gentiles (non jews). Without Paul, few people would have heard the gospel outside of Israel.

 

[Goodbook]

Also by appointing Paul a former pharisee Jesus was showing that his love was encompassing and ready to forgive those who acted out of ignorance and unbelief. When Paul was Saul he persecuted the early church, who were made up of jewish believers.

At the time, some of the jewish people were scattered around the mediterranean, there were jewish diaspora. Paul went to these people first and then Reached out to Gentiles there in those lands.

 

[Jason Sanders]

To those who say that God could have done everything Paul did without Paul: You're right. Paul wasn't needed to accomplish the things he did- anyone who believed could have done them.

But, and this is crucial here; PAUL was the one who answered the call. He did what God wanted, he BELIEVED in Jesus' resurrection and the redemption of the Cross, and he preached that message of grace to the world.

So yes, God didn't NEED Paul- He CHOSE him. And no matter how much some people might want to minimize or refute Paul's work, the truth is right in The Bible, for anyone to see.

 

[Biblicist]

To those who say that God could have done everything Paul did without Paul: You're right. Paul wasn't needed to accomplish the things he did- anyone who believed could have done them.

I would be more inclined to say that there would be few if any peers of Paul who could have undertaken the task that he was called to do. If we needed to find a replacement for Paul we would have to first see if there were any Jews who held both Roman and Jewish citizenship as his dual citizenship was a key platform for his ministry. As the Father would have chosen Paul for his ability to both think and reason, we would have to find someone who had a theologians temperament where he would be able to write down (or theologize) the Scriptures in a systematic manner.

But, and this is crucial here; PAUL was the one who answered the call. He did what God wanted, he BELIEVED in Jesus' resurrection and the redemption of the Cross, and he preached that message of grace to the world.

So yes, God didn't NEED Paul- He CHOSE him. And no matter how much some people might want to minimize or refute Paul's work, the truth is right in The Bible, for anyone to see.

It seems your first point may has been qualified by your second, where Paul apparently had little opportunity to refuse Christ's calling where in Gal 1:15 he tells us that he was set apart for the ministry by the Father even while Paul was still within his mother womb. When it comes to Christ's direct intervention into the life of Saul, I would say that Saul, who it appears was becoming a bit uneasy with what he was doing, that he would be able to refuse the direct call that Christ placed on his life.

To those who say that God could have done everything Paul did without Paul: You're right. Paul wasn't needed to accomplish the things he did- anyone who believed could have done them.

But, and this is crucial here; PAUL was the one who answered the call. He did what God wanted, he BELIEVED in Jesus' resurrection and the redemption of the Cross, and he preached that message of grace to the world.

So yes, God didn't NEED Paul- He CHOSE him. And no matter how much some people might want to minimize or refute Paul's work, the truth is right in The Bible, for anyone to see.

So I would take the position that Paul was probably unique, in that there were probably no others who were up to the task that the Father had appointed for him even while he was still in his mothers womb.

 

[Goatee]

Paul was called by Jesus to be the apostle to the Gentiles (non jews). Without Paul, few people would have heard the gospel outside of Israel.

If it wasn't paul it would have been someone else in time though

 

[Biblicist]

See my post #184. As the Lord explained to Elijah, He is never without sufficient resources.

From what I see in Acts, the problem with the Twelve was not a failure in developing systematic theology (one of the other Hellenist believers besides Paul would have done that sooner or later), but a failure to get the Gospel out of Jerusalem. Even under the pressure of the super-Judaizer Saul, the Apostles holed up in Jerusalem and left it to the Hellenists to spread the Gospel into the non-Judaic world.

I went and read through your post where I would have to point out that whereas Apollos and others were able to do a find job, they did not take any part with developing Christian theology which was the role that Paul undertook.

 

[RDKirk]

I went and read through your post where I would have to point out that whereas Apollos and others were able to do a find job, they did not take any part with developing Christian theology which was the role that Paul undertook.

That we know of.

 

[Biblicist]

That we know of.

RD, that probably sums it up rather well, if anyone other than Paul had added to the Epistles (Hebrews?) with an authoritative voice, then the Church would have undoubtedly kept their words for posterity.

 

[RDKirk]

RD, that probably sums it up rather well, if anyone other than Paul had added to the Epistles (Hebrews?) with an authoritative voice, then the Church would have undoubtedly kept their words for posterity.

Not necessarily. For one, if Paul has produced it, there wasn't a need for someone else to do it (God not being an author of confusion).

We don't, for instance, know today a single one of the "seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal"--and apparently Elijah didn't either...as an example that scripture does not tell us every single thing God has done, has planned, or has set into motion.