Christianity without Paul

antletems said:

I am surprised by the amount of people who dont like Pauls teaching. I am no scholar but always thought Paul was talking via the Holt Spirit within him?

Click to expand...

You shouldn't be surprised, the more man has control over other men when it comes to Christianity the more at odds they are with Paul as they want more control and more power and more obedience to their leaders and "group" and Paul's Gospel of Grace disallows the use of works as a claim to salvation and groups that are at odds with this use salvation by works to profit them and their church by it. If you then tell people that only your group has the "truth" and only your group truly has salvation through its "works" then you have to ignore Paul's writings to accomplish this.
The more of Paul's writings you ignore the more your group gets into more and more false doctrine.

antletems said:

Yes, you are right. From my limited reading of Paul i see no issues

Click to expand...

Me neither - I have seen nothing specific in this thread that casts doubt on the coherence of Pauline theology with the material presented in the gospels.

I think it's easy to over-assume the importance of St. Paul. That isn't to deny his very real importance, only that we end up looking back to the apostolic era largely through Paul because Paul's writings form the largest bulk of what we have, and the only narrative in the NT apart from the Gospels--the Acts of the Apostles--is 2/3 about Paul.

But Paul wasn't the only one doing what he was doing, he frequently mentions the many people who were engaged in the same work he was doing--Apollos, Barnabas, Silas, and Peter etc. There is a tendency to perhaps imagine that there were The Twelve, and then there was Paul, with the Twelve doing their thing apparently without much noise after Paul shows up, and then there's superstar Paul. But Paul was just another apostle, in fact he refers to himself as the least of the apostles; keeping in mind that aside from the Twelve there were a number of apostles, again, Apollos, Barnabas, Silas, etc.

Paul was instrumental in his work with the Gentiles, but he wasn't an independent agent. He acted in accord with the rest of the Church; in the Acts we can recall how when Paul and Barnabas were preaching in Antioch they traveled to Jerusalem to meet with the Jerusalem leadership which, ultimately, gave them their blessing.

The hard part about the question is that historical what-ifs are largely speculative, but I think we err in assuming that a Christian history without Paul would somehow result in a radically different sort of Christianity--as though Paul was the only one reaching out to the Gentiles, Paul was part of the ministry to the Gentiles, but was by no means the only one. We can also talk about the importance of St. Paul's theology, but even though we talk about Pauline theology we might miss something if we think in terms as though it were uniquely his. There have been a number of profoundly important figures in the history of Christian theology--the 4th century alone produced some of the most important theological powerhouses in all of Church history: Athanasius, Hillary of Poitiers, Basil the Great and the two Gregorys, Augustine of Hippo--but if we ask the question, what would Christianity look like without Athanasius? What would Christianity look like without Gregory Nazianzus? No single person holds all the cards. The theological history of the Church is built on the shoulders of giants confessing a faith that came before them and which is much bigger than they are, bigger than any of us.

Without Paul perhaps we'd be more familiar with the work of St. Apollos, or the ministry of St. Barnabas, perhaps we'd be reading from the letters of St. Peter to the Corinthians, Ephesians, etc. We really don't know, but what we can say is that as important and instrumental the holy apostle Paul was, he wasn't a one man army, he was a piece of a much larger structure. Christ's holy catholic Church.

-CryptoLutheran

expos4ever said:

I believe that Paul and Jesus are generally on the same page, although I am open to counterarguments. I think the "added-value" (I shudder at using that "business" term) Paul brings is his careful analysis of how the story of Jesus comprises a surprising, yet highly appropriate, climax to the covenant story of Israel. I believe that Jesus only hinted at this (or spoke rather cryptically of it).

Click to expand...

Jesus was the Word. Paul was a preacher of that Word.

-CryptoLutheran

Saul may have played a more critical role as an individual than Paul. Saul was God's instrument in scattering Christians out of Judea. God might have gotten someone else to do it if Saul had not, but there isn't anyone we see in scripture who would have taken that role, which is not the case with regard to carrying the gospel to the Gentiles--we see Apollos and others mentioned doing that role. But Saul seemed to be unique in the role of running the Christians out of Judea.

antletems said:

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.

Click to expand...

In Galatians Paul explained where he got the gospel he preached.

Paul got the gospel he preached by direct revelation from Jesus.

He also ran what he received by Peter and others to make sure he was not missing it.

antletems said:

How much of Christianity is Paul?

Click to expand...

Statistically speaking Paul played a minor role. He is only directly responsible for 23% of the New Testament (and something like 5% of the entire Bible). Luke, to compare, is responsible for 27% of the NT so he actually wrote more than Paul. Why not ask how much of Christianity is Luke?

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

Click to expand...

No.

Where would we be without Paul?

Click to expand...

It's impossible to say.

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?

Click to expand...

Each of Paul's letters - and Paul himself - self-admittedly has certain concerns of its own. Paul is very concerned about mission to the Gentiles and each of his letters addresses concerns relevant to his original audience. For this reason he has certain nuances that are unique to him, but so does every Bible author. His teachings do not differ in any significant way from 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.

Click to expand...

A lot of people who don't know the Bible very well and don't know Paul very well have a gnawing suspicion that Paul hijacked Christianity and what we have today is not Jesus' teachings but Paul's teachings. This is just pure ignorance of the OT and NT Scriptures. Keep studying the Bible and you'll figure this out for yourself.

Tree of Life said:

Statistically speaking Paul played a minor role. He is only directly responsible for 23% of the New Testament (and something like 5% of the entire Bible). Luke, to compare, is responsible for 27% of the NT so he actually wrote more than Paul. Why not ask how much of Christianity is Luke?



No.



It's impossible to say.



Each of Paul's letters - and Paul himself - self-admittedly has certain concerns of its own. Paul is very concerned about mission to the Gentiles and each of his letters addresses concerns relevant to his original audience. For this reason he has certain nuances that are unique to him, but so does every Bible author. His teachings do not differ in any significant way from Jesus'.



A lot of people who don't know the Bible very well and don't know Paul very well have a gnawing suspicion that Paul hijacked Christianity and what we have today is not Jesus' teachings but Paul's teachings. This is just pure ignorance of the OT and NT Scriptures. Keep studying the Bible and you'll figure this out for yourself.

Click to expand...

Luke only wrote what he heard from other people, he wasn't even a witness, from what ive heard. Paul was a prophet. Paul actually wrote most of the NT letters to the Churches. He established doctrine. Having 4 gospels in the NT hardly can be used to undermine the percentage of Paul's writings. Multiple gospels are redundant, not counting Mathew and John, which are both essential reading, in my opinion.

Tree of Life said:

Statistically speaking Paul played a minor role. He is only directly responsible for 23% of the New Testament (and something like 5% of the entire Bible). Luke, to compare, is responsible for 27% of the NT so he actually wrote more than Paul. Why not ask how much of Christianity is Luke?

Click to expand...

Luke, being Paul's disciple, likely did not write anything not approved or approvable by Paul.

I know a Christian lawyer in Chicago who theorizes that the "Theophilus" to whom Luke's gospel and Acts are addressed was possibly a "friend of the court" (and perhaps a friend of Christians) at the time of Paul's trial in Rome, and that Luke wrote a "disposition" to explain the Church's origin and activities in the Roman empire. He theorizes that's why it ends as abruptly as it does and why it has a very distinct, "We've done nothing criminally subversive to the empire" tone.

Each of Paul's letters - and Paul himself - self-admittedly has certain concerns of its own. Paul is very concerned about mission to the Gentiles and each of his letters addresses concerns relevant to his original audience. For this reason he has certain nuances that are unique to him, but so does every Bible author. His teachings do not differ in any significant way from Jesus'.

Click to expand...

This is true, but although Paul's letters were immediately relevant to his original audience, I think they are pretty much just as relevant to us today. Corinth, for example, is pretty much just like America today--I don't see any of the issues of being a Corinthian pagan newly minted into a citizen of Heaven that are not relevant to Christians in America.

A lot of people who don't know the Bible very well and don't know Paul very well have a gnawing suspicion that Paul hijacked Christianity and what we have today is not Jesus' teachings but Paul's teachings. This is just pure ignorance of the OT and NT Scriptures. Keep studying the Bible and you'll figure this out for yourself.

Click to expand...

Yes.

RDKirk said:

Luke, being Paul's disciple, likely did not write anything not approved or approvable by Paul.

I know a Christian lawyer in Chicago who theorizes that the "Theophilus" to whom Luke's gospel and Acts are addressed was possibly a "friend of the court" (and perhaps a friend of Christians) at the time of Paul's trial in Rome, and that Luke wrote a "disposition" to explain the Church's origin and activities in the Roman empire. He theorizes that's why it ends as abruptly as it does and why it has a very distinct, "We've done nothing criminally subversive to the empire" tone.



This is true, but although Paul's letters were immediately relevant to his original audience, I think they are pretty much just as relevant to us today. Corinth, for example, is pretty much just like America today--I don't see any of the issues of being a Corinthian pagan newly minted into a citizen of Heaven that are not relevant to Christians in America.



Yes.

Click to expand...

The Gospel of Luke does a poor job teaching the sermon on the Mount. It also uses strange language, such as suggesting that believers must hate their father and mother (Mathew does a much better job). Of course this is referring to the English translation, im not sure how its worded in the original language. Regardless however, i think that the author of Luke's Gospel did a poor job recording the words of Christ, perhaps. I reserve the right to be wrong however.

Maybe im wrong, but when i read Luke's gospel i get the sense that its been added to, taken away from, or is just flawed in some way.

Extraneous said:

The Gospel of Luke does a poor job teaching the sermon on the Mount. It also uses strange language, such as suggesting that believers must hate their father and mother (Mathew does a much better job). Of course this is referring to the English translation, im not sure how its worded in the original language. Regardless however, i think that the author of Luke's Gospel did a poor job recording the words of Christ, perhaps. I reserve the right to be wrong however.

Click to expand...

Look again at it, seeing it as a disposition about Christianity to a Roman pagan official.

RDKirk said:

Look again at it, seeing it as a disposition about Christianity to a Roman pagan official.

Click to expand...

If thats true, it still sounds flawed to me. What am i suppose to see if i look at it again?

Extraneous said:

Maybe im wrong, but when i read Luke's gospel i get the sense that its been added to, taken away from, or is just flawed in some way.

Click to expand...

Dear brother, you are indeed wrong. Luke certainly has his own emphases just like every gospel writer. He does not say everything that Jesus said or did. He deliberately includes some things and excludes others. But this by no means makes it flawed, for if this is the case then every gospel is flawed.

Extraneous said:

The Gospel of Luke does a poor job teaching the sermon on the Mount. It also uses strange language, such as suggesting that believers must hate their father and mother (Mathew does a much better job). Of course this is referring to the English translation, im not sure how its worded in the original language. Regardless however, i think that the author of Luke's Gospel did a poor job recording the words of Christ, perhaps. I reserve the right to be wrong however.

Click to expand...

Are you just basing this on a comparison between Luke and Matthew's gospel?

RDKirk said:

Look again at it, seeing it as a disposition about Christianity to a Roman pagan official.

Click to expand...

Maybe i kinda see your point

Tree of Life said:

Are you just basing this on a comparison between Luke and Matthew's gospel?

Click to expand...

No, even the thief on the cross story, although beautiful, is not found in Mathew, Mark or John. Those three gospels record the story differently. I see John and Mathew as a wonderfully complete gospel when read together. I see luke as a flawed record, possibly. Im not sure what to say about Mark.

Extraneous said:

No, even the thief on the cross story, although beautiful, is not found in Mathew, Mark or John. Those three gospels record the story differently. I see John and Mathew as a wonderfully complete gospel when read together. I see luke as a flawed record, possibly. Im not sure what to say about Mark.

Click to expand...

And there is a reason the Church retained them all.