Would Christianity be different without St Paul?

[redleghunter]

It would be significantly different, yes. Especially the Protestant tradition which leans so heavily on Paul's writings. In fact I don't even think it's controversial to say that the Reformation would have never happened without Paul.



Which Churches never heard of Paul? Why would you say that Paul never taught anything any of the other apostles didn't teach? I just see no evidence for such a claim. We have only a fraction of the writings from other apostles that we have from Paul, and the topics, context, and substance covered are vastly different. There are all sorts of things in Paul's writings that aren't in the writings of the other apostles.

Interesting as Pope Francis’ Lumen Fidei stated the writings of St Paul are foundational to the Catholic faith.

The Reformation took place because some well rooted Augustinians rebelled against Medieval Roman Catholic inventions.

http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/deformation_of_new_testament_church.html

 

[redleghunter]

Marvel did that. It sucked.

They did that to Thor too (him being a Germanic god and all). That also sucked.

My point exactly. Not to mention DC comics doing a what if Superman was a Nazi. Or did Saturday Night Live do that. I forget.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Without Paul's specific theological vision it's hard to imagine Christianity remaining exactly the same. Subsequent theology, practice and liturgy was derived from Paul's ministry and is indebted to that witness. It's sort of like imagining western Christianity without Augustine or Eastern Christianity without Gregory of Nazianzus. Things might be different but that's in the realm of historical hypothetical we can know little to nothing about.

This doesn't mean Paul is wrong mind you, only that his influence was unique. Unless we believe God could have raised another like Paul to produce the same or similar theology.

 

[Colter]

Would Christianity be different without St Paul?

Could Christianity survive without his teachings?

I am starting to wonder if we should hold onto the words of Jesus in the NT more than those of Paul. It seems to me that Paul has taken over the NT. Rightly or wrongly so?

Bravo! You are a wise person! The original gospel of Jesus changed after he left. The NT is basically Jesus according to Paul. The red letters is where we can extrapolate the real gospel.

 

[Halbhh]

Would Christianity be different without St Paul?

Could Christianity survive without his teachings?

I am starting to wonder if we should hold onto the words of Jesus in the NT more than those of Paul. It seems to me that Paul has taken over the NT. Rightly or wrongly so?

Without Paul, Christ would have chosen others to do his part.

But does Paul's teaching replace Christ's?...

Consider Paul's answer--

12What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you... "

If you read through the gospels and through Paul's epistles, you will see Paul echoing Christ many times.

Perhaps the best thing for you to read next is exactly a gospel or two, to get the real version, and later when you read a Pauline epistle, read through fully from chapter 1 all the way through, not just pieces.

Read full books, pausing to absorb all you can.

Then you will see Paul line up with Christ.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Those would be Christians who do not really understand the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing to us the scriptures we now possess.

Jesus wrote nothing. We don't know for sure that His actual disciples wrote anything themselves. We do know for sure, of course, that none of them was personally responsible for their words living beyond their own lifetimes. All of what we have is the result of the Holy Spirit inspiring men to write, and then inspiring following Christians to cherish and preserve their words.

It's not Jesus' words versus Paul's words, it's the Holy Spirit who provided us with all the words.

Of course Jesus wrote nothing. I didn't mean to imply that He did.

But if we trust the Gospel writers, my point is that Christ God being quoted Himself (by whoever held the pen) - there are some Christians who hold those direct teachings from Christ's own words to a higher authority.

Orthodox Christians would be among those.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Would Christianity be different without St Paul?

Could Christianity survive without his teachings?

I am starting to wonder if we should hold onto the words of Jesus in the NT more than those of Paul. It seems to me that Paul has taken over the NT. Rightly or wrongly so?

We would never had known about justification by faith and the Reformation would not have taken place and we might still be subject to a universal Church that called the religious shots without us having a Bible of our own or any freedom of worship that we now have.

 

[Swan7]

I have no idea why Paul is being questioned at all. Have you not read that Jesus, after He was resurrected, came to Paul and dramatically changed him to further His ministry? How can you take that completely out of the Bible? This is like questioning God if He did at all preserve His word. I believe He indeed did with the whole 66 books in the Bible - which is a significant number, as is the 4 Gospels.

On surface level it can look like Paul is in contradiction to the words of Jesus, but he isn't. I highly suggest to ask God this very question. Trust Him, not yourselves.

 

[Halbhh]

Of course Jesus wrote nothing. I didn't mean to imply that He did.

But if we trust the Gospel writers, my point is that Christ God being quoted Himself (by whoever held the pen) - there are some Christians who hold those direct teachings from Christ's own words to a higher authority.

Orthodox Christians would be among those.

The everlasting words Christ said are in a special level of being for all of eternity --

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."

Paul's writings (just as you've said) are usually to a specific church and it's specific temporary situation.

 

[timewerx]

Would Christianity be different without St Paul?

Could Christianity survive without his teachings?

I am starting to wonder if we should hold onto the words of Jesus in the NT more than those of Paul. It seems to me that Paul has taken over the NT. Rightly or wrongly so?

Maybe. I think what particularly stood out is justification by faith alone. James had a much different (contrasting) teaching on the same subject.

 

[JackRT]

I very much doubt that Christianity would have survived at all without Paul but I am also convinced that the Christianity that did survive would not have been recognized by the historical Jesus.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

No,

And we should listen to all of God's prophets and apostles.

 

[DamianWarS]

If Paul's teaching was so radically different from that of the other Apostles - the early Church would have split into two.

Without the Roman Empire as it's buddy the church would be a lot more varied than it is today and there undoubtedly would be an anti-pauline movement. There probably would be absent a large official body that could call councils to oust heretical movements but more smaller regional bodies across the globe that probably wouldn't be more challenged/unified until the printing press was invented.

 

[RDKirk]

Of course Jesus wrote nothing. I didn't mean to imply that He did.

But if we trust the Gospel writers, my point is that Christ God being quoted Himself (by whoever held the pen) - there are some Christians who hold those direct teachings from Christ's own words to a higher authority.

Orthodox Christians would be among those.

The gospels were not written as Jesus spoke. They were written at some point many years later by people who recalled what He spoke (or recalled what they heard that He spoke)--by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

That same Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write what the Holy Spirit wanted him to write.

It doesn't make sense to think that the Holy Spirit who inspired one set of unknown writers was less reliable than the Holy Spirit who inspired Paul.

 

[hedrick]

Bravo! You are a wise person! The original gospel of Jesus changed after he left. The NT is basically Jesus according to Paul. The red letters is where we can extrapolate the real gospel.

I give priority to Jesus' teaching as well. But there's a danger. Jesus taught that he came to bring the Kingdom of God, that it was based on him, that we were called to join him as its agents, and we would be held accountable for how we responded.

But this is all before his death and resurrection. The early Christian community experienced the resurrected Jesus, as someone they could have spiritual communion with, and as the source of new life. Do we ignore that half of the story because Jesus didn't say anything about it during his life? It's that half of the story that we see in Paul and the Gospel of John. You can say that his followers created a whole new thing that he wouldn't have approved of, and ignore Paul. But it seems reasonable to say that Jesus can't have been expected to teach about that during his life because it wouldn't have made sense, and thus the early church experience with the resurrected Jesus is also something we should include in our faith.

Paul isn't the only witness. But he's the most detailed.

 

[Stone-n-Steel]

Some scripture to consider. I don't think salvation as we know it would exist without the Pauline epistles.

Matt. 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Rom. 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Gal. 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

Eph. 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, 2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

Col. 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

There is no Biblical grounds for denying Paul's writings as constituent to Scripture. Paul's conversion was initiated by a miraculous appearance of the risen Christ Himself (Acts 9:3-16), and His Gospel was given by direct revelation (Galatians 1:11-16). If you want to reject that, Luke, an author of one of the Gospels, and Peter also confirms this and designates Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16), and Peter is the one of whom Christ called the rock on which He would build His Church (Matthew 16:18). So to deny Paul, you must deny Peter, and if you reject Peter you reject Christ since he speaks the Word of Christ as inspired in Scripture:

"The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)

 

[RDKirk]

Interesting that the people who know the apostles and first generation of Christians beyond the Apostles had no problem accepting Paul.

If they'd had a problem accepting Paul's writing, we wouldn't have his letters and wouldn't be having this discussion.

So it's silly that people 2000 years hence come up with anti-Pauline issues when the people who knew the apostles had accepted him.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Would Christianity be different without St Paul?

Of course it would.

But then Judaism would look quite a bit different without the words of Moses.

Obviously the entire witness of the scriptures would be different if God had, for some reason, chosen to delete every other word in the scriptures.

But He didn't - and, according to Jesus, a man is a fool who doesn't believe "all that the prophets have spoken".

Why? Because that would yield something quite different from what believing the entirety of the scriptures yields.

P.S.
We see this often here in the forum - when some people try to preach a message of salvation built only on the words of Jesus in the four gospels.

There are a couple of threads in the forum right now which attempt to do that very thing.

I certainly hope that the desired end of this thread's O.P. question is not the proclamation of a different gospel than the one we have delivered to us through all of the words of the prophets.

 

[Danielwright2311]

Would Christianity be different without St Paul?

Could Christianity survive without his teachings?

I am starting to wonder if we should hold onto the words of Jesus in the NT more than those of Paul. It seems to me that Paul has taken over the NT. Rightly or wrongly so?

I follow only the teachings of Jesus as he is the son of God and the one who judges, not Paul.

Jesus forgives sin and it was Gods plan to be so.

But there is nothing truly wrong with the teachings of Paul for his time for the teachings of a man as he was not perfect him self, no man is.

But I only go to the teachings of Jesus as he is the judge and man is not.