Would Christianity be different without St Paul?

[Rubiks]

Without Paul, Christianity would probably remain a Jewish sect, and possibly even fade in obscurity.

 

[RDKirk]

Let’s also keep in mind that Paul was the only apostle to the Gentiles.

Paul started out with the Jews as God said first to the Jews then to the Gentiles, but to think a ministry to the Gentiles would not be different than one to the Jews is not understanding how things changed from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant and that to bring all under one sheep pen was handling two very different situations.

Paul was dealing with a lot of idol worship like Diana. Aphrodite and all sorts of false dieties. It was a totally different situation

There could have been others out of Antioch--notice that someone other than Paul initially instructed Aquilla and Priscilla.

But it's certainly clear that the Holy Spirit used Hellenist Christians to carry the gospel out of Jerusalem, and He used Saul to make that diaspora happen. Notice that when Saul commenced his pogrom that it was his fellow Hellenists that he attacked--he left the Hebraic Christians alone.

If Saul's attack had been upon all Christians, he'd surely have gone against the "ringleaders" of the sect--the Hebraic apostles. But we see in Acts that the Apostles remained in Jerusalem, several named Hellenist Christians high-tailed it out of town, and Saul decided to go all the way to Syria chasing down other Hellenists instead of continuing to root out Christianity at its source.

The Holy Spirit was behind all that. It's no accident that the "gate" of Christianity out of Jerusalem was through Antioch or that followers of Jesus were first called "Christian" in Antioch.

So I'm sure if it had not been been the conversion of Saul, it would have been some other Hellenist. If the Church was going to survive the destruction of Judea as a nation in 70AD, the Holy Spirit had to establish a second headquarters outside Jerusalem. God was using Saul even before Saul became Paul.

 

[Sketcher]

God had a purpose for redeeming Paul, and for his missionary journeys and for his letters. If for some reason Paul had died before his conversion, God would have moved and inspired similar missionary journeys and letters for the New Testament. Jesus and Paul are not in disagreement, Paul defers to Jesus.

 

[Rubiks]

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.

People who reject Paul don't actually believe Jesus appeared to him. They will respond by saying Paul suffered from epilepsy.

 

[hedrick]

Hi Hedrick, I always like your wise and mature insights on CF. I agree that the Gentile world experienced the resurrected Jesus and the story of parts of his life from Paul and his followers. But sooooo much of the focus of Paul, and subsequent Christianity, was/is about the death and resurrection, overlooking the triumphant life that Jesus had already demonstrated.

I agree. Protestants historically have tended to focus so much on Paul that they lose Jesus' own perspective. One of the main differences between conservative and liberal Protestantism is that liberal Protestants have tried to restore Jesus' own definition of the Gospel. But Christianity is based on people experiencing the power of Christ in their lives. Paul is the most specific witness to this. Maybe just because of the amount of the NT that is his.

But it's not just Paul. Take a look at Acts, or the Johannine literature.

 

[dqhall]

Gal. 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

I am sure the Lord would have raised up someone to have a ministry to us and I do think He choose the right person who was at that time the leader of the persecution.

I estimated Paul and Barnabas were on the level of the Jewish apostles as both had learned the Gospel from them and proved themselves competent in training other church members. God may not be able to find perfect people, but God increased people's competency.

Paul had already denounced his past role of persecuting the church.

 

[Lost4words]

I believe that even without Paul, Christianity would have grown via the Holy Spirit and the death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[PaulCyp1]

Everything that is in the Bible was put there by the bishops of the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They studied, prayed and discussed many documents for several years before finally selecting the 73 texts God wanted included. If you don't believe that some parts of the Bible are divinely inspired, there isn't any reason to believe that any of them are.

 

[zoidar]

The Reformers did not fail to take the entire NT into their theologies.

If so why do many protestants today believe they don't have to obey Christ to be saved?

 

[fat wee robin]

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.

Yes Paul is a kind of publicity agent ,but real Chrstians hear Jesus, when He speaks
and not the publicist . Unless you have the voice of Jesus ,not Paul in your heart ,you
have a problem . And yes ,Paul is too significant in churches ,at the expense of our Saviour .
No ,I am nNot saying do away with Paul ,just keep reminding people he is just a messenger .

 

[ToBeLoved]

I agree. Protestants historically have tended to focus so much on Paul that they lose Jesus' own perspective. One of the main differences between conservative and liberal Protestantism is that liberal Protestants have tried to restore Jesus' own definition of the Gospel. But Christianity is based on people experiencing the power of Christ in their lives. Paul is the most specific witness to this. Maybe just because of the amount of the NT that is his.

But it's not just Paul. Take a look at Acts, or the Johannine literature.

It would be good for you to list the verses that Jesus said and the verses that Paul said and why you see them as different.

Otherwise this is just unsubstantiated opinion.

What do you feel is Jesus definition of the gospel and then what do you feel is Paul’s?

Please include scripture

 

[ToBeLoved]

Yes Paul is a kind of publicity agent ,but real Chrstians hear Jesus, when He speaks
and not the publicist . Unless you have the voice of Jesus ,not Paul in your heart ,you
have a problem . And yes ,Paul is too significant in churches ,at the expense of our Saviour .
No ,I am nNot saying do away with Paul ,just keep reminding people he is just a messenger .

The problem with this philosophy is that in reading scripture we know Jesus entire ministry was only three years and that Jesus never intended to share and explain everything Himself. If He had, much more would have been written.

Jesus said that it was on the Apostles that He would build His Church and the writings of the Apostles all came after His death.

It is short sighted to see that God used people all throughout scripture to share His message. But suddenly after Jesus this should have just stopped?

Where does scripture tell us that?

 

[Halbhh]

But God chose to include those letters in His Word. So I believe God knew that these issues were issues that many others would experience and that Paul’s letters were included for a reason.

Very much so. We read Paul's epistles and immediately recognized situations in our churches we need apply Paul's instructions.

The OP and everyone here recognizes the inspired truth and value of Paul's epistles. Does Paul even need defending? Not in this thread first 20 or 25 responses i read.

We are discussing the OP question though! It's a shocking question in post #1. But I think perhaps the need is more full reading.

 

[fat wee robin]

Everything that is in the Bible was put there by the bishops of the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They studied, prayed and discussed many documents for several years before finally selecting the 73 texts God wanted included. If you don't believe that some parts of the Bible are divinely inspired, there isn't any reason to believe that any of them are.

There is a difference between being indirectly inspired through writings ,and hearing GOD'S voice directly into your being .This is the difference between His Sheep and the others ,who need constantly to be reminded of what men say .

 

[hedrick]

It would be good for you to list the verses that Jesus said and the verses that Paul said and why you see them as different.

Otherwise this is just unsubstantiated opinion.

What do you feel is Jesus definition of the gospel and then what do you feel is Paul’s?

Please include scripture

Mat 10:7
"As you go, proclaim the good news, ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’"
Luke 4:18
" The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
Everywhere "good news" is used in the Gospels it is about the coming of the Kingdom of God. Jesus brings it. It includes healing people and restoring their relationship to God.

The following is often taken to summarize Paul's definition:
"Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, 2 through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you—unless you have come to believe in vain. 3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures," 1 Cor 15:1-4.

These two definitions are not mutually exclusive, but the emphasis is different, both in these summaries and the broader message of Jesus and Paul. Jesus' teaching largely lacks the idea that he died for our sins, nor is the kind of Christian experience of Jesus presence that we see in Paul and other NT documents there. The reason for the latter is obvious: he was still there during the Gospels. The major exception to dying for us is the Words of Institution, though only Matthew says specifically that it's for our sins. The primary implication of the Words of Institution is the connection with Jer 31:31, which implies that it's a covenant sacrifice (a theme taken up in more detail in Heb 9-10).

Please remember that I'm not setting the two concepts against each other. All types of Christianity I know, including liberal Christianity, use both. I think it's reasonable that a Church that experienced Christ's presence after the resurrection would have things to say that wouldn't have been understandable during his life.

 

[fat wee robin]

The problem with this philosophy is that in reading scripture we know Jesus entire ministry was only three years and that Jesus never intended to share and explain everything Himself. If He had, much more would have been written.

Jesus said that it was on the Apostles that He would build His Church and the writings of the Apostles all came after His death.

It is short sighted to see that God used people all throughout scripture to share His message. But suddenly after Jesus this should have just stopped?

Where does scripture tell us that?

I am not shortsighted ,perhaps it is you who is, as I never said that after Jesus it had stopped . That is a false interpretation ,and it makes me wonder if you read what people write .
There is much that has been revealed to some people ,which is not revealed to
others today ,and it is not yet accepted in the church .

 

[fat wee robin]

Paul's words were not Paul's.
Paul's teachings were not Paul's.

So if it was not Paul, then whose words and whose teachings were they?

Jesus Christ, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

If people claim that the words and teachings of Jesus are different to those of Paul, then they have neither understood the teachings of Jesus nor those of Paul for that matter.

I am very concerned that there may be an agenda to relegate Paul's teachings outside of the scope of what is Canon.

Hebrew Roots Movement is one such agenda.

I don't think you are getting the subtility of what the poster is saying ,and maybe
it is beyond certain souls who cannot, because of their hearts discern the difference between the Master's voice ,and that of the man or men, who were given the task to teach what God had given them .

 

[Small Fish]

I

Some interesting posts.

What proof do we have that Jesus did talk to Paul on the road to Damascus?

I am not saying Paul has no right to be in the position he is in now in Christianity but the NT is occupied by a lot of his works. If we didnt have them, would we now be on a different course!

For me it is not a matter whether Paul had a right or not. I don't think Paul had much of a choice unless he wanted to find himself in direct disobedience to Christ. This is what God called him for. And the proof would be in Christ's dealings with you as an individual on this matter. Revelation comes from above. Matthew 16.

 

[zoidar]

Paul's teachings certainly not contradict Jesus's. The problem is when people use Paul's teachings to understand Christ's, instead of the other way around.

 

[Swan7]

People who reject Paul don't actually believe Jesus appeared to him. They will respond by saying Paul suffered from epilepsy.

Reciting a few verses here that I believe hold context to this thread: Matthew 7:15-20, Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:5-6, and finally Revelation 22:18-19
They would have to throw out the Bible as a whole, if that's the case.

God indeed gave Paul a mission, why would God allow this to be in His word if it were not true? To me, it seems to question the very mission Jesus had on this earth and that He hand picked His disciples/apostles.

I just find it very .... interesting I guess that some people believe Paul was never an Apostle/disciple of Jesus.