What would Christianity look like without Paul's writings?

AK - Jeff

A thowoff from Ren's thread obviously.

I am firmly convinced that what is called Christianity today - is actually just Pauline Theology.

If you removed all the portions of the NT that are attributed to Paul, and actually accepted as primary the words of Jesus and his direct followers - the worldwide movement would look far different doctrinally. And as far as the fundy's go - they would be lost without the deep judgmentalism and rules oriented thinking of this writer [whomever he really was].

If Ren's thread could go 15 pages and counting - why not this one?

Thoughts?

Jeff

AllTimeJeff

Oh, you hit my #1 pet peeve with "Christianity".

It's late, and I might spontaneously combust if I get too into this tonight, but suffice to say, churches, JW's, et al, are not organized as Jesus had it. Their world view isn't like Jesus. The judgmental, quick to tell you where your eternal soul is going? Paul all the way.

Christianity would look a lot better if Paul was ignored, and the gospels were paramount.

JW's in particular are notorioius for using Pauline scriptures when they have to get heavy on someone. Because you won't find mandates on their bad behavior in the gospels.

AK - Jeff

ATJ - my point precisely.

The inclusion by the canon-makers was tailor made for control - then and now, wasn't it? I see it everywhere I look. Just post a thread like this and google finds dozens of 'Christian' ads that tell us we are headed for hell if we don't fess up and clean up and get up Sunday to a meetin' somewhere.

It's all about control - Paul wanted to control - and the early church wanted control - the cults want extreme control.

Jeff

cameo-d

According to scriptural admission, Paul was a relative of King Herod.

And from outside reading sources, it appears that Paul was also a member of a "secret society" and his writings were used as "damage control".

Paul was largely responsible for the christian movement.

The "lost sheep of Isreal" was his mission. They were 'lost' because religious law no longer controlled them.

Paul was most likely a member of the Sanhedrin as per Acts 7:58. It was the responsibility of members of the Sanhedrin to witness public stonings. Paul was present in official capacity at this stoning.

Paul also took a Nazarite vow. (Acts 18:18) (Num. 6:2-6; 13-18)

In Acts 28:17 this shows that "customs of our fathers" means traditions of the Jews. Jesus said that some of these traditions were inappropriate and yet Paul upheld them.

I find it rather odd that sources say Pauls letters were written in AD 50-60 yet the gospels were not written until 70-110 AD. I can't quite put together this incongruency.

cameo-d

IN Acts 9:11 and 21:39....Paul was called Saul and same from Tarsus.

But Paul never mentions this.

He claims "I am Israelite by race, tribe of Benjamin..."

It seems he wanted to give the impression that he came from a Pharisaic background and this would not be in keeping had he come from Tarsus. In Tarsus there were very few if any teachers or Pharisical training.

It has often been questioned whether he really did come from a genuine Pharisaic family as it has often been implied that this was merely something he said to increase his status in the eys of the people.

"Scholars feel that however objective their inquiry, they must preserve attitude of deep reverence and not suggest that he bent truth, though evidence is strong enough in various parts of his story that he was not above deception when he felt it was warranted by circumstances."

Was Paul a first century "Theocratic Warfare Warrior", a liar justified in his own eyes?

cameo-d

The Ebonites were the earliest supporters of Jesus. The Ebonites flourished 30-80 C.E. during the same period as the Nazarines. Religious scholars believe it was the early Catholic church that caused the great separatist movement between the Nazarines and the Ebonites.

Thus, in Rome, the Ebonites were labeled as "heretics" because they did not accept the writings of Paul.

Neither did they accept the divinity of Jesus nor the virgin birth.

From what little is known about the Ebonites, and from what I have read, it seems much more logical and reasonable than Paul's Christianity.

Midget-Sasquatch

Well,

I've read one particular authors' speculation that the earliest Jesus movement was actually an offshoot of the Essenes and that they were following the teachings of their Teacher of Righteousness who had died ~ 100 BC. Paul actually began changing things within these ecclesia by claiming that he was actually in communique with the 'risen' Teacher . IOW, Paul created Jesus and thats why so early on there was only a focus on this heavenly Christ figure by Paul and nothing about the Palestinian Jesus.

New converts would be expecting Judgement Day to be soon upon them, so they'd be more interested about the "risen Christ" than on what a historical Jesus did in the past.

There seems to be reason to believe that "sayings" of Jesus circulated very early on though. Once Jerusalem was destroyed and apocalyptic expectations dimmed then the demand for Gospels also grew.

OnTheWayOut

I am reading THE FIRST PAUL; RECLAIMING THE RADICAL VISIONARY BEHIND THE CHURCH'S CONSERVATIVE ICON by Marcus Borg and John Crossan.

It is written by a Catholic and a Protestant who generally accept that Paul did not write all the letters that are attributed to him, but was a radical follower of Christ, taking the message to the Roman empire. The book attempts to show how Paul was (after his death) caused to fit the Roman social norms as regarding slavery, patriarchy, and patronage. This was done by adding letters to his name.

Paul was second only to Jesus as the most influential person in the formation of Christianity. While scholars debate the genuineness of the Gospels and whether they are total mythologies based on what Jesus said or not, they are confident that some (they say 7) of Paul's letters were genuine and were the very first Christian writings to survive into today.

Paul has been used to oppress people- first slaves, then citizens of any country, and always women. He was used to condemn homosexuality.
While the message of the remainder of the NT seemed to be "faith," Paul wrote of "works."

Narkissos

What would the Rolling Stones sound like without Mick Jagger?

There is hardly any shred of Christian tradition about "Jesus" or an "early Jesus movement" that is not directly or indirectly tributary to Paul, or at least to the broader kind of Hellenistic diaspora Jewish theology the Pauline epistles belong to (whether it preserves, follows, adapts, distorts or opposes such Pauline or Pauline-like theology). Ironically the "law-free" aspects of the Jesus picture (in Mark for instance) imply a theology very similar to Paul's, while the "law-abiding" aspects (in Matthew especially) sound as a direct refutation of Paulinism. Iow you can have anti-Pauline (e.g. Ebionite) but not Pauline-free Christianity, at the very least because Paul (and co.) is essential to the emergence of a Christian identity (as distinct from Judaism) in the first place.

Nonetheless it is quite remarkable that the "Jesus" figure was eventually constructed in such a way that it could be opposed to "Paul". But this imo rather reflects the diverse reception and integration of Paulinism in the early church than a pre-Pauline tradition.

While the message of the remainder of the NT seemed to be "faith," Paul wrote of "works."

Well, I guess if you can write that you can write anything.

slimboyfat

If it looked like what's described in the book of James it might not be that bad.

What would Christianity look like without Paul's writings?

Share this