What would Christianity look like without Paul's writings?

by AK - Jeff 107 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  reniaa

  lol once you start picking and choosing what to follow biblically you end up with a god of your own making...

  Freedom to do what you want while believing in God is satans speech, if you look at Pauls and Jesus's words, Paul is just the practical application of what Jesus taught.

  Jesus was very strict but he showed love around this.

  he used hyperboles to show how important some things were, he said pluck out your own eye rather than think on fornication etc.

  We have no choice to face the practical application of expressing our faith and Paul is good for this because he faced many similar issues on how we can as imperfect people still apply the laws of Jehovah in our lifes.

  Look at the jews would you say God was strict with them? they are another example of practical application the freedom given to christians was not to backslide but to apply principle in many new things that will be thrown at us a christians.

  Reniaa
• 

  slimboyfat

  lol once you start picking and choosing what to follow biblically you end up with a god of your own making...

  How did JWs come up with their canon? Do you know?
• 

  cameo-d

  Renaai: "he said pluck out your own eye rather than think on fornication etc."

  Is that scripture verbatim? Or do you take license picking and choosing your interpretations? Is this a Renaai 'ad lib'?
• 

  OnTheWayOut

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

  Sorry, Nark. I was tired. That doesn't belong there.
• 

  slimboyfat

  What would the Rolling Stones sound like without Mick Jagger?

  Even worse?
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  When Paul writes that ...all scriptures are inspired... is he including his own letters? Did Paul think his "inspirational" letters were "inspired" ?
  Did he just think they were letters written by himself?

  Would Gospels that had not been written be included? Or perhaps Paul was referring to the OT scriptures that Jews accepted.
• 

  Satanus

  The two jeffs agree;)

  Without the CONTROL and ORGANIZATION brought in by paul, followers of jesus would have dispersed like a puff of smoke. Mithraism and zerostrianism would have continued their growth among the romans. Until paul came along, nothing about the jesus character was written down. Then, after 30 yrs or so, paul starts, and so do the socalled gospell writers. Judaism may also have grown more than it did.

  S
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Paul certainly had to be seen as a central foundation figure since both the pro-orthodox and the marcionite streams were claiming Paul supported their own versions of christianity. Without Paul, iyou'd have nothing akin to modern christianity with its expiatory ransom for salvation. If the jewish starter group was Essene influenced, then I'd imagine the reality of Jerusalem and the Temple's destruction would have been devastating.

  I'd think you'd have more offshoots of groups like the sabeans and the manicheans though. Although much more closer to the Egyptian mystery religions than Marcion's conception.
• 

  donuthole

  If you look at the early Christian writings of the 2nd century you'll find that Paul's writings, while not ignored, are not given very much attention. In the 4th century Augustine brought them into focus, particularly Romans, with the preeminence of the doctrine of justification by faith. The protestant movement of Luther, Calvin, etc. was basically a revival of Augustinian Catholicism and Romans became the central book of the Bible, the lens by which all the whole of Scripture was understand, and the point by which the Christian faith revolved.

  I think on some level Paul though is easier to understand than Jesus which may explain his appeal to the western mind. Paul is quite analytical, particularly in the book of Romans as he is constructing his argument piece by piece, answering objections, etc. Jesus on the other hand can be quite cryptic, teaching in parables and providing signs but never really "spelling it out", it is somewhat abstract.

  My preference is not to abandon Paul because I think there is value in what he writes. However, I would rather focus on the teachings of Jesus.
• 

  WTWizard

  Without Paul, Christianity would not exist at all. Jesus did not teach people to follow him--that is a complete scam that the churches seized upon. Paul thought he had to follow Christ, but that was not the case at all.

  What Jesus did teach was that people need to think for themselves and not let others decide what is good and bad for them. Jesus wanted people to think for themselves--in fact, his message actually condemned those who would try to impose their rules on others much more than debauched lifestyles. Jesus was quite tolerant of people that were "debauched", but not of the Pharisess.

  Even on the Sermon on the Mount, if you get past this confusion, people are happier if they are doing their own thinking. Jesus told people not to judge, and to do their own thinking instead of always telling others what to do. When everything one does is what they are told, they stagnate and have nothing of their own to show for their lives. And that's what is meant by "hellfire"--that thought is as tormenting, just before you die, as literal hellfire would have been. The world that Jesus was no part of was a world where everything anyone did was what someone else told them to--Jesus did not subscribe to that viewpoint. That is why Jesus refused to be a king--he did not want everything others did to be what he told them to, either.

  And Jesus doesn't want (assuming he is alive in some sense--physically, he is as dead as when he was murdered) everything we do to be what some religious leader tells us to, either.