Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No it would have not. Before Paul , the Christians were mainly Jews. They preached the coming kingdom, nothing of the heavenlies, nothing of grace. Paul was to bring the gospel to the Gentiles. He had the gospel to the uncircumcised (Gentiles) Peter brought the gospel to the circumcised.
Peter was taught his gospel by Christ while he was alive. Paul was given the gospel for grace by the resurrected Christ. The Gentiles will judge angels among the celestials, the Jews will judge the nations on earth.
Without Paul, the message would have been to Jews primarily.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by saved33
Yes, of course Christianity would have still spread.
Why and how? Jesus/God commanded it to be so.
Read Acts 1: Jesus said to His disciples, "you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
Paul wasn't even converted yet when Jesus spoke these words.
But the ones spread the message were not the apostles, but Paul. We have no documentation of any apostles doing any of the work that Jesus supposedly told them to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150
You have it wrong as Paul was not to Christianity as the Buddha or the Prophet. Jesus is the Guy, not Paul.
As a side note Paul was Vetted by Peter, John, James and several other apostles. So what is your game?
They've vetted, but did not do the job themselves? Really I wonder why?
Besides which there is a difference between Acts and Galatians as to who Paul met after he came back from Damascus.
But then the Bible is full of these little differences... here there and everywhere, isn't it?
Buddha and Mohammed seem to have been pretty good in distributing their message by themselves. It is interesting that the apostles didn't. I can understand from a biblical point of view why Jesus was not able to do that.
Paul's writings are the earliest of any written testimony about Jesus. His first epistle, I Thessalonians has been dated between 48 and 50 C.E., some two decades following Jesus' crucifixion. So as early testimony it is important. Unfortunately Paul showed an enormous lack of interest in the historical Jesus and spent only two or three weeks with Peter and other disciples who actually knew Jesus, walked with Him, and heard Him speak. To me it's very strange to have a new convert not particularly interested in the life of the one who spoke to him on the road to Damascus.
Indeed, Paul only mentions three scenes from Jesus' life in his epistles: the Last Supper (I Cor. 11:23-26, the crucifixion (I Cor. 2:2), and, most crucially for Paul, the resurrection, without which "our preaching is empty and your faith is in vain." (I Cor. 15:14). Paul is excellent as a guide for those interested in early formation of Christianity, but is less than stellar for those who wish to learn about the historical Jesus.
That leaves us with the gospels, the earliest of which is Mark whom most scholars believe was written sometime after 70 C.E., about four decades after Jesus's death. The author had at his disposal a collection of oral and perhaps even a few written traditions that had been passed around by Jesus' followers for years. Mark added a chronological narrative to these traditions and created a whole new literary genre called "gospel" or "good news." That is where the story of Jesus really begins.
Paul's message lifted the spiritual view of Jesus away from a sect of Jews that felt He belonged only to them as did the One, True God, and gave it to the Gentiles as well. He also began the movement from a radical Jesus to one more loving, forgiving and less demanding.
If you read Mark without giving any consideration to the other synoptic gospels, you see a Jesus more akin to John the Baptist, one who suffered quietly on the cross until His last words, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? One who is cryptic in His statements, one Who at times is angry.
That Jesus was somewhat unsatisfying for many early Christians who wanted to know more about Him. In Mark He simply arrives and is baptized. His body is crucified. His body is placed in a tomb. Three days later it is gone. There is no resurrection story (Mark 16:9-20 are not found in the oldest manuscripts). The earliest Christians were puzzled both by the abrupt appearance and the disappearance of Jesus. But some of them may have had Paul's earlier writings telling of a resurrection. It fell upon the authors of Matthew and Luke to improve upon (or fill out the tale if you would) Mark's account. They did this by using some of Mark's material, but also by adding new material, some of which is common to Matthew and Luke exclusively, and which scholars have dubbed the "Q" source, what must have been an early and well distributed collection of Jesus's sayings. They also added birth and resurrection stories to give a more complete view of Jesus. Paul's writings most certainly had to have impacted the later two gospels.
Paul's impact on the spread of the early church was certainly enormous. I think, too, his impact on the authors of Matthew and Luke, especially Luke, may have enhanced the "spiritual" view of Jesus, but only by moving us further away from the historical Jesus.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 09-08-2013 at 12:47 AM..
Reason: Formatting
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Paul's writings are the earliest of any written testimony about Jesus. His first epistle, I Thessalonians has been dated between 48 and 50 C.E., some two decades following Jesus' crucifixion. So as early testimony it is important. Unfortunately Paul showed an enormous lack of interest in the historical Jesus and spent only two or three weeks with Peter and other disciples who actually knew Jesus, walked with Him, and heard Him speak. To me it's very strange to have a new convert not particularly interested in the life of the one who spoke to him on the road to Damascus.
Indeed, Paul only mentions three scenes from Jesus' life in his epistles: the Last Supper (I Cor. 11:23-26, the crucifixion (I Cor. 2:2), and, most crucially for Paul, the resurrection, without which "our preaching is empty and your faith is in vain." (I Cor. 15:14). Paul is excellent as a guide for those interested in early formation of Christianity, but is less than stellar for those who wish to learn about the historical Jesus.
That leaves us with the gospels, the earliest of which is Mark whom most scholars believe was written sometime after 70 C.E., about four decades after Jesus's death. The author had at his disposal a collection of oral and perhaps even a few written traditions that had been passed around by Jesus' followers for years. Mark added a chronological narrative to these traditions and created a whole new literary genre called "gospel" or "good news." That is where the story of Jesus really begins.
Paul's message lifted the spiritual view of Jesus away from a sect of Jews that felt He belonged only to them as did the One, True God, and gave it to the Gentiles as well. He also began the movement from a radical Jesus to one more loving, forgiving and less demanding.
If you read Mark without giving any consideration to the other synoptic gospels, you see a Jesus more akin to John the Baptist, one who suffered quietly on the cross until His last words, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? One who is cryptic in His statements, one Who at times is angry.
That Jesus was somewhat unsatisfying for many early Christians who wanted to know more about Him. In Mark He simply arrives and is baptized. His body is crucified. His body is placed in a tomb. Three days later it is gone. There is no resurrection story (Mark 16:9-20 are not found in the oldest manuscripts). The earliest Christians were puzzled both by the abrupt appearance and the disappearance of Jesus. But some of them may have had Paul's earlier writings telling of a resurrection. It fell upon the authors of Matthew and Luke to improve upon (or fill out the tale if you would) Mark's account. They did this by using some of Mark's material, but also by adding new material, some of which is common to Matthew and Luke exclusively, and which scholars have dubbed the "Q" source, what must have been an early and well distributed collection of Jesus's sayings. They also added birth and resurrection stories to give a more complete view of Jesus. Paul's writings most certainly had to have impacted the later two gospels.
Paul's impact on the spread of the early church was certainly enormous. I think, too, his impact on the authors of Matthew and Luke, especially Luke, may have enhanced the "spiritual" view of Jesus, but only by moving us further away from the historical Jesus.
What you outline here confirms much of what I have read and studied. It might be a bit of a question whether Mark wrote the first gospel, forever I do concur that generally he is accredited have done so.
The concept of Q is somewhat debatable. Q stands for the German word of QUELLE which in this context mean source. Much has been written off how Paul's writings emulate that which is the mix of Egyptian myths including Horus and Iris, and concept that existed in the then popular Mystery religions.
I also agree that the later gospels attempt to fill in parts of the Jesus story that Mark left out. Of course is most of us know it was not until the Council of Nicaea that the groundwork was laid to construct the Bible as we know it now. Nag Hammadi showed us that there are many other gospels that were written at the time. That counsel essentially was a huge political move by Constantine to unify Rome under one religion. He covered all the bases by still worshipping the Sun gods in addition to being Christian.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Blue
I think there would be less division within Christianity had the New Testament ended with the 4 gospels.. (sounds like a new thread)
jmho
You may be right, however Paul was written before the Gospels. As I outlined in my response above the Gospel writers appear to use it as a basis for what they actually wrote later. Of course that brings in a question whether the Gospels would have been written without Pauls epistles that came first? We would then have to be very reliant on the concept of the Q writings.
You may be right, however Paul was written before the Gospels. As I outlined in my response above the Gospel writers appear to use it as a basis for what they actually wrote later. Of course that brings in a question whether the Gospels would have been written without Pauls epistles that came first? We would then have to be very reliant on the concept of the Q writings.
I think that Warden Dresden makes a good point about Paul's interest being essentially in the message of Christ. The concept that the medium is the message had not taken root, and it is this concept that had more to do with the formation of Christianity as a religion than anything Paul had to say. It may be that Paul's writings are about all that kept the focus as much as it was ON that message.
Christianity spread because the message was very solid and much better than other religions. It also put emphasis on helping the poor and that in itself was a novelty.
There was no way to print the books of the NT so these were not available to most people. Christianity spread with oral Tradition, that is why the RCC still uses Tradition. The spread of Christianity went into warp speed when the Catholic Church was adopted by the Roman Empire.
Paul's writings are the earliest of any written testimony about Jesus. His first epistle, I Thessalonians has been dated between 48 and 50 C.E., some two decades following Jesus' crucifixion. So as early testimony it is important. Unfortunately Paul showed an enormous lack of interest in the historical Jesus and spent only two or three weeks with Peter and other disciples who actually knew Jesus, walked with Him, and heard Him speak. To me it's very strange to have a new convert not particularly interested in the life of the one who spoke to him on the road to Damascus.
Indeed, Paul only mentions three scenes from Jesus' life in his epistles: the Last Supper (I Cor. 11:23-26, the crucifixion (I Cor. 2:2), and, most crucially for Paul, the resurrection, without which "our preaching is empty and your faith is in vain." (I Cor. 15:14). Paul is excellent as a guide for those interested in early formation of Christianity, but is less than stellar for those who wish to learn about the historical Jesus.
That leaves us with the gospels, the earliest of which is Mark whom most scholars believe was written sometime after 70 C.E., about four decades after Jesus's death. The author had at his disposal a collection of oral and perhaps even a few written traditions that had been passed around by Jesus' followers for years. Mark added a chronological narrative to these traditions and created a whole new literary genre called "gospel" or "good news." That is where the story of Jesus really begins.
Paul's message lifted the spiritual view of Jesus away from a sect of Jews that felt He belonged only to them as did the One, True God, and gave it to the Gentiles as well. He also began the movement from a radical Jesus to one more loving, forgiving and less demanding.
If you read Mark without giving any consideration to the other synoptic gospels, you see a Jesus more akin to John the Baptist, one who suffered quietly on the cross until His last words, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? One who is cryptic in His statements, one Who at times is angry.
That Jesus was somewhat unsatisfying for many early Christians who wanted to know more about Him. In Mark He simply arrives and is baptized. His body is crucified. His body is placed in a tomb. Three days later it is gone. There is no resurrection story (Mark 16:9-20 are not found in the oldest manuscripts). The earliest Christians were puzzled both by the abrupt appearance and the disappearance of Jesus. But some of them may have had Paul's earlier writings telling of a resurrection. It fell upon the authors of Matthew and Luke to improve upon (or fill out the tale if you would) Mark's account. They did this by using some of Mark's material, but also by adding new material, some of which is common to Matthew and Luke exclusively, and which scholars have dubbed the "Q" source, what must have been an early and well distributed collection of Jesus's sayings. They also added birth and resurrection stories to give a more complete view of Jesus. Paul's writings most certainly had to have impacted the later two gospels.
Paul's impact on the spread of the early church was certainly enormous. I think, too, his impact on the authors of Matthew and Luke, especially Luke, may have enhanced the "spiritual" view of Jesus, but only by moving us further away from the historical Jesus.
The "historical Jesus" is the Jesus of the Coptic Church which regards the Apostle Mark as it's founder and not Paul.
What I find interesting about "historians" is that they have living witnesses to interview for things that occur in our own life time. Like say... the OJ Simpson murder case. Yet, these historians with their supposed infallibility utilizing living eye witnesses, character witnesses, thousands of pages of testimony, DNA and other forensic evidence, can't solve most our modern criminal or mystery dilemmas in our own lifetime.
Yet.... they presume to own more testimony and historical knowledge than the Coptic and Latin Catholic Church--who nearly alone own the archeological and physical evidence to Early Christendom. That includes buildings, clothes, coins, letters and so on.
What living character witness did you interview that knew Paul? Oh yeah... none.
However, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have recorded members that interviewed living witnesses of at least the Apostle John.
It is recorded by Irenaeus, who heard him speak in his youth, and by Tertullian,[3] that he had been a disciple of John the Apostle.[4][5]Saint Jerome wrote that Polycarp was a disciple of John and that John had ordained him bishop of Smyrna.
So, Irenaeus actually heard Polycarp speak (ergo, Polycarp was a form of living character witness for the Apostle John) and Polycarp studied under the Apostle John.
You could make better use of your time solving all the recently unsolved murder cases in the U.S. or your current country of living, that has presumably living eye witnesses and a boatload of evidence, rather than trying claim institutions dating back to the Apostolic era need to listen to your 21st Century pontification as to who the 12 Apostles actually thought Jesus was.
The Book of John attributed to the Apostle John speaks of Jesus as the "Logos" (incarnate word).
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.
There is no directly translatable word in English for the ancient Greek word "Logos," so, the English translation uses the word "Word."
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Or better stated:
"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God."
Christianity spread because the message was very solid and much better than other religions. It also put emphasis on helping the poor and that in itself was a novelty.
There was no way to print the books of the NT so these were not available to most people. Christianity spread with oral Tradition, that is why the RCC still uses Tradition. The spread of Christianity went into warp speed when the Catholic Church was adopted by the Roman Empire.
Better in what way?
Ask Satan who Jesus was. Jesus was a guy with an interesting message no greater in power than him. That's what Satan would say. But then you don't believe in Satan.
You believe in atheists and their message that Jesus was a guy with an interesting message but had no greater power than Obama.
I like history. I've read a fair of it. But the more one reads history the more one realizes historians are more akin to storytellers of fiction than to teachers of truth.
And truth is a problematic word because truth itself is a bit slippery. What is truth?
Orthodox Christianity would claim Christ himself is truth.
I was taught the Historical-Critical Method of interpreting the Bible, so, I'm aware of interpreting the miracles of Jesus in the Bible as allegorical or metaphors. I'm aware of the push to make Jesus just another face beside Stalin's, Obama's, and Tony Blair's.
And a great way to do this is to appeal to the human ego of each person by appealing to "intelligence." To be "academic minded" about the "historical Jesus." And everyone looooves to look smart.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The interesting facts about Paul
Better in what way?
