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.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,873,329 times
Reputation: 4559
Advertisements
I am only a recent member off this forum, but those of you that have read some of my comments really understand that I am NOT a Christian nor will I ever be a Christian
That being said, I have extensively studied the Bible, in two languages, along with numerous concordances, and numerous historical books that deal with religious issues. It is that study which has insured that I would stay away from this religion; I have to much of a scientific mind and respect nature too much, which has its own spiritual values.
That study has also indicated to me that the greatest mover in early times of Christianity was Paul. There's no question in anybody's mind that he was real person. One could give him credit is being the primary salesperson of Christianity at that time.
In your opinions how would Christianity have developed without Paul's efforts and writings? Most biblical scholars acknowledge that the gospels were written after Paul and many of those scholars believe that the synoptic writers drew on Paul's writings for their gospels. Who wrote the first synoptic gospel is still being debated and I won't draw any conclusions on that.
So the question becomes, would Christianity be any different, either by faith or by dogma, if Paul had not been written or him not being as good a proselytizer as he was? Paul was to Christianity what Buddha was to Buddhism and Mohammed to Islam.
Thoughts? Please don't sidetrack on some of my comments but discuss the main thrust of the question... how Christianity would look like without Paul.
The story of Buddha's birth is more akin to Jesus than to Paul's.
Buddha was BCE (Before Common Era) and Buddhists sacred texts are CE (Common Era).
The Coptic Church does not trace it's origin to Paul but to the Apostle Mark. The Church of Jerusalem to the Apostle James. The Church of India in Kerala to the Apostle Thomas.
The Church of Rome is traced to the Apostles Peter and Paul.
Unlike Buddhism the sacred texts of the New Testament were composed soon after the death of Christ. It would take about 300 years until an official canon of various texts were put together though.
But I like how you attribute Buddhism to Buddha and Islam to Mohammad, and carry on the narrative Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus.
Kind of makes the Church of Satan ironic. I mean... they do not model themselves as a contradiction to Hinduism, Buddhism, or Islam. They mark themselves a contradiction to Christianity and the Christians Jesus.
I study science too, and respect nature, so, I don't care about your self accolades of having a "scientific mind."
Paul was a significant contributor and Church Father to Early Christianity, yes. I don't know how Christianity would look without Paul. Why don't you go ask the Coptics? The Church of Rome with it's Bishop (Pope) would still claim to be the successor of the Apostle Peter.
How would Christianity look with out the Apostle John and the Book of Revelations attributed to him? How would it look without the Virgin Mary? Without Judas? Without Europe?
Who would the United States look without George Washington? Without Thomas Jefferson?
How would Al Qaida look without Osama Bin Laden?
What would be the fate of Syria today if Obama was a plumber in Chicago and had never become President of the United States?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,873,329 times
Reputation: 4559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
What did Siddhartha Buddha write?
The story of Buddha's birth is more akin to Jesus than to Paul's.
Buddha was BCE (Before Common Era) and Buddhists sacred texts are CE (Common Era).
the Coptic Church does not trace it's origin to Paul but to the Apostle Mark. The Church of Jerusalem to the Apostle James. The Church of India in Kerala to the Apostle Thomas.
The Church of Rome is traced to the Apostles Peter and Paul.
Unlike Buddhism the sacred texts of the New Testament were composed soon after the death of Christ. It would take about 300 years until an official canon of various texts were put together though.
But I like how you attribute Buddhism to Buddha and Islam to Mohammad, and carry on the narrative Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus.
Kind of makes the Church of Satan ironic. I mean... they do not model themselves as a contradiction to Hinduism, Buddhism, or Islam. They mark themselves a contradiction to Christianity and the Christians Jesus.
I study science too, and respect nature, so, I don't care about your self accolades of having a "scientific mind."
Paul was a significant contributor and Church Father to Early Christianity, yes. I don't know how Christianity would look without Paul. Why don't you go ask the Coptics? The Church of Rome with it's Bishop (Pope) would still claim to be the successor of the Apostle Peter.
How would Christianity look with out the Apostle John and the Book of Revelations attributed to him? How would it look without the Virgin Mary? Without Judas? Without Europe?
Who would the United States look without George Washington? Without Thomas Jefferson?
How would Al Qaida look without Osama Bin Laden?
What would be the fate of Syria today if Obama was a plumber in Chicago and had never become President of the United States?
What if Buddha was a woman?
What if Mohammad was a black man named Marvin?
Didn't any one tell you that one does not answer a question with a question?
That just comes across as dismissive. If that was your intention... congratulations, you succeeded. It says more about you then me, and I hope you feel really good about yourself.
Didn't any one tell you that one does not answer a question with a question?
That just comes across as dismissive. If that was your intention... congratulations, you succeeded. It says more about you then me, and I hope you feel really good about yourself.
It's almost Christian like.
I answered your question. I thought being "scientific minded" you'd at least have basic reading comprehension.
My answer in post #2:
Quote:
Paul was a significant contributor and Church Father to Early Christianity, yes. I don't know how Christianity would look without Paul. Why don't you go ask the Coptics? The Church of Rome with it's Bishop (Pope) would still claim to be the successor of the Apostle Peter.
Also I had stated this:
Quote:
The Coptic Church does not trace it's origin to Paul but to the Apostle Mark. The Church of Jerusalem to the Apostle James. The Church of India in Kerala to the Apostle Thomas.
At about the 5:36 mark of this video it speaks of the Apostle Mark founding the Coptic Church in Egypt.
Than at about the 11:30 or 11:50 or so mark of the video it mentions the Apostle Mark starting a Christian doctrine school with St. Justin Martyr presiding as the Dean of the school.
CHRISTianity is not about Paul, but, about CHRIST! -- God did not need Paul in order to offer Salvation and Life to the World --- He sent Christ! While Paul recorded most of the letters that we regard as the New Testament, he was appalled by those who sought to make him more important than Christ or the message.
1 Cor 3:1-6 - 3 Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? 4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?
5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,873,329 times
Reputation: 4559
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghorton
CHRISTianity is not about Paul, but, about CHRIST! -- God did not need Paul in order to offer Salvation and Life to the World --- He sent Christ! While Paul recorded most of the letters that we regard as the New Testament, he was appalled by those who sought to make him more important than Christ or the message.
1 Cor 3:1-6 - 3 Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? 4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?
5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow.
That's all nice and good, but my question still stands, could Christianity have developed in the same manner if Paul was not there to promote it?
So the question becomes, would Christianity be any different, either by faith or by dogma, if Paul had not been written or him not being as good a proselytizer as he was? Paul was to Christianity what Buddha was to Buddhism and Mohammed to Islam.
Thoughts? Please don't sidetrack on some of my comments but discuss the main thrust of the question... how Christianity would look like without Paul.
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?
It is really hard to say how Christianity would have developed without Paul's input in the light of the initial impression that the faith was an extension of Judaism by many without really taking into account the growing hostility among the traditional Jews to the new message. Who wrote the book of Hebrews though?
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.