Christianity without Paul

[ItISjustme]

In my opinion, there would have been no Christianity without Paul. For whatever reason, a Jewish plot or zealous faith, he was the prime mover, organiser and evangelist amongst the early Christians. As someone said earlier in the thread, and I agree, Christianity could have easily gone the way of a lot of those contemporaneous cults.

I stopped being a Christian when I realised that I could no longer sustain a belief in Jesus as the son of God. That he was a monumentally decent and wonderful human being, yes; divine, no.

Also, to be fair to Paul (it's hard, I know) a lot of the mysogyny he is accused of is down to a combination of misinterpretation of the text, absence of context and the prevailing attitudes of his day.

[emmiedahl]

In my opinion, there would have been no Christianity without Paul. For whatever reason, a Jewish plot or zealous faith, he was the prime mover, organiser and evangelist amongst the early Christians. As someone said earlier in the thread, and I agree, Christianity could have easily gone the way of a lot of those contemporaneous cults.

I stopped being a Christian when I realised that I could no longer sustain a belief in Jesus as the son of God. That he was a monumentally decent and wonderful human being, yes; divine, no.

Also, to be fair to Paul (it's hard, I know) a lot of the mysogyny he is accused of is down to a combination of misinterpretation of the text, absence of context and the prevailing attitudes of his day.

Also, weren't these letters addressing specific problems in specific satellite churches? They were not to my knowledge general advice to be taken by everyone.

I hear you on the Jesus thing. My husband is Catholic and I gave Christianity a fair chance. I have nothing but respect for Jesus and wish Christians would base their lives on his words rather than Paul's.

[ItISjustme]

Also, weren't these letters addressing specific problems in specific satellite churches? They were not to my knowledge general advice to be taken by everyone.

I think you're right. The one I do know some detail about, having read a fair bit around and about it, is the one where he supposedly admonishes that women should be silent in church (a big favourite in the fundie world). In fact, according to what I have read, Paul was addressing a particular congregation about a specific woman they were having trouble with.

One woman and they all subsequently suffer. Bit like Eve :lol:

[reds]

This is just my impression so anyone please jump in if you think the reality is different. Salvation by grace alone is a lot more emphasized from the time of Martin Luther and after. As a reaction against the catholic church's (and I'm just going to lump in the eastern and oriental orthodox churches with them for the purposes of my impresssion) emphasis on works, thinkers like Luther and Calvin emphasized grace, in Calvin's case election, and the believer's absolute certain knowledge of their own salvation. So Paul and any books attributed to him become more prominent. The catholic church still considers salvation to be a continuum rather than a polarity. Meaning you are working out your salvation till you die and an individual believer can never "assume" they have a place in heaven.

This is what i think as an ebil catholic. And i think it is very prideful for people to think that because they claim to know Jesus personally that they are a shoe in for heaven. It is like someone walking up to a hostess in a resturant and saying that they want the best table because they "know" the owner.

[Swamptribe]

We can start shouting if you want. ;) Also, I heard mention of a cookie?

[TXDuck]

I really, really wish I had more time to devote to this subject. This is a fascinating conversation. I hate to post and run but I promise I'll try to post more on this as time permits.

That said, if you really do believe, you should be led by the Holy Spirit to do good works. So while you are justified through faith, you should be engaged in more Christ-like behavior. This is usually how the doctrine of justification through faith alone is reconciled with Jesus' commandment to do good.

I know, I know, it's a very short off-the-cuff answer. I'm sorry.

[2xx1xy1JD]

In my opinion, there would have been no Christianity without Paul. For whatever reason, a Jewish plot or zealous faith, he was the prime mover, organiser and evangelist amongst the early Christians. As someone said earlier in the thread, and I agree, Christianity could have easily gone the way of a lot of those contemporaneous cults.

I stopped being a Christian when I realised that I could no longer sustain a belief in Jesus as the son of God. That he was a monumentally decent and wonderful human being, yes; divine, no.

Also, to be fair to Paul (it's hard, I know) a lot of the mysogyny he is accused of is down to a combination of misinterpretation of the text, absence of context and the prevailing attitudes of his day.

I wonder, to what extent did some of the misogyny and other rotten stuff come from prevailing Roman attitudes, and a desire not to ruffle feathers?

Anyone more knowledgeable than me on early Christian history, please weigh in!

I know that Roman society was hardly egalitarian - it had slavery, absolutely authority for fathers over children, an emperor, etc. At some point, was there a strategic decision NOT to use Christianity to challenge the norms of Roman civil society, but to concentrate on spiritual issues? The whole "render unto Caesar" thing? I'm thinking that the early Christians would have seen the Jews revolt against Rome and suffer the loss of their Temple and exile from Judea in the year 70, and would have wanted to avoid the same fate. Instead, the Church ultimately managed to convert the Roman empire to Christianity, so it may have been a smart political move. Along the way, though, did teachings that were originally designed to simply avoid upsetting the Roman status quo get transformed in teachings that were believed to define Christian values?

[Lana]

That said, if you really do believe, you should be led by the Holy Spirit to do good works. So while you are justified through faith, you should be engaged in more Christ-like behavior. This is usually how the doctrine of justification through faith alone is reconciled with Jesus' commandment to do good.

This is my belief too and understanding of protestant christianity's beliefs. It is important to do good works. But works alone won't save you. Because no human is ever going to be perfect enough to always do good works.

Instead, I believe, as a Christian UU, that we are all saved by grace. Not just believers but non-believers too. But that is where I diverge from mainstream Christianity.

[figuring it out]

I've always interpretted the relationship of faith, grace and works as:

Do the best you can to love and serve everyone, even people you don't think deserve it. When you have done the best, you still will not be perfect and so grace steps in bridge the gap. If you fail to love and honor in actions ALL living, then you don't have claim to grace.

Then again, I tend to pick and choose from all sorts of traditions since I belive humans are, well human and imperfect, and their writing imperfect. I take the best I can and discard those parts that cause cognitive and spiritual dissonance. To be honest, I don't read much of Paul. He seems to have single verses here and there I like and then he has those verses that I think other folks with their own agendas attributed to him in an attempt to gain legitimacy. Ie, Shup up gals and let the men do the talk, wear a head covering etc...

[fluttershies]

I wonder, to what extent did some of the misogyny and other rotten stuff come from prevailing Roman attitudes, and a desire not to ruffle feathers?

Anyone more knowledgeable than me on early Christian history, please weigh in!

I know that Roman society was hardly egalitarian - it had slavery, absolutely authority for fathers over children, an emperor, etc. At some point, was there a strategic decision NOT to use Christianity to challenge the norms of Roman civil society, but to concentrate on spiritual issues? The whole "render unto Caesar" thing? I'm thinking that the early Christians would have seen the Jews revolt against Rome and suffer the loss of their Temple and exile from Judea in the year 70, and would have wanted to avoid the same fate. Instead, the Church ultimately managed to convert the Roman empire to Christianity, so it may have been a smart political move. Along the way, though, did teachings that were originally designed to simply avoid upsetting the Roman status quo get transformed in teachings that were believed to define Christian values?

It would certainly fit in with Christianity going from a minor sect within the Roman empire to the major religion of the Roman empire. I would also be interested in how the growth/spread of Christianity compares to that of Islam.

[emmiedahl]

I wonder, to what extent did some of the misogyny and other rotten stuff come from prevailing Roman attitudes, and a desire not to ruffle feathers?

Anyone more knowledgeable than me on early Christian history, please weigh in!

I know that Roman society was hardly egalitarian - it had slavery, absolutely authority for fathers over children, an emperor, etc. At some point, was there a strategic decision NOT to use Christianity to challenge the norms of Roman civil society, but to concentrate on spiritual issues? The whole "render unto Caesar" thing? I'm thinking that the early Christians would have seen the Jews revolt against Rome and suffer the loss of their Temple and exile from Judea in the year 70, and would have wanted to avoid the same fate. Instead, the Church ultimately managed to convert the Roman empire to Christianity, so it may have been a smart political move. Along the way, though, did teachings that were originally designed to simply avoid upsetting the Roman status quo get transformed in teachings that were believed to define Christian values?

I think there was a point at which they had lost the Jews completely and had to find a new target audience. I don't know if the misogyny came before or after--like if it was added to make the religion more pallatable to Romans, or if the Romans joined and brought their societal attitudes with them.

Either way, Paul's teachings more closely mirror Roman beliefs than Jewish ones. Jews were not impeccable or anything, but they had less organizational misogyny than their neighbors.

[genericJname]

I will reiterate that many of the books claiming to be written by Paul were not. I am under the impression, for example, that few legitimate (i.e. not fundie) scholars will tell your Timothy was written by Paul. It's very accepted that it was not.

See I used to think that Paul was a total douche. Then I recently read Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" and learned that a lot of what is "traditionally" ascribed to Paul is not accepted as his by textual critics. I guess even parts of Corinthians do not match in content or style to the rest of the text, such as the "women be silent at church" bit and were likely not part of the original letter.

Either way, I think there is a vast difference between Jesus' theology (which isn't even clear because all the gospels are so different) and Paul's.

[Itsnotaclowncar]

Has anyone listened to Intro to the New Testament History and Lit through Yale open courses? It's incredibly interesting and spends a good deal of time on Paul. If I remember correctly the professor was raised fundy.

[ohpotteryourotter]

Maybe this has been said before, but fyi, the Messianics (aka fake jews) believe Paul was a heretic and disregard his teachings. So...that is what you would get without Paul.