Christianity minus Paul

[kenod]

Because Paul set the ground rules. Even though the message of Jesus was out, the churches needed guidance (that is where Paul comes in). The churhes were squabbling or back sliding or a whole bevy of indiscretions and Paul became the "arbiter".

That is why we need Paul. And that is why Jesus placed people like Paul in positions of authority in order to keep the fledgling churches moving in the right direction.

v/r

Q

When you read 2 Peter 2 and see how the false teachers are so roundly denounced, the comparison with Peter's words about Paul in the next chapter, indicate great confidence in Paul's understanding of Scripture:

14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.
​

 

[juantoo3]

What's left is the teaching of Jesus, and Jesus never had to quote Paul's teaching to fulfill His mission.

If Jesus did not need to quote Paul, why would we?

Well, you see, there is a little problem with this reasoning, in that Jesus (or Yashua) did not actually write any of the books of the Bible. And some of the people who wrote the books containing Jesus' words, were compatriots of Paul (according to V. Garaffa). Since Paul's cohorts are to be discredited as well, meaning Luke and Mark, that takes away half of Jesus' words. And we all know we can't trust a tax collector now, can we? so there goes Matthew. And had it not been for the efforts of Paul, John's work (gospel, epistles and Revelations) would have all been trampled underfoot of the Roman army and lost to the world.

Ergo: no words of Jesus would exist (as any more than historical curiousities) without the efforts of Paul.

One might as well be Jewish, or Deist.

 

[juantoo3]

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

I don't get it. Are you quoting Paul to refute Paul? Take away Paul, the "Word" stays in Jerusalem and Israel (one must first be Jewish!), and tries, most likely unsuccessfully, to survive the Roman onslaught and destruction of Jerusalem and Israel. Only the diaspora survived, and what survived in radically changed from what existed at that time. Both for Judaism and Christianity. Both had to change to survive!

In short, if Paul is gone, this verse from his personal assistant Luke does not exist, and the commission to go to the goyim and the nations does not exist. In other words, Christianity dies an ignoble death without Paul. Like him personally or not, like him professionally or not, that is the way things would have come about otherwise. No Christianity without Paul. So why be Christian at all???

 

[Quahom1]

indeed...the only words Jesus ever wrote, were written in the dirt, and then erased. However, they must have had some meaning, because the act it self was not lost on the witnesses that tell His story.

 

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by Excaliburton
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

I don't get it. Are you quoting Paul to refute Paul? Take away Paul, the "Word" stays in Jerusalem and Israel (one must first be Jewish!), and tries, most likely unsuccessfully, to survive the Roman onslaught and destruction of Jerusalem and Israel. Only the diaspora survived, and what survived in radically changed from what existed at that time. Both for Judaism and Christianity. Both had to change to survive!

In short, if Paul is gone, this verse from his personal assistant Luke does not exist, and the commission to go to the goyim and the nations does not exist. In other words, Christianity dies an ignoble death without Paul. Like him personally or not, like him professionally or not, that is the way things would have come about otherwise. No Christianity without Paul. So why be Christian at all???

What I am saying is that even if you accept Paul as a legitimate apostle, (although there is no verse in the Acts that affirms he was an apostle), Luke shows that Peter was the one who was appointed to preach the gospel to the nations (or gentiles).

If you decide to reject both Paul and Luke, the Great Commission at the end of Matthew instructs the original apostles to preach the gospel to all nations and this is also affirmed in Revelation.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Ive said it before and I will say it again.. Paul is blessed indeed.. he is still being persecuted and its been 2000 years.

 

[cyberpi]

If Jesus did not need to quote Paul, why would we?

Well, Jesus (pbuh) did not directly quote anyone here either.

Ive said it before and I will say it again.. Paul is blessed indeed.. he is still being persecuted and its been 2000 years.

Thats not persecution... you can't persecute the corpse. Defile it maybe, but not persecute.

 

[Quahom1]

Well, Jesus (pbuh) did not directly quote anyone here either.


Thats not persecution... you can't persecute the corpse. Defile it maybe, but not persecute.

Try telling that to the outraged Muslims? Hey, fair is fair.

 

[cyberpi]

Try telling that to the outraged Muslims? Hey, fair is fair.

What? Oh, right. Jesus (pbuh) did not quote the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) either.

 

[shadowman]

i heard paul didnt write all of the stuff the bible thinks he wrote.

aparantly there was a tradition back ten of claiming authorsip i order to give credibility, and paul was a big name.

another thig that contributed to the argument was that different things paul supposedly wrote did not have similar writing styles. but i have not done enough homeowrk on either of hese points

 

[Quahom1]

What? Oh, right. Jesus (pbuh) did not quote the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) either.

How could He? Muhammad didn't exist for another 600 years.

 

[Quahom1]

i heard paul didnt write all of the stuff the bible thinks he wrote.

aparantly there was a tradition back ten of claiming authorsip i order to give credibility, and paul was a big name.

another thig that contributed to the argument was that different things paul supposedly wrote did not have similar writing styles. but i have not done enough homeowrk on either of hese points

We know Paul wrote most of what was attributed to him. He wrote and was published while he was alive...and we know the seven churches he was originally addressing. And they were failing at one point or another, but then did not fail...

 

[cyberpi]

We know Paul wrote most of what was attributed to him. He wrote and was published while he was alive...and we know the seven churches he was originally addressing. And they were failing at one point or another, but then did not fail...

I think you'd be more convincing without the 'WE'.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

i heard paul didnt write all of the stuff the bible thinks he wrote.

aparantly there was a tradition back ten of claiming authorsip i order to give credibility, and paul was a big name.

another thig that contributed to the argument was that different things paul supposedly wrote did not have similar writing styles. but i have not done enough homeowrk on either of hese points

Paul wrote: 1st Thessalonians, Galatians, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Romans, Philemon, and Phillippians. Phillippians is actually three letter fragments, written at different times, and pieced together later.

Chris

 

[shadowman]

what about timothy 1 and 2? and hebrews?

 

[Quahom1]

I think you'd be more convincing without the 'WE'.

I'm not concerned what is thought of my collective considerations Cyberbi. Since you are not part of the "collective" (in this case Christian),to begin with, my opinion should not matter to you.

But, if you really have a problem with my "we", you can always notify the administration with your complaint.

 

[cyberpi]

I'm not concerned what is thought of my collective considerations Cyberbi. Since you are not part of the "collective" (in this case Christian),to begin with, my opinion should not matter to you.

But, if you really have a problem with my "we", you can always notify the administration with your complaint.

Just providing an insight for yourself and anyone to consider and think about. 'We think', 'We believe', and 'We know', either reveals a real relationship or an imaginary fantasy.

Are you judging that I'm NOT a disciple and follower of Christ (pbuh)? Care to explain why?

 

[Quahom1]

Just providing an insight for yourself and anyone to consider and think about. 'We think', 'We believe', and 'We know', either reveals a real relationship or an imaginary fantasy.

Are you judging that I'm NOT a disciple and follower of Christ (pbuh)? Care to explain why?

I do not know Cyperbi, where you are coming from. You haven't exactly volunteered that information. You seem quite knowledgable about Chrisitianity.

 

[cyberpi]

I do not know Cyperbi, where you are coming from. You haven't exactly volunteered that information. You seem quite knowledgable about Chrisitianity.

Then I opine there are many that you do not know and do not speak for despite your repeated attempts.

Since the Qur'an says that a Muslim is to believe in Christ (pbuh), the Gospel, and that the true disciples of Christ (pbuh) are Muslim, I opine that your definition of collective, or community, is just that... your definition... your cybboleth.

Should there be others who think exactly like you, then maybe they will not be a thorn when you tell them what they think and believe.

 

[Quahom1]

what about timothy 1 and 2? and hebrews?

Hebrews is in contention.