penguinfan

Did a brief search and could not find another thread that is asking the same question, so sorry if this thread has been done before.

My question in this thread is whether Paul is the real founder of Christianity or not. Jesus says that he came to keep the Law, not break it. Additionally, Jesus also says that he has come only for the lost sheep of Israel. Do you think that Paul's view regarding the Law and the ministry to Gentiles conflicts with the views of Jesus and the apostles?

The early Jewish Christians were actually followers of the Law. It was Paul who disagreed with their practice of observing the dietary restrictions, etc. and considered the Law abrogated. James, Jesus' own brother, maintained that Jews were required to continue observing the Law, however, he eventually conceded after pressure from Paul that Gentiles were not bound to Mosaic Law.

It is my belief that Paul's ministry to the Gentiles was his own invention. I believe that after the failure of the Jewish Christians to convert Jews, Paul extended the message of Christianity to the gentiles to keep Jesus' message alive.

Anyway, that is all I have to say. What are your thoughts?

aa5874

Now, based on the NT, if Saul/Paul was persecuting Christians before he (Saul/Paul) himself became a Christian then it should be obvious that Saul/Paul was NOT the founder of Christianity.

And based on Church History there were many people all over the known world that believed in Jesus Christ long before Saul/Paul was converted to Christ after being blinded by a bright light.

So, Saul/Paul is not the founder of Christianity, and it would appear that his conversion and/or revelations never happened as described. The founder of Christianity cannot be confirmed.

spin

The proposition that Paul invented christianity has been dealt with at length here. The oft-discussed mythicist position -- I gather -- works from the notion.

You may also check out the non-mythicist "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity", Hyam Maccoby, 1986/1998, HarperCollins/Barnes&Noble.


spin

Malachi151

#1 define "Christianity"
#2 define "founder"

#1) "Christianity" as such didn't exist it appears until the 2nd century. The word Christian doesn't appear until 2nd century documents. "Christianity" as a whole set of doctrines, beliefs and documents didn't take form until the 2nd century at the earliest. So, in that sense no, however it can easily be argued that that sense is too strict.

#2) What exactly is a "founder" of "Christianity"?

I view this somewhat like talking about Adam Smith and capitalism.

Adam Smith never used the word capitalism, and indeed he didn't really discuss much about actual capital accumulation or modes of capital intensive production. What Adam Smith talked about was free trade and self organizing economies of individual producers.

Likewise, Pail never used the word Christianity and many of the major tenets of Christianity are not to be found in Paul's works.

Nevertheless, Paul is to Christianity as Adam Smith is to capitalism.

I think the case for Paul is even stronger though, because I think that Adam Smith was just a guy who wrote about something that was taking place regardless of his own personal involvement. He was more of just an observer.

Paul on the other hand was a major participant.

I would argue that capitalism as we know it today would have developed without Adam Smith.

On the other hand I would argue that "Christianity" as we know it today would never have developed without Paul.

It seems pretty clear that some form of messiah worship of a figure called "Jesus Christ" existing before Paul, but this seems to have been a very minor Jewish cult. It seems that Paul played a large role in spreading this cult to the "Gentile" world, without which nothing would have come of it.

It is also clear that Paul's writings stand alone from this early period and had a huge impact on the development of the beliefs of the cult from the mid 1st century onward.

If my argument regarding the development of the Gospels is correct (see here: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm) then Paul is indeed central to the development of the religion.

My argument detailed there is that the Gospel of Mark was written after the destruction of Jerusalem by a follower of Paul who used the letters of Paul and Jewish scripture to create a fictional story that is what we now call the Gospel of Mark. In addition, this first story about "Jesus" is the basis for all accounts of a "life of Jesus". Each of the other four canonical Gospels is based on the Gospel of Mark, and all other non-canonical stories about the life of Jesus stem from this one account as well.

If that is true, then of course the Gospel of Mark would have never existed without the letters of Paul, and thus Christianity as we know it would never have come into existence.

GakuseiDon

Is there any indication in Paul that suggests it was a very minor Jewish cult, IYO?

aa5874

This passage represents the fatal flaw in your theory.

The authors of Paul's writings MUST be corroborated by some external non-apologetic source. They have not been. They cannot stand alone. Their credibilty is questionable and must not be trusted.

It is completely naive to use Paul to corroborate Paul.

There is no such thing as authentic Pauline Epistles.

These writings should NOT be accepted alone as TRUTH when it has already been deduced by scholars that more than one person used the name Paul.

And it would appear to me to be illogical that the authors called Paul would claim to have received revelations from Jesus, the son of the God of the Jews, before anyone else heard about Jesus and ask Jews and Pagans to worship an unknown being as a God while the Holy Temple was still in use.

It would appear that the authors called Paul were familiar with the Jesus stories before they wrote, and that these authors wrote after Justin Martyr or after around 140 CE.

Malachi151

Well, Paul indicates that the others in the movement are not preaching to the Gentiles, indeed there seems to be disagreement that even he should do so.

That no one else from this time talked about the movement seems to indicate that it was minor, and that Paul discusses only a small ring of leaders without any discussion of a large following of people also indicates such.

Doug Shaver

Christianity had many founders, most of them unknown. Paul was just the earliest one whom we can identify.

aa5874

Paul cannot be identified.

Even, the Early Church writers, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius did not realise that there were more than one person using the name Paul.

One is explanation is that Paul's identity was NEVER established or could not have been.

storytime

Jesus is the founder of his kingdom movement in anointed Jewish apostles. He instructed them not to go to the Gentiles nor the cities of the Samaritans. Jesus excluded Gentiles when he said "I am sent to none but the lost sheep in the House of Israel".

After Jesus is out of the picture, Peter sits on a roof top and has a vision, then details his vision to the other apostles and declares "salvation has come to the Gentiles also". Within this pronouncement Peter speaks where God had not spoken. It seems the Gentile Cornelius is the first Christian Peter brings into his fold. Peter lets down the barrier between Jew and Gentile and makes the uncircumcised and lawless Gentiles equal to the Jews in declaring the Gentiles as "clean". Paul later comes on the scene and is sent to the Gentiles. Peter returns to Jerusalem.

Later in the story of Paul, all the disciples part from him in disagreements. I think it says Timothy and Titus were left to assist Paul in his gospel.