Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Saul of Tarsus lynched

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Saul of Tarsus lynched

    WHAT IF: born Roman, citizen Saul of Tarsus, was lynched [2] by an angry mob of Maccabees, leadered by Judas Iscariot the Betrayer, on the road toward Damascus [1]?

    By the way, Doctor Sinister, the "Book of Acts" is still being written.

    Footnotes

    [1]
    8And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

    Acts 9:8
    (chapter nine, verse eight)
    King James Version (KJV)
    New Testament Bible
    Public Domain

    [2]
    (Much the same as Italian Fascist leader, El Deuce, Benito Mussolini, was lynched in World War Two.)

  • #2
    Hmmm... Not your usual WWII question.

    Depends on if Saul was the instigator of his ideas, or if he represented a existing trend. If the latter then the concepts he is credited with will influence the early Christian Church anyway. If he were the original inspiration then it is possible the Church will develop differentlly. Athough if the need for his ideas existed, but were simply latent, then probablly they would be developed by someone else.

    Comment


    • #3
      What ever happened to Peter and James?

      Comment


      • #4
        First of all, he would not have been lynched by the Maccabees--they were long gone. Second, there were plenty of others spreading the word, so while Christianity may have been different in some ways, losing only Saul would not have stopped the spread of The Way.

        Comment


        • #5
          The Bible would have been a damn boring book, that's what would have happened.



          Saul, Saul, he's our man, if he can't do it, Jesus can!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by daemonofdecay View Post
            The Bible would have been a damn boring book, that's what would have happened.



            Saul, Saul, he's our man, if he can't do it, Jesus can!

            Nope, it would have talked about Thomas--did he really get to India? Peter getting to Rome etc. etc. etc.

            Comment


            • #7
              [QUOTE=grognard;710389]First of all, he would not have been lynched by the Maccabees--they were long gone. QUOTE]
              were they?

              I thought they were still aroung in the 7th century. but I might be wrong.
              "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

              Comment


              • #8
                'dese be deeed boss'...........( 165 BC to 63 BC).

                but these lads wern't.........Zealots

                Comment


                • #9
                  Paul is the single most important figure in Christianity. Without him the religion never gets started.

                  If he were somehow prevented from his preaching, then christianity would have ended in 70AD. With the original Jesus movement gone after the destruction of Jerusalem, it was Paul's mass movement amongst the Gentiles that carried things on. Without that movement, Christianity becomes a footnote.

                  Regards,
                  IronDuke

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Iron Duke, check your Bible. Paul writes to the Christians in Rome before he ever got there, he refers to deliberately not going places that others had already evangelized, so Christanity would not have died without him, just taken a different shape.

                    PS, why do you say Paul was more important than Jesus?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by grognard View Post
                      Iron Duke, check your Bible. Paul writes to the Christians in Rome before he ever got there, he refers to deliberately not going places that others had already evangelized, so Christanity would not have died without him, just taken a different shape.

                      PS, why do you say Paul was more important than Jesus?
                      But it was his unique work amongst the Gentiles that survived the defeat of the Jewish revolt. Take it away, and there is very little left. The rest of the missionary work was being largely conducted by Jews amongst the Jews.

                      A Jewish cult would not have converted the empire, however. It wouldn;t even have registed on the Empire's radar. It was Paul who set in motion the string of events that led to modern Christianity, although the likes of Constantine were hugely influential as well.

                      Paul is more important than Jesus because his version of what Jesus was all about was very personalised and very unique. He argued long and hard about what christianity was about with the Jerusalem sect (The apostles and James) and he did so on the basis of personal conviction alone, since he never met Jesus.

                      His own personal standpoint became standard Church belief when those who had known Jesus were killed or scattered to the winds after the destruction of Jerusalem. Modern christianity is Pauline christianity and arguably far from what Jesus of Nazareth ever intended.

                      It is this that makes his position so important. He interpreted Jesus as he saw fit, and in doing so contradicted those that had known Jesus. In these circumstances, Jesus assumes a seconday important IMHO.

                      regards,
                      IronDuke

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        They all interpreted Jesus as they saw fit, part of the reason Paul's worked is because others, re Peter baptising Cornelius and the whole clean'unclean sermon, had the same interpretation. Even the Christians in India that the Portugese ran into in the 16th century were Christians, not circumcized messianic Jews, so I don't see Paul as THE KEY, there's too much other evidence.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Paul is more important than Jesus

                          only in the minds of those who wish it so....but if ya believe the historical oral taditions established by his letters ...he himself would be horrfied at the thought and comdemn it roundly.

                          but your opinion is an honest one and that which is obviously based on study.. it's between you and the Master Architect if your wrong not me...and as friend grognard points out above they all played their roles some lesser and some as Paul greater as Christainity developed........



                          Grognard what a name...! fills the mind with longships, half nekkid womans, swords, axs, wolves, more half nekkid womans and beer.......gotta love it.

                          bst
                          CV
                          Last edited by Centrix Vigilis; 24 Jun 07, 09:10.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis View Post
                            [B]



                            Grognard what a name...! fills the mind with longships, half nekkid womans, swords, axs, wolves, more half nekkid womans and beer.......gotta love it.

                            bst
                            CV
                            Coming from Centrix Vigilis, that's an interesting take. Of course you know the origin of the term grognard, which was a few centuries after the period you refer to.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by grognard View Post
                              They all interpreted Jesus as they saw fit,
                              Yes, but some interpreted him based on personal experience. Paul didn't (unless you go for the vision thing).

                              Originally posted by grognard View Post
                              part of the reason Paul's worked is because others, re Peter baptising Cornelius and the whole clean'unclean sermon, had the same interpretation. Even the Christians in India that the Portugese ran into in the 16th century were Christians, not circumcized messianic Jews, so I don't see Paul as THE KEY, there's too much other evidence.
                              Too much evidence for what? The west is Christian because of Constantine and Paul. Constantine would not have been a christian without the work of Paul. Since Paul interpreted Jesus as he "saw fit" then he clearly assumes a greater importance than anyone else since it was his intrepretation not the historical Jesus who everything was based on.

                              Had the west not been Christian, then the Christians in Inida would likewise have been an interesting little sect but nothing more.

                              regards,
                              IronDuke

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X