Paul founded Christianity-how to refute

[eddie_too]

i would like to add that Jesus made His Church universal, i.e. catholic, when He gave His apostles their final command to Go out and preach the Gospel to all nations.

as to st. paul, he was completely faithful in teaching salvation through the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. he himself made sure that everyone understood that he was the least of the apostles, but an apostle none the less.

i may be mistaken, but i believe st. paul was at the first ecumenical council of the catholic church.

Jesus founded His Church. no one else did. Jesus knew what He was doing when He founded His Church. if the Lord’s Church does not reside in the magisterium He intentionally created for that purpose, where on earth does it reside?

st. paul was became member of the first magisterium by the Lord making him a member on his trip to damascus. ever since the Lord created His first magisterium its membership has changed, first through the suicide of judas and the addition of matthias under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then through His mystical encounter with st. paul and then through later through martyrdoms and the subsequent decisions of that same magisterium.

i would advise the OP that it is very difficult to persuade people who are not interested in the truth but are rather interested in affirming in their own hearts and minds that the RC is not the one, true Church. i believe this was acknowledged by Jesus Himself when He advised us not to cast our pearls before swiine.

when someone is only interested in justifying their own defiance of the Lord and His Church, it is virtually a fruitless task to engage them in intellectual discussion. at least that is how i see it.

however, lest such people mislead God’s little ones, it is appropriate to refute their arguments with logic, facts, history and prayer, not necessarily in that order.

 

[mackbrislawn]

See title.

Yes, how to refute. I’m not sure. They have a strong case.

Some additional background. It would seem from reading Paul’s letters that the Judaizer’s, Paul’s opponents, came from Jerusalem, from James the Just, who was overseer of the church in Jerusalem. Now Jerusalem was the original congregation, headed by Jesus’ own brother, so you would think of all churches, the Jerusalem understanding of Christianity would be the first and purest. At least that is what some would maintain, such as the present day group that calls themselves the “Nazarenes” that do not accept Paul’s letters as scripture. (There is a Nazarene on these forums.)

Because what happened to the original Jerusalem congregation? Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70, and any members of that original Jerusalem church would have been slaughtered along with everyone else. Tradition, though, has it that they escaped across the Jordan where they played no further role in the subsequent development and spread of Christianity, that being left to the Pauline churches. Perhaps the descendants of the Jerusalem church survived for several centuries after that, being known as the heretics Ebionites or maybe Nazarenes.

So from this perspective Paul is the founder of the form of Christianity that came down to us. However is this perspective accurate?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Yes, how to refute. I’m not sure. They have a strong case.

Some additional background. It would seem from reading Paul’s letters that the Judaizer’s, Paul’s opponents, came from Jerusalem, from James the Just, who was overseer of the church in Jerusalem. Now Jerusalem was the original congregation, headed by Jesus’ own brother, so you would think of all churches, the Jerusalem understanding of Christianity would be the first and purest. At least that is what some would maintain, such as the present day group that calls themselves the “Nazarenes” that do not accept Paul’s letters as scripture. (There is a Nazarene on these forums.)

Because what happened to the original Jerusalem congregation? Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70, and any members of that original Jerusalem church would have been slaughtered along with everyone else. Tradition, though, has it that they escaped across the Jordan where they played no further role in the subsequent development and spread of Christianity, that being left to the Pauline churches. Perhaps the descendants of the Jerusalem church survived for several centuries after that, being known as the heretics Ebionites or maybe Nazarenes.

So from this perspective Paul is the founder of the form of Christianity that came down to us. However is this perspective accurate?

Not so strong.

If Paul founded Christianity, then do they consider James dumb enough to approve Paul’s teaching?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Not so strong.

If Paul founded Christianity, then do they consider James dumb enough to approve Paul’s teaching?

There was more than one James. But mostly they would also contend that the book of Acts was written by the pro-Paul faction. The Pauline faction ultimately determined what we consider to be scripture.

Granted that’s something of an ad hoc argument.

 

[jcrichton]

Yes, how to refute. I’m not sure. They have a strong case.

Some additional background. It would seem from reading Paul’s letters that the Judaizer’s, Paul’s opponents, came from Jerusalem, from James the Just, who was overseer of the church in Jerusalem. Now Jerusalem was the original congregation, headed by Jesus’ own brother, so you would think of all churches, the Jerusalem understanding of Christianity would be the first and purest. At least that is what some would maintain, such as the present day group that calls themselves the “Nazarenes” that do not accept Paul’s letters as scripture. (There is a Nazarene on these forums.)

Because what happened to the original Jerusalem congregation? Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70, and any members of that original Jerusalem church would have been slaughtered along with everyone else. Tradition, though, has it that they escaped across the Jordan where they played no further role in the subsequent development and spread of Christianity, that being left to the Pauline churches. Perhaps the descendants of the Jerusalem church survived for several centuries after that, being known as the heretics Ebionites or maybe Nazarenes.

So from this perspective Paul is the founder of the form of Christianity that came down to us. However is this perspective accurate?

…sadly, anyone can claim anything–had the persecution of the Church not take place the spread of Christianity would not have had the impetus that it did. I have shown, through Scriptures, that by the time Saul joined the gang the Church Founded by Christ was in effect and flourishing.

The claims these “scholars” make are based on their interpretations of what they “feel” happened (they have no actual records to substantiate their claim). Give a paint brush to an animal who has developed in the household/under the influence of a painter and expose it to paint… well, soon enough the animal may mimic the human and “produce” a “master piece.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[epostle]

It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.

• In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17). (told what by whom???)
• He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18),
• and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9).
• He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27). Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
• Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”
• The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.”
• Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role), and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27),
• and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).

The attempt to pretend that St. Paul was somehow on his own, disconnected to the institutional Church, has always failed, as unbiblical. Protestant frown upon institutions, but we Catholics rather like the Church that Jesus Christ set up, initially led by St. Peter.

by Dave Armstrong