Would the Church / Christianity successfully spread without Paul the Apostle?

[minichibi]

First of all, I apologize if I question too much or if I sound too rude with my questions. I am just questioning because of my deep wish to believe, but I have failed to believe with faith alone, so I might need some things cleared up.
I can’t see the Christianity / Catholic Church spreading out if it wasn’t for Paul. Could really a single man, who has never directly witnessed Jesus outsmart at least 12 apostles(we know from the Book of Acts it was more, but the historicity of the Book of Acts has long been disputed… ) ??
Really a single man spread around the world the word of someone he never knew in person more efficiently than 12 directly chosen apostles?
Did he really teach the real teachings of Jesus? Or maybe he had a secret agenda behind it? Maybe he wanted to turn the Jews against each other to prevent rebellion against Rome (fact that lead the defeat of the Jews in the 70’s A.D. and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple?) Or maybe, like some people claim, Paul was a “Mithras Hog” and replaced the figure of Mithras with a known person at the time, who was Jesus?
Why are these false? Please help…

 

[ABEACHGIRL]

I am not a Catholic theologian, very few people are, but I have been brought up in the church and educated in its schools. To answer your question,I will use my background. I believe I witness a miracle each time I am at Mass and the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Other Christians believe this is a symbolic act. I take it as a matter of faith. Therefore, I do believe one person could do more than 12, in spreading Christianity. I believe God can work through others and if he wanted to do something like that he could. Additionally, some people are very motivated to spread Christianity and will not let anything stop them. This was true thousands of years ago and is true today. I do not think you should underestimate a person doing this. God can work through humans to accomplish great things!

 

[George_Stegmeir]

First of all, I apologize if I question too much or if I sound too rude with my questions. I am just questioning because of my deep wish to believe, but I have failed to believe with faith alone, so I might need some things cleared up.
I can’t see the Christianity / Catholic Church spreading out if it wasn’t for Paul. Could really a single man, who has never directly witnessed Jesus outsmart at least 12 apostles(we know from the Book of Acts it was more, but the historicity of the Book of Acts has long been disputed… ) ??
Really a single man spread around the world the word of someone he never knew in person more efficiently than 12 directly chosen apostles?
Did he really teach the real teachings of Jesus? Or maybe he had a secret agenda behind it? Maybe he wanted to turn the Jews against each other to prevent rebellion against Rome (fact that lead the defeat of the Jews in the 70’s A.D. and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple?) Or maybe, like some people claim, Paul was a “Mithras Hog” and replaced the figure of Mithras with a known person at the time, who was Jesus?
Why are these false? Please help…

I can appreciate your desire for knowledge, but “wooda, coulda, shoulda” suppositions will get you nowhere.
It is a historical fact that St. Paul had a miraculous conversion to Christ, and spread Christianity by including the Gentiles in his preaching. He taught the authentic teachings of Christ. If he didn’t, St. Peter and the other Apostles would not have anything to do with him. In fact, they would have condemned on the record. Believe me, that one man could not fool the 12 Apostles, especially considering that they were under the influence of the Holy Ghost.
St. Paul had no hidden agenda. There is nothing in sacred or secular literature that he did. He was surrounded by enough Christian Disciples and Jewish enemies, that if he had a “secret agenda”, it would have been written about. The only thing I have ever come across about anything like this are with some modern Jewish apologists who consider St. Paul to be a traitor to Judaism!
As for the Mithra thing, that is an argument promulgated by atheistic academics in modern times. Such thinking did not exist in times past.
You must realize that sometimes people who become over-educated not only lose their faith, and they lose their common sense. The danger of all this in Academia is that there are vulnerable youths who are students of such professors. Many are not fully catachised and are blinded by not only the erudition but the status of the professors who promulgate such nonsense.
When I was in the Navy, we had a term for these types of professors: “Educated Idiots”. They are dangerous because they corrupt youth by causing them to lose their faith.

 

[ConstantineTG]

St. Thomas established many Churches along the way from Jerusalem to India. While St. Paul was instrumental within the Roman Empire, the other Apostles successfully transmitted the faith elsewhere.

 

[Crescentinus]

I can appreciate your desire for knowledge, but “wooda, coulda, shoulda” suppositions will get you nowhere.
It is a historical fact that St. Paul had a miraculous conversion to Christ, and spread Christianity by including the Gentiles in his preaching. He taught the authentic teachings of Christ. If he didn’t, St. Peter and the other Apostles would not have anything to do with him. In fact, they would have condemned on the record. Believe me, that one man could not fool the 12 Apostles, especially considering that they were under the influence of the Holy Ghost.
St. Paul had no hidden agenda. There is nothing in sacred or secular literature that he did. He was surrounded by enough Christian Disciples and Jewish enemies, that if he had a “secret agenda”, it would have been written about. The only thing I have ever come across about anything like this are with some modern Jewish apologists who consider St. Paul to be a traitor to Judaism!
As for the Mithra thing, that is an argument promulgated by atheistic academics in modern times. Such thinking did not exist in times past.
You must realize that sometimes people who become over-educated not only lose their faith, and they lose their common sense. The danger of all this in Academia is that there are vulnerable youths who are students of such professors. Many are not fully catachised and are blinded by not only the erudition but the status of the professors who promulgate such nonsense.
When I was in the Navy, we had a term for these types of professors: “Educated Idiots”. They are dangerous because they corrupt youth by causing them to lose their faith.

^This.

 

[abucs]

Paul was not a solitary man but included within a movement.

We know about him because his letters were kept.

From his letters we know there were other preachers such as Apollos and Peter etc. From his writings we know he worked with Barnabas, Timothy, Luke, Silas, Mark etc who themselves had contacts with Peter, James, John, Phillip, Thomas, Matthew etc.

So “no Paul” would still leave Peter, John, James, Phillip, Thomas, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Apollos etc etc etc and probably dozens and dozens of Christian preachers whose names have not come down to us.

 

[pablope]

First of all, I apologize if I question too much or if I sound too rude with my questions. I am just questioning because of my deep wish to believe, but I have failed to believe with faith alone, so I might need some things cleared up.

It should be faith and reason…with an open mind.

I can’t see the Christianity / Catholic Church spreading out if it wasn’t for Paul.

 

[farpinho]

St. Thomas established many Churches along the way from Jerusalem to India. While St. Paul was instrumental within the Roman Empire, the other Apostles successfully transmitted the faith elsewhere.

If I recall correctly, isn’t there a tradition that mentions St. Andrew establishing Churches along his way to Ukraine as well?