Why did Pauline Christianity Survive?

All Muslims know why.

 

What I find interesting is that after the resurrection, the guys who had spent the previous 3 years with Him on an almost daily basis, repeatedly (almost 10 times) didn't recognise Him.

The gospels take place under/during the old testament law period. Meaning that, not everything that you read in them is applicable today because christ has redeemed man from the law.

Peter refers to Paul's writings and says that while they are hard to understand they are indeed scripture.

With regard to the gospel of Thomas - there is alot of disagreement as to whether Thomas actually wrote it or someone else, and some say it has heretical teachings in it.

 

One thing to consider is that Acts was most likely written by a disciple of Paul, most likely the same author as the Gospel of Luke. Interesting that the scripture giving authority to Paul is written by one of his "crew."

 

i always understood it to be that luke wrote the acts....

how is any of this relevant to person that is atheist?

 

Understanding that Luke wrote Acts and understanding that it could have a pro-Pauline slant because Luke wrote it are two different things.

I've always enjoyed the study of religion. One of the most dominant forces in the development of our culture and still a very powerful element in the world today. I've found it fascinating my entire life, and not just Christianity but other religions as well.

I'm not Italian but I like studying Ancient Rome. I'm not a musician but I still enjoy reading biographies of musicians. Why should it be irrelevant to me?

 

understood....

jamesianism does not make pauline christianity irrelevant. it is only a different perspective.

 

I don't believe in any way that Pauline Christianity is "irrelevant." I do maintain that modern Christianity owes more to Paul than it does to Jesus. Paul is the dominant figure in Chrisitan thought.

 

The problem is believing either are authorities on Christianity. The epistles are just letters from a founder of the early church and shouldn't be read as anything more. Acts is nothing more than a history of the early church.

True religion and understanding can only come from relationship through Christ and guidance from the Holy Spirit.

 

James, the founder of what you are calling the Jamesian church was not the disciple James who spent time with Jesus, rather it was the brother of Jesus who only believed after the ressurection. James was an orthodox Jew and Jamesian christianity was much like Judaism, in that it focused on the importance of the law and did not express Jesus divinity. jamesian Christianity was kinda Judaism 'lite'.
Pauline Christianity focuses on faith in the messiah. The doctrine of Pauline Christianity, if you believe the events described, was handed to Paul, at his conversion on the road, by Jesus. So he spent time with Jesus, and one would assume Jesus spoke to him of how the Church was progressing. So if you believe the doctrine, Pauls flavor of Christianity represents the latest doctrine of Christ. Pauline Christianity focuses on Jesus atonement for sin, which is in line with the Jesus teachings in the Gospels. This may be why Pauline Christianity survived and became the primary Christian doctrine.
I think to discuss why a tenet of Christan belief survived without believing in divine inspiration will make you a bit crazy. There is no way to prove or disprove divine inspiration, but to the primary believers in the doctrine, it's as factual as rocks. That's not to say it's right or wrong, just that it is part of the discussion for some folks.

 

What?