More important to Christianity: Paul of Tarsus or Constantine?

I’d say Paul.

me too. (this is a Great Debate so far, huh?)

I’m not sure there is any need for a debate but rather a clarification.

Paul was absolutely vital to the establishment of Christian doctrine and church protocols.

Constantine was vital to the implementation and legal existance of Christianity. Can we really consider one to be more important than the other?

I guess we have to. I need to for a test on Tuesday lol.

Theology - Paul
Wide Acceptance - Constantine

Personally that makes Paul more important. If I was a christian, I honestyl could care less if it was widely accepted or not.

Well, let’s see – Paul was instrumental in defining the theology of the early church; he went on several missionary journeys spreading the Gospel throughout much of the Roman Empire; he wrote about half of what became the New Testament; he was instrumental in the inclusion of non-Jews to the covenant.

Constatine was important too; but Christianity had already survived a coupla centuries before he came around to it.

Oh, a test. Well, the most important single Christian ever was Waldo P. Higginbotham, an eccentric 19th Century Welsh-German immigrant to California who wrote the entire Bible (all 102 books of it, from Genesis to the Apocalypse of St. Fred of the Serious Munchies), supposedly having channeled it all from an alien being named Xizor who appeared to him in the form of a lemur. Before the Bible existed, of course, there was no such thing as Christianity. (Which is why it’s a lie to claim this is a “Christian nation”, since the United States was founded decades before Christianity even existed.) Since Higginbotham’s time Christianity has grown to be the second-largest religion on the planet, with over 7 billion adherents, second only to the Rastafarians.

Be sure to put all that down on your test! (Use both sides of the paper if you have to.)

I don’t think it was paul I would say Ringo.

Paul, the apostle.

Hmm, Paul the Apostle? Why do you say him? The Paul that spread christianity, according to the historical accounts I have seen actually never met Jesus. If these are two seperate people, how is Paul the Apostle more important?

Paul called himself an apostle in his epistles, and this was apparently accepted by some of the Twelve. Remember, Paul’s conversion was motivated by his vision of Christ on the road to Damascus.


Uh, Constantine never met The Big J either.


If Christianity was not widely adopted, you probably wouldnt have heard of it 2000 years later. Constantine is the most important to the very existence of Christianity today. There were a thousand “Pauls” of the day and thousands more fledgling religions and sects. Plus, there is no physical proof that Paul actually wrote most of the New Testament. Our earliest physical copies date hundreds of years after Paul supposedly wrote them.

Heck, Paul was more important to the development of Christianity than Jesus was. If we only went by what Jesus preached while he was alive, Christianity would be not much different from Judaism. It was only Paul’s visions and commentary of what Jesus said after he was dead that enabled Christianity to appeal to folks outside of Judaism.

Gosh, speaking of rising from the dead, this thread is a good example.

I wonder how fishcrawford did on his test?

I thought this debate my be dull.

Quite the contrary…it’s riviting

here goes…eenie… meenie… mienie… moe …
Definitely Paul

Verifying data…

one potatoe, two potatoe, three potatoe, four…
yep!! It’s Paul alright. I love research :slight_smile:

Well, since the OP has long (been) departed and the current comments are not really carrying forward the thesis, I’m going to drive a stake through the heart of this undead thread.
(Anyone who wishes to may open their own thread on the topic, providing appropriate cogent analysis and citations, of course.)

[ /Moderator Mode ]