The CBC radio show Tapestry on this past Sunday, featured Barrie Wilson Ph. D, from York University.  His new book is called, "How Jesus Became Christian", which strongly addresses your question.  The podcast is here:

www.cbc.ca/podcasting/pastpodcasts.html

He feels that Paul started his own new religion, having never met Jesus, very rarely references Jesus' actual teachings, and interacting very little with the apostles and those who knew Jesus.  His research led him to the conclusion that Acts (written late First Century) was basically a fabrication to tie Paul's religion with Jesus, because much of it does not agree with known writings of Paul.

He also mentioned that if we had only the texts/letters of Paul, we would know very, very, little about Jesus or his teachings.

So, I guess if one wants to model themselves on Jesus' life and teachings, the 4 gospels would be the way to go.  I think Christianity would have developed differently.

Personally, I would like to see all the banned/lost texts of early christianity included, because I feel the movement was strangled by the selection of a narrow canon.

On a purely emotional level, it's only the gospels that seem timeless IMO.  Unlike the rest of the bible, Jesus' words kind of jump off the page and sound so immediate sometimes. 

I'll order the Barry Wilson book from the library -- sounds really interesting.

I Tapestry!

I think it would be very difficult to understand some passages of the gospels (particularly Matthew) without the background of the Jewish scriptures.  Jesus was a Jew all his life.  Much of his teaching was based on Jewish understanding of the nature of God, Jewish history, Jewish law.  How would we even understand his quoting the 'Great Commandment' about loving God if not against the background of the Jewish laws which included this commandment? 

And how could we know how to be a church without Paul's teachings?

Me too!

There's the rub.  What kind of church would we now have if Jesus' closest followers who knew Jesus personally had developed it? 

Barrie Wilson research indicates that Paul's direct references to Jesus in his letters are only that Jesus lived, died and was Jewish.  Paul's church was not based on the actual teachings of Jesus, which Paul doesn't mention or even expand on.

It would not be hard to find out for oneself in Paul's own letters.

True, in the Pauline letters there is no time spent worrying about the birth, life and deeds of Jesus of NAzareth.  For Paul it is the crucifixion and resurrection that matter.  At least in the letters.

Of course we have no real way of knowing what PAul said or taught in his original visits to those places.  ANd it is possible that the letters are largely written in response to questions from the communities.  Certainly 1 Corinthians was.

Personally I think Paul didn't think much about the life, likely because his experience of coming to faith was based on an encounter with the Risen Christ (such encounter he himself never really describes).

You know CH, I already live with three guys and a male dog...so, yeah, I think i probably could.....live with matt, mark, luke & john...though, i would need you come visit...along with all the other wondernuts

The thing Paul talks about (specifically, in Romans 7) is the point of the law, as outlined in the Old Testament. Without the law, we wouldn't be able to say what sin is, so we are now able to be righteous and yet, because there IS a law, we are now fully aware of sin, and because it has now been given a definition, we can give it the power to overcome our lives. Once we are confronted by the law, we die, because we are all guilty under it. We are redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, we are given new life, freed from the sin, and also therefore from the judgement of the law, which is not to say that we shouldn't know it, or the whole thing would have been a waste of time. Jesus himself says that Scripture cannot be broken, the law cannot be ignored, which is why it is not right to pick and choose. I do not believe that it is right to look at the Scripture and use it to judge others- rather, we should use it to judge ourselves, which will probably answer a lot of our personal problems resulting from reading through the Scripture. And the perscribed punishments offered in the Old Testament for sin, well, that was answered by Jesus: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Also, the Old Testament is VERY important in that it sets a premise for the coming of the Christ. Otherwise, how could we expect it? Again and again Jesus says, the Scripture must be fulfilled. He is the answer to the prophesies made hundreds of years before him. God didn't just pop in for a check up- He sent us good dreams and forewarned us so far in advance, so when we witness the deeds of Christ, we see them not only as miracles and gifts above and beyond the natural, but that they are part of the word of God. In Luke 24 Jesus walks with Cleopas and another disciple after the Ressurection, and explains how he fulfills the Scripture. Obviously He does put emphasis on the Old Testament, or why would we still study it? We are attempting to emulate the values of Christ- we need to read what he reads, and value what he values.

We cannot treat the Scripture like something that was written by a human. If we say that about the Old Testament, how can we restrict ourselves from saying that about any teaching in the Bible? Who's to say that John didn't just decide to write a short story one rainy evening? Face it. These are the words of God. While many of them have lost their context, and do require perhaps more serious study, they are nonetheless from God, and carry important value. We can't be selective about what God gives us, especially concerning His will. And the reason the Gospels in particular jump off the page is because Jesus is life, and every word of his is echoed by the life that he gives us, thumping in our chests.

Greetings!

While there are times that I find certain passages in the Old Testament hard to read or hard to understand they offer background information and history about the Israelites and God's relationship with them and others.  If I only had or read the gospels my understanding would be different.  And I guess, so it would be without the other books in the New Testament.

Hope, peace, joy, love ...

It's a good question. It reminds me of a sermon that I heard last Sunday (Trinity Sunday) on whether or not we could get along with only one of the persons in the trinity.  Part of the problem, though, is that even though the four gospels appear first in the N.T., their authorship wasn't first, and most scholars see the theology of the epistles influencing the shape of the gospels.  So they're not pristine, eye witness accounts, uninfluenced by Pauline and other N.T. theology.  That being said, we need 'em all.  And the point about the O.T. is an even more important one, I think, because (getting back to the trinity), we don't learn that much about the Father in the N.T.. The one Jesus calls 'Father' wouldn't be as powerful without the backdrop of the other 'Father' images in the O.T...  So I don't think we can afford to get rid of anything. But we could always add more!!!!

I think there is tons of stuff there and tons more than could have been or should have been....

I would probably reject a religion based solely on the four, off hand. The birth narratives would stand out as contradictory instead of being an attempt to explain other things. It would all seem very cultish. There would be much that made no sense.

I think presenting it, as a stand alone, Jesus would be more a deity instead of representing or embodying God.

Nah, I need more.