Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

Recently, a friend emailed me with a very common claim, namely, that, “Paul hijacked Christianity with no personal connection with Jesus and filled his letters with personal opinions.” This could be rephrased in the more common claim: Paul invented Christianity.

This claim is especially common among Muslim apologists who use it in an attempt to explain why the Qur’an simultaneously affirms Jesus as a true prophet while also contradicting the Bible at every major point. However, since my friend is not a Muslim and is not coming at the issue from that angle, I will just deal with the question more broadly.

My friend alleges that some of the “personal opinions” of Paul that were interjected into the New Testament include: “slaves obey your masters; women not to have leadership roles in churches; homosexuality is a sin (though there is Old Testament authority for this last, Paul doesn’t seem to base his opinion on it).”

“None of [of the above] were said by Jesus and would perhaps be foreign to his teaching,” he wrote. “I think Paul has created a lot of mischief in Christianity, simply because he wrote a lot and his letters have survived.”

Paul, in fact, did have a personal connection to Jesus. This is revealed in the famous “Damascus road” accounts in Acts 9:3-9, Acts 22:6–11 and Acts 26:12–18. Paul refers back to this experience elsewhere in his letters, though it is only laid with this level of detail in Acts, written by Paul’s traveling companion Luke.

The only way one can maintain that Paul had no connection to Jesus is to rule out the conversion experience of Paul a priori based on a presupposition. Of course, I can argue that such a presupposition is untenable, but that would take an entire post to itself. For the sake of brevity, I would just point out that it is illogical to employ such reasoning. It would go something like, “It didn’t happen because it couldn’t happen because it can’t happen therefore it didn’t happen therefore Paul had no personal connection to Jesus.”

Yes, Paul does interject his personal opinions into his writing! However, when he does, he clearly delineates what he is saying as his personal opinion as an Apostle.

For instance, in dealing with the issue of marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul clearly distinguishes between his own statements and the Lord’s.

In 1 Corinthians 7:10, Paul says, “To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord)…” and in 1 Corinthians 7:12, Paul says, “To the rest I say, (I, not the Lord)…” This example shows that Paul was not in the business of putting words in the mouth of Jesus. Paul had no problem showing when he was giving his own charge and when it was a statement made by the Lord Jesus, as it was in this case (Matthew 5:32).

Yet it is important to note that other Apostles recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture from the earliest days of Christianity, as seen the case of Peter (2 Peter 3:15–16).

Out of the three examples, two are directly from the Mosaic Law. Obviously the Mosaic Law couldn’t have stated that women should not preach in the church because the Church did not yet exist and wouldn’t for over 1,000 years.

The claim that there is only Old Testament authority for the last of the examples is false. The same goes for the claim that Paul does not base his statements on the Law.

It is abundantly clear that Paul actually does derive his statements on homosexual activity from the Law.

For instance, in 1 Timothy 1, Paul mentions homosexuality in the context of the type of people the Law was laid down for (1 Timothy 1:9-11). This short list indicts all people, just as Paul does elsewhere (Romans 3:23), showing that all people require the forgiveness that can only be found through faith in Jesus Christ.

When Paul deals with it elsewhere, he mentions it in the context of other activities explicitly prohibited by the Law (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), again going back to the idea that the Lord Jesus Christ sets apart (sanctifies) His people and justifies them.

As for the command for slaves to obey their masters, this is regularly claimed to be objectionable by critics. By way of introduction, is important to distinguish between what we have in our mind about the institution of slavery as Americans and the institution of slavery as it existed in Paul’s day. After all, Paul explicitly listed “enslaverers” (or man-stealers) in the same list mentioned above (1 Tim 1:10). Since the entire institution of slavery in the United States was built upon the kidnapping of people, it is clearly radically different from what Paul spoke of. Furthermore, the stealing of a man was punishable by death under the Mosaic Law (Exodus 21:16). The practice of slavery in America would never have existed if the Bible was actually being followed.

Paul also exhorted his readers to buy their freedom if they could (1 Corinthians 7:21) and instructing the master of a runaway slave to treat him as “no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother” (Philemon 11). Paul grounded his statements in the defense of “the name of God and the teaching.” Paul said that bondservants should “regard their masters as worthy of all honor,” not just for the sake of doing so, but so there might be no chance to slander the name of God and the gospel.

Ultimately, the claim made by my friend requires more fleshing out on his end and some evidence on his part in order to be more fully dealt with.

This is another common claim. First off, one must ask if this statement implies that Jesus would simply have to repeat everything Paul said and vice-versa or else they would remain foreign.

The fact is that there is nothing contradictory between Paul’s writings and Jesus’ teaching. One must wonder why Luke – a traveling companion of Paul and the author of Luke-Acts – would have no problem writing the gospel that bears his name if he perceived such a contradiction. Furthermore, one must wonder why this apparent conflict was lost on the earliest Christians, including the Apostle Peter, who viewed Paul’s letters as Scripture (see above).

In affirming the Law (Matthew 5:17), Jesus affirmed all that Paul that was clearly grounded in the Law. Furthermore, if there was a real contradiction between Paul’s writings and the teachings of Jesus, Paul would have been rejected, instead of accepted as he has always been.

The Christian community existed before Paul became a Christian, as is clearly seen by the fact that he was persecuting Christians (Acts 8:1,3), and he even met with the leaders of the early church. They did not reject Paul, but instead affirmed what he had been teaching (Galatians 2:2,9). This makes it even clearer that Paul could not have invented or hijacked Christianity.

As for the claim that Paul has had such a large impact “simply because he wrote a lot and his letters have survived,” all one has to do is look at the other early Christian writings that survived in order to see that is not a valid metric.

We have seen that the claim that “Paul hijacked Christianity” is without evidence. While I have taken the burden of proof upon myself in responding to this claim, in reality the burden of proof would be on the one making the claim in the first place. No such evidence has been presented and no substantive evidence can be presented since Paul did not invent Christianity or hijack Christianity or anything similar to it. Instead, Paul was an Apostle of Jesus Christ commissioned to spread the gospel, something that he clearly did by establishing churches and penning many letters under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that we can still read today.

When one reads the gospels and the other writings contained in the New Testament, the message is cohesive and clear: all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Ro 3:23), God demands complete perfection (Mt 5:48) and all we have earned through our sin is death (Ro 6:23) and hell. Yet God offers the free gift of eternal life to all who repent and believe (Mk 1:15, Ro 10:9–11) in Jesus Christ, who died as a propitiation (Ro 3:25, Heb 2:17, 1 Jn 4:10) for all who would ever believe in Him (Jn 6:44) and rose from the grave three days later, forever defeating sin and death. Those who believe in Him can know (1 John 5:13) that they have passed from death to life (Jn 5:24) and will not be condemned (Jn 3:18), but will be given eternal life by Jesus Christ (Jn 6:39-40). Paul and Jesus in no way contradict each other on what the gospel is, in fact the four gospels and Paul’s letters (along with the rest of the New Testament) form one beautiful, cohesive truth.

Thus since these can be misunderstood by the unlearned and unstable who wrest such to their own damnation, not understanding context, as you evidently failed to do with me, then you need to censor the Lord and His Spirit for using words that may appear to be "antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean." Or whatever.

No, I do not need to censor the LORD in any fashion whatsoever. I already made my objections to a word, which does not appear in the Scriptures, clear. I suggested using words which actually appear in the Scriptures, and see that suggestion has been rejected.

No, I do not need to censor the LORD in any fashion whatsoever. I already made my objections to a word, which does not appear in the Scriptures, clear.

No, you originally said nothing about one word being the issue, but instead you mentioned "words" in response to my reproof of the inconsistency of those who impose keeping all the ceremonial law, which is what Paul censored, even (according to your NAB) wishing they were castrated, while as shown, using words that were objectionable to both Gentiles and Jews:

But all those Judaizers who even had marital relations last night must remain unclean till the evening. (Leviticus 15:16-18) I wonder how many observe that one.

Are you trying to mock the Torah and the Jews ? Perhaps you should reflect on your words and understand how antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean

Are you trying to mock the Torah and the Jews ? Perhaps you should reflect on your words and understand how antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean they appear appear

You only began the focus on "Judaizier" after the rash unwarranted nature of your protest was exposed, while i was not even addressing the Torah Observant Jews, but as per NT judgment, those who profess faith in the Lord Jesus, which the former find offensive.

Moreover, objecting that the word "Judaizier " is not found in Scripture is desperate, as such a word as "Trinity" is also not found, and is objectionable to Jews, while Judaizier is also used by RC scholarship .

Thus to be consistent, you do need to reprove the Holy Spirit, and your own church, and as your reproof me also has no warrant, your only recourse is again to revert to the "I trust them and not you" tactic, and again bring out the thought police in you:

Are your thoughts and behavior pure now, or are they impure and contentious, that you would ask such a question to mock the Law of Moses given by God, and the LORD Jesus Christ who already told us:

And here again i was not at all mocking the Law of Moses, but (if you cared about context rather than going off half cocked) instead those who profess to be Christians but mock the New Covenant by requiring literal observance of the ceremonial law.

Your application at MSNBC is pending.

No, you originally said nothing about one word being the issue, but instead you mentioned "words" in response

Yes, while I find the repeated use of that word offensive, it was your post 894 that triggered my reproving question. I did not write about it until you introduced intimate relations between what I understood as a Jew and his wife into the discussion. If you excluded Jews, including Jews who believe in Jesus as Messiah, from the equation, I would have ignored it. I did not realize you were not speaking of a Jew. Honestly, I found the focus on that intimacy a bit creepy in that context but going back I see you introduced it before in a longer post. I think trying to get Gentiles to follow Torah is dangerous from several angles and historically gets Jews killed; so many of the Gentiles who name the name do not obey the most basic commandments in the New Testament, otherwise they would be one as he prayed. You can resume telling the Gentiles not to live as Jews. I'm fine with that.

.Yes, while I find the repeated use of that word offensive, it was your post 894 that triggered my reproving question. I did not write about it until you introduced intimate relations between what I understood as a Jew and his wife into the discussion..

That was not when you made the protest about the word "Judaizer," but it is when you censored me as expressing what you saw as antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean words, rashly supposing i was addressing typical Jews, not Messianic believers who mock the full newness of the New Covenant.

I did not realize you were not speaking of a Jews. Honestly, I found the focus on that intimacy a bit creepy in that context but going back I see you introduced it before in a longer post...You can resume telling the Gentiles not to live as Jews. I'm fine with that.

It is not at all "creepy," but thanks for your permission to do what Scripture shows, and for finally, if not straight forwardly, admitting that your response was rash, out of context, and unwarranted.

Better hunting next time.

The end.

FYI - Re: the word "Judaizers":

ioudaizo

mityahadim

In Galatians 2:14 it means to "live like Jews" (RSV, neb, NASB, Phillips), "follow Jewish customs" ( NIV ), or "live by the Jewish law" (Barclay). The context for this reference is the episode in Antioch when Paul condemns Peter's withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentile Christians. Peter's actions are viewed by Paul as a serious compromise of the gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone, lending support to the position that sought to impose Jewish ceremonial law on the Gentiles. Thus, Paul interprets Peter's withdrawal in terms of its effect in compelling Gentile Christians to live like Jews.

The term "Judaizer" has come to be used in theological parlance to describe the opponents of Paul and Barnabas at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15 ) and those who sought to preach "another gospel" in the churches of Galatia (Galatians 2:4,12; 6:12; cf. Philippians 3:2 ). In this sense, "Judaizers" refers to Jewish Christians who sought to induce Gentiles to observe Jewish religious customs: to "judaize." It appears that these individuals agreed with much of the apostolic kerygma but sought to regulate the admission of Gentiles into the covenant people of God through circumcision and the keeping of the ceremonial law. Insisting that "Unless you are circumcised … you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1 ), these "believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees" (Acts 15:5 ) posed a serious threat to the gospel of grace and the universality of the Christian mission.

Paul's Galatian epistle portrays the Judaizers as having come from the Jerusalem church to his churches in Galatia, stressing the need for Gentiles to be circumcised and keep the law, both for full acceptance by God (legalism) and as the basis for Christian living (nomism) (Galatians 6:12-13 ). Amidst the rising pressures of Jewish nationalism in Palestine during the mid-first century, and increased Zealot animosity against any Jew who had Gentile sympathies, it would appear that these Jewish Christians embarked on a judaizing mission among Paul's converts in order to prevent Zealot persecution of the Palestinian church. (http://www.studylight.org/dictionary/bed/view.cgi?n=395)

Sounds like a perfectly Scriptural term to use to me!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.