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.

It all pointed to HIM. He was not just a "Great Prophet and Rabbi sent to show the people the true meaning of Torah". The Torah was given to show the true meaning of the Messiah. You are putting the wrong thing in the place of preeminence. The Torah is not above the Messiah. He is the embodiment and fulfillment of the Torah. It foreshadowed Him and He fulfilled it. The Torah is not above Him. It leads to Him.

Amen!!! How wondrous is our God and Savior!

Yes, writings from 110 count, even when not included in the Canon. The Early Fathers provide valuable insight, confirmation, and historicity. 110 is extremely relevant to the phrase "catholic church."

Shall we pretend that Ignatius wasn't using an adjective to describe the universal body of Christ?

What has ALWAYS been the measuring rod of the rule of the Christian faith is what Holy Scripture says are the doctrines of the faith. Much of what Roman Catholicism teaches today - nearly two thousand years removed - was unheard of in the early church and if that is not a perfect sign of the LACK of doctrinal succession of the apostolic teachings I don't know what is. We already know that claims of an "unbroken line" are bogus, so, if you cannot show that the Apostles taught the novel inventions Catholicism claims are mandatory for all Christians, you cannot claim the exclusive, elitist banner of the universal church.

But this is what one gets, when one “reads the Bible for oneself”, divorced from all historical and/or traditional teaching and guidance: confusion. We get an “invisible church” that is “unified” in “all the important doctrines”...

Has it escaped your reading that this issue IS being argued from Scripture and that it has NOT been "divorced" from history and traditional teaching? This has been how the rule of the Christian faith has ALWAYS been defended against heresy.

>> “He also learns what the actions and sacrifice of his master was meant to accomplish. He also listens to what the Holy Spirit which the master sent to inspire the apostles to write said. Something that those who attempt to put us back under the law entirely fail to understand.” <<

.
The author of the above demonstrates an understanding of nothing!

The apostles all wrote that "doers of the law will be justified."

They did not write that doers of the law will be justified by the law.

Nobody ever was or will be justified by the law.

Doers of the law will be justified because earnestly and obediently following the commandments is what leads to genuine righteousness. It makes his disciples “righteous as he is righteous.” That is why the law is called “instruction in righteousness,” and “the perfect law of liberty.” “ For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.”

That is what the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles to write.

Deliberately manipulating and inverting the message of Acts 15 will cost many dearly.

>> The apostles all wrote that "doers of the law will be justified."<<

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

>> Doers of the law will be justified because earnestly and obediently following the commandments is what leads to genuine righteousness.<<

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

>> “Jesus fulfilled all the requirements of the law for us because we are totally incapable in this earthly flesh.” <<

.
Both statements are false.

Only the spring feasts have been fulfilled, and your assertion that “we are totally incapable in this earthly flesh” makes every word of the great apostle John’s first epistle a lie.

Your post emulates Satan’s gospel: You can’t do it so don’t even try. A perfect recipe for eternity in Hellfire.
.

>>Your post emulates Satan’s gospel: You can’t do it so don’t even try. A perfect recipe for eternity in Hellfire.<<

You and Rood should go on the road together. You and the Catholics trying to work your way to salvation. You make fun of Catholics but promote the same type of system. Your twists on scripture are evident to any true Christian. I find it rather amusing that you claim the New Testament as we have it is corrupted then twist it and use it extensively. Hypocritical to say the least.

Why post your complete misunderstanding of scripture?

No one has ever declared a shred of justification by the law, and to say that anyone has is a lie.

Romans 3:20 is not a declaration that the entirety of Romans 2 is false, as you seem to be trying to show. Romans 3:21 displays your error in neon lights, as it speaks of “the righteousness of God” who is without the law, for he created a universe that runs completely by his law, which was given for his creation, and is not grievous.
.

>>Romans 3:21 displays your error in neon lights, as it speaks of “the righteousness of God” who is without the law, for he created a universe that runs completely by his law, which was given for his creation, and is not grievous.<<

ROFL! Let’s look at the verse following Romans 3:21 then.

Romans 3: 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;…

That righteousness has been imputed to us through His grace.

Romans 3:24 being declared righteous freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

One day you will understand. I hope it’s not too late for you.

Shall we pretend that Ignatius wasn't using an adjective to describe the universal body of Christ?

The word catholic (with lowercase c; derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal"[1][2]) comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου (katholou), meaning "on the whole", "according to the whole" or "in general", and is a combination of the Greek words κατά meaning "about" and ὅλος meaning "whole".[3][4] The word in English can mean either "including a wide variety of things; all-embracing" or "of the Roman Catholic faith" as "relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church.".[5] ("Catholicos, the title used for the head of some churches in Eastern Christian traditions, is derived from the same linguistic origin).

What has ALWAYS been the measuring rod of the rule of the Christian faith is what Holy Scripture says are the doctrines of the faith. Much of what Roman Catholicism teaches today - nearly two thousand years removed - was unheard of in the early church and if that is not a perfect sign of the LACK of doctrinal succession of the apostolic teachings I don't know what is. We already know that claims of an "unbroken line" are bogus, so, if you cannot show that the Apostles taught the novel inventions Catholicism claims are mandatory for all Christians, you cannot claim the exclusive, elitist banner of the universal church.

When you write "we" are you referring to the denomination or sect do you belong to ? Claiming the holy Catholic apostolic church is either invisible or started in the 19th Century is not very persuasive.

And just WHERE are those 7 Catholic churches today??

If they repented and obeyed the LORD, all seven are in heaven. Otherwise they are dead.

Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. 8I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

That righteousness will be imputed to us at the last trump, just as the word of God says in at least 17 places that I have posted to you many times.

If you don’t curse God for not having a secret pre-trib rapture, perhaps you will be there with those of us that understood from studying his word, or not.

I, too, enjoy bacon as well as pork tenderloin, chops and the shoulder I intend to roast for a wonderful Fourth of July pulled pork sandwich! YUM!

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.

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 they appear.

... all seven are in heaven.

As a side issue; will there be ANY of those who has 'died in Christ' still in the grave to be called out at the Last Trump?

1 Thessalonians 4:16

For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

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.