Posted on 06/24/2014 2:13:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
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.”
Let’s deal with this point-by-point.
No personal connection to Jesus
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.”
Personal opinions
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).
Paul’s “personal opinions” and the Law
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.
The fact is that Paul knew the Law quite well (Philippians 3:5-6) and the Law does deal with slavery.
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.
Paul’s teachings foreign to Jesus’ teachings?
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.
LOL!
Leave it to a catholic to declare scripture ‘dysfunctional.’
Of course, worshiping Mary is soooo functional.
Amen.
One could also argue (I'm speaking as a madman)that what Jesus did for us was an insanely desperate last ditch effort at RESCUING us from His perfect justice!
We will all front up to the TERRIBLE,AWESOME ALL CONSUMING FIRE FROM WHICH NOTHING IS HID when this mortal coil is gone.The perfect sacrifice of His ONLY begotten Son is the ONLY hope of surviving the encounter! What kind of love is that!
Some appear to think we are vying for a place in an exclusive country club where only the very best might just make it in.God invites "whosoever" and has made a way for us,that,to say the very least, was incredibly expensive.
Mephibosheth sat at the King's table (on someone elses account) but I wouldn't mind betting he didn't sit himself down and start mouthing off the vilest accusations that pass for 'theology' in this here RF.
Rather he would have sat down,shut his yap,and listened to what the King and His court might discuss...all the time wondering..."what is thy servant,that my Lord should look upon a dead dog such as I?"
I so love and hate this RF.
Thankyou so much for writing SR.Your posts are always encouraging and uplifting and God knows we need it!
So if Scripture is sufficient, you and ‘bums would be able to agree, you cannot.
Q.E.D.
I agree. I praise the Lord for Freepers like y’all that strive to present the truth in gentleness and respect - even when it’s hard.
For years here you have steadfastly proclaimed the grace of God and the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice.It's something no man gave you and no man will take.Hearing some of the things hurled at you and others here tells me way more about the ones hurling them than the intended targets.Potshot posts here and there are nothing compared to years of faithfull witness.
I'm sure you know these things already but sometimes we need to hear things from others.Nobody doesn't need encouragement!
That does not make sense. How could it be the SAME accursed message that began back in Eden when that message was to not obey God ? Do you deny God gave Moses the Torah and the Scripture we have is the same Torah ? Do you deny the LORD Jesus Christ kept that Torah completely and said this Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. ?
A woman being deceived, wilfulling breaking God's command and convincing a man to do the same, would be exactly like the SAME accursed message that began back in Eden.
To me, a real test of what you just claimed about another Gospel with respect to Genesis 2 and 3, is what you say about these commandments, which definitely trace back to Genesis 2 and 3.
Because Calvin were in complete agreement /Sarc
http://lexloiz.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/john-calvin-and-martin-luther-%E2%80%93-some-differences/
http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2014/04/28/luther-vs-calvin-on-images/
Let's not forget about that whole predestination vs. self determination thing either. And how about that Faith alone?
Lets not leave out ole Zwingli either:
Luther- the bread and the wine are really the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ, given for the remission of sins.
Calvin- Christ is spiritually present in the bread and the wind.
Zwingli- the bread and the wine are only symbolic and consumed as a memorial for Jesus Christ.
Who is it that doesn't understand Sola Scriptura?
All your points are well taken. I think what they mean by Sola Scriptura is not that they interpret the Scriptures correctly, or even consistently, but that it is theoretically possible. This definition: "Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness" says nothing about rightly interpreting the Scripture. OTOH, one could end up with thousands of new heresies, denomination, sects, cults, and even religions as well from those trying to apply Sola Scriptura to their personal relationship or reforms.
Sola Scriptural is the biggest fraud ever perpetuated on Christianity.
Indeed. The church that was commanded to keep all the ritual washings and dietary laws and feasts is as invisible in the NT as that of Romanism, and requires a like manner of eisegesis.
I have been too fatigued is write another lengthy refutation of those who imagine they are obeying Christ by requiring submission to these, ignoring the "not according" changes of the New Covenant that the Lord instituted with His own sinless shed blood.
Mostly its the RC folk who seem not to understand Sola Scriptura. We have had to sit here and listen to many misrepresentations. I am sure most of these are based on the lack of a studied understanding and not malicious. But erroneous nonetheless.
BTW, arguments from diversity of belief are largely irrelevant. We do not argue divine theology on consequentialist grounds. What is true is true regardless of how well or poorly we fallen sinners have interacted with it.
Nevertheless, given the choices you presented, I would take any of them over transubstatiation, which has no grounding in Scripture or reason, but tends rather to encourage idolatry. It is one of the principal reasons I could never become Catholic, even if I betrayed everything else the Lord has taught me from His word. By the grace of God, I will never give my adoration to a bloodless wafer that has no power to save. My prayer is that He would help me remain true to Him until the end of my days (not too long from now). So with His help, I will bend my knee to no created thing ever, but only to Him, in spirit and in truth.
I understand that, but it basically means that Protestants religions are Que sera sera. God is not the God of confusion, but Protestantism has made Him that.
Good luck with that.
Christ was the Word made flesh.....not that I’m supporting Editor. Editor is influenced by notions derived from the priestly order of Aaron...Christ was of the order of Melchizidek(also mentioned in Hebrews).
Aaron casts stones at those who are accused of sin. Christ makes us all into living Stones. Under Aaron we are bent reeds and glowing coals with the expectation of being broken or snuffed out respectively! Under Christ bent reeds are not broken and glowing coals are not snuffed out. The reeds are allowed to mature into full fruitfulness and the coals are fanned again into everlasting flame!
Under Aaaron we are chained by ritual and made to feel guilty or to become angry at the manipulations of the wolves in sheeps’ clothing. Under the Spirit of Christ, we have our Liberty as we too are given “power to become the son’s of God” !
Luck has nothing to do with it. It is entirely reasonable to hope that God will answer prayers that are in accordance with His will, and preservation from the sin of idolatry would be in keeping with the clearly revealed will of God for His people. So whatever God does, it has nothing to do with luck, but with the operation of His holiness, reason and will. My case is not in the hands of the gods of fortune, but the God of mercy. Him I can trust. The rest of you? Not so much. Nothing personal. :)
from reply from 1052: Good luck with that.
“But quite simply, as to the blinding light - Jesus didn’t work that way.”
Not only did He work that way then, He still works that way today, and did for all the centuries in between.
“The main difference between Jesus’s and Paul’s teaching - Paul, in bed with the Romans, helped set up the church with the power, pomp & circumstances”
Wow. You know, sometimes there is an excuse for getting something wrong, but there is *no* excuse for that one.
Libraries are full of history books. I would recommend you investigate that further.
“Nevertheless, given the choices you presented, I would take any of them over transubstatiation, which has no grounding in Scripture or reason, but tends rather to encourage idolatry.”
It is, nevertheless, quite true, as you could find out for yourself—albeit only with great effort.
Oh, and there is scriptural grounding for it; please spare me whatever mental contortions you go through to deny that.
Thanks for the clarification.
But true is still true even if you don’t have universal agreement. Like Paul said, let God be true, and every man a liar. Romans 3:4. Consequentialist speculation, OTOH, is the methodology of relativism. Deciding what is ethically, morally, or theologically true based on earthly consequences. That’s really the opposite of the notion of divine truth, which was true even when only 7000 remained who had not bent the knee to Baal, true even when the Son of God was being nailed to a cross, and will still be true when He returns in glory, though faith has nearly died out altogether.
So truly, I have never understood why Catholic apologists use the consequentialist argument for Sola Ecclesia, though they avoid it studiously with respect, say, to abortion. If you don’t judge a human life disposable, regardless of pragmatic consequences, why use a different measure for the work of the Spirit of God, Who is Himself the builder of His Ecclesia, not fallible man.
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.