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.
All interesting questions, and I appreciate the sense of genuine inquiry. It’s good every now and then to get past talking past each other.
However, I am at work, and tapping out answers on my droid is painfully slow, so I can only give the most cursory answers, for now. Perhaps more later.
1. Everyone who loves Jesus wants to do good. So Rev 22 seems applicable, especially in context of being descriptive rather than prescriptive. The chief commandments are love for God and neighbor. Will God hold us to account for not eating kosher or holding temple service, complete with sacrifice? That is not the focus of Rev 22. Personal morality, integrity, honesty, all are in view. But descriptively. What Protestants reject is not the need for personal holiness, but that we can take any credit for personal righteousness that follows our salvation, or that the final outcome is not under Gods control, but the fallible, fickle will of fallen sinners. He justifies us with no condition imposed other than faith, and that itself is gift from Him. Then He molds us into the righteous people He always planned for us to be. And if that true change of the inner man to love God and neighbor does not happen, that person has reason to fear the description of those lost souls found outside the gate on that final day.
2. The fire spoken of by Paul that consumes our wood, hay, and stubble is not literal suffering in the netherworld, as if the suffering of Christ was not enough, or could be added to. It is as much a metaphor as the wood and hay etc. I take it to mean the measuring if our deeds against the holiness of God. Whatever we have done inconsistent with that, though covered by the blood of Christ and so not due cause for purgatorial suffering, is nonetheless a loss to us, a failure to make the most of the opportunities to live well as God defines it. So the many warnings have multiple purposes, with much Scripture to describe it. But Paul is not wrong. We will not enter into the Gospel by the sealing of the Spirit, then finish by deeds of the flesh. Any view that fails to account for the completeness of the redemption provided in the death of Christ is a partial gospel at best.
3. I am not able to speak to the eternal state of someone like the pastor you described. Reformed folks like myself view OSAS in terms if the “perseverance of the saints,” that salvation is not some automatic effect of saying a ritual prayer, but a true heart conversion that fills one with the Holy Spirit and a keen desire to please Him in every way possible. Whether this pastor is genuinely saved but living a life of wood, hay, and stubble, or whether he is self-deceived and lost as can be, is above my pay grade. That’s between him and God. My advice to him would be to forsake every trace of sin in his life, returning to his first love, no matter the cost, thereby making his calling and election sure.
Out of time.
Peace,
SR
14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
I think you may given me the straw that broke the camels back reason to dump my dumb phone and replace it with a smart phone.
I was doing the Divine office for quite a while, but had trouble carrying the book around in my daily routine.
I keep getting an error message from this site. It is either 100% or they can’t call themselves conservative. They are hedging their bets.
That free program is probably the most important app on my phone. If you’re going to buy an iphone wait a couple months, the 6 should be out soon and the 5s will be cheaper. I’m all about saving money. :)
I am actually leaning toward a Samsung. I was forced to use an apple Mac for a semester after 10 years on a PC and have pretty much sworn off anything Apple
I don’t know that brevmeum is available on the android side of things, as far as I can tell it’s an iphone app only. I’ve been using iphones since they came out in 2007 and an android tablet for a couple of years... get the iphone. :)
If only you people would read the scriptures before you go off the deep end with craziness like this...Of course Paul spent time with Jesus, face to face...The RISEN Lord Jesus...
So then, you can't reconcile the scripture I posted with the scripture you posted...Why didn't you just say that??? How can you with a good conscience expound on any scripture when you have to reject other scripture???
Of course they do...God wrote it for us...It's called the bible...
Breviarium Meum HDAbout.com Reader's Choice Finalist 2012Breviarium Meum allows you to pray the traditional (1962) Latin breviary of the Catholic Church wherever you go. Just pull out your iPhone, iPod touch, or iPad, select the hour to pray, and begin. You can download the texts up to a week in advance, so you can pray even when you don't have a network connection. So if you’re on a mountain top making a retreat, or down in a valley to celebrate Mass in an isolated village, you can still keep up with the office, even if you left your printed breviary at home.
What if you lose the iphone while on the mountain??? Apparently you lose all contact with whoever it is you are praying to...
Then God is obviously punishing you.
>> “Paul said that ANY other gospel than the one he preached is an accursed gospel” <<
.
Yes, he did.
He also said that the gospel that he preached is the very same one that Moses preached in the desert. That is the gospel of obedience to the commandments spawned by belief and love for our Creator and Savior.
The gospel you promote here is another gospel, and cannot be found anywhere in the word of God.
Grace is not imputed to those that do not believe fully in the words of our Savior. Nor would such grace produce an eternal contract for salvation in one whose faith waxes cold at a later date, as Yeshua has plainly stated: “The faith of many shall wax cold...”
An earnest reading of Hebrews 3 and 4, and 1John 2, should do wonders for any that think otherwise.
.
Still promoting your high carb poison I see.
Had you referred back one chapter to Romans 2, you would have seen that the righteousness that derives through having Torah written on our hearts is the sole avenue for sinful man to achieve eternal life.
Paul does not contradict himself from chapter to chapter; but the conniving mind of sinful man does twist his words aided by a poor Greek translation of his words that fails to differentiate man's law and Yehova’s law.
.
“And that’s the very grovelling I have no intention of doing.”
You should look up the definition (and spelling) of the word “groveling.”
“Where God opens up an opportunity to share the Gospel”
You’re not sharing the Gospel. You’re just repeating some very wrong-headed, wrong-hearted misinterpretations of the Bible.
“Besides, you crashed my conversation, not the other way around.”
If you want private conversation, don’t post it in public areas. I’ll go one better than that; if told that a conversation is private, I’ll withdraw.
“but your “arguments” consist[-p] of “shut up” and “grrrr.” Is that all you’ve got?”
How interesting it is that conservatives who argue the wrong side of an issue argue it like a liberal, and not like a conservative.
Here you deny that I have posted hundreds of words of reasoned argument over the past few days. For whose sake do you do this? Not mine, because I know that I posted them. I guess it could only be an attempt to deceive yourself or others. Don’t know; don’t really care.
“I am sorry for you.”
No, you’re not. You are just trying to come up with things to say that will make me feel bad. Boring.
“If you had some killer argument that established transubstantiation as truth, that card would have been played by now.”
I guess that scripture does not count as a killer argument for you. Anyway, I told you that you can discover the truth of the matter for yourself, and you never have replied to that.
“Instead, its all about psyops.”
Every time somebody is arguing against the truth, they come up with that kind of argument sooner or later. BTW, the contraction of “it is” is “it’s,” not “its.”
“And I’m pretty sure making it personal, even if used as an avoidance tactic, is contra forum rules.”
Somebody call the waaambulance.
“There’s a good reason for that.”
That would only be true if the rule were applied intelligently. Instead, you can get away with all kinds of personal insults, just so long as you do a good enough imitation of Oscar Wilde.
You can’t say, “You are a dolt,” but you can say something like, “I would never make a personal comment about an FR poster, but if someone else said “x,” it would be clear that such a person is a coprophagic catamite who is addicted to many disgusting perversions and has the intelligence of a garden slug.” It is clear to everyone that you are indeed talking about a specific FR poster, but because you phrased it in that way, it passes muster. The policy has the benefit of preventing some of the worst excesses, but it does not prevent one from “getting personal,” de facto.
You have gotten personal with me in this oblique manner, and I let it go, so I am not inclined to take your whining seriously.
“Do you feel you are beyond such limitations?”
What would matter to me is what I thought, not what I felt, and what I think is set forth above.
“Just curious.”
Nonsense. You are offended by my apparent belief that I am right and you are wrong, and that if you achieve a better understanding of these matters you will come to agree with me. That’s why you can’t let it go.
“And well enough He didn’t say it that way. It would be passing strange to explicitly label an obvious metaphor so awkwardly and academically”
At the very least it was translated from Greek or Aramaic to Latin, then to an antique form of English.
I was a professional translator for over 20 years, and I have seen how the translation of even a commonplace idiom can become very strange, particularly if a committee is working on it.
It’s not strange that the phrasing is stilted; in fact, I would be suspicious if it were not. These words were chosen because they best transmit the intended meaning, stilted or not. Clarity, not poetry.
“and quite alien to Jesus’ style of communication”
So, you guys were hanging, shooting the bull in Aramaic, were you?
“I’m not the one to blame for the existence of direct metaphors.”
So, many of His disciples fled and never came back because they suffer from a morbid fear of direct metaphors?
“Paul does not contradict himself from chapter to chapter; but the conniving mind of sinful man does twist his words aided by a poor Greek translation of his words that fails to differentiate man’s law and Yehova’s law.”
Kind of makes it tough, doesn’t it? I really wish I had learned those languages.
We are all made victims of the nicolaitans that feed us the false gospels.
Thank you for demonstrating Verga's Theological truth #2 Protestantism is an intellectual vacuum that few are able to crawl out of.
LOLOL...
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.