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.
Is 'overcoming' like 'enduring to the end'?
I fully support you quoting me, quite a bit of the things I write bear repeating. What I don't support is you MISquoting me. I go out of my way to cut and paste the things I respond to. That way there is no misunderstanding as to exactly what I am responding to. Please have the consideration to do the same.
you wroteYou said my gospel was "one and done" and now you want to hedge a little? Interesting....do you imagine I have no Scripture to back up what I said?
That is not what I wrote, not even close. My post 1,167 For the record my only contention was that Boatbums apparent "one and done" theology was off base.
Now you have responded that you do believe in "eternal security" which is also called "Once saved always saved". So that takes the term "apparent" off the table. I included it since I was pretty sure that is what you were getting at but did not want to be accused of "mind reading"
Second you are aware that the word "Theology", encompasses much more than the word "gospel".
Theology- from dictionary.com
the·ol·o·gy [thee-ol-uh-jee] noun, plural the·ol·o·gies.
1. the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.
2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.
On the other hand Gospel literally means "Good News"
As far as your scriptural quotations go Good job, incomplete but good job.
(I will conveniently ignore that the father did require work from both of the sons, but mention it only in passing)
The youngest son took his inheritance and squandered it. He had his "salvation" and threw it away. Now may protestants say that this parable proves OSAS. I say it completely disproves it. No one forced the son to return. No one held a gun to his head, he di it of his own "free will".
He could have stayed with the farmer slopping the hogs, he could have returned to the city and took up a life of begging. He could have traveled to a different country and did a number of other things.
And here is the important issue, at any point in the parable he could have died, and att he point of death what would his state have been?
Here is a hint: He sure as heck would not have been "saved", he would have been lost.
Seems that that is beyond the comprehension of so many.
It goes to show who the people who aren't sure of their salvation are trusting.
If you're trusting God completely, there is no uncertainty.
It simply indicates a desperate pretext to shoot at a evangelical, based on what i must have been thinking.
Believing on the one he sent means complete obedience in all of his commandments.
Why did you not start at the beginning of the chapter?
The first 11 verses conclusively prove the very words that you try to contest!
This is deception; you do Satan’s work well!
.
Your idea of assurance is the fallacy.
Assurance can only come from the knowledge that one is following his master’s commandments.
I am delighted you found it helpful. Keep in mind I am an amateur at this. It’s been years since I actually studied the language intensely (A couple of semesters of Hebrew too - never got as comfortable with it as the Greek). I’ve been getting by with undue reliance on my language tools. And that’s been fine for most of the garden variety controversies I’ve wrestled with, mostly individual word studies. But this whole episode puts me in mind to take a refresher, and then maybe go on to the next level. Onward and upward. :)
Peace,
SR
You rage at me for telling you the words of Yehova!
It is those words that convict! (and yes, that is the very purpose of Torah: to convict one of their sin so that they may confess and repent, unto righteousness.)
That is precisely what the Mikvah is (poorly translated as baptism).
I also must apologize for forgetting that your Doctorate is in Law while one of my Masters is in Theology.
I know understand why you view the components Christ's body as possessions. I hope you can understand why from a philosophical point of view them more as His essence: From dictionary.com: essence Philosophy. the inward nature, true substance, or constitution of anything, as opposed to what is accidental, phenomenal, illusory, etc.
4. philosophy
a. Compare accident the unchanging and unchangeable nature of something which is necessary to its being the thing it is; its necessary properties
b. the properties in virtue of which something is called by its name
c. the nature of something as distinct from, and logically prior to, its existence
Right now I have to help my wife get the house ready. we are having friends over for dinner.
I do see where each of us is coming from though.
>> “Explain how that in any way says someone CAN have assurance of their salvation?” <<
.
By being obedient to his words.
That is precisely what “belief” means.
.
Sadly the instructor at my seminary had a stroke the semester before I was going to take Hebrew with him and I missed out greatly on that. We do have a Jewish Synagogue here in town and I have been meaning to go knocking on their door.
But this whole episode puts me in mind to take a refresher, and then maybe go on to the next level. Onward and upward. :)
I might have to do that as well. I just have to convince my wife that Biblical languages are more important than cutting lawns and trimming hedges.
Was he saved at that point, when he was persecuting Christians?
No.
Philippians 3:2-11 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
>> “Paul was perfect in obeying the Law. He said so himself.
Was he saved at that point, when he was persecuting Christians?” <<
.
Can you really not see the complete contradiction in those two statements?
In your rage against the words of our savior, you seem to grasp at vapors.
Just read 1 John as many times as it takes for the word of God to sink in.
Paul’s epistles are too complex for you, and selecting sweet (misunderstood) words out of his long rants sends you down rabbit trails.
Paul is saying the very same things as John does, but there is too much window dressing around them. Paul was never “blameless” under the law of Yehova before his enlightenment on the Damascus road. It was through the strength gained in faith allowing him to truly follow the law in spirit, rather than ritual, that he found righteousness.
.
LOL! Good luck with that! Sorry to hear about your Hebrew prof. My first Hebrew teacher was quite old. But he was so good, and so kind and gentle with those of us who struggled. Ah the good old days. That was a loooong time ago.
Anyway, enjoy your mowing. After all, per Genesis, we were made to tend gardens, right? :)
As for me, I was up way too late, so I'll probably take it easy the rest of the day, so I'll probably offer some sort of response your latest thoughts somewhat later. But as before, good to talk with you. God bless.
Peace,
SR
Perhaps in the big picture that is true, I suppose, but I am a one-day-at-a-time kinda guy.
This from one who states that we should not judge another person's salvation?
Then why didn't Jesus tell this to the fella who asked the question?
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.