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.
Paul is seen as too Protestant, but if this was Mary...
I asked you a question to make a point which you apparently missed; Saul's observance of Torah was real, legitimate, and genuine; so much closer to Moses than anything a rabbi in the Galut with no temple can offer now. Any Judaism you reference now is far removed from that, having been synthesized over the centuries to compensate for the Galut and loss of the Temple. Essentially what you have is what I have; Love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength; and love your neighbor as yourself.
We have Paul writing IN Scripture about challenging Peter over a main issue for the believers, but NOTHING from Peter or any of the other Apostles calling Paul "shady" or criticizing him for his doctrine. I kinda doubt he had them all scared to challenge him on anything. In fact, they praised God for him and the ministry he had among the Gentiles!
So, what you’re saying is that no living Jewish person can possibly understand our own religion as well as Christians...? That our Oral Tradition means nothing? That we don’t even understand what Moses meant (because it was so long ago) and therefore can never understand Judaism?
Well said! Thank you.
Amen! Good points.
The scriptural illiteracy on this thread is astounding.
>>>>>>>
I don`t know what Jefferson said I just see there is a lot of contradiction in Paul`s letters and acts and I did say that Paul made a lot of sense.
But he also talks about himself a lot and in a place or two he could be saying something good about some of the apostles that Jesus chose but it is really hard to tell if it is good or subtly just the opposite.
If I am not mistaken it was Paul who said to rightly divide the word of God so that means to take into consideration every thing you read that is said to be scripture.
One of these scriptures are in rev written to the Church of the Ephesians.
Rev 2
and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
1Tim 2
7Whereunto 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.
2Tim 1
15This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
Ephesus is in Asia I believe.
1 Cor 9
9 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?
2 Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me.
You can see very plainly that Paul was judged by at least some and probably many of not being an apostle and was said to be a liar.
When you add these to all of the contradictions between Paul`s letters and the acts then it is something to be concerned about.
I can not be sure of anything so my only shelter is to believe what Jesus said and I believe that is all I need.
As far as illiteracy is concerned I will make no argument about that, it will either speak for itself or it won`t.
And how literate do you have to be to be given salvation?
Nonsense. There have been many, many people who believe they are chosen, or are the Messiah, or are the second coming, or have some great destiny... it's all ego and mental illness, of course, but it's quite common. And yes, they do seek fame and power. They really believe that supernatural intervention will place them very high, beyond any danger. They generally end up getting killed.
No, Peter isn’t the one calling him shady, I’m the one calling him shady.
No man gave Paul authority to preach and evangelize, which he did before he even met Peter, after being filled with the Spirit of Christ thru a certain devout disciple.
And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. (Acts 9:20)
But as part of the body, he was commissioned to do certain missions, even before Acts 15 and not by known apostles:
Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. (Acts 13:1-3)
Likewise in Acts
And his apostleship and preaching being attacked, he finally presented himself to those, "who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: (Galatians 2:6 )
And Paul himself states that
I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing. (2 Corinthians 12:11)
If Paul was such a great rabbi, why didn’t he know these basic facts about the religion?
Well laid out, sir! Thank you.
Both statements are false, except in the sense of personal face to face relationship on earth, but which did not mean those who did rally knew Him that deeply. yet all who are born again have no personal connection with Jesus.
And rather than being independent from Christ, to fully know Him was Paul's most earnest desire.
For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. (1 Corinthians 2:2)
That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. (Philippians 3:10,11)
For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. (Philippians 1:21)
For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: (Philippians 1:23)
Moreover, Paul did encounter Christ while on earth, and likely was taught by Him in Arabia, and in other encounters, all of which points to communion and intimacy:
Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? (1 Corinthians 9:1)
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11-12)
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. (Galatians 1:15-17)
Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city. (Acts 18:9-10)
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. (2 Corinthians 12:2-4)
For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. (2 Corinthians 12:8-9)
Hardly some hijacker. Yet the Muslims who teach this have the audacity to assert the Comforter of Jn. 16 is Muham-mad (the dis-comforter)
Actually it wasn’t that he was taking their religion in vain. It was the fact he was going to the GENTILES.
Look at what he said when he addressed the crowd in the Temple, speaking in Hebrew. The crowd listened to his defense until he said God would send him to the GENTILES!
At that word the crowd went into wild and said “Away with him for he is not fit to live!”
More proof is when Peter went to Antioch to visit PAUL and the Gentile Christians there. When Jews came from Jerusalem he quickly separated himself from them causing quite a division there.
And earlier, when Peter went to Cornelius, a GENTILE, he had to give a defense of his actions back in Jerusalem.
Remember what he said to Cornelius?
8 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
This is why Jesus first rejected the Syro-Phonecian woman’s request to heal her daughter. His words were...”I AM SENT TO NONE BUT ONLY THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL!”
Se was not an Israelite.
And when Jesus sent out his first disciples he told them ...”GO ye not in the way of the GENTILES nor enter into the houses of the SAMARITANS, but go rather to THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.”
And after the Resurection, JESUS told them of their missionary orders, JERUSALEM, then JUDEA, then SAMARIA, then TO THE UTTER MOST PARTS OF THE WORLD.
They didn’t. During the early persecutions the Apostles stayed at Jerusalem.
Acts Chapter 8
1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
Well said.
***THEY DON’T ACCEPT PAUL’s epistles.****
And I bet none of the naysayers could follow the words of JESUS TO THE LETTER.
Obedience to the Scribes and Pharisees, selling all you have and follow Jesus, keeping the LAW of MOSES perfectly, ect.
God gave Israel 40 years, just like he did in the desert. After 40 years, the place of sacrifice was destroyed and a ROMAN temple to Jupiter built on the spot. Now a mosque pollutes the site.
Awesome response! Thank you.
Then you mean only the "red letters," which is absurd, as He Himself said He had many more things to reveal, while even the red letters were not written by Him, but the Holy Spirit who sometimes rephrased or otherwise expanded or contracted what He said, as seen by the accounts of the Lord's trial.
Moreover, the gospels do not provide clarity in many things, and beg for interpretation, which the rest of the NT works to provide, and without it cults (and Rome) would have a field day.
And they are very sparse on things such as ecclesiology and eschatology.
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.