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.
***And, on top of that, he completely misunderstood the Jewish practice of the blood sacrifice.***
I believe he knew about the practice of blood sacrifice. He several times went to the TEMPLE, once with a vow on his head, and on his LAST trip there JAMES said he had several men with vows on their heads, and PAUL was to go with them, pay for their SACRIFICES to show the people that what the people had heard about him ABANDONING Jewish practices WAS NOT SO.
This was when the RIOT occured and he was rescued by Roman Troops because the people thought the Christian Jews with vows on their heads were GENTILES.
Remember, PAUL also circumcised Timothy because the Jews knew his father was GREEK, but his MOTHER was a Jewess.
***Why do you think that the Jewish people were so mad at him?***
They were mad because HE WAS THE APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES!
They even tried to kill Jesus when he mentioned GENTILES...
Luke Chapter 4
27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.
28 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,
29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.
what do you mean "cults (and Rome)would have a field day?"
I think Rome's been having a field day since around the 3rd or 4th century.
:)
If Paul had nothing good to say about the other apostles, why would Peter endorse Paul?>>>>>
Very simple, Peter and the other apostles spent over 3 years with Jesus, he taught them very well, two things he taught them were to be humble and to not exalt them selves.
They were taught to turn the other cheek.
In Paul`s case they would never have tried to make him feel bad even though he was claiming to be an apostle when not among them, plus they knew that it was God running things and not them.
Mark 9:39
Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
So, if Paul was a fake Christian, why would he be commissioned by the believers to Tarsus?
I don`t believe I said he was a fake Christian, I said he makes a lot of sense but he does exalt himself a lot.
I would not spend five minutes in a church where the preacher talked about himself as much as Paul does.
On certain things like this, ALL CHRISTIANS, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant must hold the line!
Internal squabbles are for other times.
***When you add these to all of the contradictions between Paul`s letters and the acts then it is something to be concerned about.***
Pick up enough books on WWII, written by German, American, Japanese and Russian historians. You will find enough differences to doubt everything you have ever been taught about WWII.
As one wag said about the bible, “there is something in the Bible for everyone, even some errors for those who look for errors.”
Ever look at the differences between the Books of KINGS and Chronicles?
Nonsense. There have been many, many people who believe they are chosen,>>>>>>
Harold Camping for instance, I have no doubt he was a Christian who thought he was going to be one of the two witness`s in the end time, I heard recently that he died.
God bless him and god bless Paul also.
As one wag said about the bible, “there is something in the Bible for everyone, even some errors for those who look for errors.”
Ever look at the differences between the Books of KINGS and Chronicles?>>>>>>
No, although I have read every page I have not studied either one of them.
Posts like this are utterly repulsive. Why don't you tell us what "church" you DO attend? We will likely discover you attend a legalistic cult. Care to tell us? By the way...
"For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." (Rom 7:14-25)
This is a passage that is universally hated by Cultists for one very good reason: All of them are more self-righteous, and will not be humbled to confess their own inherent sin as Paul does. And if they do, they will always add the caveat: "But if we work really hard, we can be sinless."
Yet, you still observe Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, do you not? From http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2013/09/sin-redemption-and-the-day-of-atonement/:
While most Christians today don’t observe the Day of Atonement, it remains significant because, like many events and ordinances in the Old Testament, it foreshadows the redeeming work of Jesus Christ. Every element of the Day of Atonement holds theological significance: the sacrifices, the banishment of a “scapegoat” that bore Israel’s sins, and the promise of God’s forgiveness.
The full story of the Day of Atonement is found in Leviticus 16. (It’s mentioned briefly in the New Testament as well.) Here are a few excerpts:
“When Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the Tent of Meeting and the altar, he shall bring forward the live goat. He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites–all their sins–and put them on the goat’s head. He shall send the goat away into the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task. The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man shall release it in the desert….
“This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: On the tenth day of the seventh month you must deny yourselves and not do any work–whether native-born or an alien living among you–because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins. It is a sabbath of rest, and you must deny yourselves; it is a lasting ordinance. The priest who is anointed and ordained to succeed his father as high priest is to make atonement. He is to put on the sacred linen garments and make atonement for the Most Holy Place, for the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and for the priests and all the people of the community.
“This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: Atonement is to be made once a year for all the sins of the Israelites.”
And it was done, as the LORD commanded Moses.
The Day of Atonement was an annual reminder of God’s grace and of man’s need for forgiveness. Reading it in the light of the New Testament, seeing it also as a signpost pointing ahead to Christ, lends it even more significance. With the sacrifice of Easter well behind us and the promise of Christmas still months away, Yom Kippur is a good opportunity for Christians to reflect on the atonement God offers to us through Jesus Christ.
I would not spend five minutes in a church where the preacher talked about himself as much as Paul does.
****
I’m certainly no bible scholar but you are talking about now and they lived then….with Jesus. They are blessed. We are just trying to catch up.
Bishop Horne said it best in 1831.
“Pertness and ignorance will ask in three lines, a question that will take thirty pages of learning and ingenuity to answer. And when this is done, the SAME QUESTION will be triumphantly be asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written on the subject.”
Posts like this are utterly repulsive.
I guess I should have said as much as Paul seems to.
We will likely discover you attend a legalistic cult. Care to tell us? By the way...>>>>>
I would not mind telling you if it had anything to do with the comment which I made but it don`t.
I Believe Paul was a Christian, at the same time I can see that the contradictions in which the ones use who are thinking of Paul as a little shady speak for them selves for any one who can read.
uh,uh don`t worry, you do not have to be able to read to be saved.
And if you refuse to see it then I should ask what demonic cult you belong to but since it is none of my business I won`t ask.
I’m certainly no bible scholar but you are talking about now and they lived then….with Jesus. They are blessed. We are just trying to catch up.
No doubt! There were even false messiahs in the first century A.D. and believers were warned of false prophets who would come to scatter the flock of God. The point is that Paul was not a maniac, mentally ill or misguided in his following Christ. He did so even though it meant "eating crow" and having to admit that persecuting Christ followers was wrong and he renounced it. He could have led a very comfortable and respectable life remaining a Pharisee and going after Christians - it was what the Romans even encouraged. He gave up EVERYTHING and often did without basic needs like food and shelter. He was beaten, jailed, shipwrecked - TWICE!, often earned money by doing menial jobs like tent making and waiting tables and he was executed in Rome.
So, either Paul was insane for putting himself through all that if it really wasn't true - and which case he would NOT have been accepted by the other Apostles nor given letters of recommendation and sent on missionary journeys - or he was really and completely changed by a miraculous meeting with the risen Christ. I just don't see how "ego" possibly fits into the story - he lost too much. So, which is it? Was Paul insane and he just fooled everybody or was he legitimate? Don't forget, he actually did miracles in front of people to demonstrate the power of God and to affirm his message was from God.
I have a relative that sits in a prison mental hospital today who believes completely that he is Elijah the Prophet and ALSO the newly appointed God the Father Almighty. HE is mentally ill - obviously. His actions don't line up with his delusions, but his mental illness prevents him from seeing what everyone else can. Paul was not mentally ill. Whatever delusions one may have to power and greatness - if it's false - it will NEVER succeed. Like you said, they end up getting killed. But Paul's ministry DID succeed. He led thousands to saving faith in Jesus Christ - probably millions, now, as his writings, as he was carried along by the Holy Spirit, speak to those whose hearts are seeking the truth. These words have POWER. The power was not Paul, it was Christ. Paul was chosen by Christ for a specific reason and NOTHING Paul did or said disproves this really happened.
“Pertness and ignorance will ask in three lines, a question that will take thirty pages of learning and ingenuity to answer.
Speaking of not understanding the basics.
The *Jews* (meaning the religious leaders, not the average person on the street) hated him because He threatened their grip on power. He exposed them for the hypocrites and frauds that they were.
THEY were the ones who didn't understand their own religion, that is that it was foreshadowing the very person they condemned and had put to death.
The purpose of the Law was not to save anyone, but rather to show us our need for a Savior. To show us that we could NOT do it ourselves.
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.