Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

Madison Ruppert ^ | 06/24/2014

[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.

[boatbums]

I read an article some time ago which argued that Paul was probably not a Jew by blood, it had a lot to say on the subject which I have forgotten.

So, now Paul was lying about that, too?

If someone else thinks they have reasons to put 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; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless. (Philippians 3:4-6)

We have no record of anyone disputing his words or calling him a liar back then. I imagine if the Jewish religious leaders were looking for anything to condemn him about, THAT would have been a juicy one!

[not2be4gotten.com]

greatest minds of world history

This is one of the best posts I have ever read on FreeRepublic.com

[metmom]

Your argument is with the Holy Spirit who inspired the verses of Scripture that I posted that flat out contradict the claims made by Catholicism.

Don’t tell me I’m wrong. Tell the Holy Spirit HE is wrong.

[mitch5501]

To be fair Vlad has certainly done a fine job in #112

[metmom]

Catholics don’t think ANYONE can understand anything spiritual as well as them.

They think they have a corner on the spiritual market because the Catholic church gave us the Bible, which includes all the OT writings that comprise Jewish Scripture. They claim ownership of all that and claim all the authors of Scripture are Catholic.

[Cvengr]

Outstanding post

[metmom]

It’s pretty basic. Mostly Scripture.

Not my work except for compiling it.

Hmmm, in certain circles, that apparently actually gives me the right to claim it for myself.

In that case.....

Thank you. it was nothing.

[metmom]

Do you think I’ll get accused of cherry picking verses out of context?

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Are you just saying that to make me think you are actually believing I said something vulgar? I guess I should have said as much as Paul seems to.

I did not say you wrote something vulgar. I said such opinions are repulsive, and they are. They are repulsive and offensive to 2000 years of Christianity. They are repulsive to common sense (are we to believe that Peter and all the Apostles weren't in on the Paulian conspiracy?). They are offensive to the very words of scripture. And lastly, assertions like this are also quite obnoxious as well. Anyone can sit around saying "Well, Paul worshipped the devil! He even said so," and other inane comments, but proving it is something else.

I would not mind telling you if it had anything to do with the comment which I made but it don`t.

Whether I am talking to a Cultist who denies the doctrine of the Trinity and teaches other weird things is very important. Once I know what you are, I can start testing your claims off of Christ and the rest of the Holy Scripture, without the use of Paul at all. The idiots who claim that Paul changed Christianity, are often so ignorant in the first place that they don't know that the whole of the Holy Bible is their enemy. Getting rid of Paul can't save them.

But how about we do it this way? And this is relevant: Tell us, what IS the true form of Christianity? Can you tell us about the Godhead, about sotierology, practice, organization, etc? Most importantly, the means by which a man is saved. After this, we can then see if you really represent the "red letters" of Jesus Christ or not. Is that not relevant?

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.

Shady to cultists, sure, who don't find it shady that their cult leader goes to bed with all the women. Not shady to any of us who aren't members of a creepy religious cult.

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 am an Orthodox Presbyterian. We are Trinitarians and are regarded by all of Christendom as, in fact, being Christian. Mormons, JWs, Oneness Pentecostals, Armstrongites, etc etc., are, by definition, not Christian at all, due to their denial of the Trinity and other central doctrines of Christianity.

[ravenwolf]

And they are very sparse on things such as ecclesiology and eschatology.

---

What do ecclesiology and eschatology mean?

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind

38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.

40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Do you know of any one who honor these two simple commandments which takes in the rest of the commandments?

You can write a hundred thousand words to explain them but they are so simple that Jesus explained them in the little old parable of the sheep and goats Matt 25:31 to 46

This is all we need, we do not have to have a DR.s certificate, a masters degree or any thing else, that’s it.

He had many more things to reveal,>>>>>

Yes he told his twelve apostles.

John 16
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Peter wrote down some things to come and John wrote Revelation and it does not change our way to salvation any at all.

So my question to you would be if there is something else we need to know why didn’t John Or peter tell us?

[ravenwolf]

So, now Paul was lying about that, too?

---

I did not say he was lying, I just said I had read of those who said he was.

We have no record of anyone disputing his words or calling him a liar back then. >>>>>>

That is not true, there are scripture wrote by Paul himself which shows that at least one of the Churches in Asia had departed from his teaching, calling him a liar and denying that he was an apostle.

[Cvengr]

Thank you. Great post.

[Cvengr]

That’s OK. If they doubt Paul, nothing surprises me.

I’ve always been dumbfounded that anybody with any intellect can be so intellectually dishonest as to claim Paul didn’t understand Judaism. Both his parents were Jewish and his father a Pharisee, labeled a Hebrew of Hebrews and endorsed by the Chief Priest with authority to go out and persecute Christians based upon his firm grasp of Judaism, Saul of Tarsus was the quintessential Hebrew scholar.

52% of the New Testament books were written / attributed to him. If somebody has problems with Paul, they have much larger problems elsewhere.

[ravenwolf]

They are repulsive to common sense (are we to believe that Peter and all the Apostles weren’t in on the Paulian conspiracy?).
-———————————————————————————— What in the world are you talking about? talk about being obnoxious, repulsive and offensive.

Are you trying to put words in my mouth or are you saying the whole thing was a conspiracy?

I did not use any such words so they have to be your words,
you have a right to your opinion but you should stick to what some one actually say rather than blow it all out of whack..

Once I know what you are, I can start testing your claims off of Christ and the rest of the Holy Scripture, without the use of Paul at all.>>>>>>>

I can see you get all shook up so I will try to not see any ones point that does not fit your approval from now on.

If I knew anything I would be rich but if any one can not see that there are contradictions concerning Paul they are about as spiritual as a fence post.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Are you trying to put words in my mouth or are you saying the whole thing was a conspiracy?

Since you are so painfully illogical, you do not realize that the Apostles, of necessity, must have been in on Paul's desire to "change" Christianity.

1) First, in their agreement in doctrine in all the Gospels, as well as in their writings. Paul's teachings on salvation by grace alone and predestination of the elect can be found in the Gospels, especially that of John, who is the most explicit in the teachings on election.

2) Next, in the affirmation of all of the Apostles of Paul's authenticity, as affirmed by Paul himself (but then, perhaps you will say he is a liar), the book of Acts, and Peter's epistle, wherein Paul's writing is given the title of "scripture."

3) In the lack of any writing by any of the other Apostles condemning Paul, and contradicting what we read of in Acts and in Paul's own writings. To ignore this, we must then believe that the Apostles either did condemn Paul, but that no evidence of it existed, whether in the enemies of Christianity, or in any writings by the Apostles or anyone, since none bothered to take the time to defame Paul.

So, we are only left with one real conclusion: That the Apostles were all in on the same eeeevil conspiracy to "change" Christianity.

If I knew anything I would be rich but if any one can not see that there are contradictions concerning Paul they are about as spiritual as a fence post.

Notice that the apparent member of an non-Christian religious cult does not bother to even defend his absurd claims.

[BlueDragon]

Sal,
Should I even ask how this question of yours

Are you saying that Jesus Christ was not true God and true man?

arose in response to a man saying (or asking)

Jesus and the Apostles were all baptized by John the who? So that would make them...

Tell me Sal,

Was John the Baptist a true man...or did all those locusts (along with a some bread scraps brought by ravens?) washed down with honey turn him into a twin-hulled catamaran?

Does that sound crazy to you? It does to me...

But I was trying to match 'ol Salvation stride for stride in the non sequitur department, but went a bit overboard (that's a boat joke) while making a little splash (that's a water joke).

The answer is wet. Baptizing them would make them wet.

Or Baptists.

hey, don't get mad at me... at least I didn't say episcopalians. or pentecostals -- yikes!

OK -- now that that's out of the way, where next to turn all the blame-shifting towards, about just who it was that "highjacked" Christianity?

I didn't read the rest of the thread yet.

I see some usual suspects blaming some usual suspects that are blaming some usual suspects. How much those cancel out, who knows? Triple-word score scrabble scores always went to sister and the moose who bit her where I used to play the game.

I think it was a conspiracy.

God knows and the shadow lies, like the darkest depths of Mordor Who am I to judge?

Smile -- say "cheese", you are on candid camera. We are all playing starring bit roles in each others movies. One frame-up at a time. ha-chacha-chacha

[POWERSBOOTHEFAN]

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man to be capricious or mortal to change His mind. Would He speak and not act, promise and not fulfill? ( Tanakh, Jewish Publication Society)

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man that He shall lie, nor a son of man that He shall repent. Has He said,and will not do, or has He spoken, and will not make it good? (NKJV)

GOD IS NOT A MAN. HE DOES NOT CHANGE HIS MIND. Thus Jesus is not God.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

GOD IS NOT A MAN.

It says "God is not a man that He shall lie." It does not end after "man" at all, but keeps on going. This is very different from saying: "The Word shall not be made flesh, and dwell among us," using John's verbiage.

[ravenwolf]

Since you are so painfully illogical, you do not realize that the Apostles, of necessity, must have been in on Paul’s desire to “change” Christianity.

---

There was nothing to change, Jesus Christ is what the apostles taught, that is what it was all about, Jesus died so those who believed in him could have eternal life.

that is what the apostles taught and that is what Paul taught, I said nothing about this, why are you arguing with me about this?

I did not say the other apostles accused Paul of any thing, if you think I did then copy and paste my words if you know how to do that.

What I said was that Paul was by his own words accused of being a liar and of not being an apostle, I will not give you the verse because I have already did that.

2) Next, in the affirmation of all of the Apostles of Paul’s authenticity, as affirmed by Paul himself>>>>>>>

It was affirmed by Peter, yes.

So, we are only left with one real conclusion: That the Apostles were all in on the same eeeevil conspiracy to “change” Christianity.>>>>>>>

Are you saying that you believe there was some kind of conspiracy, I don`t know what you are talking about.

Notice that the apparent member of an non-Christian religious cult does not bother to even defend his absurd claims.>>>>>>

I do not know anything about the Orthodox Presbyterian but I would not go so far as to say they are a cult.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

that is what the apostles taught and that is what Paul taught, I said nothing about this, why are you arguing with me about this?

Because you are arguing that Paul "changed" Christianity, and is a "shady" Apostle. But now you appear to be saying that Paul taught what Christ taught.

I did not say the other apostles accused Paul of any thing,

It does not appear that FRs cultists are even conscious, most of the time. This was exactly my point to you: The Apostles not only did not condemn Paul, they endorsed him.

What I said was that Paul was by his own words accused of being a liar and of not being an apostle, I will not give you the verse because I have already did that.

You double-talking sophist, so after declaring that you are not against Paul, you are saying 'Well, some people hated Paul" to claim that there are separate branches of Christianity? One with all the Apostles, and the other without it, and that they are equal? Stop posting, seriously.