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.
Stay on topic. You were casting doubt on Paul's Jewishness, to which I showed you what Paul said about his genetic heritage. Do you have anything from anyone "back then" that rebuts or denies he WAS a Jew? Anything? No one is denying Paul had enemies, but don't you think that if he was lying about his Jewishness and background to the people he grew up around, that they would have jumped on that like white on rice?
What you write is mostly incomprehensible dribble where you ignore 90 percent of what people write to you anyway. I do not mind if you get upset at my condemnations of your anti-Christian doctrines.
Let’s talk about women’s head covering since you brought it up in your post above.
Please understand this.... The context of the entire passage of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is submission to the God-given order and “chain of command.”
A “covering” on a woman’s head is used as an illustration of the order, headship, and the authority of God. The key verse of this passage is 1 Corinthians 11:3 “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”
The implications of this verse are found in the rest of the passage.
The order is: God the Father, God the Son, the man or husband, and the woman or wife. The veil or covering on the head of a believing Corinthian wife showed that she was under the authority of her husband, and therefore under submission to God.
Within this passage is also verse 10: “For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”
Why is that important to angels? The relationship of God with men is something that angels watch and learn from (SEE 1 Peter 1:12). Therefore, a woman’s submission to God’s delegated authority over her is an example to angels. The holy angels, who are in perfect and total submission to God, expect that we, as followers of Christ, be the same.
This covering not only means a cloth but also can refer to a woman’s hair length. How can we say that? We must take this verse in the context or the setting in which it is presented. “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering” (1 Corinthians 11:14-15).
Therefore, in the context of this passage, a woman who is wearing her hair longer marks herself out distinctively as a woman and not a man.
The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the CORINTHIAN CULTURE, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship. The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God.
I’m sure you are going to ask : But why is hair an issue in this passage?
Understand again Paul is addressing an issue related to the CORINTHIAN CULTURE that was being allowed to disrupt the church.
For a woman to have a shaved head was a disgrace (and, in Jewish thinking, a sign of mourning, Deuteronomy 21:12). Her hair was her “glory” (1 Corinthians 11:15).
In the Corinthian culture, women normally wore a head covering as a symbol of their submission to their husbands.
Paul affirms the rightness of following that cultural mandate—to dispense with the head coverings on women would send the entirely wrong signal to the CULTURE AT LARGE.
Thus because of this, Paul says that, if a Christian woman refuses her head covering, she might as well shave her hair off, too (verse 6).
A woman who refused to wear a covering in that culture was basically saying, “I refuse to submit to God’s order.”
Therefore, Paul is teaching the Corinthians that hair length or the wearing of a “covering” by the woman was an outward indication of a heart attitude of submission to God and to His established authority.
IN SUMMARY:
God’s order is that the husband is the head of the wife as God is the head of Christ, but there is NO INEQUALITY or INFERIORITY implied.
God and Christ are equal and united, just as the husband and the wife are one. This is not a passage that teaches the woman is inferior to man or that she should be submissive to every man in every issue (even when the man is wrong).
It is teaching God’s order and spiritual headship in the marriage relationship. In the Corinthian culture, a woman who covered her head during worship or when she was in public displayed her submission to authority.
Whether you and I like it or not doesn’t change this.
Now, I can anticipate your next question -— WHAT ABOUT TODAY IN THE 21st CENTURY, ARE WE SUPPOSED TO TELL WOMEN TO COVER THEIR HEADS TOO?
In today’s culture, we no longer view a woman’s wearing of a head covering as a sign of submission. In most modern societies, scarves and hats are fashion accessories.
A woman has the choice to wear a head covering if she views it as a sign of her submission to the authority of her husband. BUT THAT IS HER CHOICE.
So, it is a PERSONAL CHOICE and not something that should be used to judge spirituality.
The real issue here is the HEART ATTIRUDE of obedience to God’s authority and submission to His established order “as to the LORD” (Ephesians 5:22).
God is far more concerned with an attitude of submission than an outward display of submission via a head covering.
This is Torah: Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
It is not a general prohibition against mixing meat and dairy. It is a specific prohibition, perhaps to avoid an idolatrous dish common at that timem or perhaps to allow a baby mammal enough time to be weaned before killing it to eat it (think veal). Rabbinical Judaism has made it more difficult for Jewish families who are not wealthy to feed themselves, having to own several sets of dishes and purchase much more expensive products (yes, I understand some of this is specific in the Torah and cannot be avoided, but they should not add to the Torah and make it harder).
RE: How about Paul simply articulated Christianity?
Yep, that’s a good one line answer.... :)
“Just wondering if you’ve ever studied the New Testament as it is written in Greek.”
The whole thing? No. Very small parts? Yes.
You are welcome; it was profitable too for me to post the awesome promises of God in Deuteronomy. I also need to feed.
That’s a fact. It amazes me how so many people totally miss what changed when Jesus became the one sacrifice for all sins and the veil was rent in two. Paul was christened by Christ to carry the new covenant to all people whereas prior to His death and resurrection the message was primarily to the Jews.
Paul neither invented nor hijacked Christianity. He was the major messenger of the New Covenant to the dispensation of grace.
Sorry, but what you’re saying just doesn’t make any sense.
Again, Paul knew he was risking everything and doing it for NO DISECRNABLE EARTHLY GAIN.
You wrote: “Men who seek power always do it at great risk.”
Not necessarily and not ever as Paul did. Paul joined a side that had NO EARTHLY POWER WHATSOEVER and at great personal risk - guaranteed risk - to himself. Quite simply NO ONE DOES THAT.
“Well, Jewish law would have required him to pay a fee to her father and marry her, but other than that, no”
Again, you’re not making any sense. Paul’s moral code precluded any act of rape. It’s just that simple.
Everyone is entitled to his opinion but when an opinion is just irrational, unreasonable, baseless, and goes against all known evidence it’s not worth holding to say the least.
If he was guiding the course of a growing religion, I don't see how you could say he had no earthly power. Telling other people what to think and how to worship is a great deal of power.
Again, you’re not making any sense. Paul’s moral code precluded any act of rape. It’s just that simple.
That's great. I never said he was a rapist and am still trying to figure out why you brought it up in the first place. Oh, you think he was the only ambitious man in history not to use his power to seduce women. My response can only be: as far as we know, he didn't, but not all of them do. There's no evidence Rasputin had a bevy of young beauties in his bed either, or that nut from the Heaven's Gate cult.
thanks redlegunter
Then why even bring it up? Why put out things like "Paul might be a mass murderer, but as far as we know he wasn't." There is no evidence that all your Rabbis are not pedophiles who are keeping it a secret from the world, although there is no evidence for it. How would you like that if I kept putting the specter of Jewish pedophilia up in the air? By the way, how often do you beat your husband? How often do your murder children? How do you like those stupid questions? They're just like your posts.
Keep your evil-minded accusations to yourself.
“If he was guiding the course of a growing religion, I don’t see how you could say he had no earthly power.”
Simple: Did he have money? No. Did he have an army? No. Did he ever even stay in one place for very long? No. Did he ever once command people to do an immoral act? No. Did he ever command people to obey his every whim, or his every desire? No.
Instead this man worked as a tent maker to feed himself as he preached the gospel. He was repeatedly arrested and beaten. He was imprisoned. He was shipwrecked. His rights as a Roman citizen were violated. And he was executed for his beliefs. What earthly power did he have?
“Telling other people what to think and how to worship is a great deal of power.”
Did he possess any power for himself? Give me an example. Can you?
“That’s great. I never said he was a rapist and am still trying to figure out why you brought it up in the first place.”
You compared him to Koresh remember? Koresh raped young girls.
“Oh, you think he was the only ambitious man in history not to use his power to seduce women.”
Wait. You think all ambitions men use their “power” to seduce women? First of all, seduction is not rape. Those are two different things. Second, what evidence do you have that Paul ever seduced ANYONE? Third, I believe there are plenty of ambitious men out there who don’t rape women. You sound like a raving feminist. Are you in the right forum?
“My response can only be: as far as we know, he didn’t, but not all of them do. There’s no evidence Rasputin had a bevy of young beauties in his bed either, or that nut from the Heaven’s Gate cult.”
Actually there’s plenty of evidence Rasputin seduced women. The guy who ran Heaven’s Gate was castrated as were many of the male followers. http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/28/mass.suicide.pm/
No matter what you talk about here you seem to have little or no knowledge about the subject.
Heavens no!
You have a very simplistic idea of what "power" is. Nelson Mandela had power. Ghandi had power. They are practically worshipped in some circles (as Paul is here) but they too lived sometimes in simplicity, sometimes in captivity and danger... you need to expand your understanding of what power is. It's not just the ability to command armies and get laid.
You compared him to Koresh remember? Koresh raped young girls.
I just mean that many people (usually men) have claimed -- and perhaps even believed -- that God was speaking to them, and giving them authority to lead others. The details of how they wield that power, be it securing hot chicks or telling churches not to let women speak, depends on the man.
You think all ambitions men use their “power” to seduce women?
No, I said just the opposite; that they don't all do that, and if he didn't, he wouldn't be the only one.
Actually there’s plenty of evidence Rasputin seduced women.
That has been disputed recently. Who knows? I don't particularly care.
The guy who ran Heaven’s Gate was castrated as were many of the male followers.
Exactly. He was not using his power for sex. In fact, he seemed to have a real hang-up about it (rather like Paul.)
No matter what you talk about here you seem to have little or no knowledge about the subject.
It's not me, dear, it's you. You are not reading carefully what I am saying, and you are missing the point.
I didn't bring it up. You are addressing the wrong person.
So you aren't implying that Paul is a possible sexual predator?
Not at all. Paul’s sex life never crossed my mind.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
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.