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 Quran 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 doesnt 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.
Lets 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 22:611 and Acts 26:1218. Paul refers back to this experience elsewhere in his letters, though it is only laid with this level of detail in Acts, written by Pauls 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 didnt happen because it couldnt happen because it cant happen therefore it didnt 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 Lords.
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 Pauls writings as Scripture from the earliest days of Christianity, as seen the case of Peter (2 Peter 3:1516).
Pauls personal opinions and the Law
Out of the three examples, two are directly from the Mosaic Law. Obviously the Mosaic Law couldnt have stated that women should not preach in the church because the Church did not yet exist and wouldnt 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 Pauls 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.
Pauls 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 Pauls 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 Pauls 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 Pauls 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 10:911) 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 Pauls letters (along with the rest of the New Testament) form one beautiful, cohesive truth.
Earthly, man run, churches are polluted with worldly perversions. That is the nature of worldly sin, or original sin. I do my best to be a light of truth, but I am a work in progress. I try to help my little church just get better how ever I can do it....with God`s guidance and with a humble attitude.
Read your Bible. Christ breathed on the apostlels, making them the first Bishops, giving them the power to forgive sins or hold sins bound.
How old is your church?
Which pamphlet did that come out of?
Why do you say such things?
It is not true.
Talmud, as I understand it, did not exist until a few centuries after Paul’s life.
A few years back, a handful of FRoman Catholics made the same accusation. All women. What is it about the Apostle Paul that (some) women don't like?
Are you saying that Jesus Christ was not true God and true man?
He did.
He chose Jesus>
Jesus chose - and taught - his Disciples and chose the 12 Apostles = lived with them, taught them for 3 years.
And they set up a set format for adding a new Apostle after one was killed. It did not include a 'blinding light on a road somewhere and 'wham' - an Apostle - who had never met Jesus, never met with the Apostles, spent ten years, as a Roman commander hunting down and killing every Christian he could = who, after proclaiming himself an Apostle, deigned to even go to Jerusalem and meet with the leaders of the church - and it was JAMES THE JUST, Blood brother of Jesus that was the head of followers, not Peter - etc etc - there's a LOT of information -
But quite simply, as to the blinding light (convenient as Paul then didn't need to describe what Jesus, whom he's never met, looked like = etc) - Jesus didn't work that way.
To say that Paul was needed to basically save Christianity - is to say Jesus failed.
The main difference between Jesus's and Paul's teaching - Paul, in bed with the Romans, helped set up the church with the power, pomp & circumstances - and money, structure. NOT wast Jesus taught.
live links next post
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/qumran.htm
The Bible is not a pamphlet.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/qumran.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm
http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/paul_was_a_deceiver.htm
RE: Paul, in bed with the Romans, helped set up the church with the power, pomp & circumstances
How did he do that when he himself was persecuted, jailed and possibly executed by the Romans?
RE: What is it about the Apostle Paul that (some) women don’t like?
We can probably start here:
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church
Then, we can continue here:
” I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her headit is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone is disposed to be contentious we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)
Christian church is about 2000 years old...Probably the Roman Christian church is is a little younger than the Jewish Christian churches....but that makes sense since Jesus taught among the Jews first in Palestine, then he taught others...in Palestine... It was after the resurection that the big push happened. Thanks to Paul....and to the other characters in ACTS.
Acts 15 shows the apostles commissioned Paul and gave him authority:
Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
“Salvation(the poster) is wrong.”
Nope. Salvation is absolutely correct.
“The Catholic Church is a perversion, by men, of the One True Church.”
No, the Catholic Church IS the One, True Church.
Radix wrote:
“Talmud, as I understand it, did not exist until a few centuries after Pauls life.”
As far as I can recall, Judaism has always had a ‘book of why’, which is where the Talmud is based upon.
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Paul was a great human manifestation, perhaps the greatest, of the Holy Spirit.
Or perhaps it is better said that the that the Holy Spirit manifested itself in him in a most powerful and unique way.
Hitler said he hijacked it
http://usccb.org/bible/acts/15
Acts 15 is about the Council of Jerusalem. LOL!
So did St. Paul do nothing before that?
So wrong.
Christ in the vision that Paul had gave Paul authority, in fact Christ commanded him to stop persecuting the Christians and go talk to Ananias in the next town.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul?
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.