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.
Oh, I can show where these things are taught, but not by your imaginary rule. See post 458.
What’s your point???
It was in a rhetorical reply to another #422.
I had noted you answered a question that was not asked.
“What is so important that God left out of Scripture that someone feels they need to add later?”
I missed where Elsie asked me that. I will answer here.
Again, prattling on about Mary and some possibly omitted miacles is NOT answering the question:
So you are equating the Comforter with the Roman Catholic Church?
WHAT 'rights'???
THESE???
It appears that you have THROWN away any claim to these 'rights' since they come from an invisible being.
Better luck next time.
1Co_4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
You do not heed the words of God...The bible speaks nothing of an assumption of Mary...Or Mary having a special sinlessness...You are not to think of Mary or Peter or Paul or Apollos above what has been written in the scriptures...THAT'S SCRIPTURE...
Your religion is built upon all these 'add-ons' that don't exist...Elevating people above what God has written to us about them...That's not the Christianity of the Bible...
Your chosen religion teaches:
The BIBLE is useful for salvation; the bible alone does not make a salvation. Our traditions adds a LOT of stuff where it is absolutely essential.
Needed seems to be REALLY hard for you to type!
... when you cla(i)m it says anywhere that itself, is the ONLY NEEDED source of Truth!
And that's a very salient point...
That wafer they stick into their mouths doesn't say a word to anyone...But you get home in a quiet space and open the scriptures, the Holy Spirit thru those scriptures can have a conversation with you that is impossible to imagine...
I didn't say that the bible is the source of all truth about Christianity...What I say and have said is that the bible is all that is needed for us to know how to get saved...If it's not in the bible, it won't help us to gain eternal life...
You see my FRiend, you keep wanting me to play your game by your rules. "Show me that in the Bible or else it's not true". You, and all the other anti-Catholic Christians may be able to sucker other Catholics into playing that silly game but NOT me. You will FIRST demonstrate sola scriptura from Scripture or will be ignored
Sola scripture has been shown to you guys time and time again...You are apparently not looking for sola scripture...You are looking for the word 'alone' as if that is the requirement for your argument...
Now, do you want to answer my final question to you? Because I think it will be helpful in this regard:
And like I said, if you have a point, make it...Don't beat around the bush...
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9
That is rather concise and specific. Now, if you can’t show where the apostles taught what you teach then all who read these threads need to understand that the Holy Spirit specifically says “let him be accursed”. So how about no more obfuscation or RCC talking points but give us the source where you can prove that the apostles taught what you teach.
I can show you where Izlam and Mormonism are taught as well...The point is: if it is not taught by God, it isn't legitimate...
Can you point to ANY post here where someone is depending on Paul instead of Jesus Christ for salvation?
In Paul's letter to the Thessalonians, he told them:
If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. (II Thess. 3:14-15)
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.( II Thess. 3:6)
And John, in his epistle said:
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. (II John 1:10)
We have a responsibility before God to obey the things He has revealed to us THROUGH the men He chose. And we WILL be accountable TO God if we refuse or neglect to do that.
As far as I’m concerned Catholicism is in the same league as Mormonism and Islam. All of them take portions of scripture then add a bunch of stuff to it.
There is certainly enough evidence from the Holy Spirit that we are not to take any teaching that wasn’t taught by the apostles. Not to even associate with those people is rather telling.
Be nowhere near a Catholic Church when Christ returns.
We have a responsibility before God to obey the things He has revealed to us THROUGH the men He chose. And we WILL be accountable TO God if we refuse or neglect to do that.
A Church member was obligated to follow instructions from the overseers So I have no argument with that.
In the case of II John 1:10 I don`t know.
Of course those that insist that the notion that Sola Scriptura is false cling to the absurd concept of Sola Ecclesia, which is not even hinted at in Scripture. Why? Because they say so.
You are obligated to Christ, not overseers.
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.