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.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
So what other source of Truth is there and how do you know? Where in Scripture does it tell us there's another source of divine revelation truth for us to know and what that source is?
We have and it has been ignored.
You are obligated to Christ, not overseers.>>>>>
I am obligated to Christ only, but if I was a member sharing the food with a hundred other members I would be obligated to the overseers who was in charge.
It was argued that Scripture supporting Scripture alone is not valid because it's not an objective source. The problem with that is that since the Catholic church claims to have written Scripture from oral tradition, then their claims of Scriptural substantiation to support using *sacred tradition* cannot be valid as that makes the Scripture they claimed penned from oral tradition not an objective source to support oral tradition.
LOL...ain’t that the truth...
You seem to recommend we listen to the Holy Spirit according to CB, who is not a man?
Logic fail.
A made up term perhaps generated from a stark difference between us as to what "Church" is.
Nope, not adding a thing to it. Accept it as it is - which is not "scripture alone." It's when you try to use it for "sola" that something needs to be added - that something being sola or alone. The verse is perfectly fine and clear otherwise.
If someone doesn't believe there IS a God, then they wouldn't believe anyone who would say God spoke to him. See how that works? ;o)
Of what denomination or sect church are you a member ? I'm curious whose doctrine you espouse ?
I found this site helpful to do just that: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?cat=HW
But that NO is not at all clear. He wanted to be influential and he became so. Mission accomplished. Convincing others that God spoke to him was obviously very helpful.
Peter’s letters were saved. John’s letters were saved. Jude’s letter was saved. That doesn’t mean Paul made everything up for the sake of earthly “power”.
They didn't need to make up anything, they actually knew Jesus during his lifetime.
Sometimes, but not all time. Also, he gave advice, not just directives. And none of that shows that Paul made everything up for the sake of earthly “power”.
It shows he gained the influence he clearly wanted.
And he met with other Church leaders. So? None of that shows that Paul made everything up for the sake of earthly “power”.
It shows that he was one of the church leaders. He had power and influence in this growing religion.
So totalitarian regimes only imprison and execute those who are “dangerous”? None of that shows that Paul made everything up for the sake of earthly “power”.
Uhm... yeah, they tend to focus on the dangerous ones. Unless you want to tell me why they killed him. Did they not like his hair?
Malchus was name of the man whose ear was cut off by Peter. I know his name because it’s in the gospel of John. Was he influential?
I dunno, vlad, are we on a thread titled "Did Malchus invent Christianity?"
I’m not playing a game, but you sure are jumping around like you’re playing hopscotch.
No, my point has been simple and clear from the beginning. Like others on this thread, I wonder if Paul hijacked or invented Christianity.
“If Paul had not become a leading figure in the development of Christianity, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”
Sure we would - because your claim was that he did what he did to gain “power”.
No we wouldn't, because if he had not become a leading figure, I'd have never heard of him. So no, we would not be having this conversation. Indeed, this entire thread would not exist.
When you write "us" what specific denomination or sect do you represent as there are thousands of them and they certainly do not all agree with each other or you. As for your your contention with respect to 1 Cor 4, I found it useful to read more context than the verse you centered on to attack the Catholic teaching on Mary, who is forever the blessed virgin of Israel and mother of God with us, the LORD Jesus Christ. The context of 1 Cor 1 shows Paul was upholding one holy catholic apostolic church and the contentions were unscriptural. Your use of 1 Cor 4 seems quite out of place, to say the least.
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Exactly...Of all the things John could have written, that which he did write was what he was instructed to write...
The contentions are clear since Paul spelled them out...And then comparing scripture with scripture, the conversation unfolds...
1Co_1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
The contentions were over who had the most authority...Who was the holiest...
And Paul says, 'stick with the scriptures'...If one was over the other, or higher in rank than another, God would have told you in the scriptures...Do not go above what is written in the scriptures...Whether it be Peter, Paul or Mary...Pretty simple stuff there...And Paul say when you do this, it is carnal...
You acknowledge that the Apostles all knew Jesus and walked with him while he was on earth, but you deny that Paul could have had a similar experience with the risen Jesus and been used by God to further the knowledge and understanding of the Christian faith? Since we know from the writings OF those other Apostles that they believed the claims Paul made and they whole-heartedly approved of his ministry and supported his work, then how is it that you - two thousand years removed from the scene - can declare you know what Paul was up to and it was ONLY to gain power and prestige and not from a sincere heart and divinely-ordained mission?
You don't even believe in God much less who Jesus was, so why are you arguing with Christians about Paul's place in the Christian faith? If it was Thaddeus, for example, that God used to write the majority of the New Testament and he said the same things God led Paul to write, would you be dumping on him instead? Is the real reason you don't like Paul because he said some things you didn't like hearing? Things that annoy or bother you concerning women back then? Or is it really that you think Christians are fools for believing what we do and this was a good opportunity to express it?
Vladimir99 and others have given you some pretty good arguments that dispute your ideas about Paul and his motives and you barely acknowledge them. I hope you understand that it is not you specifically that is being criticized here but the false and illogical ideas you have expressed. I hope you will thoughtfully reconsider what has been said to you.
There is a limit to how specific a reply I can make to you because I have been forbidden to discuss atheism on this thread. So I will limit myself to observing that those who knew Jesus during his lifetime, knew Jesus. People who claim to have been visited or spoken to by God are simply in another category completely. We have dozens of them, and many times they are able to convince others that they are telling the truth. Mohammed has apparently convinced millions. That people who make this claim can convince others means nothing.
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.