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.
1.) The Eucharist
2.) Authority of Sacred Tradition
3.) Papal Infallibility
4.) The Marian Doctrines
That's a good start.
Al Gore... in a previous life...invented Christianity...everyone knows that... /s
Acts 15
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up , and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe .
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness , giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence , and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13 And after they had held their peace , James answered , saying , Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written ,
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well .
30 So when they were dismissed , they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together , they delivered the epistle:
31 Which when they had read , they rejoiced for the consolation.
32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.
Paul being THE apostle to the gentile and the one who invented Christianity come from his own words
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication:
what did Paul say regarding this same account?
Gal 2
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
How about what it says in acts 29
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication:
Why did Paul leave that out?
Did Paul deny that Peter had been sent to the Gentiles? no but in Paul`s letter to the Galatians he said
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Acts does not record any thing like that.
I believe it was because Paul may have been getting old and senile but regardless of the reason it is contradictions and pretty big ones which would give people reason to doubt Paul.
RE: Paul being THE apostle to the gentile and the one who invented Christianity come from his own words
Where in the above verses you quoted from Acts 15 does it show that he INVENTED Christianity?
The words: “For it seemed good to the HOLY GHOST, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;”
Those words clearly tell us that it was the HOLY SPIRIT ( i.e. GOD ) who helped them (not simply Paul) make that decision.
RE: Paul is telling a different story here than what is told in acts, ( only that we should remember the poor )
I see NO CONTRADICTION between this and Acts 15.
In Acts 15, James and the rest of the council, based on Paul and Barnabas’ testimony, made a decision they say was from the Holy Spirit. That was a COLLECTIVE decision.
In Galatians 2 , Paul tells us that the apostles tells him not to forget the poor.
How are these contradictions?
Paul is simply giving us MORE INFORMATION as to what transpired and their conversation in Acts 15.
Acts 15 did not give us every detail of Paul’s conversation with the rest of the apostles. In Galatians 2, he gives us some more details. THAT’s ALL.
RE: 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; Acts does not record any thing like that.
So?
Did Matthew record everything that John recorded in his gospel? No.
Did John record everything Matthew wrote? No.
Are we then to conclude that one of the two is fabricating his gospel story?
Just because Acts does not record every single detail of Paul’s conversation with the rest of the apostles does not mean there are no details.
So, if Paul gives us more details in his own epistle and Peter ( in his later epistle ) does not question what Paul wrote in his epistle ( See 2 Peter 3:15-16 where Peter ENDORSES Paul’s epistles and equate them to scripture ) why conclude that Paul is fabricating things?
Only those who are biased against him would do that.
No? They just decided for themselves what was. I guess Luther relegating the deuterocanonicals to the status of apocrypha was an example of proper canonical/doctrinal development.
Clearly the RCC decided that MORE was . On what basis do they find Scripture inadequate?
Protestant fallacy. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are both valid sources of Revealed Truth and Authority. Neither contradicts the other.
“But that NO is not at all clear. He wanted to be influential and he became so.”
No. There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that he “wanted” to become influential. None. He did what he did out of sense of religious duty. That is the only possible explanation for his actions as both a Jew and a Christian. He knew he was going to be persecuted. You keep avoiding that fact.
There was one holy catholic apostolic faith for which the Apostles Paul and Peter were martyred. You apparentlydefend Luther, so I'll apparently consider you of Luther.
from Wikipedia, but there are lots of sources:
On the Jews and Their Lies (German: Von den Jüden und iren Lügen; in modern spelling Von den Juden und ihren Lügen) is a 65,000-word antisemitic treatise written in 1543 by the German Reformation leader Martin Luther.
...
The prevailing scholarly view[5] since the Second World War is that the treatise exercised a major and persistent influence on Germany's attitude toward its Jewish citizens in the centuries between the Reformation and the Holocaust. Four hundred years after it was written, the Nazis displayed On the Jews and Their Lies during Nuremberg rallies, and the city of Nuremberg presented a first edition to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, the newspaper describing it as the most radically antisemitic tract ever published.
Okay, you are of Wesley; just don't post any more of that Mormon heresy to me. I took you for a Mormon.
At its heart, the theology of John Wesley stressed the life of Christian holiness: to love God with all one’s heart, mind, soul and strength and to love one’s neighbour as oneself. See also Ministry of Jesus. Wesley’s teaching also stressed experiential religion and moral responsibility.[1]
although it does not have apostolic succession, as the LORD said, recorded by Luke: 25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
Mmm... we'll never know the truth, but you have to look at what you know about Paul and leave out what religion he stands for, because that is clouding your vision. Here's a mental exercise: pretend we're talking about some guy in late 1960's Florida who used to be against Communism, and was outspoken about it, maybe a kid from a rich family whose interests would naturally be against it.
Then he is visited by the ghost of Che Guevara, and becomes an ardent convert. Now he's setting up CPUSA chapters in Miami, printing leaflets, the FBI is monitoring him but he's getting local fame amongst the Cuban-American kids who agree with him... maybe making connections in Cuba and slowly becoming rather famous in that little circle...
If you heard of a guy like this, you'd roll your eyes and think "mm hmm." You'd know that despite the fact that he believes in what he's doing, there's an ardent desire there for recognition and the feeling of efficacy, the feeling that you are important, you are leading the way, you are the change! You were chosen! You are a hero of the Revolution!
It's a personality type. Idealistic, ego-centric, a little unstable... you'd recognize it if it weren't within a framework you've taught yourself to accept.
“Mmm... we’ll never know the truth, but you have to look at what you know about Paul and leave out what religion he stands for, because that is clouding your vision.”
Your prejudice against religion apparently is clouding YOUR vision. My vision isn’t clouded at all. I am merely taking the man at his word until evidence to the contrary is presented. You have failed to present ANY evidence whatsoever. Not a single scrap of evidence. Nothing. You, however, apparently are assuming you know why he did everything he did with not a single scrap of evidence to back it up.
“Here’s a mental exercise:”
No “mental exercise” is needed when you have the actual writings by and about St. Paul. You have NO EVIDENCE. Your “mental exercises” are not evidence. They are merely an aid to bolster your sad prejudice.
Jesus said on the cross, “It is finished”.
Just why does the Catholic church teach that what He did wasn’t enough and that those things have to be added.
So if someone doesn’t do those things, then are they saved or not?
And that's different from The Catholic church deciding for themselves what is Scripture just how?
Protestant fallacy. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are both valid sources of Revealed Truth and Authority. Neither contradicts the other.
That doesn't answer the question. I asked only about Scripture. You brought in the tradition part.
If *sacred tradition* doesn't contradict Scripture then its redundant and not needed after all.
They were martyred for faith in Jesus, not Catholicism, which didn't exist back then.
Don't have faith in your *faith*. Put your faith in Jesus.
Having faith is only effective if it's placed in the right Person.
Seriously, what is YOUR evidence other than a book put together by the Catholic church (there's a trustworthy organization), half of whose pages are of extremely uncertain origin, full of 2000 year old promises that have not been kept?
Where in the above verses you quoted from Acts 15 does it show that he INVENTED Christianity?>>>>>>>>
I quoted the verses in acts 15 not to show that Paul invented Christianity but that he did not invent it.
Those words clearly tell us that it was the HOLY SPIRIT ( i.e. GOD ) who helped them (not simply Paul) make that decision.>>>>>>
That is right, Paul did not make those decisions.
In Galatians 2 , Paul tells us that the apostles tells him not to forget the poor.>>>>>>
No, here are the exact words.
Gal 2
10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
That is not the only thing.
Act 15
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well .
Acts 15 did not give us every detail of Paul’s conversation with the rest of the apostles. In Galatians 2, he gives us some more details. THAT’s ALL.>>>>>>>
Why did Paul say ( only )when that was not the only thing they were to heed?
Gal 1
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Paul is talking of himself as the him they are removed from.
You can see very plainly that Paul is once again complaining about this church recognizing doctrine other than his own.
Peter seems to recommend at least some of Paul`s writings 2 Peter 3:15-16
Luke applies Apostle to Paul and Barbabas.
In acts 15:25 they are called beloved brothers.
These three scriptures come up every time there is a discussion of the dozens of contradictions regarding Paul, as if they explained the whole thing and there is nothing to discuss.
Every thing else comes from Paul.
Gal 1
8 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.
That we have preached unto you, who is the we?
1 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Who is the we?
No one except Paul and he goes on verse after verse talking about him self and making others look less, and it is really hard to tell who the others are that he is talking about.
16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
Paul is defending him self to the Galatians as he did the Corinthians.
John 5
43 I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
When I was attending church I could count the sermons of what Jesus said on the fingers of one hand but there would not be enough fingers in the church to count the sermons about the great apostle Paul.
why conclude that Paul is fabricating things?
Only those who are biased against him would do that.>>>>>>
I am only pointing out these things so you can understand what people are looking at to get their opinions,
I can also see your opinion as I myself argued for years that Paul never had any differences with the apostles.
Personally I do not believe any one is infallible, including the apostles and that includes Paul, if People are of the mind that Paul could do nothing wrong why would they believe that Peter could?
but by Paul`s words Peter did do something wrong or at least Paul thought he did.
If Peter was not perfect then neither was Paul.
We are not to judge men, but only their actions and words.
If some one talks enough they are bound to make some mistakes.
I do not believe every thing in scripture is wrote down by the holy spirit but is only inspired by the holy spirit.
I was sitting with a group of people and had not said a single word for about an hour, they all started looking at me as if they might think I was dumb, so I started talking and left them no doubt.
So I will get off of here.
RE: I quoted the verses in acts 15 not to show that Paul invented Christianity but that he did not invent it.
Good. Then we are in agreement here. I apologize if I misread you.
Now on to the next issue....
RE: No, here are the exact words.
Gal 2 10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
That is not the only thing.
Act 15 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well .
____________________________________
That was the advise they made to a GROUP of people they commissioned.
Acts 15:22 22 “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, two men who were leaders among the brothers.”
Among them were Judas and Silas.
What Paul was referring to in Galatians 2 is ADDITIONAL ADVISE given to him by those who sent him.
Again, I see no conflict at all.
RE: I am only pointing out these things so you can understand what people are looking at to get their opinions,
Well, you seem to be doing a good job refuting them. Continue doing it like Apollos... :)
Good. Then we are in agreement here. I apologize if I misread you.>>>>>
No problem.
What Paul was referring to in Galatians 2 is ADDITIONAL ADVISE given to him by those who sent him.>>>>>>>
We can just assume that but it can also be assumed just the opposite.
Well, you seem to be doing a good job refuting them. Continue doing it like Apollos... :)>>>>>
Well,,, seriously now? Lol.
“Your evidence seems to be the writing of Paul.”
And the writing about him. Is there any other evidence than that?
“He wrote God spoke to him,”
Luke wrote that God spoke to Paul.
“so you decide that of course that must be true.”
Do you have even a scrap of evidence to the contrary?
“After all, he SAID so.”
Luke said so.
“Do you accept Mohammed’s similar claim based on similar evidence? No, of course not.”
Again, to correct you, I do indeed believe an other worldly voice spoke to Muhammad. I just don’t believe it was God. So, yes, I believe Muhammad was telling the truth when he said someone essentially channeled through him. I just don’t see it as being God and that isn’t what he claimed anyway. You probably know no more about Islam than you do Christianity.
“Do you think Bernadette Soubirous was visited by the Virgin Mary? Probably not.”
Actually, I do believe it. Again, I have no reason to not believe it.
“Do you believe all the saints of the Catholic faith who claim Jesus has spoken to them?”
How many is that even? Seriously, you’re making a lot of assumptions here - all apparently to avoid the complete lack of evidence for your beliefs.
“If you’re Catholic, you might, if not, probably not. Do you believe Joseph Smith Jr, founder of the Latter Day Saints?”
Believe what about him?
“Seriously, what is YOUR evidence other than a book put together by the Catholic church (there’s a trustworthy organization), half of whose pages are of extremely uncertain origin, full of 2000 year old promises that have not been kept?”
That’s your prejudice talking. That’s not a rational argument in the least.
Just admit it: you have no evidence for your prejudice against Paul.
1.) The Eucharist
We celebrate the Biblical Lord’s Supper “doing it in memory of Him until He comes.”
2.) Authority of Sacred Tradition
Which is not Biblically on par with Scripture. Nor are there any traditions that we know are authoritative.
3.) Papal Infallibility
Ha! He isn’t. Ever.
4.) The Marian Doctrines
Ha! Made up out of whole cloth, like “papal infallibility.”
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.