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.
“No? They just decided for themselves what was. “
Protestants have had hundreds of years to be led by God to examine the canon and correct errors from an earlier age.
You don't say. And yet this phenomenon didn't exist until 1534...ok
Oh, I know that. But what they took pains to say was "Creator," not "God,". And in that, they were wise enough to cover all bases.
No, in fact... I think your position shows perfectly how the fathers failed in their endeavor. You see, THAT He was not mentioned by name opens the door to moral relativism - Something which you seem to be indirectly (perhaps unintentionally) espousing, and that moral relativism is the bane of the moral absolutes engendered by the Judeo-Christian Ethic, that which was unquestionably installed to guide this nation and her people. The words on the document cannot be severed from the actions of implementation.
Because at least one of them recognized that rights are not so much taken away as they are given up by those who don't feel they have the moral authority to fight for them. And of course, that is where we are now, losing rights by the leaps and bounds, because we do not fight for them.
No, we are losing them precisely because there is no justice, and there is no justice precisely because we, as a nation, stand outside of the moral absolutes seared into our beginnings. Dividing that ethos from it's Provider necessarily removes the provision, don't you see?
"I sought for the key to the greatness of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." -Alexis de Tocqueville
And no supernatural intervention halting the process, I notice.
It ain't over till the fat lady sings, as they say... But the way forward is not in hubris and in scoffing, but in a fervent repentance and prayer for revival:
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. -2 Chronicles 7:14
If you would yearn for the greatness and goodness of what America was, the only thing that will bring her back is to repent as a nation and return to partake of the root of her founding. Principle things are established as her foundations, and foremost among them, the inseparable pinnacle thereof, is YHWH and the salvation of Yeshua.
[roamer_1:] No, again, Our jurist prudence is based upon the Christian Bible and the dictates of Blackstone's Law. The Judeo-Christian Ethic forms our moral code.
Yes, they based on what they knew. We excuse their views on slavery because we know they were constrained by the culture of their time and place. So we must understand that the same minds that accepted slavery would bow to some Middle Eastern religion.
Your ignorance regarding YHWH and slavery is profound... And YHWH does not change. Neither do principles. They are foundational. Immovable. TRUE. Take care that 'sophia' does not cloud your judgement. 'In calling themselves wise, they became fools' (See Is 5:22+)
But we today do not have to either condone slavery or bow toward Jerusalem or Mecca. It's a matter of choice.
It has always been a matter of choice - Follow YHWH or follow the Devil - How's the way we are going working out for you? Which do you suppose we are following? In the wisdom of Bob Dylan, "You've got to serve somebody."
Sure, I’ll help with math...
2014 - 1535 = 479
(hundreds of years)
Ok; now WHY are these little stories NEEDED...
Neither contradicts the other.
The second adds to the first.
Why?
You DID?
Has been poorly; oh, what is that word I'm looking for...
This is IT?
Lacking a GOOD-OL-BOY Network?
This is some kind of HERESY???
This is SUCH an absurdity - it is inherent in the contract. You would have us believe that the party of the second part (Man) has authority over the party of the first part (YHWH) in a contract which only YHWH is obligated to perform (Only YHWH walked between the halves). The contract cannot be changed. Ergo, all claimed questions/revisions revert to the founding document. Period.
(Ball’s in YOUR court; Vlad!)
...ok You got us!
You win!!!
YOUR bad popes go WAY back farther than this.
'alone' would be solo-scriptura... But then we have had this conversation before. It is a matter of preeminence, not exclusivity.
Don’t worry vet. Years ago I took Elsie for a Mormon as well. Elsie - it is hard to tell just from a few posts where you are coming from when you just post the Mormon verses, without a clear introduction and/or without being sarcastic.
I suppose that you think the goofy Mormon verses should be enough for us to get that you are not supporting Mormonism, but it often isn’t.
God doesn't count?
“Ball’s in YOUR court; Vlad!”
How do you figure that?
Sola scriptura is latin for “scripture alone.”
In my arguments I’ve defined the doctrine sola scriptura that I’m arguing against.
If you have some other doctrine in mind for scripture alone, I’m not sure if we have disagreements or not.
I’m going to step back from any particular religious view and speak to your rejection of all.
I think you are limiting yourself to a common episthemological box - one where what we can know is limited to two spheres: sense experience and reason logic.
It’s the modern way after all. :)
Yet everyone, you included knows - or acts as if they know - things beyond the the ability of sense and reason/logic.
We can call what is known in this area religious, many do so. It transcends - but does not violate - sense and reason.
So, you too have religious views in this sense. I think it likely you haven’t examined them or where they might come from.
Should we all just pretend that Luther wasn't following what had ALREADY been done by those before him (i.e., Jerome)??? It is odd the selective amnesia some RCs have whenever they want to toss out their "Luther card" seeing as these claims have been disputed HUNDREDS of times over the years here. It's curious that you even state he included those books in his translation as many FRoman Catholics assert he threw them out of "his" Bible. Can't Catholics agree on anything???
But you argument is a strawman - Any church, congregational or not, associated or not, which holds to creeds or confessions, is not by definition, holding to 'scripture alone', as any creed or confession constitutes a 'tradition'.
The proper definiton of the 'sola-scriptura' of the Reformation, and every Protestant denomination of mention, is that the Bible is the only infallible authority, and not the 'ONLY authority', which your argument describes.
Hence, while a Protestant is in submission to his church and it's tradition, no tradition is thought to trump the Bible. And so, when PresbyterianUSA (as an instance) misuses the authority they have been granted, parishioners begin to wander away to find something closer to the truth according to their confession, rather than submit to an authority which has decidedly gone beyond it's means.
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.