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.
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'.
Yes, exactly. So arguments against any and all tradition are false in practice.
the Bible is the only infallible authority, and not the 'ONLY authority'..
First, you still have the problem of scripture requiring a reader/interpreter - authority. In addition, I see this as another example of false in practice. I don't know of any Confessional or Creedal statement by an authority that admits it's creed is fallible. The Westminster Confession, for example, does not end with "but we could be wrong, after all we're fallible."
I'm exaggerating here, but I think you can see the point: those stating what they believe to be absolute truth do not condition it, Protestants included.
So there is, in practice, the necessity for another authority other than scripture and that authority claims it's creed, doctrine, dogma to be absolutely true without fail.
Objections that the Church does so are a double standard.
Can you prove it wasn’t God who spoke to Mohammed? You’re the expert on proof, so show me how to do it.
Actually, no, you don't. But if you want to live by the words of Bob Dylan, you go ahead. He never impressed me.
I cannot think of any views I have that could be called religious, but rather than step back, I would advise others to think about this: imagine any claim a Muslim might make. Or a Scientologist. Or any other religion you consider false. Think of the logical tests you would put their claims to. Because this doubt and this cynicism others on this thread decry, they have it too. And they aim it at every religion not their own. I simply treat them all the same.
I don’t give my opinion. I post scripture.
Church? Denomination? There is no concept of that in scripture. The term “church” used today is a construct of paganism not what the apostles taught nor what Christ instituted.
The assembly I belong to is much older than the RCC. It was started by the apostles.
Romans 16:5 Likewise greet the assembly that is in their house. Salute my well-beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.
Colossians 4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the assembly which is in his house.
Philemon 1:2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the assembly in thy house:
We see the RCC which was established thousands of years later this way.
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
The self aggrandizing leadership in many organized religions today is not what God ordained.
1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
You see, our way is much, much older than the apostate RCC organization and survived despite the evil oppression and persecution of the RCC. We don’t set up idols or revere mere men.
2 Corinthians 4:5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
>>Tell me, what church do you go to?<<
It’s time we get off this Catholic Protestant meme and see what scripture says. I couldn’t care less which “religion” someone claims to be or what supposed “church group” they belong to. Either they follow what scripture says and put their full faith in Christ alone or they don’t.
Get this straight. I’m not a Protestant, Catholic, or any other moniker people like to attach to either themselves or others.
Let it be known that I am born again follower of Christ. A member of His universal world wide assembly called “The Bride of Christ”.
1 Peter 2: 9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
See organizational structure here: http://www.bible.ca/ntx-elders-pastors-bishops.htm
According to the Holy Spirit through Paul if the apostles didn’t teach something we are to consider the teacher of a doctrine to be “accursed”. Would you please show where the apostles taught the “Marian Doctrines”?
“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
Wow! You thought Elsie was a Mormon after what he posts about Mormonism? Is your reading comprehension that bad? It’s obvious to me that you understanding of what Elsie posts about Mormonism is as bad as your understanding of what is written in scripture.
What is this stuff??? One holy catholic apostolic faith??? Who invented that phrase??? There is one spiritual Body of Christ made up of many churches
I don't put my faith in the apostles and they did not give me faith...Godly faith is what I have...Christian faith...You are speaking of a religion that can not be found in the scriptures...
“Can you prove it wasn’t God who spoke to Mohammed?”
Can you even remotely make an argument in favor of your beliefs about Paul? Yes or no?
“You’re the expert on proof, so show me how to do it.”
As soon as you start posting actual evidence about Paul maybe I will. Put up or shut up.
You’re a Protestant. Deal with it.
The Protestant denominations came out of the Catholic Church and are her daughters even having retained many of her errors. Your little “box” of believers doesn’t work with true Christians. It’s probably a concept the Catholic mind cannot grasp.
...So there is, in practice, the necessity for another authority other than scripture and that authority claims it's creed, doctrine, dogma to be absolutely true without fail.
I think it misrepresents the Westminster Confession to imply that it puts itself or any other human authority on the same level as Scripture, and that it somehow tacitly presumes itself to be an infallible interpreter of Scripture. The text itself explicitly states otherwise:
IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]
VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]
IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]
X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]
Cordially,
You’re a Protestant. Deal with it.
Only to shallow minded Catholics who have been blinded to truth.
I am a Protestant, too, and very happy about it.
No, only to those who know the truth - and the truth is that you are a Protestant. That’s simply the truth.
I am not surprised by that attitude. It fits the model I expect where rebellion continually breeds more rebels and a chronic issues with authority.
I don't think you are being intellectually honest and cannot tell if you made up your own house church or the group to which you do belong is, shall we say, unorthodox and you'd rather not say. I will try not to ask you again.
The Wesleyan Church appears to have begun in Utica, New York in 1843, when it separated from the Methodist Episcopal Church. It has women pastors/ministers/reverends in leadership positions over men, contrary to the teaching of the Apostle to the Gentiles. It is against most, but not all abortions. It is pro contraception. It is Evangelical and not Fundamentalist. It is Arminian and not Calvinist. It is relatively small.
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.