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.
Yeah; and it's been this way for a long, LONG time now!
2 Peter 3:15-16(NIV)
15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
iirc, you answered a question not directed to you and volunteered your affiliation, asking that it be compared to the Catholic faith or something to that effect. I would be surprised to see someone associated with what this small Evangelical offshoot of Protestantism purports to be mocking the mother of our LORD Jesus Christ on a regular basis but perhaps you only intend to mock those who love her, which would perhaps serve as a form of plausible deniability, but I rather doubt it. ( 14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
The bible defines its own doctrine, as with the Trinity...The bible clearly tells us that every thing that we need to know for salvation is contained within the bible...Everything...The bible tells us not to look more highly upon men/women than that which is written in the scriptures. ie. 'Peter; pope', Mary...Thus, we know that your religion's traditions are false doctrine...
Just those two things alone reject any doctrine that your religion has come up with over the centuries...
By accepting 'those' words of God as truth, we acknowledge where the authority rests, in God's words, the scriptures...
Elsie, I’m sorry, I thought the last post was your but it actually metmom intruding, as is her wont. I had thought it was Elsie but it was she.
You recall wrong then because I NEVER revealed my denominational affiliation, and I have been soundly castigated for that.
I would be surprised to see someone associated with what this small Evangelical offshoot of Protestantism purports to be mocking the mother of our LORD Jesus Christ on a regular basis but perhaps you only intend to mock those who love her, which would perhaps serve as a form of plausible deniability, but I rather doubt it.
OK, post number please where I ever mocked Mary. Or even mocked those who love her.
It’s an open forum.
Nobody is intruding when all are free to post.
If you want to carry on a private conversation, there is always the option of the *Private Reply* button.
It is a caution - It is a struggle to keep from assigning novelties to Paul. It helps to align him with Peter and James and John... And know that ALL of them must align with Messiah... I really do think Paul is written as a logic bomb - If he isn't used properly, things go cattywampus pretty quickly.
Yes, but I mistook you for him because of the way you answered for him. He seems proud of the denomination he chose, appears to recommend it, and invites scrutiny. I don’t see him hiding his affiliation which is why I was surprised by your post which I took to be his. I already know from your posts you are a Catholic who at some point left and rebelled against what you had learned, and thereby post vociferously against all things Catholi on a routine basis. Someone opined there are generally two reasons a person leaves the Catholic faith and I recall you took sharp exception to that opinion. There are others from whom you could not pry their denominational affiliation as is their privilege.
That would be to your credit. I was responding to a post I thought was from Elsie.
I suppose to a narrow minded Catholic there is only that option. I could list all the things I disagree with the Protestants on but will simply allow you your delusions.
Of course you can’t tell. If you knew what scripture describes as the “assembly” rather than having been indoctrinated to believe what the RCC has constructed as a “church” you would be able to “tell”. The pagan construct called the “church” is NOT what is sanctioned by Christ nor what He started.
It’s really too bad you aren’t able to understand the scripture behind what I say.
I think this is another example of lone ranger religion. They all think they have a badge and a mask. What I want to know is does that count as the 30,001 denomination or sect or whether it can be included in one of the other 30,000 ?
LOL I think not. In no way did they assert or make arrangements for anyone to take their place. They were the apostles to Jesus and wrote down what they taught. No “magisterium” was instituted. He specifically said that if it wasn’t something they taught it was to be considered accursed. Regardless, it still leaves Catholics teaching something the apostles didn’t.
>>The Magisterium is charged by Christ and through the power of the Holy Sprit of leading the Faithful into all Truth about the Faith.<<
That is a lie propagated by the RCC. The apostles were charged with teaching and they still do that today through scripture. No “magisterium” was instituted nor suggested.
>>It is the fallacy of sola scriptura which says all of Divine Revelation and Truth must be explicitly spelled out in scripture.<<
So show proof of where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary or any of the other “Mariology” nonsense. It still says if the apostles didn’t teach it….
The depth of deceptive indoctrination by the Catholic Church is staggering. It's hearbreaking to watch.
Keep in mind that Catholics are required to believe everything the Catholic Church teaches and they have no base of independent thought so consequently they think that all who belong to a church must follow everything that church teaches as well.
Interesting that to you following scripture alone becomes a “lone ranger religion”. Those who rely on the Holy Spirit as their guide as He promised will learn from scripture what HE wants them to learn. Catholics shouldn’t even attempt to understand.
“I suppose to a narrow minded Catholic there is only that option. I could list all the things I disagree with the Protestants on but will simply allow you your delusions.”
Another Protestant here already said you were a Protestant so this idea of yours that only “narrow minded” Catholic believe the truth that you are a Protestant is clearly incorrect.
You must admit (well you may not want to admit it), there are alot of independent ministers of the Gospel out there with lots of different fellowships or assemblies that are tax deductible organizations with the IRS. I suppose their overseer is the IRS, after a fashion. And you think you are cynical.
Wow! A reading comprehension problem on your part leads to all kinds of error doesn’t it. Would you please where I said “only” narrow minded Catholics? Did I not also say that Protestantism came out of Catholicism and retained many of her errors? Obviously some more than others.
You really need to work on your reading comprehension to reduce the number of times you suffer from foot in mouth.
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.