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 Quran 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 doesnt 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.
Lets 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 22:611 and Acts 26:1218. Paul refers back to this experience elsewhere in his letters, though it is only laid with this level of detail in Acts, written by Pauls 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 didnt happen because it couldnt happen because it cant happen therefore it didnt 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 Lords.
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 Pauls writings as Scripture from the earliest days of Christianity, as seen the case of Peter (2 Peter 3:1516).
Pauls personal opinions and the Law
Out of the three examples, two are directly from the Mosaic Law. Obviously the Mosaic Law couldnt have stated that women should not preach in the church because the Church did not yet exist and wouldnt 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 Pauls 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.
Pauls 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 Pauls 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 Pauls 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 Pauls 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 10:911) 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 Pauls letters (along with the rest of the New Testament) form one beautiful, cohesive truth.
Now why wouldnt I want to admit that? There are lots of them and always have been. There were those who started their own even in Pauls time. The RCC corrupted the concept of what the assemblies were in the New Testament to the point that most of them think they have to have some sort of IRS exemption because they become an organization. Get in bed with the government and its render unto Caesar.
You wrote:
“Wow! A reading comprehension problem on your part leads to all kinds of error doesnt it. Would you please where I said only narrow minded Catholics?”
Okay, you wrote:
I suppose to a ********narrow minded Catholic******** there is only that option.
“Did I not also say that Protestantism came out of Catholicism and retained many of her errors?”
Yes, you did say that, but that is a completely irrelevant comment in regard to whether or not you are a Protestant.
“Obviously some more than others.”
Again, that is a completely irrelevant comment in regard to whether or not you are a Protestant.
“You really need to work on your reading comprehension to reduce the number of times you suffer from foot in mouth.”
You wrote: “Would you please where I said only narrow minded Catholics?”
And you wrote: “I suppose to a ********narrow minded Catholic******** there is only that option.”
P.S. I feel sorry for you. I realize that you will now have to whine over the absence of the word “only”. I don’t mind, because thereby you will now be saying that Protestants like MamaB must also be narrow minded according to your understanding. So, either way you insult either Catholics who believe in the truth or Protestants who believe in the truth. That would seem to show you truly are alienated from the truth, and the truth loses nothing in the process.
No, there are narrow minded Protestants, Muslims, Mormons and atheists as well. So your injection of only to try to show that I was wrong because a Protestant had also said the same thing showed a reading comprehension problem.
Catholics do that all the time. They inject their prejudice or change wording to try to justify their view. Its rather transparent.
Yup. Paul carried and preached it and explicated it into letters of what we now have as the bible.
Folks are trying to pick faith in Christ apart as if it were some worldly invention. It never works that way. Even evil is not entirely a worldly invention.
Miaou! Hiss! Spit!
Herding cats would be easier :-)
Can you give me three examples of addressable denominations or sects that you hold to be genuine apostolic ekklesias on this earth today ?
LOL Ya think?
No
wont?
It's her RIGHT!
I'LL 'intrude' any time I feel like it when blather is being spread thickly!
Well, the only way that works that I know of, is with a can of tuna fish.
I'LL sure mock the MARY that ROME has foisted upon the world; and am GLAD to do it.
Mary of the bible was to be called 'blessed' by all.
All this other stuff that the VATICAN has come up with is BLASPHEMY!
Seems PROUD?
You're confused still; thinking me an FR Catholic!
ROFL! Is that why that priest guy carries that long stick with the cracker on the end?
RECOMMEND it?
The ONLY thing I 'recommended' was for you guys to SHOW it's error.
Invites SCUTINY?!?
Well; one outta three ain't TOO bad I guess.
It's an easily made mistake; as I have NO life other than to jibber-jabber with online entities all day long...
You've not gotten the LATEST memo with the NEW count from Francis??
What???? Who feeds the goats?
Not to worry.
Many will fall away when the rug gets pulled.
Churches will NOT get 'benefits'; while Fags and other Homos will.
meow meow meow meow...
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.