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.
The sheep guy.
But then the goats come along and claim that ALL the food is theirs!
In principle, even the existing system would be compatible with most if not all gospel-faithful efforts.
The bible says we don’t “fight flesh and blood.” Endorsing a politician wouldn’t come into question. The New Testament has no political endorsement statements in it. Nor does anybody rail personally at evil human rulers (the worst you see is some king being called a fox). Believers in Christ are positioned to do issue advocacy well. Tying issues to the loving will of God is an art, but if well done it may yet help carry the day.
Doctrinal position and peculiarities
The fact that John Wesley and Methodism considered religion primarily as practical, not dogmatic, probably accounts for the absence of any formal Methodist creed. The "General Rules", issued by John and Charles Wesley on 1 May, 1743, stated the conditions of admission into the societies organized by them and known as the "United Societies". They bear an almost exclusively practical character, and require no doctrinal test of the candidates. Methodism, however, developed its own theological system as expressed in two principal standards of orthodoxy.
The first is the "Twenty-five Articles" of religion. They are an abridgment and adaptation of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, and form the only doctrinal standard strictly binding on American Methodists. Twenty-four of these articles were prepared by John Wesley for the Church in America and adopted at the Conference of Baltimore in 1784. The article which recognizes the political independence of the United States (Article XXIII) was added in 1804. The second standard is the first fifty-three of Wesley's published sermons and his "Notes on the New Testament". These writings were imposed by him on the British Methodists in his "Deed of Declaration" and accepted by the "Legal Hundred". The American Church, while not strictly bound to them, highly esteemed and extensively uses them.
More fundamental for all Methodists than these standards are the inspired Scriptures, which are declared by them to be the sole and sufficient rule of belief and practice. The dogmas of the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ are upheld. The universality of original sin and the consequent partial deterioration of human nature find their efficacious remedy in the universal distribution of grace. Man's free co-operation with this Divine gift is necessary for eternal salvation, which is offered to all, but may be freely rejected. There is no room in Methodism for the rigorous doctrine of predestination as understood by Calvinism. While the doctrine of justification by faith alone is taught, the performance of good works enjoined by God is commended, but the doctrine of works of supererogation is condemned. Only two sacraments are admitted: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Baptism does not produce sanctifying grace in the soul, but strengthens its faith, and is the sign of a regeneration which has already taken place in the recipient. Its administration to infants is commanded because they are already members of the Kingdom of God. The Eucharist is a memorial of the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ, who is not really present under the species of bread and wine, but is received in a spiritual manner by believers. The sacrament is administered under both kinds to the laity. The "witness of the Spirit" to the soul of the individual believer and the consequent assurance of salvation are distinctive doctrines of Methodism. This assurance is a certainty of present pardon, not of final perseverance. It is experienced independently of the sacraments through the immediate testimony of the Holy Spirit, and does not preclude the possibility of future transgressions. Transgressions of an involuntary character are also compatible with another characteristic doctrine of Methodism, that of perfection or complete sanctification. The Christian, it is maintained, may in this life reach a state of holiness which excludes all voluntary offence against God, but still admits of growth in grace. It is therefore a state of perfectibility rather than of stationary perfection. The invocation of saints and the veneration of relics and images are rejected. While the existence of purgatory is denied in the Twenty-five Articles (Article XIV), an intermediate state of purification, for persons who never heard of Christ, is admitted today by some Methodists. In its work of conversion Methodism is aggressive and largely appeals to religious sentiment; camp-meetings and revivals are important forms of evangelization, at least in America. Among the practices which Wesley imposed upon his followers were the strict observance of the Lord's Day, the use of few words in buying and selling, and abstinence from all intoxicating drinks, from all purely worldly amusements and from costly apparel. The church service which he prepared for them was an abridgment and modification of the Book of Common Prayer, but it never came into universal use, sentiment among Methodists being rather unfavourable to any set form of liturgy. In America the ministry is divided into two orders; the deacons and the elders or presbyters; in Great Britain and her colonies only one order exists, the elders. The name of bishop used in the episcopal bodies is a title of office, not of order; it expresses superiority to elders not in ordination, but in the exercise of administrative functions. No Methodist denomination recognizes a difference of degree between episcopal and presbyterial ordination. A characteristic institution of Methodism are the love-feasts which recall the agape of Christian antiquity. In these gatherings of believers bread and water are handed round in token of brotherly union, and the time is devoted to singing and the relating of religious experiences.
2 Timothy 2
Didache 2:2 proscribes birth control by potion, using the Greek word pharmakea. I've not seen it in the Scriptures before associated with contraception, but here it is in a very early and very Orthodox teaching. Similarly it proscribes abortion in the same group of teaching dealing with sexual sin, calling it directly murder. I hope you don't imagine the Jewish Apostles condoning women taking drugs to preempt God creating life in their wombs. The Scripture references proscribing pharmakea are Galatians 5.20, Revelation 9.21 and 18:23, where the KJV translates pharmakea as witchcraft or sorcery. They verses are severe.
“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.”
“only” or not “only” you’re still a Protestant - as even some Protestants here would admit. Deal with it. My “reading comprehension problem” is nothing compared to your clear denial of the obvious truth.
“Catholics do that all the time. They inject their prejudice or change wording to try to justify their view. It’s rather transparent.”
And that would still be a better trait - if it existed - than a clear denial of reality which is what your problem is. You’re a Protestant. Deal with it.
Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
And what did Yeshua say about Torah? This is not the (most) obvious answer...
Revelation 2:7 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.”’
So what is this Tree of Life? Glad you asked...
Proverbs 3
1 My son, do not forget my Torah, But let your heart keep my commands;
2 For length of days and long life And peace they will add to you.
Proverbs 3:18 She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her, And happy are all who retain her.
Torah is the Tree of Life...
And Yeshua said...
לׂא כִּי־אׂמֵר אֲנִי לָכֶם אִם־לׂא תָשׁוּבוּ גַּם־אַתֶּם כֻּלְּכֶם תּׂאבֵדוּ׃
http://www.sarshalom.us/resources/scripture/asv/bible.html
Luke 13:3 I tell you, no; but unless you Teshuvah you will all likewise perish.
Teshuvah, return, to Torah...
Malachi 3
Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
3:19 For, hinei, HaYom bah (the day cometh), that shall burn as an oven; and kol zedim (all the proud), yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble; and HaYom that cometh shall burn them up, saith Hashem Tzva’os, that it shall leave them neither shoresh (root) nor anaf (branch).
20 But unto you that fear My name shall the Shemesh Tzedakah (sun of righteousness) arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. 21 And ye shall trample down the resha’im; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in HaYom that I shall do this, saith Hashem Tzva’os.
22 Remember ye the Torat Moshe Avdi, which I commanded unto him in Chorev for kol Yisroel, with the chukkim (statutes) and mishpatim (judgments). 23 Hinei, I will send you Eliyahu HaNavi before the coming of the great and dreadful Yom Hashem; 24 And he shall turn the lev-avot to the banim, and the lev-banim to their avot, lest I come and strike the earth with cherem.
18 Then shall ye return, and discern between the tzaddik and the rasha, between oved Elohim (him that serveth G-d) and him that serveth Him not.
Yeshua fulfilled Torah, to follow Torah is to follow Yeshua.
I notice you did not respond to my original post, and yet now you ping me to something silly? Romans 8:39 is not said to the Gentiles alone, but to the Jews and Gentiles. Nor is it unique to Paul, but both salvation by grace alone and predestination is taught all over the Gospel of John.
So what is this Tree of Life? Glad you asked...
Why do the cultists always act like we asked for their opinion? I never did.
Luke 13:3 I tell you, no; but unless you Teshuvah you will all likewise perish.
Teshuvah, return, to Torah...
What is with this forgery? There is no Hebrew version of Luke. The word is in Greek, and only means to repent from one's sins, not become a Jew and circumcise themselves and to follow the law of Moses, all of which is not just condemned by Paul, but all of the Apostles as well, as we see in Acts 15.
Yeshua fulfilled Torah, to follow Torah is to follow Yeshua.
AMEN!
And discipleship is to follow the teaching of the Teacher - Every example, every action, every word, and to preserve Him. So it is also true that 'to follow Yeshua is to follow Torah'.
Who were you praying to, the devil? Don't spam me with pings just repeating what trash thing someone else said. It especially annoys me when you goobers don't even know the Torah either, and certainly do not follow it, and yet hold to the pretension even against the direct words of the Apostles. It's just plain obnoxious. Please do not ping me further unless you have something with substance to say.
Teshuva means 'repent', but the connotation is a bit different... Rather than 'turn from sin' as repentance would have it, teshuva is return, or turn toward YHWH.
'Repent from one's sin'... How does one repent without 'teshuva'? and since 'sin' is the transgression of Torah, turning from sin (turning toward YHWH) would be...
What does 'Go and sin no more' mean?
It is called a courtesy hereabouts when replying to a post, to ping everyone to whom the post was addressed. I will continue to do exactly that, following the conventions of this site. You need not reply.
Your connotation is irrelevant. You do not insert Hebrew words and pretend that it is part of a Greek text. This practice is purely deceitful.
What does 'Go and sin no more' mean?
Why ask me stupid questions when it is clear what my position is? Will you ignore what I write and then throw at me red herrings regardless of what I do? If being circumcised and keeping the Law of Moses is explicitly rejected by the Apostles as I mentioned before, then "repenting" can never be "keeping the law of Moses and being circumcised." I know this is difficult for the Armstrongites and Hebrew Roots people to accept, but it is plainly taught in the scripture.
"Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 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." (Act 15:24-29)
and if the Greek text were translated into Hebrew, which word do you suppose would be used for 'repent' (you can use the Septuagint if you need help)? And it is a shame to consider an Hebrew concept without adjourning to it's root thought, regardless of the language... these writers being Hebrews and all... Nothing at all deceitful in that consideration.
[...] If being circumcised and keeping the Law of Moses is explicitly rejected by the Apostles as I mentioned before, then "repenting" can never be "keeping the law of Moses and being circumcised [...]
If your position is right, then all we need now is a new definition for sin (and wickedness, and iniquity). Where exactly is that itemized?
What does it mean to 'go and sin no more'
Why would you be translating the Greek into Hebrew, and inserting into the Hebrew a Talmudic taint, which is nowhere in the original? The purpose of the translation is not to change the meaning of the text you are translating, but to keep the intent of the writer. If you want us to believe that "repent" in Hebrew would mean "be circumcised and keep the law of Moses," you will have to deal with the text that directly says otherwise.
If your position is right, then all we need now is a new definition for sin (and wickedness, and iniquity). Where exactly is that itemized?
Notice that you are not going to address the scripture directly, but will try to go round about it and solve it the sophistic way. I will not bite your worthless bait. There is no reason to accept your premise that to not be circumcised and keep the law of Moses is a sin, when the plain words say otherwise. No Christian is obligated to be bound by the Jewish yoke, which does not even save you.
Deal with the scripture directly. Do not expect me to accept the things you insert into the scripture unlawfully.
Like I said, to capture the thought more fully.
[...]and inserting into the Hebrew a Talmudic taint, which is nowhere in the original?
A Talmudic taint?? What is 'Talmudic' about Teshuva? What is Talmudic about turning toward, or returning to YHWH? That is Torah, plain and simple.
Notice that you are not going to address the scripture directly, but will try to go round about it and solve it the sophistic way.
Not at all - I am simply looking at the mechanics of the thing. If there is no Torah, then there is no definition of SIN. What then IS sin, so that we can 'go and sin no more'? If the intention of the Jerusalem Council is as you say, then my question is the natural response.
So, what then, is SIN? Only the commandments set forth since those at the Council? Is that where you are?
No, it is to make Christians believe that the New Testament was written in Hebrew, and to put a false air of spirituality around the hypocrites who demand we live as Jews. It is like waxing into poetic Latin randomly, which most people do not speak, and then telling us it "expresses the thought more fully."
A Talmudic taint?? What is 'Talmudic' about Teshuva?
It is a Jewish centric interpretation of the word when you make it to mean "be circumcised and keep the law of Moses," which would mean, in every case, that everywhere someone repents, it must necessarily mean that, despite the fact that it nowhere says that Gentiles like Job or the people of Nineveh were ever circumcised or kept the law of Moses. Yet God still accepted them.
If the intention of the Jerusalem Council is as you say, then my question is the natural response.
Your response is natural if you are a member of a religious cult like the Armostringites or the Hebrew Roots folks. The natural response would be, "We are not to be circumcised or keep the law of Moses." This is not interpretation. It is a plain reading of the text. Whether you accept it or not is not my problem. It's yours.
FINE. What then, is SIN?
Galatians 2: 11 When Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. ...
There you go with justification again....
What do you think? What purpose is this stupid question for unless you are going to troll me about "following the law of Moses?" The only sins are those which trespass the law of Christ, not the law of Moses, of which we are free of totally.
We Christians are bound only to this: To love one another. All your Jewish laws and customs which you demand we follow, we are utterly free of.
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.