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.
We are not bound to Torah by curses. We are bound to it by love. If we love YHWH, we will keep his commandments.
I am not asking for the definition of the term, I am asking for a list thereof. To sin is to transgress the Torah, as even the NT declares. Torah itemizes what to do and what not to do. According to GPH, the Torah no longer matters. Thus, if Torah is no more, there is also no expressed LAW.
When Paul says in Romans 3;23, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.", he isn't speaking of a human capacity for reaching the perfection of God - which WOULD be required if anyone could ever be in His presence.
Yes, he certainly IS speaking of the inability of Man to be perfect, and the hallmark of that perfection is Yeshua, and the touchstone is Torah.
It is why sin was expiated, or covered, in the Old Testament times before Christ came and made the once-for-all sacrifice for sin which He was the PROpitiation for our sins. This means He took them away, as far as the east is from the west and removed them from us.
The blood of goats and bulls never was able to cover the sin of a man. The Torah said so. That blood was but a placeholder until a better blood came along. THAT Blood has come, and performs the same, but realized covering. Every sin (transgression of Torah) is still repented, and thereby covered by a blood sacrifice - That sacrifice once delivered two thousand years ago. But the mechanics thereof remain the same. It is a function of Torah.
By living in obedience to Christ, we honor God and demonstrate a grateful heart for His mercy and grace, but our works of the law can never save us. Adam, Noah, Abraham were all BEFORE there even was a law of Moses, yet they were STILL sinners in need of grace and mercy and they were declared righteous by faith, not works.
Again, no one is claiming that keeping Torah makes one righteous. We ALL rely upon Messiah. And I might add that in Adam's day there was blood sacrifice (Abel)... In Noah's day there was a difference between the clean and unclean (and sacrifice), and Abraham walked with YHWH and kept his commandments. I would suggest that one might look at the successive covenants as continuing revelations of the very same thing. And then look to the Kingdom, and see what YHWH has made known.
.
Typical false and misleading smoke screen!
I have posted massive scripture that fully supports all that I have asserted.
You post scriptures that support my contention too, and disregard when I point that fact out.
It is you that contrive to make scripture contradict itself.
I post the scriptures that show your misunderstanding to help you develop understanding. Scripture cannot contradict itself, and that is what should tell you that your interpretation is false.
You are merely putting words into my mouth. I never said the Old Testament no longer matters. And the reason why I never gave you what you wanted isn't because I am unable to answer. Paul is full of such lists as you would like, if you would believe him. He condemns murder, theft, adultery, fornication, coveting, and all manner of like sins, and in case he missed anything, he adds "if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Rom 13:9).
Your complaint asking me to "define sin" was and is just a red herring so you can get out of the thorny scriptures which declare that all your bacon regulations aren't obsessively important as you would like us to believe, but are done away with.
Before you may waste our time with these long winded posts, you must address the objections already made to you. Until that time, anything you say is just mere distraction.
The law is most certainly fulfilled by the practice of love, as it clearly says everywhere:
Jas_2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
As a matter of fact, John's entire epistle is about the necessity of loving one another and believing in God. There is no talk about circumcision or dietary laws, or whether one should or shouldn't wear clothes with mixed colored fabrics. The reason why our obligations to God are fulfilled by love is because it contains within it an automatic rejection of all other sins which cause harm to others. Thus murder, fornication, and all other sins, can be summed up by love.
Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
The Law is not the “unbearable yoke,” the unbearable yoke is the man made law of the Pharisees, which Yeshua completely denounced.
Peter himself contradicts this in an explicit discussion not of traditions or "man made law," but of "circumcision and the law of Moses" (Acts 15:5). He declares, first of all, that the Gentiles are no different from the Jews, being purified by their faith, and then declares the same law that was upon his Fathers, which can be no other than the law of Moses, "a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear" (Acts 15:10).
Your claim that this has to do with the Pharisees' "man made laws" is simply not supported by any part of the text. Thus, if Peter calls the law of Moses a "yoke," then that commandment of John cannot be all your hangups over bacon, but that law of Christ which Paul speaks of, which does not save either, but is a result of our salvation which is comprehended in the saying "love one another".
Nowhere have I ever posted such a statement; it is the product of your own lack of understanding of the scriptures. You, like many here fail to understand that the Greek translations conflate Yehova’s law with the Pharisee's false man made law,
Your method of exegesis appears to be that of schizophrenic hallucination. How does one concede that we are not commanded to be circumcised, by claiming it is part of the Pharisees' "false man made law"? And how do you remove one part of the law of Moses from the rest? Circumcision is at the center of everything, and that is why it is always brought out as "Circumcision AND the Law of Moses," because if one is to follow any other requirements of the Jewish law, they must first, logically, be circumcised. Not even the feast days may be celebrated without circumcision:
Exo_12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
And it also follows that, if one is circumcised, they must then follow all the dietary laws, feast days, clothing restrictions, ritual cleanliness, etc etc:
Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
You cannot have some part of the law without another, but if you demand that we follow anything as part of our "love for God," you must follow all of it, or the individual is nothing but a hypocrite, who demands we follow the "yoke" of circumcision and the law of Moses (otherwise we are not Christians), when even they themselves do not do so.
Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
More than likely, if you gave me a list of all your daily doings, I would discover that you do not keep the law either, but only those parts of it that are convenient for you.
By the way, how come you didn't respond to my post and all my questions?
By the way, one last point. By this I think you mean, not the English translations of the Greek, but the Greek originals themselves, which you pretend is a translation of an original Hebrew somewhere, and is therefore filled with pesky errors which contradict you. Am I right?
I'm relieved to hear you say (write) that, but there HAS been someone here claiming that very thing and is who has been disputed by the words of Paul (through the Holy Spirit).
I don't think anyone would deny that keeping the Ten Commandments is part of living a holy life - set apart from the WHOLE law of Torah/Moses. What I would dispute is the imposing upon Gentile Christians the ceremonial laws the Jews followed and insisting they MUST be followed in order to attain salvation. The Torah/Law was NEVER intended to impart righteousness but, "law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (Gal. 3:24). Additionally, keeping the whole of Torah (the Law of Moses) is not even how believers are sanctified, because that, too, is by faith. God writes His law upon our hearts and the person who is Christ's WILL live according to the leading of God because, "For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." (Eph. 2:10)
I didn't say you did. I said you said the Torah doesn't matter, which is, at least inferred by your position. Since Torah cannot be added to or taken from, then it must all be true, or all nullified.
And the reason why I never gave you what you wanted isn't because I am unable to answer. Paul is full of such lists as you would like, if you would believe him. He condemns murder, theft, adultery, fornication, coveting, and all manner of like sins, and in case he missed anything, he adds "if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Rom 13:9).
Right. And his master, and yours, and mine, ratified the entire Torah. ALL of it is in force until all of the prophets and the law is fulfilled. Every jot and tittle.
you must address the objections already made to you.
I must? And where will I find these objections 'already addressed to me'?
We most certainly are. It’s already a done deal for true believers.
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." (John 5:24)
Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
perfected not will perfect.
1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Those who think our justification, sanctification, and perfection depend on what we do are not better than Catholics or pagans.
The hypocrisy of this statement is that, though "justification or salvation is", allegedly, "summarily rejected," it still seems he holds that we are obligated to keep the "Torah," thus making all of us sinners and they the only practicing Christians in the whole world, because they do not eat bacon, and we do so for breakfast in satanic rebellion.
Amen and Amen! What a gracious and glorious God we serve!!
I noticed that also. It’s typical of those preaching “another gospel” to twist, add too, or change the words of scripture.
This has already been refuted several times, which you can see in my posts to you already, and to Editor, who by the way is apparently dropping circumcision. You can read them, or you can run from them. But I will not continue to waste my time to respond to your assertions when you stand refuted already, and I would recommend to Boatbums that he ignore you too, until you do give a serious answer.
I must?
Yes, you must, or I have no reason to respond to you further. You are like the black knight who has had his arms cut off, but still keeps talking. As for pretending that you cannot find them, you know what I mean, and I won't play this game with you.
There, put the emphasis where it belongs. We are already assured of things hoped for.
Oh come now. The Hebrew Roots people are constantly claiming that unless we follow Torah we are lost.
Wrong once again.
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Galatians 3: 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,
Ephesians 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
fulfill them.
Of special significance in this study is the word rendered “abolish.” It translates the Greek term kataluo, literally meaning “to loosen down.” The word is found seventeen times in the New Testament. It is used, for example, of the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans (Matthew 26:61; 27:40; Acts 6:14), and of the dissolving of the human body at death (2 Corinthians 5:1). The term can carry the extended meaning of “to overthrow,” i.e., “to render vain, deprive of success.” In classical Greek, it was used in connection with institutions, laws, etc., to convey the idea of “to invalidate.”
It is especially important to note how the word is used in Matthew 5:17. In this context, “abolish” is set in opposition to “fulfill.” Christ came “...not to abolish, but to fulfill.” Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an opponent of the law. His goal was not to prevent its fulfillment. Rather, He revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding Himself (Luke 24:44). Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law, which called for perfect obedience under threat of a “curse” (see Galatians 3:10, 13). In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/abolish-fulfill-law.html#ixzz36ANjXJxH
Christ is our source for the payment for sin, so to solve by substitution, as you learned in Algebra when you were 12 years old, “payment for our sins is the end (IOW reason)for obeying the law.”
Like it or not, that is what Paul is telling us.
1John 5:
[1] Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
[2] By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
[3] For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
Keep on picking and choosing which verses to believe; Yeshua plainly says in Matthew 7:23 that he will pick and choose which of those that claim to believe in him to be saved.
.
>> “ We are already assured of things hoped for.” <<
.
You changing the meaning of Paul’s words for your purposes does not change the fact that you do not yet have the end of your faith (if you really have any faith, which is beginning to look dubious) until you have “endured” in that faith to the end.
.
Hopefully one day you will leave and renounce that Rood cult.
Do you not understand the difference between the word has and the word will which you want to insert?
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.