Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

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.”

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.”

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).

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.

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.

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.

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

No obligations to keep the feast days, the holy days, the Torah.

Context:

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

I have explained this to you numerous times - Why 15:21? Because early Christians were attending the synagogues to hear the Word, and they would be taught Moses as a matter of course. And they were.

You keep contradicting yourself. You say *Save by grace* but then demand [...]

I have demanded nothing. That is WAY above my pay grade. And I have not contradicted myself.

[...] something the leaders of the early church and the Holy Spirit never required, and that is keeping the Torah.

I disagree with that entirely - Even a quick perusal of James will show his intention. 'James the Righteous' - That means Torah-keeper in Hebrew-speak. Peter says to keep Torah, John says to keep Torah. Yeshua said to keep Torah... Paul said to keep Torah...

Not to mention that the feast days can't be properly kept without the Temple and a consecrated priesthood to make the proper sacrifices.

We have already been down this road too. There is PLENTY of evidence of people keeping the feasts outside of the Temple precincts. Not everyone could make it to the Temple, even for the three feasts that are required to be kept at the Temple. Many could not afford to travel from their homes... They kept the feasts where they were, even as they do today.

But don't demand that everyone do what you do just because you think it's right when Scripture does not demand it of us.

I have demanded nothing.

All the admonitions of Scripture are for living according to the law of love, not the Law of the of covenant.

They are the same thing.

We are under the new covenant and are not bound by the old one any more.

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rev_14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Rev_15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb,, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.

Just sayin'...

I have explained this to you numerous times - Why 15:21? Because early Christians were attending the synagogues to hear the Word, and they would be taught Moses as a matter of course. And they were.

Your "because" is without actual proof though, and is even contradicted by the text. You claim that Christians were "attending the synagogues" and, therefore, hearing that they are commanded to be circumcised and to follow the law of Moses. Yet, the Apostles explicitly declare that no such commandment had ever been given, even though, if you are to be believed, it was the central part of the Gospel and not some new thing:

Act 15:24 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:

Now if "no such commandment" was given, how is that possible if the commandment was given by Christ? Who came first? Christ? Or the Apostles? And what do they preach all the time in the synagogues they are supposedly present at?

I will also point out the characterization of it. They called it the "subverting" of their souls to be commanded to be circumcised and to keep the Law. Peter described it as the "yoke" that neither he nor his fathers could bare, and he also says that the Gentiles, who were not following the Law of Moses, are "purified" by their faith, and lastly, that they are saved by grace, "the same as we" (Acts 15:7-11).

You also quote the fact that the Pharisees considered it essential to salvation to follow the commandments, by which you probably mean "Well, you should still do it, although it makes no difference for your salvation." Yet you have repeatedly implied that it is a "sin" to not be circumcised and follow the law of Moses, and have explicitly stated that it is part of becoming more Christ like to refrain from eating Bacon (because what is the worst sin of all? Not denying the trinity, but eating a piggy). By this we can then presume that you would believe that Peter was in obedience to the "law of Moses," although he clearly called it a unbearable "yoke."

As absurd as that already is from the context, I will put another nail in the coffin and point out that Peter was, in fact, living as the Gentiles do all along:

"But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"(Gal 2:14)

Thus you want us to believe that, though Peter did not believe it was a matter of salvation (and what's the point of abstaining from Bacon, when it is not a matter of salvation?), that he still lived like a Jew nonetheless, and followed every jot and tittle of the law of Moses!

True enough - Whether justification has occurred in the promise or awaits the 'thing hoped for', or as it were, the realization of that justification, when the roles are called and the books are opened, and the promise delivered has no real impact upon the argument at hand, because the argument at hand is not about justification.

Well that is about as clear as mud. Do you affirm or deny that one who who comes to God as a contrite damned + destitute sinner, and trusts the risen Lord Jesus to save him by His sinless shed blod, is presently justified before God by his faith being counted for righteousness?

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise.. (Romans 10:4-6).

Here we have an argument about the word 'end' - I would say 'height, pinnacle', the ultimate example... That which should be emulated, which is the duty of a disciple.

Certainly the Lord fulfilled the Law in its fullest intent, going beyond what the letter of the law of Moses said, so that murder was of the heart not just the action. But you are missing the point, which is that one who believes is justified before God as one who would be justified under the Law if he could be. And that Christ Himself is the One whom the believer looks as standard for righteousness. And the righteousness of the law fulfilled by walking not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:4)

This walking after the Spirit is not what makes one justified before God, but faith appropriated that. Yet is justifies/vindicates one as being a true believer. Which is done under obedience to "the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (2 Corinthians 3:6) For concerning the letter, "Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them." (Romans 10:5)

But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise,...The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;..For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:5,6,10)

Not keeping it perfectly, but working toward that end. The inward spirit desires Torah. And I would argue against your use of 'in it's intent'. Yeshua kept the Law perfectly and entirely.

But He magnified the Law, even going went beyond what Moses allowed for divorce, and in fulfilling the Law He promised the New Covenant, under which obedience to the typological aspects of the Law are abrogated, thus that temple sacrifices are ceased, as are other aspects Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Hebrews 9:10)

How does 'hearing Moses and obeying the Law' by following Yeshua result in *not* keeping Torah and *not* hearing Moses?

Simple. Besides not being under the Law for salvation via works-merit, while the believer follows Christ in keeping the moral law which the NT upholds, thus 9 of the 10 commandments are reiterated, yet the believer does not even engaging in one animal sacrifice, nor is enjoined to keep the liturgical celebrations and dietary laws which prefigured Christ.

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Context: Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ...Col 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? This is talking about Torah? RATHER, the Body is of Messiah, and Messiah kept Torah.

Again with the justification - ANY quote having to do with justification or salvation is summarily rejected - No one here is claiming justification or salvation in keeping Torah.

Context

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Colossians 2:14)

The> "tradition of men" and > "the commandments and doctrines of men" were based upon the Law, but as it was the handwriting of ordinances of the Law as regards "drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath," "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation," (Hebrews 9:10) "that was against us," that "put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear," (Acts 15:10) thus the believers need not be circumcised or keep other typological ordinances, which were a shadow which the body of Christ made, prefiguring Him.

TORAH is 'weak and beggarly'?

The context is the Law: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. (Gal 4:4-5) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,.. (Romans 8:3) And along with being poor, this refers to the earthly basis of the typological commands, such as the lunar cycle determining the correct day of worship, or eating certain foods as being sin.

I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. (Romans 14:14)

Which is another verse you must labor to rationalize away.

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

I am circumcised, as are many, many christian men. So that event (wholly beyond my control, btw) means I will not profit in Messiah? Rather, 'whosoever of you are justified by the law'... Ahhh, there it is. Justification. No one here is claiming justification by keeping Torah.

That borders on insolence. Paul is not saying the merely being circumcised places one under the Law, but being circumcised in submission to the Judaizers signified submission to the Law as means of justification, that one must keep the Law en toto in order to be saved.

Again, no one here is claiming that keeping Torah is salvific.

But you are if you hold that the only faith that saves is the kind of faith that will effect obedience, (Jn. 10:27,28; Heb. 5:9) which is true, but that obedience to Christ means keeping the Torah including 7th day Sabbaths keeping, feasts, dietary laws etc. Do you consider this what obedient saving faith is or not?

Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? ]

Since Torah does not claim circumcision will save you, perhaps the yoke you point to is not Torah. It would do you well to understand what the 'yoke of a disciple' is. It was worn at all times by a disciple of a Rabbi, and it's tails contained the takanot of his master ... it was often very hard for the disciple to bear all day.

That is nonsense. Peter is not talking about having to wear anything or just keeping the "additions or changes to Torah, endorsed by the elders," the rejection of which was a foregone conclusion, as the church began in dissent from them. But "that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses" (Acts 15:5) in its entirety, "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." (Hebrews 9:10)

And which was the "yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." (Acts 15:10-11)

This the contrast, salvation by grace, in which souls pass from death unto life, being washed, sanctified and justified by faith - even before baptism, as Cornelius and co. exampled - versus salvation thru Law keeping. But obedience to Christ means recognizing the laws which foreshadowed Christ, and looking to Him in keeping the moral law in its full extent (there being no limited to love). And as "Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day" thus basic obedience was enjoined:

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. (Acts 15:20-21; cf Gn. 35:2; Ex. 34:15-16; Ezek. 30:30,31; Gn. 34:1,2,31; Dt. 14:21; 22:28,29; 2Chron. 21:11; Gn. 9:4; Lv. 7:27; 17:13,14)

More details of love for God and each other under the New Covenant would be provided as they grew in grace.

No one here is claiming justification or salvation in keeping Torah.

I think you are claiming salvation by a faith which requires keeping the dietary laws, feast keeping, 7th day sabbath, etc. If not, say so.

It was a Levite and a priest that passed on the other side who both should have known the two greatest commandments but didn’t follow the spirit of those laws.

Let’s bring Luke 10:25-37 up for discussion and context:
The Parable of the Good Samaritan

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[c]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Notice that the legal expert wished to “justify himself” having felt the sting of the parable. Christ asked him which was the true neighbor and the “expert” answered “the one who had mercy on him.”

Now what was the reason the legal expert felt as though he needed to justify himself? If you studied the Mosaic code...priests and those of Levite class had to avoid anything of a bloody unclean nature that would taint their persons, yet there were never any laws against showing mercy and kindness. They hid behind a technicality to avoid a more selfless calling on their part. The legal expert was gently confronted by Christ regarding his reliance on the technicalities of the law to avoid the spirit of the law...which was the mercy, love, and justice flowing from the Spirit of God.

The “legal expert” quoted the two great commandments from a more narrowly interpreted, perhaps rotely memorized sense of those laws after what was supposed, the priestly order of Aaron. When Christ affirmed that the doing of those 2 laws would lead to eternal life,,,the “expert” realized he had been justly “fingered”. Just like Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, the “expert” sought to justify himself. Christ’s parable would give the “expert” no cover. Even the “disgusting” Samaritan(Samaritans were estranged from polite Jewish society, kind of like yahoo hillbillies) who showed kindness would get eternal Life over the Priest and Levite. Christ’s parable was directed at the heart of the “expert” hence his use of the priest and levite in the parable.

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.