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.
If there is any mind reading, it is in the reply to me, making assertions not based on fact, but on an ASSumption.
Anybody can answer any post when the answer is so clear. Protestations make no difference when faced with truth!
This is an open forum, you know!
Yes, Paul taught as Yeshua - what people have done with what he taught is not his fault.
Read it again - thinking of software code, and understand what a logic bomb is.
I love the way you try to hijack Christianity, too. Is that close enough to the headline subject, or are you going to complain to the moderator again?
I agree Christ started the Christian church.....not the Roman Catholic Church we know today. Those are different entities. One is biblically based and one is not.
“I agree Christ started the Christian church.....not the Roman Catholic Church we know today.”
Christ started the Catholic Church - it is the only Catholic Church, the one we know today.
“Those are different entities. One is biblically based and one is not.”
Incorrect. The Catholic Church established by Christ is the Catholic Church of today and is entirely biblical. Also, you should realize the Church existed BEFORE the New Testament. Thus, the Church is biblical, not “biblically based” because what came first cannot be based on what came second. Many Protestants make that anachronistic error because they know little about Church history or logic.
It be interesting to see what you claim Jesus taught. More than likely you'd wind up with Christ's words condemning you as easily as Paul's. Also note:
You destroy the authority and legitimacy of the Bible since you remove, essentially, all of it. Such a stupid position requires us to believe that the words of Jesus, which were written down by the Apostles, remained infallible, while everything else didn't.
age of one's church is irrelevant. you can exist for centuries and be totally wrong.
The Christian Church dates back to the time of Christ. It could be said it began at Pentecost.
Where are the apostles called bishops in the New Testament?
btw...I've read my Bible and I'm glad to hear a catholic reading theirs.
still waiting for you to show me in the Bible where Mary is declared sinless.
Show me the following biblical verses, without having to resort to "tradition", that in context clearly teach the following:
1) the papacy and the current structure used by the RCC today.
2) Mary was sinless
3) Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ
4) Peter was the primary apostle
5) Explain the three verses the RCC uses to claim tradition and the context of those three verses.
Christ did start His church....not the manifestation we know as the RCC today with the emphasis on praying to Mary, Mary being born and remaining sinless, Mary remaining a virgin, the papacy, indulgences, taking verses out of context to justify false teachings, appealing to men who wrote commentaries to base beliefs, the infallibility of the pope, and on and on and one. Not one of these can be supported by any clear reading of the Bible in context.
Mary is Mediatrix, CCC 969, "Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.'"
Mary brings us the gifts of eternal salvation, CCC 969, "Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . "
Mary delivers souls from death, CCC 966, " . . . You [Mary] conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death."
CCC 2677, "By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the 'Mother of Mercy,' the All-Holy One. We give ourselves over to her now, in the Today of our lives. And our trust broadens further, already at the present moment, to surrender 'the hour of our death' wholly to her care."
CCC 2068, "so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments,"
CCC 82, ". . .the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence'."
Hm... this kind of glosses over the first and most important point: Paul never met Jesus while Jesus was alive. He claims Jesus spoke to him after death. Now, we don’t fall for Muhammed’s claims of Gods and angels talking to him, why do Christians fall for Paul’s claims?
Uh oh.
Paul did met Jesus when He was alive!
Muhammed is a false prophet. Any "angel" who spoke to him was a demon.
RE: why do Christians fall for Paul’s claims?
1) Because the same Luke, who wrote one of the gospels also wrote the book of Acts, which tells us how Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus.
2) Because the apostles, who were initially skeptical of Paul, carefully heard Paul’s testimony and finally ACCEPTED him as one of them.
3) Because Peter himself, the leader of the apostles ACCEPTED Paul and wrote that he considered Paul’s letters to be scripture.
4) Because the PUBLIC miracles of Paul ( as chronicled by Luke ), i.e. Healing a lame man from birth (Acts 14:8-10
), raising Eutychus from the dead (Acts 20:9-11), healing a demon possessed girl (Acts 16:16-18), etc. TESTIFIES to his commission from Christ.
Before the crucifixion? When? Where?
Nonsense. Nobody *invented* Christianity.
The gospel is the good news of salvation offered to mankind by a loving God through faith in Jesus Christ.
Any religious system invented is the creation of man and does not contribute at all to one’s salvation.
*Christianity* as we have come to know it, is more *churchianity* than anything resembling what happened in the book of Acts in the NT.
RE: Muhammed is a false prophet. Any “angel” who spoke to him was a demon.
Or he never met an “angel”, he made the story all up.
Many scholars claim that several educated men wrote the book.
You make a good point and in reality all we have is Pauls word and nothing else except one comment from Peter and he did not call Paul an apostle.
I do believe Paul thought himself to be Chosen but the story he told is nothing more than his word whether it was written by him or if it was wrote by luke.
And why did Paul dismiss them as all but irrelevant?>>>>>
Any one can see by reading that Paul wanted to be top dog, he tried to make the others look bad in a subtle way.
I believe it was well after Jesus was gone. Paul said he saw a blinding light and heard a voice. That's very convenient for a man who seeks power, and he clearly sought power initially by persecuting Christians. Paul seems a little shady to me.
“Paul did met Jesus when He was alive!”
No.
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.