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.
No, I am not.
It's JESUS we're supposed to follow. Put on Christ.
Exactly - One might better understand what that means, if one knows what being a disciple MEANS in the Hebrew sense.
Yes, Jesus kept the Torah, but that's not what makes us acceptable or right in God's eyes.
Yet, if we love YHWH, we will keep His commandments. And if we understand what it means to 'follow Messiah', we know that His example is what we are to emulate - That is what a disciple DOES - He emulates his master.
So what parts, exactly, of the Torah are we to keep? And why not the whole thing? Why just pick and choose which parts to obey?
Nope. All of it.
The NT message is to fulfill the law of love by which we will obey and fill God's plan for ourselves without even trying.
If we love YHWH we will keep his commandments, and his commandments are not grievous.
So tell us, just what happens to the believer if he DOESN'T obey the Torah?
That is above my paygrade.
Is he condemned? Go to hell? God's mad at him? Withholds blessings?
Well, there is that 'I never knew ye' thing... workers of lawlessness... But like I said, above my paygrade.
Why the emphasis on following the Torah?
Because it is the way of the House of YHWH. If we love him, we will keep his commandments... The emphasis is on loving YHWH, and following Messiah...
And how do you do it without the Temple and consecrated priesthood?
Yet again? That which you CAN'T do, is made moot. An Israelite who is too poor or too sick to go to the Temple is not doomed by it. If there is no Temple, there is no sacrifice. simple as that. And Jews have been keeping the Holy Days for centuries without it. And by the way, only three Holy Days 'require' a Temple, and only ONE of those requires a personal sacrifice.
How do you decide which parts you need to follow and which parts don't need to be followed and on what basis do you make that determination?
Some of it is nation based, some personal, some for men, some for priests, some for women, some for kids... That which you can do, DO.
Therein lies the hypocrisy. You will not assert that following the laws of Moses and circumcision, at least in circumcising your children (from your absurd rendering of Jewish law), saves anyone, but at the same time, you will not say that a failure to do them damns anyone.
Thus your claim is actually exactly the same as the "believing sect of Pharisees," who required it for salvific purposes. It is not possible to refuse to affirm that something might potentially damn you, and yet still maintain it has nothing to do with your salvation.
Sure they do. Why else would Moses even be mentioned?
But Christianity is not about proclaiming Moses.
Really?
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.
And only the Jews were in the synagogues.
Sorry, even history knows better than that.
The Jews were demanding that the Gentiles keep the Law, just as you are today. The Holy Spirit says that this is not necessary.
No, the Jews were demanding they keep Halakha.
The body of believers is not required to do anything beyond this.
But if we love YHWH we will keep his commandments.
Required to keep the Law but you don't have to for the parts that are too difficult. How convenient.
Not convenience - reality. How many times could you afford go to Israel this year?
It was no imposition. It was the natural order of things.
By custom and tradition the celebrated the New Covenant sacrifice and resurrection on the first day of the week as something very special, which you call Sunday.
Right. On the Sabbath they went to synagogue, and otherwise rested, then, after dark, like every other Jewish sect, they had a potluck as a way to stretch out the Sabbath - This eventually became known to Christians as the Agape feast.
They did not move the sixth day to the seventh.
You need to read more of your own schtick. more than one powerful figure in the Roman church has pointed to the 'moved' sabbath as the pinnacle and power and proof of church authority.
By giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose, do you doubt his authority to choose to remember the sacrifice and resurrection of our Lord on the first day of the week ?
Yeah... maybe you ought to better understand the keys and 'binding and loosing' without all the Roman voodoo. Every Christian has the power to bind and loose. And every Christian has the keys.
No, they weren't.
Salvation is complete in Christ and we have it now.
Yeshua’s work is complete, but our job is to remain in full faith to our end.
That is what Yeshua and all of the apostles said, whether you like it or not.
Take your answer to that from the scriptures:
Proverbs 24:
[7] Wisdom is too high for a fool: he openeth not his mouth in the gate.
[8] He that deviseth to do evil shall be called a mischievous person.
[9] The thought of foolishness is sin: and the scorner is an abomination to men.
[10] If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is small.
[11] If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain;
[12] If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?
Matthew 16:
[24] Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
[25] For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
[26] For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
[27] For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Revelation 20:
[11] And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
[12] And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
No need to go back THAT far; just read Acts 15.
Let them follow Moses and the prophets if they wish.
It's WAY past time to quit wasting your time with these folks!
That depends upon how you look at it - Betrothal is legally marriage, but is only the promise - until the consummation, it is not realized. In the same sense, justification, which is why it can be read both ways from the Scripture (will be justified, are justified). You have the promise thereof, and the promise will be kept, and that guarantee makes it real-time. But we will all stand before the Righteous Judge...
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.
Rather, he fully interpreted and revealed Moses - Murder was always in the heart, not 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)
Your point is not lost on me - but you might digest the fact that the spirit of the law, in every instance wherein Yeshua interpreted, was stricter than the letter - Even thinking of murder IS murder, every bit as much as the act itself... That is a HIGHER standard, not more free... And yes, Messiah IS the standard to be emulated... That was exactly my point. To follow Yeshua is to try to be like Him, in every way.
Simple. Besides not being under the Law for salvation via works-merit [...]
But Torah is not merit based. Every single OT person I can think of was saved by grace through faith.
[...] 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.
Wrong answer. The law cannot be added to nor taken from.
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,"
No, the traditions and doctrines of men are not based upon the law. If it were that they were true to the law, they would not be traditions and doctrines of men.
Which is another verse you must labor to rationalize away.
What is to rationalize? I am keeping kosher because YHWH said to. And if we love YHWH we will keep his commandments.
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.
It wasn't meant to be insolent, but merely snide. But your interpretation is correct - And I do not keep Torah as a means of justification (I know who my redeemer is), but rather, as an expression of love for YHWH. What then?
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?
It is in my case. Yeshua is our example. That means we do what he did. That is what obedience to the Rabbi is - As perfect an emulation as one can produce. And the feasts are prophetic - The Fall feasts have not yet been fulfilled. Shouldn't you look to see what you might be missing?
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)
Of course Peter is not talking about wearing the yoke of a different Rabbi. He wears the yoke of Yeshua. The yoke of a Rabbi is his interpretation of Torah, which the disciple is bound to strenuously keep, and duty bound to emulate (sometimes on pain of death). Is it your position that Peter was strenuously keeping Yeshua's interpretation of Torah by *not* keeping Torah? It is ridiculous! What then can the 'yoke we could not bear' be?
Why, the tradition of the elders of course! That same which DOES demand that proselytes must be circumcised!
And as for meats and drinks, diverse washings, and carnal ordinances: What meats? What drinks? What diverse washings? What carnal ordinances? Specify please.
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.
No, Torah keeping has nothing to do with salvation. Loving YHWH means keeping his commandments, and following Yeshua means copying him as an example. In both cases, that includes Torah.
Duplicity implies intent - I fail to see my intent? That doesn't make any sense.
Most certainly from you. One need only look at a very recent post (#742 which is after this post to me) to understand that you indeed put forth the intent at least that following Torah is a requirement for salvation. Your entire post #742 is about the requirement to follow Torah. Your double speak is very troubling.
No, my intent is to follow Yeshua - That is what disciples are supposed to do. And my intent is to honor YHWH by keeping his commandments. That is what I have said all along.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Threads like these are useful since they allow me to build up posts which I can later search for and reuse when the subject comes up again. Nowadays I just type "free republic greetings_puny_humans [subject or keyword]" into google and my life becomes easier.
Our righteousness is justified by His blood of the Cross.
Very good text,but like other texts, such as "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 show an apostle not upholding the laws these modern-day judaizers foist upon New Covenant Christians, this can be spinned:
(http://venitism.blogspot.com/2013/09/citibank-cannot-be-saved-with-spins.html)
Well said. RCs do likewise with such equivocation when faced with the logical consequence of their argumentation for such things as Jn. 6:53,54..
That is true - But let me ask you this question: How then is Torah YOUR schoolmaster (in order to bring you to Yeshua), if you need not do it (as it is rendered insignificant)?
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.