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.
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.
Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
There is no “will be” in any of those or any others.
Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.
Perhaps you should get acquainted with Yeshua, the Son of Yehova, who was first to tell us about that last trump thingy. (Matthew 24)
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
>> “Nothing beats a well seasoned Kosher ham on Thanksgiving Day!” <<
.
Except maybe a basket full of Easter eggs dyed red with the blood of slaughtered infants? - Tradition ya know.
And the "doers of the Law shall be justified" Rm. 2:13) actually refers to Gentiles who "do by nature the things contained in the law," (v. 14) obviously not the ceremonial aspects but the basic moral law which Gentles went against in Rm 1 in idolatry and sodomy, and other moral sins.
And the reason such doers shall be justified is because being a "doer of the Law" is a characteristic of saving faith which is counted for righteousness, and which effects "what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:3-4)
And the righteousness of the law is fulfilled via the NT realities which the ceremonial law represented.
1Pet.1
[1] Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
[2] Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
[3] Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
[4] To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
[5] Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
[6] Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
[7] That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
[8] Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
[9] Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
[10] Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
[11] Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
[12] Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
[13] Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
As you can plainly see, when a plain speaking man tells it, all there is is that which will be if we endure to the end.
.
I have never said anything else.
[H]e preached the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law [...]
As the prophets and Torah predicted, he came to properly interpret Torah.
and you espouse that we must return to practicing the letter again.
No, I am not returning to the letter.
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:"Have obtained." Past tense. Not future. Past. Let that soak in for a moment. It is a glorious truth, is it not? That inheritance is ours. We own it. The terms and conditions have already been met in the righteous life, substitutionary death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul here is saying the outcome is set, i.e., this contract is not subject to modification.
Rom 8:15-17 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. (16) The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (17) And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Yeah; I am 'willing' too; but that verse sure does NOT say that that is what is going to happen.
Is HE going to tell me that trump thingy is ...
It appears that any ol’ verse will work as an ‘answer’ to the question(s) posed...
?
Um, as a third party observer who is extensively familiar with the poster known here as Elsie, and having traced back through your thread sequence with him/her as far as it goes, I have to say that there is a) no such statement from him as you have posted above, and b) knowing his/her posting history strongly suggests he/she would never in a million years write what you just said.
Now I understand you're a big fan of the Big Ten. Isn't there something in there about not bearing false witness against your neighbor?
But in truth I suspect you have interpreted his rejection of your soteriological theories as conscious and deliberate rejection of apostolic authority. And what if we decide your rejection of his/her positions as willful rejection of Scriptural authority, and started posting things about you in public forums like this:
"you already wrote that you will neither believe nor obey Paul's specific teaching in both Romans 8:17 and Ephesians 1:11 that we have already obtained our inheritance in Christ, as a done deal."
Wouldn't that be "bearing false witness" against you?
Yet no one here has done this to you.
As for the temporal aspects of salvation versus the heavenly or "forensic" as it is sometimes cast, the Scriptures employ language for both, because legitimately salvation does have temporal and non-temporal dimensions to it. If you cherry pick the temporal and ignore the eternal, you end up in legalism, one form or another of Phariseeism. If you emphasize the eternal but utterly ignore the temporal you can easily end up in libertine disgrace. Both extremes are error.
"Girding up the loins" of one's mind entails questioning basic assumptions, and trying to look at divine doctrine in all its dimensions, not just our personally favorite aspects. That can be hard, scary work. It contributes nothing to that effort to spend your credibility making false personal accusations against someone who has done you no wrong, and whom I am also convinced is pure before God on this matter.
That is frankly absurd, but Roman reaction responses often are. Perhaps you should consider the context of the debate, and explain how reproving Judaizers, and challenging them to be consistent in their position, is somehow mocking the Torah and the Jews, and is antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean. Do it!
If you do see my reproof of Judaizers as mocking the Torah and the Jews, and is antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean, then you must reprove Paul for wishing of such,
I would they were even cut off which trouble you. (Galatians 5:12) "Would that those who are upsetting you might also castrate themselves!" - NAB
And Peter for stating
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? (Acts 15:10)
But which the Judaizers deny was referring to such laws as i referred to. But since you defend them, do you remain unclean till the evening after marital relations (if married)?
You deny and do not even perceive the slur in your response.
Perhaps you should consider the context of the debate, and explain how reproving Judaizers, and challenging them to be consistent in their position, is somehow mocking the Torah and the Jews, and is antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean. Do it!
I did, and I think you crossed the line so I reproved you.
Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.
If you do see my reproof of Judaizers as mocking the Torah and the Jews, and is antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean, then you must reprove Paul for wishing of such, I would they were even cut off which trouble you. (Galatians 5:12) "Would that those who are upsetting you might also castrate themselves!" - NAB And Peter for stating 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? (Acts 15:10) But which the Judaizers deny was referring to such laws as i referred to.
Peter and Paul are my apostles; I believe and trust them. They were not antisemitic in the least.
But since you defend them, do you remain unclean till the evening after marital relations (if married)?
Are your thoughts and behavior pure now, or are they impure and contentious, that you would ask such a question to mock the Law of Moses given by God, and the LORD Jesus Christ who already told us:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
You cling to the Council of Jerusalem, and well you should, and then mock the holy catholic apostolic church as Roman. Do you then set aside the other councils that followed, and set up to yourself your own re-formed religion ? How is that different from what these Hebrew-Christian/Messianic/Roots/Adventist/Etc. people are doing ?
I think Springfield Reformer in his response to you in post 910 said it very well. Scripture clearly shows your views in error.
Well done!!
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.