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.

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.

Oh, are you in favor of the ordination of women also ? Which denomination/sect do you represent that supports the ordination of women ?

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?

Is bearing false witness important to you, now that you have not only accused me of doing it, but also of not reverencing the Ten Commandments ? Is that what you really meant to write ?

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:

Your suspicions, which you acted on, miss the mark. I think of Elsie is Arminian, and not Calvinist, since his that is a distinguishing feature of the denomination he chose. The issue I raised with him was the ordination of women (he wrote on another thread something to the effect that he does not regard Paul's writing on it as lawfully binding on Christians. His denomination also supports abortion in certain cases (life of the mother is threatened), and contraception generally (as long as the drug is not a morning after type pharmakea; at least that is my understanding of the Wesleyan Church position which I regard as intentionally vague). It this your position as well ? In either case, my note to Elsie WRT Paul is what Paul wrote to Timothy about Christian women.

"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.

Seems to me that you just did it, or is that plausible deniability ?

And to top it off, you made me go back through Elsie's almost endless posts to find what I was referring to, for which I should probably bill you :)

Why post your complete misunderstanding of scripture? No one has ever declared a shred of justification by the law, and to say that anyone has is a lie.

Contradict yourself much??? You just got done saying:

The apostles all wrote that "doers of the law will be justified." They did not write that doers of the law will be justified by the law. Nobody ever was or will be justified by the law. Doers of the law will be justified because earnestly and obediently following the commandments is what leads to genuine righteousness. It makes his disciples “righteous as he is righteous.” That is why the law is called “instruction in righteousness,” and “the perfect law of liberty.” “ For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.”

Are you trying to play both sides and running face first into your OWN slammed door? Either we are justified by the law or we are justified by faith. DOING the law is the same thing as saying we are justified BY the law. God made it patently clear that the law in NO WAY justifies anyone - because it can't!

In Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible, we read:

For not the hearers of the law are just before God,.... The apostle here shows, that the Jews were justly condemned, notwithstanding their having and hearing of the law; since hearing without doing it, will never denominate persons righteous in the sight of God, however it might recommend them in the sight of men: regard seems to be had either to the first delivery of the law by Moses to the people of Israel, when he read it to them, and they hearkened to it, and promised obedience; or rather to the reading and hearing it every sabbath day; and may include a speculative knowledge of it, without a practical obedience to it; and which therefore must fall greatly short of entitling them to a justifying righteousness; since not these, but the doers of the law, shall be justified; by whom are meant, not such who merely literally and externally fulfil the law, as they imagine; for the law is spiritual, and regards the inward as well as the outward man, and requires internal holiness, as well as external obedience; and the apostle is speaking of justification before God, who sees the heart, and not before men, who judge according to outward appearance: nor are such designed who are imperfect doers of the law; for the law requires a perfect obedience, and what is not perfect is not properly righteousness; nor does it, nor can it consider an imperfect righteousness as a perfect one; for it accuses of, pronounces guilty, curses, and condemns for every transgression of it. But such only can be intended, who are doers of it spiritually, internally, as well as externally, and that perfectly. Adam, in his state of innocence, was a perfect doer of the law; he sinning, and all his posterity in him, none of them are righteous, but all pass under a sentence of condemnation. The best of men, even believers in Christ, are not without sin in themselves; and when any of the saints are said to be perfect, it must be understood in a comparative sense, or as they are considered in Christ. There never was but one since Adam, and that is Christ, who has fulfilled, or could perfectly fulfil the law; the thing is impossible and impracticable for fallen man: hence these words must be understood either hypothetically, thus, not the hearers of the law, but if there were any perfect doers of it, they would be justified before God; or else of such persons who are considered in Christ, by whom the whole perfect righteousness of the law is fulfilled in them, and who may be reckoned as perfect doers of it in him, their substitute, surety, and representative.

Easy...just read what Paul said about that "schoolmaster":

I see something differently than you do here:

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up to the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Why the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. (Galatians 3:23-25)

AFTER that faith has come. I see this as being very personal to each of us, not to be taken in the aggregate.

What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

If the Law is holy and righteous and good, how can it be wrong, or at-odds to follow it?

Look at this passage from the position of the great lie (Ye shall not die, and ye shall be like God): From the garden we have thought that we innately contain the knowledge of good and evil - What seems right to us is what we go by. I don't think that is true, and Torah was given to show us the difference.

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

Look at religious systems... All of them claim the truth, and the way to the Father (or enlightenment, or etc...). But YHWH has told us, in no uncertain terms, what IS good - How to worship, how to love, how to conduct ourselves. How then, can the Holy Spirit speak against it?

Thus, if a religion shows a different way, A way different than what YHWH has given, it necessarily cannot be true. The example has already been given by our brothers, the Jews, that religion can become utterly corrupted - EVEN THOUGH THEY DIDN'T KNOW their error! The testimony of Messiah shows that error, and corrects it. Of course that is not ALL Messiah did, not by a long shot! But this aspect of His Ministry is given short shrift. Torah WITH the interpretation of Messiah is inevitably what will bring true ecumenicism between our selves and our brothers, and finally, all the sons of Adam, because that is what the prophets predict... It is inevitable - All the world will keep Torah, to include the Sabbath and the Holy Days.

How much plainer can God make it?

Indeed. He has said it is those who keep his commandments AND have the testimony of Yeshua the Messiah that are his own.

You rely on the opinions of men?

Let’s stick with the Bible, how many millions will spend eternity in Hell fire due to Gill?

I did not contradict myself.

A status of general compliance with Torah, simply for the sake of being known for complying with Torah is of no value whatsoever. That is why most Jews are lost.

Yeshua demands that we obey his commandments out of love and belief in him. To those that do that, the effect is the teaching of true righteousness through more than simple knowledge of what sin is declared to be by the law. It creates a desire to please him that is visibly lacking in those that reject what he has commanded.

The rejectors of his commandments often insist that they are “saved by grace,” but then insist that grace consists of automatic righteousness granted for saying a prayer that is nowhere to be found in the Word of God. They don’t even recognize that this is totally a works based vacuum of man’s creation.

John’s first epistle is the best place to get one’s head straight. John was the only person on Earth that had a close personal, human relationship with our savior, and probably the only one that fully understood his words. He stood there at the cross and watched, and fully understood each and every thing that happened, as it happened, as is told in his 5th chapter.

John fully recognized that those that followed his commandments willingly were the only ones that truly loved him; the rest were just in it for a guarantee of salvation that could not be had free of that special love.

are you in favor of the ordination of women also

Simply put, no. Paul adduces an argument from the Post-fall condition of humanity. That is not a cultural argument, as some would posit, but a sweeping assertion of our true current condition.

However, your comment to which I reacted did not suggest an honest disagreement by Elsie, but rather a written statement of direct, willful rejection of apostolic authority. Especially biting was the idea that there was intentional selectivity of belief based on "convenience." The assertion that Elsie knowingly rejected apostolic, and therefore divine authority, is a bridge too far, and is the inescapable falsity in your accusation. You can know what he/she affirms as a belief on these pages, but God alone is the judge of whether he/she has come by that belief honestly.

I was raised among many who debated this very issue, with fine, Godly people on both sides of the debate. The argument stems from the fact that sometimes Paul appears to make a distinction between his own teaching and that for which he claims direct leadership from the Lord. See for example his discussion of marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, where he oscillates back and forth between giving his considered personal judgment versus aligning his teaching with direct commandment of the Lord. Some have taken this to suggest that Paul was deliberately giving his private opinions lower authority, a kind of optional class of teachings, but only where the distinction is set out explicitly.

I don’t happen to share that view. I would be more like you on this matter. God saw fit to put every word of Scripture in there for a reason, even if Paul recognized a distinction. But then again, Paul did recognize the distinction, and his writing it down means it’s true by virtue of being inspired. So Paul’s not wrong. There is a distinction. So I can see how some would want to honor that distinction.

And I would not see that as dishonest, or evasive of divine truth. Whereas you have asserted motive, selective disbelief based on “convenience.” If you cannot prove that motive, your assertions must be understood as false. That doesn’t mean I think you intend them to be false. I am sure you believe they are true. But they are not, according to everything I know about Elsie.

As for whether I have borne false witness against you by my hypothetical, I hope every reader here is intelligent enough to recognize it as a hypothetical, the design of which is to try and get you to hear how you are sounding to us. My assumption, which may indeed be faulty, is that if you could hear what you are saying the way we are hearing it, you might not be so eager to say such things.

As for me “suspecting” the path of your reasoning in making the accusation, I intentionally use such language to ensure I do not inadvertently engage in “mind reading.” I will always try to give you the benefit of the doubt, and to do so I simply make it clear that I am speculating. That gives you an opportunity to correct my error, without getting in too deep on accusatory language.

Bottom line, I still hold your charge against Elsie is baseless. He did NOT write what you said he wrote. You interpreted first, and then found your “selective convenience” theory to explain the gap between his belief and your own. It is an easy error to fall into. We all do it every now and then. But it is intemperate to use it in a debate context like this, where tensions are already high. What does Jesus say about the peace-makers?

Peace,

If the Law is holy and righteous and good, how can it be wrong, or at-odds to follow it?

The Law was never a guide...It was the Law...Fail one aspect and we're guilty of all...

We do not follow the Law...We follow Jesus...We do not follow the law because the law condemns...And there is no condemnation in those who trust in Jesus as their Savior...

People who follow (are subject to) the law do it out of fear...Fear of the consequences...

Our command is to love Jesus and love our neighbor, NOT to follow the law...And by loving Jesus and our neighbor we will have fulfilled the law...If I love my neighbor, I will not murder him; I will not steal from him; I will not covet anything he has...

I do not fear the consequences of the law since Jesus paid the price for my failure to perfectly live up to the law...

All the world will keep Torah, to include the Sabbath and the Holy Days.

And if we don't, then what???

Indeed. He has said it is those who keep his commandments AND have the testimony of Yeshua the Messiah that are his own.

And yet, Jesus says,

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

That's before we even have a chance (or not) to follow his commandments...

If you shoe horn every thing back into the Old Testament, nothing fits...And no one can make it fit unless one starts adding a word here or taking away a word there from the scriptures...

Here's the sinner's prayer right here...

Luk 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

Here's a person who recognizes the authority of God...The person know that God has control of his destiny...The person recognizes he needs God's forgiveness...

The person recognizes that there is nothing he can do to please God...The person is contrite; humble...The person realizes he has sinned against God and seeks God's mercy...And God's response to the sinner's prayer???

Luk 18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Elsie, who is of Wesley, volunteered that unsolicited information and asked that I show any errors in his/her denomination which I proceeded to do.
The Wesleyan Church makes a big deal out of ordaining women into all positions of ministry. It is one of their distinctives.
Local churches are organized into a network of districts with equal representation of clergy and laity at their annual conferences. Each has an elected administrator known as the district superintendent and has a district board of administration with both lay and clergy serving. National and multi-national networks are called general conferences with strong national leadership and meet every four years. The North American General Conference has one General Superintendent, Dr. Jo Anne Lyon. An ordained Wesleyan minister, Dr. Lyon is the founder of World Hope International, the official Christian relief and development partner of The Wesleyan Church.
The Wesleyan church votes to change their doctrines, as they just did on divorce (taking the Feminist view instead of the Scriptural view, and we are not talking civil divorce here, but rather New Testament divorce).
Wesleyan reasoning to ignore Paul's authority in 1 Timothy Chapter 2 taught here
It is convenient for the Wesleyan Church to ignore Paul, as their women already have the votes and exercise influence over Church doctrine; they are not going back to the Patriarchy which controlled the Church prior to their origin in Nineteenth Century and I think afsnco is correct, there will be more progressive changes to come.
Elsie was free to disavow himself of this tenet of his denomination when afsnco wrote "Every denomination that has engaged in the apostasy of women clergy has inevitably, inexorably thereafter engaged in the further apostasies of love for abortion and love for homosexuality. PCUSA being the latest example" but did not. Instead, Elsie wrote in almost immediate response "The bible PLAINILY says it's PAUL that won't allow women to teach: NOT Christ!!" Look at the capitialization. Look at the context. That is a willful denial of Paul's apostolic authority in the matter of the behavior and non-ordination of Christian women.
I understand Elsie upholding his denomination's insistence that women should be ordained to any and all offices in the church the same as a man, but it is a willful rejection of the apostolic authority of Paul in this area. In other areas where it is convenient to their doctrine and teaching, the Wesleyan Church upholds Paul's authority. In this area they deny it. It would be inconvenient for them to now oppose it as, the denomination has already chosen it, they don't have the votes to change it, and Elsie himself defends it anyway by claiming Christ did not say it, only Paul. Elsie has so far not addressed the other Wesleyan issues (divorce, abortion, and contraception) which Elsie asked me to raise with "The ONLY thing I 'recommended' was for you guys to SHOW it's error. "

It is not about being more like me on this matter. It is about standing with the Apostle to the Gentiles on doctrine. I don't stand with Paul because I like him. I stand with him because I love the LORD who chose him. There are not two sides of a debate here. There is apostasy and truth. The LORD chose Paul and gave him authority to teach the Gentiles. One either accepts or rejects his authority and teaching. I guess the ladies can vote on it ...

He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

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.