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 Quran 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 doesnt 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.
Lets 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 22:611 and Acts 26:1218. Paul refers back to this experience elsewhere in his letters, though it is only laid with this level of detail in Acts, written by Pauls 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 didnt happen because it couldnt happen because it cant happen therefore it didnt 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 Lords.
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 Pauls writings as Scripture from the earliest days of Christianity, as seen the case of Peter (2 Peter 3:1516).
Pauls personal opinions and the Law
Out of the three examples, two are directly from the Mosaic Law. Obviously the Mosaic Law couldnt have stated that women should not preach in the church because the Church did not yet exist and wouldnt 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 Pauls 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.
Pauls 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 Pauls 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 Pauls 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 Pauls 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 10:911) 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 Pauls letters (along with the rest of the New Testament) form one beautiful, cohesive truth.
bump
Christianity can exist without organized churchocracy and we have seen in a lot of denominations that churchocracy can definitely exist without Christianity.
RE: Before the crucifixion? When? Where?
Jesus IS alive today. He is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8).
Therefore, Paul met the RESURRECTED Christ as St. Luke, who also wrote the historical gospel, wrote in his historical work now known as the Book of Acts (Acts 9:1-8)
When Paul met Christ on the Damascus Road, Jesus was alive. Recall this is after the resurrection. One of the requirements of an apostle was having met Christ.
This means Jesus is alive today.
RE: Paul did met Jesus when He was alive!
No.
_____________________
Isn’t the resurrected Jesus the same Jesus who lived on earth before the crucifixion?
I thought you were talking about Obama and ayers there for a moment. :)
“Isnt the resurrected Jesus the same Jesus who lived on earth before the crucifixion?”
No.
RE: Paul seems a little shady to me.
Well, are you also saying that Luke was a shady historian?
I would think so. Then if so, how can you trust the gospel of Luke?
With this, I think you believe at least one of the gospels (the most historical) is shady.
BTW, as Luke wrote, the apostles did not seem to think Paul was shady at all. He went to Jerusalem several times to report on his missionary journeys and NONE of them questioned his faith and his work.
RE: Isnt the resurrected Jesus the same Jesus who lived on earth before the crucifixion?
No.
________________________
You have to contend with the Bible then.
“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” ( Hebrews 13:8)
A lot of FRoman Catholics sure hate Paul, to the point that they intellectually cut him out of Scripture. Funny thing is they that is what they falsely accuse Luther of doing.
Why? I think FRoman Catholics do so because of his emphasis on faith.
Acts 26:28. And Agrippa said to Paul, In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?
By using that tortured logic, every Christian today could say they met Jesus while he was still alive. What is being discussed isn’t a metaphysical one, but a physical one, an actual meeting.
He might be an authority in the founding principles of this country, but he isnt to be referred to when it comes to the foundation of Christianity.
His "cut and paste" type of Christianity = ???
He cut and pasted - out of the Bible - JUST what JESUS said and taught. He believed that JESUS WAS the foundation of what He taught!
Are you saying He wasn't?
Who led Jesus' followers after the Crucifixion?
1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
As far as I can tell, no one knows for sure who wrote any of the Gospels. The only books of the New Testament whose authorship seems to be agreed upon are the letters of Paul, and scholars aren't even sure about all of those. It seems the Bible is mostly the work of a great deal of activity in the 3rd and 4th century AD.
“Show me the following biblical verses, without having to resort to “tradition”, that in context clearly teach the following:”
Show me that Tradition is unscriptural first. You’re using a premise - sola scriptura - that is unbiblical to say the least.
Also, show me from the Bible alone that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired. Show me where it says Matthew wrote a gospel at all. Can you? Show me - using the Bible alone - what books belong in the Bible.
If you’re going to demand I use sola scriptura, I’m going to demand you prove your premise and prove sola scriptura. Can you do it?
Your prejudice, and ignorance of history, has nothing to do with reality.
“Might I suggest you read a Bible and find out how mistaken you are. And I don’t mean the Catholic version.”
I’ve read the Bible quite a bit - Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox versions - and probably know the Bible far better than you do. I am not mistaken, not even remotely.
Paul seems a little shady to me.
But then it is hard to believe this is the same man that spends so much time talking about himself and also having nothing good to say about the Apostles chosen by Jesus.
So I don`t know but I believe Jesus said all we need to hear.
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.