Really?
Paul is not GOD.
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.
I read your responses, and find them unconvincing. However, in the interest of amicable endings of questionable endeavors, I will only wish you a good night, in all sincerity.
Peace,
SR
No one will be in hell because of Gill just as no one will be because of any false teaching - God is able to shine the light of truth to those hearts diligently seeking Him. You want to pretend you aren't relying upon the opinions of men (i.e., Armstrong, Russell, Rood, White, et al)? I quoted Gill because he explained the meaning behind the FULL quote of Paul WRT "justified by the law".
I did not contradict myself.
Sure you did and you continue to do so by your insistence that ONLY obedience to the Law of Moses (your version of it anyway) is what justifies one to be saved at the end of ones' life. You say ONLY this obedience counts if one really loves Jesus and you have to love Jesus and obey His commandments if you will be saved. You mock the sinner's prayer where a truly contrite sinner admits his lost condition and surrenders to the mercy and grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ to redeem him, when Scripture tells us that this IS the only way anyone CAN be saved. It is NOT by our works of righteousness nor works of the law but purely by the grace of God.
If we confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in our heart that God raised him from the dead, we will be saved, Scripture says. That and hundreds more like it assure us of the grace of God available to all who trust in Christ and we thereby know we HAVE eternal life in Christ. Like I said, we are saved by grace THROUGH faith and NOT works - neither the Law or works of love or any other commandments. We do not and never could deserve or merit everlasting life - it is a GIFT of God.
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk.
They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. (I Timothy 1:3-11)
Paul is not GOD.
I'm sorry that we have no high sounding name like MAGISTERIUM or something like it; just North American General Conference.
I'm also sorry we don't have a process of getting ANNULMENTS instead of a divorce.
I'm also sorry that NONE of the stuff you've DISCOVERED has ANYTHING to do with a persons salvation.
Do I have to respond to EVERYTHING someone ELSE says in these threads?
I guess my personal eyerolls, in the privacy of my own home are not good enough...
And then there is that pesky letter found in Acts chapter 15...
And so the progressive Protestant descent into apostasy continues; supporting the ordination of women because the chosen vessel of God to teach the Gentiles how to be genuine Christians is not God, and therefore can be ignored. I read your responses, and find them unconvincing.
After all, why should murder, pharmakea, adultery, and apostasy interfere with one's right to choose a personal relationship with whomever they see fit however they see fit.
Galatians 5:12
You may find it refers to another thread, which if you find, may relieve the confusion.
Yes, I know Galatians 5:12; what I don’t know is what you believe about it or why your brief post was “Gal 5:12.” Does that mean you believe in apostolic authority in Galatians and not Timothy ? Is it a cafeteria ?
Yes, First Council at Jerusalem, where blessed Peter stood up and exercised the keys of the kingdom of heaven, but what I'm unsure if is what that means to the Wesleyan Church and why you posted it to me. Is that really part of the Wesleyan argument to ordain women ? I would not be shocked if feminists try to use it to avoid Paul's authority.
I am convinced that you do not know Yeshua.
This constant false posting cannot come from anyone that knows him.
.
>> “If you shoe horn every thing back into the Old Testament, nothing fits” <<
.
If you remove one syllable from the scriptures, nothing fits!
Paul made it quite clear in Hebrews 3 that the gospel that he preached was exactly the same gospel that Moses preached.
We have many here that make it a personal profession to twist Paul’s complicated sentences into a rejection of Torah, but it won’t work for those that have any reading comprehension at all.
Following Satan is a dead future.
>> “And then there is that pesky letter found in Acts chapter 15” <<
.
Yes, the one whose meaning you constantly invert, so that you can do your cloven-hoofed father’s work.
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith.
So am I to infer that you consider Torah to be 'false doctrines, myths, and endless genealogies'?
They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. (I Timothy 1:3-11)
SO... The law is there for those who break the law... and the law they break is Torah. So conversely, as an element of illumination: Those who don't need the law are those who do not break it - Those who keep Torah, yes?
What was that about a group ignoring Paul, again?
Do you suppose it would be safe to assume that this ms. Malone teaches the teachers that then influence those who "teach" priests? She does have a body of writings. Since she is the approved Admin, then unless there is some sort of specific comment or correction to her works -- would those not stand in the eyes of faculty & students as carrying approval from the highest levels of teaching "Magesterium"?
She is chief administrator there, regardless, and will regardless influence very many.
What is more powerfully influential -- single pulpits here and there, or those behind the scenes who instruct those who will eventually be behind pulpits themselves, or else instruct and train the theologians who will then influence others from position of [Vatican-approved!] authority?
Which means that for yourself AV, when pointing the finger at another and claiming "apostasy!" there are a few fingers as it were, in your very own hand, pointing right back at you.
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.