I'm just tickled that you have pointed this out!
He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.
(Psalms 91:4)
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...Those who do not need the law are Christians and as such, we are not under the law...We are under grace...
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
We are free from sin, regardless of the law...
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Tit 3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Tit 3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Jesus saved us; not by following the Torah but purely by the grace of his mercy...
Does that mean you believe in apostolic authority in Timothy and not Galatians and not Timothy ?
And said that Anna the Prophetess was NOT to be listened to.
Luke 2:36–38
Hey!
I was SAVING that little tidbit for later; after the noose was secure!
I'm just tickled that you have pointed this out!
He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.
(Psalms 91:4)
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
The two thousand year history of the holy catholic apostolic church is well known to be definitively against the ordination of women in the churches, abortion for any reason, contraception by pharmakeia, and no divorce except for the scriptural reasons in the New Testament only.
For real inspiration, look at (Saint) Gianna Beretta Molla (1922 - 1962) for how a genuine and powerful Christian woman dealt with these four issues.
It has ever, always, only been about grace - NO ONE (except Messiah) has ever made it on works. And many are called righteous in the Tanakh.
i see you are taking the last sentence to heart.
You know Bobby Darin was a Catholic, right ?
Nowhere in the Brit HaHadashah does it instruct anyone to worship Yeshua HaMoshiach.
You deny and do not even perceive the slur in your response.
Rather, i do not assent to your baseless charge which thus depends on mind reading. Simply because a RC says something does not make it true, even if their church presumes this of herself.
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.
Really? So if a RC had said what i did then you would change him with the same? In any case, fine, i invite let others to judge.
The context was that of a form of Judaizers teaching that obedience to Christ includes keeping typological laws, physical dietary/cleanliness/washing/liturgical ordinances which centered on the Temple, that of [ only in meats and drinks, Lev 10:9; 11:2-47; Num 19:7; Dt. 14:3-21; Ezek. 4:14; and divers washings, Exo_29:4; 30:18-21; 31:9; 35:16; 40:12; Lv. 14:8-9; 15:1-28; 16:4,24, 17:15-16; 22:6; Num. 19:2-21; Dt 21:6, 23:11; and carnal ordinances, Lv. 23:2-34; imposed [on them] until the time of reformation. Mk. 7:15,18-23; Acts 10:13-15; 1 Cor. 10:25-26; Col. 2:16-17; Rm. 14:15; Gal. 4:10; 1 Tim. 4:1-5; Heb. 13:4; , regarding meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days; Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ, (Colossians 2:16-17) as debated here .
And as Paul himself said in response to the full Judaizers of his day,
"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 stated as regards keeping all these codes,
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)
Then I responded :
But all those Judaizers who even had marital relations last night must remain unclean till the evening. (Leviticus 15:16-18) I wonder how many observe that one.
But to which af_vet_1981 declared,
Are you trying to mock the Torah and the Jews ? Perhaps you should reflect on your words and understand how antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean they appear.
Yet i neither mocked the Torah or the Jews anymore than Peter did in stating this was too heavy a yoke to bear, but as per NT judgment, i challenged those who would impose these codes on us actually observed these.
And under the New Covenant then,
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. (Hebrews 13:4)
Yet rather than admit his reactionary rant was wrong, he actually doubled down and asserted,
Which applies to himself, since it is he who manifestly engaged in misjudgment and would not receive reproof, thus he next resorted to arguing:
Peter and Paul are my apostles; I believe and trust them. They were not antisemitic in the least.
Which is absurd, for unless af_vet_1981 is judging my motive - which he should make clear - the issue is whether my response to keeping all such cleanliness ordinances is actually antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean, or that it is demanding consistency of Judaizers who contend that Christians must keep all theses codes, having pointed out that the literal observances of these codes are abrogated under the New Covenant.
And as the latter of what is obvious, then it leaves af_vet_1981 as slanderously judging my motive, and in fact i am very much pro-Israel.
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...
This is simply more mind reading and perverse reasoning, as my upholding the New Covenant abrogation of these codes is no more mocking the Law of Moses and the LORD Jesus Christ who fulfilled it than the apostles did in doing so, but it is recognizing that the Lord did fulfil it so "that that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:4)
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,
Thus is more perverse Roman reasoning, as not only according to your judgment would this be mocking the Law of Moses given by God, and the LORD Jesus Christ since they also recognized the New Covenant and did not enjoin submission to such laws as the one i invoked, but,
1. affirming what a magisterium decided does not mean one must concur with all it said, unless it is in Scripture. Unless we need to submit to all those who sat in the seat of Moses taught.
2. The church of Acts 15 was a fundamentally different church than that of Rome.
3. Nowhere is a perpetually infallible magisterium essential or promised.
Do you then set aside the other councils that followed, and set up to yourself your own re-formed religion ?
I neither set aside all that other councils followed or set up my religion as, but i contended for the faith of the NT church and for Scripture-based truths they held and councils held, which is why i rejected the cleanliness laws and called Judaizers to be consistent inn keeping them, even if your Roman reaction was to charge this was mocking the Torah and the Jews, and is antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean!
2. When you are discussing another Freeper, ping him.
3. Discuss the issues, not the posters - the message, not the messenger.
The issue was the presiding over formation of theological thought in others (including most importantly those whom will then 'preach the word') and who in this instance -- which 'gender' or sex -- is allowed to do so from position of some authority in the settings which were being compared.
You excuse Moline, but seem to still desire to sit in judgement of woman whom arguably exercise less influence elsewhere.
As to the sort of mind reading which you have indulged yourself in;
you get ahead of yourself, for you cannot predict with any certainty what I may say -- unless you are claiming to be some kind of prophet. So far you have been failing miserably at that. Give it a rest maybe?
This also appears to be yet another attempt to put word in anothers mouth, this time my own -- which then you can tee-off from, leveraging from what was not said to some other aspect, in attempt to gain traction over and against another? That sort of error was the very sort of thing which prompted me to write to you previously.
Though look again at what you wrote in the above. Then consider --- this Mary Moline person does teach theology, for that university most assuredly does, and is basically chartered to do so by the Vatican, which according to the news item -- appointed her directly.
Further, all the conditions which you just said would apply to female seminary faculty members in Protestant setting, would arguably apply more to Moline herself than these other woman you speak of, particularly being that Moline is now head Admin at this "Pontifical" university.
If she is off the hook so to speak, then these other women at Bible colleges are far more excused, according to your own words and your own reasoning -- not mine.
You cannot honestly "note" any such thing, for I did no such thing, having purposefully avoided taking position one way or the other. In fact, I made no mention whatsoever of that aspect itself, speaking instead, chiefly of the methodologies of the discussion here --- and how those methodologies stunk.
Just as you were trying to force another here to take personal responsibility for what goes on in a religious organization they may be associated with --- I simply did you the same favor as towards your own church, in regards to yourself...
But nice try at attempt to wiggle out of things, casting it all upon others instead. Still -- utter FAILure.
I was not "appealing to Rome" either, as you put it, as in looking to them to be my judge, but for what they say and do be your judge, instead.
It is not me who looks to that organization for "truth" or authority -- but is yourself instead.
No thanks. Not interested.
If you desire for myself to consider in the least any advice you may have to offer -- then first you must change your habits here, on this forum.
No more putting words into others mouths...
No more taking something people here have said, then assuming they meant something else in addition to that -- then saying they said things which you assumed they "believed" or thought, or held as opinion, presenting those guesses of your own as their very own words! Time after time you do that very thing, with it all appearing as effort to polarize things to the fullest extent.
Congratulations. A fine job of that you are doing.
Which sort-of reminds me of a past FRomanist "meme" around here. The one which postulated that there were those who were merely posing themselves to be Roman Catholic in order to make the RCC look bad.
I don't think you are faking it. But this could lead to a possibly unexplored aspect of yet another "FR is against Catholics" meme, in regard to a meme where it was rumored that the moderators were all secretly in alliance against "Catholics"...
The fact that the zot-ratio on the RF is wa-aay down compared to years back, is proof (proof I tell 'ya) that "the mods" don't zot the worst of the FRomish game-players and bigots as part of a long range, deliberate plan -- since the ones not zotted but fully deserving to be banned do such a smash-up job of driving many people from the RCC, and continually bring discredit upon it, but seemingly without those persons themselves realizing they do so.
Oh, those tricksy and so sneaky & plotting MODS. They are "unfair" and diabolical about how they go about it! bwaahaahahaa
You don't believe that Jesus Christ is Almighty God incarnate? Does not our Lord and God deserve worship?
For it is written, "AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD." (Romans 14:11)
For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:9-11)
Is that supposed to make some sort of difference?
He did not write the original, for it came from Threepenny Opera which was some German production in the late 1920's. Louis Armstrong did a cover of it before Darin.
Darin's version has differing wording than the original, taking it from what seems to me to have been some 'slasher' character to having mobster connotation, with the tugboat with "bags of concrete hanging down" sort of thing.
Yeah, real "Catholic" huh?
Not all mobsters of the 20th century were Eye-talian Catholics, though. Some were Irish. :')
And then there was the Jewish mobsters too, plus various freelancers and a wide variety of rum-running types -- though doubtful many Baptist or Methodist to speak of in that latter group either -- or if so, only the backslider types, or those "Christian" in name only.
I'm not a teetotaler myself, but I get the impression the majority of Prohibitionist types were the nominally Protestant evangelical types...though there may have been some RC females joining in with those early 20th century crusaders, for the "women's temperance movement" and the women's suffrage movement (both dating back to the 1870's or so) had far more overlap than not.
But that was not why I linked to that song.
Lots of sharks swimming 'round this RF forum, biting and devouring. I would prefer it that they bite each other and themselves rather than the ceaseless effort to snatch hopes of salvation away from whomever -- engaged in or else justified in the eyes of the sharks who do the biting, for simple reason the targets of this toothy thievery do not do islamic-like submission to their own notions of "Christian" caliphate.
chop-chop.
Ok, you already said "sneaky". And I already said sneaky, too.
But this is case of triple sneaky activity.
The only question the truly paranoid should ask themselves, is --- am I paranoid enough?
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.