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.
Why don't you explain what you think "my" version of the gospel is???
It certainly is...It is imputed to everyone, believers or not...Here's a description:
Tit 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, (and this did not start with Moses since works of righteousness was in play up until the Crucifixion and the transformation is spoken of in Romans 3)
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; (and there's not a drop of water in that 'washing')
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.
Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now (something big changed) the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (the believers as well as the unbelievers all come short of the glory of God, regardless of how many good works were done)
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
It's more than that...You not only have to have the law written in your hearts, you can not fail at the law...
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: (if you sin without the law [Gentiles in this case] you are sunk) and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (as as soon as you are judged by the law after you failed in even one point, you are sunk as well)
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
And then we jump over to Romans 3 where keeping the law has nothing to do with justification and righteousness...When Jesus died, the law was over with as to pertaining to judgement by the law...Jesus became sin and took on the judgement for everyone...For all time...
lie or move abjectly on the ground with one's face downward.Now it tells me a great deal that you think I misused the word. I didn't. It's a legitimate metaphor describing one's response to some sort of demand for behavior. Like you said about public forums, you can't expect other parties to play by your personal rules. I don't. But you came along and wanted me to not talk about the failed fable of transubstantiation. To give in to your demand for silence (the "shut up" to which I referred) would have required me to "act in an obsequious manner in order to obtain someone's forgiveness or favor." So it was a perfect word choice.
"she was groveling on the floor in fear"
synonyms: prostrate oneself, lie, kneel, cringe More
"George groveled at his feet, begging for mercy"
•act in an obsequious manner in order to obtain someone's forgiveness or favor.
"everyone expected me to grovel with gratitude"
synonyms: be obsequious to, fawn on, kowtow to, bow and scrape to, toady to, truckle to, abase oneself to, humble oneself to
You’re missing the fact that if you fail at your faith you’re done too!
Only “he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.”
Eternal security is just another false gospel, like pre-trib rapture, and grace for those that refuse to obey.
1John 2 is the filter through which all ‘theologies’ must pass.
Yeshua said that his gate is narrow, and few will find it.
After reading the comments on the RF for 16 years, I do not doubt it!
.
I also find it interesting that in the subsequent explanatory clause they were told why they were to do this. It is a statement of purpose, not for the sacrifice of Christ soon to come, but for the meal itself. And that purpose was not the transmission of some partial distribution of grace, as though it were some sort of substance flowing from God to us. Rather, the stated purpose ... is to remember our Lord Jesus Christ. If He is there in the substance itself, then the meal is not a memory, a looking back to, but a direct experience of the Godhead. But Jesus says its for remembering. If it had some other purpose, He didn't say it. At least not here. Maybe Zwingli had it right after all.
As for Jesus' style of communication, it should be obvious to you I am discerning that from the text. If you think it helps your cause to suggest otherwise, then so be it. But the text is resplendent with the color and vibrancy of Jesus' teaching. He used metaphor fluently and unobtrusively in almost every public communication. He taught by the most memorable and powerful of analogies, images and words that still have wide currency in our culture. He wove his metaphors seamlessly into the flow of every subtheme of his overarching message. There is no committee intervening between us and these words of Jesus. They come to us directly from the inspired pens of the apostolic authors. These are the words given by the Holy Spirit of God Almighty. They are worth listening to.
Peace,
SR
More Sola Scriptura fun and games as editor-surveyor and Iscool (who do agree with each other that Catholicism is the work of the deebil...) disagree on what Scriptura means. Odd that, but there you are!
P.S.
You’re totally misunderstanding what “Law” is in Romans 3.
Its not the same law he speaks of in Romans 2.
The law in Romans 3 that has nothing to do with righteousness is the Pharisees’ false man made laws (takanot and ma’asim).
.
Here’s some interesting reading on the Lamb’s Book of Life:
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource/can-the-regenerate-be-erased-from-the-book-of-life
BTW, the Ten Virgins represent Israel. Some had oil, the Holy Spirit at work in their heart. The others did not. They were betrothed as a nation to the coming Messiah, but not all were elect. See Romans 9. The whole chapter. Good stuff.
It does not appear our faith is on trial in the conditional sense, but in the proof sense. the gold will survive any fire. Why do you suppose Peter used such analogy? To conjure up the image of a wooden faith that would combust at the first sign of heat? Or gold, which endures the fires of life. He was preaching to encourage though who were heavy in spirit, that their faith would survive, not that they had yet another possible failure to hang over their head. The faith that is the gift of God, like gold, is not capable of destruction by lesser things. Though we go through much sorrow and challenge in this life, if we are among those listed here, the end is as secure as the beginning:
Rom 8:28-31 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (29) For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (30) Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (31) What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
As for your preacher, it is to me a temptation to sin to ask me to judge his eternal state. I don’t know, and I would be presuming the role of God to make such a judgment. I urge you to withdraw that portion of your test. No good can come of it.
Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta:
“Jesus said, ‘I Am The Truth’, and it is your duty and mine to speak the truth. Then it is up to the person who hears it whether to accept or reject it.”
How about you answer my question first and we can go from there. What do you think "my" version of the Gospel is?
“Perhaps, but it’s the Greek original that has the direct metaphor”
Our Lord spoke Aramaic as His first language.
The phrase was uttered, we presume, in Aramaic, after which it would have been translated to Koine, then Latin, then English.
“So you see the direct metaphor here is indisputable, at least linguistically.”
No, I don’t, and neither do you, unless you can carry on a colloquial conversation in Greek. I have studied several languages to one degree or another, although the only two in which I am fluent are English and Japanese. These efforts taught me the difficulties inherent in understanding things like metaphor in a foreign language, so until you produce someone who speaks Koine Greek—and I mean *speaks* it, like we speak English—no sale.
“It is the sort of thing any first year student of Biblical Greek would recognize.”
No, it’s not. That is demonstrated by the large number of accomplished scholars who disagree.
“As for Jesus’ style of communication, it should be obvious to you I am discerning that from the text.”
I suspected that you *think* you are discerning it from the text…and I am amazed that you would think yourself capable of it. Gobsmacked.
“There is no committee intervening between us and these words of Jesus.”
Nonsense. Your interpretations are the ones you like best of the myriad offered to you by those who went before.
“They come to us directly from the inspired pens of the apostolic authors...They are worth listening to.”
This Protestant notion that just any old moron can understand the Bible without assistance is one of Satan’s best coups.
“Now it tells me a great deal that you think I misused the word.”
No, it doesn’t.
“I didn’t.”
Yes, you did.
“It’s a legitimate metaphor describing one’s response to some sort of demand for behavior.”
Perhaps you have confused me with someone else. I have not demanded any behavior of you.
“But you came along and wanted me to not talk about the failed fable of transubstantiation.”
Could I have some Twilight Zone music, please?
That never happened. Not in this world.
“To give in to your demand for silence (the “shut up” to which I referred)”
There was no such demand.
“It has never been my intent to attack you personally. Only your errant theology.”
That’s another similarity with the liberal style of confrontation. Do it—do the heck out of it—then deny it.
“when you have it has been hostile and never going to substance.”
I may have been hostile, but you probably just overlooked the substance.
“But no, all you are to me is a three letter handle that is always hostile to me when I critique Catholic doctrine.”
It is interesting that you regarded a calm repetition of truth as hostile.
“I am confident you wouldn’t sit by silent either if someone you dearly loved was being defamed, even if the defamers didn’t know they were saying hurtful falsehoods.”
It is very important in such a situation that you be right before you start attacking people. You are not right.
“Though I am confident in my beliefs, I am always ready to learn new things as well.”
Well, actually, no, you aren’t.
“I don’t know you from Adam, nor your posting history.”
What brought that subject into the discussion? I didn’t mention it.
“I bear you no animus. We can do this peacefully.”
Wow. Just like talking with liberals on Compuserve in the early days.
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.