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.
Nonsense. Your interpretations are the ones you like best of the myriad offered to you by those who went before.
Nonsense right back at ya. It is the truest saddest tragedy of this whole thing, which this conversation reflects, that the theory of Sola Roma has as probably its main effect to lock the Bible away from those for whom it was intended, not the wise, not those with the secret tradition that grants the super duper gnosis, but these:
Mat 11:25-26 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. (26) Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.So it is not that I think anything of myself that I can read Scripture with understanding. It's that I credit God with being able to write His message in such large print that even someone as insignificant as me has a chance to hear and believe the wonderful message of love in Christ to fallen humanity. Is this a miracle too hard for you to believe?
This Protestant notion that just any old moron can understand the Bible without assistance is one of Satan’s best coups.
1Co 1:25-29 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (26) For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: (27) But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; (28) And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: (29) That no flesh should glory in his presence.Peace,
These were your words, not mine. I also doubt either Verga or Editor-Surveyor wrote them either. Therefore I concluded that you do this out of a misunderstanding of the gospel and you have your own personal version.
I will give this group credit, but I have yet to see this from “Baptists as a whole.
They left an implicit exception when the physical health of the mother is threatened; since it is a small church it could be a very small distinction in that they implicitly follow the Didache and name abortion as murder; one doesn’t see that often from Sola Scriptura churches in the Protestant tradition, if at all. As I wrote these are Independent a Fundamental Baptist who insist they are not married to Protestants, and if they were, would grant themselves a divorce.
Springfield I will give you points for you outstanding direct translation, but none for interpretation. When Jesus said "this is the body of me" He was not speaking about a possession. You would never say; "This is the car of me".
In the Greek τὸ is either Nominative or accusative and is viewed as a definite article and must be referring to the object as Himself. If He had said: Τοῦτό ἐστιν σῶμά μου. Leaving out the Article "τὸ" you would have a case. If you look at Matthew 26:28 τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ αἶμά μου τὸ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης
He sis speaking of the "The Blood of Me" Again not a possession.
BTW taking Greek at the graduate level makes me a little more than a "first year" student.
These were your words, not mine. I also doubt either Verga or Editor-Surveyor wrote them either.
For the record my only contention was that Boatbums apparent "one and done" theology was off base.
This is to funny. I have known several IFB that also swear they re not protestant. One went so far as to say that is the reason it says Baptist on their dog tags in the military. She was quite upset when several Lutherans and Calvinists pointed out what theirs said.
in romans 8, is Paul teaching about mortal or eternal life?
I withdraw your homework assignment, since I was not one of your students. :)
“But you did. Twice.”
It is really not fair of people to inflict that sort of stupidity on other people.
I guess if a person were completely oblivious to the world around himself, he might have failed to notice that the words, “spare me,” in American English, have for decades been used exclusively for humorous and sarcastic purposes. I don’t really see how that could happen unless a person were of very slight intelligence, but I guess it could.
However, to jump from “spare me” to “don’t talk about it with anyone else” is inexcusable. The only two possible causes for that are malice and profound stupidity.
“Now I understand you are free to say such things, and I am free to ignore them. That’s all I meant.”
Since that is glaringly obvious to anyone with an IQ over 60, you are not on those grounds excused for your bad behavior or the falsehoods you have uttered about me and my remarks.
“Why should I honor any request as ridiculous as “yeah there’s Bible supprt for that false teaching, and don’t you go bringing up any counterarguments.”
No such “request” was made, and I find it difficult to believe that you could have misinterpreted my remarks in that way. No, I think only malice remains as a possible explanation.
The “request,” if you must so mischaracterize it, could only have meant, “I can’t stand any more of your boneheaded crap, so go talk to someone else.”
“Really? I think I have a better clam to being gobsmacked than you. By light years.”
Well, in the sense that an inability to comprehend even basic conversation is bound to leave a person in a constant state of confusion, I guess that might be true.”
B-B is not going to give up her sweet words false gospel easily.
The constant strawman attack posting is a sure sign of shock.
.
>> “What do you think “my” version of the Gospel is?” <<
.
Wow! That’s easy.
Powerful grace that can save one through the non-biblical “sinner’s prayer” without confession, repentance, and obedience to his commandments, and which salvation is irrevocable, in spite of faith that waxes cold when faced with the need for obedience.
Kind of a free-lance roll yer own discipleship of great convenience.
(since I spent much of my school years in independent study programs, I’ll grade myself, with an A+ with honors notation)
.
I grew up in a GARB Baptist church that held absolute repugnance for abortion and contraceptives.
.
God bless you, FRiend. I refuse to digress further into that abyss. I invite the curious reader to compare this last note with my post back at 1160 and watch closely for discrepancies. Other than that, I offer no rebuttal. But though you probably don’t believe it and won’t receive it, I sincerely wish you God’s blessings.
Peace,
SR
“It was the Holy Spirit who directed the writing of the Greek New Testament”
He is certainly not directing your misinterpretation thereof.
“Again, you can’t leave God out of this equation. God chose to have the Gospels record Jesus describing the bread as His body in a standard metaphor.”
Incorrect. Luckily we have an actual Greek scholar with us who is qualified to cast light on that matter.
“And He did so in a language that almost anybody, with a little effort, can read.”
And there is that “any moron’s opinion is as good as any genius’s” nonsense again. Satan would probably give up anything before he’d let go of that.
“If you can’t, there’s nothing I can do to help you.”
Sure there is. Figure out where you went wrong on that one, and straighten yourself out. I’d consider it a favor.
“I assure you, this is easily understood by those who have studied the Greek.”
How do you have the brass to assert that when so many actual Greek scholars say you are dead wrong?
“and even though no one speaks it natively today, it is well within the reach of ordinary people to read with understanding, up to an including nuances such as metaphor.”
Utter nonsense. Self-congratulatory nonsense, at that.
“But I understand it serves the monopolistic purposes of Rome to make it seem inaccessible”
When one’s own heart is full of serpentine malice, when that space in one’s chest could accurately be characterized as a nest of vipers, then of course one attributes to others the same poison one finds in one’s self.
It is neither inaccessible nor as easily accessible as some of you Protestants think it is. Were it so accessible, there would not be a single protestant sect, much less the thousands that there are.
“these “witnesses” suffer from a number of deficiencies. First, they are undefined as to number.”
Dude, that is not a “deficiency” from which witnesses suffer. Is English your first language?
“How many Greek scholars past and present really see “estin” the way Aquinas saw it? Tell me the number. You can’t. You don’t know. Neither do I. It’s probably impossible to figure out, so it’s a great claim for you to make, because it can’t be verified.”
Pathetic, sickening sophistry. It is easy to establish that there are many, and that’s all that is required.
“Second, those witness who reject the plain metaphor in the text may be biased.”
Considering the history of that misinterpretation, it is safe to say that those who insist on the metaphor are biased.
“If they are Catholic, they have a vested interest in NOT being able to see the obvious.”
Is that the way you walk through the world? Reminds me of Lenin: “Accuse others of what you do.” Because the Catholics I know have a vested interest in the truth, whatever it may be.
“The entire system of sacerdotal power”
Tell me, what century do you think it is?
“rests on this fabrication that only the priest can summon up the presence of Christ in the host”
Don’t you know even one true thing about Catholicism? Only a priest can confect the sacrament, but there are many other ways to experience the presence of Christ.
“and so all become totally dependent for their connection to God on this alleged miracle for which there is never a trace of evidence, even among favorable eyewitnesses.”
I feel constrained to caution you: going about repeating that sort of lie could be hazardous to your soul. Of course there is evidence.
“And when a poor humble Bible believer comes along and says, hey, that priestly emperor has no clothes, and that adoration of a mere bloodless wafer sure looks like idolatry”
It is certain that the intelligent, the wise, and the holy are not going to put much credence in that sort of malicious bile.
“Well, what can I say.”
Say, “I’m sorry. I will take a sincere look at the nonsense that props up my prejudices.”
“I’ve read the Scriptures since I was a child.”
Oh, since you were a child! Well, why didn’t you say so? It’s obvious that a child would instinctively grasp difficult and subtle matters treated of in the Scriptures. That’s why “a child’s understanding” is the highest praise in every theology department in the world.
“Went to Sunday school, learned all the stories.”
Talk about the blind leading the blind. I went to Sunday school as well, Southern Baptist, Pentecostal Holiness, Assembly of God...I’ve heard the raving about “idolatry” and “sacerdotal power” and all the rest of it. It’s just so much blind hatred.
“How could any intelligent reader”
Whoops, back up there. Are you saying that intelligent people understand the Bible better than the stupid?
Careful now, because you just lost the argument. See you at RCIA.
“even an atheist, not get some sense of Jesus’ method of teaching, just by a straight reading of the text?”
Because there are too many filters erected between Emmanuel and you. Catholics have to deal with far fewer, because the Church has spent the last 2000 years dealing with that problem.
“It’s not that hard to discern. A child could do it.”
Really? Well, then, I guess we should just shut down all the universities and seminaries, because it’s so easy a child could do it.
“But style is an objective fact.”
Yes, just like taste in music.
“You really think it takes a magic Catholic gnosis”
Magic, huh. That’s an example of what I was talking about earlier, where the rules allow personal insults if they are cleverly phrased.
“It is the truest saddest tragedy of this whole thing, which this conversation reflects, that the theory of Sola Roma has as probably its main effect to lock the Bible away from those for whom it was intended”
If a person not a poster on FR were to say something like that, I would have to make inquiries as to that person’s sanity.
“Sola Roma?” Every now and again some Protestant opens another door to a new area of Hell, a horror previously unknown to me where I see souls writhing in torment because they were duped into believing crap like that.
I don’t know what protestant invented the evil lie you call “Sola Roma,” but I’m betting he was Satan’s catamite.
“not the wise”
Right. The stupid.
“not those with the secret tradition”
Oh, now there are secret traditions. Splendid.
“and hast revealed them unto babes.”
Clearly that is a metaphor.
“So it is not that I think anything of myself that I can read Scripture with understanding.”
Yes, it is.
“It’s that I credit God with being able to write His message in such large print that even someone as insignificant as me has a chance to hear and believe the wonderful message of love in Christ to fallen humanity.”
Of course He is able to. However, that would obviate our free will, so He didn’t. The scripture doesn’t say, stand around and scratch your butt and it shall be opened; it says “Knock and it shall be opened.”
Well, what could that metaphor mean? Is there a real door you are supposed to knock on, or does one knock by seeking to learn from the wise and the holy?
“1Co 1:25-29”
If you’re going to quote scripture, you might try quoting something that supports your argument.
Peace, Friend. I think we are done for now. God bless.
Thank you for the confirmation of the accursed gospel you hold to. When you contend that no one can have assurance of their eternal salvation until they die, when you call such assurance "folly" (or presumptuous, as some have) and declare that all anyone can hope for is that they will be found worthy of heaven by repenting, watching and obeying, then you ARE preaching a gospel based on works. I sincerely believe there is a spiritual blindness present that causes people to miss the essential message of grace in the true gospel. We are NOT saved by the works that we do, but by the unmerited, undeserved grace of God that He gives to us as a GIFT by which we accept through faith. If we do not earn our salvation by our works - as Scripture repeatedly states - then we do not do works in order to keep that salvation.
That blindness I spoke of happens when people imagine God will save them because they have earned it by their good actions, that God owes them heaven because they have been "good" and done all the things they have been told God requires them to do. Yet Scripture says, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast.
Yes, believers SHOULD be warned that sin and disobedience in their lives will bring God's chastisement and His discipline, because:
In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. And have you completely forgotten this word of encouragement that addresses you as a father addresses his son? It says,
“My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.”
Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. (Hebrews 12:4-11)
God will not cast out His children, He will not LOSE a one, He will not take the Holy Spirit from those He has sealed. It is a promise based on HIS faithfulness, not ours. This IS the gospel of the grace of God and those who disagree with it - though they may pay "lip service" by affirming their belief in "justification by faith" - by requiring works in order to stay justified, expose the accursed and false gospel behind their doctrine. It is the SAME thing God used Paul to reveal and, through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, those that hear the voice of the Shepherd of our souls, will surrender to His leading and follow Him and WILL find rest for their souls.
Yet, you fail to elaborate on or even describe what "my personal version" of the gospel is.
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.