Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

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.”

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.”

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).

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.

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.

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.

The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognize what is and is not inspired.

This is true however does not support the notion of sola scriptura.

The reason the "true followers of God recognize(d) what is and is not inspired", back in the early church days when the Canon was being decided, was because when they all got together to "compare notes" so to speak (or really as we call them the ecumenical councils) they realized there were many texts that many churches who had little or no contact with each other were using in their liturgies. That is, in their celebrations of the Eucharist.

So it wasn't the Bible itself or even a great debating society that decided what was Scripture, it was the Holy Mass. The very act of worship of God himself produced Scripture.

And by the way, contrary to popular thought, the Jews didn't have a formal canon either until well after Christ died and rose again. So it's not like that "Scripture" existed either before the Church.

This is just historical fact. It's not as if they all got together, had a debate about this book or that, and that was the only deciding factor. As if it was a game of favorites or something. No, the very fact that without any human based reason, for a mysterious reason, they discovered they all valued the same texts (for the most part, there was some debate of course).

So really, in every sense, the reason we have the Canon we have today is because of the Church, acting like a Church (a body, a collection of local churches acting as one). Not as a group of men deciding on texts because they "sound good" or "agree with other Scripture". This was not the primary reason they were all used independently of each other. The primary reason was that the Holy Spirit guided each local church to use the Scriptures we know today in the liturgy, which is for worship of God, not a Bible study.

So in this sense, the Church "gave us Scripture". And this is, again, in history.

The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognize what is and is not inspired. This is true however does not support the notion of sola scriptura. The reason the "true followers of God recognize(d) what is and is not inspired", back in the early church days when the Canon was being decided, was because when they all got together to "compare notes" so to speak (or really as we call them the ecumenical councils) they realized there were many texts that many churches who had little or no contact with each other were using in their liturgies. That is, in their celebrations of the Eucharist. So it wasn't the Bible itself or even a great debating society that decided what was Scripture, it was the Holy Mass. The very act of worship of God himself produced Scripture. And by the way, contrary to popular thought, the Jews didn't have a formal canon either until well after Christ died and rose again. So it's not like that "Scripture" existed either before the Church. This is just historical fact. It's not as if they all got together, had a debate about this book or that, and that was the only deciding factor. As if it was a game of favorites or something. No, the very fact that without any human based reason, for a mysterious reason, they discovered they all valued the same texts (for the most part, there was some debate of course). So really, in every sense, the reason we have the Canon we have today is because of the Church, acting like a Church (a body, a collection of local churches acting as one). Not as a group of men deciding on texts because they "sound good" or "agree with other Scripture". This was not the primary reason they were all used independently of each other. The primary reason was that the Holy Spirit guided each local church to use the Scriptures we know today in the liturgy, which is for worship of God, not a Bible study. So in this sense, the Church "gave us Scripture". And this is, again, in history.

The Jews did have the "canon" of the OT. In the NT the "writings" refer to the Law of Moses, Prophets and the Writings. If not mistaken this is what Jesus was quoting from when He said, "it is written"....

There are ample writings on how the NT came to be the canon we have today. The "roman catholic" church did not give us the NT. It was around long before the RCC.

If we're not relying on the Bible as written by the writers moved by the Holy Spirit, what are we relying upon?

False, conflicting, man-made opinions?

When people say sola scriptura, we mean we are relying on the Bible for correction, teaching, reproof, instruction, etc.

While the Jews obviously had Scriptures, there were differences among them as to which books were and were not Scripture. That's what I was saying. Obviously the ones Jesus and the apostles quoted from were all ones they all considered Scripture, but there were other books that were questionable for them, depending on the sect in question.

If we're not relying on the Bible as written by the writers moved by the Holy Spirit, what are we relying upon?

False, conflicting, man-made opinions?

You see this is a common mistake amongst many critics of the Church. It's not as if we don't rely on Scripture as a source of knowledge and truth, we just don't rely on it *alone*.

When people say sola scriptura, we mean we are relying on the Bible for correction, teaching, reproof, instruction, etc.

I'm well aware of the formal definition of "sola scriptura" (which you have left out by the way, the alleged "value" sola scriptura adherents place on the teaching authority of the "church" and also tradition.) Many, even some on this board, beat Catholics over the head with that formal definition, when we say, correctly, you can't possibly know everything Jesus taught by only reading the Bible, when Scripture itself says you can't. But here's the thing...

In PRACTICE, sola scriptura, for all it's vaunted value it allegedly places on tradition and authoritative teaching, eventually reduces to "show me that in the Bible, or else it's not true" (which is really, "show me that in the Bible, and if what you show doesn't agree with my *opinion* of what it says, then it's not true") which is precisely NOT what sola scriptura adherents claim they believe. But it is certainly what it IS, in practice.

Just have the courage to look at your own self, in action, in your own experience, with a desire for truth and not to be "right", to see evidence of what I have just said about sola scriptura.

>>If we're not relying on the Bible as written by the writers moved by the Holy Spirit, what are we relying upon?

False, conflicting, man-made opinions?<<

You see this is a common mistake amongst many critics of the Church. It's not as if we don't rely on Scripture as a source of knowledge and truth, we just don't rely on it *alone*.

And by not relying upon the Bible alone you get Mary being sinless her whole life. No where is that supported in the Bible. It is man-made and a fabrication from the pit.

>>When people say sola scriptura, we mean we are relying on the Bible for correction, teaching, reproof, instruction, etc.<<

That's actually the Biblical definition. The teaching authority of the apostles was based on the Bible. Do a word study on tradition and you will find in the three places the RCC claims to support its "tradition" they have taken the verses out of context.

Many, even some on this board, beat Catholics over the head with that formal definition, when we say, correctly, you can't possibly know everything Jesus taught by only reading the Bible, when Scripture itself says you can't. But here's the thing... In PRACTICE, sola scriptura, for all it's vaunted value it allegedly places on tradition and authoritative teaching, eventually reduces to "show me that in the Bible, or else it's not true" (which is really, "show me that in the Bible, and if what you show doesn't agree with my *opinion* of what it says, then it's not true") which is precisely NOT what sola scriptura adherents claim they believe. But it is certainly what it IS, in practice. Just have the courage to look at your own self, in action, in your own experience, with a desire for truth and not to be "right", to see evidence of what I have just said about sola scriptura.

Again, show me where the Bible says Mary was sinless. This would be in contradiction of Romans 3:23 which I can show you.

Show me the papacy and the current RCC leadership structure in the New Testament. You can't.

Little things like this is why the Bible is the source to use.

But your Jesus only restriction eliminates them as well.

Good explanation and thanks.

But I still believe Jesus told us all we need to know to be saved.

The way I understand the resurrection which only comes from Paul is that Jesus took 144000 with him when he left which most people do not agree with.

The main stream religion do not agree so I am lost.

If this happened or not is beside the point but if it did these people would not have been familiar with Paul and it did not prevent them.

If ignorance in knowing every word spoken by Paul prevents the people of today from attaining eternal life we are in deep trouble because each Church has a different doctrine and most people in the same Church see it a little different, so we are all ignorant in the eyes of the other.

And it also would mean that people for hundreds of years who believed themselves to be Christians but could not even read the Gospel would be left in the dark.

Based on my own view of the above most of what I have read from the Bible has been since I have been retired, up until then the only time I had time to do any reading is when I happen to have had an 8 to 5 job which was seldom.

About the only thing I knew when I was thirty years old was that any one who believed in Jesus would be saved and he would gather those believers at the last day.

I believe I was walking down the street looking for a café when I heard a preacher on a street corner preaching just that.

So accordingly I guess If I had of died at that age I would have went to hell because I was not fully informed of what Paul said, what Jesus said would not be enough to be saved.

I believe to know who Jesus was and to believe in him and do the things he told us to do with a pure heart is the only way to salvation

Mathew 25:31 through 46 tells me what Jesus expects of me.
and I barely knew that much until I got where I could spend more time reading than working.

Which explain the great Commandments Mathew 22:36 through 40.

Even in the early fifties and sixties you could see these words of Jesus show up in so many people in their actions.

So where would that leave the people for hundreds of years who could barely read if at all and had nothing to read any way?

I assume there were people then who believed in doing as Jesus said.

I will add that it takes very little time to listen to some one explain what Jesus said, a little here and a little there which is not likely to be forgotten and leaves little to argue about.

But when it comes to Paul we have very high paid professors spending their time getting rich off of the Gospel of Paul.

And that is something I find distasteful.

Thanks for explaining what the words were.

Me: In PRACTICE, sola scriptura, for all it's vaunted value it allegedly places on tradition and authoritative teaching, eventually reduces to "show me that in the Bible, or else it's not true" (which is really, "show me that in the Bible, and if what you show doesn't agree with my *opinion* of what it says, then it's not true") which is precisely NOT what sola scriptura adherents claim they believe. But it is certainly what it IS, in practice.

Just have the courage to look at your own self, in action, in your own experience, with a desire for truth and not to be "right", to see evidence of what I have just said about sola scriptura.

You (in response to me):Again, show me where the Bible says Mary was sinless. This would be in contradiction of Romans 3:23 which I can show you.

Show me the papacy and the current RCC leadership structure in the New Testament. You can't.

Little things like this is why the Bible is the source to use.

I rest my case on what I said before (now in bold). If you continue to refuse to acknowledge what I said was/is true, now given this direct evidence of your own actions (an objective fact) then we can proceed no further.

There are truly none so blind as those who refuse to see.

I don`t know what Jefferson said I just see there is a lot of contradiction in Paul`s letters and acts and I did say that Paul made a lot of sense.

But he also talks about himself a lot and in a place or two he could be saying something good about some of the apostles that Jesus chose but it is really hard to tell if it is good or subtly just the opposite.

You left a critical portion of scripture in which all the apostles and disciples are in accord on the Gospel of Grace:

Acts 15:
Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. 3 Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren. 4 When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”
12 All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

Seems pretty clear there was an "accord" here on the gospel. We see Paul mention this as well naming the disciples and apostles who walked with Christ as fellow laborers for the gospel:
1 Corinthians 15:
Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

You can see very plainly that Paul was judged by at least some and probably many of not being an apostle and was said to be a liar.

Are any of the apostles (e.g. Peter, James, John et. al.) identified as the accusers of Paul? No they are not. I have given clear evidence the apostles who walked with Christ on earth before His Crucifixion were in accord and harmony with the gospel preached by Paul, Silas, Apollos and Barnabas. Sure from the scriptures you provided there were accusers against Paul as there are accusers today against Christians. Does that make the accusers trump those who had physical and divine contact and revelation from Christ Jesus? No. The apostles, which includes Paul not only came preaching the same Gospel but also demonstrated the Power of Christ Jesus in miracles, healings, and casting out demons.

If you are going to throw up the "doubt flag" on the ministry of Paul to the Gentiles, then you ignore the references from Acts and 1 Corinthians above.

I read an article some time ago which argued that Paul was probably not a Jew by blood, it had a lot to say on the subject which I have forgotten.

I also read an article last year that the Toronto Blue Jays would win the AL East with ease. Not so not even close. If you believe your statement or the article then you have joined the "Paul of Tarsus is a liar club." Should we not take the testimony of Paul on his own heritage?

Philippians 3:(NASB)

2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; 3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, 4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

Seems Paul is clear on his ethnic/national heritage.

I believe I was walking down the street looking for a café...

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?"

I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"

He said, "Religious."

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

He said, "Christian."

I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

He said, "Baptist!"

I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of GOD or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

He said, "Baptist Church of GOD!"

I said, "Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of GOD, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of GOD?"

He said,"Reformed Baptist Church of GOD!"

I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of GOD, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of GOD, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of GOD, reformation of 1915!"

I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

-- Emo Phillips

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.