There is a lot of that going around these days:
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.
You double-talking sophist, so after declaring that you are not against Paul, you are saying ‘Well, some people hated Paul” to claim that there are separate branches of Christianity? One with all the Apostles, and the other without it, and that they are equal? Stop posting, seriously.
so after declaring that you are not against Paul, you are saying ‘Well, some people hated Paul”>>>>>>>
I don`t remember saying any one hated Paul and I gave you the scripture, I was just stating fact which you choose to ignore.
It does not appear that FRs cultists are even conscious, most of the time.>>>>>>>
I don`t know what you consider cults so i can only assume it is any one who disagrees with your jibberish.
Any real Christian who disagreed with people who doubted Paul would at least acknowledge scripture given to them as reason for their doubt and then they could see where the doubt came from and try to explain it away as could be the case or admit it was reason for doubt, but no, not you.
A few scriptures were pointed out to me, i did not start throwing a hissy fit i simple went to the scripture they indicated and could see that it was a reason for them to doubt Paul but not to the extent that some do..
I saw no reason to throw a fit and start making accusations even though i was not convinced, i am still not convinced of anything except the fact that they do have an honest reason for their opinion.
So i can only conclude you do not want to go there and discuss it from where it comes.
Are you afraid that you will start doubting Paul?
I believe Jesus is my savior not Paul, but i can see that if you start doubting Paul then you have nothing.
Thank you. And thank you for your courtesy.
Well, he seems to have been obsessed with Jesus, first in persecuting Christians, and then in believing that Jesus spoke to him. He reminds me of that character in Les Miserables who hunted Jean Valjean for decades. Obsessed, first with wresting believers away from Jesus, and then with basically taking over the wheel. This is a personality type one would avoid in real life.
I said, “Die, heretic scum”, and pushed him off.
“So, now Paul was lying about that, too?”
I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think he was lying. I think he was nuts and prone to confabulation because what he says about Jewish belief is so terribly wrong.
Marie, Vlad touched on this in his reply to you. However, I don't know where you come up with the above assertion. There is no evidence to support the above claim. We do have evidence of Paul being a Hebrew among Hebrews:
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.
That is unless you view the above testimony as being false. I do not.
I’m very grateful that this thread came up, because I’ve been allowing myself to be distracted from the Torah for way too long.
Spent all night and most of this day listening to rabbinical lectures and reminding myself why I love this religion so much.
Thank you for putting a pebble in my shoe.
You must not have much experience with those who convert and are transformed by the Grace of God. For example, take a look at prison ministries. I pinged a gentlemen who sponsors former drug addicts and criminals who had their lives changed by Jesus Christ. I have seen former alcoholics and drug addicts lead those under the same chains to free themselves of addiction. In the case of Paul of Tarsus his "intervention" was led personally by the Risen Christ.
Just one more thing.
To answer your question, “Why separate milk and meat in our diet?”
Because Gd said so.
This is a personality type one would avoid in real life.
And i had already saw for myself that there are quite a few contradictions concerning Him.
So comparing the scripture pointed out to the ones which are common knowledge to those who will acknowledge them does give reason to doubt.
There is no way i would trust any one who will try to slip around or ignore any scripture that does anything but lift their ideal which is Paul.
Many people will glory in the idea that Paul corrected Peter but if it is mentioned that Paul may have not been perfect they will throw a wall eyed fit.
And personally that is what has inspired me to take a good look at Paul who i used to think was the greatest apostle and now not even sure he was an apostle.
I don’t know Paul. Never met the guy. I do know that he showed a profound misunderstanding of the Jewish faith and that tells me that he was not a properly educated Jew.
There are *many* Jews in the world that don’t understand the basics. They’re called “ploppers” because all they had to do to become a Jew was to plop out of a Jewish womb. Being Jewish requires no true faith or adherence to a belief system for those born to it.
I know that his Jewish contemporaries found him to be undesirable and I can see why. If he rode into town preaching some of the stuff that he said in his letters, he’d be considered quite offensive. (Just his take on women... sheesh! Jewish women always found power in their femininity and his suggestion that women sit down and shut up is really quite insulting.) Back then, Jewish women could divorce their husbands (for good reason), ruled their households, and sometimes ran businesses and managed the financials. (And we still do.)
The few things I cited before just scratch the surface of Paul’s misunderstanding of the Jewish people and faith. There are whole books on it.
If anyone’s *really* interested in why Jewish people have never run into a church to get Baptized into Christianity, check out: Why the Jews Rejected Jesus on Amazon.
Our ancestors were just as rational and thinking as we are and the didn’t make such decisions lightly.
You may not agree with it, but at least *try* to understand the situation from the Jewish viewpoint. Otherwise, it’s like you’re going into court, only hearing the prosecutor’s side of the argument, then making a judgement and you’re not even giving the defendant the opportunity to speak for himself or offer evidence on his own behalf.
Deuteronomy 14:21
Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.
I have always believed and still do that this was cooking a calf or kid goat before it was weaned.
What suspicions should we be alerted to?
Luke 24: 28 And they approached the village where they were going, and He acted as though He were going farther. 29 But they urged Him, saying, “Stay with us, for it is getting toward evening, and the day is now nearly over.” So He went in to stay with them. 30 When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight. 32 They said to one another, “Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?”
36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and *said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41 While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; 43 and He took it and ate it before them.
John 20:17 Jesus *said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’” 18 Mary Magdalene *came, announcing to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and that He had said these things to her.
26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then He *said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus *said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”
Seems to be clear the above appearances were not a "heard voice" and they clearly recognized Jesus Christ and even examined the nail pierced hands and wound in His side.
Please explain the above and where you come up with this.
It is obvious that Perfect Lady is using non-biblical sources as her primary reference. It is a waste of time arguing with someone when you fail to establish a common authority or common premises. For Perfect Lady, the bible is not an accurate or reliable witness unless a selected passage supports her personal worldview. All other passages are discounted as unreliable or out right falsities. In short, she is her own authority.
That deserves a standing ovation:)
Mayhaps you could elaborate on what Paul stated of the Jewish belief that is "terribly wrong."
Well do you trust the testimony of Jesus Christ when He said the following to his disciples?:
Luke 24:(NASB)
44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
Please point out where Paul deviates from the commands of Jesus Christ as outlined by Jesus Christ, who I will point out IS JEWISH.
There is a lot of that going around these days:
I did touch on it. In this very thread.
If you’re seriously interested in the topic, I’d recommend the following books to get an idea of the Jewish perspective:
You take Jesus, I’ll take God
Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History
Rabbi Singer has a fantastic website: http://outreachjudaism.org/lets-get-biblical-audio-series/
You can listen to all of his best stuff for free right now and right there. And yes, he gets deep into Paul.
This is a broad topic that isn’t going to be covered in a quick post. If you *really* want to understand the Jewish faith (and why it doesn’t work with Christianity), you’ve got to work at it. (I’ve been at it for years and I’m still digging.)
For anyone who’s interested in Judaism in general (not necessarily this specific subject) I’d recommend that you check out http://www.simpletoremember.com/
Disclaimer: This is more from the Orthodox perspective and has nothing to do with Reform beliefs.
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.