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.
If you are being fair here, you will have to acknowledge that NOBODY worships Paul. He was a sinner just like ALL of us and he willfully admitted the same many times.
People have a right to answer the way they see it, that is why it is there so it can be commented on.
Some people will say Paul invented Christianity, a few will say he hijacked it, I say neither. but i believe there are enough contradictions regarding Paul to make it a fair question.
I believe any one who will only recognize the scripture that puts Paul in a good light may be afraid they will read something they do not want to, I say I believe that because I have been there.
Mathew 24
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
If we do not test them by scripture what other way will we know?
We can not confess that Christ is lord except by the holy spirit but there is no claim on that when it comes to false teachers, other wise they would not deceive any one.
There are many things Paul says that I think make a lot of sense but I depend on Jesus only for my salvation.
It's merely an expansion of...
Matthew 10:34-35
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;…
Mary!! I'm DYIN' over here!!!
Joseph: you KNOW what the Scriptures say...
How much college have you had?
Oh?
This is not the attitude shown in your reply just above this one.
But we don't BAN it here (do we?).
That would make the RF portion of FR a big CAUCUS where dissenting views are NOT permitted.
Hearing what sounds like "Take your atheist views out to the world." is as grating to my ears as "Take your religious views back to your church."
It helps to understand where a person is coming from.
This texting stuff is WAY slower that the speed at which we think; and a lot of our thoughts get schrunched up and edited before we ever get them to the keyboard.
At least with most any other kind of communication, that gets done in REAL TIME, we can instantly clarify our position.
We may have delays of hours or days in this medium.
{That didn't come out on the screen the way I meant it; but they'll get it.}
Whoops!
this is what causes a lot of our mis-communication here - IMHO
AMEN
One of the biggest differences between Paul’s (Church of Rome) teachings is that we are saved by faith - belief in God/Jesus) alone. That’s convenient. Eat, drink and be merry - all is well as long as you ‘believe” -
James the Just - who was the leader of the followers after the Crucifixion until he was murdered in 62 AD - said “Faith without works is dead”
Reconcile this, you who believe in Paulinism - upon which most of the Christian churches are based:
James 2:14-26
New King James Version (NKJV)
Faith Without Works Is Dead
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my[b] works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?”
I prefer to think that JAMES, who lived with, walked with and was taught PERSONALLY for 3 years by Jesus, just might have more of an understanding of what Jesus taught than Paul - who never met Him, and upon who’s word ONLY - NO WITNESSES - we are supposed to believe that Jesus appeared to in a manner which Jesus never before used? That Jesus would go outside of the Apostles that He had PERSONALLY chosen, taught and ordained, to teach and spread His Gospel?
And even if one still believes in Paul - reconcile the stark, opposite positions of Paul and James regarding Faith alone and Faith With works. (After all, “Even the demons believe...” So are THEY, then, also ‘saved”)
The Didache is a book perhaps every Christian should have on their shelves - a very early work - it was considered and left out when the “Holy Fathers” (upon orders from the POPE, were deciding which books of Gospel then being used would be allowed in the Bible. For the most part, if they held inconvenient teachings - they were condemned. The tiny Book of James squeaked by, after being objected too -
Any ‘Gospel’ that might shed inconvenient light upon the structure per Paul, that provided the power/money/control meme, was looked upon with disfavor and consigned to be destroyed. Fortunately, many were hidden and have been found in relatively recent years. (Remember, the Church of Rome discouraged people NOT to read the Bible until about the mid 20th century - but to just listen to what the Church preached - including, of course, that Mary Madelene was a ‘repentant whore’, even though there is NOTHING in the Bible to support that. But it helped to deflect from the fact that Jesus taught that women were equal and that He appointed women as disciples and teachers and healers. AND that He and MM were very close.
Well, gotta get a cuppa coffee -
OH, if you don’t have this, you may be interested -
we live in a broken world; sorry you and he have this pain to endure; hoping both of you recover yourselves and find healing.if I had my way, if I had my way, I'd tear this old building down and see everyone maimed with mental illness healed, I know pharmakea doesn't do it, if anything it seems a chain in the slavery of mental illness; what else can the world do ? We need Moshiach now and collectively, our faith is too small to perform a miracle like healing all the mentally afflicted.
Yes, but he spent a great deal of time under house arrest. You are missing my point.
Ghandi led a massive organization - a revolutionary organization albeit non-violent.
Yes, and he did not use it to accumulate expensive possessions.
I mention these people because their lives illustrate some of the same elements Paul allegedly had. You don't seem able to follow.
You seem to be disconnected with reality. Paul had no massive organization, no newspapers, no military wing, no radio speeches, and no money.
Most cult leaders don't have a "massive" organization. Size varies. I'm guessing your remark about the radio is meant to be funny.
Maybe I'm not putting things simply enough: Paul clearly sought to lead others. Claiming to have been spoken to by a dead hero or a god is one way that people who seek to lead others gain authority. Maybe if I put it that way, you won't get so hung up on proving that Paul doesn't fit YOUR definition of "powerful."
It doesn’t matter what you meant if it was irrational - and it was.
There's nothing irrational about it, you're just being deliberately obtuse. My point is very simple and very clear: It looks to me like Paul claimed to have been spoken to by God/Jesus in order to gain an influential position among Jesus' followers.
You posture, re Paul: “Simple: Did he have money? No. Did he have an army?”
He was a Roman citizen, a Roman Commander - who persecuted the Christians for a decade - to little avail as they just kept ‘multiplying’ - (destroy from within)
He was not ‘just a penniless little tent maker’
Here’s another cross purposes tenet of Paul’s. He says that men should wear their hair short (as he did, Roman style) - Yet Jesus - and James, who led the flock after the Crucifixion, wore their hair long, as rabbis from the Mt. Carmel Nazorite sect (nothing to do with Nazareth) of the Essenes (the marrying Essenes) who wore their hair long - indeed, in a long braid down the back. (Samson was a Nazorite/Nazarite)
In the Dark Ages, to disagree with the Church of Rome could get you cripsy-crittered at the stake so writers/artists and the like turned to secret signs and colors and ways to keep the original teachings alive. There are, for example, many paintings depicting Jesus with His hair drawn loosely back and into a braid. This tie to the Nazorites had also to be buried.
Here is one of my favorite such paintings, that also hides, in plain sight, that James the Just was the blood brother of Jesus - and the leadership was passed to JAMES, not Peter and the Church of Rome. (Also, the Man in the Shroud of Turin has a long braid down his back...hmmm)
My wife thinks your Inferno is dull.
“He was a Roman citizen, a Roman Commander - who persecuted the Christians for a decade - to little avail as they just kept ‘multiplying’ - (destroy from within)”
He was never a Roman Commander. He commanded Jewish troops given to him by the Temple hierarchy.
“In the Dark Ages, to disagree with the Church of Rome could get you cripsy-crittered at the stake so writers/artists and the like turned to secret signs and colors and ways to keep the original teachings alive.”
That’s complete nonsense. There were no “Dark Ages”. That is a cultural myth. You seem to have no idea of what you’re talking about.
“You are missing my point.”
You’re not making a valid point.
“Paul clearly sought to lead others.”
Post your evidence. Do you have any?
“Claiming to have been spoken to by a dead hero or a god is one way that people who seek to lead others gain authority.”
Post your evidence that Paul made a false claim.
“Maybe if I put it that way, you won’t get so hung up on proving that Paul doesn’t fit YOUR definition of “powerful.” “
The problem is that you have no evidence whatsoever for any of your claims. None. You have nothing but a prejudice.
“There’s nothing irrational about it, you’re just being deliberately obtuse.”
No, your posts are illogical and irrational. You have no evidence for any of your claims about Paul. None.
“My point is very simple and very clear: It looks to me like Paul claimed to have been spoken to by God/Jesus in order to gain an influential position among Jesus’ followers.”
And there is ZERO evidence that that is what happened. Your claim is baseless and irrational.
I’m trying to organize the stuff on my computer (a lot of it saved from more than two computer deaths) and it’s an insane mess. I’m finding things, though, like the definition of atheism. Seemed quite fitting.
Yep and
Matthew 10:3
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Is Paul influential within the church? There’s my evidence. As for the second, I don’t believe anyone who says God spoke to him. If someone says they are hearing voices, they are either lying or crazy. Do you believe Mohammed? Of course not.
**He was a Roman citizen, a Roman Commander - who persecuted the Christians for a decade - to little avail as they just kept ‘multiplying’ - (destroy from within)**
Mistake here. Paul was a Pharisee. (Look it up!)
“Is Paul influential within the church?”
He’s been dead for over 1900 years. Thus, whatever influence his writings have now accrued him nothing in his own lifetime.
“There’s my evidence.”
In other words, you have none. Your anachronistic gymnastics is not evidence.
“As for the second, I don’t believe anyone who says God spoke to him.”
That is both an illogical and irrational prejudice.
“If someone says they are hearing voices, they are either lying or crazy.”
How is that scientific? You are dismissing every possible case base on nothing but your prejudice.
“Do you believe Mohammed? Of course not.”
I absolutely believe Muhammad was used by an otherworldly entity. I just don’t believe it was God. I believe it was the devil.
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.