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.
Thanks for that excellent reply.
No doubt, if any Catholic even bothers to read it, it will likely go over their head. However, it needed to be posted.
I will be saving that for future reference.
Answer this then...
WHY isn't the Bible sufficient according to Catholics?
What is lacking in it that makes it inadequate for the man of God to be complete?
What is so important that God left out of Scripture that someone feels they need to add later?
WHY is sola Scriptura not valid?
I do not have enough of a knowledge of the history of Jewish Scripture to answer that although I do not believe the claim is accurate.
So I'm pining the only person I can think of who might be able to answer the question adequately.
Can you help out here, ZC?
I would disagree with that on the basis of Jesus speaking when HE referred to Scripture, by the name *Scripture*.
HE obviously recognized OT writings as Scripture and called them as such.
So if JESUS called them Scripture, they're Scripture. You can argue otherwise all you want, but you'll be finding yourself at odds with Jesus.
Paul knew the persecution Christians were facing, none better.
No way anyone looking for a power grab was going to put themselves on the receiving end of what he himself was dishing out.
If he was after power, he would have been better served staying with the Pharisees, who were in power at the time.
Let me answer them slightly out of order as I think that may be more helpful.
WHY is sola Scriptura not valid?
Becaise there is no objective authority or fact that states sola scriptura is taught in Scripture.
What is so important that God left out of Scripture that someone feels they need to add later?
This is a loaded question in that it implies God is careless with his facts (which is not the Catholic claim). But I'll answer it anyway.
We read from Scripture itself the following: John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
This follows: 21:24 This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things and hath written these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
So the context is clear: verse 25 is clearly saying that there are many other things Jesus did that are *also* helpful so that "we know his testimony is true", that aren't recorded. This obviously necessitates a greater repository of Truth than is contained in the written Word.
What is lacking in it that makes it inadequate for the man of God to be complete?
See above. If you have issue with the fact that everything Jesus did is not in Scripture, take it up with St. John. In addition to this though, no one is saying Scripture doesn't "complete" the man of God. It most certainly does. See below.
WHY isn't the Bible sufficient according to Catholics?
Scripture IS sufficient to "complete" the man of God, but just as any knight isn't "complete" with just a sword, neither is the man of God.
You see, this is the point that every anti-Catholic refuses to acknowledge: Scripture is one part, a vital part yes, but only ONE part of completing the man of God. And there exists no Scripture that says differently (except in the OPINIONS of some men).
Please share with the forum how you propose mankind could earn Salvation? What “works” could be done that would surpass what God, through His Son Jesus, has already done?
The reality is that if you attempt to earn Salvation, you have no faith in God’s Grace. Pride drives men to seek their own way to God. Pride prevents them from acknowledging they need a Savior, and can do NOTHING to save themselves. That was the point of Jesus’ ‘hard sayings’ to the Pharisees.
Matthew 5:20 (KJV)
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. >>>> This was an UNOBTAINABLE standard. Jesus said these harsh sayings in Matt 5 to provoke the Jews to realize they MUST HAVE a Savior. Also, to make them realize that any attempt on their own was FUTILE. Note that these harsh sayings - cut off hand, pluck out eye, exceed the Pharisees in righteousness, are NOT repeated in the letters to the Church.
Romans 3:20 (AMP)
20 For no person will be justified (made righteous, acquitted, and judged acceptable) in His sight by observing the works prescribed by the Law. For [the real function of] the Law is to make men recognize and be conscious of sin [not mere perception, but an acquaintance with sin which works toward repentance, faith, and holy character]. >>>> Paul confirms that the Law existed to expose sin, to make men realize that they HAD to have a Savior.
Romans 3:27-28 (AMP)
27 Then what becomes of [our] pride and [our] boasting? It is excluded (banished, ruled out entirely). On what principle? [On the principle] of doing good deeds? No, but on the principle of faith.
28 For we hold that a man is justified and made upright by faith independent of and distinctly apart from good deeds (works of the Law). [The observance of the Law has nothing to do with justification.] >>>> There is NOTHING you can do to earn Salvation. Jesus did it all. See Abraham, he was declared righteous because he BELIEVED God before the Law even existed. (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:1-3) It is our faith that pleases the Father. (Hebrews 11:6)
Is Paul contradicting Jesus? Absolutely not if you recognize the Spirit that was behind the message in the Gospels.
John 6:28-29 (AMP)
28 They then said, What are we to do, that we may [habitually] be working the works of God? [What are we to do to carry out what God requires?]
29 Jesus replied, This is the work (service) that God asks of you: that you believe in the One Whom He has sent [that you cleave to, trust, rely on, and have faith in His Messenger].
John 3:14-17 (AMP)
14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert [on a pole], so must [so it is necessary that] the Son of Man be lifted up [on the cross],
15 In order that everyone who believes in Him [who cleaves to Him, trusts Him, and relies on Him] may not perish, but have eternal life and [actually] live forever!
16 For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life.
17 For God did not send the Son into the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, but that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.
Those two passages align quite well with Paul’s teaching, especially from a post-resurrection/release of the Holy Spirit viewpoint. The central message of Paul’s writing, which makes up a large percentage of the NT, is Salvation by faith in God’s Grace. You need both - God’s part and our choice to believe in what He did.
Assuming that we can agree that Jesus (the spirit of the Gospels) and Paul don’t contradict, we must look at James and see if we can reconcile all three. James is not talking about Salvation. His letter is written to Jewish Believers, so that should raise a yellow flag to proceed cautiously, since only Paul was sent primarily to the Gentiles (James 1). But he is addressing Believers - people who have already accepted Jesus as their Savior. James CANNOT be about Salvation. It is a teaching on faith, or put in a better way, the anointing to do what God desires.
Look carefully at James 1, what is the teaching? That you must ask for wisdom in faith, not to be double-minded. Be patient in trials and be a doer of the Word. Bridle your tongue, or else it undermines your faith and service is futile.
The lesson continues into chapter 2. Show no favoritism. Walk in love - be a doer of the Word. You cannot be effective in your Christian walk without Love, Faith, and the guidance and anointing of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus put it this way:
John 15:1-5 (AMP)
1 I AM the True Vine, and My Father is the Vinedresser.
2 Any branch in Me that does not bear fruit [that stops bearing] He cuts away (trims off, takes away); and He cleanses and repeatedly prunes every branch that continues to bear fruit, to make it bear more and richer and more excellent fruit.
3 You are cleansed and pruned already, because of the word which I have given you [the teachings I have discussed with you].
4 Dwell in Me, and I will dwell in you. [Live in Me, and I will live in you.] Just as no branch can bear fruit of itself without abiding in (being vitally united to) the vine, neither can you bear fruit unless you abide in Me.
5 I am the Vine; you are the branches. Whoever lives in Me and I in him bears much (abundant) fruit. However, apart from Me [cut off from vital union with Me] you can do nothing.
The Law told you to love God with all your heart. The Holy Spirit dwelling in you empowers you to actually do this! As your reborn spirit is allowed to take its rightful place of authority over your life, and the mind is renewed with God’s Word, you will EFFECTIVELY run the race God has planned for you. Your “good works” will have 100 times the impact for the Kingdom of God. You truly become the mouth, hands, and feet of Jesus, ministering to the world. It is no longer “works”, instead it becomes FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT. Does an apple tree “work” to produce fruit? No, it simply does what God created it to do!!!
Loving (the God kind of Love) out of the flesh is impossible. With the Holy Spirit, Love is not only possible, its enjoyable! Forgiveness is possible. Giving is possible. The Blessing flows through you so you can now be a Blessing to the world. The HS empowers you to do God’s Perfect Will for you, and its not work, its LIFE! Its Blessing, its Joy, its Love! Its ZOE, the Life and Light of God, flowing from the vine through the branch and producing GOOD fruit.
See 2 Corinthians 9, Galatians 5, Ephesians 4, 5 - Heck read all of Paul’s letters since they all agree.
Free yourself from religious bondage and enjoy the freedom as a child of God. Praise your Heavenly Father for what He HAS DONE for you.
BTW - No man could ever have written the following passage without divine assistance. It is so perfect, so sublime, it could only have come straight from the heart of God.
Ephesians 2:1-10 (AMP)
1 AND YOU [He made alive], when you were dead (slain) by [your] trespasses and sins
2 In which at one time you walked [habitually]. You were following the course and fashion of this world [were under the sway of the tendency of this present age], following the prince of the power of the air. [You were obedient to and under the control of] the [demon] spirit that still constantly works in the sons of disobedience [the careless, the rebellious, and the unbelieving, who go against the purposes of God].
3 Among these we as well as you once lived and conducted ourselves in the passions of our flesh [our behavior governed by our corrupt and sensual nature], obeying the impulses of the flesh and the thoughts of the mind [our cravings dictated by our senses and our dark imaginings]. We were then by nature children of [God’s] wrath and heirs of [His] indignation, like the rest of mankind.
4 But God—so rich is He in His mercy! Because of and in order to satisfy the great and wonderful and intense love with which He loved us,
5 Even when we were dead (slain) by [our own] shortcomings and trespasses, He made us alive together in fellowship and in union with Christ; [He gave us the very life of Christ Himself, the same new life with which He quickened Him, for] it is by grace (His favor and mercy which you did not deserve) that you are saved (delivered from judgment and made partakers of Christ’s salvation).
6 And He raised us up together with Him and made us sit down together [giving us joint seating with Him] in the heavenly sphere [by virtue of our being] in Christ Jesus (the Messiah, the Anointed One).
7 He did this that He might clearly demonstrate through the ages to come the immeasurable (limitless, surpassing) riches of His free grace (His unmerited favor) in [His] kindness and goodness of heart toward us in Christ Jesus.
8 For it is by free grace (God’s unmerited favor) that you are saved (delivered from judgment and made partakers of Christ’s salvation) through [your] faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [of your own doing, it came not through your own striving], but it is the gift of God;
9 Not because of works [not the fulfillment of the Law’s demands], lest any man should boast. [It is not the result of what anyone can possibly do, so no one can pride himself in it or take glory to himself.]
10 For we are God’s [own] handiwork (His workmanship), recreated in Christ Jesus, [born anew] that we may do those good works which God predestined (planned beforehand) for us [taking paths which He prepared ahead of time], that we should walk in them [living the good life which He prearranged and made ready for us to live].
One other thing: John 14:26 says the comforter will teach us all things. The comforter, not Scripture. If indeed Scripture was the only thing needed to learn about the Truth, then why would Jesus send the Comforter? Why not just tell his disciples, “Read the Bible”?
Yes it does. It is adequate for the man of God to be wise to salvation, complete, equipped for every good work.
You have to know this one is coming.
2 Timothy 3:14-17 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Complete means complete. Paul says that Scripture is adequate. You say it's not. Guess who I'm throwing my lot in with?
There is also this....
Ephesians 6:10-20 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.
And where are the extra-Biblical teachings of Catholicism mentioned in that?
Becaise there is no objective authority or fact that states sola scriptura is taught in Scripture.
Likewise there is no objective source which states that tradition is taught in Scripture because Catholics claim the Catholic church wrote Scripture from oral tradition. That eliminates it by default because if they wrote it, it is not an objective source to use to support the doctrine of tradition.
Congratulations. You just disqualified and invalidated the Catholic church claim for sacred tradition.
We read from Scripture itself the following: John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
This follows: 21:24 This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things and hath written these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
That is true that Jesus did more than was recorded. So? Did God think we needed it? No, because if you read chapter 20, John also states THIS....
John 20:30-31 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
*these things*. The things that John recorded. THOSE were the things written that we may believe in Jesus. That's all we need to know to come to a knowledge of who Jesus is and believe in Him.
Like I said before if you followed that conversation, obviously Jesus and the Jews both considered some books to be Scripture, or else he wouldn’t have quoted from them (as the Jews wouldn’t have found his argumentation convincing).
But there’s a difference between quoting from one book (or passage) and conflating that to a whole Canon. Note, I said “formal Canon” as in a collection of books agreed upon and used by all Jews. I didn’t say the Jews didn’t have Scripture.
Like I said from the beginning (of our conversation on this thread): in YOUR OPINION (which is not an objective source by the way) Scripture claims it is “adequite” to complete the man of God. Here’s an exercise you will probably ignore (as most anti Catholic Christians do):
Show me where in 2 Tim the word “alone” or “only” apprears. Does it appear in 2 Tim 3:16? 2 Tim 3:17?
Does that passage say a) “All Scripture ALONE is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
Or does it say, b) “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”?
Which does it say? You tell me, “a” or “b”?
In that, I suggest you read the founding fathers, the colonial or founding state constitutions, Blackstone's Law, and have an understanding of the precedence used by our judges when there was no precedence - What you have said above is profoundly in error. This country was established as a Christian nation, with an undeniable reliance on Nature's God (read Blackstone). What you may be looking for is the result of the French Revolution, embodied in the 'Rights of Man' - The result of our revolution declares that the rights of men come from their Creator, and cannot be abridged by men. Take that away, and there is no United States of America - I guarantee it.
I’ll give it a quick go:
>>”WHY is sola Scriptura not valid? “
Scripture *alone* doesn’t exist in reality. E.g., in your case, you’re reading it and getting some meaning from it, different meaning than someone else might. So it’s never really scripture alone.
Secondly, it fails it’s own test. If you mean by sola scriptura that “scripture alone is entirely sufficient for all doctrine...” that doctrine is not in scripture. So the doctrine is self-contradicting.
Thirdly in fails in practice to result in the most basic requirement of “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”
In summary, sola scriptura is a concept, not a reality; it is unscriptural and internally contradictory and it fails in practice.
Yep.
I’d bet He’d also say...
... He that loveth his CHURCH more than me is not worthy of me:
And upon what evidence would you base this disbelief?
Would do no good; unless some early church father said it was true.
What is so important that God left out of Scripture that someone feels they need to add later?
Ping me if you EVER get an answer to THIS!!
Those books do NOT include anything Catholic, deutercomical, or apocrypha...And Jesus knew exactly what the OT canon was when he spoke of them in Luke...
Luk_24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
That is the bible history...From Genesis to Zechariah...There is no bible that is recognized from Jesus between Zechariah and Matthew...And as we know, Maccabees was written in that time frame...Can't be scripture...
Sounds a bit circular to me...
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.