Why Paul is Important to Christianity

Skeptics often ask what makes Christianity right and all other religions wrong. The implication is that various contradicting faiths renders none of them right. But the Christian’s best answer is to point out how well Christianity holds up under historical scrutiny. The ministry, death, and aftermath of Christ is the most well-documented event of the ancient world. The time span between His life and the first historical mentions of Him is the shortest in history; and even when we don’t include the sheer volumes of ancient copies of the four gospels, extra biblical references to Him put all other figures to shame, including William Shakespeare and Alexander the Great. When put next to Buddha, Muhammed, or any other religious leader, Jesus clearly triumphs.

There’s no serious doubt to whether Jesus actually lived or that He was crucified. The real question is whether or not He rose again, which would definitively prove whether He was who He claimed to be. His followers play an important role here, because if He didn’t rise from the dead, they lied or fabricated the resurrection somehow. The problem is that they seemed to be lacking any motive to do so, especially considering the lives of suffering and persecution they willingly took on for preaching in His name.

Stephen was stoned. James was killed by the sword. Peter was crucified upside down. Thomas, Matthew, and many others were willingly arrested, beaten, imprisoned, and died horrible deaths for the cause of Christ. These are not the actions of conspirators who stole His body and staged a phony resurrection.

When people ask “What is the difference between Christianity and other religions?” my favorite answer is “No other religion has a character quite like Paul.” The other apostles loved Jesus and may have had some interest in keeping the memory of Him alive, seeing all the good He had done. But if that is the case, Paul is a complete enigma.

Saul of Tarsus, a Benjamite, was raised in an influential Pharisaical family. To call him a devout Jew would be an understatement. Saul was radical and ambitious, devoting his life to ascending to the San Hedrin. In his zeal for enforcing the Law, he wanted all Christians dead, imprisoned, or forced into recanting. He also knew that stopping the growth of Christianity would boost his rise to power. Acts 8:3: As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.

When I say the disciples had no motivation to fake the resurrection, Saul factors into the equation in a completely different way; he had every bit of motivation to continue persecuting the church. Yet suddenly, inexplicably, he threw everything he had worked for his entire life away. Not only did he lose out on ever becoming a high priest, he brought shame to his family joined his enemies, becoming their most zealous apostle. This gets even more perplexing when we consider the life Paul willfully took on. II Corinthians 11:24-27: Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.

And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: (Acts 9:3-5).While on a journey to root out more Christians, a light fell and knocked him to the ground, followed by the voice of Jesus. This experience was profound enough to change his life forever. Trying to assign Paul some kind of sinister motive, like giving up on his chances of becoming high priest and making the whole thing up to achieve power over the Christian church, is laughable; if that were the case, much of the New Testament wouldn’t have been written. Paul’s epistles often addressed major betrayals and uprisings against his own teachings.

So we can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that Paul genuinely believed in the experience he had on the road to Damascus. But that doesn’t prove that it really happened. There could be a natural explanation: perhaps it was a mirage? After all, dehydrated on a long journey through a hot desert climate and perhaps dealing with subconscious guilt over his persecution of Christians, maybe Paul hallucinated and saw a manifestation of their professed Savior calling out to him.

Let’s carefully examine the scriptures to shed further light on this. While the vision of Jesus is appearing to Saul, Acts 9:7 gives us a peculiar detail: And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

If this is true, it rules out the possibility of a mirage. The men with him heard the voice but didn’t see anyone. Now let’s put this in its proper historical context. The book of Acts was written in about AD 63 by Luke. His gospel and Acts are twin volumes, funded by a church elder in Macedonia named Theophilus. Luke is credited for being one of the most thorough historians of the time period. Archaeological discoveries from recent years have confirmed details in Luke and Acts with startling accuracy, proving that it was written in its alleged setting. Examples are too numerous to get into, but include:

-An inscription found on a temple to Emperor Tiberius confirms Lysanias as Tetrarch of Abilene, near Damascus, as mentioned in Luke 3:1-2.
-A coin discovered bearing the name of Quirinius as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia as mentioned in Acts 5:37.
-Countless references to Herod, Pontius Pilate, Agrippa, and other kings and rulers mentioned in Luke and Acts are confirmed by ancient historians such Flavius Josephus, Philo, Tacitus, Phlegon, and Thallus.
-Throughout the two books, historians have identified 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands mentioned by Luke. So far, not a single mistake has been found.

As a result, no real scholar questions that Luke and Acts are both genuine products of early-to-mid first century Roman-occupied Palestine. Furthermore, the failure to mention one of the most catastrophic event in Jewish history, the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, proves beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that Acts 9:7 was written around 63 AD. The conversion of Saul can be placed in a window somewhere between 33-37 AD. So 30 years or less had passed from Saul’s encounter on the road to Damascus to Luke’s written account of the event.

Let’s follow the chain of logic together:
-In all likelihood, at least some of the men following Saul on the road to Damascus were still alive at the time of Luke’s writing.
-Both the Romans and Jews were trying hard to do to stop Christianity’s rapid growth. Anyone trying to discredit Acts could have found the men and given them opportunity to deny it.
-So Luke, careful historian that he was, wouldn’t have included it in the story if it were made-up. -Therefore, the men accompanying Paul really did hear the voice.
-Now we can rule out the possibility that Paul was merely hallucinating. His encounter with Christ was genuine.

Another clue that occurred to me goes back to the question of whether the disciples faked the resurrection, as their enemies claimed: And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept (Matthew 28:12-13). While we’ve established that the disciples lacked motive considering the horrendous suffering they took on for the cause of Christ, the nail in the coffin for me is their acceptance of Paul. He was not one of the original 12 and didn’t know Jesus personally. And since he was a former enemy, accepting him in the leadership of the church would have been far too risky. Any chance of him finding out about the scheme could have blown the lid on the whole thing and put the entire operation in jeopardy.

I’m afraid no matter how you slice it, these simply are not the actions of conspirators staging a myth to keep faith in a dead person alive. Logically, we have to rule it out. There’s no question that the apostles and Paul all genuinely believed they had seen Jesus alive after His death.

And quite frankly, the only reasonable way to account for the facts is that these men did actually encounter the risen Christ. Which demonstrates that He really did come back to life after His crucifixion. The birth of Christianity as it happened simply doesn’t make sense otherwise. We could still have a shadow of a reasonable doubt if only the disciples had bravely carried on His message. But Paul is a monkey wrench thrown into the whole mechanism. And contrary to what many contemporary critics claim, this also makes it clear why God appointed him to preach the gospel, and why his writings should also be considered a crucial part of the Word of God. You simply can’t ignore Paul when investigating the truth of Christianity.

One of the most interesting facts about Paul is that he called himself the “chief of sinners”. While this may seem like a humble and modest view of himself, John MacArthur makes an interesting point that this view was given and inserted under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Which means that Paul was indeed the chief of sinners. The text cannot lie. No one was worst then Paul. Paul, before his conversion, will always be the chief of sinners.

It is not a sound hermeneutic that since the Holy Spirit inspired a statement that it must be literal, yet Paul can be called the chief of sinners ("sinners; of whom I am chief:" (1 Timothy 1:15; cf. Acts 8:3; 9:1,5,13; 22:4; 26:9-11; 1Co 15:9; Ga 1:13; Php 3:6) "because I persecuted the church of God," (1 Corinthians 15:9) "how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:," (Galatians 1:13) for " I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth," (Acts 26:9) and thus, "breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord," (Acts 9:1) "made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison." (Acts 8:3) Passionate Saul/Paul was a "verb" of a man, for evil and then good.

And by persecuting the body of Christ, church of God, and even being a party to the murder of the manifest man of God, deacon Stephen, (Acts 7) Paul was persecuting and murdering Christ. Thus thus the Lord's question and statement, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?....I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.". (Acts 9:4-5)

And as manifest in his teaching and his pastoral care, by the Spirit of Christ Paul is ever most mindful of the church as the body of Christ, (Col 1:18) and its members as being bought with so great a price.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. (Romans 14:15)

And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? (1 Corinthians 8:11)

Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? (2 Corinthians 11:28-29) And as the one new man manifesting the grace and wisdom of God. (Ephesians 3:10,21; 5:2; Col. 1:17)

More so than pastoral Peter., "church" and "churches" Paul" are seen together.

However, Paul cannot be called the chef of sinners in guilt, for as he confessed he,

was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief . (1 Timothy 1:13)

For Paul in utmost sincerity actually thought he was obeying the living and true God, and in fact in another wholly inspired statement could even confess,

And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. (Acts 23:1)

Which is certainly not what I can say, and there are sins of ignorance versus disobedience to known Truth, perhaps out of weakness, and worse, willful impenitent rebellion to the conviction of the Holy Spirit, and guilt and punishment is determined in accordance with the level of light and and grace given. .

Thus while the Lord prayed, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," (Luke 23:34) He also foretold, "Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." (Matthew 11:21) "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." (Luke 12:48)

The worse sin is that of apostasy, after one is enlightened.

Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:25-31)

David grievously sinned, and must have subdued his conscious during the period of his sins against Uriah the Hittite, yet when convicted thru Nathan then he repented immediately and was forgiven (if not without consequences). And could claim that in the overall sense (which is what we seem to see in such statements that says certain men were perfect or blameless or do not sin: 2 Chronicles 15:17; Luke 1:6; 1 John 5:18) "I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God." (2 Samuel 22:22)

Given that, and understanding the great accomplishments of Paul, one can see what the Holy Spirit can do in us if we submit our lives to Him.

Yes, and that

But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work. (2 Timothy 2:20-21)

I have a ways to go in this.

I am often “flamed” for saying it, but I have believed for a long time that much of Christianity, as taught and believed, would not be the same without Paul's contributions and the contributions of Luke who assisted him. To me it would be a “different” Christianity in many ways, regardless of the truth of Yeshua, his Crucifixion and Resurrection, and what others testified was said to them by Yeshua. There are some theologians who have actually referred to Chrisyianity as Pauline Christianity because Paul looms so large over the body of works from the era of the apostles.

It's a question of whether or not you think that's a good thing or bad thing. Quite honestly, I think the evidence speaks for itself. Which apostle traveled the furthest and reached the most people? By your fruits shall ye know them.

It was Paul's decision to primarily focus on preaching to the Gentiles that matters most, as that led to the explosion of Christianity in the coming centuries. And looking at his writings, it's clear that his biggest contribution was explaining to the Gentile Christians that converting to Judaism first and obeying the Mosaic Laws...circumcision, yearly sacrifice, etc...were not necessary for salvation. It comes through faith in Christ, not works, and the Law had been fulfilled by Jesus, so we're no longer bound by it. Personally, I think that perfectly fits the context of Jesus' ministry on Earth: His lambasting of the Pharisees for the fake piousness, His insistence that He was the way, truth, and life, etc. So I think Paul has made the most profound contribution to Christianity outside of Christ Himself. And that is a wonderful thing.

I am not arguing against Paul’s influence but he has always obtained great theological debate about his works because first he was not like Peter, Matthew, Mark and John an apostle of Yeshua before the ressurection, nor ever among any of them until after his experience “on the road to Damascus”, and then not until about fourteen years after that, and yet his body of works dwarfs the others in volume.

It dwarfs the other in volume and in reach of theological matter so much that it is not entirely impossible to imagine a Christianity not so very different from today for the most part, if we never had the gospels of Mark, Matthew and John. Of course it enters theological debate that the one apostle who knew him not when he was on earth, provides the bulk of theological belief about what is a Christian.

Of course there are religious studies by academic biblical scholars that have suggested the differences between Paul and the Church in Jerusalem, led by Yeshua’s brother James, were greater and somewhat different than as reported by Paul and Luke. But we can learn too little precision of them as it seems the bulk of the Church in Jersusalem fled Jersusalem in the rebelllions against Rome - that nearly destroyed the city, and what works of their own that they had have been lost with them.

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.