Paul hi-jacking the Gospel

Hi,

Please could you point me in the direction of a succinct rebuttal of the idea that Paul took what was the true message of Christ, and made it into his own thing?

I have encountered this idea a few times, most recently from someone who has just read the book, "The Lost Gospel", by Wilson and Jacobovici, which advocates this theory. I haven't read the book myself, so I don't know if this is put forward in it, but it has been argued to me that as Paul had no witnesses as to his revelations from Christ, his credentials are weak.

I feel my own meagre knowledge is insufficient to combat the theory but I've responded by arguing that:

1) Peter supports Paul's letters in Scripture
2) Paul was martyred for his preaching and unlikely to have lied
3) It has been the teaching of the Church - from earliest times - that Paul preached the true Gospel.

Any resources I should have a look at would be appreciated.

Thank you for your help

 

There are Jews and Muslims who say that Paul was a false apostle. It is an attack upon Christianity that seems to have some growing momentum lately. We certainly need to be able to combat the false narrative.

I think some very strong evidence that he was a true apostle of Christ can be seen in Paul's changed life. Paul told the story of what happened to him (Acts 22). Paul was a strict, legalistic Jew, a strong voice in opposition to the Way, and a man with a promising future in Judaism. In the space of less than a week he was transformed into a zealous advocate for Jesus Christ, an opposer of legalism, a man reviled and rebuked by his former colleagues in Judaism, an outcast from society. He labored for years at great personal peril and with little regard to creature comforts, demonstrating a heart of love toward both the Jews who hated him and the Gentiles who thought him a madman.

Why? What drove Paul so? The only thing that could change a man like that is the power of Almighty God effecting a changed heart, a spiritual rebirth.

Paul, who studied the O.T. Scriptures under one of his time's greatest teachers, Gamaliel, was given new divine insights into the meaning and significance of those writings. Suddenly he could see how they connected up with the Messiah, Jesus. He eventually traveled to Jerusalem and spent some time with the other apostles & disciples there. Surely they shared information about Jesus and His many sayings. They accepted him as one of their own.

In Acts 11, we read that the church at Jerusalem (headed, no doubt, by some of the apostles) delegated responsibilities to Barnabas because he was "full of the Holy Spirit and of faith"; they trusted him to preach the Gospel at Antioch. Barnabas went to Tarsus, found Saul, and took him to Antioch also. Thus we see Paul spending time with and learning from a disciple who was "full of the Holy Spirit and faith" and ministering alongside him at Antioch for an entire year. Paul had plenty of time to learn the truths of the faith and to show himself capable of faithfully & accurately transmitting the message of Jesus Christ.

But the strongest evidence that Paul was a true apostle, and that he was meant to do, say, and write as he did, can be found in two passages of Acts, where we find the will of Almighty God concerning him. The first is Acts 9, beginning with verse 10:
Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight....Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.

The second passage is the beginning of Acts 13:
Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a lifelong friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went...

Do you see it? The strongest evidence is the words of God Himself in naming Saul (Paul) "a chosen instrument" and in setting him apart and sending him to do the work of the ministry. Did God make a mistake when he started Paul on his arduous journey of faith and of ministry (service) to the Gentiles, of which service his letters played a significant role? I think not.

All glory to God.

 

The answer to your question depends upon how one understands just what the teaching of Jesus was. If it was essentially apocalyptic, I think it can be argued from the genuine letters of Paul that his teaching was in continuity with that of Jesus: they both expected the imminent end of the world as we know it, and their followers responded to that teaching accordingly. With regard to the Gentiles and the Jewish Law, on the other hand, one difference between Jesus and Paul is that Jesus avoided the Gentile cities in Galilee, whereas Paul was notable for expanding his mission to include Gentiles. Paul also had a lot of negative things to say about the Jewish Law and those who followed it, in stark contrast to what we know of Jesus from the Synoptics. So there were continuities and discontinuities. Christianity would not be what it is without the legacy of both Jesus and Paul.

 

BTW, check the 1-star reviews for that "Lost Gospel" book on Amazon. Someone wrote a brilliant 1-star review which eviscerates the book's premise, and even though almost 100 people marked it "helpful" it does not show up in the "top reviews" on the sales page.

Here is another relevant scripture, in which Peter vouched for the correctness and inspired nature of Paul's letters:
2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

 

I think the differences that can be discerned between the way Jesus preached salvation for mankind and the way Paul preached it can be entirely explained through their two chronological and contextual situations on earth.

Jesus of Nazareth preached only to Jews, (in fact Isrealites who had returned from the excile, which also included many of the tribe of Levi also). He didn't actually preach salvation to Gentiles, (who were aliens to the promises of God under the Covenant at that time).

Paul preached after the Atonement act, resurrection and ascension of The Christ, to Jews AND Gentiles under orders from God through Christ and The Holy Spirit, the appropriate Gospel for them in time and place. This explains ALL the differences between their personal style and the contents of their messages to mankind.
.

 

Thank you all for your replies which are thought-provoking. It seems I was on the right track.

I might be misunderstanding what you're saying @Rexlion but I'm kind of surprised by the observation that Jesus and Paul were at variance on their views of the law and also that they both expected the end of the current reality to happen at any moment. I guess I haven't heard this put forward so bluntly before.

 

Are you sure you didn't confuse my comments with someone else's? I don't think I made those observations.

 

I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Whatever differences exist between the respective teachings of Jesus and Paul are explicable within the apocalyptic worldview they shared, a viewpoint which in turn is firmly rooted in the 1st century Judaism they believed and practiced. Their continuity is perfectly credible historically.

 

You are quite right. I did confuse you with Invictus. Doh! Apologies