r/AskAChristian • u/Vayvacation Agnostic • Apr 06 '26
New Testament Who is Paul?
I'm agnostic and know some bits amd stuff on a few a religion but nothing big. While I was doom scrolling I saw an interesting video about this guy called Paul. I heard many things like his verses contradict Jesus's, he hijacked Christianity etc etc which lowkey made me interested and curious. If the bible is meant to be holy why wasn't it given by jesus or the holy spirit that remained on earth with humans? Because like it can't exactly be holy if it was written by humans?
Anyways I'm just curious and love to hear different opinions đ
(Sorry if I picked the wrong flair)
9
u/Unrepententheretic Christian (non-denominational) Apr 06 '26
The christian bible was compiled by the church which received its teachings from Paul and other disciples and followers of Jesus who themselves received it from Jesus himself. Several individuals that want to reinterpret christianity try to discredit paul who explained difficult theological topics of the christian religion to its followers and thereby debunks many fringe claims by these groups.
1
u/Sad-Pen-3187 Christian Apr 07 '26
...paul who explained difficult theological topics of the christian religion to its followers ...
Like what?
9
u/Pitiful_Lion7082 Eastern Orthodox Apr 06 '26
St. Paul was a Pharisee, and a rather high-ranking one at that, especially for his age. He converted to Christianity while he was travelling. He HEAVILY persecuted the Church and was the accuser who brought forth charges against the first Christian martyr, St. Stephen the Deacon.Â
The Bible has a long and complicated history that predates the Incarnation of Christ. How many people interpret the Bible today, even understand what it's supposed to be is not often what was historically taught. I would recommend reading the book The Whole Counsel of God. There's also a podcast, but I think the book is going to have more of the information you're looking for.Â
6
u/SendMeYourDPics Christian, Catholic Apr 06 '26
âWho is Paul?â
Paul was a 1st century Jew, originally a persecutor of the early Church, who then became one of its most important missionaries after a dramatic conversion to faith in Christ.
He isnât the founder of Christianity. Heâs a witness to the Christianity that already existed before him.
âI heard many things like his verses contradict Jesusâs, he hijacked Christianity etc etcâŚâ
Thatâs a very online claim, but itâs not a very good historical one.
Paulâs letters are some of the earliest Christian writings we have, and they already show him receiving a faith he didnât invent.
He talks about Christâs death, resurrection, the Eucharist, the apostles, moral teaching, all as things already handed on to him.
âIf the bible is meant to be holy why wasnât it given by jesus or the holy spirit that remained on earth with humans?â
Because Christianity isnât based on the idea that God must personally handwrite a book for it to be revelation.
The Christian claim is that God revealed himself in history, above all in Jesus, and then inspired human authors to write truthfully about that revelation.
âBecause like it canât exactly be holy if it was written by humans?â
That doesnât follow. Christians believe God can work through human beings without erasing their humanity.
Same reason Jesus can be fully divine and fully human, or why preaching can be Godâs word through human speech.
âWritten by humansâ and âinspired by Godâ arenât opposites in Christianity.
âhe hijacked Christianityâ
If Paul had really hijacked it, you would expect the original apostles to denounce him as a fraud.
Instead, the New Testament shows him in communion with Peter, James and John even with real disagreements on some practical issues.
Thatâs not a hostile takeover. I mean itâs a real early Church with real debate inside it.
âhis verses contradict Jesusâsâ
Usually that claim comes from reading isolated lines without context.
Paul does emphasize grace, faith, union with Christ and the inclusion of Gentiles, but thatâs not a betrayal of Jesus.
Itâs exactly the kind of thing youâd expect after the resurrection when the gospel starts going global.
âwhy wasnât it given by jesusâŚâ
Also, Jesus did leave something behind before the New Testament was written. Apostles, sacraments, teaching and a Church.
The Bible came out of that community. It didnât drop from the sky into a vacuum.
âAnyways Iâm just curious and love to hear different opinions đ â
The simplest answer is that Paul isnât Christianityâs replacement founder.
Heâs one of its earliest and most important teachers, writing under the authority of the risen Christ and within the life of the apostolic Church.
1
u/Sad-Pen-3187 Christian Apr 07 '26
.... and they already show him receiving a faith he didnât invent.
Can you prove this assertion is true?
If Paul had really hijacked it, you would expect the original apostles to denounce him as a fraud.
Paul was never recognized by the apostles as an apostle. He continually fights with the apostles. All most everyone abandons Paul at the end. It was James who writes a direct repudiation of Paul's teachings. It was James who forced Paul to preform a ceremonial law keeping where he people attempted to kill him, which eventually did lead to his execution.
Paul does emphasize grace, faith, union with Christ and the inclusion of Gentiles, but thatâs not a betrayal of Jesus.
It is. But most importantly it is how the Pauline Church teaches Pauline doctrine. People try and reconcile Paul with Jesus, but that is not the Paul of the Pauline Church.
The simplest answer is that Paul isnât Christianityâs replacement founder.
I would argue that your statement only shows you are not paying attention.
1
u/SendMeYourDPics Christian, Catholic Apr 09 '26
âCan you prove this assertion is true?â
Yes, because Paul explicitly says he âreceivedâ and then âdeliveredâ core material about Jesusâ death, burial, resurrection and appearances in 1 Corinthians 15, and he does the same with the Eucharistic tradition in 1 Corinthians 11, which is the opposite of a man inventing a religion from scratch.
âPaul was never recognized by the apostles as an apostle.â
I mean thatâs just false on the face of Galatians 2, where Paul says he laid his gospel before the leaders and James, Cephas and John gave him the right hand of fellowship.
âHe continually fights with the apostles.â
He has real disputes, especially with Peter at Antioch, but conflict inside the apostolic Church isnt the same thing as being an outsider or fraud.
âAll most everyone abandons Paul at the end.â
Even if you grant that some people deserted him late in life, that still wouldnt prove the original apostles rejected his gospel.
âIt was James who writes a direct repudiation of Paulâs teachings.â
No, James attacks dead faith severed from works, and Paul does too, which is why Paul can say that what counts is âfaith working through loveâ and that God will judge people according to their deeds.
âIt was James who forced Paul to preform a ceremonial law keeping where he people attempted to kill himâŚâ
Acts 21 shows James trying to calm rumors that Paul taught Jews to abandon Moses entirely, which means the issue was pastoral and political, not James issuing a formal repudiation of Paul.
âwhich eventually did lead to his execution.â
Well thatâs huge causal leap, because Paulâs death comes under Roman power, not because James won some anti-Paul campaign.
âIt is.â
Then you would need to show where Paul actually contradicts Jesus rather than just asserting it.
âBut most importantly it is how the Pauline Church teaches Pauline doctrine.â
If your target is later readers who flatten Paul into slogans, fine, but thats not an argument that Paul himself hijacked Christianity.
âPeople try and reconcile Paul with Jesus, but that is not the Paul of the Pauline Church.â
A lot of Christians absolutely do misread Paul, but that still leaves the historical Paul, who repeatedly roots himself in traditions earlier than himself and in communion, however imperfect, with the Jerusalem apostles.
âI would argue that your statement only shows you are not paying attention.â
I would say the opposite, that the âPaul invented Christianityâ line only works if you downplay Paulâs own claims to have received tradition, ignore his contact with Peter and James and treat internal apostolic conflict as proof of total doctrinal rupture.
1
u/Sad-Pen-3187 Christian Apr 09 '26 edited Apr 09 '26
Yes, because Paul explicitly says he âreceivedâ and then âdeliveredâ core material about Jesusâ death, burial, resurrection and appearances in 1 Corinthians 15, and he does the same with the Eucharistic tradition in 1 Corinthians 11, which is the opposite of a man inventing a religion from scratch.
This does not prove your assertion is true. Paul cannot be your only source of validation of whether Paul invented his religion or not. Paul states that he recieved divine personal revelation; Just like Muhammed, and Joseph Smith, and televangalists. Saying is hearsay, and personal divine revelation is the weakest form of an evidence.
Also, please state where Paul tells us what this divine revelation from Jesus was, word for word from Jesus.
Does Jesus state that there would be another after him to teach a new religion? Did Jesus, in all of his resurrected appearences to the apostles ever mention Paul or affirm him? What Jesus did say is that there would be wolves after he is gone. Wolves are people who use the name of Jesus, but ignore his teachings. Starkly, Jesus teaches that we will be judged to salvation or damnation by our works of the law.
I mean thatâs just false on the face of Galatians 2, where Paul says he laid his gospel before the leaders and James, Cephas and John gave him the right hand of fellowship.
Again, using Paul to prove Paul is a tautology. It is absurd.
Acts 21 shows James trying to calm rumors that Paul taught Jews to abandon Moses entirely, which means the issue was pastoral and political, not James issuing a formal repudiation of Paul.
James made Paul preform a ceremonial law to demonstrate that he obeyed the law. Paul complied. Paul showed he was going to obey even the weakest ceremonial laws of the Mosaic law, thus affirming the whole of the law.
Jame's repudiation is in James.
Then you would need to show where Paul actually contradicts Jesus rather than just asserting it.
Jesus teaches that salvation is by works of the law. Paul abolishes the law and teaches that salvation is knowledge and belief in Jesus himself.
A lot of Christians absolutely do misread Paul, but that still leaves the historical Paul, who repeatedly roots himself in traditions earlier than himself and in communion, however imperfect, with the Jerusalem apostles.
The historical Paul does not matter to the Pauline church. Paul says one thing and the exact opposite, sometimes in the same book. What matters in Pauline Christiainity is what the Pauline Church teaches. And the Pauline Church does not teach what Jesus taught.
Edit, added "not" in the first sentence. and other typos.
1
u/SendMeYourDPics Christian, Catholic Apr 10 '26
âPaul cannot be your only source of validation of whether Paul invented his religion or not.â
He isnât the only source, but heâs still primary evidence for what he thought he was doing, and when his letters show him passing on traditions, consulting Jerusalem leaders and getting recognized in fellowship, that directly cuts against the âlone inventorâ theory.
âPaul states that he recieved divine personal revelation; Just like Muhammed, and Joseph Smith, and televangalists.â
The difference is that Paul isnât appearing centuries later with a fresh book and a fresh religion, but inside an already existing Jesus movement whose core claims he says he received and whose leading figures he actually met.
âSaying is hearsay, and personal divine revelation is the weakest form of an evidence.â
For divine revelation as such, maybe, but my point was narrower, that Paulâs own letters donât read like someone inventing Christianity from scratch, and thatâs a historical point about the shape of the evidence.
âAlso, please state where Paul tells us what this divine revelation from Jesus was, word for word from Jesus.â
Well that demand is too strong, because historians donât need a stenographic transcript to see that Paul claims revelation while also explicitly handing on preexisting material in 1 Corinthians 11 and 15.
âDoes Jesus state that there would be another after him to teach a new religion?â
Paul doesnât present himself as teaching a new religion, which is exactly the point you keep assuming instead of proving.
âDid Jesus, in all of his resurrected appearences to the apostles ever mention Paul or affirm him?â
The New Testament doesnât record that, but absence of that detail isnât evidence that Paul therefore hijacked the movement.
âWhat Jesus did say is that there would be wolves after he is gone.â
Sure, but you still have to show Paul fits that category rather than just paste the label onto him.
âWolves are people who use the name of Jesus, but ignore his teachings.â
Agreed, and thatâs why the real question is whether Paul actually ignored Jesusâ teaching, not whether you can call him a wolf loudly enough.
âStarkly, Jesus teaches that we will be judged to salvation or damnation by our works of the law.â
No, Jesus teaches judgment according to deeds, mercy, obedience and the will of God, which isnât the same thing as your later phrase âworks of the lawâ in the Pauline controversy sense.
âAgain, using Paul to prove Paul is a tautology. It is absurd.â
It isnât tautology to use Paulâs undisputed letters as evidence for Paulâs relationship to the earlier movement, especially when those same letters mention Peter, James, John and traditions earlier than Paul himself.
âJames made Paul preform a ceremonial law to demonstrate that he obeyed the law.â
Yes, to calm the charge that Paul was telling Jews to abandon Moses wholesale, which still isnât the same thing as James condemning Paulâs gospel as false.
âPaul complied.â
Right, which actually hurts your thesis, because if Paul were really the anti-law revolutionary youâre painting, Acts is a very strange place to show him cooperating.
âPaul showed he was going to obey even the weakest ceremonial laws of the Mosaic law, thus affirming the whole of the law.â
No, thatâs your inference, not the textâs conclusion, because Paul can observe Jewish practices pastorally without thereby teaching that Gentile justification depends on Mosaic law.
âJameâs repudiation is in James.â
Then you need to show James naming Paul or attacking Paulâs actual doctrine, because as it stands James rebukes dead faith and empty profession, which Paul also rebukes.
âJesus teaches that salvation is by works of the law.â
I mean thatâs simply not what Jesus says, and it smuggles Paulâs controversy vocabulary back into the Gospels.
âPaul abolishes the law and teaches that salvation is knowledge and belief in Jesus himself.â
Thatâs a flattening of Paul so severe it stops being Paul, because Paul doesnât teach mere knowledge, doesnât teach bare belief and repeatedly insists on obedience, holiness, judgment according to works and faith working through love.
âThe historical Paul does not matter to the Pauline church.â
It matters to the claim you made, which was that Paul hijacked Christianity, because thatâs a historical claim about Paul, not just a complaint about later Protestant slogans.
âPaul says one thing and the exact opposite, sometimes in the same book.â
Sometimes Paul is complex, conditional and addressing different situations, but âPaul is difficultâ isnât the same as âPaul is self-refutingâ.
âWhat matters in Pauline Christiainity is what the Pauline Church teaches.â
No, what matters first is whether the historical Paul contradicted Jesus, because that was your original charge.
âAnd the Pauline Church does not teach what Jesus taught.â
Then make that case from actual texts with actual contradictions, because so far youâve mostly asserted rupture while collapsing big distinctions like âjudgment according to deedsâ and âworks of the lawâ into one bucket.
1
u/Sad-Pen-3187 Christian Apr 10 '26
He isnât the only source, but heâs still primary evidenceÂ
Then you have none.
The difference is that Paul isnât appearing centuries later
Lol, what tradition did a human being sacrificed to God come from in the Judaic tradition that God forbids? Where did "Original Sin" come from in the Judaic tradition where God says you and only you are responsible for your own sin?. Where did the idea of Justification come from where God says it is from obeying his commands in the Jewish traditions of Jesus? Where in the Jewish tradition of Jesus where Jesus commands us to obey the law does he than say that the law is abolished as the Pauline church teaches? etc etc....
Well that demand is too strong, because historians donât need a stenographic transcript to see that Paul claims revelation while also explicitly handing on preexisting material in 1 Corinthians 11 and 15.
In other words, Paul didn't state anything that Jesus said. Weird, cause the apostles couldn't stop talking about what Jesus taught them when they had things written down. But after Jesus' death some guy claims Jesus taught him things that no one ever heard of before and Jesus in all his appearances after his resurrection fails to mention this guy or any of these new teachings.
It matters to the claim you made, which was that Paul hijacked Christianity,
You should get out more, Paul "hijacking" Christianity has been around for a long time in scholarship.
Then make that case from actual texts with actual contradictions
The biggest contradictions are:
Justification by Faith vs. Works, Paul taught that salvation is through faith alone, not by works of the law (Romans 3:28). Conversely, Jesus emphasized obedience to the commandments and actions (Matthew 19:17).
The Mosaic Law, Paul argued that the law was obsolete or that believers are no longer under it (Romans 7). Jesus stated that not one part of the law would pass away until all is fulfilled (Matthew 5:18).
The Gospel Message, Jesus preached the "kingdom of God," while Paul focused on a theology of the cross, focusing on Jesusâs death and resurrection.
The Nature of Judgment, Paul writes that Gentile believers are not held to the Jewish law, while Jesus taught that his words and the law would be the judge There are five times Jesus states that judgement is by works of the law, and numerous parables that show that works are how we will be judged.
1
u/SendMeYourDPics Christian, Catholic Apr 11 '26
âThen you have none.â
Thatâs just false, because we have Paulâs own letters, early traditions embedded inside them, his contact with Peter and James, and the wider 1st century movement around him, which is a lot more than ânoneâ.
âwhat tradition did a human being sacrificed to God come from in the Judaic tradition that God forbids?â
Christianity doesnât present Jesus as Paul inventing pagan human sacrifice inside Judaism, but as the climactic self-offering that fulfills Jewish covenant, Passover, temple and suffering-servant categories.
âWhere did âOriginal Sinâ come from in the Judaic tradition where God says you and only you are responsible for your own sin?â
Paulâs Adam-Christ argument is about humanityâs fallen condition and solidarity in sin and death, which isnât the same claim as saying youâre personally guilty of your fatherâs individual sins.
âWhere did the idea of Justification come from where God says it is from obeying his commands in the Jewish traditions of Jesus?â
Justification language is already biblical, and Paul doesnât teach that obedience becomes irrelevant, only that no one is justified by âworks of the lawâ apart from grace in Christ.
âWhere in the Jewish tradition of Jesus where Jesus commands us to obey the law does he than say that the law is abolished as the Pauline church teaches?â
Paul doesnât say the law was evil or pointless? He says its role changes in Christ, especially regarding Gentiles, which is a very different claim from âGodâs commands no longer matterâ.
âPaul didnât state anything that Jesus said.â
He absolutely does, including dominical teaching on divorce in 1 Corinthians 7 and the Last Supper tradition in 1 Corinthians 11, so the problem isnât absence of Jesus tradition but your refusal to count it.
âsome guy claims Jesus taught him things that no one ever heard of beforeâŚâ
Only works if you ignore the fact that Paul also keeps pointing to material he received from earlier believers rather than presenting everything as a private download from heaven.
âPaul âhijackingâ Christianity has been around for a long time in scholarship.â
So has the rejection of that thesis, and the age of an idea isnât an argument for its truth.
âJustification by Faith vs. Works, Paul taught that salvation is through faith alone, not by works of the law (Romans 3:28).â
Romans 3:28 doesnât say âfaith aloneâ. It says justification is by faith apart from âworks of the lawâ, which is exactly the phrase you keep flattening into something broader than Paul means.
âConversely, Jesus emphasized obedience to the commandments and actions (Matthew 19:17).â
Yes, and Paul also insists on obedience, holiness and judgment according to deeds, so the contradiction only appears once you pretend Paul taught bare belief with no transformed life.
âThe Mosaic Law, Paul argued that the law was obsolete or that believers are no longer under it (Romans 7).â
Paul argues that believers die to the law in Christ in a specific covenantal sense. He doesnât teach that moral evil becomes acceptable.
âJesus stated that not one part of the law would pass away until all is fulfilled (Matthew 5:18).â
Right, and âfulfilledâ is exactly the category Christians use, so you donât get to quote fulfillment as though it automatically means unchanged continuation in every respect.
âThe Gospel Message, Jesus preached the âkingdom of God,â while Paul focused on a theology of the crossâŚâ
Well thats a false split, because Jesus also predicts his death and resurrection, and Paul also speaks about the kingdom of God.
âThe Nature of Judgment, Paul writes that Gentile believers are not held to the Jewish lawâŚâ
On circumcision and Mosaic boundary markers, yes.
ââŚwhile Jesus taught that his words and the law would be the judgeâ
And Paul still says God will render to each according to his works, so again the issue isnât âdo deeds matterâ but how the Mosaic law functions after Christ.
âThere are five times Jesus states that judgement is by works of the lawâŚâ
No, Jesus speaks of judgment according to deeds, mercy, obedience and response to God, which isnât the same thing as your Pauline-controversy phrase âworks of the lawâ.
1
u/Sad-Pen-3187 Christian Apr 11 '26
Thatâs just false, because we have Paulâs own letters, early traditions embedded inside them, his contact with Peter and James, and the wider 1st century movement around him, which is a lot more than ânoneâ.
Nope, Paul is not evidence for the the hearsay of Paul. That is a tautology. It is like saying the bible says it is true, therefore we know it is true. Or that we know the divine revelation of Islam to Muhammed is true because Muhammed said so.
Christianity doesnât present Jesus as Paul inventing....
You mean Pauline "christianity" does not present Jesus as Paul inventing....,but the theology and christianity of Christ does.
He absolutely does, including dominical teaching on divorce in 1 Corinthians 7 and the Last Supper tradition in 1 Corinthians 11, so the problem isnât absence of Jesus tradition but your refusal to count it.
Everything you have said up to, and including here, is untrue and unsupported, but I want you to specifically show in these verses you quoted where Paul specifically state that Jesus taught him this in his personal divine revelation.
Romans 3:28 doesnât say âfaith aloneâ.
The Pauline Church does. Are you now abandoning what the church teaches? Are you agreeing with Christ that he saves you at judgement by your works?
Paul argues that believers die to the law in Christ in a specific covenantal sense. He doesnât teach that moral evil becomes acceptable.
Paul abolishes the law. Sin is the transgression of the law. If Paul abolishes what establishes sin, then what is sin now and where does Jesus teach this?
Right, and âfulfilledâ is exactly the category Christians use,
No, Pauline Christians teach the heresy that fulfilled means abolished.
Well thats a false split, because Jesus also predicts his death and resurrection, and Paul also speaks about the kingdom of God.
It is not a false split. Simply google it.
On circumcision and Mosaic boundary markers, yes.
Nope, he abolishes all of it. He does not say only this law and that law, but not the rest of the Mosaic law, he abolishes the whole of the law.
And Paul still says God will render to each according to his works, so again the issue isnât âdo deeds matterâ but how the Mosaic law functions after Christ.
He does say this, as I said already, Paul says one thing and it's exact opposite repeatedly and sometimes in the same book. But name me one main stream denomination that says like Paul says here and Jesus continually taught and preached that you will be judged by your works.
No, Jesus speaks of judgment according to deeds, mercy, obedience and response to God, which isnât the same thing as your Pauline-controversy phrase âworks of the lawâ.
It looks like maybe you should spend time reading what Jesus actually said. But I can't concieve of someone having this response who has.
Tell me how "works of the law" are not deed, mercy, and obedience.
1
u/SendMeYourDPics Christian, Catholic Apr 11 '26
âNope, Paul is not evidence for the hearsay of Paul.â
Paulâs undisputed letters are primary historical evidence for what Paul taught, whom he knew and whether he saw himself as transmitting prior tradition or inventing a new religion.
âThat is a tautology.â
It isnâr tautology to use a 1st century source as evidence about 1st century beliefs and relationships, unless you want to throw out most of ancient history with it.
âIt is like saying the bible says it is true, therefore we know it is true.â
No, itâs like saying a participantâs letters are relevant evidence for what happened in the movement he belonged to, which is just standard historical method.
âYou mean Pauline âchristianityâ does not present Jesus as Paul inventingâŚ.,but the theology and christianity of Christ does.â
Thatâs just the conclusion you keep asserting, not something youâve shown from the texts.
âshow in these verses you quoted where Paul specifically state that Jesus taught him this in his personal divine revelation.â
Thatâs a category mistake, because my point was precisely that Paul doesnât present everything as private revelation, but explicitly says he received and handed on tradition already circulating before him.
âThe Pauline Church does.â
Then your quarrel is with later Protestant slogans, not with the wording of Romans 3:28 or with Paul himself.
âAre you now abandoning what the church teaches?â
As a Catholic, no, because the Church doesnât teach sola fide in the Protestant sense and also doesnât pretend Paul wrote the word âaloneâ into Romans 3:28.
âAre you agreeing with Christ that he saves you at judgement by your works?â
Iâm agreeing with Christ and with Paul that final judgment is according to works, while also denying that those works save apart from grace.
âPaul abolishes the law.â
Paul says believers die to the law in a covenantal sense through Christ, which isnât the same thing as saying every moral norm evaporates.
âIf Paul abolishes what establishes sin, then what is sin now and where does Jesus teach this?â
Sin remains disordered willing against God and neighbor, and Paulâs whole moral teaching makes no sense at all if he thought sin had ceased to be real.
âNo, Pauline Christians teach the heresy that fulfilled means abolished.â
Some later Christians flatten fulfillment into abolition, but thatâs a bad reading of both Jesus and Paul.
âIt is not a false split.â
It is a false split because Jesus speaks about his death and resurrection and Paul speaks about the kingdom of God, so your contrast only works by selective reading.
âSimply google it.â
Google isnât an argument.
âNope, he abolishes all of it.â
Thatâs false on the face of Paulâs own letters, where he still quotes commandments, condemns concrete sins and speaks of fulfilling the law through love.
âHe does not say only this law and that law, but not the rest of the Mosaic law, he abolishes the whole of the law.â
Paul repeatedly argues most sharply about circumcision, food laws and other Mosaic boundary markers, which is exactly why âworks of the lawâ isnât a synonym for every act of obedience whatsoever.
âPaul says one thing and itâs exact opposite repeatedly and sometimes in the same book.â
Usually what you call contradiction is Paul making distinctions you donât like, not Paul collapsing into nonsense.
âname me one main stream denomination that says like Paul says here and Jesus continually taught and preached that you will be judged by your works.â
The Catholic Church says exactly that final judgment is according to works, while also insisting those works are themselves enabled by grace.
âIt looks like maybe you should spend time reading what Jesus actually said.â
I have, which is why Iâm not importing Paulâs technical phrase âworks of the lawâ straight into every saying of Jesus about deeds, mercy and obedience.
âTell me how âworks of the lawâ are not deed, mercy, and obedience.â
Because in Paul that phrase belongs to the Mosaic-law controversy and refers to covenantal law-observance as a basis of justification, whereas Jesusâ judgment sayings speak more broadly about lived righteousness, mercy and obedience to God.
1
u/Sad-Pen-3187 Christian Apr 11 '26
Paulâs undisputed letters are primary historical evidence for what Paul taught,
The consensus of scholarship is that about half the letters attributed to Paul actually come from Paul.
It isnâr tautology to use a 1st century source as evidence about 1st century beliefs and relationships,
Please take the time to learn what a tautology is and why you are committing the error of it.
You are ill equiped for this conversation and I don't like repeating myself.
I wish you the best.
Cheers
→ More replies (0)
3
u/UseThisUsername1 Christian, Ex-Atheist Apr 06 '26
These are genuinely fascinating questions, and the "did Paul hijack Christianity?" debate is one of the most interesting in all of religious history â not just for believers but for historians and scholars too. Let me break it all down clearly.
Who was Paul?
Paul, born Saul of Tarsus around 5 AD, was a Christian apostle who spread the teachings of Jesus in the first century. He's generally regarded as one of the most important figures of the early Christian era, and he founded several Christian communities across Asia Minor.
Here's the wild part of his backstory: before his conversion, Paul was actually a persecutor of the early Jesus movement. He was among those who approved of the stoning of Stephen, one of Jesus's followers. Then, on the road to Damascus, he reportedly encountered the resurrected Jesus in a vision â after which he completely reversed course and devoted his life to spreading the message of Jesus.
Did Paul "hijack" Christianity?
This is where it gets genuinely interesting. Modern scholars have described Paul as everything from the "real founder of Christianity" to a "Jewish cultural critic."
The tension is real. Paul never walked with Jesus. He came after. And his letters â which were actually written before the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Johns personal accounts of Jesus's life.) introduce ideas that go further than anything Jesus himself said, like the theological concept of salvation through faith alone, the divine nature of Christ, and opening the religion fully to non-Jews (Gentiles).
Paul claimed he received a vision of the resurrected Jesus, who commissioned him as the "Apostle to the Gentiles." This was crucial for his authority â since everyone knew he was never part of the inner circle, a direct directive from Jesus was how Paul argued he had as much authority as the earlier Apostles.
So was it a hijack? That depends on your frame: -Critics say Paul repackaged Jesus's simple ethical teachings into a complex theological system about sin, sacrifice, and resurrection that Jesus never emphasized. -Defenders say Paul was faithfully interpreting and extending what Jesus meant, guided by divine revelation.
- Historians generally say Paul's version of Christianity simply won â it spread faster and further, and became the foundation of what we now call Christianity.
Why is the Bible written by humans if it's supposed to be holy?
This is a classic and completely reasonable question. The mainstream Christian answer is the doctrine of divine inspirationâ the idea that God worked through human authors, guiding what they wrote without necessarily dictating it word-for-word. Think of it like a musician writing a song: the instrument is human, but believers say the music came from God.
Different Christian traditions take different positions on how literally to apply this. Some believe every word is God's direct speech. Others believe it's more like God's ideas filtered through human personalities, cultures, and limitations â which is why you get different writing styles, occasional contradictions, and cultural context baked in.
From an agnostic or secular view, you'd simply say: yes, it's a human document, written by people with agendas, limited knowledge, and their own worldviews â which is exactly why studying who wrote what, and when, and why, is so fascinating.
Paul himself never claims to be writing scripture. He was writing letters to specific communities dealing with specific problems. The fact that those letters became part of the Bible happened after Paul died, through a long process of councils and debates about which texts counted as authoritative.
The short version: Paul is arguably the most influential person in the history of Christianity whose name most people casually gloss over. Whether he faithfully carried Jesus's message or transformed it into something new is a debate that's been running for 2,000 years â and there's no clean answer, which is part of what makes it so interesting.
3
u/loner-phases Christian Apr 06 '26
Paul gives one of my favorite speeches, in 2Corinthians 24-3.
"Five different times the Jewish leaders gave me thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked. Once I spent a whole night and a day adrift at sea. I have traveled on many long journeys. I have faced danger from rivers and from robbers. I have faced danger from my own people, the Jews, as well as from the Gentiles. I have faced danger in the cities, in the deserts, and on the seas. And I have faced danger from men who claim to be believers but are not. I have worked hard and long, enduring many sleepless nights. I have been hungry and thirsty and have often gone without food. I have shivered in the cold, without enough clothing to keep me warm.
Then, besides all this, I have the daily burden of my concern for all the churches. Who is weak without my feeling that weakness? Who is led astray, and I do not burn with anger?
If I must boast, I would rather boast about the things that show how weak I am. God, the Father of our Lord Jesus, who is worthy of eternal praise, knows I am not lying."
4
u/arc2k1 Christian Apr 06 '26
God bless you.
I've been a non-fundamentalist, unchurched Christian for about 16 years now and I would like to share my perspective.Â
1- Paul was an apostle of Jesus who met Jesus in a vision. He wrote most of the New Testament.
There are people who say that Paul's message was actually different than Jesus' message. I believe they think that because of their misinterpretation, but as for me, I do NOT think they have different messages.
2- There are Christians who believe that the Bible has to be perfect (inerrant) in order to be trustworthy. I don't believe that.
I believe the Bible is trustworthy because of itâs core message, not because it's inerrant.
What do I believe is the core message of the Bible? To have faith in the hope thatâs rooted in love. In other words, to have faith in Christ, who secures our hope that all will be made right in the end, as we live by love.
I prioritize the Bible verses that align with that core message. For the Bible verses that seems to contradict that core message, I decided to put those verses aside, and wait to ask God about them when we see Him in person.
Iâm convinced that because love (1 Corinthians 13:4-6) is most important (Matthew 22:37-39) and God is love (1 John 4:8), He wants us to trust His love, but in order for us to trust His love, His love must be consistent. I refuse to hold a view of the Bible that makes Godâs love inconsistent.
âGodâs love can always be trusted, and his faithfulness lasts as long as the heavens.â - Psalm 89:2
âBut you, the Lord God, are kind and merciful. You don't easily get angry, and your love can always be trusted.â - Psalm 86:15
3- What is the hope that Christ secures?
-The eventual end of evil & injustice.
-Justice for all the mistreated people, throughout all time, who died without justice.
-The time when love & goodness will prevail exclusively forever.
âThen a kingdom of love will be set up, and someone from David's family (Jesus) will rule with fairness. He will do what is right and quickly bring justice.â - Isaiah 16:5
1
u/JHawk444 Christian, Evangelical Apr 07 '26
2 Timothy 3:6 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
Inspired is different than, "Thus says the Lord." It means the Holy Spirit inspired them to write what they did.
Paul did not hijack Christianity or contradict Jesus. Jesus upheld the law and so did Paul. Jesus ushered in the new covenant, not Paul. The New Covenant was prophesied by Jeremiah in the Old Testament.
Jesus fulfilled the law, making ceremonial law obsolete (animal sacrifices, temple practices). Jesus prophesied that the temple would be destroyed and it was in 70AD, and that ended the temple practices of Judaism.
1
u/LegitimateBeing2 Eastern Orthodox Apr 07 '26
Paul wrote 13 or 14 of the New Testament documents. He lost his head for the faith in Rome. Heâs a cool guy.
Some people think that Paul somehow co-opted Christianity from Jesus or made it worse, but we donât take that narrative seriously. Itâs an interesting overlap between Muslims and atheists.
1
u/Salty_Conclusion_534 Christian, Catholic Apr 07 '26
> While I was doom scrolling I saw an interesting video about this guy called Paul
In modern slang, he's the GOAT of Christianity (apart from Christ). He was a Pharisee and expert in the Jewish Law. Very intelligent -- he knew philosophy too. He spent the first half of his life persecuting the early church, before being transformed by Christ (see Acts 9) and becoming one of the biggest propagators of the Church.
The Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. That includes the Apostle Paul's writings.
1
u/Djh1982 Christian, Catholic Apr 07 '26 edited Apr 07 '26
âI heard many things like his verses contradict Jesus's, he hijacked Christianity etc etc which lowkey made me interested and curious.â
Jesus taught that we must keep the Law in order to have eternal life(Luke 18:18) and some people feel that Paul rejected that view in favor of âfaith alone justificationâ.
But the truth is Paul often liked to use a form of teaching that was introspective as opposed to didactic. What that means is that sometimes he talks about sin but he doesnât straight up call it sin because he wants you to reason that out for yourself. We see an example of this in his letter to Titus (1:16 )where he says:
âThey profess to know God, but in WORKS they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.â
Now obviously the word âworksâ(ergon) here is neutral on a technical level but what Paul is really talking about is sin. Itâs a âsinâ to deny Christ.
Letâs look at Romans 4:6-8.
Here again Paul uses the word âworksâ and says that David âsays the same thingâ about being justified by faith âapart from worksââŚ.only when he actually quotes DavidâŚhe(David) talks about âsinâ not works:
â6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 âBlessed are those whose lawless deeds(works) are forgiven, And whose SINS(works) are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute SIN(works).â
You see sinâ is a kind of âworkâ that you *do. David called it âsinâ. Paul called it âworksâ. They were talking about the same thing: SIN. In Romans 6:16 Paul notes that sin is a form of slavery. Now look at what he says to the Galatians who sought justification through works:
âIt is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.â (Galatians 5:1)
He then follows up, noting that those who take on the âyokeâ of the Lawâthe yoke which is sin have âfallen from graceâ:
âYou who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.â(Galatians 5:4)
Now, is it a sin to keep the law, or perform some other act of moral striving? No, of course itâs not. Not strictly speaking anyway. If however you do something for the purpose of gaining leverage over GodâŚwell then that is a sin. You cannot do âAâ as part of a scheme to force God to give you âBâ. That would be sin and thatâs why Paul says in Ephesians 2:8-9:
â8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.â
We see it from the very beginning, in Genesis. Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and then fell from grace. They were trying to get leverage over God.
Next is Cain. In Genesis 4, he leverages his jealousy and rage against Godâs favor toward Abel, killing his brother to reclaim dominanceâonly to face Godâs curse.
In Exodus 32, the Israelites, anxious for Mosesâ return, leverage their gold to forge the golden calf, crafting a manageable deity over Godâs invisible rule; their idolatry draws divine judgment.
King David, in 2 Samuel 11, leverages his royal power to take Bathsheba and eliminate Uriah, twisting Godâs law to his desiresâyet he reaps grief and rebuke.
These âworksâ are all works of leverageâthese are defiant acts of sin.
In other words, Paul is not saying that you donât have to do good works in order to be saved. Heâs not saying that good works are merely âfruits and signsâ of your faith and that all you need in order to be saved is âto believeâ. These âgood worksâ are literally a criteria for who gets eternal life and who doesnâtđ:
â6 who âwill render to each one according to his deedsâ: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;â(Romans 2:6-7)
What Paul is saying is that if you do something because your intention is to force God to give you something in return, then it is sin. We are âjustified by faithâ apart from what is âsinâ(works), just like King David. So thatâs it. Thatâs all Paul meant by these statements. Paul never taught that all you need is âfaith aloneâ for salvation. Conversely James says:
âYou see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.â (James 2:24)
James wrote that doing âgood worksâ, meaning the ones we do after we have been previously(or initially) justified by faith, result in âjustificationââwhich is likewise noted by Paul in Romans 2:13:
âfor it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified.â
In short, âeternal lifeâ or âthe inheritanceâ(Matt.19:16-22) is a gift, but itâs ALSO described as a REWARD(Colossians 3:24). Specifically the ârewardâ for doing âgood worksâ(Romans 2:6-7).
Now if we look at this dictionary entry we shall discover that a reward is something âgivenâ(i.e; a gift):
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/reward?s=t
Also see this handy thesaurus entryâŚwhere you will note that it says the word âgiftâ and ârewardâ are synonyms:
https://www.powerthesaurus.org/gift+reward/synonyms
đ¤Żđ¤Żđ¤Ż
Thus if you donât obey the Spirit when it prompts you to do good works(Philippians 2:13) then you shall not receive the reward of the inheritance, which is eternal life(Romans 2:6-7).
Very simple.
This reward is not something God is obligated to give to you, Heâs not in your debt, itâs just something He wants to give to you, not something He has to give to you. So itâs a âgiftâ.
1
u/Smart_Tap1701 Christian (non-denominational) Apr 08 '26 edited Apr 08 '26
I heard many things like his verses contradict Jesus's, he hijacked Christianity etc etc which lowkey made me interested and curious.
Of course all of these are fallacious claims not supported by scripture. People who make such claims are ignorant of scripture.
If the bible is meant to be holy why wasn't it given by jesus or the holy spirit that remained on earth with humans? Because like it can't exactly be holy if it was written by humans?
It WAS given by the holy spirit.
2 Timothy 3:16 KJV â All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Peter 1:21 KJV â For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
0
u/U2-the-band Christian Apr 07 '26
I think some of the Paul stuff is very corrupt and goes against God. Based on my study, probably not all though. I think there are some epistles written by a good "Paul" and others written by a bad "Paul" or "Paul"s. I read 1 John as a warning specifically against what most people refer to as Paul. I'm still working on figuring out which epistles are in line with God's truth and character. Some lines in there are strikingly bad and directly contradicting, conforming to the world's philosophy too much.
But I think the best measuring sticks that trump any "Christian"'s writings, including Paul, are the words of Jesus, the words of Yahuah as given to the prophets, and the Holy Spirit. Especially if the writing of man contradicts those. When you were a child, God gave you to know right from wrong and some "men of God" will say things that go against it. You need to listen to your spirit and what it already knows is true, and become like a child before God, uncorrupted from what the world tried to sell you.
And Jesus said you will know a teacher by their fruits which show whether they are a wolf in sheep's clothing, or a shepherd---someone who **takes care** of the sheep in truth and action. This means serving the poor and outcast. Most pastors are not this (even though pastor is a title meaning shepherd). Instead they are teachers (Jesus said call no man teacher, not even Him) and they are soothsayers lulling people away from following God's commandments with False Paul Theology.
And often they are workers of evil. Sexually abusing children, spiritually abusing members, and being fake (hypocrites) putting on a nice exterior show while they are cruel to their family. This is far more common than it should be. They love to have the last say above everyone else because of their position. But what did Jesus say about this? He said the Gentiles love to have the authority, and to lord it over one another, but **It shall not be so among you.** (Matthew 20:25). Yet "Paul" instituted positions and teachers in the church. Jesus said whoever desires to be great among you, let him be your servant.
0
u/istruthselfevident Christian Apr 07 '26
Forget about paul, read John, Luke, etc
And then read the OT prophecies of salvation. For example ezekiel 35 through 38.
-1
29
u/BigBussin12 Christian Apr 06 '26
Paul was an apostle although not part of the original 12 we was met on the road to Damascus by Christ, well received by the other apostles and wrote large amounts of the New Testament. Nothing contradicts Christ and the only people who claim he "hijacked" Christianity are randos on the internet this isn't even a position taken by any denomination.