Did Paul basically invent Christianity — or is he the most misunderstood man in the New Testament?

• ZT

  Zara T.5d ago

  My grandmother converted from a background that taught Paul was a false apostle. She spent 40 years of her life not reading half the New Testament. Then she came to faith in a traditional church in her 70s and wept reading Romans for the first time. She said it felt like someone had written down what she'd always suspected grace was but couldn't find words for. I don't have a theological argument. I just know what those letters did for her.

  154Reply
• Y

  Yuki1w ago

  Paul literally says he got his gospel by direct revelation, not from the other apostles. That's either the most audacious claim in history or the most honest. Either way, the idea that he just made stuff up while Peter and James were alive and could've corrected him doesn't hold up. They met. They agreed. Acts 15, Galatians 2. He didn't invent anything — he got it straight and then defended it.

  147Reply
• AB

  Alex B.4d ago

  That 1 Corinthians 7 point is criminally underused in this debate. He says 'to the married I give this command — not I, but the Lord' and then a few verses later 'to the rest I say this, I not the Lord.' He's drawing a line between transmitted tradition and his own Spirit-guided judgment. That's not a guy inventing a religion. That's a scrupulously careful theologian doing his best to be transparent about his sources. Respect it or don't, but see it clearly.

  141Reply
• O2

  Omar 214d ago

  okay here's my challenge to anyone who thinks paul basically invented it: go read Matthew 16, Mark 8, John 6, and then come back and tell me with a straight face that high Christology was paul's creation. jesus in the gospels accepts worship, claims divine authority to forgive sins, calls himself lord of the sabbath, says 'before abraham was, I am.' paul did not invent a divine jesus. he found one already there.

  136Reply
• O

  Omar1w ago

  I taught NT survey for eleven years at a seminary. The 'Paul invented Christianity' thesis isn't new — it's basically a repackaged version of what F.C. Baur argued in the 19th century, and it's been pretty thoroughly dismantled. Paul's core Christology in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is a creedal formula scholars date to within 3-5 years of the crucifixion. That's not enough time to invent anything. That's early, and it pre-dates Paul's letters entirely.

  134Reply
• PB

  Priya B.1w ago

  I think the smarter question isn't whether Paul invented it but whether the Resurrection forced an interpretation nobody had a category for. Like, if Jesus actually rose from the dead, SOMEONE had to figure out what that meant theologically. Maybe Paul was just the most equipped person in that generation to do it. Brilliant rabbi, trained under Gamaliel, mystical encounter on the road to Damascus. He didn't invent it; he was chosen to articulate it. That's a different thing.

  121Reply
• L

  Liam5d ago

  If Paul invented Christianity, he invented it badly for himself. The man was beaten, shipwrecked, imprisoned, eventually executed. Inventors of religions usually get more out of it than that. He had nothing material to gain and everything to lose. That matters to me when I assess his credibility.

  118Reply
• Z

  Zara6d ago

  My seminary professor made a point that's stuck with me for 20 years: the earliest NT documents are Paul's letters, not the Gospels. If Paul had invented something radically new, the Gospels written AFTER him would likely push back. Instead Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all assume a high Christology that rhymes with Paul's. That's not proof of conspiracy. That's convergence. Multiple independent streams pointing to the same core.

  116Reply
• Y

  Yuki1w ago

  To the person above: Jesus also said 'go and make disciples of all nations' at the end of Matthew. So which Jesus quote are we using? Because it seems like people quote 'lost sheep of Israel' when they want to destabilize Paul and conveniently forget the Great Commission.

  112Reply
• D_

  Drew _x5d ago

  I used to think the 'Paul invented it' take was edgy and smart. Then I realized it requires believing that Peter, James, John — people who actually KNEW Jesus, who ate with him, watched him die, claimed to see him raised — just went along with Paul's rewrite without a serious fight. You want me to believe the original disciples were that spineless? That doesn't fit the people who died rather than recant.

  109Reply
• L

  Leo4d ago

  Theologically I'm Reformed. Historically I'm cautious about certainty. But here's where I land: the Resurrection is either the hinge of all history or it's not. If it happened, Paul's theology is the only framework that actually makes sense of it. If it didn't, none of this matters anyway. The 'Paul invented it' debate only has stakes if the Resurrection is real. And if it's real, Paul didn't need to invent anything — he just had to be honest about what it implied.

  107Reply
• NT

  Nina T.6d ago

  What I find interesting is that James and the Jerusalem church clearly had tensions with Paul. Galatians 2 is basically a fight. Acts 21 shows Paul going to Jerusalem almost to prove he hasn't gone rogue. That tension is real and it's in the canon. The church didn't try to hide it. Doesn't that cut both ways — yes there was friction, but the apostles ultimately affirmed him?

  103Reply
• J

  Jordan1w ago

  Grew up in a tradition that was basically anti-Paul. We were 'red letter Christians' who thought Paul was the problem with organized religion. Spent a decade resenting half the New Testament. Then I actually read Paul carefully — like really slowly — and realized I'd been caricaturing him. He's pastoral, complicated, and deeply rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures. The man knew his Torah cold. He's not inventing something alien to Judaism; he's doing a very specific kind of Jewish interpretation of one event: the Resurrection.

  98Reply
• N

  Nina6d ago

  I genuinely don't know why this is controversial in church circles. You can believe Paul was inspired and also acknowledge that he developed, systematized, and extended the Jesus tradition in ways that were genuinely new. Every theologian does this. That's what theology IS. Development is not invention.

  95Reply
• N

  Noah4d ago

  this whole thread and nobody mentioned that paul himself says there are things he's giving as his own opinion and not as a command from the lord. like he literally distinguishes between his words and jesus's words in 1 corinthians 7. if he was just making stuff up why would he undercut his own authority like that? that kind of intellectual honesty is not what you do if you're trying to build a fraudulent religion.

  93Reply
• J

  Jamie5d ago

  Right but the Bereans checked Paul's teaching against the Scriptures they had — the OT — and 'found it to be so.' That's the test Luke records approvingly. Paul's gospel isn't a departure from prior revelation; it's argued to be its fulfillment. That's why he quotes Isaiah and the Psalms constantly. He's not creating a new religion; he's doing Jewish exegesis of the Resurrection event.

  91Reply
• T

  Taylor1w ago

  okay but be honest. how much of what you actually believe week to week is from the gospels vs paul's letters? justification by faith? the body of christ? the armor of god? new creation? that's all paul. Jesus talked about the kingdom. paul talked about the cross. those are not the same sermon.

  89Reply
• R

  Riley6d ago

  I'm going to be the annoying person who says: both. Paul didn't invent Christianity but he absolutely shaped the version of it that most Western Christians practice. That's not heresy to say. That's just historical fact. The question of whether that shaping was Spirit-led or culturally determined is the real debate underneath this debate.

  88Reply
• O

  Omar6d ago

  Can we also talk about the elephant in the room which is that Paul never met Jesus. Never heard him teach. Never broke bread with him. He gets a vision on a road and that gives him authority to reshape everything? I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying if someone showed up at your church claiming that today we'd call them a cult leader.

  86Reply
• Z

  Zara6d ago

  John is widely considered independent from the synoptics though, and John has the highest Christology of all. So there are at minimum two independent streams — the synoptic tradition and John — both landing on a divine Jesus. That doesn't go away just because Matthew and Luke used Mark.

  84Reply
• D9

  Drew 925d ago

  i mean if you study second temple judaism at all — like actually study it, not just read about it — you realize paul is doing something recognizable in that world. messianic interpretation of scripture, apocalyptic framework, new creation language — none of that is alien to his context. it's not greek mystery religion either. it's jewish through and through. the 'paul hellenized christianity' thesis is like 100 years old and has mostly been abandoned by serious scholars.

  82Reply
• FL

  Feli L.6d ago

  the 'either true or the biggest fraud in history' framing is a false dilemma. there's a third option: paul sincerely believed what he experienced and sincerely passed it on, and was genuinely doing his best to interpret it within his own rabbinic framework, and some of his interpretations may have been more paul than jesus. sincere =/= accurate. this applies to everyone including me and you.

  78Reply
• C

  Casey6d ago

  Moses never met Abraham. Jeremiah never met Moses. Isaiah never heard David preach. The idea that you need direct physical contact with the prior prophet to receive legitimate revelation is just... not how the biblical model of inspiration works. At all.

  77Reply
• A

  Alex4d ago

  Circular reasoning on both sides tbh. Critics assume Paul innovated and then read the gospels through that lens. Defenders assume continuity and do the same. What we actually need is intellectual humility about what we can and cannot prove from 2000 year old documents and a willingness to hold the historical and theological questions separately.

  74Reply
• D

  Diego1w ago

  lol 'scholars with an agenda' — you mean people who study ancient texts professionally? the agenda theory is just a way to avoid engaging with actual arguments. your side has scholars too and some of THEM agree paul made significant innovations to the jesus tradition. that's not an attack on christianity, it's just textual history.

  73Reply
• M

  Maya6d ago

  okay the 'convergence' argument only works if the gospels are independent. which is... heavily debated. mark is almost certainly the source for matthew and luke. so you have one stream that splits, not four independent streams. gotta be more careful with that one.

  71Reply
• D

  Drew1w ago

  my pastor always says 'Paul said it, I believe it, that settles it' and every time he says it I think... you realize that's kind of proving the critics' point right

  67Reply
• T

  Taylor5d ago

  they did fight with him though. that's literally in the text. the circumcision controversy, the food laws debate, the thing with peter at antioch — paul called him a hypocrite to his FACE. there WAS a serious fight. paul won some of it and maybe lost some of it and we only have his version of most of it.

  66Reply
• N

  Noah4d ago

  those are all late texts though. that's the whole argument. the question is whether those high christology moments reflect the historical jesus or the communities that shaped the text in the decades after paul. you can't use the gospels to prove paul didn't influence the gospels if paul came first and influenced everything.

  62Reply
• M2

  Morgan 216d ago

  nobody 'ultimately affirmed' anything in a clean way. the jerusalem church got scattered in 70 AD. we have no idea what happened to the trajectory james was on. paul's letters survived. james-style jewish christianity largely didn't. history is written by the survivors and their documents.

  61Reply
• T

  Taylor1w ago

  Jesus said 'I came only for the lost sheep of Israel.' Paul goes to the whole Gentile world and basically throws out the Torah requirements. That is a MASSIVE theological shift. You can try to harmonize it but at minimum Paul made decisions about the gospel that Jesus never made while he was alive. Call it inspiration if you want, but don't pretend it isn't a departure.

  58Reply
• L9

  Liam 924d ago

  suffering doesn't prove doctrine. people die for wrong beliefs all the time. that's not disrespectful to paul it's just logic. sincerity is not the same as accuracy. we covered this already up the thread but it keeps needing to be said.

  57Reply
• D

  Diego6d ago

  That's a genuinely interesting historical point but it cuts the other way too — if Paul's version was so corrupted and illegitimate, why did God allow it to be the one that survived and spread? You're basically making a providence argument for the critics' case, but the same argument can go the other direction.

  55Reply
• N

  Noah5d ago

  Mostly abandoned but not entirely. There are still serious scholars — not crackpots — who argue the Christ cult Paul describes has structural similarities to dying-and-rising deity myths. I'm not saying they're right. I'm saying 'mostly abandoned' is doing a lot of work there. The conversation isn't over.

  47Reply
• JB

  Jordan B.1w ago

  here's the thing tho. we don't have Jesus's writings. at all. we have memories of him filtered through other people. so we genuinely cannot say what Jesus 'really' taught versus what the communities around him remembered or emphasized. paul at least wrote his own stuff. if anything he's the most DIRECTLY accessible voice in the NT

  44Reply
• A9

  Avery 925d ago

  That story is beautiful but it's also kind of making the critic's point? She had an emotional response to Paul's particular framing of grace. That doesn't tell us whether his framing is historically continuous with Jesus or a development of it. Beautiful and true are not the same category.

  43Reply
• M

  Marco6d ago

  if paul invented it then so did luke and john and matthew since they all have their own emphases and theological perspectives. why does paul get singled out? because he writes more? because he argues more? because he's more organized? honestly the 'paul invented it' crowd just doesn't like doctrines associated with paul so they blame him instead of engaging the theology

  39Reply
• A

  Alex1w ago

  Paul invented nothing. He received everything. Read it again: 'For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you.' The man is a conduit, not a creator. This debate only exists because secular scholars with an agenda need a villain.

  31Reply
• J

  Jordan6d ago

  Nope. Paul said he received the gospel not from man but through a revelation of Jesus Christ. That's either true or it's the biggest fraud in history. I choose to believe the man. End of discussion for me.

  22Reply
• K

  Kofi5d ago

  This is why I love this forum. You've got people who actually know their Bible arguing with each other in good faith. This is what Sunday school should be.

  19Reply

More debates people can't stop arguing about