Does Apostle Paul Contradict Jesus?

[Punchinello]

I ask this because my Fundie friend as well as some articles I found online said that there are no contradictions. From things I have read, it sure looks like there are contradictions.

I pointed out to my friend what Jesus said to the Lawyer who asked Him what does he need to do to be saved. Jesus said basically to Love God and treat others the way you want to be treated. "Do this and you shall live.". Paul, I believe, basically says that to be saved, you need to accept Jesus as your savior. Believe that and you'll get a golden ticket to heaven. My friend tried to harmonize what Jesus said by saying nobody can do what Jesus said to the Lawyer to do. We can't even come close. We're not going to give up all of our worldly posessions. I told him he was editorializing. He said he wasn't.

Here is Jesus telling the Lawyer what he needs to do to be saved and that's not a good enough answer?. Here is the Son of God telling the Lawyer exactly what he needs to do but some people say that's not good enough. Why would the Son of God give the Lawyer a half azzed answer or an incomplete answer?

This is my second post and I hope it doesn't cause an argument like my first post.

[JehovahsWitness]

Paul's agenda was to include gentiles in the Jesus movement

Hello,

Are you suggesting that the inclusion of gentiles in the first century Christian movement was in CONTRADICTION to message of Jesus as depticted in the gospels?

JW

Thank you for clarifying this point as its an interesting point if it is made in relation to the thread topic of conflicts between Paul and the original gospel message as conveyed by the gospel.

[JehovahsWitness]

duplicate (sorry)

[ThatGirlAgain]

Paul's agenda was to include gentiles in the Jesus movement

Hello,

Are you suggesting that the inclusion of gentiles in the first century Christian movement was in CONTRADICTION to message of Jesus as depicted in the gospels?

JW

Thank you for clarifying this point as its an interesting point if it is made in relation to the thread topic of conflicts between Paul and the original gospel message as conveyed by the gospel.

Absolutely not. I am saying that Paul did not really contradict the message of Jesus as represented in the Gospels. It is later misrepresentations of Paul that contradict Jesus.

By coincidence I just did a post elsewhere with quotes from the Gospels showing the universality of the message of Jesus.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 107#420107

[Mithrae]

Jeremy Bentham (English Philosopher) :
"If Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they needed look no farther than Paul." ( paraphrased. . . looking for a copy of "Not Paul, but Jesus"
in order to retrieve the exact quote.) Bentham promises to show in his Introduction (section VII): " that by the two persons in question, as represented in the two sources of information – the Gospels (of Jesus) and Paul's Epistles,-– two quite different, if not opposite, religions are inculcated: and that, in the religion of Jesus may be found all the good that has ever been the result of (the bible, if I understand Bentham correctly) – in the religion of Paul, ("may be found") all the mischief, which, in such disastrous abundance, has so indisputably flowed from it."

Thank you for giving us these quotes from distinguished thinkers. It is good to know that those of us who understand the fact that Paul corrupted the teachings of Jesus and founded an 'anti-Christ' Christianity are in good company.

When folk are looking for an example of the pinnacle of human evil, nine times in ten they'll go with Hitler. The most widely-regarded examples of the pinnacle of human good? There's a few, but I'd guess Gandhi, Jesus and the Buddha would be the most likely candidates - maybe St. Francis of Assissi, albeit rather eclipsed by the figurehead of his faith. A century ago in western culture, only one of those would really get a look in of course.

So if folk like some of things they read in the bible but hate Christianity and the church, who're we going to blame? The founder of the religion? Laughable! Protestants can blame Constantine and the popes for the RCC of course - but blaming Paul for all of Christianity apparently seems a pretty safe bet for a lot of folk. Never mind all the great deal that he wrote about love (1 Cor. 13), selflessness, peaceful living (Romans 13 and 14), humility (Phil. 2), forgiveness, kindness (Gal. 5) and so on.

No, "in the religion of Paul, ("may be found") all the mischief, which, in such disastrous abundance, has so indisputably flowed from it."

Distinguished thinkers these may well have been - some of them even in fields related to religion or the bible! - but as far as I can tell these quotes exemplify a great deal more effort in finding a scapegoat than in understanding either Paul or Jesus.

We all know Jesus, right? The fellow so devoted to organised religion that he physically assaulted a bunch of chaps in the temple couryard for defiling the sacred location? Can I hear an amen?

[Mithrae]

Sorry for the double-post but I'm on holidays, drinking more than usual, and waiting for some particularly large downloads on a particularly slow connection

We all know Jesus, right? The fellow so devoted to organised religion that he physically assaulted a bunch of chaps in the temple couryard for defiling the sacred location? Can I hear an amen?

Much fun as it might be to leave that dangling, I've been thinking a bit more on it and I reckon it's worth commenting on.

Far as I can tell, the main thing that this story reveals about Jesus is something shared by Paul also: They both had a very keen sense of the sacred.
- They also both had some understanding of our human nature, that greed, self-aggrandisement and factionism were major problems
- They both apparently recognised that mere rituals and ceremonial purity were woefully inadequate and easily-perverted ways of expressing reverence for God
- They both taught that love, selflessness and kindness towards our fellow man, similarly created in God's image, were central to that reverence
- Consequently they both (arguably in Jesus' case) believed that their understanding and worship of God should not be restricted to a particular place or people
- Yet they both knew that any widespread ideal or utopian scenario would necessarily require a fundamental change in our nature; Paul obviously so, and Jesus in his 'kingdom of God' (see esp. Mark 4)

As to the exact nature of that change and the means by which it would eventuate, the precise nuances of their respective views towards the Law of Moses or the 'old covenant,' and their views on how a body of believers in this somewhat new message should constitute itself...? I think those are the really interesting questions, and I don't think that a bunch of simplistic quotes vilifying Paul can even begin to approach the depth and substance of the issue. Student earlier raised excellent points about how we might best approach our understanding of the message of Jesus, I earlier posted some opinions on a largely misunderstood extremity of Paul's salvific views, and ThatGirl has raised good points about his overall aim of bringing Gentiles into the Jesus movement.

No doubt there's plenty of room for disagreement and debate even amongst those opinions, but still... I just can't find a word better than 'simplistic' to describe the Jesus vs. Paul dichotomy which sadly is so much more common than genuine enquiry into these two fellows' contexts, emphases and ultimately their messages.



Edit: It occurs to me that some of those comments might be offensive to some folk who've posted in the thread, which isn't my intention. Hopefully as folk who've known me a while will realise, I just don't much like black and white thinking. I'd guess that we all tend to divide fragments of our knowledge into fairly coarse categories as we're learning in any field; I'd just like to think that as we continue to learn more our thinking can grow progressively more nuanced. That, in my opinion, is a primary purpose of debate forums. It's okay for high school students to think of electrons like tiny planets orbitting a nucleus but not (I suspect) acceptable for physicists to do so. Odds are chemists can usually get away with it mind you, which just goes to show

[Goat]

I suspect there's the occasional Christian out there who'd suggest that Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9:26 imply that a messiah would die for folk's sins - they're definitely pre-Pauline, though your requirement for 'non-vague' evidence is a little vague.

Incidentally, while I'm no theologian I suspect that it's something of a misconception to believe that Paul said you are saved by faith alone - it's actually saved by grace alone, not by anything we've done:

• Ephesians 2:4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

This seems quite similar to the gospel according to John:

• John 10:25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one."

While I'm more inclined towards Student's approach of wondering what Jesus actually taught, if we're assuming the validity of canonical gospel Jesus and canonical Paul, I'd say there's certainly a difference in emphasis: Jesus, like the prophets of the Tanakh before him, was exhorting the 'chosen people' to focus more and more on the compassionate and social justice aspects of the Law, rather than the separatist, purity and sacrifical aspects. Paul, a Jew, was writing mostly to Gentiles explaining how and why they were becoming part of God's 'chosen people' from whom he himself had descended and gleaned his understanding. Both of them questioned mere ritual, and both of them emphasised how we conduct ourselves towards others.

There are some very good reasons to not accept Paul's claim that he was actually Jewish. For one thing, he didn't know or understand a lot of the Jewish traditions.. and his attitude to the law was very atypical. .. as well as what his understanding of the law was.

He certainly deviated in his opinions even beyond the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and so on. He says he had been a Pharisee - Acts says he was taught by Gamaliel, grandson of Hillel the Elder.
Hillel, speaking to a Gentile, said - What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.
Paul, writing to Gentiles, said - For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.� (Galatians 5:13-14)

He appears to have been of the opinion that there was some 'new covenant' he was proclaiming (2 Corinthians 3:3-6; cf Jeremiah 31:31-34), that Gentiles were invited and that the promises given to Abraham the 'father of many nations' superceded the law of Moses given much later (Romans 4, Galatians 3). Interestingly Mark's gospel also begins with references proclaiming a 'messenger of the covenant' (Malachi 3:1), has Jesus himself declaring a new covenant (Mark 14:24) and both Mark and Q at the very least raise questions about the Jewish law (Mark 2:23-3:6; Mark 7; or Luke 16:16-18, "the law and the prophets were until John...").

Whether it was Jesus who began advocating a shift away from the 'old covenant' or Paul or even Jesus' disciples, in those interesting times I'm not entirely sure how reliable a yardstick the diverse sects of more mainstream Judaism provide us for determining whether or not someone was raised a Jew. Though you may have had specific examples of Paul's faulty understanding in mind?

Next, there is the claim of being of the 'tribe of Benjamen'. Now, even at that time, the vast majority of Jews did not know their tribe, particu7arulay from outlying areas such as Tarsus. but Herod, a convert, proclaimed himself to be of the Tribe of Benjamen. Paul's claim mimics this.

Because of the very atypical attitudes, the claim about the Tribe of Benjamen, the lack of knowledge about Jewish law and tradition, and the comment 'To the Jews, I became as a Jew', it seems there is very good reasons to be skeptical about the Jewish background of Paul..

Came across an amusing site claiming that Paul was actually a descendant of Herod the Great while looking this up. But I haven't managed to find any references showing that Herod himself claimed to be from Benjamin - could you help with that? (Nor for that matter that most Jews didn't have a shrewd idea about their ancestry, though I haven't specifically looked for that information yet.)

Yes, the person who wrote Acts puts those words into Paul's mouth. However, remember, Acts was not written by Paul, and was probably written 30 or 40 years after Paul died.

[Mithrae]

He certainly deviated in his opinions even beyond the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and so on. He says he had been a Pharisee - Acts says he was taught by Gamaliel, grandson of Hillel the Elder.
Hillel, speaking to a Gentile, said - What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.
Paul, writing to Gentiles, said - For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.� (Galatians 5:13-14)

He appears to have been of the opinion that there was some 'new covenant' he was proclaiming (2 Corinthians 3:3-6; cf Jeremiah 31:31-34), that Gentiles were invited and that the promises given to Abraham the 'father of many nations' superceded the law of Moses given much later (Romans 4, Galatians 3). Interestingly Mark's gospel also begins with references proclaiming a 'messenger of the covenant' (Malachi 3:1), has Jesus himself declaring a new covenant (Mark 14:24) and both Mark and Q at the very least raise questions about the Jewish law (Mark 2:23-3:6; Mark 7; or Luke 16:16-18, "the law and the prophets were until John...").

Whether it was Jesus who began advocating a shift away from the 'old covenant' or Paul or even Jesus' disciples, in those interesting times I'm not entirely sure how reliable a yardstick the diverse sects of more mainstream Judaism provide us for determining whether or not someone was raised a Jew. Though you may have had specific examples of Paul's faulty understanding in mind?

Next, there is the claim of being of the 'tribe of Benjamen'. Now, even at that time, the vast majority of Jews did not know their tribe, particu7arulay from outlying areas such as Tarsus. but Herod, a convert, proclaimed himself to be of the Tribe of Benjamen. Paul's claim mimics this.

Because of the very atypical attitudes, the claim about the Tribe of Benjamen, the lack of knowledge about Jewish law and tradition, and the comment 'To the Jews, I became as a Jew', it seems there is very good reasons to be skeptical about the Jewish background of Paul..

Came across an amusing site claiming that Paul was actually a descendant of Herod the Great while looking this up. But I haven't managed to find any references showing that Herod himself claimed to be from Benjamin - could you help with that? (Nor for that matter that most Jews didn't have a shrewd idea about their ancestry, though I haven't specifically looked for that information yet.)

Yes, the person who wrote Acts puts those words into Paul's mouth. However, remember, Acts was not written by Paul, and was probably written 30 or 40 years after Paul died.

...that doesn't really support your claim that there's very good reasons to doubt Paul was a Jew, nor answer my questions.

For the record though, it seems likely Acts was written by a companion of Paul and while it was almost certainly written after 76CE (Josephus' Jewish Wars; Paul supposedly died c64CE), I'm not aware of any compelling evidence showing it was any later than 90CE or so. That doesn't mean it's very reliable information about Paul of course (and nor did I say it was), and since you're currently disputing the truth of things Paul did write, I'm not actually sure what your point is here?

[JehovahsWitness]

Paul's agenda was to include gentiles in the Jesus movement

Hello,

Are you suggesting that the inclusion of gentiles in the first century Christian movement was in CONTRADICTION to message of Jesus as depticted in the gospels?

JW

Thank you for clarifying this point as its an interesting point if it is made in relation to the thread topic of conflicts between Paul and the original gospel message as conveyed by the gospel.

Thank you for the claifification; I will have a read of your post. Excuse the request but I have wanted for some time to deal with this topic and so am trying to identify relavant posts (and points) that I can address.

Thanks again,
JW

[Goat]

He certainly deviated in his opinions even beyond the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and so on. He says he had been a Pharisee - Acts says he was taught by Gamaliel, grandson of Hillel the Elder.
Hillel, speaking to a Gentile, said - What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.
Paul, writing to Gentiles, said - For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.� (Galatians 5:13-14)

He appears to have been of the opinion that there was some 'new covenant' he was proclaiming (2 Corinthians 3:3-6; cf Jeremiah 31:31-34), that Gentiles were invited and that the promises given to Abraham the 'father of many nations' superceded the law of Moses given much later (Romans 4, Galatians 3). Interestingly Mark's gospel also begins with references proclaiming a 'messenger of the covenant' (Malachi 3:1), has Jesus himself declaring a new covenant (Mark 14:24) and both Mark and Q at the very least raise questions about the Jewish law (Mark 2:23-3:6; Mark 7; or Luke 16:16-18, "the law and the prophets were until John...").

Whether it was Jesus who began advocating a shift away from the 'old covenant' or Paul or even Jesus' disciples, in those interesting times I'm not entirely sure how reliable a yardstick the diverse sects of more mainstream Judaism provide us for determining whether or not someone was raised a Jew. Though you may have had specific examples of Paul's faulty understanding in mind?

Next, there is the claim of being of the 'tribe of Benjamen'. Now, even at that time, the vast majority of Jews did not know their tribe, particu7arulay from outlying areas such as Tarsus. but Herod, a convert, proclaimed himself to be of the Tribe of Benjamen. Paul's claim mimics this.

Because of the very atypical attitudes, the claim about the Tribe of Benjamen, the lack of knowledge about Jewish law and tradition, and the comment 'To the Jews, I became as a Jew', it seems there is very good reasons to be skeptical about the Jewish background of Paul..

Came across an amusing site claiming that Paul was actually a descendant of Herod the Great while looking this up. But I haven't managed to find any references showing that Herod himself claimed to be from Benjamin - could you help with that? (Nor for that matter that most Jews didn't have a shrewd idea about their ancestry, though I haven't specifically looked for that information yet.)

Yes, the person who wrote Acts puts those words into Paul's mouth. However, remember, Acts was not written by Paul, and was probably written 30 or 40 years after Paul died.

...that doesn't really support your claim that there's very good reasons to doubt Paul was a Jew, nor answer my questions.

For the record though, it seems likely Acts was written by a companion of Paul and while it was almost certainly written after 76CE (Josephus' Jewish Wars; Paul supposedly died c64CE), I'm not aware of any compelling evidence showing it was any later than 90CE or so. That doesn't mean it's very reliable information about Paul of course (and nor did I say it was), and since you're currently disputing the truth of things Paul did write, I'm not actually sure what your point is here?

Am I distorting what Paul said, or did you? I would say you are.

As for Acts.. well, The writer of Acts seems to have used Josephus' as a source for Luke/Acts, and that would put the writing of acts AFTER 95 c.e...

[Mithrae]

Yes, the person who wrote Acts puts those words into Paul's mouth. However, remember, Acts was not written by Paul, and was probably written 30 or 40 years after Paul died.

...that doesn't really support your claim that there's very good reasons to doubt Paul was a Jew, nor answer my questions.

For the record though, it seems likely Acts was written by a companion of Paul and while it was almost certainly written after 76CE (Josephus' Jewish Wars; Paul supposedly died c64CE), I'm not aware of any compelling evidence showing it was any later than 90CE or so. That doesn't mean it's very reliable information about Paul of course (and nor did I say it was), and since you're currently disputing the truth of things Paul did write, I'm not actually sure what your point is here?

Am I distorting what Paul said, or did you? I would say you are.

As for Acts.. well, The writer of Acts seems to have used Josephus' as a source for Luke/Acts, and that would put the writing of acts AFTER 95 c.e...

Disputing. The word I used was disputing. This means
1. To argue about; debate.
2. To question the truth or validity of; doubt:

"...since you're currently [questioning the truth or validity of] things Paul did write, I'm not actually sure what your point is" in replying to my post with little more than a statement that Paul didn't write Acts. You have emphasised that Acts was written by someone other than the person whose claims you are questioning - therefore it provides external confirmation of Paul's claim to be a Jew. Is that what you're saying?

In a previous discussion we were involved in Bernard Muller provided some rather convincing arguments that the author of Luke/Acts was familiar with Josephus' Jewish War (c 75-78CE), but not necessarily his Antiquities of the Jews (c 95CE). That's just my opinion of course, since his arguments changed my previous views on the matter.

However without wanting to appear impolite, I notice that while this tangent about a mote of info on Paul continues, you still haven't answered either of my initial questions regarding your claim that we have "very good reasons" to doubt Paul's Jewishness.