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.

[Ernestalice]

I don't think it is a contradiction. I think Paul just supported Jesus' teaching. He just said to believe Jesus as savior means to believe what Jesus said. Love God and treat others the way you want to be treated. Isn't it obvious for the believers that these are the right thing to do? Most of ppl cannot do it, but doesn't mean it is really impossible to do. Actually we can, but we don't want to. What do you think about Mother Teresa?

[Flail]

I don't think it is a contradiction. I think Paul just supported Jesus' teaching. He just said to believe Jesus as savior means to believe what Jesus said. Love God and treat others the way you want to be treated. Isn't it obvious for the believers that these are the right thing to do? Most of ppl cannot do it, but doesn't mean it is really impossible to do. Actually we can, but we don't want to. What do you think about Mother Teresa?

I don't think Paul 'taught' much about what Jesus taught at all. Did Paul even mention any of the Jesus' instructive Parables? Paul was more concerned with how we worshipped the BibleGod and how we made sure everyone was watching rather than with how we treated others.

[JehovahsWitness]

The question presupposes that the portrayal of Jesus, as variously contained in the canonical gospels, is closer to the real Jesus than that of Paul’s kerygma.

We know from Paul that his gospel was only one among many; that his proclamation was rejected by others. But were any of these other gospels closer to the actual teachings of Jesus than Paul’s?

The most obvious criticism of Paul’s gospel is that he never actually heard the earthly Jesus. Consequently his gospel was, at best, second hand or, at worst, his invention.

A second problem is that we do not know what Paul actually preached to convert the non-believer. We only have his letters which are all addressed to Christian congregations. Furthermore Paul’s letters provide us with just one side of the conversation; we can only speculate as to what prompted him to write in the first place, and what response his letters elicited.

However, Paul’s letters were written much closer in time to Jesus’ life than any of the canonical gospels (and were their “authors� actually acquainted with the real live Jesus?).

The conditions in which Paul worked were much closer to those pertaining during Jesus lifetime. In contrast the canonical gospels were all compiled after the Jewish war. Consequently their communities faced different pressures and had different perspectives.

Furthermore, given the differences between the canonical gospels, it would appear that the circumstances in which they were compiled exercised a strong selective influence upon the character of what was preserved. In other words, these communities were interested in only preserving material that conformed to their view of Christ.

These communities took it for granted that the heavenly Christ continued to reveal the truth about himself to his followers in various ways. Since this Christ was the same person as the earthly Jesus it was only natural that the “memories� of his earthly life should be modified and added to, in the light of the prevailing circumstances.

For example, the Matthean church evidently found itself in conflict with the local synagogues . To justify their opposition (in particular) to the Pharisees, they believed that Jesus would have condemned both the scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites and so created an appropriate vitriolic speech-in-character (Mt 23:1-36). The circumstances of the Markan and Lukan communities were different so they held that Jesus’ much shorter condemnation applied only to the scribes (Mk 12:37b-40; Lk 20:45-47).

Which version better conforms to the truth about Jesus? Evidently, what we can learn from the gospels, about Jesus and his teachings, are restricted to what the communities that produced the gospels want us to know.

What Paul preached was probably not entirely congruent with the teaching of Jesus. However the same accusation can probably be levelled at the “authors� of the canonical gospels.

The OP will have to clarify, but my understanding is that the question under debate is NOT about the religability of Pauls writings but the content/apparent conflict of those works that HAVE found their way into the bible and whether that content contradicts with those of the gospels. I did not understand this to be a debate about the canonisity of particular books but of content, and that , regardless of how they found themselves accepted as part of the bible canon, when this happened or whether alternative gospels or writings would have been more harmonious.

I'll await clarification from the original poster on this, since I don't want to embark on a debate when what I'm dealing with is not the debate question.

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

I think this link spells out the contradictions well.

http://www.truthseekers.co.za/content/view/84/59/

I disagree. Could you explain what exactly is the contradiction here

2. On the source of the Truth and the true gospel:


Paul says:

1Cor.2
[13] And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.
Gal.1
[12] For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.


Jesus says:

John.17
[14] I have given them thy word;
[17] Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.

The heading is that both are refering to {quote} "On the source of the Truth and the true gospel" but what exactly is the perceived "contradiction"?



Same with #4 "on the sum of the commandements" what does that even MEAN? What are you suggesting? That if two people refer to different laws it is automatically a "contradiction"? If I go shopping for .. milk, bread and cheese but my neighbour for bread, sausages and onions, what conclusion can be draw apart from that on that particular day she's shopping for sausages and I'm not?

Unless you are suggesting that either list presented as definitive for a particular reason what possible point could be made apart from the fact that they both quoted the law?

Please explain what the "contradiction" is here.

4. On the sum of the commandments:


Paul says:

Rom.13
[9] The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.


Jesus says:

Matt.22
[37] And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
[38] This is the great and first commandment.
[39] And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
[40] On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.

3. On the God of the dead:


Paul says:

Rom.14
[9] For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.


Jesus says:

Luke.20
[38] Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living;

The "he" in Luke 20: 38 is not Jesus but his Father (Jehovah) so these two scriptures are not refering to the same person, Romans = Jesus "Lord of the dead and the living" and Luke Jehovah (Almighty) God of the living.

Refering to two different persons in two different ways does not a contradiction make; any more than saying "my wife is blond my neighbour's a redhead" makes a man a polygamist.


Please clarify perceived "contradiction".

Thanks


RELATED POSTS

Does Paul emphasis Jesus more that God?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 31#p857531

Do the writings of Paul contradict Jesus?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 22#p419322

Whose is the greatest name?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 84#p854184

For further details please go to other posts related to ...

CHRISTIANITY, THE MOSIAC LAW and ...THE WRITING OF THE APOSTLE PAUL

[Punchinello]

"12. On the commandments and eternal life:


Paul says:

Rom.7
[9] I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died;
[10] the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me.

Jesus says:

Matt.19
[17] And he said to him, Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.

Paul says:

Rom.3
[24] they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,
[28] For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
Rom.5
[9] Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.


Jesus says:

Matt.12
[37] for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

Paul says:

Rom.5
[21] so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


Jesus says:

John.5
[24] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Paul says:

1Cor.5
[7] For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.
Eph.5
[2] And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.


Jesus says:

Matt.9
[13] Go and learn what this means, `I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.'"

Punchinello: The way that I interpret the above (and I realize that I am just a theological novice), Paul is saying it is the belief in Jesus Christ that saves you. Jesus seems to say that salvation comes from following the commandments and doing good works. If this is a contradiction, doesn't that shoot down the Fundamentalist argument that you can only be saved by accepting Jesus as your savior?

[McCulloch]

Moderator Comment

Please review the Rules.

8. Extensive quotes from another source (particularly other websites) should state the source to avoid plagiarism.

"12. On the commandments and eternal life:
[...]

This appears to be taken from http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html, but even if it wasn't, a link should have been provided to the original source. Besides, this page is too good to keep to yourself!

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[Flail]

[/quote]
McCulloch wrote:

This appears to be taken from http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html, but even if it wasn't, a link should have been provided to the original source. Besides, this page is too good to keep to yourself!

The link should be recommended reading for everyone on this site; its comparisons to the words of Paul and the teachings of Jesus are in keeping with the idea that the 4th century committee who collated and promulgated what we know today as the Bible were intent on making a political decision as to what should be included as opposed to one loyal to the actual teachings of Jesus.

Perhaps Paul's letters (which comprise the bulk of the NT) were included as an attempt to take the Bible's focus away from Jesus philosophical and somewhat anti-religious teachings and toward the 'church building sermonizing dogma' that characterizes what Paul had to offer. However, Paul's inaccuracy in reporting on Jesus might be explained by the fact that he never met or knew Jesus and had no writings to go by; just rumor, word of mouth and his deluded visitation from 'an angel of the Lord' on the road to Damascus.

[JehovahsWitness]

Jesus would not be a Christian were he alive today. He was born, indoctrinated and died a Jew; the same with his disciples, and at no time in his teachings or instructions to them did he suggest beginning a new religion.

#QUESTION Do the teachings and philosophies of Jesus as expressed in the Gospels, taken by themselves, indicate he intented to start a "new religion"?
viewtopic.php?p=419487#p419487


Absolutely. He also chose 12 men and indicated they (principly Peter) would "feed his sheep" John 21:15-17). Those Christians, Jesus indicated, would "meet together" (Matthew 18:20) and follow at least two religous ceremonies (Luke 22:19; Mat 28:19)

Furthermore in Matthew 18 verse 17 Jesus provided the following guidelines:

"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.."- New American Standard Bible (©1995)

http://bible.cc/matthew/18-17.htm

If Jesus had no intention for his followers to be part of a CHURCH or community of believers from which one could be excluded in some way, what were these guidelines pointing towards? Certainly he warned his disciples they should expect religious persecution and that his followers would be "thrown out of the synagogues" (see John 16:12). Thus Jesus was either speaking of reforming the "religion" which he and his early followers were already part of and teaching exclusion for those that do not repent to THAT original "church" or (more likely) the establishment of a new group, rejected by the Jewish religious community, comprising of individuals able to exclude or discipline non-repentant sinners in some way. Both of which imply an organized group with a recognizable set of religious standards and beliefs.

FEEDING THE SHEEP

The metaphorical use of sheep is often used in the bible to refer to God's people. While this of course also refers to the humble obedianet spirit Christians are expected to display, it is interesting that sheep are not usually lone animals (like tigers or wolves) but animals that live in groups. Jesus spoke a "sheepfold" (the enclosure into which sheep were bought at night for protection) Joh 10:2-4 and most notably Peter (and by extention the other 12 chosen Apostles) was told to "feed" Jesus' sheep.

It seems clear then that Jesus was indicating that there would be an identifiable group ("sheep") which Peter would be able to "feed" (give religious instruction to).

Jesus instructed the instutution of a system by which religious instruction and encouragement to be administred through a pre-prescribed chanel - as opposed to each individual member praying to God and being guided indepently to spritually upbuilding information.

RELIGIOUS MEETINGS & RITUALS

Jesus indicated he wished his Christian followers to stay in some kind of contact with each other; for example, on the last night of his life on earth, Jesus instituted a ceremony that involved bread and wine. He commanded that his followers "keep doing this in remebrance of me" (Luke 22:19). Indeed in Matthew Chapter 18 verse 20 Jesus stated "where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.� Thus indicating far from his teachings to simply be carried in the heart of each individual follower, his people would meet together, be baptised (a religious ritual) and commemorate his death (another).

PREACHING THE GOSPEL

"Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU." - Matthew 28: 19, 20 NWT

Jesus last commission quoted above also indicates furture organization amongst his followers. They would according to him have to teach a pre-prescribed set of beliefs. Without either direct verbal communication with those that heard these teachings from Christ the potential for these teachings to morph into something unrecongizable to its origins would be enormous.

In shorit the teachings of Jesus would have to be set in writing and/or some kind of link established between those 12 men appointed men that learnt them firstand and the newly baptised disciples that would come later. We can conclude either Jesus was commissioning a kind of global "chinese whisper" that would possibly span centuries (which would result in his teachings NOT being taught but something resembling them being taught) or command that a system be established that ensured his teaching be preserved and/or transmitted accurately. Both of which would require a degree of organization.

This would be reflected in the fact that Jesus trained first 12 and later 70 of his disciples to preach; , giving them specific instrucitons as to their message and how to procede. While this was obviously in connection with his own preaching tours, it does illustrate he was not adverse to set religious instructions/teachings and a specific organizational procedure.

CONCLUSION From the above it seems clear Jesus was not simply instigating a philosophy to be adopted by individuals that came in contact with his message independently of any fixed set of beliefs, religious meetings or rituals but rather a religous system with a distinct structure and orginisational procedures that would enable his followers to fulfil a global commission. meeting all the criteria for what we call today .. a religion.




RELATED POSTS

Does Paul emphasis Jesus more that God?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 31#p857531

Do the writings of Paul contradict Jesus?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 22#p419322

Whose is the greatest name?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 84#p854184

# Do the teachings and philosophies of Jesus as expressed in the Gospels, taken by themselves, indicate he intented to start a "new religion"?
viewtopic.php?p=419487#p419487

For further details please go to other posts related to ...

CHRISTIANITY, THE MOSIAC LAW and ...THE WRITING OF THE APOSTLE PAUL

[Student]

The question presupposes that the portrayal of Jesus, as variously contained in the canonical gospels, is closer to the real Jesus than that of Paul’s kerygma.

We know from Paul that his gospel was only one among many; that his proclamation was rejected by others. But were any of these other gospels closer to the actual teachings of Jesus than Paul’s?

The most obvious criticism of Paul’s gospel is that he never actually heard the earthly Jesus. Consequently his gospel was, at best, second hand or, at worst, his invention.

A second problem is that we do not know what Paul actually preached to convert the non-believer. We only have his letters which are all addressed to Christian congregations. Furthermore Paul’s letters provide us with just one side of the conversation; we can only speculate as to what prompted him to write in the first place, and what response his letters elicited.

However, Paul’s letters were written much closer in time to Jesus’ life than any of the canonical gospels (and were their “authors� actually acquainted with the real live Jesus?).

The conditions in which Paul worked were much closer to those pertaining during Jesus lifetime. In contrast the canonical gospels were all compiled after the Jewish war. Consequently their communities faced different pressures and had different perspectives.

Furthermore, given the differences between the canonical gospels, it would appear that the circumstances in which they were compiled exercised a strong selective influence upon the character of what was preserved. In other words, these communities were interested in only preserving material that conformed to their view of Christ.

These communities took it for granted that the heavenly Christ continued to reveal the truth about himself to his followers in various ways. Since this Christ was the same person as the earthly Jesus it was only natural that the “memories� of his earthly life should be modified and added to, in the light of the prevailing circumstances.

For example, the Matthean church evidently found itself in conflict with the local synagogues . To justify their opposition (in particular) to the Pharisees, they believed that Jesus would have condemned both the scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites and so created an appropriate vitriolic speech-in-character (Mt 23:1-36). The circumstances of the Markan and Lukan communities were different so they held that Jesus’ much shorter condemnation applied only to the scribes (Mk 12:37b-40; Lk 20:45-47).

Which version better conforms to the truth about Jesus? Evidently, what we can learn from the gospels, about Jesus and his teachings, are restricted to what the communities that produced the gospels want us to know.

What Paul preached was probably not entirely congruent with the teaching of Jesus. However the same accusation can probably be levelled at the “authors� of the canonical gospels.

The OP will have to clarify, but my understanding is that the question under debate is NOT about the religability of Pauls writings but the content/apparent conflict of those works that HAVE found their way into the bible and whether that content contradicts with those of the gospels. I did not understand this to be a debate about the canonisity of particular books but of content, and that , regardless of how they found themselves accepted as part of the bible canon, when this happened or whether alternative gospels or writings would have been more harmonious.

I'll await clarification from the original poster on this, since I don't want to embark on a debate when what I'm dealing with is not the debate question.

JW

Hi JW
I see your point. I assumed that being as this thread was posted in "Christianity & Apologetics", the contents of the canonical gospels did not have to be accepted "as read".

If that is the not the case, then perhaps the thread might be better suited to “Theology, Doctrine and Dogma�?

BTW I wasn't questioning the reliability of Paul's (7 authentic) letters, but rather that of the gospel accounts as being authentic depictions of Jesus teachings.

[JehovahsWitness]

I see your point. I assumed that being as this thread was posted in "Christianity & Apologetics", the contents of the canonical gospels did not have to be accepted "as read".

If that is the not the case, then perhaps the thread might be better suited to “Theology, Doctrine and Dogma�?

BTW I wasn't questioning the reliability of Paul's (7 authentic) letters, but rather that of the gospel accounts as being authentic depictions of Jesus teachings.

Like I said, if the debate IS about the canonicity and authenticity of the gospels/Paul's epistles then I have misunderstood the OP.

Obviously such a debate question does belong in the C&A but I understood that the debate question was not do such writings belong in scripture , are they forgeries? or have they been accurately transmitted but rather, whether as stands, they contradict with the gospels that HAVE found their way by hook or by crook into the bible canon.

I'll await clarification on the debate question from the OP.