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]

[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]

[Student]

[JehovahsWitness]