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.

[Goat]

My clarification: Sorry that I didn't explain my reason for the original question "Does Paul contradict Jesus?"

The motive of my question was to show that maybe we shouldn't put so much stock in what Paul said. Doesn't Jesus's quotes trump everyone else's quotes?(Assuming that the Gospel writers accurately wrote down Jesus's quotes). If Jesus's advice to the Lawyer was to love God and treat your neighbor like you want to be treated and if you do that you are saved, then why trump that with what Paul said(you're saved by faith in Jesus alone). It doesn't seem that Jesus said that you have to believe in Him to be saved.

If there is a pattern of contradiction between Paul and Jesus, then why buy into what Paul says at all such as Jesus's crucifixion was for the atonement of sin? Wasn't Paul the first person that said that the crucifixion was for the atonement of sin? Is there any non-vague Pre-Paul evidence that the Messiah had to suffer and die to atone for our sins?

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.

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..

[JehovahsWitness]

"12. On the commandments and eternal life:


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.


======================================================
=====================================================

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?

DOES PAUL CONTRADICT JESUS ON THE QUESTION OF THE COMMANDMENT AND EVERLASTING LIFE

Your interpretation is inaccurate imo. I will outline the evidence why below.

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.


FALSE ASSUMPTION(S) :

(1) That the expression "Justified" in scripture can ONLY be used in relation to the ransom sacrifice and that Jesus must from necessity be speaking about release from adamic sin.

• ANALYSIS: The original words translated as "justify" [di·kai·o′o [verb], di·kai′o·ma and di·kai′o·sis -nouns] in the Christian Greek Scriptures basically carry the idea of absolving or clearing of any charge, holding as guiltless, and hence acquitting, or pronouncing and treating as righteous.— W. Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (revised by F. W. Gingrich and F. Danker), 1979, pp. 197, 198; also A Greek-English Lexicon, by H. Liddell and R. Scott (revised by H. Jones), Oxford, 1968, p. 429.
  

  And all the people that heard him, and the tax collectors, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.King James 2000 Bible (©2003)

  As is illlustrated by Luke's use of the word, it is NOT used in scripture exclusively in connection to mankind's ultimate release from Adamic sin.
  

  The good man out of his good treasure sends out good things, whereas the wicked man out of his wicked treasure sends out wicked things. 36 I tell YOU that every unprofitable saying that men speak, they will render an account concerning it on Judgment Day

  Jesus is not here dealing with the basis upon which one is forgiven sins (and the obtaining of eternal life) but the link between ones motives and one's actions. Jesus repeatedly taught that a person's actions would have a bearing on being favorably judged by God and could also provide a solid basis for humans to assess the pure worship. (See Mat 7: 15-23).
  
  Judgement day - Jesus 1000 year kingdom reign - would eventually afford humans the opportunity to ultimately prove what their motives are and be judged accordingly, but Jesus is not here speaking about the basis upon which sinful humans will be GIVEN this opportunity ie his own sacrificial death.

(2) That Jesus did NOT teach justification through his sacrificial death.

By contrasting Pauls assertion that forgiveness of sins would be through faith in Jesus' sacrifice, the assumption is implicit that Jesus did NOT teach the same thing (but rather taught that forgiveness of sin could be obtained by humans through words or good works). However Jesus explicitely stated the following

for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins.

Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his soul a ransom in exchange for many.�.

CONCLUSION Jesus was refering to judgement, Paul was refering to the release from adamic sin. Both Paul and Jesus taught that the basis for the forgiveness from sin was only through sacrifice.
http://bythebible.page.tl/Who-are-God-h ... day-f-.htm

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

Do the writings of Paul contradict Jesus on the question of commanements and everlasting life?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 68#p419968

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]

Below are some quotes from well know people. It is on the website liberalslikechrist.org

This is not my rebuttal.(It will take a while as I have much to learn. I'll throw in the towel if I'm wrong) I just find the quotes interesting to read.

"Christian "Fundamentalism" is
the Triumph of Paul of Tarsus
over Jesus of Nazareth

Albert Schweitzer :
"Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord."

Carl Jung (Psychologist) :
"Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in."
(U.S. News and World Report, April 22, 1991, p. 55)

George Bernard Shaw :
"No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition
than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus."

Bishop John S. Spong
(Episcopal theologian) :
"Paul's words are not the Words of God.
They are the words of Paul- a vast difference."
(Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism,
p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991)

Thomas Jefferson :
"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
{from a letter addressed to W. Short and published in
The Great Thoughts, by George Seldes, Ballantine Books, N.Y., 1985, p. 208)

Thomas Hardy (British writer):
"The New Testament was less a Christiad than a Pauliad."

Will Durant (Philosopher) :
"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants
can be found in the words of Christ."
Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."
& "Paul created a theology about the man Jesus, a man
that he did not even know 50 or more years after the death of Jesus,
with complete disregards for even the sayings attributed to Jesus.
Jesus got lost in the metaphysical fog of Paul's brain".

Bishop Polycarp
One of the earliest of the official Church Fathers,
(who is believed by many to have learned about Jesus from John the evangelist) complained
that neither he nor anyone was "able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul."

Walter Kaufmann
(Professor of Philosophy, Princeton) :
"Paul substituted faith in Christ for the Christlike life."

Carl Sagan (Scientist; Author) :
"My long-time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly immiscible parts--the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it was an inspiring document."
(Letter to Ken Schei [author of Christianity Betrayed])

Hyam Maccoby (Talmudic Scholar) :
"As we have seen, the purposes of the book of Acts is to minimize the conflict between Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, James and Peter. Peter and Paul, in later Christian tradition, became twin saints, brothers in faith, and the idea that they were historically bitter opponents standing for irreconcilable religious standpoints would have been repudiated with horror. The work of the author of Acts was well done; he rescued Christianity from the imputation of being the individual creation of Paul, and instead gave it a respectable pedigree, as a doctrine with the authority of the so-called Jerusalem Church, conceived as continuous in spirit with the Pauline Gentile Church of Rome.
Yet, for all his efforts, the truth of the matter is not hard to recover, if we examine the New Testament evidence with an eye to tell-tale inconsistencies and confusions, rather than with the determination to gloss over and harmonize all difficulties in the interests of an orthodox interpretation.
" (The Mythmaker, p. 139, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1986)

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."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other web sites which have serious problems
with some of the teaching of Paul of Tarsus:
Paul, the first Heretic

Paul vs. Jesus, by Davis D. Danizier

YAHSHUA (Jesus the Essene) vs. Paul (the heretic). "

[Mithrae]

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.)

[JehovahsWitness]

Below are some quotes from well know people. It is on the website liberalslikechrist.org

This is not my rebuttal.(It will take a while as I have much to learn. I'll throw in the towel if I'm wrong) I just find the quotes interesting to read.

"Christian "Fundamentalism" is
the Triumph of Paul of Tarsus
over Jesus of Nazareth

Albert Schweitzer :
"Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord."

Carl Jung (Psychologist) :
"Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in."
(U.S. News and World Report, April 22, 1991, p. 55)

George Bernard Shaw :
"No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition
than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus."

Bishop John S. Spong
(Episcopal theologian) :
"Paul's words are not the Words of God.
They are the words of Paul- a vast difference."
(Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism,
p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991)

Thomas Jefferson :
"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
{from a letter addressed to W. Short and published in
The Great Thoughts, by George Seldes, Ballantine Books, N.Y., 1985, p. 208)

Thomas Hardy (British writer):
"The New Testament was less a Christiad than a Pauliad."

Will Durant (Philosopher) :
"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants
can be found in the words of Christ."
Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."
& "Paul created a theology about the man Jesus, a man
that he did not even know 50 or more years after the death of Jesus,
with complete disregards for even the sayings attributed to Jesus.
Jesus got lost in the metaphysical fog of Paul's brain".

Bishop Polycarp
One of the earliest of the official Church Fathers,
(who is believed by many to have learned about Jesus from John the evangelist) complained
that neither he nor anyone was "able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul."

Walter Kaufmann
(Professor of Philosophy, Princeton) :
"Paul substituted faith in Christ for the Christlike life."

Carl Sagan (Scientist; Author) :
"My long-time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly immiscible parts--the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it was an inspiring document."
(Letter to Ken Schei [author of Christianity Betrayed])

Hyam Maccoby (Talmudic Scholar) :
"As we have seen, the purposes of the book of Acts is to minimize the conflict between Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, James and Peter. Peter and Paul, in later Christian tradition, became twin saints, brothers in faith, and the idea that they were historically bitter opponents standing for irreconcilable religious standpoints would have been repudiated with horror. The work of the author of Acts was well done; he rescued Christianity from the imputation of being the individual creation of Paul, and instead gave it a respectable pedigree, as a doctrine with the authority of the so-called Jerusalem Church, conceived as continuous in spirit with the Pauline Gentile Church of Rome.
Yet, for all his efforts, the truth of the matter is not hard to recover, if we examine the New Testament evidence with an eye to tell-tale inconsistencies and confusions, rather than with the determination to gloss over and harmonize all difficulties in the interests of an orthodox interpretation.
" (The Mythmaker, p. 139, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1986)

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."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other web sites which have serious problems
with some of the teaching of Paul of Tarsus:
Paul, the first Heretic

Paul vs. Jesus, by Davis D. Danizier

YAHSHUA (Jesus the Essene) vs. Paul (the heretic). "

That's a lot to get through and I promise I will address the above when I get through your first cut and paste. However, I would appreciate a debate - an exchange of ideas rather than an exchange of links and quotations if possible, since I was under the impression that that is what this site is primarily for.

If you could address what I've posted so far specifically I will not feel that the considerable time and effort that I put into my posts is wasted.

Thanks, and again I will try and eventually address the above.

JW

[Mithrae]

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)

Punchinello or others may already know or may be interested in a little background here, though Goat or Student or ThatGirlAgain would probably know more about the topic than I do. Towards the end of the 1st century BCE the Jewish sect of the Pharisees was divided into two broad 'schools,' that of Hillel and that of Shammai. Both (correct me if I'm wrong) were movements of layfolk aiming to follow the Torah as closely as possible (Josephus, a Pharisee, calls the Pharisees the "most precise" sect of Judaism). But the information which has come down to us suggests that the school of Shammai tended towards more 'legalistic' interpretations or perhaps more of an emphasis on purity, as it were, whereas Hillel's side (as the above quote suggests) favoured an emphasis more along the lines shown by Jesus.

I've read that there's indications of Essene influence in the gospel accounts - particularly in the gospel of John and it's theorized that John the Baptist may have been influenced by them also - but more than anything in a 1st century Galilee/Judea setting it's very possible that Jesus' regular conflict with the 'Pharisees' over interpretation of the Law may suggest that he was influenced considerably by the school of Hillel. There was probably more to Jesus than that, of course; but in Jesus' day, I gather that it was Shammai's school which dominated (hence the un-nuanced use of 'Pharisees'), though Hillel's ended up being the main driving force in rabbinic Judaism after the temple's destruction.

That said, for some time it's been my opinion that Paul is best understood as an extreme reactionary, much like the occasional Christian fundamentalist who eventually snaps and winds up as stubbornly and vocally opposed to all things Christian or religious as once he was in favour. Contrary to some later Christian views - most notably certain Protestant teachings of the last century or so - Paul never implied that our behaviour towards each other was irrelevant to salvation; on the contrary, he stated many times that a believer's actions would clearly reflect the spiritual change within (eg Gal. 5:22ff, the 'fruit of the spirit' - cf Jesus' "a good tree can't bear bad fruit").

On one particular issue, I believe that most Christians of any stripe are loth to recognise what Paul apparently believed, because accepting it seems so cold and perhaps counter-productive while rejecting it would mean letting go of their 'word of God' (which incidentally I suspect Paul also would have decried). But the big issue is the one which John Calvin is best known for recognising, that Paul very clearly teaches a doctrine of predestination - see Ephesians 1:3-11, Ephesians 2:4-10 and especially Romans 9:16ff - or, in other words, that we are saved entirely by God's grace and that even the faith through which we are saved is a gift of God (not of works). Paul, who according to Acts and hints in his writings may have been of the Hillel school of Pharisees, writes that he was busy persecuting the heretical Jesus movement when he had his conversion experience (Galatians 1; note his own predestination in v15). He certainly emphasises how zealous he was for the Law and for the teachings of his elders; in a rather highly-strung individual I personally don't find it too hard to imagine how something might go 'click' and make him wonder whether this was all going to win him points with God or not. So without actually abandoning the core values of how people should interact with each other and respond to God (nor, sadly, how the ecclesiastical body should relate with those who don't), his soteriological views swung to the pole directly opposite that of pleasing God through his efforts.

That's just my three cents, anyways. I suppose as far as the topic goes, a doctrine of predestination may well represent a significant contrast between Jesus and Paul - though as my initial post implied, even that can more or less be reconciled from the gospel according to John.

[JehovahsWitness]

I think this link spells out the contradictions well.
http://www.truthseekers.co.za/content/view/84/59/

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.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.

FALSE ASSUMPTION(S) :

(1) That the keeping of the [Mosaic] commandements is all that is needed for eternal life

:Math 19:20, 21 "The young man said to him: “I have kept all these; what yet am I lacking?� 21 Jesus said to him: “If you want to be perfect, go sell your belongings and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven, and come be my follower.� " (NWT)[/b]I declare.

• ANAYLSIS While Jesus did point the rich young man back to the Mosaic law (which at the time was still in operation) Jesus later comments to the same man indicate that the law was not ENOUGH, and that more action would ultimately be needed. The selling of all ones belongings was NOT part of the Mosaic law (sharing and neighbourly love was but no Israelite was obliged to take a vow of poverty ), more importantly, we have Jesus' personal invitation to the man to {quote} "come be my follower".
  
  Following Jesus would naturally involve keeping abreast of his progressive leadership which included his evenual "fulfillment" of the Mosaic law and the subsequent changes that fulfillment would usher in at with his sacrificial death, in relation to God's arrangement for salvation.
  
  NB It should also be noted Jesus didn't say that the keeping of the commandements ensured or gauranteed everlasting life, but rather simply councelled that the keeping of the commandements - at that time - was a prerequisit for life. ["If you want to get into that life, you must keep the commandments." ISV] Just as if a young woman told a suiter "If you want to marry me you must have a job" she is not saying the obtaining of employment is all that is needed but that without work she will not consider his request. Obedience to whichever of God's commandements are in force at any given time are a prerequisit for life but without faith, not enough to be "complete" in God's eyes. (see Mat 19: 21 NASV)

CONCLUSION: Paul (in Romans 7: 9, 10), like Jesus, highlights what would be "lacking" even if somebody (like the rich young man) made an earnest and sincere effort to keep the Mosaic "commandments". Paul did not condemn the law in fact in verse 6 of that same chapter he speaks of its relative value and concludes that "the commendment is holy and righteous and good" [7:12] but both Paul and Jesus highlighted what would be necessary if an indidvidual wanted to be "perfect", that would be to follow the Christ.

http://www.bythebible.page.tl/Christian ... ant-f-.htm

• The apostle Paul points out this fact. He refers back in time to the offspring of Abraham before the Law was given, and he speaks of himself, a Hebrew, as though he were alive then, in the sense that he was in the loins of his forefathers. He argues: “I was once alive apart from law; but when the commandment arrived, sin came to life again, but I died. And the commandment which was to life, this I found to be to death.â€� (Ro 7:9, 10; compare Heb 7:9, 10.) [...]
  
  With the giving of the Law, Jehovah stated: “You must keep my statutes and my judicial decisions, which if a man will do, he must also live by means of them.� (Le 18:5) Doubtless those Israelites receiving the Law hailed it as offering the hope of life to them. The Law was “holy and righteous� and would mark as completely righteous the one who could live up to its standards fully. (Ro 7:12) But, instead of giving life, the Law showed all Israel, and mankind in general, to be imperfect and sinners. Furthermore, it condemned the Jews to death. (Ga 3:19; 1Ti 1:8-10) Truly, as Paul says, “when the commandment arrived, sin came to life again, but I died.� Therefore, life could not come by the Law.

Bible Encylopedia Insight on the Scripture Vol II p. 248

[Flail]

Below are some quotes from well know people. It is on the website liberalslikechrist.org

This is not my rebuttal.(It will take a while as I have much to learn. I'll throw in the towel if I'm wrong) I just find the quotes interesting to read.

"Christian "Fundamentalism" is
the Triumph of Paul of Tarsus
over Jesus of Nazareth

Albert Schweitzer :
"Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord."

Carl Jung (Psychologist) :
"Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in."
(U.S. News and World Report, April 22, 1991, p. 55)

George Bernard Shaw :
"No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition
than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus."

Bishop John S. Spong
(Episcopal theologian) :
"Paul's words are not the Words of God.
They are the words of Paul- a vast difference."
(Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism,
p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991)

Thomas Jefferson :
"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
{from a letter addressed to W. Short and published in
The Great Thoughts, by George Seldes, Ballantine Books, N.Y., 1985, p. 208)

Thomas Hardy (British writer):
"The New Testament was less a Christiad than a Pauliad."

Will Durant (Philosopher) :
"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants
can be found in the words of Christ."
Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."
& "Paul created a theology about the man Jesus, a man
that he did not even know 50 or more years after the death of Jesus,
with complete disregards for even the sayings attributed to Jesus.
Jesus got lost in the metaphysical fog of Paul's brain".

Bishop Polycarp
One of the earliest of the official Church Fathers,
(who is believed by many to have learned about Jesus from John the evangelist) complained
that neither he nor anyone was "able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul."

Walter Kaufmann
(Professor of Philosophy, Princeton) :
"Paul substituted faith in Christ for the Christlike life."

Carl Sagan (Scientist; Author) :
"My long-time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly immiscible parts--the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it was an inspiring document."
(Letter to Ken Schei [author of Christianity Betrayed])

Hyam Maccoby (Talmudic Scholar) :
"As we have seen, the purposes of the book of Acts is to minimize the conflict between Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, James and Peter. Peter and Paul, in later Christian tradition, became twin saints, brothers in faith, and the idea that they were historically bitter opponents standing for irreconcilable religious standpoints would have been repudiated with horror. The work of the author of Acts was well done; he rescued Christianity from the imputation of being the individual creation of Paul, and instead gave it a respectable pedigree, as a doctrine with the authority of the so-called Jerusalem Church, conceived as continuous in spirit with the Pauline Gentile Church of Rome.
Yet, for all his efforts, the truth of the matter is not hard to recover, if we examine the New Testament evidence with an eye to tell-tale inconsistencies and confusions, rather than with the determination to gloss over and harmonize all difficulties in the interests of an orthodox interpretation.
" (The Mythmaker, p. 139, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1986)

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.

[JehovahsWitness]

I think this link spells out the contradictions well.
http://www.truthseekers.co.za/content/view/84/59/

On the commandments and eternal life:

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.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.


FALSE ASSUMPTION(S) :

(1) That the expression "Justified" in scripture can ONLY be used in relation to the ransom sacrifice and that Jesus must from necessity be speaking about release from adamic sin.

• ANALYSIS: The original words translated as "justify" [di·kai·o′o [verb], di·kai′o·ma and di·kai′o·sis -nouns] in the Christian Greek Scriptures basically carry the idea of absolving or clearing of any charge, holding as guiltless, and hence acquitting, or pronouncing and treating as righteous.— W. Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (revised by F. W. Gingrich and F. Danker), 1979, pp. 197, 198; also A Greek-English Lexicon, by H. Liddell and R. Scott (revised by H. Jones), Oxford, 1968, p. 429.
  

  And all the people that heard him, and the tax collectors, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.King James 2000 Bible (©2003)

  As is illlustrated by Luke's use of the word, it is NOT used in scripture exclusively in connection to mankind's ultimate release from Adamic sin.
  

  The good man out of his good treasure sends out good things, whereas the wicked man out of his wicked treasure sends out wicked things. 36 I tell YOU that every unprofitable saying that men speak, they will render an account concerning it on Judgment Day

  Jesus is not here dealing with the basis upon which one is forgiven sins (and the obtaining of eternal life) but the link between ones motives and one's actions. Jesus repeatedly taught that a person's actions would have a bearing on being favorably judged by God and could also provide a solid basis for humans to assess the pure worship. (See Mat 7: 15-23).
  
  Judgement day - Jesus 1000 year kingdom reign - would eventually afford humans the opportunity to ultimately prove what their motives are and be judged accordingly, but Jesus is not here speaking about the basis upon which sinful humans will be GIVEN this opportunity ie his own sacrificial death.

(2) That Jesus did NOT teach justification through his sacrificial death.

By contrasting Pauls assertion that forgiveness of sins would be through faith in Jesus' sacrifice, the assumption is implicit that Jesus did NOT teach the same thing (but rather taught that forgiveness of sin could be obtained by humans through words or good works). However Jesus explicitely stated the following

for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins.

Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his soul a ransom in exchange for many.�.

CONCLUSION Jesus was refering to judgement, Paul was refering to the release from adamic sin. Both Paul and Jesus taught that the basis for the forgiveness from sin was only through sacrifice.
http://bythebible.page.tl/Who-are-God-h ... day-f-.htm

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

Do the writings of Paul contradict Jesus on the question of commanements and everlasting life?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 68#p419968

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

[ThatGirlAgain]

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.

I think Paul got something of a bad rap on this. Paul's agenda was to include gentiles in the Jesus movement, which was a messianic branch of Judaism at that time. To justify gentiles as equivalent to Jews, he called everyone equally sinful in nature and made faith the identifying characteristic. See especially Romans 2 and 3 for his explanation. Many centuries later, this would be distorted into faith alone by transmogrifying what Paul called useless ‘works’ into the uselessness of moral living. When Paul refers to works he means “works of the law� (Romans 3:20), that is, Jewish rituals and customs which are not needed for gentiles. Paul constantly emphasized the avoidance of sin. The first half of Ephesians is a reiteration of the message of Romans justifying gentiles but the second half is all about how to live morally. Ephesians may not have been written by Paul personally but it clearly reflects the beliefs of the Pauline school of thought. Faith alone is not part of those beliefs.