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.

[Shermana]

I see.

Well perhaps its' also worth mentioning that many scholars seem to think that "Simon Magus" was just a Pseudonym for Paul. (Including the notorious F.C. Baur) Makes a lot of sense...

http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/clement ... essage.htm

Clement was St. Peter's hand-picked successor and much of the material that follows is from the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. In the works, much is said concerning a doctrinal battle between Peter and a magician named Simon. Magus. Scholars are certain that “Simon� is a pseudonym for St. Paul and that the disputes mentioned are really between Peter and Paul. In writing about this matter G. Strecker states:

It is true that in the basic writing the statements in question are directed against Simon Magus, and in this way veiled; nevertheless the allusions to citations from the Pauline letters, above all to the discussion between Paul and Peter in Antioch (Galatians 2:11ff), the designation of the magician as a missionary to the Gentiles, and not least the scarcely disguised attitude of the Epistula Petri (the letter from Peter to James that I mentioned earlier) show that in the Kerygmata Petrou (preaching of Peter) source they are leveled against Paul. (Apostolic Pseudepigrapha, p. 108)

Hans-Joachim Schoeps, Professor of Religious History, in Germany, and a recognized expert on matters dealing with St. Paul concurs:

This conflict is developed to its full extreme in the presentation of the Kerygmata Petrou, which reproduces similarly the point of view of the Judaistic opponents of Paul. Their old enemy here appears under the pseudonym 'Simon." This "Simon who Is also Paul..." (Jewish Christianity, p. 51)

As you can see, these are only a few examples which reveal to you the opinion of the scholarly community that there seems to be a consensus that the mentioned “Simon� is indeed Paul in these writings. The question that came to my mind was why these early Christian writers would not identify Paul directly. After some thought, a possible reason became very obvious.

Others are of the opinion that the followers of Peter and James believed that they had been given the responsibility of conveying Christ's message to the world. They found themselves in a position where Paul (whom they considered to be a false apostle and an enemy of Christ) had somehow gained ascendancy and had taken over the leadership of the Christian church. This being the case, a direct attack on Paul would mean the certain condemnation of their writings and would eliminate any chance of having their (Christ's) message included within the canon of the church. At the time this material was put into written form, both Paul and Peter were dead. Therefore, the issue of personalities was not important; the attempted preservation of what they considered to be the true message of Christ was. By using Simon as a veiled reference to Paul, they must have felt that they least had a chance to present their all-important doctrinal messages and to have Christ's heavenly sent message yet be presented to the intended recipients. Unfortunately, this attempt failed an the Paulinist faction succeeded in suppressing this vital information..

[Student]

That, coupled with his lack of understanding of the Jewish religion, his atypical attitude towards the law, and the inclusion of many non-Jewish elements into his theology make a very good chance he was not a Jew, and he most definitely was not educated in the Jewish religion.

Can you give instances of Paul’s lack of understanding of the Jewish religion? Can you cite passages that support that idea?

Keep in mind that only half of the Pauline Epistles are widely agreed to have been written by Paul. (Ref)

These are:

First Thessalonians
Philippians
Philemon
First Corinthians
Galatians
Second Corinthians
Romans

Also Acts, which refers extensively to Paul, nonetheless contradicts the Epistles on many points and cannot be considered a reliable indicator of what Paul thought.


Paul was arguing that the Jesus movement was universal in nature, probably referring to the many “all nations� mentions in the prophecies of Isaiah. He argued that gentiles need not become Jewish to follow Jesus and that the Law did not apply to them. He further argued that possessing the Law did not justify the Jews. In fact, knowledge of the Law led to explicit sin because the rules were made explicit by the Law. Atypical attitude? Sure. But does this sound like a non-Jew talking? More likely it sounds like a Jew who has converted to a new universal religion just as Paul said he has. Paul did not stay a traditional Jew, but that does not mean he never was one.

Here is a good discussion of Paul and the Law.
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/Pauline/Law.htm#L322A1


One ‘non-Jewish element’ I presume is the Eucharist Formula.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.� 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.� 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

The Last Supper was a Passover Seder. The bread was matzoh. (The Christian Eucharist is still unleavened bread.) Earlier in Corinthians Paul had said:

1 Corinthians 5:6-8

6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

The Passover lamb is eaten in the Seder in remembrance of the deliverance of the Jews. To Paul Jesus is the Passover lamb. But because eating human flesh is forbidden, the matzoh is eaten instead “in remembrance of me�.

The Four Cups of wine are taken at the Passover meal. The one Jesus refers to is presumably the birkat hamazon, the grace after meals, which is also said after eating any kind of bread.

The scriptural source for the requirement to say birkat hamazon is Deuteronomy 8:10 "When you have eaten and are satisfied, you shall bless the LORD your God for the good land which He gave you".
(From above link)

This requirement is given before the Israelites enter the promised land and is part of the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus associates a new covenant with the drinking of the wine. And that new covenant is to lead into a new promised land, the messianic age that began with the resurrection of Jesus. (As Paul has it anyway. Later writers hedge that bet in various ways.)

Rather than being non-Jewish, the Eucharist Formula is a clever way of building a new religion on a thoroughly Jewish foundation.

In specific, it was the attitude that the law was a burden, and the law is 'of the flesh' Roman 7:6, Gal 5:1 Gal 3 11-12 and gal 3:23-24 show attitudes that are dynamically opposite of someone who grew up in a religious household.

There are plenty of people right here on this site who have "attitudes dynamically opposite of someone who grew up in a religious household", yet nonetheless they did exactly that. Paul tells us a number of times that his life and attitudes had changed. He was no longer the traditional Jew. He had found something new that went beyond where he had been before. Sounds believable to me.

Perhaps.. but it does not show any knowledge of Judaism as it was practiced in that time.

But just how was Judaism practiced at that time, and more specifically at that time in the diaspora?

Surely the problem with dismissing Paul’s claim to being a Pharisee simply because he does not conform to the image of a Pharisee as portrayed by Rabbinic Judaism is to use the Judaism of the second half of the second century as a measure of Judaism in the first half of the first century.

Furthermore, it assumes that the Judaism of the diaspora was entirely homogeneous with the Judaism of Jerusalem when clearly it was not.

“There was a Greek Halakha and a Greek Haggada; or, to put it otherwise, the diaspora possessed a Greek Midrash and a Greek Talmud. Traces of both often occur in Paul, Philo, Josephus, and the Apocrypha – but no actual documents, and it is scarcely probable that much was written down. Indeed everything of this kind disappeared when the Judaism of the Greek diaspora ceased to be.� (H. Lietzman; A History of the Early Church; Volume 1; The Beginnings of the Christian Church; p.90)

The language of the Hellenistic diaspora was Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. So, the adjective “Hebrew� should not be taken to imply the Hebrew language. When the door-post of a synagogue in Corinth was discovered bearing the inscription “Synagogue of the Hebrews� it should come as no surprise that the inscription was in Greek.

So while Paul does not conform to a reconstructed picture of a Pharisee in first century Palestine as an analogue of a second century Rabbi, he might well have been a typical example of a Pharisee in the Hellenistic diaspora.

[Goat]

So while Paul does not conform to a reconstructed picture of a Pharisee in first century Palestine as an analogue of a second century Rabbi, he might well have been a typical example of a Pharisee in the Hellenistic diaspora.

Or, perhaps might not be. Philo certainly was taken out of context by the early Christians, we have a lot of his writings intact, and many of his concepts were adopted and developed by the early Christians .. particularly the author of the GOJ.

The big difference is that Jospehus, and Philo demonstrated KNOWLEDGE about the mainstream Jewish religion. .. even if Philo had a number of attitudes that were influenced by Greek philosophy and religion. The writings we have of Paul is missing the knowledge and the basics.

In modern times, there are people who are Christian that give forth certain attitudes that are very Jewish in nature.. and I am totally unsurprised when I find a parent, or a grandparent, or sometimes even a great grandparent was Jewish. There is a certain pattern of thinking that gets passed down , even when the traditions and beliefs are not. .. a way of looking at the world. I am not seeing those patterns in the writings we have left of Paul. I see this pattern in Philo. I see this pattern in Jospehus.. and often in the secular writing of modern writers of Jewish decent. I don't see this pattern in Paul.

[Student]

So while Paul does not conform to a reconstructed picture of a Pharisee in first century Palestine as an analogue of a second century Rabbi, he might well have been a typical example of a Pharisee in the Hellenistic diaspora.

Or, perhaps might not be.

Or might be……we could go on like this all night!

Philo certainly was taken out of context by the early Christians, we have a lot of his writings intact, and many of his concepts were adopted and developed by the early Christians .. particularly the author of the GOJ.

I’m not so sure that Philo’s Logos is entirely congruent with that of the author of John.

The big difference is that Jospehus, and Philo demonstrated KNOWLEDGE about the mainstream Jewish religion. .. even if Philo had a number of attitudes that were influenced by Greek philosophy and religion. The writings we have of Paul is missing the knowledge and the basics.

Certainly the form of Judaism developed by second century Rabbinic Judaism is consistent with the views expressed by Philo and Josephus. But were the views of two cultured and privileged people entirely typical of Judaism in the diaspora. How homogeneous was Judaism throughout the diaspora?

Only seven authentic letters of Paul survive, and these are all addressed to Christian communities. We therefore may not have a complete picture of Paul’s understanding of Judaism.

In modern times, there are people who are Christian that give forth certain attitudes that are very Jewish in nature.. and I am totally unsurprised when I find a parent, or a grandparent, or sometimes even a great grandparent was Jewish. There is a certain pattern of thinking that gets passed down , even when the traditions and beliefs are not. .. a way of looking at the world. I am not seeing those patterns in the writings we have left of Paul. I see this pattern in Philo. I see this pattern in Jospehus.. and often in the secular writing of modern writers of Jewish decent. I don't see this pattern in Paul.

I’m not at all certain that I am comfortable with the opinions you express here.

[Goat]

So while Paul does not conform to a reconstructed picture of a Pharisee in first century Palestine as an analogue of a second century Rabbi, he might well have been a typical example of a Pharisee in the Hellenistic diaspora.

Or, perhaps might not be.

Or might be……we could go on like this all night!

Philo certainly was taken out of context by the early Christians, we have a lot of his writings intact, and many of his concepts were adopted and developed by the early Christians .. particularly the author of the GOJ.

I’m not so sure that Philo’s Logos is entirely congruent with that of the author of John.

Not entirely, but highly influenced by. Philo's logos was the concept of the wisdom of God being an intermediary between God and Man... while John extended that concept to be 'Wisdom made flesh' and kept on referring to Jesus as 'the one sent'. The writer of the GOJ took the Philo concept, and graphed it onto a human figure.

[ThatGirlAgain]

We may note that the attitude of Jesus as represented in the Gospels appears to be similar (but not identical) to that of the [url=ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Hillel]House of Hillel[/url] with its more liberal interpretation. We may also note that in the timeframe for the life of Jesus as inferred from the Gospels, Jesus would have learned Judaism in the Hillel era. MacCoby fails to make this distinction between the two houses when he says “in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus speaks and acts as a Pharisee, though the Gospel editors have attempted to conceal this by representing him as opposing Pharisaism even when his sayings were most in accordance with Pharisee teaching.� Jesus opposed the letter of the law in opposition to the spirit of the law attitude of the Pharisees of that era. The definite impression I get from this and many other things in The Mythmaker is that MacCoby has an agenda and is less than scholarly in presenting it.

But, the attitude of Jesus in the gospels have nothing to do with Paul. The example\s I pointed out where not from the pastorals, but from what are considered the genuine letters of Paul.

This thread is getting really big and complicated. I do not see the examples that you pointed out. Sorry for that but can you give me a link? Thanks much. Also, I may not be fully awake on a Monday morning, but I am not seeing how your reply was relevant to mine? What did I miss?

[Goat]

We may note that the attitude of Jesus as represented in the Gospels appears to be similar (but not identical) to that of the [url=ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Hillel]House of Hillel[/url] with its more liberal interpretation. We may also note that in the timeframe for the life of Jesus as inferred from the Gospels, Jesus would have learned Judaism in the Hillel era. MacCoby fails to make this distinction between the two houses when he says “in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus speaks and acts as a Pharisee, though the Gospel editors have attempted to conceal this by representing him as opposing Pharisaism even when his sayings were most in accordance with Pharisee teaching.� Jesus opposed the letter of the law in opposition to the spirit of the law attitude of the Pharisees of that era. The definite impression I get from this and many other things in The Mythmaker is that MacCoby has an agenda and is less than scholarly in presenting it.

But, the attitude of Jesus in the gospels have nothing to do with Paul. The example\s I pointed out where not from the pastorals, but from what are considered the genuine letters of Paul.

This thread is getting really big and complicated. I do not see the examples that you pointed out. Sorry for that but can you give me a link? Thanks much. Also, I may not be fully awake on a Monday morning, but I am not seeing how your reply was relevant to mine? What did I miss?

[ThatGirlAgain]

We may note that the attitude of Jesus as represented in the Gospels appears to be similar (but not identical) to that of the [url=ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Hillel]House of Hillel[/url] with its more liberal interpretation. We may also note that in the timeframe for the life of Jesus as inferred from the Gospels, Jesus would have learned Judaism in the Hillel era. MacCoby fails to make this distinction between the two houses when he says “in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus speaks and acts as a Pharisee, though the Gospel editors have attempted to conceal this by representing him as opposing Pharisaism even when his sayings were most in accordance with Pharisee teaching.� Jesus opposed the letter of the law in opposition to the spirit of the law attitude of the Pharisees of that era. The definite impression I get from this and many other things in The Mythmaker is that MacCoby has an agenda and is less than scholarly in presenting it.

But, the attitude of Jesus in the gospels have nothing to do with Paul. The example\s I pointed out where not from the pastorals, but from what are considered the genuine letters of Paul.

This thread is getting really big and complicated. I do not see the examples that you pointed out. Sorry for that but can you give me a link? Thanks much. Also, I may not be fully awake on a Monday morning, but I am not seeing how your reply was relevant to mine? What did I miss?

Oh, the references to the Law. OK now I am with you. I thought you meant something else. We may disagree about the interpretation but I already answered.

[JehovahsWitness]

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).

Ephesians 2:9
This link spells out pretty well why the above is an incorrect conclusion.
http://www.bythebible.page.tl/Works-%26-Faith.htm


How did God "harden" Pharoah's heart (Ex. 7:3, 4) ?

"For the Scripture says to Phar´aoh: “For this very cause I have let you remain, that in connection with you I may show my power, and that my name may be declared in all the earth.�

God did not actually harden the heart of Pharaoh so that Pharaoh lost his free will making change impossible and his fate unavoidable. The bible often speaks about God "doing" things that he in fact allows or permits (1 Sam 4:3). Jehovah "hardened" the Egyptian kings heart in that he allowed his stubborn character to be revealed.

As with Pharoah God can read the heart and someone's inclination towards bad (or good) beforehand but this doesn not mean they are incapable of changing. Take for example the case of Cain who killed his brother Abel. Even before this terrible act, God read his heart and saw that if he didn't change it would lead to disaster. What did God do? He tried to warn Cain of the badness he saw in his heart and help him to change.

Pharoah of Egypt, Esau and many others have ignored God warnings and followed an bad path, this was not predetermined but their individual decision and if "God saw it coming" like a parent that 'knows' his rebellious child will (if he doesn't change) end up in a bad situation, this does not mean it was beyond their power to change.

CONCLUSION The above passaged are obviously open to alternative interpretations, that do NOT support the idea of individual predestination, thus it is inaccurate to state that "Paul clearly" taught Predestination.

NOTE: I did promise to address the list of quotations the OP provided, but on examination, despite the orgasmic cries of glee the list seemed to evoke in fellow posters, there is little or no actual evidence presented therein - one can only presume the mere mention of the individuals names should be enough for one not to ask for more. In any case if the OP would like to present the evidnece that lead said esteemed scholars and inviduals to draw their conclusions I will look at it, if not there is not much to go on in the actual quotations provided. The only possible response to "Mr W thought Paul hated Jesus and was the drunk, illegitimate son of a Swedish washerwoman", without the relevant evidence is, "Yes he probably did think that... so?"

[Mithrae]

I see.

Well perhaps its' also worth mentioning that many scholars seem to think that "Simon Magus" was just a Pseudonym for Paul. (Including the notorious F.C. Baur) Makes a lot of sense...

http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/clement ... essage.htm

I'd be hard-pressed to read that site if I was paid. God save us from folk who think that garish colours make their information more correct or more believable.

From your quoted comments (removed above for brevity), I see two scholars I'd never previously heard of saying that the late second-century 'Clementine literature' (possibly even later) condemns Paul in a rather obscure fashion. And "the notorious F.C. Baur" of course. The theory presented by your site is that the authors of these documents believed they were "vital information" whose preservation was more important than directly condemning Pauline theology.

It's interesting to learn those views, but a link and a quote from that page aren't the same as relevant discussion. Why are those interpretations of late second-century Christian texts relevant to the question of Paul's teachings compared with Jesus' teachings?

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

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).

Ephesians 2:9
This link spells out pretty well why the above is an incorrect conclusion.
http://www.bythebible.page.tl/Works-%26-Faith.htm

How did God "harden" Pharoah's heart (Ex. 7:3, 4)?

God did not actually harden the heart of Pharaoh so that Pharaoh lost his free will making change impossible and his fate unavoidable. The bible often speaks about God "doing" things that he in fact allows or permits (1 Sam 4:3). Jehovah "hardened" the Egyptian kings heart in that he allowed his stubborn character to be revealed.

As with Pharoah God can read the heart and someone's inclination towards bad (or good) beforehand but this doesn not mean they are incapable of changing. Take for example the case of Cain who killed his brother Abel. Even before this terrible act, God read his heart and saw that if he didn't change it would lead to disaster. What did God do? He tried to warn Cain of the badness he saw in his heart and help him to change.

Pharoah of Egypt, Esau and many others have ignored God warnings and followed an bad path, this was not predetermined but their individual decision and if "God saw it coming" like a parent that 'knows' his rebellious child will (if he doesn't change) end up in a bad situation, this does not mean it was beyond their power to change.

CONCLUSION The above passaged are obviously open to alternative interpretations, that do NOT support the idea of individual predestination, thus it is inaccurate to state that "Paul clearly" taught Predestination.

Your link, as far as I can see, is concerned with the faith/works distinction, in that Paul did not advocate faith apart from works. But while my original post specifically highlighted Eph. 2:8-10, my reference included verses 4 onwards. Verse 5 says that God in his mercy "even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" - not because of our repentence or our faith, but while we were dead in our sin. Verse 9's "by grace you have been saved through faith" doesn't supplant this, it builds on it.

But since some 20-40% of scholars 'seriously doubt' the authenticity of Ephesians (and Colossians), it's generally not considered amongst the 'genuine' Pauline epistles - which I guess goes to show Paul at least knew how powerful doubt could be I'm undecided on that point, but included Ephesians for a broader perspective; ultimately I think Paul states his views very clearly in Romans 9.

But I admit that perhaps I should have made the effort of explaining how far FF from Romans 9:16 I meant:

• Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.â€� 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
  19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?� 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?� 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
  22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Any number of apologists can say that "it is not of him who wills" doesn't mean that people's will is not the issue.
Any number of theologians can say that "he has mercy on whom he wills, and whom he wills he hardens" doesn't mean that God has mercy on some and hardens others
Any number of (non-Calvinist) Christians can say that when Paul compares people with clay, including "the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" he doesn't mean that anyone was prepared for destruction.

Personally, I think John Calvin got it right, as far as Paul's views were concerned at least. Ephesians is just the icing on the cake - this passage spells it out in black and white terms.

It is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs...
He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens...
Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?...
...the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction...

. . . . the vessels of wrath...
*ghostly whisper on the wind*
...prepared for destruction . . . .