Does Apostle Paul Contradict Jesus?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Punchinello
Student
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:21 am
Location: Upstate New York

Does Apostle Paul Contradict Jesus?

Post #1

Post by 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
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #101

Post by Shermana »

  • Jeremiah 31:30. Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will form a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, a new covenant.
    31. Not like the covenant that I formed with their forefathers on the day I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt, that they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the Lord.
    http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16028
    (Verses 31-32 in Christian translations)
I don't know what Jews think about all this, but I suspect most Christians with their 'old testament/covenant' don't really understand God's covenants with his people. The covenant mentioned here, when Israel left Egypt, is described in Exodus 20-23 (cf 24:5-8). No more, and no less. Another covenant was made 40 years later, on the far side of the Jordan just before Israel entered Canaan and became a true nation (Deuteronomy 29:1). God made other covenants with Abraham, before which there was no circumcision, with David, with Noah and so on. In the wider scheme of things, I don't see much value in the Christian concept of 'sin' as an actual thing by which our souls are tainted, as if things like planting two types of seed together or loving someone of the same sex were fundamentally wrong. If they're violating a covenant with God, then there's a problem, but it seems that Abraham was free to plough with an ox and donkey together to his heart's content.
Abraham plows with an ox and donkey together? I must have missed that verse. What do you mean no circumcision in Abraham's covenant? How did Noah know which animals were clean and unclean? Whether you see value or not is irrelevant, the discussion of what "Sin" is and its effects is a common theme in both the OT and the NT. Perhaps you may not understand it, and perhaps one needs to also see the "Apocryphal" and "Midrashic" literature to see what exactly the Ancient Jews were referring to by "tainting one's soul".
God's covenant with Israel prohibited using different types of seed or cloth together (Deut. 22:9-11), the best explanation I can imagine being to reinforce the mindset of their own apartness from other nations, and prohibited the same types of gender from being together (Lev. 20:13) - possibly because that would inhibit population growth?


I find the mere touch of any dual-woven material to be mildly painful, maybe I'm an extra-sensitive Jew. The explanation that you imagine is irrelevant, its the Law regardless. Yashua even mentions that the wearing of Tassels and Tefilin were being done out of showing off rather than for their intended meaning, he wasn't saying it was wrong to do them, but he acknowledges that there was some spiritual meaning in them that was being missed out on with regards to fashion over substance. Male-male relations are prohibited because it is called an "Abomination" which means a "horror". Population growth is hardly a problem, three men can repopulate an entire community. It's about "tainting the soul", and that's how Ancient Jews saw it, whether you can see it or not is irrelevant.
All the laws in Deuteronomy about judges, kings, cities of refuge, rules for warfare and so on, along with the fact it was given just before Israel became a nation, suggest that it's purpose was because Israel was becoming a nation; not as universal or eternal laws. But Jeremiah's prophecy says that even the less specifically-oriented covenant made at Horeb was broken, and would be replaced by a new covenant which would not be like it.
Irrelevant. There are many Laws in Deuteronomy that have nothing to do with being an independent nation. There is no "Categorization". The Law is the Law. Jesus said not a single Iota of it would fail. Trying to justify the reasons for the Law is not the subject here. The definition of "not like it" doesn't mean "nothing like it". Perhaps it means "one that will not be broken". We don't know what it means, but Jesus said not "one iota of the Law shall be made void". End of subject. The rules of the Law was the same, even if it was a(nother) new Covenant. The concept is that the "Law will be written on their hearts". The context is that those who accept the Moshiach will KNOW the law without having to study it.
Perhaps the only difference was to be that God's people would now have his law written on their hearts and minds (the desire and the knowledge to please him?), and that no-one would need to teach his neighbour because they would all know him. Even that, to my mind, calls into serious question the devoted Christian study and appeals to the Bible as the source for instruction on how to live. Hardly God's law written on hearts and minds, with no need to teach your neighbour!
Says a lot about most so-called self-claimed "Christians". I think you're assuming that it means anyone who accepts that Jesus was Christ is somehow truly a disciple or part of the prophecy. Which is exactly what I'm disagreeing with. However, your comment here about what its "only" effect here may in fact be completely right.
But then how can you, if you believe this new covenant had come, be appealing to the written laws of Moses as instruction on how Jesus/Peter/Paul should have lived?
How can I not? Why should a "New covenant" mean the dissolution of the Old Law? This is a presumption of yours which is quite common, and in my opinion, you simply don't understand what "not like the old" means. It simply means that those who accept the Moshiach will have the Law on them forever. Also, it may have something to do with the Moshiach serving as the Guilt offering. But once again, Jesus said "Not one Iota of the Law shall be void". That should be clear enough that he meant "Not one Iota of the Law" (same Law as before) shall EVER become void. End of story. If you say that Jesus was allowing the Law to be broken, you're calling Jesus a liar when he said "Not one iota of the Law shall become void" or saying that he said something he didn't say.

[
My understanding of ancient Judaism is far from perfect, but I understand that there are numerous situations given where a person who is ceremonially unclean will cause things or people they touch to be unclean also. Sometimes until the evening after washing, sometimes until ritually purified (eg. after touching a corpse) and sometimes things like clay vessels had to be destroyed entirely. Hence, such unclean people were to be kept entirely out of the Israelites' presence:
Missing the context. Do you understand why Cornelius was the first convert? He was "righteous". What does that mean? Even Peter apparently had a problem of eating meals with gentile converts. There's more to the story than you think.
  • Numbers 5:2. Command the children of Israel to banish from the camp all those afflicted with tzara'ath or with a male discharge, and all those unclean through [contact with] the dead.
Not even close to a close comparison. This is talking about the diseased. Are you saying that Jesus now made it so you can be around people with discharges?
3. Both male and female you shall banish; you shall send them outside the camp, and they not defile their camps, in which I dwell among them.[/list]
The diseased. So you're saying that Jesus said its fine to share a cup with a person with a discharge? I'd stone the guy immediately back then. And I don't mean with Kaneh bos.
This was the cause of Peter's reluctance to meet and eat with Gentiles,


Partly yes, but not with the disease part.
the reason behind the episode Paul describes in Galatians 2, and the meaning of Peter's vision: He was no longer to be concerned about this issue of ceremonial impurity in contact with Gentiles.
And with contact with gentile converts to the initial church. The gentile adapts to the church, the church doesn't adapt to the gentile. And this may be part of why I don't completely trust Paul either.
He then went to the house of Roman soldier who almost certainly had not been purified of his corpse defilement; when he returned he was criticised for eating with unclean people (11:3), but ultimately the church decided that Gentiles were not to be obliged to obey Moses' law beyond some most important elements (15:19-21)
.
\

It is here where I must bring up the fact that several scholars doubt Acts 15's authenticity altogether. As for those "4 laws', they don't include murder, or theft. So are gentiles allowed to murder and steal if all they must obey is Acts 15? I have also regarded Acts 15 as a later interpolation since I first read it, there is much dispute on its authenticity.
I can see why you consider Acts dubious, because (written as it apparently was by one of his companions) it clearly supports Paul's message to the Gentiles.
Bingo. And the fact that multiple scholars doubt it too doesn't help.
It also has Peter associating with ceremonially unclean people, making himself unclean - after having been told by God not to call impure what he'd made clean! This is why I'm surprised you brought it up, since it clearly invalidates aspects of the Law of Moses.
I brought it up because it specifically says that the meaning of the vision, nothing more and nothing less, was that its now time to allow the gentiles in. Interestingly, Jesus EARLIER said to not even go near the gentiles. Another reason to suspect Act's authenticity.


What I'm trying to understand, as suggested by the last sentence of my former post, is what this crucified Messiah actually did or meant, if not to bring about some significant change?
I'm trying to understand it fully myself. He served as the Guilt offering, and tried to get Israel back on track from what the Pharisees and Sadducees were artifically adding and subtracting to the Law. It's a complicated subject.
Do you agree with the Christian view that this crucified Messiah took away the sins of the world, as per Isaiah 53? If so, wouldn't that invalidate the Mosaic sacrificial system (which, of course, ceased a few decades after Jesus' death)? That's a lot more than a single iota of the Law, so I'm assuming you don't believe that's what he did.
Not as most see it. I see it as he takes away one's sins as a guilt offering, and taught the way to live righteously so that one does not go to hell, and how to obey the Law correctly, apart from the artificial additions and subtractions the Pharisees and Sadducees were teaching. Note that Jesus tells the healed leper to "make a sacrifice as Moses commanded". How does that work out? Anything that says an Iota of the Law is now void is an obvious contradiction with Matthew 5 and Luke 16. However, there is no more Temple. There hasn't been one for 2000 years. Perhaps there may be another soon. Perhaps Yashua's sacrifice is the replacement. I don't know exactly. Maybe we're supposed to be constructing altars like how some of the Early Christians did. Maybe I'll be told in a dream. It's not exactly clear.
Do you believe that this crucified Messiah did indeed usher in Jeremiah's new covenant? But what is the difference between the new covenant and the old ones? At least Christians believe there was a significant change, even if they still appeal to teachings and instructions written by others, the 'letter of the law' as Paul calls it rather than the Spirit which brings life (2 Cor. 3:3-6). But a Messiah who came and was crucified in order to really change nothing? 'spose it's possible.
Yes, I do believe he ushered in Jermiah's NEw covenant, and I believe the difference may be in the TEMPORARY replacement of the Sacrifice until he returns to lead Israel in the flesh as King in the near future, this is a very difficult subject of which I can only hope to know more about one day and I will admit ignorance on what exactly it means to have the "Law written on one's heart", although I can say that I have a sort of "Sense" personally as to what seems Lawful and what doesn't. Like with the 2 different strands of fiber, I feel icky even touching it. Regardless, a major change can be seen in the teaching alone of the Moshiach, in which he served as a Martyr against what "Judaism" had been warped into by the Pharisees and Sadduccees.
Do you believe that this crucified Messiah was to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:6), calling them to be circumcised and abstain from pig and prawns and dilligently study their Torah to learn what else God demands of them?


Yes.
Of course according to the Law whose single jot or tittle shall never pass away, quite a few Gentiles will forever be excluded from among God's people (Deut. 23:1-6) - my sisters and all of their descendants unto the tenth generation, for example. Again, I guess it's possible that this is what the crucified Messiah was all about also, though since few Gentiles have heeded that call it seems even that rather selective plan of God's didn't succeed very well.
Many will be called, FEW will be chosen. The fact that very very few actually understand the point of what Yashua taught makes complete sense. Assuming by your comment, you are saying you (or your sisters) are a "Mamzer", this is a difficult subject, it would be like trying to explain to a Canaanite why Jesus calls the Canaanite woman a dog. Perhaps in your next life you will be reborn as a non-Mamzer. So yes, I believe Mamzers are not allowed to the assembly, this is just how it is, I cannot say anything more.

Are one of those, or all of them, how we're supposed to believe Peter and Jesus' other disciples understood their Messiah in the months after his shameful execution? To my mind it just doesn't make sense that they'd wind up believing the Messiah had come and been crucified without really accomplishing or changing anything. Unless I'm missing something, it seems to me just as likely that Peter and the others (if not Jesus himself) originated the new covenant and change of the law notions which Paul later expanded on further, proclaiming the end of the law.
[/quote]

Again, I see it as a major accomplishment and changing things even just by forming a Sect of believers who would rebel from the Pharisee and Sadducee authority. I see the Nazarenes and Ebionites under James as the true successors, and it seems that's the belief that Peter followed as well.

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Post #102

Post by Mithrae »

Shermana wrote:
  • Jeremiah 31:30. Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will form a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, a new covenant.
    31. Not like the covenant that I formed with their forefathers on the day I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt, that they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the Lord.
    http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16028
    (Verses 31-32 in Christian translations)
I don't know what Jews think about all this, but I suspect most Christians with their 'old testament/covenant' don't really understand God's covenants with his people. The covenant mentioned here, when Israel left Egypt, is described in Exodus 20-23 (cf 24:5-8). No more, and no less. Another covenant was made 40 years later, on the far side of the Jordan just before Israel entered Canaan and became a true nation (Deuteronomy 29:1). God made other covenants with Abraham, before which there was no circumcision, with David, with Noah and so on. In the wider scheme of things, I don't see much value in the Christian concept of 'sin' as an actual thing by which our souls are tainted, as if things like planting two types of seed together or loving someone of the same sex were fundamentally wrong. If they're violating a covenant with God, then there's a problem, but it seems that Abraham was free to plough with an ox and donkey together to his heart's content.
Abraham plows with an ox and donkey together? I must have missed that verse. What do you mean no circumcision in Abraham's covenant? How did Noah know which animals were clean and unclean? Whether you see value or not is irrelevant, the discussion of what "Sin" is and its effects is a common theme in both the OT and the NT. Perhaps you may not understand it, and perhaps one needs to also see the "Apocryphal" and "Midrashic" literature to see what exactly the Ancient Jews were referring to by "tainting one's soul".
That should have been that Abraham would have been free to plough with an ox and donkey, since that law was not around in his day - just as there was no circumcision before God's covenant with Abraham. Genesis does indeed say that God told Noah to take seven of the clean animals; this was (traditionally) written by Moses, so most likely it was an anachronism, though we might suppose that God also explained what he meant by that.

In fairness even Paul in Romans 2:14-15 speaks of Gentiles who follow the requirements of the law, since it is written on their hearts in the form of their conscience. And he, like Jesus and like his (alleged) mentor's grandfather Hillel, explained these fundamental requirements of the law in terms of love and the 'golden rule.' If the apocryphal or midrashic literature say that gossip, envy, greed, bitterness, wrath, hatred and so on are a taint upon the soul, as Jesus and Paul taught, it's not a concept I'd particularly disagree with - they're certainly no good for the psyche. But planting two types of crops together is often good ecological practice, and washing one's hands before eating is always good sanitary practice. Yet you seem to believe that the former taints the soul, while the latter does not?
Shermana wrote:
Mithrae wrote:God's covenant with Israel prohibited using different types of seed or cloth together (Deut. 22:9-11), the best explanation I can imagine being to reinforce the mindset of their own apartness from other nations, and prohibited the same types of gender from being together (Lev. 20:13) - possibly because that would inhibit population growth?

I find the mere touch of any dual-woven material to be mildly painful, maybe I'm an extra-sensitive Jew. The explanation that you imagine is irrelevant, its the Law regardless. Yashua even mentions that the wearing of Tassels and Tefilin were being done out of showing off rather than for their intended meaning, he wasn't saying it was wrong to do them, but he acknowledges that there was some spiritual meaning in them that was being missed out on with regards to fashion over substance. Male-male relations are prohibited because it is called an "Abomination" which means a "horror". Population growth is hardly a problem, three men can repopulate an entire community. It's about "tainting the soul", and that's how Ancient Jews saw it, whether you can see it or not is irrelevant.

Just a second there: You say that the explanation I imagine for these strange rules is irrelevant, and then go on about the 'intended meaning' of tassels and tefillin? Merely going through the motions, having the style but not the substance, was surely right up there alongside hypocrisy not only in the preaching of Jesus but of most of the ancient prophets also - in fact they're almost the same thing. Of course, if in seeking to understand the meaning of the traditions passed down we discover that the likely reason for aspects of a covenant made with people living thousands of years ago is something which no longer seems relevant to us, then we have a bit of a conundrum: To obey all those aspects of the ancient covenant still, or to set those things aside.

I don't begrudge you your choice to obey, but to say that seeking to understand is irrelevant is essentially the same as saying that the rituals are all that matter - and even you will surely agree that goes entirely against Jesus' teachings. The tassels and tefillin being a case in point, of course; and since they were used as a constant reminder of God's laws and Israel's consecration to him, it does seem quite probable that was the reason for the laws regarding ploughing, sowing and weaving also.
Shermana wrote:
Mithrae wrote:All the laws in Deuteronomy about judges, kings, cities of refuge, rules for warfare and so on, along with the fact it was given just before Israel became a nation, suggest that it's purpose was because Israel was becoming a nation; not as universal or eternal laws. But Jeremiah's prophecy says that even the less specifically-oriented covenant made at Horeb was broken, and would be replaced by a new covenant which would not be like it.
Irrelevant. There are many Laws in Deuteronomy that have nothing to do with being an independent nation. There is no "Categorization". The Law is the Law. Jesus said not a single Iota of it would fail. Trying to justify the reasons for the Law is not the subject here. The definition of "not like it" doesn't mean "nothing like it". Perhaps it means "one that will not be broken". We don't know what it means, but Jesus said not "one iota of the Law shall be made void". End of subject. The rules of the Law was the same, even if it was a(nother) new Covenant. The concept is that the "Law will be written on their hearts". The context is that those who accept the Moshiach will KNOW the law without having to study it.
You're standing on Matthew 5:18 like a rock, while doubting and disputing things from John, Acts and Paul's letters at will. As far as considered opinion goes it's only natural to make up one's mind what is likely truth and what is likely not, and it's certainly a better approaching than taking the early Christian scriptures as wholly true and indisputable (as you seem to do for the Tanakh). But you understand, I hope, that my interest isn't so much in what you personally believe, but what we can learn or reasonably speculate about Jesus and the early Christians.

Luke (whose rather pro-Pauline history of the early church you consider somewhat dubious) took from Q the content on which Matt 5:18 was based and tucked it in on one side with a saying which implies the replacement of the law, and on the other with a saying which contradicts the law (Luke 16:16-18). We can't be certain that Q existed (though I think this is one of the reasons to suppose so) and we don't know exactly what it said or how accurately it depicted Jesus' own views: But what we can see from this comparison is the contrast in views between Luke and 'Matthew,' and thus we should expect to see no less of Matthew's bias in his presentation of Jesus than we do in Luke's.
Shermana wrote:
Mithrae wrote:Perhaps the only difference was to be that God's people would now have his law written on their hearts and minds (the desire and the knowledge to please him?), and that no-one would need to teach his neighbour because they would all know him. Even that, to my mind, calls into serious question the devoted Christian study and appeals to the Bible as the source for instruction on how to live. Hardly God's law written on hearts and minds, with no need to teach your neighbour!
Says a lot about most so-called self-claimed "Christians". I think you're assuming that it means anyone who accepts that Jesus was Christ is somehow truly a disciple or part of the prophecy. Which is exactly what I'm disagreeing with. However, your comment here about what its "only" effect here may in fact be completely right.
But then how can you, if you believe this new covenant had come, be appealing to the written laws of Moses as instruction on how Jesus/Peter/Paul should have lived?
How can I not? Why should a "New covenant" mean the dissolution of the Old Law? This is a presumption of yours which is quite common, and in my opinion, you simply don't understand what "not like the old" means. It simply means that those who accept the Moshiach will have the Law on them forever. Also, it may have something to do with the Moshiach serving as the Guilt offering. But once again, Jesus said "Not one Iota of the Law shall be void". That should be clear enough that he meant "Not one Iota of the Law" (same Law as before) shall EVER become void. End of story. If you say that Jesus was allowing the Law to be broken, you're calling Jesus a liar when he said "Not one iota of the Law shall become void" or saying that he said something he didn't say.
Curiously, if God's law is written on folks hearts and minds and each of them knows him, from the least of them to the greatest, it would seem that tassels and tefillin to remind them of God's laws would become rather redundant. You've implied also that Jesus' death as a guilt offering might have put an end to the sacrificial system prescribed by Moses. Like I say, that's more than one iota right there if that were the case.

My point is simply that Jeremiah did indeed say that there would be a new covenant and that it would not be like the old one. Precisely how it was to be different is wide open for discussion, and if standing on Matthew's view of Jesus leads you to conclude that the differences do not include invalidating even a single one of the laws (besides the ones about sacrifices) then that's fair enough. I'm simply suggesting that since probably all Jews and Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians through the ages have indeed taught or been taught about God by others and from reading their scriptures, there's perhaps a little room for scepticism that "no more shall a man teach his neighbour" etc. is the whole of the difference. It really seems exactly the same as the former covenant.



Anyways, it's getting late so I'd best head off to bed. Thanks for the reply, and I'll try to get back to you on the rest sometime soon 8-)

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #103

Post by Shermana »

I Will respond to one thing for now as I'm also up late and will be drifting off soon:

I do not think Jesus put a permanent end to the Sacrifice system. The Israelites were unable to make sacrifices while in Captivity, and they are unable to make sacrifices without the Temple. Hence why I said we may be SUPPOSED to make altars like many early Christians apparently did. However I firmly believe there will be a Third Temple and a resumption of sacrifices. That is all for now.

PS I fail to see how Luke 16:17 contradicts the Law. Has heaven and earth collapsed yet? Looks like it's still here.

User avatar
ThatGirlAgain
Prodigy
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #104

Post by ThatGirlAgain »

Shermana wrote:I Will respond to one thing for now as I'm also up late and will be drifting off soon:

I do not think Jesus put a permanent end to the Sacrifice system. The Israelites were unable to make sacrifices while in Captivity, and they are unable to make sacrifices without the Temple. Hence why I said we may be SUPPOSED to make altars like many early Christians apparently did. However I firmly believe there will be a Third Temple and a resumption of sacrifices. That is all for now.

PS I fail to see how Luke 16:17 contradicts the Law. Has heaven and earth collapsed yet? Looks like it's still here.
The death/sacrifice of Jesus is supposed to have taken place somewhere around 30-33 but the Temple was not destroyed until 70. Clearly there were Temple sacrifices in the intervening decades. From the Christian viewpoint, were those sacrifices without merit? If a Third Temple were built, would sacrifices there be without merit? Keep in mind that the Gospels tell us that only a few days before his death Jesus made a very big deal about the holiness of the Temple.
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell

Post Reply