Did Jesus and St. Paul taught contradictory things?

[BummerBeavis]

When Jesus gave the sermon on the mount I think it was his wish that Christians should follow the Mosaic law word to word till heaven and earth exists but most Christians today cite St. Paul to escape from following the Jewish Law. Did Jesus and St. Paul taught different things?

paul was a self proclaimed apostle. he was rejected by the church and never confirmed by Yeshua or the real apostles as being legit. he taught people do not need to keep the 10 commandments so people will not truly repent and be saved. most christians are going to hell because they are blind because of him

 

[BummerBeavis]

Unfortunately yes, they taught quite different things:

Jesus in his parables says that works are what saves us and not faith\obedience.
In other words, you can be an Atheist, but if you do God's will through works, you save yourself. This parable proves it:
"But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first, and said, 'Son, go work in my vineyard.' He answered, 'I will not,' but afterward he changed his mind, and went. He came to the second, and said the same thing. He answered, 'I go, sir,' but he didn't go. Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said to him, "The first. — Matthew 21:28–32,


Paul in Romans, chapter 3, claims that we are saved by believing in Jesus' sacrifice for us and that works are useless.

To answer your questions, the answer is yes. Jesus was right and Paul was wrong. To save yourself you must stop sinning, by obeying the Mosaic law

thank you for exposing that "wise master mason" paul

 

[BummerBeavis]

Pauls teachings were based on the 'New Covenant' not the 'old covenant'

Its important to realise that the Mosaic law was set in place until the Messiah would come. When the Messiah did come, he instituted a new covenant with his disciples. That covenant was not based on the mosaic covenant...it was based on new laws and requirements. It was also for a different purpose.

The purpose of the Mosaic law covenant was to lead the Isrealites to the Messiah.
The purpose of the New Covenant was that it would lead those in it, into the heavenly kingdom...the rulership of the Messiah from heaven. To be apart of that new covenant arrangement, one had to be selected by God and had to fully adhere to the law of the Christ.

When one understands what the law of the Christ entails, it is easy to see how the mosaic laws can remain inforce, while at the same time, the religious requirements be different.

The religious requirements of the mosaic law entailed, sacrifices, tithing, male circumcision, dietary restrictions, celebrating the agricultural festivals, keeping separate from the nations, wearing specially identifiable clothing etc

But the New covenant did not require such things. And this is why many people misunderstand what Paul was teaching. He wasnt teaching people to adhere to these religious requirements of the mosaic law, hence they reason he was against the laws of God. But this is wrong thinking. Paul was not against the moral laws as found in the mosaic law... he strongly promoted the moral laws... it was only the religious laws that were not being promoted.

And the other big error people make is that they think it was only Paul who taught this. It wasnt'. Paul got his instruction from the 12 Apostles to teach the nations that they did not have to practice mosiac law. The fact is that the people of the nations (gentiles) were being accepted into the heavenly kingdom through an anointing by Holy spirit. They were being chosen by God even though they had never adhered to the religious requirements of the mosaic law... why? because the New Covenant did not require adherence to the religious laws of the Mosaic law.

who cares Paul did not know Yeshua and he was not an apostle

 

[Simplelogic]

I suspect the tension stems from differing interpretations of Jesus' message after his death.Jesus wrote no gospel.If he simply wanted to make some reforms that is understandable.However if he was founding the one true faith for all mankind why leave such precious message to the vagaries of his followers memories?

I think Yeshua's message was pretty simple to understand when Paul's logic isn't read into it.

 

[Simplelogic]

If it's between Jesus and Saul/Paul, I would just defer to Paul.

Are you serious?

 

[Simplelogic]

it is understandable that you claim that Paul is right and James is wrong.
It is very comfortable to keep believing that works are not necessary, whereas James says they are indispensable for salvation.

people believe what makes them more comfortable.

Its almost as if people forget that James was Yeshua's brother and knew him intimately.

 

[Desert Snake]

Are you serious?

I was hoping to demonstrate that I have never noticed a 'discrepancy' between the teachings. Perhaps there is one, haven't read it yet. The problems people have with the Pauline writings stem from a misunderstanding of Jesus, imo. And, ironically, a misunderstanding of Judaic belief.

 

[Simplelogic]

I was hoping to demonstrate that I have never noticed a 'discrepancy' between the teachings. Perhaps there is one, haven't read it yet. The problems people have with the Pauline writings stem from a misunderstanding of Jesus, imo. And, ironically, a misunderstanding of Judaic belief.

Jesus vs Paul (salvation doctrine) | ReligiousForums.com

 

[Simplelogic]

You were made clean conditionally, so that you will not sin again, said to the adulterous woman. Clean indeed, so as not to sin, not of ceremonial law, or sabbath law or food law or festival law...but that ye sin not against the Core Law of Moses, the Ten, the Golden Rule but especially the Shema.

As Jesus released this woman, so are you released into Covenant, New Covenant, that ye may WANT to do Shema, to love your God with all of you.

Yeshua was keeping the law of Moses by letting this woman go. The Torah demands a few things in order to have a death conviction:

1. 2-3 witnesses
2. Must bring the man and woman before the elders (Pharisees only brought the woman)
3. Must be tried before elders then the Levites

I think you are reading a lot into this passage. Yeshua actually defends stoning commandments:

3And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4“For God said, ‘HONORYOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,’ and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TOBE PUT TO DEATH.’ 5“But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” 6he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. Matt 15: 3-6

 

[BummerBeavis]

I think Yeshua's message was pretty simple to understand when Paul's logic isn't read into it.

totally. at least you get it. have you studied the religion of Babylon yet?

 

[pearl]

paul was a self proclaimed apostle. he was rejected by the church and never confirmed by Yeshua or the real apostles as being legit.

In his defense against his accusers he notes of his 'conversion', his mystical encounter with the risen Jesus. He could not have been appointed an apostle because the number twelve was complete and could not be added to. Its difficult to imagine that he
was rejected by the church, since he is referred to much in the Gospel of Luke and in Acts both familiar with Paul's teaching. While there were disagreements among them, that doesn't constitute rejection by the church.

 

[nothead]

paul was a self proclaimed apostle. he was rejected by the church and never confirmed by Yeshua or the real apostles as being legit. he taught people do not need to keep the 10 commandments so people will not truly repent and be saved. most christians are going to hell because they are blind because of him

This is too buttheaded to even address. How many times did Paul say breakers of basic Law were not going to heaven?
Do I need to list them?

 

[nothead]

In his defense against his accusers he notes of his 'conversion', his mystical encounter with the risen Jesus. He could not have been appointed an apostle because the number twelve was complete and could not be added to. Its difficult to imagine that he
was rejected by the church, since he is referred to much in the Gospel of Luke and in Acts both familiar with Paul's teaching. While there were disagreements among them, that doesn't constitute rejection by the church.

He was an apostle due to the inherent confusion of the original disciples. God appointed him because even Peter did not know at the time the import of "thou shalt eat" in his own dream. The Council in Jerusalem could not have been concluded to change all of history without him. Just as a woman warlord may be appointed due to the inherent lacking among men.

 

[nothead]

Yeshua was keeping the law of Moses by letting this woman go. The Torah demands a few things in order to have a death conviction:

1. 2-3 witnesses
2. Must bring the man and woman before the elders (Pharisees only brought the woman)
3. Must be tried before elders then the Levites

I think you are reading a lot into this passage. Yeshua actually defends stoning commandments:

3And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4“For God said, ‘HONORYOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,’ and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TOBE PUT TO DEATH.’ 5“But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” 6he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. Matt 15: 3-6

Googly. Jesus spoke evil of the disciple's own father in Mt 8, Luke 9.

21 And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.

22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

...whether this was true or not, and I believe it was true, it still by the letter was dishonoring his father, by not burying him in attendance at least...

See how lawyers muck things up? How do you know when a lawyer is lying? When he opens his mouth?

 

[nothead]

who cares Paul did not know Yeshua and he was not an apostle

Anti-Pauline buttheads may want to know Paul's Theology was second gen, and revelatory. The worst sinner among them was made apostle to the nations. God's ways are not our own. Wonders, sir.

 

[pearl]

22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

...whether this was true or not, and I believe it was true, it still by the letter was dishonoring his father, by not burying him in attendance at least...

"Who is my mother? Who are my brothers? ... Whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven is my brother, sister, and mother" (Matthew 12:48-50).
Rabbi Neusner says that on many occasions Jesus seems to invite transgression of the fourth commandment, which says that we must honor our father and mother.
Jesus asks one to forget about burying his own father and elsewhere he says that whoever loves father and mother more than him is not worthy of him.
. "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers? ... Whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven is my brother, sister, and mother" (Matthew 12:48-50).
Rabbi Neusner asks whether he has a right to do this. This spiritual family already existed: It was the people of Israel, united by observance of the Torah, that is, the Mosaic law.
A son was only permitted to leave his father's house to study the Torah. But Jesus does not say, "Whoever loves father or mother more than the Torah is not worthy of the Torah." He says, "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me." He puts himself in the place of the Torah.

 

[Simplelogic]

Googly. Jesus spoke evil of the disciple's own father in Mt 8, Luke 9.

21 And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.

22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

...whether this was true or not, and I believe it was true, it still by the letter was dishonoring his father, by not burying him in attendance at least...

See how lawyers muck things up? How do you know when a lawyer is lying? When he opens his mouth?

For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: Mark 7:10

"For God said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,' and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.' Matt 15:4

16And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” 17And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18Then he said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS; 19HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” Matt 19: 16-19

Its abundantly clear that Yeshua supported the concept of "honoring our parents". This does not mean that man does not have spiritual obligations to walk in the manner which YHVH chooses. The term "dead" was in relation to someone being spiritually dead.

Elijah did the same thing:

19So he departed from there and found Elisha the son of Shaphat, while he was plowing with twelve pairs of oxen before him, and he with the twelfth. And Elijah passed over to him and threw his mantle on him. 20He left the oxen and ran after Elijah and said, “Please let me kiss my father and my mother, then I will follow you.” And he said to him, “Go back again, for what have I done to you?” 21So he returned from following him, and took the pair of oxen and sacrificed them and boiled their flesh with the implements of the oxen, and gave it to the people and they ate. Then he arose and followed Elijah and ministered to him. 1 Kings 19: 19-21

All this man wanted to do was go back and say bye to his parents…yet this angered Elijah because he was dismissive of the priority and urgency of God's calling. Was Elijah telling Elisha not to honor his Father and Mother??? I think not.

 

[Simplelogic]

Anti-Pauline buttheads may want to know Paul's Theology was second gen, and revelatory. The worst sinner among them was made apostle to the nations. God's ways are not our own. Wonders, sir.

Yes, revelatory and contrary to everything in the Torah and Yeshua's words. Hmmm.

 

[BummerBeavis]

Anti-Pauline buttheads may want to know Paul's Theology was second gen, and revelatory. The worst sinner among them was made apostle to the nations. God's ways are not our own. Wonders, sir.

made an apostle by his own testimony, Yeshua and his apostles never made him one

 

[Simplelogic]

made an apostle by his own testimony, Yeshua and his apostles never made him one

"If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true. John 5: 31