Discuss Paul's contradictions with Jesus?

[outhouse]

So, then what you are saying is you know of nothing that Jesus said or in your opinion,

false, please pay attention.

I stated we dont know what he taught with certainty. scholars are divided on quite a few different things.


as a example, while we know he taught the kingdom of god, how he taught it is highly debated.

that the bible says Jesus says, that contradicts anything Paul said?

first of all we know what paul teaches because he tells us.


but paul never met or knew jesus at all, and like the gospel authors who never met or knew him, none of them lived in the same culture or geographic location, and none of them followed strict judaism.


so we have people from another culture, from another location, from another religion, long after the man was dead, before they even start writing about what jesus taught. how accurate do you think that is? and how can you compare accurately between teachings at this point..???

Basically you don't use the bible at all when discussing Jesus or Paul?

how could you pull that out? of course I do. im just putting what we have into context. everything I stated is in the bible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, it is possible God chose the gentiles to provoke jealousy in the Israelites, so that some of them would come back to God.

Actually, that's why God created cheeseburgers and decent wine.

You're playing with yourself - and in public. You'll clearly infer what you wish to infer. :yes:

 

[Hawkeye112200]

Matthew 5:17-20 for starters.

"Til all things are accomplished" means that Heaven and Earth collapses first,. It's commonly said that "ALl things were fulfilled at the Christ", but that would render what Jesus said about Heaven and Earth passing rather pointless, and would basically allow all kinds of nasty things the Law forbids and makes a messy affair about what still is and isn't binding. There's obviously a whole lot more to accomplish. If Christ's sacrifice was "All to be accomplished", what was the point of everything afterward? You have to read something into the next beyond what's there to get Him to mean that Matthew 5:17-20 was going to contradict itself within 3 days of Him saying so.

Thank you for the response. That certainly is a good point.

You spoke of several points though, so I am going to start with your first one, and we can go from there. Is that OK?

What exactly do you think people mean when they say all things were fulfilled at Christ? What is you understanding of that? I would think you are versed on what others think, so let's get on the same page with that.

For me, it means that the power of death which has plagued the earth since the beginning of the biblical story has been abolished. Not that in people don't still die, but there was now the actuality and proof of eternal life for those that are chosen by God.
So in that sense, what all the laws, and commandments were created to do, remind and instruct is in a less sinful life were completed. In that, we can now understand there is no salvation in the laws "themselves" but that the laws were what convicted us of our condition and our lives of sin.

Right or wrong, that is what fulfill all things means to me.

You then bring the next point which we can briefly look at, that the heavens and earth will leave before the law would.

Here, I don't believe that Jesus really taught nor did Paul teach the Law was gone, only that the truth about the law, our earthly understanding of that law has changed. In a positive way, we now live knowing we are under sin, which we know that because of the great law, but through the law we could never be given eternal life. So the law still has not disappeared, we just don't try for salvation by following the laws for that specific goal any longer.

The difference, being, it was once believed that the Law is what leads us to life, or even gives us a better life, where as Jesus and I believe Paul taught the it is the Law that teaches us of sin and our impending death as a result of the law. In the law, we are convicted of sin, but through Jesus we are given eternal life. Etc. etc...

You understand it differently, so I invite you to explain so I can understand and see what you see.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

Actually, that's why God created cheeseburgers and decent wine.

You're playing with yourself - and in public. You'll clearly infer what you wish to infer. :yes:

I am changeable. So my inferences are only as stable as the truth I am exposed too. Hence the thread.
I told you personally in another thread, I am not a preacher, teacher or any other thing on a mission. You replied, you would hold me to that. I expect no less from you.

I am presenting what I know, and in some cases what I have been convinced to believe. I will be as respectful as I can to learn from others.

I of course am reading Hosea when referencing God choosing a new people. So, yes that is inferring, but I am open to learning more.

 

[idav]

I spent the last few weeks going over a few of the Pauline letters, largely in part from the many comments I have read on this forum about all the contradictions between Paul's writings and the Gospels.

Would anyone care to present some of them to me, so I can understand your reasoning? I had a tough time finding obvious or not so obvious occurrences. I am sure someone here is much more knowledgeable than me, so I would like to learn more and dialog/debate about it.

I would only ask, that if you are going to copy and paste something from the internet, that you be prepared to speak on the behalf of the position that states it is a contradiction. I am not looking to just read a list of internet pastes, but also an explanation for why it is a contradiction.

A couple examples. Jesus said call no man father and Paul said he is a spiritual father. Another thing is that Jesus ate with sinners and tax payers but Paul said you shouldn't let sinners in your church nor should you eat with them.

I Cor. 5:11 "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."

 

[Hawkeye112200]

A couple examples. Jesus said call no man father and Paul said he is a spiritual father. Another thing is that Jesus ate with sinners and tax payers but Paul said you shouldn't let sinners in your church nor should you eat with them.

I Cor. 5:11 "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."

Great thanks.

Do you think that Jesus merely sat with sinners and sinned with them? Surely that is not how you are framing Jesus's relationship with sinners while he eat are you?

Paul, as well would have and did indeed deal closely and stay with sinners in their houses. The intent in both cases was to expound knowledge and truth. So in that light, they both have the same intentions to turn sinners from their ways.

It is disingenuous to frame Paul as someone who taught don't ever spend time with sinners. Later in other epistles, he expounds that you only feel this way towards sinners if they utterly reject the truth and joyously continue in sin.

Do you think Jesus would have stayed with the sinners if they had a big orgy? Take the prostitute they wanted to stone, did Jesus tell her, now go screw some more. No, he corrected her, and that was it.

So, isn't your position so far a little weak? I invite you to elaborate, but I think this rebuttal seems suffice. But, please go ahead.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Take the prostitute they wanted to stone, did Jesus tell her, now go screw some more. No, he corrected her, and that was it.

A most appropriate and instructive example. You would do well to investigate it further.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

So, to recap:
Contradiction 1: Jesus didn't want to teach the Gentiles, or looked at gentiles as lower class.
Contradiction 2: Jesus taught till all things are fulfilled the Law would in no way leave, and Paul taught the Law wasn't that important so to speak.
Contradiction 3: Jesus sat with sinners, and Paul taught to keep no company with them.

I have replied to each of them and left to discussion open. I suspect #2 is not done by a long stretch, but the other two I think are not stark or real contradictions.

I do want to say one thing about Contradiction 1 again, that the woman who was compared to a dog as is, can be wrongly taken out of context. Jesus was again, citing laws about dealings with Jews and non Jews, but as usually, he did help her. I feel it was more rhetorical than anything, and not a proof that Jesus didn't want to help or deal with non-Jews. Especially in the light that he helped her.

If we get hung up on the word dog, we can create all sorts of ideas about it, but the character of Jesus in the bible just doesn't fit the mold of an elitist, as is supposed.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

A most appropriate and instructive example. You would do well to investigate it further.

Thank you I think, but did I miss something?

 

[Hawkeye112200]

So here is what is perplexing me. I made an ***umption, that many would respond readily with scriptural contradictions.
I read over and over how Paul raped, and hijacked Jesus's message. So where are all those people now?

I started this thread stating I had spent the last couple weeks specifically looking at the epistles, Acts, and the gospels for glaring or ever obscure contradictions. Though I don't expect everyone to believe me, but I did this with expectations of actually finding some.

So, is all this rhetoric about Paul hijacking this and raping that, conjecture? Anyone?

 

[idav]

So, isn't your position so far a little weak? I invite you to elaborate, but I think this rebuttal seems suffice. But, please go ahead.

Everyones a sinner so everyone would be turned away. I do see you make a distinction with people who continue to sin but has anyone ever really stopped? It is a constant progression. Perhaps Paul was trying to protect his flock but turning away a possible brother is a far cry from "love you enemy".

 

[outhouse]

So where are all those people now?

they are called christians

I had spent the last couple weeks specifically looking at the epistles, Acts,

you bit way to much off

you could have started with contradictions from paul to Act's, let alone jesus which opens up a can of worms.

So, is all this rhetoric about Paul hijacking this and raping that, conjecture? Anyone?

paul probably a roman citizen, hunts down the would be christian sect and has a change of heart within imself and decides upon himself that he will be a self proclaimed apostle, and states he has learned from jesus from no man.


you should wiki "pauline christianity" if you want to start to grasp whats going on here.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

there is not one projection. and you cannot refute a word with certainty or i would not have put it in.

Paul= "want to be apostle"

Forgive me for the misuse of my vocabulary, it would be better to say conjecture. Though I could still make an argument for projection. Not important to this discussion though, so let's substitute conjecture.

You have such a distaste for Paul, you do in fact define or attempt to define Paul in such a way as to have information others don't have. This is where I could make the argument for projection btw, but suffice to say, again complete conjecture.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Take the prostitute they wanted to stone, did Jesus tell her, now go screw some more.

A most appropriate and instructive example. You would do well to investigate it further.

Thank you I think, but did I miss something?

See Pericope Adulterae ...

It is exceedingly hard to make meaningful and reasonable inferences when you don't know what you don't know. Eisegesis is the common result.​

 

[Hawkeye112200]

Everyones a sinner so everyone would be turned away. I do see you make a distinction with people who continue to sin but has anyone ever really stopped? It is a constant progression. Perhaps Paul was trying to protect his flock but turning away a possible brother is a far cry from "love you enemy".

Indeed as the story goes everyone is a sinner, though not Jesus.

So when Jesus tells someone to "sin no more" what is meant by that? Surely he wasn't naive enough to think they would never sin again was he? That just doesn't have merit.

What does have merit is that the experience, or interaction with Jesus would infect a person in a way that they would be compelled to think about their sins from hence forth. Their conscious now burning when they sin, so to speak.

Where as before, maybe they followed the laws, but never had it in their hearts and minds. I believe there is an important distinction there.

Aside from all of that, where are you and I on this contradiction? You still hold that Paul wanted nothing to do with sinners, and Jesus did? If that is the case, Paul would not have written about going into towns, and blessing them if they were accepted, and shaking the dust of their feet if rejected. Paul went into towns to meet whomever was before him, and only when he knew they believed or rejected did he make a judgment.
No different than Jesus, in that he came to the Jews many times, some accepted him, and many rejected him, but he tried.

I just don't see the contradiction yet, so please continue if there is something to add, or something I am not seeing.

Thank you.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

See Pericope Adulterae ...

It is exceedingly hard to make meaningful and reasonable inferences when you don't know what you don't know. Eisegesis is the common result.​

OK fair enough, you bring to light something that states that story in the bible is in question.
In and of itself is an interesting article. However, Jesus forgave on more than one occasion, by telling someone to go and sin no more. Unless you have an article for each of those occurrences (and maybe you do) my point would still stand, that Jesus didn't just hang out with sinners to condone their activity, but hung out with them to show them a better way to live.
And to the greater point of the discussion about contradictions between Paul and Jesus, Paul did much the same thing, expounded in many of his writings and many of his interactions with people a better way to live.

Thank you for the link, as usual you perplex me

 

[idav]

I just don't see the contradiction yet, so please continue if there is something to add, or something I am not seeing.

Thank you.

The difference is that people rejected the message but Jesus was not turning people away because of sin. The core teaching, love your neighbor, is contradicted. We know that sin can get to us but when Jesus said love your enemy he meant it and was willing to handle the repercussions. Paul is trying to avoid the repercussions at the expense of turning away a brother. I don't expect Paul to be perfect so I don't see a problem, the bible isn't the authority, jesus is.

 

[outhouse]

Forgive me for the misuse of my vocabulary, it would be better to say conjecture. Though I could still make an argument for projection. Not important to this discussion though, so let's substitute conjecture.

You have such a distaste for Paul, you do in fact define or attempt to define Paul in such a way as to have information others don't have. This is where I could make the argument for projection btw, but suffice to say, again complete conjecture.

paul was not sent out to teach by jesus or the original movement. No one sent him. He is then a self proclaimed apostle, not a real one.

he did this himself after hunting down memebers of this sect of judaism

 

[Hawkeye112200]

you could have started with contradictions from paul to Act's, let alone jesus which opens up a can of worms.

Again, your zeal is commendable, but again your insistence that I look elsewhere first before we can discuss the bible is not in the scope of this discussion, UNLESS you can cite some verses in the bible about contradictions and then want me to go read something further that expounds on that point I will try that.

So far, you have presented nothing, but telling me how I am not approaching it as you approach it. What am I to do with the posturing?

If you want to start with Paul and Acts, please do, but at least start somewhere and stop rambling on about history. History is AMAZING, but start presenting some data, and hopefully something out of the bible which is largely about what this topic is about.

Thank you.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

The difference is that people rejected the message but Jesus was not turning people away because of sin. The core teaching, love your neighbor, is contradicted. We know that sin can get to us but when Jesus said love your enemy he meant it and was willing to handle the repercussions. Paul is trying to avoid the repercussions at the expense of turning away a brother. I don't expect Paul to be perfect so I don't see a problem, the bible isn't the authority, jesus is.

So are suggesting there is no instance of Paul reaching out to people and putting his life on the line for the message of Love?
Jesus did say Love you enemy, however, he still told people the way it was. He didn't just say listen Elder that doesn't like me, give me a hug. No, he got them so angry they wanted to kill him.

How can you discount how Jesus's words effected and angered so many people? Can you give me an example of Paul staying away from sinners? You cited an example earlier that Paul wrote don't keep company with adulterous people, but I don't see how Jesus taught any different.

Paul wrote that yes, but it is taking it out of context to suggest Paul never kept company with those kinds of people, that would be absurd. It could only mean that if someone openly wanted to stay in their sinful ways and reject the truth of Jesus, that you were to part company with them. It was a tactic, to be used so those that were left perchance would wonder what was the big deal, and maybe inquire of Paul more, about why Paul had left them.
Not that Paul was afraid or whatever to hang out with them.

Bottom line, Paul's statement about not keeping company with sinners, is not contradictory to anything Jesus taught. After all, how many times did Paul teach in front of people to stoned him, arrested him etc... He didn't avoid as you suggested.