How Paul Contradicts Jesus on the Most Important Doctrine of Christianity

[Windwalker]

As per blu and you conveniently omit John... but hardly a complete dossier of who Jesus is...

If you ask my son, I am dad
My wife, I am husband
My coworker, I am friend
My dad, I am son


But I am still Ken and Jesus is still... The Word God

It doesn't work like that. Let's say one author says as a husband you are some personality which likes to treat his wife with mutual respect. Another says you yell at her and put her down. One author says as a father you show grace to your children. Another author says that you threaten your children with hell if they disobey you.

As you can see, these aren't different roles, but the same roles only with different personality types. Either the authors created a Jesus they imagined, or Jesus has different personalities at different times, which would indicate a sort of disorder.

Now you could try to make that multiple-Jesus as single Jesus, but that would be the Conglomerate-Jesus, not any one of the Jesuses of the Gospels, but at later Revised and Combined Version Jesus. Try to imagine as if you were to try to merge Abraham Lincoln, Sister Teresa, and Dick Cheney as a single person. It might look sort of like a Creationist's badly distorted version of Evolution with a "Crockaduck". It's an imaginary creature created out of dreams. It's not an historical actuality.

 

[Kenny]

It doesn't work like that. Let's say one author says as a husband you are some personality which likes to treat his wife with mutual respect. Another says you yell at her and put her down. One author says as a father you show grace to your children. Another author says that you threaten your children with hell if they disobey you.

As you can see, these aren't different roles, but the same roles only with different personality types. Either the authors created a Jesus they imagined, or Jesus has different personalities at different times, which would indicate a sort of disorder.

Now you could try to make that multiple-Jesus as single Jesus, but that would be the Conglomerate-Jesus, not any one of the Jesuses of the Gospels, but at later Revised and Combined Version Jesus. Try to imagine as if you were to try to merge Abraham Lincoln, Sister Teresa, and Dick Cheney as a single person. It might look sort of like a Creationist's badly distorted version of Evolution with a "Crockaduck", as a non-reality.

Actually it does because the context is that there isn't a difference of who Jesus was no matter which of the books you read.

 

[Windwalker]

Actually it does because the context is that there isn't a difference of who Jesus was no matter which of the books you read.

The context you speak of is a mythological construct of the later church. That's not the actuality. The actuality is there are different Jesuses. Let me share this interesting quote by NT scholar Burton Mack regarding the efforts of searching for the core historical Jesus behind the later mythologies built up around him by the early Christians. I find it quite telling.

“A second criticism is that none of the profiles proposed for the historical Jesus can account for all of the movements, ideologies, and mythic figures of Jesus that dot the early Christian social-scape. We now have the Jesuses of Q1 (a Cynic-like sage), Q2 (a prophet of apocalyptic judgment), Thomas (a gnostic spirit), the parables (a spinner of tales), the pre-Markan sets of pronouncement stories (an exorcist and healer), Paul (a martyred messiah and cosmic lord), Mark (the son of God who appeared as messiah, was crucified, and will return as the son of man), John (the reflection of God in creation and history), Matthew (a legislator of divine law), Hebrews (a cosmic high priest presiding over his own death as a sacrifice for sins), Luke (a perfect example of the righteous man), and many more. Not only are these ways of imagining Jesus incompatible with one another, they cannot be accounted for as the embellishments of the memories of a single historical person no matter how influential.”

(the Christian Myth, pgs 35, 36)
​

[Emphasis mine]. What you see in the different Gospels are a presentation of Mark's Jesus, Matthew's Jesus, Luke's Jesus, and John's Jesus. They are embellishments, creating a Jesus that reflects their views of what he meant to them, often in opposition to the Jesus of the other Gospels.

Mark's Gospel is a rebuke of the Jerusalem leadership under Peter. Matthew's Gospel is a rebuke of Pharisee Jews by Christian Jews. Luke's two-volume Gospel is a rebuke of the Jews as a whole in favor of the Gentile Christians with God moving the church from Jerusalem to Rome as he turns his back on them, replacing the Jews with the Gentile Church. John's Gospel is a rebuke of both of those with a transcendent Jesus who was in control of everything, including his own death (unlike in Mark). And so forth.

These are not factual histories. These are parabolic histories, embellishing history with their ideals of what Jesus' kingdom of God should mean. They were Jesus, according to them. That's not history.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

No, the Lord knows which of us is sincere or not. Just because someone calls themselves Christian, does all the right things, doesn't guarantee anything. If the Lord sees that you were insincere and doing it out of selfish fear instead of selfless love then He may not allpw them to enter Heaven.

Kinda strange for a god to threaten people with hell and expect them not to act out of selfish fear, ain't it?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I think the problem you are facing is that there are three subjects on the table. That which is spoken to the Jews, that which is spoken to the Gentiles and that which is spoken to the Church, the Body of Christ.

John 3:16-17 King James Version (KJV)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Here He is speaking to all three and no works is declared to be a pre-requisite.

But feel free to believe what you want to believe. As an agnostic that you claim to be, it is amusing to me on how much time you spend on the subject of Christianity

You ignored the verse. Clearly, Jesus stated that not everyone who calls on his name or performs actions in his name will be saved. Yet Paul contradicts this.

 

[Kenny]

The context you speak of is a mythological construct of the later church. That's not the actuality. The actuality is there are different Jesuses. Let me share this interesting quote by NT scholar Burton Mack regarding the efforts of searching for the core historical Jesus behind the later mythologies built up around him by the early Christians. I find it quite telling.

“A second criticism is that none of the profiles proposed for the historical Jesus can account for all of the movements, ideologies, and mythic figures of Jesus that dot the early Christian social-scape. We now have the Jesuses of Q1 (a Cynic-like sage), Q2 (a prophet of apocalyptic judgment), Thomas (a gnostic spirit), the parables (a spinner of tales), the pre-Markan sets of pronouncement stories (an exorcist and healer), Paul (a martyred messiah and cosmic lord), Mark (the son of God who appeared as messiah, was crucified, and will return as the son of man), John (the reflection of God in creation and history), Matthew (a legislator of divine law), Hebrews (a cosmic high priest presiding over his own death as a sacrifice for sins), Luke (a perfect example of the righteous man), and many more. Not only are these ways of imagining Jesus incompatible with one another, they cannot be accounted for as the embellishments of the memories of a single historical person no matter how influential.”

(the Christian Myth, pgs 35, 36)
​

[Emphasis mine]. What you see in the different Gospels are a presentation of Mark's Jesus, Matthew's Jesus, Luke's Jesus, and John's Jesus. They are embellishments, creating a Jesus that reflects their views of what he meant to them, often in opposition to the Jesus of the other Gospels.

Mark's Gospel is a rebuke of the Jerusalem leadership under Peter. Matthew's Gospel is a rebuke of Pharisee Jews by Christian Jews. Luke's two-volume Gospel is a rebuke of the Jews as a whole in favor of the Gentile Christians with God moving the church from Jerusalem to Rome as he turns his back on them, replacing the Jews with the Gentile Church. John's Gospel is a rebuke of both of those with a transcendent Jesus who was in control of everything, including his own death (unlike in Mark). And so forth.

These are not factual histories. These are parabolic histories, embellishing history with their ideals of what Jesus' kingdom of God should mean. They were Jesus, according to them. That's not history.

I appreciate your thoughts.

But please remember that for every Burton Mack that you find you will also find 500 that disagree with that position.

The correct view is:

Matthew speaks to the Jews. Applicable to the religious of today.
Mark speaks to the Romans and their cultural paradigm of life
Luke speaks to the Greek or Gentiles.
John wrote to everyone.

Like looking at an object in four different directions that gives us a true picture of Christ Jesus and his life and purpose.

Jesus is no more a Myth than Buddha, Mohammad or Mother Theresa

 

[Kenny]

You ignored the verse. Clearly, Jesus stated that not everyone who calls on his name or performs actions in his name will be saved. Yet Paul contradicts this.

Not at all... since you take things out of context and/or omit others.

Note Paul: 2 Corinthians 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

Paul also admits that there are "false" apostles - which by that nature of that name must have called on the name of the Lord but are false - matching those that Jesus spoke of.

 

[sojourner]

Most Christians should probably call themselves "Paulians" since they side with Paul over Jesus on the question of how to get to heaven.

Observe that Paul states:

Romans 10:13: "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

However, Paul directly contradicts the guy that he claims is his savior, since Jesus says:

Matthew 7:21-23: "NOT EVERYONE who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Clearly in Matthew 7, Jesus is stating that many people will call on his name and perform actions in his name, and yet, they will not go to heaven. Yet the majority of Christians (especially Protestants) believe Paul over the guy they claim is their savior. Why do I, as an agnostic, care? Well, it's amusing to me to watch Christians ignore all of the verses where Jesus clearly teaches that good works are necessary to go to heaven. Just another example of the intellectual dishonesty of many Christians. Not only do they willfully ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution, they also willfully ignore the words of Jesus himself. Strange, isn't it?

The fact that you think one’s personal salvation is the most important doctrine of Christianity negates your whole argument here.

Since much of Paul is actually earlier than the gospels, which do you think might be closer to what Jesus actually had in mind? The earlier writer? Or the later writer writing about what he thought Jesus might have said?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Not at all... since you take things out of context and/or omit others.

Note Paul: 2 Corinthians 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

Paul also admits that there are "false" apostles - which by that nature of that name must have called on the name of the Lord but are false - matching those that Jesus spoke of.

Your interpretation is clearly incorrect. The people in Matthew 7 are surprised that they are not going to heaven since they state (verse 22): Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’

Now, the false prophets alluded to by Paul are *intentional* deceivers, and hence would not express surprise at being told they are not going to heaven. In Matthew 7:21-23, we clearly see the teaching that there are many people who genuinely thought they were Christians and are not intentional deceivers (since they are SURPRISED at Jesus stating he never knew them) and they are not recognized as being Christians by Jesus.

 

[Enoch07]

Kinda strange for a god to threaten people with hell and expect them not to act out of selfish fear, ain't it?

I don't fear Hell.

Hell is exactly what an atheist thinks the afterlife is. Nothingness, blotted out, retroactively deleted, completely consumed and no longer in existence.

I worship out of love. Still doesn't guarantee me anything.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I don't fear Hell.

Hell is exactly what an atheist thinks the afterlife is. Nothingness, blotted out, retroactively deleted, completely consumed and no longer in existence.

I worship out of love. Still doesn't guarantee me anything.

Hmmm. A being that annihilates those who refuse its offer for love is a bit too Elliot Rodger-esque for me to want to worship.

 

[Windwalker]

I appreciate your thoughts.

But please remember that for every Burton Mack that you find you will also find 500 that disagree with that position.

The other thoughts I shared didn't come from Burton Mack but other, very well-respected scholars, such as Crossan, Pagels, etc. That I find 500 conservative scholars that would say otherwise, means little to me. They aren't looking at these things through the eyes of modernity, and so everything has a patineta of magic to it.

Starting with the premise that it must make sense together because God wrote it, deeply colorizes everything you look at. It's like how Copernicus couldn't make the math work without doing bizarre retrograde orbits for Mars, looping back in the middle of its orbit. He had started with the belief that they must be perfect circles, because God orders everything perfectly, as in the infinite number for PI. Once he got rid of that notion, and saw them as imperfect ellipses, then the math worked. I see a direct comparison here.

The correct view is:

Matthew speaks to the Jews. Applicable to the religious of today.
Mark speaks to the Romans and their cultural paradigm of life
Luke speaks to the Greek or Gentiles.
John wrote to everyone.

That's the "correct" view? According to who? Who determined this "correct view", and how is it that deeply trained, highly respected historians who study these things don't agree with that? Can you tell me where you got this "correct view" from?

Like looking at an object in four different directions that gives us a true picture of Christ Jesus and his life and purpose.

Jesus is no more a Myth than Buddha, Mohammad or Mother Theresa

I never said Jesus was a myth. I said the Gospels are mythologies about him, building their stories around his basic teachings. Buddha, for instance same thing. Historical person, with stories about lotus blossoms flowering from his footfalls when he got up and walked as an infant. Another mythology has Jesus walking on water.

Mythologies are not say that what Jesus taught wasn't valid. It is simply saying the stories are fictions for the sake of conveying meanings to the audiences. When added to actual historical people and events, these are known as parabolic histories.

There are examples of this in history, such as the parabolic histories of Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. They add layers to the stories, from the authors desire to paint a picture of how they imagined what must have really happened, how great he was, how fearless, etc. You can see changes and revisions in the stories between the different authors. You see the same thing in the Gospel writers.

 

[Enoch07]

Hmmm. A being that annihilates those who refuse its offer for love is a bit too Elliot Rodger-esque for me to want to worship.

Huh?

They are not being destroyed for refusing to worship. I worship and could still be destroyed.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Huh?

They are not being destroyed for refusing to worship. I worship and could still be destroyed.

Well I guess I misunderstood your beliefs then. Already forgot what you said earlier, my mistake. At least you don't have the "cosmic Elliot Rodger" version of Jesus that most evangelicals have.

 

[Kenny]

Your interpretation is clearly incorrect. The people in Matthew 7 are surprised that they are not going to heaven since they state (verse 22): Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’

Now, the false prophets alluded to by Paul are *intentional* deceivers, and hence would not express surprise at being told they are not going to heaven. In Matthew 7:21-23, we clearly see the teaching that there are many people who genuinely thought they were Christians and are not intentional deceivers (since they are SURPRISED at Jesus stating he never knew them) and they are not recognized as being Christians by Jesus.

You are obviously wrong. Old Testament false prophets also prophesied in God's name and didn't believe they were not God's people. Korah, who was also a Jewish leader, thought he had every right to rule like Moses.

So, no, you are incorrect. God judges the heart and one can deceive themselves. It isn't the first time that i have had a marriage counseling session where one thought they were in the right and the spouse wrong (and thoroughly convinced they were right) when they were wrong.

Next, you have omitted John 3:16-17 which has nothing to do with works. After you have omitted all the faith scriptures that Jesus mention.

Lastly, you have completely omitted all the "works" that Paul said the believer should be doing and the danger of loosing their unity with God if they persist in doing wrong.

On all fronts, you have not only misquoted, but failed to quote the full message of both Jesus and Paul. Additionally you omit the reality that Jesus was talking mostly to Jews under the law and was speaking their language to prove to them that works was not the method.

Example: "You say that adultery is when you do the work of adultery" (Paraphrased) "But I say you just look at a woman, you are an adulterer" condemning probably 99.9% of all men if not more so the answer he was pointing at was faith as the only method.

 

[blü 2]

As per blu and you conveniently omit John... but hardly a complete dossier of who Jesus is...

If you ask my son, I am dad
My wife, I am husband
My coworker, I am friend
My dad, I am son


But I am still Ken and Jesus is still... The Word God

My point is that the differences between the five or more Christologies of the NT are too substantial to be takes on one real phenomenon.

Mark's Jesus was an ordinary Jew until his baptism, and only then did he become the 'son of God' in the Jewish manner that David became the 'son of God'.

Matthew's and Luke's Jesuses instead were the product of divine insemination of their mothers (as is common in Greek tradition) and if real humans necessarily had (at the least) God's Y-chromosome.

Those are two entirely different classes of being. How can the latter be the subject of the visible physical defect implied by Mark's Jesus saying 'You will say to me, physician, heal thyself'?

Paul and John add a third, entirely different again, in which Jesus pre-existed as a heavenly being subordinate to God. Why would such beings never address their earthly mother except in terms of abuse (Mark 3:31, Mark 6:3, Mark 15:40, Matthew 10:35, Luke 11:27. John 2:3, with John 19:26 the only exception)?

In the fourth century CE we get yet another entirely different version in which the Father is not Jesus or the Ghost, and Jesus is not the Ghost, but all three have always been 100% of God, though there's only one God (not only an incoherent idea but acknowledged to be such).

So which one version is the accurate picture of the historical Jesus, the human said to have been alive in Roman Judea in the first century? Only Mark's comes anywhere near to credibility, you'll agree?

 

[Kenny]

The other thoughts I shared didn't come from Burton Mack but other, very well-respected scholars, such as Crossan, Pagels, etc. That I find 500 conservative scholars that would say otherwise, means little to me. They aren't looking at these things through the eyes of modernity, and so everything has a patineta of magic to it.

Which is the problem. You have eliminated those letters that were written by people who knew Jesus or the apostles. The fact that you are looking through "eyes of modernity" automatically shows your bias. Eliminating first and second eye witnesses automatically says you are promoting an agenda.

Starting with the premise that it must make sense together because God wrote it, deeply colorizes everything you look at.

Or... it gives understanding to reality and that your position that it doesn't make sense colorized what you look at

That's the "correct" view? According to who? Who determined this "correct view", and how is it that deeply trained, highly respected historians who study these things don't agree with that? Can you tell me where you got this "correct view" from?

Respected by liberal interpreters... probably. But you can google "To whom where the Gospels written to and find many. Asbury Theological teaches it, Charis Bible College,

Perspectives in Religious Studies 2005, Vol. 32 (2), pp: 109–124. ISSN: 0093–531X Sailer, W., Christman, J. C., Greulich, D. C., Scanlin, H. P., Lennox, S. J., & Guistwite, P. (2012). Religious and Theological Abstracts. Myerstown, PA: Religious and Theological Abstracts. Also addresses the reality (both by context and substance) that it is addressing the Jewish culture.

But you can choose to believe otherwise.

I said the Gospels are mythologies about him, building their stories around his basic teachings.

Yes, that is one of many opinions. And as time goes on, other opinions continue to flourish. However, I will go with the fact that the authors of the letters, first hand witnesses and the second generation of witnesses know far more of context and reality that someone who decides to spin it as a mythological story.

 

[Kenny]

Mark's Jesus was an ordinary Jew until his baptism, and only then did he become the 'son of God' in the Jewish manner that David became the 'son of God'.

That would be correct. Paul also stated that Jesus was ordinary man in the flesh.

Matthew's and Luke's Jesuses instead were the product of divine insemination of their mothers (as is common in Greek tradition) and if real humans necessarily had (at the least) God's Y-chromosome.

No. Nowhere does it state "by divine insemination". It says the Holy Spirit will come upon her and the power of God will overshadow her.

Paul and John add a third, entirely different again, in which Jesus pre-existed as a heavenly being subordinate to God. Why would such beings never address their earthly mother except in terms of abuse (Mark 3:31, Mark 6:3, Mark 15:40, Matthew 10:35, Luke 11:27. John 2:3, with John 19:26 the only exception)?

Yes... it is not contrary. The Word was Jesus before he became a man as per Phil 2. One does not negate the other.

In the fourth century CE we get yet another entirely different version in which the Father is not Jesus or the Ghost, and Jesus is not the Ghost, but all three have always been 100% of God, though there's only one God (not only an incoherent idea but acknowledged to be such).

No... that is found in the Gospels way before the fourth century. John, and the other gospels, had already been written.

So which one version is the accurate picture of the historical Jesus, the human said to have been alive in Roman Judea in the first century? Only Mark's comes anywhere near to credibility, you'll agree?

Appreciate your demeanor, but as expressed, I will stand with the majority on this one because of empirical and verifiable evidence.

 

[nPeace]

Most Christians should probably call themselves "Paulians" since they side with Paul over Jesus on the question of how to get to heaven.

Observe that Paul states:

Romans 10:13: "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

However, Paul directly contradicts the guy that he claims is his savior, since Jesus says:

Matthew 7:21-23: "NOT EVERYONE who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Clearly in Matthew 7, Jesus is stating that many people will call on his name and perform actions in his name, and yet, they will not go to heaven. Yet the majority of Christians (especially Protestants) believe Paul over the guy they claim is their savior. Why do I, as an agnostic, care? Well, it's amusing to me to watch Christians ignore all of the verses where Jesus clearly teaches that good works are necessary to go to heaven. Just another example of the intellectual dishonesty of many Christians. Not only do they willfully ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution, they also willfully ignore the words of Jesus himself. Strange, isn't it?

Hubert... Hubert... I gotta hand it to you for trying. Keep trying. Perhaps you will get there.... Or perhaps not.

Not everyone saying to me, "Lord, Lord..."
Everyone calling on the name of the Lord...

What does it mean to call on the name of the LORD?
Certainly, it's not the same thing as saying, "Lord, Lord..."

 

[blü 2]

That would be correct. Paul also stated that Jesus was ordinary man in the flesh.

Ordinary? Where does Paul say that?

No. Nowhere does it state "by divine insemination". It says the Holy Spirit will come upon her and the power of God will overshadow her.

Where did Jesus get his biochemistry, particularly his Y-chromosome?

Without it he couldn't have grown in utero to become a human male. There had to be all the biochemical technicalities of a spermatazoon fusing with an ovum to form the zygote. That's insemination. And as I mentioned, it's a Greek tradition, not the Hebrew one used by Mark's author.

If you disagree, describe the biochemical particulars of the method which the Ghost employed for the conception of Jesus.

Yes... it is not contrary. The Word was Jesus before he became a man as per Phil 2. One does not negate the other.

No, it's a totally different idea to Mark's, whose Jesus is not the son of God till his baptism, and it's a totally different idea to Matthew's and Luke's, where Jesus, not a pre-existing being, is brought into being both human by his mother and divine by his father.

And you didn't explain this divine Jesus' relentless abuse of his mother.

No... that is found in the Gospels way before the fourth century. John, and the other gospels, had already been written.

Please quote me the parts of the NT that specifically state:

that God exists as three persons, and

each of the three is 100% of God.

I will stand with the majority on this one because of empirical and verifiable evidence.

If Jesus was God, then that was the single most important thing about him and the single most important thing he could possibly impart to his followers. All those unambiguous denials that he's God ─ I can quote them again if you wish ─ would therefore be wilful lies. Indeed the entirety of his ministry would be one long deceit.

I can't think of any alternative to that. Nor can I think of any point to such a deceit.