How Paul Contradicts Jesus on the Most Important Doctrine of Christianity

[Twilight Hue]

I'm jealous of his blind intervention. We all need it.

Well I believe the standing instructions were not to believe in anybody who says he is Christ until he came back.

If I was still Christian I would say Pauline Christianity was the Antichrist.

 

[sojourner]

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?

I’m liberal, and I think he’s basically correct on this point, with a couple of tweaks. Mark was written to Galileans. Matthew to Jews and God-Fearers living in Gentile territory. John was written for his own community of anointed-believers.

 

[Windwalker]

I’m liberal, and I think he’s basically correct on this point, with a couple of tweaks. Mark was written to Galileans. Matthew to Jews and God-Fearers living in Gentile territory. John was written for his own community of anointed-believers.

At a high level what he said is essentially correct, aside from the errors that Mark was written to Romans, or that John was necessarily intended to speak to the "rest of the world". But what I was challenging was that to cite that as a refutation of what I originally said is not "correcting" it.

I don't believe anyone can claim a "correct view" about anything in scripture with absolute assurance, as he posited. Which divine authority concludes such things? At best you have a consensus opinion, which may or may not stand up to further or later scrutiny. "Here's the current opinion", is the right way to say that. Not, "This is the correct view".

This is what I originally said, which even granting this as "correct", does not challenge in my eyes:

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.

While the generally audiences is roughly correct, that does not negate the above. They are still parabolic histories, spun to refute or challenge the other gospel writers, as they are speaking to their general target audiences. They aren't records of the actual historical Jesus and what he necessarily said, but how they have him saying what they want to say to their audiences, in challenge or refutation to other Jesuses of the other Gospel writers and their target audiences.

 

[sojourner]

Nor do I believe one can claim a "correct view" about anything in scripture. Which divine authority concludes such things?

No. All we can offer, in many cases, is an informed “best guess.”

“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 agree with this generally, but I don’t agree with your assessment of John, and the others are too simplistic a description.

 

[Windwalker]

I agree with this generally, but I don’t agree with your assessment of John, and the others are too simplistic a description.

Of course it's simplistic for what I post here. Dear Lord, my posts already are too long and detailed as it is! It takes an entire book to even begin to provide supporting detail for these things. Like this one here: The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus

 

[Windwalker]

I agree with this generally, but I don’t agree with your assessment of John, and the others are too simplistic a description.

Out of curiosity, I wanted to reference what Crossan said about John for my own sake here.

"[John's gospel] is a bitter attack on Judaism, from outside it, possibly from a Samaritan tradition. It is also a serenely sweeping challenge to all aspects of the synoptic Jesus inMark, Matthew, and Luke.".... [pg 241]

"John's megaparable is, in conclusion, both an attack parable directed against and from outside Judaism - like Luke-Acts - but also, and even more so, a challenge parable directed against but from inside Christianity - like Mark. It is also, as are all the gospels in their different ways, a challenge parable to the Roman Empire. We saw this sort of challenge already in Luke-Acts, but John's is a more subversive version that Luke-Acts'. It does not simply request non interference as Christianity replaces Judaism with Roman approval. It is not about accommodation with Rome's violence, but about replacement or transformation of that imperial normalcy. " [pg.242]​

To say it was written to the rest of the world, in a sense is true, but understood from within this basic framework. I don't see it necessarily as how a modern Christian might imagine what that meant, like written to speak to us today as non-Jews. It was to that world of that day, exposed to all of these as presently active voices and ideas of what and who Jesus was about through their own visions of him.

In reality, none of them were written with us today as the target audience. We just adopt what we can from it to fit ourselves. We adopt the Jesus that applies to us, be they liberals or conservatives. Just like they did with their Jesus. If we were to write our own gospel today, it would be called "The Gospel according to the Americans".

None of that is meant to dismiss the value of Jesus' teachings. But to understand the nature of how we create for ourselves, the truth that speaks to us. They did it then. We do it now today.

Which Jesus resonates the most with us? Which Jesus speaks to us, and which does not? The answer to that, speaks the actual truth. It's not about the "correct Jesus", but a reflection about ourselves and what is inside of us.

 

[Shad]

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 verse was about people, demographics, as it was directed to the Romans hence why the next verse is specific that there is no difference between the Jews and Greeks. IE You do not need to be Jewish to be saved. It was about faith not merely uttering some words.

It helps reading the whole chapter. More so the book itself which is called Romans for a reason.

 

[sojourner]

Of course it's simplistic for what I post here. Dear Lord, my posts already are too long and detailed as it is! It takes an entire book to even begin to provide supporting detail for these things. Like this one here: The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus

I think you’re on top of it though!

 

[sojourner]

Out of curiosity, I wanted to reference what Crossan said about John for my own sake here.

"[John's gospel] is a bitter attack on Judaism, from outside it, possibly from a Samaritan tradition. It is also a serenely sweeping challenge to all aspects of the synoptic Jesus inMark, Matthew, and Luke.".... [pg 241]

"John's megaparable is, in conclusion, both an attack parable directed against and from outside Judaism - like Luke-Acts - but also, and even more so, a challenge parable directed against but from inside Christianity - like Mark. It is also, as are all the gospels in their different ways, a challenge parable to the Roman Empire. We saw this sort of challenge already in Luke-Acts, but John's is a more subversive version that Luke-Acts'. It does not simply request non interference as Christianity replaces Judaism with Roman approval. It is not about accommodation with Rome's violence, but about replacement or transformation of that imperial normalcy. " [pg.242]​

To say it was written to the rest of the world, in a sense is true, but understood from within this basic framework. I don't see it necessarily as how a modern Christian might imagine what that meant, like written to speak to us today as non-Jews. It was to that world of that day, exposed to all of these as presently active voices and ideas of what and who Jesus was about through their own visions of him.

In reality, none of them were written with us today as the target audience. We just adopt what we can from it to fit ourselves. We adopt the Jesus that applies to us, be they liberals or conservatives. Just like they did with their Jesus. If we were to write our own gospel today, it would be called "The Gospel according to the Americans".

None of that is meant to dismiss the value of Jesus' teachings. But to understand the nature of how we create for ourselves, the truth that speaks to us. They did it then. We do it now today.

Which Jesus resonates the most with us? Which Jesus speaks to us, and which does not? The answer to that, speaks the actual truth. It's not about the "correct Jesus", but a reflection about ourselves and what is inside of us.

I like Crossan. Yeah, there really is no “correct Jesus.” There’s the search for the historical Jesus, but even the scholars involved in that project admit that there’s more to Jesus than just the history. They will admit that the mythic Jesus is as important, although they reject the conflating of the two.

 

[Windwalker]

I like Crossan. Yeah, there really is no “correct Jesus.” There’s the search for the historical Jesus, but even the scholars involved in that project admit that there’s more to Jesus than just the history. They will admit that the mythic Jesus is as important, although they reject the conflating of the two.

Well yes, that is true and something I would agree with. Even if it is not factual history, the message has permeated our collective psyche through cultural signs. The Jesus we see, is the Jesus the Western Church created for us.

The real challenge too is that the mythic Jesus can have two different faces of the culture which mythologies him. One is the affirming God of love, and the other is the shaming God of violence. You see both portraits in the Bible, not just of Jesus but of God going all the way back to Genesis.

Which one you resonate with, speaks of how you relate to God, or need to relate to God. Trying to reconcile a God of Grace, with a God of violence is not possible on a heart or spiritual level. The Jesus you speak about speaks about yourself. The myth had evolved to become available to both approaches to life. Grace or violence.

 

[Hawkins]

Romans 10:12-13 (NIV2011)
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Romans 10:13 is echoing 10:12. It says that there's no difference between the Jews and gentiles under the New Covenant. Whoever calling upon the name of Jesus shall be saved (whether it's a Jew or gentile).

That said. Romans 10:13 marks a baseline for salvation. The rest is all up to Jesus as only Jesus is the judge. It's a matter of perspective. It's thus no wrong to conclude that if you believe in Jesus you will be saved (a broader perspective), but still whether you will be truly saved will depend on Jesus' judgment on the Judgment Day (a stricter perspective).

 

[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?

What’s amusing is watching someone who has a limited grasp of both the texts and theology try to use non-arguments to ridicule an institution he doesn’t understand.

 

[Desert Snake]

I like Crossan. Yeah, there really is no “correct Jesus.” There’s the search for the historical Jesus, but even the scholars involved in that project admit that there’s more to Jesus than just the history. They will admit that the mythic Jesus is as important, although they reject the conflating of the two.

Yet they do conflate the two yeshuas, don't they. Heck, yeshua is contradicting himself if there is only one yeshua.

So, I would say, that idea does not really follow the teachings of religious establishments, [and scriptural studies.

One Jesus says, He is god, elohim
John 17,

The other yeshua speaks in riddles and says 'my g-d', and 'my g-d and your g-d'. Which doesn't even make sense in any trinitarian concept.

 

[sojourner]

Yet they do conflate the two yeshuas, don't they. Heck, yeshua is contradicting himself if there is only one yeshua.

So, I would say, that idea does not really follow the teachings of religious establishments, [and scriptural studies.

One Jesus says, He is god, elohim
John 17,

The other yeshua speaks in riddles and says 'my g-d', and 'my g-d and your g-d'. Which doesn't even make sense in any trinitarian concept.

Remember that we are dealing with several different stories of Jesus told from different perspectives. They won’t always match up.

 

[Desert Snake]

Remember that we are dealing with several different stories of Jesus told from different perspectives. They won’t always match up.

I have no problem with that, therefore a reading of the Gospels is subjective, religiously, as long as there is a Triune nature, or Binitarian nature, and a type of sacrifice.

 

[sojourner]

I have no problem with that, therefore a reading of the Gospels is subjective, religiously, as long as there is a Triune nature, or Binitarian nature, and a type of sacrifice.

It’s a love offering, not an expiation sacrifice.

 

[moorea944]

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?

Just saw this post and would like to comment on this topic.

Paul's not contradicting Jesus at all. Salvation is not guaranteed. It is a process. A life long journey of serving our Lord. So many times in scripture it says, you are saved, if....... But it also says that, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." That is true in a sense that we need God and Christ in our lives. We need to "know" them. John 17v3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent"

Salvation is a process. Alot of things "save", not just one thing. Jesus NEVER says that, "the only thing" you have to do is...... He never says that. So what saves then, baptism saves, truth, endurance, faith, hope, etc....... And what does "saved" mean anyhow? Are we saved into something, are we saved out of something or are we saved by being put aside for something to come? Or all three.

Plus, you mentioned heaven going. Bible knows nothing about "heaven going". It's all on resurrection. That's preached all through scripture. Even in Acts, in Paul's journeys, he's always preaching about the resurrection. Also read 1 Corin 15. Bible never talks about an "immortal soul". Ever. In fact, "immortal" and "soul" are never found together in any verse in scripture... It says that we ARE a soul. A living breathing frame. That is what a soul is. It can be written in different ways too, just like "spirit".

In Mathew 7 also tells us that salvation is not guaranteed, again. Look at the children of Israel in the wilderness, they were saved, yet they all died.

Paul writes that when we get baptised we are a new man now. We put off the old man and his ways. We are "in Christ". We know walk in the Lord and live our lives accordingly. We're in a covernant relationship with our God. Gal 3v26-29, we are know in the promises with Abraham. And what was Abraham promised? That all in Genesis. Wonderful book.

And what about "good works" as you mentioned? That is something that we do need to do. God does not want us to be couch potatoes all of our lives and do nothing. Scripture tells us that we are Ambassadors of Christ. Look at the book of James. "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works."
"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."

Unfortunetly, alot of religions believe that the "only thing" you have to do is "just believe" and your in!! And with that, you can do anything else you want, doesnt matter, once saved always saved! If we base our salvation on just belief, then we have to throw out the rest of the bible on what it says on salvation and "being saved". Salvation is a live long process. But we wait patiently for our Lords return.

 

[iam1me]

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?

Understanding Paul, or any of the scriptures in truth, requires more than cherry-picking a couple verses here and there. A thorough reading of Paul will reveal that he maintained the same position as in Matthew - that we are required to do the will of the Father. For instance:

Romans 2:6-11 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”a]">[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.​

So here Paul is saying that we are judged by our deeds, much the same as Matthew 7.

You may ask then if Paul is contradicting himself in Romans? I would argue that when Paul, or others, make such statements that they are meant to be taken complementary (especially when in the same book like this), culminating in a much broader understanding. The scriptures are multi-faceted, with many layers.

Furthermore, if we investigate the local context of Romans 10:13, we will note that Paul is explicitly referencing the OT

Romans 10:5-13 Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.”a]">[a] 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’”b]">[b] (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’”c]">[c] (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”d]">[d] that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”e]">[e] 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”f]">[f]
​

He is referencing Deuteronomy 30, a particularly powerful chapter that emphasizes our freewill and capability of fulfilling God's will/law. The idea that "the word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart" is the reasoning behind why we are capable of fulfilling God's Law. We don't need someone to explain it to us, or to fulfill it for us - if it is in us then we are capable of doing these things. So when he speaks of belief here, it is not distinct from action. Rather it is our belief, our faith, that enables us to act in accordance with God's will (and thereby receive salvation for our good works):

Deutoronomy 30:11-20 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it. 15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. 17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. 19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live 20 and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.​

Additionally, it is important to note that the phrase "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" ALSO comes from the OT (vs being an original statement of Paul's).

Joel 2:32 And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved;
for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem
there will be deliverance,
as the Lord has said,
even among the survivors
whom the Lord calls
​

Thus Paul is inline with the Jewish scriptures. If anything the question should be why does Matthew appear to contradict the Jewish scriptures? Of course, this isn't the only time Jesus makes statements that are seemingly contradictory with Jewish scriptures and tradition. He is challenging the traditional and literal understanding/interpretation of such scriptures and inviting us to dive deeper and to try to understand the spirit of such scriptures.

 

[Sand Dancer]

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

That's all religion/belief is. We are all free to believe whatever we want. Beauty!

 

[Sand Dancer]

You need to look at the bible in its entire context. If you do, you won't find any contradictions.

If people try to take it literally, the contradictions can't be ignored. If we think about how texts were written back then, things were not meant to be literal. It gives an idea, not fact.