How Paul Contradicts Jesus on the Most Important Doctrine of Christianity

[Kenny]

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

Even as one can believe there is no God. It's called free will.

 

[Kenny]

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.

There are sites that explain "contradictions". One simply decides to believe what they want to believe and if one doesn't want to believe there is a YHWH, then any excuse is a good enough excuse.

 

[Sand Dancer]

There are sites that explain "contradictions". One simply decides to believe what they want to believe and if one doesn't want to believe there is a YHWH, then any excuse is a good enough excuse.

Yes, one does, doesn't one. If one wants to believe, then any excuse is good.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Even as one can believe there is no God. It's called free will.

Definitely.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, one does, doesn't one. If one wants to believe, then any excuse is good.

Then we are in agreement.

 

[Muffled]

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?

I believe that is equivalent to what Jesus said. The only difference is when a person is pretending to call on the name of the Lord but actually is not doing so. The fact that Paul doesn't mention the exception does not make his statement disparate.

I believe you are in error on two counts. First the Kingdom of heaven is not Heaven. The second is that a person doesn't need to go anywhere because the Kingdom of heaven is within.

I believe that is totally your fantasy.

I believe we don't have any verses to ignore because there aren't any.

I believe I have debated with you before on this and have been honest and reasonable.

I don't believe we ignore evidence. I believe it just doesn't say what some people claim it says.

I believe we know the verses well so there is not ignoring.

 

[Muffled]

The NT gives you at least five Jesuses to choose from, Paul's, Mark's, Matthew's Luke's and John's.

Choose the one that says what you want to hear.

Or assemble your own Jesus from bits of all five. That's what most folk do.

I believe a person who is not listening to the whole counsel of God is less likely to come to the truth.

 

[Muffled]

I think the difference is in sincerity. Anyone can SAY they believe in Jesus but only those who really mean it and are willing to follow God's laws will be saved. So Paul is saying those who are willing to follow Jesus will be saved and Jesus is saying those who simply say the words but do not mean them will not be saved. It is not just about saying words but being willing to follow the way Jesus wamts you to follow.

I believe you can add to that the fact that Jesus is saying that those who do works that they want to do and don't do the will of God are not fooling God at all. So one can work one's *** off and not be saved. And it isn't even hard work. Jesus says His yoke is easy and His burden is light. Not to mention that He is actually the one doing the works.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I believe you can add to that the fact that Jesus is saying that those who do works that they want to do and don't do the will of God are not fooling God at all. So one can work one's *** off and not be saved. And it isn't even hard work. Jesus says His yoke is easy and His burden is light. Not to mention that He is actually the one doing the works.

I think you make a lot of sense there.

 

[blü 2]

I believe a person who is not listening to the whole counsel of God is less likely to come to the truth.

I can claim no such ability. However, I'm capable of understanding documents, ancient and modern, and it's on the basis of that capacity that I point out there are at least five wholly distinct versions of Jesus in the NT.

For example, of those five, two pre-existed in heaven with God and made the material universe. Three did not pre-exist at all, and of them, one was born an ordinary Jew with two normal parents, and the other two were born as the result of divine insemination.

Those seem like rather basic distinctions, no?

One thing all five have in common, though, is that each of them denies he's God.

 

[Muffled]

I can claim no such ability. However, I'm capable of understanding documents, ancient and modern, and it's on the basis of that capacity that I point out there are at least five wholly distinct versions of Jesus in the NT.

For example, of those five, two pre-existed in heaven with God and made the material universe. Three did not pre-exist at all, and of them, one was born an ordinary Jew with two normal parents, and the other two were born as the result of divine insemination.

Those seem like rather basic distinctions, no?

One thing all five have in common, though, is that each of them denies he's God.

I believe you wouldn't have a clue if you tripped over it backwards. Without the Holy Spirit a person is like one groping in the dark and never finding the exit.

 

[blü 2]

I believe you wouldn't have a clue if you tripped over it backwards. Without the Holy Spirit a person is like one groping in the dark and never finding the exit.

Ah, so you're saying the gospels aren't history, but four+Paul sets of parables that can only be unlocked by special syntheses known only to Insiders?

And it doesn't matter that five distinct entities are called Jesus as long as they more or less, kind of thing, as it were, roughly speaking, act out the same basics?

If that's your view, fine. At least we can agree that each of the five explicitly denies he's God.

 

[Clear]

Hi @blü 2

You mentioned "I'm capable of understanding documents, ancient and modern, and it's on the basis of that capacity that I point out there are at least five wholly distinct versions of Jesus in the NT. For example, of those five, two pre-existed in heaven with God and made the material universe. Three did not pre-exist at all, and of them, one was born an ordinary Jew with two normal parents, and the other two were born as the result of divine insemination." (blü 2, post #90).

I also have an interest in ancient Judeo-Christian documents and also in your "5 versions" of Jesus. Can you offer more clarifying information regarding these 5 versions? Thanks so much in advance for the extra clarifying data.

Clear
ειζκτωτωω

 

[blü 2]

Hi @blü 2

You mentioned "I'm capable of understanding documents, ancient and modern, and it's on the basis of that capacity that I point out there are at least five wholly distinct versions of Jesus in the NT. For example, of those five, two pre-existed in heaven with God and made the material universe. Three did not pre-exist at all, and of them, one was born an ordinary Jew with two normal parents, and the other two were born as the result of divine insemination." (blü 2, post #90).

I also have an interest in ancient Judeo-Christian documents and also in your "5 versions" of Jesus. Can you offer more clarifying information regarding these 5 versions? Thanks so much in advance for the extra clarifying data.

Clear
ειζκτωτωω

Well, for outline, the Jesuses of Paul and of the author of John have a gnostic flavor to them. There are more than one versions of gnosticism, but the relevant one is where the Demiurge pre-exists with God in heaven, where God is perfectly pure hence pure spirit, untainted in any way by the material world. Thus it falls to the Demiurge to create the material world, something the Jesuses of Paul and of John are said to have done, and then to mediate between the material and the immaterial, earth and heaven, something which both Jesuses do, though the details vary.

Since Paul's is the first Jesus we meet in history (writing in the 50s) and John's is the last, c. 100, it seems this gnostic outlook was one kind of ongoing proto-Christian background.

Paul's early biography of Jesus is very brief. It literally fits in a couple of lines. Jesus is born of an unnamed Jewish woman of the line of David, has disciples and a ministry in Jerusalem, is 'handed over' to the 'rulers (archons) of the age' for no stated reason, is crucified for no stated reason, and buried. If memory serves, the idea that the earth is a bad place because it's ruled by not exactly evil but not helpful spirits called 'archons', also occurs in gnosticism, which may color Paul's use of this word instead of naming the Romans.

The first and only biography of Jesus is written by the author of Mark. There are grounds to think that this was about 75 CE, since as Ted Whitten notes, some 24 points in common can be seen between the account of the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem, aka Jesus son of Ananias / Ananus, in Josephus' Wars, and Mark's trial of Jesus ─ and Wars wasn't around until about 75 CE.

Mark's author, like all the other NT authors, had no personal knowledge of Jesus. He gets his mains scenes by moving his Jesus through episodes in the Tanakh that he presses into service as messianic prophecies, He may have had some reports of Jesus, and he may have had some sayings attributed to Jesus. His Jesus is born to an ordinary Jewish couple, completely without portents, angelic announcements or divine inseminations, and is not of David's line. He only becomes son of God when baptized by JtB (on the model of Psalm 2:7 in particular, confirmed more explicitly in Acts 13:33 by which David is declared to be son of God). One rather odd detail is that Mark is the first to note that Jesus fights with his family and never mentions his mother but in disparaging terms (the one exception being John's Jesus on the cross). He knows from the start that his mission will end in his death. On the cross he's an agonized, woeful, deserted figure. And although the tomb is empty, all we get is a message. He makes no appearance.

That doesn't appeal tp the authors of Matthew and of Luke and each sets out to improve it (and Luke improves Matthew). Jesus is definitely of David's line, through two most improbable and irreconcilable genealogies which are for his non-father Joseph. Both these Jesuses, while not pre-existing, are the result of the divine insemination of Mary (a Greek tradition, not a Hebrew one); that is, they're literally son of God from the start. Jesus must be born in Bethlehem, with signs in the stars and Magi in attendance, and go to and come out of Egypt, and so on, to fulfill the different lists of Tanakh references that again can be pressed into service as messianic prophecies. (It's a weakness of mine that I get irritated by Isaiah's Suffering Servant being claimed for prophecies of Jesus, something the text can't possibly support.) But they're synoptic Jesuses, and the story in Mark is the spine of their accounts of Jesus' deeds. Matthew's Jesus, like Mark's, asks on the cross why God has abandoned him; Luke's has outgrown that, and knows what he's there for. John's Jesus is master of ceremonies at his crucifixion.

That's the q&d outline. And there's arguably a different Christology in the Jesus of Revelation, and ... however many authors, that many Jesuses.

As has be observed before, if there were only one gospel, the case for an historical Jesus would look rather stronger. But I don't think any of the authors thought they were writing history; the only one with a realistic Jesus, at least at the start, is Mark's.

 

[Clear]

@blü 2 – Hi. thank you for the wonderfully detailed response you gave in post #94. I know that took a bit of thought and work and I appreciate the diligence and logical, rational response. Can I ask a couple of questions?


1) You said in post #90 “I point out there are at least five wholly distinct versions of Jesus in the NT.” (blü 2 post #90)

It seems to me that many Christian belief systems apply interpretations of Jesus that are fairly consistent as long as one interprets the N.T. text from within that specific belief system. The inconsistencies and arguments seem to occur when a Christian movement with it’s specific interpretations interact with a different Christian movement with conflicting interpretations of the text. (e.g. Baptist versus Catholic, or Jehovah Witness versus Episcopal belief systems, etc, etc.).

IF, for example, IF, I am a believing Catholic, then the catholic interpretation I apply to the N.T. text within than belief system and it's interpretations can be quite consistent with only a single Jesus being described in the text. The same principle can be applied to other Christian movements to a greater and lessor degree depending upon the specific movement (some can be simply bizzare and others, fairly logical). This is not to say any specific movement is correct, but simply that the interpretation of the N.T. text can create a single, specific Jesus.

Do you think the New Testament Text itself actually teaches five distinct versions of Jesus or are you actually describing five different interpretations applied to the N.T. texts’ description of Jesus?



2) Speaking of Jesus you mention “…of those five, two pre-existed in heaven with God and made the material universe. Three did not pre-exist at all…” (blü 2 post #90)

This is interesting. Can you point to the New Testament text that demonstrates the “Three [Jesus’s] did not pre-exist at all…”? And, if you can give examples of text that you think demonstrate Jesus did not exist, will it simply turn out to that the meaning of the text is simply dependent upon interpretation of those texts?



3) In post #94, you mention “…There are more than one versions of gnosticism, but the relevant one is where the Demiurge pre-exists with God in heaven, where God is perfectly pure hence pure spirit, untainted in any way by the material world…” (blü 2 post #94)

I agree with you that there were movements that taught matter was somehow “impure”. Still, we are left to consider whether this was simply a schizmatic interpretation. For example, Clement tells us that one of the first things the Apostle Peter tells the convert Clement is that Christianity did not teach that matter was inherently evil. The fact that Peter tells Clement this means the doctrine must have been an issue on Peter or Clements mind.

Still, the underlying question arises, as to whether the N.T. text itself teaches “pure spirit” that is untainted by material or if this is simply based on a schizms interpretation of the text. Obviously the Clement text indicates Peter did not teach that doctrine.




4) In post #94, you mention "Thus it falls to the Demiurge to create the material world, something the Jesuses of Paul and of John are said to have done, and then to mediate between the material and the immaterial, earth and heaven, something which both Jesuses do, though the details vary." (blü 2 post #94)

I very much agree with you that the most common early Judeo-Christian literature describes Jesus as the creator of the worlds. However, you then go on to discuss “material and immaterial”. Why assume spirit or heaven is “immaterial” in the early literature? For example, Pistis Sophia describes the spirit within man as “self-willed matter”. That is, the spirit is material, simply a material of a different type. Again, the question arises as to whether the N.T. text itself actually speaks of “immaterial” spirit or creation of “material” things from “immaterial” or from “nothing” as the later “ex-nihilo” theory was to theorize.

Are you speaking from the assumption made by the later “ex-nihilo” creation theory rather than the early belief that material things are made of pre-existing matter?


In any case, what all of my questions have in common is whether the NT test actually describes 5 different Jesus’s or whether you are simply describing 5 different interpretations of a single Jesus offered by early schisms. I think you have made some wonderful observations blü 2 and would like to know what you think about this.


Clear
ειακφυδρω

 

[THE HOOD APOLOGIST]

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?

Why is it when atheists and skeptics try to quote and criticize the Bible they get amnesia when it comes to the rules of Literature? Clearly read in context there is no contradiction on whats being said in both verses.
Jesus in Matthew 7 is simply saying posers and fakes are going to be exposed for what they really are in the last day. They're going to express that they acted in Jesus name when doing good deeds and he's going to tell them,"Kick Rocks, I don't know you, never knew you, so go to hell." Literally. Only the ones who actually "do" the will of my Father will enter the kingdom of heaven. And the will of the Father is said to be by Jesus in John 6:40, "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Paul on the other hand is saying something totally different in Romans 10:13. If you back up to verse 11 you'll see Paul says," The scripture says, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. This is from Isaiah 45:17. He then goes on to say theres no ethnicity taken into consideration when calling on the Lord since he is the Lord of all and rich to ALL that call upon him(verse 12). Therefore verse 13 is referring back to 11and12 to whosoever(Jews and Gentiles) shall call upon his name shall be saved without differentiation. Use some common sense, if all you had to do to be saved was call upon his name, then an atheist could just say the magic words and be saved. It takes belief, and action.

As far as your evolution statement evolutionary scientist don't even have a shred of empirical evidence of their molecules to man pseudo-scientific theory. Never been observed, tested in a laboratory, nor proven. Therefore it can't be referred to as Science.

 

[Muffled]

Ah, so you're saying the gospels aren't history, but four+Paul sets of parables that can only be unlocked by special syntheses known only to Insiders?

And it doesn't matter that five distinct entities are called Jesus as long as they more or less, kind of thing, as it were, roughly speaking, act out the same basics?

If that's your view, fine. At least we can agree that each of the five explicitly denies he's God.

I believe your five is total imagination similar to saying there are multiple gods based on the different attributes of God.

I don't believe that. It is more like I see things 20/20 while you see them through a kaleidoscope.

I believe you can think again. There are loads of verses indicating that Jesus is God and Jesus does not deny it but affirms it.

 

[blü 2]

I believe your five is total imagination similar to saying there are multiple gods based on the different attributes of God.

I don't believe that. It is more like I see things 20/20 while you see them through a kaleidoscope.

I believe you can think again. There are loads of verses indicating that Jesus is God and Jesus does not deny it but affirms it.

So you think it doesn't matter that the Jesuses of Paul and of John pre-existed in heaven with God and each created the material universe, just as the Gnostic demiurge did? And that the Jesus of Mark is born of an ordinary Jewish family, and unlike the other four isn't descended from David, and has no particular divinity until God adopts him at his baptism? And that the Jesuses of Matthew and of Luke didn't pre-exist but were the result of divine insemination (a Greek, not a Hebrew tradition) and were born amid annunciations and portents?

Then I guess we agree to differ. All I see there is evidence that if there was an historical Jesus, none of them had a biographical clue about him, Mark being the only possible exception.


As for Jesus being God, please give me one verse where Jesus says "I am God." Yes, I know ─you can't because there isn't one.

Here's a small sample of each Jesus denying he's God ─

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Mark 12: 29 Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; [...] 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he

Matthew 20:23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

Matthew 24: 36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”

Luke 18:18 And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”

John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”
​

If you'd like more, just ask.

(Just to be clear, though, naturally I respect your right to believe what you choose to believe. I simply object to claims that the bible supports propositions that the bible plainly doesn't support. In the NT Jesus is the son, the agent, the envoy, of God; not once does he claim to be God; every one of the five expressly denies he's God, as above.

If he was indeed God, his whole ministry was one of misrepresentation, pretense and deceit. But in fact the Trinity doctrine doesn't exist in Jesus' day ─ it's invented in the fourth century CE to solve a political problem in the early church. It exists despite the NT, not because of it.)

 

[e.r.m.]

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?

Yeah, no. It didn't come from Paul, it came from Joel 2:32, which Peter quoted first in Acts 2:21.

You also cited Jesus wrong claiming that Jesus teaches that good works are necessary to go to heaven. In
Matthew 7:21-23 it says:
“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. [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?' [23] Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

The future people Jesus referred to, were coming to him with those good works, and Jesus said he would reject them. What he said "only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." will enter the kingdom of heaven. He didn't mention what God's will was in this context, what he did make a distinction between good works and God's will. The chapter didn't mention good works either. Plus Peter and Paul did not say just to call his name out, Lord, Lord, but to call on his name, which is much more than the lip service Jesus was referring to. Your error was equating calling on the name of the Lord with just calling out Lord, Lord. You don't have a basis for calling out Christians with this poor cursory reading that you did.

 

[Muffled]

blu 2 wrote "So you think it doesn't matter that the Jesuses of Paul and of John pre-existed in heaven with God and each created the material universe, just as the Gnostic demiurge did? And that the Jesus of Mark is born of an ordinary Jewish family, and unlike the other four isn't descended from David, and has no particular divinity until God adopts him at his baptism? And that the Jesuses of Matthew and of Luke didn't pre-exist but were the result of divine insemination (a Greek, not a Hebrew tradition) and were born amid annunciations and portents?"

I believe it doesn't matter.

I do not believe that is what those verses are saying. God did create the universe and God is in Jesus. That does not mean that Jesus existed as an entity when the world was created. He may have existed as a concept.

I believe I don't care what the Gnostics thought. They have proven themselves to be wrong in many instances.

I believe this is the null hypothesis. Just because he doesn't mention it doesn't mean he had no knowledge of it. He certainly did not deny it.

I don't believe there is anything that says that. The fact that His divinity is revealed is consistent with the rest of the Bible.

I believe a divine insemination means God previously existed.

I believe the traditions can be similar in ways but are not the same and who cares what the Greeks thought about their paltry gods.