How Paul Contradicts Jesus on the Most Important Doctrine of Christianity

[Hawkins]

Unlike a judgment of Law which will have to be objective. What Paul tries to say is that the Judgement of Christ is a subject one. So the minimum is calling upon Jesus then for Jesus to do the rest up to His judgment.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

That would actually be two versions of Jesus - the pre-existing mediator-Creator and the Jesus of synoptics. And by all accounts Jesus is the Messiah.

No reason for mixing Greek tradition here:

1. Logos is the personification of God's Wisdom at the creation (Proverbs 8), who is creating with God. In NT it is used against gnostic version of Demiurge - his creation is antagonistic to the will of God.

2. Virgin birth is simply a prophecy (Isaiah 7:14). However I agree it is suspicious that there is no mention of it in Mark.

 

[blü 2]

That would actually be two versions of Jesus - the pre-existing mediator-Creator and the Jesus of synoptics.

No, at the least, three. The Jesus of Mark is an ordinary Jew until adopted by God at his baptism, the model being David's adoption Psalm 2:7 and elsewhere. The Jesuses of Matthew and of Luke come into being when Mary is impregnated by the Ghost, that is, they have God's Y-chromosome. The Jesuses of Paul and of John are the gnostic demiurge, and were created in heaven by God early in his career. (The Trinity isn't invented till the 4th century CE, but the Jesus of the Trinity is intrinsic to God and is therefore a fourth version, which has always co-existed with Father and Ghost.)

And by all accounts Jesus is the Messiah.

Yes, that's a consistent claim. However, the Christian version of the messiah in Jesus' case can't be mapped onto the Jewish version, ie he's not a Jewish messiah.

No reason for mixing Greek tradition here

In Jewish lore you become son of God by adoption. In Greek lore you become son of God because a god inseminated your mother, the model for the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke. The gnostic demiurge of Paul and John is a different Greek idea. So if you're Jewish, and the qualifications for messiahship were present, Mark's Jesus would be the sole acceptable version of the five.

In saying that, Israel / Judea had been much influenced by Greek language and culture since Alexander three centuries earlier; however, this influence was strongest among the Jews of Alexandria, while Jerusalem was unsurprisingly much more conservative.

1. Logos is the personification of God's Wisdom at the creation (Proverbs 8), who is creating with God.

But since the Babylonian Captivity Yahweh had been the only God there is, and his wisdom and his breath (ruach) were manifestations of this one God, not separate "persons" in the Trinity sense, and certainly not separate deities.

In NT it is used against gnostic version of Demiurge - his creation is antagonistic to the will of God.

In (the relevant version of) gnosticism, God is pure spirit, immaterial perfection as it were. He creates the demiurge, who goes on to create the material universe, which God would never do, and from which God remains seriously remote. The Jesuses of Paul (1 Corinthians 8:6) and John (1:3) also create the universe, and undertake the necessary role of mediator between God and man. These gnostic qualities aren't found in the other three Jesuses.

2. Virgin birth is simply a prophecy (Isaiah 7:14).

As you're doubtless aware, in Isaiah 7:14 the word is `almah ' young woman' whether virgin or not; the problem arises because the Septuagint translates this as 'parthenos', which is indeed virgin-specific. That is, (a) the Tanakh doesn't require a virgin (b) the child foretold doesn't fit Jesus' description and has a role relevant to the politics of Isaiah's time, not later, and (c) anyway the child of Mary was called Jesus, not Immanuel .

 

[PearlSeeker]

if you're Jewish, and the qualifications for messiahship were present, Mark's Jesus would be the sole acceptable version of the five.

I also tend to Markian priority. However it seems Mt and Lk were more trying hard to persuade Jewish people with genealogy and fulfillments of prophecies.

But since the Babylonian Captivity Yahweh had been the only God there is, and his wisdom and his breath (ruach) were manifestations of this one God, not separate "persons" in the Trinity sense, and certainly not separate deities.

Yes. That's why I prefer the interpretation of these attributes as emanation (manifestation before creation). Similarity with gnostic Demiurge doesn't mean there wasn't already a Jewish version of mediation. There is also a big difference. In Jewish/Christian version creation/body is good - in gnostic it's a prison and against God's will.

That is, (a) the Tanakh doesn't require a virgin (b) the child foretold doesn't fit Jesus' description and has a role relevant to the politics of Isaiah's time, not later, and (c) anyway the child of Mary was called Jesus, not Immanuel .

It's the "sign of Immanuel". I have to do more research about this...

 

[syo]

Observe that Paul states:

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

Calls for help to act. Paul is right. We do good by asking Jesus's guidance.

 

[PearlSeeker]

@blü 2

The Word almah:

Almah: Virgin or Young Maiden? • Jews for Jesus

 

[blü 2]

@blü 2

The Word almah:

Almah: Virgin or Young Maiden? • Jews for Jesus

Noted.

Consider the further problems with the 'virgin' interpretation.

First, I'm not aware of a single instance in the Tanakh where the birth of any child is due to God inseminating the mother. (That's a Greek tradition.)

Second, the son if born of a virgin is necessarily the genetic son of Yahweh (has God's Y-chromosome), a matter of huge religious significance; but the son is born in Isaiah's day (Isaiah 8:3), and scarcely anyone notices him.

Third, this son is to be associated with the events foretold in Isaiah 7:18-23, which simply don't fit with Jesus' doings.

Fourth, Mark's Jesus is clearly born of two earthly parents, and Mark's purported biography is the only one we have ─ Paul's bio of an earthly Jesus fits easily into a couple of lines, and the other gospels are variations of Mark. Paul and the author of John each acknowledge that Jesus was born but nowhere say how or imply anything special about it; the author of Matthew avoids any explicit attribution of virginity to Mary, leaving readers to make of Matthew 2:18 what they will. The author of Luke is the only one to make an unambiguous claim (Luke 1:27). That is, of the five major Jesuses of the NT, only one is clearly said to be born of a virgin.

Fifth, in reality human parthenogenesis is extremely rare and there are no known instances of a male child being the result ─ that Y-chromosome again.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The word in Isaiah apparently meant young woman. It is possible that after the miraculous virgin birth the line was reinterpreted. The author/compiler of Matthew didn't explicitly mention virginity but it's a miraculous birth nevertheless. What if only communities around Luke and Matthew had this information and others didn't know about it?

 

[Sand Dancer]

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?

None of the folks making doctrine even knew Jesus. The folks making canon didn't seem to make it much about Jesus' teachings and kind of made it based on their own thoughts.

 

[Sand Dancer]

The word in Isaiah apparently meant young woman. It is possible that after the miraculous virgin birth the line was reinterpreted. The author/compiler of Matthew didn't explicitly mention virginity but it's a miraculous birth nevertheless. What if only communities around Luke and Matthew had this information and others didn't know about it?

Many spiritual leaders had stories about virgin births. I think it makes them more unique to have something totally supernatural surrounding their births.

 

[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 either lack a basic understanding of what you are reading or simply are looking for loopholes. I don't see anything rational or objective in the way you see things.

 

[Muffled]

@blü 2

The Word almah:

Almah: Virgin or Young Maiden? • Jews for Jesus

I believe if a young maiden were not a virgin she would be stoned to death for adultery.

 

[Muffled]

None of the folks making doctrine even knew Jesus. The folks making canon didn't seem to make it much about Jesus' teachings and kind of made it based on their own thoughts.

I believe there is always a temptation to rely on ones thinking instead of the Holy Spirit but despite that I believe they got the canon right.

 

[Muffled]

Many spiritual leaders had stories about virgin births. I think it makes them more unique to have something totally supernatural surrounding their births.

If the stories actually came from God I would buy it but otherwise not.

 

[blü 2]

I believe you either lack a basic understanding of what you are reading or simply are looking for loopholes. I don't see anything rational or objective in the way you see things.

I've already pointed out the three basic models of Jesus ─ Mark's ordinary Jew adopted by God, Matthew's and Luke's literal son of God with God's Y-chromosome, and Paul's and John's gnostic demiurge, created early by God and living in heaven with him, who created the material universe and mediates between God and that universe.

And that all five NT Jesuses explicitly deny they're God, data ignored in the fourth century CE when the Trinitarian view of God was adopted, by which the persons of the Trinity have, like God, always existed.

Tell me specifically what you disagree with, and on what basis, and we can look at the questions.

 

[Sand Dancer]

If the stories actually came from God I would buy it but otherwise not.

None do, otherwise they would be perfect.

 

[Deeje]

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?

This is a clear cut case of misinterpretation.

Paul is quoting Joel 2:32, which in the Tanach (Joel 3:5) is Yahweh. ( יְהֹוָ֖ה )
So it is a misinterpretation of the verse to assume that Paul is talking about Jesus...he isn't.
The Lord in Joel is Yahweh. The title "Lord" applies to both the Father and his son.

"And it shall come to pass that whoever shall call in the name of the Lord shall be delivered, for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be a deliverance, as the Lord said, and among the survivors whom the Lord invites.
הוְהָיָ֗ה כֹּ֧ל אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרָ֛א בְּשֵׁ֥ם יְהֹוָ֖ה יִמָּלֵ֑ט כִּ֠י בְּהַר־צִיּ֨וֹן וּבִירֽוּשָׁלִַ֜ם תִּֽהְיֶ֣ה פְלֵיטָ֗ה כַּֽאֲשֶׁר֙ אָמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֔ה וּבַ֨שְּׂרִידִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה קֹרֵֽא:

In Matthew, Jesus is talking to those who acknowledge him as their "Lord" (Master) telling them that calling yourself a Christian, and even demonstrating that with powerful works, means nothing if you are not "doing the will of the Father". That is why he tells them that he "never knew" them.....they have never done the will of God.

You see how Christendom messes everything up? It just causes confusion, when there does not have to be any. If the Jews had kept using Yahweh's name, (as they were instructed) the confusion would never have arisen. Jesus could never have been confused with his Father as "God".

 

[Terral]

Hi Hubert:

Thank you for starting this thread. You wrote:

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

Let's slow down a minute to consider a few important facts: John the Baptist and Jesus Christ preached the "Gospel of the Kingdom" (Matt. 4:23, 9:35, etc.) right out of the starting gate, which has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Christ dying for anyone. Israel was to accept the "Gospel of the Kingdom" and Jesus Christ as "King" to be blessed by His life. Right? Jesus Christ is teaching Israel ONLY (Matt. 10:5-7) Kingdom Doctrine in light of the fact that Israel as a nation would obey the "Gospel of the Kingdom" in the Four Gospels. Paul is raised up in Acts 9 after Christ is raised from the dead to be given the "gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24-27) that is completely different from the "Gospel of the Kingdom" that Israel rejected part of their "transgression" (Rom. 11:11). Jesus Christ is teaching Kingdom Doctrine to Israel obeying the "Gospel of the Kingdom" in the Four Gospels, while Paul is teaching Grace Doctrine to members of Christ's Body obeying the "Gospel of the Grace of God" part of a completely different "dispensation." Vines definition. You wrote:

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!’

There is no such thing as a contradiction in God's Living Word. Some create contradictions in false interpretations with little or no basis in Scriptural reality. Paul is addressing "Romans" saved by God's grace through faith apart from works who obeyed the "Gospel of the Grace of God," while Christ is addressing Kingdom Disciples obeying the "Gospel of the Kingdom," again, part of a totally different dispensation or household.

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?

No sir. We most-certainly disagree. You are focusing in on a difficult topic for many professing Christians, but the right answer concerns the "audience" to whom Christ is speaking to in the Four Gospels (Kingdom "Bride;" John 3:29) "and" the audience Paul is addressing in his Epistles to the Gentiles (Body of Christ; Eph. 4:12, Col. 1:24, etc.). We are debating the differences between the Gospel of the Kingdom preached by John the Baptist, Christ and the Twelve "and" the Gospel of the Grace of God preached by Paul here (advanced version is here) if anybody is interested in resolving the seeming contradictions.

Blessings,

Terral

 

[blü 2]

John the Baptist and Jesus Christ preached the "Gospel of the Kingdom" (Matt. 4:23, 9:35, etc.) right out of the starting gate, which has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Christ dying for anyone.

Not quite nothing.

First, there are two distinct meanings of 'the Kingdom' in the NT. The first refers to the Christian faithful seen as a group. The second refers to a future state on earth which will be ruled by the 'Son of Man'. (I gave examples of both usages >here<.)

Second, the relevance of Jesus depends on what meaning the reader attributes to ─

Mark 9:1 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”​

and its synoptic parallels Matt 16:28 and Luke 9:27, and to

Mark 13:28 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 30 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.
​

and its synoptic parallel Matthew 24:32.

If the 'Son of Man' is Jesus ─ it's nowhere clearly stated that he is ─ then these passages may refer to the return of the post-mortal Jesus.

Israel was to accept the "Gospel of the Kingdom" and Jesus Christ as "King" to be blessed by His life. Right?

The 'Son of Man' would be king of that kingdom, no? Do you have a particular verse identifying the 'Son of Man' with Jesus?

Jesus Christ is teaching Israel ONLY (Matt. 10:5-7)

As a matter of impression ─ I haven't examined the question in those terms ─ the author of Mark appears to agree, and so do the authors of Matthew and Luke. Paul doesn't agree, and it's not clear to me that the author of John agrees either, since his text sees the Christians and the Jews as opponents.

There is no such thing as a contradiction in God's Living Word.

Of course there is ─ a great many, large and small. A little example is ─

Mark 6:8 He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts;​

contradicted by

Luke 9:3 And he said to them, “Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics.​

A much bigger set of contradictions starts with Mark's Jesus being the son of ordinary Jews until, his sins having been washed away by JtB, God adopts him as his son on the model of Psalm 2:7 (expressly affirmed in Acts 13:33).

While the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke are the genetic sons of God ie able to be male children because they have Yahweh's Y-chromosome.

And the Jesuses of Paul and of John are gnostic demiurges, each having created the material universe ─

1 Corinthian 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.

John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.​

and each having been created by God back before there was a universe, and resided in heaven before appearing (Paul's by being born, John's unexplained) on earth.

(And the Trinitarian doctrine, devised in the 4th century CE, adds a fourth model, in which God exists ─ and has always existed ─ as three 'persons', making Jesus coexistent with the Father and the Ghost forever ─ though that makes the titles of 'Father' and 'Son' inexplicable. Nonetheless, it won't have escaped you that each of the Jesuses of Paul and of the four gospels expressly denies he's God.)

 

[PearlSeeker]

First, there are two distinct meanings of 'the Kingdom' in the NT. The first refers to the Christian faithful seen as a group. The second refers to a future state on earth which will be ruled by the 'Son of Man'. (I gave examples of both usages >here<.)

I don't see it as distinct. First is the inner state - God already ruling in the hearts of some - hearts turned to God. Second is the same meaning just extended/ripened/finished work.