How Paul Contradicts Jesus on the Most Important Doctrine of Christianity

[PearlSeeker]

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.

Not exactly. First Israel and then also all nations.

 

[blü 2]

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.

No, it's very clear that one is the present condition of the faithful, and the other is not yet present but a future regime that will rule on earth. Check the examples on the link ─ they make the difference clear.

 

[Terral]

Hi Blu 2:

Thank you for writing. I read your post the first time trying to determine the context of your statements to then realize you are apparently defending Hubert's OP statements as an advocate. If not, then debating among ourselves on side topics will take away from focus on Hubert's OP content. I am new here and simply trying to obey all the rules.

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<. [snip])

We disagree on the two distinct meanings of "the Kingdom" lingo and using yourself as a reference might not be the best way to make this point. Vine's Dictionary defines the ancient Greek term (basileia G932) and you will not find a single reference to "the Christian faithful" or anything close. There is a single mention of the "Son of Man" with specific references:

"Thus there is but one Kingdom, variously described: of the Son of Man, Matthew 13:41; of Jesus, Revelation 1:9; of Christ Jesus, 2 Timothy 4:1; "of Christ and God," Ephesians 5:5; "of our Lord, and of His Christ," Revelation 11:15....". Vine's Dictionary of NT Words

The fact that Jesus Christ preached the "Gospel of the Kingdom" (Matt. 4:23, 9:35) is a Biblical fact no matter how you choose to define each term in the given "name" of the good news message. The point of my statements to Hubert's OP statements concern the different "audiences" hearing Christ preaching the "Gospel of the Kingdom" versus Paul preaching the "Gospel of the Grace of God." The seeming contradiction identified by Hubert's statements are resolved by recognizing that Jesus Christ is teaching Kingdom Doctrine to Kingdom Disciples, while Paul is teaching Grace Doctrine to the Body of Christ as members of a completely different dispensation.

From what I can tell, the remainder of your comments directed at me are unrelated to the OP topic and my rebuttal to Hubert's seeming contradiction one way or the other. If you would like to debate the Gospel of the Kingdom Versus the Gospel of the Grace of God topic, then start here.

Blessings,

Terral

 

[blü 2]

Hi Blu 2: We disagree on the two distinct meanings of "the Kingdom" lingo and using yourself as a reference might not be the best way to make this point.

That's why I provided the link ─ >here it is< again ─ to where I listed and quoted the references to the 'Kingdom' in the NT and let them speak for themselves to the two distinct usages involved.

So before we go on, did you look at the examples carefully and note the distinction they made? Or do you want me to go over them again?

Regards

 

[Terral]

Hi blu2:

That's why I provided the link ─ >here it is< again ─ to where I listed and quoted the references to the 'Kingdom' in the NT and let them speak for themselves to the two distinct usages involved.

So before we go on, did you look at the examples carefully and note the distinction they made? Or do you want me to go over them again?

Regards

Yes, I read your entire post and nothing there has application to anything on Hubert's topic and nothing to do with my reply to Hubert either. I pointed out the fact that you should be using Vine's or Strong's Dictionary to define the ancient Greek used in the Scriptures, but for some reason you wish to define "the kingdom" in the Holy Spirit's phrase "Gospel of the Kingdom" (Matt. 4:23, 9:35, etc.) as something else. If we are going to define the Hebrew-Greek-Armaic terms to suit out homegrown dogma, then we can interpret God's Word to say most anything. Right?

If Hubert would like to provide defending arguments to my rebuttal, then I am happy to continue the debate with the member who started this topic. Perhaps a good idea would be to start a debate topic that does not include hijacking Hubert's topic to SomeWhereElseVille. But, I do appreciate your spirit and encouragement to engage in Bible debate. :0)

Blessings,

Terral

 

[blü 2]

Yes, I read your entire post and nothing there has application to anything on Hubert's topic and nothing to do with my reply to Hubert either. I pointed out the fact that you should be using Vine's or Strong's Dictionary to define the ancient Greek used in the Scriptures, but for some reason you wish to define "the kingdom" in the Holy Spirit's phrase "Gospel of the Kingdom" (Matt. 4:23, 9:35, etc.) as something else. If we are going to define the Hebrew-Greek-Armaic terms to suit out homegrown dogma, then we can interpret God's Word to say most anything. Right?

We treat each book of the NT as we treat any other ancient document ─ read it in a translation we trust (or translate it ourselves, though my koine Greek is only basic) and see what it actually says. We might ask for allusions and aspects of translation to be clarified, but we ourselves judge what it actually means by reading what it actually says.

And as you can see from the examples, it actually uses the one word Kingdom to refer to two different things.

Which is the point of my remarks, which were intended to clarify your use of the Kingdom notion in the NT.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

No, it's very clear that one is the present condition of the faithful, and the other is not yet present but a future regime that will rule on earth. Check the examples on the link ─ they make the difference clear.

Yes, present and future condition of the same thing.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The seeming contradiction identified by Hubert's statements are resolved by recognizing that Jesus Christ is teaching Kingdom Doctrine to Kingdom Disciples, while Paul is teaching Grace Doctrine to the Body of Christ as members of a completely different dispensation.

When Gentiles became Christians the problem was wether or not they should also keep all Jewish Law commandments like circumcision ... Paul's view was that circumsition in heart is what realy counts and not in the flesh. All that are guided by Holy Spirit are children of God. It's one kingdom. "In this new life, it doesn’t matter if you are a Jew or a Gentile, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbaric, uncivilized, slave, or free. Christ is all that matters, and he lives in all of us."

 

[Muffled]

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.

I disagree with all that I highlighted because there is no rationale to support it.

 

[Muffled]

None do, otherwise they would be perfect.

I believe the story of Jesus does come from God.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe the kingdom here and now exists within a worldly culture but the Kingdom that comes will have no worldly influence.

 

[Muffled]

Yes, present and future condition of the same thing.

I believe you wouldn't say being in NYC is the same as being in Boston.

 

[blü 2]

I disagree with all that I highlighted because there is no rationale to support it.

My apologies, but I can't quickly find the post in which you highlighted your disagreement. Grateful if you'd provide a link or better still, set them out again.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I believe the story of Jesus does come from God.

And contradictory quotes from him. Gotta pick the good stuff in the Bible and leave the bad. Like with any text...

 

[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?

Romans was about type of people meaning it is not exclusive. Read it in the full context. Mathew is about sincerity of belief. These verses do not contradict as sincerity is the key difference.

I do not believe in the Christian God. Me saying "Lord, Lord" is not a sincere statement. Hence "never knew me"

 

[Muffled]

And contradictory quotes from him. Gotta pick the good stuff in the Bible and leave the bad. Like with any text...

i believe there are no contrary quotes.

 

[Muffled]

Romans was about type of people meaning it is not exclusive. Read it in the full context. Mathew is about sincerity of belief. These verses do not contradict as sincerity is the key difference.

I do not believe in the Christian God. Me saying "Lord, Lord" is not a sincere statement. Hence "never knew me"

I believe this verse is context enough to show it agrees with what Jesus said:

Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

 

[Sand Dancer]

i believe there are no contrary quotes.

Read it. They are there.

 

[Bobby Anderson]

The great Paul was the first Anti-Christ. Paul placed his teachings above the teachings of Jesus. Anti-Christ means "in place of". Jesus even warned us of his coming. "If they say they see me in the DESERT, do not believe them, they are false prophets. Where did Paul say he met Jesus? There are many, many, many other examples were we are told who Paul is.

 

[e.r.m.]

The great Paul was the first Anti-Christ. Paul placed his teachings above the teachings of Jesus. Anti-Christ means "in place of". Jesus even warned us of his coming. "If they say they see me in the DESERT, do not believe them, they are false prophets. Where did Paul say he met Jesus? There are many, many, many other examples were we are told who Paul is.

Wild theories.