The Pauline Paradox

[Reggie Miller]

Jesus was only talking to Jews. His audience, his message, his background, was all Jewish.

Paul was largely talking to non-Jews, to Gentiles. Not being Jews, they did not have to follow the Law. Not a contradiction, but two different audiences.

Where was Paul talking to Gentiles, in the synagogues of the Jews? I don't think synagogues were the right place to look for Gentiles. All his life, Paul never left the Jews in peace. Since his first station in Damascus and until his last in Rome, he was always after the Jews. (Acts 9:1,2; and 28:17) Or perhaps looking for Gentiles in the synagogues of the Jews. Do you think this funny or the man was losing it?

Are you for real? Paul is the Apostle Jesus sent to the Gentiles. Where have you gotten all of this deceitful learning? Not from scripture.

 

[fallingblood]

Nice try but nothing of the above is true. Quote to us the references, please!

How can you possibly say none of it is true if you don't give a reason why? I will cite a few verses for the above for reference. The kingdom of G-d, for Jesus, Matthew 3:1-2 for Paul, Romans 14:17. For Jesus, the kingdom was for Jews, for Paul, it's for everyone.

Their audiences were different, which comes with the whole eating meat for idols. Jesus was all Jewish, Paul was Gentiles. For the eating, meat, Jesus supposedly says not to in Revelations 2:14-15, and James, the brother of Jesus and the one who took up the reigns of the ministry, also repeats it in Acts 15:20. Paul says that's not the case in Romas 14:21.

For the Pharisees, Paul says they were found blameless, that they upheld the law to the T in Philippians 3:5-6 and Jesus says they are lax in Matthew 23:23.

Not to mention you also acknowledge that Paul and Jesus supposedly said something different in regards to the law.

So I'm not sure why you are challenging me if you accept that Jesus and Paul disagreed?

Really! Jesus said that the Law was to obeyed as long as heaven and earth passed away. (Mat. 5:17-19) Have they passed away yet? Obviously not! Paul, on the other hand, implied that Jesus was lying or did not know what he was talking about. Hence, he said that Jesus was the end of the Law. (Romans 10:4; Ephesians 2:15) Do you still hold on your assumption that Paul never disagreed with Jesus?

There is a problem here though. Paul was talking to Gentiles, who didn't have to follow the Law. There were others who claimed that in order to follow Jesus, one had to follow the Law and be circumcised (to convert to Judaism). Paul disagreed, which is why he states what he does about the Law.

Jesus was talking to Jews, who followed the Law. So different audiences, which means different lessons.

Where was Paul talking to Gentiles, in the synagogues of the Jews? I don't think synagogues were the right place to look for Gentiles. All his life, Paul never left the Jews in peace. Since his first station in Damascus and until his last in Rome, he was always after the Jews. (Acts 9:1,2; and 28:17) Or perhaps looking for Gentiles in the synagogues of the Jews. Do you think this funny or the man was losing it?

I don't accept Acts to be historically accurate when talking about Paul. It contradicts Paul quite often. In this case, Paul tells us that he is the Apostle to the Gentiles, such as in Romans 11:13.

If you read his letters, they are addressed to Gentiles. Not to Jews. Paul and the Jerusalem sect even make such an agreement, as is seen Galatians 2. Paul states repeatedly that he is the Apostle to the Gentiles. Thus, he spoke to Gentiles, while Jesus spoke to Jews.

 

[metis]

Paul never disagrees with Jesus.

I have seen so many people throw Paul under the bus by claiming that he was counter to what Jesus taught, which doesn't make one iota of sense, especially since the apostles met a minimum of three times with him as mentioned in Acts, plus why in the world would they even associate with a man with Paul's past if he was teaching the antithesis of what Jesus taught.

Usually the pattern I see with those who make such a claim is that all these churches are supposedly wrong, but the claimants, otoh, know and possess the "true Christianity". As an outsider (I'm not a Christian), even I can see through that.

 

[fallingblood]

I have seen so many people throw Paul under the bus by claiming that he was counter to what Jesus taught, which doesn't make one iota of sense, especially since the apostles met a minimum of three times with him as mentioned in Acts, plus why in the world would they even associate with a man with Paul's past if he was teaching the antithesis of what Jesus taught.

Usually the pattern I see with those who make such a claim is that all these churches are supposedly wrong, but the claimants, otoh, know and possess the "true Christianity". As an outsider (I'm not a Christian), even I can see through that.

I see it a bit different. I don't throw Paul under the bus. At one point, I would have, but I have grown fond of him.

And it is true that Paul met with the apostles, or the Jerusalem Sect ran by James, the brother of Jesus, and headed by some apostles such as Peter. However, there were also disagreements, such as in Galatians, and Acts, (which record the same incident, but in different manners), where Paul supposedly confronts Peter about Jews eating with Gentiles. There is also the who deal about circumcision, which was a big deal. That and Paul being placed as an apostle to the Gentiles, and having to answer to the Jerusalem Sect. So there is confrontation there.

The fact that Jesus preached to Jews, with a Jewish message, and Paul brought that message to Gentiles, means there are going to be differences. Such as in concern to the Law, and whether one should follow it or not.

Then there is that Jesus wasn't seen as infallible. For instance, on divorce. Jesus is clear, don't divorce. Paul, on the other hand, references Jesus's saying on divorce in 1 Corinthians, but goes on to make some exceptions.

So it's not whether one or the other was wrong, but that they taught different things. And Paul had a lot more to deal with, as his ministry lasted quite a bit longer, and he was faced with problems that Jesus didn't.

 

[fallingblood]

I think that you are a bit mistaken here. Paul did not teach ''different'' things, than Jesus, he taught other things, that Jesus simply may not have stated outright, yet are part of /Jesus adherent religion. The exact same thing occurs in Judaism, yet you don't seem to logically equate the methodology. We don't say 'this prophet said this, yet afterwords, that prophet said, therefor different religious teachings are being taught',
we say, this prophet said this, that prophet also said that, so forth.
Merely compare it contextually. Jesus is Deific, to the Apostles. Not a 'Rabbi', only. The teachings in the NT, are supposed to be, 'prophecy', as well, where indicated. There is both prophecy, and non-prophecy, in the NT. the Apostles were judged on their ''prophecy''. This means spiritual adeptness, so forth, as well as actual 'prophecy', as in what most people equate that to mean, these days. Saul /Paul being a mystical prophet of Eshu.

We disagree on whether or not Jesus was a deity. I don't think so, and I don't think such an understanding is important to read the New Testament.

Here is a big thing though. Lets say I'm a Rabbi, and I give a sermon about dietary laws. It really only makes sense in a Jewish context. The Law is for the Jews after all. If I would give that same sermon to a group of Christians, it really wouldn't make sense, as they need not follow the law.

That's what we have with Jesus and Paul. Jesus states that we should follow the Law, that not one iota of it shall pass. He's talking specifically to Jews though. It wouldn't make sense for him to be speaking to Gentiles, as the Law does not apply to them. Paul on the other hand, states something very different. We don't need to follow the Law. He's speaking to a different audience though, to Gentiles. A different message for a different crowd.

They are also teaching other things as well. Paul teaches a lot more than Jesus did, but then again, he was taking the message to Gentiles, and often had a lot more work to do as they didn't have the foundation of Judaism, as Jesus did. Jesus was working within Judaism, within the confines of that religion. Paul was working within something that was just forming.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I have seen so many people throw Paul under the bus by claiming that he was counter to what Jesus taught, which doesn't make one iota of sense, especially since the apostles met a minimum of three times with him as mentioned in Acts, plus why in the world would they even associate with a man with Paul's past if he was teaching the antithesis of what Jesus taught.

Usually the pattern I see with those who make such a claim is that all these churches are supposedly wrong, but the claimants, otoh, know and possess the "true Christianity". As an outsider (I'm not a Christian), even I can see through that.

I think it is sad that an unbeliever can see Paul's sincerity in serving the Christ yet people who claim to be Christians claim they cannot.

Thank you for your comment, sir.

 

[fallingblood]

No, Jesus was teaching in an Judaic/Israelite context, not ''Judaism'', and literally not the Judaism that we know today.

It was within Judaism, first century Judaism. Yes, it isn't the Judaism we know today, but it was still within the Jewish religion. He was a Jew after all, and it was other Jews that he was teaching. Paul was teaching to Gentiles, a different context, a different group.

The Essenes, and various Israelites, already had different beliefs from what you seem to be referencing, that is why people there became ''Christians'', /Jesus adherents, in the first place.

Yes, there were different sects of Judaism in the first century. I'm not debating that. I'm simply placing Jesus within that general context. Within the religion of the Israelites, or the Jews.

As for Jesus adherents, there were multiple branches even there, as Paul tells us. However, the two primary branches was to the Jews, which Peter did, and to the Gentiles, which Paul did. That meant two messages depending on the actual groups.

 

[metis]

I see it a bit different. I don't throw Paul under the bus. At one point, I would have, but I have grown fond of him.

And it is true that Paul met with the apostles, or the Jerusalem Sect ran by James, the brother of Jesus, and headed by some apostles such as Peter. However, there were also disagreements, such as in Galatians, and Acts, (which record the same incident, but in different manners), where Paul supposedly confronts Peter about Jews eating with Gentiles. There is also the who deal about circumcision, which was a big deal. That and Paul being placed as an apostle to the Gentiles, and having to answer to the Jerusalem Sect. So there is confrontation there.

The fact that Jesus preached to Jews, with a Jewish message, and Paul brought that message to Gentiles, means there are going to be differences. Such as in concern to the Law, and whether one should follow it or not.

Then there is that Jesus wasn't seen as infallible. For instance, on divorce. Jesus is clear, don't divorce. Paul, on the other hand, references Jesus's saying on divorce in 1 Corinthians, but goes on to make some exceptions.

So it's not whether one or the other was wrong, but that they taught different things. And Paul had a lot more to deal with, as his ministry lasted quite a bit longer, and he was faced with problems that Jesus didn't.

Yes, there were disagreements, which is typical in our tradition since we do not operate out of a creed. However, as you alluded to, that doesn't mean nor imply that such differences were deal-breakers. Paul well knew that he had to operate with the oversight and permission of the Twelve.

Paul almost without a doubt went well beyond what Jesus taught because of the timing and also that Jesus appears to be somewhat vague on some pretty important items. Also, Paul faces a major problem in trying to mesh Jews and gentiles together so as to form the "one body" he kept on insisting had to be done, but that entailed having problems when dealing with the observance of the Law itself. His solution: end the observance of the Law by positing Jesus above the Law itself.

And I agree with the rest of your post, so thanks for throwing your two cents in.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Are you for real? Paul is the Apostle Jesus sent to the Gentiles. Where have you gotten all of this deceitful learning? Not from scripture.

Jesus didn't tell him that. A "vision" of Jesus told him that.

I have seen so many people throw Paul under the bus by claiming that he was counter to what Jesus taught, which doesn't make one iota of sense, especially since the apostles met a minimum of three times with him as mentioned in Acts, plus why in the world would they even associate with a man with Paul's past if he was teaching the antithesis of what Jesus taught.

Why do they encourage him to go "on the road" and stay far away from them?

I think it is sad that an unbeliever can see Paul's sincerity in serving the Christ yet people who claim to be Christians claim they cannot.

I think it's sad that people who say they worship Christ put so much importance on someone like Paul.

 

[metis]

Why do they encourage him to go "on the road" and stay far away from them?
.

I wouldn't assume the latter point at all, especially since there's an alternative.

Most theologians, and let me use Lutheran theologian Martin Marty as an example, believe that the Way was having trouble gaining any significant number of Jewish converts after a while, so they appear to have extended their appeal to "God-Fearers", namely gentiles that accepted the basic Jewish concept of God but did not actually convert to Judaism. Jesus' message seems to have appealed to them as we see references to them joining the Way as found in Acts and some of the epistles.

With that success, it's an easy "stones' throw" to believe that this proselytizing could be extended out into neighboring states. Why not, as the door was already opened with the acceptance of the God-Fearers".

With the above in mind, here comes Paul with his Greek education and knowledge of the language that would be helpful because Greek was heavily used throughout much of the Mediterranean area, especially in areas heavily reliant on trade and advanced skills. Not only did Paul spend most of his time out in the diasporah, by all indications, he also kept up communication with the Twelve, including sending donations back to them.

Therefore, there was a definite niche for Paul to fill, but also a benefit for the Twelve in regards to converts and donations. IOW, it's a win/win situation for them both.

 

[fallingblood]

I completely disagree. ''Christians'' are Christians regardless of the church being addressed. Some different issues are written about, however, ultimately, if you think the religion somehow changes from a 'jew', to a ''gentile'', then you are misunderstanding some important religious and probably theological components to traditional Christianity. This is fairly common, and most likely stems from various church writers, etc, who should have kept their day jobs.

In the first century, Christianity was just a sect of Judaism. Christianity wasn't a thing yet, and wouldn't fully separate from Judaism until some time after the first Jewish Revolt. Even then, there were still groups of Jewish-Christians until around the 4th Century. So that might need to be kept in consideration.

More so, while Christianity, or the Jesus movement, was still part of Judaism, it was taught differently depending on the audience. Paul admits such. And that is why there were apostles to the Jews, and at least one apostle to the Gentiles. It was because the message did in fact change.

The religion didn't change, the message changed. However, the religion wasn't Christianity, it was Judaism. Christianity would only later evolve into a separate religion. So I'm not misunderstanding, I'm simply putting it into a larger context of the first century.

 

[fallingblood]

I'd rather discuss these ideas in another thread, if you want, I can start a new thread, and alert you

I think it would be a fun discussion.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Yes, you fail to understand Paul. Totally. Paul said that our salvation is not dependent on following the law. He did not say that we should not follow the law.

The Apostles in Jerusalem agreed with everything Paul taught. Did you not know this? All of the Apostles agree that the Gentiles did not need to follow all of the laws given to the Jews by Moses. Reread the book of Acts.

And you fail to focus when reading your NT. Are you sure Paul did not say we should not follow the Law? He said that we have been released from the Law as a widow is released from the law that subjects her to her husband. It means that with the death of Jesus, the Law had come to an end. (Romans 7:1-6; 10:4) It also means that we should not follow what did not exist anymore.

Indeed, I did not know that the Apostles agreed with every thing Paul taught. So, why didn't they accept his application to join the Sect of the Nazarenes? (Acts 9:26) They said they could not be a disciple. And you did not have to go to the Apostles to know that the Gentiles did not need to follow all the laws given to the Jews by Moses. I could have told you that.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Jesus was only talking to Jews. His audience, his message, his background, was all Jewish.

Paul was largely talking to non-Jews, to Gentiles. Not being Jews, they did not have to follow the Law. Not a contradiction, but two different audiences.

Can you provide us with a quote of when he decided to go to the Gentiles? What I have is that all his life as a missionary, he never left the Jews in peace; and this from his first station in Damascus and until his last in Rome.
(Acts 9:1,2; 28:17) And you say above that Jesus would talk ONLY to the Jews. Do you happen to know why? Because... no, I don't know why. Probably, if you read Mat. 10:5,6 he did not like Gentiles, especially if they were Samaritans. Every time Jesus sent his disciples on a mission to spread the gospel of salvation, he would warn them not to go the way of the Gentiles, specially Samaritans. I never understood why, especially because he himself, in his Sermon of the Mount, said that the Jews were the light of the world. (Mat. 5:14)

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The Pauline Paradox

When Paul started preaching about Jesus as the Messiah and son of God, he never realized that he had created a huge paradox.

You see, for Jesus to be the Messiah, he had to be a biological son of Joseph's, who was the one from the Tribe of Judah, whose Tribe the Messiah was supposed to come from. Mary was from the Tribe of Levi. She was of the family of Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron the Levite. (Luke 1:5,36)

Since Jesus is also claimed to be the son of God, he could not be the Messiah, because God is not subject to human genealogies.

On the other hand, if Christians decided to grab the chance of at least to make of Jesus the Messiah by agreeing to drop the tale of the virgin birth, and to admit that he was indeed Joseph's biological son, he could not be son of God; and here the situation would get worse because even the doctrine of the Trinity would collapse.

That's indeed a huge paradox that can be accepted only by faith, which requires no explanation. But then again, where faith begins, knowledge ends. And for lack of knowledge, People perish. (Hosea 4:6)

Now, if there is anyone out there with enough wisdom to unriddle this paradox, I'll be more than happy to take my hat off to him or her. If not, the Sphynx will keep waiting patiently beside the Egyptian pyramids for the passers-by.

Good luck!

Ben,

1st - You say above that the Messiah is supposed to come from the Tribe of Judah (which would imply an individual). I think other places you say the Messiah is plural and is Israel. How could the Messiah come from the Tribe of Judah, and yet be Israel?

2nd - Is it not possible for Mary's father to have been from the Tribe of Judah, and his sister(Tribe of Judah also) to have married a Levite? Then Mary(Tribe of Judah) would have been related to Elizabeth (Tribe of Levi). (It seems to me you are just making an assumption that Mary was from the tribe of Levi.)

3rd - I asked you twice in another post to explain who the son in Isaiah 9:6 was, and how he is also the everlasting Father.

4th - When the promise was made to David that of his seed, one would sit on his throne and the kingdom would be established forever, who was this talking about? (2 Samiel 7:12-13) If you believe it was speaking of Solomon, please explain who is on the throne now.

 

[Reggie Miller]

And you fail to focus when reading your NT. Are you sure Paul did not say we should not follow the Law? He said that we have been released from the Law as a widow is released from the law that subjects her to her husband. It means that with the death of Jesus, the Law had come to an end. (Romans 7:1-6; 10:4) It also means that we should not follow what did not exist anymore.

Indeed, I did not know that the Apostles agreed with every thing Paul taught. So, why didn't they accept his application to join the Sect of the Nazarenes? (Acts 9:26) They said they could not be a disciple. And you did not have to go to the Apostles to know that the Gentiles did not need to follow all the laws given to the Jews by Moses. I could have told you that.

Sir, you have been deceived. One who has been so deceived will not hear the truth.

I pray that you will be released from this deceipt. God bless you.

 

[roger1440]

The Pauline Paradox

When Paul started preaching about Jesus as the Messiah and son of God, he never realized that he had created a huge paradox.

You see, for Jesus to be the Messiah, he had to be a biological son of Joseph's, who was the one from the Tribe of Judah, whose Tribe the Messiah was supposed to come from. Mary was from the Tribe of Levi. She was of the family of Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron the Levite. (Luke 1:5,36)

Since Jesus is also claimed to be the son of God, he could not be the Messiah, because God is not subject to human genealogies.

On the other hand, if Christians decided to grab the chance of at least to make of Jesus the Messiah by agreeing to drop the tale of the virgin birth, and to admit that he was indeed Joseph's biological son, he could not be son of God; and here the situation would get worse because even the doctrine of the Trinity would collapse.

That's indeed a huge paradox that can be accepted only by faith, which requires no explanation. But then again, where faith begins, knowledge ends. And for lack of knowledge, People perish. (Hosea 4:6)

Now, if there is anyone out there with enough wisdom to unriddle this paradox, I'll be more than happy to take my hat off to him or her. If not, the Sphynx will keep waiting patiently beside the Egyptian pyramids for the passers-by.

Good luck!

The only thing Paul wrote about Jesus’s lineage is:

“But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,” (Galatians 4:4)

 

[Ben Avraham]

The only thing Paul wrote about Jesus’s lineage is:

“But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,” (Galatians 4:4)

The only thing! How about II Timothy 2:8? That's when Paul revealed his secret to his disciple Timothy that Jesus was from the lineage of David and that Jesus had resurrected. And he said, "That's the gospel I preach." It tells me that, obviously there was another gospel at the time in whose agenda these things about Jesus were not taught. And indeed the other gospel was the gospel of the Apostles of Jesus.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Sir, you have been deceived. One who has been so deceived will not hear the truth.

I pray that you will be released from this deceipt. God bless you.

By what have I been deceived, by the gospel of Jesus aka the Tanach? And you have been deceived by the gospel of Paul aka the NT. Have you ever thought about that?

 

[Desert Snake]

The only thing! How about II Timothy 2:8? That's when Paul revealed his secret to his disciple Timothy that Jesus was from the lineage of David and that Jesus had resurrected. And he said, "That's the gospel I preach." It tells me that, obviously there was another gospel at the time in whose agenda these things about Jesus were not taught. And indeed the other gospel was the gospel of the Apostles of Jesus.

Is John 8:58 a fabrication?