Whilst browsing I came across this article which seemed to suggest that Pauline Theology was not the authentic teaching of Jesus and cited two examples



Matthew 6:25-34
Therefore, I tell you, don't be anxious for your life: what you will eat, or what you will drink; nor yet for your body, what you will wear. Isn't life more than food, and the body more than clothing? See the birds of the sky, that they don't sow, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns. Your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren't you of much more value than they? Which of you, by being anxious, can add one moment to his lifespan? Why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They don't toil, neither do they spin, yet I tell you that even Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today exists, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, won't he much more clothe you, you of little faith? Therefore don't be anxious, saying, "What will we eat?", "What will we drink?" or, "With what will we be clothed?" For the Gentiles seek after all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first God's Kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore don't be anxious for tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Each day's own evil is sufficient.


in contrast to


II Thessalonians 3:6,10
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us...For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."



and

The most significant difference in the teachings of these two men, however, lies in their attitude towards the Law of Moses. In fact one of the fundamental tenets of Pauline theology is that Jesus' death actually abrogated the law. This is expounded clearly in the passage from one of his epistles:


Galatians 2:15-16
We who are Jews by birth and not "Gentile sinners" know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one is justified.


This teaching of Paul's is, of course, familiar to Christians today. Yet tradition preserved a saying of Jesus which stated the complete opposite of what Paul taught above. Jesus: [8]


Matthew 5:17-20
"Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish the law but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses those of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paultheology.html#contra



Do you think there is a difference between Paul & Jesus?

fullywired


Please read (contradict) in title

jesus (if he existed) was a descent HUMAN BEING that (like MLK,RFK,JFK,Ghandi etc) wanted to change the world for the better.
Paul came along and used Jesus's memory to get control of people.
and thus begins the atrocity of the Catholic Church......

"It has served us well, this myth of Christ"
-Pope Leo X.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html

while I don't believe jesus was christ/messiah .... and it's questionable to his existence instead of a amalgamation of various prophets and beliefs popular at the time .............. Paul certainly did take his own course away from the original gospels. Maybe christianity would have been different had the original sect gained momentum instead of the Pauline sect.

as to contradiction? sure. when compared to the other gospels. yet we don't know what if anything can be attributed to a man named jesus in the other gospels either.

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJluEnIqTVk

A serviceable test for contradiction between two propositions is to conjoin them, and check for whether you get a coherent sentence. If there is some contrast between the propositions, then the fair conjunction is but.

If a man will not work, he shall not eat, but seek first God's Kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things will be given to you.

That actually sounds like it wouldn't be out of place in Rudyard Kipling's poem, entitled If.

So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one is justified, but anyone who breaks the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You need not oberve the law to make the cut. We certainly have no intention of doing so, maybe nobody even can, but anyone who does succeed in observing the law will be rewarded for it.

I believe that Paul may fairly be criticized for the tenuous relationship between his teaching and Jesus'. Outright contradiction is a strong claim, however, and the examples in the OP do not support that claim, in my opinion.

There are enough "surface contradictions" and "difficult passages" among the four gospels themselves to give Paul, or anybody else for that matter, "wide latitude" in teaching with some tenable claim to inspiration by Jesus.

Supposedly, the devil himself can quote scripture to his own ends.

The contradiction, between those that follow the law and those that do not, is one of the main differences of doctrine between the early Ebionite Christians and Pauline Christians. According to the Wikipedia article, one school of thought is that the Ebonites were a Christian sect formed around the time of the Temple's destruction. Another school is that the Ebonites were the original Christians, who were gradually marginalised by the Pauline Christians. Ebionite's also did not believe in the virgin birth - instead they believed that Jesus had been adopted by God and that Joseph was Jesus' father.

No doubt Paul took some bizarre liberties such as Acts 20:35 "In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' "

Nowhere do we find a reference to Jesus saying that other than from Paul himself.

Re: Matthew 6:25-34
Matthew is saying not to get worried over such things in life.

Re: II Thessalonians 3:6,10
Paul is writing a letter to the church saying no man should live off of his brothers work and encourages working to help yourself instead.

Contradiction? No, Matthew is not telling us to stop working. Paul is not telling the church to worry about what you are going to eat, drink or wear.


Re: Galatians 2:15-16
Paul is saying the law alone will not save you, but also faith in Jesus Christ. Everyone sins or breaks laws.

Re: Matthew 5:17-20
Jesus fulfilled the law. Do not be like the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who just go through the motions.

Contradiction? No.

I have come to the conclusion these were just thrown together on a page to cast aspersion on the bible. I can see not even the faintest of effort was put forth to understand or challenge this.

Christ did not follow the letter of the law. He followed the spirit of it.

These are direct quotes from the bible ,what are you talking about read here
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paultheology.html

References
1.Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p412-413 2.Stein, An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism: p178
Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence: p124 3.Armstrong, The First Christian: p99-100 4.Ibid: p129-130 5.Cuppitt & Armstrong, Who Was Jesus?: p86 6.Ibid: p86 7.Ibid: p87 8.Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p182 9.Guignebert, Jesus: p306
Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p183

Fulfil means to obey or complete, not to abolish or change. Modern xians just don't want to be Jews. Real Jews, especially orthodox ones, although they wouldn't admit it themselves, follow the same teachings as Jesus did. Why should anyone follow Paul? He fell off a horse and saw Jesus. Big deal. He started out oppressing Xians, and succeeded on wiping them out with his new sect.

In their teachings - no. Jesus and Paul complement each other. I'll just deal with the two issues you quoted in your post, FW. The first, you quote Matthew 6:25-34 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6,10. I don't see a contradiction here. In Matthew, Jesus is telling them not to be "anxious" about their needs (food, water, clothing), but rather to be more focused on God's kingdom. The final verse reads, "Therefore don't be anxious..." and if you know anything about the Greek, the word "therefore" shows that this is the key concept that is being discussed. In contrast, 2 Thessalonians 3 speaks about being idle, not working (in modern terms we'd call this "bludging"). You can still work for food and water and clothing and still seek God's Kingdom, so I don't see an issue.

The second point you raise is their attitude to Moses and the Prophets (quoting Galatians 2:15-16 and Matthew 5:17-20 to back this up). This is one of the biggest misunderstandings of Christianity. People have this impression taht you can do whatever you want, never care for anyone but yourself, and as long as you profess Faith in God, you're set for eternal life. This is wrong. First, the Matthew 5 quote ignores that immediately before this verse, Jesus does indeed ammend the law In a series of mini-sermons, Jesus begins by quoting a Law and then adjusting it - Read the earlier passages just before this.... "You have heard it said *insert Old Testament Law* ... But I tell you *insert new teaching". This is what Christians see as "fulfilling the Law. The Old Testament laws were only a pale shadow of the later laws. The law on murder has been "fulfilled" now to a spiritual meaning - if you are even angry with someone you have committed murder in your heart, or if you even look at a woman lustfully you have committed adultery in your heart.

Not only is this view on "Faith alone" wrong simply through Jesus, but even Paul shows how important it is to follow God in passages such as Romans 6 I won't quote the whole section, but I highly suggest you read it. Paul argues that we should no longer sin, because when we accepted Christ's crucifixion our lives of sin should have been crucified with it. So instead of living lives of sin, live lives of righteousness dedicated to God.

I think the view purported by those who wish to see Paul and Jesus as teaching different things fails to recognise such parts as I have shown above, and simply highlight non-contextual references such as Matthew 5 (when Jesus clearly changed the Law - or "fulfilled" it, as I say it - right before saying the law still stands)

Hi Daniel -- I think I see what you mean, but -- just to try and expand a bit on what you write:

As I see it, Jesus followed *both; the letter of the law, AND the spirit of the law* --
... Keeping in mind that the letter of the law as was originally given;
... NOT as was later interpreted.

Does this make sense to you?
Karlis

you really need to read a Jewish translation of the hebrew scriptures, rather than rely on kjv and what you are taught in church.

1 - I don't use the KJV
2 - I would have thought by now you would have realised I go well beyond what I am "taught in church"
3 - Just because my view disagrees with yours does not mean that I am parroting my church or pastor's teachings
4 - I truly believe that Jesus and Paul's teachings are complementary, and just because they coincide with much of what Christianity teaches does not therefore mean I have not researched it.
edit: 5 - what does the KJV have to do with Paul and Jesus' teachings, even if I did use it (which I generally don't due to its inconsistencies with the actual Greek/Hebrew)?????

Um....I think it's more that Jesus taught Jewish concepts.

1. by kjv I should have said "xian translation".
2. your views on this subject reflect exactly what is taught in church.
3. This is not your view. You are violating your own rules by not stating your source.
4. the word "coincide" doesn't even come close.
5. if you were to read a jewish bible, you learn that the law is eternal and not to be changed. you stated that Jesus "amended" the law. No human has this power. It is paul that taught that Jesus was a God. The concept is lacking in the Gospels.
Paul must have realised that the only way he could really stop the teachings of Jesus would be to supplant them. I have been to Xian bible studies, several times. They teach out of the letters, referring very little to the gospels or the tanach. I am so very sorry I have angered you. It would have been a better world if xians had actually followed the teachings of Jesus, instead of Paul. 1700 years of tyranny, oppression, murder and maiming. Jesus must turn over in his grave every time an innocent man, woman or child is tortured to death in his name. He was not God, except in the sense that we are all God, which is what Jesus really taught.

Then again, there would not be any xians; they would all be Jews, but Paul put a stop to that.

1 - thanks for the clarification.
2 - They also reflect what I have learned through my own study.
3 - if I quoted another website or author, then please Report my post and show me which link (or book) I got it from.
4 - So unless I go against everything taught in churches, then I must be blindly following. I guess those disagreements and differences of opinions that Christians hold don't mean much to you - at least, not enough to get in the way of a good ol' fashioned Chrsitian-bashing exercise. Like all beliefs, Christians have their similarities and their differences.

5 - That's why I used the word "fulfilled", rather than "changed". The Law still stands. The Law is the same as always. The Law exists. "Do not murder" is still the Law. It has, however, been fulfilled to include a spiritual meaning (if you are angry with your brohter, you ahve committed murder in your heart). And may I remind you that it was you who said that Jesus taught Jewish concepts (you worded it "Real Jews, especially orthodox ones, although they wouldn't admit it themselves, follow the same teachings as Jesus did). The same can be said for all the Laws. Jesus came to fulfill them. I know you have stated that your view on "fulfilled" means to follow them, but Jesus said this straight after ammending those laws. And here you say no human can do this, yet also claim that Jesus taught the same thing as Jews. I think your desire to attack Christianity has left you in a paradox, Gid. Just a thought.

So, you are saying basically that God did not do a good enough job when he gave the law? That the spiritual meaning of the law God first gave wasn't good enough? So he needed to send his son to die and finish what he didn't do? Does that make any logical sense?


Why would God punish people countless times throughout the OT for not following the law when the law was "incomplete". You suggest that the law did not have a spiritual meaning before Jesus. That to follow the law was to just go through the motions. You insult God's perfect law by suggesting that Jesus made it better by "completing it." You insult God's character to say that only through Jesus was his law fulfilled.


In any case, even your beliefs contradict because according to Paul:

"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."~Hebrews 9:13


"Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes" ~Romans 10:4


"Clearly no one is justified before God by the Law [/color], because, "The righteous will live by faith." ~Galatians 3:11

"But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law[color="#336699"]."~Galatians 5:18

"We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me."~1 Timothy 1:9-11


Compare and contrast these verses with verses like:

"Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man."~Ecclesiastes 12:13

"Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel."~Malachi 4:4

"Keep his decrees and commands, which I am giving you today, so that it may go well with you and your children after you and that you may live long in the land the LORD your God gives you for all time."~Deuteronomy 4:40



God does not change his mind (Num 23:19), there was nothing wrong with the law he gave to Moses at Sinai. It did not need to be "given spiritual meaning". It had that already. It most certainly isn't "a curse" nor is it "old and ready to vanish away." It stands forever. Jesus himself taught this.

I don't think that "God did not do a good enough job" with the original laws. I believe that the laws were absolutely perfect for the purpose they were written. The Old Covenant Laws were written for a very specific purpose and Yes, they are very material. But even God states in the Old Testament that he did not care for burnt offerings and sacrifices - they were useless unless accompanied by a contrite heart.

Not all Old Testament laws have a spiritual reason - Leviticus 11, for example, bans the eatings of certain foods as "unclean". What is spiritual about this? It is entirely a law for healthy eating (and some good laws for the time too, I might add - these foods are not the best for you). What is spiritual about that? It wasn't until Jesus "fulfilled" this law by stating that it was not what went into a man that made him unclean but what came from within (lies, deceit, etc). The physical laws (eating particular foods - health reasons) have been fulfilled to refer to spiritual laws (lies, malice, deceit coming from our mouths - spiritual health reasons) - See Mark 7 for full details of this.

Perhaps the most easily recognisable "fulfillment" is the sacrificing of animals for sin. The act in itself (as mentioned earlir) is completely unnecessary. Because they do not save. It was a herald to the saviour, who would die once for all. The physical laws of sacrificing animals to atone for sin was fulfilled in Jesus' death for our sins, once for all.

I have read over the quotes you have provided here three times just now, and I have read them countless times in the past. I still do not see a contradiction between what Paul has written compared to what was written in the Old Testament. Paul was advocating that we are no longer under the Law. I am not disagreeing with that. Obedience to the Law does not save us (what Paul referred to as being "Under the Law"). But that does not mean then that Paul was advocating getting rid of the Law. We are under a New Covenant. We today call it a "covenant of Grace", though that is perhaps a little bit of a misnomer since the Old Testament people were saved through Grace also. The distinction is simply to point out that with Jesus, the fulfillment of what was promised in the Old Testament has come to pass and the Law which condemns (since no one can truly follow it) has been tempered with the Grace of God in Jesus.

Though to be fair, I can understand your point of view and see where you are coming from. I am simply pointing out my own view on this - not being bound by the Law does not mean that we are not to still obey the Law, though because of Jesus some of those laws are not kept in the same way (ie, fulfilled). As I said, read Romans 6 for starters. It's not the only place, just the best off the top of my head. Read what Paul writes in his other letters and you will see that Paul is advocating that people live righteous lives for Christ, free from sin and impurity. Nowhere does he advocate that we should abandon the Law and live however we please!!!!! Unless you find a place where Paul writes that we should abandon the law, then I don't see a contradiction between Paul and the Old Testament (nor Paul and Jesus, which is the purpose of this thread, afterall).

Sacrifices were not the whole of, nor were the the most major part of the law.

Secondly, as with every law it must be done with a contrite heart because without it the "righteousness (of sacrifice) is filthy as rags." God desires both the contrite heart and the action of the law. However, he doesn't want sacrifices done without a contrite heart.




You state that the Law was unable to be followed, this is wrong because in Deut 30:15 God says that we are able to do it. You also state that the meaning of the law has been changed, and your reason for its changing is that "the laws were very material". However, they are also very spiritual as well. To suggest that a spiritual meaning needs to be added is to say that it was incomplete. To suggest that the spiritual meaning changed is to say that God has changed his mind. The law remains the same as the day God gave it. It's "fulfillment" as you describe it is merely a play on words.

Not to mention that Jesus states that not even a single letter of the law is abolished. Within the law it states that a person should "Act according to the law that they (the Rabbis) teach you and the decisions they give you. Do not turn aside from what they tell you, to the right or to the left" ~Deuteronomy 17:11. If you truly believe in the law then you would also believe in the Rabbinic Oral Tradition. If you believed in the Oral Tradition you would not be a christian. However, you claim to obey the law in its fulfilled form...


Lets say that the law is "fulfilled"...Does this mean that the "material" aspect of the law should be ignored? If that's the case, then how can you believe in Jesus when clearly he broke the law?

Then there's that fact that you trust Paul's testimony in the first place. He was a former persecutor turned christian who claimed to be a pharisee when he was (as the evidence would dictate) actually a Saducee. Then he claims to have been taught by Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), yet he was a persecutor of christians.

If he was truly trained up by Gamaliel he wouldn't have persecuted anyone because Gamaliel's view was that they should be "left alone" because "if they are not from God they will fail." (Acts 5:33-39) Paul was a persecutor of the Jews who was on the road to Damascus on work for the High Priest (who was a Saducee). He then got struck off of his horse and blinded temporarily.

He then had an experience of a man who his companions did not see. His experience could only be equated with the epileptic fits that Mohammed had when Gabriel "would dictate the Koran" to him. The foundation of Paul and his writings have a shaky base. He authorizes the use of deception saying "I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some." (1 Corinthians 9:20-23) and yet still you believe him. You can't ignore the meaning of the simple reading of his words. Certainly, with your spin/interpretation on things, it sounds like a nice thing Paul does. However, the way you spin it is merely a play on words.

If you are not bound by the law, then you do not have to obey it. If you have to obey it, then you are bound by it. It is God's eternal law, and it seems as if you are willing to "interpret" anything from the words of men to get yourself out of following it to the letter.

I know that was not the whole of the law, I was just using it as an example. Though i agree that it must be done with a contrite heart, otherwise it's useless.

Then why do Jews no longer keep all 613 laws - Do all Jews still wear clothing woven from only one type of material - I'm sure some do, but how many wear poly-cotton T-shirts? why do you not sacrifice animals to atone for sin? for a Christian, I do not keep doing this because they are not necessary - Jesus died once for all, the physical law of sacrifices have been fulfilled to the spiritual meaning of Jesus' sacrifice.

I mean that the Law does not save us. We are saved through faith in God. You still have ignored that Paul advocates that we live righteous lives free from sin. How can one do that without the Law? Paul has only ever stated that we are not saved by the Law, and I agree with that. But that does not mean we should not live by God's law. Our difference of opinion lie in exactly how we do that - since I believe the Law has been fulfilled. In some ways I keep the laws in the same way. In others, such as animal sacrifices, I trust in Jesus' perfect sacrifice instead.

As i said, nothing you quoted of Paul contradicts what I have seen Jesus say, nor does it contradict what I know of the Old Testament (and believe it or not, I know more about the Old Testament than I do about the New, because of my upbringing). I believe that Paul's letters are accurate. Peter (one of Jesus' original apostles) also believed that and equated Paul's writings as equivalent to the Old Testament scriptures. Casting aspersions on Paul's conversion is what we call an ad hominem attack. I have asserted that Paul and Jesus and the Old Testament do not contradict. In reply, you attack the character of Paul, hoping then to discredit Paul rather than address the claims themselves.

You are thinking in such black-and-white terms! Yes, I don't "have" to obey the Law. Obeying the law does not save me. My Trust in Jesus is what saves me - that and that alone is what I cling to. But at the same time, through Love of Jesus, I endeavour to live a righteous life free from sin, just as Paul recommends. And for that, I do my best to follow the teachings of the Bible. Though as I said, i believe some laws ahve been "fulfilled" so that they are not kept in the same way anymore. That does not mean they are "abolished" or "do not apply" or anything like that. They just have a new meaning.

Hope this helps clarify things

Why do I need to visit that site? I have a bible and it's not that hard to find these verses on the net, in fact I already looked them up. To address what I'm talking about in a simpler way: the site clearly doesn't understand the meaning behind such verses it quotes and I don't see any contradictions. It would be like me skimming through a book on dinosaurs for the words "do" and then "don't", putting the sentences on the internet and saying they contradict.

I posted an answer to this very same question in another thread, and I shall simply repost it here. So forgive me to those who had read my response prior. I was responding to Paranoid ...


Yes, Paul did. And not only do I not believe him, the original disciples did not believe him either!

Was there a rift between Paul and the Disciples? Was Paul called by the resurrected Jesus to go to the Gentiles? And did this message contradict Jesus' teachings? If so ...

1) Why did Jesus not just state this to the original Disciples ... instead of making it abundantly clear in Matt. 10:5 that they were to go only to the Jews--the lost tribes of Israel?

2) Why did Jesus not inform the Disciples that he was sending Paul to them with this extremely important message?

3) And why wait so long after his [Jesus] death to relay said message?

This makes no sense to me. Paul's arrival on the scene, with a gospel that he claimed superior to that of the Disciples, did cause a real bone of contention between the two camps. In fact, his message could easily be called heretical--and was! The Ebionites despised Paul, calling him an "apostate of the Law"! The Diaspora Jews did the same--nearly beat him to a pulp! And the original Disciples--as mentioned above--obviously had serious issues with him as well, for he preached abrogation of the Law (no circumcision, eating with gentiles et al) and broke Jesus' commandments in Matthew 5:17-20. Also, his personal theology (Galatians 2:2), ruffled the feathers of the pillars (James, Peter, John) of the Jesus movement. In fact, they called Paul to Jerusalem to answer various charges on no-less than three occasions. The "Jerusalem Council" came to a tenuous agreement regarding the gentile issue and Mosaic Law, yes, but one that did not last. Obviously Paul had a different take on the outcome of that meeting--one that led to an eventual split with them that was not reconciled. In fact, he had such a complete fall-out with the JM/Jews, that, as Professor Michael White states in his tome From Jesus to Christianity: How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith, p., 171 ...

... For Paul the immediate result was clear. He had to leave Antioch. He chose to embark on a new mission where there was not such a strong and traditional Jewish community. He would go West, toward Greece and Rome, where he could work independently as "missionary" or "apostle" to the Gentiles. And so begins the most important phase in Paul's career, the Aegean mission.



From Jesus to Christianity: How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christianity-G...6031&sr=1-1

Read first chapter here
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0060526556...ptu#reader-link

The rest his history.

Paul ...

1) Paul claims that his Gospel is from the risen Jesus and not from men--including the Disciples:

Galatians 1:16-19 I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas [Peter], and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

Galatians 1:11 The good news I preach is not a human message that I was given by men, it is something I learnt ONLY through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

2) Paul goes to Jerusalem fourteen years later--fourteen!--and spends time with some of the Disciples and claims he learned nothing of worth from them:

Galatians 2:6 As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message.

3) Paul claims his Gospel is the true Gospel, and that anyone who preaches otherwise are accursed, deceivers and liars:

Gal 1:6-9 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary [Galatians 1:11] (my emphasis) to what you received, let that one be accursed!

2 Corinthians 11:4-5 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. 5But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles."

Referring to the original Disciples and/or their missionaries here? IMO, without question!

The term 'super-apostles' denotes the Jerusalem apostles. Paul uses it of the visiting missionaries in Corinth because he thinks it just possible that some of the Jerusalem apostles might be included amongst them. The visiting missionaries are both the 'servants of Christ' and the 'servants of Satan'. They represent themselves as associates of Peter, whom they regard as the model apostle. In Paul's view, they imitate the dual role of Peter (in the synoptic tradition) as spokesman of God and spokesman of Satan.--Super-Apostles, Servants of Christ, and Servants of Satan, Margaret E. Thrall, University College of North Wales Bangor, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Vol. 2, No. 6, 42-57 (1979)

This, along with the bold statement of hypocrisy and that the Disciples "added nothing to my message," I think is clear evidence that Jesus did not appear before Paul with a new radical message to go to the Gentiles and did contradict his message. Otherwise, why the hostility, and eventual split, with the Disciples? Again, Jesus most certainly would have informed the Twelve that he was sending a new Disciple with a new message. This isn't the case.

Paul, an egotistical zealot if there ever was one, obviously had a profound theophany. But his Gospel did not originate, nor was it accepted, by the Disciples. Paul states this himself! And there is even evidence that the Disciples sent out missionaries to counter Paul's teachings.

Conclusion on The Opponents of Paul

The above considerations show that the evidence that Paul's opponents in Galatia, Corinth and Philippi were apostles sent by the Jerusalem Church is extremely strong. There are a couple more details that help clinch the case. It is consistent with what we know happened at Antioch and later in Jerusalem. We saw that Paul had a falling out with the apostles from Jerusalem after Antioch and was never reconciled with them during his final visit to Jerusalem. Recall that the four epistles were all written after the incident at Antioch and before his final visit to Jerusalem. Finding that the Jerusalem church hounded his mission is consistent with these two facts that we have established.

Paul's was concerned that his collection may be rejected by the "saints in Jerusalem" (Romans 15:31). If one accepts Acts' picture of the cordial relationship between Paul and the Jerusalem church, this apprehension simply does not make sense. It makes perfect sense given what we have found above. If James, Peter and John had sent out emissaries to combat Paul, he would obviously be worried about how they would accept him in Jerusalem. The collection was his "peace offering", his last attempt to reconcile himself with the Jerusalem Church.

We can safely conclude that the evidence is compelling that the opponents Paul faced in Galatia, Corinth and Philippi were Jewish Christian emissaries sent by the Jerusalem Church headed by James, Peter and John.

SOURCE
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paulvpeter.html#6

Great source list here ...

The "Jerusalem Council"
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jerucouncil.html

The Incident at Antioch
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/antioch.html

Contradictions Between Paul's and Jesus' Teachings
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paultheology.html#contra

"The blowup with Peter was a total failure of political bravado, and Paul soon left Antioch as persona non grata, never again to return."--From Jesus to Christianity: How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith, Michael, White, L., p., 170

As for the Damascus account ... There are two different versions of this event -- one by given by Paul in Galatians 1:11-24 and the other in Acts of the Apostles. The one most accepted -- a least by believers -- is the latter. And even in the Galatians account, Paul makes it very clear that something extremely profound happened to him. He then later disappears into Arabia for a few years before returning to Damascus. And whichever account you choose to believe, Paul makes it clear that he received his "Gospel" -- one he claimed to be "THE" Gospel -- through revelation: visions and a disembodied voice!

Today, anyone claiming an experience even remotely similar to that of Paul, would be labeled mentally ill. I think it's safe to say the same should apply to Saul.

Where Did the Apostle Paul Get His Authority?

Several readers of this site who do not like my book The Jesus Dynasty (to put things mildly), have written that I have ignored the strong historical link between what Paul writes in his letters, shortly after Jesus' death, and the teachings of Jesus and the early followers in Jerusalem. It is true that Paul uses a number of times in his letters a technical term in Greek, “to receive,” which is translated from a Greek verb paralambano, which does indeed often mean to pass on something from one authority to another by tradition (i.e., literally “handed on”).

For example, in 1 Corinthians 15 one of the most important chapters for Christian faith in the entire New Testament, Paul writes that he has “received” and then “passed on” (paradidomai) the teaching of that “Christ” (notice he does not say “Jesus”) died for sins, was buried, and was raised the “third day,” and then was seen by various ones–Peter, the Twelve, 500 brothers at once, James (Jesus’ brother), and all the apostles. Most have assumed this means Paul “received” this by some kind of testimony, as if he was told it on a human level, perhaps directly by Peter, or James, or some of the Twelve. That would indeed be a natural and potentially logical reading of Paul’s claims to have “received” this “gospel.”

However, if one begins to examine more carefully just how independently Paul claims to have “received” this or that, it becomes clear that he is not in fact getting these ideas, facts, and narratives, from sources who were eyewitnesses and thus passed them on to him. Rather he makes the explicit claim that he did not get his “gospel,” which he carefully defines in 1 Cor 15:1, from men, or from any human source, but by a revelation from Jesus Christ himself (Galatians 1:11-12). In fact, he uses the very same verb in these verses, namely, paralambano as he does in 1 Corinthians 15.

So if Paul claims that his “gospel,” of the “death, burial, and resurrection” of Jesus did not come from men, does he intend to say, after all, that he talked to James or to Peter or to John and received from them these testimonies he reports?

REST HERE (Professor James D. Tabor, UNC)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK2J3MVDRHB4T47

The Gospel of Peter ... You're correct, Paranoid ... I'm going to say Peter is pseudepigraphic. What a shock, eh?! Very few scholars -- save for the extremely conservative -- do not attribute this gospel with Peter. And a great many date this book to the mid-second century. Also, this book is pro-Pauline; it tries to smooth out the rift that existed between Paul and the original disciples -- much like Luke-Acts. In LA, for example, we have the famous story where Paul wins over Peter by saying it's all right to eat any food and do so at the same table with Gentiles. Peter is hesitant of course, but does so. Then what happens? Along comes James disciples and sees what's happening, admonishes Peter for his actions, and Peter repents. This is interesting, for in Acts 11, Peter has this incredible vision in which Jesus states that it's now perfectly fine--which, you would think, he would have made such an important thing abundantly clear when he was alive!--to "Kill and eat" all animals. Hmmm ... Now, if Peter had had this incredible vision of Jesus so forth and so on, he certainly would not have done an about-face (as did Barnabas by the way ... Paul's closest companion!) and agreed with James' disciples that what he was doing was wrong! No! He would've immediately told them about the vision and remained adamant that what Paul was saying/doing--eating and hangin' with the Gents-- was, indeed, correct! Again, this did not happen, and it resulted in Paul calling Peter a hypocrite! Why? Because it was a made-up story by a pro-Pauline author who was attempting to show Paul correct ... and the disciples to be in the wrong. We find these exact same elements in the Gospel of Peter.

There was a rift between the original disciples and Paul. The body of evidence for that is simply overwhelming.

Another great text that expounds upon this issue is from Professor Michael Goulder entitled St. Paul Versus St. Peter: A Tale of Two Missions. A terrific read!



St. Paul Versus St. Peter: A Tale of Two Missions
http://www.amazon.com/St-Paul-Versus-Peter...7251&sr=1-1

Read first chapter here
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0664255612...%3D#reader-link

Most kindly,

Sean

Hi Sean, you have quoted quite a lot of information, so right now I'll say I cannot possibly respond to everything tonight. I'll respond to some, for the rest it's just too late:

This also ignores the end of Matthew, where in chapter 28 he gives to the disciples what we have come to know of as the Great Commission. In Matthew 10, when Jesus said they were only going to the Jews, he was quite correct. But by the end of Matthew things had changed - Jesus was dead and had been resurrected. In resurrected form, Jesus commands the disciples: Go and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:18). As I have said to other members, these half-quotes of Paul and Jesus only serve to highlight that people don't understand that Paul and Jesus really taught the same thing. Matthew 10, speaking of an event before the crucifixion and resurrection, is speaking only of the Jews. Matthew 28 written about an event after the crucifixion and resurrection shows how the message now is expanded, because God's plan of salvation has been fulfilled (not complete, of course, since there is still the Coming Kingdom, but finished, through Jesus).

Is it really that long a time? The earliest of Paul's writings can be dated to (at the very latest) 50 AD. I have seen articles that put somewhere mid-40's, and even one source attributed a Pauline writing to the 30's AD. Even taking the latest date, that's less than 20 years after Jesus. In the context of God's eternal plan, is it really that long a time???? As to why Jesus didn't inform the disciples, the Bible doesn't say.

I'm sure you have scriptural evidence for this, but could you again point the specific passages out, please? I would venture there is a misunderstanding as is the case with some of the passages you quoted later (the "super-apostles", for example - more on this later). For now, I would say that the fact that Peter, one of the original apostles equates Paul's writings as equal to scripture is fair indication that he was on to something. But of course, 2 Peter was a forgery wasn't it, though there is no evidence for this (that I am aware of, at least).

What exactly are you getting at with these two quotes? the first does not deny the preaching of the original apostles, only that he went to visit the apostles. The second he states quite truthfully he got through revelation of Jesus. So far I see nothing contradicting Jesus' teachings.

This appears to be a blatant misquote. Nowhere does this passage equate "those who seemed to be important" as being the original apostles. Indeed, after this, in verse 7 Paul writes: On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.. The next few verses then go on to discuss the importance of James, Peter, and John, quite seemingly contradictory to your statement that Paul had a falling out.

Not to the original disciples at all, imo. This I believe has its roots in the very opening passage of 2 Corinthians. Paul alludes to a division amongst people, as some were saying "I follow such and such". My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." (2 Corinthians 1:11-12). Paul then goes on to say "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? (verse 13). Neither Apollos nor Cephas were of the original disciples. I think if you read the book of 2 Corinthians, you will see that it was to these people (and others like them) to whom he was responding - these "super apostles", who were fantastic with words, but were deceiving people by getting people to follow them and not follow Christ, which Paul pleads with them - worship Christ, not me, he says.

See above - super-apostles, I think if you read 2 Corinithians was referring to those who spoke eloquently (Paul was not an eloquent speaker) but led people astray from the message.

I completely disagree with this one - his comment in 2 Corinthians 1 is clear where his ego lies - not in his name, but in Christ's. Do not follow the words of a man. Do not follow Apollos or Cephas, don't even follow me - follow Jesus, our Lord. That's about as anti-ego as you can get, I think.

It was accepted by Peter - see prior comments for details - though I have seen people say 2 Peter is a forgery (though no information as to why).

You can make that assertion, and I see where you are coming from. However, this was a unique time in history, almost immediately after Jesus was crucified. One of the biggest opponents of the early Church, having a change of heart through these visions. Today, such a unique period of history is long past. I don't think you can compare the two incidents.

Why not both? Paul received his gospel from Christ, we know that. But Paul also acknoweldges the gospel and good things that the other apostles have done - I already quoted Galatians 2, which shows that Paul acknowledges the other disciples and their mission to be for the Jews (his was for Gentiles)

On what basis is this made? I'm not saying the evidence doesn't exist, but so far I have not read anything of the sort. Is it just because this book is "pro-Pauline" as you put it?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As I said, there's a lot I didn't go through in your post, but I've addressed some of the more pressing points of your post. So far, I still think Paul and Jesus complement each other. If you disagree with this, that is of course your Right, and I respect you for that. I am just saying that from everything I read from both Paul and Jesus (and of course the Old Testament) I don't see them contradicting each other, but rather complementing each other.

All the best,

Do you need salvation? This whole argument concerning the law has, at its base, two different ideas. The idea in your mind is that you are sinful, and need to be saved so that you can go to heaven. The idea in my mind is that I am sinful, my duty is to overcome my sin, and the way I do this is through the law. It's not about "being saved". Because that's not why we were created. We weren't created to go to heaven. We were created to be the objects of God's loving kindness, we were created to change the world from its sinful state into a messianic state, we were created to commune and have a relationship with God. He has stated that this is accompished through the law.

"See I set before you this day life and good, death and evil that you may choose life." Deut 30.



It clarifies it completely. We have different goals, and because our goals are different, we have different means to achieving those goals. Your goal is to be with Jesus (I would assume). You believe that the way to do this is through belief in him as your Lord and Savior. My goal is to do that which God wants me to do, the way I do that is through the law he gave at Sinai. By living a Torah life to help bring about the Messianic age, and ultimately the complete reformation of mankind.

You are partly right, Kaizen. It is true that I believe that I am sinful and that I need to be saved, and yes, heaven is the reward. But that is only part of it. Have you ever read Ephesians 2 (when you were Christian?) Paul writes something very similar to what you suggest - he writes For it is by Grace that you have been saved, through Faith. And this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God so that no one may boast. For we are all God's workmanship created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do (Ephesians 2:8-10). You are looking at my view as an either/or scenario - either I'm in it for heaven, or I'm in it to do good on Earth. I see it as both. Paul saw it as both (and incidentally, Jesus saw it as both). We are saved by Grace (not by the Law) but we are also created to do good works (follow the Law).

Our goals are the same (well, similar). It is just the destination which is different....

All the best,

Yes, I have read Ephesians 2...particularly verses 8-10. They were once amongst my favorite verses. I suppose we believe the same thing in essence. You just have the extra belief that your in it for heaven....of course, then you must ask yourself, "Why is it that I think I wouldn't get to heaven by doing good on Earth?"

What is your reason for belief that you wouldn't go to heaven? Because you are a sinner? Does that eliminate one from going to heaven? This concept is not found in the Old Testament.

In my opinion, there is no reason to try to get to heaven because there's nothing to suggest that you wouldn't go there.

If Paul claimed to be using logic and evidence to put forth his theology, then the ad hom charge may have some merit; however, Paul claimed knowledge by revelation, and so we are left with a stark choice: believe Paul, or don't believe him. There's no case to assess, since his knowledge is claimed to come direct from the risen Christ. Therefore, his character, background and motives, insofar as they could be explored - mad, bad, prophet, Herodian, Gnostic or saint - are central to this discussion.

The question is not about where Paul got his information from. If you look at the discussion, the question is do Paul and Jesus contradict each other. In response to this question, Kaizen pointed out several passages he felt were contradictions. I addressed them, and in response, he then moves on to Paul's motives. So he either 1- is admitting that Jesus and Paul teach the same thing but Paul's authority is questionable. Or, 2- is trying to deflect the question away to cast aspersions on his character.

It depends on the context of the question. If the question we were discussing was "Is Paul reliable", or "Is Pauls testimony trustworthy", then I can certainly understand discussing the validity of the message he gave. But in the context of the discussion, it was used solely to discredit the source rather than discuss the actual question of Jesus and Paul teaching similar or different things.

Does that clarify what I meant

I agree. We are simply going to have to agree to disagree. Gosh, what a shock, eh? The only thing I can say is ... I did not come to the conclusion[s] that I did because of misquoting a passage or some such. It took me years to come to the conclusion that I did regarding Paul. That conclusion is based on just some of the research material that I provided above. Obviously, you disagree with my conclusions and material -- which is perfectly fine with me. I certainly respect your decision to believe as you do.

Most kindly,

Sean

It does, although I was referring to the original question itself, i.e. do they contradict one another. To properly answer this question, one needs to do more than contrast what Jesus is represented as saying in the Gospels with the Pauline epistles, since those sayings of Jesus come to us refracted through a Pauline lens. the only way to really answer the question is to examine the reliability of sources, of whom Paul is one.

To answer these question properly, historical factors are key - the seeming schism in the proto-Churches between the followers of James (possibly Ebionites) and Paul, and the motives, and access to information, of all involved.

Paul's character is central to this, because he claims knowledge by revelation, and makes various claims, as seanph has pointed out, which call into question his regard for actual historicity of events.

Kaisen may have shifted the goalposts in that part of your discussion with him, but I still think the ad hom charge is misplaced.

However, it's a minor point since seanph has opened up the discussion nicely to the historical situation, which was what I was vaguely hoping to do by quibbling with that point (having typed a very long response that wasn't very good, and then pruned it down until it basically just called you on the ad hom!).