Jesus vs Paul

[Soyeong]

I'll just post this link to a website that covers that answer for you. If you begin to scroll down you will see a summary of what I mean. http://doctrine.org/jesus-vs-paul/

This is a thread for Theologicalseeker to discuss the link and whether what Paul taught in his letters is contrary to what Jesus taught in the Gospels. This is open for anyone if they want. I'll post my response later.

Here's the link to the article in question:

http://doctrine.org/jesus-vs-paul/

 

[Goatee]

Good idea

 

[Goatee]

Be patient, I wasn't willing to discuss it in depth in the last thread, and I'm not willing to do it right now either. I just have a lot going on right now.

Its, ok. we can discuss it and you can join in if you want!

 

[dysert]

This is a thread for Theologicalseeker to discuss the link and whether what Paul taught in his letters is contrary to what Jesus taught in the Gospels. I'll post my response later.

If I'm allowed to be involved, I'd like to register my opinion. I say that there is no contradiction between Jesus' teachings and Paul's.

 

[Soyeong]

If I'm allowed to be involved, I'd like to register my opinion. I say that there is no contradiction between Jesus' teachings and Paul's.

I edited the OP to make it clear anyone can comment if they want and to make the link to the article part of my post. I think the vast majority of Christians would agree with you that there is no contradiction between Jesus' and Paul's teaching, so I invite you to read the article and post your response to the arguments made.

 

[Albion]

Well, here's something. At the end of the other thread, "Theologicalseeker" referred to his interest in restoring the Didache. But the Didache is not some Gnostic scripture that the mainline church rejected. It is accepted and valued by all who are interested in the early church, although it never was in the Bible and it's not scripture. This doesn't seem to be at all related to what he was outlining earlier about his disagreements with mainline Christianity. I suppose, however, that the discussion has now passed into what kind of a church he intends to start up...and the Didache would be part of it.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

This is a thread for Theologicalseeker to discuss the link and whether what Paul taught in his letters is contrary to what Jesus taught in the Gospels. This is open for anyone if they want. I'll post my response later.

Okay, I'll stop you there. The apostles taught us, not Jesus. They are the one's who wrote the gospels. Therefore, you don't really know the meaning of what is quoted of Jesus without their given edification.

 

[BelieveTheWord]

Okay, I'll stop you there. The apostles taught us, not Jesus. They are the one's who wrote the gospels. Therefore, you don't really know the meaning of what is quoted of Jesus without their given edification.

Part of the issue is how can we be certain Paul carries the same authority as the disciples of Yeshua? Another thing is that the gospels quote Yeshua, while Paul very rarely does. Paul also makes it clear, at times, that he is speaking his own opinion, but very rarely claims to be speaking directly for Yeshua. I am not speaking against Paul, but Christianity generally doesn't deal honestly with the issues surrounding their Paul-alone doctrines.

 

[Albion]

Part of the issue is how can we be certain Paul carries the same authority as the disciples of Yeshua? Another thing is that the gospels quote Yeshua, while Paul very rarely does. Paul also makes it clear, at times, that he is speaking his own opinion, but very rarely claims to be speaking directly for Yeshua. I am not speaking against Paul, but Christianity generally doesn't deal honestly with the issues surrounding their Paul-alone doctrines.

I don't see anything special in this...unless one is to take the position that nothing other than the Gospels ought to be included in the New Testament.

 

[BelieveTheWord]

I didn't claim it was special.

 

[dysert]

I keep looking over the article posted in the OP and keep coming up with various things I want to say, but I can't organize my thoughts. Let me just start off by making a few obvious comments:

1. Jesus, having come as the Messiah, had a different set of goals than folks who came after Him.
2. Paul, having come after Jesus, was in a different dispensation than was Jesus.
3. Jesus' dispensation was an "in-between" state between the ages of the Law and Grace.

Now let me address the article's points:

1. Jesus & Paul preached different gospels. No problem. They weren't contradictory, and it stands to reason they'd be different since Jesus & Paul had different audiences and different goals.
2. Definitions of the "kingdom of heaven". No problem. There can be different definitions for the same terms. And I really didn't see where these terms were actually defined in the article anyway.
3. How Jesus was presented. No problem. He was the Messiah and King of the Jews. And He is the risen Lord and Head of the body of Christ.
4. Differences in preaching. I disagree that Jesus taught that baptism is necessary for salvation. We are saved solely by God's grace through faith. There are nuances associated with salvation, e.g., repentance, confession, sanctification, and they can be (and are) emphasized in the NT, however we can't lose track of the fact that salvation is God's work and not ours.
5. Audiences were different. So?
6. Jesus operated under the Law and Paul operated under grace. Again, there is no problem here because Jesus was in the transitional period where the Law was still in effect. After His death and resurrection, though, the Law took on a different meaning, and we've been under grace since then.

So I'll go back to what I said in my first post. There are no contradictions, and the differences that exist between Jesus' and Paul's messages were either inconsequential or to be expected given the different times and audiences that were involved.

 

[com7fy8]

Another thing is that the gospels quote Yeshua, while Paul very rarely does.

According to Acts 20:32-35, Paul said that Jesus says,

"It is more blessed to give than to receive." (in Acts 20:35)

So, this is a quote by Paul, of Jesus.

And I notice how this quote comes after Paul shares that he worked with his own hands to support himself and those who were with him. Then he says that Jesus says, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." He not only quotes Jesus, but lives according to what he quotes, by working so he can give to others, and not only take care of himself.

Also, in 2 Corinthians 12:7-10, Paul shares how Jesus said to him, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness." (in 2 Corinthians 12:9)

And then Paul says, "Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong." (in 2 Corinthians 12:9-10)

So . . . again . . . Paul not only quotes Jesus, but also shares how he lives according to whatever he quotes Jesus to say.

Paul says he takes "pleasure" in going through hard things; and Jesus says, when we face persecution, "Rejoice and be exceedingly glad", in Matthew 5:12. So, Paul taking "pleasure" in troubles can be a match with what Jesus says in Matthew 5:12, even though Paul does not actually quote Jesus saying that. How Paul lived and loved and ministers and shares God's word can be the way he quotes things Jesus has said in the gospels, then.

Our example should also be a living quote of God's word

 

[BelieveTheWord]

dysert, dispensationalism is unbiblical and circular reasoning.
- Yeshua and Paul taught different things
- Different teachings is not a contradiction because of different dispensations
- We know there are different dispensations because Yeshua and Paul taught different things.

 

[dysert]

dysert, dispensationalism is unbiblical and circular reasoning.
- Yeshua and Paul taught different things
- Different teachings is not a contradiction because of different dispensations
- We know there are different dispensations because Yeshua and Paul taught different things.

I don't believe this is the thread to debate dispensationalism. And my post on the differences between Jesus' teachings and Paul's don't depend on dispensationalism anyway.

 

[BelieveTheWord]

I don't believe this is the thread to debate dispensationalism. And my post on the differences between Jesus' teachings and Paul's don't depend on dispensationalism anyway.

Your post is entirely dependent on dispensationalism. Maybe you don't understand what you are writing?

 

[dysert]

Your post is entirely dependent on dispensationalism. Maybe you don't understand what you are writing?

Yeah, maybe not.

 

[Strong in Him]

I haven't finished reading the whole article yet, but I want to comment on these things before I forget.

1. "the messages of Jesus and Paul were fundamentally different."
I don't believe they were.
Jesus said that he had come to give his life as a ransom for many, the Good Shepherd who lay down his life for the sheep; Paul preached Jesus crucified for us.
Jesus said that the greatest command was to love God and love your neighbour as yourself, Paul said that love was the fulfilment of the law.
Jesus and Paul had different audiences, and different emphases - obviously because one was preaching before Calvary and the resurrection, and the other one, afterwards. But I believe the central message of both was "believe in Jesus, who came to die for sinners so that they, and you, can be reconciled to God."

2. "Water baptism ceased during Paul's ministry".
Yet Paul said that he baptised Crispus, Gaius and Stephanus's family. In Acts 16, Lydia and her family were baptised, as were the jailer and his family, and the implication is that Paul baptised them.

(Edited because I posted before I had finished writing.)

 

[Strong in Him]

I also don't think there is any reason to say that God gave Paul a NEW Gospel, which is what the article claims.

Paul made it clear that the Gospel that he taught; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, was given to him by the Lord Jesus himself, and that anyone who taught any other Gospel should be condemned to hell.

 

[Albion]

I haven't finished reading the whole article yet, but I want to comment on these things before I forget.

1. "the messages of Jesus and Paul were fundamentally different."
I don't believe they were.

2. "Water baptism ceased during Paul's ministry".
Yet Paul said that he baptised Crispus, Gaius and Stephanus's family. In Acts 16, Lydia and her family were baptised, as were the jailer and his family, and the implication is that Paul baptised them.

Good points, "SIH." Neither of those claims is at all correct. Maybe "Theologicalseeker" needs to refine his argument and get back to us.

 

[Dispy]

I also don't think there is any reason to say that God gave Paul a NEW Gospel, which is what the article claims.

Paul made it clear that the Gospel that he taught; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, was given to him by the Lord Jesus himself, and that anyone who taught any other Gospel should be condemned to hell.

Paul says in Gal. 1:11 "But I certify you brethren that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

Now read Ephesians 3:1-10.

Neither Jesus or His disciples ever preached that salvation was through faith in His shed blood alone. It had to by kept secret during the earthly ministry of Jesus. WHY?

"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery (secret), even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world (creation) unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory ( 1 Cor. 2:7, 8).

We know that Paul preached that salvation was through faith alone in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ that guarenties our salvation. That is what Paul is saying in 1 Cor. 15: 1, 2. That is the gospel of our salvation.