Jesus vs Paul

[tulipbee]

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/

Are you saying that Paul's letters were not inspired by God?

 

[BelieveTheWord]

I didn't know there was anyone who would acknowledge Paul to be the Messiah.

Of course not. Many people think and act on motivations they wouldn't acknowledge.

 

[Gary the Kid]

I don't trust anyone who changes their name..........and then gets instant knowledge...........I also don't trust anyone who does not claim that the Father in Heaven slayed His Only Begotten Son.........

 

[Strong in Him]

I don't trust anyone who changes their name..........and then gets instant knowledge........

If you're talking about Paul, he didn't change his name.
Saul and Paul are the same name; Saul is Hebrew and Paul is Greek. Saul started using the Greek form of his name when he began preaching to the Gentiles.

When I started French lessons, everyone in the class was given the French form of their name - mine, apparently, was "Jeanne". In that class the teacher, and anyone else who wanted to talk to me, called me by this name. I guess that if the apostle Peter had been preaching in France, he would have used the name "Pierre" and the name "Pedro" in Spain.

 

[Strong in Him]

The works of Peter and Thomas, direct disciples of Christ, were removed.

We have Peter's epistles, and Mark was Peter's scribe, so the earliest Gospel is from Peter as well. We also have John's Gospel and epistles. I don't know if Matthew's Gospel was written by the same Matthew - or Levi - who was called to follow Jesus, but it may have been.

Here is a direct quote from the Bible from Paul,
1 Corinthians 4:15,16 (KJV)
Paul is saying he is your father, but Christ tells us to call no man your father.

He's not saying that they have to call him "Father" and he's not trying to replace God. And I don't think Jesus was saying that the word "Father" could never refer to a human being, or none of us, could use it in relation to our earthly dads - as Jesus himself did in the parable of the prodigal son, and in Luke 11:11 in his teaching on prayer.

Also, Paul says in the name of Jesus Christ just as Christ warned us that false prophets would do.

???
Jesus told us that we could ask for anything in his name; does that make us false prophets?

 

[hedrick]

I suspect the reference to Peter and Thomas was to the apocryphal works. I don't think many people take Peter and Thomas seriously as the authors.

 

[St_Worm2]

I don't trust anyone who changes their name..........and then gets instant knowledge...........I also don't trust anyone who does not claim that the Father in Heaven slayed His Only Begotten Son.........

Saul didn't change his name to Paul, the Bible said he was known by both names, the first Jewish, the second, Roman. He was Jewish, but he was also a Roman citizen by birth (Acts of the Apostles 22:28).

As far as "instant knowledge" is concerned, is it not in some manner the same for most of us who have become Christians? (granted, few have had such a dramatic introduction to Christ and the Gospel, but all are changed upon truly believing). Following his conversion, Paul went on to spend three years with the Lord studying and preparing prior to beginning his ministry (see Galatians 1:11-24), which is similar to the other Apostles who had the immense privilege of walking with and learning from the Lord for about three years when He lived among us.

Finally, as for Paul's teaching concerning the Father's purpose and involvement in the death of His Son, a favorite verse comes to mind:

"God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." 2 Corinthians 5:21
​

Yours and His,
David

 

[TheNorwegian]

The common belief is that Mark was a scribe of Peter. So that part doesn't work well. ."

My point was that Mark was a co-worker of Paul (as well as of Peter). Mark would not have worked so closely with Paul if Paul were a heretic. So my argument is valid

Also there is good evidence to show Matthew was written independently and didn't "use" Mark, especially considering Matthew was most likely written in Hebrew. "

Wrong. Anyone who knows Greek and Hebrew will tell you that the Gospel of Matthew has no signs of being translated. It was written in Greek

 

[BelieveTheWord]

My point was that Mark was a co-worker of Paul (as well as of Peter). Mark would not have worked so closely with Paul if Paul were a heretic. So my argument is valid

If some of Paul's ideas differ from Yeshua's, that doesn't make him a heretic. It would just mean he had some things wrong. Even if Mark agreed with Paul, and Paul actually differed from true theology, it doesn't mean he couldn't accurately record the teachings of Yeshua as per Peter.

Wrong. Anyone who knows Greek and Hebrew will tell you that the Gospel of Matthew has no signs of being translated. It was written in Greek

You should do some research before you assume 100% consensus. After all, most scientists claim that nothing supernatural happened to form the universe, this planet, or ourselves.

 

[St_Worm2]

If some of Paul's ideas differ from Yeshua's, that doesn't make him a heretic. It would just mean he had some things wrong.

Hi BTW, if Paul's teachings are opposed to Yeshua's, they would have to be considered heretical (whether or not you wanted to assign the term "heretic" to the man who wrote them). It would also mean that they are not Scripture, nor could they be considered part of the NT.

Fortunately, Paul and Yeshua agree

Yours and His,
David

 

[KingdomIncreseGuy]

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.)

yes he baptized them in the holy ghost and fire and maybe water as well but if it was after Pentecost it likely was baptism in the holy ghost.

 

[Strong in Him]

yes he baptized them in the holy ghost and fire and maybe water as well but if it was after Pentecost it likely was baptism in the holy ghost.

Yes but he probably baptised them in water as well. It seems that people who repented and turned to Jesus were then baptised in water. I can't imagine Paul saying; "I thank God that I didn't baptise any of you," (1 Corinthians 1:14) if what he'd actually meant was; I thank God that none of you received the Holy Spirit when I laid hands on you.

 

[KingdomIncreseGuy]

Yes but he probably baptised them in water as well. It seems that people who repented and turned to Jesus were then baptised in water. I can't imagine Paul saying; "I thank God that I didn't baptise any of you," (1 Corinthians 1:14) if what he'd actually meant was; I thank God that none of you received the Holy Spirit when I laid hands on you.

you do realize the context he was saying that out of right. in this time people were seperating christianity much as we do today except they were seperating themselves by who baptized them.

 

[Hawkins]

Jesus defines the standard for Paul to elaborate in the various perspective theologically. It should be the way how it works for a New Covenant to be announced.

 

[Strong in Him]

you do realize the context he was saying that out of right. in this time people were seperating christianity much as we do today except they were seperating themselves by who baptized them.

Yes, there were factions in the Corinthian church, and Paul didn't want them to align with a particular human leader, because that's how the divisions started.
But that doesn't alter the fact that Paul said that he baptised people. And it's true that he doesn't say it was in water, but he doesn't say that it wasn't.

 

[St_Worm2]

...Paul said that he baptized people. And it's true that he doesn't say it was in water, but he doesn't say that it wasn't.

Can a human being baptize someone in the Holy Spirit

Thanks!

--David

"There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called
in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one
baptism, one God and Father of all who is
over all and through all and in all."
Ephesians 4:4-6​

 

[Strong in Him]

Can a human being baptize someone in the Holy Spirit

No, I don't think they can. But when I said out that Paul baptised, it was pointed out to me that the Scripture could mean that he baptised in the Holy Spirit.
This was in response to a post which said that water baptism ceased during Paul ministry.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi SiH, I used your post to try and make a point (or add an additional thought to the point you were already making). I should have simply posted w/o quoting you. Sorry about that

 

[TheNorwegian]

You should do some research before you assume 100% consensus. After all, most scientists claim that nothing supernatural happened to form the universe, this planet, or ourselves.

I did not claim 100 % census did I? Where did you get that from? However, most Biblical scholars claim that Matthew bears no sign of being translated from Greek. I am sure you can find one scholar somewhere, but most would agree.

 

[Strong in Him]

Hi SiH, I used your post to try and make a point (or add an additional thought to the point you were already making). I should have simply posted w/o quoting you. Sorry about that

Not a problem; don't worry.