Jesus vs Paul

[ewq1938]

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.

There are two typical reasons why some try to deny Paul's writings.

1. He made it clear Christ was God in the OT which Unitarian types don't want to accept, 1Co_10:4 .
2. He spoke about the first covenant being old and decaying which Messianics don't want to accept, Heb_8:13 .

 

[HebrewVaquero]

There are two typical reasons why some try to deny Paul's writings.

1. He made it clear Christ was God in the OT which Unitarian types don't want to accept, 1Co_10:4 .
2. He spoke about the first covenant being old and decaying which Messianics don't want to accept, Heb_8:13 .

I must respectfully disagree.
The ONE main reason is how Paul's gospel is interpreted. One must decide if Yahshua and Paul taught the same thing. (unless you feel Yahshua and Paul taught under differing dispensations?)
As not to speak in generalities here is a example:

What did Yahshua and His disciples teach concerning good offered to idols?

What did Paul teach concerning food offered to idols?

 

[ewq1938]

I must respectfully disagree.
The ONE main reason is how Paul's gospel is interpreted. One must decide if Yahshua and Paul taught the same thing.

No two people teach the same thing but that also does not mean they aren't on the same side teaching the right things that need to be taught. Paul never contradicted Christ. He was taught by Christ and this is attested by Luke who wrote Acts.

(unless you feel Yahshua and Paul taught under differing dispensations?)

That is a simple fact. Jesus lived during the first covenant, Paul did not.

As not to speak in generalities here is a example:

What did Yahshua and His disciples teach concerning good offered to idols?

What did Paul teach concerning food offered to idols?

No need to ask questions. Just present what you think are the contradictions.

 

[HebrewVaquero]

That is a simple fact. Jesus lived during the first covenant, Paul did not.

No need to say more for we have arrived at the crux of our difference.
However.....
This being your position I am curious to why you think Yahshua was totally silent about one who would come after Him to explain all the things He did?

 

[ewq1938]

This being your position I am curious to why you think Yahshua was totally silent about one who would come after Him to explain all the things He did?

Same reason Jesus never said John was going to write the book of Rev.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi HV, I don't believe Yeshua was "silent" concerning St. Paul. Ananias certainly didn't think so (Acts of the Apostles 9:15-16). There is also John 21:25 which, in a somewhat similar fashion to Deuteronomy 29:29, tells us that while we may not know everything that can be known about Yeshua, all that we need to know was revealed to us

Yours and His,
David

 

[Isaiah55:6]

Peter said Paul's writings were scripture. Is that enough ?
(2 Peter 3:15-15) Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[ewq1938]

Peter said Paul's writings were scripture. Is that enough ?
(2 Peter 3:15-15) Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Many deniers of Paul also end up denying Peter because of his support of Paul.

 

[Isaiah55:6]

Many deniers of Paul also end up denying Peter because of his support of Paul.

So mush heresy so little time

 

[St_Worm2]

There are two typical reasons why some try to deny Paul's writings.

1. He made it clear Christ was God in the OT which Unitarian types don't want to accept, 1Co_10:4 .
2. He spoke about the first covenant being old and decaying which Messianics don't want to accept, Heb_8:13 .

Hi ewq1938, a third reason I've found that many try to deny Paul's writings is due to the conviction he causes some to feel over a particular sin or lifestyle choice that they believe the Gospels alone let them get away with

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - in addition to 1 Corinthians 10:4, have you ever checked out John 12:41 and Who it reveals was sitting on the throne in Isaiah's vision of God in Isaiah 6:1-7

 

[HebrewVaquero]

Same reason Jesus never said John was going to write the book of Rev.

At face value that is a good point, however, here is the difference:

John / Revelation is prophetic in that it is a prewritten record of what Yahshua will do.

Paul defines (or redefines) what Yahshua already did, some may refer to this kind of thing as "Revisionist History"

This is a big difference.

Again the question must be asked: If Paul is correct and Yahshua purposely ambiguous to the point of needing another to explain. Why didn't He tell us if Paul was coming to explain all things?

 

[HebrewVaquero]

Hi HV, I don't believe Yeshua was "silent" concerning St. Paul. Ananias certainly didn't think so (Acts of the Apostles 9:15-16). There is also John 21:25 which, in a somewhat similar fashion to Deuteronomy 29:29, tells us that while we may not know everything that can be known about Yeshua, all that we need to know was revealed to us

Yours and His,
David

Thank you, I read the Scriptures provided yet saw no mention of one who would come after Messiah to explain what He did. This is would be ESPECIALLY important if one intercepts Paul as declaring Messiah has done away with Torah.

 

[ewq1938]

At face value that is a good point, however, here is the difference:

John / Revelation is prophetic in that it is a prewritten record of what Yahshua will do.

Paul defines (or redefines) what Yahshua already did, some may refer to this kind of thing as "Revisionist History"

This is a big difference.

Paul didn't redefine anything. If we believe Luke and the book of Acts, we must accept that Christ converted Paul and used him as an Apostle therefore his teachings are valid and come from Christ.

Again the question must be asked: If Paul is correct and Yahshua purposely ambiguous to the point of needing another to explain.

We need examples not vague claims.

Why didn't He tell us if Paul was coming to explain all things?

Again, there are many things Jesus did not tell us. That isn't a valid argument against Paul and his writings.

 

[HebrewVaquero]

Peter said Paul's writings were scripture. Is that enough ?
(2 Peter 3:15-15) Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

I apologize if the following come off as rude, harsh or argumentative, This is not my intention. This is a attempt to get right to the point.

1) Peter did not say Paul's writings were "Scripture". He said people distort both Paul's letters and Scripture.

2) Even if one chooses to interpret 2Peter as Peter calling Paul's letters as scripture; it must be noted the definition for the word 'scripture' just means "writings".

3) Any serious study will reveal the authorship of 2Peter is highly suspect.

4) At the time 2Peter was written, there was no New Testament, only the Tanach (Old Testament) existed. I do not think for a minute Peter would put the writings of Paul in the same level as the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings.

 

[HebrewVaquero]

We need examples not vague claims.

Yahshua taught the Torah and the Kingdom of Heaven

Paul taught Systematic Theology and Justification by Faith.

(Hopefully scriptures supporting the above are flooding your mind, if not we can explore a few)

 

[ewq1938]

Hi ewq1938, a third reason I've found that many try to deny Paul's writings is due to the conviction he causes some to feel over a particular sin or lifestyle choice that they believe the Gospels alone let them get away with

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - in addition to 1 Corinthians 10:4, have you ever checked out John 12:41 and Who it reveals was sitting on the throne in Isaiah's vision of God in Isaiah 6:1-7

Somehow I overlooked that one. Thanks!

 

[ewq1938]

1) Peter did not say Paul's writings were "Scripture". He said people distort both Paul's letters and Scripture.

And other scriptures is what he said which means he did consider Paul's writings to be scripture.

2) Even if one chooses to interpret 2Peter as Peter calling Paul's letters as scripture; it must be noted the definition for the word 'scripture' just means "writings".

The context is clear that some people go to destruction based on misunderstanding scripture, not just "writings".

G1124
γραφή
graphē
graf-ay'
From G1125; a document, that is, holy Writ (or its contents or a statement in it): - scripture.

3) Any serious study will reveal the authorship of 2Peter is highly suspect.

And anytime someone doesn't like what scripture says claims it is suspect so they can reject it and any scripture that contradicts their personal beliefs. We must conform to scripture not conform scripture to what we want it to be.

4) At the time 2Peter was written, there was no New Testament, only the Tanach (Old Testament) existed. I do not think for a minute Peter would put the writings of Paul in the same level as the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings.

Oh he did and so did most others who keep the same faith in Christ. Also, no one can possibly know what existed and didn't exist at the time of 2nd Peter.

 

[St_Worm2]

Thank you, I read the Scriptures provided yet saw no mention of one who would come after Messiah to explain what He did. This is would be ESPECIALLY important if one intercepts Paul as declaring Messiah has done away with Torah.

Hi again HV, I don't believe St. Paul said anything different in regard to the Torah (where our salvation is concerned) than Yeshua did. Salvation, "eternal life", according to Yeshua, is that which results from "hearing" and "believing" Him (see John 5:24). Keeping Torah is something we do because we are 'already' saved (Ephesians 2:10), it's not something we do to become (or even to remain) saved. We do not need Paul's epistles to explain this as Yeshua made it clear for us in the Gospels (not that a somewhat different perspective cannot prove extremely valuable as well )

Yours and His,
David

"These have been written so that you may believe that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing
you may have life in His name."
John 20:31

​

 

[ewq1938]

Yahshua taught the Torah and the Kingdom of Heaven

And? Naturally he would since he lived under the first covenant.

Paul taught Systematic Theology and Justification by Faith.

Again....and? You need to show what you think are specific contradictions. Thusfar you have shown no issues.

 

[St_Worm2]

Somehow I overlooked that one. Thanks!

I managed to overlook it for years and only found it only recently when I was researching a completely different topic