Paul's contradiction about circumcision

[saiful-Islam-Khattab]

It sounds like he's saying follow me if follow Christ, if I don't follow Christ don't follow me. I think he was making it conditional. He said follow me provided he's following Christ. It seems like some people take a passage of scripturre and build a whole theology around it.

Jesus said iin the bible that one cannot serve two masters.

Mt 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Lu 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
So either one follows Jesus or follow Paul but you cannot serve both at one time.Both Teachings contradict.
Saiful-Islam-Khattab

 

[saiful-Islam-Khattab]

Exactly. I agree with this. A while back I was talking about Paul putting personal opinion into his letters. People later made doctrine out of them. It's very clear he says "I" don't suffer a woman to teach. It's also clear ge gives his own opinion about the hair and about marraige, even admitting he says some of the things in 1 Cor. 7 and not the Lord. But we must admit, he does degrade women when he writes to Timothy.

Totally agree thanx mate for clarifying
Ro 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Ro 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

2Ti 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
thanx
Saiful-Islam-Khattab

 

[saiful-Islam-Khattab]

I know he says so almost everywhere else, but he shouldn't have said "Follow ME as I follow Christ." It places the "me" before Christ as if he were walking perfectly before God, which he was not.
Yes, Pauls theology is interesting, it's just too bad some people will throw out Jesus teachings and embrace Pauls when they contradict. It mainly happens when male dominated churches want to suppress women and they rely exclusively on Paul and dismiss the gospels. They also dismiss the fact Paul himself worked with women and acknowledged Priscilla & Aquila's church. For those who want to try to make guys cut their hair short or forbid women to even trim their hair, they again rely on one passage again by Paul... and they reject what Paul wrote that they have no such customs!

Is the Gospel of Mary Magdalene authentic and if so why is it apocrypha?

 

[xxdaggerxx]

Jesus said iin the bible that one cannot serve two masters.

Mt 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Lu 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
So either one follows Jesus or follow Paul but you cannot serve both at one time.Both Teachings contradict.
Saiful-Islam-Khattab

you have misunderstood what markie said, he meant that if paul was not following christ then dont follow paul at all. Not , follow paul or follow chirst.

 

[Bevlina]

Is the Gospel of Mary Magdalene authentic and if so why is it apocrypha?

You would never believe the enormous amount of scrutiny that goes on with any of these books. I haven't heard that the gospel of Mary Magdalene is authentic!
I haven't read it, but I believe it doesn't line up with the Bible at all. The enormous amount of scrutiny which goes on with any 'gospel' for authenticity is incredible.

 

[saiful-Islam-Khattab]

You would never believe the enormous amount of scrutiny that goes on with any of these books. I haven't heard that the gospel of Mary Magdalene is authentic!
I haven't read it, but I believe it doesn't line up with the Bible at all. The enormous amount of scrutiny which goes on with any 'gospel' for authenticity is incredible.

But I understand she was a disciple too though,so because of Paul's rationale about Woman her book was rejected then?

 

[saiful-Islam-Khattab]

Does anyone know the procedure, the steps that were taken in those days for Cricumcision. I understand the Jews had a method of doing it that Paul applied with Timothy, and probably others that he circumcised too as there are no records that Timothy was the only one.There could have been more.
Saiful-Islam-Khattab

 

[saiful-Islam-Khattab]

you have misunderstood what markie said, he meant that if paul was not following christ then dont follow paul at all. Not , follow paul or follow chirst.

Well that is contradictory because today that is exactly what peole are doing following Paul and not Jesus.Jesus said that he came to fulfill the the law not abolish.
Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Paul abolished the word of Jesus and the law Jesus came to Fulfill.Had these laws needed to be destroyed or abolished Jesus would have said so he would not contradict himself by saying one thing and Paul doing another.
Saiful-Islam-Khattab

 

[saiful-Islam-Khattab]

Answer for yourself: Was Paul a faithful follower of Jesus or the founder of a new religion that would eventually replace Biblical Judaism as a world religion?

Answer for yourself: What evidence exists, both inside and outside the New Testament, that will help us determine the answer to the above question and have you ever seen such evidence for yourself in order that you can give an intelligent answer to the above question?

 

[Bevlina]

Well that is contradictory because today that is exactly what peole are doing following Paul and not Jesus.Jesus said that he came to fulfill the the law not abolish.

Nonsense, nobody is following Paul! Jesus DID fulfill the law.

Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Exactly. Not ONE of Jesus words have passed away. All are in the New Testament.

Paul abolished the word of Jesus and the law Jesus came to Fulfill.Had these laws needed to be destroyed or abolished Jesus would have said so he would not contradict himself by saying one thing and Paul doing another.
Saiful-Islam-Khattab

Paul abolished nothing. Paul followed Jesus, He preached Jesus. And Paul told us to do the same.

 

[gaijin178]

Who cares about circumcision? Seriously? Does it change what Christ taught? Has anyone gone through this kind of thing as an adult? I have. And who cares if it is for religious reasons or health reasons. Geez....we get so caught up in things that don't matter in regards to spirituality.

 

[Bevlina]

Answer for yourself: Was Paul a faithful follower of Jesus or the founder of a new religion that would eventually replace Biblical Judaism as a world religion?

Answer for yourself: What evidence exists, both inside and outside the New Testament, that will help us determine the answer to the above question and have you ever seen such evidence for yourself in order that you can give an intelligent answer to the above question?

Paul was a faithful follower of Jesus the Christ. And Paul taught us to be the same. Over, and over again he calls us to follow Christ just like Paul himself did.
What right have you got to come here, as a muslim and try to demean the appointed Apostle to the Gentiles?

 

[saiful-Islam-Khattab]

Paul was a faithful follower of Jesus the Christ. And Paul taught us to be the same. Over, and over again he calls us to follow Christ just like Paul himself did.
What right have you got to come here, as a muslim and try to demean the appointed Apostle to the Gentiles?

Who appointed him? did Jesus ever mention him or his coming to his disciples.He had never met Jesus , was not even a disciple.
James the Just was more closer to Jesus than he.James was a high priest of the temple.Barnabas was a disciple closer to Jeus than he. Joseph of Arimathaea was a secret disciple of Jesus. He help jesus in hiding a lot how come he had no authority But Paul who was persecuting Christians comes in and Takes over and changes the word of Jesus

 

[saiful-Islam-Khattab]

Nonsense, nobody is following Paul! Jesus DID fulfill the law.

Exactly. Not ONE of Jesus words have passed away. All are in the New Testament.


Paul abolished nothing. Paul followed Jesus, He preached Jesus. And Paul told us to do the same.

Paul abolished many of the Levitcan law and deutronomic laws too.Jesus did not eat pork But Paul make it lawful.Jesus Chased the devils in the pigs,paul made it lawful to eat them and there are many lwas that have been changed.May be you need to reread the bible you will see

 

[saiful-Islam-Khattab]

For those who undermine the circumcision as something unimportant here is something I read about it that might shed a bit more light on the issue.

Paul circumcised Timothy because he was facing stiff opposition from the Jews. Thus, in order to avoid getting into more troubles Paul had Timothy circumcised, even though Timothy's father happened to be a Greek Gentile. But why was the circumcision debate important for the Jews whom Paul wanted to pacify?

To some Gentile readers, this circumcision debate might seem peripheral. Some men are circumcised, others not - so what? In order to see the revolution that Paul was effecting within Jewish circles (or satellites) we turn to the old rabbinic texts. The rabbis considered circumcision so important that they declared that were it not for the blood of the covenant - that is to say, the blood which flowed from Abraham's penis when, at God's insistence, he circumcised himself - heaven and earth would not exist. The teaching of Judaism was that a child must still shed the blood of a covenant...even if he is born without a foreskin, and even if for some medical or other reason he is circumcised before the mystical eighth day. Even the angels are circumcised....

Converts to Judaism in the Roman period had to undergo circumcision....Strangely enough, in Palestine rules were more liberal than in the Diaspora, and there were Proselytes of the Gate, as they were known, who were allowed to 'become Jews' without circumcision. But such was not the general rule. It was widely believed that the admission of uncircumcised men into Jewish religious worship 'impeded the arrival of the Messiah'. While 'semi-converts' were allowed, those who observed the Sabbath and the dietary laws, they were to be regarded as heathens if after a twelve-month period they had not undergone circumcision. These stringent rules did not deter converts....
(A. N. Wilson, Paul The Mind Of The Apostle, Pimlico. 1998. ISBN 0-7126-6663-X p. 128)

So it highlights here the importance of the circumcision
​

 

[Montalban]

There is no evidence that Timothy was the only one too,there could have been Loads.
Saiful-Islam-khattab

So what? That there are many people prepared to accomadate the beliefs of those they preach too?

 

[Montalban]

I do not abide by the N.T. being a holy book. However, if the facts of that story are accurate, then Timothy was indeed a Jew, being born of a Jewish mother, and would of course have to be circumcized (why he wasn't circumcized at 8 days old, apart from the fact that his mother married a gentile, implies heavy assimiliation). As for the whole 'as a Jew when with the Jews, as a gentile when with the gentiles', that implies duplicity on the part of Paul.

Really, so if I enter a nation wearing a turban, because it's required, that's duplicity?

But really, it actually goes to show the lengths Christians had to go to, to even get a hearing from the Jews. You continue this trend.

 

[Montalban]

I totally agree with you that those who claim to beleive and to be christians should follow Jesus and Not Paul.Christians of Today are not following the true teachings of Jesus,they have been sidetracked by what Paul wrote and attributed to Jesus.Take the Bible look in there whaT Jesus said and compare with what Paul said then you will see the differnce.
Bye
Saiful-Islam-Khattab

How can you make such a just-so statement? It might give some comfort to make a 'evidence-lite' statement of opinion.

Where is your proof... oh, that's right, because Jesus was a Muslim??? Chuckles.

 

[saiful-Islam-Khattab]

Really, so if I enter a nation wearing a turban, because it's required, that's duplicity?

But really, it actually goes to show the lengths Christians had to go to, to even get a hearing from the Jews. You continue this trend.

Ding ding! Seconds away round two.

 

[Montalban]

Who appointed him? did Jesus ever mention him or his coming to his disciples.He had never met Jesus , was not even a disciple.
James the Just was more closer to Jesus than he.James was a high priest of the temple.Barnabas was a disciple closer to Jeus than he. Joseph of Arimathaea was a secret disciple of Jesus. He help jesus in hiding a lot how come he had no authority But Paul who was persecuting Christians comes in and Takes over and changes the word of Jesus

Read about St. Pauls conversion on the Road to Damascus. (Acts 9) Who spoke to him?