I've never seen anything that Paul or any of the apostles wrote that contradicts what Jesus has said, nor each other. Nor Paul contradicting himself. I'd like to examine what you mean if you remember any verses in particular.
Here is a small example, followed by a large example. I am not going to give chapter and verse, because the chapter and verse markers are not part of the Scripture, and because the things I will cite are familiar enough to anybody who reads the Bible that it is not necessary to do so.
Example 1: To one of the churches - doesn't really matter which one - Paul said that long hair on a man is a disgrace. I have read a pamphlet and argued twice with different Christians that this means that the long hairstyle on men that goes in and out of style (Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton, for example, all had shoulder length hair that was tied back in a pony tail as was the fashion in 1770. They would have been called "Hippies" in 1970 because of their long hair) is contrary to God. Conservative men frequently do not like the long hairstyle on men. The military, since World War I, has enforced a very short hairstyle, and for three or more generations American men have gone through the military and had the short hairstyle imposed on them as "proper grooming". So, there is a strong cultural bias among conservative American men in favor of short hair. Because "William" doesn't like long hair on men, and he's Christian, he picks up Paul and reads 'long hair on men is a disgrace', and, wham, just like that, "God said, in His inerrant Holy Bible, that long hair on men is a disgrace. God has spoken, and that settles it!"
Such utter nonsense. Yes, PAUL
did write that, in one letter, to one church, for whatever reason he wrote it. Maybe there was a problem in that Church. Maybe Paul disliked long hair on men and wrote from his personal preference. Whatever the case, Paul's opinion there is not law, it is not God speaking, and it is absurd for anybody to read the Bible that way or to grant Paul the power, through an offhand line of his in one letter, to set grooming standards for Christian men until the end of time.
We know Paul cannot do that for several reasons. Biblically speaking, YHWH, speaking formal law to the Hebrews FORBADE them from taking a razor to the sides of their hair. They HAD to wear their hair long. Additionally, when God sent a sign through the Prophet Samson, he did so, again, by forbidding Samson to cut his hair. His long hair was a sign of the power of God. When God made Adam - humans in general - he did not make us with iron implements required to cut hair. We are made in God's image, and without the tools to cut it, human hair will naturally grow to its full length in 6 years. In the seventh year, at some point, each individual strand of hair dies and falls out or breaks off. New hair is growing all the time. So, hair length stabilizes at seven years of growth. it does not continue to grow to the floor, etc. This is the way that God MADE US TO BE, in his image, and he FORBADE the Jews from cutting the sides of their hair with a razor, so the notion that it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair is directly contrary both to the way God made us in his image, and to actual direct LAW that he gave to the Hebrews. I rather tire of the way that Christians jump around, arguing that we're "not under the law" when they don't care for the law, but then suddenly we're back under the law for the parts we like.
And finally, the clincher: the Shroud of Turin is Jesus' burial cloth. It has the miraculous image of him in death on it, just prior to his resurrection. The image is a miracle because it cannot be man-made: man cannot make such an image NOW, let alone 2000 years ago. JESUS HAS LONG, SHOULDER LENGTH HAIR. HE followed the Torah, without sin or flaw, and HE had the long hair that one would expect anybody following the Mosaic law of God would have.
So, if Paul is read the way William, the 20th century conservative American jerk who doesn't like long hair and wants to proclaim his own preference is a divine law reads him, Jesus Christ was a disgrace, because he had long hair, and the prophet Samson was a disgrace because of his long hair, and YHWH was disgraceful for having given a law that imposed long hair on men. There is one example of a line of Paul being used to establish new "divine law" that is nothing of the kind. William has abused Paul, self-righteously. It annoys me.
The second example of an abuse of Paul really makes me furious, because it guts both the Law of YHWH AND pages and pages of what Jesus said. It's the classic case of using the Bible as a "God maker" and elevating Paul about God and God's Son, in order to satisfy the political passions (and private greed) of some 21st century conservative American "Christian". Paul did indeed write "He who will not work, shall not eat." That one line of Paul has been advanced against me five different times, by five different "Christians" or groups of "Christians", each claiming that this text proves that modern social welfare is evil, because it is not "voluntary", and because it goes to people who "will not work", and "the BIBLE says 'He who will not work shall not eat.'"
No. PAUL said, in a certain specific context, that those who would not work at helping bring food to the agape meals and serving it, should not be permitted to eat those meals. But YHWH said, as part of the Law, all of the following things:
(1) All must pay a 10% tithe for the support of the poor and the Levites. (The Levites fed themselves with some of it, and were to use the rest to support the poor.) This was a MANDATORY ENFORCED TAX, specifically for poverty relief, imposed by God. It was not voluntary, at all, and it was not limited to "the working poor".
(2) A rich Hebrew, if asked for a loan by a poor Hebrew, must extend the loan. Think about that. It meant that the rich could not accumulate wealth, because anybody who asked, had to be lent to. It meant that the rich had an incentive to lend out ALL of their excess wealth quickly, keeping all of that money in circulation, so they could at least control to whom they lent. If they didn't proactively go loan to the poor, the poor would come to them, and they were REQUIRED BY GOD to lend to the poor if they had it.
(3) God prohibited the rich from charging any interest to the poor on these loans they had to give.
(4) There was no means testing. In the 7th year, any amounts that the poor could not repay had to be forgiven and written off. It could never be collected and there was no recourse after that.
(5) God forbade debtors prison for Israelites, and they could not be enslaved. All that the rich could do to somebody who could not pay him was put him under indenture, up until the Seventh, Sabbatical year (which might not actually be seven years away). And if he did so, the rich man had to provide food, shelter and clothing for the man and his family. And while the rich man could count the work towards the debt, he also had to pay the indentured servant at the end and could not send him away without pay EVEN IF THE DEBT WAS STILL unpaid.
That's the Law, and Jesus said that it could never be changed by a letter.
Now let's look at what Jesus said and did. He healed the sick, fed and provided for the poor, and did not engage in means testing. Ever. He never sent anyone away, worthy or unworthy. Additionally, in the Lord's prayer, he upheld the forgiveness of debts for Christians, extending the Torah. He said "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors" - he made the direct parallel between the forgiveness of sin and the forgiveness of money debt. He did so even more explicitly in his parable of the unforgiving servant. For what was the debt that the unforgiving servant was forgiven? A massive money debt. And what did that servant then NOT forgive another miserable wretch? A small money debt. So the servant's Lord hauled him back, unforgave him, and threw him into prison to be tortured "until the last penny is paid". Jesus promised that God would do that to each of us also if we do not forgive.
John the Baptist told people that if they had two cloaks, to give one to somebody who had none, and if they had food, to give to those who did not have enough.
The message from OT to New is relentless and consistent, and the only voluntarism there is to it is: Do it or be damned.
But then some William or Edgar out there will pick up Paul, point to "He who will not work shall not eat", and extrapolate from that to mean that social welfare is evil and unbiblical, contrary to the will of God. Whole pages of words spoken by YHWH and Jesus are simply disregarded in favor of one sentence of Paul. This is not legitimate. The justification? "All Scripture is God-breathed", another line of Paul, which is used by "Christians" to take the lines of Paul they like and nullify anything else in the Bible. It's idolatrous.
Those are but two examples. A third would be Paul's admonition against women teaching.
In all cases my problem is not with Paul. It's with "Christians" who take Paul as God, indeed as the ULTIMATE God, who use Paul to wipe out Jesus own words.
There. Those are three concrete examples, two of them fleshed out, in which what Paul says is read to contradict what God said. In all three cases, it is Paul's apparent opinion that needs to be disregarded, not Jesus'.
This is how Paul is misused and abused, but also how some of the things he says really do conflict with what Jesus said. I say that in such circumstances, you always go with Jesus, obviously.