Paul vs. Jesus (and James)
In the early decades following Jesus’ death, his followers remained a small, local sect. They retained their Jewish identify and, in fact, only Jews could be baptized as new followers, as “Christians.”
Although this nascent Christian movement was clearly a faction of Judaism, many Jews felt threatened by their challenges to the established orthodoxy and the many radical new doctrines that were taught. And this resulted in much persecution of Christians by some (but by no means all, nor even a majority) of the Jews.
One of the early persecutors was named Saul of Tarsus. He had the rare status of being both a Jew (the people conquered by the Romans) as well as being a Roman citizen. It is lost to history how he obtained such status; it is speculated that perhaps his father had saved the life of a Roman leader and was thus rewarded, or in some other way gained favor. In any case, as an orthodox Jew he was loyal to the traditional teachings, and as a Roman citizen of means he had the freedom (and documents) and the means to travel anywhere throughout the Roman Empire.
Subsequently, Saul claimed to have had a dramatic vision on the road to Damascus and claims to have miraculously converted to this new cult he had been persecuting, in which it was Saul who held the coats of those who stoned the martyred apostle Stephen (Acts 7:58; 22:20). To signify his new life, he renamed himself from “Saul” to “Paul.” Because of his education and status, Paul was very impressive to most of the founding Christians who were mostly uneducated fishermen and shepherds, such as Peter and John, who are described in Acts 4:13 as being “unlearned and ignorant” (King James), which was written by gospel-writer Luke, a presumably-educated physician. (A couple of notable exceptions are James, the brother of Jesus, and Matthew, the Publican. In addition to being educated, these are two of the New Testament writers who had lived closest to Jesus during his actual lifetime and ministry.)
Through the centuries, Paul has enjoyed widespread, uncritical adulation by those whose views are shaped by listening to others instead of thinking for themselves. In contrast, many independent-minded analyses of how Paul deals with Jesus’ teachings are much more ready to find fault with Paul. One of the most famous critcisms comes from Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in a letter to William Short dated April 13, 1820, and repeated in a letter to James Smith dated December 8, 1822, that “Paul was … the first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus.” George Bernard Shaw, the English playwright, is widely quoted as having said: “…it would have been a better world if Paul had never been born.”
Despite his education and eloquence, which come through so clearly in his extensive writings (more prolific than any other Bible writer and fully one third of the New Testament), Paul manages to completely contradict and undermine the teachings he claims to have become converted to and becomes more a renegade than an “apostle.”
Why is it that Paul’s many letters (epistles) so consistently and repeatedly contradict and undermine the teachings attributed to Jesus? Perhaps this admitted persecutor of Christians found a more effective way to subvert the followers of Jesus. Perhaps he infiltrated their ranks and taught a doctrine that opposed Jesus, replacing Jesus’ selfless teaching of universal compassionate action with a selfish teaching of desire to gain a “free gift” of salvation based only on faith and completely devoid of any behavioral requirement or obedience to law, thus distracting us from the selfless teachings of Jesus.
It is impossible for us to look into the mind of a man long dead and determine his motives conclusively. Was he a sincere and loyal convert who simply misunderstood the teachings of his new master, or did he have a more sinister intent to subert and undermine the teachings of him who he claimed to be the messianic savior? We’ll never know. What we can say with certainty, however, is that after examining the legacy of writing he left — more than any other writer in the Bible — that for whatever reason, intentional or a great historical misunderstanding, the message he left opposed and undermined that of the titular messiah (Jesus the “Christ”) to whom he claimed obeisance. The evidence becomes apparent when we compare the words of Paul side by side with those attributed to Jesus (who left no writings of his own) and to the other followers closest to Jesus, such as his brother James.
Let’s examine the record:
Faith vs. Works
On the critical religious matter of just what it takes to attain salvation, what Jesus teaches is very different than what is written in the words of the renegade “apostle” Paul.
While Paul teaches a salvation based solely on faith and not one’s deeds, Jesus reportedly teaches the opposte: that behavioral requirements (works/ deeds), rooted in an internal change of spiritual growth within the person (not external or apart from the person, though the gift of teaching and techniques to achieve this personal change are a gift of grace not earned or deserved by us, but requiring actions [deeds] to implement), are integral to salvation. While perhaps it is not possible for us to “earn” the “free gift” that Jesus did give — a teaching of the universal compassionate love by which the evil within us can be transformed into a more holy kindness of love — Jesus clearly includes a behavioral component to his requirements for “salvation.” While he does not say that this satisfies any “debt,” he still requires it; perhaps he is demanding merely a small partial “payment” as a gesture of “good faith.” (In fact, James suggests this by his comments in James 2:26, that we demonstrate our faith — if it is genuine — by our deeds.)
Some will say that puny mortals can never perform enough good behavior to “earn” or “merit” salvation based on the value of their deeds — that the attempts at human righteousness is as “filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6).
Aside from the fact that this simply contradicts Jesus, the point is not whether or not our puny mortal attempts at righteousness have intrinsic value or not. Just as a child may offer its parents an awkwardly-drawn piece of art, which likely holds little real artistic merit (in terms of art critics it might be as “filthy rags”), still the parents sincerely and genuinely cherish such efforts. It may not “merit” winning any serious art award and may be able to “earn” very little, but loving parents accept it for its true and lasting value.
Why would a loving god, as a more perfect spiritual father, not be able to give even greater acceptance, even of “filthy rags,” if sincerely offered as the best effort … especially if he has said that he would do so? To argue against that is to join Paul in contradicting the teachings of Jesus.
In his first public teaching (the Sermon on the Mount) Jesus introduces a bold new concept, not only that we should love friends and neighbors, but our enemies as well.
When asked by a lawyer what the most important commandment in the law was, Jesus answered (as reported in Matt 22:36-40 and Luke 10:25-37) with references from the Old Testament, that the greatest law was to love god (see Deut 6:5) and the second was to love your neighbor as yourself (see Lev 19:18). In the Luke text, the lawyer specifically asks what is necessary for eternal life (verse 25) and after Jesus references the two great commandments, he says “This do and you will live” (verse 28) — showing clearly that salvation is related to works/deeds/ actions, however important faith might be to motivating such behavior. Note further, that in the Luke version, this was illustrated by an example, the parable of the Good Samaritan, which was used to define “neighbor” very broadly, to include enemies. The Samaritan is the one who exemplifies this broad definition, and who provides the example of one who is saved by their compassionate actions toward their enemy. Yet the Samaritan is not even a believer, not one having “faith” and not one who has accepted Jesus as savior, yet this is who Jesus chooses as the example of one who gains eternal life, which is what the lawyer specifically asked.
Another time during his ministry, Jesus taught that the people who would go to heaven (be saved) must be as little children (Matt 18:4-5; 19:14; Mark 9:36-37; 10:14-15; Luke 18:15-17), while Paul wrote that maturity demands us to forsake the things of childhood (I Cor 13:11). Thus, while Jesus teaches us that the kingdom of heaven will be filled with those who lived their lives in active compassion and childlike innocence, Paul envisions a heaven of crusty, serious “mature” grouches who merely have to profess “acceptance” of Jesus without ever actually performing a single kind, compassionate, cheerful or childishly playful deed.
In his last public teaching, Matt. 25:31-45, Jesus describes the final judgment as being based solely on behavioral responses to internalized compassion. And Jesus makes it very clear that those who do express universal compassion in behavioral action will be saved, and those who do not will not be saved. Period. There is no other qualification.
As noted earlier, Mother Teresa juxtaposed these two messages (the “great commandments” and that what we do to “the least of these” is done to God) to postulate that our actions toward “the least of these” are actually done unto god, which she took very literally, and asserted that we fulfill the first commandment by obedience to the second — which motivated her to give up a well-to-do life in Albania, and search to find whoever was the ultimate “least of these” in the world, which she found first on the streets of Calcutta, India, and later in missions throughout the world.
Dr. Viktor Frankl, a German Jew who survived the Nazi concentration camps during the Holocaust, wrote in his book Man’s Search for Meaning of rare but remarkable examples of men in the concentration camps who, dying of hunger, still gave comfort, along with their last crusts of bread, to their fellow sufferers to alleviate their suffering. Even torture and extreme deprivation could not cause them to abandon their deeply-felt compassion. But those prisoners described by Frankl were Jewish. They haven’t confessed Jesus as their savior. Paul would consign them to hell (eternal torture — “fireboarding”? — worse than the universally condemned cruelty of waterboarding at Guantánamo Bay or Abu Ghraib) for even the slightest infraction) while Jesus would embrace them and count them among His sheep. The same thing also applies to the many Buddhists, Hindus and Pagans who express deep compassion in their lives who Jesus’ teaching welcomes into Eternal Glory, but who Paul consigns to eternal flames of Hell. Paul subverts Jesus’ joyful teaching of love and compassion and replaces it with a vision of eternal harshness and cruelty.
And, speaking of hell, we need to consider the very concept of “hell” — of eternal flames burning the flesh painfully but never consuming it, just burning painfully forever, never ever allowing the victim to be put out of his misery. Civilized societies around the world condemn torture even for the most heinous acts. To believe that a loving, compassionate god would consign people to the eternal torture of hell just because, without having been exposed to any direct evidence, and perhaps absent even the opportunity to have heard of him, they did not believe in him during this mortal lifetime. Try to imagine the sweetest, kindest, most loving and most Christ-like person you know. Do you think they rise to the level of God’s own compassion? Do you think, just maybe, God is even more compassionate and loving? Can you envision this sweet, loving person being the one to pour fuel over the body of another conscious human person, and then lighting the match and personally igniting the painful flames of torture? And then letting it run on? Forever? Do you really believe a “loving” deity could do this?
And for what heinous crime? Murder? Torture? Rape? Kidnapping? All of the above? No. It is merely because someone simply didn’t “believe.” Didn’t join the team. Even if they lived in deepest Africa hundreds of years before Jesus was born and never even had a chance to hear about him. This is a demand for pure primitive tribal affinity; nothing more, nothing less.
Please understand why I cannot believe in the silly nonsense of such a primitive, barbaric little deity fashioned by the primitive, tribalistic barbaric savages who invented him in their image.
Another issue must be considered when contemplating a theology of salvation based solely on belief in Jesus as the Savior and nothing else. Belief requires exposure; one cannot believe in something that one has never been exposed to. So what about those who were supposedly created by a God who is both just and merciful, but lived in a time or place when there would be absolutely no possible chance of ever being exposed to Jesus? Imagine an innocent child born in India, China or Africa 800 years before Jesus was born (or even 800 years afterward, for that matter). There would be absolutely no chance this child could ever be exposed to the opportunity of believing in Jesus or accepting him as personal savior. Again, Paul’s theology consigns such innocent children to hell, while (as noted previously) Jesus taught that of such is the kingdom of heaven (Matt 18:4-5; 19:14; Mark 9:36-37; 10:14-15; Luke 18:15-17), while (as noted previously) Jesus taught that of such is the kingdom of heaven (Matt 18:4-5; 19:14; Mark 9:36-37; 10:14-15; Luke 18:15-17). Is Paul’s doctrine of salvation only by faith, and consigning all others to eternal damnation, from the God of justice or mercy?
Even in John 3, the discourse to Nicodemus on salvation as a gift of grace, Jesus includes specific behavioral requirements (John 3:19-21). In any case, while some writings (other than Paul) may occasionally discuss faith as a separate topic (as with honesty, courage, etc.), no one (except Paul) ever states that salvation can occur with any of these virtues apart from works/deeds actions. This does not mean that, in teaching us the behavior of salvation that Jesus did not thus give us a free gift far beyond what we could ever earn, a gift of grace, but it does not mean that it was given entirely apart from specified behavioral conditions, as Paul says.
Occasionally, someone will bring up the case of the thief being crucified alongside Jesus, and note that Jesus said to him in Luke 23:43, “Today you will be with me in Paradise.”
The claim is that Jesus granted salvation solely on his profession of support for the dying Jesus. However, we do not know what past aspects of character or behavior Jesus took into consideration that preceded the cross. Perhaps if one is hanging on a cross, the utterance of a word of encouragement to one in similar straits — truly humbled to the status of “least of these” — might be the most you can do. But again, we don’t know why the thief was on the cross. Perhaps he had gotten caught stealing a loaf of bread from a Roman Centurion who had taken it from an impoverished widow, and the “thief” was trying to return it to its rightful owner. The text does not say, so I draw no conclusions, as are those who are quick to jump to conclusions about details not in the passage.
In any case, even if one accepted such an interpretation, it would simply be yet another Bible contradiction in addition to those already provided, since it directly opposes those verses I have cited in which Jesus clearly states that salvation is based on universal compassionate love expressed actively in deeds, but without mentioning faith or belief at all.
All of the gospels are replete with statements of behavioral obligation that never once make any statement remotely similar to Paul that the faith and grace that engender salvation occur “apart from” obedience, works or deeds.
Paul vs. James
Paul teaches that the gift of salvation through grace occurs apart from any behavioral requirement: Romans 3:28: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”
Paul reiterates this position in: Romans 4:6; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; II Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5 — the first Bible writer to make the claim that salvation occurs apart from actions, which Paul repeatedly emphasizes.
Paul is specifically rebutted by the later writing of James (brother of Jesus) who offers one of the most striking and dramatic direct contradictions, in James 2:24, choosing vocabulary and syntax that specifically contradicts Paul’s wording in Romans 3:28 in both content and construction:
Here are the two passages, shown in various translations:
Romans 3:28 (Paul)
KJV: a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
RSV: a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Today’s English Version: a person is put right with god only through faith, and not by doing what the Law commands.
NIV: a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
James 2:24 (James’ rebuttal)
KJV: by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
RSV: a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Today’s English Version: it is by his actions that a person is put right with god, and not by his faith alone.
NIV: a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
Clearly, James seems to be saying exactly the opposite of what Paul says. The key words here, in both passages, are justified (or, in Today’s English, “put right with God”), works/deeds/actions (or, in NIV, “observing the law”), and faith (same in all versions of both passages). Not only does James echo the same words, in the same parallel structure, but he even cites exactly the same example and scriptural reference! The passage from Paul comes near the end of the third chapter of Romans; immediately after that, opening up the fourth chapter, Paul cites the example of Abraham, and quotes from Genesis 15:6, and says it was Abrham’s faith, not his works, that justified him (Romans 4:1-3). In James 2:21-24 (the same passage noted above), Paul’s very example and scriptural reference are used against him, but with the opposite (and contradictory) conclusion, that Abraham was justified by the combination of faith with works. James’ use of the same examples, quotes from the same Old Testament verse (Gen. 15:6) using the same words, and parallel structure clearly suggest that this was an intentional reply/rebuttal to Paul.
Examining the original texts: If anyone wants to suggest that, perhaps, the two passages have different root words in the original texts that just happened to pick up similar English equivalents by all these translators, then maybe we should look at the Greek source texts.
The same Greek word dikaioo is used by both Paul AND James for the term justification (or “put right with God”) in both passages. While the Today’s English Version does use a different term in their English translation, at least they apply it consistently in both Romans and James.
The same Greek word ergon is used by both Paul and James for the term variously translated as works, deeds, actions or “doing.” While English translators haven’t agreed on the best term, both Paul and James were talking about the same thing. And, with the exception of the NIV, the translators of each version at least are consistent in their own usages between Paul and James. I wonder, however, about the objectivity of the NIV — one of the most popular texts among conservative Christians — in choosing to change the wording used between Paul and James in a way that subtly changes the connotation of Paul to be less in contradiction to James.
The same Greek word pistis is used by both Paul and James for the word that all versions of both passages translated as “faith.” James is clearly rebutting Paul’s scandalous undermining of Jesus’ teachings.
Differences? Some have tried to explain these differences by saying that Paul and James had different meanings for their words “justification,” “faith” and “works/deeds.” Yet the simple fact remains they used the same words, in the same order and same context, even illustrated with the same example of Abraham and Isaac and the same scriptural citation from Genesis 15:6 (in reference to content; chapter and verse divisions had not yet been compiled).
On several occasions, attention has been called to one difference in the wording of Paul and James. While they use the same words, in the same context and the same order, when talking about the “works/deeds” Paul adds the phrase “of the law” while James does not. Some have argued that this means Paul is talking about something different. Not so.
Paul’s use of that phrase is a restrictive modifying clause to limit the scope of his reference. By omitting it, James at the very least accepts everything in Paul’s more restrictive context, broadened to include additional contexts. But earlier in the same chapter (James 2), just before the verse in question and his reference to Paul’s example of Abraham and Isaac, James discusses behavior (2:8-13) in very specific in terms of deeds of the Law. Aside from the possibility of simply broadening the more narrow focus of Paul, what seems more likely in context is that James does not need to say “of the law” since he has already made it clear a few verses before that he is talking about “deeds of the law.”
In fact, the only credible scenario is that James is clearly rebutting Paul’s scandalous undermining of Jesus’ teachings.
Paul is not only rebutted by James in the examples above, but also admits having some problems getting along with Peter, admitting in Galatians 2:11: “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”
In stark contrast to Paul’s teaching of salvation by faith apart from behavioral manifestations, Jesus (Matt. 7:21-27), states unequivocally that the mere profession of accepting him is not enough, but that such a profession must be backed up by deeds. Jesus teaches a salvation of universal compassionate love expressed in action. It is the centerpiece of everything he taught. And Jesus himself consistently expressed love and closeness to sinners, lepers, tax collectors and other outcasts, while saving his rare words of harshness and anger for the Pharisees and Sadducees — the pompous, self-righteous elite of the established religious orthodoxy.
But what about when Paul also writes of compassion? Yes, it is true that there are a number of passages from Paul in praise of universal compassionate love expressed actively through deeds and, of course, these do not contradict Jesus. In particular, I Corinthians 13 is one of the most inspirational passages on charitable compassionate (agape) love in all of literature. I have quoted it often, and have cited it to show that, while Paul contradicts Jesus repeatedly, and on key points of doctrine such as how people come to eternal salvation, he does not always contradict Jesus on everything, and it has never been my position that he did.
Jesus and Paul agreed on quite a few things: the sun rises in the east; breathing air is good for humans, and compassionate love expressed in deeds is good.
But here is the contradictory difference on that last one, which is especially amplified by Jesus’ brother James’ stunningly direct rebuttal against Paul in James chapter 2:
Jesus (and James) state that both faith and compassionate deeds are good, but that compassionate deeds are what get you into heaven (but faith is good because it motivates you to do the good deeds, but is not absolutely mandatory).
Paul states that both faith and compassionate deeds are good, but that faith is what gets you into heaven (but compassionate deeds are good because they are a reflection of the sincerity of faith, but not absolutely mandatory).
The Law of Moses
Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who always upheld the Law of Moses. In his first public teaching, the Sermon on the Mount, he made it very clear in Matt. 5:18-19: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (“jot or tittle” in modern translations is “not one iota nor one dot”.) Have heaven and earth passed away? Have all the prophecies, including those of the last days, been fulfilled?
Even some of the occasions when Jesus seems to add to the Law or teach in new and different ways, he goes to great lengths to show that it is based on the Law. For example, when this rabbi asked by a “lawyer” (one versed in the Law of Moses) what was the greatest commandment in the Law, Jesus turns the question back to him and asks what is in the Law, and from that extrapolates his great commandments to Love God (from Deut 6:5) and Love Neighbor as Self (from Lev. 19:18) which was clearly the centerpiece of his ministry and his doctrine of active love and compassion for all.
Paul, on the other hand, wants to throw out the Law of Moses! Romans 3:19-21: “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.” [Emphasis added]
And even more explicitly, Paul states in Romans 6:14, that “sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.”
Additionally, when Paul denounces the need for compassionate actions, or which Jesus and others spoke so much, in Romans 3:27-28 and Galatians 2:16, he also specifically mentions which works: that obedience to the Law is what is not required, contrary to Jesus’ statements.
Other Problems with Paul
Manner of Worship: Jesus and Paul left contradictory legacies as to the manner in which worship should be conducted.
Jesus preached as an itinerant wanderer, informally to locals he encountered in his travels. Usually these were small groups, though he did encounter the occasional large crowd. Jesus always prayed privately, and taught his followers to do the same. In fact, he specifically prohibited public prayer and public displays of worship (Matt. 6:1-18). In fact, in verses 5 and 6, Jesus explicitly states, “when thou prayest, thou shalt not…” do so publicly in the synagouges or on the street corners. The fact that he belabored this point so thoroughly in his Sermon on the Mount, his first and greatest public teaching, almost suggest a premonition that others would follow to undermine and contradict him. Jesus did not organize any great church. He led a small, itinerant band of traveling wanderers from town to town. The closest he came to establishing any kind of authority was in Matt. 16:18, when he designated an itinerant fisherman named Simon to become “Peter” the “rock” upon which his church would be founded.
Paul, in contrast, organized a great system of churches. The story of Acts is the story of Paul traveling throughout the known world, establishing great churches. His epistles, which comprise the greatest single portion of the New Testament, about a third of it, were written to maintain administrative control of this great ecclesiastical network and to standardize its doctrines, not based on the teachings of Jesus, but on his own contradictory theology.
As with so many other issues, today’s modern evangelical Christians fight for their right to expropriate public facilities for their worship and offer great churches with elaborate public worship rituals, once again coming down on the side of Paul and repudiating the simple teachings of the founder they accept, once again, in name only.
Dealing with sinners: Jesus ministered to the sinners, with no reluctance to engage adulterers, prostitutes, publicans, tax collectors, lepers, or any other “unclean” person (the whole need not a physician; a church is a hospital for sinners rather than a showcase for saints). This, of course, completely devastates the argument that god cannot be in the presence of sin by anyone who believes Jesus was god. Paul contradicts Jesus in 1Cor 5:11: “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.”
Feeding the poor: Jesus taught in Matt 25:31-46 that our final salvation and judgment would be based in large part on our willingness to feed the poor. Jesus further emphasizes the importance of feeding the poor, apart from salvation issues, repeatedly throughout his ministry (Matt 19:21; Matt: 25:31-46; Matt 26:9; Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22; John 12:6). Jesus never, not once, imposes any qualification or conditional limitation on this requirement. Paul contradicts this: 2Thess 3:10 “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.” Does this mean that if poor people are unemployed, we should turn them away from any charity?
Slavery: When the Southerners in our country sought to defend slavery, they called upon Paul to back them up, citing Ephesians 6:5 and Titus 2:9-10, in which Paul exhorts slaves to obey their masters, yet Paul never even once condemned this evil that was so widely practiced in his time. Here, Paul again contradicts Jesus, who exalted the “least of these” (Matt 25:31-46) and elevated the servants above masters (Matt 20:27 and 23:11; and Mark 9:35 & 10:44).
Equality for Women: Paul was very anti-woman. He ordered that they not be allowed to speak in the churches (1Cor 14:34-45) and that they stay home and take care of the kids (1Timothy 5:14), and that wives should be submissive to the mastery of their husbands (Ephesians 2:12; 5:22-24 and Colossians 3:18-19).
This, of course, is in direct opposition to Jesus, who elevated women — even women of lowly status such as prostitutes, Samaritans (woman by the well), and everyday women such as Mary and Martha — to a degree unprecedented for that time. Note that in Luke 10:38-42, Jesus even chastises Martha for accepting a traditional woman’s role, while he praises her sister Mary for choosing the “better part” of more active participation. This was obviously recognized by the women of that time, as Luke 8:2-3 lists the names of a number of prominent women of means who provided economic support for Jesus’ ministry.
Homosexuals: The only passage in the New Testament offered as evidence against equal rights for homosexuals is from Paul (Romans 1:24-27). Jesus himself never uttered a single word against ` relationships and, given his affinity for sinners, lepers, tax collectors, and other outcasts (the “least of these”), it is likely that in our modern times it would be Jesus who would be embracing the homosexuals rejected by those who claim to be his followers. Just as it was Paul’s words that were held up in the mid-1800’s to justify slavery, so Paul’s words today are still used to persecute others.
There has been a popular piece that has been circulated among many Christian churches and publications, using a description of Paul and his background (without identifying him) on a résumé applying for a position as a pastor and ask if you would hire him. After turning him down, the punch line is that, just knowing data and not identity, you have just rejected the Apostle Paul. The message is supposed to be about judging others but, there is another message: knowing what we do know about Paul, many Christians are inclined to find him rather unsavory. Those who claim to take upon them the name of Jesus should carefully examine Paul’s undermining of Jesus’ message and his many contradictions of Jesus and the other apostles, as well as the plain nonsense of his bloody atonement theory of human sacrifice, and then decide if they want to be Christians or Paulians.
Punishment for Adam’s sin
Paul is the one who introduces the concept of original sin and the “inheritance” of sin, in Romans 5:12, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”
Why are we, in any way whatsoever, held “responsible” for the sins of Adam and Eve? How can a person be “guilty” of something they didn’t do, which in fact was done thousands of years before they were even conceived? How can there be an “inherited” moral flaw. Morality is a matter of “right and wrong,” not a physical, tangible object. In any case, how can you be responsible for something you had nothing to do with?
If my father and mother do something wrong, why do I get punished for that? What do their wrongs have to do with my sins? Talk about unfair!
I cannot imagine that a god could be called “just” who allows people to be punished for something they have no control over: the way they were born; i.e., the way god created them. Is sin a matter of moral character, or a birth defect? Should babies born with birth defects be punished? Should we require abortions for fetuses born deformed?
It is interesting to note that while Paul invents a theology of atonement based on the offering of Jesus as a human sacrifice for sin, Jesus explicitly rejects this doctrine. The gospel according to Matthew twice, in Matt 9:13 and Matt 12:7, states that Jesus said: “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice” (KJV). More modern translations, such as the RSV and NIV, update the archaic meaning of the word “will” and translate Jesus’ statements in both verses as: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice” (emphasis added). This could not be a more explicit rejection of Paul’s later teaching.
Why Do People Follow Paul?
I have been asked occasionally why I believe so many people are willing to follow Paul. My thoughts boil down to basically two reasons:
1. It is the easy way. Jesus requires you to actually transform your character and put it into action. Paul says, “Just have faith and believe” and you get a free gift, without ever having to actually DO anything — something for nothing; the easy way out; the lazy man’s way to salvation; the free ride.
2. As has been noted previously, Paul was wealthy, educated, and had the rare status of being both a Jew and a Roman citizen, affording him both the means and papers with which to travel. He was able to travel widely, throughout the entire Roman empire, converting gullible victims by the thousands, giving him extraordinary power, and all of them had their interpretation of what Jesus taught coming by way of Paul’s version, so it gained traction early.
The doctrine of salvation by atonement through the bloody human sacrifice of a sinless substitute originates from Paul. It is fundamentally contradictory to the key principles taught by Jesus and his brother, James, yet it has become the core principle upon which evangelical Christian theology is founded. This doctrine has its own logical flaws and errors and merits further in-depth analysis and scrutiny, in the next article…
Important notice:
My book “Betrayal of Jesus,” from which these WordPress pages have been exerpted, can be ordered from Amazon.com, and Barnes and Noble.com, as well as other outlets:
Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/Betrayal-Jesus-Davis-D-Danizier/dp/0944363075/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332439832&sr=8-1
Barnes and Noble.com:
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/betrayal-of-jesus-davis-d-danizier/1109135778?ean=9780944363072&itm=1&usri=danizier
More detailed information about the book can be found on the website of my publisher, Word Wizards, at:
http://www.wordwiz72.com/danizier/
And “like” us on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Betrayal-of-Jesus-book/139490262748695
Posted on April 22, 2011, in Theology and tagged Bible, Christianity, Jesus, Religion. Bookmark the permalink. 119 Comments.
Where are your literary and historical analytics? Where in the theological process of salvation are the author’s speaking? Where are your Greek and Hebrew studies to establish the connection between the Old and New Testament? How about the significant difference in target audience and purpose for the writings of each author. I know we can all be guilty of any level of oversimplification when it comes to studies of ancient documents… Biblical or not. I would encourage you to keep studying. I know I will.
I am quite satisfied with the level of analysis, documentation and correlation between Old and New Testament I have provided in this commentary in particular and other articles on this site.
You throw out questions (that have been fully addressed in the content as anyone who actually reads them can see) as a substitute for addressing the actual points that are made in the commentary. James clearly writes in direct rebuttal to Paul. I have heard many say that they are addressing different audiences. This fails on two counts:
First, I have never seen any scripture-based evidence to support the argument that Paul and James are addressing different audiences. Many make this claim; none provide evidence that validates it. Just saying it doesn’t make it so.
Second, even if your failed premise had any merit, what difference would that make? Speaking to different audiences may inspire differences in the manner of presentation, but not the substance of what is being presented. In the passages cited here, I address the extensive SUBSTANTIAL contradictions in the definitions of what it means to be a Christian (whether or not one needs to first become Jewish and conform to the Law of Moses, as Jesus mandated unambiguously in Matthew 5:17-19 in the Sermon on the Mount) and, especially, on the basis of salvation or justification.
Acts:9:15: But the Lord said unto him [Ananias], Go thy way: for he [Saul/Paul] is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
Uhm, yes, Ray. And when a Muslim “proves” to you the Qur’an is true by quoting from the Qur’an, do you find that credible?
And both the Iliad and the Odyssey assert that Zeus is god. Do you find that credible?
Then do not be surprised when the only reaction by thinking people is to roll their eyes when you quote the Bible to prove the Bible’s claims, especially when you quote a statement from Acts, which was written by Luke, who was a follower of Paul, someone who never ever met Jesus in the flesh but had the nerve to write a biography of him decades later, if even that authorship is legitimate.
Every one Jesus spoke to was under the law of Moses,after the Holyspirrit came in acts you could be set free from the law of mose, this was a new covenant,Jesus could not teach this,because his governed by the old covenant.
Nick — your explanation gives your explanation (based on Paul’s contradiction of Jesus) for the reason that Paul directly contradicts Jesus, but does not change the fact that Paul does, in fact, contradict Jesus according to the Bible account.
What Jesus reportedly says, right there in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:17-19), is that not one dot or one iota of the Law of Moses will be abrogated from the law in the slightest manner until two things have happened: 1) heaven and earth have passed away; AND (not “or,” but “and”) 2) all things are fulfilled.
Have heaven and earth passed away? Are all things — all prophecies, including the end times — fulfilled?
Jesus did not have to say that if it were not true. If there were to be a change in the covenant, Jesus would not have to say that the Law would not be modified in any slightest way if he knew it would be modified in the way that Paul (and you) claim. Are you saying that Jesus, the son of god, whom some say is actually god himself made man, had to LIE?
And you say that, “Jesus could not teach this, because his governed by the old covenant.”
Jesus “could not” do something? The Bible says that with god all things are possible (Matt 19:26; Mark 10:27). But your explanation requires the conclusion that either Jesus is not god or that you reject the Bible’s claim of god’s omnipotence.
Bottom line: you do not reconcile this very direct contradiction between Paul and Jesus. You explain WHY they contradict, in a way that, like Paul, diminishes Jesus, but you don’t actually reconcile their inconsistency.
Wow, thank you so much for this, Davis! I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately, and was beginning to put together a lot of these ideas, but it’s great to find them so well-presented all in one place. My husband and I both grew up Southern Baptist missionary kids (that’s how we met actually!) and whereas we’re both all about the teachings of Christ, we’ve been hung up on this whole Paul thing. This past week has found me researching and pondering the issue of “why should we believe the teachings of Paul” ….with the conclusion: we shouldn’t. I think some of his teachings have inherent value just because he was one of the earliest members of Jesus’ new church, but I can’t buy that his teachings are the inerrant holy word of God by any means.
So, if we count Paul’s writings as invalid, this leaves me thinking I should perhaps be following the Torah and living a Messianic Jewish lifestyle? The more I dig, the more I find I simply have more questions. I will continue reading the rest of your articles over the next few days. Again thank you so much for taking the time to share all your findings.
Thank you for sharing your similar observations about the renegade “apostle” Paul and your kind words.
You ask, “So, if we count Paul’s writings as invalid, this leaves me thinking I should perhaps be following the Torah and living a Messianic Jewish lifestyle?” I find the question akin to asking, “So, if we count Homer’s writings as Greek myths and legends rather than inerrant, infallible, literal historical truth, this leaves me thinking I should perhaps be following the Cult of Diana and worshipping Zeus and Apollo?”
If you read some of my other articles, you will see that I am very critical of all the patriarchal, misogynistic, harsh religious traditions that trace their origins to Abraham. I do not find merit in Abraham or his teachings.
While I do find that, if one looks solely at the personæ of Jesus, at least as handed down to us in the gospels such as they are, one could fashion a theology based on universal compassionate love that includes some kind of divine role for Jesus, but it would require eliminating Paul from the equation since he so completely and directly contradicts and undermines almost everything Jesus reportedly taught, and it would also require acknowledging that the Bible, including the gospels, is the imperfect effort of fallible humans, which is the only way to explain the many direct internal contradictions, factual errors, atrocities and failed prophets, some of which I have documented in my article on the Bible.
study Islam please then everything about religion will be easy to understand
Jamil — please understand, I have read the Qur’an. I have the print edition translated by Muslim Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall as well as an online edition on my computer and a third translation for my iPhone. (I also understand that reading the English translations of the meanings of the words of the Qur’an is not the same as reading it in the original Arabic, since it is not possible to translate both the meaning of the words and also the poetic cadence.)
The Qur’an is a fraud. Mohammed is a fraud. It is just another iteration of the misogynistic, patriarchal religious tyranny of Abraham. While I understand that, as with Christians, most Muslims are secular, and there more Muslim women in bikinis than burqas, if taken literally (as few Muslims would do absent government or military tyrannical coercion), the Qur’an has as many internal contradictions, flaws and atrocities as the Bible.
Having been raised as a conservative Christian until discovering the rational and moral failings of that perspective, I have addressed some of the specific contradictions, flaws, factual errors, failed prophecies and atrocities at my own site, which is a more appropriate forum for discussions about scriptural integrity:
http://danizier.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/the-blasphemy-of-bibleolatry/
While I have read the Qur’an, engaged in dialogues with respected (moderate) Muslim friends, and feel comfortable with more understanding than most other non-Muslim Americans, fact is that I was not raised Muslim, have never been a Muslim, and thus do not feel authoritative on this subject.
Thus, I direct your attention to a site prepared by a former Muslim who is more qualified than I to discuss the specific flaws and contradictions within the fraudulent Islamic “scriptures.”
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/
jesus prayed like all the prophets prayed..by touching his forehead to the ground….abstained from pork and hard drink…fasted….the only people doing all these things today are muslims who also believe jesus will return to earth at endtimes
Sam — your comment about Jesus practicing a basically Islamic lifestyle is wrong as to both fact and principle.
It is true that, as reported in the imperfect records that have been handed down, Jesus followed the Law of Moses (and even said it would remain inviolate, in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:17-19), which forbade the consumption of pork and shrimp.
The comment about “touching his forehead to the ground” is made up out of thin air and has no supporting basis.
The idea that Jesus “abstained from … hard drink” is absurd. The Bible repeatedly and emphatically says exactly the opposite.
The New Testament reports in John 2:1-11 that Jesus’ first “miracle” was to turn water into WINE. This was his FIRST miracle reported, representing the beginning of his ministry.
Three of the four gospels (Matt 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-20) also report that Jesus COMMANDED the ritual consumption of WINE as part of their ceremonial sacrament of remembering his blood.
And make no mistake, it was WINE, not grape juice. The linguistic record known to translators is clear. The use of unfermented grape juice was rare, in an era when refrigeration and pasteurization needed to preserve grape juice in an unfermented form were unknown. And if there is any doubt, Jesus specifically noted that others referred to his consumption of WINE by calling him a “winebibber” (King James Version) or “DRUNKARD” (in most other modern translations (Luke 7:33-34 and Matt 11:18-19).
The idea that Jesus was a closet Muslim 600 years before Mohammed “married” a nine-year-old child is absurd. The Qur’an, which I have read (and of which I have three different translations) is far shorter than the New Testament alone, much less the Bible, yet has proportionately even more internal contradictions than the Bible.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra
Excellent post. In the last few years I began to suspect that Paul’s theology was different than the teachings of Jesus. In speaking with more conservative Christians it seems that the teachings of Jesus were not as important as his death and resurrection. Some Christians believe that his teachings were for those still under the Law and not yet under Grace. I disagreed with this approach. That view really does cancle out his teachings and just makes acceptance of his death and resurrection as the only thing that matters.
I recently revisited Greek philosophy to determine how much of Pauls writings were influenced by philosophy. Paula Fredriken writes that you can not create doctrine without philosophy. Doctrines require an understanding of your actions therefore are open to interpretation. Laws never fail and never change, only their application.
Pauls writing reflect a philosophy called “Manichaeism”. It simply states that everything of the flesh is evil and everything of the spirit good. How many doctrines do we base on that?
When you think about it this is why the church did away with the law. The law is of the flesh. In turn the church rejected anything Jewish.
Jerome and Augustine argued over this belief. Jerome won and translated the Hebrew and Greek into The Latin Volgate with this philosophical doctrine, and the KJV was translated from the Latin.
Finally I don’t believe that Paul was evil. His writing may have been inspired but they were definitely influenced by his education.
Deuteronomy 18;18-19 tells us that we are only accountable for the word of Yah (God) spoken to Moses and the words of Yah spoken through Yeshua (Jesus). Yeshua gives validity to the Tanak (old testament). Therefore, we would be wise not to create doctrine from the writings of Paul or the other new testament books. (the book of Revelation in the words of Yah through Yeshua).
Food for thought.
David
Any questions or comments can be sent to: davidm_cutler@yahoo.com
You make excellent points about the origins of the teachings of the renegade “apostle” Paul. While the actual conclusion as to exactly where he got this philosophy from is ultimately speculative, the fact is that Paul was clearly a person of both means and education, and your speculation is well-supported as a reasonable possibility.
But here is the point: Paul’s philosophy comes from a source other than Jesus and, for the reasons I cite in my analysis, can absolutely be shown to be in direct contradiction with Jesus. If you are correct that Paul’s doctrine is rooted in Manichaeism, which long predates Christianity or Jesus, then that further supports the conclusion that the source is other than, and different from, Jesus.
To say that Manichaeism “simply states that everything of the flesh is evil and everything of the spirit good” is clearly to oversimplify an approach to the origins of ethical theory that is far more complex and nuanced than that, but certainly that could be one simplified synopsis, and certainly consistent with Paul’s rather harsh view of morality. The idea that flesh is evil but spirit is good is to be unnecessarily divisive. We live in a universe of body, mind and spirit. They are all parts of the whole; they are not mutually exclusive and, ideally, should complement each other and reinforce each other. The idea that we worship one and revile any of the others is to repudiate the totality of the gifts bestowed on us by Nature, whether that be through means of natural selection (evolution) or some divine external force (or some combination).
One could say that to glorify just one of these gifts and the repudiation of any of the others is what is truly immoral.
My point is not so much about Paul but all of the new testament . As I stated, we are not accountable to any ones words except the heavenly Father’s either spoken to Moses: the law, or through Yeshua.
Remember, the laws, commandments, ordinances, and statutes of Yah are His covenant with His people Israel; the Jews and the ten tribes that were scattered and became a multitude of nations (fulness of Gentiles); us.Genesis 48:19
The scattered ten tribes in the nations is who Yeshua was sent to. Matthew 15:24
He was sent to them because Yah had divorced them, therefore a new covenant was needed. Jeremiah 3:8
The house of Israel broke the covenant in which Yah was a husband to them, in our new covenant He will be our God and the laws, commandment, ordinances and statutes will be written on our hearts (same laws). Jeremiah 31/31-34
The story of the prodigal son is a perfect example of this.
Paul and other new testament writers try to do away with the covenants of Yah. We should always check the new testament with the old. Yeshua did not come to create a new religion. He came to teach us how to keep the old.
It was the Catholic church that created a new man made religion. One that would be acceptable to man, not to Yah. Out of the books writen after the time of the Messiah the Catholic church chose the ones that would fit their new religion. We are commanded to be holy and to separate the holy from the profane.
In my opinion Pauls writings are no different than yours, mine or any other writings, they all have to agree with the words of Yah to Moses and the words of Yah through Yeshua.
A lot to consider.
David
The point of the piece you are responding to is about Paul, and specifically the fact that he has extensive points of direct contradiction with both Jesus and Jesus’ brother, James.
If you want to address the overall integrity, literal factual accuracy or contradictions in the Bible as a whole, I suggest that you do so on the page that addresses that topic, which can be found at:
http://danizier.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/the-blasphemy-of-bibleolatry/
As with other ancient collections of myths, fables and the early stages of attempts to develop moral and legal codes, the Bible represents important historical and cultural significance. But to take it as being literally, factually true in all its details is to exalt the superstitions of ancient, primitive, nomadic sheep herders and fishermen above real science.
Ok
David
I have done some research on the origin of the books of the New Testament (not extensive) and I don’t think you are entirely right. The Church kept the early books and pretty much threw out the latter books. They were more concerned with accuracy. And the Catholic Church, in my opinion (maybe because I’m Catholic), was not man made. Jesus did live and die and (we believe) raise from the dead. The Catholic Church lives his message and the messages of many Saints who have been gifted with revelation, and of the Holy Virgin Mary and her messages revealed to many throughout the ages. Many protestant religions live the message STRICTLY of Paul and dismiss EVERYTHING that Jesus says if it disagrees with Paul. The early church had great problems with the teaching of Paul but left the books in the NT because they were written by Paul and they considered him to be a Saint because of his great service to the growth of the faith. These books by Paul were of great controversy and one of the reasons that the Church did not like universal access to the NT. They believed people would take them as an excuse to well…question the teachings of the Church and more specifically Jesus. Jesus and Paul are at odds with each other on many issues. It was no coincidence that the reformation happened when two things were taking place in Europe. 1. The printing press 2. The growth of the middle class. People wanted to be wealthy but did not want the Catholic guilt that went along with it. So they “reformed” and threw away the teaching of the Catholic Church that we have to suffer in this world to gain the next. And since they no longer had a Pope and final authority, their final authority became the Bible. And anyone could interpret it. Hence the 20,000 protestant religions today. They threw away all the miracles and revelations of 1500 years. The held the Bible as the actual word of God. Not of a historical collection of books all written by different imperfect people. It was this hysterical reaction of the protestants that led to the enlightenment and the rejection of things religious by educated people.
Paul the FALSE APOSTLE
PAUL claims in Eph.1[10] that God: At the Right Time He (God) Will Bring Everything Together under the Authority of Christ– Everything In Heaven And On Earth.
Jesus after paying the price on the cross says in Matthew 28[18]
“I Have Been Given All Authority In Heaven And On Earth.
Paul is right HE PREACHES HIS OWN GOSPEL NOT THE GOSPEL OF JESUS
I al am reminded again – when Jesus was offered power, he rejected it. But Paul loved power. I decided long ago that men who seek the presidency have one of 3 weaknesses: the love of power (LBJ) , the love of women (Clinton), or the love of alcohol (Nixon). I think. Paul was seduced by power because he hated women.
i don’t think it would serve much purpose for me to itemize all the deficiencies and contextomy present in the author’s document. However, I want to assure others that might read it that it is insufficient and erroneous in many areas. Certainly there are differences in the gospel and audience between Jesus’ and Paul’s ministry. I would not like to think that anyone believes that it comes close to being unchallenged by the actual scripture message.
It is too bad that the author did not, at least attempt to consider the audience, time and purpose of the two ministries.
John Alston —
To respond to material that is extensively documented with scriptural and linguistic support by essentially saying that you don’t need to justify at all why you can “assure” others that it is wrong, just because you say so, reflects the dogmatic authoritarianism of the Pauline perversion of Jesus’ simple teachings. Rational persons based views on facts and evidence, not the authoritarian pronouncements of those who just say “trust me” and then pass the plate.
The time was very nearly the same. The audience was the same which Peter and James had. Are you suggesting the message changes acourding to who you speak to? Is this the “good word” of Christ? I have spent many years of my life feeling that Paul is at odds with Peter, James, and most all, of Christ.
Yes, Richard, my response to John was to note that he had simply replied to material documented with wild claims that had no documentation of his own.
Your response does make an important point: while the differentiation in the audience being addressed is not as obvious or certain as John might have been told (Romans 1:7 notes that Paul is writing to “ALL” in Rome, which is rather inclusive of Jew, Gentile and convert), it is certainly suspicious when one suggests that the early Christian leaders taught different gospels and different doctrines to different audiences. The point of my article is to demonstrate, with chapter and verse, that on a key point — perhaps THE key point — of doctrine, regarding the essence of salvation itself, Paul taught a message that was 100% diametrically opposed to that taught by Jesus and his brother James.
I further demonstrate conclusively, with chapter and verse, a number of other significant points in which Paul directly contradicts Jesus (and James). Responding to this extensive documentation by merely saying, “Ain’t so,” with no supporting documentation, only confirms that even the writer knew he had nothing.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Behold, “Danizier” – a man fighting with all his heart (and all the ammunition of the most clever spirits of deception and trickery) to annihilate that still small voice that whispers to him of his tragic folly.
You tragically underestimate the wit of the ancient Serpent and equally sabotage yourself with the overestimation of your own, Sir.
Repent!
“Christian” —
I provide specific facts with references.
You respond with incantations of superstition based on talking snakes and legends from ancient Bronze-age sheep herders leavened with generalized condemnations and name calling, but do not respond to a single reference or point of substance provided.
I stand proudly with referenced fact over superstition and attempts at insults that bear far more resemblance to the renegade “apostle” Paul than to the gentle compassion of Jesus.
Yesterday i watched video (“Oprah Denies Christ”) condemning Oprah Winfrey for saying: “Here many ways for being in the world..millions ways or paths to God…” Women waving with fingers before Oprah, parroting name of Jesus like a broken money or change. For not-christian people it looks like …how to say it…like procurator staying near of dead corpse and judging sternly the apostate. Really for them Jesus is dead and hopelessly absent.
Even if they advocating idea “Jesus is only way!” bigotry prove namely opposite.
I like. You. You do Jesus. Credit. He would like yo
u too. J IMHO.
You didn’t discuss how Sabbath went from. Saturday to Sunday in Roman times. With conversion to major accepted. Religion. Incredible betrayal of. Heritage.
Patricia, I would agree that the unceremonious rejection of the Sabbath established in the Law of Moses is yet another example of the betrayal of the commitment Jesus expressed in Matthew 5:18 when he stated that there would not be the slightest abridgment of the Law until ALL things were fulfilled (which would include all prophecies including the End Times) and heaven and earth were destroyed.
I certainly would not attempt to claim that my small effort here pretends to be a complete compilation of all the ways in which Jesus was betrayed and undermined by the renegade “apostle” Paul.
May I ask, then, Danzier, what denomination of Christianity do you follow? Reading the Bible and articles on the life of Paul, I’ve come to question a lot of contradictions between him and Jesus, him and the other apostles, and him and James. I’m just wondering what you subscribed to as opposed to a Pauline form of Christianity.
Cory, I do not subscribe to any denomination of Christianity. Those who read these articles, especially the one “Betrayal of Jesus,” will see my admiration for some of the teachings attributed to Jesus, and a recognition of the insightful construction of the ethical system he reportedly introduced, but will also see that I do not see any need to consider him a singularly divine “Son of God” (any more than any of the rest of us) or “Redeemer” or “Savior” in any way. I just don’t see the moral or theological need for it.
That said, I also recognize that it could be possible to construct a rationally-consistent theological belief system that includes a divine role for Jesus, as long as it did not center around a belief in (or worship of) the Bible as being inerrant and infallible, since the opposite can clearly be demonstrated as in my article on Bibleolatry or a belief in Jesus’ primary role being that of an atoning human sacrifice, for the reasons outlined in my article on that subject.
I appreciated the anti-sacrificial stance in the article very much. This is consistent with the Luke/Acts perspective (which differs from other Gospels and Paul) where Jesus dies not for the sins of the people but to show the sins of the people, after which they are restored to God with simple repentance.
I also wanted to point out that you seem to be conflating works of the law (keeping the law of Moses) with the good works. Bart Ehrman argues in Forged and other books that Paul is specifically speaking against the works of the law, e.g. Christians don’t have to become Jewish first and only then follow Jesus, while deutero-Pauline and pastoral epistles (which are likely not written by Paul) speak of good works, which becomes a discussion in Christian circles decades after the Gentile-Jewish Christian conflict.
Anyone can spin words and “assume”what the writer had intended to say. You cannot prove James was contradicting Paul. Any reasonable person can research and discover that Paul and James were writing to different people whom struggled with different portions of the faith. In your example of Abraham, James (writing to Christian Jews) looked at Abrahams offering of isaac differently. It was a demonstration of Abrahams Faith in Gods promises. His willingness to sacrifice his son proved his faith in his “sky god” as u call him. It wasn’t the act that caused God to account Abraham righteous but his faith alone. His faith was acted out in his offering. No man will ever be moved to action without faith. But no mans faith is genuine unless it moves him to action. All the bible scholars( there occupation) follow this belief. Is that your Occupation as well? this is not an a conflict between Paul and James. James was speaking to Christian Jews who needed to know the difference. Faith without works isn’t really faith at all. This is not complicated.
Jon, you missed the point I made and then badly misstated the scriptural record.
I clearly acknowledged that any discussion of motives or intent is speculative. That said, speculative considerations do provide insight when supported by specific factual references.
You claim that Paul and James are writing to different audiences, as if you believe that god tells different stories to different audiences. Either something is true or it isn’t. But even this bizarre distortion of logic fails to stand up to the contextual content of the passages.
When you say that Paul and James are writing to different audiences, you just say it. You cite no supporting evidence, no scriptural reference, NOTHING.
Obviously, someone told you this once, so you just accept it on sheep-like blind faith, no questions asked, no documentation demanded, or else you have FIBricated this on your own in a desperate grasping at made-up straws. If you read the introductions of Paul’s passage that I cited from Romans (see Romans 1:7) and the passage from the brother of Jesus, James, that I cited (see James 1:1) you will see that they are both speaking to exactly the same audience.
The idea that Jews or non-Jews would see Abraham different is not only without support other than your own presumptive say-so, but defies logic. Why would facts change based on the audience? Why does your god feel the need to change her story depending on who she is talking to? It makes no sense.
The reality is that Saul/Paul made statements that directly contradicted Jesus, as I specifically documented with chapter and verse and which you deny, while offering absolutely no support for that denial. By the time Saul/Paul wrote his epistles (letters) opposing Jesus’ teachings, Jesus was long dead and could not defend himself. But his brother, James, did. While lacking in the financial and educational advantages of the elitist Saul/Paul, James had the street smarts and wit that seems to have run in his family. While Peter, who couldn’t even stay awake the night of Jesus’ death and who denied him three times, fell quickly under the spell of the wealthy, educated, erudite Saul/Paul’s charms, Jesus’ brother James was not so easily taken in. James uses exactly the same language, exactly the same syntactical construction and exactly the same words, and even the same scriptural example of Abraham and Isaac, to refute Saul/Paul. For you to claim, with no citation whatsoever, that they are talking about something different is to be deluded into a fantasy of epic proportion.
Gen. 22:15 “Oracle of the lord- because you acted as you did in not witholding your son… I will bless you… because you OBEYED MY COMMAND.” Of couse the “Jews” look at it differently, they actually KNOW the scripture.
Pauline people are crazy. I have been going at it with a few of them. They insist that the words of Paul are necessary and the words of Jesus are not enough. The problem is that they think the New Testament floated down from heaven. They show no sign of having enough energy to really study where the NT comes from and who wrote it etc… I can’t figure out if they really are good people duped by bad religion or if they knowingly embrace the Pauline concept of salvation to excuse their worldly lives. Considering how mean and degrading they are I think it’s the latter. They can not be reasoned with. It’s a cult plain and simple.
Correction: My previous post should have been addressed to Jon Wilkes and not ‘Ivan’.
I find it absurd that you believe Paul, whom persecuted Christians, would give up his respected position among his peers as well as his wealth and standing among the Jews of his time to convert so he could create his own religion by contradicting Christ. That he would endure severe beatings, survive being stoned and purposefully continue to preach the gospel knowing he would be imprisoned for life all so he could secretly undermine the “true” meaning of how one should be saved because he felt like it. No sir. That is so far from logical it’s truely absurd. Would you suffer 39 lashes with a whip so you could share this propaganda with the world? I think not.
I find it absurd that someone could look at the lengthy list of specific contradictions I cited, with chapter and verse, between Jesus and Paul and then, after Jesus’ death, between Paul and Jesus’ surviving brother, James, writing in defense of his murdered brother, and then simply deny, with no specific rebuttal, that these numerous, profound contradictions, many on critical points of doctrine, simply do not exist. Just deny them. Sorry, Jon, but they are there. I cited them. They’re there.
I do not know, neither do I claim to understand, what motivated Saul/Paul to do what he did. We do know that he was an early persecutor of Christians, and even held the coats of those who stoned the apostle Stephen, the first Christian martyr (Acts 7:58; 22:20). Perhaps he simply found a more effective way to persecute, undermine and destroy the teachings of Jesus he so despised. Whatever the motive, it is pure speculation. What cannot be denied, and what you have not even attempted to address, is that, for whatever reason, even if purely due to innocent error (not likely given his education, wealth, erudition and station), he did, in fact, repeatedly and fundamentally contradict Jesus, on many points of doctrine, including even the whole basis of justification and salvation.
Ivan, I find your comment interesting as I recognize it as identical to the trained response Jehovah’s Witnesses give when someone points out to them the numerous contradictions in the New Testament between what Paul taught and how it contradicts Jesus’ own teachings.
The logic of your rebuttal is as follows: ‘Why would anyone in such a respected position, comfort and wealth, put themselves in such peril and hardship”. The clue to the answer is in Pauline Christianity’s fixation and obsession with sin and guilt. The hallucination Saul had on the road to Damascus was a disturbing revelation to him that effected him severely and acknowledged the deep seated guilt within his own heart for the persecution he had committed against Christians.
What better way to atone for that pathological experience of guilt than to devote your life to the very symbol that those who you had previously persecuted worshipped, i.e. Jesus. The persecution and hardship that followed for Paul was a welcome punishment in his self righteous mind for the heinous wrong doings he had previously committed. Unfortunately, Paul’s ego strayed away from the original teachings of Jesus in order to establish his own Pauline Church, a necessary step it would seem due the Jesus’ own prohibition of public worship [John 6:6].
Jesus had no problem with people preaching the good word, but when it came to worshiping YHWH in prayer, that was to be an interaction to be acted out in a personal and private meditation with the Father himself, not amongst others in a public display. So anyone praying in public, in a congregation, goes against the teachings of Christ, the Messiah and son of God, and is rather a follower of Paul’s mystery cult of sin and salvation.
Salvation by faith alone is a direct slap in the face of Catholicism which these non-christian sects, know as protestants, were rebeling against. Grant it at the time there were quite a few abuses in the Catholic church. But to rebel against the doctrine of the church, instead of the bad clergy, was intentional. The bad acts of the clergy were used as an excuse to create a new religion that did not hold them to such high standards of behavior and also to glorify themselves as leaders. Once again, protestants that believe in salvation by faith alone are NOT Christians. They do not live by the words of Christ and have also tossed by the wayside 1500 years of miracles and intercessions of heaven. They follow the words of Paul EXCLUSIVELY. I have never heard them quote Jesus! I don’t mean to talk bad of Paul because he was a great man but he had to craft a message that would be accepted by each new people he encountered. If he knew he was contributing to the Bible his writings may have looked a little different.
Danizier: I’ve read through all of your comments by you and others.
What if the Bible were just the blue print of the wide road and the narrow road of which Jesus often spoke?
The road is there for anyone to choose who actually takes the time to read it.
The fact that Paul has so many inconsistencies would move a rational person to reject Paul, if one has the faith of a child. Only a Pharisee would be able to follow Paul’s logic and the logic that it takes in convoluted “word-smithing” to rationalize the differences.
Moreover, the decrepit state of nearly every denomination of Pauline-churches openly testifies to the rejection of the teachings of Christ. I have yet to ever hear a pastor or teacher read the whole Beatitutudes in front of their congregation.
If the Pauline teachings are the wide road, then it can be argued that Christ’s teachings are the narrow road.
‘But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name…’ (John 1:12)
‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.’ (John 5:24)
‘Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God…’ (1 John 5:1)
So, we see by Scripture that being born of God and having everlasting life is by recieving the gift of God’s faith.
‘And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.’ (Mark 1:15)
‘Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.’ (1 John 5:1-2)
‘Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner… But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.’ (1 Peter 2:7,9)
And we also see by Scripture that having God’s faith is immediately accompanied with repentance from sin and showing the good works of God.
Which Scriptural doctrine of salvation AND doing good through faith is summed up with:
‘For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. ‘ (Ephesians 2:8-10)
Again, Robert, you simply deny what I wrote and then pretend you have addressed it.
I do not dispute that Paul championed good works, just as I do not dispute that Jesus and James championed faith.
But right here, copied directly from my article that you pretend does not exist, is how I addressed the difference:
Jesus (and James) state that both faith and compassionate deeds are good, but that compassionate deeds are what get you into heaven (but faith is good because it motivates you to do the good deeds, but is not absolutely mandatory). [Note that the article also notes Jesus’ statements on salvation by deeds in which faith or grace are never even mentioned in entire self-contained passages,]
Paul states that both faith and compassionate deeds are good, but that faith is what gets you into heaven (but compassionate deeds are good because they are a reflection of the sincerity of faith, but not absolutely mandatory).
Robert, I am not going to continue to entertain responses that simply exert denial of points made in the articles, or which simply exert denial without any point of substance attached.
“I cite the example of Christians who never did one darn act of kindness or decency but had faith, and cite examples of extraordinary compassion by Jews or Buddhists who do NOT accept Jesus as their savior…” danizier
‘And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?’ (Luke 6:46)
‘They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.’ (Titus 1:16)
‘Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only…For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.’ (James 2:24,26)
‘But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.’ (1 John 3:17-18)
In the first matter of hypocrites claiming a faith they do not live by nor show, you agree with Scripture. Faith ‘only’ types are in error, which neither Jesus and His apostles preached, as seen above…
The former case is not germain to this dispute concerning Jesus and Paul. That would be better placed within the context of ‘One Way’ to God’s heaven (John 14:6), and there being only ‘One true’ God (1 John 5:20), or not.
You do not address the relevant point I cited:
When Jesus said in Matt 25:31-46 that those who showed universal compassionate love for “the least of these” would be saved and those who did not would not, he did not predicate that on faith, acceptance or affiliation with his movement. Jesus: compassion = salvation. No other qualification. It is a self-contained, complete passage.
According to Jesus, the starving Jew in a concentration camp, who has NOT accepted Jesus, who, despite his own hunger pangs, imparts from his meager rations to alleviate the suffering of another, would be saved. But according to Paul, and those who accept his version (which not all Christians do), this noble hero would NOT be saved because he has not accepted Jesus as savior. But a child rapist/murderer who accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior on his deathbed could be granted acceptance into eternal life.
My apologies if you can’t understand why I utterly repudiate the disgusting injustice that passes for “salvation” in this perversion of Jesus’ teachings.
A non-believing and classicly trained friend of mine made this comment once. “When people want to undermine the Bible or Christianity, they attack Paul first…”
And the unbelieving Jews of the day persecuted Paul above all the Apostles for his zealous spreading of the faith of Jesus.
And the liberals of today who want to claim Jesus for themselves also attack Paul first because he lists the deeds of unrighteousness that prove the absence of Jesus’ faith in the heart.
And here we have an attack on Paul for declaring salvation by faith, and not demanding enough works of righteousness…
Gosh, It certainly would be better Paul had not been born, if he were actually a corrupter of the Doctrine of Christ.
But then, the same must then be said for Peter, who condemned all of Paul’s ‘unlearned and unstable’ attackers, who wrested the Scriptures he wrote (as well as those written by the rest of the Apostles) to their own destruction…(2 Peter 3:16)
So, as Paul stood in defense of the Gospel of Christ, I’ll be glad to stand in defense of all the Scriptures, including those written by Paul, as being given by inspiration of God.
You’ll note God with a capital ‘G’. You folks do know that danizier is an atheist. or if he does believe, it is in a god that he ought not…I mean, the picture ought be a bit of a clue too. Not that I have anything personal against unblievers, atheists, etc.. But when they put forth themselves as such authorities on God and Christ also??
More unbelieving instructors for believers on how to believe…or not. Funny.
Robert, the reason those citing New Testament errors start with Paul is because his direct contradictions with Jesus are simply so obvious and so numerous. While there are other contradictions, and I have cited them on other pages, none is as striking and blatant as those of Paul against Jesus.
You say that you will “defend” the writings of Paul, but you don’t. Whereas I offered numerous specific examples, with chapter and verse, you did not defend against them or in any way justify why these direct contradictions really aren’t. All you do is go off on generalizations and attempts at personal insults that have not the slightest elements of substance.
Since you have not challenged one single specific point I made, backed up by numerous specific examples with chapter and verse, you have offered nothing that requires a response other than to simply point that out.
Well said Danizier. Robert fails to engage with the content of what you say completely. And I’m unsure why he cites those who believe in God as the ones who are to be trusted when it comes to scriptural interpretation. If anything, due to the bias of a theist’s faith, he or she is more likely to go outside and subjectively read into the literal content of the Holy Bible; but then again, that’s the foundation upon which all religious institutions and cults are based.
I think the real reason critics focus on Paul is because he was quite obviously such a pathologically deceitful and dishonest human being who hijacked the teachings of a good man and transformed them into exactly that which Jesus taught against.
And Danizier, I did find one theme of agreement between Jesus and Paul which you critiqued in your writing. Public/private worship, Romans 2:28-9 seems to be on the same theme and in agreement with Jesus as outlined in Matthew 6:5. Your thoughts?
Adrian, it is true that Paul repeatedly and consistently contradicted and undermined the teachings attributed to Jesus, in points of doctrine both small and large which, coupled with his high level stature among the conservative denominations of “Christians,” is what makes him such an obvious point of attention for those trying to demonstrate the utter inconsistency of the first century Christian movement.
But as you point out, and as I point out in some of the other articles, there are also points in which Paul and Jesus find occasional agreement. You cite one example. Another example is the failed prophecy attributed to Jesus in Matthew 24:34 where, among many marvelous predictions of the end times, he predicts that these signs and wonders will occur within the lifetimes of the “current generation” or those currently living at the time Jesus spoke those words. Some “Christians” use all kinds of contortions to try to explain why Jesus actually didn’t mean that his contemporaries would witness the end times, but when Paul teaches the same thing in I Thessalonians 4:15-17, he makes it even more unambiguously clear that Jesus is prophesied to return within the lifetimes of those still alive at the time the epistle is written.
Hello Danizier, I have not continued in offering any defense, because I first wanted to see if I would be accepted into the argument on your site. Since I am, I will be glad to continue.
First, let me say that I am, by past experience of necessity, a strict reader of Scripture, as well as any other writings (including your own), and I take them exactly as they are written, and would apply them as such, before moving any further towards expanding them with a contextual sense of their meaning. And I would like to be treated the same.
Therefore, I would like to clarify my greater intent to defend all the writings of the Bible from Genesis – Revelation, as being one whole and complete work, without inner contradiction, of which the ‘writings of Paul’ are a part. As Paul wrote, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…Whether one believes what is written therein, or not, is entirely up to them, since God Himself has given us all individual free will, and by our own works we shall be judged. (Psalms 106:39, Prov 31:31, Rom 2:6)
With that in mind, I believe your main complaint against Paul of contradicting Jesus, is that he declares that life with God is by faith ‘only’, excluding works, whereas Jesus plainly calls all people, especially believers of God, to be doing the good works of God in their own lives, which begins with the commandments to love God from the heart, and loving your neighbor as yourself.
Is this so?
If this were the case with Paul, I also would heartily agree with you.
(Also, what of Peter’s confirmation of Paul’s writings being Scripture as well as the rest, and warning against wresting them to one’s own destruction? I would be interested. Thanks…Robert)
Your assertion that it is your “intent to defend all the writings of the Bible from Genesis – Revelation, as being one whole and complete work, without inner contradiction” bespeaks complete nonsense.
The books of the Bible were written by mortal humans, of primitive origin. They are not scientific and have many historical and factual errors. Further, as is expected of a work written over hundreds of years by scores of different writers, it is riddled with hundreds of direct internal contradictions. You can spout this nonsense about it not being so, but the fact is that on my Bible page I have cited several key examples, and provided a link to HUNDREDS of additional specific examples.
For you to just say “ain’t so” without addressing one single specific point is simply denial. I am not going to continue to include comments that just keep repeating vain denials that completely lack substance.
If you wish to address the many direct factual errors and internal contradictions of the Bible, please do so on the page that addresses that subject:
http://danizier.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/the-blasphemy-of-bibleolatry/
As for the contradiction between Paul and Jesus, yes, the primary difference between them is about the mechanism of salvation. Jesus says one thing very clearly and Paul says something that is not only different, but contradictory, and is subsequently rebutted by Jesus’ brother, James, as I have cited.
That is NOT, however, the ONLY contradiction between them. I have cited additional examples on this page and, since you have not addressed any of them (in fact, denied that there were any others), you have not provided any substance to rebut.
Denial is not a substitute for addressing points of substance.
Guy, Abraham was justified by works alone. Him and his wife laughed in God’s face, but were justified, because they still followed his word. Try reading the OT without Paul’s glasses, you’ll get a whole new picture… the REAL picture.
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS Thank you!!! I get so tired of people calling Paul the best of the Apostles (the wanker wasnt even an apostle!) Everyone is so ready to take EVERYTHING in the bible as a truth without thinking of who it was really that compiled all of the books into the bible. God didn’t bind the book. A ROMAN emperor and his band of warriors compiled what we call the canonized bible. I wish people wouldnt so blindly follow. KEEP UP THE AWESOME WORK!!!
I also just stumbled accross your site and all I can say is that it is truly a very interesting read indeed. I cannot comment at all, only to say that this is extremely insightful and I find your answers to everybody’s concerns, defense and criticism of your interpretation of Jesus vs Paul, and even other out of context remarks that you cover elsewhere, extremely researched and to the point. It really throws a punch at the way the Christian religion and the Christian bible has been and still is being handled by and for the masses to keep them uninformed and ignorant to the actual message in the bible and Jesus’s teachings. It truly is an eye opener to someone that has had doubts as to why certain verses and especially Paul’s teachings tended to be out of sync with the rest of the bible and especially Jesus’s teachings, but could never really pinpoint it so clearly. I am not always online, but will most surely pop in to read more of your essays, Mr Danizier.
My word, I hope I am making sense in what I am trying to say.
Thank you.
Wynand Bezuidenhout
Hello Davis, I find the idea behind your book very thought provoking and interestingly similar to the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s critique of Pauline Christianity, but at the same time Nietzsche’s admiration of Jesus.
Your reading of the Holy Bible is very accurate and scholarly. I’m impressed.
Out of curiosity, what is your own belief? Are you Christian, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, or none of the aforementioned?
Here’s a few quotes from Nietzsche that seem to be aligned with your thesis:
[158] ‘What did Christ deny? Everything that is today called Christian.’
[160] ‘He (Jesus) likewise ignores the entire system of crude formalities governing intercourse with God: he opposes the whole teaching of repentance and atonement; he demonstrates how one must live in order to feel “deified” – and how one will not achieve it through repentance and contrition for one’s sins: “Sin is of no account” is his central judgement.”
[161] ‘The Kingdom of Heaven is a condition of the heart (-it is said of children “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”) Not something “above the Earth.” The Kingdom of God does not “come” chronologically-historically, on a certain day in the calendar, [...] it is an “inward change in the individual,” something that comes at every moment and at every moment has not yet arrived -
[162] The Thief on the Cross: – When even the criminal undergoing a painful death declares: “the way this Jesus suffers and dies, without rebelling, without enmity, graciously, resignedly, is the only right way,” he has affirmed the gospel: and with that he is in Paradise-
[163] Neither by deeds nor in your heart should you resist him who harms you. [...]
You should make no distinction between strangers and neighbours, foreigners and fellow countrymen.
You should be angry with no one, you should show contempt to no one. Give alms in secret. You should not want to become rich. You should not swear. You should not judge. You should be reconciled with foes; you should forgive. Do not pray publicly.
“Bliss” is not something promised: it is there if you live and act in such and such a way.
[167] Christianity: a naive beginning to a Buddhistic peace movement in the very seat of ressentiment – but reversed by Paul into a pagan mystery doctrine, which finally learns to treat with the entire state organisation – and wages war, condemns, tortures, swears, hates.
This is the humour of the situation, a tragic humour: Paul re-erected on a grand scale precisely that which Christ had annulled through his way of living.
[168] – The Church is precisely that against which Jesus preached – and against which he taught his disciples to fight -
[169] A god who dies for our sins: redemption through faith; resurrection after death – all these are counterfeits of true Christianity for which that disastrous wrong headed fellow [Paul] must be held responsible.
Hi Adrian — While Nietzsche is coming at it from a different perspective, he is seeing what is there, and seeing and reporting the same phenomena, the resulting reports are naturally likely to bear some resemblance.
I have prepared this site as a commentary on Christianity and how it has, for the most part, strayed significantly from what Jesus taught. Christianity is where I come from, but not where I am today. Therefore, the emphasis of any writings about Christianity by a former Christian, explaining why I chose the different path I did and sharing my observations with those who may be experiencing similar struggles but haven’t quite reinvented the wheel, will focus on where I came from, and not where I am today.
The one concession I have made to that is in the final essay in the series, “Is There a God?”:
http://danizier.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/is-there-a-god/
In this essay, I address the reasons for and against a belief in a higher power (not necessarily the same thing as a “supreme” being who is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-righteous; perhaps merely more-knowing, more-powerful and more-righteous) and my personal thoughts on the matter.
One might choose to label this admixture of perspectives as quasi-Pagan, deist (in the sense of Jefferson and Paine), agnostic or some blend, but certainly not outright atheist and certainly not as one who remains an adherent of any of the cruel legacies of the vicious Abrahamic sky god of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions.
The resolution of this apparent dichotomy is pretty straight forward if not so commonly understood.
We are indeed saved by faith (as Paul says).
But faith – if it is TRUE FAITH – will by default yield righteousness and good works, for as James says in 2:17
“Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead,
being by itself”
Faith is not the words “I believe in…”
Faith is (or includes)… the experience of grace in acceptance.
When we in faith, truly accept God’s grace, then we will have “nothing to boast about” for it will not be “I” who am righteous but God’s righteousness that work through me.
And without the experience of grace we can have no faith for it is the *experience* of God’s grace that inspiries our faith.
M Luther had all the pieces, he just couldn’t quite bring it all together, and so for him James (or “Jimmy” as he once referred to the epistle of James) was made of “straw”. Too bad because James and Paul (when correctly understood) are not in conflict but are mutually complimentary.
The key is this:
When we lean only on our “good works” we become mere politicos, we become arrogant and self righteous – tough to get into heaven that way.
But also, if we lean on our so called “faith” believing that we are already there because we simply “said” we believe then these may just be empty and meaningless words that fail to SHOW a true and real faith that changes or saves lives.
Either error is overcome by simply giving “all glory to God” in the truest sense of that phrase.
Not my will but HIS be done.
Doug, you are simply trying to use semantics to change what is a very direct contradiction between Jesus and Paul, and then James, the brother of Jesus, coming to his dead brother’s defense.
In Matt 25:31-46, Jesus’ last general teaching before going up into the Upper Room for the Last Supper and the “end of things,” and the only time in which, in mortality, he personally describes the final judgment, predicates the final determination of salvation solely on our actions, in a self-contained passage that never once mentions faith. This is not to say Jesus didn’t think faith was important. He did. There are many favorable references to faith. But he established a behavioral component as the standard on which salvation would be awarded or denied. Similarly in Luke 10:25-37, when Jesus is asked what is the great commandment in the Law (of Moses, which Paul later throws under the cosmic bus), Jesus cites (from the Old Testament, the Law) the commands to love god and love your neighbor (and, per Matt 25:31-46, the first is fulfilled in the second, “…you did it unto me.”), and then says “this DO and you will live,” again with no mention at all of faith in the entire self-contained passage.
In my treatise above, I cite the example of Christians who never did one darn act of kindness or decency but had faith, and cite examples of extraordinary compassion by Jews or Buddhists who do NOT accept Jesus as their savior; you and Paul would have them cast into eternal darkness while Jesus would welcome them in with the eternal embrace saying, “Well done, thou good and faithful servants.”
Again, your deal in semantic doublespeak, going through tortured mental gyrations trying to explain why James rebuttal does not really mean what is so very clearly says. Sure, like Jesus, James saw merit in faith. And again, read what I wrote in the article, which I doubt you actually read, since it fully addresses your concerns: “Jesus (and James) state that both faith and compassionate deeds are good, but that compassionate deeds are what get you into heaven (but faith is good because it motivates you to do the good deeds, but is not absolutely mandatory).
Paul states that both faith and compassionate deeds are good, but that faith is what gets you into heaven (but compassionate deeds are good because they are a reflection of the sincerity of faith, but not absolutely mandatory).
You seem to suggest that I am claiming that one can “earn” salvation through works. Not at all. I am saying that IF one believes that Jesus, having “paid the price” (which he did not; see my Atonement page), has the right to judge us, then it is Jesus, NOT PAUL, who gets to set the standard. Paul says the standard is faith. Jesus said the standard is rooted in deeds. Guess what, according to even your own failed mythology, Jesus gets to decide, not Paul, and he said it is deeds. You say “HIS will be done” but then you repudiate Jesus in favor of Paul. And this is only one of the many direct contradictions between Paul and Jesus (backed up by James).
Please, before you respond, actually read the article. All of the material in this response is from the article. If you had actually read it before “responding,” you might have approached it much differently, if at all.
I would like you to define how we earn salvation? if it is by keeping the law and everyword Jesus spoke then who sir will be saved……. anyone? I think not. And if it is by keeping all of his words then once we did (which we could not) then would we need his sacrifice on the cross? Would we not have earned our own salvation? and if your going to say no because we sinned before we came to know Jesus and thats the sins he died for, then your saying that once we believed then for the rest of our life we could not sin? wow… I would say impossible which would lead us back to being saved through faith in him and what he did, NOT BY WORKS. You sir are trying to bring us back under the law, the bible says no flesh shall be justified by the law.. because we cant keep it. HIS GRACE IS SUFFICIENT FOR ME
As for EARNING salvation? Your comment fails on two grounds
1. If Jesus’ atonement (human sacrifice myth) “pays the price” and gives him the right to absolve our sins, then he gets to set the standard, not Paul, and he included works/deeds/actions and not merely faith alone, as part of that standard that Paul contradicts. It is not necessarily that one has EARNED anything, any more than faith or belief is EARNING anything. It is the standard that Jesus himself set, not Paul and, according to your human sacrifice myth, Jesus is the one who gets to make that call. For more on the fallacies of your atonement myth, and why Jesus did NOT pay any “price,” check my atonement page.
http://danizier.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/bloody-human-sacrifice-atonement-mythology/
2. The idea that one slightest sin or imperfection requires not only the cosmic death penalty, but the eternal torture of “fireboarding,” is like saying that the infraction of jaywalking should be punished not by mere capital punishment, but by torture from a heavenly “father” because “he loves us.” If you expect this to convince people that such a cruel, vengeful deity is a loving god, please understand if your argument falls short. Again, I have further addressed the fallacies and the injustices of your bloody human sacrifice atonement myth on the page dedicated to that subject.
You are so wrong sir! Jesus himself said that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Jesus himself said that we must believe or we are condemed….. not for works but for not believing in him (go back and read John 3:16-18). If the way to salvation was by keeping his word completely none would be saved, no man could do it and that is the sole purpose for his death on the cross. Paul knew this, he knew that no man could be justified by works. Now I agree true faith produces works but the works come from a redeemed heart given by faith in him. You should take this site down sir because you will be held accountable for teaching hearsy yourself. Paul understood that everything points to Jesus we are nothing he is everything… we cannot earn our salvation by works but like Abraham we must be willing to forsake all and follow, we must be willing to (sacrifice Isaac) if thats what he calls us to do. Its complete hope in Christ to be made right with God. When we realize that it changes us and produces works.
Donny — I understand that the gospel of John (written over a hundred years after the death of Jesus) quotes Jesus as saying that those who believe will be saved. I have cited specific, self-contained passages that show Jesus saying the opposite. So at best, you are providing another example of a Bible contradiction. I do not cite this as a contradiction on my contradictions page, though, because of the rest of the passage that you omitted. John 3:16 says what you noted, but the same passage, in the same paragraph division, goes on in verses 19-21 to close out the passage, to discuss the need for DEEDS (actions; works). So unlike Paul, who refers to faith APART FROM deeds, Jesus does not impose that separation.
In any case, my Bible contradictions page cites many reasons why I do not accept the Bible as being infallible or inerrant, because there are so many hundreds of specific examples of factual errors, internal contradictions and failed prophecies. I am not really fearful of what your old book of myths says, any more than you are likely concerned with warnings to you from the Qur’an, Bhagavad Gita or Veda.
http://danizier.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/the-blasphemy-of-bibleolatry/
O.k. the part of scripture that you say I omitted is this..
19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
we establish in 16 that he loved us and sent his son and we must believe in him to be saved
17. we learn he did not send him to condemn but to provide a way of escape
18. we learn again how we escape the penalty of our sin (which is by believing) and the way we do not escape is by not believing.(our choice) not works or no works
19. now we learn the cause for our condemnation in the first place…. because men loved darkness rather then light and their deeds were evil! but light came into the world. who is the light? JESUS
20. everyone who has an evil nature hates the light (JESUS) they do not want to come to him for fear that they may expose their true nature of rebellion to God and be reproved. in other words they want to do what they want to do.
21.finally here we see that there are some who will choose to do the right thing and come to the light found only in the true light (JESUS) he will save and redeem them and
they will want to do what is right and clear and honoring.
Your recitation of the rest of the passage confirms what I said about it.
You are not contradicting any of my points, nor have you responded to any of my points about the (lack of) infallibility / inerrancy of the Bible (better addressed in the comments for that page) or the fact that not one single claim about Jesus as an atoning human sacrifice (also better addressed in the comments for the appropriate page) holds up under scrutiny, even when your own facts are accepted.
Donny,
It’s hard to defend a city with no walls, and it is just as hard to defend a religion based on a book full of fallacies.
Agree with the main point here. I have had this discussion with Christians, and they just will not see the contradiction between Paul and Jesus on salvation. They have to come up with some really inventive ways of ‘interpreting’ Jesus’ sayings. I say ‘interpreting’, because they don’t need interpreting, the meanings of Jesus are plain. They say that when Jesus is talking to the rich young ruler, he is holding up the law as a ‘mirror’ to him…so he could theoretically follow the law and go to heaven. Even though there’s no mention of that type of thinking by Jesus anywhere in the gospels, and the exact opposite is taught in the synoptics and especially Matthew.
One thing I will disagree with you is about Paul’s attitude on women. Many scholars don’t consider the Timothy letters to have actually been written by Paul. Some consider the quote from Corinthians to be an interpolation, because it breaks up the flow of the passage, and it contradicts what he says in Ch 11. He also mentions women leaders in Romans 16. I think Paul would have been heralded by feminists of his time.
Your experience in dealing with Christians of the Pauline school who try to explain why Jesus didn’t really mean what he so clearly and repeatedly said is consistent with mine. In response to the very explicit descriptions of the final judgment in Matt 25:31-46, based entirely on acting compassionately without a single mention of faith or grace, I have had so-called Christians belittle the passage as anti-Christian, and I have to keep reminding them who it is that is speaking (Jesus) and why their conclusion is so absurd. One of them even referred me to a whole website on dealing with the “problem” of Matt 25:31-46, but none can make it go away without confirming that they are the ones who oppose what Jesus taught in favor of Paul’s contradictory teaching.
As for women, I would agree that Paul would be seen as progressive for his time. But we must also remember that we look back on Abraham Lincoln as being progressive for his time in matters of racial equality, yet while he supported freeing slaves, he also explicitly and repeatedly noted that he acknowledged those of African heritage to be of inferior mental abilities and absolutely opposed intermarriage. Today his statements would render him extremely backward and be considered (rightfully) to be utterly racist.
As for the authorship of Timothy, it is important to understand that the entire authorship of the Bible, and certainly the New Testament, is up for question. None of the original source texts by the actual authors have been preserved, and the chain of custody as to who has preserved and protected copies and reworks is questionable. As I note in one of the introductory essays, I do not assert that Jesus, Paul or any of the credited gospel “authors” actually wrote or said the things attributed to them. But for the sake of addressing those that do — solely for the purpose of argument — I am operating on that basis.
Your comment was thoughtful and insightful. Thanks for sharing.
Hi Mark,
I’m sure you have noticed that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke seem a bit different than the gospel of John. What explains the difference between what some have named the synoptic gospels and the gospel of John? Why did the Holy Spirit have John recount so many of Jesus’ Words that are not mentioned in the prior gospels? Why is the Word “believe” used around 100 times in the gospel of John, but when we read the other gospels it seems like salvation and good works are dependent on an individuals comittment and resolve?
The Lord Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry fulfilled all of the righteousness of the law, the only person to ever do so in the history of the world. In the first three gospels, the Holy Spirit shows Him extending the requirements of the law for justification right to the heart of man. Just like the perfect law given by God, perfectly exposed man’s sinfulness. The Lord Jesus Christ went further to show that even outward profession and works mean nothing if the heart isn’t right. Jesus amplified the law, knowing that no man of his own accord to do the works of God, but hereby preparing the hearts of those that realized this to be able to understand why He had to bleed, die, be buried and rise again. That which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of Spirit is Spirit. The only way an individual can do the works of God is if they believe Him and He empowers them to do so.
This was not revealed immediately during the Lord’s earthly ministry, but would be revealed later, that’s why the Holy Spirit had John write His gospel after he learned of the grace of God and the mystery committed to the apostle Paul by the risen ascended Lord Jesus Christ. By reading the end of John’s gospel, we learn by inference that John did not write his gospel until after Peter’s death, that’s how he understood that what the Lord said, signified the way Peter would die. We see in Galatians and other places that after the knowledge of the mystery was committed to Paul it was also made known to the other apostles.
If our salvation is based on what we’ve done, then there is no one on the earth that is going to heaven. Praise the Lord our salvation is based on the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ, and praise the Lord that after being saved, He will empower us to do good works by His working!
DW — you are operating under the assumption that the gospels are written under the influence of the holy spirit as the explanation for why John is so different from the synoptic gospels. I don’t see any basis for accepting this as a valid a priori assumption.
The synoptic gospels are similar because Mark (an acolyte of Paul) wrote a first simple account, which was later used as the model by Luke, the “dear and beloved physician (who also wrote the book of Acts) and by Matthew, the only gospel writer (assuming validity of authorship) who actually lived with Jesus.
Both Matthew and Luke model their gospels after Mark, filling in missing details and perspectives, making some corrections as to details, and yet Matthew and Luke did not seem to be aware of each other’s work, as they often contradict on the added materials, such as completely contradictory genealogies of Jesus, completely different nativity stories (including some details that are contradictorily mutually impossible) and other points of inconsistency. I have detailed these more fully in the essay addressing Bible contradictions and will direct further discussion of those details to that forum.
The best explanation for the differences with John is that the account is not only written much, much later, one of the last of the New Testament additions, but was written by a committee of the Johannine Community, a community of Paul’s followers, and reflects that strong Pauline influence. There is no basis on which to ascribe much credibility to John’s completely inconsistent and unique account, written long after Jesus and the original apostles had gone, by people who did not actually know any of them.
Again, this point is beginning to go off target from the specific contradictions of Paul vs. Jesus (and James), and I will direct further examination of those aspects to the Bible contradiction comments.
Hi Danizier,
Please forgive me as I have 3 small children and my time is limited so I can’t respond to every point or every reply in this post. I just would like to communicate to you that most of Christianity is not Pauline in their doctrine as many say. To Paul was committed “the preaching of the cross” and “the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery”. Most of Christianity has never heard of this mystery committed to Paul. I would be willing to bet that if you walked into almost any church and asked about the mystery, the congregants would give you a blank stare or after asking you to qualify your question further, some obscure answer. The fact is that the Words of Christ during His earthly ministry do not conflict with the Words he gave Paul to speak from His risen ascended position at the right hand of God, though at first glance some of them appear to be different. The key to understanding the Bible is understanding the mystery.
Secondly, as pertaining to the famous supposed contradiction with Paul and James. Paul is speaking on eternal salvation, while James is speaking on salvation during this life. Paul is speaking to eternal standing with God, while James is speaking to the Christians state while here on earth. If we identify the context in which both speak we can discern this. That’s why James starts out with his passage with a reference to someone destitute and in need of food and ends it with an example of Rahab and how she and her family were saved when the rest of those who lived in that city were killed. When studying salvation in the Bible, one always has to consider whether or not the subject is eternal salvation or salvation (gr, delivered or protected) regarding our life here.
Ok, well I gotta split, thanks for entertaining my thoughts. All glory, honor, and praise to God the Father, through the Lord Jesus Christ forever!
Best regards,
DW from timetoawake.com
DW — it is true that not all Christians are either Pauline or absolute Bible literalists, and my comments on Pauline contradictions with Jesus do not apply to those who are not. Some of the points in some of the other posts on this site may, however, apply to them. That said, while I do not take the Chrisitna route any longer, it would be possible to fashion a wholly Jesus-based Christian faith that is at least rationally consistent.
You state that Paul is addressing eternal salvation and James is speaking of salvation during this life, yet I do not see the basis in the passage for that conclusion, and believe that someone has simply invented that as a device for avoiding the directness of this absolute contradiction. The fact that Paul and Jesus, in their openings, note that they are addressing the same audience, and that James uses the same words, in the same grammatical and syntactical parallel constructions (just chaning the order to get the opposite meaning) and even cites the same scriptural example of Abraham (from Genesis) does suggest that the contradiction is explicit and an intentional rebuttal. The references to earthly situations demanding compassion are to show that, just as his brother Jesus taught, our salvation for eternity will be rooted in the compassion-based deeds we performed toward “the least among us,” including the poor and the prostitutes, in this life.
The post, however, is not merely about Paul and James. It is about Paul and Jesus, with James coming to the defense of his slain brother. I note that Jesus makes it explicitly clear that salvation is via universal compassionate love expressed actively through deeds, in multiple passages in which grace or faith are never mentioned (though Jesus elsewhere praises such traits, while not making them the basis of salvation). Certainly no one could read Jesus’ final public teaching in Matt 25:31-46, before going up into the upper room for the Last Supper, and conclude that he (Jesus) is referring to anything other than eternal salvation and eternal life.
Hi Danizier,
In studying the scriptures it is of the utmost importance to notice similarities and differences. Learning the mystery that Paul was given is a key to this. When comparing Paul and James’ instructions on justification, we notice that the similar example they use is Abraham, but we must note that when James points to Abraham he points to when he offered Isaac as a sacrifice, which happened after his circumcision. Paul points to Abraham before his circumcision. At first glance this appears to be a trivial difference. But when study the difference between Jew and Gentile this is actually a very important distinction to make.
Also Paul was the “apostle to the Gentiles” while James except for his brief letter recorded in Acts, was ministering to the Jewish Christians. We see that James, John, and Peter agreed to Paul going to the Gentiles and they going to the Jews as described at the Jerusalem council in Galatians 2:9. And as a side note this one verse debunks the whole doctrine of Papal succession for if Peter was the first pope, he was pope over the Jewish Christians only, after the Jerusalem meeting.
When the Lord Jesus Christ came to the earth he admittedly came to “none but the Jews only”. The Gentiles were still given up by God and considered “dogs”. At that time the way for Gentiles to come to God was as a Jewish convert. So when Christ came He came as Israels messiah, but we find out later that the primary reason He came was to die on the cross for the sins of the everybody in the world, whether they be Jew or Gentile. This was a mystery that even when the Lord Jesus revealed the fact that He was to die, His disciples still didn’t understand or comprehend it because it was still a mystery and God didn’t give them understanding yet. A lot of people like to point to Jesus earthly ministry and condemn others and say stick to just the gospels and live like Jesus said. The problem is we can’t, just like the law never justified a man, it just pointed out that every man was a sinner, so in the same way Jesus in His earthly ministry while in the midst of self righteous religionists pointed out the things contained in the law and good works and said if your expect to earn salvation and do your own good works, here is what you got to do. Absolutely no one could do those good works of their own accord, it had to be by God’s empowerment, this would be revealed later, and we can see an example of this concerning Peters denial. The reason he went to the “sinners” instead of the self righteous religionists aka saduccees and pharisees was because, before you could know you needed a savior you needed to realize your a sinner. Obviously the prostitutes and tax collectors and poor while maybe not having the torah memorized, surely by conscience knew their unrighteousness compared to God’s righteousness. Concerning good works, what did Jesus say to those who approached Him asking Him how they could do the works of God? Believe in the one whom He has sent. And again in another part it is written, no one comes to the Father except through the Lord Jesus Christ. Before we can do the good works, we have to be saved and then God will empower us to do good works.
The religions of the world, though they appear different are all basically the same. They prescribe some sort of action on the individuals part to be made right with what they perceived to be God and gain entrance to heaven, nirvana, reincarnation or whatever else. Sadly a lot of quote unquote “Christendom” sees it this way too. What differentiates true Christianity from the religious pack, is that man’s works can not do one thing to justify him before God. It is solely based on God’s work at the cross when the Lord Jesus Christ shed His blood, died, was buried and rose again. All a recipient of God’s grace can do is believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and His finished work accept His gracious gift, no amount of works will ever justify them before God. But after salvation, they have been empowered unto good works and by yielding to God can work the works of God by believing Him and His Word. When you learn the mystery that committed to Paul you learn of these things and you learn that this is how it has been since the beginning of creation.
DW — I do not believe you are reading the similarities/differences between Paul and James correctly. Paul cites the example of Abraham and his willingness to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac if the Lord commands as an example of faith; James cites exactly the same example, showing the parallel reference to exactly the same construction, and shows that, because Abraham ACTED on his faith, and actually prepared Isaac to be sacrificed (and would have completed the ACTION if not interrupted), it is an example of how faith is only meaningful when manifest as DEEDS (“show me your faith without your works and I will show you my faith BY my works; faith without works is dead” James 2:18 & 26). This is not an example of the differentiation of their contexts but of how James is clearly using Paul’s example and turning it around to the opposite and contradictory conclusion.
“Feeding the poor: Jesus taught in Matt 25:31-46 that our final salvation and judgment would be based in large part on our willingness to feed the poor. Jesus further emphasizes the importance of feeding the poor, apart from salvation issues, repeatedly throughout his ministry (Matt 19:21; Matt: 25:31-46; Matt 26:9; Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22; John 12:6). Jesus never, not once, imposes any qualification or conditional limitation on this requirement. Paul contradicts this: 2Thess 3:10 “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”
“Does this mean that if poor people are unemployed, we should turn them away from any charity?”
Answer: I don’t think this is the meaning. I think the Apostle Paul says that those who are not willing to work should not be fed. In other words, Christian charity should not be abused by those lazy ones who will sit back not working, gull of gossip, knowing that they Christian church will feed and cloth them.
Hi Rob —
I am not suggesting that there should not be reasonable oversight or accountability to monitor the balance between production and consumption, especially in a communal society such as was practiced by Jesus’ earliest followers, as recorded very early in Acts covering the time before Paul came along (see Acts 2:44-45). The passage says: “All that believed were together, and HAD ALL THINGS IN COMMON; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS.”
As with Jesus, there is no qualification whatsoever imposed. Now again, I am not saying some limits are not appropriate. I am merely pointing out that, especially in the context of so many other direct contradictions between Paul and Jesus (and his brother James), that this simply represents yet another inconsistency between them.
Your introduction indicates that you do not subscribe to the idea that Paul may have been a double agent for Rome. Some scholars believe he was hired by the Romans to promote a religion that would discredit Judaism and give control of the religion to Rome. If this senario is true, it appears to have worked ergo The Roman Catholic and all the various Pauline Christian offshoots.
Hi Duane — I have not heard any serious presentation of a concept that Paul might have been a double agent for Rome. It is an interesting, fascinating idea! Certainly nothing I have written would rule that out; I simply have not considered it. It would certainly do much to explain some of the unknowns, such as how a prominent Jewish figure enjoyed the duality of also holding Roman citizenship, and how he was able to travel so extensively and, most important, provide some motivation for his apparent eagerness, cleverly packaged, to teach a message that gave lip service to honoring Jesus while undermining at their core Jesus’ fundamental teachings. Interesting thought!
Here is a list of 27 contradictions between Jesus’ teaching and Paul’s teaching, originally provided by evan1 at thread “PAUL VS JESUS WRITING” (http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?pageID=1&discussionID=519019&messages_per_page=16).
While I may not agree with all of them, any fair-minded individual could conclude nothing other than that evan1′s discernment is spot on.
Contradiction #1
Jesus teaches that the Law has not been anulled.
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. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
[Luke 16:16-17]
Mt 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Paul teaches that it has.
Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Contradiction #2
Jesus teaches that God is not a God of the dead.
Luke 20:38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.
Mk 12:27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
Paul contradicts this, demonstrating his unawareness of the words of Jesus.
Rom 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
Contradiction #3
Jesus teaches equality of believers.
Mt 23:8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ; and you are all brethren.
Paul not only sets himself up as a teacher, he sets up a church hierarchy!
1Cor 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
1Tim 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
Contradiction #4
Jesus says that the Gospel must be preached without financial reward.
Mt 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
Paul disagrees, as do the multitude of churches.
1Cor 9:11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things?
Um, no.
Contradiction #5
Jesus teaches to bless unbelievers.
Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
[Mark 6:27-28]
Paul teaches that unbelievers should be cursed.
1Cor 16:22 If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come!
Contradiction #6
Jesus teaches to follow/imitate Him.
Jn 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
Paul teaches to follow him.
1Cor 4:16 Therefore I urge you, imitate me. [KJV="Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me."]
Contradiction #7
Here’s how Jesus dealt with one accused of sexual sin.
Jn 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Paul’s solution was a little more Draconian.
1Cor 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit [NKJV = his spirit] may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Contradiction #8
Here’s how Jesus treated the sin of blasphemy.
Mt 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. [Luke 12:10]
Paul’s solution was again Draconian.
1Tim 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: 20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
Contradiction #9
Eating things sacrificed to Idols was prohibited in the Law, and is specifically mentioned as something not permitted in Revelations.
Rev 2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
Paul gives “liberty” to eat these things.
1Cor 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 8:7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of your’s become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
1Cor 10:25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake:
Contradiction #10
Jesus had no difficulty with speaking to women, even though this was unusual in that culture.
Jn 4:27 And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?
Contrasted with Paul’s chauvinism.
1Cor 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1Tim 5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
Contradiction #11
Jesus taught that God’s forgiveness is dependent on us forgiving others.
Mt 6:14 For if you forgive others when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. (NIV)
And:
Forgive and you will be forgiven (Lk 6:37).
The parable of the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18:21-35 illustrates this point with someone who was forgiven by God, but remained unforgiving to others.
Paul understood that he was forgiven:
1Tim 1:13 although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 14 And the grace of out Lord was exceedingly abundant with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. 15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. 16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life. 17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
But when someone sinned against Paul, Paul did not forgive the very sin he admitted to being guilty of only a few sentences earlier.
1Tim1:18 This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophesies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 19 having faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, 20 of whom Hymanaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.
By not understanding this principle of conditional (or reciprocal) forgiveness, Paul contradicts Jesus. Furthermore, Paul asks us to believe that forgiveness is obtained by some other means:
Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Contradiction #12
Paul says that one is saved by “faith” and “confession”
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
1Cor 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
Jesus teaches precisely the opposite.
Mt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity [NKJV = lawlessness].
Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
James adds this observation:
James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Contradiction #13
As discussed in an earlier thread, Paul wants it to be known that he is a spiritual father to his flock.
1Cor 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
Paul must have forgotten about this little number.
Mt 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Contradiction #14
Jesus preaches meekness.
Mt 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Paul’s version of meekness is rather conditional and mixed with threats.
1Cor 4:21 What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?
Contradiction #15
Paul teaches that his followers will be judges on judgement day.
1Cor 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
Jesus has other ideas.
Jn 5:22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son.
Contradiction #16
Paul specifically seeks to please men and to be “all things to all men”.
1Cor 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
1Cor 10:33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
Paul clearly failed to comprehend these teachings of Jesus.
Luke 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.
Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
Jn 5:41 I receive not honour from men.
Contradiction #17
Paul makes this claim:
Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near.
Which Jesus pre-emptively dismissed with these words:
Mt 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Contradiction #18
This is a major one. Jesus clearly claimed to have personally delivered the Gospel to the world.
Jn 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. 7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. 8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
Paul would like you to think that doctrines that Jesus did not teach (eg. Deity of Christ, blood atonement, “grace”, demotion of the Law, abolition of the Sabbath, church hierarchy, etc etc) was brought via him.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Jesus spent years training 12 apostles and 70-odd disciples as witnesses of Jesus and his words. But the main doctrines of the Christian church were delivered to humanity via a claimed revelation to a single witness: Paul. Jesus said that 2 or 3 witnesses are a necessary minimum for something to be true.
Contradiction #19
Paul teaches public prayer.
1 Tim 2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
Jesus teaches private prayer.
Mt 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Contradiction #20
Paul thinks that once saved always saved.
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Sadly—not true.
Lk 8:13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. 14 And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. 15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.
Contradiction #21
Jesus is careful to attribute his teachings to God (another nail in the coffin of the Jesus is God theory).
Jn 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
Paul has no difficulty taking the credit.
Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel
Contradiction #22
Jesus teaches that Eternal life will cost you everything you own.
Mt 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
Lk 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
Not only does Paul fail to teach this, he teaches that eternal life is entirely free.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
In fact, many churches go further and claim that believing in their religion will make you materially prosperous.
Contradiction #23
Paul is deferential to worldly authority, claiming that it comes from God.
Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Jesus refutes this idea.
Jn 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
I don’t suppose that we need Jesus to tell us that earthly powers are often corrupt, but here it is anyway:
Mt 17:25b “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?” 26 Peter said to him “From strangers.” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. 27 Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first.”
Contradiction #24
Jesus teaches charity.
Mt 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Paul is concerned that welfare is going to cost his church too much.
1Tim 5:9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.
5:16 If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be burdened; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
Contradiction #25
Jesus’ teaching on “Sanctification”
Jn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
Is “blood” and “thy truth” the same thing?
Heb 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
And I don’t quite understand how this works, but its kind of funny really.
1Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Contradiction #26
Paul makes a stark admission that he cannot control his sinful nature in Romans 7
14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
25b So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
Rather, imitate Jesus who teaches thus:
Mt 22:37 Jesus said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment.” (Mk 12:30, Deut 6:5)
and
Jn 8:34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever.”
and
Jn 5:14 “Sin no more”
If you hate something, should you not stop doing it?
Contradiction #27
Jesus prophesised this:
Jn 9:4 “I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work.”
Paul says the opposite.
Rom 13:12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.
And then we had the dark ages.
Thank You for the academic integrity and keeping it accessible to the non-scholarly.
Someday I will have my Southern Baptist family read this, but probably years down the road if we ever reestablish communications since I became atheist. They are so afraid of me, they would burn any writings I gave them.
But this is by far the best written criticisms of Paul, I have ever read that would also be accessible ( non-threatening) to Christians
Actually, joe, I am LOOKING for conflicting doctrines between Paul and the Apostles, and to tell the Truth, most of the 27 objections/contradictions he just listed are wrong (I’m writing corrections for each). The only place where Paul at least SEEMINGLY differs with Jesus is on the Law. THAT is interesting to me, and I am researching it further.
joe cool,
How silly does that sound, “…so afraid of me, they would burn any writings I gave them.” It’s sad that your own family members are so narrow minded that they can’t even read let alone keep things from one of their own.
You have a lot of good stuff on your article ..thanks
but not on Yahshua about homosexuality…Mark 7:21, Matt 15:19
our translations are messed up and fornication comes from word porneia –
where we get the word porn today
it means illicit sex = homosexuality, relatives, animals, divorced man or woman
definition will all verses at the bottom:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G4202
and He also warned about the day He returns will be worse than Sodom
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G4670
The basis of your conclusion is a Bible interpretation which is undocumented, unsubstantiated and therefore suspect.
The verses you cite from Mark and Matthew do not relate to same sex relationships at all and there is no credible support for this rather bizarre interpretation.
In particular, the idea of equating same sex relationships with illicit relationships such as adultery and premarital sex that does not lead to marriage (as addressed in my webpage http://danizier.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/christianity-and-culture/), which are presumably consensual adult relationships, with animals (or children, as some do) that have no legal or moral capacity for consent, is simply a homophobic attempt to equate apples and fruitcakes.
did you read the definition of the Greek word used in Mk and Matt… I didn’t make it up
homosexual sex is fornication:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G4202
You (and your agenda-driven source) make a mistake common to amateurs trying to play a game of etymological interpretation that demonstrates the dangers of amateurs trying to explain word meanings of ancient languages they do not know by simply looking up words in Strong’s.
Your source cites a word and lists all of its possible meanings as demonstrated in Strong’s. It does not mean all of these things all the time in every usage. Many words, even in our own language, have multiple meanings that are understood in context. Professional translators who understand nuance and context have the linguistic understanding and training to accurately reflect the meaning used in the specific context. When homosexual references were intended in the Bible, as in Leviticus and Romans, they were identified as such.
There is no qualified expert, in considering context and nuance as actually used, that shares the homophobic misinterpretation that your agenda-driven source tries to promote.
Please further note, I have different pages to discuss various aspects of Christian issues. The purpose of THIS page is to discuss the extensive range of contradictions between Paul and Jesus (and Jesus’ brother James).
This is not the place for an in-depth discussion of the Bible as it relates to same-sex relationships and your detailed examination goes beyond the scope of THIS page. I have a different page that addresses Christianity in regard to contemporary social, cultural and political issues, which is at:
http://danizier.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/christianity-and-culture/
All further comments on this point on this page will be deleted, however you are welcome to continue the discussion on the appropriate page.
Diane,
Heterosexual sex is also fornication. Where are you trying to go with this?
If Yeshua upheld the Law, as your article puts forth, does He not uphold the Law that prohibits homosexual relations; and the death sentence pronounced upon it?
Daniel — Jesus said what he said. The Law of Moses says what it says. While I admire many of Jesus’ teachings, I do not consider him to be a deity, in whole or part, and as a wise but fallible human I reject those aspects of his message that do not stand up to contemporary values that have evolved far beyond those of his more primitive era.
I agree with much that is here. Paul was not an apostle but a false prophet. Jesus was not a sacrifice as J had already said, so Paul was wrong again. J did say that he gave his life as a ransom for many, big difference between a sacrifice and a ransom. Jesus true words in the Bible are inspired– yes I realize that there are some disagreements in the gospel accounts of J’s words. Some of these caused by faulty translations, some by Paul’s cronies in the following centuries, a few by the authors of the gospels who had other agendas–such as Luke. Luke was Plutarch, and in Acts he exposes Paul as one BAD dude, if you look between the lines. Luke’s account of Paul and Paul’s account of himself differ a lot.
J promised that heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away-as recorded in Matt, Mark, and Luke.
7 times in the gospels J gives a new great principal that is only in the gospels. “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life because of me will save it.” Slightly different words are used in the 7 accounts. Reading this as a teen it made no sense to me and since it was NEVER mentioned in church, I didn’t try to figure it out then. J lived out this principal the last weeks of his life, he didn’t defend himself and wouldn’t allow any of his followers to defend him either. This principal applies to all of us, including Jesus.
Portions of the Old Testament that J mentioned are also inspired, most of the rest is not. J many times disagreed with Moses. Read the sermon on the mount and the sermon on the plain
Moses was wrong about sacrifices, tooth for a tooth, divorce, killing, adultery, etc.
I didn’t figure this out myself, visit voiceofjesus.org This sight has changed my life, and I probably agree with 99% of the hundreds of articles on it. Peace
Paul — I find your comments to be insightful and thoughtful. While I do find the words attributed to Jesus to be filled with wisdom, compassion and brilliance that could be described as “inspired,” I also find much the same in the teachings attributed to Gautama Siddhartha (Buddha) and other wise teachers in religious, philosophical and scientific pursuits. I do not find the need to attribute to Jesus any unique or messianic role, however I respect the fact that, as you seem to pursue, it is possible to fashion a consistent and morally/rationally feasible theology that does include such a role, as long as the message of Paul that undermines and opposes Jesus is disallowed, and the Bible is accepted for the important but imperfect record that it is, instead of worshipping it as an engraved image of Bibleolatry.
Again, we differ in certain specifics as to our final conclusions, but I find your approach to be solid, rational and moral.
Wow. I am appalled at the people who are just totally brainwashed on this “Lamb of God” business, that Jesus “died” for us, and I see signs saying that Jesus died for my sins (why?) and other such foolishness promulgated by a Church that in its many forms mind controls its subjects perfectly, especially this Protestant “Charismatic” movement.
First; If Jesus died, and on the third day arose (he is not here), then how is his death of any significance? And if he still lives, how does his death matter?
Also, these people so assiduously hate Jews – and Jesus was the biggest Jew going! And if still alive, as so many claim (I have never seen him,, but they say he is), how did he die for me IF HE IS STILL LIVING?
So many inconsistencies that are passed over by closed minds.
Jack, obviously I am in agreement with you, but this point is examined in much more detail, along the same lines you suggest, in my page on the atonement mythology of human sacrifice. I think you would find much common ground with what I wrote in that piece.
Greetings,
what you say seems to make sense.
But I happened to come across this site http://www.yashanet.com/studies/romstudy/rom3b.htm
What do you think? When reading it it would seems like Paul has been misunderstood all along.
Two points:
I don’t think Paul has been misunderstood. Your source seems to be trying to find a rather convoluted approach to interpreting Paul that tries to explain why Paul doesn’t really mean what he so clearly says.
Moreover, my point is not so much about the pro’s or con’s of the Law of Moses per se, but to point out the contradiction between Paul and Jesus/James.
Jesus clearly stated that justification was based on universal compassionate love expressed actively in deeds and emphasized that the Law of Moses would remain absolutely inviolate until ALL THINGS are fulfilled and until heaven and earth have passed away, while Paul says that justification is based on faith and NOT DEEDS, and that the Law of Moses has been fulfilled already and no longer operational, even though there are many prophecies still not fulfilled, and heaven and earth are still quite intact.
Davis,
You make some good points, however, Jesus’ teachings are never wrong and to disclaim yourself as a “Christian” because you don’t agree with Paul is not a valid reason to deny Christ. We the people who believe in Christ are the Church and the “Bride” of Christ. Faith is extremely important to salvation. It is the only way the major Prophets were “saved”. They did not have the salvation Plan Jesus came to implement. Christ did not come to the world to abolish the laws of Moses, and His exclamation that Love is the greatest of these is true… when you have a love that Jesus speaks of you will follow the Commandments without fail. After all the Commandments were given to the Israelites because the Father Loves them as He loves you and I. Faith is an action word in the Bible, it’s not static or a noun. It is a way of life. And those who truly love Jesus live by faith, creating a lifestyle around His teachings and have a firm foundation for the “Christian” faith. After all Jesus taught many times about the final judgement and those who will be welcomed and those who will be punished, through the parables. Personally I pray you will be one of those that came to the wedding dressed appropriately so you are not throw out. Peace be with you and may the word of truth (Jesus) touch you and treat you at a lost sheep, only to celebrate when He puts you on his shoulders and carries you back into the flock. There is no one Jesus wants to be lost and yet many will be. It will be cut and dry you are either with him or against him… Heaven or the Lake of Fire, only your spiritual faith and obedience can save you at judgement. Are you a sheep or goat?
Hi Tim —
It is possible to fashion a rational theology of Christian belief in a messianic role for Jesus, as long as one divorces Jesus from both the Pauline corruption that has been the bedrock of evangelical and “born again” conservative Protestants who build their belief system around a foundation of “faith” (Paul) rather than actions (Jesus and his brother James), and also divorce themselves from the blasphemy of Bibleolatray (Bible worship of an engraved image), as I address in much more specific depth on the page at:
http://danizier.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/the-blasphemy-of-bibleolatry/
I do not subscribe to such a view because I do not find a rational basis for it, but while such a view is not based in reason, it could be formulated in such a way that it would not contravene reason.
You are correct that Jesus reportedly taught the inviolate, immutable perpetuation of the Law of Moses until “all things are fulfilled” (which had not happened when Paul declared the Law to be fulfilled, and which has still not happened yet).
Unfortunately, when you speak of “faith,” you fall into the corrupted perversion of the renegade “apostle” Paul. You provide your own definition of “faith,” but you do not explain how your attempt to change “faith” into “deeds/action” makes any sense, especially since (as I extensively documented) Jesus clearly rebuts this and the rebuttal is even more direct by his brother James.
As for the sheep and the goats, Jesus reportedly defines this very specifically and in the passage where he does so (Matt 25:31-46) he never once mentions faith. Only deeds rooted in universal compassionate love. Period. If you try to change that, you join Paul in perverting and subverting the teaching of Jesus and forfeit any right to call yourself after his name or title.
As for the Lake of Fire, if you take this as anything more than metaphor (as are all the references in Jesus’ many parables), then you risk rational ridicule, as I note in the article on Paul’s contradictions with Jesus (the one you responded to), in the reference to fireboarding. Please re-read that IF you are going to try to assert a literal Lake of Fire for the cosmic death penalty and neverending torture by a “loving” god. Obviously you found this article before, but for quick reference you can quickly find it at:
http://danizier.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/paul-vs-jesus-and-james/
Further, if your view of a messianic Jesus incorporates Paul’s human sacrifice doctrine of “atonement,” I suggest your examine carefully the absurdity of Paul’s contradiction (and undermining) of Jesus in the article at:
http://danizier.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/bloody-human-sacrifice-atonement-mythology/
Dave
Tim,
Your ultimatums are quite hilarious. Is this how you win so many souls over to Christ? You had me quite convinced at “Heaven or the Lake of Fire.”
As a person who has long believed that Jesus’ message was hijacked and subverted by Paul, I’m glad to have this eloquent essay of yours to share with people when this topic is discussed. I find Hyam Maccoby’s THE MYTHMAKER perhaps the most exhaustive and persuasive exposé of Paul, but its rather severe tone, length and academic language make it an unlikely vehicle to convince people who have long invested in mistaking Paul’s self-appointed spiritual authority for something more genuine. He may well have believed what he was saying — in fact he probably did, since he seems so passionate and long-winded about it. But he has no more claim to any kind of spiritual authority than any other religious commentator from the past 2000 years does, and less than some.
The challenge is to somehow remove Paul from the equation and still have access to the truths of Jesus. The easiest way for me is to just rely on “The Gospel of Thomas” and various reconstructed versions of “Q” as my source for what Jesus said. Everything else is suspect.
Perhaps Paul was a nice fellow, or a sincere one. But there is absolutely no reason to believe that anything he had to say represents Jesus in any meaningful way.
Michael, I agree that it is possible to formulate a rational Christian theology that does not center around the unfortunate teachings of Paul that contradict those of Jesus.
A rational Christianity would not have to require the acceptance of a literal, infallible Bible or Paul’s doctrine of atonement through human sacrifice.
The issues of Bible worship and the flaws of Paul’s teaching on human sacrifice atonement are addressed in separate essays on this site (see main index or top essays along right).
Wow, after reading these posts, no wonder few choose to follow Jesus.
You need to both realize that Jesus Christ is God was right and St. Paul, whom Jesus called was also right.
And also please ask Jesus to baptize you in the Holy Ghost, because these writings are littered with nothing short of foolishness.
Here, try to grasp this very smail idea…
Jesus died so we could be saved, period Now go forth and do your best to love everyone. Period, because guess what, you will both fail in the next minute to do so perfectly, why? Because Jesus Christ is God and we aren’t.
Jesus was right, His death at Calvary, which was the manifestation of His absolute perfect love, paid the price for our salvation, Period.
And St. Paul was right, Simply accept the previous sentence and you are qualified to enter Heaven. Please for God’s sake, quit trying to make it so difficult.
You aren’t God, you can’t save yourself, so quit trying to and simply rejoice in the Lord!
Have a lovely day!
You just repeat the nonsense that Jesus’ “death at Calvary” “paid the price” for our sins, thus joining the renegade “apostle” Paul in his heresy opposing Jesus .
This is absurd. How does killing an innocent human sacrifice do anything to make other peoples’ sins go away.
And if death is the price, as the renegade “apostle” Paul contradicts Jesus by teaching, does it mean death forever?
If so, and if “JESUS LIVES,” then HE DIDN’T PAY THE PRICE. And if only temporary death pays the price, we can all die for however long our share is, and then, having paid the price ourselves, live in eternal bliss forever.
Your nonsense simply makes no sense. I have a whole web page just about the absurdity of this Christian HUMAN SACRIFICE myth:
http://danizier.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/bloody-human-sacrifice-atonement-mythology/
I suggest you read it before you continue to embarrass yourself with silly statements.
And again, I cited chapter and verse of what JESUS said was the basis for salvation.
In opposing that and, instead, buying into Paul’s HUMAN SACRIFICE mythology, you oppose Jesus.
You should not call yourself a Christian if you repudiate Jesus.
As far as biblical contradictions and inconsistencies. I have to admit there are some things that really trouble me. I would say however, that a lot of things that trouble me on first reading are often resolved though examination, reasoning through things, meditation on the subject etc. And i believe that is the way God intended it. There are plenty of things that are very plain and easy to understand and there are other things that require real effort on your behalf in meditation, study and prayer to come to grips with.
Some peoples explanation of some of the troubling aspects of the old testament are actually more troubling to me than what is being stated in the text. I do not accept the circular arguments made by 99% of Christendom today. You can not start with “this is true because it says its true”. and have any credibility with a rational thinking person.. I used to think that way, but over the last couple of years i have started to see what an absolute bubble of thought that people live in. What i realized is that most people really have no solid basis within themselves for what they purport to believe. That their faith is based on, one liners, unsubstantiated dogma and straw man characterizations of everything outside their thought bubble.
Truth has to stand on its own two feet and if it is True is doesn’t need your help to make it so. You should believe what is demonstratively true, not try to make what you believe true.
On the other hand, if some event or thing can be reasonably demonstrated as true then it provides a core foundation to make an effort to understand other things associated with it, even if on the surface they appear difficult. this is no different than physical science.
I have read many atheist and ex Christian websites (more so recently than in the past) and honestly i agree with some of what they are saying.. but far to often they will be going along and then jump right off the deep end regarding something that is quite plain, obvious, and not hard to understand.
As i believe i have demonstrated with my post regarding what paul is actually saying regarding original sin, if an honest effort is given, with reason and logic to examine the scriptures most of the time the apparent contradictions or difficulties are resolved. however, from my own personal study there are some things in there that are hard if not impossible to reconcile. i am not talking about miracles etc, but in logic and reason.
For me personally, specific prophecies, allegory, parable, figurative language etc regarding the messiah, and the witness and testimony of the first century church examined with logic and reason has lead me to only one conclusion. Jesus is the Messiah and He was raised from the dead (i actually traveled to Israel and have seen how accurate the accounts are with my own eyes, and not on a church tour). that gives me the foundation i need to examine and try to understand the things that are difficult and not to come across something difficult and say… this is difficult the whole thing is a lie.
as an example.. paul does not teach original sin. yet nearly all of Christianity believes in original sin,, without giving one thought as to what they says about the nature and character of God. In romans 5 paul actually teaches the EXACT OPPOSITE of original sin. Unfortunately no one reads scripture and applies reason to it as they are reading,, all they do is use someone elses commentary or pastors view based on someones commentary.. (exactly like the pharasees in jesus day). Paul says this
More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned– for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, _even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam_, who was a type of the one who was to come.
(Rom 5:11-14)
How people cant seem to understand what Paul is saying is beyond me. Sin entered the world through adam yes, and death entered the world through adam yes. and adams sin resulted int he human race being subjected to death (along with the entire universe). BUT each person sins their OWN SIN and it is not like or associated at all with ADAMS SIN!.
this is where like i said in another post, you have to read paul in the sections of thought he makes, and not in one verse or you will completely miss what he is saying.
This next section seals the deal on what Paul is actually saying verses what people have twisted out of what he is saying.. again because they refuse to apply reason and logic as they read.
And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
(Rom 5:16-19)
this is where again we have to use logic, reason and take this as a whole. Paul *is* saying that adams sin, brought judgment and condemnation.. that being the sentence that man and the universe would die. He is really making kind of a poetic parallelism here. Death reigning vs life reigning. this is where we have to be really careful, and this is the problem i have with paul, it is sometimes very hard to decipher what he is saying.. which is a whole other discussion.
anyway there is a clear distinction between paul talking about the sentence of death and the act of sin. otherwise you have him teaching universal salvation here by default… and we know from the rest of his wittings that he obviously does not believe universal salvation. If all were made sinners by the sin of one man then, according to the logical flow here all have to be made righteous in the same way. which means involuntary universal salvation for all.
HOWEVER…. if we understand that he is not making the case for original sin here, but merely that sin entered the world though adam and that has lead to all men ultimately sinning after their own fashion, even though none of them are under any obligation to sin… then it makes sense. We do not have a sin nature inherited from adam, but we do live in a corrupted world which makes in virtually impossible for someone not to sin. We all willfully choose to violate our conscience, and the moral.. ethical codes of how we know we ought to be treating others.
Because sin is a free choice on our behalf, so salvation is a free choice on our behalf. adam made sin possible for all, and Jesus makes salvation possible for all.
i could further demonstrate in another post, that paul indeed teaches moral changes are necessary and part of faith. even in this section of scripture romans 5-7.
Christian doctrine has become so corrupted through time, that no one can read the scripture for what it actually says anymore. or have the courage to stand on what it actually says because they will be deemed a heretic by the church at large. They have nearly all become nothing more than pharisees, blindly following their own traditions and externally enforced interpretations that they all follow and adhere to. Condemning all who actually care what the scripture says as heretics.
i also have some growing problems with paul. BUT.. and this is a very big BUT you have missed the boat on several key issues. Scripture throughout the old testament, the gospels, and the epistles.. other than pauls.. clearly teach by direct statement, allegory, parable, and figurative language that the messiah would die for the sins of the world and provide the blood sacrifice needed to satisfy the justice of God in regards to sin. From Genesis on through to the end. You have to be very careful about how you read a section of scripture. because of the way these languages work similar phrases can be used over and over but have different applications. When Jesus talks about desiring mercy and not sacrifice, he is talking about how the people were sacrificing out of ritual and not having genuine faith and relationship with God. they were practicing dead religion. This is the exactly same thing Paul is addressing most of the time in these statements people take the wring way. if you read romans 5-7 carefully pauls is saying the same thing as jesus. He says they failed because they tried to fulfill the law as a ritual and not by faith, Faith is directed at a person, or in this case God. Not a rule. Men are the ones who have twisted the snot out of Pauls writings because they dont pay attention to what he is actually saying, and they dont understand that Paul never says anything in one verse. He writes in a fashion, where he is conveiing whole concepts in long discourses tied together to make a complete thought. People screw paul up because they dont understand this and they build doctrines off of one sentence. Of all the biblical writers you simply can not do this with paul and ever understand what he was actually saying.
Hi Timothy —
I do understand the need to consider the entirety of the context of a passage of scripture, and whether it is allegorical, literal, lawgiving, poetry, etc.
The point is, and this is perhaps covered more fully on the page on Bible contradictions and flaws, is that so-called “scripture” is still invented my inconsistent humans and, even allowing for the fullness of contextual variations, there are many inconsistencies in the Bible. Biblical scripture evolves and changes tremendously through the early Old Testament, the later Old Testament following the Babylonian captivity, in which the Jews picked up many nuances of theological complexity, and especially in the New Testament.
And while many of the inconsistencies between Paul and Jesus (along with his brother James) can be reconciled (sometimes with great effort), if the fullness of context is truly considered, there are absolutely some fundamental contradictions on some of the most basic principles of theology. If the fullness of context is considered, the contradictions actually become stronger, and it is only through contorted, convoluted, tortured mental gymnastics that explanations can be concocted to try and explain away the very simple fact that there are simply different perspectives by differing Bible contributors, and they simply do not always agree.
This does not minimize the historical, cultural, moral and other aspects of importance that the Bible brings. But it does make it more human, and the same can be said about the ancient texts of myths and legends from many other primitive societies, including the Hindus, Buddhists, Vikings, Greeks, Romans, etc….
In regards to ‘human sacrifice’:
14 ‘I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,
15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.
16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.
17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.
18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again.’ This charge I have received from my Father.” John 10:14-18
—–
And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
9 And they sang a new song, saying,
“Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals,for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,
10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,and they shall reign on the earth.” Rev. 5:8-10
—-
You’re right about the general idea of human sacrifice. But someone who willingly lays down his life for someone? Well, let’s see how the Man Himself feels about that:
Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. John 15:13
Who do we hear about in the news as being heroes? People who die trying to save someone else. The brave firefighters who died trying to save people in the World Trade Center. A soldier who jumps on a grenade and saves the lives of those around him; he’d more than likely even receive a posthumous Medal of Honor for it. And of course those firemen and policemen involved in 9/11 have been immortalized as heroes.
So, yes. You’re right about Paul, and to a degree you’re right about human sacrifice. The entire point is that He laid down His life willingly.
‘Or do you think that I cannot now pray to my Father, and He will provide me with more than twelve legions of angels?’ Matthew 26:53
To not see this concept is to miss the whole point. You have to do a lot of bending over backwards and omitting things that the Messiah Himself said. But I’m being sincere when I say kudos on seeing through Paul and the religion he created.
Josh, thank you for your thoughtful comments. However, I believe you have misunderstood what I wrote. I have never denied nor denigrated the wiling self-sacrifice of heroes. My point, however, is that it is different than what I understand the Christian human sacrifice mythology to be about.
When a brave hero jumps in front of an oncoming car to push a child out of the way and take the fatal force of the oncoming vehicle, or when a brave military hero jumps on a live grenade to absorb its destruction to save the lives of his buddies at the expense of his own, we recognize their heroism. Based on the accounts in the New Testament, to whatever extent they reflect the actual facts accurately, I would clearly say that Jesus willingly sacrificed his life by assuming voluntarily terrible political and religious risks to preach a message of salvation by universal compassionate love expressed actively through deeds.
So far, so good. Where I see this differing from Christian dogmatic mythology, however, is that it does not stop with that. The Christian myth is not merely that Jesus gave his life to teach his message, but that in doing so there was a magical transfer of the character flaws (sins) OF OTHER PEOPLE to himself because a “just god” capriciously decreed that even the slightest stain of imperfection would merit not only the cosmic death penalty, but eternal torture by unending “fireboarding.”
Nor was it a WILLING sacrifice; it was mandatory. That was what Jesus was born to do. Yes, technically he could have exercised his “free will” and rejected his assigned role, but then all of humanity would languish in the cosmic death penalty and eternal fireboarding FOREVER. This is quite different than the hero who jumps in front of the oncoming car or onto a live grenade about to explode. They give their lives freely, but there is no “magical sin transference.”
It is these extra layers of absurd and unjust moral demands from the supposed author of that which is right or wrong, coupled with the “magical sin transference,” that confers the air of human sacrifice mythology akin to killing an innocent (unstained) virgin so there will be a magical transference of redemption to the barren land and the crops will again grow.
Found this by accident/search after hearing Thom Hartman mention a controversy between Jesus and Paul…It explains so much about the contradictions within the christian church…I’m going to enjoy reading further…
I love Thom Hartmann, and have his excellent book “What Would Jefferson Do” (WWJD), but sadly the station that carried his radio show in my area went off the air.
I appreciate that you’re focused upon Paul vs Jesus, and therefore, you might purposely be very narrow minded. However, I find no consideration within your writing to the fact that Yeshua was/is/will always be the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world. A gospel concept. Due to this single lack of consideration, your understanding is extremely flawed.
There is such a thing as salvation by grace through faith, and yet also life by the grace of God. I feel Christians have a very poor regard for God’s laws, which I deleight in. While attempting to do good works, I could never earn God’s unmerited favor [grace], it is by the grace of God that I am equipped to fulfil God’s laws in the Mashiyach. We ought to delight in God’s laws, for they have the very best intent for us. I see Yeshua, The Mashiyach, the embodiment of God’s grace, but also the embodiment of God’s law. God’s grace, simply the attributes of the Most High God, YeHWeH, working in me to do the good works He Himself delights in. Anyone who thinks they can live against God’s law to have a free access into heaven is extremely deceived. I don’t do the good works to earn God’s favor. I do the good works empowered by God’s grace in The Mashiyach. It’s my faith in Lamb, the sacrificial offering that earns me, not just an atonement, but also a justification. The atonement, the redemption, the justification then releases me from guilt, and empowers me to go forward and, as long as i look to the Son, sin no more. By no means do I see the grace of God as a license to continue in wrong doing. Some Christians may attempt to do this, but only because they are deceived. No Lamb, my friend, no God.
You claim that you “find no consideration within your writing to the fact that Yeshua was/is/will always be the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world.”
This is only because you do not look very far. Please scroll through the various essays, and find the one titled, “Bloody Human Sacrifice Atonement Mythology,” which addresses the absurdities of the belief that killing an innocent man — a sacrificial “Lamb of God” as a human sacrifice — can do anything to expunge or remove the sins of others. If you wish to comment further on the topic of the role of Jesus as mediator or atoning human sacrifice, I suggest you first read that essay and then comment further on that page.
As it relates to the contradictions between the renegade “apostle” Paul against Jesus and his brother James, the Bible is what it is. Jesus/James say that salvation is by universal compassionate love expressed actively in deeds (not that this “earns” anything; it is the standard by which acceptance of grace is measured, not the mere profession by the lip service that is far removed from one’s heart); Paul says it is through faith and grace alone.
Again, this is further discussed in the specific essay devoted to that specific topic.
http://danizier.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/bloody-human-sacrifice-atonement-mythology/
Pingback: What Would Jesus Say About Christmas? - Interfaithforums.com
Pingback: An Injury to One (queer) is an Injury to All of us! « furbirdsqueerly
Pingback: Who the hell is Jesus? | Aswierczynski's Blog
Pingback: Introduction to the Essays on Christian Mythology « danizier