I must admit, “the Paul thing” has always bothered me. I find the Gospels inspiring, amazing, “holy” … and then here comes Paul talking about women braiding their hair and use of pig skin.
Does anyone think it possible that Paul was intentionally being a hardass in those earliest days of the Christian movement, in an effort to maintain the integrity of it? To avoid having the elite intellectuals begin to waffle on the teachings and interject their own beliefs, maybe Paul felt he had to make things more black and white, until the movement fully got rolling.
Make an analogy to your favorite sports team. How often do you see a scenario where a new, good coach comes in, and is really strict at first, until the team becomes more experienced and self-governing? Then come the championships.
And Southern? I have personally known numerous women who LOVED having sex at ‘that time of the month.’ Some in the Biblical sense.
Yes, Milossarian, I agree. The early Christian church had a tough row to hoe, what with the dissolute Roman empire and the angry Jews who just saw them as heretics, and all the pagans who just shrugged off Jesus as either “just another madman” or “just another god”. “Yeah, okay, we’ll sacrifice to this one too…” Paul: “NO, NO, NO, that’s not what I meant…”
Yes, spoke, I agree with you, too. They each have a different approach.
I have the impression that Paul was named an “Apostle” during the first few hundred years of the Christian church, when people first went around collecting all the letters and documents and codifying them into what we now call the “Bible”. It seems to me that it would have been quite obvious to those early church fathers that, going by his writings alone, Paul should be named an Apostle.
Saying that Paul’s witness was invalid because Jesus never mentioned him is like saying that the Reverend Billy Graham’s witness is invalid for the same reason. Jesus didn’t bother to prophesy about the coming of all the individual evangelists and preachers who would come after Him for the next 2,000 years, because He had a much more important message. He wasn’t a “prophet”, He was God Himself. He has people to do that for Him.
No, actually, that’s not what the point was. The point Jesus was making was that He was poking fun at all the hypocrites out there who have 2x4s in their own eyes, but who go around town pointing out all the specks of dust in other people’s eyes. It’s a Bible joke. It doesn’t mean, “Make yourself perfect, and then you’ll be entitled to judge.” I think Navigator’s point was confirming that.
And you know, in any kind of ongoing Christian fellowship relationship, it’s practically impossible to avoid any kind of judgemental behavior. If my Bible study buddy proudly shows me the advertising poster he just ripped off from McDonald’s, I am doing him a disservice, as his brother in Christ, if I don’t at least express my disapproval. The Biblical injunction, “Don’t judge,” doesn’t mean “don’t EVER judge.” It just means, “When you do judge someone, use the same yardstick you would like to have used on yourself.”
And yes, self-improvement should come first. Jesus wants us to stop wasting time running around town pointing fingers at people, and spend more time on our own behavior. But that’s not to say that if the church treasurer absconds with not only the church bank account but also the pastor’s wife, that we shouldn’t be just a tiny bit judgemental.
You can go ahead and use “zealot” to mean “passionate to the point of intolerance” as long as everybody else in the discussion understands that’s where you’re coming from. Me, I’ll stick with Merriam-Webster and just use it to mean “passionate”.
Okay, I have the sinking feeling that everybody’s missing the point I thought I just made about “zealotry”. My point was that yes, Paul’s approach IS different from Jesus’, but that that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John each have a “different approach” to the Life of Jesus, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing, either. The books of the Bible, taken all together, form a consensus of opinion. It’s a mistake to take one out and focus on it alone, like pre-millenialists focusing on the Book of Revelations and eschatology to the exclusion of all else. (That’s the whole “Rapture” business, to you non-Fundies out there. )
Daniel,~ you seem to be making several points here.
First, it sounds like you’re saying that you don’t believe Paul was either a Christian or that he was preaching the Gospel–“IF we believe Paul…NO!..IMHO”.
Next, you seem to believe that Paul somehow has the “authority to override…Jesus”. I can’t imagine where you would have gotten that idea. From something Astorian just said, I would surmise that perhaps it’s from somebody you know who preaches particularly strongly about sex, and who uses Paul’s diatribes about immorality to bolster his arguments.
I’m sorry but I don’t see “debaters” mentioned in any of the verses I quoted. I see gossips, liars, perjurers, oathbreakers, slanderers, and the boastful mentioned, but not “debaters”. You must be using a different translation.
If you “don’t believe” that the rest of us “don’t fit in a category”, that’s the same thing as saying that we DO fit in a category, so you think we’re condemned too. Well, yes, of course. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” But that’s only if we commit those sins but don’t ask God’s forgiveness for them. It’s the unrepentant sinners who are condemned, not merely all sinners. Because we’re ALL sinners–“Who then can be saved?”
So you’re saying that since you don’t believe Paul, then you don’t believe that all those people that he was condemning should be condemned? Ultimately it doesn’t matter what Paul thinks, because Jesus Himself condemns them. True, He doesn’t express himself quite so forcefully, but the meaning is still the same–He’s condemning people. Some people won’t make the cut. And yes, I do realize that in this passage, He’s condemning the bad teachers and leaders, not the mass of people under them, but still…(note: FWIW, Matt. 23:14 does not appear in some translations):
Jesus also says,
This is pretty strong stuff. True, He’s not shouting, “You’re all going to HELL!”, but He’s not mincing any words, either. He also says,
He’s quoting from Micah 7:6 here,
It’s a passage that comes in the middle of a long gloomy, prophetic diatribe against the Children of Israel for turning aside from the Lord, a prediction of evil times to come. “Micah 7:2 The godly have been swept from the land; not one upright man remains. All men lie in wait to shed blood; each hunts his brother with a net.”
This doesn’t sound like a touchie-feelie hippie-dippie “love your enemy” Jesus to me. He’s predicting doom and destruction, again, not quite as explicitly as Paul, but the intent is the same.
Also, it’s interesting to note that back in Bible times, a sword was the weapon of choice. His remark about “bringing a sword” has lost all of its powerful emotional connotations for us today. In the “slaughter of the innocents”, when King Herod was trying to kill the baby Jesus, the soldiers walked through town stabbing toddlers with their swords. Swords nowadays are for ceremonial use only, or for theater production. But translate it into modern American and feel your pulse jump.
I’m not so sure I agree with you. What did Jesus say? “If a man steal thy cloak, give him thy shirt also.” (Or something like that. Hey, it’s probably been 15 years since I cracked a Bible.) In the same vein, Jesus said that if a man forces you to walk a mile, then go an extra mile with him. If a man strikes your left cheek, turn your right cheek to him. And so on.
So frankly, I don’t believe Jesus would have us condemn the treasurer. He might suggest that we shame him. (Maybe by sending him a check for more money.) But judge him? I don’t think so.
In fact, I think Jesus might be more likely to condemn the concept of having a church “treasurer” in the first place. Seems I recall a story about Jesus not taking too kindly to money changers. What’s a church doing building up a “treasury” anyway? Didn’t Jesus tell his followers to sell their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor? I think Jesus’s response to the situation you describe might well be to say “Serves you right for having any money lying around available to steal. Why wasn’t that money being spent on the needy?”
notthemama also wrote:
Well, if you’re saying Paul’s teachings should be on the same footing as Billy Graham’s, I’ll agree with you. If I were a practicing Christian, it would be my view that neither of those gentlemen should be deemed infallible.
The early Christian church had a tough road theologically as well as all those nasty Romans wanting to use them for sport. Why? Jesus only taught to Jews about Judaism. It was up to the followers to bring in the Gentiles, and they had no guidelines. Do they have to convert to Judaism and follow the law or do different rules apply to them. Big debate about this in the early church. Paul was a very strict Jew, so coming from that kind of background, it’s only logical that kind of attutide would transfer over. Jesus was a reformer of Judaism, he was not inventing a new religion, hence his saying about not changing anything in the law. As a Jew, God’s law was God’s law, there was no changing that, for the Jews. However, Gentiles, and the legion of Pagans that were converted, weren’t about to follow 613 rules that went along with the law of Moses, so it was much easier to have separate rules for them. Jews were to follow Judaism, Gentiles had an easier time at it. Unfair? Hey, I guess it’s not easy being God’s chosen people, eh? I think that is why Paul’s message was so different, he was trying to get the Pagans and non-Jews in line, and had to set up some kind of law.
The result after the first couple hundred years? Chuck pretty much everything involving Judaism and start a new religion, Christianity. If one thinks that Christianity is the “fullfilment” or logical extension of Judaism, then one is sorely mistaken. The core beliefs are even different now. I don’t think that was Jesus’ intention, but 2,000 years of hindsight may have clouded my vision a bit.
For you conspiracy theorists . . . Paul, being Saul the terrible and killing Christians left and right, does a 180 and starts preaching for Jesus. Could he have seen that killing them only made them martyrs and strengthened the ranks, so he decided to change strategy and make Jesus’ message different enough that Jews wouldn’t follow it, thus having the same desired result, no Jewish converts. I believe Paul was one of the rare few that wasn’t martyred and actually had a pretty long life. Coincidence?
Oh yes, and judging from your last post, notthemama, it looks like you scoured the Gospels for passages where Jesus condemns someone, or says something harsh. I admire your research skills.
However, if those passages are all you can come up with, I stand by what I have said. Nowhere in those passages does Jesus pass judgment (or urge his followers to pass judgment) on sinners. The closest he comes are the passages about the Pharisees, but he seems to view them as guilty of defiling his Father’s house, not of committing your run-of-the-mill sin.
The distinction between Paul and Jesus goes far beyond Paul having “a different approach,” in my view. Paul’s writings seem almost diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus, in some respects. (Not in all respects, I hasten to add.)
Jesus’s overriding message boils down to a few basic themes which are repeated throughout the Gospels:
Love God, and keep his commandments.
Love thy neighbor as thyself.
You cannot worship God and mammon (money). Use your worldly possessions to help the needy.
Forgive those who trespass against you.
Worry about your own sins, and not the sins of others.
Be humble.
I may be missing some, but those seem to be the biggies. Granted, most folks have a hard time living up to them.
D’oh! My bad, sorry. I reliazed after I posted it that I was thinking of John, not Paul. Well, there goes ANOTHER theory. Dang! I thought I was on to something. Paul was beheaded, one was crucified upsidedown, another skinned alive. Funny, we accept there martyred deaths from the “extra-biblical” books, but not much else.
I proudly stand corrected! My first post and look what happened! But in my defense, that wasn’t really my point, it was just a side note.
There is an important difference between Paul and Jesus–Jesus was promoting a philosophy, a system of beliefs. Paul was creating a church, a community. In order to do that , you have to find a way to deal with not just actions, but the people that preform actions. Increasingly large groups of people were attracted to what had been a small cult in the backwaters of the Roman Empire but they had no social structure to form their new communities around, nor had they any particular compulsion to talk to each other. Paul’s work was to give these commuinities shape and to construct a sense of unity and consisitency among them. That is why he spent his life running all over the Empire, writting letters when he could not come himself. “Love thy neighbor as thyself” fairly vauge. It works fine alone as long as you are talking about a small group of people who all knew Jesus personally, or at least know people that knew Jesus personally. However, once you get to second and third generations, people who have “grown up” in the faith, and people who are not as single-minded as the original followers the principle of “love thy neighbor” has to be expanded upon and explicated before it can be used to guide the large group. For instance, the community would not survive long if every treasuer who stole the kitty and the pastor’s wife was not repremanded and in fact allowed to go on living in the community, doing his job–that kitty is the charity for the widows and orphans, and if the same treasuer steals it every year then widows and orphans will die. This is clearly unchristian. So how do you deal with the situation? Kick out the sinner until, in the opinion of the community, he has repented. Then let him back in. Jesus never suggests anything as pragmatic as this, because he was working to a different end, concerned with the individual, not the group dynamics.
It is worth noteing that the seven letters believed to be genuinely Pauline are considered by biblical historians to be the oldest parts of the NT? The gospels were probably not written down until the early second century (100-120), but the Pauline letters were in circulation by 50, 15 years after Jesus’s death. That dosen’t mean they are any more “authentic” than the gospels, of course, but ut is interesting.
I find it striking that several of the posters to this thread have independently noticed the tension between the writings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus.
I know I didn’t read about that tension anywhere. I noticed it myself in reading the New Testament as a lad. When I saw the OP, it was my first awareness that anyone else had noticed this.
The fact that others have independently spotted the conflict between the works of Paul and the teachings of Jesus suggests that the conflict is real, and not imagined.
Gotta bone to pick with Guapo on one thing (BTW, good first post, for a newbie!)
I strongly disagree with your statement that “Jesus was a reformer of Judaism, he was not inventing a new religion.” Jesus was NOT a reformer of Judaism. There were other people already doing that, concurrently with Jesus’ time on earth. I’m not a Jewish historian, so I don’t know their names offhand, but they did exist.
Jesus WAS inventing a new religion, one that was to be called “Christianity”. He was the living, breathing fulfillment of 2,000 years of prophecy and covenants between God and His chosen People. Jesus was the Promised One, the Messiah, the Christ, the Anointed One, the Incarnation of God on Earth. He was the Branch that was to come out of the Root of the House of David. He came to earth to turn the foundations laid by Judaism 90 degrees, away from legalism and towards a more simple forgiveness of sin through belief in Him as the One Sacrifice Given for Many.
He said He wasn’t here to change the law, not because he was speaking only to Jews, but because the law doesn’t change for Christians. Christians still live by the principles outlined in the Old Testament. I said “principles”, not “613 nitpicky rules about what to do when your donkey falls into the ditch on the Sabbath”.
The broad general principles of the Old Testament (God exists, He cares about His Creation, He has a plan for us, we can talk to Him, He has rules for us to follow if we want to please Him, and so forth) and the general guidelines (don’t steal, don’t kill, don’t bear false witness, etc.) are all still applicable to Christians.
“What to do when your donkey falls into a ditch on the Sabbath” could not be construed as a “principle” or a “guideline”. It’s a very specific rule.
The early church fathers in the first couple hundred of years of Christianity were not the ones responsible for “chucking pretty much everything involving Judaism.” Jesus Himself was the one who said, through his actions, “You don’t need to sacrifice animals anymore to be forgiven of your sin.” Yes, I know He never actually SAID that, but that was His intention, in coming to Earth to be sacrificed on the cross. That was the whole point of it, to “chuck out” all the old nitpicky laws and make a new start. From then on, men could have a personal relationship with God through His Son Jesus, instead of having to go through a priest.
No, I’m sorry, I am not “sorely mistaken”. Christianity IS the fulfillment of Judaism; Jesus WAS the Promised Messiah, everything the Jews had been hoping for. I’m not saying it was a “logical extension” of Judaism; nowhere does Christianity itself claim to be that. No, the core beliefs are not that different, other than the main fact that the Jews today are still waiting for the Messiah, and the Christians believe that He already came.
Um, no, he preached to the Jews, if anything, even more passionately than to the Gentiles. See Romans. It goes on and on and on…And if he didn’t want Jews to believe Jesus was the Messiah, I’m sorry but it seems totally counter-productive for him to publicly express this belief himself. “Now, you kids be good while I’m gone. I’ll be back next Saturday, from my trip down to Roswell to look for the warehouse where the government is keeping those aliens. But, now, I don’t want any of you to believe that the government really does have a warehouse full of frozen aliens down in Roswell. 'Cause it’s not true, 'kay? See you Saturday.”
Yes, Spoke I did go and look for passages where Jesus sounds “harsh”. That’s kind of how a debate works, isn’t it? Point/counterpoint? You said, “Jesus was never a meanie,” so I went and found some passages where He was. I’m sorry you don’t seem to take my point about the “different approach”.
I would be very interested in knowing the references where you say Jesus and Paul are “diametrically opposed”. I don’t think something that can be explained by my point about “different approaches” counts. Yes, Paul was harsh and judgemental, and Jesus did say, “Love your neighbor” more often. But they were still preaching the same Gospel, which is that of repentance of sins and forgiveness by God. THAT’S the main point here. All the rest of this whole Paul/Jesus debate is just “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” stuff.
So Paul pounded the pulpit and hollered, “You are ALL going to BURN in HELL unless you REPENT of your SINS!” So Jesus preached, “Do unto others as you would be done by.” They are both traveling to the same destination, which is the salvation of the soul for all eternity. What difference does it make whether they drive a loud obnoxious Pauline snowplow, or a velvety-smooth Jesus Cadillac?
I would also like to point out, Spoke, that although Jesus’ message CAN be boiled down to the points you mention in the Gospels, there is a lot more to the Bible, and Christianity, than just Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I have never in my life encountered a Christian church that based its whole witness on just those four books.
As I’ve already mentioned, the entire Bible works together to present the Good News that Jesus is the Son of God, and to tell how men may be saved from eternal damnation by believing in Him. Some parts of the message come from a furious pulpit-pounder, some come from the Lamb of God Himself, and golly, let’s not forget that some come from rational, sane human beings like Luke, James, and whoever it was who wrote Hebrews.
NOTTHE: for “debaters” see Rom1:29, one of the “rants” that Paul went on & on about lists of sinners.
For overriding the Mercy of Jesus, see 1Cor6:9 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven…” another rant & list of sins. Paul SEEMS to be saying here, and it has been so used by various intolerant Bible-thumpersthat these classifications of sinners are so bad, that evn if they repent, they do not get to go to Heaven.
In Matt23, as you quoted, I really can’t think of a better description of Paul, who WAS a scribe & Pharisee. One of the few “condemning” speeches given by JC, and it so clearly talks about Paul and his intolerant pickiness, that it could only be better by a giant Hand and a glowing sign that says “I"M TALKING ABOUT PAUL HERE”. The only sinner that Jesus condemns is the self-rightous condemner; ie PAUL!
You say Jesus did not have to be a Prophet, but he was. and I believe that Matt23, and Matt 24:23-24 and on, JC is making a Prophesy about the false prophet to come–Paul.
[Mat 5:18.13] 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.
Frankly, you may believe that, but you’d have a hard time convincing the Jews of that. He did not fulfill the prophecies, and the retroactive “second coming” bit seems a bit forced even to my gentile eyes. There’s not a whisper of such a thing in the OT. I can dig up the links to threads where the Jews on this board explain exactly how Jesus came short of the Jews’ hopes if you like.
Sorry, but in my experience the two religions are quite different. Christians value grace over works, and accept that the innocent sometimes suffer, and God is Three in One. Jews value adherance to God’s laws over accepting that the Messiah has come, and believe that whatever happens to you is either a blessing in disguise or your own fault, and God is One and only One.
Well, like I said, when it comes to in-your-face Bible duels, I’ve “been there, done that.” This is precisely why I haven’t been involved in any of the religion threads so far, because there can never be any resolution. People just keep arguing back and forth.
So if it’s all the same to ya’ll, I think I’ll mosey on over to MPSIMS and kick back for a while.
“GUAD”: Matt5:18 “…till all be fufilled” is generally interpreted as meaning the Cucifixion & Resurrection, ie, until Christ dies for our sins, the Law must still be followed.
And yes, folks, I thought maybe, I was crazy in thinking Paul was no “true disciple”, but after seeing so many come to the same decision independently, I am nearly sure. Oddly enuf, the counter-arguements by NOTTHEMAMA, and others have actually made my case and conviction stronger. Paul was no more infallible than Jerry Falwell. His letters/rants/ diatribes and general bouts of condemming no more belong in the Bible than Tammy Fays begging forgiveness speach, or Papal Bulls (not to class the 2 together).
I suspected that that was how it would be explained. However, it also first specifically mentions “Till heaven and earth pass” which I have seen no sign of happening. “Till all be fulfilled” is vague enough that one can consider it to be just about anything, and indeed, though the Crucifixion and Resurrection can be considered fulfilled if one believes in such, I would hesitate to consider that “all”. We’re still waiting for the Second Coming, after all.
Thanks! By the way, loved Dinosaurs. I probably should mention that after doing a lot of reading as of late, my belief in Christianity is in jeopardy, and that is over 20 years of such. These boards really help, and I thought I’d put out my doubts and have them refuted as opposed to just going on and believing the same old thing.
Ok, actually, Judaism and Christianity just don’t differ on the issue of the Messiah and the nature of God (Trinity or not). From my understanding, in Judaism, there is no such thing as original sin, a literal “Hell” of eternal torture, the fall of Satan and a Devil opposed to God in competetion for souls, and that is just a start. If the very nature of God, good and evil and the afterlife are different, how can one say that they are the same? This has been a major stumbling block for me. And seeing that many of these current teachings were set in creeds by around 300 A.D. at the council of Nicea (I believe), they had thrown out basic Judaic teachings, and continued to do so throughout history. I see what current Christianity teaches and preaches, and it just doesn’t seem to jive. I’ve got a list I’d be more than willing to share, but I think that would be getting off the thread a bit. Maybe I’ll start a new one for that.
But back to the OP, are the two teachings different? Perhaps we are placing style over substance. What we see in the NT is based on the same principle (not making comment to whether or not it’s Jesus and/or Paul’s actual words), they just communicated it differently.
There is one big difference: JC usu condemns the SIN, Paul condemns the SINNER. In other words, JC seems to be saying, it is bad to sin, but even if you do, you are not a sinner, and can be redeemed thru me.
Paul condemns a long list of sinners, whom he specifically says will not get to heaven, and since he leaves no “except by” “loophole” seems to indicate even the Mercy of Jesus can’t save you, UNLESS, MAYbe you stop being a sinner. Although he condemns drunkards along with Gays, that seems to say if you die drunk, to Hell you go, Jesus or no.
Oddly enough, the only “sinner” Jesus seems to be real hot about, and unforgiving, is those who condemn others. It IS nice to know that IF I go to Hell, not only will I have some great company, Paul will be in a lower level yet…
Me, I’ll stick with Merriam-Webster and just use it to mean “passionate”.
What’s a church doing building up a “treasury” anyway? Didn’t Jesus tell his followers to sell their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor? I think Jesus’s response to the situation you describe might well be to say “Serves you right for having any money lying around available to steal. Why wasn’t that money being spent on the needy?”