Jesus Vs Paul

[sergei29]

Has anyone ever noticed the difference in the teachings of Christ from the Gospels and Paul's letters? I always hear the modern church movement talk about the ireligiousity of Christ and how he hated the religion, how he hated rules and regulations and it was all about a genuine relationship with God. However, i was always noticing that Paul was all about "men you sit here, women you sit there, oh and you can't really speak if you are a women", and if you are a widow after a certain age then forget about remarying, but if you are young that its okay; oh and don't wear any jewelry or make up if you are a woman...there must be others but those are the ones that always stuck with me.

Anyone ever had any similar thoughts?

[Overcame Faith]

Yes, I have noted what you say. My conclusion is that Paul was a fraud!

[NeverAgainV]

Absolutely YES! My husband said he didn't think he and Paul would get along very well! LOL.

 

The churches today and not about the teachings of Jesus, who they profess to follow, but the teachings of a misogynist, judgmental, jerk named Paul.

Which is the reason most people who follow that are also misogynist, judgmental jerks too!!

 

Oh I know that was bad of me....I just do not like Paul. I don't like his religion either!

[sergei29]

Absolutely YES! My husband said he didn't think he and Paul would get along very well! LOL.

 

The churches today and not about the teachings of Jesus, who they profess to follow, but the teachings of a misogynist, judgmental, jerk named Paul.

Which is the reason most people who follow that are also misogynist, judgmental jerks too!!

 

Oh I know that was bad of me....I just do not like Paul. I don't like his religion either!

i was very troubled by his attitudes, view on life, view of God, view of faith, and its role in a person's life, etc etc. i thought that if that's what Christianity is...then no thank you!

[sergei29]

the whole women not talking in church and not remarrying bothered me a lot...well he was an angry Jewish man who killed Christians (if the story is true, i dunno anymore). In any case, even if it was true, his angry and intense personallity showed in his Christian life.

[WaitingInfinity]

Paul was super sarcastic and downright rude to people who didn't believe in Jesus. In some of the epistles, he makes some cruel remarks. 

I've always thought that he was a guy who saw an opportunity to do something big with his life and he saw the beginnings of Christianity as the way to do it. He could have made up the story of the vision and everyone hailed him as a fellow believer. Perhaps he even convinced himself it was true after a while. It seems as though the God of the Old Testament, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit who inspired Paul are completely different people. Oh, maybe they are. Maybe it's just the interpretation of people and the societal and philosophical fashionings of the times.

[chrisstavrous]

I never noticed how different paul and jesus teaching were when I was a christian, but now oh boy! but then I find jesus teachings being equally distasteful.

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

Oh, this is a juicy topic. From what I have read in the bawble, my impression was that John already had a number of disciples available when Jebus came along. I think he saw an opportunity to rebrand his product, but after a few months together, their ideals diverged. Jesus felt all should be welcome to God's program through Grace, obeying the laws as one deemed fit since all things come through Him anyway. John didn't like that. He was a politician at heart that had a platform to push, and he lost a few disciples to Jesus' mob when the parted ways. I really feel this is why Jesus stayed up north towards Galilee like he did and left John's territory alone. The fact John the Baptist even considered Jesus as being a fraud later on while imprisoned says a lot about his character I think.

 

We are talking about John the Baptist right? Oh, that's right. We are talking Paul.  *head slap*

 

Paul was a major stick in the mud, but I think he is a re embodiment of John on  a lot of levels.

[Margee]

Yes, I have noted what you say. My conclusion is that Paul was a fraud!

 

OF, you are one of the greatest bible scholars I have ever met. Would you take the time for me and the other newcomers on the board to explain why you think Paul was a fraud? I would be really interested in hearing your explanation. How did you come to this conclusion? Can you give me some of your details? Thanks.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Most of the biblical scholars I've read have concluded that st. paul was completely unaware of the gospels as well as of the life and teachings of jesus.  I view st. paul as a wandering preacher who had some knowledge of certain christian doctrines who was intelligent enough to impose his own thoughts upon the doctrines with which he was familiar.  Certainly nothing he says even remotely alludes to what the gospels tell us about jesus, other than that he was crucified.  I've even heard certain suspicions that st. paul was originally a gnostic.  Personally, I'm okay with the belief that neither st. paul nor jesus ever existed. 

[Geezer]

Most of my Christian experience was in the Church of Christ.  Members of the Church would deny this but their actions and traditions indicate they worship the Bible, Paul, Jesus, and God and pretty much in that order. They view Paul as sort of a human personification of the earthly Jesus.

In the Church of Christ Paul is generally acknowledged as the most inspired human being that ever lived. The c of c believes everything Paul said, did, or wrote came directly from God. In essence Paul was God’s personal emissary here on earth with a direct mandate from God to carry on Jesus teaching and establish Jesus Church.

 

Paul’s Epistles are the oldest Christian writings known to exist and preceded the Gospels by several decades.  Modern day Christians interpret Paul’s writings in ways that are intended to confirm the gospels but the gospels didn’t exist when Paul was writing his epistles.

 

I agree with TheRedneckProfessor’s assessment of Paul. Earl Doherty’s book The Jesus Puzzle puts Paul and his epistles in the correct context. When Paul is read in context it becomes clear that he was unaware of an earthly Jesus or any of his teachings.

 

Scholars differ on this issue but I think Paul was simply attempting to reform Judaism and make it more accessible to Gentiles. I don’t think Paul had any intention of creating a new religion. Paul was focused on doing away with certain aspects of the law or modifying them. Jesus was quite clear in his teaching that the law was still binding, but was being misunderstood and misinterpreted.

 

Several scholars have written some excellent works dissecting the book of Acts and provide an abundance of evidence that, IMO, conclusively proves the book of Acts is fiction. Paul’s encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus was undoubtedly made up. That never happened.  If it did it clearly didn’t make much of an impression on Paul because he never even mentions it in any of his writings.

 

The bible is a collection of myths it isn't a historical record of anything because none of the stuff recorded in the gospels really happened.

[TrueFreedom]

The fact John the Baptist even considered Jesus as being a fraud later on while imprisoned says a lot about his character I think.

 

That sounds interesting.  Source of information?

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

 

The fact John the Baptist even considered Jesus as being a fraud later on while imprisoned says a lot about his character I think.

 

That sounds interesting.  Source of information?

 

Matthew Chapter 11

[TrueFreedom]

 

 

The fact John the Baptist even considered Jesus as being a fraud later on while imprisoned says a lot about his character I think.

 

That sounds interesting.  Source of information?

 

Matthew Chapter 11

 

 

I don't get it.  Commentary?

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

 

 

 

The fact John the Baptist even considered Jesus as being a fraud later on while imprisoned says a lot about his character I think.

 

That sounds interesting.  Source of information?

 

Matthew Chapter 11

 

 

I don't get it.  Commentary?

 

Sorry, you just asked for my source. It's a short read really. Didn't you read it? Verse 2: When John,q who was in prison,r heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples 3 to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come,s or should we expect someone else?”

**Edit**

 

Forgot to put my rationale here, though I doubt it matters.  This has never been addressed. Most just attribute his questioning Jesus' deeds of not being what he expected as a reaction to imprisonment and his morale. Fact is, the rest of Matthew never addresses this doubt, just that Jesus pumps up the crowd in support of John. Kind of a "Sorry to step on your feet bro, but I am changing your program" butt kissing. Just my two cents. Most will drag you around through at least 10 other books, old and new Testaments, linking one small fraction of words to this and try to play away John's doubt. Fact is, Jesus left the poor bastard to rot having taken over his ministry and deciding to take a different path on political change.

[TrueFreedom]

 

 

 

 

The fact John the Baptist even considered Jesus as being a fraud later on while imprisoned says a lot about his character I think.

 

That sounds interesting.  Source of information?

 

Matthew Chapter 11

 

 

I don't get it.  Commentary?

 

Sorry, you just asked for my source. It's a short read really. Didn't you read it? Verse 2: When John,q who was in prison,r heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples 3 to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come,s or should we expect someone else?”

 

Yes, I read it.  I've never heard anyone point to that statement as evidence that John considered Jesus a fraud.  Moving on...

 

Paul!  Yes, his lawless teaching was quite different from the teachings of Jesus.  Christianity would not have taken off the way it did if circumcision had been required of converts.

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

 

 

 

 

 

The fact John the Baptist even considered Jesus as being a fraud later on while imprisoned says a lot about his character I think.

 

That sounds interesting.  Source of information?

 

Matthew Chapter 11

 

 

I don't get it.  Commentary?

 

Sorry, you just asked for my source. It's a short read really. Didn't you read it? Verse 2: When John,q who was in prison,r heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples 3 to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come,s or should we expect someone else?”

 

Yes, I read it.  I've never heard anyone point to that statement as evidence that John considered Jesus a fraud.  Moving on...

 

Paul!  Yes, his lawless teaching was quite different from the teachings of Jesus.  Christianity would not have taken off the way it did if circumcision had been required of converts.

 

Sorry if you do not agree with my particular word of fraud.  For me, and this is personal opinion, when folks questioned the authenticity of a holy man in those times, they were considering a possible fraud going on. They had a lot of those running around Jerusalem, and the fact he sent his disciples to basically push him on what Jesus' role really was going to be? That's a pretty harsh confrontation. Are you going to take over the government or not? Have I been wasting my time lifting you up to save our people? Who are you?  That's what his doubt reflects.

[TrueFreedom]

I guess I can see that.  It may also been a "what's taking you so long?" message.  Perhaps he hoped that he would be freed from prison.

[Overcame Faith]

 

Yes, I have noted what you say. My conclusion is that Paul was a fraud!

 

OF, you are one of the greatest bible scholars I have ever met. Would you take the time for me and the other newcomers on the board to explain why you think Paul was a fraud? I would be really interested in hearing your explanation. How did you come to this conclusion? Can you give me some of your details? Thanks.

 

 

Look at what Paul asserted as the source of his "gospel".  This is from Galatians, a Pauline epistle that scholars generally agree was written by Paul.

 

¹¹ I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. ¹² I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

 

Galatians 1:11-12.

 

So, Paul claims that his "gospel" came directly from Jesus and not from any man.  Paul even went so far as to say:

 

⁸ But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! ⁹ As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

 

Galatians 1:8-9.

 

According to Paul, therefore, what he taught was the truth and if anyone, even an "an angel from heaven", taught something different then they should be "under God's curse".  If Paul was nothing else, he was certainly self-assured or, as I would put it, quite arrogant.

 

There were those who questioned Paul's claim of direct revelation from Jesus.  In fact, a large part of Galatians is Paul trying to convince the church that his "gospel" was a direct revelation.  As part of his defense, Paul felt it important to deny that he had lied which, given the context, must mean that some had asserted that he had lied.

 

 ²⁰ I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

 

Galatians 1:20.

 

Paul was so convinced that he had the one and only true "gospel" that he publicly opposed Peter and asserted that Peter stood condemned.  Galatians 2:11.  And for what conduct was Peter condemned? 

 

¹¹ When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. ¹² For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. ¹³ The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

 

Galatians 2:11-13.

 

In other words, Paul condemned Peter for not eating with the gentiles while in the company of the "circumcision group".  That is, when Peter was with the gentiles, he acted as the gentiles and ate with them, but when he was in the company of the "circumcision group" he acted as the "circumcision group" and did not eat with the gentiles.

 

Now, read Paul's words found in 1 Corinthians:

 

 

¹⁹ Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. ²⁰ To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. ²¹ To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. ²² To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. ²³ I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

 

1 Corinthians 9:19-23.

 

Though Paul asserted that Peter was a hypocrite for acting one way around the gentiles and another way around the "circumcision group", Paul admited to doing the exact same thing.  While around Jews, he became like a Jew, while around those  under the law he became like one under the law., etc.

 

If Peter was a hypocrite, then Paul was even worse.  He not only did exactly what he condemned Peter for doing, but played the "holier than thou" card by  condemning Peter when Peter did nothing different than what Paul did.  Paul was, therefore, a double hypocrite and one who put down Peter for the purpose of building himself up.

 

After condemning Peter, Paul wrote in Galatians that he essentially preached a sermon to Peter.  Galatians 1:14-21.  Who was Paul to condemn Peter and to preach to him?  Paul never knew Jesus during Jesus' ministry.  However, if we are to believe the Gospels, Peter was with Jesus throughout his ministry.  What is more, even Paul acknowledged that Peter was the first to whom the risen Jesus appeared while Paul was the last.  1 Corinthians 15:3-8.

 

To believe Paul, we must first accept his assertion that he received some sort of mystical revelation from Jesus after Jesus' death even though there were those alive in his day who did not believe him.  We also must believe that his "gospel" is so superior that even an angel from heaven could not correct it.  Additionally, we must believe that his mystical revelation was superior to Peter's who, unlike Paul, was actively involved in Jesus' ministry (according to the Gospels).  Finally, we must believe Paul in all these things even though he condemned Peter for the exact thing that Paul did and was, thus, a double  hypocrite.

 

Paul was a fraud of the lowest order.

[Burny]

the whole women not talking in church and not remarrying bothered me a lot...well he was an angry Jewish man who killed Christians (if the story is true, i dunno anymore). In any case, even if it was true, his angry and intense personallity showed in his Christian life.

 

1 Timothy is the worst book for that kind of attitude and was not written by Paul (even though it was included in the canon because Athanasius thought it was). As for Paul and Jesus teaching a different message - that is true.

 

But ALL the gospels (including the 26 or so that didn't make the official canon) teach a different message than Jesus. Jesus' message can only be known by reading his book - except he didn't leave us with one.

 

The Jesus Seminar concluded that only around 15% of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the 4 gospels of the modern Bible are actually for sure his sayings. Kind of makes you wonder doesn't it?

[sergei29]

by the way, it seems like the church is build on Paul teachings, but didn't Jesus called Peter a Rock, on whom he will build his church? I don't see Peter being much of a significat player after the ressurection. Am i wrong to assume this?

[MerryG]

by the way, it seems like the church is build on Paul teachings, but didn't Jesus called Peter a Rock, on whom he will build his church? I don't see Peter being much of a significat player after the ressurection. Am i wrong to assume this?

 

That line about Peter being the rock on which the church would be built was probably a later addition for the purpose of granting faux legitimacy to the bishop of Rome and what became the Catholic Church. Popes have been regarded as the heirs of Peter's authority. Their "infallible" pronounces have been officially made from the chair (ex cathedra) of St. Peter.

 

In that way, Peter has been a seriously significant player. To Protestants, not so much.

[Gamecock1973]

Paul, who never met Jesus, counts his special revelation as even superior to what is being taught in Jerusalem by Peter and James who knew Jesus personally.  He even BOASTS about the fact that he learned about Jesus from no man!  He had his revelation, then went into the desert for years to hear from God some more and develop his theology.  Many scholars believe that the "superapostles" Paul raves against are Peter and James (the brother of Jesus), and of his encounters with the other apostles are only told from HIS side.  

 

One thing you must keep in mind is that the gospels are written long AFTER Paul's letters, and Pauline Chrisitanity was pretty much the dominant form of Christianity after a few years.  So we're not only just getting their side of the story, but also the gospels about Jesus are also written with a theological slant towards Paul's ideas (especially Luke and John).  There was clearly division at the beginning between the Jewish church centered in Jerusalem and Paul's non-Jewish and Hellenistic Greek churches.  Christianity was pretty much a bust among Jews, because any real Jewish scholar would quickly see through the bullshit of trying to re-interpret Christianity as a fulfillment of Judaism.  There was a reason Paul was always on the run from the Jews- because his use of the Old Testament, misquoting the Torah, and instilling Christianity with elements of other middle eastern religion was OBVIOUS.  The Jews never believed in "orginal sin" and "without the shedding of blood there is no forgivenss of sin" (see grain offerings, etc) and other such key elements to Paul's message.  So Paul abandoned the Jews in favor of the gentiles who had no idea that much of what he was saying about Judaism was bullshit.  Many think Paul's resume, which he constantly repeats (Pharisee of Pharisees) was also just a bullshit attempt to gain street cred for his message among those who had never been to Israel.  That a pharisee would be hunting down Christians for the Chief Priest (who was a Saducee) is utterly ridiculous if one knows much about Judaistic poltics.  The Pharisees and Saducees hated each other! Jewish scholars have also noted the mistakes made by gospel writers as they lump together the different Jewish sects when they encounter Jesus, almost as if those non-jewish writers telling their stories didn't actually know much about Judaism!

 

In any case, Christianity among the Jews failed...and Paul's churches took over Christianity. And they were the ones who wrote the New Testament- people who never met Jesus at all.  We don't know ANYTHING about the original church in Jerusalem, because we only know what Paul and his followers told us.  Who even was James, the brother of Jesus,  the first leader (bishop) of Jerusalem?  Why aren't we told hardly anything about him?  Because obviously Paul utterly disagreed with him. There is even evidence that the apostles, who replaced Judas with another to make the nice round perfect number of 12, did not recognize Paul as an apostle at all. One of the telling stories at the end of Acts Luke tells of Paul being humiliated by James, submitting to him,  and having to take a Jewish vow (ritual!) in the temple...which is clearly just about EVERYTHING Paul stood against!  Yet Paul describes this same visit to Jerusalem in Galatians far differently as one of equals, as another apostle whose work is being blessed by the Jerusalem apostles.

 

Paul did preach a very different message than Jesus, although to be fair, if you tried to figure out some sort of consistent theology on what Jesus said, you couldn't do it.  He is all over the map, and his meaning could be interpreted in a billion different ways (as opposed to the 40,000 via Paul).   Paul taught about a spiritual Christ, and only mentioned the last supper, death, and resurrection of Jesus.  NOTHING else from his natural life mattered to Paul.  He was a guy who never met Jesus, and had no interest in learning from those who knew him personally.  There is a lot of evidence his "vision" created an entirely new religion (kind of like other egomaniacs who had "special revelations!"), although it is really hard to know what the original disciples believed at all (possibly just in a human Jewish messiah or king?), because their stories have been rewritten by Paul and his disciples.  

 

There are some fascinating passages in the gospels, that hint at a possible theological war going on in the early days...Remember Paul was TOTALLY against the law, calling is slavery and all sorts of other nasty things, in favor of his view of the spiritual christ and grace.  But perhaps some of the earliest christians/disciples has a very different view of who Jesus was and how to find salvation.  For example, in Luke 16 the gospel writer shows Jesus telling the parable of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus:

 

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham,have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

 

 

Remember, Paul is preaching the law is bad, all that matters is faith in the resurrected Christ for salvation. Meanwhile, the ONLY thing we know about the Jerusalem church, is that they were still observing the law as Jews (circumcision, no eating blood, etc) and the primary message of James is for christians to take care of the poor!  How interesting that this parable seems to contradict the message being taught by Paul!  Who is preaching that people can ignore the Moses and the Prophets (the Law!)?  Paul!  Who was preaching about someone rising from the dead? Paul! Remember this gospel was written AFTER Paul's letters!  

 

Lot's of interesting tidbits like this and reading you can do about the differences between Paul and Jesus...

[Lilith666]

Paul always annoyed me. He seems like such an egotist, telling his followers to imitate him as he imitates Christ (what about Jesus?). Then there was the part where he was bragging about getting into a fight with Peter about Jews versus Gentiles, and going on about how right he was and how wrong Peter was. Did I get that right, or did I misread it? Anyway, he didn't seem to embody "Xian humility."

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

Salesman, please meet our product of snake oil. 

 

KABLAM!

 

Paul.