Jesus and Paul's teachings, Is there a difference?

[JoStories]

Without the need to parrot what exactly? What must my interpretation look like so you don't accuse me of parroting?

Give your own views of what Christ taught without the need to refer to any Bible verses. What does the Sermon of the Mount mean to you? What does any of what Christ taught mean to you? If you can't tell me that without referring to Bible verses, IMO, one doesn't know, by studying the verses, what they truly mean to you.

 

[Yoshua]

That is a Pauline statement/question.... Yeshua didn't say to call him lord; yet to only call God lord... Yeshua means God saves; so God is the saviour.
So being Christ like would imply that you're serving God, not serving jesus.

Hi Wizanda,

If that will be the case, you are already contradicted what Jesus is saying with these verses.

Matt. 19:28-29
28. And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29. "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name's sake, shall receive many times as much, and shall inherit eternal life.

If Jesus is not the salvation; Jesus should not uttered “and shall inherit eternal life.” He should say “and shall inherit eternal life through God, our Father.”

Luke 7:50
50. And He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

He should not say that her faith saved her. Jesus should say "Your faith has saved you through our Father; go in peace."

Luke 23:42-43
42. And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!"
43. And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

Jesus should not say "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." He should say "No , you need to tell it to the Father, and not me for you to go to Paradise.”

In consistency with Paul’s message:
Acts 4:12
12. "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved."

Acts 16:31
31. And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household."

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

There is no evidence that any of the twelve apostles thought Jesus was God. Only Paul makes this correlation.

Hi Simplelogic,

John 20:28
28. Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
29. Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."
In the original text sequence is the God of me and the Lord of me.

Thanks

 

[Lyndon]

So out of all the four Gospels, you have one verse, and one disciple calling Jesus God, and you are 100% convinced that that particular verse couldn't have been edited/added later by someone like Paul, who obviously believed Jesus was God. And Jesus never called himself God and always directed prayers to the Father in Heaven. Your position is shaky at best.

 

[wizanda]

If Jesus is not the salvation; Jesus should not uttered “and shall inherit eternal life.” He should say “and shall inherit eternal life through God, our Father.”

It doesn't say 'you receive eternal life for believing in me', it says because you're following God's plan... Why it says for my 'name sake', not 'because i give you eternal life' like you're implying... So same message overall, by following his teachings, thus serving God; God will reward us.

He should not say that her faith saved her. Jesus should say "Your faith has saved you through our Father; go in peace."

Yeshua was sent by God to heal the people, her faith was in God's plan.

Jesus should not say "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." He should say "No , you need to tell it to the Father, and not me for you to go to Paradise.”

Yeah whilst he was convulsing in pain he should've debated the guy, and said, "the kingdom of heaven is God's....Yet you can join me because of your faith".

In consistency with Paul’s message:

Simon was called the stone (petros) for a reason, as he was the person who helped mislead you all.

 

[Yoshua]

Context does not prove your point Yoshua. As Metis pointed out, Paul wrote in a dualistic manner and further, the word pistis is not what one might think it as.

Can you discuss the topic merely from your own POV without adding a ton of verses from Paul? The reason I ask this is because people who continually point to this verse or that are not truly thinking for themselves. They are parroting. Say, for example, you read the Sermon of the Mount. You contemplate it, you ruminate over it. And ultimately, if you really study it, you derive your own views of what was said and taught without the need for repeating it. You can speak of it in your own words. This, for me, is what truly studying and understanding any sacred text is all about. I prefer it that way.

Hi Jo,

Do you believe that God is a big bird?

Psalms 91:2-4
2. I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust.''
3. Surely He shall deliver you from the snare of the fowler And from the perilous pestilence.
4. He shall cover you with His feathers, And under His wings you shall take refuge; His truth shall be your shield and buckler.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

No one... ...except through me

"If one were to ask an evangelical Christian if a person can be saved without accepting Jesus as their savior, which to them is synonymous with being born again, you would be answered with, "well, Jesus said...", and they would go on to quote their end-all-debate passage from the Gospel of John. It is an answer that is to be understood as "no", and implied that such a person will certainly spend eternity in the torments of the lake of fire. The verse that is quoted and the interpretation that has been laminated on it have been used as a proof-text for so long by evangelists like Billy Graham, that it is almost impossible for anyone to read it anymore without automatically hearing the evangelical's interpretation. The fact that it is almost always quoted to answer the question if one can be saved without knowing Jesus establishes the false presupposition that the passage has something to do with the question. Thus, we automatically hear the "no" interpretation. But if a person had never heard this passage used this way and read it for the first time, it is doubtful they would come to the same conclusion. And if it had been read in light of everything Yeshua had said in the book of John up to that point, it would have been understood perfectly well... just as those who heard him understood him. The verse you will hear, quoted all by itself is...

"I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

There it is! Case closed... right? Unless one accepts Jesus as his savior he will never get to heaven, and therefore he will spend eternity in hell! When reading these words a person can see Billy Graham waving his hand and hear his accent in his thundering authoritative voice as he emphasizes the words "No one". Not surprisingly, many evangelicals who quote this verse this way couldn't tell you the context in which it is found or tell you to whom Yeshua was speaking when he said it. This is in spite of the fact that nearly everyone is familiar with the text. It is because this verse has to be ripped out of its context for it to have the full effect of the desired interpretation. After hearing this verse used this way, one would naturally assume that the context in which it was stated must be similar to the debate that precipitated its use by the evangelical. One would expect there to have been a serious discussion, where Yeshua made a statement concerning how one is saved, then a question arose of if there was any hope for others who didn't find that way, and then we would read what has been portrayed as Yeshua's hard-nose, exclude-all-others answer. None of this can be found there. There was nothing somber or threatening spoken in this scene at all! On the contrary, Yeshua had just given a sweet, peaceful promise to his disciples, and he spoke these words to them in answer to a question from Thomas...

"Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to myself; that where I am, there you may be also. And where I go you know, and the way you know." Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going, and how can we know the way?" Yeshua said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:1-6

This was in no way a statement of exclusivity. Yeshua's emphasis was on "I", not "No one". The words "No one" were spoken gently as a sweet assurance and personal promise to his disciples that he would be making sure they got to the place he was going to prepare for them. To be sure, they perfectly understood him this way, because they had also heard him say the Father had committed the judgment of all men to him.

"For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the son." "For even as the Father has life in Himself, so He gave also to the son to have life in himself. And he gave authority to him to also execute judgment, for he is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming in which all those in the tombs will hear his voice. And they will come out, the ones having done good into a resurrection of life, and the ones having practiced evil in to a resurrection of judgment." John 5:22,26-29 KJIIV

This is what Yeshua meant by the words, "No one comes to the Father except through me". Only in the sense that Yeshua will judge every man is how he meant that no one gets to the Father around him. This is true whether a person believes in him or not! All he was saying, and what the disciples heard him say would be along the lines of this paraphrase.

"I told you I will be judging every man and determining where they go, and that includes you! So don't let your heart be troubled. You know the judge personally. I am the way. Be assured... I will see to it that you get there."

In summary, it is wrong to use John 14:6 as a proof-text for the evangelical doctrine that suggests unless a man accepts Jesus as his savior, he has no hope of salvation and will therefore spend eternity in the torments of the lake of fire. In John 5:29 Yeshua said that those who have "done good" will be saved and receive a just degree of eternal life." What's at stake

Hi Simplelogic,

Then, how you will view the salvation of man? by good works, by accepting, by obeying.....
I may make a new thread for this after you answered me here.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Jesus never knew Paul and Paul never even met the man. So your last sentence makes no sense to me Yoshua. Paul's teachings are simply not that of what Christ taught. It is that simple, IMO. There are too many inconsistencies to be a revelation of what Christ taught. We will have to agree to disagree.

Hi Jo,

I encourage you to read the book of Acts so you're the one who will see what I'm saying. It does not have any connection if Jesus and Paul have never met each other. What I'm proving to you is--Jesus statement of faith can saved and Paul's faith can saved are consistent--and both say the same thing.

By the way, why Jesus called his name (Saul) during his blindness if he does not know Paul?

Acts 9:4-5
4. Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?''
5. And he said, "Who are You, Lord?'' And the Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.''

Thanks

 

[Lyndon]

Jesus said in the Gospels, you are judged by your works. End of story.

 

[Simplelogic]

Hi Simplelogic,

Then, how you will view the salvation of man? by good works, by accepting, by obeying.....
I may make a new thread for this after you answered me here.

Thanks

Salvation has always been about repentance. A mans ability to turn from his evil and do righteousness.

 

[Simplelogic]

Hi Simplelogic,

John 20:28
28. Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
29. Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."
In the original text sequence is the God of me and the Lord of me.

Thanks

You need to see the way elohim is used in the Tanakh in reference to humans. Especially ones representing the Father.

 

[Simplelogic]

Jesus said in the Gospels, you are judged by your works. End of story.

Well said. Here is a good side by side comparison:

http://jesuswordsonly.com/images/st...Final Chapters/Chapter 17-JesusvPaulchart.pdf

 

[Simplelogic]

"Sermon On the Mount Analyzed From Matthew 5
Condition/Result

[If] poor in spirit = Theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (3)

[If] meek = They shall inherit the earth. (5)

[If] merciful = They will obtain mercy. (7)

[If] persecuted for righteousness sake = Then theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (10)

It logically follows that if you are proud or you are not forgiving or you are persecuted due to sinfulness, you are not qualified to receive mercy or inherit the earth. You are lost. But if you are humble, are merciful, and persecuted for doing good (and bear up under it), then yours is the “kingdom of heaven” and you shall “obtain mercy.”

The salvation theme of the Sermon on the Mount is underscored in how Jesus began the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus called us to have a “righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees,” absent which “you shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 5:20.) Jesus is making obedience to several principles a condition of entrance into heaven. As discussed in the prior chapter, Matthew 5:20 is not Jesus pulling our leg. We are not free to ignore the literal import of Jesus’ words. (See Exceeding The Righteousness Of The Shallowly Righteous —Matthew 5:20.)

Rather, it is clear from the verses that follow in the Sermon that these are real directives. Jesus wants them truly performed. Jesus is explaining what it means to have a righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees:

• You must not call your brother a fool (5:21-26);
• You must not lust after a married woman (gunaika) (5:27-30);1
• You must not divorce your wife (gunaika) absent adultery by her (5:31-32);2
• You must not make false vows (5:33-37);3 and
• You must not return evil for evil (5:38-48).

Jesus is not suggesting these commands are so lofty that you can ignore their literal application to you. Jesus is not opining on faith being the means to acquire this righteousness. Rather, Jesus is directly calling us to obey these principles. By doing so, we shall exceed the shallow righteousness of the Pharisees and “enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 5:20.) The Pharisees obviously committed all these sins. They taught a watered-down version of the Law. (See the chapter on the Pharisees -- Exceeding The Righteousness Of The Shallowly Righteous —Matthew 5:20.) Thus, Jesus was promising “entry...into the kingdom of heaven” (5:20) for obedience to His restoration-of-the-Law principles." Sermon on the Mount Doctrines on Salvation

 

[Yoshua]

Salvation has always been about repentance. A mans ability to turn from his evil and do righteousness.

That is good. But how about faith saves?

 

[Simplelogic]

That is good. But how about faith saves?

Faith (mental belief) has nothing to do with restoration/salvation imho.

 

[Simplelogic]

This is kinda a lengthy post but I believe it best demonstrates the difference between Paul's doctrines and those of the rest of the prophets. Its a fun read too.


Grace and mercy versus Law and works?

"In the book of Romans, Paul goes on to try and drive home his picture of grace versus works with more nonsensical, as well as non-Scriptural, logic. The remainder of Romans is sprinkled throughout with this picture... based on the assumption that he has established it as truth in his previous arguments, namely, that no one can become righteous under the Law, because God made the Law impossible to keep for the very purpose of keeping man humble and reliant on His good graces. We have also seen his twist of Scripture taken from the story of Abraham. Another one of his statements that ultimately makes God responsible for man's sin is this gem.

"Moreover the Law entered that (for this purpose) the offense (sin) might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 5:20

Again he draws the mutually exclusive picture of Law versus grace in the following.

"For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under Law but under grace." Romans 6:14

Later on in Romans, Paul uses an analogy from the time of Elijah to make his grace-versus-works point.

But what does the divine response say to him (Elijah)? "I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant (of Israel) according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work. Romans 11:4-6

Paul's logic is so stood on its head, and his proof demonstrated with smoke and mirrors here that it's almost humorous. It would be if so many didn't actually believe this is the infallible word of God! The only thing that Paul derives from what God said to Elijah is that He had reserved a "remnant" for Himself. Nothing more! Never mind the fact that these seven thousand men had themselves remained true to God's Law and not bowed their knee to Baal! Sounds like works to me! But then, to keep the illusion going, Paul states that this new remnant of saved Israel is "according to the election of grace". This he bases on the assumption that he firmly established the concept of predestination and the election by grace earlier in the infamous passages of Romans 9. This detestable doctrine is itself based on numerous misquotes of Scripture as I have shown. But now Paul continues to build lie on top of lie with the flow of logic that if salvation is by grace, then it is no longer by works; otherwise grace is no longer grace! What utter nonsense! Where is it written that grace and Law (works) are mutually exclusive concepts... other than in Paul's writings? Paul had previously tried to establish this principle that the two concepts cannot go together with this slight-of-hand.

"Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt." Romans 4:4

This slight-of-hand is accomplished by renaming elements in the equation much the way an abortionist would never call an unborn child "a baby". If Paul can get away with calling obedience to God "work", then he can get away with calling the benefits of that work "wages", and if we continue to follow him down this road we find out that wages are really a "debt"! Oh no! Who would want to be accused of being so presumptuous as to bill God for grace?!! Phew! Let's back up and start over. What Paul calls "work" is really obedience to God. God is the One with the bill! He made us and demands the payment of obedience. His grace and mercy are benefits (not wages) of doing business with Him. No one, no matter how obedient, can presumptuously demand payment of anything from God. To do so would involve disobedience to the Law concerning walking humbly with God! Anyone who is obedient and walks humbly with God can have all the faith in the world that God will provide the benefits He promised. This is where true faith exists! Now doesn't this sound so much more simple and right?Even a child can grasp this picture. But one has to spend many years in seminary before they can even pretend to comprehend Paul's convoluted mess.

Now let's look at Scripture and take notice of whom God deems most worthy of His benefits of grace, and mercy. Let's start with Noah.

So the Lord said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I regret that I have made them." But Noah found GRACE in the eyes of the Lord. This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God. Genesis 6:7-9

Then the Lord said to Noah, "Come into the ark, you and all your household, BECAUSE I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation. Genesis 7:1

No one else on earth found grace or mercy from God except one man and his family because he was "just" and "righteous"! Contrary to Paul's doctrine, becoming a beneficiary of God's grace haseverything to do with works. Grace and works are not mutually exclusive. They are inextricably connected to one another. There is more.

For the Lord God is a sun and shield; the Lord will give grace and glory; no good thing will He withhold from those who walk uprightly. Psalm 84:11

For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands,to those who love Me and keep My commandments. Exodus 20: 5,6

But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him, and His righteousness to children's children, to such as keep His covenant, and to those who remember His commandments to do them. Psalm 103 17-18

And the list goes on. Paul's concept of the separation of grace and works is as unscriptural as it can be. Absolutely nothing concerning grace and Law has changed since Yeshua... or Adam for that matter. Men who lived before Yeshua were no less treated to God's wonderful grace and mercy, and man today is under no less obligation to obey God.

The remainder of Paul's errors I will set aside for now. They naturally come crashing down with the fact that their foundations have crumbled. So now the question is, if the Law stands, what laws are we expected to observe."The Law stands

 

[JoStories]

Hi Jo,

I encourage you to read the book of Acts so you're the one who will see what I'm saying. It does not have any connection if Jesus and Paul have never met each other. What I'm proving to you is--Jesus statement of faith can saved and Paul's faith can saved are consistent--and both say the same thing.

By the way, why Jesus called his name (Saul) during his blindness if he does not know Paul?

Acts 9:4-5
4. Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?''
5. And he said, "Who are You, Lord?'' And the Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.''

Thanks

On that point alone, Yoshua, we agree. But as for the rest my friend, I am afraid we do not. I cannot concede that the teachings of Paul are those of The Christ. Paul is simply to misogynist and rule oriented to be anything like what The Christ taught, such as love and caring and understanding. Paul teaches none of that, IMO. And when he does, he adds other things that counter it.

 

[JoStories]

Hi Jo,

Do you believe that God is a big bird?

Psalms 91:2-4
2. I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust.''
3. Surely He shall deliver you from the snare of the fowler And from the perilous pestilence.
4. He shall cover you with His feathers, And under His wings you shall take refuge; His truth shall be your shield and buckler.

Thanks

I believe God is spirit and that is all. And you prove my point in that you cannot simply discuss what Christ teaches without the need for verses to support your position. Do you know what the Sermon of the Mount says? In your own words, mind. I honestly doubt you can or do. I mean no disrespect by that Yoshua but honestly, can you think for yourself here? Can you tell me what Christ taught even once?

 

[Yoshua]

Faith (mental belief) has nothing to do with restoration/salvation imho.

If that will be the case, the words of Jesus below is incorrect, it is equivalent to lying, unless if you did not believe the sayings of Jesus.
So, how would you reconcile this if faith does not saved?

Luke 7:50
50. And He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

Thanks

 

[Desert Snake]

On that point alone, Yoshua, we agree. But as for the rest my friend, I am afraid we do not. I cannot concede that the teachings of Paul are those of The Christ. Paul is simply to misogynist and rule oriented to be anything like what The Christ taught, such as love and caring and understanding. Paul teaches none of that, IMO. And when he does, he adds other things that counter it.

Interesting opinion, but entirely irrelevant to the Xian, and also Judaic, religious paradigm. It doesn't make sense in a ''Jewish'' format, and Jesu was Jewish.