When Jesus gave the sermon on the mount I think it was his wish that Christians should follow the Mosaic law word to word till heaven and earth exists but most Christians today cite St. Paul to escape from following the Jewish Law. Did Jesus and St. Paul taught different things?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did Jesus and St. Paul taught contradictory things?
- Thread starter Pleroma
- Start date
Unfortunately yes, they taught quite different things:
Jesus in his parables says that works are what saves us and not faith\obedience.
In other words, you can be an Atheist, but if you do God's will through works, you save yourself. This parable proves it:
"But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first, and said, 'Son, go work in my vineyard.' He answered, 'I will not,' but afterward he changed his mind, and went. He came to the second, and said the same thing. He answered, 'I go, sir,' but he didn't go. Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said to him, "The first. — Matthew 21:28–32,
Paul in Romans, chapter 3, claims that we are saved by believing in Jesus' sacrifice for us and that works are useless.
To answer your questions, the answer is yes. Jesus was right and Paul was wrong. To save yourself you must stop sinning, by obeying the Mosaic law
Jesus in his parables says that works are what saves us and not faith\obedience.
In other words, you can be an Atheist, but if you do God's will through works, you save yourself. This parable proves it:
"But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first, and said, 'Son, go work in my vineyard.' He answered, 'I will not,' but afterward he changed his mind, and went. He came to the second, and said the same thing. He answered, 'I go, sir,' but he didn't go. Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said to him, "The first. — Matthew 21:28–32,
Paul in Romans, chapter 3, claims that we are saved by believing in Jesus' sacrifice for us and that works are useless.
To answer your questions, the answer is yes. Jesus was right and Paul was wrong. To save yourself you must stop sinning, by obeying the Mosaic law
Last edited:
I suspect the tension stems from differing interpretations of Jesus' message after his death.Jesus wrote no gospel.If he simply wanted to make some reforms that is understandable.However if he was founding the one true faith for all mankind why leave such precious message to the vagaries of his followers memories?
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
The law as it was given to the Jews is not the right interpretation of the true royal law. An example is circumcision, which they did in the flesh, but should have been in the heart via the spirit. The OT law is shadows and types of the real things... not that it does not apply in some ways.. for ex: we should not kill.
Many see a contradiction of Jas to Paul's by faith alone. But there's the possibility that James was correcting not Paul, but a misunderstanding of Paul where he is speaking of the Mosaic law. In Jas his audience is already Christian, but James faults
them for not having transferred their intellectual belief in Jesus to their 'works', their behavior does not reflect love that ought to be
consistent with belief in Jesus. In Mt Jesus says that not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Pauls teachings were based on the 'New Covenant' not the 'old covenant'
Its important to realise that the Mosaic law was set in place until the Messiah would come. When the Messiah did come, he instituted a new covenant with his disciples. That covenant was not based on the mosaic covenant...it was based on new laws and requirements. It was also for a different purpose.
The purpose of the Mosaic law covenant was to lead the Isrealites to the Messiah.
The purpose of the New Covenant was that it would lead those in it, into the heavenly kingdom...the rulership of the Messiah from heaven. To be apart of that new covenant arrangement, one had to be selected by God and had to fully adhere to the law of the Christ.
When one understands what the law of the Christ entails, it is easy to see how the mosaic laws can remain inforce, while at the same time, the religious requirements be different.
The religious requirements of the mosaic law entailed, sacrifices, tithing, male circumcision, dietary restrictions, celebrating the agricultural festivals, keeping separate from the nations, wearing specially identifiable clothing etc
But the New covenant did not require such things. And this is why many people misunderstand what Paul was teaching. He wasnt teaching people to adhere to these religious requirements of the mosaic law, hence they reason he was against the laws of God. But this is wrong thinking. Paul was not against the moral laws as found in the mosaic law... he strongly promoted the moral laws... it was only the religious laws that were not being promoted.
And the other big error people make is that they think it was only Paul who taught this. It wasnt'. Paul got his instruction from the 12 Apostles to teach the nations that they did not have to practice mosiac law. The fact is that the people of the nations (gentiles) were being accepted into the heavenly kingdom through an anointing by Holy spirit. They were being chosen by God even though they had never adhered to the religious requirements of the mosaic law... why? because the New Covenant did not require adherence to the religious laws of the Mosaic law.
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:17)
And the New Covenant clearly stated that Christians should follow the Mosaic Law word to word and not do away with it completely. St. Paul came along and he abolished the Law by going against Jesus, a Law which was to be practised till heaven and earth pass away.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
You bring up a point which is important to understanding of how the mosaic law could come to an end. True, Jesus did say that he did not come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. But he did say he came 'to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17)
This expression “to fulfill” is very important. The best illustration i've seen is that of a builder who enters a contract to build a structure. The contract is not fulfilled until he has completed the structure. Once the structure is built, then the builder is no longer under obligation to the contract. He is free of his obligations because the work is complete.
And this is what it means the Jesus came to 'fulfill' the law. All isrealites were born into a contract, they had to uphold the law and keep it in its entirety, so of course Jesus did not attempt to change or rip up, the Law; rather, he fulfilled it by keeping it perfectly. He was the only one born under that law who successfully live by it without violating it and in this way he 'fulfilled' it.... the obligation to keep it thereafter was not binding on him just as the builder who completes the structure is no longer bound to a building contract. The chistian scriptures tell us that the law came to an end by Jesus death.
Colosians 2:13 Furthermore, though you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcised state of your flesh, God made you alive together with him.+ He kindly forgave us all our trespasses+14 and erased* the handwritten document+that consisted of decrees+ and was in opposition to us.+ He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake.*
Jesus made the comment in Vs 18 ""For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished"
This comment shows us that there would be a time when the law would pass away. Its only logical for he said it would remain only until all is accomplished. And in this, he was speaking of himself and the sacrifice he would offer. He would fulfill all his obligations under the law and accomplish all that it is required of it to the point of death.
Thus it was after he died that the mosaic law was 'fulfilled' and the new covenant could begin
Last edited:
it is understandable that you claim that Paul is right and James is wrong.
It is very comfortable to keep believing that works are not necessary, whereas James says they are indispensable for salvation.
people believe what makes them more comfortable.
I made no such claim. I distinguished between the very different communities Paul and James were addressing. I think its accurate
to say that both, faith and works, are required.
RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
Here's the deal, Christianity can be just as much of an experiential religion as the eastern religions are. But the Bible is our guide to how we are to interpret the things we experience. So, if the Bible's message is not united how do we interpret what we experience so that we can believe rightly? Simply experiencing something doesn't mean you understand it rightly. God is good, he gave us perfect perspective about life in the written words of the Bible. Even though it was written by men with finite experience and knowledge, the main idea about God's justice and grace are infallible.
You raise a good point. I think to understand something 'rightly' one needs to take into account the different modes of expression.
We have lost touch with the poetic.
The time conditioned language doesn't speak to modern man. Our experiences of God, sense of God, are mediated through different ages, not always making sense with the present age. I think this quest does not end until one has drawn ones last breath. Augustine stated plainly and simply concerning the incomprehensibility of God; "If you gave understood, it is not God".
For those who think they have solved the puzzle, it is not the living God.
Last edited:
Jesus came and presented himself as the the Messiah. The Jews had a choice whether to accept or reject him.
If they had not rejected him he would have ruled on earth under the Law of Moses.
When he was rejected died on the cross and rose God instituted the New Covenant leaving the Jew trying to live under a covenant that he no longer accepted.
The Gospels of Mathew Mark and Luke record Jesus presenting himself as the Messiah, The Gospel of John is the Gospel of the New Covenant as are Paul's letters First Peter etc
If they had not rejected him he would have ruled on earth under the Law of Moses.
When he was rejected died on the cross and rose God instituted the New Covenant leaving the Jew trying to live under a covenant that he no longer accepted.
The Gospels of Mathew Mark and Luke record Jesus presenting himself as the Messiah, The Gospel of John is the Gospel of the New Covenant as are Paul's letters First Peter etc
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
If it's between Jesus and Saul/Paul, I would just defer to Paul.
RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
You're exactly right, we'll never know everything about God. But the Bible is the closest thing we have to God's verbal dictation.
They record Jesus' preaching that with him the reign of God is upon them. It has to be taken into account that the Apostles preached and the Evangelists wrote in the light of Resurrection faith. It is not at all clear which are the words of Jesus himself
and which were placed on his lips, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, by the early church.
While the Bible presents the true word of God, he does not speak, only humans speak. I don't think the Bible was dictated, His word
comes to us through the mystical experience of those few who witnessed, preached and wrote. And in a language and style of the
time. The Bible ought to be studied as one would study other literary works, uncovering its genius for each new generation.
RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
So how can we call it the Word of God if God never speaks through it ?
Are the Scriptures themselves the word of God or do they contain the word of God?
It raises the question are the 'ten words' really the words of God spoken to Moses or human formulations Even in rabbinic discussions is an issue. In Exodus Rabbah on Exod 19:8, God is portrayed as thinking. 'When I say to them, 'I am the Lord your God' they will ask, Who is speaking? God or Moses?" Some rabbis thought that the people on the plain below heard the words of all ten commandments, others asked which commandments were "given in the words of the Holy One" and which "by the hand of Moses." Maimonides, Guide to the Perplexed, argued that the people heard a sound but not the distinct words. Rabbi Mendel of Rymanov suggested that all that was heard of the words was the first letter of the first word of the first commandment--the aleph of 'anoki, a soundless glottal stop. "Rabbi Mendel transformed the revelation on Mount Sinai into a mystical revelation, pregnant with final meaning, but without specific meaning. It has to be translated into human language, and that is what Moses did. In this light every statement on which authority is grounded would become a human interpretation, however valid and exalted, of something that transcends it." (On the Kabbala and Its Symbolism)
Revelation by the word of God means divine revelation to which human beings have given expression is words. That the "word" of the Bible is human and time conditioned, it is no less "of God". (excerpts from "And the Lord Said?")
RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. (II Tim.3:16)
The grass withers and the flowers fade but the Word of our God stands forever. (Is. 40:8)
You can't tell me that the Bible is not a divine book. It prophesies things that happen hundreds if not thousands of years into the future and they happen. For example Genesis 3:15, and Matthew 24:15-16. These are prophecies based off of the omniscience and sovereignty of God.
You also can't tell me that the Bible has a temporary message. A passage of Scripture cannot mean today what it did not mean then. The message that was preached back then still applies today. And although the Bible's message isn't always literal it is authoritative.
Lastly, an interpretation is not a translation. If the writers of the scripture interpreted the words of God but did not copy them exactly the Bible would be on the level of Mishnah, which it is not. God and man are not interchangeable.