Jesus vs Paul?

[Flavius]

Everything that Jesus said is not in the Bible. Didn't Jesus tell Paul to take the message to the Americans? Paul went to the fouth Heaven so when a soldier comes back with his instructions and doctrine I should listen. IMO

There is no fourth level of Heaven, There are only 3.

 

[Oberon]

Paul does not draw from Q and neither do any of the epistle writers. You should just stick to the insults because that's all you know.

Very amusing. Let's look at what I actually said:

Paul IS independent of Q, yet contains the same teaching. Historians call that multiple attestation.

You know what independent means, right? I specifically said Paul didn't draw from Q. However, contrary to what you stated:

There is at least "one single word" uttered from Q in the epistles.

You were trying to illustrate a complete disconnect of the gospels and Q from Paul. Now, even ignoring the fact that we are dealing with entirely different genres written for entirely different purposes dealing with entirely different issues, there ARE specific places where Paul 1) indicates he is familiar with the Jesus tradition included in the gospels and 2) actually cites a teaching from Jesus.

One of these teachings, the one on divorce, is very important because
1) Prohibiting divorce is unique
2) Q cites this teaching as being from Jesus
3) Paul does as well

So, both Paul and Q cite Jesus' teaching on divorce.

 

[dogsgod]

"Prohibiting divorce is unique"

Malachi 2:1“For I hate divorce!” says the Lord, the God of Israel. “To divorce your wife is to overwhelm her with cruelty, ” says the Lord of Heaven’s Armies. “So guard your heart; do not be unfaithful to your wife.


Apparently you are mistaken, as we can read, it was not unique. There are other circumstances wherein divorce is prohibited for life, would you like that I offer more quotes from the OT?

Also, Matthew's Q made an exception, divorce was granted if a woman committed adultery.

What Paul attributes to the Lord is different than what Q assigns to a Jesus. Paul, nor any of the epistles quote any Q sayings nor is a condemnation of divorce from the Lord unique, we do find the same condemnations in the OT, and it was ancient scriptures that Paul was drawing from when he referred to the Lord. Pity he didn't refer to a Jesus as in Q.

 

[Oberon]

"Prohibiting divorce is unique"

Malachi 2:1“For I hate divorce!” says the Lord, the God of Israel. “To divorce your wife is to overwhelm her with cruelty, ” says the Lord of Heaven’s Armies. “So guard your heart; do not be unfaithful to your wife.

This is your best counter-example!?

"Malachi 2,10-16 is probably best known for the words "'I hate divorce'" says the LORD, the GOd of Israel" which appear in many modern translations of the Bible, but do not appear (as we shall see) in the Hebrew manuscripts nor in any of the ancient viersions. This however is only one of the problems associated with this text. Indeed, scholars have long regarded Malachi 2,10-16 as the most difficult passage in the book of Malachi...The various interpretations can almost all be divided into two groups: those which read the passage as a figurative attack on religious syncretism and apostasy... and those which read the passase as a literal attack on divorce and marriage to foreign women."
From Shields, M. A. (1999). Syncretism and divorce in Malachi 2, 10-16. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 111.1, p. 68

There are other circumstances wherein divorce is prohibited for life, would you like that I offer more quotes from the OT?

Sure, let's go through them. It is well known that divorce was a common part of Jewish, Roman, and Greek life. Now, this doesn't mean that nowhere in any text of the ancient world is there a suggestion that divorce shouldn't exist. It DOES mean that prohibition of divorce is rare enough to be very significant. And it certainly means that Paul and Q are both using the same source, and as they are independent, this source is Jesus.

Also, Matthew's Q made an exception, divorce was granted if a woman committed adultery.

And if you knew as much about Q as you claim, you would know that this is widely regarded as Matthew's addition, to soften the absolute claim of Jesus which was too contentious for Matthew's audience.

What Paul attributes to the Lord is different than what Q assigns to a Jesus.

No, it isn't. Different wording of the exact same command just means Paul didn't use Q. They both cite the same teaching.

and it was ancient scriptures that Paul was drawing from when he referred to the Lord.

Just when I thought you couldn't get more ridiculous.

Pity he didn't refer to a Jesus as in Q.

Pity you can't seem to realize that Paul calls Jesus lord all the time.

 

[dogsgod]

The following is from the same letter wherein Paul refers to the Lord when discussing matters of divorce. We can read how Paul intermixes the use of Lord with God, so to suggest that Paul was necessarily referring to Jesus when he quoted the Lord is disingenuous.


1 Corinthians 20 Yes, each of you should remain as you were when God called you. 21 Are you a slave? Don’t let that worry you—but if you get a chance to be free, take it. 22 And remember, if you were a slave when the Lord called you, you are now free in the Lord. And if you were free when the Lord called you, you are now a slave of Christ. 23 God paid a high price for you, so don’t be enslaved by the world.24 Each of you, dear brothers and sisters, should remain as you were when God first called you.

 

[Oberon]

The following is from the same letter wherein Paul refers to the Lord when discussing matters of divorce. We can read how Paul intermixes the use of Lord with God, so to suggest that Paul was necessarily referring to Jesus when he quoted the Lord is disingenuous.


1 Corinthians 20 Yes, each of you should remain as you were when God called you.

Pity you can't read greek: ἕκαστος εν τη κλήσει ᾗ εκηθη, εν ταύτη μενέτω/ let each remain in the same calling in which he was called. There is no "god" in the greek until 1 Cor. 7-24.

Your qoute fails to show convincingly that Paul isn't talking about Jesus and God both, and the theos in 1 Cor. 7:24 doesn't mean that the earlier kurios is not Jesus. It also really doesn't matter. What matters is that Paul can hardly be quoting scripture when referring to the teaching of divorce by Jesus whom he often calls the lord.

Your attempt to show that Paul may call God "lord" too is nothing but grasping at straws. As are most of your arguments in this area.

 

[dogsgod]

Is there a big difference between Pauls words and that of Jesus pbuh?

Yes, Paul attributes to God what eventually became the central teaching assigned to a Jesus by gospel writers.

1 Thessalonians 4:9 "you are taught by God to love one another"

 

[301ouncer]

Yes, Paul attributes to God what eventually became the central teaching assigned to a Jesus by gospel writers.

1 Thessalonians 4:9 "you are taught by God to love one another"

thank you for your help. I am not being a bait here but just wanted to understand the psychological understandings of other faith nations.

So if paul's letters or revelations is the cornerstone of christendom and there is no way we can go back to ask Jesus pbuh of his agreement of such new innovations (for now: salvation by the cross/blood, attonment of Sin by blood and Incarnation and circumcision).

What are we supposed to do? leave it to chance? or do we just go back to the basics and see Jesus pbuh a mere noble and one of the mightiest messengers. full stop.

 

[crystalonyx]

Pauo; seemed to be very heavily influenced by Gnosticism, which rules out him knowing an earthly Jesus, both because he never mentions him, and because the theology he espouses is very gnostic.

 

[fallingblood]

Pauo; seemed to be very heavily influenced by Gnosticism, which rules out him knowing an earthly Jesus, both because he never mentions him, and because the theology he espouses is very gnostic.

Except none of that is true. Paul did in fact talk about an earthly Jesus, specifically about his crucifixion and resurrection.

 

[301ouncer]

Except none of that is true. Paul did in fact talk about an earthly Jesus, specifically about his crucifixion and resurrection.

But James (the young brother of Jesus pbuh) gospel does not mention any crucifixion and resurrection?

 

[dogsgod]

But James (the young brother of Jesus pbuh) gospel does not mention any crucifixion and resurrection?

There are five epistles attributed to a James but there is nothing implicit, let alone explicit in them nor in any of the epistles, with perhaps save one, as regards to a blood sibling of Jesus. James refers all wisdom as coming from ancient scriptures and God, he attributes nothing to Jesus, nothing that doesn't come from ancient scripture.

Typically, as in this case, rather than referring to Jesus as a teacher, he refers to Lev 19:18 and the law.
James 28 Yes indeed, it is good when you obey the royal law as found in the Scriptures: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[d] 9 But if you favor some people over others, you are committing a sin. You are guilty of breaking the law.

[d] Lev 19:18.

Nothing about a crucifixion or a resurrection.

 

[fallingblood]

But James (the young brother of Jesus pbuh) gospel does not mention any crucifixion and resurrection?

Most likely, James never wrote the Gospel accredited to him. At the same time, he probably didn't write anything that is accredited to him. The main evidence for this is that, the manuscripts that we have accredited to James, from a scholarly point of view, were written well after James was dead.

 

[dogsgod]

James 5:6,10-11
"Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you.... Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience. Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy."

James is providing examples of men of God facing suffering and even death, and the best example he comes up with is Job of the OT. Whomever this James is, an earthly Jesus doesn't figure into any of this. Again, typical of the epistles, the earliest of Christian writings.

 

[fallingblood]

James is providing examples of men of God facing suffering and even death, and the best example he comes up with is Job of the OT. Whomever this James is, an earthly Jesus doesn't figure into any of this. Again, typical of the epistles, the earliest of Christian writings.

This isn't true. Many of the Epistles were written well after the Gospels. So they are not the earliest Christian writings. Pauline Epistles could be considered that, but not all Epistles.

And if one understands why the Epistles were written, it is obvious why they are not talking about Jesus. It would not make sense for the Epistle writers to go into long explanations of who Jesus is. Yet, we can see from the communities in which the Epistles were written in, and the books that were related to them, there is really no doubt that they believed in a physical, Earthly Jesus.

 

[logician]

There are five epistles attributed to a James but there is nothing implicit, let alone explicit in them nor in any of the epistles, with perhaps save one, as regards to a blood sibling of Jesus. James refers all wisdom as coming from ancient scriptures and God, he attributes nothing to Jesus, nothing that doesn't come from ancient scripture.

Typically, as in this case, rather than referring to Jesus as a teacher, he refers to Lev 19:18 and the law.
James 28 Yes indeed, it is good when you obey the royal law as found in the Scriptures: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[d] 9 But if you favor some people over others, you are committing a sin. You are guilty of breaking the law.

[d] Lev 19:18.

Nothing about a crucifixion or a resurrection.

It's very natural for some to "jump" to the conclusion when thay see "James" that it was the brother of a supposed Jesus. Of course, we know the gospels were written by unknown writers, nobody really knows who has written most of the NT, and cetainly doesn't know who has "tamnpered" with the writings, most of which do no exist in original form.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Jesus vs. Paul

Two questions:

1) Will it be televised?
2) Will they be following the rules for a Texas Death Match?

 

[dogsgod]

This isn't true. Many of the Epistles were written well after the Gospels. So they are not the earliest Christian writings. Pauline Epistles could be considered that, but not all Epistles.

And if one understands why the Epistles were written, it is obvious why they are not talking about Jesus. It would not make sense for the Epistle writers to go into long explanations of who Jesus is. Yet, we can see from the communities in which the Epistles were written in, and the books that were related to them, there is really no doubt that they believed in a physical, Earthly Jesus.

Yes, the epistle writers did continue to write after the gospels so not all predate the gospels, however their theme of a spiritual Christ crucified in a heavenly realm continued on. They never wrote of a Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[fallingblood]

Yes, the epistle writers did continue to write after the gospels so not all predate the gospels, however their theme of a spiritual Christ crucified in a heavenly realm continued on. They never wrote of a Jesus of Nazareth.

Why should they? The epistles were, for the most part, responses to questions that were asked and problems that arose. Those questions weren't where was Jesus from, or did he really live. Those questions were about how to govern the Christian communities, which really gave no real reason to talk about the history of Jesus. The Churches that were written to already were informed about the history of Jesus.

However, the epistles writers do not give evidence that they thought Jesus was some purely spiritual being. If you look at the separate communities of Christians during that time, they all believed that Jesus was on Earth.

 

[dogsgod]

Why should they? The epistles were, for the most part, responses to questions that were asked and problems that arose. Those questions weren't where was Jesus from, or did he really live. Those questions were about how to govern the Christian communities, which really gave no real reason to talk about the history of Jesus. The Churches that were written to already were informed about the history of Jesus.

However, the epistles writers do not give evidence that they thought Jesus was some purely spiritual being. If you look at the separate communities of Christians during that time, they all believed that Jesus was on Earth.

Try not reading the gospels into the epistles.