Old Testament...New testament

[Defij]

I am simply mystified by the dichotomy between Jesus' teachings and Paul's teachings. IMHO Paul is where christianity really went wrong. If we examine Jesus' words only it's not too bad but when we read Paul's stuff it just spirals out into pagan bullcrap.

Well to be fair, quite a few books that are traditionally credited to Paul, are not Paul's work at all, or at least are questionable. 2nd Thessalonians comes to mind as well as most of the non-Prison epistle. Romans (very highly plausible it was written by Paul) was pretty much a fund-raising letter. As readers of this letter, especially Christians, it's helpful to be mindful of that fact when reading it.

 

[Booko]

I believe God is more interested in our faith than our works because our works are a result of our faith or lack of. You can judge someones faith by their works, but can you judge works by someones faith?

I dispute whether I can actually judge someone's faith by their works. I cannot know someone's heart and their intent. Also recall what Jesus had to say about religious leaders of his day who did works for the outward show of piety and personal prestige, and not just because it was the right thing to do. He didn't think too highly of those sorts of works, as I recall.

It would be more accurate to say I can judge someone's not-faith by their not-works, but even that's dicey to go there, because not everyone else starts off at the same place.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well to be fair, quite a few books that are traditionally credited to Paul, are not Paul's work at all, or at least are questionable. 2nd Thessalonians comes to mind as well as most of the non-Prison epistle. Romans (very highly plausible it was written by Paul) was pretty much a fund-raising letter. As readers of this letter, especially Christians, it's helpful to be mindful of that fact when reading it.

You amy be confusing Romans with 1 and 2 Corinthians.

 

[astarath]

I dispute whether I can actually judge someone's faith by their works. I cannot know someone's heart and their intent. Also recall what Jesus had to say about religious leaders of his day who did works for the outward show of piety and personal prestige, and not just because it was the right thing to do. He didn't think too highly of those sorts of works, as I recall.

It would be more accurate to say I can judge someone's not-faith by their not-works, but even that's dicey to go there, because not everyone else starts off at the same place.

The first part is to show faith through actions the second is to show faith by giving the credit to God. You are correct the Pharasitic teachers of the time did perform acts of proof. Paul himself was a pharisee whom performed many acts of faith however it is giving the credit over to God rather than trying to obtain it for yourself that proves faith, without the credit going to God all you prove is ego

 

[James the Persian]

The faith being offered to the romans from Paul was a faith where the sole requirement was faith. This coming from a faith where their entire lifestyle was dedicated in every way to the devotion and influence of their idolic Gods. Whether that was through ritualistic sacrifices made on a regular basis or the adherence to a specific deity through the alteration of appearance, sexual preference, ego, or even personal political views. So yes the transition from the highly strenuous Roman theology to an offer of salvation by faith alone was what made Paul's fabricated "faith" or new religion to the "gentiles" of the 1st century B.C. There is no place for faith alone. Show me faith without works... truly i will show my faith by works through the will of Yaweh the father, and Yaheshua the only true Rabbi

This is absolute rubbish. There never was a strand of Christianity whose sole requirement was faith until after the Reformation, some 1500 years after Paul. As I said in my last post, try researching early Christianity before making such asertions. Look to the practices (which by your words ought not to exist) - things like fasting in particular. Sola fide is a Reformation era idea and your suggestion that Paul taught it is a complete anachronism. Clearly you appear to be far more familiar with Protestant apologetics than with the actual history of the early Church, so it's a shame that you continue to produce such posts which trumpet falsehood as though it were fact.

James