Paul vs. Jesus

[Berean Todd]

I see where you're coming from, but the argument I'm referring to has it's roots in the concept that Jesus was not crucified for our sins, as Paul suggests, but because he challenged the authority of the established "church". While Jesus certainly recognized the problem of sin, he did not preach a doctrine of original sin.

Paul required subjection to the authorities (both ecclesiastical and statist). While Jesus did say that non would come to the Father but by him, he did not say that non would come to the father without the church. Jesus followed in the tradition of the radical prophets, who berated the law constantly, even suggesting that the Levites had made up the ceremonial laws erroneously.

Neither Jesus, nor the prophets, nor the Hebrew religion before them ever preached a doctrine of original sin.

Throughout His ministry Jesus pointed to the cross, He came for that purpose, He never foreswrore the law, in fact He perfectly lived out the 613 commandments of God. In fact Jesus said that not a jot nor a tiddle would pass away from the law until all was fulfilled. What he challenged the authorities on was two things, A. their heart attitudes and B. the extra laws. God gave 613 laws to Israel, but they held many thousands of laws. For instance God in the 10 commandments said to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy, the jews changed that so that a woman couldn't look in a mirror on the sabbath because she might see a grey hair and be tempted to pluck it out and that would be "sin", and they were only allowed to take a certain maximum number of steps during the sabbath, on and on and on they added laws.

 

[Delmar]

I think that these people read the bible like it's some sort of bed time novel!

and missed an important plot twist.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Throughout His ministry Jesus pointed to the cross, He came for that purpose, He never foreswrore the law, in fact He perfectly lived out the 613 commandments of God. In fact Jesus said that not a jot nor a tiddle would pass away from the law until all was fulfilled. What he challenged the authorities on was two things, A. their heart attitudes and B. the extra laws. God gave 613 laws to Israel, but they held many thousands of laws. For instance God in the 10 commandments said to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy, the jews changed that so that a woman couldn't look in a mirror on the sabbath because she might see a grey hair and be tempted to pluck it out and that would be "sin", and they were only allowed to take a certain maximum number of steps during the sabbath, on and on and on they added laws.

Fair enough. I'm not really trying to preach too much blasphemy here, just throwing out some alternative ideas. This idea of Christ upholding the law appeared in Matthew, but not in the earlier gospel of Mark. Mark's gospel spoke of a Jesus that had no use for the law at all.

These things aside, I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that Jesus preached a doctrine of original sin. This seems to be the best way for me to stay on topic (I tend to always lean toward a position of doubting the reliability of the gospel accounts, but for the sake of this debate, I'll try to assume that they are accurate).

 

[Agape4Robin]

and missed an important plot twist.

That they did!

 

[Agape4Robin]

Fair enough. I'm not really trying to preach too much blasphemy here, just throwing out some alternative ideas. This idea of Christ upholding the law appeared in Matthew, but not in the earlier gospel of Mark. Mark's gospel spoke of a Jesus that had no use for the law at all.

These things aside, I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that Jesus preached a doctrine of original sin. This seems to be the best way for me to stay on topic (I tend to always lean toward a position of doubting the reliability of the gospel accounts, but for the sake of this debate, I'll try to assume that they are accurate).

Jesus not only obeyed the law and upheld it, but showed the religious leaders of the day that their error was that they didn't follow the intent of the law. Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the law but was the fulfillment of it.

 

[Berean Todd]

These things aside, I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that Jesus preached a doctrine of original sin. This seems to be the best way for me to stay on topic (I tend to always lean toward a position of doubting the reliability of the gospel accounts, but for the sake of this debate, I'll try to assume that they are accurate).

Original sin is one of the things like the trinity, it is the clear teaching of scripture without being every blatantly specifically stated.

Jesus did say things like:

"I tell you the truth, unless a man is born again, he can not even see the Kingdom of God."

""I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father but by Me."

That is just a couple, I'm short on time, but He taught extensively that all of humanity save those who are born again, coming to God through Him, are lost and going to hell.

 

[Lovejoy]

Because quite frankly Christ's life did nothing for us. He came here with one purpose and one purpose only, the cross. From the day He was born the cross was ever before Him. It was prophesied centuries before, it is the only way that we can bridge the gap between man and God.



You can choose to not believe what you call the "mythological" christ, but that is THE Christ. Give me another explanation (and a plausable one) for the empty tomb, or the change of character in the apostles ... there is none. Jesus Christ paid the debt of sin upon the cross, was dead, buried, a stone rolled in front of the tomb, only to rise three days later, attesting to the fact that He is who He said He was. He has gone to prepare a place for us, but He will come back again, to judge the living and the dead. That is Jesus Christ.



You can not show me one mythological character that had clear dates, times, places, people associated with them. Myths are always set "out there" , not given historical context. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 not only testifies to the ressurection, but gives the testimony of 500 more people who also saw it, most of whom were still alive and able to be sought out and questioned. Paul gives a very real, detailed setting to Christ and the ressurection, and there is nothing mythological about that other than the fact that the godless refuse to accept it, to their eternal shame.

How funny, I was reading down through the posts, and was going to post 1Corinthians15 myself, and for the same reason! I hope that means that the great "mind(s) of Christ" think alike.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Original sin is one of the things like the trinity, it is the clear teaching of scripture without being every blatantly specifically stated.

Jesus did say things like:

"I tell you the truth, unless a man is born again, he can not even see the Kingdom of God."

""I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father but by Me."

That is just a couple, I'm short on time, but He taught extensively that all of humanity save those who are born again, coming to God through Him, are lost and going to hell.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Ok, given those quotes from Jesus, would we interpret those things the same way, if perhaps, Augustine had never solidified the doctrine of original sin? It seems that Jesus is used as a puppet to back up church dogmas that did not emerge until decades, if not hundreds of years after either Jesus or Paul. For example, lets say that the agnostics had won the battle for supremecy in church philosophy (I know it doesn't sit well, but just bear with me for a minute). And for all of the centuries since then, there had been no doctrine of original sin. Could we not then interpret Jesus' teachings above in a different way? Perhaps when he says born again, he means coming to a sense of self awareness.

My point being, Jesus teachings, in their raw form, existed before the ratification of church dogma, and therefore could have been interpreted any number of ways, depending on what those dogmas eventually became.

By dogma, for clarification, I mean a belief that cannot be proven, but is taught under the authority of the church (and coincidentally by pain of hell-fire).

 

[Chileice]

Actually, Paul wrote before the gospels. The biographical information followed. Which turns to another debate altogether.

This, my friend is not really true. Most scholars say Mark is the earliest writing of the NT followed by Galatians which was written by Paul. However, even if the material were not yet written, it was still available in oral form. How else would the message spread at all? We are SOOO glued to the written form that we have lost the power of story, of verbal impact. The message was there and being shared so Paul felt no need to write it. He assumed the facts were trua and wrote about what to do with those facts or better said with the relationship.

 

[Caledvwlch]

This, my friend is not really true. Most scholars say Mark is the earliest writing of the NT followed by Galatians which was written by Paul. However, even if the material were not yet written, it was still available in oral form. How else would the message spread at all? We are SOOO glued to the written form that we have lost the power of story, of verbal impact. The message was there and being shared so Paul felt no need to write it. He assumed the facts were trua and wrote about what to do with those facts or better said with the relationship.

Ok fair enough. I'm not here to argue about the canon anyway, so for now I'll concede.

 

[Chileice]

Fair enough. I'm not really trying to preach too much blasphemy here, just throwing out some alternative ideas. This idea of Christ upholding the law appeared in Matthew, but not in the earlier gospel of Mark. Mark's gospel spoke of a Jesus that had no use for the law at all.

These things aside, I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that Jesus preached a doctrine of original sin. This seems to be the best way for me to stay on topic (I tend to always lean toward a position of doubting the reliability of the gospel accounts, but for the sake of this debate, I'll try to assume that they are accurate).

I don't think Paul preached original sin either. I think that was Augustine's addition to the mix some 400 years later. Paul was very clear each person was responsible for his own sin, not from being born but rather from committing sin. Read Romans 3. Seriously, read it and see if you will agree that Paul says we go astray. That means we have a responsibility. It is not some ingrown toenail we are born with.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Romans 3;&version=31;

I think Paul squares with Jesus quite nicely on this issue.

 

[Agape4Robin]

I don't think Paul preached original sin either. I think that was Augustine's addition to the mix some 400 years later. Paul was very clear each person was responsible for his own sin, not from being born but rather from committing sin. Read Romans 3. Seriously, read it and see if you will agree that Paul says we go astray. That means we have a responsibility. It is not some ingrown toenail we are born with.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Romans 3;&version=31;

I think Paul squares with Jesus quite nicely on this issue.

I agree with you Chelice.......kind of like from the point of the moment you tell a lie and know that it is a lie....you sin.

 

[Caledvwlch]

I don't think Paul preached original sin either. I think that was Augustine's addition to the mix some 400 years later. Paul was very clear each person was responsible for his own sin, not from being born but rather from committing sin. Read Romans 3. Seriously, read it and see if you will agree that Paul says we go astray. That means we have a responsibility. It is not some ingrown toenail we are born with.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Romans 3;&version=31;

I think Paul squares with Jesus quite nicely on this issue.

Ok, I read it, but doesn't it say that all are sinners? (verse 23) I suppose this doesn't necessarily point to original sin, but it seems awefully close.

 

[Chileice]

Original sin is one of the things like the trinity, it is the clear teaching of scripture without being every blatantly specifically stated.

Jesus did say things like:

"I tell you the truth, unless a man is born again, he can not even see the Kingdom of God."

""I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father but by Me."

That is just a couple, I'm short on time, but He taught extensively that all of humanity save those who are born again, coming to God through Him, are lost and going to hell.

BT,
While I agree with many of your insights, I can not in any way see how the scripture CLEARLY teaches original sin. Now it might be interpreted that way but to say it is clearly taught seems to be a far stretch. It seems to me that both Paul and Jesus make us accountable for our action (or lack thereof) rather than being guilty just for being born.

 

[Chileice]

Ok, I read it, but doesn't it say that all are sinners? (verse 23) I suppose this doesn't necessarily point to original sin, but it seems awefully close.

I think the point is that we are all without excuse, as Paul makes clear in chapter 1 of Romans. We have all gone astray... of our own free will. Yes, we have all sinned and stand in need of a saviour. I have never yet anyone who told me they have never sinned. No one needs a doctrine of original sin for that. Why that got popular was to justify infant baptism. The infant baptism had to do something so they decided it washed away original sin which basically brought a person back to square one anyway. After he sinned... then what? So we invented pennance and a whole bunch of other baloney that got further and further from both Jesus and Paul. I think when Paul said in Philippians 4
8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable–if anything is excellent or praiseworthy–think about such things. 9Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me–put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.
it sounded a bit egotistical, but I think he was right. He knew that others would make it Jesus+ and he just wanted it to be Jesus.

 

[Lighthouse]

In some recent discussions some people have made statements that Paul and Jesus were at odds with each other philosophically or religiously. I have read those arguments over the years and I think they are largely straw man arguments.

Why Paul sometimes sounds so radically different is because he took Jesus to heart: hook, line and sinker. Paul was willing to leave behind the Jewish trappings that held so many in check and that have in fact held Christianity hostage to some degree over the centuries. He was willing to make a complete break with the old sacrificial/levitical system because he saw Jesus as the fulfillment of that entire process. Many Christians today still hang on to the OT like a talisman rather than as God's word to his people. They are afraid to see in Christ the perfection and completion of that chapter in history. They want to claim Christ but kind of hold on to the law (the parts they are able or want to enforce) just in case it isn't really by grace that we are saved.

Paul just put all his eggs in one basket. He put them all in Jesus' basket and therefore he sounds radical because he was a true radical follower of the Lord, who saw in Him freedom, forgiveness and life. But He saw no more than Jesus proclaimed. If you look at John 6 http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=John 6;&version=31;... the whole chapter, you will see the kind of radical break Jesus was calling for. Paul just took Him up on it. He was a Christ one, a Christian.

And how far is that break supposed to go? Should criminal laws be non-existant, because Christ died?

 

[Lighthouse]

Paul wrote of Jesus as though he were a mythical character, not a real man.

You're stupid.

 

[temple2006]

What do you fellas really mean when you say that you can only come to salvation or God only through Jesus? If what you are saying is that you believe in vicarious atonement than I think you are mistaken. Jesus has other names besides Jesus, such as love incarnate, truth, way, light....... when you understand this, you see salvation in a different light. Jesus came to show you what his father is like and to tell you to follow him (Jesus) on his walk to his father. He showed you heaven and you do not see it. He died not as atonement but to show you what lenghts he would go to in order to bring you this message of grace.

 

[Lovejoy]

You're stupid.

Oh man! :chuckle: Since you are out of a job now, I am going to recommend that we make you the nation's diplomat to unpopular countries.

Lighthouse: Your nation sucks and we are going to bomb you. Or at least refuse to do any business with you. Either way, I'm outta here on the next flight.

 

[Lovejoy]

What do you fellas really mean when you say that you can only come to salvation or God only through Jesus? If what you are saying is that you believe in vicarious atonement than I think you are mistaken. Jesus has other names besides Jesus, such as love incarnate, truth, way, light....... when you understand this, you see salvation in a different light. Jesus came to show you what his father is like and to tell you to follow him (Jesus) on his walk to his father. He showed you heaven and you do not see it. He died not as atonement but to show you what lenghts he would go to in order to bring you this message of grace.

Five bucks says I wasting my breath, but Scripture is very specific that God is love, not that love is God. It is always ordered in that fashion in the Word, and for good reason: to avoid heresies like the one that you are trying to pass.