Paul vs. Jesus

Caledvwlch

New member
lighthouse said:
Did you miss Acts 9? Acts 22? 2 Timothy 3:16?
Acts doesn't count. It was written by Luke. And 2 Timothy 3:16 doesn't necessarily mean anything either. Paul doesn't say that his writings are scripture, only that scripture is divinely inspired. I don't think Paul ever meant for his letters to end up in the Bible.
 

Berean Todd

New member
Caledvwlch said:
Acts doesn't count. It was written by Luke. And 2 Timothy 3:16 doesn't necessarily mean anything either. Paul doesn't say that his writings are scripture, only that scripture is divinely inspired. I don't think Paul ever meant for his letters to end up in the Bible.

except you miss the fact that Peter called Paul's letters scripture. (2 Pet 3:16)
 

Caledvwlch

New member
Berean Todd said:
except you miss the fact that Peter called Paul's letters scripture. (2 Pet 3:16)
Wow... is there a significance to the 3:16 pattern here? Kinda cool, if you ask me. But anyway, just because Peter said so doesn't mean it's true. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible, that's silly, and you wouldn't allow it in any other argument.
 

Caledvwlch

New member
Caledvwlch said:
Wow... is there a significance to the 3:16 pattern here? Kinda cool, if you ask me. But anyway, just because Peter said so doesn't mean it's true. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible, that's silly, and you wouldn't allow it in any other argument.
Also, the only thing I was trying to say was that Paul himself never claimed to be divinely inspired.
 

Chileice

New member
Gnostic said:
Hi Chileice, and thanks for your reply. You said: "Jesus was there to help the people who admitted they needed help."

Actually it simply says he came for "sinners", it does not say anything about whether the "sinners" admit anything. But what about the "righteous" who don't need a doctor, is this not a contradiction to the teaching that everyone is automatically a sinner and needs a doctor?

You said: "I certainly don't think Jesus was using Mark 2.17 to teach that you could be righteous."

Here it is again:

Mark 2:17
Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Clearly according to that scripture Jesus believed that some were righteous and have no need of his help.

Here is another...

Luke 1:6
Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly.

This is in direct contradiction to some of "Paul's" teachings. I place Paul in quotes because I don't believe he wrote everything attributed to him since those writings are contradictory and they demonstrate utterly incompatible mindsets. The same is found in "John's" gospel vs. his epistles, they are two very different mindsets.

*

Obviously I don't see it that way. There are upright people, some are certainly more righteous than others... but perfect... NO.

In the passage in Mark 2.17 it clearly tells me there is no one righteous. It was a way to point out to his listeners that they were sorely mistaken. Here is the context:

The Calling of Levi
13Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. 14As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector's booth. “Follow me,” Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.
15While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and “sinners” were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the “sinners” and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?”

17On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”


Obviously the teachers of the law thought the group Jesus was with were people not worthy of associating with. The arrogance, self-pride and gaul are showing through to even the most casual reader. So Jesus is saying, "well I came to help sinners, not the righteous" Well they were the "righteous" he was talking about and they were anything BUT righteous. They were self-centred pompous bigots... not exactly the perfect people your interpretation makes them out to be.

Paul did not deny that some were more righteous than others, only that any self-righteousness was no righteousness at all. That my right standing with God does not depend on the quanity of things I do right but rather in trusting that Christ will make me right with God.
 

Caledvwlch

New member
lighthouse said:
And you're dead wrong.
Yeah, lighthouse. When did Paul tell us that God told him what to write? When did he claim such a thing? I'm not saying that he definately was not inspired, only that he never claimed to be.
 

Caledvwlch

New member
Chileice said:
I can't think of any NT writer who claimed inspiration for himself/herself.
Exactly. So to bring this back around to the point... Paul wasn't writing scriptures. He was writing letters. He also added things to the teachings of Jesus that simply weren't there. It was committees of men, much later on (centuries later) who decided to include Paul's letters in the Scriptures and label them infallible. Shady...
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
The point's been made by others that, strictly speaking, what is known today as "Christianity" is more accurately called "Paulinism."
 

Chileice

New member
Caledvwlch said:
Exactly. So to bring this back around to the point... Paul wasn't writing scriptures. He was writing letters. He also added things to the teachings of Jesus that simply weren't there. It was committees of men, much later on (centuries later) who decided to include Paul's letters in the Scriptures and label them infallible. Shady...

The first part of your post is true. The last is just plain silly.

He may not have been knowingly writing scripture just as John the Baptist did not know he was the forerunner of the Messiah promised by Malachi. But Jesus said, after John's death, that he had been just that. God can use people in ways unbeknownst to them. For example his use of Cyrus in the return from exile as mentioned in Isaiah. So while Paul may have been writing letters and may not have claimed they were inspired, that does not preclude them from being inspired and therefore being scripture, as Peter very soon recognized.

The second part of your post is just silly. That would mean no one could add anything to anyone's thoughts without it being some huge violation. The US Constitiution, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or any such document should remain inviolate even to ammendments and addenda. It would be like saying all communist writings are bogus if not written by Marx himself. Therefore Lenin wasn't a communist. You see it gets silly after a while.

Paul never made any sort of claim for this "Paulism" you are promoting. He was a radical committed follower of Jesus Christ and just wrote how following him was lived out (or ought to be) in daily life. He was certainly not trying to replace Jesus with anything. Read this from Paul and tell me how on earth you can think he was undermining Jesus:

Colossians 1:
The Supremacy of Christ
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.


Or what about this where Paul clearly dismisses the importance of himself or any other messenger from 1 Corinthians 1:

10I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel–not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Christ the Wisdom and Power of God
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.


Seems to me Paul had no interest in promoting himself, rather Jesus: crucified, risen and coming again. That is the same thing Jesus did. He proclaimed that he would be crucuified, that he would rise and that he would return. Seems to me they were pretty much on the same page. Paul was the average Joe living out his relationship to the almighty Jesus
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
The interest he had was certainly not in the earthly, human Jesus, but a resurrected cosmic Christ. The Jesus of the epistles is not the man of the gospels. Not by a long shot. It is very curious that Paul makes no attempt whatsoever (or had no knowledge) to describe Jesus' life, existence, ministry, virgin birth, and what have you. And Paul rarely if ever actually cites Christ's words or teachings to bolster Paul's own claims.

Who's kidding who?
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Caledvwlch said:
Yeah, lighthouse. When did Paul tell us that God told him what to write? When did he claim such a thing? I'm not saying that he definately was not inspired, only that he never claimed to be.
You say that Acts 22 doesn't count. But it is the record of Paul speaking to the heads of the church, telling them of the events that were recorded in Acts 9. Paul is saying that Jesus, Himself, called Paul to preach the message he preached. And it is that message that is found in his letters.:duh:
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Chileice said:
He may not have been knowingly writing scripture just as John the Baptist did not know he was the forerunner of the Messiah promised by Malachi.
John did know. He even said as much.
 

Chileice

New member
I don't think he would have met Paul on the road to Damascus if he didn't. Seems like it was Jesus' choice. Saul was pretty content to punish anybody that followed Him until that encounter.
 
Top