Paul vs. Jesus

[Chileice]

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.

 

[Caledvwlch]

It could be argued that Jesus' ministry was in direct opposition to religious authoritarianism, but Paul, on the other hand, was all about religious authoritarianism. Especially in Romans.

 

[allsmiles]

Why did Paul not include any biographical data on Jesus?

 

[Berean Todd]

It could be argued that Jesus' ministry was in direct opposition to religious authoritarianism, but Paul, on the other hand, was all about religious authoritarianism. Especially in Romans.

Where do you get that? If anything it is the opposite, Paul is the one who get's accused of being too easy on people at times, of giving them "too much liscence" (not that he does, but that he gets accused of it), whereas Jesus said "Be ye perfect," and "wide is the road that leads to destruction and narrow the path to life ..." and "No man comes unless the Father draws him," and "I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by me", and "Be ye Holy as my Father is Holy," and "the one who loves me will keep my commandments." I could keep going, but if anything Jesus was much more authroitarian than Paul is at times.

 

[allsmiles]

BT, I think you need to get used to the fact that some people have informed, opposing positions. Cal isn't stupid. Why can't you people just agree to disagree and be cool with it?

 

[Berean Todd]

Why did Paul not include any biographical data on Jesus?

Why would he need to? He recorded aspects of the death and ressurection (see 1 Cor 15 for example), but the Christian life is not about studying about Jesus' life on earth, it's about being made right with God through the death, burial and ressurection of Christ. In fact we have very little material on Christ that doesn't deal with either His birth or the last week of His life. We don't need a biography of His eartly life.

 

[Delmar]

It could be argued that Jesus' ministry was in direct opposition to religious authoritarianism, but Paul, on the other hand, was all about religious authoritarianism. Especially in Romans.

Guess I'll have to read Romans again. I thought it was more about grace!

 

[Berean Todd]

BT, I think you need to get used to the fact that some people have informed, opposing positions. Cal isn't stupid. Why can't you people just agree to disagree and be cool with it?

Did I call him stupid anywhere?? But the fact is that Paul is the one always charged with being too easy on people, on letting people get off with too much. Agnostics and atheists complain that how can we "square away" the "easy believism" of Paul (I don't believe that it is, but that is the frequent charge made) and the "faith without works is dead" of James, or the hard sayings of Jesus Himself.

I gave several examples, the fact is that Jesus was much harder than Paul in His words. You can't just say "Jesus is easy and Paul is so authoritarian" if there is no proof or grounds for such, and there IS NO GROUNDS for such.

 

[Berean Todd]

By the way, Pauls' nickname in Christian circles is "the apostle of grace" ...

 

[allsmiles]

Why would he need to? He recorded aspects of the death and ressurection (see 1 Cor 15 for example), but the Christian life is not about studying about Jesus' life on earth, it's about being made right with God through the death, burial and ressurection of Christ. In fact we have very little material on Christ that doesn't deal with either His birth or the last week of His life. We don't need a biography of His eartly life.

Why don't we need it?

Why would Paul only speak in vague, innocuous terms about the cycle of life and death and resurrection that, in my belief, the mythological christ (or KRST/Horus) represented?

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

 

[allsmiles]

Did I call him stupid anywhere??

No, I apologize.

I gave several examples, the fact is that Jesus was much harder than Paul in His words. You can't just say "Jesus is easy and Paul is so authoritarian" if there is no proof or grounds for such, and there IS NO GROUNDS for such.

Apparently you're not quite as right as you think you are. Keep telling youself that you are though, I'd feel terrible if you lost sleep.

 

[Chileice]

It could be argued that Jesus' ministry was in direct opposition to religious authoritarianism, but Paul, on the other hand, was all about religious authoritarianism. Especially in Romans.

I think he was anything but. Have you read Romans lately? I guess I really don't know what you mean. If you can show me from Romans then maybe I'll believe you. But I don't see it and I've read Romans a bunch of times.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Where do you get that? If anything it is the opposite, Paul is the one who get's accused of being too easy on people at times, of giving them "too much liscence" (not that he does, but that he gets accused of it), whereas Jesus said "Be ye perfect," and "wide is the road that leads to destruction and narrow the path to life ..." and "No man comes unless the Father draws him," and "I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by me", and "Be ye Holy as my Father is Holy," and "the one who loves me will keep my commandments." I could keep going, but if anything Jesus was much more authroitarian than Paul is at times.

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.

 

[Agape4Robin]

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

 

[Berean Todd]

Why don't we need it?

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.

Why would Paul only speak in vague, innocuous terms about the cycle of life and death and resurrection that, in my belief, the mythological christ (or KRST/Horus) represented?

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.

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

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.

 

[Caledvwlch]

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

Actually, more like a book of bed time allegorical fairy tales.

 

[Chileice]

Why did Paul not include any biographical data on Jesus?

The biographical information was already available. Besides Paul was not even converted until after Jesus' death. And I suppose, if you want to be picky, some of Luke's info probably came from much of the same info Paul had.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Actually, more like a book of bed time allegorical fairy tales.

Your opinion.

 

[Caledvwlch]

The biographical information was already available. Besides Paul was not even converted until after Jesus' death. And I suppose, if you want to be picky, some of Luke's info probably came from much of the same info Paul had.

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

 

[Caledvwlch]

Your opinion.

It certainly is that. My opinion and nothing more.