I was simply pointing out that Jesus is where all the Bible leads to- his life, death and resurrection...I hope we can agree on that much! And furthermore, that Jesus is the most important figure in the Bible....the Alpha and the Omega - the son of our living God! So, in saying that, the works and life of Jesus are the pinnacle and greatest parts of the Bible- remeber The Passion of the Christ? Why was that such a watched movie by Christians? Because of Jesus. That is not to discredit other parts of the Bible in any way , but surely a Christian would find more interest in a movie about Jesus than a movie about Obediah. There is a cross in every Christian Church today to constantly remind us that Jesus is the Lord. I am really just pointing to the obvious. Moses, Paul, Abraham , Jeremiah, David etc ...were all great men of God. I am simply making the "radical" claim that Jesus is above these great men- he is , as we call him , King of Kings and Lord of Lords. That means no other person who has lived before or after is above him.
Christ's Christianity and Paul's Christianity are Not the Same
- Thread starter tallycello
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
No.
That's not what you are doing.
You are trying to diminish Paul's writings, though they are just as much inspired Scripture as the rest.
First you asserted a conflict between Paul and Jesus where no such conflict exists:
Then you assert that we should not consider Paul's words to be as authoritative or inspired as Jesus' recorded words:
You've reinforced both assertions:
You are not "simply" saying that Jesus was greater than Paul. You are saying that Jesus' words are greater than Paul's words.
The words of Paul ARE the words Jesus - - - UNLESS you don't believe that Paul's writings were divinely inpired.
Love in Christ,
Mark
The passion of the christ was a humansitic play on emotions...in this entertainmernt crazy society we trivialize everything and reduce it to some form of entertainment or amusement that we can grab a bag of chips and a cold beer to....your approach is not so radical...i have heard homosexuals say that because Jesus did not adress homosexuality directly it isn't a sin.I understand if you don't accept the bible as the word of God....many don't....just say so and quit trying to pass yourself off as some cutting edge radical....it's already been done to death.
Strat- if you read the entire dialogue that I began to where we are now, you will, again see that I agree with you about Paul's decision in Corinth being correct and I understood this better as the debate continued. As for you accusing me as trying to pass myself off as a cutting edge radical- that actually cuts pretty deep as I , like all the people in this debate, are trying to understand my faith better. That implies that I am writing these words for the sake of vanity and , quite frankly, there is only one reason I continue to write back- because I still have the belief that Christians can find truth in Christ and that , although we all differ, that common ground of the Judeo-Christian tradition that we Christians , as well as Jews, are a part of. If you really want to know, I do believe that the Bible is the inspired and "breathed - out" word of God. But like many people, not just us radicals, I believe that some parts of the Bible are more salient than others. That's it.
No one is above their master so Paul etc are not above Christ words at all. so in looking into what Christ says, if one comes to some conclusion that contradicts the message Christ said then it is wrong.
Christ is the foundation and if it contradicts what he says then one is off playing a game with Satan.
Jesus said;
“But now I am going away to the One who sent me, and not one of you is asking where I am going.
6
Instead, you grieve because of what I’ve told you.
7
But in fact, it is best for you that I go away, because if I don’t, the Advocate won’t come. If I do go away, then I will send him to you.
8
And when he comes, he will convict the world of its sin, and of God’s righteousness, and of the coming judgment.
9
The world’s sin is that it refuses to believe in me.
10
Righteousness is available because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more. 11
Judgment will come because the ruler of this world has already been judged.
12
“There is so much more I want to tell you, but you can’t bear it now.
13
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own but will tell you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future.
14
He will bring me glory by telling you whatever he receives from me.
15
All that belongs to the Father is mine; this is why I said, ‘The Spirit will tell you whatever he receives from me.’
John 16:5-15 (NLT)
If Paul's writings are inspired of HolySpirit then Paul's writings are indeed the words of Jesus.
James Forthwright
Member
- Oct 22, 2011
- 408
- 11
- 18
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Though you & I have been oft at loggerheads, I must commend you, MR. ROSENBERGER on your astute observations on this post. It is unfathomable to believe that EVERY SINGLE PASSAGE that a chief bishop/apostle (Paul) wrote to a half a dozen or so Greek and Roman infant churches and disciples in the First Century is pertinent and equivalent to "the Word of God" for each and every single Christian in the Twenty First Century. The same Holy Spirit that directed the Apostle Paul's council to his churches now resides within our hearts to guide us unto all the truth. I also whole-heartedly agree that Christ is the foundation of the Church, not Paul, Peter or James, etc. One axiom that I've found a useful signpost in pointing to way of the straight and narrow road is "Whenever in doubt, Follow Christ's example".
I'd also like to welcome QRSNER to Christianityboard.com forum. Thank you, sir, for your frank and refreshing outlook that you bring to these discussions. Too many posters fail to step out from the majority opinion and ask uncomfortable questions as you have done. Or exercise the simple willingness to admit that they 'don't have all the answers' and come here seeking to be further enlightened by their Christian brethren (at the possible cost of admitting that their own doctrinal positions may contain certain errors). I highly commend you on your quick admission of the logical faults of your initial post and look forward to hearing more from you. You may be 'a bit jaded', QRSNER, but you're also more than a little sagacious and a breath of fresh air here in the Debate sub-forum.
Peace be unto all those who Love the Truth in sincerity!
J.F.
It seems to me that the religious just can't get over their sin problem. They are ruled by their sin problem.
As for me, Jesus took care of my sin problem on the cross. I believe it, I have faith in it, I trust in it and I have confidence it it.
My faith is in the power of God that was in the shed blood of Jesus on the cross to make those of faith children of God.
As for me, Jesus took care of my sin problem on the cross. I believe it, I have faith in it, I trust in it and I have confidence it it.
My faith is in the power of God that was in the shed blood of Jesus on the cross to make those of faith children of God.
One of Christ's strongest warnings for us concerning the end of this world was to not allow any man to deceive us. His Apostles carried that same Message of warning, especially Apostle Paul. Apostle Peter went into detail about men's doctrines and itching ears for the last days too. So any preaching that soley focuses upon just a small section of The Bible is a sure way to be deceived, and our Lord Jesus never intended that we do that kind of thing.
In observing this thread, I must commend those who at least will recognize that there are some differences between the spoken words of Jesus while on earth, and some of the teachings of Paul. I would like to share one in particular;
In Eph.4:32, they were told to forgive one another,.." even as Christ Jesus forgave you". Paul gave the same exhortation to the Colossian church in 3:13. In both cases, the reason was the same. We/they are to forgive because they have been forgiven.
However, this flies in the face of the words of Jesus just after the famous "Lord's prayer", in Math.6, where in vs.14,15, Jesus claims that if they do not first forgive, neither will their Father in heaven forgive them.
In my viewpoint, there is a confusion in the church concerning the message of forgiveness. Not so much in the exhortaion to forgive, but in the reasons why; in the motivation.
So which do we follow? Do we forgive because we have been forgiven, or do we forgive to get forgiveness? O, I know what to expect at this point. There are those who will insist that both are true and relevant today. To which I say...hogwash!
What Jesus said was absolutely true and relevant at the time He said it. But there are many in my opinion, who don't yet understand why Jesus said it and what He was purposing to accomplish.
Enter Paul's revelation. He explained to the Galatian church (3:23) that the law was given to hold those under guard until faith would afterward be revealed. He said that the law was a tutor. What did it teach? In short, it was used to convince those that they are sinners in need of a Savior.
So we ought to acknowledge that Jesus, in many cases and places, taught people that they were sinners. He came to them while they were still under the law. Although He spoke a little of faith, and of His coming sacrifice ( eg.John3:16), He also understood that it was not yet the time for the world to fully know and understand all that was coming.
I could quote a few more cases, and I'm sure most will already know of them, where Jesus told someone to keep the law for the reward of life, and at the same time, informed them that they were falling short.
This is a definate conflict with Paul, who claimed that the law could not nor cannot bring life. Does this elevate the one over the other? Absolutely not. Jesus promised that after He departed, He would send the Holy Spirit, who would convince (convict) the world of sin...(John16:8). So why wouldn't we at least suspect that Jesus Himself came to do a little convincing of the same? Jesus Himself said He came to save the sinner and not the righteous. We know that this includes all, for there is none righteous. That is not what they were being taught by their leaders, who felt righteous before God.
In regards to the original post,
Jesus, while on earth, healed all who came to Him for healing, and forgave all those who came to Him with their sin. Thus He was accused by the religious leaders of being a friend of tax collectors and sinners. But let us not make the mistake of taking this as Jesus supporting or condoning thier sin. Enter the op, which views this as a conflict with Paul. However, in this case there is no conflict. His exhortation was to not be seen supporting or condoning the sinful lifestyle of a brother in Christ.
( hey everyone, how do I turn on spell check? )
Blessings, Howie
In Eph.4:32, they were told to forgive one another,.." even as Christ Jesus forgave you". Paul gave the same exhortation to the Colossian church in 3:13. In both cases, the reason was the same. We/they are to forgive because they have been forgiven.
However, this flies in the face of the words of Jesus just after the famous "Lord's prayer", in Math.6, where in vs.14,15, Jesus claims that if they do not first forgive, neither will their Father in heaven forgive them.
In my viewpoint, there is a confusion in the church concerning the message of forgiveness. Not so much in the exhortaion to forgive, but in the reasons why; in the motivation.
So which do we follow? Do we forgive because we have been forgiven, or do we forgive to get forgiveness? O, I know what to expect at this point. There are those who will insist that both are true and relevant today. To which I say...hogwash!
What Jesus said was absolutely true and relevant at the time He said it. But there are many in my opinion, who don't yet understand why Jesus said it and what He was purposing to accomplish.
Enter Paul's revelation. He explained to the Galatian church (3:23) that the law was given to hold those under guard until faith would afterward be revealed. He said that the law was a tutor. What did it teach? In short, it was used to convince those that they are sinners in need of a Savior.
So we ought to acknowledge that Jesus, in many cases and places, taught people that they were sinners. He came to them while they were still under the law. Although He spoke a little of faith, and of His coming sacrifice ( eg.John3:16), He also understood that it was not yet the time for the world to fully know and understand all that was coming.
I could quote a few more cases, and I'm sure most will already know of them, where Jesus told someone to keep the law for the reward of life, and at the same time, informed them that they were falling short.
This is a definate conflict with Paul, who claimed that the law could not nor cannot bring life. Does this elevate the one over the other? Absolutely not. Jesus promised that after He departed, He would send the Holy Spirit, who would convince (convict) the world of sin...(John16:8). So why wouldn't we at least suspect that Jesus Himself came to do a little convincing of the same? Jesus Himself said He came to save the sinner and not the righteous. We know that this includes all, for there is none righteous. That is not what they were being taught by their leaders, who felt righteous before God.
In regards to the original post,
Jesus, while on earth, healed all who came to Him for healing, and forgave all those who came to Him with their sin. Thus He was accused by the religious leaders of being a friend of tax collectors and sinners. But let us not make the mistake of taking this as Jesus supporting or condoning thier sin. Enter the op, which views this as a conflict with Paul. However, in this case there is no conflict. His exhortation was to not be seen supporting or condoning the sinful lifestyle of a brother in Christ.
( hey everyone, how do I turn on spell check? )
Blessings, Howie
There is no conflict. The New Testament went into affect upon Jesus' death, as Hebrews explains in detail.
Under the Law, God's acceptance of us was based on our performance. Under the New Covenant,God's acceptance of us is based on Jesus' performance.
Under the Covenant of Law, God would only forgive us if we forgive others. Under the New Covenant, God forgives us in Jesus. Having been forgiven, we are instructed to forgive others, even as God has already forgiven us.
No conflict. We just need to understand the . . . dispensation.
Love in Christ,
Mark
Under the Law, God's acceptance of us was based on our performance. Under the New Covenant,God's acceptance of us is based on Jesus' performance.
Under the Covenant of Law, God would only forgive us if we forgive others. Under the New Covenant, God forgives us in Jesus. Having been forgiven, we are instructed to forgive others, even as God has already forgiven us.
No conflict. We just need to understand the . . . dispensation.
Love in Christ,
Mark
Not to sidetrack this thread . . . so to answer simply . . . God told Abraham that he would be the father of countless descendants. Abraham believed God, and God accredited that belief to Abraham as righteousness.
Of course, Abraham pre-dated both New and Mosaic Covenants.
Love in Christ,
Mark
The Devil must of been forgiven to as he knows who Jesus is, as well.
Why would one let sin rule as you must think just noting of it ? like O i am saved, so you must not be your brothers keeper ?
Is this right.
The Lord Jesus made a Covenant with Abraham.
The Law of Moses was added to that Covenant temporarily because of Grace. We are now a part of the Covenant The Lord made with Abraham if we believe the gospel.
Here is what The Lord promised to Isaac over 400 years BEFORE the Law of Moses - Genesis 26:4-5
4 And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws."
And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
—Matthew 19:3-9
if Jesus' works and words are not of the highest importance in the Bible, how are we to understand this passage?
You know, there are times where I find it really hard not to reply to topics like this, even though I generally find they don't achieve anything. It's just that they are so tongue-in-cheek, that I cannot resist replying.
Let me repost the verse in question in a bit more understandable text:
1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Co 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
Paul was referring to one who was claiming Christianity, but was
Oh my gosh. I would've thought that Hammerstone had answered the 'problem' eloquently enough!
Paul wrote UNDER INSPIRATION OF THE EXACT SAME SPIRIT THAT INHABITED CHRIST!
So let me rephrase your quote: What Jesus had to say was greater than what Jesus had to say.
Help!!!???
Answer me this: If religious hypocrites (Christians who openly sin without shame) where condoned by Jesus, how is it that he THREW them out of the Temple?
Mat 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
Mat 21:13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Jesus and Paul were on the EXACT same page! Jesus didn't go and spend time with the hypocrites of his day, the 'religious' people who claimed to have it all and all the while spat in God's face. He supped with those who were lost, those who didn't know the way, those who didn't profess the way.
You CANNOT say Paul's gospel was different to Jesus, or the WHOLE Scripture becomes null and void. Because if we cannot trust part of it, how do we know the rest is trustworthy?
So the question still begs, if Jesus and Paul weren't on the same page, why then did Jesus throw the moneychangers out of the temple? After all, they were probably the most needy of ALL the people! Why?
They better have been, or we're in a heap of strife! lol.
What bearing does this even have on the topic :/
QRSNER,
As we have established, Jesus didnt write any of the Bible, the witness comes from the NT writers. Since this you have still been talking about Jesus and Paul as though Jesus wrote what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote and Paul wrote what Paul wrote.
I dont think you have grasped the point.
So if we hold what Paul writes as what Jesus imprated to him then we cant treat it as what Paul wrote.
As we have established, Jesus didnt write any of the Bible, the witness comes from the NT writers. Since this you have still been talking about Jesus and Paul as though Jesus wrote what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote and Paul wrote what Paul wrote.
I dont think you have grasped the point.
Paul preached what he received from Jesus (Galatians 1)
So if we hold what Paul writes as what Jesus imprated to him then we cant treat it as what Paul wrote.
Similar threads
