Jesus vs Paul

[B-A-C]

Jesus vs Paul,... and the winner is?
In my ( humble? ) opinion. Jesus always wins. Why? He is God.

I am reminded by @Hekuran that some believe there is a difference between the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus.
I have even heard other here on TJ say that most of the New testament is just "Paulisms".

Well, Paul didn't write the 4 gospels ( Matt, Mark, Luke, John ) he didn't write Acts, James, Jude, Revelation, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd John, 1st or 2nd Peter,
and many people think he didn't write Hebrews. ( On Hebrews, scholars seems to be split about 50/50 - he "probably did" or he "probably didn't" but both sides acknowledge no one knows for sure ).

2 Tim 3:16; says all scripture is inspired by God. This is generally taken to mean - God himself wrote the Bible through men.
Of course Paul wrote the book of Timothy, so does that make it invalid? I don't think. Nothing is in the Bible that God doesn't want there,
and everything is in the Bible that God does want there. We also have the famous discourse from John chapter 1.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

This is often taken as Jesus himself is God, and he is perfect, and he is the word. In other words Jesus is the very essence of the Bible.
Hopefully that sets a common framework. If we don't agree on at least that much, the rest gets more difficult.

Were Paul and Jesus really teaching two different messages? Or was Paul's message just a continuation of Jesus' ?
In many ways Jesus seems more legalistic. Repent, keep the commandments, many people will go to hell, he called some people vipers and son's of hell, merely looking at a woman lustfully is the same as committing adultery. etc...
Jesus often taught in parables. I can't really think of an example where Paul ever did.

Even his parables were sometimes legalistic. The virgins that didn't have oil in their lamps weren't allowed to enter the feast. The steward that didn't increase
the money that his master gave him was cast out and called a wicked and lazy servant. The tree that doesn't bear fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. etc...

In Gal 1:12; Paul says everything he was taught about Christianity, he learned from Jesus. So is it really a different message?
I personally have always taken Jesus in the gospels as the way to be saved, and what to be saved from. I have always taken the books written after the gospels
( not just Paul, but James, John, Jude, Peter, etc..) to be what you do after you are saved. How to live after you are saved.

So what do you think? Are they really different messages? Do some churches only preach the message of Paul and leave out the message of Jesus?
Do some churches preach Jesus only (the 4 gospels) and leave out the message of Paul? Is there a reason they should do this?

In some ways Jesus showed more grace. The woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, the thief on the cross, etc...
Paul could be legalistic also sometimes. He chastised Peter for eating with Jews and ignoring gentiles. He chastised Ananias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit. He chastised the Galatians for going back to the old ceremonial Jewish laws.

So how about it? Are Jesus and Paul really teaching different messages?

 

[james1523]

Jesus vs Paul,... and the winner is?
In my ( humble? ) opinion. Jesus always wins. Why? He is God.

I am reminded by @Hekuran that some believe there is a difference between the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus.
I have even heard other here on TJ say that most of the New testament is just "Paulisms".

Well, Paul didn't write the 4 gospels ( Matt, Mark, Luke, John ) he didn't write Acts, James, Jude, Revelation, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd John, 1st or 2nd Peter,
and many people think he didn't write Hebrews. ( On Hebrews, scholars seems to be split about 50/50 - he "probably did" or he "probably didn't" but both sides acknowledge no one knows for sure ).

2 Tim 3:16; says all scripture is inspired by God. This is generally taken to mean - God himself wrote the Bible through men.
Of course Paul wrote the book of Timothy, so does that make it invalid? I don't think. Nothing is in the Bible that God doesn't want there,
and everything is in the Bible that God does want there. We also have the famous discourse from John chapter 1.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

This is often taken as Jesus himself is God, and he is perfect, and he is the word. In other words Jesus is the very essence of the Bible.
Hopefully that sets a common framework. If we don't agree on at least that much, the rest gets more difficult.

Were Paul and Jesus really teaching two different messages? Or was Paul's message just a continuation of Jesus' ?
In many ways Jesus seems more legalistic. Repent, keep the commandments, many people will go to hell, he called some people vipers and son's of hell, merely looking at a woman lustfully is the same as committing adultery. etc...
Jesus often taught in parables. I can't really think of an example where Paul ever did.

Even his parables were sometimes legalistic. The virgins that didn't have oil in their lamps weren't allowed to enter the feast. The steward that didn't increase
the money that his master gave him was cast out and called a wicked and lazy servant. The tree that doesn't bear fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. etc...

In Gal 1:12; Paul says everything he was taught about Christianity, he learned from Jesus. So is it really a different message?
I personally have always taken Jesus in the gospels as the way to be saved, and what to be saved from. I have always taken the books written after the gospels
( not just Paul, but James, John, Jude, Peter, etc..) to be what you do after you are saved. How to live after you are saved.

So what do you think? Are they really different messages? Do some churches only preach the message of Paul and leave out the message of Jesus?
Do some churches preach Jesus only (the 4 gospels) and leave out the message of Paul? Is there a reason they should do this?

In some ways Jesus showed more grace. The woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, the thief on the cross, etc...
Paul could be legalistic also sometimes. He chastised Peter for eating with Jews and ignoring gentiles. He chastised Ananias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit. He chastised the Galatians for going back to the old ceremonial Jewish laws.

So how about it? Are Jesus and Paul really teaching different messages?

Jesus taught in parables because it was before the scriptural revelation was complete. Jesus had to speak as if speaking to babies. Few had any spiritual understanding because they did not have the Spirit living inside of them...although the Father revealed certain things to Peter (that Jesus was the Christ).
In Paul's time, the believers had received the Spirit, the revelation was complete, therefore nothing had to be spoken in parables.
We can consider Paul's writings to be the revealed spiritual truths behind Jesus's parables, plus they go further, into practical Christian living and ministry in the Spirit.
They appear to be different but in fact they are not. Jesus and Paul say the same things, but Jesus said it as a man who walked the Earth, whereas Paul wrote it when Jesus was the Spirit of Christ dwelling among and inside of them. For example, Jesus said "remain in me" (John 15:4).. Jesus called Himself a vine, and his followers are branches. But in Gal 5:16, Paul says "walk in the Spirit". Abiding in Christ is the same thing as walking in the Spirit. Walking in the Spirit is how we practically abide in Christ. To "abide in Christ" would have made no sense to the disciples in the Gospels, because how could a person be inside another person? But it probably made sense to them when they realized that the Spirit would come and Christ would live inside of them (John 14:17).

So Paul does not use gospel language such as "follow Christ", or "abide in Christ". Paul says "live and walk in the Spirit".

Paul was not just a man. Paul was a "man in Christ" (2 Cor 12:2). Paul and Jesus were not against each other in any way. Paul and Jesus were one in thought, intent and purpose ( 1 Cor 2:16 , Gal 2:20). Wherever Paul was, Jesus was. Whatever Jesus said, Paul said. Same with Peter. Peter says "You have not lied to man but to God" (Acts 5:4). When Ananias and Sapphira lied to Peter, they were actually lying to God, because Peter and God were one.

So the words of Paul are not Paul's, but Christ's Words. And if Paul gives his personal opinion in scripture, he makes that clear: e.g. 1 Cor 7:12 "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)....." So we must assume that every word of Paul's is in fact Christ's, except where Paul says he gives his personal opinion.
And sometimes, Paul makes it abundantly clear that what he writes is from Christ, not himself:
1 Cor 14:37 "If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command."

Therefore if we disregard Paul, we disregard Christ. Paul chastised Peter, but it was Christ chastising Peter through Paul. Peter chastised Ananias, and Sapphira, but it was actually God chastising. And God confirmed Peter's words, because God killed them.

To further confirm that Paul and Christ were one, Paul said "And you should imitate me, just as I imitate Christ." 1 Cor 11:1.
To follow Paul's example and words, is to follow Christ.

 

[clark thompson]

Paul followed after Jesus.

 

[Trax]

So how about it? Are Jesus and Paul really teaching different messages?

Problems arise when people think the Kingdom of God = the Kingdom of Heaven.
They are the same in some ways and different in others. Take Matt 25, where Jesus is talking
about the Kingdom of Heaven. Is there anywhere in Matt 25 that points to being born again?
No, there isn't, yet there is mention of doing good works in order to get in. In the Gospel of John,
Jesus says you must be born again and that believing just in Jesus, makes you a child of God.

 

[B-A-C]

Problems arise when people think the Kingdom of God = the Kingdom of Heaven.
They are the same in some ways and different in others. Take Matt 25; where Jesus is talking
about the Kingdom of Heaven. Is there anywhere in Matt 25 that points to being born again?
No, there isn't, yet there is mention of doing good works in order to get in. In the Gospel of John,
Jesus says you must be born again and that believing just in Jesus, makes you a child of God.

Some think the kingdom of God is like a membership, kind of like being a member of the animal kingdom. You can be a member while you are
still on your natural body on the earth.
Some view the kingdom of heaven as a physical place (i.e. the New Jerusalem, or a place out beyond the universe that may be physical or spiritual).
The common thought is, you can't get to heaven unless you become a member (of the kingdom) in this life.

 

[james1523]

Problems arise when people think the Kingdom of God = the Kingdom of Heaven.
They are the same in some ways and different in others. Take Matt 25, where Jesus is talking
about the Kingdom of Heaven. Is there anywhere in Matt 25 that points to being born again?
No, there isn't, yet there is mention of doing good works in order to get in. In the Gospel of John,
Jesus says you must be born again and that believing just in Jesus, makes you a child of God.

I will start a new thread on this topic.

 

[B-A-C]

Problems arise when people think the Kingdom of God = the Kingdom of Heaven.

Is this true? Are they really different? If so, how?

 

[Quantrill]

Jesus vs Paul,... and the winner is?
In my ( humble? ) opinion. Jesus always wins. Why? He is God.

I am reminded by @Hekuran that some believe there is a difference between the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus.
I have even heard other here on TJ say that most of the New testament is just "Paulisms".

Well, Paul didn't write the 4 gospels ( Matt, Mark, Luke, John ) he didn't write Acts, James, Jude, Revelation, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd John, 1st or 2nd Peter,
and many people think he didn't write Hebrews. ( On Hebrews, scholars seems to be split about 50/50 - he "probably did" or he "probably didn't" but both sides acknowledge no one knows for sure ).

2 Tim 3:16; says all scripture is inspired by God. This is generally taken to mean - God himself wrote the Bible through men.
Of course Paul wrote the book of Timothy, so does that make it invalid? I don't think. Nothing is in the Bible that God doesn't want there,
and everything is in the Bible that God does want there. We also have the famous discourse from John chapter 1.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

This is often taken as Jesus himself is God, and he is perfect, and he is the word. In other words Jesus is the very essence of the Bible.
Hopefully that sets a common framework. If we don't agree on at least that much, the rest gets more difficult.

Were Paul and Jesus really teaching two different messages? Or was Paul's message just a continuation of Jesus' ?
In many ways Jesus seems more legalistic. Repent, keep the commandments, many people will go to hell, he called some people vipers and son's of hell, merely looking at a woman lustfully is the same as committing adultery. etc...
Jesus often taught in parables. I can't really think of an example where Paul ever did.

Even his parables were sometimes legalistic. The virgins that didn't have oil in their lamps weren't allowed to enter the feast. The steward that didn't increase
the money that his master gave him was cast out and called a wicked and lazy servant. The tree that doesn't bear fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. etc...

In Gal 1:12; Paul says everything he was taught about Christianity, he learned from Jesus. So is it really a different message?
I personally have always taken Jesus in the gospels as the way to be saved, and what to be saved from. I have always taken the books written after the gospels
( not just Paul, but James, John, Jude, Peter, etc..) to be what you do after you are saved. How to live after you are saved.

So what do you think? Are they really different messages? Do some churches only preach the message of Paul and leave out the message of Jesus?
Do some churches preach Jesus only (the 4 gospels) and leave out the message of Paul? Is there a reason they should do this?

In some ways Jesus showed more grace. The woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, the thief on the cross, etc...
Paul could be legalistic also sometimes. He chastised Peter for eating with Jews and ignoring gentiles. He chastised Ananias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit. He chastised the Galatians for going back to the old ceremonial Jewish laws.

So how about it? Are Jesus and Paul really teaching different messages?

It is never Jesus vs Paul. Just like it is never the Old Testament vs the New Testament. As to Who is the greater, of course it is Jesus Christ. But Paul's message is equal to Jesus Christ's as it too is from Christ. (Gal. 1:12)

There are different teachings from Jesus when compared to Paul's. The majority of what Jesus addressed was to Israel. (Rom. 15:8) "Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers." Paul's message was mainly directed toward the Gentiles. (Acts 9:15) Though he did not neglect the Jews as seen in the book of Hebrews as well as his going to the Jews first.

Though all of the Gospels are in our New Testament, most of what is written in them is on Old Testament ground. The Law is still in place. The Temple is there. The priesthood is there. When Jesus spake He spake to a people under law. And much of what He said was law. This is why it is all important to know who is being talked to, and the dispensation they are under at the time.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Is this true? Are they really different? If so, how?

The Kingdom of God speaks to the universal rule of God over all. The Kingdom of Heaven speaks to the Kingdom of God operating on the earth.

Ever since the fall of satan God has begun His work in reclaiming His rule upon the earth as opposed to satan's. It will be accomplished in the end. (Rev. 11:15)

This Kingdom of Heaven centers on Israel. Jesus Christ will be ruling from Jerusalem. Israel will be the nation of light unto the other nations of the world.

It is this Kingdom that John the Baptist, Christ, and the 12 disciples first preached. (Matt. 3:1-2) (Matt. 4:17) (Matt. 10:5-7)

Due to the rejection of that Kingdom of Heaven message, the Kingdom takes on a 'mystery form' on the earth. (Matt. 13:11) And the many Kingdom parables follow in describing it.

Quantrill