Does Paul agree with Jesus?

I'm seeing this more and more on social media.

The trend is to exclude the Pauline Epistles out of the Bible based on what is thought to be conflicting teachings.

Jbossman008 over at 153news.net is a good example an anti-Pauline promoter (along with flat earth).

And I do believe that our very own vicomte13 is anti-Pauline.

See, this is the problem you Protestants have. You act as though the Bible itself is God. It isn't. God is God. Some of what God said is in the Bible, and what other people said is too. And it conflicts with itself, as any anthology covering 4000 years of history will do.

This doesn't bother me, for whom the highest authority is the most recent things God said, and Jesus is the most recent set of those things. So Jesus, not the whole Bible, is the gold standard. Where Paul conflicts with Jesus, Paul is to be ignored. Where James conflicts with Jesus, he's wrong. Where John conflicts with Jesus, ignore John. Where Yahweh conflicts with Jesus (over shellfish, for example, or death for sexual offenses), ignore Yahweh and go with Jesus.

Jesus alone is the ultimate authority. Obviously this puts Jesus above the rest of the Bible.

No Protestant can accept that. And so Protestantism is a welter of contradicting and competing sects.

The Catholic Church gets it right that the Bible isn't God, and it puts Jesus first in the Scriptures, which is better than the other positions. BUT then the Catholics (and the Orthodox) put the Church before Jesus, so if there's something they particularly like or want, they'll fetch it from Paul, or James, or themselves in the middle ages, and put that before Jesus.

Which makes the Orthodox and the Catholics wrong also, just differently wrong than the Protestants.

The Protestants place the Bible as an idol before God. The Catholics and the Orthodox place their churches as an idol before God. They're all wrong. The first authority is Jesus. Yes, he is in the Bible, but everything else in the Bible, or the Church, that conflicts with Jesus, is obviously wrong, because, simply put, Jesus was God Incarnate, and the Bible and the Church are not.

Period. Nothing more to discuss.

If you disagree, you're obviously wrong - and an idolater of the Bible or the Church. Do me a favor and go argue with the trees - I am not interested in you.

But Paul does conflict with Jesus, James and John from time to time.

Give me one example of conflict between any of the writers you mentioned...just one will do. We'll see if there is any truth in what you say.

You act as though the Bible itself is God.

Hogwash, and you know it.

But, there is the verse that states:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

We Christians know what this means, being made known to us inwardly by God's Spirit. But how can I explain this to you since you do not have God's indwelling Spirit to help you understand.

The Catholic Church gets it right that the Bible isn't God, and it puts Jesus first in the Scriptures

The Catholic Church puts Mary first, then the Pope, then a statue of dead Jesus on a cross. (Mary being the fourth member of the Trinity)

Nothing more to discuss.

Humbug. Discussion to you being to blather like a brute beast about things you do not understand.

I am not interested in you.

Well, I am a most uninteresting fellow. But then there is you, Vic, (that is, your soul) the emptiness of which is of great interest to me.

You have a religion, it works for you. Good! Keep it.

You have a religion

What do you have...

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

If I am incorrect please tell me which verses Jesus didn't believe and your basis for it.

Because he quoted from scripture regularly and I don't think he ever said any of it was incorrect.

If he was the Son of God do you think he wouldn't have warned us about verses that were not true?

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus, of course, did not have the Bible, That didn't exist until 260 years after his death. There were Scriptures, various scrolls, and there was no canon. Jesus only refers to passages in a few of them.

I focus on what Jesus said and did, which keeps it very straightfoward and simple: he said what he wants, and did it.

You have bootstrapped "the Bible" into primacy of place, which allows you to find anything in it, including the things that say quite different things from what Jesus said and did, and pretend that it's all equal.

I can't comprehend how you can really believe in what you do, other than long habit learned as a child.

In any case, what is the point? The Bible says to take the daughter of the priest who fornicates and put her in the fire, and it says that you shall not allow a witch to live. It says to execute sabbath breakers, and ostracize pork and shellfish eaters, and those who wear garments of mixed fibers (no polyester for you!). And it does NOT anywhere say "This is the ceremonial law, but this is the moral law." Actually, you quote Jesus saying that every letter of it is all true.

So, why do you eat pork and shrimp? And do you think "witches" should be killed?

It's kind of pointless, this discussion. It just provokes rage. Why do it? I'm going to stop. I know you really believe that I have these doubts and fears, because I don't think about the Bible the way you do. I wonder how you possibly cannot know that what I am saying is obviously true, and be full of doubts and fears yourself. I'm actually not, at all. I don't see how that is possible, in return, for somebody like you, because of all of the weird monstrosities in the ancient text.

But you do you, and I will be untroubled. And I'll do me, which should leave you untroubled, but doesn't seem to. You probably think that you are earnestly HELPING me, but what you're doing is demonstrating to me how much of what you believe was learned by rote, and how little critical thinking is going on there. So let's just stop.

WhaT's nexT

breasT implanTs

love
boris

And it does NOT anywhere say "This is the ceremonial law, but this is the moral law."

These laws were given to contrast the Israelites from the heathen roundabout them. That is all they amount to. Some of the laws were harsh, but it was a harsh world back then.

And I'll do me

I've seen this before...you are looking for any and every excuse not to bow to God.

You are saying to God in effect, "I can't trust in You because You told the Levites to burn witches. If only You hadn't said that I would submit to You"...or..."See here, now, what's this about all those letters that didn't make it into the canon, surely You have allowed some kind of error. I'll sort this out and get back to You".

Admit it, Vic. You refuse God because you are part of the rebellion. You like your independence. You believe God would hold you back from enjoying life. "Heaven, pfttt, sitting on a cloud and playing a harp...that's it? That's eternity? Besides, I pray to Mary. Doesn't that automatically save me"?

Give it up, Vic. Time is running out.

your distempered ideas about God

Please bring one of my "distempered ideas about God" to my attention.

"I've seen this before...you are looking for any and every excuse not to bow to God.

You are saying to God in effect, 'I can't trust in You because You told the Levites to burn witches. If only You hadn't said that I would submit to You'...or...'See here, now, what's this about all those letters that didn't make it into the canon, surely You have allowed some kind of error. I'll sort this out and get back to You'.

Admit it, Vic. You refuse God because you are part of the rebellion. You like your independence. You believe God would hold you back from enjoying life. 'Heaven, pfttt, sitting on a cloud and playing a harp...that's it? That's eternity? Besides, I pray to Mary. Doesn't that automatically save me'?

Give it up, Vic. Time is running out."

The arrogance in this is just breathtaking.

Instead, you prefer to make the issue about there being something wrong with me for seeing the obvious barbarisms in the ancient text.

So, no actual conversation is ever really had. it's just ad hominem to the moon.

Vic: The arrogance in this is just breathtaking.

Vic: I refuse to bow

Instead of that, we COULD have an intelligent conversation about the issues.

Me: Give me one example of conflict between any of the writers you mentioned...just one will do. We'll see if there is any truth in what you say.

Vic: I could give you ten, but it's pointless. You have a religion, it works for you. Good! Keep it.

Yup. It's pointless.

You are saying to God in effect, 'I can't trust in You because

You are saying to God I can't trust your Bible because you aren't powerful enough to protect your word.

You have bootstrapped "the Bible" into primacy of place,

In the beginning was the word.

But Paul does conflict with Jesus, James and John from time to time. Paul has good things to say, but he's not God.

See, this is the problem you Protestants have. You act as though the Bible itself is God. It isn't.

The Bible is the word of God preserved by God.

Question for you. What did Paul say that contrasts with what Jesus taught? I think you are in error.

Now, of course, if one reads Paul CORRECTLY, he only APPEARS to say Faith Alone, that isn't what he means at all.

I know that.

But do many, many, many teach Faith Alone, and believe it, just like Martin Luther? Yep.

So, DOES Paul actually contradict Jesus? Not in the main aspects of faith, no, not if he is read properly. Most American Christians come from traditions that do not read Paul properly. If you read Paul like Martin Luther did, then you pit Paul directly against Jesus, and you're dead wrong.

So, DOES Paul actually contradict Jesus? Not in the main aspects of faith, no, not if he is read properly. Most American Christians come from traditions that do not read Paul properly. If you read Paul like Martin Luther did, then you pit Paul directly against Jesus, and you're dead wrong.

I'm sure you could teach me much about Martin Luther since I don't know much.

Specific verses required.

I'm sure you could teach me much about Martin Luther since I don't know much.

The crux: "Faith Alone!" was the great rallying cry of Luther and the Protestant Reformation, as opposed to "Faith and works" Catholicism.

Luther based it on a crabbed reading of part of what Paul said in Romans (and Luther went ahead and added the word "alone" after faith in his German translation of the letter).

It was the battle cry of the Reformation, and has been the primary battle front in theological warfare between Catholics and Protestants for 500 years.

Luther is obviously wrong. "Faith without works is dead." - James "What good does it do to say you follow me if you don't keep my commandments?" - Jesus

Luther, by the way, didn't oppose Mary. He actually even believed in the Immaculate Conception. His theological battle with the Catholics had nothing to do with Mary. Neither did the Anglicans. Mary wasn't the issue in the Reformation, Faith Alone was.

Faith Alone was to built on Scripture Alone (no traditions). But of course if one goes Scripture Alone, Scripture is chock full of direct refutations of the idea of Faith Alone. Jesus says you'll be judged by your works over and over and over again.

Faith Alone was the very cornerstone of Protestantism as it was originally fought for. Luther was the first, but the whole movement that followed him relied on Faith Alone and Scripture Alone as their very bedrock.

And Faith Alone is - paradoxically - humorously - really quite the OPPOSITE of what Scripture SAYS. Of course, in the 1500s when all of this was being first fought out, only about 20% of the population could read anything, let alone Scripture, and the Protestants and Catholics were all burning each other for heresy, so literate, critical thinking was in short supply.

Jesus says you'll be judged by your works over and over and over again.

You'll have to quote that for me please. i know jesus said it is not of works lest any man should boast. You know grace.

He never says that you will be judged by your faith alone. In fact, he asks what good it will do you to say that you follow him if you don't keep his commandments, and he pointedly says that those who cry to him "Lord, Lord!" he will not know. According to Jesus, it's not what you think, it's what you do.

I've said it, and now I'll pull out quote after quote directly from him that demonstrates it.

Against this...well, I don't really understand WHY people want to oppose this rather obvious thing, but they do. Martin Luther reacted violently against this idea, saying "Faith ALONE". He even inserted "ALONE" into his translation of Paul's letter to the Romans.

But even Paul didn't believe that. Luther did, and foisted it on Paul. Paul actually says that if you have faith and no love, you have nothing.

Truth: Martin Luther took some strong, hyperbolic positions during a period of violence and change. He himself, in less ignorant and more sober times, would probably have said that "Faith ALONE", the way it has come down to us as a hard position, isn't really what he meant.

It is, howwver, what many people believe, and on account of all of those bitter, violent politics of the past, they are stubbornly firm in their positions.

It's no skin off my nose that they believe this. I merely note that what they assert is NOT what Jesus said. I stick with Jesus. He's straightforward and not hard to understand, and unlike Paul or James or John, he's actually GOD, according to the Christians anyway. He HIMSELF said he was the SON of God, which settles that issue for me too. I don't know why Christians take positions that argue with Jesus himself about what he was, but they do. I ascribe it to cussedness. People are cussed. They get something in their head, like it, defend it, and God Himself can say something else - quite literally - Jesus SAYS the opposite - and they will fight with you anyway, and tell you you can't read, and shuck and jive and do every other damned thing to avoid admitting their religion is wrong on some point or other.

Hint: If you're a Christian, and you're contradicting Jesus, you're wrong.

God Himself can say something else - quite literally - Jesus SAYS the opposite - and they will fight with you anyway,

Some of that seems to apply to you. But I will await your answer from above.

Now, what will I be demonstrating?

(1) That Jesus says that he judges people by what they do - their works, actions, deeds. (2) That Jesus says that belief in him - faith - isn't what matters, what you do does.

That's what the focus will be, what I think you want to see. If I'm wrong, tell me now, because that is what I am going to show.

In essence, I am going to use Jesus' words to blow Martin Luther's "faith alone" claim out of the water, and say that, no, Jesus emphasized works - what you DO - not what you think.

That is what you are looking for proof of, yes?

There is about 300 pages of material to do through, and I'm not going to half-ass it. If I were a housebound guy without a family and other things to do, I could have knocked it out already. But that is not me, so I only have so much time to devote to it. What you get will be comprehensive. Nobody who reads it will be able to say "you forgot about". Much more importantly to me, none of the hyenas will be able to say "you failed to mention". Nope. Every word of Jesus on the subject will be in the final product. I will not really need to say anything when I'm done. He'll do all of the talking.

I'll finish it when I finish it.

Nope. Every word of Jesus on the subject will be in the final product. I will not really need to say anything when I'm done. He'll do all of the talking.

I'll finish it when I finish it.

Fair enough. I look forward to it.

Martin Luther reacted violently against this idea, saying "Faith ALONE".

Faith (alone) gets you saved.

AFTER someone is saved THEN they will do good works.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. ””

"He that believeth on me" is the salvation that comes first...THEN works follow.

Man's relationship with God was lost because of disbelief. The relationship is therefore restored by belief. Works follow a restored relationship.

It's so simple even children can understand this...why can't you?

Answer: because you don't want to understand. To understand faith alone you would have to make a decision to receive Christ by faith.

Once again you are trying to muddy the water as your excuse to deny Christ.

I observe that that is what you say, and what you believe.

And I observe that it is not what Jesus said.