PAUL VS.JESUS

Jump to area of contradiction between Paul and Jesus: Paul vs. James | Law of Moses | Other Problems | Adam

Faith/Works
Paul (originally as Saul of Tarsus) was an admitted persecutor of Christians who might have found a more effective way to undermine the followers of Jesus. Perhaps he infiltrated their ranks and taught a doctrine that opposed Jesus on several fronts, replacing Jesus' selfless teaching of universal compassionate action with a selfish teaching of desire to gain a "free gift" of salvation based only on faith and completely devoid of any behavioral requirement or obedience to law, and distracting us from the selfless teachings of Jesus.

Jesus teaches that BEHAVIORAL requirements
(works/deeds), rooted in an internal change of spiritual growth within the person (not external or apart from the person, though the gift of teaching and techniques to achieve this personal change are a gift of grace not earned or deserved by us, but requiring ACTIONS [deeds] to implement), are integral to salvation. While perhaps it is not possible for us to "earn" the "free gift" that Jesus DID give -- a teaching of the universal compassionate love by which the evil within us CAN be transformed into a more holy kindness of love -- Jesus clearly includes a behavioral component to his requirements for "salvation." While he does not say that this satisfies any "debt," he still requires it; perhaps he is demanding merely a small partial "payment" as a gesture of "good faith." (In fact, James suggests this by his comments in James 2:26, that we demonstrate our faith -- if it is genuine -- BY our works or deeds.)

Aside from the fact that this simply contradicts Jesus, the point is not whether or not our puny mortal attempts at righteousness have intrinsic value or not. Just as a child may offer its parents or grandparents an awkwardly-drawn piece of art, which likely holds little real artistic merit (perhaps in terms of art critics it might be as "filthy rags"), still the parents sincerely and genuinely cherish such efforts.

It may not "merit" winning an art contest and may be able to "earn" very little, but loving parents find it good enough to represent the qualities THEY deem of real and lasting value.

Why would a loving god, as spiritual father on a more perfect scale, for those who believe him to be that, not be able to give even greater acceptance, even of "filthy rags," if sincerely offered as the best effort ... ESPECIALLY if he has said that he would do so?

In his FIRST public teaching (Sermon on the Mount) Jesus introduces a bold new concept, not only that we should love friends and neighbors, but our enemies as well.

When asked by a lawyer what the most important commandment in the LAW was, Jesus answered (as reported in Matt 22:36-40 and Luke 10:25-37) with references from the Old Testament, that the GREATEST law was to love god (see Deut 6:5) and the second was to love your neighbor as yourself (see Lev 18:19). In the Luke text, the lawyer specifically asks what is necessary for eternal life (verse 25) and after Jesus references the two GREAT commandments, he says "This DO and you will live" (verse 28) -- showing clearly that salvation is related to works/deeds/actions, however important faith might be to motivating such behavior.

In his LAST public teaching, Matt. 25:31-45, Jesus describes the final judgment as being based solely and entirely on behavioral responses to internalized compassion. And Jesus makes it very clear that those who DO express universal compassion in behavioral action WILL BE SAVED, and those who do not will NOT be saved. Period. There is no other qualification.

Mother Teresa juxtaposed these two messages (the "great commandments" and that what we DO to "the least of these" is done to God) to postulate that our actions toward "the least of these" are actually done unto god, which she took very literally, and asserted that we fulfill the first commandment by obedience to the second -- which motivated her to give up a well-to-do life in Albania, and search to find whoever was the ultimate "least of these" in the world, which she found first on the streets of Calcutta, India, and later in missions throughout the world.

Even in John 3, the discourse to Nicodemus on salvation as a gift of grace, Jesus includes specific behavioral requirements (John 3:19-21). In any case, while some writings (other than Paul) may occasionally discuss faith as a separate topic (as with honesty, courage, etc.), no one (except Paul) EVER states that salvation can occur with any of these virtues APART FROM works/deeds actions. This does not mean that, in TEACHING us the BEHAVIOR of salvation that Jesus did not thus give us a free gift far beyond what we could ever earn, a gift of grace, but it does not mean that it was given entirely apart from specified behavioral conditions, as Paul says.

All of the gospels are replete with statements of behavioral obligation, and NEVER once make any statement remotely similar to Paul that the faith and grace that engender salvation occur "apart from" obedience, works or deeds.

There is some disagreement among Christian denominations on the extent to which one's actions or deeds are important to the process of being "saved." Conservative (Evangelical, Fundamentalist or Calvinistic) Protestants take a hard-line view based on Paul's teaching, and teach that salvation is only by faith and not by works or deeds. Catholics, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses acknowledge the importance of faith, but follow the teachings of Jesus that one's actions or deeds also play an important role. In what might be seen as the ultimate religious irony, the conservative Protestants, who follow Paul in his contradictions against Jesus and are the ones who are undermining "Christian" teachings as taught by Jesus himself, often accuse the Catholics, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses (whose position is based on what Jesus said, not Paul) of not being legitimate "Christians"!

Paul vs. James
Paul teaches that the gift of salvation through grace occurs APART FROM any behavioral requirement:

Romans 3:28 : "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith WITHOUT THE DEEDS OF THE LAW."

Paul reiterates this position in: Romans 4:6; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; II Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5 -- yet no other Bible writer ever makes this point of stating that salvation occurs apart from or separate from works or deeds, which Paul not only states, but reiterates so emphatically.

Paul is specifically rebutted by the later writing of James (brother of Jesus) who offers one of the most striking and dramatic direct contradictions in James 2:24. Here he chooses language and syntactical structures which specifically contradicts Paul's wording in Romans 3:28 in both content and construction:

Romans 3:28 (Paul)
KJV: a man is JUSTIFIED by FAITH apart from WORKS of the law.

Today's English Version: a person is PUT RIGHT WITH GOD only through FAITH, and not by DOING what the Law commands.

James 2:24 (James' rebuttal)
KJV: by WORKS a man is JUSTIFIED, and not by FAITH only. RSV: a man is JUSTIFIED by WORKS and not by FAITH alone. Today's English Version: it is by his ACTIONS that a person is PUT RIGHT WITH GOD, and not by his FAITH alone. NIV: a person is JUSTIFIED by what he DOES and not by FAITH alone.

Clearly, James seems to be saying exactly the opposite of what Paul says. The key words here, in both passages, are JUSTIFIED (or, in Today's English, "put right with God"), WORKS/DEEDS/ACTIONS (or, in NIV, "observing the law"), and FAITH (same in all versions of both passages). Not only does James echo the same words, in the same parallel structure, but he even cites exactly the same example! The passage from Paul comes near the end of the third chapter of Romans; immediately after that, opening up the fourth chapter, Paul cites the example of Abraham and says it was his faith, not his works, that justified him (Romans 4:1-3). In James 2:21-24 (the same passage noted above), Paul's very example is used against him, but with the opposite (and contradictory) conclusion, that Abraham was justified by the combination of faith with works. Not only does James use exactly the same example, but to remove any doubt that they are referring to Abraham in exactly the same context, both Paul (Romans 4:3) and James (James 2:23) refer to exactly the same scriptural reference to Abraham, in which the Old Testament scriptures say that Abraham's belief was counted to him for righteousness (see Genesis 15:6). James' use of the same examples (right down to the identical scriptural reference), same words, and parallel structure clearly suggest that this was an intentional reply/rebuttal to Paul.

If anyone wants to suggest that, perhaps, the two passages have different root words in the original texts that just happened to pick up similar English equivalents by all these translators, then maybe we should look at the Greek source texts.

The same Greek word DIKAIOO is used by BOTH Paul AND James for the term justification (or "put right with God") in BOTH passages. While the Today's English Version does use a different term in their English translation, at least they apply it consistently in both Romans and James.

The same Greek word ERGON is used by BOTH Paul AND James for the term variously translated as works, deeds, actions, doing, or observing. While the English translators couldn't agree on the best term, both Paul and James were talking about the same thing. And, with the exception of the NIV, the translators of each version at least are consistent in their own usages between Paul and James. I wonder, however, about the objectivity of the NIV -- one of the most popular texts among conservative Christians -- in choosing to change the wording used between Paul and James in a way that subtly changes the connotation of Paul to be less in contradiction to James.

The same Greek word PISTIS is used by both Paul AND James for the word that all versions of both passages translated as "faith."

Some have tried to explain these differences by saying that Paul and James had different meanings for their words "justification," "faith" and "works/deeds." Yet the simple fact remains they used the same words, in the same order and same context, even illustrated with the same example of Abraham and Isaac.

But on several occasions, attention has been called to one difference in the wording of Paul and James. While they use the same words, in the same context and the same order, when talking about the "works/deeds" Paul adds the phrase "of the law" while James does not. Some have argued that this means Paul is talking about something different. Not so.

Paul's use of that phrase is a restrictive modifying clause, limiting the scope of what he is talking about. By leaving it out, James is at the very least accepting everything in Paul's more restrictive context and broadening to include additional contexts. But more to the point is that earlier in the same chapter (James chapter two) James, just before the verse in question and his reference to Paul's example of Abraham and Isaac, in verses 8-13 James discusses behavior very specific in terms of the Law, and the deeds of the Law. Aside from the possibility of simply broadening the more narrow focus of Paul, what seems more likely IN CONTEXT is that James does not need to say "of the law" since he has already made it clear a few verses before that he is talking about "deeds of the law."

In fact, the only credible scenario is that James is clearly rebutting Paul's scandalous undermining of Jesus' teachings.

Paul is not only rebutted by James in the examples above, but also admits having some problems getting along with Peter, admitting in Galatians 2:11: "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

In stark contrast to Paul's teaching of salvation by faith APART FROM behavioral manifestations, Jesus (in Matt. 7:21-27), state unequivocally that the mere profession of accepting him is not enough, but that such a profession MUST BE backed up by deeds. Jesus teaches a salvation of universal compassionate love expressed in ACTION. It is the centerpiece of everything he taught. And Jesus himself consistently expressed love and closeness to sinners, lepers, tax collectors and other outcasts, while saving his rare words of harshness and anger for the Pharisees and Saducees -- the pompous, self-righteous administrators of the established religious orthodoxy.

The Law of Moses
Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who always upheld the Law of Moses. In his first public teaching, the Sermon on the Mount, he made it very clear in Matt. 5:18-19: "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. 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." ("jot or tittle" in modern translations is "not one iota nor one dot".) Have heaven and earth passed away? Have ALL the prophecies, including those of the last days, been fulfilled? While Jesus ADDS TO the Law of Moses, he never detracts from it or undermines it.

Even some of the occasions when Jesus seems to add to the Law or teach in new and different ways, he goes to great lengths to show that it is based on the Law. For example, when this rabbi asked by a "lawyer" (one versed in the Law of Moses) what was the greatest commandment in the Law, Jesus turns the question back to him and asks what is in the Law, and from that extrapolates his great commandments to Love God (from Deut 6:5) and Love Neighbor as Self (from Lev. 19:18) which was clearly the centerpiece of his ministry and his doctrine of ACTIVE love and compassion for all.

Romans 3:19-21: "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets"

Additionally, when Paul denounces the need for works/deeds of which Jesus and others spoke so much, in Romans 3:27-28 and Galatians 2:16, he also specifically mentions which works: that obedience to the Law is what is not required, contrary to Jesus' statements.

Dealing with sinners: Jesus ministered to the sinners, with no reluctance to engage adulterers, whores, publicans, tax collectors, lepers, or any other "unclean" person (the whole need not a physician; a church is a hospital for sinners rather than a showcase for saints). (This, of course, completely devastates the argument that god cannot be in the presence of sin, unless you do not believe in the notion of Jesus being god.) Paul, contradicts Jesus: 1Cor 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."

Feeding the poor: Jesus taught in Matt 25:31-46 that our final salvation and judgment would be based in large part on our willingness to feed the poor. Paul contradicts this: 2Thess 3:10 "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." Does this mean that if poor people are unemployed, we should turn them away from any charity?

Slavery: When the Southerners in our country sought to defend slavery, they called upon Paul to back them up, citing Ephesians 6:5 and Titus 2:9-10, where he exhorts slaves to obey their masters, and the fact that slavery was widely practiced, but Paul never condemned it once.

Equality for Women: Paul was very anti-woman. He ordered that they not be allowed to speak in the churches (I Cor 14:34-45) and that they stay home and take care of the kids (1Timothy 5:14), and that wives should be submissive to the mastery of their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24 and Colossians 3:18-19).

Homosexuals: The ONLY passages in the New Testament that are offered as evidence against equal rights for homosexuals are those taught by Paul (various passages have been construed to oppose homosexuality, but the most direct reference is in Romans 1:26-27). Jesus himself never uttered a single word against homosexuals and, given his affinity for sinners, lepers, tax collectors, and other outcasts, it is likely that in our modern times it would be Jesus who would be embracing the homosexuals rejected by those who claim to be his followers. Just as it was Paul's words that were held up in the mid-1800's to justify slavery, so Paul's words today are still used to persecute others. Ironically, Paul is the one who asserts that the Law of Moses is no longer operational, yet he echoes the Law on homosexuality (see Leviticus 18:22). Ironically, many of the same Christians who eat pork, shrimp or rabbit (forbidden in Leviticus 11) because the Law no longer applies, still also cite Leviticus 18 when they want to oppose homosexuality -- trying to have it both ways.

There has been a popular piece that has been circulated among many Christian churches and publications, giving a description of Paul and his background, and then showing him applying for a position as a pastor. The punch line is that, just knowing Paul's "resume," would YOU hire him as a preacher? The message is supposed to be about judging others but, there is also another message: knowing what we DO know about Paul, MANY Christians are inclined to find him rather unsavory. Those who claim to take upon them the name of JESUS should carefully examine Paul's undermining of Jesus' message and his many contradictions of Jesus and the other apostles, as well as the plain nonsense of his bloody atonement theory of human sacrifice, and then decide if they want to be Christians or Paulians.

Punishment for Adam's sin
Paul is the one who introduces the concept of original sin and the "inheritance" of sin, in Romans 5:12, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

PAULINE EPISTLES
It is thought that epistles were written to members of the Church who already had some knowledge of the gospel. They are not evangelistic; rather, they are regulatory in nature. The arrangement is neither chronological, geographical, nor alphabetical, but by length, in descending order from the longest (Romans) to the shortest (Philemon). This is the case except with the epistle to the Hebrews, which was placed last because some have questioned whether or not it was written by Paul. The dating and chronological grouping of the epistles as presented below is approximate, but seems consistent with the known facts.

So maybe some of Paul's writting were with an understanding of previous knowledge and it did not elaborate on details.

I don't know if Paul is contradicting Jesus or not.
Besides the usual reason given for hanging out with sinners (they are the most in need of salvation) perhaps another reason Jesus did so was that it afforded the opportunity to be exposed to all sorts of temptations. In order to be our saviour, wouldn't he have to know as many temptations as possible so that he could be our advocate? If the purpose was to come to earth and avoid temptation he could have just isolated himself with a few select people.

Paul is advocating that we avoid temptation. We don't have to deliberately expose ourselves to temptation, but Jesus did.

This, of course, completely devastates the argument that god cannot be in the presence of sin, unless you do not believe in the notion of Jesus being god

I do not have the command of the language as I would like to express this, but I will try.

Jesus being the only begotten Son of God was not yet resurrected and therefore had not received his glory.

In this earthly state he was tried and tested to and had a mission to redeem those of us also here to be tried and tested but was born of parents of man, where is Jesus had a Heavenly Father and an Earthly mother which would make him subject to temporal temptations.

It makes me think of Adam and Eve being heavenly beings until they part took of the tree of good and evil. This act made them subject to the temporal world and no longer in an eternal state.

In this Earthly state they are subject to the temporal laws.

In the Garden of Eden they were subject to another Spiritual Laws that are different to us here on Earth.

So when one thinks about God cannot be in the presence of sin, its really the other way around its man can't be in the present of God glory.

So when they say man never has see God it is true, but if man is elevate for a period of time such as Moses was he was taken up and able to see God for his body was most likely in the state of laws such as the Garden of Eden, this would be like a one of the degrees of glory.

That is why when Heavenly Father as in Luke 21;21-22, We have the voice of the Heavenly Father, but not the rest of him for we could not endure His glory.

Some how the author thinks Paul change the doctrine of Jesus, if there is a contradiction could be a religious zealot that tampered with the dot and the title?

Lord, we thank you for those whose words of truth you sent us for today and the apostle you appointed to the Gentiles, our beloved Paul who taught us to be zealous of good works but that our salvation is through faith and will always be followed by works borne of charity as the apostle James so aptly provided.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

1 Timothy 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

1 Timothy 5:10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.

1 Timothy 5:25 Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.

1 Timothy 6:18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;

2 Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Titus 2:7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,

Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Titus 3:8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

Titus 3:14 And let our's also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.

This, like the entire article, is patently false. The man must have a works based theology so ingrained that he is forced to reject a major piece important piece of God's new covenant message to us. Does he reject the inspiration of Paul's writings? Very weird to me. I wonder why he doesn't want to throw out all the books of John as well since they clearly contradict him as well.

Some will say that puny mortals can never perform enough good behavior to "earn" or "merit" salvation based on the value of their deeds -- that the attempts at human righteousness is as "filthy rags." Aside from the fact that this simply contradicts Jesus, the point is not whether or not our puny mortal attempts at righteousness have intrinsic value or not. Just as a child may offer its parents or grandparents an awkwardly-drawn piece of art, which likely holds little real artistic merit (perhaps in terms of art critics it might be as "filthy rags"), still the parents sincerely and genuinely cherish such efforts.

The problem here is Rest that the LDS does not understand nor teach the imputed righteousnes of Christ..

I can not ever be good or holy in the sight of God..BUT Jesus is all those things and He has imputed His righteousness to us .(this just came up on another thread. I had not considered a doctrine that Born again Christians accept as "natural" is denied by "salvation by works " religions)

"If any man be IN Christ he is a new creation.."

Rom 8:1 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Thank you for your post for it reminds me of one learning how to play the piano they must practices the correct instructions to get good at it. I think good works have many similar elements.

1. Is to learn how to do the will of the Lord, as Jesus showed us, He did the will and work of His Father.

2. Another is so we can find out our true character.

3.We allow ourselves to be used as a conduit for the Holy Spirit can witness to another.

4.After we have done all we can do than the Lord atonement pays the rest of the reasom.*

I am sure there are many more benefits in doing good work that others can add.

Are we not in a temporal state and to be tried and tested in all things?

Are we not to keep the Lord’s Commandments, His Ordinance of Baptism, and doing good works, as well as Love One Another?

If we are to be tried and tested in all things, how can we be evaluated if we deny doing good works?

R7-"If any man be IN Christ he is a new creation.."

Because you are a new Creation, this enables one exercise our faith in the Lord that if we do His will/work to the best of our abilities that, the Lord’s atonements will pay the rest of the ransom.

I hope you re read these verse with the thought in mind that if we also earn toward our ransom that Jesus atonement will cover the rest of the ransom. It is true that only our Savior is worthy to save us, but is it also not true of our nature, to want to do something towards showing gratitude?

Do we not feel funny when we visit a friend that has done a lot for us and we have nothing to give?

Because you are a new Creation, this enables one exercise our faith in the Lord that if we do His will/work to the best of our abilities that, the Lord’s atonements will pay the rest of the ransom.

No Rest Jesus paid it all totally...He left nothing for us to pay

Hbr 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Hbr 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth

Rest HE did it all...He paid the price I could not pay

Sigh.

Of course, this is nothing new. Paul himself wrote about this sort of thing: For it has been reported to me by Chlo'e's people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apol'los," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:11-13)

This article is simple proof that people haven't changed much over the last 2000 years...

Are we not to keep the Lord’s Commandments, His Ordinance of Baptism, and doing good works, as well as Love One Another?

Love the Lord your God with all of your heart and your neighbor as yourself and you fulfill Christ's commandements within the new covenant.

If we are to be tried and tested in all things, how can we be evaluated if we deny doing good works?

What good works did the thief suffering beside Christ have? As has been spoken by others, works are the fruit not the root. God bless and keep all.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.