Paul Contra Jesus

Today the majority of Christians follow the teachings of PAUL over those of Jesus, mainly due to the fact that Paul wasn't liberal and most Christians don't like liberalism (although some are very liberal).

Today's church quotes Paul as much or more than Jesus when it is clear to anyone with eyes that the two had dramatically different approaches to particular problems.

One example is that Paul had a problem with long hair. Paul writes, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

Although Jesus didn't say anything about this, I am pretty sure that he didn't run to the barber everytime his "crew cut" starting fuzzing out.

Other examples:

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 spouts 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.

Now, I know a host of you fundies will get on here and try to say what Paul "really meant", but even if you are right and it's just the Fundies misinterpreting this--they have the upperhand because most fundies just take it as it says without seeking in the original languages.

I suppose that "God" thought it would be funny to throw Paul in there and confuse the shit outta people, create a chaotic "Christianity" which spawned Inquisitions, Crusades and Fundamentalism. Ha ha...Good One, Yahweh!

 

A Little Late..
The whole 'Evil Paul' wedge tactic had run its course (poorly) on A&E 'Bible Documentaries' and Time magazine articles.
..and no, it has nothign to do with 'Fundies'.
Fundies are just a 'boogeyman' of internet liberal antichristian types.

Its like you are running out of things here.

Oh.. try the Gnostic Gospels angle for a while.. the Davinci Code is coming out and should give it a last hurrah?

 

I think people take what paul says to litteral...But hey I figure if i Jesus likes what i do poo on paul

 

libertine
you really just hate christianity that much don't you?
lol
i guess i'm just really apathetic

 

naw ya got it all wrong. Libertine dosen't hate christianity christainty hates him lol

 

eh, either way
i still don't care =P

 

But sure makes for fun conversation...how about those cowboys jk

 

How easy to sit back and yap thy trap. You seem to be just blowin' in the wind at anybody who tries to stimulate discussion. How easy to be a commentator! Ha ha...

Put your mouth to the test. I've already asked you TWICE. Tell us what you're theory is...of ANYTHING.

The floor is all yours.

 

Well technically, the anti-homosexual preachers could use Levicticus as a semi-valid argument (in the sense that they don't contradic themselves with what they say) if they quote the dietary laws passage where Jesus and His diciples are eating, then the scribes or Pharasees or someone comes by and starts questioning Jesus about washign and that sort of thing, and I am pretty sure there is some verse that is along the lines of "thus He declared all food clean"...Not really sure where it is...

But then they still have the scriptural contradiction where Paul says the Laws aren't valid, but still is against homosexuals

 

My favorite Paul theory;


Saul was a Romanised Jew who hated christians.
Saul spent some time wanderring around killing christians
But no matter how many christians Saul killed, more kept popping up.

Then one day on the road to Damascus, Saul had a brillaint idea;

Instead of wanderring around killing christians, which was time consuming and didn't seem to be getting anywhere,
Saul decided to become "Paul",
and kill christianity.

 

Now that's an interesting one, Naykid.

 

Ok.
My theory is that Paul has a different writing style and personality but that there is nothing but agreement between his revelations and Jesus Ministry.
It would be nearly impossible to sift through your claims since you have taken a whole pile of different examples and offered all kinds of your own opinions and assertions - much of which is not even being asked by the actual text.
In other cases you give - the context definately does explain the text (but you dont share that)
Example: Paul chastises those Christians who 'deliberately' refuse to contribute. The situation itself describes work being available to them.
These people are not even necessarily poor.
This is not at all the same as someone being willing to work but having none available (unemployed) or someone who 'cant work'.
(again the context implies they CAN work).

So you have two totally different situations and one doesnt have anything to do with contradicting or even getting away from the other.

Unfortunately, I have heard spoiled American evangelicals abuse this exact passage to justify withholding social welfare from unemployed people.
Sadly, you cant stop any asshole from abusing scriptures by selecting what they like out of context and misapplying it.
Take you for example.

There hasnt been a lot of confusion about this in the history of classic Christianity and you might have noticed Pauline epistles have been there the whole time.
We never read of great 'Pauline Schisms' in Church History and quite frankly Paul is a fantastic situation in that he is not an original Apostle (of the 12) and its been always held as a blessing in that he was able to be a bridge or transition to the Gentiles (who quickly became the bulk of new Christians).
And I say that with all due respect to the Twelve.

So really what I see is you trying the 'Paul Wedge' tactic to confuse the shit out of people or give the appearance of confusion.
Not actual confusion from the NT itself.

Duly noted that confusion (sadly) still reigns over the mixing of Law and Grace and its probably THE problem in Christianity to this day.
Where you have gone wrong is attributing any of this to Paul.
If you ONLY took Galatians and read this (which Christians NEED to do) then that alone speaks clearly and wonderfully to this problem.
Oh .. who writes this revelation - Paul.

Pauls letters to the Corinthians have 'confused' people but again - just because modern American Puritans and 'Fundies' have gone ahead to take specific historical commentary to the most literal interpretations and try to apply them to themselves doesnt mean there is a huge controversy or confusion.
Actually there has been next to nothing controversial or confusing about that for most of the 2,000 years.
There still isnt.
Your 1960's Azusa St. Revival and various American 'fundies' are hardly representing the other 99% of the planet for what is about 99% of our history.

Yeesh.. Transubstantiation would be far more of a 'lightning rod' issue of confusion than Pauls 'tough love' personality... something Jesus demonstrated himself on more than a few occasions.

 

Thanks. Jesus said "put away your sword" but he never said anything about Ockhams razor.

 

If your theory is correct than 'Evil Paul' became the most spectacular failure in the history of the planet and the 'backfire' is still going on today.

The fact you can barely get through a single paragraph of a Pauline epistles without repeatedly being turned back to the Grace and Forgiveness of Jesus.. over and over and over... would seem to put your theory in the garbage can where you got it from.

 

Only if you think names and slogans mean anything.

If the "garbage can" you're speaking of is the New Testemant, than right you are.

 

Your reply did not work.
Please try again later.
Thx

 

worked for me.

 

heheheheh

 

Just an aside, I don't really consider the New Testament a garbage can, I just think there's a good chance that alot of what's been dumped into it is trash.

 

How do you figure that?