Jesus vs. Paul

[Guest]

I'm an active member of another message board that consists of a few Christians and many outspoken anti-Christian people. One guy in particular is on quite a kick right now with by repeating the following argument:

1. Jesus taught salvation through holy living. The TRUE Jesus is mostly found in Matthew and Mark. Jesus never taught salvation through faith.

2. Paul changed the emphasis from Jesus life (example) to Jesus death (atonement). This was never Jesus' intention. Luke (which he calls Paul's Gospel), for example, is the only Gospel to record the episode of the thief on the cross, b/c he's just trying to Push Paul's agenda

There are so many layers at which this guy is off base, but every time I make an argument he just dismisses that passage as Paul's Gospel. When we first started talking through the issues, he was fine with all the Gospels....now he's retreated to mostly Matthew.

Any suggestions for how to best communicate truth to this person?

Any great resources showing that Paul didn't distort the message of Christ?

[Guest]

I'm an active member of another message board that consists of a few Christians and many outspoken anti-Christian people. One guy in particular is on quite a kick right now with by repeating the following argument:

1. Jesus taught salvation through holy living. The TRUE Jesus is mostly found in Matthew and Mark. Jesus never taught salvation through faith.

2. Paul changed the emphasis from Jesus life (example) to Jesus death (atonement). This was never Jesus' intention. Luke (which he calls Paul's Gospel), for example, is the only Gospel to record the episode of the thief on the cross, b/c he's just trying to Push Paul's agenda

There are so many layers at which this guy is off base, but every time I make an argument he just dismisses that passage as Paul's Gospel. When we first started talking through the issues, he was fine with all the Gospels....now he's retreated to mostly Matthew.

Any suggestions for how to best communicate truth to this person?

Any great resources showing that Paul didn't distort the message of Christ?

I'll make it easy for him. If God is so inept that he couldn't leave us an uncomprimised bible, God leaves it up to us to disect what parts to believe and what parts to disreguard then why bother with any of it? I mean, with that logic maybe it's all wrong.

If it's Matthew he likes then go there:

Matt 1:21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins."

How did He do that? Was it his atonement? Yes it was. He didn't need to save his people from their sins by the sermon on the mount. Most of that is in the old testament already. So you need to ask him, why did Jesus have to come? It was to save His people from their sins. He did this by dying as the unblemished lamb, just as the Jewish sacrifices tipified in the old testament.

Matt 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!"
23 But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men."

So why did Jesus have to die? It goes back to Matt 1:21 above.
Peter didn't understand that, and if it wasn't necessary to save His people from thier sins, He wouldn't have said it's something He must do. Unless God is in the business of doing things He doesn't have to. That doesn't make sense.

John said:
Matt 3:2 "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!"...8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance.

Jesus said:
Matt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

And Paul in perfect agreement said:
Acts 26:19 I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.

You have to believe to repent. A true belief, a trust in God is what faith is. When Jesus said "Matthew 16:24 "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me."

How can anyone follow Jesus if they don't believe? Obviously they can't. The Pharisees didn't believe (Matt 9:34, etc.) and so they didn't follow Him.

Paul didn't teach against works, he taught not to rely on them but Christ.

Matthew 10 Jesus said:
32 "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

Paul said:
Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

And that agrees with Jesus:

Matthew 12:34
You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.

Matthew 13:19
When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path.

Matthew 15:18
But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.'

Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

Also he must realize:
John 16:12 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

So is it that hard to believe that Jesus would reveal things to Paul after He was raised? Jesus said He would. And if Jesus didn't send Paul to the Gentiles, then are we stuck with "I have come only for the house of Israel"?

I could go on, I hope that is some help.

[_Steve]

I think Sean has given an excellent and well-thought-out answer. I agree with him entirely.


I also would consider dealing with the subject of Paul's legitimacy as an apostle. If Jesus really appeared to him on the road to Damascas, and commissioned him to speak on His behalf, as an apostle to the Gentiles, then there is no room for us to challenge Paul's doctrine. Jesus said, "he that receives him that I send receives me" (John 13:20). If Paul got it wrong, Jesus made an incompetent choice of spokesmen.

But can we know if Paul's testimony of his encounter was true or not? Remember, the other disciples initially doubted the truth of his story (Acts 9:26)—and no wonder! He had earlier left Jerusalem as a committed persecutor, and now returns, claiming to be not only a Christian, but also an apostle, like themselves! How easy is that going to go down with the guys who were the indisputed leaders of the whole movement, and whose positions would be diluted by acknowledging additional apostles? Not an easy sell, I would imagine.

Yet, the others clearly came around to accept Paul's story and his apostleship (Gal.2:7-9) and Peter eventually referred to Paul's writings as "scripture" (2 Per.3:15-16). What was it that convinced these, naturally skeptical, apostles that Paul had really met and been commissioned by Jesus? I think there are three things:

1. Paul worked the sort of miracles that were generally regarded as "signs of apostleship" (2 Cor.12:12). Did Peter's shadow heal the sick (Acts 5:15)? So did Paul's hankies! (Acts 19:11-12). Did Peter raise the dead (Acts 9:40)? Paul did also (Acts 20:9-10). Did Christ give apostles authority to cast out demons (MARK 3:14-15)? Well the demons were as afraid of Paul as they were of Christ Himself (Acts 19:15)! Everyone knew Paul's testimony about meeting Jesus. The signs and wonders he performed proved that he wasn't just making this up.

2. Paul's character was exemplary. This is not the case with charlatans and false prophets (see 2 Pet.2:1-3,14). Paul did not marry or womanize (as false religious leaders invariably do). He kept a group of men around him almost at all times to observe his behavior and vouch for him (2 Tim.3:10). He was not in it for money, like most false teachers are, since he not only refused pay for what he did, but he worked "a real job" in order to pay his own expenses and those of his team (Acts 20:33-35). Miracles such as Paul worked may sometimes be counterfeited by demons, but Paul was no sorcerer. He was a saintly, Christ-like man. This gave force and credibility to his testimony of conversion.

3. Paul was willing to suffer for his integrity—something a man who was lying about his conversion would hardly be willing to do over a long preiod of time (several decades). This, understandably, impressed the other apostles of his genuineness (Acts 15:25-26). A partial list of things Paul had suffered (still quite early in his ministry) can be read at 2 Cor.11:23-28. He eventually was beheaded for his faith, after long imprisonment and physical abuse. Men do not choose such a lifestyle when they are not sincere in their beliefs. He would know whether he had met Jesus on the road to Damascas or not , and he apparently told the truth about it.

These things convinced the other apostles, who were initially skeptical, that Paul was like one of themselves, a man apostolized by Christ to authoritatively speak and write on Christ's behalf. If those who observed him first-hand were forced to acknowledge what they originally doubted, how can anyone living today, who has never even met Paul, credibly question his genuineness? Even if we did not know the reasons for Peter's endorsement of Paul, the fact that Peter did so, in his second epistle, should carry enough apostolic authority to establish Paul's writings as scripture.

[Guest]

Thanks very much to both of you

[Guest]

The Gospel According to John the Baptizer

According to John the Baptizer in the words we just read, there were two requirements necessary to become a member of the Kingdom:
1.Repent
2. Be baptized. The end or purpose of baptism was the affirmation of one’s decision, the entrance into the door of salvation, and the beginning of the process of sending sin out of one’s life, and thus the bearing of fruit that is worthy of repentance.

The Gospel According to Jesus

Matt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

John 4:1-3 Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), he left Judea and departed again to Galilee.

Jesus proclaimed the same requirements! Repent and be baptized.

The Gospel According to Peter

After Peter had addressed the men of Judea, showing that God had raised Jesus from the death, and that they had crucified Him, the following exchange took place:

Acts 2:36-39
“... Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."
Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"
And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the sending away of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."

What were Peter’s requirements to appropriate the benefits of gospel? Repent and be baptized! The only difference was that now that Jesus had been raised, the gift of His Spirit was given.

Now some claim that John the baptizer and Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom, but the apostle Paul opened the new order of the Church, by preaching the gospel of grace.
C.I. Scofield, in his notes on the Sermon on the Mount went so far as to affirm that it is neither the duty nor the privilege for the Christian to obey the laws of Christ expressed in those chapters ---- that they were the laws of the kingdom offered to the Jews, but that since the Jews rejected the kingdom it was to be postponed. Such teachers declare that now that we are under grace, we should listen to Paul, for the words of Christ no longer apply to us who live in the age of grace.

But as Paul made abundantly clear, there is only one gospel. That one gospel is the gospel of the Kingdom and Paul himself preached it!

The Gospel According to Paul

Acts 28:30,31 And he lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered.

But did Paul declare the necessity of repentance, as did John the Baptizer, Jesus, and Peter? Or did he teach that all that is necessary is to believe in the atoning work of Christ? In explaining to King Agrippa his experience with Jesus on the road to Damascus he concluded by saying,

"Wherefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those at Damascus, then at Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and perform deeds worthy of their repentance. Acts 26:19,20

Does Paul’s gospel not resemble that proclaimed by John the baptizer?

Didn't John the baptizer say to those who hear him these words?

You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Bear fruits that fit repentance...

Yes, Paul preached repentance, and doing deeds worthy of repentance. But did Paul proclaim the necessity of baptism? We read:

Acts 18: 8 ...many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

It was after they heard Paul that they were baptized. The necessity of baptism must have been implicit or explicit in Paul’s message. Otherwise, why would they get baptized? So Paul’s gospel not only “resembled” that of John the Baptizer and of Jesus. It was identical!