If you know anything about Christianity, you know that it is based on the teachings of Jesus.  You will also know that many of His followers contributed to what is now known as the Christian Bible.  One of the most prominent writers of the New Testament was the Apostle Paul.  He wrote the majority of the New Testament and was one of the most revered early church fathers.  But as with many great religious writings, many of them have come under scrutiny.  It has been proposed and even argued that Paul’s teachings are in direct contradiction to those of Jesus.  Was the great Apostle Paul actually corrupting the words of the Great Teacher?  Let’s dig a little deeper into this thought.


Paul's Background

Before diving right into the topic, we need to understand where Paul came from. Paul is not a Jewish name. It was actually the Greek name for the Jewish Pharisee named Saul. A Pharisee was one of the religious ruling classes. Saul was a rising star that first appears in the Bible in the book of Acts where he witnesses and even gives his approval for the stoning of the very first Christian martyr, Stephen. He began a quest to seek out all the people who were claiming that Jesus of Nazareth was the long sought after Jewish Messiah. His mission was to have them imprisoned and killed to stamp out the heresy that was spreading through the Jewish faith. It was on a journey to Damascus that Saul’s life changed dramatically. It was on this road in Acts 9 that Saul was knocked to the ground and heard a voice from heaven speaking directly to him. The voice asked him why Saul was on his persecution journey. “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” the voice asked him. After a period of blindness in which he was healed, Saul realized that his zealousness was in the wrong direction. The Messiah had come and he was killing the ones who had accepted Him. Saul did an abrupt turn in his life and became one of the most vocal and bold preachers of Jesus’ teachings. After a period of learning and studying, he went before the apostles and was recognized as a convert. His influence increased and spread throughout the Roman Empire.

Over the years questions began to be raised on the teachings of Paul. Were they in contrast to Jesus’? Were they complimentary and supportive? His influence was vast so this question is not one to be taken lightly. If one accepts Jesus as their Christ, then they accept His teachings. Any teachings that are not in line with these words are considered heresy and generally banned. So, where does Paul stand?


Was the Law Abolished?

Another point that has been made that Paul’s teachings differ from Jesus’ is that many read that Paul says that the law was abolished which directly contradicts Jesus’ words. In Romans 6:14 Paul says, “For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.” Much of Paul’s writings are similar to this. Does this contradict Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:17 that says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”? Let us look deeper into this.

Several times in Jesus’ ministry He was accused of breaking the law. In Matthew 12 it says, “At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this they said to him, ‘Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.’” Jesus declared Himself the Lord of the Sabbath. In Mark 12 starting in verse 28 the religious leaders approach Jesus asking Him which of the laws or commandments was the greatest. He gives them two: “Love the Lord your god with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” He ends it with “There is no commandment greater than these.” The entire law which was immense was summed up in just two statements. The rest of the law was nothing in comparison to these.

In Luke 11 beginning in verse 37 Jesus turns onto the religious leaders who were experts in the law. They noticed that Jesus did not wash His hands before the meal as was laid out in the law. Jesus replies, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also?” The Pharisees were so fixated on the letter of the law. The law was not wrong, but the leaders had forgotten what the purpose of the law was. I once heard a Jewish speaker state that the law was given so that every act of the Jewish person would be instructed by God. Before doing even the most basic daily activity, the law abiding Jew would consider the Word of God and therefore God would be the focal point of their most mundane actions. The Pharisees were making more of it. Jesus was pointing out that their hearts were full of greed and hypocrisy. They were so concerned about how they looked on the outside and that the law was followed that they ignored the heart and soul which was what the law was created for. The original intent was forgotten.

In John 8 one of the most popular acts of Jesus was in direct contrast to the law. The religious leaders brought before a woman caught in adultery. According to the law she was to be stoned. Jesus turned the tables on the leaders and asked if any of them were so pure that they could stand in judgment and take the life God gave this woman. In the end, Jesus forgave the woman and sent her on her way to a new life.

From these acts, did Jesus really abolish the law? The law was given so that man could see that they could not make it into heaven on their own accord. By even following the letter of the law, a scapegoat still had to spill the blood and take on the sins of the nation. The law was never enough. Faith had to take a prominent role. The Jews had forgotten that over the years. The law became more important than the One who gave the law. With Jesus appearing, the law was fulfilled. The need to strive for redemption was removed. He replaced it with His sacrifice. Once again, the law is not bad and should not be completely ignored. Jesus only ignored the parts that had been corrupted and misconstrued. Over time the religious leaders had added regulations and expanded their interpretations of the law to where there were many more regulations than what God gave originally. “Keep the Sabbath holy.” What does that mean? The leaders expanded this statement to mean that almost no physical action could take place on the Sabbath. Yet, Jesus and His followers went out into the field and harvested just enough to eat. Did that mean that the One who gave the law now desecrated it?

Jesus did keep Jewish tradition and practices yet He ignored the ones that were manmade and misinterpreted. If He had totally ignored Jewish practices He never would have reached the chosen people and shown them that He was God. The Jews were to be the tool to reach the rest of the world. “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations….”



Jews or Gentiles?

One of the first arguments that Paul differed from Jesus in his teachings is that he spread the message to the Gentiles (non-Jews) while Jesus said His message was for the Jews only. Many take Jesus’ words from Matthew 10:5-6 as supporting the Jew only stance. “These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” Paul stated in Romans 1:16, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentiles.” Many feel that these words are a deviation from the Matthew words that Jesus spoke.

One thing that anyone reading any piece of literature should keep in mind, is that the entire piece needs to be read and not just have one sentence or section pulled out of context and examined alone. Scholars look at the entire piece to get a better understanding. Because of the questioning of the Pauline writings, let us focus on the rest of scripture instead to see if there really is a conflict. We’ll look at the entire Bible as a whole with minimal focus on Paul’s writings.

In Luke 7 there is an account of a Roman officer who had a servant that was very ill. He had heard of Jesus’ miracles and looked to Him for healing. This man was not a Jew yet He turned to Jesus for a miracle. There is no statement that the Roman should become Jewish first or that he had to go through any hoops whatsoever. Jesus sees the man’s faith and heals. There is no comment made about the man’s religion or heritage. His faith alone was enough for Jesus to respond.

Another example is when a Canaanite woman approached Jesus begging Him to heal her child that was possessed by demons. This account located in Matthew 15 quotes Jesus as saying, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” Did this mean that only a Jew can be saved through Jesus? The woman continued to plead and in the end Jesus answered her requested because she showed such faith. This woman who was not Jewish and does not appear to ever become Jewish was blessed by God and recognized for her strong faith.

Another time that Jesus ministered to a Gentile was when He encountered the woman at the well. She was a Samaritan which means that she had some Jewish blood in her. She was considered unclean and not pure so therefore not accepted in Jewish worship. Jesus ministers to her despite this and the fact that she was living an immoral life. Jesus tells her, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.” These words do not say that it is only for the Jews. It was to be from the Jews.

When the Bible is taken as a whole, deep study reveals that the message was never meant only for the Jews. Isaiah 57:7 says that “for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” In Isaiah 42:6 it says, “I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles.” While God choose the Jewish nation as His chosen people, never did He turn away those from other cultures that accepted Him. Ruth and Rahab were of Gentile descent and they are listed in the genealogy of Jesus. One could argue that they accepted the Jewish faith which is accurate. They did. But when Jesus physically arrived, He came as a Jew, practiced life as a Jew, and worshiped as a Jew. Does this mean all have to become Jewish? According to Isaiah, the Jews were to be the light to the world. They were to tell others about God and have them bow down before Him. There was a strategic plan for all of this.

The message of Jesus was brought to the Jews first because they already knew about Him. They had accepted God. They had planned for the Messiah. Therefore, they should be the most prepared for the arrival of the Messiah and for the continuation of His work. By His appearing and having His ministry focus on the Jews, He was giving the tools to them to reach the rest of the world. Never once did He say that all had to be converted first. His life practice as a Jew is common sense action since He was raised Jewish and if He totally turned His back on the Jewish faith He never would have reached the Jews to become the true light to the rest of the world. One could also argue that in many aspects He did reject parts of the Jewish faith. The religious leaders were always in His face about breaking Jewish law and not strictly obeying their practices. Where does all this fit in?


More Like Complimentary

This brings us back to our original inquiry. Were Paul’s teachings in contrast to Jesus’? No. They were complimentary to them. The new church was trying to clarify points that came up as it was growing. Paul and the others that wrote the rest of the New Testament took Jesus’ words and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit explained Jesus’ teachings in ways that these new cultures would understand. The message was the same. The delivery was different. In fact, the Apostle Peter gives credence to Paul’s writings in 2 Peter 3:15-16: “Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that god gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” If Paul was in direct contrast to Jesus and his writings should be ignored, what about Peter’s? Do we now ignore the other writings as well. Jesus gave Peter quite a bit of authority and poured His Spirit out on him. Now we are in a quandary.

Paul’s writing are harsh and directly to the point. He never minced words which many people do not like because it is so pointed in their own lives. Yet, in this sense He also complimented Jesus. Multiple times, Jesus called the religious leaders “vipers” and “stiff-necked”. Twice He ran them out of the temples as He destroyed their business stations because they were desecrating the temple. Paul was the instrument in which the Gospel was spread throughout the Roman Empire. He had privileges the other Apostles did not and would not be able to break through to the rest of the known world. The Twelve were to reach the Jews so they could be light to the world and bring others to Christ (not to Judaism). Paul was to open the doors for them so that they could accomplish the work they were called to do.

Source

Shia Kaffur , no derailing please !!

This is for bible scholars not Mohammedans. 

^^^^^^^^^

bible scholar,can you tell us why your jewish god was circumcised,while Paul said circumcission is not obligatory?

One by one,

Let’s dig a little deeper into this thought.

I hoped the writer would dig deep rather than merely promise to dig deep.

A Pharisee was one of the religious ruling classes.

This is utterly untrue.  Pharisees is not the name of any ruling class, religious or otherwise.  The pharisees were a cult of Judaism that developed after the return from babylonian exile.  Their form of worship placed little significance on the temple and they were organized around local assemblies called synagogues where they were taught by Rabbis.  Please note, synagogues were pharisaic establishments and Rabbis were pharisees.  If you are a pharisee that did not make you automatically a ruler.  In fact there was more official political power with the sadducees who also controlled the priesthood.  Pharisees were popular with the common people and that was their source of power.  They could get elected into the Sanhedrin etc. 

They developed means for interpreting the scriptures.  Their exegesis were so respected that Jesus went as far as saying of them that they sit in Moses' seat.  Their interpretations of scripture was widely respected. 

Questions have been asked of Paul's claim to be a pharisee.  Although many of his teachings are recognisably pharisaic there are difficult parts of his history that are hard to explain.  For instance, what was a pharisee doing in the employment of the Priests in Jerusalem (remember that the priests were sadducees and they shouldn't really be seeing eye to eye). 

Several times in Jesus’ ministry He was accused of breaking the law. In Matthew 12 it says, “At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this they said to him, ‘Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.’” Jesus declared Himself the Lord of the Sabbath. In Mark 12 starting in verse 28 the religious leaders approach Jesus asking Him which of the laws or commandments was the greatest. He gives them two: “Love the Lord your god with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” He ends it with “There is no commandment greater than these.” The entire law which was immense was summed up in just two statements. The rest of the law was nothing in comparison to these.

It is one thing to correct a misinterpretation of the Law and it is another thing to abrogate a law completely.  Long before Jesus the Shema was already elevated as the most important law by the Pharisees.  But what I don't like about what the writer has done above is his/her attempt to twist the Shema by omitting parts of it.  The Shema is hebrew for 'Hear'.  It is the first word in that Law and is the cornerstone of Judaism.  It goes:

Shema Yisrael, Adonai eloheinu, Adonai echad
Hear, O Israel, The Lord is our God, The Lord is ONE. Though shalt love the lord thy God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.
Without the first part, I've got to say that you're missing the gist of the entire passage and the weight of it's meaning to the jewish people.  It is a statement of commitment to Monotheism.  That is why the Rabbis, including Jesus and long before Jesus, uphold it as the greatest commandment.  To put it anyother way would be like trying to discuss Islam with somebody without discussing Tawhid.  You'll be missing the whole point if you don't get the insistence on tawhid. 

The second law which is like the first says to love your neighbour as yourself.  This is again a central pharisaic doctrine, and connecting the two laws is pharisaic doctrine too.   How do you love the Lord with all your everything . . . ?  Simple, by loving your fellow man as yourself.

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/Torah/The_Shema/the_shema.html

For more info on the pharisees:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees
Please study about pharisees very carefully and tell me whether Jesus could really have been against pharisees like that.  His words matches their doctrines point for point. 

Jesus did keep Jewish tradition and practices yet He ignored the ones that were manmade and misinterpreted.

We all generally need to keep our guards up for all things that are man-made and misinterpreted.

This brings us back to our original inquiry. Were Paul’s teachings in contrast to Jesus’? No. They were complimentary to them.

Abeg o!  This is a bit of a leap!!  Nowhere prior to this point did he say anything about Paul's teachings.  All he spoke about was Jesus and the pharisees.  And suddenly we're are to conclude from that that there is no contrast. 
Well in that case how can they be compliments?  Or does the writer think that I don't know how to speak english?  If 2 things are the same then they cannot compliment each other.  Only different things can compliment each other.  If their teachings were the same then they wouldn't be complimentary.  Milk can compliment a cup of coffee, but coffee cannot compliment coffee.  If you put coffee in my coffee all I have is more coffee. 

The fact is that their teachings were different.  Remarkably different.  Were they  complimentary?  Yes-ish, but that depends entirely on how you interprete them.

Frosbel wants to murder christianity with this thread. I 'pray' it doesnt go into oblivion just yet.

you can also see:

[size=14pt]Paul Versus The Disciples[/size]

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-846385.0.html

Oju awon scholars o shee wo.

Frosbel; « on: Today at 04:58:37 PM »
[Quote]If you know anything about Christianity, you know that it is based on the teachings of Jesus.[/Quote]Show me where Jesus said he is God, that the ghost is God and that Ellah is God.
Show me where Jesus said you must built churches, worship in them, beat drums, clap hands, dance, instead of standing bending and prostrating as he did in Gethsemane, and you making a non speaking ghost his another comforter who was supposed to hear from God what he does not know before and speak it to his community as Words coming from God?


[Quote] You will also know that many of His followers contributed to what is now known as the Christian Bible. One of the most prominent writers of the New Testament was the Apostle Paul.[/Quote]Disciples followed Jesus. There were 12 of them. Which disciple was Paul?


[Quote] He wrote the majority of the New Testament and was one of the most revered early church fathers. But as with many great religious writings, many of them have come under scrutiny. It has been proposed and even argued that Paul’s teachings are in direct contradiction to those of Jesus. Was the great Apostle Paul actually corrupting the words of the Great Teacher? Let’s dig a little deeper into this thought.[/Quote]so shall we dig in further. I wanna read where Jesus became the redeemer of the whole world and not just the redeemer of the house of Israel nations, calling them back to the worship of One Lord God in acts of doing good for the pleasure and in deeds of obedience of God.

Sweetnecta:

Frosbel; « on: Today at 04:58:37 PM »Show me where Jesus said he is God, that the ghost is God and that Ellah is God.

You are this your Ela that you keep on banging on about. Are sure that you're not an Ifa worshipper worshipping the Ela of yoruba myths.

This is utterly untrue.  Pharisees is not the name of any ruling class, religious or otherwise.  The pharisees were a cult of Judaism that developed after the return from babylonian exile.  Their form of worship placed little significance on the temple and they were organized around local assemblies called synagogues where they were taught by Rabbis.  Please note, synagogues were pharisaic establishments and Rabbis were pharisees.  If you are a pharisee that did not make you automatically a ruler.  In fact there was more official political power with the sadducees who also controlled the priesthood.  Pharisees were popular with the common people and that was their source of power.  They could get elected into the Sanhedrin etc. 

Having skipped over to the Jewish Encyclopedia, you are rightish here.

This is what the Encylopedia says :

PHARISEES (Φαρισαῖοι; Aramaic, "Perishaya"; Hebr. "Perushim":
Party representing the religious views, practises, and hopes of the kernel of the Jewish people in the time of the Second Temple and in opposition to the priestly Sadducees. They were accordingly scrupulous observers of the Law as interpreted by the Soferim, or Scribes, in accordance with tradition.

It was, however, only after a long and protracted struggle with the Sadducees that they won their lasting triumph in the interpretation and execution of the Law

From what I have read , they did have some involvement in rulership but were not exclusively a ruling class

Questions have been asked of Paul's claim to be a pharisee.  Although many of his teachings are recognisably pharisaic there are difficult parts of his history that are hard to explain.  For instance, what was a pharisee doing in the employment of the Priests in Jerusalem (remember that the priests were sadducees and they shouldn't really be seeing eye to eye). 

Paul's witness is good enough for me.

"Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead." - Acts 23:6

"circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee;" - Philippians 3:5

It is one thing to correct a misinterpretation of the Law and it is another thing to abrogate a law completely.  Long before Jesus the Shema was already elevated as the most important law by the Pharisees.  But what I don't like about what the writer has done above is his/her attempt to twist the Shema by omitting parts of it.  The Shema is hebrew for 'Hear'.  It is the first word in that Law and is the cornerstone of Judaism.  It goes:

Shema Yisrael, Adonai eloheinu, Adonai echad
Hear, O Israel, The Lord is our God, The Lord is ONE. Though shalt love the lord thy God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.
Without the first part, I've got to say that you're missing the gist of the entire passage and the weight of it's meaning to the jewish people.  It is a statement of commitment to Monotheism.  That is why the Rabbis, including Jesus and long before Jesus, uphold it as the greatest commandment.  To put it anyother way would be like trying to discuss Islam with somebody without discussing Tawhid.  You'll be missing the whole point if you don't get the insistence on tawhid. 

How did he abrogate the Law here, expatiate please.?

let's try and keep things in perspective.

The second law which is like the first says to love your neighbour as yourself.  This is again a central pharisaic doctrine, and connecting the two laws is pharisaic doctrine too.   How do you love the Lord with all your everything . . . ?  Simple, by loving your fellow man as yourself.

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/Torah/The_Shema/the_shema.html

For more info on the pharisees:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees
Please study about pharisees very carefully and tell me whether Jesus could really have been against pharisees like that.  His words matches their doctrines point for point. 

The bolded is wrong.

Love your neighbor as yourself was one of the 10 commandments in the book of Exodus and can be translated to mean, do unto others as you want them to do to you. For example, don't take  another man's wife if you do not want your wife to be taken away by another person etc .

To love God is different , he is the object of our love, he owns us, our time , resources, talent and all, and can use us for the purposes of his kingdom without any complaint, murmuring or grudge. In summary , GOD becomes first in our lives.

Jesus summed up these commandments , into :

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” - Matthew 22:36-40

We all generally need to keep our guards up for all things that are man-made and misinterpreted.

Such as ?

Abeg o!  This is a bit of a leap!!  Nowhere prior to this point did he say anything about Paul's teachings.  All he spoke about was Jesus and the pharisees.  And suddenly we're are to conclude from that that there is no contrast. 
Well in that case how can they be compliments?  Or does the writer think that I don't know how to speak english?  If 2 things are the same then they cannot compliment each other.  Only different things can compliment each other.  If their teachings were the same then they wouldn't be complimentary.  Milk can compliment a cup of coffee, but coffee cannot compliment coffee.  If you put coffee in my coffee all I have is more coffee. 

They were complimentary to each other in many respects,  and I will show you how , when and if you respond to the comment below your next quote.

Paul in no way contradicted Christ.

The fact is that their teachings were different.  Remarkably different.  Were they  complimentary?  Yes-ish, but that depends entirely on how you interprete them. 

Kindly provide me with examples of such teachings that were different and probably in opposition to the other.

Sweetnecta:

Frosbel; « on: Today at 04:58:37 PM »Show me where Jesus said he is God, that the ghost is God and that Ellah is God.
Show me where Jesus said you must built churches, worship in them, beat drums, clap hands, dance, instead of standing bending and prostrating as he did in Gethsemane, and you making a non speaking ghost his another comforter who was supposed to hear from God what he does not know before and speak it to his community as Words coming from God?

Disciples followed Jesus. There were 12 of them. Which disciple was Paul?

so shall we dig in further. I wanna read where Jesus became the redeemer of the whole world and not just the redeemer of the house of Israel nations, calling them back to the worship of One Lord God in acts of doing good for the pleasure and in deeds of obedience of God.

Bumble off , my dear ALLAH pal, we talking about serious issues here

^^^^^^^^^^ I know you will not know the difference between disciples and apostles. We know the difference. The disciples were called awariyun in arabic. The apostles, from them was the master of corruptions, even corruption personify.

@Pastor aio; Heeeeeeeooooo [Ed McMahon of Johnnie Carson era]
[Quote]« #9 on: Today at 09:07:44 PM »

Quote from: Sweetnecta on Today at 08:58:39 PM
Frosbel; « on: Today at 04:58:37 PM »Show me where Jesus said he is God, that the ghost is God and that Ellah is God.

You are this your Ela that you keep on banging on about.[/Quote]I said Ellah. Jesus said the same. Read what he called his Lord God the only time he mentioned His Name. He didn't say Yahweh, Jehovah or any name but Ellah.


[Quote] Are sure that you're not an Ifa worshiper worshiping the Ela of yoruba myths.[/Quote]Unless you do not know that Allah is Ellah in Syriac accent of Jesus Christ, how could I be a Keferi, when I am a muslim? Are you not a joke, pastor onifade? abeg, dress [step aside].

I am not a regular poster on NL. I mainly just read. I must admit that i am impressed that in the midst of all the abuses, name calling and a lot of immaturity there are people who are knowlegable.


You guys have done a lot of work on the topic so i will try to be as brief as possible in my response.



@frosbel

I do not think Jesus just chose which of the laws to obey, i believe He showed them that the spirit (intention) of the law is more important than the letter(mere observation) for 'the letter killeth. Examples can be found in His teachings on sabbath, honoring parents and sermon on the mount.



just as you rightly said, the plan of God was that gospel was meant for the whole world (in your seed will all the nations of the earth be blessed). However it was to start from israel. That was what the OT was about.

Theologians believe that the book of daniel and revelation is the same book revealed to two persons.that is why they have a lot of simillarities. But you realise that nothing was said about the church to daniel because it (the church age) was still a mystery. The explanation is found in revelation.

My point is this; Jesus came through judaism for there God had laid a foundation for the redemption of mankind. He lived His life as a jew and that explains some of His actions. however He symbolically died a roman death (crucifixion) for rome was controlling the world at the time.

After His ressurrection, the next phase of the redemption plan was activated. This included all non jews. Peter i believe was supposed to champion this for he was the one that was given the keys to the kingdom (matt 18;17) and he used it to unlock the door to the jews in act 3 and gentile in the house of cornelius.

However peter still had a lot of allegiance to jews as seen in his defence of the cornelius trip and his refusal to eat with gentiles in the presence of the jews. Hence someone else had to be 'recruited' and who else but the one who had been under the training of one of the most respected of his time - Gamaliel.

Everything about paul was different from other apostels- his call, training, calling and subsequently message. But just as the roof does not look like the foundation (christ) but they perfectly complement each other and as ipad takes its source from the IBM first generation computer, so is paul's teaching to christ's.

@pastor aio
I dissagree with the word 'cult' you used in defining the pharisees. I think the word 'sect' better describes them. The pharisees had a legal entitlement to becoming menbers of the sanhedrin.

The sanhedrin was the highest decision making body of the jews which consisted of seventy one members- thirty-five pharisees, thirty-five sadusees and one high priest.

I must say that i admire your understanding of the hebrew language. I want to be like you when i grow up.

However, I think you (your tone) are bieng too hard on frosbel. When i started reading your response i thought you were goint to attack him all through only to see that you two are on the same divide.

I believe that the essence of a discourse if to hear (read) each other out and learn from each other and not just to prove that we are right.

well, maybe my response is not brief afterall, i must say that i have learnt from you two and for that i'm grateful.

Anyone that is interested in understanding the place of the old testament laws in relation to the new covenant under grace should read the book of Hebrews. Brilliant exposition there.

Paul's message is completely synonymous with that of Christ.

yemi solar, don't 'want to be like aio when you grow up' o! Be like Jesus, and be yourself. Is that one contradictory or complementary, scholars?

davidylan:

Anyone that is interested in understanding the place of the old testament laws in relation to the new covenant under grace should read the book of Hebrews. Brilliant exposition there.

Paul's message is completely synonymous with that of Christ.

You are correct my brother. I don't see any contradictions per se.
Lets be led by the Holy Spirit and not logic.

^^^ Rather, let the Holy Spirit inform and illuminate our logic.

@Davidylan, East and Enigma: « #16 on: Today at 07:24:21 AM »
[Quote]Quote from: davidylan on Today at 02:42:28 AM
Anyone that is interested in understanding the place of the old testament laws in relation to [b]the new covenant under grace[/b] should read the book of Hebrews. Brilliant exposition there.[Quote]Who and who made the new covenant under grace? What was its text? Who and who made the old covenant that is not under grace? What was its text? You make statement, you must back it up with irrefutable evidence.


[Quote]Paul's message is completely synonymous with that of Christ.

You are correct my brother. I don't see any contradictions per se.
Lets be led by the Holy Spirit and not logic.
Report to moderator Logged
Enigma (m)
UK
Posts: 3198

Offline Offline


Re: Paul Vs. Jesus's Teachings: Is There A Conflict? For serious bible scholars
« #17 on: Today at 09:07:55 AM »

^^^ Rather, let the Holy Spirit inform and illuminate our logic. Smiley

Cool[/Quote]When you are blind as a bat, even 3 feels like 1.[/quote][/quote]

yemi solar:

I am not a regular poster on NL. I mainly just read. I must admit that i am impressed that in the midst of all the abuses, name calling and a lot of immaturity there are people who are knowlegable.


You guys have done a lot of work on the topic so i will try to be as brief as possible in my response.



@frosbel

I do not think Jesus just chose which of the laws to obey, i believe He showed them that the spirit (intention) of the law is more important than the letter(mere observation) for 'the letter killeth. Examples can be found in His teachings on sabbath, honoring parents and sermon on the mount.

just as you rightly said, the plan of God was that gospel was meant for the whole world (in your seed will all the nations of the earth be blessed). However it was to start from israel. That was what the OT was about.

Theologians believe that the book of daniel and revelation is the same book revealed to two persons.that is why they have a lot of simillarities. But you realise that nothing was said about the church to daniel because it (the church age) was still a mystery. The explanation is found in revelation.

My point is this; Jesus came through judaism for there God had laid a foundation for the redemption of mankind. He lived His life as a jew and that explains some of His actions. however He symbolically died a roman death (crucifixion) for rome was controlling the world at the time.

After His ressurrection, the next phase of the redemption plan was activated. This included all non jews. Peter i believe was supposed to champion this for he was the one that was given the keys to the kingdom (matt 18;17) and he used it to unlock the door to the jews in act 3 and gentile in the house of cornelius.

However peter still had a lot of allegiance to jews as seen in his defence of the cornelius trip and his refusal to eat with gentiles in the presence of the jews. Hence someone else had to be 'recruited' and who else but the one who had been under the training of one of the most respected of his time - Gamaliel.

Everything about paul was different from other apostels- his call, training, calling and subsequently message. But just as the roof does not look like the foundation (christ) but they perfectly complement each other and as ipad takes its source from the IBM first generation computer, so is paul's teaching to christ's.

Thanks Brother, appreciate your contribution.

Indeed we now observe the Law through the indwelling Spirit , which means we now walk after the Spirit and not the flesh.

Paul put it so wonderfully here :

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

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit." = Romans 8:3-5

Another thing , just as Image123 rightly mentioned, endeavour to be like Christ and not man , the whole reason we have many many believers and so called Christians been misled today , is due to the plethora of false teachers and prophets we have in the body of Christ , who draw worship unto themselves and not Christ.

"And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith." - Hebrews 12: 1b to 2a

Pastor AIO has fled the scene  , I used to think when I first came to the religious forum , that he was a pastor in the true sense of the word , but having read through many of his articles, with his knack for jumbling philosophy, ancient pagan religion together with a vast array of non-biblical reasoning , it appears I was wrong.

Let us consider Peters admonition :

" even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;As also in all his epistles, [U]speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.[/U]Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with [U]the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness[/U].


There are many parading here as Christians , who in the true sense of the word are not, but we leave that for God to judge.


"Let all of us who mention the name of Christ depart from iniquity", this is the true yardstick of our belief.

Look unto Jesus , 'We all '.

davidylan:

Anyone that is interested in understanding the place of the old testament laws in relation to the new covenant under grace should read the book of Hebrews. Brilliant exposition there.

Paul's message is completely synonymous with that of Christ.

Indeed David.

The book of Hebrews is a master piece.

frosbel:

Pastor AIO has fled the scene , I used to think when I first came to the religious forum , that he was a pastor in the true sense of the word , but having read through many of his articles, with his knack for jumbling philosophy, ancient pagan religion together with a vast array of non-biblical reasoning , it appears I was wrong.

Let us consider Peters admonition :

" even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;As also in all his epistles, [U]speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.[/U]Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with [U]the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness[/U].

There are many parading here as Christians , who in the true sense of the word are not, but we leave that for God to judge.


"Let all of us who mention the name of Christ depart from iniquity", this is the true yardstick of our belief.

Look unto Jesus , 'We all '.

[size=14pt]the conflict between the disciples and Paul:[/size]

Introduction

It is a common misconception amongst Christians that Paul and the Apostles of Christ were unanimous in their preaching of a crucified Jesus. Christians think that the apostles and Paul were preaching the same doctrine and everyone believed in the divine Jesus who came to be crucified for the sins of the world.

However, if one examines the bible carefully, that person would observe that Paul and the disciples were not preaching the same doctrine and did not believe in the same Jesus.

The Apostles in Jerusalem heard that Paul has been preaching a different doctrine in Galatia and Corinthia. Paul was telling them not to follow the law anymore and that they don't have to eat kosher meat anymore or to be circumcised (according to Genesis 17::14, the covenant is broken if there is no circumcision) etc. So the Apostles went to Galatia and Corinthia and convinced everyone that Paul is wrong, when Paul heard about this he went straight back to the cities,

Galatians 1:6
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel
It says different Gospel, so obviously the disciples were teaching them a different doctrine and it was not just minor issues.

Paul Opposes Peter
Galatians 2:11-21
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. ( why did people such as the Apostle James still believe that the law regarding food should still be applied? If Jesus came to replace the law, then why are they still following the law?) 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. (so, Peter, James and Barnabas are wrong?)14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?15"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. ( why are they arguing over following the law or not? Why are they not in agreement of doctrine?)

17"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"[d]

Paul condemns all Jewish Christians including Peter and Barnabas. We only have Paul's side of the story but Peter's recollection of this story is not given to us in the New Testament.

Peter truly would have known Jesus better than Paul. There is dispute whether 1 Peter is a letter written by Peter and almost all scholars, ancient and modern agree that 2 Peter is not a letter written by Peter.

Acts 4:31
31After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.
If Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit then why is Paul calling Peter a hypocrite for eating with the Gentiles and then when people came from James he got up. James is Jesus' half brother, he lived and stayed with Jesus. Why did he still think that people have to eat kosher meat? We don't have any account of Peter's story regarding this incident. Barnabas is also called a hypocrite in verse 13. Look how in verses 15 thought 17 Paul is arguing with them about the law. That means the disciples wanted to follow the law and suggested following it. Otherwise Paul wouldn't have mentioned it. How could he say those things to Peter and look what Jesus said about Peter.

Matthew 16:18
8And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Paul said in Romans that all food is clean.

Romans 14:20
20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.
In the Book of Acts the Apostles wrote a letter to the gentiles to abstain from certain foods and that not all foods were declared clean

Acts 15:29
29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from intimate immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

Galatians 3:1-3
1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish?

Obviously we have people that are disagreeing with him. If Jesus taught that the law is over clearly, then people would not be arguing over this.

2 Corinthians 11:4-5
4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. 5But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles."

This is all doctrine and again he is criticizing the disciples.

2 Corinthians 11: 22-24
What anyone else dares to boast about?I am speaking as a fool?I also dare to boast about. 22Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I. 23Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.

Again he is comparing himself to the disciples. If this man were truly doing all this work for God, he would not be complaining about his pain and torturing and suffering. If he is truly sincere he would not have mentioned those things. Prophets and messengers never complained and boasted about their sufferings.


Conclusion
So it is clear from the Bible it self that not everyone believed in the Jesus who came to get crucified for the sins of the world and to replace the law. That there were different amongst the Apostles and Paul. The Apostles stuck to the true teachings of Jesus, which was upholding the law and that the Apostles who lived with Jesus know him better than Paul who never even saw Jesus except in a "vision". The only deceiver here was Paul and not Allah.
Recommended readings

http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/paul_was_a_deceiver.htm
http://www.comparative-religion.com/articles/pauline_conspiracy/

Main Source of the Article:
http://muslim-responses.com/Paul_VS_the_Disciples/Paul_VS_the_Disciples_

On Paul . . . . Jesus Christ said . . .

Acts 9:15,16

. . . he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

The earliest apostles, elders and Christians recognised Paul; Acts 15:22

Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren

Paul said that they gave him the "right hand of fellowship"; Galatians 2:9

And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Should these things not make Christians be circumspect, do a thorough and complete analysis of all Paul's teachings before jumping to rash and usually inaccurate conclusions that Paul was necessarily contradicting Jesus?

@Frosbel: « #19 on: Today at 11:32:58 AM »
[Quote]Quote from: yemi solar on Today at 01:39:11 AM
I am not a regular poster on NL. I mainly just read. I must admit that i am impressed that in the midst of all the abuses, name calling and a lot of immaturity there are people who are knowlegable.


You guys have done a lot of work on the topic so i will try to be as brief as possible in my response.



@frosbel

I do not think Jesus just chose which of the laws to obey, i believe He showed them that the spirit (intention) of the law is more important than the letter(mere observation) for 'the letter killeth. Examples can be found in His teachings on sabbath, honoring parents and sermon on the mount.

just as you rightly said, the plan of God was that gospel was meant for the whole world (in your seed will all the nations of the earth be blessed). However it was to start from israel. That was what the OT was about.

Theologians believe that the book of daniel and revelation is the same book revealed to two persons.that is why they have a lot of simillarities. But you realise that nothing was said about the church to daniel because it (the church age) was still a mystery. The explanation is found in revelation.

My point is this; Jesus came through judaism for there God had laid a foundation for the redemption of mankind. He lived His life as a jew and that explains some of His actions. however He symbolically died a roman death (crucifixion) for rome was controlling the world at the time.

After His ressurrection, the next phase of the redemption plan was activated. This included all non jews. Peter i believe was supposed to champion this for he was the one that was given the keys to the kingdom (matt 18;17) and he used it to unlock the door to the jews in act 3 and gentile in the house of cornelius.

However peter still had a lot of allegiance to jews as seen in his defence of the cornelius trip and his refusal to eat with gentiles in the presence of the jews. Hence someone else had to be 'recruited' and who else but the one who had been under the training of one of the most respected of his time - Gamaliel.

Everything about paul was different from other apostels- his call, training, calling and subsequently message. But just as the roof does not look like the foundation (christ) but they perfectly complement each other and as ipad takes its source from the IBM first generation computer, so is paul's teaching to christ's.


Thanks Brother, appreciate your contribution.

Indeed we now observe the Law through the indwelling Spirit , which means we now walk after the Spirit and not the flesh.[/Quote]Shameless liar frosbel, show me where you are told that the spirit will dwell more the 12 disciples in your "indeed we now observe the Law through indwelling spirit"? The new even ridicule you and all of you because your God now changed His mind, from your writing.



[Quote]Paul put it so wonderfully here :

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." - Romans 8:1[/Quote]Can you quote something similar to this that Jesus said? I wanna laugh at you in Nzukka dialect.



[Quote]"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit." = Romans 8:3-5

Another thing , just as Image123 rightly mentioned, endeavour to be like Christ and not man , the whole reason we have many many believers and so called Christians been misled today , is due to the plethora of false teachers and prophets we have in the body of Christ , who draw worship unto themselves and not Christ.

"And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith." - Hebrews 12: 1b to 2a[/Quote]If Jesus was the pioneer and perfecter of faith [christian faith they must be talking about], why did Jesus speak about another comforter to do all Jesus said the comforter will do? Read Paul. Paul must be the pioneer and perfecter of Christian faith, instead of Jesus. I have to assume that Paul was the another comforter, because nothing the flamed tongue "ghost" did or said is recorded. Nothing he made the ones whose their head were aflame said were recorded. Unless the another comforter prophesy from Jesus is unfulfilled, Paul or someone else have to be the another comforter.

Enigma:

On Paul . . . . Jesus Christ said . . .

Acts 9:15,16

The earliest apostles, elders and Christians recognised Paul; Acts 15:22

Paul said that they gave him the "right hand of fellowship"; Galatians 2:9

Should these things not make Christians be circumspect, do a thorough and complete analysis of all Paul's teachings before jumping to rash and usually inaccurate conclusions that Paul was necessarily contradicting Jesus?

please can you do us a favor to tell us who is talking and reporting what Jesus (as) allegedly said about Paul in the above verses?on whose account are those books of acts and galatians written,or rather who authored them?

Salvation According to Jesus V/S Paul

Salvation
According to Jesus: The rich young ruler asked Jesus how he could find salvation. Jesus answered, "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments , If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." (Matt 19:16-21, Mark 10:17-21, Luke 18:18-22, KJV) In other words, obey Torah, and follow Jesus' examples.

According to Paul: “That if you confess with your mouth Jesus {as} Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.” (Rom 10:9-10, NAS)
Which is it? Obeying the commandments of G-d and following Jesus, or merely believing in Jesus’ resurrection and confessing him as Lord?

Paul,is undoubtedly the "father of christianity".he is the author of most books of the christian new testament.yet he contradicts Jesus and he also contradicts the old testament.not only that,the supposition that Paul was "inspired" is the probelm of the story.christians accept Paul as a true apostle and someone "inspired" contributing to their "word of God".yet,the accounts they use to justify their belief in Paul were authored by Paul and they are three contradictory accounts:

Acts 9:7
"And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man".

Acts 22:9
"And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me".

Acts 26:14
"And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks".

so which are we to believe:

1.) hearing a voice but seeing no man
2.) seeing the light but not hearing
3.) Paul heard the voice

According to him personally,was Paul inspired or not inspired?


Yes He Was:
2 Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

No! He Was Not:
1 Corinthians 7:12
"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away".

Romans 3:7
“But if the truth of God through my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?”

Philippians 1:18
“But what does it matter? Nothing matters except that, in one way or another, people are told the message about Christ, whether with honest or dishonest motives, and I’m happy about that. Yes, I will continue to be happy.”

2Corinthians 12:16
“But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.“

frosbel:

Having skipped over to the Jewish Encyclopedia, you are rightish here.

This is what the Encylopedia says :

PHARISEES (Φαρισαῖοι; Aramaic, "Perishaya"; Hebr. "Perushim":
Party representing the religious views, practises, and hopes of the kernel of the Jewish people in the time of the Second Temple and in opposition to the priestly Sadducees. They were accordingly scrupulous observers of the Law as interpreted by the Soferim, or Scribes, in accordance with tradition.

It was, however, only after a long and protracted struggle with the Sadducees that they won their lasting triumph in the interpretation and execution of the Law

From what I have read , they did have some involvement in rulership but were not exclusively a ruling class

I didn't say they couldn't have a role in the leadership. I said that Pharisees was not the name of the ruling classes. There were many pharisees that were lowly or had nothing to do with rulers. What really annoys me is the fact that people seem to be totally unaware that the pharisees were a religious group (sect, not cult, for the pleasure of Yemi Solar) that had their doctrines and their beliefs. For some people seem to think that pharisees is just the name for hypocrites, so anybody that is being hypocrital is a pharisee. There might have been a lot of hypocritical pharisees but I'm sure that not every pharisee was hypocritical. Similarly today there are a hell of a lot of hypocritical christians and a few sincere ones. And indeed for some people the word christian is becoming synonymous with irritating hypocrite, but that doesn't mean that xtianity is all about hypocrisy.
For others pharisees just meant the ruling classes. This too was not true as we have demonstrated above.

yemi solar:

However, I think you (your tone) are bieng too hard on frosbel. When i started reading your response i thought you were goint to attack him all through only to see that you two are on the same divide.

I believe that the essence of a discourse if to hear (read) each other out and learn from each other and not just to prove that we are right.

It is quite rare that I attack people personally. My tone might have been hard but it was hard against what I felt was a wrong idea, not a wrong person. Plus, I was also aware that it was not Frosbel's work but rather he had copy and pasted from some website. Where we're together we're together and we we're not then we're not. I don't give to much notice to the guy, but rather to the ideas that he is saying so all I see is ideas I agree with and those I disagree with. Simples.

I agree 120% with what you have to say about the 'essence of a discourse'. It is an attitude I've tried to cultivate for most of my life.

frosbel:


Paul's witness is good enough for me.

"Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead." - Acts 23:6

"circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee;" - Philippians 3:5

Paul's motives here are plain to see. He knew that sadducees and pharisees don't see eye to eye on certain doctrines. Sadducees don't believe in the resurrection of the dead. The pharisees do. In fact christian doctrines are mostly just a photocopy of pharisee doctrines. In order to scatter the sanhedrin and pit them against each other he stated that he was on trial because of his belief in the resurrection of the dead. That was one issue that he knew the Sanhedrin would never agree on.

frosbel:


How did he abrogate the Law here, expatiate please.?

let's try and keep things in perspective.

you seem to have the wrong end of the stick completely. The article you posted said that:

Another point that has been made that Paul’s teachings differ from Jesus’ is that many read that Paul says that the law was abolished which directly contradicts Jesus’ words. In Romans 6:14 Paul says, “For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.” Much of Paul’s writings are similar to this. Does this contradict Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:17 that says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”? Let us look deeper into this.

Several times in Jesus’ ministry He was accused of breaking the law. In Matthew 12 it says, “At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this they said to him, ‘Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.’” Jesus declared Himself the Lord of the Sabbath. In Mark 12 starting in verse 28 the religious leaders approach Jesus asking Him which of the laws or commandments was the greatest. He gives them two: “Love the Lord your god with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” He ends it with “There is no commandment greater than these.” The entire law which was immense was summed up in just two statements. The rest of the law was nothing in comparison to these.

Jesus did not abolish or abrogate any laws in any of his teachings. If he did please abeg, show me the chapter and verse where he did so. All that I'm aware of is that he corrected misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the law. Never abrogating it. It was Paul that said that he was no longer under the law. That is more than re-interpreting. That is totally discarding. It is blatant and your article does not address this with anything close to scholarly rigor.
The point is that nothing at the heart of Paul's teachings are to be found in the teachings of Jesus himself.

frosbel:

Such as ?

They were complimentary to each other in many respects,  and I will show you how , when and if you respond to the comment below your next quote.

Paul in no way contradicted Christ.

Kindly provide me with examples of such teachings that were different and probably in opposition to the other.

Such As? Such as Jewish practices and traditions that were manmade and misinterpreted. I was merely agreeing with the writer of the article. Abi na crime to agree with your man now.

I never disagreed with you or anyone that they are complimentary. However, the sheer fact that they are complimentary means that they cannot be the same. Okra soup compliments eba, but it does not compliment tea. Don't take my word for it, next time you wanna drink tea pour some okra soup inside and then tell me if you find the two complimentary. To be a compliment you cannot be the same as the thing that you're complimenting. I believe that LagosShia and some other musulmen are providing lots of contrary teachings that should give you plenty of examples.

frosbel:

Pastor AIO has fled the scene  , I used to think when I first came to the religious forum , that he was a pastor in the true sense of the word , but having read through many of his articles, with his knack for jumbling philosophy, ancient pagan religion together with a vast array of non-biblical reasoning , it appears I was wrong.

Let us consider Peters admonition :

" even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;As also in all his epistles, [U]speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.[/U]Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with [U]the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness[/U].


There are many parading here as Christians , who in the true sense of the word are not, but we leave that for God to judge.


"Let all of us who mention the name of Christ depart from iniquity", this is the true yardstick of our belief.

Look unto Jesus , 'We all '.

It pleases me to see that you have taken the time to read through some of my past contributions. God bless you.

frosbel:

Indeed David.

The book of Hebrews is a master piece.

Please how does the book of Hebrew show that there is an accord between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Paul.