Are you a Christian or a Paulian?

This whole problem over Paul verses Jesus boils down to what Peter said:

14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,

15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,

16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:14-16

Therefore, the challenge is being able to understand them and to be able to explain them in the light of Jesus' teachings.

There need not be any dispute.

Originally posted by saint4God
I'm not sure how you've come to this conclusion. His commentary on viewing leadership doesn't conflict with anything previously mentioned.

It's a simple matter of this. Do you take authority as truth(Paul), or do you take truth as authority(Jesus). Do you think Jesus is right because it's in the bible, and the bible is the word of god? Or do you think Jesus is right because he gave truth, provided an example of providing truth, and that is the authority and the work of god? Now, while these may seem to be very much alike, the difference is in how you understand. It will 1 day be both, but until the return when people take truth as authority will authority be truth. Until then, authority will become more and more corrupt until the point where it can no longer be ignored.

Your phrase "God is internal" is misleading. That is saying he's in one spot, "inside every one of us" unless you meant "only within you". I think you've clarified well above and agree that He's not limited to there nor that we are God.

I am god and I am arguing with myself were the first words out of my mouth when John 14:20 happened to me. We've been deceived to believe otherwise. Now, while god is in me, he is also in you. Neither of us contains anywhere near the level of consciousness of that of god, we have limited consciousness. God is the sum of all consciousness in a way, well beyond anything we can imagine. But if you do not understand that god is inside us, then you think things like "love thy neighbor as thyself" is just jibberish to control people. On that day when you understand that connection and see it - then you understand why the commandments and such say what they say.

I am? Paul tells us to follow Christ's example. So I suppose that by following Pauls example of following Christ, the result is the same.

But you are following what Paul said. Not what Jesus said. You are hearing Jesus through Paul, not Paul through Jesus.

As einstein once said - Any fool can know, the point is to understand. Paul can be right when he says Jesus is truth, follow the commandments. But it's different when you understand, and that is gained done by understanding the truth(from the example of Jesus). Pauls implementation of things does not follow Jesus. He provides incorrect understanding, but for people without understanding they will take authority as truth.

Paul has purpose on another level, I seen LIB touch on that so I'll reply to him.

Originally posted by L.I.B.
This whole problem over Paul verses Jesus boils down to what Peter said:

14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,

15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,

16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:14-16

Therefore, the challenge is being able to understand them and to be able to explain them in the light of Jesus' teachings.

There need not be any dispute.

Paul keeps those without understanding under control until they get understanding basically. That if you do not get the understandings of Jesus, then you will be under the power of authorities. As only through Jesus - not paul, do you find truth. Paul does go directly against what Jesus teaches people.

Paul, and even the pharisees were moral people. But without understanding you will break commandments. That is why Jesus was the example - It's like someone showing you how to tie your shoes. But Paul teaches people it is only important to accept Jesus. Like telling someone - the bow is all that is important, while walking around with untied shoes. If you follow Paul then you miss the example. It's all idol worship. People follow the cross/bible leaders and are lead to break the commandments due to a lack of understanding. It is for those without understanding.

You are not supposed to follow Paul. The only way to understand Paul is through Jesus. You do not understand Jesus through Paul. But as paul sets up the church, that is exactly what is promoted as a result, understanding Jesus through another leader when Jesus says he is the only teacher. The church ends up trying to take the place of Jesus/god. As we can see throughout history, with the bible leading the dark ages. And the common man was not even allowed to see or own a bible - if they were even allowed to learn to read to begin with.

Originally posted by L.I.B.
14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,

15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,

16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:14-16

Therefore, the challenge is being able to understand them and to be able to explain them in the light of Jesus' teachings.

There need not be any dispute.

Quoted for truth and agree. Nothing more needs to be said really.

[edit on 26-11-2008 by saint4God]

I definitely make a clear distinction between Christ and Paul and the rest of the Bible. I think it more proper to call most Christians 'Biblians'.

The differences between Christs and the rest of the Bible's teachnings are not relevant to them, no matter how greatly they oppose each other...

Since they believe the entire Bible was inspired by God, and they believe Jesus is God, it would imply for them that Jesus would 'agree' with anything and everything in the Bible.


[edit on 26-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Originally posted by L.I.B.
This whole problem over Paul verses Jesus boils down to what Peter said:

14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,

15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,

16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:14-16

Therefore, the challenge is being able to understand them and to be able to explain them in the light of Jesus' teachings.

There need not be any dispute.

I agree ...if we say we shouldnt listen to Paul (or that whatever he wrote was antichristian) ..then we should disregard the entire NT except the words in red ..And even those words by Jesus were not written by him either .....As far as I am concerned Paul,John,Peter,James ...all of them are certainly credible enough witnesses for me since they were killed ,tormented and imprisoned for Jesus ....TPTB would not done that unless what they preached was the truth ...Remember it is THE TRUTH that hurts ...

I understand Paul and have found no contradictory statements whatsover in his words ...that goes against anything Christ taught ..or what any of the prophets wrote ..some things may sound contradictory but I understand what he meant ....maybe some of you just are not comprehending the message .

Like the one about obeying the laws of the land and the Gov ..
God did set up the GOV ..for a purpose ...same with the laws etc.
And it is just like saying what goes around comes around .
If you respect the laws and the Gov,Police etc ..then they respect you ..
(Most of the time anyway) ...if you obey the laws .(which most of them are not unreasonable) then you shouldnt get arrested or a have a record (too many tickets for not obeying traffic laws) etc.....
But if the laws etc ...go against the word of God (Taking the mark ,getting a mandatory abortion etc) then that is the time to say NO NOT GONNA OBEY this time .....there is a time for everything according to Proverbs (I love that book) ......

Originally posted by badmedia
And the common man was not even allowed to see or own a bible - if they were even allowed to learn to read to begin with.

The way common men, and women, have distorted and made the Scriptures into an a la carte menu I increasingly understand the prudent wisdom involved in this now defunct prescription.

Atheism's charge that "man made God in his own image" is borne out as being true in this current age, and this thread, when the inconvenient is dismissed as "Paulian" so people can chase after some imagninary fluffy Jesus who was about love without responsibility.

"Go and sin no more", becomes "Go and sin only if you want to, in fact really what is sin? You know, thinking about it my dad was very beastly making up all those rules. Go on, do what you like."

...I wonder what Jesus would say about the Bible? (Lucid)
But in case it hasn't been mentioned yet, Paul is near and dear to the born again Christian's but still a neat dude to the mainstream Christian's.
born agains will beat you silly with scripture and their well practiced mantra of interpretation of it. I imagine that Paul has been adamently defended by the born agains in this thread...sorry, if they haven't but I wasn't going to muddle through the thread to find out. I too often get sidetracked and want to debate every point.
Saul then Paul is really the poster child for born agains.
But none the less, I don't know of any Christian, they included, that believes they are followers of Paul rather than Christ but then again some of you believe that we Catholics worship Mary or the Pope or whatever misconception of the modern Roman Catholic church is in vogue today.

reply to post by Simplynoone


Government exists only because evil exists here. It is supposed to be the function of protection(we will ignore how it gets corrupted here). Because the people will sin against each other, government provides a bit of protection. A deterant of sorts from breaking gods will - and allows others to learn and so on.

If we all followed Jesus, there would be no need for government as nobody would be evil. We would all follow the example and there would be no sin in us. We would live and let live. No need for police if you don't have crimes.

So, if you have understanding then you will follow Jesus. Until that day you will follow Paul or be subject to authority. But it is important to realize that just as the pharisees worshiped every week, gave much money to the church, and were moral men - who were even sometimes themselves killed for their beliefs(just as is today), they still sinned and were hypocrites because they did not have understanding. They were not the true way, Jesus was. And Paul is not the true way, Jesus is.

People surely do follow Paul and not Jesus. Paul is a scribe/pharisees, those of authority. They speak truth but do not follow it.

Originally posted by Supercertari

Originally posted by badmedia
And the common man was not even allowed to see or own a bible - if they were even allowed to learn to read to begin with.

The way common men, and women, have distorted and made the Scriptures into an a la carte menu I increasingly understand the prudent wisdom involved in this now defunct prescription.

Atheism's charge that "man made God in his own image" is borne out as being true in this current age, and this thread, when the inconvenient is dismissed as "Paulian" so people can chase after some imagninary fluffy Jesus who was about love without responsibility.

"Go and sin no more", becomes "Go and sin only if you want to, in fact really what is sin? You know, thinking about it my dad was very beastly making up all those rules. Go on, do what you like."

If you want to get down to it, you don't even need the bible. Jesus says he will appear to those pure of heart, and that is true. But the problem I have with it is they kept even those who might could understand it away from it for their own personal gain, to make themselves leaders which Jesus said not to do.

Oh, responsibility is important. Can't have freedom without personal responsibility. But it's where they lead people against gods will by breaking commandments that is wrong.

And aside from that, I really don't know why you are saying those things in this thread as none of those things have ever even been hinted at.

[edit on 26-11-2008 by badmedia]

reply to post by jakyll


Thank you for the links. That was one of the reasons why I started this thread. I am very interested in the Bible and it's history.

Christians need to take a look at their beliefs and compare Jesus' and Paul's teachings and see where they have erred.

The same can be said for other religions. I have noticed that each time a religious figure appear and start to teach love, unity, tolerance, etc., politicians and people who simply want control and money will add doctrines of their own, obfuscating the original teachings and further division, intolerance, racism, etc.

In all of the years as a Christians, I have seen many Christians trying to reconcile differing verses such as faith and works, not realizing what they were doing, because they believe that what was put in the Bible was because God willed it, not because some men decided what belonged in the Bible.

reply to post by Simplynoone

then we should disregard the entire NT except the words in red ..And even those words by Jesus were not written by him either .....

Correct, Jesus didn't write any of it. In addition to none of the Gospels haven been authored until close to a century after Christ, none of the original texts exist. All we have are translations (of texts that are lost) of the words written by people who never met Christ.

As far as the 4 Gospels go, the closest they get to Christ, is an alleged authorship of 'Saint Mark the Evangelist' and his associations with 'Saint Peter'.

Not saying that makes it false, or your beliefs false, just said it for perspective.

Originally posted by badmedia
And aside from that, I really don't know why you are saying those things in this thread as none of those things have ever even been hinted at.

Then you missed the hint in the OP, you see without Paul there would be no homophobia among Christians because homosexual acts, and every other immoral action, wouldn't be a problem.

Of course, the teachings of Jesus would still have some inconvenient bits, but we could write them off as those evil editors manipulating things to get more power.

We could just strip down the Gospel to 'And lo Jesus said "Love"' and everyone could do whatever the heck they wanted.

[edit on 26/11/08 by Supercertari]

reply to post by badmedia

What happens after the bible is created in the current form? We enter the dark ages at the hands of those most freshly deciding what is to be followed.

Exactly! The Roman Catholic Church came into power. Many peaceful pagan Christians were killed. Many people became ignorant. They were not allowed to read the Bible and decide for themselves. The priests have the right to read the Bible and interpret for themselves, not common people.

And this was all because of Paul!

reply to post by Deaf Alien


Constantine, and the Roman Rule in general, had some say too

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
...I wonder what Jesus would say about the Bible? (Lucid)

Well, if Christ were walking amongst us today I don't think he would read the Bible or goto Church. I think he would be doing missionary work, in an effort to convert Christians to a more Godly path. My opinion.

[edit on 26-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Originally posted by Supercertari

Originally posted by badmedia
And aside from that, I really don't know why you are saying those things in this thread as none of those things have ever even been hinted at.

Then you missed the hint in the OP, you see without Paul there would be no homophobia among Christians because homosexual acts, and every other immoral action, wouldn't be a problem.

Of course, the teachings of Jesus would still have some inconvenient bits, but we could write them off as those evil editors manipulating things to get more power.

We could just strip down the Gospel to 'And lo Jesus said "Love"' and everyone could do whatever the heck they wanted.

[edit on 26/11/08 by Supercertari]

Excuse me, but who are you to judge and tell them they can't do whatever the heck they wanted? That is and never has been your place.

And Jesus fulfilled the commandments, he had no care for man made laws and traditions.

Which commandment are they breaking by the way? And how are you following the love thy neighbor commandment by persecuting them?

Homophobia taught by Paul is disputable (see other threads). However, it is clear where homophobia came from. So you see, Christians tend to follow Paul more than Jesus, and Paul's writings are his opinions (Paul even said so).

Jesus never condemned homosexuality. He treated all people as equals

Not just that, but he taught that women must submit to men. They must be kept quiet in churches and not preach.

Paul taught intolerance and gender inequality, causing division among people. Jesus would be so shocked if he ever comes back and see so many different denominations and false teachings.

The sad thing is that many wouldn't recognize Jesus if they had bumped into him. On the other hand, Paul..... hmmm

Originally posted by badmedia
Excuse me, but who are you to judge and tell them they can't do whatever the heck they wanted? That is and never has been your place.

And Jesus fulfilled the commandments, he had no care for man made laws and traditions.

Which commandment are they breaking by the way? And how are you following the love thy neighbor commandment by persecuting them?

It may have escaped your attention that people do do whatever the heck they want, as a Christian it is my duty to try my best not to do whatever the heck I want (by the grace of God) and share the revealed law of God with others to willfully ignore or follow as they choose.

Your selective reading of scripture is a manifestation of that a la carte Christianity I spoke of. Love thy neighbour? Why on earth would you mention or try to abide by that commandment if you feel free to dismiss the other commandments as it suits you?

Judging? Why is that not allowed in your personal faith? I hope you're not basing it on scripture because you've already demonstrated that's something you like to pick and choose from. Wat is your criterion for making the decision as to which commandments you should abide by and speak of? Is it what feels right for you? Is it what feels right for others? Is it what makes people happy?

Excuse me if I choose to submit to the collective wisdom of the sensus fidelium and the Church, inspired by and lead by the Holy Spirirt as promised by our Lord rather than submit to the ramblings of the fractured self-confirmed "inspirations" of the "Christian but not religious."

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
Jesus would be so shocked if he ever comes back and see so many different denominations and false teachings.

No, Jesus would say "I told you so" and in this era we are seeing the gravest of divisions taking place where Christianity is twisted and contorted every which way by individuals to suit their own agendas. There aren't even many denominations about today, there are just millions of chattering ignorati who get their inspiration and faith from their own imagination and the pride riddled deceit that "I'm right and the sensus fidelium is wrong, now which bit will I accept today."