Paul contradicts Jesus

This will be a short thread, but I think it will speak volumes on how Paul taught a message completely contradictory to Jesus' and how the bible is nowhere close to being the inerrant, infallible word of god.

I know some of you may think I'm running this into the ground, but I like to try and open people's eyes, even if my attempts end up failing. Even if it doesn't reach anyone, at least I can say I tried.

Jesus says:

Mark 12
27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!"

Jesus says that god is NOT (emphasis added) the god of the dead, but of the living.

Paul says:

Romans 14
9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

Paul says that Jesus became the god of the living AND dead.

Whose word do you believe more? Jesus or Paul? Because this is the most blatant contradiction in the bible, in my opinion.

Will Christians admit to it though?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Theres better ones then that... but that depends on the translation you prefer...

How about Jesus Thought he was equal to God... when Jesus said he wasn't...

This thread has been a long time coming...

Beware... the battle is about to begin..

The living, because loving eachother as ourselves is good for establishing peace and preserving life. The dead would not need to worry about such (preserving life).

I know in Christianity the resurrection of big part and in the writings of Paul I wonder if that means death cannot stop Jesus. Hopefully this makes sense.

reply to post by Akragon


Feel free to add them to the thread! The more the merrier.

reply to post by Akragon

This thread has been a long time coming...

I'm pretty sure that we have had threads covering this but maybe not with exactly this title.

I think Paul started Jesus and the other writers kind of followed up.
The only thing that would contradict that is Acts, and that is totally bogus.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Yes, we have discussed this exact thing in another thread, which is partly why I created this thread focusing on these two verses alone.

What do you mean by Paul "starting" Jesus? Do You mean he created him or something else?

And yes, Acts is totally bogus.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Akragon

 

This thread has been a long time coming...

I'm pretty sure that we have had threads covering this but maybe not with exactly this title.

I think Paul started Jesus and the other writers kind of followed up.
The only thing that would contradict that is Acts, and that is totally bogus.

I have one myself actually... but I didn't state it blatantly...

Paul the first Heretic

from 2 years ago... Good fun beating on Paul...

...actually, this isn't complicated at all.

In this passage:

Mark 12
27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!"

Jesus is speaking of God the Father. Note "GOD of the Living".

...while in this passage, Paul is talking about Christ... being LORD of the dead and the living. That might seem like a minor difference, but it is significant. Christ died to reconcile all things to God the Father, both the living and the dead. This is why, in the book of Revelation, Jesus says that He has the keys to life and death. Jesus is the "firstfruits from among the dead", bringing that which was dead back to life, and thus to the Father.

Romans 14
9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

The problem you have is that you've taken two very narrow passages without their context, and read them without understanding what they're actually about. The entire Bible is the story of God the Father reconciling that which was dead, to Himself, through His Son. God the Father is NOT the God of the dead, but of the living - and Christ died so that those who were dead might have life through Him.

The whole Bible, from cover to cover is a contradiction.

Jesus saying be nice to everyone. Love everyone.

God blowing people up, drowning people etc etc. We won't get in to the "Kill everyone except the female virgins, you can take them home as slaves.

Then we come to some of the other writers, some of them were high or inebriated when they wrote things down.



What a story!!!

P

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

. . . this is the most blatant contradiction in the bible, in my opinion.

Only in your own mind.
Did you ever get anyone to agree with you in the other thread where you were talking about this?
Read the verses leading up to the one you quoted,

…25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. 26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have you not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spoke to him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

here Jesus contradicts himself, twice.

reply to post by Awen24


But wouldn't your explanation mean that Jesus was not god at all? You are separating Jesus from god in this situation.

The "Lord" IS god, so Paul calling Jesus Lord means he was calling him god.

Or is there more than one god?

Also, if Jesus turned those who are dead to life, then they are no longer dead but alive, right? Meaning he is still only Lord/God of the living and not the dead.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Jesus mentioning the "word" dead does not mean he was saying he was the god of those who are dead. I guess when Jesus said "he is not the god of the 'dead'", he was contradicting a contradiction?

Also, if you think I'm the only one who thinks it is a contradiction then you are not looking very far. It is blatant, but like I asked "will Christians admit to it?", apparently not.

you have to read the whole paragraphs to see what is going on. It's all in the context. In this first one, he is making a point that Abraham, Issac, and Jacob are not "dead" in the sense of the "gone forever, forgotten" is the way I read it (you read it and be the judge), different context than the second which death is referenced as a state of being (not walking around on earth anymore, done with this life).

Discussion about Resurrection

18Then Jesus was approached by some Sadducees—religious leaders who say there is no resurrection from the dead. They posed this question: 19“Teacher, Moses gave us a law that if a man dies, leaving a wife without children, his brother should marry the widow and have a child who will carry on the brother’s name.d 20Well, suppose there were seven brothers. The oldest one married and then died without children. 21So the second brother married the widow, but he also died without children. Then the third brother married her. 22This continued with all seven of them, and still there were no children. Last of all, the woman also died. 23So tell us, whose wife will she be in the resurrection? For all seven were married to her.”

24Jesus replied, “Your mistake is that you don’t know the Scriptures, and you don’t know the power of God. 25For when the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. In this respect they will be like the angels in heaven.

26“But now, as to whether the dead will be raised—haven’t you ever read about this in the writings of Moses, in the story of the burning bush? Long after Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had died, God said to Moses,e ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’f 27So he is the God of the living, not the dead. You have made a serious error.”


2nd story example


The Danger of Criticism

1Accept other believers who are weak in faith, and don’t argue with them about what they think is right or wrong. 2For instance, one person believes it’s all right to eat anything. But another believer with a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetables. 3Those who feel free to eat anything must not look down on those who don’t. And those who don’t eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them. 4Who are you to condemn someone else’s servants? Their own master will judge whether they stand or fall. And with the Lord’s help, they will stand and receive his approval.

5In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day, while others think every day is alike. You should each be fully convinced that whichever day you choose is acceptable. 6Those who worship the Lord on a special day do it to honor him. Those who eat any kind of food do so to honor the Lord, since they give thanks to God before eating. And those who refuse to eat certain foods also want to please the Lord and give thanks to God. 7For we don’t live for ourselves or die for ourselves. 8If we live, it’s to honor the Lord. And if we die, it’s to honor the Lord. So whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9Christ died and rose again for this very purpose—to be Lord both of the living and of the dead.

10So why do you condemn another believera? Why do you look down on another believer? Remember, we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11For the Scriptures say,

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,

‘every knee will bend to me,

and every tongue will confess and give praise to God.b’”

12Yes, each of us will give a personal account to God. 13So let’s stop condemning each other. Decide instead to live in such a way that you will not cause another believer to stumble and fall.

14I know and am convinced on the authority of the Lord Jesus that no food, in and of itself, is wrong to eat. But if someone believes it is wrong, then for that person it is wrong. 15And if another believer is distressed by what you eat, you are not acting in love if you eat it. Don’t let your eating ruin someone for whom Christ died. 16Then you will not be criticized for doing something you believe is good. 17For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of what we eat or drink, but of living a life of goodness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18If you serve Christ with this attitude, you will please God, and others will approve of you, too. 19So then, let us aim for harmony in the church and try to build each other up.

20Don’t tear apart the work of God over what you eat. Remember, all foods are acceptable, but it is wrong to eat something if it makes another person stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another believer to stumble. 22You may believe there’s nothing wrong with what you are doing, but keep it between yourself and God. Blessed are those who don’t feel guilty for doing something they have decided is right. 23But if you have doubts about whether or not you should eat something, you are sinning if you go ahead and do it. For you are not following your convictions. If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning

reply to post by infolurker


Death is not a state of being, it is the opposite of being actually. Being implies life, death implies nonbeing.

It seems as though you have made your own definition of the word being to fit the word death when they are actually total opposites.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Jeeze guy, stop being a zealot and read 2 stories for context and make your own judgement. If you don't see a difference in context then so be it. There are PLENTY of contradictions, this just doesn't appear to be a very valid one... just saying.

reply to post by infolurker


Zealot? I'm far from it bud.

I guess pointing out faulty logic is a bad thing these days?

i DONT KNOW WHY YOU ALL WORRY ABOUT IT ANYWAYS
jESUS CAME ONLY FOR THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL.....HE SAID SO

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by infolurker

 

Zealot? I'm far from it bud.

I guess pointing out faulty logic is a bad thing these days?

So, you seriously do not see a different context of these 2 stories of the word Death / dead ?

Perhaps this may be the issue?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by infolurker


I don't see a different meaning honestly. I see Paul comparing Jesus' physical death on the cross with others physical deaths. Unless Jesus' death was not physical and only a "state of mind" kind of death, he is talking about actual death.

He says all foods are acceptable, but then goes on to say that certain foods should not be eaten if someone else thinks they shouldn't be eaten. If all foods are acceptable, then why is he restricting people from eating them in certain situations? That implies that they are not acceptable in a way. If they are acceptable then they are acceptable.

Basically what he is saying is that all food is acceptable, but you should not eat them at all if someone else finds it unacceptable and to leave your opinion between you and god. I don't get the logic in that personally. That's basically like saying people should not be able to express their opinion. Not a good message at all.

If you take the living and dead comment in context with the rest of that passage then it's like saying the people who are in the "living" state of mind should discard their thinking because the people in the "dead" state of mind think it is unacceptable or vice versa, which doesn't really make sense in my opinion. But as I pointed out earlier in this post, he was clearly comparing physical deaths and not a "state of mind".

By the way, I'm no where near being an atheist. Not even close. I 100% believe in God, just not in a religious sense.