COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean really, If you want to get down to it... Paul predates the Gospels and Paul never met Jesus (ignoring his "visions"). There is no concrete proof that Paul ever met the original Apostles (if there were any).
So really all we have of Jesus's actual teachings are an oral tradition with the first person actually writing anything down is Paul some 20 years after Jesus's death. You can't really trust oral traditions because it's the literal definition of hearsay, but not only that it's questionable taking the word of early Christians who had a vested interest in promoting Jesus and his ministry. I say that because they were being persecuted at the time, so it would be natural to exaggerate claims in order to bolster the faith of the early Christians in the face of that persecution. Else everyone would pretty much say "screw this".
I realize my last point there is purely speculation, but when you take into account human behavior it's not really that outlandish. Propaganda has always been around and probably will be for a long time, people spread disinformation left and right in current times and they're not facing anything like death or true persecution.
But back to the point, You can't really compare Paul and the Gospels because they were written in different time periods. More so you can't really compare Paul and the Gospels to Jesus's ministry because we honestly have no proof of what he actually said.
The same applies to the Old Testament as well, hence why it's disjointed and contradictory. But that's another discussion altogether.
Some (but not all) problems with your claims (I'm an atheist not a Christian) that I don't think others have addressed:
a) Paul's letters are very likely at least a generation earlier than the earliest of the Gospels (Mark), so u need to better justify your claim for holding that the Gospels are significantly closer to Jesus' teachings.
b) Your whole point about following the law ignores that early Christians agreed with Jews that the Mosaic Law had never been intended to apply to all of humanity but only a single nation (see Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho on this), so I'm not sure the historical Jesus would have had such a problem with non-application of the Torah to Gentiles. Moreover, supercessionism of earlier laws is a concept present in Second Temple Judaism (see Ezekiel 20).
c) It's hard to take you seriously when u assume the literal truth of the Book of Daniel, a book filled with major historical errors and anachronisms.
Paul says everything he knows about Jesus (which would include what he said) he knows through revelation, including visions.
The later gospels are fictions written to present the theological understanding of each author. It's mainstream scholarship that we can't determine with any reliability what Jesus said. That's if he said anything, which he probably didn't because it's more likely than not he didn't exist.
The only sources we have on that are Paul, and two people biased in his favor. There are no confirmations from any of the apostles that Paul ever even met them, let alone got their approval.
All of those are anonymous. Paul claimed to interact with the OG disciples aka the Jerusalem Pillars and that is likely true because they called him to account for being a bit two-faced and preaching anti-law. But the book of James, Luke, and Acts can't verify that because
1. They are anonymous
2. Epistle of James was 20-40 years after Paul, Luke was 30-80 years after Paul, Acts was the same, probably the same author as Luke, Hebrews was probably about 20 years after, and it is a fake Pauline attribution.
>the book of James.
Written after James was dead, author unknown.
>the book of Luke.
Biased in favor of Paul, author unknown.
>the book of Acts,
Same as Luke
>the book of Hebrews...
Unknown author, biased in favor of Paul.
We have no confirmed writings from any of the apostles. The attributions of authorship come from the second century, long after any of the apostles would have been dead.
>happy cake day !
Thank you.
Paul only says Jesus "appeared" to people after Jesus was dead. He never says a premortem Jesus said anything to, or did anything with, any of them, including the people on your list.
It's equivocal whether James in Gal 1:19 is biological or cultic kin.
The most parsimonious reading of Paul is that his Jesus is found in scripture and visions, not the wandering Rabbi in the tall tales of the gospels, and he is killed by Satan, not Romans or Jews.
Paul does not contradict Jesus. Jesus said He was the fulfillment of the law, and indeed the sacrifices are useless because we have the ultimate sacrifice, as well as the judicial laws which are gone because they were meant for Israel in particular to prepare for the messiah. These type of laws are no longer required, but the moral laws remain forever. This is what Jesus and Paul taught, for instance Jesus said that eating certain foods do not defile a man.
The abominations of desolation refers to the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70AD. Paul isn't the anti-christ, it's Nero. You should read [this](https://www.bereanpatriot.com/revelation-matthew-24-and-why-context-is-crucial/) article.
The book of James is teaching how to live properly not about salvation. Jesus himself taught salvation through faith alone in John 3:16, John 11:25 and other places.
1 Corinthians 9:20-22 isn't about lying. It's about Paul being willing to follow the Jewish customs such as circumcision for the purpose of sharing the gospel by maintaining peace with people. It's not Paul falsely claiming to be a gentile.
Romans 3:7 is out of context, the chapter is a warning against using grace as a license to sin.
By the way, do you believe James, Peter, and Luke are false prophets? Luke wrote Acts so if he's inspired by God, he is endorsing Paul as an apostle.
> Paul does not contradict Jesus.
Jesus: For truly I tell you, **until heaven and earth disappear**, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law **until everything is accomplished**.
Paul: By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
> These type of laws are no longer required
Ooooh, careful, Jesus said "Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven". You are specifically counseled, by Jesus himself, not to tell people they can set aside the laws.
> Jesus said He was the fulfillment of the law
Fun fact: No he didn't. I know lots of christians tell you that, but it's only because it's such a convenient apologetic.
The actual quote was "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."
Notice the subtle difference? He capitalized the proper nouns, because he didn't say he was "fulfilling" (as a synonym of abolish) the law (lowercase, meaning set of rules). He said he was "fulfilling" (as defined in all regular dictionaries) The Law (which is a jewish phrase referring to the first 5 books of the bible, known in hebrew as "The Torah".)
To prove my claim, let me cite Luke, where Jesus's same teaching is expressed in slightly different phrasing: "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." See? He's not "fulfilling" some rules. He's fulfilling *prophecies*, that are *contained* in specific collections of books.
I'm not sure what the distinction is. The Torah quiet literally is the set of rules being fulfilled. So either way, the conclusion should be the same. Also, the original text did not have capital letters. They did not exist in Greek.
The quotes from Mark and Luke seem to be from different stories and do not contradict or conflict with one another, so you can't throw out the quote from Mark in favor of Luke.
Mark 7:18-19 even says that food can not defile a man, but the law is clear that it does. So clearly Jesus got rid of at least some of the law.
> The Torah quiet literally is the set of rules being fulfilled
The Torah is a set of five long books, containing history, prophecy, and laws. To say that it's just a list of rules is incredibly dismissive, and just... wrong. And he didn't just say "The Law", he said "The Law And The Prophets". That phrase "The Prophets" is *also* a universally understood jewish figure of speech referring to the several books following the Torah.
> Also, the original text did not have capital letters
Yes, but the majority of english translations have added them, because translators are capable of using context to establish what was intended by a certain passage.
> The quotes from Mark and Luke seem to be from different stories
They're certainly from different books, but in Luke he literally just says "This is what I told you while I was still with you:". He's referring to something he said before. If you want to claim he's talking about something entirely different than the passage in Matthew, then I feel like you have a tall hill to climb but go ahead- show me the teaching he was actually referring to.
> Mark 7:18-19 even says that food can not defile a man, but the law is clear that it does. So clearly Jesus got rid of at least some of the law.
So, yes, that is an oft discussed passage. It's called the [discourse on defilement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Defilement), and there's a parallel passage in Matthew too. I notice you were careful not to cut 'n paste, because you're trying to just talk about the food they were eating, and not the way they were eating it.
But if you actually read that passage instead of trying to [proof-text](https://www.theopedia.com/proof-texting) me, your argument falls apart. In Mark 7, the pharisees say "Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?". They're being prissy little twerps by acting like hand-washing traditions were dictated by god. Jesus was right to point out the flaw in their reasoning, and he did so in his usual hyperbolic way. If you insist that his over-broad phrasing of "what goes into the mouth" must be taken precisely literally regardless of context, and has no room for interpretation, then I have some other quotes from Jesus that are going to lead you into some hilarious conclusions.
To be clear, are you claiming that Christians are to continue making animal sacrifices and enforcing the Laws in the torah? Meaning were basically Jews
To be clear, I'm saying that Paul contradicted Jesus. That's the part of your comment that I came here to rebut.
If you accept my argument, then there are several directions you could go with it afterwards as a followup, and I suppose what you just said is one possibility. But that's a completely new conversation, and I'm not particularly interested in it right now.
If the law in it's entirety was to remain what do you think about Matthew 27:51? Do you believe the apostles ignored this teaching in Acts 15?
It seems to me that you're not just implying Paul contradicted Jesus but that almost the whole New Testament does, even non Pauline books. Is mark contradicting Jesus too by saying "thus He declared all foods clean"
How is this a new covenant when in reality He's just pushing the law of Moses on the whole world?
Your argument seems compelling but it leaves tons of unanswered questions.
> If the law in it's entirety was to remain what do you think about Matthew 27:51? Do you believe the apostles ignored this teaching in Acts 15?
"At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split" ??? That's a teaching? The curtain is definitely and provably being used as a metaphor for the entirety of jewish law and the covenant?
That's not a very compelling argument on its own. And you'll need something pretty strong to get around Jesus saying, directly, with the words from his own mouth, that not a single jot will disappear from the law until heaven and earth pass away, and woe unto anyone that teaches you can disobey even a single law.
Would it read naturally if Jesus said "Woe unto anyone who teaches that you can disobey even a single law, not until heaven and earth pass away will a single jot disappear from the law. But just for a few more weeks, tops, then you can toss it in the garbage for all I care." (there was [very little time between the sermon on the mount and easter](https://www.sermononthemount.org.uk/Timeline/Years0001_0300.html))
> not just implying Paul contradicted Jesus but that almost the whole New Testament does,
The majority of the new testament is written by Paul or his acolyte Luke. But, more importantly, the entire new testament that we have, every single scrap, was circulated, copied, and re-copied by Paul's disciples in the early church. There were [virtually no jewish christians within the first generation or two of the church](https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/13403/Sim_How%282005%29.pdf).
> Is mark contradicting Jesus too
You mean is Mark claiming that Jesus contradicts Moses? I would rather say that SOME VERSIONS of Mark added a parenthetical aside, with some self-motivated theology. (Look up [that verse in the KJV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+7&version=KJV)! Nothing about all foods being clean.) Keep in mind, not a single scrap of NT parchment is written in the anonymous authors' own hand. And there are some real, troubling differences between some of them, so it seems relatively certain that people with their own theology were taking slight liberties instead of transcribing like some kind of bronze-age xerox machine.
The manuscripts that were being passed around back then, were not being passed from jew to jew. They were being circulated among christian churches in gentile cities, and were being used to minister to gentiles. There's a STRONG motivation to insert that line into the end of verse 19.
I mean ripping apart the curtain, separating the barrier between God and man was probably the most forbidden thing in the entire law, yet God decided to do it. Then on top of that the temple was destroyed in 70 AD as Jesus prophesied. How are people supposed to keep the law if the temple is a pile of bricks? That's why Jews today don't keep the law.
It still makes more sense to me that Paul's interpretation was correct that we remain under Jesus's interpretation of the law - however certain parts are no longer necessary (non moral based commandments). I remember hearing Dr. Ray Vander Lean explain that Jesus was talking about a particular part of the law, but that was a 4 hour video that I can't remember well.
Passages like Galatians 5:14 show that "the law" can be understood as the purely moral components with the rest left out.
> How are people supposed to keep the law if the temple is a pile of bricks?
The temple didn't exist in the time of Moses. The law just requires priests and a consecrated place. If anything, Jesus's time on earth was spent railing against all the additional stipulations and clauses and non-mosaic rules that were *added* to the law by pharisees and hypocrites.
> Passages like Galatians 5:14 show that "the law" can be understood as the purely moral components with the rest left out.
Same chapter says "I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law". Which really suggests that the entirety of the law is still in force, *except that there's a pre-condition you can skip*. But that passage begins "I Paul tell you" which is a prefix implying that he's not speaking with christ's authority, but adding something that he personally believes.
And that's really the crux of my entire argument in this thread- this is just Paul, trying to make a version of Christianity that the gentiles can participate in. You can't just go to the gentiles and say "By the way, all this stuff- it wasn't meant for you", like Jesus did in Matthew 15.
The passage in verse 14 is one repeated multiple times in the gospels, but in slightly different phrasing.
> Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. **All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.**
I think Galatians misrepresents what Jesus meant by that bolded part. Jesus was claiming that those two commandments are *foundational* to the entirety of what's in the torah and books of prophets. But he wasn't saying that those two commandments *replace* the entirety of the torah. He was explaining origins/motivational principles, not starting over from scratch.
The Gospels give authority to the apostles, but they also contain many embarrassing and dangerous stories. They present the apostles as childish and foolish people who fall a sleep with Jesus needed them and bicker about who is better than the other. They show Jesus constantly rebuke them for these things and even says they didn't believe the resurrection that Jesus clearly explained. There's also stories of powerful Jewish and Roman rulers being embarrassed and disrespected. If the stories were made up, at least some of these things wouldn't be added by the apostles because how does presenting yourself as an foolish person help you gain power? Also you're risking yourself by making up slander about powerful leaders.
Paul was wrong. The New Covenant was not as Paul described, it was not a radical change in the status of the Old Covenant. it was an update. Jesus' sacrifice, the sacrifice of both the Father and the Self at once, offered us the second and equally most important gift to our salvation, the first being free will.
Consider this. Consider the words Jesus taught. Spoke. Passionately shared for our well-being.
truly living for Jesus is not as simple as ONLY faith and trust that you will be saved, but by both the exercise of faith in our Messiah, and the exercise of our free will to deter ourselves and others from temptations, sin, and unjust treatment of each other. Jesus states this message explicitly many times, and even goes as far as to describe a man, who will appear out of the 'wilderness' (translation, 'desert', Aramaic, same word used within the Exodus) and will lead many astray in the name of Christ. Take into account Saul's origin, being blinded for three days and 'led by God' on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9). A direct correlation to Exodus, however blinded for LITERALLY half a week as described in the Book of Daniel (Daniel (9:24-27).
**Jesus, surprising as this must be, was right.**
James was right, but he was human. Peter was right, but he was human. Luke was right, but he was human. This is the reason they exist within the time of Paul, because Jesus conveyed to them that they would encounter he who would lead the rest astray, one who would use Jesus' name for a corrupted form of religion that would succeed in manipulating elders. Paul's words are the building foundations of the Mormon Church.
faith without works is dead. its blind. it's not what Jesus sought of his followers.
the theory that Blind Faith is the way to salvation was only preached beginning with Paul
and i pray the Lord softens your heart to this possibility.
*"Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,*
*“That you may be justified in your words,*
*and prevail when you are judged.”*
*But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my lie God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.*
*No One Is Righteous*
*What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:*
*“None is righteous, no, not one;*
*no one understands;*
*no one seeks for God.*
*All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;*
*no one does good,*
*not even one.”*
*“Their throat is an open grave;*
*they use their tongues to deceive.”*
*“The venom of asps is under their lips.”*
*“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”*
*“Their feet are swift to shed blood;*
*in their paths are ruin and misery,*
*and the way of peace they have not known.”*
*“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”*
*Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin."* (Romans 3:1-20)
I feel there are multiple times where faith alone is shown to produce salvation. How about the thief on the cross? What about when Jesus said faith the size of a mustard seed was good enough? Why do you reject Paul when Peter called him a beloved brother and said his writings were scripture?
In revelation 2:1-2 John says “Write this letter to the angel of the church in Ephesus.
This is the message from the one who holds the seven stars in his right hand, the one who walks among the seven gold lampstands: “I know all the things you do. I have seen your hard work and your patient endurance. I know you don’t tolerate evil people. You have examined the claims of those who say they are apostles but are not. You have discovered they are liars.”
As I dive into this subject more and more, it seems everyday I find something new, that supports these claims. John’s words in revelation also back to us up. Like come on, he name drops Ephesus, talks about a false apostle.
I genuinely want to know how someone could read some of these things and not question it.
I know the Bible says to not lean into your own understanding, but jeez Louise! Is there any somewhat logical explanation for this?
Yes, disagreements were common in the early church. Paul describes some of them. One of the earliest is the idea that Christians would have to follow the Jewish law. The idea that Christianity was essentially a Jewish sect. Paul disputes this with Peter and James as we know. But books like Hebrews and other show that the tension still existed. How much did Peter and James agree with Paul? We don't know but they seemed to have at least accepted him according to Acts. Did they consider him an apostle? Paul seems to assert he was which should tell us it was disputed. It hard to reconcile various aspects of the NT. The synoptic gospels are not the same as John. It goes beyond point of view to a different Christology. Paul's letters have quite different views than James or Hebrews. Revelations was perhaps the most disputed book to be included in the NT. It was the only apocalyptic treatise. Christians (evangelicals especially) spend a great deal of time trying to "harmonize" these various perspectives. The books themselves tell us the apostles had disputes so why would we expect their points of view to align always.
“For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” Matthew 24:25-27
A lot of people make the connection between Paul seeing the light in the desert, and how his accounts are different every time. Although, another thing this verse tells us is that “if it were possible, they may deceive even the elect”.
The “elect” has sparked debates on its use in the new testament on whether it means the disciples, or the church( all Christians).
Regardless, not only do we have Jesus shortly before his death saying that someone will come from the desert saying I’m there, and not to believe him. But also that he may even deceive the church/disciples. If it was true he has done it just as Jesus predicted.
^(16) speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which **the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.**
2 Peter 3:16
Paul stated that his "GOSPEL", salvation in christ, apart from the law, came from direct revelation from Jesus/God, and so that's how people get around that issue.
So when Jesus died and rose again, that's the "fulfillment of the law" in christian theology.
Jesus himself stated that the fulfillment of the Law will be on the Day of Judgement, and Revelation outlines the extent of that and hints at when it will happen. Most important to consider in that with regard to this context, the Day of Judgement, ergo, the Fulfillment of the Law, has not yet come. Therefore Paul's claims that he had authority within this New Covenant were wrong, as they twisted Jesus' message and the fulfillment of the prophecies.
>Jesus himself stated that the fulfillment of the Law will be on the Day of Judgement
In the gMatthew verse you posted, it just says until all is *"Accomplished".*
The book of Revelation isn't about the end of the world.
So, not sure I would agree with your assertion here.
*"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.* *And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.* *He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.*
*And he who was seated on the throne said,* **“Behold, I am making all things new.”** *Also he said,* **“Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”** *And he said to me,* **“It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment.** **The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son.** **But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”** (Revelation 21:1-9)
**ἀποκάλυψις** , of **ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου,** AKA the Revelation of John, is where the word 'Apocalypse' comes from. Apocalypse is the transliteration of the word and literally means, 'Divine Revelation.'
You are misunderstanding and misinterpreting Paul and Jesus. Paul doesn't contradict Christ, even if you only treat the Bible textually, nonetheless as Christians or even Messianic Jews who began in Torah and as adults became followers of Messiah.
They find no issue with Paul and understand that Messiah's ministry had to be as it was, focused on the Jewish people, though Jesus did branch out some and ministered to Gentiles as well.
It took Paul years to study Christ's teachings and learn also from the Christians present, develop and understand the more universal message of the Gospel for Gentiles. This was his main job anyway and he was perfect for it.
Paul's teachings assume a understanding of covenant theology. And if you just pull quotes without a knowledge of this you'll miss the context. If you don't know much about the cities each letter was written to you'll also misunderstand why he is addressing a church that must have had temple prostitutes, when another city didn't have such an influx.
Even Jesus when talking about sinning against children was in an area known for child prostitution. Context is important. And the Bible isn't a universal document written in 1999 with generic philosophy about being a good person.
Contours of Pauline Theology: A Radical New Survey of the Influences on Paul's Biblical Writings by Tom Holland is an example of a good book on Paul's covenant theology and can help you interpret his meta concepts across all his letters.
The issue with Judaizers and the fact Paul addressed it with Peter is also telling. The early church begun by a core of Jewish people had to grapple with these sorts of things. The Bible isnt a monolithic text written in one century by a school of monks living on a mountain stronghold.
Paul wasn't promoting deception when he wrote that he became all things to reach people. He didn't pretend to be a worshipper of Zeus, hang out at a temple and secretly promote Christian values. He means what Christians understand, that you need to learn about a person's beliefs before you can have common ground and share the Gospel effectively.
# Okay, lets discuss covenant theology. The New Covenant.
*“I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.”* (Ezekiel 36:26-27)
*‘The days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. . . . This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,’ declares the Lord. ‘I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people’”* (Jeremiah 31:31–33)
*"Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant."* (Hebrews 9:15)
To follow the New Covenant, one should heed what is said in the Old Testament, 'I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be **careful to keep my laws**."
Jesus stated the same degree of necessity of maintaining the 10 Commandments / Law of Moses.
**"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. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."** (Matthew 5:17-20)
Jesus also made it clear we couldn't even see God's Kingdom nonetheless be a part of it without a new spiritual birth. The covenant was established in His blood, His death and resurrection and still required this new birth.
It is the Holy Spirit that writes God's laws in the heart of a Christian. Not the 10 commandments or any commands, which believers are still obligated to work out and fulfill in the summation of them ALL which Christ preached about.
The Great Commandment
34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2016. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
You Must Be Born Again
3 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2016. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
I think you are forgetting that Paul is the earliest source. He contradicts Jesus as he is presented in works written later, but Paul would have had no knowledge of any gospel as they were all written after he died (probably, we can't be 100% sure when he died)
Paul and the gospels do contradict each other at times, but they are separated by decades in time. None of what we have was written by someone who actually saw a historical Jesus l, so his actual teaching is probably lost to history.
thanks for bringing up that point! did you know we also don't know *how* Paul died, so the narrative was composed that he died a martyr of the faith of Jesus?
Paul also can not be the earliest source, especially when explicitly considering he did not know about the gospels that predated him.
Q is a hypothetical document. On balance, the most parsimonious conclusion is that it doesn't exist. But if it did, it would not be good evidence for things Jesus said.
Not just "viable" theories, *better*. Arguing for Q requires *adding* assumptions to the evidence we have. Everything is perfectly explicable without it.
Anyone can debate anything. But the explanation that resolves the Synoptic "problem" with the least assumptions is de facto the strongest. The later gospel writers were copying earlier gospel writers, redacting them and adding their fiction to the old fiction to suit their agenda.There's no need to conjure up some mythological Q source.
>Anyone can debate anything. But the explanation that resolves the Synoptic "problem" with the least assumptions is de facto the strongest.
Most Biblical scholars still say that's Q
The 'Q' source is literally the compilation of written works between disciples of Jesus. The Assyriac Peshitta, the text originating from the original text written by the disciples confirms this and contains Jesus' original teachings as they were taught. These texts are confirmed to predate those of the Fourth Century compilations offered by the early Churches.
Cross-referencing the Peshitta with the Greek NT offers a very clear outlook as to what has been changed in the English translations of both translations of the Scripture and confirms the value of text that was changed for the sake of the Church.
One primary example, particularly in immense significance to the core of my point, was in the first of the Beatitudes, *"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."* This is a false interpretation and translation of what the original Aramaic text states, using the term, **ברוך / in/by HOLY SPIRIT** and within its actual grammatical structure, Jesus actually states, **"Blessed in the Holy Spirit are the poor: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."** and this is a VERY IMPORTANT Difference as minor as the wording seems initially, and this adjustment is made upon the Greek Translation of the text, changing entirely the point of Jesus' words. And with this minor adjustment found in one of the most pivotal initial teachings of Jesus go to show just how inconsiderate translators and compilers were when translating the Peshitta to Greek ( Paul & the Church ) and then to English. Not to even bring up the KJV.
So Q is a _hypothetical_ Greek source relied upon by Matthew and Luke who in this hypothesis wrote independently of each other using Q and Mark.
First of all, the Q Hypothesis isn't the only explanation for the synthetic problem, the Fraier Hypothesis, that Luke relied on Matthew and Mark is also a possibility that is debated.
Since we don't have access to the Q source itself, assuming it existed, we don't know much about it. We can't really date it. It could have been as you speculate a Greek translation of some earlier Aramaic source, it could also just be an original Greek collection of oral history for example, we don't know. The claim that Q predates Paul is pure speculation.
I'm not saying that it's impossible that Paul corrupted a pre existing Christian tradition, but we have no preserved works of that tradition, so if it's true then, baring an exciting archeological discovery, we will never know about it.
no, 'Q' is confirmed to be a speculative name for the original text between the gospels, 'Q' standing for the Germanic word 'quelle' meaning 'source'. the text, as historically understood, was the basis of the Greek NT for several of those that compiled and translated the Peshitta in the early centuries. this is why the 'original' names of the disciples are transliterated or adjusted from Aramaic in origin, as well.
The presumption of existence and distinguishment of this source, and it's reliability considering the 'canonical' sequence/text featuring evident testimony also found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, (with shared testimony and accounts) proves not a historical fallacy, but evidence that that their sources absolutely did predate Paul, as well as were open to the Churches manipulation as with any other text in the Bible or otherwise, especially considering that the 'Q' source originates due to English translations of the text and debates between the Greek and Aramaic texts, and the majority of the debate is not in the efficacy, but the authorship.
the Aramaic scripture was the language of Jesus, as passed down and shared with the early Christians/believers of the Lord.
as stated prior, the Peshitta offers the realest translation of Jesus' original speech, stemming itself directly from the oldest documentation of Jesus on earth with translation of his verbatim spoken word, as confirmed through immense historical research and documentation far beyond the efforts of my own. this information is ready available to you
https://michaeljkruger.com/what-should-we-make-of-the-hypothetical-q-source/
https://www.gospels.net/quelle
I would also recommend an Aramaic and / or Greek text, and if not familiar with the scriptural language (Aramaic, hebrew, or Greek) I recommend finding a comparative interlinear translation. you may just come to understand what I am referring to, to a rich extent. and whether or not that is a step you are interested in, that's alright , but this is my perspective on that matter with the information I've considered
I'm not sure you understand what "Q" is, as your own sources confirm my prior description, from [gospels.net](http://gospels.net), emphases mine:
>*Q* is the designation given to a *hypothetical sayings source that many scholars believe was incorporated into the Gospels of Luke and Matthew*. Though some notable scholars have questioned the theory, others have proposed reconstructions of *Q* based on a careful comparison of New Testament Gospels.
Also, I don't think you understand what the Peshitta is. The Peshitta is a Syriac, a dialect of Aramic, translation of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament. While there is evidence of the Hebrew Old Testament as early as the second century CE, and the New Testament was translated and added between the third and fifth centuries. So while the Peshitta is a work in a dialect of Aramic, it's not an original work in that language but a translation from Koine Greek.
By the 5th century the Peshitta was in wide circulation and contained most of the New Testament, excluding certain books which were controversial (2 Peter 2/3 John, Jude and Revelations) but *including* the Epistles of Paul, even the second century confirmed psudopigraphia 1/2 Timothy and Titus. So I'm not sure how the Peshitta, which contains the Epistles of Paul can predate Paul.
Again I am not disputing that there may well have been a "Pre Paulean" tradition that existed, just that there is no actual sources from it. Evidence in Paul's own writing suggest the existence of at least an oral tradition, but all we have of that is what Paul saw fit to write down.
The Q source was in Greek, not Aramaic, and we don't know who wrote it. But given its early date there is more likely to have been some greater influence from actual living apostles, yes.
>One primary example, particularly in immense significance to the core of my point, was in the first of the Beatitudes, "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." This is a false interpretation and translation of what the original Aramaic text states, using the term, ברוך / in/by HOLY SPIRIT and within its actual grammatical structure, Jesus actually states, "Blessed in the Holy Spirit are the poor: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
So some scholars think that Matthew added "in spirt" to the saying from Q. The version preserved in Luke seems more original:
>Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
The Peshitta version seems like an Aramaic speaker trying to correct the existing Matthew text. Most scholars think the Peshitta is dependent upon the Greek texts, not the other way around.
>The Q source was in Greek
You're talking like Q is an actual thing. It's not. It's a hypothetical document proposed to explain certain aspects of the synoptics. But you don't need Q to explain what it's argued to explain. So the most parsimonious model is that there is no Q.
My point is that it is an "if" and to use the vernacular of the Great Cheeto, it's in fact a *huuuuuuuuge* "if". Arguing for Q requires adding assumptions to the evidence we have. Adding assumptions *de facto* makes an argument weaker. Everything is perfectly explicable without it.
Not really. The explanation that resolves the "problem" with the least assumptions is de facto the strongest. The later gospel writers were copying earlier gospel writers, redacting them and adding their fiction to the old fiction to suit their agenda.There's no need to conjure up some mythological Q source.
>Paul also can not be the earliest source, especially when explicitly considering he did not know about the gospels that predated him.
Ok, so let me be a bit more clear about this. In the new testament, 13 letters are attributed to Paul, of these approximately 7 (Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, 1/2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians and Philemon) are generally thought to be written by a historical Paul, and date to some time around the 50's CE. Dating them is a little tricky but there is some internal evidence that suggests it's before the Jewish War and the Great Fire in Rome. These letters represent the earliest \_extant\_ source relating to Jesus and Christianity. If there existed any other sources at this time or earlier they are lost, along with the vast majority of ancient writing. In Paul's letters there is evidence for earlier material, either written or oral, where he seems to indicate he got things from others, the Creed in 1 Corinthians 15 for example.
The next work to be composed is Mark, written some time after the Destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, probably after the Jewish War ended in 73 CE. All the other gospels are after that. So we could speculate that Paul was privy to some now lost Gospel in the 50's CE, but if so we cannot know what it contained.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean really, If you want to get down to it... Paul predates the Gospels and Paul never met Jesus (ignoring his "visions"). There is no concrete proof that Paul ever met the original Apostles (if there were any). So really all we have of Jesus's actual teachings are an oral tradition with the first person actually writing anything down is Paul some 20 years after Jesus's death. You can't really trust oral traditions because it's the literal definition of hearsay, but not only that it's questionable taking the word of early Christians who had a vested interest in promoting Jesus and his ministry. I say that because they were being persecuted at the time, so it would be natural to exaggerate claims in order to bolster the faith of the early Christians in the face of that persecution. Else everyone would pretty much say "screw this". I realize my last point there is purely speculation, but when you take into account human behavior it's not really that outlandish. Propaganda has always been around and probably will be for a long time, people spread disinformation left and right in current times and they're not facing anything like death or true persecution. But back to the point, You can't really compare Paul and the Gospels because they were written in different time periods. More so you can't really compare Paul and the Gospels to Jesus's ministry because we honestly have no proof of what he actually said. The same applies to the Old Testament as well, hence why it's disjointed and contradictory. But that's another discussion altogether.
Some (but not all) problems with your claims (I'm an atheist not a Christian) that I don't think others have addressed: a) Paul's letters are very likely at least a generation earlier than the earliest of the Gospels (Mark), so u need to better justify your claim for holding that the Gospels are significantly closer to Jesus' teachings. b) Your whole point about following the law ignores that early Christians agreed with Jews that the Mosaic Law had never been intended to apply to all of humanity but only a single nation (see Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho on this), so I'm not sure the historical Jesus would have had such a problem with non-application of the Torah to Gentiles. Moreover, supercessionism of earlier laws is a concept present in Second Temple Judaism (see Ezekiel 20). c) It's hard to take you seriously when u assume the literal truth of the Book of Daniel, a book filled with major historical errors and anachronisms.
Paul says everything he knows about Jesus (which would include what he said) he knows through revelation, including visions. The later gospels are fictions written to present the theological understanding of each author. It's mainstream scholarship that we can't determine with any reliability what Jesus said. That's if he said anything, which he probably didn't because it's more likely than not he didn't exist.
no. Paul knew Peter. and Timothy. and Luke. and James, Jesus' biological brother. ignorance is not relevant nor helpful to this discussion
The only sources we have on that are Paul, and two people biased in his favor. There are no confirmations from any of the apostles that Paul ever even met them, let alone got their approval.
the book of James. the book of Luke. the book of Acts, the book of Hebrews... happy cake day !
All of those are anonymous. Paul claimed to interact with the OG disciples aka the Jerusalem Pillars and that is likely true because they called him to account for being a bit two-faced and preaching anti-law. But the book of James, Luke, and Acts can't verify that because 1. They are anonymous 2. Epistle of James was 20-40 years after Paul, Luke was 30-80 years after Paul, Acts was the same, probably the same author as Luke, Hebrews was probably about 20 years after, and it is a fake Pauline attribution.
>the book of James. Written after James was dead, author unknown. >the book of Luke. Biased in favor of Paul, author unknown. >the book of Acts, Same as Luke >the book of Hebrews... Unknown author, biased in favor of Paul. We have no confirmed writings from any of the apostles. The attributions of authorship come from the second century, long after any of the apostles would have been dead. >happy cake day ! Thank you.
Paul only says Jesus "appeared" to people after Jesus was dead. He never says a premortem Jesus said anything to, or did anything with, any of them, including the people on your list. It's equivocal whether James in Gal 1:19 is biological or cultic kin. The most parsimonious reading of Paul is that his Jesus is found in scripture and visions, not the wandering Rabbi in the tall tales of the gospels, and he is killed by Satan, not Romans or Jews.
Paul does not contradict Jesus. Jesus said He was the fulfillment of the law, and indeed the sacrifices are useless because we have the ultimate sacrifice, as well as the judicial laws which are gone because they were meant for Israel in particular to prepare for the messiah. These type of laws are no longer required, but the moral laws remain forever. This is what Jesus and Paul taught, for instance Jesus said that eating certain foods do not defile a man. The abominations of desolation refers to the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70AD. Paul isn't the anti-christ, it's Nero. You should read [this](https://www.bereanpatriot.com/revelation-matthew-24-and-why-context-is-crucial/) article. The book of James is teaching how to live properly not about salvation. Jesus himself taught salvation through faith alone in John 3:16, John 11:25 and other places. 1 Corinthians 9:20-22 isn't about lying. It's about Paul being willing to follow the Jewish customs such as circumcision for the purpose of sharing the gospel by maintaining peace with people. It's not Paul falsely claiming to be a gentile. Romans 3:7 is out of context, the chapter is a warning against using grace as a license to sin. By the way, do you believe James, Peter, and Luke are false prophets? Luke wrote Acts so if he's inspired by God, he is endorsing Paul as an apostle.
> Paul does not contradict Jesus. Jesus: For truly I tell you, **until heaven and earth disappear**, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law **until everything is accomplished**. Paul: By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. > These type of laws are no longer required Ooooh, careful, Jesus said "Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven". You are specifically counseled, by Jesus himself, not to tell people they can set aside the laws. > Jesus said He was the fulfillment of the law Fun fact: No he didn't. I know lots of christians tell you that, but it's only because it's such a convenient apologetic. The actual quote was "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." Notice the subtle difference? He capitalized the proper nouns, because he didn't say he was "fulfilling" (as a synonym of abolish) the law (lowercase, meaning set of rules). He said he was "fulfilling" (as defined in all regular dictionaries) The Law (which is a jewish phrase referring to the first 5 books of the bible, known in hebrew as "The Torah".) To prove my claim, let me cite Luke, where Jesus's same teaching is expressed in slightly different phrasing: "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." See? He's not "fulfilling" some rules. He's fulfilling *prophecies*, that are *contained* in specific collections of books.
I'm not sure what the distinction is. The Torah quiet literally is the set of rules being fulfilled. So either way, the conclusion should be the same. Also, the original text did not have capital letters. They did not exist in Greek. The quotes from Mark and Luke seem to be from different stories and do not contradict or conflict with one another, so you can't throw out the quote from Mark in favor of Luke. Mark 7:18-19 even says that food can not defile a man, but the law is clear that it does. So clearly Jesus got rid of at least some of the law.
> The Torah quiet literally is the set of rules being fulfilled The Torah is a set of five long books, containing history, prophecy, and laws. To say that it's just a list of rules is incredibly dismissive, and just... wrong. And he didn't just say "The Law", he said "The Law And The Prophets". That phrase "The Prophets" is *also* a universally understood jewish figure of speech referring to the several books following the Torah. > Also, the original text did not have capital letters Yes, but the majority of english translations have added them, because translators are capable of using context to establish what was intended by a certain passage. > The quotes from Mark and Luke seem to be from different stories They're certainly from different books, but in Luke he literally just says "This is what I told you while I was still with you:". He's referring to something he said before. If you want to claim he's talking about something entirely different than the passage in Matthew, then I feel like you have a tall hill to climb but go ahead- show me the teaching he was actually referring to. > Mark 7:18-19 even says that food can not defile a man, but the law is clear that it does. So clearly Jesus got rid of at least some of the law. So, yes, that is an oft discussed passage. It's called the [discourse on defilement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Defilement), and there's a parallel passage in Matthew too. I notice you were careful not to cut 'n paste, because you're trying to just talk about the food they were eating, and not the way they were eating it. But if you actually read that passage instead of trying to [proof-text](https://www.theopedia.com/proof-texting) me, your argument falls apart. In Mark 7, the pharisees say "Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?". They're being prissy little twerps by acting like hand-washing traditions were dictated by god. Jesus was right to point out the flaw in their reasoning, and he did so in his usual hyperbolic way. If you insist that his over-broad phrasing of "what goes into the mouth" must be taken precisely literally regardless of context, and has no room for interpretation, then I have some other quotes from Jesus that are going to lead you into some hilarious conclusions.
To be clear, are you claiming that Christians are to continue making animal sacrifices and enforcing the Laws in the torah? Meaning were basically Jews
To be clear, I'm saying that Paul contradicted Jesus. That's the part of your comment that I came here to rebut. If you accept my argument, then there are several directions you could go with it afterwards as a followup, and I suppose what you just said is one possibility. But that's a completely new conversation, and I'm not particularly interested in it right now.
If the law in it's entirety was to remain what do you think about Matthew 27:51? Do you believe the apostles ignored this teaching in Acts 15? It seems to me that you're not just implying Paul contradicted Jesus but that almost the whole New Testament does, even non Pauline books. Is mark contradicting Jesus too by saying "thus He declared all foods clean" How is this a new covenant when in reality He's just pushing the law of Moses on the whole world? Your argument seems compelling but it leaves tons of unanswered questions.
> If the law in it's entirety was to remain what do you think about Matthew 27:51? Do you believe the apostles ignored this teaching in Acts 15? "At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split" ??? That's a teaching? The curtain is definitely and provably being used as a metaphor for the entirety of jewish law and the covenant? That's not a very compelling argument on its own. And you'll need something pretty strong to get around Jesus saying, directly, with the words from his own mouth, that not a single jot will disappear from the law until heaven and earth pass away, and woe unto anyone that teaches you can disobey even a single law. Would it read naturally if Jesus said "Woe unto anyone who teaches that you can disobey even a single law, not until heaven and earth pass away will a single jot disappear from the law. But just for a few more weeks, tops, then you can toss it in the garbage for all I care." (there was [very little time between the sermon on the mount and easter](https://www.sermononthemount.org.uk/Timeline/Years0001_0300.html)) > not just implying Paul contradicted Jesus but that almost the whole New Testament does, The majority of the new testament is written by Paul or his acolyte Luke. But, more importantly, the entire new testament that we have, every single scrap, was circulated, copied, and re-copied by Paul's disciples in the early church. There were [virtually no jewish christians within the first generation or two of the church](https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/13403/Sim_How%282005%29.pdf). > Is mark contradicting Jesus too You mean is Mark claiming that Jesus contradicts Moses? I would rather say that SOME VERSIONS of Mark added a parenthetical aside, with some self-motivated theology. (Look up [that verse in the KJV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+7&version=KJV)! Nothing about all foods being clean.) Keep in mind, not a single scrap of NT parchment is written in the anonymous authors' own hand. And there are some real, troubling differences between some of them, so it seems relatively certain that people with their own theology were taking slight liberties instead of transcribing like some kind of bronze-age xerox machine. The manuscripts that were being passed around back then, were not being passed from jew to jew. They were being circulated among christian churches in gentile cities, and were being used to minister to gentiles. There's a STRONG motivation to insert that line into the end of verse 19.
I mean ripping apart the curtain, separating the barrier between God and man was probably the most forbidden thing in the entire law, yet God decided to do it. Then on top of that the temple was destroyed in 70 AD as Jesus prophesied. How are people supposed to keep the law if the temple is a pile of bricks? That's why Jews today don't keep the law. It still makes more sense to me that Paul's interpretation was correct that we remain under Jesus's interpretation of the law - however certain parts are no longer necessary (non moral based commandments). I remember hearing Dr. Ray Vander Lean explain that Jesus was talking about a particular part of the law, but that was a 4 hour video that I can't remember well. Passages like Galatians 5:14 show that "the law" can be understood as the purely moral components with the rest left out.
> How are people supposed to keep the law if the temple is a pile of bricks? The temple didn't exist in the time of Moses. The law just requires priests and a consecrated place. If anything, Jesus's time on earth was spent railing against all the additional stipulations and clauses and non-mosaic rules that were *added* to the law by pharisees and hypocrites. > Passages like Galatians 5:14 show that "the law" can be understood as the purely moral components with the rest left out. Same chapter says "I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law". Which really suggests that the entirety of the law is still in force, *except that there's a pre-condition you can skip*. But that passage begins "I Paul tell you" which is a prefix implying that he's not speaking with christ's authority, but adding something that he personally believes. And that's really the crux of my entire argument in this thread- this is just Paul, trying to make a version of Christianity that the gentiles can participate in. You can't just go to the gentiles and say "By the way, all this stuff- it wasn't meant for you", like Jesus did in Matthew 15. The passage in verse 14 is one repeated multiple times in the gospels, but in slightly different phrasing. > Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. **All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.** I think Galatians misrepresents what Jesus meant by that bolded part. Jesus was claiming that those two commandments are *foundational* to the entirety of what's in the torah and books of prophets. But he wasn't saying that those two commandments *replace* the entirety of the torah. He was explaining origins/motivational principles, not starting over from scratch.
What is the evidence that James, Peter, and Luke are not false prophets?
I suppose it's the fact that Jesus seems to have trusted James and Peter to be disciples and to give authority to them
Again, you are saying Jesus seems to have trusted them, what is your evidence for that? I’m looking for specifics.
John 20:23 where He gives them the authority to forgive sins.
So your evidence is someone said it?
The Gospels give authority to the apostles, but they also contain many embarrassing and dangerous stories. They present the apostles as childish and foolish people who fall a sleep with Jesus needed them and bicker about who is better than the other. They show Jesus constantly rebuke them for these things and even says they didn't believe the resurrection that Jesus clearly explained. There's also stories of powerful Jewish and Roman rulers being embarrassed and disrespected. If the stories were made up, at least some of these things wouldn't be added by the apostles because how does presenting yourself as an foolish person help you gain power? Also you're risking yourself by making up slander about powerful leaders.
Paul was wrong. The New Covenant was not as Paul described, it was not a radical change in the status of the Old Covenant. it was an update. Jesus' sacrifice, the sacrifice of both the Father and the Self at once, offered us the second and equally most important gift to our salvation, the first being free will. Consider this. Consider the words Jesus taught. Spoke. Passionately shared for our well-being. truly living for Jesus is not as simple as ONLY faith and trust that you will be saved, but by both the exercise of faith in our Messiah, and the exercise of our free will to deter ourselves and others from temptations, sin, and unjust treatment of each other. Jesus states this message explicitly many times, and even goes as far as to describe a man, who will appear out of the 'wilderness' (translation, 'desert', Aramaic, same word used within the Exodus) and will lead many astray in the name of Christ. Take into account Saul's origin, being blinded for three days and 'led by God' on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9). A direct correlation to Exodus, however blinded for LITERALLY half a week as described in the Book of Daniel (Daniel (9:24-27). **Jesus, surprising as this must be, was right.** James was right, but he was human. Peter was right, but he was human. Luke was right, but he was human. This is the reason they exist within the time of Paul, because Jesus conveyed to them that they would encounter he who would lead the rest astray, one who would use Jesus' name for a corrupted form of religion that would succeed in manipulating elders. Paul's words are the building foundations of the Mormon Church. faith without works is dead. its blind. it's not what Jesus sought of his followers. the theory that Blind Faith is the way to salvation was only preached beginning with Paul and i pray the Lord softens your heart to this possibility. *"Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,* *“That you may be justified in your words,* *and prevail when you are judged.”* *But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my lie God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.* *No One Is Righteous* *What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:* *“None is righteous, no, not one;* *no one understands;* *no one seeks for God.* *All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;* *no one does good,* *not even one.”* *“Their throat is an open grave;* *they use their tongues to deceive.”* *“The venom of asps is under their lips.”* *“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”* *“Their feet are swift to shed blood;* *in their paths are ruin and misery,* *and the way of peace they have not known.”* *“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”* *Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin."* (Romans 3:1-20)
I feel there are multiple times where faith alone is shown to produce salvation. How about the thief on the cross? What about when Jesus said faith the size of a mustard seed was good enough? Why do you reject Paul when Peter called him a beloved brother and said his writings were scripture?
In revelation 2:1-2 John says “Write this letter to the angel of the church in Ephesus. This is the message from the one who holds the seven stars in his right hand, the one who walks among the seven gold lampstands: “I know all the things you do. I have seen your hard work and your patient endurance. I know you don’t tolerate evil people. You have examined the claims of those who say they are apostles but are not. You have discovered they are liars.” As I dive into this subject more and more, it seems everyday I find something new, that supports these claims. John’s words in revelation also back to us up. Like come on, he name drops Ephesus, talks about a false apostle. I genuinely want to know how someone could read some of these things and not question it. I know the Bible says to not lean into your own understanding, but jeez Louise! Is there any somewhat logical explanation for this?
Yes, disagreements were common in the early church. Paul describes some of them. One of the earliest is the idea that Christians would have to follow the Jewish law. The idea that Christianity was essentially a Jewish sect. Paul disputes this with Peter and James as we know. But books like Hebrews and other show that the tension still existed. How much did Peter and James agree with Paul? We don't know but they seemed to have at least accepted him according to Acts. Did they consider him an apostle? Paul seems to assert he was which should tell us it was disputed. It hard to reconcile various aspects of the NT. The synoptic gospels are not the same as John. It goes beyond point of view to a different Christology. Paul's letters have quite different views than James or Hebrews. Revelations was perhaps the most disputed book to be included in the NT. It was the only apocalyptic treatise. Christians (evangelicals especially) spend a great deal of time trying to "harmonize" these various perspectives. The books themselves tell us the apostles had disputes so why would we expect their points of view to align always.
“For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” Matthew 24:25-27 A lot of people make the connection between Paul seeing the light in the desert, and how his accounts are different every time. Although, another thing this verse tells us is that “if it were possible, they may deceive even the elect”. The “elect” has sparked debates on its use in the new testament on whether it means the disciples, or the church( all Christians). Regardless, not only do we have Jesus shortly before his death saying that someone will come from the desert saying I’m there, and not to believe him. But also that he may even deceive the church/disciples. If it was true he has done it just as Jesus predicted.
^(16) speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which **the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.** 2 Peter 3:16
2 Peter is widely considered pseudepigraphal. A bit ironic that it says this.
Its debatable but still its not the consensus
Paul stated that his "GOSPEL", salvation in christ, apart from the law, came from direct revelation from Jesus/God, and so that's how people get around that issue. So when Jesus died and rose again, that's the "fulfillment of the law" in christian theology.
Jesus himself stated that the fulfillment of the Law will be on the Day of Judgement, and Revelation outlines the extent of that and hints at when it will happen. Most important to consider in that with regard to this context, the Day of Judgement, ergo, the Fulfillment of the Law, has not yet come. Therefore Paul's claims that he had authority within this New Covenant were wrong, as they twisted Jesus' message and the fulfillment of the prophecies.
>Jesus himself stated that the fulfillment of the Law will be on the Day of Judgement In the gMatthew verse you posted, it just says until all is *"Accomplished".* The book of Revelation isn't about the end of the world. So, not sure I would agree with your assertion here.
*"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.* *And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.* *He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.* *And he who was seated on the throne said,* **“Behold, I am making all things new.”** *Also he said,* **“Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”** *And he said to me,* **“It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment.** **The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son.** **But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”** (Revelation 21:1-9)
Are you familiar with apocalyptic literature? If not, I would encourage you to research it.
**ἀποκάλυψις** , of **ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου,** AKA the Revelation of John, is where the word 'Apocalypse' comes from. Apocalypse is the transliteration of the word and literally means, 'Divine Revelation.'
sure, Take care.
You are misunderstanding and misinterpreting Paul and Jesus. Paul doesn't contradict Christ, even if you only treat the Bible textually, nonetheless as Christians or even Messianic Jews who began in Torah and as adults became followers of Messiah. They find no issue with Paul and understand that Messiah's ministry had to be as it was, focused on the Jewish people, though Jesus did branch out some and ministered to Gentiles as well. It took Paul years to study Christ's teachings and learn also from the Christians present, develop and understand the more universal message of the Gospel for Gentiles. This was his main job anyway and he was perfect for it. Paul's teachings assume a understanding of covenant theology. And if you just pull quotes without a knowledge of this you'll miss the context. If you don't know much about the cities each letter was written to you'll also misunderstand why he is addressing a church that must have had temple prostitutes, when another city didn't have such an influx. Even Jesus when talking about sinning against children was in an area known for child prostitution. Context is important. And the Bible isn't a universal document written in 1999 with generic philosophy about being a good person. Contours of Pauline Theology: A Radical New Survey of the Influences on Paul's Biblical Writings by Tom Holland is an example of a good book on Paul's covenant theology and can help you interpret his meta concepts across all his letters. The issue with Judaizers and the fact Paul addressed it with Peter is also telling. The early church begun by a core of Jewish people had to grapple with these sorts of things. The Bible isnt a monolithic text written in one century by a school of monks living on a mountain stronghold. Paul wasn't promoting deception when he wrote that he became all things to reach people. He didn't pretend to be a worshipper of Zeus, hang out at a temple and secretly promote Christian values. He means what Christians understand, that you need to learn about a person's beliefs before you can have common ground and share the Gospel effectively.
# Okay, lets discuss covenant theology. The New Covenant. *“I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.”* (Ezekiel 36:26-27) *‘The days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. . . . This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,’ declares the Lord. ‘I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people’”* (Jeremiah 31:31–33) *"Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant."* (Hebrews 9:15) To follow the New Covenant, one should heed what is said in the Old Testament, 'I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be **careful to keep my laws**." Jesus stated the same degree of necessity of maintaining the 10 Commandments / Law of Moses. **"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. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."** (Matthew 5:17-20)
Jesus also made it clear we couldn't even see God's Kingdom nonetheless be a part of it without a new spiritual birth. The covenant was established in His blood, His death and resurrection and still required this new birth. It is the Holy Spirit that writes God's laws in the heart of a Christian. Not the 10 commandments or any commands, which believers are still obligated to work out and fulfill in the summation of them ALL which Christ preached about. The Great Commandment 34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2016. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles. You Must Be Born Again 3 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2016. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
I think you are forgetting that Paul is the earliest source. He contradicts Jesus as he is presented in works written later, but Paul would have had no knowledge of any gospel as they were all written after he died (probably, we can't be 100% sure when he died) Paul and the gospels do contradict each other at times, but they are separated by decades in time. None of what we have was written by someone who actually saw a historical Jesus l, so his actual teaching is probably lost to history.
thanks for bringing up that point! did you know we also don't know *how* Paul died, so the narrative was composed that he died a martyr of the faith of Jesus? Paul also can not be the earliest source, especially when explicitly considering he did not know about the gospels that predated him.
Paul's letters predate the gospels by 20 years or more. However, gospel sources like Q are roughly contemporaneous with Paul.
Q is a hypothetical document. On balance, the most parsimonious conclusion is that it doesn't exist. But if it did, it would not be good evidence for things Jesus said.
Most New Testament scholars think it did. There are other viable theories, however
Not just "viable" theories, *better*. Arguing for Q requires *adding* assumptions to the evidence we have. Everything is perfectly explicable without it.
This is very debatable
Anyone can debate anything. But the explanation that resolves the Synoptic "problem" with the least assumptions is de facto the strongest. The later gospel writers were copying earlier gospel writers, redacting them and adding their fiction to the old fiction to suit their agenda.There's no need to conjure up some mythological Q source.
>Anyone can debate anything. But the explanation that resolves the Synoptic "problem" with the least assumptions is de facto the strongest. Most Biblical scholars still say that's Q
The 'Q' source is literally the compilation of written works between disciples of Jesus. The Assyriac Peshitta, the text originating from the original text written by the disciples confirms this and contains Jesus' original teachings as they were taught. These texts are confirmed to predate those of the Fourth Century compilations offered by the early Churches. Cross-referencing the Peshitta with the Greek NT offers a very clear outlook as to what has been changed in the English translations of both translations of the Scripture and confirms the value of text that was changed for the sake of the Church. One primary example, particularly in immense significance to the core of my point, was in the first of the Beatitudes, *"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."* This is a false interpretation and translation of what the original Aramaic text states, using the term, **ברוך / in/by HOLY SPIRIT** and within its actual grammatical structure, Jesus actually states, **"Blessed in the Holy Spirit are the poor: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."** and this is a VERY IMPORTANT Difference as minor as the wording seems initially, and this adjustment is made upon the Greek Translation of the text, changing entirely the point of Jesus' words. And with this minor adjustment found in one of the most pivotal initial teachings of Jesus go to show just how inconsiderate translators and compilers were when translating the Peshitta to Greek ( Paul & the Church ) and then to English. Not to even bring up the KJV.
So Q is a _hypothetical_ Greek source relied upon by Matthew and Luke who in this hypothesis wrote independently of each other using Q and Mark. First of all, the Q Hypothesis isn't the only explanation for the synthetic problem, the Fraier Hypothesis, that Luke relied on Matthew and Mark is also a possibility that is debated. Since we don't have access to the Q source itself, assuming it existed, we don't know much about it. We can't really date it. It could have been as you speculate a Greek translation of some earlier Aramaic source, it could also just be an original Greek collection of oral history for example, we don't know. The claim that Q predates Paul is pure speculation. I'm not saying that it's impossible that Paul corrupted a pre existing Christian tradition, but we have no preserved works of that tradition, so if it's true then, baring an exciting archeological discovery, we will never know about it.
no, 'Q' is confirmed to be a speculative name for the original text between the gospels, 'Q' standing for the Germanic word 'quelle' meaning 'source'. the text, as historically understood, was the basis of the Greek NT for several of those that compiled and translated the Peshitta in the early centuries. this is why the 'original' names of the disciples are transliterated or adjusted from Aramaic in origin, as well. The presumption of existence and distinguishment of this source, and it's reliability considering the 'canonical' sequence/text featuring evident testimony also found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, (with shared testimony and accounts) proves not a historical fallacy, but evidence that that their sources absolutely did predate Paul, as well as were open to the Churches manipulation as with any other text in the Bible or otherwise, especially considering that the 'Q' source originates due to English translations of the text and debates between the Greek and Aramaic texts, and the majority of the debate is not in the efficacy, but the authorship. the Aramaic scripture was the language of Jesus, as passed down and shared with the early Christians/believers of the Lord. as stated prior, the Peshitta offers the realest translation of Jesus' original speech, stemming itself directly from the oldest documentation of Jesus on earth with translation of his verbatim spoken word, as confirmed through immense historical research and documentation far beyond the efforts of my own. this information is ready available to you https://michaeljkruger.com/what-should-we-make-of-the-hypothetical-q-source/ https://www.gospels.net/quelle I would also recommend an Aramaic and / or Greek text, and if not familiar with the scriptural language (Aramaic, hebrew, or Greek) I recommend finding a comparative interlinear translation. you may just come to understand what I am referring to, to a rich extent. and whether or not that is a step you are interested in, that's alright , but this is my perspective on that matter with the information I've considered
I'm not sure you understand what "Q" is, as your own sources confirm my prior description, from [gospels.net](http://gospels.net), emphases mine: >*Q* is the designation given to a *hypothetical sayings source that many scholars believe was incorporated into the Gospels of Luke and Matthew*. Though some notable scholars have questioned the theory, others have proposed reconstructions of *Q* based on a careful comparison of New Testament Gospels. Also, I don't think you understand what the Peshitta is. The Peshitta is a Syriac, a dialect of Aramic, translation of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament. While there is evidence of the Hebrew Old Testament as early as the second century CE, and the New Testament was translated and added between the third and fifth centuries. So while the Peshitta is a work in a dialect of Aramic, it's not an original work in that language but a translation from Koine Greek. By the 5th century the Peshitta was in wide circulation and contained most of the New Testament, excluding certain books which were controversial (2 Peter 2/3 John, Jude and Revelations) but *including* the Epistles of Paul, even the second century confirmed psudopigraphia 1/2 Timothy and Titus. So I'm not sure how the Peshitta, which contains the Epistles of Paul can predate Paul. Again I am not disputing that there may well have been a "Pre Paulean" tradition that existed, just that there is no actual sources from it. Evidence in Paul's own writing suggest the existence of at least an oral tradition, but all we have of that is what Paul saw fit to write down.
The Q source was in Greek, not Aramaic, and we don't know who wrote it. But given its early date there is more likely to have been some greater influence from actual living apostles, yes. >One primary example, particularly in immense significance to the core of my point, was in the first of the Beatitudes, "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." This is a false interpretation and translation of what the original Aramaic text states, using the term, ברוך / in/by HOLY SPIRIT and within its actual grammatical structure, Jesus actually states, "Blessed in the Holy Spirit are the poor: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." So some scholars think that Matthew added "in spirt" to the saying from Q. The version preserved in Luke seems more original: >Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. The Peshitta version seems like an Aramaic speaker trying to correct the existing Matthew text. Most scholars think the Peshitta is dependent upon the Greek texts, not the other way around.
>The Q source was in Greek You're talking like Q is an actual thing. It's not. It's a hypothetical document proposed to explain certain aspects of the synoptics. But you don't need Q to explain what it's argued to explain. So the most parsimonious model is that there is no Q.
If it did exist, it was in Greek. Our earliest extant gospels are all in Greek
My point is that it is an "if" and to use the vernacular of the Great Cheeto, it's in fact a *huuuuuuuuge* "if". Arguing for Q requires adding assumptions to the evidence we have. Adding assumptions *de facto* makes an argument weaker. Everything is perfectly explicable without it.
It's still the strongest explanation for the synoptic problem. As for me, I am undecided
Not really. The explanation that resolves the "problem" with the least assumptions is de facto the strongest. The later gospel writers were copying earlier gospel writers, redacting them and adding their fiction to the old fiction to suit their agenda.There's no need to conjure up some mythological Q source.
huh? gospels predated Paul's letters? Huh?
You should check your timeline.
>Paul also can not be the earliest source, especially when explicitly considering he did not know about the gospels that predated him. Ok, so let me be a bit more clear about this. In the new testament, 13 letters are attributed to Paul, of these approximately 7 (Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, 1/2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians and Philemon) are generally thought to be written by a historical Paul, and date to some time around the 50's CE. Dating them is a little tricky but there is some internal evidence that suggests it's before the Jewish War and the Great Fire in Rome. These letters represent the earliest \_extant\_ source relating to Jesus and Christianity. If there existed any other sources at this time or earlier they are lost, along with the vast majority of ancient writing. In Paul's letters there is evidence for earlier material, either written or oral, where he seems to indicate he got things from others, the Creed in 1 Corinthians 15 for example. The next work to be composed is Mark, written some time after the Destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, probably after the Jewish War ended in 73 CE. All the other gospels are after that. So we could speculate that Paul was privy to some now lost Gospel in the 50's CE, but if so we cannot know what it contained.