Many seem to deny that the message of the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry is something very different from the message of the gospel preached by Paul.
Following are excerpts from an article that speak to this issue:
Although we now know that the redemptive work of Christ’s death and resurrection is the crux of our message of salvation for today, we must be careful not to read into Jesus’ ministry what is not there.
We would search in vain for a clear presentation of the preaching of the cross in the ministry of Jesus and the disciples in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John...
Jesus did not preach his redemptive work on the cross for salvation during his ministry on earth. Instead, Jesus taught the gospel of the coming kingdom (Mark 1:14-15).
This gospel consisted of repentance from sin, doing the commandments, and seeking first the kingdom (Matt 5:19, 6:33). Although these ideas are commonly recognized as good and Biblical ideas, none of them include faith in the redemptive work of Christ on the cross.
It was the specific message of the gospel of the kingdom that Jesus limited his ministry...
It may be supposed that although Jesus talked a lot about the kingdom, that he still taught faith in his death on the cross for justification unto life. However, again, the Scriptures show us otherwise...
Jesus came to a specific people, to preach a specific message, and to die a specific death. What can not be found in his exclusive ministry is salvation from the preaching of the cross...
http://graceambassadors.com/salvation/did-jesus-preach-the-cross-for-salvation
The following excerpts from an interview explaining at a higher level what is going on with Evangelicals:
Evangelicals have grown up with a gospel, and that gospel has become their hermeneutic, and that hermeneutic is essentially derived from a specific way of reading Paul, and by that I mean a soteriological reading of Romans 1-8. It is the way we (or most of us) think.
The minute a kingdom hermeneutic comes up, one either abandons the Pauline hermeneutic or one synthesizes or — and I think this is most common — one colonizes Jesus’ kingdom hermeneutic by a justification hermeneutic. That is, we make Jesus talk Paul. Or, we colonize Paul with Jesus’ kingdom hermeneutic and make Paul talk Jesus.
Evangelicals are worried that if we colonize Paul with Jesus’ kingdom hermeneutic we will lose a Pauline soteriology. There are plenty of cases where that very thing happened. But I think many are doing the very same thing by colonizing Jesus with Paul.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/jesus-vs-paul-an-interview-with-scot-mcknight-about-the-gospel/
Note that both parties embrace the gospel of Paul. While I don't agree with doing this, I applaud their intellectual honesty in acknowledging that message of the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry is something very different from the message of the gospel preached by Paul. Something that seems to be lacking in those who deny this.
As for me, I stand solely on the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry. By and large, I find the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth to be reasonably sound and reasonably coherent within themselves. What's more, I find much of what was attributed to Him to be remarkably deep and quite profound. As such, by and large, I find the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth to be "true". I don't share that view of the mythology and beliefs that the NT writers wrapped around them. At best, they can merely echo His words. At worst, they deviate from His words and at times substantially so.
Thoughts?
Originally posted by @thinkofoneFaith in the redemptive work of Christ, does not give eternal life in the Kingdom of God. That doctrine is a figment of the imagination of some Christians who believe that laziness and complacency is the route to Gods Kingdom.
Many seem to deny that the message of the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry is something very different from the message of the gospel preached by Paul.
Following are excerpts from an article that speak to this issue:
[quote]Although we now know that the redemptive work of Christ’s death and resurrection is the crux of our message of salv ...[text shortened]... His words. At worst, they deviate from His words and at times substantially so.
Thoughts?
It was Freaky I believe who mentioned this doctrine recently and when I challenged him to produce some passages he disappeared. Its not in the Bible.
I would maintain that Christ and Paul preached the same thing from slightly different perspectives because of who they were addressing.
The bulk of the teachings of the Apostles is good works and righteousness. Christians because it suits their purpose get stuck at the point where in these letters to the churches Paul says to profess their faith and they will be saved. Christians put a full stop there and proclaim .. Hallelujah Praise the Lord. Foolishly they ignore what it means to be saved and what else is needed to enter the Kingdom of God. Saved does not equate to eternal life.
I have noticed that when Christians are confronted with the rest of Pauls writings, those which match Christ's doctrine, about good works they find ways to explain it away.
30 Jan 18
This isn't going to work out well for you.
Do you believe that God founded the church? The Bible says that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16:18).
Suggesting that Paul takes away from Jesus implies that the basic structure of the whole church has been wrong, and that the Bible itself has been falsely constructed, and that we have seemingly endless revisionism to engage in as we must re-examine and pursue a new idea of what Christianity stripped of Paul looks like...
It's not the right move.
Why would God allow Paul to hijack the Church? And isn't Paul an important figure, who had a vision from God when he was still Paul, and that made him a great worker for God? What of that story...?
I do not understand the motive for questioning Paul to begin with... It basically only serves to strip the Bible of context and of great epistles.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleMight not the motive be the search spiritual truth about Jesus?
[b]I do not understand the motive for questioning Paul to begin with...
31 Jan 18
2 Peter 3:15,16
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Peter, an apostle, acknowledges Paul's epistles as scripture. Peter also swings the sword the other way and labels those that don't understand his writings as "unlearned and unstable" who "wrest" (to twist, turn awry, to torture, put to the rack,
metaph. to pervert, of one who wrests or tortures language in a false sense) with the writings of Paul "as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction".
The OP clearly fails.
31 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleYou said that you do not understand the motive for questioning Paul to begin with. That seems a bit odd. There are billions of people who worship the Abrahamic god and who revere Jesus but who think the spiritual truth about him has been commandeered and distorted by Christians and by figures like Paul. You must surely be aware of this. If you don't agree with the motive for questioning Paul, that's fine, but you don't have to pretend you "do not understand" it.
Right. And Paul helps us do that. Peter agrees.
31 Jan 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneThis is a wee bit off-topic but I think the way corporate Christianity latched the carefully calculated and repellant gobbledygook of Revelation onto the end of the Jesus story is worthy of scrutiny in addition to the spin applied by Paul who may well have been working in the interests of Rome. Just a footnote by me. Not an attempt to derail the thread.
Many seem to deny that the message of the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry is something very different from the message of the gospel preached by Paul.
31 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleI will bet any money that you cannot answer these two questions:
This isn't going to work out well for you.
Do you believe that God founded the church? The Bible says that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16:18).
Suggesting that Paul takes away from Jesus implies that the basic structure of the whole church has been wrong, and that the Bible itself has been falsely constructe ...[text shortened]... l to begin with... It basically only serves to strip the Bible of context and of great epistles.
1. What is this 'church' which God founded. Explain.
2. Do you think that the current churches follow the teachings of Paul?
Im waiting. You customarily do not answer my questions. no surprise if you decline to answer these.
31 Jan 18
Originally posted by @rajk999I apologize. I wish that I had some kind of notifications on when someone directly replied to me. I also end up sucked into some other specific kind of discussion elsewhere.
I will bet any money that you cannot answer these two questions:
1. What is this 'church' which God founded. Explain.
2. Do you think that the current churches follow the teachings of Paul?
Im waiting. You customarily do not answer my questions. no surprise if you decline to answer these.
(1) The Church that God founded is representative of the churches in general, because they would inevitably have issues with geography and splitting. But I do believe that even in non-Orthodox churches, there are elements of the true Faith that are positive, so I am going to be very inclusive with my definition of the Church and say that anyone who affirms the Nicene creed is part of the Church.
But, personally, I attend the Orthodox Church. i fall under the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
(2) I believe that the Orthodox Church fully does so. I believe that the Catholic Church does to a slightly lesser degree, and other churches to even less of a degree, but generally speaking, the traditions and the teachings are upheld well enough.
We cannot expect it to be perfect.
31 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleWhy not?
We cannot expect it to be perfect.
Are they not based on the infallible word of God?
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeIf man were infallible he wouldn't need the Infallible Word of God now would he?
Why not?
Are they not based on the infallible word of God?
Originally posted by @secondsonI never said man was infallible. I'm asking why an infallible book fails to deliver a perfect church.
If man were infallible he wouldn't need the Infallible Word of God now would he?
31 Jan 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeThe infallible Word will "deliver" a perfect church.
I never said man was infallible. I'm asking why an infallible book fails to deliver a perfect church.
Originally posted by @secondsonIt's taking its time...
The infallible Word will "deliver" a perfect church.
(And heads up, something riddled with contradictions and contextual bias is unlikely to be infallible).