Evidence for God from Science

I participate on several discussion boards as many of you probably do as well.

Constantly I am told by Muslims and Atheists and some Christians, too, that Christians follow what is described as "Pauline" Christianity. The inference is that we follow the teachings of Paul and not the teachings of Jesus Christ. I personally don't see a conflict in their teachings.

Have any of you run across a website or a book that compares the teachings of Jesus and Paul and reconciles them? If so, I'd be most interested in reading the articles and books.

Also, do any of you have any thoughts on the Ebonites and the Nazarenes and how similar or different their views were from the views of Christianity today?

Thanks.

Christian2 wrote:I participate on several discussion boards as many of you probably do as well.

Constantly I am told by Muslims and Atheists and some Christians, too, that Christians follow what is described as "Pauline" Christianity. The inference is that we follow the teachings of Paul and not the teachings of Jesus Christ. I personally don't see a conflict in their teachings.

Have any of you run across a website or a book that compares the teachings of Jesus and Paul and reconciles them? If so, I'd be most interested in reading the articles and books.

Also, do any of you have any thoughts on the Ebonites and the Nazarenes and how similar or different their views were from the views of Christianity today?

Thanks.

That's kind of silly, Paul was inspired by God to write what he wrote. Most of the New Testament is made of letters by the apostles, do these people abandon all of this and refuse to believe they were inspired by God? If they do, why do they trust the gospels?

The entire Bible is either infallible or fallible, if just one part of it can't be accepted, it's not perfect. Of course, we know it's perfect

A agree with Dan. The Bible is not internally inconsistent. Attack them, and make them prove that Paul is contradicting a teaching of Christ.

And by the way, we're not Paulians, were Christians.

Heh... as I am also.

I dare anyone to question me in a skeptical manner regarding Scripture.

What's up guys??!

Let's say someone does base everything off of what Paul said-well, what did Paul base his stuff on? Jesus...duh?

I have always said that I don't need Paul's writings. I follow the Gospel in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and that is all that I need.

But there is one issue that is constantly brought up that Paul taught that Jesus did not.

No where does Jesus say that circumcision has been abolished, but Paul does.

The only argument that I can come up with is the conversation that Jesus had with the robber on the cross. Because of this man's faith in Jesus, Jesus said that "today you will be with me in paradise." Jesus didn't ask him if he had kept the law (obviously he didn't) or if he was circumcised. It is his faith that saved him. In fact, Jesus stressed faith and so did Paul.

But, would Jesus say to His followers that they no longer needed to be circumcised?

Christian2 wrote:I have always said that I don't need Paul's writings. I follow the Gospel in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and that is all that I need.

But there is one issue that is constantly brought up that Paul taught that Jesus did not.

No where does Jesus say that circumcision has been abolished, but Paul does.

The only argument that I can come up with is the conversation that Jesus had with the robber on the cross. Because of this man's faith in Jesus, Jesus said that "today you will be with me in paradise." Jesus didn't ask him if he had kept the law (obviously he didn't) or if he was circumcised. It is his faith that saved him. In fact, Jesus stressed faith and so did Paul.

But, would Jesus say to His followers that they no longer needed to be circumcised?

Jesus said the old covenant is finished. That includes circumcision.

And the Gospel doesn't record every single thing Jesus said. John himself states so at the end of his.

Christian2 wrote:But, would Jesus say to His followers that they no longer needed to be circumcised?

Yes, He most certainly would have. MM is dead on there.

Plus, this debate is settled by the Holy Spirit, who Jesus promised as the counsellor of truth - since Jesus vouched for the Holy Spirit, it's authority is on par with Jesus Himself. Just as good as the gospels as far as I'm concerned. The event is recorded in Acts 15.

Act 15:1-2
Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.

6-12
The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

And finally, they send a letter to the church back in Antioch: 22-29
They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul—men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

So Paul, the Apostles, and a number of church elders got together and were guided by the Holy Spirit to do away with circumcision. It's not just Paul, but God himself who had conveyed that message.

And if that's not enough, there's strong evidence that the author of Luke and the author of Acts are the same, so you can stilll adhere to your 'Gospel only' concept and take Acts at face value.

http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/Acts.htm

Jesus said the old covenant is finished. That includes circumcision.

Where did Jesus say that the Old Covenant was finished? He introduced a New Covenant, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the old one was abolished. In other words, the New Covenant could be in addition to the Old Covenant.

And the Gospel doesn't record every single thing Jesus said. John himself states so at the end of his.

Do I detect a little cop out here? I agree with your statement, but I would think that it would record everything of significance and circumcision is certainly significant. Wouldn't you say so?

BTW: I can't get over how young you are. Your parents must have brought you up right.

New covenant is prophecied in Jeremiah 31:31-34:

• 31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD ,
  "when I will make a new covenant
  with the house of Israel
  and with the house of Judah.
  
  32 It will not be like the covenant
  I made with their forefathers
  when I took them by the hand
  to lead them out of Egypt,
  because they broke my covenant,
  though I was a husband to [d] them, [e] "
  declares the LORD .
  
  33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house 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.
  
  34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
  or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD ,'
  because they will all know me,
  from the least of them to the greatest,"
  declares the LORD .
  "For I will forgive their wickedness
  and will remember their sins no more."

Some pages I'd recommend which you might find of interest reading are:
- The Old or New Covenant
- The New Covenant

Thanks for the links. I'll read them. I did find another article that is pretty good for anyone interested.

http://www.sjchurchofchrist.org/sign.shtml

Circumcision was the sign of the old covenant. No more old covenant, no more need of its sign.

I wish that Jesus had been more explicit and that we didn't need to reply on the Scriptures of Paul so much for this issue.

Christian2 wrote:I wish that Jesus had been more explicit and that we didn't need to reply on the Scriptures of Paul so much for this issue.

Sigh... And Luke's not good enough either?

Christian2 wrote:Thanks for the links. I'll read them. I did find another article that is pretty good for anyone interested.

http://www.sjchurchofchrist.org/sign.shtml

Circumcision was the sign of the old covenant. No more old covenant, no more need of its sign.

I wish that Jesus had been more explicit and that we didn't need to reply on the Scriptures of Paul so much for this issue.

Ummm why are so many people against Paul's Teaching

Are Contradictions found between the Two? It must be getting close to the end times

bizzt wrote:Ummm why are so many people against Paul's Teaching

Are Contradictions found between the Two?

No doubt... It makes no sense to me either.