Reconciling Paul vs Jesus

[NewDayRising]

The bible is NOT ambiguous about how to recieve salvation and what following Jesus entails.

People make it that way.

Oh really?

^{Matthew 5:17} “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. ¹⁸ 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. ¹⁹ 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. ²⁰ 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.

^{Galatians 2: 15} “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles ¹⁶ know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in^[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
¹⁷ “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! ¹⁸ If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.
¹⁹ “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. ²⁰ I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. ²¹ I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”


No ambiguity in the bible about how to receive salvation? Jesus was most certainly Jewish and followed the teachings of the Torah, Paul never met Jesus, and the idea of salvation through faith alone came from Paul, as well as the idea that Jesus came to die for the sins of mankind, which is something Jesus never claimed. The only evidence of which is found in the gospel of John, which differs greatly from the synoptic gospels, most likely because it was heavily influenced by Pauline Christianity rather than the actual teachings of Jesus found in Mark, Luke, and Matthew.

[NewDayRising]

I posted this in response to another thread, but figured I might as well just start a new one to get some feedback


^{Matthew 5:17} “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. ¹⁸ 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. ¹⁹ 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. ²⁰ 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.

^{Galatians 2: 15} “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles ¹⁶ know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in^[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
¹⁷ “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! ¹⁸ If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.
¹⁹ “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. ²⁰ I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. ²¹ I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”


Matthew 5:17-20 decrees salvation is through adherence to Jewish law, ie the Laws of Moses, as spoken by Jesus

Galatians 2:15-21 decrees salvation is through faith in Jesus as messiah, not adherence to Jewish law, as written by Paul.

Jesus never abrogated the Torah. Paul did. What sort of authority was Paul given to do so? He states it came from direct revelation from Jesus himself, and apparently Christians everywhere have accepted this to be the truth.....because Paul said so.

If Jesus was a practicing Jew and stated one must adhere to the Law or they will not enter Heaven, why is this not the central doctrine of salvation within Christianity? Why is it that the Pauline doctrine of salvation through faith alone in Jesus as Messiah is?

And if one must have faith in Jesus as Messiah, that would entail the Jewish Messiah, which was never prophesized as a divine being, but rather a human. To idolize the Messiah as divine is in violation of the first few commandments, which Jesus as a practicing Jew would most certainly have adhered to. Such is the reason he never makes claim of divinity.

What you have here is Jesus preaching Judaism, and Paul starting Christianity; two very different religions and belief systems. In fact, Galatians is the first instance in which states this radical break from Judaism. How do Christians reconcile these contradictions?

[Dani H]

Ive moved this discussion to a new thread

Asking a mod to move this on over ...

[jayne]

As a Christian, I don't reconcile these these statements because they are not contradictions.

But apparently, some deeper comprehension of context is necessary for some to see that. So here we go.....

I teach in the public school system and when I taught reading, I made sure that my 6th graders understood how to interpret and understand a text beit informational, literature, narrative or expository. One thing necessary in getting the full exegesis of what the Bible is saying here in the Matthew passage is first grasping who Jesus is talking to and why He is having to tell them these things and getting a grasp on what "fulfill" means.

MATTHEW 5 (Part of the Sermon on the Mount)

Jesus is speaking to a large group of legalistic and traditional Jews. They and their parents and their grandparents and so forth have been taught so many false interpretations and teachings about the law for such a long time. The Pharisees have added so much to the law was never there. They became the religious elite - and created so many loopholes to the law excusing them, but not anyone else - that Jesus is having to sit down with the people and "reteach" them what the law REALLY said. Their understanding of what God truly wants from them is so screwed up and it's the Pharisees who are at fault for this having twisted the meaning of the law and adding outright lies to the law. For example -

• The law said to "love your neighbor as yourself", but the Pharisees added the lie,"and hate your enemies".
• The law said "an eye for an eye" in the context of someone who wrongs someone else making it right. Repay them. Restore what you damaged. The Pharisees - and seemingly on purpose - made these laws about REVENGE. Telling people that if they were wronged that they could harm the people as equally and in return.
• The law said that murder was wrong. The Pharisees said that you could do anything to your enemies as long as you didn't kill him. You could hate him, bring pain/shame upon him, or anything you like as long as you didn't murder him. They played this very dangerous game with the law of seeing how much they could get away with.

Jesus has MUCH to undo here. So, in order to have them understand that He isn't NEGATING the true purpose of the law (which is to help one understand that they are sinners who cannot in and of themselves be holy as God is holy - there is no salvation in the law), Jesus starts by saying, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”

What does Christ mean by that? What does that mean that the law won't pass away until it is "fulfilled"? And that He, Himself, came to "fulfull" it?

For the law to be fulfilled, it must be completely obeyed - perfectly. And a penalty must be paid - one that would satisfy the wrath of God - for its being abused. (And remember this, the law - incomplete in itself - is NOT the totality of what was wrong with humanity. It did not cover 100% of the covert, overt, omitted, and committed flaws of humanity.) Humans aren't capable keeping the law or paying - in a "fulfilling" manner - for abusing the law. Only Jesus could be the testimony of a completely righteous life - the law being a shadow of Himself, as the Bible says, and He being the only person to completely keep it.

And He did. He never broke the Levitical law even though He did assert a deeper interpretation and true meaning of what it was all about. And this is what Jesus is doing here in this chapter of Matthew. He is having to bring a true understanding of it to God 's people and He also fulfilled the law in that He bore the mankind's penalty of breaking and abusing and twisting the law and the penalty for so much more when He, Himself, was crucified and resurrected - ironically even though He was the only person to keep law and show its true revelation.

The law - every jot and tittle (Hebrew punctuation marks) - has been fulfilled in Christ. Because Jesus Christ is God - He ordained the law to begin with. When coming to earth as a man - He kept it perfectly. He revealed its true meanings. He took on the penalty of law in His own Body and when He said, "It is finished" - that was the end of the law. The "shadow" was no more. Only the Reality remains.

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." - Romans 10:4.

Jesus Christ does not conflict with the Apostle Paul.

In fact, the Apostle Paul, in his teachings on the law, merely picks where Jesus Christ left off and runs with it. The Apostle Paul - called personally by Christ. Running the race for Christ. Preaching for Christ. Suffering for Christ. And continuing the revelation for the people of Christ.

[David Taylor]

Paul starting Christianity

Christianity started long before Paul was ever born; Jesus told the disciples it started back in the ancient OT times.....do you remember His Words from Luke's gospel?


Luke 24:25
"Then Jesus said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things."

Christianity (the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for the remission of sins) - was taught by the OT prophets long, long ago; centuries before Paul was ever born.

[Dani H]

Do you happen to be of the "Jesus' words only" persuasion? Just wondering. Because if you are ... I already know where this is going. Nothankyou. Christ is not divided.

[claybevan]

I posted this in response to another thread, but figured I might as well just start a new one to get some feedback


^{Matthew 5:17} “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. ¹⁸ 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. ¹⁹ 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. ²⁰ 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.

^{Galatians 2: 15} “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles ¹⁶ know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in^[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
¹⁷ “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! ¹⁸ If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.
¹⁹ “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. ²⁰ I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. ²¹ I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”


Matthew 5:17-20 decrees salvation is through adherence to Jewish law, ie the Laws of Moses, as spoken by Jesus

Galatians 2:15-21 decrees salvation is through faith in Jesus as messiah, not adherence to Jewish law, as written by Paul.

Jesus never abrogated the Torah. Paul did. What sort of authority was Paul given to do so? He states it came from direct revelation from Jesus himself, and apparently Christians everywhere have accepted this to be the truth.....because Paul said so.

If Jesus was a practicing Jew and stated one must adhere to the Law or they will not enter Heaven, why is this not the central doctrine of salvation within Christianity? Why is it that the Pauline doctrine of salvation through faith alone in Jesus as Messiah is?

And if one must have faith in Jesus as Messiah, that would entail the Jewish Messiah, which was never prophesized as a divine being, but rather a human. To idolize the Messiah as divine is in violation of the first few commandments, which Jesus as a practicing Jew would most certainly have adhered to. Such is the reason he never makes claim of divinity.

What you have here is Jesus preaching Judaism, and Paul starting Christianity; two very different religions and belief systems. In fact, Galatians is the first instance in which states this radical break from Judaism. How do Christians reconcile these contradictions?

Jus wondered why all this bothered you if as in your profile you say you are not a christian?

[episkopos]

I posted this in response to another thread, but figured I might as well just start a new one to get some feedback


^{Matthew 5:17} “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. ¹⁸ 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. ¹⁹ 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. ²⁰ 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.

^{Galatians 2: 15} “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles ¹⁶ know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in^[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
¹⁷ “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! ¹⁸ If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.
¹⁹ “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. ²⁰ I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. ²¹ I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”


Matthew 5:17-20 decrees salvation is through adherence to Jewish law, ie the Laws of Moses, as spoken by Jesus

Galatians 2:15-21 decrees salvation is through faith in Jesus as messiah, not adherence to Jewish law, as written by Paul.

Jesus never abrogated the Torah. Paul did. What sort of authority was Paul given to do so? He states it came from direct revelation from Jesus himself, and apparently Christians everywhere have accepted this to be the truth.....because Paul said so.

If Jesus was a practicing Jew and stated one must adhere to the Law or they will not enter Heaven, why is this not the central doctrine of salvation within Christianity? Why is it that the Pauline doctrine of salvation through faith alone in Jesus as Messiah is?

And if one must have faith in Jesus as Messiah, that would entail the Jewish Messiah, which was never prophesized as a divine being, but rather a human. To idolize the Messiah as divine is in violation of the first few commandments, which Jesus as a practicing Jew would most certainly have adhered to. Such is the reason he never makes claim of divinity.

What you have here is Jesus preaching Judaism, and Paul starting Christianity; two very different religions and belief systems. In fact, Galatians is the first instance in which states this radical break from Judaism. How do Christians reconcile these contradictions?

The contradictions are based on a modern church drawing the wrong conclusions about the existence of another gospel cobbled together from a misreading of Paul.

Paul was also Jewish. He didn't start Christianity. He was becoming all things to all men in order to present Jesus Christ to men who didn't know the law.

[Diggindeeper]

Paul was also Jewish. He didn't start Christianity. He was becoming all things to all men in order to present Jesus Christ to men who didn't know the law.

I don't know where you get that Paul started Christianity. He definitely did not. Paul himself was a Jew and he persecuted and killed the Christians up to the time he met the Risen Saviour, out of the blue! Paul said this:

Acts 22:1-5
1 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.

2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

5 As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.

But long before that, and even BEFORE Christ was crucified and was raised from the dead, Jesus said:
Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

What's hard about that to understand?

[Boo]

Oh really?

^{Matthew 5:17} “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. ¹⁸ 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. ¹⁹ 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. ²⁰ 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.

^{Galatians 2: 15} “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles ¹⁶ know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in^[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
¹⁷ “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! ¹⁸ If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.
¹⁹ “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. ²⁰ I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. ²¹ I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”


No ambiguity in the bible about how to receive salvation? Jesus was most certainly Jewish and followed the teachings of the Torah, Paul never met Jesus, and the idea of salvation through faith alone came from Paul, as well as the idea that Jesus came to die for the sins of mankind, which is something Jesus never claimed. The only evidence of which is found in the gospel of John, which differs greatly from the synoptic gospels, most likely because it was heavily influenced by Pauline Christianity rather than the actual teachings of Jesus found in Mark, Luke, and Matthew.

Yes, really.

First, though, you must read and accept it.

[Vhayes]

No ambiguity in the bible about how to receive salvation? Jesus was most certainly Jewish and followed the teachings of the Torah, Paul never met Jesus, and the idea of salvation through faith alone came from Paul, as well as the idea that Jesus came to die for the sins of mankind, which is something Jesus never claimed. The only evidence of which is found in the gospel of John, which differs greatly from the synoptic gospels, most likely because it was heavily influenced by Pauline Christianity rather than the actual teachings of Jesus found in Mark, Luke, and Matthew.

John 3
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.


These are Jesus' own words. Or are you goung to tell me:

it was heavily influenced by Pauline Christianity rather than the actual teachings of Jesus found in Mark, Luke, and Matthew

If so, I would like some sort of reason why you believe the gospel of John is not the actual teachings of Christ.

[Athanasius]

Reference

Matthew 5:17-20:

17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Galatians 2:15-21:

15 “We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles;
16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
17 But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be!
18 For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor.
19 For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.
20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”

Matthew 5:17-20 decrees salvation is through adherence to Jewish law, ie the Laws of Moses, as spoken by Jesus

Galatians 2:15-21 decrees salvation is through faith in Jesus as messiah, not adherence to Jewish law, as written by Paul.

Why set Jesus against Paul, when you can set Matthew against Luke? Ignoring Galatians 2 and Paul for the moment, let's look at Luke 23:39-43:

39 One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, “Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!”
40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
41 And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”
42 And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!”
43 And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”

This is problematic. One thief (or I guess, criminal) insults Christ, the other thief defends Christ and asks he be remembered, and that thief is 'saved'. The thief was on the cross, so he surely was not adhering to the Jewish law. Jesus made no mention of the Jewish law in guaranteeing the thief would be with him in Paradise, so is Christ the victim of a twisted Lukan theology, or is your reading of Jesus' theology incomplete, given this portion of Scripture? It would seem the only thing the thief displayed, was faith.

There is also the issue that Jesus doesn't seem to be addressing how one is saved. In v19 he speaks of the 'least in the kingdom of heaven' as compared to the 'great in the kingdom of heaven', but this doesn't say that he who annulus the Law or the Prophets, and teaches that others ought to do the same, is not saved, but rather that they are the 'least in the kingdom of heaven'. This would seem to strongly suggest that these people are squeaking in, as it were. I fail to see how there is a decree regarding salvation, given the above, and especially given the context of the entire chapter.

But, there is the further of issue of Jesus' message not being primarily about salvation through adherence to Jewish law, and if Jesus did preach this it certainly isn't recorded (and so we're left with an argument from silence). When we do read of Jesus addressing the Jewish Law, he's typically correcting wrong attitudes and improper understandings (and he does not tack on 'now adhere to this and you will be saved).

With the above in mind, I fail to see how Galatians 2:15-21 presents any issues. This especially the case as Paul's focus here seems to be on justification, not necessarily salvation. Now perhaps you mean to say that Jesus says we're justified through adherence to the Jewish law, whereas Paul says we're justified through faith in Christ, but this would only be even more problematic (for the reasons stated above, and more). Luke's description of Christ on the cross seems to conform properly to the image of Christ as presented throughout the rest of Scripture, especially in the theology of Paul.

Jesus never abrogated the Torah. Paul did. What sort of authority was Paul given to do so? He states it came from direct revelation from Jesus himself, and apparently Christians everywhere have accepted this to be the truth.....because Paul said so.

Paul abrogated the Torah about as much as Peter did when he ate unclean food. That is, neither of them did.

If Jesus was a practicing Jew and stated one must adhere to the Law or they will not enter Heaven, why is this not the central doctrine of salvation within Christianity? Why is it that the Pauline doctrine of salvation through faith alone in Jesus as Messiah is?

Because both men taught salvation through faith, and neither taught salvation via adherence to the Jewish law.

And if one must have faith in Jesus as Messiah, that would entail the Jewish Messiah, which was never prophesized as a divine being, but rather a human. To idolize the Messiah as divine is in violation of the first few commandments, which Jesus as a practicing Jew would most certainly have adhered to. Such is the reason he never makes claim of divinity.

Claims of divinity were exactly the reason he was crucified.

What you have here is Jesus preaching Judaism, and Paul starting Christianity; two very different religions and belief systems. In fact, Galatians is the first instance in which states this radical break from Judaism. How do Christians reconcile these contradictions?

By reading Scripture carefully.

[NewDayRising]

Considering I am sorely outnumbered, ill try to respond to each of you separately (worth responding to) and in the most efficient time frame I can.

Jayne
Yes, Jesus was most certainly speaking to a group of traditonal Jews, to which he claimed to be the Messiah spoken of in the Torah. But what reason do you have to state and believe the pharisees of the time were propagating a false misunderstading and interpretation of the Law of Moses? Where does such authority to say so come from? Consider the idea that the pharisees have been marginalized throughout the course of the gospels by Pauline Christian influenced writers, as can be evidinced to a certain degree by the comparing of Mark 12:28-34 vs Matthew 22:34-40, in the retelling of the greatest commandment:

Mark 28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[f] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[g] There is no commandment greater than these.”

32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

Then consider:

Matthew 34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

First off, this great commandment was taken from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. But why the omittance of certain details which basically constitute an agreement between a Pharisee and Jesus? Why the difference in retelling? Could this be due to the growing influence of Pauline doctrine, and a certain anti-semitism which arose from it (undeniable)? Notice how both times the teacher of the law, aka Pharisee, refers to Jesus as teacher. Thats interesting. Why would a Pharisee who, according to Chrisitans, persecuted Jesus, ever bestow upon him the public title of teacher?

As for your claim of Jesus being God, that is pure nonsense and in direct violation of commandments against idolatry. As a practicing Jew, Jesus never claimed to be so, and it is an inference of massive wishful thinking along with melding of two different religions, and the Christian argument seems to be that he was but didnt know it, or refused to reveal it. Ok, so Jesus either didnt know it or refused to say it, but humans decided he was. Where does God say in the Torah he would come to earth himself to die for the sins of mankind? What verse does that prophey arise from? I havent even addresed what morality and wisdom is to be found in human sacrifice as atonement for the sins of others, which a purely evil doctrine and I am truly disgusted and appaled by anyone who would willingly accept this as means for salvation or vicarious redemption. Its primitive, bronze age scapegoating; simple as that.

As far as your insinuation I need to examine literature in the context of which it was written, you are waaaaayyyy out of your element in making such an inference that I am not capable of doing so. Its a thorough examination of which has given me such opinions. Allow me to respond accordingly to some of the other posts written, and I know I will address a few other small issues you may have brought up.

[BrianW]

Jesus did in fact claim to be God.

Did you somehow miss the import of

Mark 14:61-62 (remember Daniel 7:13-14 and Psalm 110 when you read it)

Luke 5:20 (Who else but God can forgive sin?)

John 20:28

Matthew 11:2-5

Moreover Jesus can command the forces of nature, heal every sickness, command angels and demons and even resurrect the dead.

Nonsense? Not even close.

And that's just the start and off the cuff. I won't bother putting any real effort into looking things up because you will reject it anyway so what's the point?

What you have written in this thread causes me to wonder why a non Christian would have such interest in trying to convince Christians that part of the gospel is false (RE: Paul being a deceiver and not personally called by God to be an apostle )

Is it your hope to show that if maybe part of the gospel (The bible) Is mistaken then maybe all of it is wrong?

If not then how can you claim to believe the words of Christ are true and good and yet claim that He is not God?

Yes, there is some nonsense going on here but it is not coming from our beloved Jayne or any part of the gospel.
So tell me. What is the purpose of this really? What are you really after here and what are you looking to get from your time on this forum?

You label yourself as a Shepard on your profile. Who are you trying to lead and where do you wish to lead them?

John 3

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

[Athanasius]

Then consider:

Matthew 34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”[/I]

First off, this great commandment was taken from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. But why the omittance of certain details which basically constitute an agreement between a Pharisee and Jesus? Why the difference in retelling? Could this be due to the growing influence of Pauline doctrine, and a certain anti-semitism which arose from it (undeniable)? Notice how both times the teacher of the law, aka Pharisee, refers to Jesus as teacher. Thats interesting. Why would a Pharisee who, according to Chrisitans, persecuted Jesus, ever bestow upon him the public title of teacher?

Probably because other Pharisees are recorded as scheming, wanting to kill Jesus, accusing him falsely, etc. Surely it is a mistake to say that all Pharisee's hated Jesus, but is just as much a mistake to say that no Pharisee did.

As for your claim of Jesus being God, that is pure nonsense and in direct violation of commandments against idolatry.

He did so before the Sanhedrin:

Luke 22:66-71:

66 When it was day, the [m]Council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away to their council chamber, saying,
67 “If You are the Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe;
68 and if I ask a question, you will not answer.
69 But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”
70 And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.”
71 Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.”

The Sanhedrin understood his claim, and John clarifies that they did:

John 5:18

18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

John 10:33

33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”

John 10:36

36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘ I am the Son of God’?

Of course, it's not idolatry for God to claim to be God.

As a practicing Jew, Jesus never claimed to be so, and it is an inference of massive wishful thinking along with melding of two different religions, and the Christian argument seems to be that he was but didnt know it, or refused to reveal it. Ok, so Jesus either didnt know it or refused to say it, but humans decided he was.

Address what people are saying, not what other people have said elsewhere.

Where does God say in the Torah he would come to earth himself to die for the sins of mankind? What verse does that prophey arise from? I havent even addresed what morality and wisdom is to be found in human sacrifice as atonement for the sins of others, which a purely evil doctrine and I am truly disgusted and appaled by anyone who would willingly accept this as means for salvation or vicarious redemption. Its primitive, bronze age scapegoating; simple as that.

The term 'human sacrifice' is problematic, and it wasn't merely human sacrifice (e.g. human sacrifice doesn't involve resurrection).

As far as your insinuation I need to examine literature in the context of which it was written, you are waaaaayyyy out of your element in making such an inference that I am not capable of doing so. Its a thorough examination of which has given me such opinions. Allow me to respond accordingly to some of the other posts written, and I know I will address a few other small issues you may have brought up.

You haven't been thorough so far; let's hope your future responses are.